It was a double bill for European topics at the British Institute this fortnight, beginning with Dr Richard Rose on 'A Europe of States or a Europe of Getting Things Done' followed by Renaud Dehousse the week after on 'EU-UK Relations after Brexit.' Both at the vanguard of their field, it was fantastic to listen to their speeches, which focused on different aspects of European politics: the former reflecting more on the past of European relations, the latter daring to talk about the future thereof.
Rose, Professor of Politics at the University of Strathclyde, gave a holistic approach in his talk, outlining the origins of modern conceptions of Europe. His knowledge on the topic was, as is to be expected, most impressive, and he gave a concise overview of these complicated ideas as well as punctuating his speech with many insightful anecdotes. Beginning with the post-WW2 consensus, he cited Ernest Bevin as a proponent of a more geographically integrated Europe, for Bevin believed in a world where one could 'take a ticket at Victoria station and go anywhere I damn well please'. This desire for closer cooperation culminated in the Treaty of Rome in 1957, establishing the European Economic Community. Since then, we have seen a number of significant developments of this framework which, for Rose, smacks of 'a journey with an unknown destination'. Skipping forward to more recent events, he revealed his thoughts of last year's EU membership referendum, noting in particular the striking differences within the country that were opened up. Essentially, it was a great talk for those, like myself, who find much of the debate on Europe slightly unapproachable, as we left with a good idea of the context of the organisation, as well as how it worked.
Such an enlightenment was taken further in Renaud Dehousse's talk of the following week. Dehousse, currently President of the European University Institute based in Fiesole just outside Florence, began his talk by alluding to such an obfuscation of the Brexit process. He used the metaphor that politicians and journalists were 'focussing on the tree, not on the forest that stands behind it', which captures rather well the propensity to concentrate on smaller issues within the UK's divorce from the EU as opposed to the nature of the divorce itself. For Dehousse, much of the confusion among the negotiation proceedings is also owing to the fact that the entire mechanism was designed to put off any member state from leaving the Union, as put famously by the veteran diplomat Lord John Kerr. He put to the audience an honest and clear portrayal of the challenges the UK and EU will face in trying to negotiate a deal that suits both parties, and left us with much food for thought on the matter, which we had the opportunity to take further during the post-lecture discussion.
One particularly topical point of discussion in Dehousse's lecture was the significance of Theresa May's speech delivered in Florence last week. To this end he shed much light on the implications of the speech, most notably the absence of any reference to NATO and the emphasis on the shared challenges and desire for cooperation between the UK and the EU in a post-Brexit world, as demonstrated by her lengthy enumeration of current problems which nation-states simply no longer have the power or resources to address on their own. Overall, it was a fascinating evening that encouraged no small number of questions and points of information from the audience, which showed the liveliness of the debate which he, the speaker, had inspired.
These talks, then, were a great opportunity to learn more about the dynamics of European politics and how the UK enters into such a dynamic. These issues are more imperative than ever, and it stands the reason that they should be ceaselessly discussed and debated rationally in order to produce more informed opinions and potentially reach agreement in how to approach this most delicate of situations.
Rose, Professor of Politics at the University of Strathclyde, gave a holistic approach in his talk, outlining the origins of modern conceptions of Europe. His knowledge on the topic was, as is to be expected, most impressive, and he gave a concise overview of these complicated ideas as well as punctuating his speech with many insightful anecdotes. Beginning with the post-WW2 consensus, he cited Ernest Bevin as a proponent of a more geographically integrated Europe, for Bevin believed in a world where one could 'take a ticket at Victoria station and go anywhere I damn well please'. This desire for closer cooperation culminated in the Treaty of Rome in 1957, establishing the European Economic Community. Since then, we have seen a number of significant developments of this framework which, for Rose, smacks of 'a journey with an unknown destination'. Skipping forward to more recent events, he revealed his thoughts of last year's EU membership referendum, noting in particular the striking differences within the country that were opened up. Essentially, it was a great talk for those, like myself, who find much of the debate on Europe slightly unapproachable, as we left with a good idea of the context of the organisation, as well as how it worked.
 |
| Richard Rose (second from left) talked of the origins of modern Europe's political makeup |
Such an enlightenment was taken further in Renaud Dehousse's talk of the following week. Dehousse, currently President of the European University Institute based in Fiesole just outside Florence, began his talk by alluding to such an obfuscation of the Brexit process. He used the metaphor that politicians and journalists were 'focussing on the tree, not on the forest that stands behind it', which captures rather well the propensity to concentrate on smaller issues within the UK's divorce from the EU as opposed to the nature of the divorce itself. For Dehousse, much of the confusion among the negotiation proceedings is also owing to the fact that the entire mechanism was designed to put off any member state from leaving the Union, as put famously by the veteran diplomat Lord John Kerr. He put to the audience an honest and clear portrayal of the challenges the UK and EU will face in trying to negotiate a deal that suits both parties, and left us with much food for thought on the matter, which we had the opportunity to take further during the post-lecture discussion.
One particularly topical point of discussion in Dehousse's lecture was the significance of Theresa May's speech delivered in Florence last week. To this end he shed much light on the implications of the speech, most notably the absence of any reference to NATO and the emphasis on the shared challenges and desire for cooperation between the UK and the EU in a post-Brexit world, as demonstrated by her lengthy enumeration of current problems which nation-states simply no longer have the power or resources to address on their own. Overall, it was a fascinating evening that encouraged no small number of questions and points of information from the audience, which showed the liveliness of the debate which he, the speaker, had inspired.
These talks, then, were a great opportunity to learn more about the dynamics of European politics and how the UK enters into such a dynamic. These issues are more imperative than ever, and it stands the reason that they should be ceaselessly discussed and debated rationally in order to produce more informed opinions and potentially reach agreement in how to approach this most delicate of situations.
 |
| Renaud Dehousse elucidated the realities of EU-UK relations after the Brexit referendum |
Comments
Post a Comment