DOCSLIB.ORG

Myth and Paradox of the Single Market

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Myth and Paradox of the Single Market CIVITAS CIVITAS Institute for the Study of Civil Society 55 Tufton Street, London, SW1P 3QL Tel: 020 7799 6677 Email: [email protected] Web: www.civitas.org.uk Myth and Paradox of the Single Market How the trade benefits of EU membership have been mis-sold or many, the economic benefits accruing from the UK’s membership of the EU are self-evident and unanswerable: access to the European Single Market is of enormous benefit to British exporters and a major attraction F Myth and Paradox of the Single Market for global investors looking to expand into the region. Or so the argument goes. But where is the evidence for this? What do the trade and investment figures actually tell us? When a government minister told parliament that EU members traded twice as much with each other as they would do in the absence of the Single Market, Michael Burrage set out to test the veracity of the assertion. Here he relates his painstaking quest for the facts, studying first the documents on which the minister’s claim was based and then, finding scant evidence there, conducting his own analysis of the data. This timely study looks behind the claims that are frequently made in support of the EU and finds a very different reality. Examining the research used by not only ministers but big business and many other pro-EU lobbyists to support their stance, Burrage finds that there is no empirical basis for the supposed advantages that the Single Market confers on the British economy. It is a devastating conclusion that should fundamentally shift the terms of the debate surrounding Britain’s relationship with the EU. ‘The main aim of governments has been to ensure that membership of the EU is seen as a prized asset, which the UK must not let slip from its grasp. This has resulted in a mis-selling of the trade benefits of the Single Market comparable in some respects to the mis-selling of payment protection insurance, though on a larger scale, over a longer period, and with far more serious consequences. PPI offered borrowers protection that on closer inspection proved to be illusory, and at disproportionate cost. The evidence shows that the same might well be said of the Single Market.’ Michael Burrage Michael Burrage £12.00 CIVITAS ISBN 978-1-906837-75-4 Cover design: lukejefford.com Myth and Paradox of the Single Market Myth and Paradox of the Single Market How the trade benefits of EU membership have been mis-sold Michael Burrage CIVITAS First Published January 2016 © Civitas 2016 55 Tufton Street London SW1P 3QL email: [email protected] All rights reserved ISBN 978-1-906837-75-4 Independence: Civitas: Institute for the Study of Civil Society is a registered educational charity (No. 1085494) and a company limited by guarantee (No. 04023541). Civitas is financed from a variety of private sources to avoid over-reliance on any single or small group of donors. All publications are independently refereed. All the Institute’s publications seek to further its objective of promoting the advancement of learning. The views expressed are those of the authors, not of the Institute, as is responsibility for data and content. Designed and typeset by lukejefford.com Printed in Great Britain by Berforts Group Ltd Stevenage, SG1 2BH Contents Author viii Acknowledgements x Summary 1 Part One: The Myth of the Single Market’s Trade Benefits 1. A doubling of trade? A minister’s claim to parliament 8 2. Reviewing the evidence 15 3. What business told, and didn’t tell, the Foreign Office 34 Part Two: The Paradox of Who Benefits from the Single Market 4. What would have happened in the absence of the Single Market? 64 5. Is there a single market in services? 89 6. Does ‘helping to make the rules’ in Brussels help UK exports? 103 Part Three: Conclusions 7. Image without substance 114 8. The case for an EU research agency in the UK 125 Appendices A: BIS reply to the author’s FOI request 134 B: A 2007 report by EC staff on the impact of the Internal Market 138 vi C: On Scotch, bourbon and other unconvincing business arguments for UK membership of the EU 144 D: The sluggish growth of GDP and of productivity in the Single Market 1993-2013 148 E: The FTA histories of the EU, Korea, Chile, Singapore and Switzerland 152 F: A second preliminary scorecard of the effectiveness of the trade agreements of five countries 154 G: The fanciful CER model of the trade benefits of EU membership 161 H: The EU’s TTIP negotiating team 168 I: Costs and benefits of EU membership on a common scale with alternative expenditures 170 J: The legacy of deceit and misinformation about the UK’s relationship with the European Community 183 and Union 1957-2014 Notes 188 vii Author Michael Burrage is a director of Cimigo, which is based in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, and conducts market and corporate strategy research in China, India and 12 countries in the Asia Pacific region. He is also a founder director of a start-up specialist telecom company which provides the free telephone interpreter service for aid workers and others where interpreters are scarce. He is a sociologist by training, was a Fulbright scholar at the University of Pennsylvania, has been a lecturer at the London School of Economics and at the Institute of United States Studies, specialising in the comparative analysis of industrial enterprise and professional institutions. He has been a research fellow at Harvard, at the Swedish Collegium of Advanced Study, Uppsala, at the Free University of Berlin, and at the Center for Higher Education Studies and the Institute of Government of the University of California, Berkeley. He has also been British Council lecturer at the University of Pernambuco, Recife, Brazil, and on several occasions a visiting professor in Japan, at the universities of Kyoto, Hokkaido and Kansai and at Hosei University in Tokyo. He has written articles in American, European and Japanese sociological journals, conducted a comparative study of telephone usage in Tokyo, Manhattan, Paris and London for NTT, and a study of British entrepreneurs for Ernst & Young. His publications include Revolution and the Making of the Contemporary Legal Profession: England, France and the United States (OUP, 2006) and Class Formation, Civil Society and the State: A comparative analysis of Russia, France, the United States and England (Palgrave Macmillan, 2008). He edited Martin Trow: Twentieth-century higher education: from elite to mass to universal (Johns Hopkins, 2010). viii AUTHOR His previous Civitas publications include Where’s the Insider Advantage? A review of the evidence that withdrawal from the EU would not harm the UK’s exports or foreign investment in the UK (July 2014) and ‘A club of high and severe unemployment: the Single Market over the 21 years 1993-2013’ (July 2015) in the Europe Debate series. ix Acknowledgements I have benefited greatly from the statistical savvy of Nigel Williams, from the deep understanding of the EU of Jonathan Lindsell, from the insightful observations of a blind reviewer, and from the editorial forbearance and judgement of Daniel Bentley. They all did their best, and I cannot, alas, blame any of them for any errors that might remain. They are all my own work. x Summary Claims are frequently made about the benefits of the Single Market for UK trade. The investigation that follows was provoked by one of the more astonishing, made to parliament in 2011 by Ed Davey, then minister of state at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS), that ‘EU countries trade twice as much with each other as they would do in the absence of the Single Market programme’. It examines the evidence provided by BIS, in response to a freedom of information request, which was supposed to justify his claim. None of it did so. At that time, the government had evidently collected no data to show what the trade benefits of the Single Market might be for the UK, and the minister and his department relied on research provided some years before by three French academics and, more importantly, on a 2007 European Commission report which had listed many failings of the Single Market in an attempt to make the case for further European integration. BIS also referred to two other sources of evidence that post-dated the minister’s claim, as if it might vindicate him retrospectively. One was a volume the department had itself published, but this included no reliable evidence on the benefits of the Single Market. The other was the Review of the Balance of Competences between the UK and the EU, which was conducted by the Foreign Office. This included claims by the CBI, TheCityUK and various trade federations and businesses that UK exporters have benefited by ceding responsibility for trade negotiations to the EC. None of them cited any systematic or reliable evidence to support the minister’s claim. To evaluate it, the free trade agreements concluded by the EU are compared here with those negotiated by Chile, Korea, Singapore and Switzerland, four independent countries which have none of the ‘heft’ or ‘clout’ or ‘negotiating leverage’ which the CBI and many businesses consider essential in trade negotiations. The conclusions are: 1 MYTH AND PARADOx OF THE SINGLE MARKET • Since 1970, the EC has concluded 37 agreements, most of them with small economies, some multi-country. The aggregate GDP in 2015 of the 55 countries with an EU agreement in force in January 2014 is $7.7tn. • By contrast the aggregate GDP of all the countries with which Chile had agreements in force is $58.3tn, Korea’s totalled $40.8tn, Singapore’s $38.7tn and Switzerland’s $39.8tn.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Success Story Or a Failure? : Representing the European Integration in the Curricula and Textbooks of Five Countries
    I Inari Sakki A Success Story or a Failure? Representing the European Integration in the Curricula and Textbooks of Five Countries II Social psychological studies 25 Publisher: Social Psychology, Department of Social Research, University of Helsinki Editorial Board: Klaus Helkama, Chair Inga Jasinskaja-Lahti, Editor Karmela Liebkind Anna-Maija Pirttilä-Backman Kari Mikko Vesala Maaret Wager Jukka Lipponen Copyright: Inari Sakki and Unit of Social Psychology University of Helsinki P.O. Box 4 FIN-00014 University of Helsinki I wish to thank the many publishers who have kindly given the permission to use visual material from their textbooks as illustrations of the analysis. All efforts were made to find the copyright holders, but sometimes without success. Thus, I want to apologise for any omissions. ISBN 978-952-10-6423-4 (Print) ISBN 978-952-10-6424-1 (PDF) ISSN 1457-0475 Cover design: Mari Soini Yliopistopaino, Helsinki, 2010 III ABSTRAKTI Euroopan yhdentymisprosessin edetessä ja syventyessä kasvavat myös vaatimukset sen oikeutuksesta. Tästä osoituksena ovat muun muassa viimeaikaiset mediassa käydyt keskustelut EU:n perustuslakiäänestysten seurauksista, kansalaisten EU:ta ja euroa kohtaan osoittamasta ja tuntemasta epäluottamuksesta ja Turkin EU-jäsenyydestä. Taloudelliset ja poliittiset argumentit tiiviimmän yhteistyön puolesta eivät aina riitä kansalaisten tuen saamiseen ja yhdeksi ratkaisuksi on esitetty yhteisen identiteetin etsimistä. Eurooppalaisen identiteetin sanotaan voivan parhaiten muodostua silloin, kun perheen, koulutuksen
    [Show full text]
  • World Commerce Review ■ March 2014 1 Contents
    WORLD COMMERCE R EVIEW ISSN 1751-0023 VOLUME 8 ISSUE 1 ■ MARCH 2014 AMERICAN OIL FROM AMERICAN SOIL NEELIE KROES ARGUES THAT TAMING FINANCIAL MARKETS Q&A WITH CHRIS COPYRIGHT NEEDS TO BE IS A MUST FOR ACHIEVING FAULKNER, PRESIDENT & REFORMED FOR THE SAKE OF STABILITY CEO OF BREITLING ENERGY THE FUTURE ECONOMY WRITES DANIEL DăiANU CORPORATION THE GLOBAL TRADE PLATFORM - 0 . 0 8 6 3 4 8 controlling corporate travel spend is your top priority we belong in your world LZLY]LK @V\RUV^P[»ZHIV\[TVYL[OHUJVUULJ[PUNWLVWSL^P[O[OLPYKLZ[PUH[PVUZ·P[»ZHIV\[[YHUZMVYTPUN PUMVYTH[PVUPU[VZTHY[KLJPZPVUZ[OH[OLSW`V\THUHNLHUKJVU[YVSJVZ[Z;OH[»Z`V\Y^VYSKHUK ^OLU`V\THRL+PULYZ*S\IWHY[VMP[^LOLSW`V\ZLL`V\Y^VYSKTVYLJSLHYS`>LJHSSP[ .SVIHS=PZPVU·ILJH\ZL[OH[»ZL_HJ[S`^OH[P[NP]LZ`V\! UH[PVUHS3[K(SSYPNO[ZY .HPUPTTLKPH[LHJJLZZ[V`V\Y; ,L_WLUZLZKV^U[V[OLPUKP]PK\HSJOHYNLSL]LS =PL^HUKHUHS`ZLL_WLUZLKH[H^P[OPUKH`ZVMWVZ[PUNPUV]LYJ\YYLUJPLZ .LULYH[LKL[HPSLKYLWVY[ZPUQ\Z[TPU\[LZVUZWLUKPUNHJ[P]P[`WVSPJ`JVTWSPHUJL KLSPUX\LUJPLZHUKTVYL +PULYZ*S\I0U[LY *HSS\ZUV^MVYZVS\[PVUZ[OH[W\[PUMVYTH[PVUPUHUL^WLYZWLJ[P]L +PULYZ*S\I*VYWVYH[L'KPZJV]LYJVTcc^^^+PULYZ*S\IJVT 51.51 41151 corporate solutions from diners club international® 3<',B$'9B%X\LQJ%XV7UDYHOBLQGG $0 DN-11-00703 210mm x 297mm London Diners Club International - Buying Business Travel Magazine Sept/Oct Foreword Ukrainian prospects s a new ‘Unity Government’ gets down to work in Kiev, the factors determining the political and economic trajectory of Ukraine will be determined less by a tug of war between Russia and the West than by the actions and decisions of the leadership that emerges in Ukraine.
    [Show full text]
  • The EU Referendum and EU Reform
    HOUSE OF LORDS European Union Committee 9th Report of Session 2015–16 The EU referendum and EU reform Ordered to be printed 22 March 2016 and published 30 March 2016 Published by the Authority of the House of Lords London : The Stationery Office Limited £price HL Paper 122 The European Union Committee The European Union Committee is appointed each session “to scrutinise documents deposited in the House by a Minister, and other matters relating to the European Union”. In practice this means that the Select Committee, along with its Sub-Committees, scrutinises the UK Government’s policies and actions in respect of the EU; considers and seeks to influence the development of policies and draft laws proposed by the EU institutions; and more generally represents the House of Lords in its dealings with the EU institutions and other Member States. The six Sub-Committees are as follows: Energy and Environment Sub-Committee External Affairs Sub-Committee Financial Affairs Sub-Committee Home Affairs Sub-Committee Internal Market Sub-Committee Justice Sub-Committee Membership The Members of the European Union Select Committee, which conducted this inquiry, are: Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top Lord Green of Hurstpierpoint Baroness Suttie Lord Blair of Boughton Lord Jay of Ewelme Lord Trees Lord Borwick Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws Lord Tugendhat Lord Boswell of Aynho (Chairman) Lord Liddle Lord Whitty Earl of Caithness Lord Mawson Baroness Wilcox Lord Davies of Stamford Baroness Prashar Baroness Falkner of Magravine Baroness Scott of Needham Market Further information Publications, press notices, details of membership, forthcoming meetings and other information is available at http://www.parliament.uk/hleu.
    [Show full text]
  • Financial Market Integration in the EU: a Practical Inventory of Benefits and Hurdles in the Single Market
    Financial market integration in the EU: A practical inventory of benefits and hurdles in the Single Market Financial market integration in the EU: A practical inventory of benefits and hurdles in the Single Market Imprint: © 2019 Bertelsmann Stiftung/ ESMT European School of Management ESMT Berlin (Hrsg.) and Technology Schlossplatz 1 Authors: 10178 Berlin Katharina Gnath, Bertelsmann Stiftung Germany Benjamin Große-Rüschkamp, ESMT Berlin Christian Kastrop, Bertelsmann Stiftung Editing: Dominic Ponattu, Bertelsmann Stiftung David Gow Jörg Rocholl, ESMT Berlin Marcus Wortmann, Bertelsmann Stiftung Title image: Andrew Malone/Networking/flickr.com – CC BY 2.0, Bertelsmann Stiftung https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/ Programme Europe’s Future Carl-Bertelsmann-Str. 256 33311 Gütersloh Germany Financial market integration in the EU | Page 3 Contents 1 Abstract ............................................................................................................ 5 2 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 6 3 On the benefits of a single market for capital and finance in Europe: A review of effects and channels .................................................... 7 3.1 Definition and history of financial integration in Europe .............................................................. 7 3.2 Theoretical benefits and channels of financial integration .......................................................... 8 3.3 Potential caveats of financial integration
    [Show full text]
  • Can the EU Rebuild Failing States? a Review of Europe’S Civilian Capacities
    Can the EU Rebuild Failing States? A Review of Europe’s Civilian Capacities Daniel Korski & Richard Gowan Foreword by Jean-Marie Guéhenno ABOUT ECFR The European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) is the first pan-European think-tank. Launched in October 2007, its objective is to conduct research and promote informed debate across Europe on the development of coherent, effective and values-based European foreign policy. ECFR has developed a strategy with three distinctive elements that define its activities: A pan-European Council. ECFR has brought together a distinguished Council of over one hundred Members – politicians, decision makers, thinkers and business people from the EU’s member states and candidate countries – which meets twice a year as a full body. Through geographical and thematic task forces, members provide ECFR staff with advice and feedback on policy ideas and help with ECFR’s activities within their own countries. The Council is chaired by Martti Ahtisaari, Joschka Fischer and Mabel van Oranje. A physical presence in the main EU member states. ECFR, uniquely among European think-tanks, has offices in Berlin, London, Madrid, Paris and Sofia. In the future ECFR plans to open offices in Rome, Warsaw and Brussels. Our offices are platforms for research, debate, advocacy and communications. A distinctive research and policy development process. ECFR has brought together a team of distinguished researchers and practitioners from all over Europe to advance its objectives through innovative projects with a pan-European focus. ECFR’s activities include primary research, publication of policy reports, private meetings and public debates, ‘friends of ECFR’ gatherings in EU capitals and outreach to strategic media outlets.
    [Show full text]
  • Brexit Jargon Buster
    Brexit Jargon Buster Brexit Jargon Buster • 1 2 • Brexit Jargon Buster AAgencies European Union agencies regulate a number of regimes for goods and services; the European Chemicals Agency in Helsinki regulates chemicals and biocides; the European Medicines Agency, formerly in London is now relocated in Amsterdam responsible for the scientific evaluation, supervision and safety monitoring of medicines in the EU; the European Aviation Safety Agency. AIFMD The Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive. This EU Directive regulates the managers (AIFMs) of alternative investment funds (AIFs). AIFMD includes passporting rights (see separate definition) for EU AIFMs to market funds across the EU. The Directive also contains provisions allowing non-EU AIFMs to become part of the passporting regime by way of a ‘third country passport’ (see separate definition) which may, in the future, provide a means for UK AIFMs to retain passporting rights post-Brexit. Competition law Competition laws of the EU are set out in the TFEU. They are a very important aspect of the single market. The European Commission is tasked with developing policy and enforcing the law ensuring that the European Union remains free from business practices that could ultimately be harmful to competition and consumers. In doing so, the Commission works with national competition authorities which are obliged also to apply EU competition law as well as domestic law. Particular emphasis is placed on ensuring businesses do not enter into anti-competitive agreements or abuse dominant positions in markets; the consequences of doing so can be severe. Brexit Jargon Buster • 3 The European Commission also assesses very large mergers and state aid.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction
    NOTES Introduction 1. Robert Kagan to George Packer. Cited in Packer’s The Assassin’s Gate: America In Iraq (Faber and Faber, London, 2006): 38. 2. Stefan Halper and Jonathan Clarke, America Alone: The Neoconservatives and the Global Order (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2004): 9. 3. Critiques of the war on terror and its origins include Gary Dorrien, Imperial Designs: Neoconservatism and the New Pax Americana (Routledge, New York and London, 2004); Francis Fukuyama, After the Neocons: America At the Crossroads (Profile Books, London, 2006); Ira Chernus, Monsters to Destroy: The Neoconservative War on Terror and Sin (Paradigm Publishers, Boulder, CO and London, 2006); and Jacob Heilbrunn, They Knew They Were Right: The Rise of the Neocons (Doubleday, New York, 2008). 4. A report of the PNAC, Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century, September 2000: 76. URL: http:// www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf (15 January 2009). 5. On the first generation on Cold War neoconservatives, which has been covered far more extensively than the second, see Gary Dorrien, The Neoconservative Mind: Politics, Culture and the War of Ideology (Temple University Press, Philadelphia, 1993); Peter Steinfels, The Neoconservatives: The Men Who Are Changing America’s Politics (Simon and Schuster, New York, 1979); Murray Friedman, The Neoconservative Revolution: Jewish Intellectuals and the Shaping of Public Policy (Cambridge University Press, New York, 2005); Murray Friedman ed. Commentary in American Life (Temple University Press, Philadelphia, 2005); Mark Gerson, The Neoconservative Vision: From the Cold War to the Culture Wars (Madison Books, Lanham MD; New York; Oxford, 1997); and Maria Ryan, “Neoconservative Intellectuals and the Limitations of Governing: The Reagan Administration and the Demise of the Cold War,” Comparative American Studies, Vol.
    [Show full text]
  • Printmgr File
    OFFERING MEMORANDUM NOT FOR GENERAL DISTRIBUTION IN THE UNITED STATES BAE Systems plc (incorporated with limited liability in England and Wales under the Companies Acts 1948 to 1980 with registered number 1470151) US$1,000,000,000 1.900% Notes due 2031 Issue price: 99.232% US$1,000,000,000 3.000% Notes due 2050 Issue price: 98.537% BAE Systems plc, a public limited company registered in England and Wales (the “Issuer”), is offering (the “Offering”) $1,000,000,000 aggregate principal amount of its 1.900% Notes due 2031 (the “2031 Notes”) and $1,000,000,000 aggregate principal amount of its 3.000% Notes due 2050 (the “2050 Notes” and, together with the 2031 Notes, the “Securities”). The Issuer is the parent holding company of the BAE Systems group of companies (which, together with the Issuer, are referred to herein as “BAE Systems”). The 2031 Notes and the 2050 Notes will mature on February 15, 2031 and September 15, 2050, respectively (in each case, the “Stated Maturity Date” of the respective series of Securities), and upon surrender will be repaid in an amount equal to the principal amount thereof together with accrued and unpaid interest thereon. Interest on the Securities will be payable semi-annually in arrears on February 15 and August 15 of each year (in the case of the 2031 Notes), commencing on February 15, 2021 and on March 15 and September 15 of each year (in the case of the 2050 Notes), commencing on March 15, 2021. The Securities will be redeemable at any time at the option of the Issuer at a redemption price calculated as set forth under “Description of Securities—Optional Redemption.” The Securities will be direct, unsecured and unsubordinated obligations of the Issuer and will rank pari passu with all other direct, unsecured and unsubordinated obligations (except those obligations preferred by statute or operation of law) of the Issuer.
    [Show full text]
  • The Single Market Scoreboard, 2004 and 2007
    Policy Area: Doing Business in Europe European Union Center of North Carolina EU Briefings, March 2008 The removal of all barriers to the free movement of goods, people and capital – to the extent necessary to ensure the smooth operation of the European Common Market – was the central objective of the 1957 Treaty of Rome (articles 3a to 3c), while the removal of barriers to the provision of services was considered to be an implicit objective of the Treaty. Collectively, these form the four freedoms of what is today labeled the Single European Market (SEM) or “the Internal Market”. Market integration – linked to the improved competitiveness of European economies and firms and economic growth – has been the central objective of the European Economic Community. The first stage in the construction of the European Common Market involved a ten-year program, starting in 1958, to eliminate all tariff barriers on industrial products and proved to be a resounding success. However, given national obstacles, there were delays on the removal of non- tariff barriers to trade (NTBTs) which can be defined broadly as any national policies that in effect discriminate against products entering the national market from other countries. Examples of such barriers include: • Different national regulations on product standards that may block imports otherwise perfectly safe for consumers. • Rules on establishment which require companies (such as banks) to go through lengthy and expensive application procedures to set up operations in another member state. • Government procurement programs, whereby governments discriminate in favor of national companies in the purchase of items. From the perspective of competition, the official aim of EU market integration – and, more specifically, of the EU’s Competition Policy which is discussed below – is to create a “level playing field” whereby companies from one European member state are not placed at a competitive disadvantage because of the market distorting practices of governments and firms in either their own member state or in any other.
    [Show full text]
  • Floreat Domus 2011
    ISSUE NO.17 april 2011 Floreat Domus BALLIOL COLLEGE NEWS Special Feature: More than money Three Balliol Old Members talk about aid work People-powered politics Master on the move Stop Press: Election of New Master Balliol College is very pleased to announce that it has offered Contents the Mastership of the College Welcome to the 2011 to Professor Sir Drummond Bone (1968), MA DLitt DUniv edition of Floreat Domus. (Glas) FRSE FRSA, and he has accepted. The formal election will be in Trinity Term. contents page 28 Putting Margate Professor Bone will take up the back on the map post this October. For more page 1 College news The new Turner Contemporary information, go to www.balliol. page 6 Women at Balliol gallery, involving three Old Members ox.ac.uk/news/2011/march/ election-of-new-master page 8 College success page 30 In the dark without page 9 Student news nuclear power? Roger Cashmore and David Lucas page 10 Student success discuss the future of nuclear power Special feature Page 20–23 Page 39 A map of the heart page 12 page 32 Great adventurers 50th anniversary of Denis Noble’s The amazing trips made by Sir ground-breaking paper Adam Roberts and Anthony Smith Talking science page 13 page 33 Bookshelf in the centre of Oxford A selection of books published page 14 The Oxford by Balliol Old Members Student Consultancy page 34 Master on the move: page 15 The Oxford conversations around the world Microfinance Initiative Andrew and Peggotty Graham talk about their round-the-world trip Features Development news page 16 People-powered politics
    [Show full text]
  • The Guardian, Noam Chomsky and the Milosevic Lobby - the Henry Jackson Society Archive 16/09/2014 19:35
    The Guardian, Noam Chomsky and the Milosevic Lobby - The Henry Jackson Society Archive 16/09/2014 19:35 Latest Tweet Please wait while our tweets load. If you can't wait - check out what we've been twittering. MoreShare | ShareShareShareShare Publications Policy Pamphlets & Reports Strategic Briefings Backgrounders Letters Conversations Editorials Policy & Research Areas Regions Britain Greater Europe & Eurasia European Union European Neighbourhood Russia & Eurasia The Americas North America Latin America Middle East & Africa Middle East Africa Asia Pacific East Asia South Asia South East Asia & Australia Themes Democracy & Development Environment & Economy Global Security & Terrorism Transatlantic Relations & Defence Events Future Events file:///Users/markohoare/Desktop/MyFiles/Articles/Current%20affairs/HJS/2006ChomskyMilosevic.webarchive Page 1 of 19 The Guardian, Noam Chomsky and the Milosevic Lobby - The Henry Jackson Society Archive 16/09/2014 19:35 Past Events Campaigns & Projects Affiliated Projects Worldview Global Power Europe YPFP London Greater Surbiton APPG Media Centre Online Shop Recommended Reading Email List Sign up here and keep up to date by joining the HJS mailing list Email Sign up HOME > Policy & Research Areas > Regions > Greater Europe & Eurasia > European Neighbourhood The Guardian, Noam Chomsky and the Milosevic Lobby By Marko Attila Hoare, 4th February 2006 Sometimes facts are stranger than fiction. On 31 October 2005, The Guardian published an interview with Noam Chomsky, prophet of coffee- table anti-imperialism and verbal conjuror extraordinaire, carried out by the journalist Emma Brockes, which was highly embarrassing to him. The interview exposed him as having revisionist views in relation to the Srebrenica massacre, which he described as ‘probably overstated’ and which he has minimised at various times and in various ways.
    [Show full text]
  • After Brexit
    Politics and Governance (ISSN: 2183–2463) 2019, Volume 7, Issue 3, Pages 19–29 DOI: 10.17645/pag.v7i3.2059 Article EU Single Market(s) after Brexit Michelle Egan School of International Service, American University, Washington, DC 20016, USA; E-Mail: [email protected] Submitted: 10 March 2019 | Accepted: 5 June 2019 | Published: 16 September 2019 Abstract This article focuses on the European single market, which has been one of the central issues in terms of the impact of Britain’s withdrawal from the EU. As the aim of the single market project is to open the internal borders of the EU to the free movement of goods, services, capital, and labor to create cross-jurisdictional markets, the economic and political ef- fects of Brexit will be widespread, if not yet fully understood, outside the British polity. The article looks at the current state of the single market, then highlights the impact of British withdrawal on economic governance, focusing on different market freedoms, given the degree of trade interdependence and integrated supply chains that have evolved in response to changes in goods and services. One of the lessons from Brexit negotiations is the importance of distinguishing between different single market(s) when assessing the impact of British ‘exit’ on member states. The concluding section focuses on the political safeguards of market integration to manage the relationship between the UK and EU, to illustrate how judicial, market, and institutional safeguards create options and constraints in mitigating the effects of ‘exit’. Keywords Brexit; European Union; market access; market integration; single market; safeguards Issue This article is part of the issue “The Impact of Brexit on EU Policies”, edited by Ferdi De Ville (Ghent University, Belgium) and Gabriel Siles-Brügge (University of Warwick, UK).
    [Show full text]