Array ( [0] => WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 7462 [post_author] => 83 [post_date] => 2024-05-30 00:01:46 [post_date_gmt] => 2024-05-29 23:01:46 [post_content] => This year’s European elections are like no other. The political map of Europe is being redrawn with populist and authoritarian parties expected to gain ground in most member states. As we enter the final stretch, a record turnout is predicted to go to the polls on 6-9 June across the 27 countries, and the European Parliament is attracting unprecedented levels of media attention.   In a projection heavy with symbolism, the polls indicate that the national parties of the President of France and the Chancellor of Germany may each suffer heavy defeats. The prevailing uncertainty about the European Union’s (EU) future direction reflects both internal instability and the gravity and complexity of external events. The centre is still just about holding.   The pace and scale of change in the EU’s integration in recent decades has been remarkable, and until now seemingly unstoppable. Twenty years ago, on May 1st 2004, the EU celebrated its enlargement in Phoenix Park in Dublin under the Irish Presidency.^[1] The flags of the ten new member states were solemnly raised, a choir sang the Ode to Joy with gusto, and Nobel Prize-winner Seamus Heaney recited a poem he had written specially for the occasion, which included these lines:   “So on a day when newcomers appear, Let it be a homecoming and let us speak The unstrange word, as it behoves us here, Move lips, move minds and make new meanings flare.”   How things have changed over those twenty years. The context and the mood today could hardly be more different, with a savage war raging on the European continent and on the frontiers of the EU. Four EU member states (Poland, Slovakia, Hungary and Romania) share a common border with Ukraine, and five others with Russia (Poland plus Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Sweden and Finland). The Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk has said that Europe has entered a ‘pre-war era’.   These external threats are coupled with internal factors of political disunity and discord. In a recent interview with The Economist, President Macron warned that Europe faces imminent danger and that “things can fall apart very rapidly”.^[2] The list is long of the existential challenges facing Europe where firm and rapid action is required: security and defence, boosting the EU’s economy and competitiveness, immigration, climate change, trade policy, energy dependence, digital regulation and AI, and its future geostrategic relations with the US and China. The majority to emerge from the European elections will have profound consequences for all these policy areas.   Making predictions about elections is a mug’s game at the best of times, but more than ever when 27 countries are involved. Nevertheless, the majority of polls and commentators have estimated that as many as 25% of the newly elected MEPs may be members of far-right parties at national level. Let us look at the likely consequences of such a result, both inside and outside the European Parliament.   Internally, the EPP (European People’s Party, centre-right) is expected to form the largest group, and as such will either seek to maintain the existing pro-EU alliance with the Socialists, Liberals and Greens, or will attempt to construct new alliances, in particular with the eurosceptic and anti-federalist ECR (European Conservatives and Reformists) Group.   A broad coalition is essential for two reasons: to ensure the necessary majority for Parliament’s adoption of EU legislation, and more immediately to vote on the appointment of the next President of the Commission (or on a second term for incumbent Ursula von der Leyen if she is proposed by the European Council). Failure to secure a majority in Parliament on this issue would provoke a serious institutional crisis.   The S&D (Socialists and Democrats) Group – most probably the second largest – has stated that it will oppose any alliance between the EPP and ‘the far-right’. The Renew (Liberal) and Green Groups, both of which also oppose any deals with the far-right, are expected to lose Members, and Renew could be replaced as the third largest group by either the ECR or by the ID (Identity and Democracy) Group, where France’s Marine Le Pen’s party sits, among others.   The above projections, if confirmed, would suggest that the traditional majority alliance between centre-right and centre-left could be replaced in the new parliament by an EPP-led more right-wing coalition. Another possible scenario could be a more fluid system of shifting alliances, depending on the particular issues to be voted on in plenary session.   However, it is conceivable that the numerical increase in the size of the right-wing and far-right groups may not be matched by a corresponding increase in their political influence. Past experience has shown that Members from far-right parties often prefer to use the Parliament as a platform for their personal views, rather than focussing on the core parliamentary business of shaping EU legislation through the specialised committees. Furthermore, the two right-wing or far-right groups – and their respective leaders – have a long history of feuding among themselves, which if continued in the next Parliament could further limit their effectiveness.   Indeed, the particular work culture of the European Parliament, with its emphasis on compromise and consensus between nationalities and political affiliations, may also be a factor in reducing the influence of the eurosceptic and far-right groupings in the new Parliament.   To further complicate the situation, there has also been talk in Brussels of a realignment of right-wing forces and the formation of a new political group. Not to forget the 50 or more newly elected Members who will start their term of office as non-attached and some of whom may well end up in the ECR or ID Groups. Rarely has US President Lyndon Johnson’s celebrated aphorism seemed more relevant: “The iron law of politics is that successful politicians must learn how to count.”   All will eventually become clear, hopefully in the period between the announcement of the election results on 9th June and the constituent session in the week of 15th July. The newly constituted political groups will meet and deliberate during this time. In parallel, an informal meeting of EU leaders is due to take place on 17th June, and the full European Council will meet on 27-28th June, inter alia to decide on the leaders’ choice of the next Commission President.   Externally, this move to the right, if reflected in the results of the European elections and the changed balance of power within the European Parliament, will inevitably have consequences at two different but related levels – for the other EU institutions, particularly the Commission, and nationally.   It is unclear at this stage precisely where a majority might lie in the new Parliament to secure von der Leyen’s desired second term. Other candidates may emerge. The proposals to be made by the member states’ governments for the other Commissioner posts may also be affected, as could certain key EU policies such as combating climate change, the EU budget, and financial and military support for Ukraine.   The results could also have significant political implications at national level. In the case of France, for example, if Le Pen’s Rassemblement National achieves a much higher score than Macron’s list Besoin d’Europe, she will be well placed for the presidential election in 2027. Similarly, if the German CDU wins the most seats in Germany, as currently seems likely, this would give them a useful boost for the next federal election in autumn 2025.   We await with some trepidation the outcome of this historic and hard-fought election, and its effect on Europe’s political landscape. Whatever the results, the EU institutions and the governments of the member states must listen carefully to the message sent by the voters and act accordingly, in the general interest. Europe’s future hangs in the balance.   ^[1] New members: Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia, and Slovenia. ^[2] Emmanuel Macron, Emmanuel Macron in his own words (English), The Economist, May 2024, https://www.economist.com/europe/2024/05/02/emmanuel-macron-in-his-own-words-english [post_title] => Challenges Ahead: How the results of the European Parliamentary elections could shape Europe’s future [post_excerpt] => [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => open [ping_status] => open [post_password] => [post_name] => challenges-ahead-how-the-results-of-the-european-parliamentary-elections-could-shape-europes-future [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2024-05-28 17:48:24 [post_modified_gmt] => 2024-05-28 16:48:24 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://fpc.org.uk/?p=7462 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) [1] => WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 6797 [post_author] => 83 [post_date] => 2023-03-28 11:34:11 [post_date_gmt] => 2023-03-28 10:34:11 [post_content] => Where We Are Now The struggle between the people and their rulers, between democracy and tyranny, is as old as human civilisation. Throughout history these intrinsic patterns of human behaviour come and go, swirling around, in different guises and with varying consequences over the centuries, but never completely disappear.   In addressing this eternal question, equally strong doses of humility and hard-nosed realism are called for. It is never wise to discount humankind’s ability to make a bad situation worse. Nor should we believe the person who says airily that ‘Surely things can’t get any worse’- because they will. All the signs are there, hiding in plain sight. Only by understanding the full extent of the threats facing us can we hope to head them off. There is no guarantee of success.   We are at an epochal turning point, and living not only in dark times but also in a time of great change. ‘When sorrows come, they come not single spies, but in battalions’, as the poet said. Almost every day, we rub our eyes in disbelief at the latest looming disasters – war, famine, pestilence, climate change, recession, social unrest, autocracy - that are heading our way or have already impacted our world, chipping away at the old familiar certainties, our comfort zones rudely shaken. Borders and frontiers, both geographical and in the mind, are no longer fixed or secure. We’re not sure which way to turn, so we cling to what we think we know.   Lurking behind all these changes is the abuse of political power, for autocracy and populism thrive on chaos and the gradual erosion of constitutional checks and balances, and basic freedoms. Great swathes of the population in Europe and the United States are suffering from abject poverty and diminished life chances, their inhabitants blaming globalisation and the political class, not without justification. We find the same sense of loss of identity and resentment among the closed mines and disused steelworks in North East England, Pittsburgh in Pennsylvania, and the Donbas region of eastern Ukraine. For hundreds of millions of people in the rest of the world, lacking food, water and basic healthcare, the present and the future are even bleaker. As often as not, one disaster leads to another: everything is linked.   Many people, despite their better selves, instinctively deal with these threats to the status quo ante by hoping for the arrival of a strong and effective government or leader who can turn back the tide and make everything right again, as it used to be. Back to a nostalgic past that in reality never existed. But the problems and the challenges exist in the here and now. We are on a new arc of history. Even a cursory glance at historical precedent will tell us that the pattern of recent events is clear, and menacing. There may not be much time left to correct it.   Those who will suffer most if current trends continue will, naturally, be those with the least means to defend themselves, who are often in the early stages of authoritarian rule the autocrats’ most enthusiastic supporters. It was ever so. Addressing the question of the abuse of power is not a theoretical exercise, but about how the curtailing of individual rights and basic freedoms by the state impairs people’s daily lives, and limits their choices and hence their prospects for a better life for themselves and their families. Unchecked, the state throws off the shackles of accountability, while the central authority becomes ever stronger at the expense of the rights of the individual citizen, typically crushing the human spirit in the name of a spurious ideology. Resisting the abuse of political power is also about preventing autocratic and authoritarian governments from persecuting minorities, often on specious racial or religious grounds, and from hollowing out the principal institutions of the state that they see as potential sources of opposition: parliament, the judiciary, the media.   Europe is indisputably moving ever further to the right. Extremist, nationalist and populist parties that represent a threat to liberal democracy exist today, with several in government, in the majority of European countries. Most of these parties are also anti-immigration and anti-Muslim. In the United States (increasingly becoming a misnomer for a fundamentally divided country), the Republican Party supports former President Trump in his refusal to accept the result of the last presidential election, categorically rejects any responsibility for the insurrection in Congress on January 6^th 2021, and promotes an orchestrated campaign of vote-rigging and gerrymandering in Congressional districts (although in certain states such as New York the Democrats are hardly innocent on the latter issue) in order to skew future elections in their favour. Almost wherever we look in the West, centrifugal forces are on the increase and the Centre is no longer holding. Up to now the European Union has stuck together and managed to steady the ship, but the strains on unity and mutual solidarity have become increasingly visible.   We thought we knew the rules for civilised survival and mostly abided by them, but we now realise that many of the old laws and principles of liberal democracy, which we subconsciously relied on and considered sacrosanct and permanent, are now in disrepair or no longer applied – ‘ripped up’ even - and it is hard to discern the way forward through the wreckage. As though a thief came into the house at night and stole a cache of objects of sentimental value, while we were sleeping. We never heard a thing, and then next morning we found it hard to take in the sense of violation and felt diminished and vulnerable.   It is that combination of simultaneous change and threat that makes us fearful of the future, both as individuals in our private lives, and for the future of the society around us, even for the survival of the planet. We sense that we are entering a new period of history, but we don’t yet know what’s coming down the road.  Rarely has Gramsci’s much-quoted definition of a crisis – when the old world is dying and the new world struggles to be born – felt more apposite.   Those of us born in the second half of the twentieth century didn’t know our luck. One reason why we find it hard to adapt to today’s multiple challenges is that most of the Western World – primarily Europe and the United States – was living, without fully realising it, in a cocoon-like era of relative peace and prosperity since the end of the Second World War. We were not well prepared or in training for dealing with these new challenges. When our attention was elsewhere, the beast sunk its claws deep into our values system, and it will take time and effort to prise them off. How can we jolt ourselves out of that intellectual complacency and inertia that has taken root in the West in recent years and infected much of our politics?   The Response We have three options for dealing with creeping autocracy and authoritarianism, and the abuse of political power. The one we choose could shape our future, both as individuals and as society.   The first is to go with the flow of history and adapt to the new reality, without worrying too much about ideology, values and principles. What good have they done us anyway in recent times? Few things can be more important than putting food on the table for our loved ones. Most politicians are all the same, and those that are different aren’t always that bad (particularly if they are smart enough to appear outwardly friendly and polite, make attractive promises to better our lot, and generally wear ‘slippers rather than jackboots’). What’s the point of sticking one’s head above the parapet and thereby asking for trouble? This too will pass, so they say. Many people – probably the majority - ask for nothing more than a quiet life. You can hardly blame them; it almost feels like a natural human reaction. Yet that way darkness lies, in troubled times.   The second option is to look at the lessons from history and philosophy. History is like a volcano that was erroneously considered extinct but then suddenly erupts. What is happening in Europe today might feel unfamiliar to us, but in a way it is nothing new. The struggle between democracy and tyranny goes back a long way, at least as far as Ancient Greece. The same is true for the endless back and forth between borders and frontiers. We had naively thought that, largely thanks to the EU and NATO, Europe’s frontiers were finally fixed for all time. We didn’t heed the several warnings from Vladimir Putin that he didn’t share this view. In 1805 after the battle of Austerlitz, at his house in Putney, William Pitt said to his niece ‘Roll up the map of Europe; it will not be wanted these ten years.’ We’re not quite there yet, but the risk exists.   Further back still, the Vedic and Hindu scriptures talk about the three essential phases of life on earth – creation, maintenance, and destruction, leading to re-creation and the next phase in the never-ending cycle. It is hard to escape the thought, however unpalatable, that humankind may possess an inherent self-destructive impulse. How can we counter this tendency? The short answer is with courage, lucidity, and sacrifice, including being ready where necessary to give one’s life for the cause, no less. Ukraine has shown us the way. Tragically, however, history also shows us that courage and the ultimate sacrifice may not always be enough.   We should also include, in our armoury of thoughts and ideas to beat back the abusers, the recognition that, contrary to the widespread belief in the West and especially in the US, our quality of life as currently measured may not remain indefinitely on an upward curve. Writing in the Financial Times, Edward Luce pointed out that murder rates, deaths from war and child mortality went down significantly during the Roman Empire, before it was succeeded by centuries of medieval darkness and the trends were comprehensively reversed. And unlike us, during the Romans’ imperial decline, they didn’t also have to deal with global warming.   The third option for preventing the abuse of political power is the most difficult and the most necessary: to synthesise the general lessons of the past with the particular and most pressing demands of the present, and seek to change the course of events accordingly. An additional dimension to the challenge is that the Western world today is a political tinderbox: in their attempts to prevent the abuse of power, our democratically elected representatives – where they still exist - must be careful not to stoke further the flames of totalitarianism. We must navigate through the many obstacles with the utmost care.   Fortunately, there is no lack of self-help books published in recent years, particularly in the US, which provide useful guidance on some of the errors unwittingly committed by our forebears as they faced the rise of fascism, the traps not to fall into, the lines not to cross.   Timothy Snyder, Professor of history at Yale University, reminds us of Hannah Arendt’s warnings about the banality of evil and the normalisation of human wickedness. In his short volume ‘On Tyranny: Lessons from the 20^th Century’, he warns against ‘anticipatory obedience’ and enjoins us ‘to defend institutions, and take responsibility for the face of the world’ (by which he means that we should be sceptical about propaganda), and makes the disturbing but verifiable point that ‘most of the power of authoritarianism is freely given’. On the abuse of political power in the US, Snyder states that ‘we have very good reason to be concerned.’ The British historian Richard J. Evans, author of ‘The History of the Third Reich,’ states that ‘Democracy is a fragile creation. Underpinned by the rule of law and the popular will, democracy is the only way we can prevent the arbitrary exercise of tyranny.’ In ‘How Democracies Die’, the American political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt lament ‘the end of mutual toleration’ – a euphemism for describing the lack of any common ground and profound antagonism across the aisle in today’s America (except when it comes to voting vast sums for the defence industry).   Last year the political historian Peter Hennessy, reputed and respected for his objectivity and moderation, made a similar point when he fired off a remarkable salvo against the British government then in power, qualifying its record in office as ‘a bonfire of the decencies’ and the abandonment of the ‘good chap theory’ of government (only in England…) which has shown up the fragility of the British constitution. On the bright side, relatively speaking, certain checks and balances on executive power remain in place in the UK, and the members of political parties can still choose their own leaders (although the growing role of financial backers in influencing government policy, as in the US, has raised concerns). But the erosion of basic freedoms – the right of peaceful protest and not to be arrested without charge, to claim asylum, freedom of the press in the face of flagrant attempts at muzzling and intimidation by oligarchs and their legal representatives - has undoubtedly begun. Recent government action, such as limiting the competences of the Electoral Commission and watering down the ministerial code (and even then not applying it), will further extend the powers of the state.  As chunks of masonry regularly crash down from the rotting timbered roof, the venerable British Parliament finds itself increasingly bypassed and in urgent need of repair.   Fiona Hill, Russia expert and former Deputy National Security Adviser to President Trump, has spoken about ‘treading back through old historical patterns we said we would never permit to happen again’, as illustrated by the way the West allowed Putin to interfere in elections in the US, the UK and elsewhere. Ukraine has become the front line in a struggle not just between democracies and autocracies, but in the struggle to defend a rules-based international system against the ruthless deployment of superior military and economic force.   We should listen carefully to these lessons from the past and warnings from distinguished authors, political scientists and policy practitioners, and study their eminently sensible and well argued guidebooks on how to prevent and survive tyranny. But to what extent are they still relevant? Has the Third World War, as some have claimed, already begun? Is it already too late to reverse the march of history?   Future Prospects We are about to embark on a long and arduous journey, where the destination and the time it will take to get there are unclear. Against the background of ‘a drastically altered international constellation and in the shadow of transatlantic uncertainties’ (Jürgen Habermas), a new kind of politics is taking over. In recent years, we have seen both the re-emergence of ‘classic’ patterns that lead to the abuse of political power – the curtailment or abolition of civil liberties and the suppression of independent institutions – and new phenomena such as the proliferation of social media and a different form of politics driven by personalities and identity rather than the substance of policy and concern for the common good. This combination of old and new threats is divisive and dangerous. Populist and nationalist parties increasingly use wedge issues, dog-whistles and anti-wokeism to divide public opinion and distract from traditional liberal values. All other policies and projects outside these parties’ core messages are cynically downplayed or eliminated by a strategy known in the trade as  ‘getting the barnacles off the boat’.   We must exhaust every available form of action, both collective and individual, to resist these trends and defend our basic rights and freedoms. Randomly selected citizens’ action groups, such as the Irish example of citizens’ assemblies and similar bodies in France, Britain and Denmark, have helped to produce consensual solutions to specific societal problems. Individually, we must quite simply stand up for our views with our families, friends and colleagues at work. Individual dissent, resisting binary choices, and the ability to listen are further key attributes in slowing the perilous slide towards autocracy.   However, we should not delude ourselves. We may vigorously argue our case, support democratic parties, and make common cause with like-minded fellow citizens to take on the tyrants and the autocrats. But there are wider forces at work here, rooted partly in history and partly in contemporary phenomena, over which our control as human beings is necessarily limited. We will need infinite resolve and patience.   In conclusion, before we set out on our uncertain journey, let us recall the words of two citizens of America, the land that until recently, and despite some murky origins, symbolised optimism and endless possibilities for human betterment. In his speech at the National Cathedral in Washington on March 31^st 1968, Martin Luther King reminded us that ‘we shall overcome because the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends towards justice.’   The writer John Steinbeck wrote on the indelible duality of human nature and the cyclical character of human history: ‘All the goodness and the heroisms will rise up again, then be cut down again and rise up. It isn’t that the evil thing wins – it never will – but that it doesn’t die.’ There is no magic formula. Whether or not we succeed in resisting the abuse of political power is not wholly in our control. But resist we must, and the better angels of our nature will eventually prevail.   Disclaimer: The views expressed in this piece are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of The Foreign Policy Centre. [post_title] => Resisting the Abuse of Political Power [post_excerpt] => [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => open [ping_status] => open [post_password] => [post_name] => resisting-the-abuse-of-political-power [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2023-03-31 11:55:25 [post_modified_gmt] => 2023-03-31 10:55:25 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://fpc.org.uk/?p=6797 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) [2] => WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 6446 [post_author] => 83 [post_date] => 2022-07-04 15:07:04 [post_date_gmt] => 2022-07-04 14:07:04 [post_content] => At a time of strained relations between the two Executives (the UK Government and the EU Commission), could a new structure for cooperation between the two parliaments (Westminster and Brussels/Strasbourg) contribute to a gradual improvement in relations between the two sides?   The UK-EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) provides for the setting up of a Parliamentary Partnership Assembly (PPA), as the official structure for cooperation between the UK Parliament and the European Parliament. The PPA may also act as a forum empowered to submit recommendations to the UK Government and the Commission meeting at political level in the Partnership Council. This new body consists of 35 Members on each side. The UK delegation includes 21 Members of the House of Commons and 14 from the House of Lords, representing all sides of the Brexit argument and including several former MEPs, notably the leading Brexiteer Daniel Hannan (since last year elevated to the peerage). The devolved parliaments and the Northern Ireland Assembly have observer status.   The new Assembly met for the first time on 12-13 May in Brussels, where they discussed EU-UK relations, the Withdrawal Agreement, the implementation of the TCA and EU-UK cooperation on sanctions against Russia and the war in Ukraine in general. Opening the meeting, the Chair of the EP Delegation, Nathalie Loiseau (an influential member of Emmanuel Macron’s Renew party) emphasised her hope for “closer future ties and a better understanding of the implications of the EU-UK agreements secured so far, as well as what remains to be done. (The Assembly) will be a means of cultivating, through dialogue and debate, a better understanding between the parties and the opportunity to build a solid partnership based on mutual trust.”[1] The Chair of the UK Delegation, veteran Conservative MP Sir Oliver Heald, who reportedly spoke elegantly but gave nothing away, echoed these worthy intentions. Apparently, each side listened respectfully to the other’s point of view, without this necessarily leading to any significant shift in their respective positions.   The first session began with statements by Commission Vice-President Maroš Šefčovič – who away from prying cameras was said to have spoken with unusual and refreshing frankness – and the UK Minister for the Cabinet Office Michel Ellis, standing in for Foreign Secretary Liz Truss, detained elsewhere. The meeting then focussed on EU-UK cooperation on the war in Ukraine, and adopted the Assembly’s Rules of Procedure; the second session considered the current situation regarding the Horizon programme and possible forms of cooperation in the field of energy against the background of the current global spike in energy prices and the conflict in Ukraine. James Heappey, UK Minister for the Armed Forces, and Stefano Sannino, Secretary-General of the European External Action Service, also took part in the discussion on EU-UK cooperation in relation to Ukraine. Both sides benefited from hearing directly the other side’s point of view on these questions of mutual interest. After the meeting a joint statement was issued by the two Chairs, in which they “looked forward to continuing our constructive and open dialogue during our second meeting, which will be organised by the Parliament of the United Kingdom in the autumn”.[2]   One should not underestimate the importance of the tone and atmospherics in such meetings, given the fraught context and occasional shouting match that have characterised EU-UK relations over the last few months. All in all, that first meeting in May sounded like an auspicious start to a relatively modest but potentially positive new chapter.   Since then, however, the UK Government has raised the stakes and the temperature by introducing the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill, described by the EU Ambassador to the UK João Vale de Almeida as “a road to nowhere, illegal and unrealistic”.[3] The new Assembly’s next meeting is due to take place in November in the UK. Who would dare predict how EU-UK relations will evolve between now and then? If the UK maintains the position on the Bill recently outlined in the House of Commons by Liz Truss, in which it unilaterally overrides the Protocol, ‘the poison may seep out’ and the positive first meeting in May at parliamentary level may have also been a first step on a road to nowhere.   Both sides should prevent this from happening and insist on the continuation of parliamentary cooperation and, hopefully over time, effective scrutiny. An intrinsic part of any properly functioning democracy is the capacity for Parliaments to hold the Executive to account. The Parliamentary Partnership Assembly could make a modest but useful contribution to clearing the air and restoring trust between the EU and the UK at this critical moment for both parties, as well as invoking its right under the TCA to submit jointly agreed recommendations to the Commission and the UK Government through the Partnership Council. Instead of postponing the next meeting planned for November, they would be well advised to consider bringing it forward.   [1] European Parliament, Delegation to the EU-UK Parliamentary Partnership Assembly, May 2022, https://multimedia.europarl.europa.eu/en/webstreaming/delegation-to-eu-uk-parliamentary-partnership-assembly_20220512-1400-DELEGATION-D-UK [2] Nathalie Loiseau and Sir Oliver Heald, Joint Statement released by Co-Chairs of the UK-EU Parliamentary Partnership Assembly, UK Parliament, May 2022, https://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2022/may-2022/joint-statement-released-by-co-chairs-of-the-uk-eu-parliamentary-partnership-assembly/ [3] Sky News, Northern Ireland Protocol Bill is ‘illegal and unrealistic’, EU envoy warns, June 2022, https://news.sky.com/story/northern-ireland-protocol-bill-is-illegal-and-unrealistic-eu-envoy-warns-12640687 [post_title] => A small chink of light: EU-UK relations and parliamentary cooperation [post_excerpt] => [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => open [ping_status] => open [post_password] => [post_name] => a-small-chink-of-light-eu-uk-relations-and-parliamentary-cooperation [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2022-07-04 15:09:36 [post_modified_gmt] => 2022-07-04 14:09:36 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://fpc.org.uk/?p=6446 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) )