Pushing the limits of the European Union: What is the Hungarian government really aiming for?

By Dorottya Kósa

Over the past few days, my international friends have been bombarding me with questions concerning the new emergency law in my home country, Hungary. Receiving messages full of worries and having to pick up the phone to answer questions about the collapse of democracy in Hungary encouraged me to write this article. I hope to clarify certain things about the new legal realities and how it in fact did not change Hungary’s political powers.

Crash course on the legal framework of Hungary

Article No. 53 (State of Danger) of the Fundamental Law – the Constitution of Hungary – covers special legal orders for extreme circumstances such as a national crisis or a state of emergency. In a state of danger the government has the power to adopt means to suspend the application of certain acts, deviate from them, and take extraordinary measures. [1] As Article No. 53 declares, the means shall remain in force only for fifteen days, but the National Assembly can extend their power by voting every second week. The fourth paragraph pronounces that “upon the termination of the state in danger, such decrees of the Government shall cease to have effect.”

The definition of the state of danger is specified in Act No. CXXVIII of 2011, which focuses on disaster management. Based on this Act and on the Fundamental Law of Hungary, the governing party, Fidesz, declared the state of danger in the current situation of global pandemic. [2] Shortly after, on 30 March 2020, the Hungarian parliament with 138 votes for, and 53 against had passed the bill on the Coronavirus Protection Act (2020.évi XII. törvény a koronavírus elleni védekezésről). [3]

Absolute power or powerful absolute

The new law allows the government to rule by decree for an indefinite period of time, until the state of emergency is over. [4] According to the Coronavirus Act, the Government may exercise its powers to the extent necessary and proportionate to prevent, treat, eradicate the epidemic and to prevent or eliminate its harmful effects. [5] There were immediate accusations of abuse of power by many international media channels, as they feared the destruction of democratic values in Hungary.

However, putting on our “reality check glasses,” not much has changed in Hungarian politics with the passing of the Coronavirus Act other than at the theoretical level. Viktor Orbán’s party has two-thirds of the seats in parliament since 2010. Fidesz has the majority of votes and the power to change and construct (or deconstruct) the legal system in their favor. [6] Even without the new law that gives Orbán unprecedented emergency powers, the Fidesz-dominated parliament could theoretically extend the state of danger as long as they wish.

The trap is ready

On 31 March 2020, just one day after the two-thirds passed the Coronavirus Act, Viktor Orbán said in a Facebook video that “the opposition parties did not vote for the state of danger’s prolongation. Our boat got a leak.” What he meant by the video message is that the opposition does not take the pandemic situation seriously enough and would endanger the health and safety of Hungarian citizens by voting against the Corona Act. However, the opposition voted against the bill because they wanted it to have a defined time period.

Since Fidesz already had the power of majority, this Corona Act might just be another populist trick for the approaching national elections. Framing the opposition as the ‘other’ that is counterproductive in times of crisis fits perfectly within the party’s rhetoric. Hence, this pandemic could be another opportunity for Orbán to stay in power and heighten populist narratives of strong leadership. As a global economic crisis emerges, the pandemic can cause governing regimes to lose large parts of their voting bases. [7] However, if ruling parties handle the corona crisis well, they might gain even more supporters than before.

Gábor Török, a Hungarian political scientist, said he would not be surprised if Fidesz would propose an early national election right after the pandemic crisis. He suspects a trap set for the opposition – which they directly walked into. [8] Yet Fidesz already has a well-established ground with its two-third majority and they did not really need the new Coronavirus Act to stay in power. Were all these efforts only to fool the opposition while generating international outrage and risking aid restrictions from the European Union?

Pushing the limits

The passing of the Coronavirus Act resulted in center-right political leaders asking Donald Tusk to expel Fidesz from the European People’s Party (EPP). [9] This happened before, for instance during last year’s European Parliamentary elections, when the EPP was reluctant to include Orbán’s party after controversial debates from member parties. However, the EPP needed the Hungarian votes and knew Fidesz supporters will be active and participate in forming the future of the EU. [10]

The EU is keeping a close eye on Hungarian politics since the report of Dutch MEP Judith Sargentini expressing concerns regarding the government’s abuse of migrants, restrictions on press freedom, corruption and conflicts of interest, and “stereotypical attitudes” towards women. [11] Sargentini called for urgent measures evoking Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union that permits the EU to suspend certain rights of a member state. However, the article does not contain any information on possible mechanisms to expel a member. Already two years had passed since the process initiated, but no sanctions were imposed so far. Moreover, Fidesz used the charges of the EU to build and strengthen their nationalist, Eurosceptic narratives.

On 2 April 2020, President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, expressed her concerns regarding the developments in Hungary saying that Orbán’s measures went too far. [12] Yet once again there is no real action taken, and the issue stays on the rhetoric level. Currently, it looks like the Hungarian government is winning this battle: It looks like the EU is unlikely to impose punitive measures on Orbán, Fidesz, or Hungary. [13]

To sum it up

Viktor Orbán managed to convert the communist Hungary into a vibrant democracy, only to then transform it into a semi-autocratic member state of the European Union under only one political party’s ruling. Since Fidesz has the majority of the seats in the Hungarian Parliament, it has all the power with or without the Corona Act. Warning words of European leaders will not scare Viktor Orbán. In fact, they work counterproductively, since they provide the Hungarian Prime Minister with new narratives about the incompetence of the EU. You could say that Orbán has won because of the European response. It is likely the Hungarian government will continue strengthening its grip on power by outplaying and weakening the national opposition, thereby further challenging the democratic stability and the credibility of the European Union.

Picture: Pedro Antunes, Flickr

Sources: 

[1] “The Fundamental Law of Hungary (25 April 2011).”

[2] “Act No. CXXVIII of 2011 Concerning Disaster Management and Amending Certain Related Acts.,” accessed April 4, 2020, https://www.ecolex.org/details/legislation/act-no-cxxviii-of-2011-concerning-disaster-management-and-amending-certain-related-acts-lex-faoc129205/.

[3] Arató Gergely, Móring József Attila, and Tordai Bence, “Országgyűlési Napló, Kövér László, Jakab István, Dr. Latorcai János És Lezsák Sándor Elnöklete Alatt, 2018-2022. Országgyűlési Ciklus, Budapest, 2020. Március 30. Hétfő 115. Szám,” March 30, 2020. https://www.parlament.hu/documents/10181/1569934/ny200330_.pdf/1645e5f4-1225-c261-e3f9-5d62280faf7d?t=1585888197151.

[4] “Index – In English – Hungarian Coronavirus Act Passes, Granting Viktor Orbán Unprecedented Emergency Powers,” accessed April 4, 2020, https://index.hu/english/2020/03/30/hungary_coronavirus_act_parliament_viktor_orban_fidesz_sweeping_powers_indefinite_term/

[5] “2020. Évi XII. Törvény a Koronavírus Elleni Védekezésről,” Magyar Közlöny, March 30, 2020, http://www.magyarkozlony.hu.

[6] “Hungary Election Gives Orban Big Majority, and Control of Constitution – The New York Times,” accessed April 4, 2020, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/08/world/europe/hungary-election-viktor-orban.html.

[7] Philipp Carlsson-Szlezak, Martin Reeves, and Paul Swartz, “Understanding the Economic Shock of Coronavirus,” Harvard Business Review, March 27, 2020, https://hbr.org/2020/03/understanding-the-economic-shock-of-coronavirus.

[8] “Török Gábor: Előrehozott választások felé viheti a kabinet az országot | Mandiner,” mandiner.hu, accessed April 5, 2020, https://mandiner.hu/cikk/20200326_torok_gabor_elorehozott_valasztasok_fele_viheti_a_kabinet_aorszagot.

[9] Sarantis Michalopoulos, “Centre-Right Leaders Ask Tusk to Expel Orban’s Fidesz from EPP,” http://Www.Euractiv.Com (blog), April 2, 2020, https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/news/centre-right-leaders-ask-tusk-to-expel-orbans-fidesz-from-epp/.

[10] “Fidesz: ‘We Are EPP’s Most Successful Member Party and We Oppose Migration,’” Hungary Today (blog), May 27, 2019, https://hungarytoday.hu/fidesz-ep-election-epp-migration/.

[11] Alice Cuddy, “European Parliament Votes to Trigger Article 7 Sanctions Procedure against Hungary,” euronews, September 12, 2018, https://www.euronews.com/2018/09/12/european-parliament-votes-to-trigger-Article-7-sanctions-procedure-against-hungary.

[12] “Von Der Leyen ‘concerned’ over Hungary Virus Emergency Law,” http://Www.Euractiv.Com (blog), April 3, 2020, https://www.euractiv.com/section/justice-home-affairs/news/von-der-leyen-concerned-over-hungary-virus-emergency-law/.

[13] “Hungarian Press Roundup: Article 7 Procedure against Hungary,” Hungary Today (blog), September 19, 2019, https://hungarytoday.hu/hungarian-press-article-7-rule-law/.

Bibliography:

“2020. Évi XII. Törvény a Koronavírus Elleni Védekezésről.” Magyar Közlöny, March 30, 2020. http://www.magyarkozlony.hu.

“Act No. CXXVIII of 2011 Concerning Disaster Management and Amending Certain Related Acts.” Accessed April 4, 2020. https://www.ecolex.org/details/legislation/act-no-cxxviii-of-2011-concerning-disaster-management-and-amending-certain-related-acts-lex-faoc129205/.

Arató Gergely, Móring József Attila, and Tordai Bence. “Országgyűlési Napló, Kövér László, Jakab István, Dr. Latorcai János És Lezsák Sándor Elnöklete Alatt, 2018-2022. Országgyűlési Ciklus, Budapest, 2020. Március 30. Hétfő 115. Szám,” March 30, 2020. https://www.parlament.hu/documents/10181/1569934/ny200330_.pdf/1645e5f4-1225-c261-e3f9-5d62280faf7d?t=1585888197151.

Carlsson-Szlezak, Philipp, Martin Reeves, and Paul Swartz. “Understanding the Economic Shock of Coronavirus.” Harvard Business Review, March 27, 2020. https://hbr.org/2020/03/understanding-the-economic-shock-of-coronavirus.

Cuddy, Alice. “European Parliament Votes to Trigger Article 7 Sanctions Procedure against Hungary.” euronews, September 12, 2018. https://www.euronews.com/2018/09/12/european-parliament-votes-to-trigger-article-7-sanctions-procedure-against-hungary.

Hungary Today. “Fidesz: ‘We Are EPP’s Most Successful Member Party and We Oppose Migration,’” May 27, 2019. https://hungarytoday.hu/fidesz-ep-election-epp-migration/.

Hungary Today. “Hungarian Press Roundup: Article 7 Procedure against Hungary,” September 19, 2019. https://hungarytoday.hu/hungarian-press-article-7-rule-law/.

“Hungary Election Gives Orban Big Majority, and Control of Constitution – The New York Times.” Accessed April 4, 2020. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/08/world/europe/hungary-election-viktor-orban.html.

“Index – In English – Hungarian Coronavirus Act Passes, Granting Viktor Orbán Unprecedented Emergency Powers.” Accessed April 4, 2020. https://index.hu/english/2020/03/30/hungary_coronavirus_act_parliament_viktor_orban_fidesz_sweeping_powers_indefinite_term/.

Michalopoulos, Sarantis. “Centre-Right Leaders Ask Tusk to Expel Orban’s Fidesz from EPP.” Www.Euractiv.Com (blog), April 2, 2020. https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/news/centre-right-leaders-ask-tusk-to-expel-orbans-fidesz-from-epp/.

“The Fundamental Law of Hungary (25 April 2011).” Ministry of Justice, 2017. https://www.kormany.hu/download/f/3e/61000/TheFundamentalLawofHungary_20180629_FIN.pdf.

mandiner.hu. “Török Gábor: Előrehozott választások felé viheti a kabinet az országot | Mandiner.” Accessed April 5, 2020. https://mandiner.hu/cikk/20200326_torok_gabor_elorehozott_valasztasok_fele_viheti_a_kabinet_az_orszagot.

http://www.euractiv.com. “Von Der Leyen ‘concerned’ over Hungary Virus Emergency Law,” April 3, 2020. https://www.euractiv.com/section/justice-home-affairs/news/von-der-leyen-concerned-over-hungary-virus-emergency-law/.

Covid-19: how will Europe get back up?

By Hannah Bieber

Disclaimer: this article was written on March 18th, 2020. Due to the instability of the situation, some of the information it contains might be subject to changes.

A lot of people were expecting it, and it finally happened: the world we live in has been challenged. Not the way we imagined it, not in the circumstances we expected, but it did. Europe is now facing one of its major crises since the day the European Union was created. And all the flaws that we knew that existed blew up in our faces. The demography of an old continent getting older and older, the weariness of our welfare states system, the instability of our financial organizations, the limits of a space without borders and the emergence of nationalism have now all been crystalized by a microscopic organism.

The recent Covid-19 outbreak and confinement measures will give us plenty of time to reflect on the consequences it will have on our societies, especially in Europe. Indeed, this virus is almost harmless for the majority of the population, but can be very harmful for the elderly, for instance. In 2016, one EU citizen out of five was over the age of 65. This is why the virus poses Europe an immense challenge today. But what about tomorrow? What will be the consequences of this crisis for the EU?

First of all, in my point of view, the way the virus spread will inevitably lead to the questioning of border control and the Schengen Area. While the free circulation of people is protected by the Treaty of Maastricht (1992), this crisis has led some member states to close their borders unilaterally. Moreover, on March 16th, the EU decided to close its external borders in order to prevent infected third country nationals from entering the old continent. When the crisis is over, populist parties will probably push even harder to reestablish border control or exit the Schengen Area. One can easily imagine far-right parties using this new fear of epidemics in order to convince people that this is now a necessity.

Besides, the financial system of the EU will have to be rethought. The instability of our capitalist economy has been brought to light in the harshest of ways. When the crisis hit China, the stock markets started panicking, but when it reached Europe, they went down. The financial crisis intertwined with a very complicated economic situation. In many European countries like Italy, Spain, France or Poland, stores and shops that are not considered necessary were closed in order to keep people home. Thus, the State has been responsible for helping the firms and workers who were asked to cease their activities. To cover the losses and ensure the safety of their people, the states will have to implement new economic strategies during and after this period. For instance, Peter Altmaier, the German Minister for Economic Affairs and Energy, mentioned the possibility of temporarily nationalizing some firms. After the outbreak, the EU will have to rethink its financial and economic rules and objectives because we will probably face a period of recession.

This goes hand in hand with the reorganization of our health systems. What this crisis revealed, above all else, is the fact that we cannot keep cutting corners into our health budgets. Scientists and activists had been warning that such outbreaks would happen in the coming years due to climate change. This crisis interrogates the model of welfare states that still want to remain competitive in a globalized economy – because they do not really have a choice. Ensuring people’s health and making sure that there are enough doctors, nurses and that the facilities are well equipped is a vital element that many states seem to have been forgetting.

In France, for example, although no one could have predicted the outbreak, hospitals had been on strike and protesting for months, asking for more beds to be available, for more staff, and for the improvement of their facilities and working conditions, but had barely been heard by the government. And France will probably take a heavy toll because this call for help was taken too lightly. This crisis has shown that our states must not treat the health sector like any other economic activity and ask hospitals to be more efficient with less tools and staff.

The Covid-19 will also raise questions about the future of our democracies. After the start of the outbreak, some have applauded the way China handled the crisis. Indeed, it succeeded in controlling the problem, and the country slowly comes back to life, after two months of quarantine. But this situation was also handled thanks to Xi Jinping’s iron fist and the surveillance means available in Beijing. In a democracy, it is harder to control people. As a proof: EU citizens did not stop living because of the virus. They kept on going out and acted carelessly – sometimes recklessly. By making the choice of democracy, Europe also gave its citizens the right to do what they wanted. And in this case, in some countries, a lot of people decided to care more about themselves than their community.

This pushed some EU governments to close most venues where people gather and interact, because EU citizens failed to implement the social distancing preconized by scientists. In Italy, Spain and France, the State had to impose harsh confinement measures, which violate fundamental individual liberties, such as the right to gather or the right to move freely. But these measures were taken after people did not change their behavior to contain the virus. This raises an interesting philosophical debate over people’s liberty. Where does our liberty start and where does it have to stop? Did we reach a point where people have too much liberty? This is something that we will need to reflect about.

This also boils down to the question of social media, and media in general. The fact that we are constantly exposed to a somewhat overwhelming flow of information has worsened our feeling of being powerless and anxiety. It has also contributed to the misinformation of people, and ultimately could explain why they behaved in a careless way, sometimes. When the outbreak started in China, the Covid-19 was a ‘mystery pneumonia’. Then, the media depicted it as a bad flu, which could cause complications for most vulnerable people. The French government’s spokeswoman herself assured on live public radio that it was not a lot more dangerous than the flu itself. In this context, one may understand why Europeans did not take the illness seriously. How could they?

This situation even led the European Commission chief to acknowledge that EU leaders ‘underestimated’ the virus. On top of all the contradictory information came the infamous fake news that helped to create an atmosphere of defiance towards authorities at some occasions, with conspiracy theories, or fear at others. Despite their pledge to tackle misinformation, the social media – or people in general – have utterly failed to do so. Could the EU do more to help to control this kind of content in the future? On the other hand, more control over social media content could also lead to abuses from some governments. How will the EU tackle the issue of fake news all the while preserving people’s freedom of speech in the future?

Last but not least, this crisis will try the EU’s unity. All the elements cited above could compromise the future of the Union. Besides, this crisis revealed that, while nations came together – as we saw with the balcony gatherings to applaud hospital staff in Spain, for instance – to face the crisis, they acted as individual states. Few decisions have been taken at the EU level to handle the outbreak and some people have wondered ‘where is the EU, now?’ The crisis is not over yet, and the union will maybe react, but this critical moment has shown that nationalism prevailed over it in such a situation. Even if people have shown their support to their EU citizens counterparts – and this has been all the more true in the context of the Euroculture Master – they seem to care about themselves first, their country second and sometimes their fellow EU citizens third. However, now that ‘Europe has become the new epicenter of the pandemic’, it will maybe come together to face this new challenge. Only the future will tell if it will emerge stronger or more divided than ever from this crisis.

All in one, the Covid-19 outbreak will leave the EU with a lot of challenges, on top of the ones that it was facing before the illness reached our shores. But Europe will get back up. It has been through worse and has still managed to rise from its ashes. Some argue that this crisis will start the beginning of its end. But what if it marks a new beginning? This is the opportunity for the EU to show that solidarity and mutual care are at the core of its existence, rather than financial or economic concerns. Let’s hope that it will learn from its mistakes and grow stronger, so that history doesn’t repeat itself.

Picture: Sean MacEntee, Flickr

Is this really the end of the Erasmus Programme in the United Kingdom?

By Gianluca Michieletto

It has been almost five years since my first taste of Erasmus experience in Brighton, United Kingdom. It was a crisp mid-September morning when I flew from “my” Venice to London Gatwick with one of the many flights that connect the two European cities. I was very excited and scared at the same time, trying to imagine how my life would change from that point on. The year in Brighton did not represent my first study-abroad experience, since I had already enjoyed several short language courses in Northern Ireland and England. However, this represented the first long-term experience away from my family and my country, and, for an average Italian youngster, it is never easy to leave your “mamma” and move abroad (I am sure that my Italian fellow students would agree with me on this). Yet, I could have never imagined that Erasmus changed myself and my life so much in such a positive way.

Even though it was only five years ago (2015), things have drastically changed: I was a degreeless 18-year-old boy, my English and life skills were the opposite of flawless, and Brexit had not happened yet. 

On January 9th, 2020, British MPs voted against the possibility of the United Kingdom to continue benefiting a full membership of the Erasmus programme after Brexit (344 to 254 votes). Proposed by the opposition, the “New Clause 10” would have in fact assured the participation of the United Kingdom also for the cycle 2021-2027.

Even though the government has denied the possibility to fully abandon the programme, the decision represents a crystal-clear stance against the EU. As reported by the Italian newspaper La Repubblica, in fact, different conservative MPs have argued that the decision was taken in order “not to have their hands tied in the next negotiates with the EU”.[1] For the moment, the government and the European Union claimed that funds for the upcoming year are secured and will be honoured, as well as the two-year scholarships. After the transition period, however, it is still not clear what is going to happen.

Yet, the United Kingdom would not represent the first country outside the Union to benefit of the Erasmus programme, since countries like Norway, Turkey and Iceland are called “programme members”’ and fully participate in the programme.[2] It must be mentioned, however, that the new British government’s plan aims at cutting all the old relationships with the EU, trying to maintain only economic ties. This currently leaves the UK with only one option: leaving the Erasmus+ Programme. Moreover, as the BBC reported, even though the United Kingdom wanted to renegotiate the terms and re-enter the Erasmus programme, it would not happen until the beginning of the next cycle,[3] meaning 2027.

Thus, there is a not-so-remote possibility that British universities would not benefit from the programme for almost a decade, consequently denying several thousands of students the possibility to enjoy this huge opportunity. At the same time, also students from other EU member states would have more difficulties applying to British universities compared to their previous “colleagues”, since the Prime Minister Boris Johnson will probably not be soft on immigration policies. Moreover, in the case of a “no-deal”, British universities would lose their appeal in the European university market, since European students would be forced to pay higher tuition fees. Indeed, the current agreement between the EU and Westminster “safeguards” member states’ students with a privileged status, thus paying the same tuition fees as British citizens.

On this line, at the beginning of 2019, the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) claimed that EU students have been extremely important in British universities, accounting 5% and 8% respectively at the undergraduate and postgraduate level in 2017.[4] In the same year, moreover, it must be argued that 16.561 UK students enjoyed their semester or year abroad through Erasmus funds, while 31.727 students from other European countries studied in British universities.[5] Since then, the number of incoming and outgoing students have continuously increased.

The decision of the United Kingdom of not renewing the Erasmus+ agreements would deprive students of the possibility to live in another country, to integrate in another culture, to learn a new language, as well as meeting new people and experiencing unforgettable adventures. As the majority of Erasmus students argue, in fact, the Erasmus year represents the best year of their lives and a non-renewal would symbolize only a theft to future generations. Once again, as it occurred in the Brexit election, it is older generations, who never experienced such an opportunity, to decide for our (I also include myself) future.[6]

As already mentioned in the introduction, I consider my Erasmus year in Brighton one of the most important experiences of my life, since it somehow matured me and shaped who I am today. Erasmus is in fact not only responsible for the development of peculiar abilities needed in the university and work environment, but it is essential in the growth of personal skills and values. Indeed, what I did not tell you in the beginning is that the Erasmus experience enlightened my path of life. Some people could argue that it represents a stupid and naive sentence to say, but I am who I am today thanks to Erasmus and all its related experiences.

After my year abroad, in fact, my unconditional support for the European Union, its values and its possibilities, made me understand what I wanted to do after finishing my bachelor’s degree. In 2018, I was lucky enough to enrol in the Euroculture Programme, an Erasmus Mundus Master which focuses on European politics, culture and history. For those who may not know, Erasmus Mundus Masters are EU funded programmes, which give students the possibility to earn a double degree by studying in different countries. As for myself, I studied in Göttingen (Germany), Bilbao (Spain) and Indianapolis (USA).

After explaining my story and my points of view, I feel in the position to state that a possible agreement of the UK to leave the Erasmus Programme could only be considered catastrophic. Catastrophic, not as much for the United Kingdom and the European Union as political entities, but to their future students, who could not benefit from similar opportunities. However, while member states’ future students would continue to benefit from the programme by choosing other university destinations, British students would have fewer opportunities to study abroad, thus being sealed inside their own bubble.

Picture: Dunk, Banksy does Brexit (detail), Flickr

Sources:

Statista Research Department, “Brexit votes in the United Kingdom by age”, Statista, August 9, 2019. Available at: https://www.statista.com/statistics/520954/brexit-votes-by-age/

Bieber, Hannah. “Brexit and the generation that was robbed”, The Euroculturer, October 13, 2019. Available at: https://euroculturer.eu/2019/10/13/brexit-and-the-generation-that-was-robbed/

Cosslett, Rhiannon Lucy. “Thanks to Erasmus programme, my small world grew big”, The Guardian, January 9, 2020. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jan/09/erasmus-programme-year-studying-europe

Adams, Richard. “UK ‘committed’ to maintaining Erasmus+ exchange scheme”, The Guardian, January 9, 2020. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jan/09/uk-committed-to-maintaining-erasmus-exchange-scheme

Tommasetta, Lara.”Brexit, il Regno Unito vota per abbandonare il programma Erasmus. Ma è davvero un addio?”, TPI News, January 9, 2020. Available at: https://www.tpi.it/esteri/brexit-regno-unito-addio-erasmus-20200109525875/

Guerrera, Antonello. “Brexit, Londra non conferma l’Erasmus: Eventuale accordo andrà rinegoziato”, La Repubblica, 9th January 2020. Available at: https://www.repubblica.it/esteri/2020/01/09/news/brexit_il_regno_unito_dice_addio_all_erasmus-245321403/

Reality Check Team, “Erasmus: What could happen to scheme after Brexit”, BBC News, 9th January 2020. Available at: https://www.bbc.com/news/education-47293927

To have more information, look also at: https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/erasmus-plus/about/brexit_en

[1] Antonello Guerrera, “Brexit, Londra non conferma l’Erasmus: Eventuale accordo andrà rinegoziato”, La Repubblica, January 9,2020

[2] Reality Check Team, “Erasmus: What could happen to scheme after Brexit”, BBC News, January 9, 2020

[3] Ibid.

[4] Hannah Bieber, “Brexit and the generation that was robbed”, The Euroculturer, October 13, 2019

[5] Ibid.

[6] Statista Research Department, “Brexit votes in the United Kingdom by age”, Statista, August 9, 2019

The ignored revolution: The Dutch referendum crisis

Arne van Lienden

“The democratic revolution has begun”, proclaimed politician Thierry Baudet after the April 2016 Dutch referendum on the EU’s Association Agreement with Ukraine met the minimum threshold of votes and showed a decisive ‘no’ to the agreement. But so far, the referendum has not set off a revolution. In fact, until now the Dutch government has constantly delayed or deferred from acting upon the outcome of the referendum. This reluctance to respect the referendum result has grave implications for the legitimacy of governance and will only spark a further rise of populism in the Dutch political arena. The government needs to act, or the parliamentary elections in 2017 could see a landslide win for populist parties.

The response of the Dutch government to the outcome of the referendum has been characterized by deferral and inaction. The referendum on the Association Agreement with Ukraine differs in one great aspect from the other referenda we have seen in Europe this year. Unlike the Brexit referendum in the UK and the refugee referendum in Hungary, the Dutch referendum was a bottom-up initiative and was neither initiated nor wanted by the Dutch government. The government never took the referendum seriously and was not willing or capable of effectively campaigning for a Yes vote for the Association Agreement. Hence, after the result was announced it took the government by surprise. This can be seen in the reluctance of the government to act upon the outcome. Continue reading “The ignored revolution: The Dutch referendum crisis”