Brexit: Now What? Part IV

[Amazer]

Considering Reykjavik was a winner before Iceland was in the EU and that Bergen, Stravanger and Istanbul have had the tile, but have never been in the EU, this decision is a poor one.

The EU runs the competition, but it is the European capital, not the EU capital of culture.

It's not a poor decision... it's a decision in accordance with the rules. Memberstates, candidate, potential candidate or EFTA/EEA countries can be considered for the title of European Capital of Culture.

Since the UK has made it clear that it desires to leave the EU, is currently not considering EFTA or EEA as an option, means that only the 'potential candidate' condition might be applicable. That would however be a rather strange application.

I don't see how any other decision than excluding the UK cities from the competition makes any sense at this point in time.

 

[GnaGnaMan]

Considering Reykjavik was a winner before Iceland was in the EU and that Bergen, Stravanger and Istanbul have had the tile, but have never been in the EU, this decision is a poor one.

Iceland is not in the EU, never been.
These three countries are closely associated with the EU, two of them being members of EFTA and one being in a customs union. They are far closer to the EU than the UK will be in 2023.

To get right down to it, this is one of the things that EU contributions pay for. The UK does not want to pay for these things so it does not get them.

The EU runs the competition, but it is the European capital, not the EU capital of culture.

Yes, that's the talking point. You repeated that quite well.

I don't think it is a childish attempt to get a freebie via semantics. Anyone with enough brain cells to come up with that slogan knows it won't work.
I think it's just how part of the media rolls; create phony outrage to sell more papers.

 

[Nessie]

It's not a poor decision... it's a decision in accordance with the rules. Memberstates, candidate, potential candidate or EFTA/EEA countries can be considered for the title of European Capital of Culture.

Since the UK has made it clear that it desires to leave the EU, is currently not considering EFTA or EEA as an option, means that only the 'potential candidate' condition might be applicable. That would however be a rather strange application.

I don't see how any other decision than excluding the UK cities from the competition makes any sense at this point in time.

Those rules were introduced in September of 2017;

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32017D1545

The decision has introduced new rules specifically to exclude the UK. Previously non EU members were being welcomed.

I am not surprised by the decision, I do think it is a sad addition to the division that the UK started.

 

[Craig B]

<gunnut>Only 120-200 rounds per rifle?! Not enough for Freedom™!!! No enough for fun!!!</gunnut>

It's ironic, though, that Imperial Germany was supplying the Loyalists in 1914, then the Republicans two years later.

I don't see anything ironic about that. Supplying both sides in hostilities distracting to an enemy makes much sense. The nationalist gun running was greeted with a more severe response by the U.K. Authorities, than they exhibited in Ulster. In any case, the purchaser in the Howth gun-running^WP deceived the German authorities as to their destination.

 

[Nessie]

Iceland is not in the EU, never been.
......

I had not realised the application had been withdrawn. I had just remembered it applying and just assumed it had joined.

I hope the UK decides to withdraw its request to leave......

 

[ceptimus]

Considering Reykjavik was a winner before Iceland was in the EU and that Bergen, Stravanger and Istanbul have had the tile, but have never been in the EU, this decision is a poor one.

The EU runs the competition, but it is the European capital, not the EU capital of culture.

The Wikipedia page doesn't list Istanbul or Stravanger. Bergen and Reykjavik each only got a one-ninth share of the title in 2000 which was a special year with the title shared between nine cities with two of those cities in countries that were not due to join until 2004.

It's the EU's title to award so, in my opinion, it's fair enough that they make the rules. They could perhaps change the name to the EU Capital of Culture as I suggested in a previous post - but I'm not really bothered whether they do or not.

It seems like the title is awarded by Buggins' turn - hardly surprising for something administered by the EU.

 

[Information Analyst]

I don't see anything ironic about that. Supplying both sides in hostilities distracting to an enemy makes much sense. The nationalist gun running was greeted with a more severe response by the U.K. Authorities, than they exhibited in Ulster. In any case, the purchaser in the Howth gun-running^WP deceived the German authorities as to their destination.

I said "two years later [than 1914]," therefore was referring to arms delivery linked to the Easter Rising. Howth was a sideshow in comparison.

 

[GnaGnaMan]

Those rules were introduced in September of 2017;

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32017D1545

The decision has introduced new rules specifically to exclude the UK. Previously non EU members were being welcomed.

Out of curiosity: Where do you get that information from?

 

[Craig B]

I said "two years later [than 1914]," therefore was referring to arms delivery linked to the Easter Rising. Howth was a sideshow in comparison.

Yes the Germans were of course willing to arm both sides in a potential civil war in one of the Uk's component countries. Nothing ironic about that.

In the event, the 1916 delivery didn't make it to Dublin

The Aud and the U-19 reached the coast of Kerry on Good Friday, 21 April. This was earlier than the Volunteers expected and so none were there to meet the vessels. The Royal Navy had known about the arms shipment and intercepted the Aud, prompting the captain to scuttle the ship.​

On the other hand the 1914 rifles were put to use, obsolete that they were.

They were armed mostly with rifles (especially 1871 Mausers) ...​

The article in the Howth affair states of these weapons:

To buy these guns, Erskine Childers – who drafted the contract – told the German arms dealers that the rifles were destined for Mexico. The guns, dating from the Franco-Prussian War of 1870–71 were still functioning. They were later used in the attack on the GPO in the Easter Rising of 1916.​

ETA See also https://kieranmcmullen.com/2011/11/01/weapons-of-the-irish-rebels-and-the-british/

 

[Amazer]

Those rules were introduced in September of 2017;

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32017D1545

The decision has introduced new rules specifically to exclude the UK. Previously non EU members were being welcomed.

I am not surprised by the decision, I do think it is a sad addition to the division that the UK started.

Perhaps I'm reading it incorrect but article 3, paragraph 2 of
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32014D0445&from=EN

which reads:

The title shall be awarded each year to a maximum of one city in each of the two Member States appearing in the calendar set out in the Annex (‘the calendar’) and, in the relevant years, to one city from a candidate country or a potential candidate, or to one city from a country that accedes to the Union in the circumstances set out in paragraph 5.

These are the rules from 2014, well before the Brexit vote. Thus I don't think it's fair to say that in 2017 the rules were amended to specifically exclude the UK. Because under those 2014 rules the UK also wouldn't be eligible.

 

[fagin]

I think we've got bigger problems than who gets the bloody cultural capital.

 

[Garrison]

I think we've got bigger problems than who gets the bloody cultural capital.

Oh absolutely, it's just a very small example of the UK losing out because of Brexit, we've lost the EBA and the EMA as well. The cost of Brexit keeps going up with not one benefit to be seen.

 

[Nessie]

Perhaps I'm reading it incorrect but article 3, paragraph 2 of
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32014D0445&from=EN

which reads:



These are the rules from 2014, well before the Brexit vote. Thus I don't think it's fair to say that in 2017 the rules were amended to specifically exclude the UK. Because under those 2014 rules the UK also wouldn't be eligible.

The issue is that rather than trying to keep the UK involved, it is being told it cannot take part, which is costing some cities, such as Leeds, a good deal of money. Dundee had not spent much money, but a lot of volunteer time has been to nothing (based on a Radio 2 interview a couple of days ago).

I personally have no issue with the decision. It's fairness is questionable, but hey, we started this mess.

I think anything organised by the EU, we should now assume we will have no part to play and all ongoing projects/participation should be stopped.

 

[Nessie]

Oh absolutely, it's just a very small example of the UK losing out because of Brexit, we've lost the EBA and the EMA as well. The cost of Brexit keeps going up with not one benefit to be seen.

Those who voted for Brexit only ever seemed to interested in more sovereignty, fewer immigrants and no more bills to the EU which could be spent on the NHS instead (allegedly).

IME, ask someone about customs unions, scientific cooperation, policing etc and they had no idea and incredibly they thought it OK to not know. Nigel just told them if would be fine and they accepted it

 

[Amazer]

The issue is that rather than trying to keep the UK involved, it is being told it cannot take part, which is costing some cities, such as Leeds, a good deal of money. Dundee had not spent much money, but a lot of volunteer time has been to nothing (based on a Radio 2 interview a couple of days ago).

I've heard it mentioned (but didn't see the article myself) that these cities were warned before they put in their nominations that there could be issues if the Brexit vote turned out the way it did. I'll see if I can find that article they were refering to in that discussion.

And while it is unfortunate that the UK is now being excluded from these things, it's not unexpected given that Brexit isn't going to be reversed.

I personally have no issue with the decision. It's fairness is questionable, but hey, we started this mess.

It's only questionable if you want the EU to disregard the rules which are in place with regard to eligibility for being considered. Rules that were in place, and agreed to by the UK, well before the Brexit vote.

I think anything organised by the EU, we should now assume we will have no part to play and all ongoing projects/participation should be stopped.

That would probably be smart, especially for projects/participation that extends well after the Brexit date in 2019.

 

[GnaGnaMan]

The issue is that rather than trying to keep the UK involved, it is being told it cannot take part, which is costing some cities, such as Leeds, a good deal of money. Dundee had not spent much money, but a lot of volunteer time has been to nothing (based on a Radio 2 interview a couple of days ago).

I personally have no issue with the decision. It's fairness is questionable, but hey, we started this mess.

Why do you think it's unfair? Where does this sense of entitlement come from?
I am still interested in what lead you to claim that "[t]he decision has introduced new rules specifically to exclude the UK." I am assuming it was an error in good faith. What caused you to make it?

I think anything organised by the EU, we should now assume we will have no part to play and all ongoing projects/participation should be stopped.

The Uk is leaving the EU! You should have assumed that ever since your government made that decision! What did you think that decision meant?!

 

[Nessie]

The Radio 2 article had two people from some of the cities in question who made it clear they had been allowed to submit bids, which went in before Brexit and they had had no warning they could be excluded until it actually happened. When asked why they did not check, the unfortunate answer was they had, but with the UK branch of the City of Culture organisation, not Brussels.

 

[GnaGnaMan]

The Radio 2 article had two people from some of the cities in question who made it clear they had been allowed to submit bids, which went in before Brexit and they had had no warning they could be excluded until it actually happened. When asked why they did not check, the unfortunate answer was they had, but with the UK branch of the City of Culture organisation, not Brussels.

Yes, one could make all sorts of unfavorable but false conclusion about the EU, based on the reporting in the UK. Something to think about.

Regarding the decision to go ahead with the bid:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...-concerns-as-government-considers-abandoning/


The capital of culture project has been going on since 1985. Have there been - in all that time - any complaints about never awarding the title to Ukrainian, Russian, etc... cities? Any lobbying by the UK to change the name to EU capital of culture?

 

[Nessie]

Why do you think it's unfair? Where does this sense of entitlement come from?
I am still interested in what lead you to claim that "[t]he decision has introduced new rules specifically to exclude the UK." I am assuming it was an error in good faith. What caused you to make it?


The Uk is leaving the EU! You should have assumed that ever since your government made that decision! What did you think that decision meant?!

I think more sad than unfair that cities who had been in the running are now excluded. Any unfairness is down to other non EU cities have been able to enter and get the title. It would have been better for future relations to allow those now British non EU cities to stay in the competition.

I don't think the UK is entitled to anything, we pulled the plug on the relationship.

My reading of this

https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/creative-europe/actions/capitals-culture_en

"This new framework, as amended by a recent Decision of the European Parliament and the Council, makes it possible for a city in a candidate country, in a potential candidate for EU membership or in a European Free Trade Association country which is party to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (so-called EFTA/EEA countries) to hold the title every third year."

and its link to

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32017D1545

lead me to believe that a rule had been recently introduced, which was wrong. However, there must be some rule introduction somewhere, as I can find nothing to show leaving the EU means any city which had entered is now excluded.

I was not the one making assumptions, why are you making this so personal? When I first heard the news, my reaction was that it was not surprising at all, we have to assume we are leaving everything to do with the EU, no exceptions.

 

[Nessie]

Yes, one could make all sorts of unfavorable but false conclusion about the EU, based on the reporting in the UK. Something to think about.

Again, why are you makign this personal? I am well aware of the false news about the EU. I studied the EU, as it was then, in the mid 1980s at universty. Boring as heck, but it meant I was far more aware than most of its numerous parts. I spent a lot of time arguing; do we really want to leave...and would then list all the various institutions. I was well aware leaving the EU did not mean regaining control of our borders and the claims about saving money to go the NHS was highly dubious.

Regarding the decision to go ahead with the bid:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...-concerns-as-government-considers-abandoning/


The capital of culture project has been going on since 1985. Have there been - in all that time - any complaints about never awarding the title to Ukrainian, Russian, etc... cities? Any lobbying by the UK to change the name to EU capital of culture?

No. The issue here is that sadly, UK cities have now been excluded, which is the first time any city has been allowed to enter and has then been excluded.