by Barend ter Haar. Clingendael Institute.  As part of an OSCE-wide project we interviewed representatives of almost all Dutch ministries and advisory councils in order to learn how they perceive the main threats and challenges for the Netherlands, now and in the coming 10 to 20 years. The results will be published by Clingendael[1]. Last summer a conference organised by the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) led to the foundation of an OSCE wide Network of Think Tanks and Academic Institutions. This network decided to make a study of threat perceptions in the OSCE area to provide a more solid background for current and future debates within the OSCE. The first phase of this project, undertaken by twenty think tanks in OSCE countries,  is a quick scan of the threat perceptions of relevant state actors in these countries. The outcome of the 24 interviews that we conducted in the Netherlands is that most of the perceived threats and challenges fall in two broad categories: (1) the adverse consequences of technological development and economic growth and (2) the lack of adequate responsiveness of governments and public to these adverse consequences. Growing inequality was on top of many lists, referring to a widening gap between highly educated, healthy and wealthy citizens that benefit from globalization and less educated citizens who feel victimized by globalization. The inequality is illustrated by the fact that the highest educated segment of Dutch society can on average expect twenty more years of healthy life than the lowest educated segment. Most respondents felt that the direct impact of climate change and loss of biodiversity on the Netherlands and Europe will probably remain manageable, but that they might lead to disasters and instability in other parts of the world. International cooperation in a time of geopolitical change requires great skills of all parties involved anyway, but the combination with climate change, scarcities and failing states will make this challenge even greater. Many felt that the vulnerability of our ICT infrastructure is underestimated. If managed wisely at local, national, regional and global level, growing scarcities of water and raw materials do not have to lead to armed conflict and disaster, but our interlocutors were more optimistic about finding technical solutions for these scarcities than about the political handling of these problems. Many of our respondents pointed at the difficulty governments have to react adequately to new threats, either overreacting, as in the case of terrorism, or postponing necessary changes of policy year after year. This shortsightedness might be provoked by the capriciousness of voters, but threatens to undermine the trustworthiness and legitimacy of governments.

By Mitesh D. Mistry, Diplomat Magazine’s Associate Editor in London, UK. David Cameron, the British Prime Minister, has promised to give the British people a referendum on our membership to the European Union – giving he wins the next General Election in 2015. Despite some in the Conservative Party pushing for Britain to head towards the EU exit, David Cameron is still determined the see that Britain remains in the EU but with a negotiated membership; whilst also seeking the modernisation of the EU. The Chancellor George Osborne even stated “In order that we can remain in the European Union, the EU must change.” This rhetoric simply shows Britain is prepared to abandon the economic and political union. Debating Britain’s membership to the EU has divided parties in the political spectrum in Britain. Ed Miliband, Leader of the Labour Party, claimed that “this Government’s threat to leave the EU is nothing more than a hopeless negotiating strategy.” In simpler terms, Ed Miliband believes the rhetoric of Cameron and Osborne is pointless and defeating the object.  Although he agrees that there are particular areas the EU must be flexible on, Miliband stands firm in believing that threatening to walk away from the negotiation table will not give Britain the upper hand and will leave us in a position to need and want. This issue has not only divided political parties, it has divided society. Opinion polls suggest that over half of Britons would prefer for the UK to terminate our membership. When we look further into this Euro-scepticism, it is perfectly understandable for a host of reasons. Our membership can be perceived in three different ways: a threat, a necessity or an opportunity for member states. Unlike most EU countries, the majority of the British population now view it as a threat to society, due to the perils of EU law which allows mass migration to the UK. The British are against large waves of migration from the EU because now it is putting a noticeable strain on the welfare state than ever before; and with Romanian and Bulgarian ‘free movement’ restrictions being lifted from January 1st 2014, it will bring hundreds of thousands more to the UK and place an even bigger strain on the welfare state. What is happening now happened in 2004 when ‘free movement’ restrictions were lifted for A8 countries and resulted in 264,560 Poles arriving in the UK within two years – seeking housing (benefits), child benefits, British jobs and medicine. This strain led to the rapid increase in the UK’s public expenditure and as a result, the Government decreased its budgets for various sectors including education, healthcare and armed forces – all which play a vital role in British society. According to the UK Polling Report (2012), 46% of the British population would vote to leave the EU in a referendum (YouGov, 2013). Therefore it is no mystery as to why the British population’s attitudes have shifted towards Euro-scepticism and against further political integration; an increase in migrants has led to increased competition for places in educational institutions and for employment opportunities – with migrants offering cheaper labour; causing protest movements like British Jobs for British People, threats to British culture and more worryingly, increased pressure from the state to provide social housing with preference given to those less financially independent – creating a backlog consisting of British nationals who have been on the waiting list for a longer time period. The data from the Eurobarometer (2013) shows that trust for the EU Project has fallen from -13 to -49  in the UK (Gesis, 2013). This statistic demonstrates the populations opposition to the EU project and further integration. A solution to this problem would be for Britain to control European net-migration – but it cannot simply because the UK is bound by EU laws which promote free movement of European citizens and their family within the territory of member states. Thus highlighting another reason why British people are Euro-sceptic and against further integration; being that the British Government are restricted, by unelected Bureaucrats in Brussels, from being able to pass their own laws which would benefit the citizens it represents. Therefore it is clear that the British have ultimately turned against the EU because now it is driven by political ideology rather than financial management; where its prime function is to become  more powerful rather than more efficient. In the end, leaving the EU has its advantages, of providing opportunity for trade and a free market arena, and disadvantages as aforementioned. It is ultimately the British who will decide in 2015 if they want a British Government who will give an in-out referendum to the people or a British Government who will push to remain in the European setup but with a negotiated position. As a young, British political scientist, I personally believe Britain’s membership must be negotiated but remaining in the EU is pivotal to the longevity of British political and economic interests abroad.