European Union

Plenary sessions : European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker will discuss the challenges facing Europe on 9 September from 9.00 CET. It will be his first State of the European Union speech since Parliament elected him to the post following the EU elections in May 2014. It has been a testing time for Europe with lacklustre economic growth, high debt and unemployment levels and a serious refugee crisis. Find out what leading MEPs expect from the address and follow our live coverage on Wednesday.

Source : © European Union, 2015 - EP

When MEPs elected Jean-Claude Juncker as president of the European Commission on 15 July 2014, he vowed to focus on ten policy areas, from boosting Europe’s economy to fostering democratic change. Over a year later, Juncker returns to the European Parliament for his first State of the European Union address and MEPs will be eager to hear from him how much has been achieved and what still needs to be done. Find out the Juncker Commission's 10 priorities in our infographic.

Source : © European Union, 2015 - EP

DRAFT OPINION on preparing for the World Humanitarian Summit: Challenges and opportunities for humanitarian assistance
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Elena Valenciano

Source : © European Union, 2015 - EP

Ladies and gentlemen,  

Let me start by thanking my esteemed colleague in the Eurogroup and your Minister of Finance Hans Jörg Schelling for his kind invitation to visit beautiful Tyrol.

Since February the spotlight has been on Greece. I was not very happy about that. We spent many meetings before reaching an agreement on a new program. Greece is in many respects lagging behind the positive outlook for the Eurozone. Almost all countries are leaving the crisis behind. Eurozone-averages on growth, employment and deficits have all improved and continue to do so. Only a year ago the eurozone was considered a liability to the global economy, now it is one of the stronger regions internationally.  

Greece will require ownership and strong implementation of the program and of course political stability, which is key. Other former program countries have recovered strongly; Ireland even leads the growth-chart.

That's where we are now: Greece deserves attention, the rest of the eurozone is getting back on track.

Yet we cannot sit back and relax. The potential growth in the eurozone is not high enough, our capacity to adjust and compete is not good enough. In order to strengthen our monetary union economically and politically we need to restart the convergence-machine. 

That is why, in the report president Juncker, Draghi, Tusk, Schulz and myself wrote before the summer, we put much emphasis on realizing reforms to strengthen and create competitiveness of all of our countries and convergence within the Eurozone. 

We need convergence in a number of areas like labour markets, product markets and investment. But convergence can't be achieved automatically. It doesn't come easily. 

When the euro was launched, many politicians assumed that trailing member states would spontaneously catch up with higher-income economies.

And in fact, in the first years of the new millennium per capita GDP actually rose among the euro's early adopters with relatively weaker economies. 

As a consequence, the economy of the eurozone as a whole flourished, which in turn helped boost public support for monetary union. Unfortunately a lot of the growth was based on cheap credit. Credit used for consumption and investments in the wrong sectors of economy, in stead off improving the structural strength of the economy. We incurred debt to finance prosperity. So the rise turned out to be temporary.

When the global financial crisis struck, the catch-up process was rapidly reversed. Member states even started drifting further apart. Now it's time to restart the convergence process in order to strengthen the eurozone.  

It's no coincidence that per capita GDP development is expected to be above the eurozone average in countries without economic imbalances. Countries like the Baltic States and Slovakia. And countries that have implemented ambitious reform agendas, like Spain, Portugal, and Slovenia, have also followed an upward trajectory. However, more still needs to be done.  

It's a legitimate question whether the lack of convergence is a problem for the eurozone as a whole. Does the discrepancy in income levels put the monetary union in jeopardy? Can the eurozone survive despite diverging member states? Maybe it can. But it would be difficult to stop public support from unraveling either directly or indirectly because of increasing economic differences. Public support is the basis for our work on achieving sustainable growth and preserving the European social model. In the Eurogroup we are very aware that the EMU's existence is justified only as long as people are convinced it enables them to build a prosperous life. Without that support, the union has little in the way of foundations.   

There are of course other, more economic arguments for fostering convergence. Let me mention three I see as especially compelling.

Firstly, within the euro area business-cycle symmetry seems to be higher for countries with comparable income levels. This increases the effectiveness of monetary policy. Secondly, the policies that stimulate convergence in our union also strengthen the resilience of its member states to economic and financial shocks. And thirdly, our internal market makes it possible for the eurozone as a whole to benefit from a higher real income in individual member states.  

Although the argument for convergence is convincing, I'm aware there is also an aspect that's less appealing to member states. Eurozone countries cherish their individuality. We are used to doing things our own way. But we must realize that we can't be part of a union and at the same time approach economic policy as a purely domestic matter. Sustainable convergence will require more policy coordination. But there will still be plenty of room for the member states to make their own choices.  

Now let's take a look at Austria. Its strong economic performance in terms of GDP per capita over the last two decades certainly sets an example. Unemployment is relatively low and labour force participation is high. 

This country has been able to make full use of its less restrictive and less complex rules and regulations for its product markets. You've also increased your R&D expenditure to three per cent. That's well above the eurozone average. 

The question is how other parts of the eurozone can adopt the policy elements that have led to these successes. And you in turn might consider how Austria can learn from its fellow member states in order to boost its GDP further.  

The tax burden on labour is a good example of an area in which we have a lot to gain. As you know, the tax wedge in euro area member states is among the highest in the world. This reduces the incentive to find a job and to hire new staff. Shifting the tax burden away from labour will boost growth, external competitiveness and employment. We've discussed this issue in the Eurogroup and made countries aware of it. We've compared ourselves in this area and affirmed our commitment to reducing the tax wedge and making reforms.  

We're seeing the first results already. Let me give you some examples. Estonia has taken several measures across the board to reduce the tax wedge on labour. France and Italy have lowered the tax burden on labour for low-earning households. 

Spain has introduced a simpler tax system, including lower personal income tax rates. This summer the Belgian government announced a tax shift from labour to revenue sources that are less harmful to growth. In the Netherlands we're about to announce lower cost for both workers and employers. And last but not least, Austria is taking action as well. This government has presented a comprehensive tax reform that will reduce the entry rate for personal income tax. 

At the next Eurogroup meeting we will explore the scope for benchmarking the tax burden on labour, and we will closely follow the progress made.  

But the tax wedge is just one area we need to focus on. We should also address the broader issue of labour markets, opening up product markets and improving our investment climate. And more importantly, if we want to remain a strong and competitive partner for trade and investment, we simply cannot afford to be average. We need countries to commit to catching up with - or even exceeding - the eurozone's highest level.  

As mentioned, we've reiterated the importance of convergence for the EMU's smooth functioning in the Five Presidents' report.

Stepping up economic policy coordination in the eurozone requires political ownership. It should be a concerted effort, in which the member states wave the baton as much as the European Commission. I will promote these discussions in the Eurogroup to help identify the policy areas which are essential for real convergence.

We need to translate this into a common ambition by setting simple, measurable benchmarks that foster best practices and concrete timelines. And let me stress again that, for the eurozone, achieving the average is not ambitious enough.  

 

Ladies and gentlemen,

Time for me to conclude. After a period of crisis management the Eurozone has come out of the crisis in a strong way. The situation in Greece has not damaged the recovery path of any of the other countries. We have build a new fiscal policy, the ECB has done “whatever it takes”, we have realized in record-time a banking union which has made a successful start. Now we must deal with our structural issues. To become once again a leading economic region.

And the Eurogroup will play an active role in this. To quote conductor Claudio Abbado, who once said about the Vienna Philharmonic: 'I don't conduct them; I make music together with them.' And when the musicians play together in tune, the orchestra never ceases to amaze the world. 

The Eurozone must do the same.

Thank you.

 

http://tvnewsroom.consilium.europa.eu/uploads/council-images/thumbs/uploads/council-images/remote/http_7e18a1c646f5450b9d6d-a75424f262e53e74f9539145894f4378.r8.cf3.rackcdn.com/061b27ba-52f5-11e5-89b7-bc764e083742_298.73_thumb_169_1441365016_1441365015_129_97shar_c1.jpg

On 4 September 2015, EU Ministers of Foreign and European Affairs are addressing the Middle East peace process, the EU's Eastern Partnership and the Union's relations with Russia. On 5 September, the Ministers are joined by representatives of the candidate countries for EU accession to discuss migration and the challenges that the EU and the candidate countries must face in this area. Afterwards, the Ministers are discussing EU-Iranian relations following the agreement on Iran's nuclear programme.

Download this video here.

Place:             Justus Lipsius building, Brussels 
Chair(s):        Mr Fernand Etgen Luxembourg's Minister for Agriculture,
                        Viticulture and Consumer Protection

All times are approximate and subject to change 

+/- 14.30
Adoption of the agenda

+/- 14.45
Market developments

AOBs:
- Drought in Eastern Europe
- African swine fever

+/- 18.00
Press conference

http://tvnewsroom.consilium.europa.eu/uploads/council-images/thumbs/uploads/council-images/remote/http_7e18a1c646f5450b9d6d-a75424f262e53e74f9539145894f4378.r8.cf3.rackcdn.com/107_2011-94560_-_agri_-_animal_2_11.91_thumb_169_1441361149_1441361148_129_97shar_c1.jpg

EU Ministers of Agriculture and Fisheries meet in Brussels on 7 September 2015 to hold a debate on the state of play of agriculture markets in the EU with a special focus on the difficulties in the milk sector and the animal production. They are discussing in this regard the impact on the EU market of the import ban on EU agricultural products imposed by Russia.

Download this video here.

Following the financial crisis of 2007/2008 and initial attempts to stimulate the economy through increased government spending, austerity has become a dominant narrative in many developed nations. Government spending has been significantly reduced in a number of European countries, as part of efforts to reduce both public deficits and debts. After several years of such austerity measures, what has been the impact of this policy approach on the environment.

In the short-term, the financial crisis has resulted in a reduction in the production of pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. However, the development of austerity policies which tend to favour the economy at the cost of the environment, combined with a reduction in the ambition of policies designed to protect the environment, are likely to result in significant environmental damage over the medium-to-long-term. Attempts to understand the impacts of austerity on the environment have barely scratched the surface so far. Vital questions remain unanswered: What measures are most useful for measuring the existence of austerity? How has austerity altered environmental policy? Have the environmental policy approaches of different European states differed in response to austerity? A forthcoming panel at the UACES (University Association for Contemporary European Studies) Annual Conference seeks preliminary answers to these very questions.

Taking place on the 7th of September 2015 and hosted in the stunning city of Bilbao, Spain, this panel will develop conceptual debates and examine recent empirical studies on European cases to assess the lasting legacy of austerity on the planet. The panel is chaired by Dr. Charlotte Burns of the University of York, who recently secured funding for three years to examine the impact of austerity on European environmental policy.

The panel begins with a paper by Viviane Gravey, investigating 20 years of attempts to dismantle EU environmental policies. Building on policy dismantling studies, her paper asks what could drive European actors to target the EU’s “green acquis”, and analyses the strategies EU actors deploy in order to cut policies in a highly consensual political system. It provides an historical background to the panel discussions, highlighting how calls to cut policies and remove policy proposals predate austerity. The paper argues that these repeated calls for dismantling have had broad effects – affecting existing policies, how proposals are produced and the culture of the Commission as a whole – paving the way for austerity at EU level.

From here, Paul Tobin and Charlotte Burns seek to answer the question, ‘how do we measure the impact of austerity on the environment?’ Their paper assesses whether budgetary amendments, institutional alterations, and both qualitative and quantitative changes to legislation can be possible impact indicators, finding that a triangulated approach which encompasses a variety of methods would enable the best assessment of austerity’s influence. From here, the co-authors provide the latest findings from three months of elite interviews in Brussels, identifying a change of narrative that has occurred with the selection of the new, pro-austerity EU Commission led by Jean-Claude Juncker. This new narrative of ‘jobs and growth’ has given the EU a new niche with which to build credibility amongst European citizens, but appears to have developed to the detriment of the EU’s former identity as an environmental pioneer.

Having assessed changes at the EU level, John Karamichas’s paper examines the impact of austerity at the nation-state level, focussing on the case studies of Greece and the UK. Greece has been at the centre of austerity politics in Europe since the financial crisis, acting as the clearest example of ‘austerity by imposition’ by an external actor, in this case, the troika of the IMF, European Commission and European Central Bank. The UK, on the other hand, has pursued austerity economics for ideological purposes as a result of its centre-right government.  The paper argues that regardless of the two states’ differences prior to the adoption of austerity measures, they have both entered a downward spiral where economic growth has become completely disengaged from environmental parameters.

Finally, the paper by Duncan Russel and David Benson focuses further on the UK situation. Their paper examines how green budgeting can be used as a means of stimulating sluggish economies. Here, competing discourses within environmental politics seek to minimise the impact of austerity politics by rival political institutions. By using veto player perspectives, the authors show how rival environmental policy discourses are used in bargaining games to minimize the impact of austerity politics by rival political institutions pursing their wider policy goals.

By demonstrating the development of austerity politics in Europe, establishing a methodology with which to understand the phenomenon and exploring two case studies, this panel promises to shine a spotlight on an otherwise neglected – but hugely important – contemporary issue in European politics.

 

 

 

The post Exploring the Impacts of Austerity on Environmental Policy appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

(Photo: L’Equipe)

Over the last twenty years ‘Europeanisation’ has become a key concept in European Studies, almost a research field of its own. The current meaning of the term must have been introduced around 1994 in a seminal JCMS article by Robert Ladrech (possible that there are some earlier occurrences that I am unaware of). Prior to this rather recent semantic shift, ‘Europeanisation’, both in its English and French version, was a term used mainly in the 19th century, in contexts of cultural hegemony. The Oxford English Dictionary of 1989, for instance, defines it at ‘to make European in appearance, form, habit, or mode of life’ and cites some literary quotes concerning the ‘Europeanisation’ of India, Egypt or Japan.

I was therefore quite surprised to bump into it in a newspaper article dated 5 September 1955. The text in question is the report on the first football match of a pan-European club competition, known then as ‘The European Champions Clubs Cup’ and today as ‘The Champions League’. At the end of his match analysis in L’Equipe, the French sports daily who was behind the whole idea of this competition, Gabriel Hanot expressed his fear that ‘national competitions might be sacrificed to the Europeanisation of football’.

Funny enough, the ‘Europeanisation of football’ has now become a serious object of study. And the fear that the Champions League might one day eclipse all other competitions and become a closed league of ‘super-clubs’ is still regularly voiced today. In 1955, the match between Sporting Portugal and Partizan Belgrade (final score: 3-3) was of interest to insiders only. Major media did not care at all. In comparison, the space devoted last week across all media in France, Germany, Britain or Spain, to an event as secondary as the simple draw for the first round group stage gives testimony to the degree this Europeanisation of the football horizon has reached.

One aspect of the match in question deserves to be mentioned in particular: the fact that in its very first official game the European Cup was able to cross Cold War borders and bring together a team from the Western edge of the Continent with one from behind the Iron Curtain. Salazar’s Portugal and Tito’s Yugoslavia did not even have diplomatic relations, which complicated the travelling (the Partizan players had to insert a stop-over in Paris) but by no means prevented the match from taking place. For the Cup’s organisers, it went without saying that Central and Eastern Europe needed to be present in this new competition, and besides Partizan, teams from Budapest and Warsaw also competed (Dynamo Moscow had declined the invitation, apparently for meteorological reasons).

Today we’re in a miniature Cold War again, with Russia and the EU imposing sanctions on each other. France will have to reimburse around a billion Euros to Russia for not delivering the two Mistral war ships it had already built on command of the Russian marine. But that will not keep Paris Saint-Germain from travelling to Donezk (of all places) this autumn to play their Champions League game against Chaktior, while Olympique Lyon will play Zenith Saint Petersburg.

But as in 1955, football somehow manages to ignore the political circumstances. It pursues its own Europeanisation agenda, kicked off in Lisbon exactly sixty years ago.

Albrecht Sonntag,
The EU-Asia Centre at ESSCA School of Management, Angers

The post A kick-off to a quite particular kind of Europeanisation appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

Plenary session - Strasbourg

Source : © European Union, 2015 - EP

Let’s now turn to some efforts to, and ways to categorize or describe a taxonomy of organizations. One way is to look at their geographic scope. Some organizations are global in scope. Of course, the United Nations is global in scope. How many member states do we have in the United Nations today? If you said 193, you would be correct. From Afghanistan to Zimbabwe there are presently 193 member states of the United Nations. Of course, other organizations are global in scope. The specialized agencies, like the World Health Organization, or the Food and Agriculture Organization, or the World Food Program, or the World Trade Organization. International organizations like International Committee for the Red Cross and the Red Crescent, are also global in scope.

Other organizations are regional. We think of ASEAN, or the European Union or the African Union, for example. There are even subregional international organizations. Such as ECOWAS, the political subregional organization covering west and parts of central Africa. Or the Mekong Group, or the Southern African Development Community. The annual yearbook of international organizations lists more than 200 international organizations, ranging in size from three, like the North American Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA, to organizations with hundreds of members.

What then do we consider to be a definition of international organization? You may wish to develop a view of your own on what you think is an appropriate view, because it’s not black and white, and there are options for interpretation. In fact, there as many definitions of international organizations, almost, as there are such organizations. The OECD, the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, itself an international organization, puts forth really, a very narrow definition of international organizations. And I quote, international organizations are entities established by formal political agreements between their members, that have the status of international treaties. Their existence is recognized by the law in their member countries and they are not treated as resident, institutional units of the countries in which they are located, end quote. Let’s look at another definition, one that considers international organizations to be those whose members have at least three states, that have activities in several states, and whose members are held together by a formal intergovernmental agreement. Many commentators consider such an inter-governmental agreement to be an essential quality, an essential characteristic of an international organization. A sine qua non, if you will, of being in the category of international organizations.

International organizations are recognized subjects of international law, and have a separate legal standing from their member states or other members. Why do I say member states or other members? Because, over time, international organizations have evolved and some have become more inclusive.

So, the governance of international organizations has evolved over time and we’ll look at that in a little bit. A simple, broader, more inclusive definition of international organization would be something like an organization with an international membership, an international scope, or an international presence. And we can think of two main types or categories of international organization.

The first, inter-governmental organizations. Most closely associated with the term international organization, and these are those that are made up primarily of sovereign states. And examples, as I said, include the United Nations, the specialized agencies of the United Nations, the OSCE, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the Council of Europe, the European Union, as I mentioned earlier, the African Union, other regional bodies.

The second major type of international organization is, of course, international non governmental organizations. Those that are usually non-profit. And examples include so many around the world and here in Geneva. The International Scouting Movement, the International Committee of the Red Cross.  We should note also, that intergovernmental organizations are usually considered public in nature. While NGOs fall into the category of private organizations. We of course, are not today addressing or including in our discussion, other kinds of entities that have an international presence. Coca Cola, Toyota, other multinational corporations are certainly present in villages, towns and cities all around the world, in more than what we think of as international organizations.Let me also note that a number of governments codify the definition of international organizations in their own domestic law, in their own domestic statutes. But let’s turn back again to the methodologies for thinking about or classifying international organizations.

We spoke already about geographic scope. Another basis for classifying, in our taxonomy of international organizations, is the purpose of the organization. Is the purpose general, like the United Nations or the Organization of American States? Is it specific, like specialized agencies of the United Nations? The founders of the UN envisaged that functional agencies would play key roles and carry out key activities, for example, in economic and social development. Indeed, the Charter, Articles 57 and 63 call for affiliations of the UN, with various organizations that are established by separate international agreements to deal with particular issues. Such as health, the World Health Organization. Or food, the World Food Program. Or science, education and culture, UNESCO. Or refugees, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. Or economic and social development, such as the UN Development Program, or the World Bank, or the International Monetary Fund. It’s very interesting how the purposes of these organizations have evolved over time since their creation.

What are the functions of international organizations? Informational, gathering, analyzing, disseminating data. Providing a forum for exchange of views and decision making. Normative functions, defining standards of conduct or of service. Rule creating, such as drafting legally binding treaties. Operational functions, allocating resources, providing technical assistance and relief, deploying forces. And dispute resolution, settling criminal or civil claims. Of course, some organizations can have many, or all of these functions.

.

The post How to classify organizations? appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

General : Take part in our guest photographer contest, inspired by 2015 being the European Year for Development. From January until September we have been announcing different topics linked to development. Send us your photo inspired by the latest theme, along with the submission form and you could be invited to Strasbourg to do a photo reportage.

Source : © European Union, 2015 - EP

General : Take part in our guest photographer contest, inspired by 2015 being the European Year for Development. From January until September we have been announcing different topics linked to development. Send us your photo inspired by the latest theme, along with the submission form and you could be invited to Strasbourg to do a photo reportage.

Source : © European Union, 2015 - EP

http://tvnewsroom.consilium.europa.eu/uploads/council-images/thumbs/uploads/council-images/remote/http_7e18a1c646f5450b9d6d-a75424f262e53e74f9539145894f4378.r8.cf3.rackcdn.com/ebe92864-1b50-11e5-bc5c-bc764e084e2e_13.07_thumb_169_1441297841_1441297759_129_97shar_c1.jpg

Footage on the recent refugee crisis in Europe.

Download this video here.

Cracks in demand

Things have changed since the Governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, presented his inflation report on August 6th.

Data released on Monday, August 31st, indicated a slowdown in industrial output and construction in August. The Markit/CIPS index was down from 51,9 in July to 51,50 in August.

On Wednesday, it appeared that the service sector Markit/CIPS (PMI) – by far the most significant sector for the British economy (75% of the GDP) – was also decelerating, standing at 56,5 in August, down from 59,5 in April.

Inflation is nearing zero.

Interest rates

With this rate of inflation, it is clear the Bank of England is far off its 2% objective and an interest rate hike will not happen in September.

The Governor of the Bank of England has marked early 2016 as a possible date but the market does not believe the inflation will bounce back. This too is now called into question.

As the economy decelerates, strong retail consumption is likely to follow.

On Thursday the pound was on its eight successive day of decline against the US dollar, still bracing for an interest rate rise by the end of the year. To the contrary, the sterling gained again the euro following Mario Draghi’s nod that the ECB’s quantitative easing programme was about to get bolder.

The decision on interest rates is due on September 10th. But, it is now unlikely that interest rates will rise any time soon.

The post Deflation hits Britain appeared first on New Europe.