European Union

REPORT on arms exports: implementation of Common Position 2008/944/CFSP
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Sabine Lösing

Source : © European Union, 2018 - EP

Many people, including politicians and journalists, don’t understand the difference between ‘free trade’ and ‘frictionless trade’. This has caused a huge misunderstanding across the country, leading to the mess we are now in.

In summary, ‘free trade’ means that goods (sometimes only some goods) can be exported and imported between countries without tariffs – hence the phrase, ‘free trade’ or ‘tariff free’.

But those goods, even though tariff free, still have to go through customs and are subject to checks, often causing many delays.

And even though it’s called ‘free trade’ there are other barriers as well as customs – such as regulations, restrictions, strict compliances and complicated documentation, which hold things up. (See the graphic for some examples).

So, for example, a Canada-style trade agreement between the UK and the EU – so coveted by ardent Brexiters – could give us tariff-free trade, but it wouldn’t give us frictionless trade with the EU, which is vital to so many of our manufacturers.

(BMW UK imports around 90% of its parts from the EU to enable it to manufacture the Mini in the UK. If we no longer have frictionless trade with the EU, says BMW, it would destroy their just-in-time manufacturing process, meaning they would be ‘forced’ to move their Mini factory to Holland).

‘Frictionless trade’ means that goods, as well as being tariff free, go through customs without any checks. In fact, it means that for trade between those countries, there aren’t any customs or borders. 

Furthermore, with ‘frictionless trade’ there is a ‘level playing field’ between countries for the movement of goods – removing many of the barriers that exist with ‘free trade’ only.

That makes exports and imports between those countries super-efficient, leading to streamlined delivery of products, and of course, increased profits and more successful national economies.

But frictionless, although making international trade simpler and more easy, is more difficult to establish than just free trade. It means that countries have to enter what is known as a ‘customs union’ to enable borderless trade to take place between them.

Countries in a customs union agree a common external tariff for imports from non-member countries. The tariff revenue may then be shared between members, with the possibility that the country that collects the duty retaining a share (between 20 and 25% in the European customs union) to cover the additional administration costs associated with border trade.

A ‘customs union’ cannot just be based on trust. If countries agree to flatten their borders, then those countries need to agree rules, terms and conditions. And they need to agree on a mutually acceptable court to intervene if those rules are breached.

That’s so the process of sending goods between each other is not abused, for example, to export substandard or dangerous goods, or exporting goods that are banned, to another country in the customs union.

Agreeing those rules is fiendishly complicated, which is why it can take many years, sometimes decades, before countries can agree on the strict and comprehensive terms and conditions to enable them to open-up their borders to other countries for the purposes of trade.

But there’s more. For frictionless trade to function most fully and most successfully, it needs what are called the ‘four freedoms’ – free movement of goods, services, capital and people.

These ‘four freedoms’ represent the cornerstones of the EU’s Single Market, helping the EU to become the world’s largest and most successful trading bloc.

Although it would be technically possible to implement just some and not all the ‘four freedoms’, the success of the EU has been to conjoin all these freedoms into a single market, so that they work seamlessly together.

Studies show that the EU’s gross domestic product (GDP) has grown by several percentage points thanks to the Single Market and its four freedoms. This is hardly surprising, when one considers that two-thirds of all goods produced in the EU are exported to another EU country.

THE UK COULDN’T FUNCTION WITHOUT THE ‘4 FREEDOMS’

To try and understand how the EU couldn’t fully function without all four freedoms, imagine how our own union of the United Kingdom also couldn’t fully function without these four freedoms.

The UK currently benefits from two single markets. Our country’s single market. And our continent’s single market. They both operate in the same way and on the same principles.

Free movement of people, goods, services and capital between the three countries of England, Scotland, Wales and the province of Northern Ireland form the basis of our union of the United Kingdom.

It’s our single market. Just like the EU’s Single Market, it’s the glue that keeps us together.

Enabling people, goods, services and money to move without borders or restrictions across England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is what makes us a functioning unity. It’s helped to make the UK one of the world’s richest and most successful countries, with common standards, values and history.

Free movement of people, goods, services and capital work together. They cannot be separated without causing discord and disorder across our nation.

Mess with just one of the four freedoms and our union of the UK would come undone. Not only business and employment would be affected, but peace and stability would be put at risk if we could not have the freedom to move, to do business, to trade, to send money and to work, without friction, across and between our four member ‘states’ of the UK.

It’s the same with the EU. The EU functions as a cohesive single market of 28 countries, just as the UK functions as a cohesive single market of four ‘countries’.

The EU Single Market is the glue that keeps European nations together. It has helped to make Europe the richest and most successful continent on the planet, with common standards, values and history.

The UK’s Single Market, and the EU’s Single Market, both represent significant achievements. They work.

But here’s one vital difference.

Frictionless trade between the four members of the UK is vital to our smooth functioning as a nation. But doing business with each other doesn’t make the UK significantly richer.

To do that, we need the UK to export our goods and services (and we export far more services than goods).

Doing frictionless trade with other EU countries makes Britain richer. Easy exports and imports with the EU bring us prosperity.

If we lose borderless, lowest-cost trade with our most important customers and suppliers right on our doorstop, Britain – and Britons – will be poorer.

Our frictionless exports to the rest of Europe bring us wealth. Yes, exports to countries outside the EU also bring us wealth.

But we need BOTH. And ONLY in the EU do we have both.

• Follow my journalism page on Facebook: Jon Danzig writes
• Follow my Stop Brexit campaign on Facebook: Reasons2Remain

________________________________________________________

• Join and share the discussion about this article on Facebook:

 

The post Frictionless trade is not the same as free trade appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

On BBC’s Andrew Marr Show, Labour’s Shadow Brexit Secretary, Sir Keir Starmer, claimed that Britain could be in the EU Customs Union and still be free to negotiate its own trade agreements with other countries around the world.

This goes against the founding principles of the EU and everything that EU leaders have been saying from the start is impossible. (Article continues below the video.)

Andrew Marr asked Sir Keir:

“Have you spoken to a single senior figure inside the EU – anyone in any authority who has told you this is a runner?”

Sir Keir answered, “Yes.” But when Mr Marr asked him, “Who?”, he answered:

“I’m not going to disclose confidential meetings.”

This shouldn’t be kept confidential. If Sir Keir really believes that Labour could achieve a trade agreement with the EU that, frankly, goes against the very essence of what the European Union is all about, then he should be completely open about it.

As Mr Marr pointed out to Sir Keir, Article 3 of the Founding Treaty of the European Union clearly states that the EU shall have “exclusive competence” in its Customs Union.

Earlier this month, the EU’s Chief Brexit negotiator, Michel Barnier, asserted that allowing Britain to be in its Customs Union whilst at the same time entering into its own trade agreements with other countries would, “run counter to the very foundations of our Single Market of Europe.”

He added it would mean the UK could apply “lower tariffs” than the EU, thereby competing head on with the Single Market.  Asserted Mr Barnier:

“We believe this would create a serious risk of trade flows going elsewhere, to the detriment of our companies.”

Countries in a customs union agree a common external tariff for imports from non-member countries. The tariff revenue may then be shared between members, with the possibility that the country that collects the duty retaining a share (between 20 and 25% in the European customs union) to cover the additional administration costs associated with border trade.

But Sir Keir insisted:

“I would not have surfaced this as a Labour Party position if I hadn’t had the assurance that this was a negotiation that could be had.”

A negotiation had with who? Sir Keir refuses to say.

Clearly not with Mr Barnier, or the EU Council President, Donald Tusk.

Immediately after the referendum Mr Tusk warned that the Brexit negotiations would, “stick unconditionally to the Treaty rules and fundamental values.”

He added:

“There will be no compromises in this regard.”

Sir Keir’s proposal seems more, classic, cake-and-eat-it fantasy: promising to the British electorate a Brexit that simply cannot be delivered.

EU law expert, Professor Steve Peers commented:

“The UK could negotiate trade deals about services and non-tariff barriers, but not tariffs.”

However, being able to negotiate tariffs outside of the EU appears to be what Sir Keir is proposing.

I contacted Sir Keir to ask him:

“Can you please clarify if you meant that the UK could be in the EU Customs Union whilst also independently negotiating its own tariffs with other countries across the world?”

I pointed out to Sir Keir’s office:

“On the face of it, it seems as if Sir Keir is claiming that the UK could be in the EU Customs Union but at the same time negotiate its own tariff arrangements with other countries, which would go against EU rules. We look forward to clarification.”

But his office simply wrote back to say,

“Keir’s comments were consistent with what Jeremy Corbyn set out in his Brexit speech earlier this year when he said:

‘We have long argued that a customs union is a viable option for the final deal. So Labour would seek to negotiate a new comprehensive UK-EU customs union to ensure that there are no tariffs with Europe and to help avoid any need for a hard border in Northern Ireland.

‘But we are also clear that the option of a new UK customs union with the EU would need to ensure the UK has a say in future trade deals.’

But that simply explains The Labour Party’s Brexit policy; it does not explain how this policy could ever be achieved, or who in the EU would support such an arrangement.

A spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats told me,

“Labour’s proposal is like something out of ‘Alice in Wonderland’. It is just fantasy.

“No-deal or any deal, Brexit will take a sledgehammer to the UK economy. Labour must wake up to that. Sadly, Jeremy Corbyn opposition to Brexit is as absent now as it was during the referendum campaign.

“Liberal Democrats demand better.”

Liberal Democrats say they are, “united in fighting Brexit and giving the people the final say, including the option to remain in the EU.”

International trade expert, Jason J Hunter commented:

“The issue is that Keir Starmer has no evidence to back up his claim, refuses to provide anything at all, and he is contradicted by the facts and treaties.

“He’s like a one-man fantasist.”

Mr Hunter added that, in any event, it could take up to ten years for the UK to complete negotiations to be in the EU Customs Union. He added:

“In the meantime, companies are moving out of the UK and jobs are being lost. By the time we’ve got a worse deal than we already had, we won’t have much to export anyway.”

Sir Keir has proposed that any Brexit agreement would have to pass ‘six tests’ before Labour could support it:

① Does it ensure a strong and collaborative future relationship with the EU?

② Does it deliver the “exact same benefits” as we currently have as members of the Single Market and Customs Union?

③ Does it ensure the fair management of migration in the interests of the economy and communities?

④ Does it defend rights and protections and prevent a race to the bottom?

⑤ Does it protect national security and our capacity to tackle cross-border crime?

⑥ Does it deliver for all regions and nations of the UK?

All well and good, but anyone who knows anything about the EU (and one would hope Sir Keir does) must realise that the sum of the six tests can only be achieved by the UK remaining a full member of the EU.

This is not, however, Labour’s plan or policy as it has specifically ruled out the UK accepting ‘free movement of people’ – a strict pre-requisite for being in the EU’s Single Market.

Before the referendum, Theresa May said:

“It is not clear why other EU member states would give Britain a better deal than they themselves enjoy.”

But now, after the referendum, that’s precisely what both the Tory government and the Labour opposition are expecting the EU to offer us: a better deal than they themselves enjoy.

It’s all fantasy.

It’s time that the Tories and Labour were honest with the electorate.

No Brexit is better than any Brexit. Only continued full EU membership can offer us “the exact same benefits” as we have now as a member.

Once that’s fully realised and understood, there’s only one path that can and should be taken. #StopBrexit. That’s what needs to be done.

It doesn’t matter how it’s done. A people’s vote. A general election. Or politicians simply being truthful with us at last and admitting that Brexit will destroy our country.

What matters is that it is done, and done soon. Britain is now perilously close to the cliff edge.

• Follow my journalism page on Facebook: Jon Danzig writes
• Follow my Stop Brexit campaign on Facebook: Reasons2Remain

________________________________________________________

• Join and share the discussion about this article on Facebook:

(function(d, s, id) { var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = 'https://connect.facebook.net/en_GB/sdk.js#xfbml=1&version=v3.2'; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));

Labour's fantasy Brexit

→ Keir Starmer proposes ‘fairyland’ Customs Union – Please shareLABOUR’S FANTASY BREXIT (Video: 6 minutes)On BBC’s Andrew Marr Show last Sunday, Labour’s Shadow Brexit Secretary, Sir Keir Starmer, claimed that Britain could be in the EU Customs Union and still be free to negotiate its own trade agreements with other countries around the world.This goes against the founding principles of the EU and everything that EU leaders have been saying from the start is impossible. Andrew Marr asked Sir Keir, “Have you spoken to a single senior figure inside the EU – anyone in any authority who has told you this is a runner?”Sir Keir answered, “Yes.” But when Mr Marr asked him, “Who?”, he answered, “I’m not going to disclose confidential meetings.”This shouldn’t be kept confidential. If Sir Keir really believes that Labour could achieve a trade agreement with the EU that, frankly, goes against the very essence of what the European Union is all about, then he should be completely open about it.As Mr Marr pointed out to Sir Keir, Article 3 of the Founding Treaty of the European Union clearly states that the EU shall have “exclusive competence” in its Customs Union.Earlier this month, the EU’s Chief Brexit negotiator, Michel Barnier, asserted that allowing Britain to be in its Customs Union whilst at the same time entering into its own trade agreements with other countries would “run counter to the very foundations of our Single Market of Europe.”He added it would mean the UK could apply “lower tariffs” than the EU, thereby competing head on with the EU. “We believe this would create a serious risk of trade flows going elsewhere, to the detriment of our companies,” said Mr Barnier.But Sir Keir insisted, “I would not have surfaced this as a Labour Party position if I hadn’t had the assurance that this was a negotiation that could be had.”A negotiation had with who? Sir Keir refuses to say.Clearly not with Mr Barnier, or the EU Council President, Donald Tusk.Immediately after the referendum Mr Tusk warned that the Brexit negotiations would, “stick unconditionally to the Treaty rules and fundamental values.”He added, “There will be no compromises in this regard.”Sir Keir’s proposal seems more, classic, cake-and-eat-it fantasy: promising to the British electorate a Brexit that simply cannot be delivered.EU law expert, Professor Steve Peers commented, “The UK could negotiate trade deals about services and non-tariff barriers, but not tariffs.”However, being able to negotiate tariffs outside of the EU appears to be what Sir Keir is proposing. I contacted Sir Keir to ask him, “Can you please clarify if you meant that the UK could be in the EU Customs Union whilst also independently negotiating its own tariffs with other countries across the world?”I pointed out to Sir Keir’s office, “On the face of it, it seems as if Sir Keir is claiming that the UK could be in the EU Customs Union but at the same time negotiate its own tariff arrangements with other countries, which would go against EU rules. We look forward to clarification.”But his office simply wrote back to say, “Keir’s comments were consistent with what Jeremy Corbyn set out in his Brexit speech earlier this year when he said:“We have long argued that a customs union is a viable option for the final deal. So Labour would seek to negotiate a new comprehensive UK-EU customs union to ensure that there are no tariffs with Europe and to help avoid any need for a hard border in Northern Ireland. “But we are also clear that the option of a new UK customs union with the EU would need to ensure the UK has a say in future trade deals.” [Source: https://labour.org.uk/press/jeremy-corbyn-full-speech-britain-brexit/]But that simply explains The Labour Party's Brexit policy; it does not explain how this policy could ever be achieved, or who in the EU would support such an arrangement.A spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats told Reasons2Remain, “Labour’s proposal is like something out of ‘Alice in Wonderland’. It is just fantasy.”He added, “No-deal or any deal, Brexit will take a sledgehammer to the UK economy. Labour must wake up to that. Sadly, Jeremy Corbyn opposition to Brexit is as absent now as it was during the referendum campaign. “Liberal Democrats demand better. Only the Liberal Democrats are united in fighting Brexit and giving the people the final say, including the option to remain in the EU.”International trade expert, Jason J Hunter commented, “The issue is that Keir Starmer has no evidence to back up his claim, refuses to provide anything at all, and he is contradicted by the facts and treaties.“He's like a one-man fantasist.”Mr Hunter added that, in any event, it could take up to ten years for the UK to complete negotiations to be in the EU Customs Union.“In the meantime, companies are moving out of the UK and jobs are being lost. By the time we've got a worse deal than we already had, we won't have much to export anyway.”Sir Keir has proposed that any Brexit agreement would have to pass ‘six tests’ before Labour could support it:① Does it ensure a strong and collaborative future relationship with the EU? ② Does it deliver the “exact same benefits” as we currently have as members of the Single Market and Customs Union? ③ Does it ensure the fair management of migration in the interests of the economy and communities? ④ Does it defend rights and protections and prevent a race to the bottom? ⑤ Does it protect national security and our capacity to tackle cross-border crime? ⑥ Does it deliver for all regions and nations of the UK?All well and good, but anyone who knows anything about the EU (and one would hope Sir Keir does) must realise that the sum of the six tests can only be achieved by the UK remaining a full member of the EU. This is not, however, Labour’s plan or policy as it has specifically ruled out the UK accepting ‘free movement of people’ – a strict pre-requisite for being in the EU’s Single Market.Before the referendum, Theresa May said, “It is not clear why other EU member states would give Britain a better deal than they themselves enjoy.”But now, after the referendum, that’s precisely what both the Tory government and the Labour opposition are expecting the EU to offer us: a better deal than they themselves enjoy.It’s all fantasy. It’s time that the Tories and Labour were honest with the electorate. No Brexit is better than any Brexit. Only continued full EU membership can offer us “the exact same benefits” as we have now as a member. Once that’s fully realised and understood, there’s only one path that can and should be taken. #StopBrexit. It doesn’t matter how it’s done. A people’s vote. A general election. Or politicians simply being truthful with us at last and admitting that Brexit will destroy our country.What matters is that it is done, and done soon. Britain is now perilously close to the cliff edge. • Words and video production by Jon Danzig• Please re-Tweet, and follow Reasons2Remain on Twitter:twitter.com/Reasons2Remain/status/1055799923420119041• This video is now available on the Reasons2Remain YouTube channel: https://youtu.be/8FPrqG07oDw Before commenting on the Reasons2Remain campaign page, please read our new Rules of Engagement: Rules.Reasons2Remain.com********************************************► Watch Jon Danzig's 50-minute video: 'Can Britain Stop Brexit?' Go to CanBritainStopBrexit.com********************************************• To follow and support Reasons2Remain just ‘like’ the page, and please invite all your friends to like the page. ********************************************• Please recommend Reasons2Remain in the reviews section. Here's the link: facebook.com/Reasons2Remain/reviews/********************************************• Follow Reasons2Remain on Twitter: twitter.com/reasons2remain and Instagram: instagram.com/reasons2remain/********************************************• Explore our unique Reasons2Remain gallery of over 1,000 graphics and articles: reasons2remain.co.uk********************************************• Reasons2Remain is an entirely unfunded community campaign, unaffiliated with any other group or political party, and is run entirely by volunteers. If you'd like to help, please send us a private message.********************************************• © Reasons2Remain 2018. All our articles and graphics are the copyright of Reasons2Remain. We only allow sharing using the Facebook share button. Any other use requires our advance permission in writing.#STOPBREXIT #EXITBREXIT #PEOPLESVOTE #FINALSAY

Posted by Reasons2Remain on Friday, 26 October 2018

The post Labour’s fantasy Brexit appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

AMENDMENTS 11 - 51 - Draft opinion Establishing a European Instrument for Nuclear Safety complementing the Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument on the basis of the Euratom Treaty
Committee on Foreign Affairs

Source : © European Union, 2018 - EP

Unsurprisingly, Belgium has announced that it has chosen the American F-35 fighter.Unsurprisingly, Belgium has announced that it has chosen the American F-35 fighter. Second betrayal of partners by Belgium, "heart of the European Union" since the 1970s. After 48 years, new proof to what extent Belgium's policy is influenced by the Americans, which was also the case in 1970. New proof to what extent European integration can be considered serious. Quo vadis European integration?

Why has Belgium once again turned its back on the European preference?

Thanks to two defining criteria that were insinuated in the specifications for the replacement of the F-16: the ability to carry a US-made nuclear bomb and stealth. Two crucial criteria for the success of the F-35. Belgium has been carrying out the nuclear mission on behalf of NATO for decades. The F-16s stationed at Kleine-Brogel (F-16A) are capable of carrying and dropping an American B-61 nuclear bomb. In any case, Brussels who wishes to keep it, had made it known.

This skewed the competition and favored the American F-35 against its four competitors: F / A-18E / F Super Hornet, Rafale F3R, JAS-39E / F Gripen and Eurofighter Typhoon. Only the F-35 will be able to carry out the mission of nuclear attack by carrying a B-61 American gravitational bomb. It is designed as dual capacity (conventional and nuclear) and should be able to carry a bomb B-61 in a later phase (!) of its development, probably from 2022 (!).

What is not the case for other contenders to Belgian market, with the exception of the Rafale, which already carries a nuclear weapon. However, Germany has also made a formal request to the United States to integrate the B-61 under the Eurofighter. In theory, this ability could also be certified on the European fighter. Not sure if Washington shares with anyone the firing and releasing codes of the B-61s.

"Within the Alliance, Belgium has accepted, five decades ago, that its fighter jets have both conventional and nuclear capabilities, taking into account a joint analysis of the global threat. NATO is asking us to continue to maintain our combat aircraft available for any such missions, and we look forward to meeting all our obligations in this regard, " said Belgian Foreign Minister Didier Reynders.

In addition, the Belgian Air Force is close to that of the Netherlands, which without hesitation bought eight F-35s in March 2015 on a target of 37 aircraft.

Despite the fact that about 38,000 signatures were collected against the idea of ​​equipping the Belgian air force with F-35 stealth fighter jets, the finance committee of the House of Representatives refused to hear the arguments opponents of this project.

The F-35 project is the most expensive project ever seen. The aircraft had several hundred defeats (hardver + software) his "brother" the F-22 Raptor, after it was put in place with the US Army, was less effective in the fight against the Eurofighter and the former F-16 is stealth is also highly doubtful.

According to a leaked test in 2015 also the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter’s demonstrated performance is inferior to the current fighters it is designed to replace. Specifically, the report marked for official use only (FOUO) finds that, in a series of 17 dogfights, the F-35 was consistently outmatched by an aging F-16 :

"One of the significant new issues raised by the report was the F-35’s difficulty in sustaining energy in close-in maneuvering combat—that is, the energy needed to turn and accelerate. The test pilot found this to be “substantially inferior” to older planes like F-15s, F-16s, and F-18s. In the tests, the F-35’s maneuverability against the F-16 was so limited that it could only point quickly enough to achieve a missile shot by executing one specific maneuver. But this move consumed so much energy that if the shot failed the F-35 would “ultimately end up defensive again”—which is to say, at the mercy of any opponent.

The report also homed in on flight control problems in the 20 to 26 degrees angle of attack zone, crucial for hard maneuvering. The pilot described the F-35’s computer-controlled flying qualities as “sluggish” for evasive maneuvering and “not intuitive or favorable.” This echoes information in a recent report from the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) that described severe flying quality problems in this high angle of attack region—including uncontrollable wing drop and heavy buffeting (shaking) “that degraded the flight control system (two of three flight control channels become disabled), requiring a flight abort.”

Tag: BelgiumF-35RafaleEurofighter

In the interesting times that have been unfolding since the EU referendum, Britain is seeing the emergence of a new identity. A new cultural-political identity is being forged by British Europeans who feel a strong affiliation with the continent by virtue of background or cultural affinity. It’s an identity that’s growing out of a sense of rupture and the loss of something that was previously held securely, linked to a determination to preserve something valuable for the future.

Such British Europeans – or we, for I am definitely one – could be called New Europeans. But perhaps that’s a term a bit too fixed for this identity-in-the-making, and we could more accurately be described as ‘Emerging Europeans’ – people aspiring to become New Europeans who, with all the uncertainty about Britain’s future relationship with Europe, are not sure what form(s) this evolving identity might take.

One clear expression of this new identity can be found in the many new campaign groups and grassroots organisations that have sprung up since 2016 with the aim of stopping Brexit or putting more checks into the political process of leaving the EU. Campaigning Remainers have clear goals and tribal affiliations, so much so that the adoption of symbols and branding – the EU colours and flag on T-shirts and berets – has been rapid and straightforward. But since their goals are time-limited (assuming the Brexit negotiations will eventually lead to some conclusions) these particular political identities are necessarily time-limited.

Emerging Europeans, meanwhile, tend to be looking for resources and connections beyond the policies and politics of Brexit, a looser, less tangible set of characteristics and values deep and positive enough to underpin a sense of belonging that will endure for the rest of their lives and potentially for generations to come. The historical story that defines this identity, while in the recent past, is already clear: a piece of political expediency executed amid some long-standing party politics, a hasty referendum and an unexpected result.

(Comparisons with the identities of peoples formed by what were, from their point of view, sudden catastrophes such as Palestinian nationalism, while limited, can be instructive here: the resulting identity is about more than a yearning for recovery; it is forged by a sense of loss. In this sense, Emerging Europeans are perhaps more determinedly, consciously European than they were before the Catastrophe of the Referendum.)

But while its origins are clear, the future form of this emerging identity is obscure, and the search for constructive ways of developing this fragile new identity is on. Various ways of preserving European citizenship are under discussion – at a recent conference held by New Europeans, academics raised the possibility of legal challenges to the unprecedented stripping of 65 million people of their European citizenship, while a European Citizens Initiative is slowly gathering endorsements. But the former would involve breaking new legal ground, and the latter is a long way off the million signatures needed to get considered by the European Commission, so these measures may be more aspirational than anything else.

In any case, Emerging Europeans will need a broader set of cultural resources to sustain their connection with the continent. For some of us, this will involve physically visiting our European neighbours, with all the experiential pleasures and challenges that only travel can bring. For others, it’s likely to be more about maintaining cultural links, with a possible resurgence of initiatives such as town twinning and old-fashioned cultural exchanges, along with the emergence of new professional networks and interest-group associations. In the years to come, the next stage of the European project will usher in a host of other ways of being European that currently lie beyond the visible horizon.

Join the discussion about Britain’s evolving relationship with Europe on Facebook here and find out more about Alex Klaushofer’s book project here.

The post Emerging Europeans – a new post-Brexit identity appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

A delegation of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and of the Subcommittee on Human Rights, will meet the UN leadership in New York on 29-30.10.18. In the context of the regular dialogue with the United Nations, the delegation will have the opportunity to discuss a number of issues of strategic common interest for the European Parliament, the EU and the UN. Particular attention is expected to be put on peace and security, human rights, and conflict prevention.
Source : © European Union, 2018 - EP

This post first appeared at the EU Immigration and Asylum Law and Policy Blog 

 

Introduction

From May to July 2016, the Commission put forward a wide-ranging European Asylum package, which included the establishment of a European Union Agency for Asylum (EUAA). The Council and the European Parliament reached a partial agreement on 28 June 2017 on twelve chapters of the Regulation on the future EUAA with the exception of Chapter 1 (“The European Union Agency for Asylum”), Chapter 3 (“Country information and guidance”), Chapter 5 (“Monitoring”), and Chapter 9 (“Organization of the Agency”). President Juncker announced in his speech on the 2018 State of the Union made on 12 September, the Commission’s intention to “further develop the European Asylum Agency to make sure that Member States get more European support in processing asylum seekers in line with the Geneva Convention”. On the same day, the Commission that welcomes the agreement concluded by the legislators released an amended proposal containing only targeted amendments reinforcing the operational tasks of the EUAA. This blog post analyzes the key novelties tabled in both 2016 and 2018 Commission proposals, and critically assesses what changes they will bring about to EASO’s current mandate in comparison with the mandate of the European Border and Coast Guard following Regulation 2016/1624 of 14 September 2016.

The Agency’s Monitoring Role

The European Border and Coast Guard agency determines a technical and operational strategy for European integrated border management, to which the Member States should conform to (article 3 Regulation 2016/1624). Although the EUAA is not mandated to set out a comprehensive strategy of asylum in a similar manner, the agency, through guidance on the situation in third countries of origin, will “ensure greater convergence and address disparities in the assessment of applications for international protection” (Proposal for a EUAA, COM(2016) 271 final, 04.05.2016, p. 7). The EUAA will “develop a common analysis on the situation in specific countries of origin and guidance notes to assist Member States in the assessment of relevant applications” (article 10(1) partial agreement EUAA). Importantly, as soon as the EUAA’s Management Board endorses the guidance notes, the Member States should take them into account when examining applications for international protection, without prejudice to their competence for deciding on individual applications (article 10(2a) partial agreement on the EUAA referred above).

The new monitoring role of the EUAA will also indirectly contribute to shape a common strategy of asylum in the EU. A key difference between EASO and the future EUAA will be its monitoring role in order to guarantee that the national authorities are sufficiently prepared to manage exceptional and sudden pressure in their asylum system. Should the EUAA’s information analysis raise serious concerns regarding the functioning or preparedness of a Member State’s asylum or reception systems, the agency, on its own initiative or at the request of the European Commission, may initiate a monitoring exercise (article 14(2) partial agreement EUAA).

The Member State concerned will receive the findings of the monitoring exercise and the draft recommendations of the EUAA’s Executive Director on the basis of which it should provide for comments. Taking Member State’s comments into account, the EUAA’s Management Board will, by a decision of two-thirds of its members, adopt those recommendations (article 14(3a) partial agreement EUAA). As with the EBCG’s vulnerability assessments (article 13 Regulation 2016/1624), the future EUAA will be conferred a recommendatory power in order to put forward measures to be adopted by the national authorities. Nevertheless, Member States will still maintain indirect control of the EUAA’s recommendations (see here) through the enhanced majority that is required in the Management Board.

Whereas the Commission did not initially propose that the EUAA’s Executive Director should be able to appoint experts from the staff of the agency to be deployed as liaison officers in Member States, the provisional text agreed on 28 June 2017 indicates that liaison officers “shall foster cooperation and dialogue between the Agency and the Member States’ authorities responsible for asylum and immigration and other relevant services” (article 14a(3) partial agreement EUAA). Like the EBCG’s liaison officers, they will facilitate the monitoring role of the agency by reporting regularly to the Executive Director on the situation of asylum in the Member States and their capacity to manage their asylum and reception systems effectively (article 14a(3) partial agreement EUAA).

 

The EUAA will thus be in charge of monitoring “the operational and technical application of the CEAS in order to prevent or identify possible shortcomings in the asylum and reception systems of Member States and to assess their capacity and preparedness to manage situations of disproportionate pressure so as to enhance the efficiency of those systems” (article 13(1) partial agreement EUAA). With this aim, the agency will namely assess the national procedures for international protection, staff available and reception conditions (i.e. infrastructure, equipment or financial resources) on the basis of the information provided by the Member State concerned and by relevant intergovernmental organisations or bodies, as well as by means of analysis on the situation of asylum and on-site visits that the agency may undertake (article 13 (3) and (4) partial agreement EUAA). This new monitoring task of the EUAA could so ultimately contribute to the effective and harmonised implementation of the CEAS by the Member States (see, here, here and here).

The Agency’s Expanded Operational Mandate

The EUAA will be in charge of organising and coordinating the appropriate operational support at the request of the Member States or upon the initiative of the agency in cases where the national asylum and reception systems are subject to exceptional pressure.

Following the lead of the EBCG’s Rapid Reaction Pool, an asylum reserve pool of a minimum of 500 persons should be made available by the Member States for their immediate deployment and should assist those national authorities subject to extraordinary migratory pressure (article 19A(6) partial agreement EUAA).

Moreover, the future Regulation on the EUAA details the functions of the agency in the recently established hotspots. Upon the request of a Member State facing an exceptional and sudden migratory pressure, the EUAA’s Executive Director should draw up a comprehensive reinforcement package consisting of various activities coordinated by the relevant Union agencies, and deploy Asylum Support Teams (ASTs) as part of migration management support teams (article 21(1) partial agreement EUAA). In 2018, the European Commission proposed to further expand, upon the request of a concerned Member State, the scope for the use of the migration management support teams to any situation and not necessarily limited to circumstances of extraordinary migratory pressure (new article 21, COM(2018) 633 final).

The Agency’s Competence to Intervene

Another important novelty that the EUAA will bring is the possibility of making an emergency intervention. This will happen if the functioning of the CEAS is jeopardized due to:

• the insufficient action of a Member State to address the disproportionate pressure on the asylum and reception systems in a Member State (article 22(1) partial agreement EUAA) or
• the refusal of the competent national authorities to request or accept assistance from the EUAA (article 22(1) partial agreement EUAA) or
• the unwillingness of a Member State to comply with the Commission’s recommendations to implement an action plan intended to address serious shortcomings identified during a monitoring assessment (article 14(3a) partial agreement EUAA).

The procedure set out in article 19(1) of the EBCG Regulation regarding situations at the external borders requiring urgent action will be, to a more limited extent, replicated for the EUAA. The proposal for a Regulation on an EUAA originally stated that the Commission would be the EU institution in charge of adopting a decision by means of an implementing act to be taken by the agency in order to support the Member State concerned. However, the provisional text finally states that the Council should be the authority responsible for adopting such an implementing act like it is the case for the EBCG (article 22 partial agreement EUAA).

Three days after the Council adopts its implementing act, the EUAA’s Executive Director will draw up an Operational Plan and determine the details of the practical implementation of the Council’s decision (article 22(2) partial agreement EUAA). Subsequently, the Member State concerned will have three days to reach an agreement with the Executive Director on the Operational Plan and will immediately cooperate with the agency to facilitate the practical execution of the measures put forward (article 22(4) partial agreement EUAA).

The Agency’s Role in Examining Asylum Applications

Another novelty in comparison to the EASO will be the involvement of the EUAA in the examination of international protection applications. Several provisions of the EUAA mention that the agency will assist or facilitate the Member States in examining the applications of international protection submitted to their asylum systems. Alongside the operational and technical assistance that the EUAA should provide to Member States upon their request, the agency will facilitate the examination of applications for international protection (article 16(2)(b) partial agreement EUAA) submitted to the competent national authorities. In this regard, the Asylum Support Teams (ASTs) “should support Member States with operational and technical measures, including (…) by knowledge of the handling and management of asylum cases, as well as by assisting national authorities competent for the examination of applications for international protection and by assisting with relocation or transfer of applicants or beneficiaries of international protection” (recital 16 partial agreement EUAA).

The European Commission’s proposal tabled on September 2018 mainly centers on expanding the EUAA’s role in the administrative procedure for international protection. Specifically, the new Article 16a states that the EUAA’s asylum support teams should, among other measures, identify any needs for special procedural guarantees, carry out the admissibility and substantive interview, assess the evidence, and prepare decisions on applications for international protection. This means that, upon the request of a Member State, the future EUAA will be able to draft decisions on asylum applications. However, the text of the Regulation highlights that the decisions on individual applications for asylum remain the Member States’ sole responsibility (Article 16a).

Assessing the extent of the Agency’s power to examine asylum applications

Recital 46 of the Commission proposal repeats that “the competence to take decisions by Member States’ asylum authorities on individual applications for international protection remains with Member States”. The Commission, both in 2016 and 2018, clearly establishes that the future EUAA cannot be conferred decision-making powers.

The question to be answered is whether the EUAA will be able to jointly process applications for international protection, and if it cannot, to what extent the agency may support the processing of asylum applications. In 2013, the Commission adopted a study in which the concept of “joint processing” was defined as “an arrangement under which all asylum claims within the EU are processed jointly by an EU authority assuming responsibility for both preparation and decision on all cases, as well as subsequent distribution of recognized beneficiaries of international protection and return of those not in need of protection” (p. 114). This study put forward four options that progressively move from supporting the Member States in processing asylum applications through an agency such as EASO/EUAA, to designing a centralized EU authority with decision-making powers and responsible for all asylum processing.

Currently, the Member States remain exclusively competent to adopt decisions concerning the admissibility and applications for international protection. The next level of European integration would entail the introduction of a mechanism of joint processing in situations where a Member State is subject to an extraordinary number of asylum applications. Joint processing teams of EASO would be deployed and make recommendations on asylum cases to the requesting Member State, which would continue to have exclusive decision-making powers.

The ASTs of EASO deployed in the Greek hotspots are in practice already adopting recommendations on the admissibility of the international protection applications. These recommendations are in fact largely accepted by the Greek Asylum Service’s officials when adopting a decision (see here, here and here). Precisely, the future EUAA, upon the request of a concerned Member State, will formally be conferred the power to facilitate the examination of applications for international protection. Actually, the envisaged EEUA Regulation provides a legal basis to the practice that the EASO has already developed in Greece as acknowledged by the European Ombusdman in its decision on a complaint about EASO’s role in that Member State.

However, the future EUAA will be far from deciding, in first instance and in appeal, every asylum application within the EU. Instead, the European Commission has opted to reinforce the operational tasks of EASO and maintain the Member States as the exclusive decision-making authorities. Centralizing the asylum decision-making process would ensure a full harmonization of the national procedures and foster a consistent evaluation of protection needs. Nevertheless, this option demands a “major institutional transformation” and “substantial resources” that can only be envisioned in the long-term.

There are also doubts as to whether article 78(2) TFEU is a sufficient legal basis for conferring the power to exclusively adopt binding decisions on all asylum claims to a EU authority. Pursuant article 78(2)(d) TFEU, the EU shall ensure: “(…) common procedures for the granting and withdrawing of uniform asylum or subsidiary protection status”. The 2013 Commission’s study on the feasibility of joint processing of asylum applications in the EU considers that article 78(2) TFEU, read together with articles 78(1) and 80 TFEU, represents an adequate legal basis and opens up the possibility for a completely harmonized EU-based approach for joint processing of asylum applications within the EU. Tsourdiunderlines however that a EU-level processing scenario in which decisions would be entirely undertaken by a EU authority instead of the Member States is legally impossible under article 78(2)(e) TFEU “which envisages that ‘a Member State’ is ultimately responsible for the examination of an application” that is the legal basis if the Dublin regulation.

Conclusion

Although the European Commission keeps referring to a fully-fledged agency for asylum matters in the EU, the EUAA will neither be conferred decision-making powers regarding asylum applications, nor executive or enforcement tasks on the ground. As is the case with the EBCG that did not establish a European Border Guard for managing the European external borders (see here, here, here or here), the future EUAA will rather be given an assisting role in the examination of applications of international protection by Member States (see here). The EUAA will be far from processing and deciding asylum applications made in the EU. Instead, the future Regulation on the EUAA opts for reinforcing the operational tasks of the agency and maintaining the Member States as the exclusive decision-making authorities. This should be de jure the situation in the future but once again one will have to check what will happen de facto.

The post From EASO to the European Agency for Asylum: “Business as Usual?” appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

AMENDMENTS 1 - 190 - Draft report Report on the 2018 Commission Report on Bosnia and Herzegovina
Committee on Foreign Affairs

Source : © European Union, 2018 - EP

DRAFT RECOMMENDATION on the draft Council decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Union, of the Strategic Partnership Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and Japan, of the other part
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Alojz Peterle

Source : © European Union, 2018 - EP

Crédit agricole and Crédit agricole Corporate and Investment Bank v Commission
Competition
The President of the General Court rejects the application of Crédit agricole and JPMorgan Chase to prevent publication of the Commission decision regarding the EURIBOR cartel

NATO response to Vostok 2018 : Trident Juncture 18, abbreviated TRJE18, is a NATO-led military exercise to be held in Norway in October and November 2018 with an Article 5 collective defence scenario.

Trident Juncture 2018 will consist of three main parts:
- A phase of deployment lasting from August to October,
- LIVEX (live field exercise) from 25 October to 7 November. The land battle will take place in the area south of Trondheim and north of Rena Camp in Hedmark County. There will also be sea activity along the Norwegian Coast, the North Sea and limited areas in The Baltic Sea and Skagerrak. There will be air activity in the airspace over Norway, Sweden and Finland.
- CPX ( command post exercise) from 13 to 24 November 2018 at NATO's Joint Warfare Centre in Stavanger, Norway. This is a data simulated desk exercise to train the headquarters. This exercise is also a certification test for Allied Joint Force Command Naples.

The Norwegian Armed Forces have called the exercise the largest to be held in Norway since the 1980s, it will be NATO's largest exercise since 2002. An expected 50,000 participants from 31 nations will take part, including 10,000 vehicles, 250 aircraft and 65 vessels.

The exercise will mainly take place in central and eastern parts of Norway, and air and sea areas in Norway, Sweden and Finland. The main goals of Trident Juncture is to train the NATO Response Force and to test the alliance's defence capability. For Norway, the exercise will test the country's ability to receive and handle allied support.

Tag: Trident Juncture 2018Vostok 2018

Devin v EUIPO - Haskovo (DEVIN)
Intellectual and industrial property
DEVIN, the name of a Bulgarian town, can be registered as an EU trade mark for mineral water

Funke Medien NRW
Freedom of establishment
According to Advocate General Szpunar, a simple military report cannot enjoy copyright protection

Sciotto
SOPO
Workers in the sector of activity of operatic and orchestral foundations cannot be excluded from protection against the abuse of fixed-term employment contracts

DRAFT REPORT containing a motion for a non-legislative resolution on the draft Council decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Union, of the Strategic Partnership Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and Japan, of the other part
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Alojz Peterle

Source : © European Union, 2018 - EP

AMENDMENTS 1 - 265 - Draft report Annual report on the implementation of the Common Security and Defence Policy
Committee on Foreign Affairs

Source : © European Union, 2018 - EP

Source : © European Union, 2018 - EP

DRAFT OPINION on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the Asylum and Migration Fund
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Anders Primdahl Vistisen

Source : © European Union, 2018 - EP

AMENDMENTS 1 - 99 - Draft report Recommendation to the Council, Commission and the Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy on Defence of academic freedom in the EU's external action
Committee on Foreign Affairs

Source : © European Union, 2018 - EP