European Union

Le Pen v Parliament
Law governing the institutions
The General Court confirms the decision of the European Parliament to recover from Marine Le Pen MEP almost €300 000 for the employment of a parliamentary assistant, on the ground that she did not prove the effectiveness of that assistant’s work

Baumeister
MARI
All the information in the file of a financial supervision authority is not necessarily confidential

Length of video : 172'
You may manually download this video in WMV (1.5Gb) format

Disclaimer : The interpretation of debates serves to facilitate communication and does not constitute an authentic record of proceedings. Only the original speech or the revised written translation is authentic.
Source : © European Union, 2018 - EP

On Tuesday 19 June 2018, the Committees on Budget (BUDG), Budgetary Control (CONT), Foreign Affairs (AFET) and Development (DEVE) are jointly organising a public hearing entitled ‘Assessing the flow of external EU migration funding’.
The aim of the hearing is to assess the flow of current expenditure on the migration-related projects and the EU Trusts Funds and to analyse to what extent they bring added value to the EU budget. Speakers include Mr Hassoumi Massoudou (Minister of Finance of Niger), as well as representatives of the EEAS (Deputy Secretary General Christian Leffler), Member States' agencies, think tanks and civil society. The meeting will take place in Brussels, room Paul Henri Spaak 3C050 and will be live webstreamed.
Further information
Meeting documents
Webstreaming
Draft Programme
Source : © European Union, 2018 - EP

https://tvnewsroom.consilium.europa.eu/uploads/council-images/thumbs/uploads/council-images/remote/http_7e18a1c646f5450b9d6d-a75424f262e53e74f9539145894f4378.r8.cf3.rackcdn.com/sahelrt_thumb_169_1529322067_1529322067_129_97shar_c1.jpg

On 18 June 2018, Federica MOGHERINI, EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, hosts the annual G5 Sahel Ministerial Meeting in Brussels.

Download this video here.

With the pound so much lower following the Brexit vote, many more Britons are now holidaying at Britain’s seaside resorts. And it’s thanks to the EU that 95% of our beaches are now clean enough to wade out into the sea.

It wasn’t always like that. Back in the 1970s, we used to pump our untreated sewage straight into the sea. It’s only because of EU laws that the UK was forced to clean up its act.

As reported by Friends of the Earth, who campaigned during the referendum for the UK to stay in the EU for the sake of our environment:

“The EU’s 1976 Bathing Water Directive – and successful legal action by the European Commission – has made our beaches as clean, clear and swimmable as they are today.

“But it wasn’t easy going…The UK fought hard to maintain the right to continue polluting.

“Successive UK governments exploited whatever loophole they could find. They pumped untreated sewage into our ocean until 1998 – longer than any other European country.

“Now, water quality at beaches is better than at any time in living memory, according to the Environment Agency.

“Some of the UK’s most beautiful and loved beaches are protected in this way: Watergate Bay in Cornwall, Druridge Bay in Northumberland, Croyde Beach in Devon and hundreds more which have reached good and excellent water-rating standards.”

But, warns Friends of the Earth, not all of Britain’s beaches reach the crystal clear standards that we have now come to expect. Only around 60% of UK bathing waters meet the new “Excellent” standard of the revised 2006 EU Bathing Water Directive.

When Britain leaves the EU, we will no longer be subject to the Bathing Water Directive.

Commented Friends of the Earth:

“Without external EU pressure it seems likely that standards will slip. Staying in the EU delivers a win-win scenario of cleaner beaches and economic gain for sea-side economies.”

After Brexit, leaked documents suggest that Theresa May’s government plans to “scale down” climate and environmental protection laws to secure post-Brexit trade deals.

Does Britain really want the return of the dirty beach?

• Photo:  Jon Danzig at Tolcarne Beach at Newquay, Cornwall. The beautiful beach, one of the most popular in Newquay, has received a 5-star rating on Trip Advisor, with over 260 ‘excellent’ reviews.

________________________________________________________

• 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 Our beaches are clean because of the EU appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

It has been just over two months since Viktor Orban, Prime Minister of Hungary and the leader of Fidesz (Hungarian Civic Alliance), is back in power in Hungary. In these past two months Orban and his newly elected government’s policy proposals, such as the so-called ‘Stop-Soros’ bill has been under close scrutiny by the international press, Non-governmental organisations (NGO) and the European Parliament party groups. However what I found most striking about Orban and his political party Fidesz since April are Orban’s emphasis on ‘Christian democracy’ at his inauguration speech of May, the effect and implications of the European People’s Party’s (EPP) criticisms of the ‘Stop-Soros’ bill and Fidesz’s rigid position on the EU’s migration quota system. With these in mind the electoral success of right-wing Eurosceptic political parties across the EU such as the Italian Northern League (Lega Nord) and the Slovenian Democratic Party (SDS) also have made me wonder about the next year’s European Parliament elections and how the anti-immigration and Eurosceptic political parties across the EU might consolidate the basis of what Orban stands for and what this may mean for the future direction of the EU.

When the ’Stop-Soros’ bill was part of Orban’s April election campaign, from the international media to human rights organisation, such as the Amnesty International, and the European People’s Party group have all overlooked the details of Orban’s electoral promises. However now that Orban is moving forward with the bill for which he has the mandate, his government is under fire from left and right and it is widely covered in the press. It is not that I support the bill and what it means for those it covers, but it would have been more affective had the critical voices of today were lauder while Orban was promoting his anti-immigration and anti-Soros rhetoric and policy proposals across Hungary earlier this year during the election campaign.

Right after the elections in May 2018, Orban delivered his traditional inaugural speech at the Hungarian Parliament. His 2014 talk is still vividly remembered—what has now come to be known as ‘illiberal democracy’ speech. In which he claimed that the future it would be systems that were “not Western, not liberal, not liberal democracies, and perhaps not even democracies” that would create successful and competitive societies. Fast forward in May 2018, Orban did not make any reference to ‘illiberal democracy’, instead he emphasised on Christian culture and values and how that has been put at risk by the non-Christian refugees. Perhaps he believes he already formed an Illiberal form of government in Hungary, so it is not an urgent matter for him in this term. Additionally his form of government is treated as a ‘good practice’ by Poland and Slovenia, not mentioning the popularity of his illiberal democracy rhetoric in Turkey. This means: Orban reached his goal of normalising ‘illiberal democracy’ in the EU and now he moves on to his next challenge for his new term, his speech points to immigration as the one.

It is suggested that when Orban visited Brussels in early May, he was actually summoned by the two main names of the EPP: Joseph Daul and Manfred Weber. During the De Volkskrant interview, Weber revealed that Orbán had been read the riot act. A growing number of MEPs in the EPP delegation are demanding Fidesz’s expulsion from this basically Christian Democratic group. Allegedly they asked Orban to alter the ‘Stop-Soros’ bill as demanded by European Commission’s Venice Commission and if he continues his illiberal and antidemocratic policies, Fidesz may face expulsion. Since then it is reported that Orban does not particularly refer to this bill as ‘Stop-Soros’, for instance in his visit to Poland, he referred to it as ‘immigration bill’. In terms of content of this bill, It is true that assisting illegal immigration will be a crime, necessitating an amendment to the Criminal Code, but some of most objectionable items will not be included in the new law, including a 25% tax on all financial assistance arriving from abroad.

Ahead of a crucial EU summit due on 28-29 June, EU migratory reform have been a hot topic and the countries that have rejected obligatory quotas for accepting refugees have been at the centre of this debate. Since 2015 how to share the burden of asylum seekers has been a dividing matter in the EU, particular Italy and Greece has been complaining that they are overstressed. This meant disunity and conflict at the EU level. At this summit there is a plan for migratory reform so to overcome some of these problem, since Hungary and Poland do not change their positions on the obligatory quotas. Which meant that the other EU member states had to come up with new ways to get countries like Hungary to make a contribution in some form. Some suggested a flexible system in which countries that refuse quotas could compensate by making contributions in other areas. There is also a serious consideration for reforming the Dublin regulation. However it is also likely that at this EU summit an agreement may not be reached. In fact newly emerging Eurosceptic political parties and Fidesz are now promoting the idea of reform the EU migration policy after the European Parliament elections, probably expecting alike political parties doing significantly well at these elections. Whether there will be an agreement on the EU Migratory Reform I do not know. However it is for sure that the rise of Eurosceptic and anti-immigration political parties will change the future direction of the EU in many areas.

 

 

 

The post Orban and Fidesz in past two months appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

Committee meetings, Brussels

Source : © European Union, 2018 - EP

Construction site of the European Spallation Source in Lund, Sweden. Image credit: ESS

Isabel K. Bolliger, Katharina Cramer, David Eggleton, Olof Hallonsten, Maria Moskovko, Nicolas Rüffin[i]

We are witnessing the emergence of ‘grand challenges’ impacting societies on a global scale. These include climate change, artificial intelligence, and access to resources. Large-scale research and internationally coordinated collaboration in science, technology and innovation (STI) policy are viewed as the means by which we may find solutions to these challenges while at the same time contributing to scientific progress and basic research. The importance of international research organisations that combine large-scale research and multilateral collaboration are therefore expected to increase.

 

Considering these developments, it is time to thoroughly examine the main concepts and the role and influence of actors and different processes in policymaking on research infrastructure and ‘Big science’. An understanding of these phenomena will help professionals optimise these collaborations and may have further applications elsewhere in STI policy.

 

Rising attention for research infrastructures in Europe and beyond

In the past two decades, the European Union (EU) has established itself as a key actor in European innovation policy by virtue of the European Research Area (ERA) framework, as well as the intensified programmes under Horizon 2020 and the creation of the European Research Council (ERC). Another important component of current EU innovation policy is the focus on research infrastructures (RIs) and the identification that pan-European RIs function as a “pillar” of ERA and a “motor” of the European knowledge-based economy. This prominent role of RIs in EU policy-making is an under-researched area in science and innovation policy studies, as well as European studies. Although there is much to suggest that the institutions and processes of policy-making act out in partly new ways in this area, with new dynamics of decision-making and new constellations of actors involved.

 

In the United States, we observe pronounced research systems that developed in the post-war period. Many of the technologies we depend on today developed as a result of mission-oriented research policies where the government took active steps to shape markets. Through its many funding agencies including the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, the American research system provides a model that many try to emulate with varying results. Now we witness a retreat in some fields of publicly funded research as government allows the private sector to fund significant basic research. We also observe some sub-domains of applied research, particularly in space, being yielded to private enterprise with the government incentivising such work in the form of resupply contracts to the International Space Station. While the gravity of some research has shifted to Europe such as high energy physics, the United States still plays an important role in providing funding and industrial capacity.

 

Elsewhere, new players are entering the stage of big science research. China is investing heavily in new laboratories such as the China Spallation Neutron Source (CSNS). Both China and India are pursuing ambitious programmes for space exploration. The increasing interest in mega science projects may present new opportunities for international collaboration.

 

Each of these developments deserves to be studied in detail from multiple disciplinary and international perspectives.

 

A new network for research on big science and large-scale research infrastructures

In January 2018, a group of junior researchers focusing on research infrastructures were brought together for seminar at Lund University, where a research project on “The Rise of the New Big Science: Opportunities and challenges for nations, universities and science” studying present efforts in Lund to construct a new Big-Science facility the European Spallation Source (ESS).

 

The seminar resulted in a successful panel proposal for the ECPR General Conference 2018. The next step planned is the establishment of an interdisciplinary network to bring together researchers focusing on big science and research infrastructures. The aims of the network is to provide a forum for researchers around the world to exchange knowledge and experience on various aspects of big science and research infrastructures and therefore bring forward a very young field of research. Network members have a variety of backgrounds and analytical perspectives; these include historical studies, political science, psychology, sociology and physics. If you are interested in our activities or would like to get involved please contact Nicolas Rüffin for further information.

 

The next major event will be the panel on “Research infrastructures in Europe: Big science, Big Politics, Big Decisions” at the ECPR General Conference in August 2018, which is composed of four papers reporting on a variety of studies. The contributors of the panel deal with different aspects of European scientific collaboration in view of Big Science and Research Infrastructures, which is characterized by incoherent policymaking and ad hoc solutions. Nevertheless, European countries are able to come together and establish world-leading RIs despite the lack of pre-existing frameworks. The panellists examine different facets of this puzzling contradiction. These include looking at the role of the EU in coordinating and improving strategic planning, the history and politics of bilateral and intergovernmental collaboration, and different tools of policy-making such as foresight and roadmapping.

 

The panel will constitute a much-needed effort to raise visibility to these topics and begin a debate on the main concepts by analysing what actors and processes are involved in policy-making around RIs in Europe. Furthermore, we hope to be able to reach other researchers interested in the topic, in order to continually growing the network.

 

Authors: Isabel K. Bolliger, PhD Researcher at University of Lausanne (Switzerland). Katharina Cramer, Research Fellow at University of Konstanz (Germany). Dr David Eggleton, Associate Tutor at University of Sussex (UK). Dr. habil. Olof Hallonsten, Researcher at Lund University (Sweden). Maria Moskovko, PhD Researcher at Lund University (Sweden). Nicolas Rüffin, Research Fellow at Berlin Social Science Center (Germany).

[i] Authors are listed in alphabetical order.

The post Politics of big science, large-scale research facilities and international research collaboration appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

https://tvnewsroom.consilium.europa.eu/uploads/council-images/thumbs/uploads/council-images/remote/http_7e18a1c646f5450b9d6d-a75424f262e53e74f9539145894f4378.r8.cf3.rackcdn.com/b4bc15f6-d5eb-11e7-a8d2-bc764e093073_1.84_thumb_169_1527079575_1527079575_129_97shar_c1.jpg

EU Ministers of Agriculture and Fisheries meet on 18 and 19 June 2018 in Luxembourg for an exchange of views on the EMFF, fisheries controls and the fishing opportunities for 2019. They are also discussing the post 2020 CAP reform package and the agricultural market situation.

Download this video here.

When Prime Minister, Theresa May​, said in Florence last autumn that, “the United Kingdom has never totally felt at home being in the European Union”, she not only misrepresented the history of her country, she betrayed the legacy of her party.

It was only because of the passionate resolve of past Conservative Prime Ministers that Britain joined the European Community in the first place.

Now, Mrs May is Britain’s only Prime Minister ever to go against membership of the European Union and the cherished Single Market of Europe. She will be taking Britain out, whereas all previous Prime Ministers (both Tory and Labour) wanted Britain to be in.

WINSTON CHURCHILL: It was one of the Tory party’s greatest leaders, Winston Churchill, who passionately promoted the ‘Union of Europe as a whole’ and is recognised as a founder of the European Union.

When the European Economic Community (now called the European Union) was created in 1957, Churchill welcomed the formation of a “common market” by the six founding countries, provided that “the whole of free Europe will have access”.

Churchill added, “We genuinely wish to join..”

But Churchill also warned:

“If, on the other hand, the European trade community were to be permanently restricted to the six nations, the results might be worse than if nothing were done at all – worse for them as well as for us. It would tend not to unite Europe but to divide it – and not only in the economic field.”

In 1961 Conservative Prime Minister, Harold Macmillan, applied for Britain to join the European Community.

Churchill wrote, “I think that the Government are right to apply to join the European Economic Community..”

He added, “We might well play a great part in these developments to the profit of not only ourselves, but of our European friends also.”

HAROLD MACMILLAN: In a pamphlet explaining to the nation why Britain had applied to join the European Community in 1961, Prime Minister Macmillan wrote:

“By negotiating for British membership of the European Economic Community and its Common Market, the present Conservative Government has taken what is perhaps the most fateful and forward looking policy decision in our peacetime history.

“We did not do so lightly. It was only after a searching study of all the facts that we came to accept this as the right and proper course.”

Mr Macmillan continued:

“By joining this vigorous and expanding community and becoming one of its leading members, as I am convinced we would, this country would not only gain a new stature in Europe, but also increase its standing and influence in the councils of the world.”

SIR ALEC DOUGLAS-HOME: Mr Macmillan’s successor, Sir Alec Douglas-Home, was briefly prime minister for one year from 1964. He supported Britain’s application to join the European Community. Sir Alec said:

“I have never made it a secret that I cannot see an alternative which would offer as good a prospect for this country as joining the E.E.C. [European Community].”

And he also stated:

“I am acutely conscious that there are two questions which have to be asked: not only whether we should go in, but what is the prospect for Britain if we stay out. Those two questions have to be asked because, whether we are in or out, the Community goes on.”

EDWARD HEATH: It was Conservative Prime Minister, Edward Heath, who joined Britain to the European Community following the backing of Parliament after 300 hours of debate (contrast that with the scant time given to Parliament by the current Conservative government to debate the triggering of Article 50 and the European Withdrawal Bill.)

On the evening of 28 October 1971, Mr Heath addressed the House of Commons during the momentous debate on Britain joining the European Community. He said:

“Surely we must consider the consequences of staying out. We cannot delude ourselves that an early chance would be given us to take the decision again.

“We should be denying ourselves and succeeding generations the opportunities which are available to us in so many spheres; opportunities which we ourselves in this country have to seize.

“We should be leaving so many aspects of matters affecting our daily lives to be settled outside our own influence. That surely cannot be acceptable to us.

“We should be denying to Europe, also – let us look outside these shores for a moment – its full potential, its opportunities of developing economically and politically, maintaining its security, and securing for all its people a higher standard of prosperity.”

Mr Heath added:

“..tonight when this House endorses this Motion many millions of people right across the world will rejoice that we have taken our rightful place in a truly United Europe.”

Parliament did endorse the Motion, and Britain subsequently joined the European Economic Community on 1 January 1973.

MARGARET THATCHER: Two years later the Labour government offered the British people a referendum on whether the country should stay in the European Community. Tory leader and future Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, strongly campaigned for the country to remain in the Community.

In a keynote speech at the time she said:

“It is not surprising that I, as Leader of the Conservative Party, should wish to give my wholehearted support to this campaign, for the Conservative Party has been pursuing the European vision almost as long as we have existed as a Party.”

Mrs Thatcher also pushed for, and made possible, the Single Market of Europe.

In September 1988 in Bruges, Prime Minister Mrs Thatcher gave a major speech about the future of Europe. She said:

“Britain does not dream of some cosy, isolated existence on the fringes of the European Community. Our destiny is in Europe, as part of the Community.”

Mrs Thatcher added:

“Let Europe be a family of nations, understanding each other better, appreciating each other more, doing more together but relishing our national identity no less than our common European endeavour.”

Crucially she said in support of the Single Market:

“By getting rid of barriers, by making it possible for companies to operate on a European scale, we can best compete with the United States, Japan and other new economic powers emerging in Asia and elsewhere.”

JOHN MAJOR: And it was former Conservative Prime Minister, John Major, who negotiated and won Parliament’s backing to sign the Maastricht Treaty, that among other benefits gave us EU Citizenship rights allowing us to reside, work, study or retire across a huge expanse of our continent.

At the Tory Party Conference of 1992, just six months after John Major won a surprise victory in the General Election, he said to the party faithful:

“I speak as one who believes Britain’s future lies with Europe.”

And Mr Major warned about Britain walking away from Europe:

“We would be breaking Britain’s future influence in Europe. We would be ending for ever our hopes of building the kind of Europe that we want. And we would be doing that, just when across Europe the argument is coming our way. We would be leaving European policy to the French and the Germans.

“That is not a policy for Great Britain. It would be an historic mistake. And not one your Government is going to make.”

And Mr Major crucially added:

“Let us not forget why we joined the Community. It has given us jobs. New markets. New horizons. Nearly 60 per cent of our trade is now with our partners. It is the single most important factor in attracting a tide of Japanese and American investment to our shores, providing jobs for our people..

“But the most far-reaching, the most profound reason for working together in Europe I leave till last. It is peace. The peace and stability of a continent, ravaged by total war twice in this century.”

DAVID CAMERON: Previous Conservative Prime Minister, David Cameron, also strongly supported Britain’s continued membership of the EU, and his government’s official advice to the electorate during the Referendum was to vote for Remain.

Of course, Theresa May also shared these sentiments during the Referendum, when she campaigned for Remain and declared:

“I believe it is clearly in our national interest to remain a member of the European Union.”

And she added then:

“If we do vote to leave the European Union, we risk bringing the development of the Single Market to a halt, we risk a loss of investors and businesses to remaining EU member states driven by discriminatory EU policies, and we risk going backwards when it comes to international trade.”

But now, Mrs May has volunteered to go against her own wise words prior to 23 June 2016, and as our Conservative Prime Minister, seems determined to wreck the legacy of all the past Tory Prime Ministers – indeed of all UK Prime Ministers – of the last 60 years. Why?

________________________________________________________

• 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 Destroying the legacy of past Tory Prime Ministers appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

AMENDMENTS 1 - 200 - Draft report State of EU-US relations
Committee on Foreign Affairs

Source : © European Union, 2018 - EP

https://tvnewsroom.consilium.europa.eu/uploads/council-images/thumbs/uploads/council-images/remote/http_7e18a1c646f5450b9d6d-a75424f262e53e74f9539145894f4378.r8.cf3.rackcdn.com/974cb176-6fc2-11e8-a968-bc764e092fac_13.25_thumb_169_1528975488_1528975488_129_97shar_c1.jpg

Relations between Hong Kong and the EU are based on a high-level annual meeting called the Structured Dialogue between the EU and the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSARG). The tenth Structured Dialogue took place in November 2016 in Brussels. 

Download this video here.

Makhlouf v Council
External relations
The Court of Justice confirms that the fund-freezing measures imposed on Rami Makhlouf, cousin of Bashar al-Assad, must be maintained for the period 2016-2017

Srsly???

Following the Common’s debates on and around the Withdrawal Bill alongside my Twitter feed has been instructive at a number of levels, not least the volume of comment that can be generated around a man standing up.

But one of the more striking moments was the comments surrounding the continuing lack of knowledge that many in the chamber appear to display. The on-going conflation of the customs union and freedom of movement, or the assumption that the Irish border is only a matter of customs checks, are taken as emblematic of ‘The Mess We’re All In’.

To that I want to advance a somewhat different proposition, namely that since not everyone is as engaged in the ins-and-outs of Brexit as the kind of people who read blogs about it, they use short-cuts and heuristics to guide their way, and those are sometimes insufficient.

In the two examples I gave just now, the customs arrangements are a common element, because right now that what a lot of the British debate is about, even if – as Ken Clarke noted – no-one ever talked about it during the referendum.

Customs arrangements matter, but not to this degree, so why the focus?

Simply put, it’s because it’s a more manageable hook on which to hang a number of other big questions without getting too lost. Solutions to customs carry with them implications for those other questions, including free movement and regulatory alignment: win the narrow battle and you carry a big advantage through to the rest.

Hence the max-fac/customs partnership tussle: the former accepts hard borders, while the latter doesn’t.

Partly this is about the nature of political debate: fix on something that people feel they can understand and build out, rather than trying to convey a broad and detailed platform. That’s why ‘Brexit means Brexit’ lasted so long: it made enough sense to show that May was serious about, well, Brexit, without getting bogged down in the fine print.

Obviously, that doesn’t meant you don’t need the fine print. Or even some of the larger print, for that matter.

But partly, it’s also about Brexit. It’s a genuinely massive undertaking, well beyond the scope of any other matter of public policy. And that means there is no one master key, no one slogan that can capture that.

I’m hesitant about this, since I’m generally of the opinion that the worst way to engage people in a subject is to tell them it’s complicated. So my ju-jitsu move is to say that the shape of the problem is simple, even if the substance isn’t.

The problem is that in the face of such complexity, simple heuristics don’t work. They obscure more than they reveal and they suggest extrapolations that aren’t appropriate.

To return to the case in point, sorting out customs does offer a way into issues such as freedom of movement or regulatory alignment, but they don’t deal with the full range of those issues. Indeed, customs barely touches the sides of freedom of movement of goods, tell alone anything else.

Moreover, there are plenty of areas that can’t be addressed at all by the customs issue: the security relationship is an obvious example.

This prompts the observation that there’s a lot of stuff we’re not really giving enough attention. And a prime exhibit here is the Withdrawal Bill itself.

Recall that the purpose of the Bill is to cover the uncertainty around the status of the EU’s acquis once the UK leaves: it’s an essential counterpart to the Withdrawal Agreement. And the solution it offers, of rolling over all that acquis for the government to decide what to keep and what to chuck, matters hugely for the balance of executive and legislature in the UK, given the scale and scope of what it deals with.

And yet, we had scant discussion of that – despite numerous outstanding critiques of its model – and a focus on an (admittedly meaningful) amendment relating to the role of Parliament in the event of a failure to reach a deal with the EU by November.

The issue is essentially one of bandwidth: there’s only so much that can be a priority issue at any one time, so something’s got to give. That’s true in normal times, and these are not normal by any stretch of the imagination.

The risk is that important decisions are made by accident, or without due consideration, or even by default.

That’s a problem for everyone, both those who don’t get what they want – i.e. the large majority – and those that do – because the other lot will feel rightly aggrieved. Even the cry that “you should said something at the time” is weakened by the scale of the problem, even before we get to contemporary values about the instantaneous satisfying of one’s needs. In short, it’s a recipe for future instability.

The process of Brexit will matter as much as the outcome for the future development of the British polity. Consider how already the dissatisfactions carried by remainers shape political debate, much as the disconnect between elites and publics contributed to the referendum in the first place.

Participation is the life-blood of democracy, not only because of the need for some transmission from people to government, but also because inclusion through political channels is a means of building and maintaining a community. If we fail to heed that point, then we risk dealing with even greater problems than those posed by Brexit.

The post The heuristic gap appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

Based on her prize-winning article in JCER on the Sino-European Solar Panel Dispute, Astrid Pepermans examines how the European Union (EU) risks losing a trade war which China and the US initiated. She argues that the EU must respond by remaining united and sticking to its values of quality and rule-based trade. 

Container ship in the port of Rotterdam, Holland © rob3rt82 / Adobe Stock

Lately, free traders all over the world must be having a hard time when opening their newspapers. Donald Trump is unleashing a trade war with Xi Jinping. Meanwhile, the EU is also increasingly agitated about its imbalanced trade relationship with China. And, while having similar worries about China’s mercantilist economic strategy, the US and the EU find themselves dragged into a tit-for-tat trade conflict which is not so different from the Trans-Pacific trade quarrels.

Nothing new under the sun, you may think. Trade conflicts have existed since the birth of human economic interaction. However, this is the first time that the ‘strategic triangle’ of China, the EU and the US has been so close to reaching deadlock. The EU may well get squeezed between the two superpowers, which know exactly how to play on the EU’s internal divisions. The EU risks losing a trade war which China and the US initiated.

One could argue – and some experts do – for a Sino-European alliance against President Trump’s foolhardy catalogue of requirements for every country with whom the US has a trade deficit. However, as my recent article on the Sino-European solar panel dispute illustrates, existing worries about Chinese overcapacities, dumping practices, mercantilist policies and technological transfers are far from ill-founded.

In fact, these unfair trade practices have been, and are, harmful to the EU. While the European Commission has some trade defence instruments to tackle them, the same case demonstrates how China can bypass the Union with ease by playing member states against each other. In short, while fighting the eagle by joining the panda sounds like a good idea, history has shown that the latter has claws too and that it will use them whenever it feels its interests are endangered.

Others argue for the opposite: a western front forcing China to deliver on all the promises it made when it entered the WTO in 2001. These promises include opening up the Chinese market to foreign goods and investment; transforming the economy from state-directed to market-orientated; making consumption rather than investment the main driver of Chinese growth; and liberalising its monetary system etc. Nevertheless, it is clear that Trump is planning on playing cavalier seul on this one. Even if the US and the EU worked together to press for Chinese concessions, it is highly unlikely (and equally unconducive) that all the EU member states would join the US’s extremely hard stance in the debate.

Whether by means of hard protectionism or offensive mercantilism, both the US and China are laying claim to the top spot of the global economy. The only way for the EU to cope with its position between the hammer and the anvil is to remain united and to set its own course. Such a course does not include closing off its market, nor does it mean that it should make an enemy of China or the US.

It means sticking to what is at the core of the Union: rule-based trade. Trump is wrong on many points, but not on his argument that China should follow trade rules. The prospect of tapping into the huge Chinese consumer market has blinded the 28 EU member states to China’s economic nationalism, which has stood in the way of a level economic playing field since China’s entry into the WTO.

Having arrived at a point where Chinese strategic investments have made clear the enormous competitive pressure unleashed by the ‘opening up’ of the Chinese economy, it is only now dawning on countries like France and Germany that their position in global trade is being challenged. However, their efforts to establish a decent screening mechanism at European level to scrutinise Chinese investments in sensitive industries have been hampered by the desire among many other member states to attract Chinese capital.

Creating a European policy and tackling the challenge mean that the member states must refrain from short-term thinking, which implies not giving in on every financial carrot China dangles before them. As a unified whole, the EU28 still carries serious economic weight and the member states should be less afraid of using it to press for fair competition. In the same vein, quality should remain Europe’s central yardstick. Competition is important for innovation and economic progress, but not when it causes international price wars and a global race to the bottom. Whether for European, Chinese or American goods, quality standards should be agreed upon and upheld.

Fair international competition and a consistent focus on quality will in turn create room for manoeuvre for Europe to increase its productivity and prosper economically. The threefold approach of regaining Europe’s economic competitiveness, sticking to European values such as quality and rule-based trade, and conveying them in a forceful and unanimous way is the only option for Europe to tackle both the China and Trump challenges.

This article is based on the author’s article in the Journal of Contemporary European Studies (JCER) Vol 13 No 4, which won the 2018 Luke Foster Prize for Best JCER Article. 

Please note that this article represents the views of the author(s) and not those of the UACES Graduate Forum, JCER or UACES.

Comments and Site Policy

Shortlink for this article: http://bit.ly/2sT5FNE

Astrid Pepermans 
Free University of Brussels / Vrije Universiteit Brussel

Astrid Pepermans obtained a Masters degree in Political Sciences and started working as a teaching assistant at the Free University of Brussels in 2015. She is currently preparing a PhD thesis on the Sino-European political/economic relationship.

 

The post Unless the EU Gets Its Act Together, It Will Lose a Trade War Against Both China and the US appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

On Tuesday 19 June (16:00-18:30), the Committees on Budget (BUDG), Budgetary Control (CONT), Foreign Affairs (AFET) and Development (DEVE) are jointly organising a public hearing entitled 'Assessing the flow of external EU migration funding'.
The aim of the hearing is to assess the flow of current expenditure on the migration-related projects and the EU Trusts Funds and to analyse to what extent they bring added value to the EU budget. Speakers include Mr Hassoumi Massoudou (Minister of Finance of Niger), as well as representatives of the EEAS (Deputy Secretary General Christian Leffler), Member States' agencies, think tanks and civil society. The meeting will take place in Brussels, room Paul Henri Spaak 3C050 and will be live webstreamed.
Further information
Draft Programme for joint hearing 19 June
Webstreaming
Events page
Source : © European Union, 2018 - EP

On Tuesday 19 June 2018, the Committees on Budget (BUDG), Budgetary Control (CONT), Foreign Affairs (AFET) and Development (DEVE) are jointly organising a public hearing entitled ‘Assessing the flow of external EU migration funding’.
The aim of the hearing is to assess the flow of current expenditure on the migration-related projects and the EU Trusts Funds and to analyse to what extent they bring added value to the EU budget. Speakers include Mr Hassoumi Massoudou (Minister of Finance of Niger), as well as representatives of the EEAS (Deputy Secretary General Christian Leffler), Member States' agencies, think tanks and civil society. The meeting will take place in Brussels, room Paul Henri Spaak 3C050 and will be live webstreamed.
Further information
Meeting documents
Webstreaming
Draft Programme
Source : © European Union, 2018 - EP

AMENDMENTS 201 - 387 - Draft report State of EU-US relations
Committee on Foreign Affairs

Source : © European Union, 2018 - EP

DRAFT REPORT on the 2018 Commission Report on Serbia
Committee on Foreign Affairs
David McAllister

Source : © European Union, 2018 - EP