European Union

After two terrorist attacks in the last two weeks of its general election, the UK heads to the polls this Thursday unsure how the vote will finally turn out. With the polls predicting anything from a hung parliament to a substantial increase in Prime Minister Theresa May’s majority, Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn is for now being labelled the political ‘winner’ of the election, with May’s negative ratings increasing as her poll lead has declined.

Will the SNP hold the balance of power at Westminster?

If it is a hung parliament, then attention will turn rather quickly to the third-largest party at Westminster, the Scottish National Party (SNP). The SNP are expected to lose between five and ten of the 56 seats they currently hold (out of a total of 59 in Scotland), though they would still have 46 MPs even if the worst-case likely scenario. The Tories in particular – but Labour and possibly even the LibDems – all look potentially set to increase their seat tally in Scotland from the one MP each they currently have (Labour having been Scotland’s dominant party until 2015).

But the polls still have the SNP on between 40% and 43% of the vote while, just as in England, different polls tell different stories for the Scottish Tory and Labour share of the vote (one suggesting they had levelled at 25% each, another putting the Tories on 30% and Labour on 18%).

“Brexit has been the elephant in the room in the Scottish election debate”

Where is the independence in the EU debate?

Apart from the unpredictability of the results, another curious dimension of Scotland’s election campaign has been the lack of debate over the SNP’s declared aim of independence in the European Union. Two weeks before Theresa May triggered Article 50, Nicola Sturgeon – Scotland’s First Minister and SNP leader – had announced that in the face of Brexit she wanted a second independence referendum once the withdrawal deal was done in autumn 2018.

May responded “no, not now” to this request. The Tory leader in Scotland, Ruth Davidson, then chose to make her Scottish general election campaign all about saying ‘no’ to a second referendum. The stage was set it seemed for a big debate about Brexit with the UK or independence in the EU. But it hasn’t happened.

Nicola Sturgeon has said that having a majority of MPs in Scotland – along with being the largest party in the Scottish parliament and winning the local council elections early last month – would mean she has a ‘triple lock’ on her request for a second independence referendum. But she has also been keen to stress that the election is about electing SNP MPs to provide opposition at Westminster to Conservative austerity policies, benefit cuts and reductions in public service spending. This has been her main line of attack.

Sturgeon has also said that if she wins a majority of MPs (which she is bound to do) she will demand a seat at the Brexit negotiating table, and will again call for Scotland to be allowed to stay in the EU’s single market and the UK (as proposed last December in the Scottish government paper ‘Scotland’s Place in Europe’). This is rather curious.

The UK government rejected Sturgeon’s proposal for a differentiated deal for Scotland (on the same day as they triggered Article 50). UK government Brexit Secretary David Davis wrote to his Scottish Government counterpart Mike Russell to say – without a hint of irony – that Scotland could not be in the UK and in the EU’s single market as it would create significant trade barriers between Scotland and England and ‘regulatory confusion’. It is also clear that Nicola Sturgeon would not agree with May’s approach to the Brexit talks (outside the EU single market and customs union) – yet she is putting the emphasis on these two demands: a seat at the table and a differentiated deal.

It appears that, despite taking the bold step of calling a second independence referendum in the face of Brexit, and coming down on the side of an independent Scotland being in the EU not the European Economic Area, Nicola Sturgeon does not want to debate these issues. As a result, with the Scottish Tories and Labour both doing well out of strongly opposing a second referendum, Sturgeon looks on the defensive.

“If it is a hung parliament, the attention will turn rather quickly to the third-largest party at Westminster, the Scottish National Party”

Where is the Brexit challenge?

Ruth Davidson, Scottish Tory leader – and Labour’s leader Kezia Dugdale – have been allowed to argue against independence without being challenged on Scotland being part of the UK’s Brexit, and on all the associated costs and damage that the Brexit decision is already doing and will do even more in the near future. It is understandable that the SNP did not want the general election campaign to be run as if it is a referendum campaign – with arguments over what currency an independent Scotland would use, how it would fund its deficit, and what would happen to the England-Scotland border.

But the SNP had plenty of potential Brexit ammunition to use over the damage to living standards caused by the fall in the pound since 23 June, the slowdown in growth (with eurozone growth in the first quarter of 2017 two-and-a-half times that of the UK), the trade barriers that Brexit will reintroduce, security and more.

To put the focus instead on an anti-Tory, anti-austerity narrative and, when talking about Brexit, to prioritise the demand that Scotland should be in the UK and in the EU’s single market, suggests an SNP that is not on the front foot on independence in the EU.

In the rest of the UK both Labour and the Tories accept Brexit – and so it was pushed to the sidelines of election debates. In Scotland, there is clear blue water over Brexit between the Tories and Labour, on one side, and the SNP (and Scottish Greens) on the other.

Yet Brexit has been the elephant in the room in the Scottish election debate. And whether there will be a second independence referendum before 30 March 2019 is, for now, quite unclear. It is one more Brexit conundrum.

IMAGE CREDIT: CC/Flickr – First Minister of Scotland

The post Neither Brexit nor independence: Scotland’s strange election debate appeared first on Europe’s World.

The UK’s Government is wrapped in a contradiction on Brexit. On the one hand, Theresa May states that no deal is better than a bad deal. On the other hand, the Conservative Manifesto also states that getting the Brexit negotiations right will define “our economic security and economic prosperity”.

Since the Lancaster House speech earlier this year, Theresa May has been consistently and repeatedly stating that the UK would be prepared to walk away from the Brexit negotiations. What only became clear during the election campaign is that the UK Government directly links the future prosperity of its citizens to the outcome of the UK negotiations with the EU.  This is important because for the Conservative Party to argue that “getting the Brexit negotiations right is central to everything – our economy, our finances, our position in the world. Get Brexit wrong and we get everything else wrong. From looking after our elderly to educating our children, everything depends on getting Brexit right”, fundamentally contradicts the rationale for no deal. Indeed, underlying that the UK needs to “get the Brexit negotiations right” to secure its future security and prosperity implies that no deal is in itself the bad deal.

During last week’s BBC Leaders Special on Question Time David Dimbleby asked the PM “what is a bad deal? People are very confused, you talk all the time about a bad deal which you won’t accept. Can you explain what in your mind would be a bad deal?”. In her response Theresa May said the following: “Well yes. I think on the one hand, David, you have got politicians in Europe, some of whom are talking about punishing the UK for leaving the EU, I think what they want to see in terms of that punishment would be a bad deal, and secondly, you have got politicians here, in the United Kingdom, who seem to be willing to accept any deal, whatever that is, just for the sake of getting a deal, and I think that the danger is they would be accepting the worse possible deal at the highest possible price”. A few minutes later, a member of the audience asked the PM to “quantify in billions of pounds what is a good deal” regarding the so-called Brexit bill. The Prime Minister’s answer: “well the… I am not going to give you a figure on that . . . because we need to go through very carefully what as part of the negotiation what rights and obligations the United Kingdom has”.

The PM’s response further confirms her ambiguity in defining what a bad deal is and the rationale to walk away from the negotiations with no deal. In her response to the member of the audience, Theresa May seems to accept that there will be a Brexit bill to be agreed (which depends on agreeing the rights and obligations of the UK in the EU). However, in her response to David Dimbleby, the PM states that the “punishment” (the Brexit bill) is a bad deal and therefore no deal would be a better outcome. Paradoxically, in another response to a member of the audience, May also states that “several EU politicians want to get on with trade talks very quickly”. This reinforces the view that when May talks about the “punishment” that European politicians want to inflict on the UK she is not referring to the possibility of the talks on the trade deal to collapse but, rather, to what the EU will demand for settling the UK/EU accounts on previously agreed commitments (the Brexit bill). What is important to note here is that the EU has stated that this financial settlement must precede and be agreed before any trade talks begin. As such, the refusal of the PM to quantify what the UK is willing to accept paying suggests either the UK Government has not given much thought about the issue (in fact, the possibility of a Brexit bill was not even mentioned during the EU referendum campaign), or that its intention is to use the Brexit bill as a reason for walking away from the negotiations with no deal.

But when  ”sufficient progress” regarding the Brexit bill (as well as on EU/UK citizens rights) has been achieved, which will allow the negotiations to proceed to the next stage, then the question is what constitutes a good (“right”) and a bad (“wrong”) Brexit deal? Interestingly, the UK Government is somewhat clear on what it seeks from the Brexit negotiations. As it is stated in Theresa May’s Article 50 letter, the goal of the UK is to establish a “new deep and special partnership” with the EU “in both economic and security cooperation”. In economic terms, “getting Brexit right” means, in the words of David Davies (Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union), retaining the “exact same benefits” of membership of EU membership of the Single Market  By the same token, “getting Brexit wrong” means getting a Brexit deal where these exact same benefits are not guaranteed. Crucially, as a no deal will put the UK and EU trading under WTO rules those tariff and non-tariff access will be lost. As such, accordingly to the UK’s Government own terminology, no deal also means “getting Brexit wrong”. In other words, no deal is also a bad deal. Therefore, the open question is which outcome is worse – no deal or a deal that does not deliver the “exact same benefits” of EU membership?

An important caveat here: walking away from the Brexit negotiations table with no deal will not prevent the EU from taking action against the UK in international courts. That is, the financial accounts between the UK and EU will have to be settled regardless whether the UK leaves the negotiation table or not. As such, no deal is the worst possible deal for it not only does not avoid the Brexit bill, it also prevents a (soft) Brexit deal on trade, security and on UK/EU citizen rights deal with the EU to come about, and finally, it also breaks a key pledge of the Leave campaign – a comprehensive free trade agreement with the EU. One thing is certain though: the Conservative Party’s threat of walking away with no deal (the hardest form of Brexit) is incompatible with the same Conservative Party’s goal of “getting the Brexit negotiations right”.

The post No deal is incompatible with Theresa May’s claim that “everything depends on getting the Brexit negotiations right” appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

Blogs are increasingly relevant to researchers and, for those starting out in contributing to them, it can be useful to reflect on the differences with other outputs, writes Anthony Salamone. He sets out some suggestions on how to approach writing for an academic blog, including how to gain the most from the experience.

LSE Library at Night, Lukasz Duleba, CC-BY-NC-2.0

As academia becomes ever more integrated into the digital environment, researchers will increasingly benefit from the ability to write for different formats. Academic blogs in particular have grown to become one of the mainstays for analysis, commentary and the exchange of ideas in many fields of study. If you are new to writing for blogs, it can be worthwhile considering how the medium varies from others (especially from longer ‘standard’ academic texts) and how to make the most of a blog contribution.

In the first instance, it is important to keep in mind that academic blogs can be diverse in terms of their purpose, style and audience. When writing for (or reading) a blog, these factors should inform the approach that you take. Generally speaking, however, academic blogs are defined by relatively short written contributions and an open audience which can range from academics to practitioners to interested members of the public. For university blogs, at least, most are run by editors and have their own contribution guidelines, publication policies and editorial structures.

Translate your argument into a more concise form

The normal length of an article can range from around 500 – 2000 words. Particularly for pieces on the more concise end of the scale, this brevity requires that you prioritise the key points that you want to make, along with any relevant evidence. It follows then that you must have a clear sense of what you want to communicate, and that you keep to it – the limitations leave little room for tangents (however interesting). If you are unsure of how to organise your ideas for this format, figure out what single takeaway you would want someone to leave with after reading your article, and make certain that the piece as a whole reflects that message.

Adapting to this form applies not only to your ideas, but also to your writing. Contributions are most often effective with shorter, concise sentences and smaller paragraphs. Moreover, a blog piece does not require substantial signposting. Broadly speaking, this sentence and paragraph structure is somewhere between that of a newspaper and an academic journal. Regardless of whether this philosophy is preferred by a particular blog, it is to your benefit to become familiar with writing in this style and to employ it in blog contributions.

The way in which you approach referencing is another component to consider. In general, the preferred form of citation is an in-text hyperlink (as shown here). Since blogs are webpages, footnotes are not possible – equally, many platforms either discourage or will not publish endnotes. Substantive points need to be incorporated into your article itself. References should only be represented by the hyperlink or with minimal in-text citations as an indicative guide, since most platforms will not publish lists of references at the end. In this sense, think of your contribution more as a column in a newspaper or magazine. Certain sites do allow endnotes and references, but they are exceptions – and it is beneficial to develop the skill of working without them.

When writing a contribution, the title is of course an important consideration. Craft a title which is short (it should fit on one line) and explanatory (it should make clear either your main argument or the principal question you address). Some platforms use descriptive titles – a short sentence which summarises your article. It is also relevant to keep in mind the likely readership of a particular blog. If your article will be read by a broad audience, technical concepts should be made accessible. If your contribution will be read by colleagues or those with requisite knowledge, avoid explaining basic parameters and concentrate on your arguments.

Select a platform which fits with your objectives

With these points of form and style in mind, attention turns to the content of your contribution and how to maximise its value to you. Overall, blog articles can be divided into two main categories – analysis/comment and research/exchange. Analysis pieces offer informed discussion and commentary on aspects of current affairs in general or contemporary issues in the field of study. As with any academic endeavour, it is advisable to focus contributions on your expertise – your areas of research, study and experience.

Writing about research in a blog can be a worry for some – particularly if work has yet to be published in a journal or book. However, it is perfectly possible to write about your research in a constructive way. Before publication, you can use blog contributions to preview your work, setting out some of the background ideas of your research. After publication, blog pieces can enable you to increase the impact of your research by distributing it to a wider audience (including through links to full publications). Additionally, when you give a talk or speak at an event, translating your remarks into a blog can be a convenient way of sharing them further in written form.

In terms of where to submit a contribution, consider which blog platforms might suit the objectives you are looking to achieve, in terms of likely readership, possible feedback or discussion, or increased recognition within a particular community. Before sending your article to a blog, take the time to read its style guide and look through some of its recent articles, to ensure that your submission fits that style. For instance, if all the articles on a blog include a summary at the start, write one yourself in the same format. While your contribution will be evaluated on the basis of its arguments and how well they are communicated, ensuring that your article meets all the stylistic standards can expedite publication.

Promote your contributions and engage in the debate

Instead of submitting a piece directly to a blog, you can also contact the editors first to make sure that your proposal sounds relevant to them. This feedback can enable you to tailor your contribution as needed, and to check, for instance, that you are not submitting something on a topic for which they already have material to publish. You might also be able to agree delivery and/or publication times, which can be useful for planning. Once you have submitted a contribution and it has been accepted, expect to receive suggested edits, which you will have to work through with the editors.

After your article has been published, take the time to publicise and record your work, from sharing it on social media, to including it on your online researcher profile, to telling your department/institute so it can be included in the next newsletter. Many blogs publish with Creative Commons licenses, which allow material to be freely republished on the same terms, so it might be the case that your article is reposted elsewhere. Blogs also commission contributions, particularly from previous authors, which can bring further opportunities to you.

Academic blogs are an important vehicle for sharing your research with and offering your analysis to colleagues and the wider world. While blogs remain largely supplementary to other forms of academic writing, their shorter format, potential reach and faster publication times make them an important part of contemporary research life.

The author is Co-Editor of Crossroads Europe, founder and Managing Editor of European Futures and former Assistant Editor of LSE European Politics and Policy (EUROPP).

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

Comments and Site Policy

Shortlink for this article: bit.ly/2rSkIrj

Anthony Salamone | @AMSalamone
University of Edinburgh

Anthony Salamone is PhD Candidate in Politics at the University of Edinburgh and Managing Editor of European Futures. He is a Committee Member of the UACES Student Forum and Co-Editor of Crossroads Europe.

The post How to Write for an Academic Blog appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

OPINION on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a Union Resettlement Framework and amending Regulation (EU) No 516/2014 of the European Parliament and the Council
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Laima Liucija Andrikienė

Source : © European Union, 2017 - EP

Place:           European Convention Centre Luxembourg (ECCL)

Chair(s):      Urmas Reinsalu, Estonian minister for Justice, and
                      Andres Anvelt, Estonian minister for Home Affairs,
                      on behalf of the Maltese Presidency of the Council

All times are approximate and subject to change

Justice (Thursday, 8 June)

+/- 08.00
Arrivals - Justice ministers (live streaming)

+/- 08.15
Doorstep by Ambassador Marlene Bonnici

+/- 10.00
Beginning of the meeting (roundtable)
Adoption of the agenda
Adoption of legislative A items

+/- 10.10
Establishment of the European Public Prosecutor's Office (EPPO) (public session)

+/- 10.55
Digital Agenda: Supply of digital content (public session)

+/- 11.25
Revision of Brussels II a: jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, and on international child abduction (public session)

+/- 12.05
Insolvency: preventive restructuring frameworks, second chance and measures to increase the efficiency of restructuring, insolvency and discharge procedures (public session)

+/- 12.45
Countering money laundering by criminal law (public session)

+/- 13.05
Data protection by Union institutions and bodies: protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies and of the free movement of such data (public session)

+/- 13.20
Other business - Information from the Presidency on current legislative proposals (public session)

Approval of the list non-legislative "A" items

Other business - Work programme of the incoming Presidency

+/- 13.45
Working lunch (Hate speech online)

+/- 14.30
Arrivals - Home affairs ministers

+/- 15.30
Joint session of Justice and Home affairs ministers (roundtable)

Criminal Justice in cyberspace
a)  e-evidence
b) encryption
c)  data retention

Protection of children in Migration
a)  Draft Conclusions on the protection of children in Migration
b)  Protection of children in Migration

+/- 18.00
Press conference (live streaming)

Home affairs (Friday, 9 June)

+/- 08.30
Arrivals (live streaming)

+/- 09.25
Doorstep by Ambassador Marlene Bonnici 

+/- 10.00
Meeting of the Mixed committee (roundtable)
Adoption of the agenda

Establishment of a European Travel and Information Authorisation System (ETIAS)

Schengen Information System (SIS)

Other business

+/- 11.45
Beginning of the Home affairs Council meeting

Migration

+/- 13.00
Working lunch of ministers for home affairs (Counter-terrorism)

+/- 14.45
Home affairs Council meeting resumes

Return Policy - Implementation of Commission Recommendation on Return

Information Systems and Interoperability

Other business - Work programme of the incoming Presidency

+/- 16.20
Reform of the Common European Asylum System and Resettlement (public session)

+/- 16.50
Establishment of European Travel and Information Authorisation System (ETIAS) (public session)

+/- 16.55
Schengen Information System (SIS) (public session)

+/- 17.00
Other business - Information from the Presidency on current legislative proposals

+/- 17.05
Press conference (live streaming)

On 9 June 2017, the Council agreed a general approach on the proposal for a European travel information and authorisation system (ETIAS). The general approach constitutes the Council's position for negotiations with the European Parliament.

"ETIAS will help improve our security and protect our citizens. It will require all those who do not need a visa to be checked before they travel to the Schengen area. Anyone posing a risk can be prevented from coming."

Maltese Presidency of the Council

ETIAS will allow for advance checks and, if necessary, deny travel authorisation to visa-exempt third-country nationals travelling to the Schengen area. It will help improve internal security, prevent illegal immigration, limit public health risks and reduce delays at the borders by identifying persons who may pose a risk in one of these areas before they arrive at the external borders.

Functioning of the system

The Council position includes the following elements.

The system will apply to visa-exempt third country nationals, as well as those who are exempt from the airport transit visa requirement. They will need to obtain a travel authorisation before their trip, via an online application.

The information submitted in each application will be automatically processed against other EU databases to determine whether there are grounds to refuse a travel authorisation. When no hits or elements requiring further analysis are identified, the travel authorisation will be issued automatically within a short time. This is expected to be the case for the large majority of applications.

If there is a hit or an element requiring analysis, the application will be handled manually by the competent authorities. In this case, the ETIAS central unit will first check that the data recorded in the application file corresponds to the data triggering a hit. When it does or when doubt remains, the application will be processed manually by the ETIAS national unit of the responsible member state. The issuing or refusal of an application which has triggered a hit will take place no later than 96 hours after the application is submitted or, if additional information has been requested, 96 hours after this information has been received.

Before boarding, air carriers, sea carriers and international carriers transporting groups overland by coach will need to check whether third country nationals subject to the travel authorisation requirement are in possession of a valid travel authorisation.

The travel authorisation will not provide an automatic right of entry or stay; it is the border guard who will take the final decision.

A travel authorisation will be valid for three years or until the end of validity of the travel document registered during application, whichever comes first.

On 8 June, the Council adopted its position on the proposed Directive on countering money laundering by criminal law.

The objective of the proposed directive is to: 

• establish minimum rules concerning the definition of criminal offences and sanctions relating to money laundering;
• remove obstacles to cross-border judicial and police cooperation by setting common provisions to improve the investigation of money laundering related offences;
• bring EU rules in line with international obligations, in particular those arising from the Council of Europe Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime and on the Financing of Terrorism (Warsaw Convention) and the relevant Financial Action Task Force (FATF) Recommendations.

"To conduct terrorist or other criminal activities, one needs money. With these new rules, our objective is to disrupt and effectively cut off the financial sources of criminals. It is a key dimension of the EU fight against terrorism and that is why the Maltese presidency has set a high priority on this file.  We now hope that the European Parliament will be in a position to engage in negotiations with the Council in a timely manner, in the context of the ordinary legislative procedure."

Maltese Presidency

The compromise reached by the Council achieves a balance between the positions expressed by member states whilst respecting the main objectives of the initial proposal.

Discussions at the Council focused in particular on:

• the scope of the definition of a "criminal activity" (Article 2(1)) where the Council compromise reaffirms that all categories of offences defined by the Council of Europe Warsaw Convention are covered as predicate offences, while references to existing EU legislation defining specific offences are also included to ensure that they are considered within the respective category. Furthermore, to address the growing threat of cybercrime, the Council agreed that this category should be also added in the definition of criminal activity.  
• the introduction of a criminalisation obligation for self-laundering (Article 3(3))
• the link with the PIF directive, which provides specific rules for money laundering of property derived from PIF offences (Article  1(2)) where the Council underlines that member states can transpose these rules through a single comprehensive framework on money laundering at national level;

Background

The proposal was tabled by the Commission in December 2016 together with a proposal for a regulation on the mutual recognition of freezing and confiscation orders. Both texts are part of the EU plan to strengthen the fight against terrorist financing and financial crimes. The overall objective is to further disrupt the sources of revenue used by terrorist organisations, as well as to improve the tracing of terrorists through financial movements.

Next steps

The Council and the Parliament will enter into negotiations on the final text as soon as the latter has decided on its position.

On 8 June, the member states which are part of the enhanced cooperation on the creation of the European Public Prosecutor's Office (EPPO) agreed on legislation setting out the details of its functioning and role.

The EPPO will have the authority, under certain conditions, to investigate and prosecute EU-fraud and other crimes affecting the Union's financial interests. It will bring together European and national law-enforcement efforts to counter EU fraud.

The EPPO central office will be based in Luxembourg. The date on which the EPPO will assume its investigative and prosecutorial tasks will be set by the Commission on the basis of a proposal from the European Chief Prosecutor once the EPPO has been set up. This date will not be earlier than three years after the entry into force of this Regulation.

Functioning of the EPPO

The EPPO will work as a collegial structure composed of two levels. The central level will consist of a European chief prosecutor, who will have overall responsibility for the office. The decentralised level will be made up of European delegated prosecutors located in the member states, who will be in charge of the day-to-day conduct of criminal investigations and prosecutions in line with the regulation and legislation of that member state.

The central level will monitor, direct and supervise all investigations and prosecutions  undertaken by European Delegated Prosecutors, thereby ensuring a consistent investigation and prosecution policy across Europe.

Although its competence is limited to the participating member states, the EPPO will cooperate with the other EU non-participating member states. In this respect, the Council invited the Commission to reflect on submitting appropriate proposals to ensure the effectiveness of this judicial cooperation.

Enhanced cooperation

The enhanced cooperation procedure was launched on 3 April 2017 following the registration of the lack of unanimous agreement on the proposal.

Up until now, 18 member states have joined the enhanced cooperation: Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Germany, Greece, Spain, Finland, France, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia and Slovakia.

Moreover, another 2 member states, namely Italy and Austria have expressed their intention to join the enhanced cooperation.

Other member states may join the cooperation at any time.

Background

The Union and its member states sometimes face complex cases of, for example, fraud against EU structural funds or large-scale cross-border VAT fraud. In those cases, national criminal investigators and prosecutors often lack the tools required to act quickly and efficiently across borders.

The EPPO will address these shortcomings and enhance the fight against offences affecting the Union's financial interests, thereby  contributing to a stronger and better protected Union budget.

The EPPO will complement the work of OLAF and Eurojust, which are not equipped to investigate or prosecute individual criminal cases.

Next steps

Prior to the final adoption of the EPPO regulation, the European Parliament's consent is required to be sought. It is expected that this could happen before the summer break, allowing for the final adoption of the text in October.

Under the "consent procedure", the European Parliament has the power to accept or reject a legislative proposal by an absolute majority vote, but cannot amend it.

The Council today adopted new rules to allow consumers who paid for online content services in their home country to access them when visiting another country within the EU.

"Europeans travelling within the EU will no longer be cut off from online services such as films, sporting broadcasts, music, e-books or games they have paid for back home. Together with the ending of roaming charges, this is important progress in creating a digital single market which benefits everyone."

Maltese Presidency
Access to subscriptions from abroad at no extra charge

The new regulation will improve competitiveness by encouraging innovation in online services and attracting more consumers. It is one of the objectives of the digital single market strategy to create a truly internal market for digital content and services.

It will apply to all online content services which are provided against payment of money. Free to air services, such as those provided by certain public broadcasters, will have the option of benefiting from the regulation provided that they verify the country of residence of their subscribers.

Current obstacles to cross-border portability of online services arise from the fact that the rights for the transmission of content protected by copyright such as audio-visual works as well as rights for premium sporting events are often licensed on a territorial basis. Online service providers may choose to serve specific markets only.

The provision of cross-border portability will not be subject to any additional charges.

Verification of member state of residence

The new measures will ensure equal access from abroad to content legally acquired or subscribed to in the member state of residence when on holidays, business trips or limited student stays.

To avoid abuses, service providers will verify the subscribers' member state of residence. The verifications will be carried out in compliance with EU data protection rules.

The provider will be authorised to cease the access to the online service when the subscriber cannot prove his/her member state of residence.

The means of verification will be reasonable, proportionate and effective. It will consist of using no more than two criteria from a list of verification means. These may include an identity card, a bank account or credit card; the address of installation of the device for the supply of services; the payment by the subscriber of a licence fee for other services; an official billing or postal address; etc.

But copyright holders will have the possibility of authorising the use of their content without the obligation to verify the subscriber's residence.

Entry into force

The new rules will start to apply in the first quarter of 2018 (nine months after its publication in the EU's Official Journal).

Today's decision follows an agreement reached on 7 February 2017 between the Maltese Presidency and the European Parliament. The Parliament voted its first reading position on 18 May 2017.

The regulation was adopted at a meeting of the Justice and Home Affairs Council, without discussion.

Background

The increased use of portable devices such as tablets and smartphones facilitates access to the use of online content services regardless of the consumers' location.

There is rapidly growing demand on the part of consumers for access to content and innovative online services not only in their own country but also when they are away from home. As a result,  barriers that hamper access and use of online content services within the single market need to be eliminated.

Competitiveness, decarbonisation and digitalisation are the guiding principles that will serve as a basis for the EU's maritime transport policy up to 2020 and beyond. These principles aim to ensure that maritime transport remains an attractive way for transporting goods and people and becomes even more environmentally-friendly. It should also serve as a catalyst for investment and innovation.

Today's Council conclusions endorse the content of the Valletta declaration on the EU's maritime policy, which was adopted at an informal ministerial conference organised by the presidency on 29 March 2017.

The Council is setting a target of halving the number of serious injuries on roads in the EU by 2030 from the 2020 baseline, using a recently agreed common definition. Of particular concern is the number of pedestrians and cyclists killed or seriously injured each year.

Today's Council conclusions on road safety endorse the Valletta declaration on improving road safety adopted at an informal ministerial meeting organised by the presidency on 29 March 2017. They will feed into the next EU strategy on road safety, which is expected to be developed for the decade 2020-2030.

OPINION on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council setting up a Union regime for the control of exports, transfer, brokering, technical assistance and transit of dual-use items (recast)
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Marietje Schaake

Source : © European Union, 2017 - EP

Inga Ulnicane

View from Exhibition ‘The Vulgar: Fashion Redefined’. Photo from Belvedere http://www.winterpalais.at/

Tackling Grand societal global challenges has become a popular goal of knowledge policies and governance including many science, technology, innovation and higher education strategies and initiatives. Over the past 15 years, the European Union, many international organizations, national governments, private foundations, scientific societies and universities have declared their priority to address societal challenges in the areas such as environment, energy and health. Why and how does the Grand societal global challenges concept have become such a popular idea? Where does it come from and what kind of change does it involve? In my recent article ‘Grand Challenges’ concept: a return of the ‘big ideas’ in science, technology and innovation policy? (Ulnicane 2016), I trace the origins of this concept and its global diffusion and analyse it in the context of a long-term evolution of science, technology and innovation policy.

 

 

Origins and global diffusion of the Grand challenges idea

The Grand Challenges concept became popular in 2003 when Bill Gates announced his Grand Challenges in Global Health programme to fund research on diseases affecting people in the developing world. He presented the Grand Challenges idea as based on a century-old model referring to the famous 1900 speech by German mathematician David Hilbert, in which he formulated 23 unresolved mathematical problems that influenced mathematical research in the 20th century. Soon after the Gates announcement, the idea of Grand Challenges started to spread globally being taken up by governments, universities and scientific societies in particular in the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom (see Box 1). Popularity of the Grand societal challenges idea increased during the times of economic crisis when the need to increase legitimacy and impact of science, technology and innovation and present them as sources of future sustainable growth and wellbeing increased.

 

1900 Hilbert’s speech Mathematical Problems

1988 Wilson’s speech ‘Grand challenges to computational science’

2003 The Gates Foundation: Launch of Grand Challenges in Global Health

2007 Grand Challenges initiatives of University College London and Princeton University

2007 European Research Area Green Paper: focus on identifying societal challenges     requiring research efforts beyond national capacity

2008 (February) National Academy of Engineering: 14 Grand Challenges for Engineering

2008 Expert report on Grand Challenges in European Research Area

2009 (July) Lund Declaration ‘Europe must focus on the Grand Challenges of Our Time’

2009 (September) A strategy for American innovation: focusing on Grand Challenges

2010 European Institute of Innovation and Technology launches Knowledge and Innovation Communities to address Grand Challenges

2010 (May) Grand Challenges Canada launched

2010 (October) ICSU Earth System Science for Global Sustainability: Grand Challenges

2010 (October) Europe 2020 flagship initiative Innovation Union

2011 The Royal Society ‘Knowledge, networks and nations’ report

2012 The OECD ‘Meeting Global Challenges through Better Governance’ publication

2014 EU Horizon 2020 launched with societal challenges as one of three priorities

2015 The Lund revisited declaration on tackling Grand Challenges

 

Box 1 Chronological list of examples indicating global diffusion of Grand Challenges concept (Ulnicane 2016)

 

In the European Union research and innovation policy the idea of Grand societal challenges started to appear at the same time as in other regions, namely some ten years ago in 2007 and 2008. The major step in establishing the Grand Challenges idea as a key priority for EU research and innovation policy was the Lund Declaration ‘Europe must focus on the Grand Challenges of Our Time’ adopted during the Swedish Presidency in 2009. This declaration played a key role in preparation of the current EU research and innovation programme Horizon 2020 in which societal challenges along with excellent science and industrial leadership are the key priorities. The societal challenges priority in the Horizon 2020 has been allocated the highest amount of funding of approximately 30 billion Euros of initially planned almost 80 billion Euros for the whole program. This funding is dedicated to seven broad societal challenges:

• health, demographic change and well-being;
• food security, sustainable agriculture and forestry, marine, maritime and inland water research, and the bioeconomy;
• secure, clean and efficient energy;
• smart, green and integrated transport;
• climate action, environment, resources efficiency and raw materials;
• Europe in a changing world – inclusive, innovative and reflective societies; and
• secure societies – protecting freedom and security of Europe and its citizens.

 

Grand societal challenges: change or continuity in science, technology and innovation policy?

Although the Grand societal challenges concept has become popular and widely used around the world, the way that it is taken up in different contexts can vary considerably. Nevertheless, some typical features of this idea can be identified: tackling Grand Challenges usually involves addressing real-life problems that request boundary spanning collaborations across different scientific disciplines, sectors and countries involving heterogeneous partners from research, engineering, business, policy-making and civil society.

 

Are these characteristics new? Taking a long-term view on the evolution of science, technology and innovation policy since its emergence after World War II, a number of similar earlier ideas can be recognized. Already in his 1939 book on the social function of science Bernal argued that science has to assist human needs. More recently similar ideas can be found in Mode 2 approach focusing on knowledge production in the context of application, transdisciplinarity, heterogeneity, reflexivity, social accountability and quality control as well as in the ideas about the third mission of university arguing that in addition to the two traditional missions of teaching and research universities also have to contribute to social and economic development. Similarly, the need for collaborations and interactions among heterogeneous partners is well known for example from triple helix approach emphasising university-industry-government interaction. Furthermore, international collaboration has been well established research practice (Ulnicane 2015) already for a long time.

 

Thus, in the case of the Grand societal challenges concept it is possible to see important continuities of earlier ideas and established practices. At the same time, the concept also presents a novel combination of earlier ideas and established practices by focusing on tackling global real-life problems through boundary spanning collaborations among heterogeneous partners. For a better understanding of this new combination of different features it would be necessary to study how and by whom ‘real-life’ problems to be tackled are defined (as ‘real-lives’ can differ considerably), what motivates different partners to contribute to boundary spanning collaborations, how local, national and global concerns are addressed in such collaborations, etc.

 

Grand societal challenges concept: Just a fashion or a paradigm shift as well?

Popularity of the Grand societal challenges concept suggests that it has become a new fashion in knowledge policies similar to earlier fashions such as Mode 2 knowledge production in the 1990s and the term Big Science in the 1960s (Rip 2000). As earlier fashions in science policy, the Grand societal challenges concept captures a feature of science that has become more relevant and creates an occasion for policy-making (Rip 2000: 29). Additionally, two types of response identified in the cases of earlier fashions can be seen: some policy makers, analysts and enterprising scientists embrace the new fashion, while others especially from the old elite and spokespersons for established science reluctantly accommodate ongoing changes (Rip 2000: 31). At the moment, the Grand societal challenges concept is only one of fashions in knowledge production; other – similar and contrasting – contemporary fashions include scientific excellence, impact, open science and responsible research and innovation.

 

Being a fashionable policy concept does not require that it is a completely new idea. The same way as the latest fashion collections can draw their inspiration on art and traditions from earlier decades and centuries, also fashions in science policy build on earlier (and sometimes forgotten) ideas and practices. (Exhibition ‘The Vulgar: Fashion Redefined’ demonstrates how renown contemporary fashion designers use elements from the Greek mythology, the portraits of the Dutch Golden Age, post-revolutionary France etc.)

 

But how deep and far-reaching are the policy changes brought by the fashionable Grand Challenges concept? Is this just a new label for incrementally changing policy ideas and practices or does it present a paradigm shift in science, technology and innovation policy? Does the Grand Challenges concept present a new policy paradigm, i.e. ‘a framework of ideas and standards that specifies not only the goals of policy and the kind of instruments that can be used to attain them, but also the very nature of the problems they are meant to be addressing’ (Hall 1993: 279)? To assess the magnitude of the changes, a systematic study and comparison of earlier and recent science, technology and innovation policies would be necessary addressing questions such as, e.g. If and how the hierarchy of policy goals and the nature policy problems have changed? How are these changes translated into new policy instruments? Are some old policies discontinued? Does the focus on societal challenges lead to the radically new ways of defining, implementing and evaluating policies? Or is the current fashion of Grand Challenges rather a ‘normal policy-making’ (Hall 1993: 279) with some broad continuities and some changes in policy instruments and their settings?

 

Dr. Inga Ulnicane (University of Vienna, Austria) undertakes research and teaching on global and European science, technology and innovation policy. Her research has appeared in Science and Public Policy, Journal of European Integration, Journal of Contemporary European Research and International Journal of Foresight and Innovation Policy. She has completed a commissioned study on the European Research Area and knowledge circulation for the European Parliament. She is one of conveners of the ECPR Standing Group ‘Politics of Higher Education, Research and Innovation’ bringing together more than 170 researchers from around the world.

 

References:

Hall, P. (1993) Policy paradigms, social learning, and the state: the case of economic policymaking in Britain. Comparative Politics 25(3): 275-296.

Rip, A. (2000) Fashions, Lock-ins and the Heterogeneity of Knowledge Production. In: M.Jacob and T.Helstrom (eds) The Future of Knowledge Production in the Academy. Buckingham: SRHE and Open University Press, pp.28-39.

Ulnicane, I. (2015). Why do international research collaborations last? Virtuous circle of feedback loops, continuity and renewal. Science and Public Policy, 42(4), 433-447. doi:10.1093/scipol/scu060

Ulnicane, I. (2016). ‘Grand Challenges’ concept: a return of the ‘big ideas’ in science, technology and innovation policy? International Journal of Foresight and Innovation Policy, 11(1-3), 5-21. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJFIP.2016.078378

The post Grand societal global challenges: fashion or paradigm shift in knowledge policies? appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

To receive the Brussels Briefing in your inbox every morning, register for a free FT account here and then sign up here.

Donald Trump may feel like the biggest problem for Nato — but he is not the only one.

Read more

When people think about the Balkans, it is most often as the ‘powder keg’ of Europe: a region that produces more history than it can consume. But this small group of countries next door to the European Union has been trying for more than two decades to change this stereotype. After fierce ethnic conflicts during the 1990s the Western Balkans have been moving towards the prospect of EU integration.

The joint EU accession project remains the major inspiration for peace, stability and security in the Western Balkans, whose history, culture, society and economy are inseparably linked to those of the rest of Europe. But ethnic divides are set to remain a source of instability; the enduring legacy of ancient conflicts.

The prevailing perception of the Western Balkans is that of a divided and distrustful society. I became aware of this divide as a student in Sarajevo in 2000. Bombarded buildings show a town’s suffering much better than the bitter stories of its residents. I also saw the immense impact of ethnic conflicts on the younger generation. We mixed very little with the ‘others’ – those of a ‘different’ ethnicity – whose parents or grandparents were responsible for certain past events. The scars of conflict were still fresh. Young people, despite their energy and forward-looking nature, were not yet ready to place themselves at the head of the much-needed reconciliation process.

“Conflicts of the past have left behind prejudices and intolerance”

Many hoped that time would heal the wounds. But even the young people today who have never experienced a single day of war have grown up in divided societies. The conflicts of the past have left behind prejudices and intolerance, exploited in propaganda by nationalists who consider young people to an easy target and a Balkanised generation. We see young people fighting at football matches or singing nationalist songs; it is clear that the hoped-for reconciliation has not yet arrived. This process needs time and – more importantly – work.

Reconciliation is essential for lasting peace. Reconciliation needs simultaneous top-down and bottom-up processes. And reconciliation needs effective leadership, including the efforts of ordinary citizens and (in particular) younger generations, to propel societies away from a divided past and towards a shared future.

There are lessons from elsewhere. The Franco-German Youth Office was established in 1963 to bring the young people of these countries together after two world wars. The Western Balkans is using this model today as a source of inspiration. During the 2016 Paris Western Balkans Summit an agreement was signed to set up the Regional Youth Cooperation Office. RYCO, a joint initiative of the prime ministers of Albania and Serbia, with its seat in the Albanian capital Tirana, is designed to nurture a spirit of reconciliation and cooperation among young people in the region; to strengthen bonds and promote mutual understanding. Recently there have been positive developments in this area, particularly thanks to top-level political exchanges. But political deals alone do not have the power to boost such cooperation.

Substantial reconciliation requires regional cooperation. Good neighbourhood relations can be forged only through constructive and peaceful dialogue among citizens, young people included. At a time when nationalist and populist rhetoric is gaining ground in Europe, including in the Western Balkans, young people have a responsibility to take an active stand against it.

Politicians should reject nationalism and trust young people, allowing them to take a leading role in maintaining dialogue and building bridges of friendship. Today’s young people are tomorrow’s decision-makers: they will have responsibility for ensuring sustainable security and stability in the region, as well as continued socio-economic development and further integration into the European family.

“Good neighbourhood relations can be forged only through constructive and peaceful dialogue among citizens”

This could be a hard process in a region where the wounds of conflict have not yet healed. But there is no viable alternative. European integration is a shared goal and challenge; it serves as the motivation to achieve reconciliation. But the long waiting time to join the EU, social problems arising from unemployment, slow economic growth and the lack of trust in weak institutions combine to create disappointment among young people, who tend to view themselves as a ‘lost generation’. Our societies cannot risk wasting their potential, which would seriously threaten the region’s long-term development.

The RYCO may have just taken its first steps, but there are big expectations. This does not mean that there were no such exchanges prior to this initiative or that it will immediately solve all the problems facing young people in the region. But a regional organisation that guides and coordinates cooperation among young people would strengthen the overall reconciliation process. It has the potential to gather momentum and lend a new perspective to reconciliation. Regional cooperation can only truly become a real success story in Western Balkans when it lives in the hearts and minds of its young people.

To this end, this initiative need to be associated with new policies to stimulate economic growth, create new jobs, consolidate the rule of law and democratic institutions, ensure observance of human rights and fight against corruption and organised crime. These actions would help ensure the future that our young people deserve, bringing them closer to the promise of Europe.

For the EU, stability, security and prosperity in this region are of special interest. So Europe needs to invest in young people and keep their part of the promise. Young people in the Balkans have much to offer for the future: energy, an awareness of the past, and the ability to play an active role in building a common European future.

IMAGE CREDIT: Borodin/Bigstock

The post Young people can map a European future for the Balkans appeared first on Europe’s World.

https://tvnewsroom.consilium.europa.eu/uploads/council-images/thumbs/uploads/council-images/remote/http_7e18a1c646f5450b9d6d-a75424f262e53e74f9539145894f4378.r8.cf3.rackcdn.com/9296cf1c-4a8f-11e7-90ae-bc764e092fac_10.42_thumb_169_1496736731_1496736721_129_97shar_c1.jpg

Federica MOGHERINI, EU HR for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, attends the 3rd G5 Sahel Ministerial Meeting on 4 and 5 June 2017.

Download this video here.

Wednesday 7 June 2017
14.30 Meeting with President of Bolivia Evo Morales
16.00 Meeting with President of Senegal Macky Sall
17.30 Meeting with President of Guinea Alpha Condé

https://tvnewsroom.consilium.europa.eu/uploads/council-images/thumbs/uploads/council-images/remote/http_7e18a1c646f5450b9d6d-a75424f262e53e74f9539145894f4378.r8.cf3.rackcdn.com/b5b93e5e-4773-11e7-b217-bc764e092fac_12.17_thumb_169_1496394909_1496394909_129_97shar_c1.jpg

The European Union works to bring an end to the conflict and enable the Syrian people to live in peace in their own country.

Download this video here.

To receive the Brussels Briefing in your inbox every morning, register for a free FT account here and then sign up here.

 

Read more

Good afternoon, let me first of all welcome Premier Li in Brussels. It is very good to have you here.

Yesterday evening we had a good informal meeting with Premier Li and this morning we have just concluded our plenary session of this year's EU-China summit. We had fruitful and constructive talks that underline the importance we both attach to EU-China relations.

China and the European Union are strategic partners. We have a stake in each other's success. Our cooperation is broad and continues to broaden and strengthen on issues like trade and investment, climate change, the migration crisis, North Korea, and a security partnership in Africa. We share many interests. Most importantly, we share a fundamental interest in upholding and strengthening the rules-based international system. For example, respect for the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine has been our common position since 2015. And in these difficult times we have a joint responsibility to protect this system and demonstrate its added value in all aspects of our relations.

Today, we are stepping up our cooperation on climate change with China. Which means that today, China and Europe have demonstrated solidarity with future generations and responsibility for the whole planet. We are convinced that yesterday's decision by the United States to leave the Paris Agreement is a big mistake, bigger than not ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, because Paris is fairer. But the fight against climate change, and all the research, innovation and technological progress it will bring, will continue, with or without the US.

However, strong transatlantic ties are far more important and far more durable than the latest, unfortunate decisions of the new Administration. Strong transatlantic ties are still the best guarantee that the people and nations who advocate freedom and peaceful order will not be left helpless or alone.

We also discussed the issue of human rights today. How we can further improve cooperation on this at the bilateral and international level. I expressed our concern about freedom of expression and association in China, including the detention of human rights lawyers and defenders, as well as the situation of minorities such as Tibetans and Uighurs. I am glad we could agree that the next round of our human rights dialogue will take place later this month. Finally, on North Korea, we welcome China's efforts. We share a common interest in peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula, de-escalation of tensions, and for North Korea to comply with its international obligations and abandon all nuclear and ballistic missile programmes. We count on China's continued support to achieve these objectives. Thank you.