European Union

OPINION on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person (recast)
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Ramona Nicole Mănescu

Source : © European Union, 2017 - EP

An EU scheme to mobilise €44 billion in private sector investment in Africa and the EU’s neighbourhood should focus on the poor, said committee MEPs on Monday.
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Committee on Development
Committee on Budgets

Source : © European Union, 2017 - EP

An EU scheme to mobilise €44 billion in private sector investment in Africa and the EU’s neighbourhood should focus on the poor, said committee MEPs on Monday.
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Committee on Development
Committee on Budgets

Source : © European Union, 2017 - EP

The House of European History aims to encourage citizens to reflect upon and debate the history of Europe and of European integration. Its goals are to increase knowledge, arouse curiosity and, over time, become a place for the exchange of ideas, reflection and debate about Europe and its history, linking up people, institutions and networks dealing with European history. Visitors will be challenged to critically assess European history, its potential and its future.

Source : © European Union, 2017 - EP

On 25 April 2017 the Council agreed its negotiating position, also referred to as a general approach, on the multi-annual plan for demersal stocks in the North Sea. The plan will be the first comprehensive long-term strategy for the North Sea aimed at managing a variety of species, fishing vessels and interested parties.

As soon as the European Parliament votes on its report, negotiations between the institutions can start.

"The North Sea plan is key to the implementation of the reformed Common Fisheries Policy and this is why the Maltese Presidency devoted substantial resources to this file to attain a Council position in record times", said Roderick Galdes,  Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture, Fisheries, and Animal rights, "Once adopted, the plan will be the basis for sustainable fisheries in the area. The Council looks forward to negotiating with the European Parliament and to achieving the best possible outcome for our seas and the fishing industry".

The Council position on the North Sea plan is in line with the recently agreed multi-annual plan for the stocks of cod, herring and sprat in the Baltic Sea. It simplifies the Commission proposal by focusing the scope of the regulation on the targeted fisheries over their entire area of distribution, and it provides the means that will guarantee the management of fish stocks through maximum sustainable yield (MSY) ranges. In line with the Common Fisheries Policy, the general approach also provides a very clear approach for the management of choke species in the case of mixed fisheries.

The Council confirmed the Commission proposal in relation to conservation measures for the covered stocks, and increases its effectiveness by also rationalising the scope of the landing obligation in order to achieve the objective of more sustainable fisheries in all sea basins.

The administrative burden linked to the new legislation and stemming from additional control provisions should be reduced as a result of the changes proposed by the Council, which also address the issue of consultations with third countries for jointly-managed stocks to ensure a level-playing field for Union operators.

Next steps

The general approach adopted today is the Council's position for talks with the European Parliament. The Parliament should adopt its position on this proposal in June 2017. This would allow negotiations to start before the summer break. Both institutions must agree on the text before it can enter into force.

Background

The Commission submitted its proposal for a multi-annual plan for demersal stocks in the North Sea and the fisheries exploiting those stocks on 3 August 2016. The proposal covers those fish species that live and feed near the bottom of the sea.

It is the second multi-annual plan adopted in line with the reformed Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) that came into force in January 2014. The objective of the proposal is to implement in the North Sea key aspects of the reform CFP, such as: the achievement of exploitation rates above maximum sustainable yield, the establishment of safeguards related to the state of biomass, the move towards long-term multi-species management, the implementation of the landing obligation and the use of regionalisation for the adoption of technical measures.

On 25 April 2017 the Council adopted a regulation aimed at improving the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector.

The new rules simplify and strengthen the current system for the collection of biological, environmental, technical and socio-economicdata. They will allow in particular for the gathering of extensive and reliable information on issues such as the state of fish stocks, fisheries management measures, and mitigation measures, and will make data available at regional and European level, thereby providing a solid basis for scientific advice and policy making.

The aim of the new regulation is to align EU rules with the objectives of the reformed Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), including the protection of the marine environment, the sustainable managementof all commercially exploited species, and in particular the achievement of good environmental status in the marine environment by 2020.

Next steps

The regulation will enter into force on the twentieth day following the publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

For more information see our press release from 7 December 2016 (link below).

On 25 April 2017 the Council adopted conclusions on the United Nations strategic plan for forests with a view to EU participation in the 12th session of the UN forum on forests.

The conclusions highlight the importance of the first-ever UN Strategic Plan for forests 2017-2030 and the related four-year work programme. The plan will be a key instrument to promote synergies and mutually supportive implementation of the policies and programmes for forests of the different UN bodies. The conclusions  also confirm full EU support for the plan and commitment to enhancing the implementation of global forest-related issues at international, regional and national level.

The conclusions pave the way for EU participation in the 12th UN forum on forests (UNFF 12) on 1-5 May 2017 in New York. The UNFF is a subsidiary body aimed at promoting “the management, conservation and sustainable development of all types of forests and to strengthen long-term political commitment to this end”.

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

Berlin and Brussels are breathing a hefty sigh of relief this morning on the news that Emmanuel Macron will face off against far-right leader Marine Le Pen in the second round of the French presidential election, with the centrist former economy minister firmly installed as the frontrunner.

Read more

On 25 April 2017, the Council adopted a directive on the protection of the financial interests of the EU (PIF Directive). This will improve the prosecution and sanctioning of crimes against EU finances, and facilitate the recovery of misused EU funds. These common rules will help to ensure a level playing field and improved investigation and prosecution across the EU.

The directive will also be a major part of the law to be applied by the future European Public Prosecutor's Office (EPPO) which is to be created by a number of member states through enhanced cooperation.

Owen Bonnici, minister for Justice of Malta said: "The protection of the EU budget is key to ensuring the most efficient and effective use of European taxpayers' money. Having common definitions, common rules, and common minimum sanctions is a step forward for fighting fraud across the EU. This directive will be an important tool for the new European Public Prosecutor's Office".

The directive provides common definitions of a number of offences against the EU budget. Those offences include cases of fraud and other related crimes such as active and passive corruption, the misappropriation of funds, money laundering, amongst others. Serious cases of cross border VAT fraud will also be included in the scope of the directive when above a threshold of €10 million.

The directive finally includes minimum rules on prescription periods, within which the case must be investigated and prosecuted, as well as minimum rules on sanctions, including imprisonment for the most serious cases.

Next steps

Once voted by the Parliament, the directive will be published in the Official Journal and member states have 24 months to implement the provisions at national level.

Participating member states

Ireland has notified its wish to take part in the adoption and application of this Directive. The United Kingdom and Denmark are not taking part in the adoption of this Directive and are not bound by it.

Place:        European Convention Center Luxembourg
Chair:        Dr. Ian Borg, Parliamentary Secretary for the Presidency and EU Funds

All times are approximate and subject to change

from 08.30
Arrivals

+/- 09.00
Doorstep by Deputy Prime Minister Grech

+/- 10.30
Beginning of Council meeting (Roundtable)
Adoption of legislative A items (public session)

Modification of the rules on the European structural and investment funds (public session)

Adoption of non-legislative A items

Bringing cohesion policy closer to our citizens

Implementation of EU macro-regional strategies

+/- 14.30
Press conference (live streaming)

Some of us have been pulling the alarm for years, warning not just of the growing power of populist parties across Western democracies but of their increasingly obvious capacity to attract middle-of-the-road voters to their brand of politics.

For years, a long-held (and understandable) worry about the extreme right prevented most analysts from detecting the very real shift that was occurring on the ‘robust right’ of the political spectrum. Parties that began as heirs to mid-20th-century Nazism or fascism were starting to adopt broader, more hybrid stances. They couched their racism in talk of defending Western values. They moved away from their petty bourgeois base, broadening their appeal to the Left’s natural constituencies by focusing on joblessness and declining incomes. They converted unease with mass immigration into welfare chauvinism. A mix not so terribly different from fascism’s, but with softer rhetoric and sharper suits. Overall, they fed the anxieties of vast swathes of Western electorates who felt abandoned and fearful.

Add to this a steady stream of terror threats and the great gaping chasms created by social media channels and, suddenly, everything – Brexit; an erratic billionaire authoritarian in the White House; gloating, plotting gatherings of right-wing populists in small German cities – starts to make sense. If not ‘good’ sense.

As polls and surveys gave narrow leads to mainstream political options throughout 2016, voters went to the polls and simply turned their back on the status quo. They plumped instead for options that would have seemed near-impossible a year ago. 2017 unleashes a series of further challenges, notably the French and German elections, to see whether Europe as an idea and as a set of institutions will continue to be hollowed out by the forces of populism.

“Ordinary voters feel left behind by elites who have failed to protect them against the harsher winds of globalisation”

Populism may not be the perfect term, but it is useful enough for our purposes. The series of revolts we see across Western economies all fit quite well under this broad (and contested) heading: ordinary, middle-class or lower-income voters feeling left behind by elites who have failed to protect them against the harsher winds of globalisation. This feeling stems from falling wages and deindustrialisation, an ebbing of the comforts that many had come to expect after the Second World War, a sense of being less culturally ‘relevant’, or a combination of all three.

Regardless of the specific grievances, the sentiment voiced by a large minority, and sometimes a majority, is that a governing elite mandated to ensure their prosperity and well-being failed to do so, privileging its own more liberal interests above those of the ‘home team’. Trying to separate out the economic grievances from the cultural or social ones is a fool’s game: it is quite clear that the irrelevance felt and the ‘relegation’ experienced are about how economic power and social and cultural status are intertwined.

This populist revolt, a political chameleon, takes on the hue of its cultural and social context: bombastic, capitalist and aggressive in the US; insular, pragmatic and penny-pinching in the UK; grandiloquent, historic and paranoid in France; taboo-breaking, Kleinbürger-ish and technical in Germany. But the shared trait is that of populism: a menu of nostalgia, nationalism, outraged sentimentality, anti-elitism, suspicion of experts, all washed down with a large helping of xenophobia.

As the initial shock and consternation ebb, many on the non-populist side have been given to belated soul-searching. How could people who share a political and social space be so far apart in understanding the way forward and what would bring individual and collective well-being? The answer, of course, is that there is little shared political and social space (especially given the self-selection vice-grip of social media) and so little chance of there being a shared diagnosis, or a shared set of solutions.

The soul-searching is followed by a mea culpa phase that consists of good liberal self-flagellation. ‘We should have detected the distress earlier on’. ‘We should have paid more attention to the excluded from our own country’. ‘We should have looked out for the white-working class who missed the benefits of globalisation’. ‘We should have skilled-up our workforces more effectively to face this global workplace’.

All of this is true. It prompts all of us who have woken up to smell the Brexit coffee (and the whiff of other nationalist parochialisms) to pay more attention and range a lot more widely in our sources of information and social exchanges. And it is precisely why it is so important now to be proactive.

“The people who ‘have spoken’ are the people who speak from their guts and without hesitation”

At the moment, what seems to dominate is a sort of mantra: ‘the people have spoken and this is the kind of politics they say they want’. But are we not adding insult to injury by caving into this view, merely as a way of assuaging guilt or cutting our losses? Is this really what ‘the people’ want?

It’s a fundamental question. First, because it forces us to ask ‘who’, or ‘what’, is ‘the people’. Second, because it forces us to ask ourselves what we think ‘they’ want. And the two are, of course, intimately linked.

For most populists of the right, the people are defined in part according to a form of nativism. The true people are the natives. But some natives are ‘traitors’ (for example, the ‘elites’), so the ‘real’ people are also those who are defined by their capacity for common sense, their rejection of intellectualism, and their ability to see through the fog of expert knowledge. This knowledge is suspected of being used to bamboozle ordinary people to let an over-educated elite get its way. So the people who ‘have spoken’, as Theresa May put it, are the people who speak from their guts and without hesitation.

But what do ‘they’ want?

The current situation across Western economies suggests that what populist supporters want is a mix of better protection, wage guarantees, and the sense that their contribution both to a country’s economy and its cultural identity is valued. These understandable demands for forms of respect and recognition are interpreted and replayed by populist leaders as a need to ‘take back control’. In other words, legitimate (if not uncomplicated) demands are played back and articulated as an infantile fantasy designed to suspend any disbelief. Promising to deliver on this constructed fantasy – by building borders and walls, or limiting access – puts words into voters’ mouths, thereby limiting what they want. It is also dangerously counter-productive in economic terms.

The consequence is more uncertainty for everyone – but especially for those who the populists claim to help: those who have the most to lose from economic stagnation, a shrinking tax base, and lower investment in the skills they will need to face the world in the 21st century.

IMAGE CREDIT: michaelpuche/Bigstock

The post Give the people what they want? appeared first on Europe’s World.

Parliament's Press Service is holding a seminar on the work that is being carried out by MEPs to revise the existing Audiovisual Media Services Directive. This revision aims to respond to market, consumption and technological changes and thereby achieve the overarching objective of bringing about a balance between competitiveness and consumer protection. This thematic digest provides selected policy department publications prepared to support the committees in their work related to these issues.
Source : © European Union, 2017 - EP

Wednesday 26 April 2017
13.00 Meeting with European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker (Berlaymont)

Friday 28 April 2017
17.15 Meeting with Prime Minister of Croatia Andrej Plenković

Saturday 29 April 2017 
08.30   Meeting with Prime Minister of Slovenia Miro Cerar
10.00 European People's Party summit (Sofitel)
12.30 Special European Council (Art. 50) 

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

The machine gun attack on the capital’s famous Champs-Elysées boulevard has left one policeman dead, two others seriously wounded and another person injured. The attacker was also killed, and ISIS has claimed responsibility.

Read more

AMENDMENTS 19 - 217 - Draft opinion Union Resettlement Framework
Committee on Foreign Affairs

Source : © European Union, 2017 - EP

AMENDMENTS 1 - 255 - Draft report on a European Parliament recommendation to the Council concerning the 72nd session of the United Nations General Assembly
Committee on Foreign Affairs

Source : © European Union, 2017 - EP

https://tvnewsroom.consilium.europa.eu/uploads/council-images/thumbs/uploads/council-images/remote/http_7e18a1c646f5450b9d6d-a75424f262e53e74f9539145894f4378.r8.cf3.rackcdn.com/7926baf0-2678-11e7-a4f6-bc764e092fac_34.33_thumb_169_1492772599_1492772599_129_97shar_c1.jpg

EU-India Agenda for Action-2020 is the common roadmap to jointly guide and strengthen the India-EU Strategic Partnership in the next years. The agenda further builds upon the shared objectives and outcomes of the Joint Action Plans of 2005 and 2008.

Download this video here.

Opinion on the Criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person (recast)
Report on statelessness in South and South East Asia
Financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union
Protocol to the Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States and Bosnia and Herzegovina
Opinion on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council providing macro-financial assistance to the Republic of Moldova
Source : © European Union, 2017 - EP

‘May you live in interesting times’ is a phrase of dubious origin but very real meaning for Europe’s leaders. Blessing or curse, times have been perhaps too interesting recently, as leaders watch the European project being dismantled in front of their eyes. They seem unable to change course and to have learned nothing from the accumulation of crises tormenting the European Union.

Take the financial crisis, widely acknowledged to have been caused by weak regulation and poor enforcement. Instead of learning from the past, toughening up laws and enforcing them more strictly, the European Commission – under President Jean-Claude Juncker in particular – has embarked upon a course of deregulation and, through its Better Regulation programme, sought to reduce ‘regulatory burden’.

But regulation is not a burden – rather a necessary tool for governments to do their duty and act in the public interest: to protect people’s health, wellbeing, labour rights and the environment, rather than oiling the wheels for companies to make quick profits.

From this perspective, a post-Brexit EU may be marginally better-off than one that includes the United Kingdom – or at least less worse-off. While the UK is not the only member state infected by the deregulation disease, it has been one of the strongest proponents of this agenda.

Former British prime minister David Cameron negotiated a reform package that, had the UK voted to remain in the EU, would have “…establish[ed] specific targets at EU and national levels for reducing burden on business…’’. While this approach will now hopefully be off the table, it is likely to be the only positive effect of the June 2016 referendum when it comes to the environment.

“Our transport, energy and farming systems are all eating away at the Earth’s safety net”

No-one can predict at this point how organised or disorganised the Brexit negotiations will be. But it is clear the impact for both the UK and the EU27 will be significant. There is a high risk that environmental and climate goals may be traded away in the process. This is why environmental organisations like Friends of the Earth, both on the continent and in the UK, are working together to ensure that the Britain does not water-down hard-won EU environmental standards and laws. Retaining them is not only important for the UK, but also to avoid a future where environmental dumping has a negative impact on the rest of the EU.

In spite of this cross-Channel uncertainty, the environmental challenges in Europe do not stem only from Brexit. As the world approaches safe planetary boundaries, and in some cases starts to cross them, we need a radical rethink of our economic system of production and consumption. The Arctic saw unprecedented temperatures of 20°C above normal at the end of 2016. Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels officially passed the symbolic 400 parts per million mark in September last year, never to return below it in our lifetimes. Extreme weather is becoming the norm.

Large-scale impacts like these are rooted in the everyday. Our morning cup of coffee has a water footprint of 140 litres. Our throwaway cotton t-shirts require a staggering 2,700. Our transport, energy and farming systems are all eating away at the Earth’s safety net. We need a drastic change of course to avoid planetary catastrophe. Meanwhile, the world is entering the Trump era, where climate deniers and chiefs of fossil fuel companies no longer have the ear of government – they are the government.

At EU level it is no secret that Juncker has neither an understanding of nor an interest in the environment and its importance to our future. The European heads of states  pursue ‘business as usual’ politics with an unwavering zeal, unwilling or unable to see that this approach is fuelling the numerous crises in which we find ourselves, from climate and the environment to the economy and democracy itself.

These are, in my view, much bigger challenges than anything Brexit might bring.

The change we need is profound. It may appear frightening at first. No-one will be more afraid than today’s political elites, who operate and legislate to a short-termist, short-sighted electoral calendar.

But this change is inevitable. The European electorate has run out of patience and is starting to turn to dangerous populists bearing false promises of healing the unease caused by increasing inequality and job uncertainty. Further austerity, deregulation and the granting of more rights to corporations will only fuel this isolationist fire. The status quo is an option we simply cannot afford to choose.

“67% of citizens want to see more EU action on the environment”

Instead, the solution lies in a new pact for Europe based on a positive vision of global solidarity, where people are engaged towards building a society that lives within its ecological limits; one that ensures that standards of fairness and equity are applied while keeping vested corporate interests at bay.

It is important to recognise that it makes more sense to develop progressive and sustainable policies at a European level than it does to act nationally. Left to their own devices, countries will begin a race to the bottom for environmental standards (and social rights), underpinned by the hope of attracting businesses and investment. There was a time when EU legislation on the environment, and on social issues such as women’s and migrants’ rights, was progressive and forward-looking. It has been done before, and we can do it again.

This unprecedented situation calls for unprecedented action.

I am talking to activists, non-governmental organisations, scientists and politicians in many countries, both inside and outside the EU. There are rays of light on the horizon. I see people forming new groups and coalitions to work for the environment, but also volunteering to improve the situation of refugees or marching for the rights of women. People are taking control of their lives and rekindling feelings of community. Political elites need to listen to these movements and empower them to build a society based on solidarity; one that can take care of its people while recognising environmental limits.

This means managing the negative impacts of globalisation by building sustainable and resilient local economies, supporting local food and energy systems and the full circularity of our economy. This change in mindset will be possible only if we also profoundly challenge our current patriarchal system and opt for collaboration over competition.

The environment remains a popular issue with citizens: 67% want to see more action from the EU in this area. Putting the environment and citizens’ health and well-being at the centre of the EU’s future is not just the most reasonable way forward, it is the only realistic option for restoring faith in the European project.

The EU can make the most of these interesting times. It is under the spotlight. It needs to deliver.

IMAGE CREDIT: © European Union 2014 – European Parliament

The post Europe’s environmental challenges dwarf its Brexit troubles appeared first on Europe’s World.

Source : © European Union, 2017 - EP