European Union

Length of video : 68'
You may manually download this video in WMV (624Mb) 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, 2016 - EP

Yesterday’s Labour motion on Brexit marked an important step for the party. For the first time it had managed to push the government on the strategy for the Article 50 negotiations, leaving the government little option but to engage in some Parliamentary wrangling to try and deflect the on-coming threat of backseat rebellion. Keir Starmer looked to be in good control of his brief, after many months of Labour indifference/in-fighting on the subject.

That’s the positive reading, and not one that I totally buy.

The gaps remain glaringly obvious. Most importantly, the commitment to provide Parliament with plans is the vaguest of things: there was no specification of content or length. Moreover, David Davis’ observation that it was ‘inconceivable’ that Parliament wouldn’t get to vote on the outcome rightly left many feeling that this was itself no guarantee:

The last point I want to make to the Secretary of State concerns the question of a vote on the final deal. I heard him say today, “I expect there will be a vote”. Well, I expect that the District line will turn up within five minutes, but today there were longer delays. He said, as I understood it, that it was inconceivable that there would not be a vote. Well, some people would have said it was inconceivable that Donald Trump would be elected President of the United States. It does not fill me with a great deal of confidence. I gently say to him that the simple response to the question, “Will there be a vote when the deal comes before us after the negotiation?”, is to stand up, look the House direct in the eye, and say, “Yes, there will be a vote.

In addition, the government amendment on timing will certainly be used as leverage to push through any notification bill that might result from the Supreme Court case now underway, although given the weakness of the rebellion last night, there is no immediate danger of that bill being defeated.

In short, it was a bit of political theatre that essentially highlights the depths of the UK’s position overall.

Firstly, it demonstrates that Labour remains hamstrung on the EU. Starmer has a plan for Parliamentary scrutiny and oversight, but doesn’t have his party leadership behind him to make that work. Yesterday had the feel of a missed opportunity for both sides of the party: the Richmond Park by-election should underline that the government operates on a very small majority and that only concentrated action by Labour will enable that to succeed. Given the position of the SNP and LibDems, that suggests that common ground lies more to the Starmer end of options that the Corbyn one, but if 2016 has demonstrated anything, then it is that Corbyn holds his beliefs very strongly and will expect others to cleave to him.

Secondly, it also demonstrates that the government still lacks a plan. All the fuss around the motion might have obscured this basic fact, but it has ended up making matters worse. The line that one holds one’s cards close sounds good, but it also gives the impression that a) the UK will be a tricky negotiating partner, always pulling surprises, and b) that it has surprises to pull. that’s just bad negotiating strategy, especially when retaining the good-will of the other parties is a baseline requirement. Ultimately, the costs will fall on the government, as the EU27 take a more cautious approach and as the public realise that there is no secret prize-winning move to be pulled.

Theresa May has learnt much from her predecessor about not over-promising: this has been the bedrock of her strategy to date. But the under-promising also comes with dangers. Canniness quickly turns to looking like cluelessness. The Supreme Court case is a glaring demonstration of this. The government has fought the legal challenge repeatedly, but seems to find itself being backed into a corner where it not only has to pass a bill in Parliament, but potentially also involve the devolved assemblies too. As much as a referral to the CJEU looks unlikely, the outcome is based more on hope than conviction. Ungenerous souls might say that the government wants to be pushed like this, since it will offer more opportunities for delay and time to think about how to deal with this.

However, as the Brexit saga has repeatedly demonstrated, those who do not shape events are doomed to be shaped by them. That has been especially true post-referendum, where plans and strategy are in very short supply. Both Labour and the Tories might reflect on that.

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

The EU Commission and member states will be able to reimpose visa requirements faster and more easily under new rules agreed by Parliament and Council negotiators on Wednesday.
Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

The EU Commission and member states will be able to reimpose visa requirements faster and more easily under new rules agreed by Parliament and Council negotiators on Wednesday.
Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

The 28 EU Commissioners met today to decide the fate of the EU’s Nature Directives (the 1979 Birds Directive and 1992 Habitats Directive). Would these two directives, the cornerstone of EU biodiversity legislation, be deemed ‘fit for purpose’ or would they be revised and potentially weakened? After years of internal debates within the European Commission, and the Nature Alert civil society campaign, the decision was clear: the Commissioners agreed that both directives are fit for purpose, and that the Commission should focus on better implementation and not deregulation.

Thanks all colleagues for full support on Birds & Habitats fitness check – now we focus on implementation- #NatureAlert

— Karmenu Vella (@KarmenuVella) December 7, 2016

This blog post reflects back on this two-year debate, raging since the beginning of the Juncker Commission in 2014, and what it tells us about the prospect for future EU-level environmental policy dismantling, that is, cutting, weakening or removing existing policy.

The Nature Alert Saga

The Nature Alert saga started with the Mission Letter sent by Juncker to his new Environment & Fisheries Commissioner Karmenu Vella in September 2014. In this document, Juncker made it a key priority for the Commission as a whole to “Respect […] the principles of subsidiarity, proportionality and better” and for the Environment Commissioner to focus on:

“Continuing to overhaul the existing environmental legislative framework to make it fit for purpose. In the first part of the mandate, I would ask you to carry out an in-depth evaluation of the Birds and Habitats directives and assess the potential for merging them into a more modern piece of legislation.”

This in-depth ex-post evaluation of directives in place for many decades was to be done through the EU Fitness Check or REFIT process. It had actually been planned before Juncker, with a mandate published in February 2014. But by listing it as Vella’s first priority, Juncker dramatically increased its importance. Additionally, increasing the importance of ‘modernising’ existing legislation over producing new legislation, raised alarm among civil society, afraid that the better regulation/modernisation agenda was in fact a way to pursue policy dismantling.

That Juncker made the ‘modernisation’ of these two directives a priority is, on the one hand, not very surprising. The Nature Directives had often been criticised in the past by key political groups in different member states (such as French hunters seeing shorter hunting seasons in the 1990s, or UK developers having to cope with great crested newts in the 2000s). For a Commission keen to reduce “meddlesome EU rules”, targeting such flagship legislation made sense. But while it made political sense, it was also risky because earlier attempts to expose the potentially high costs of these pieces of legislation had failed. For example, after former UK Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne complained about the “ridiculous costs” of the Habitats directive in 2011, a review commissioned to support his point found the very opposite. This earlier attempt had pushed NGOs to find evidence in support for the two directives, which, together with growing international research on evaluating biodiversity legislation, meant that environmental NGOs were particularly well placed to contest the need for a fitness check.

Source: Alert, by Sam Carlquist, Flickr (Creative Commons)

Armed with this large evidence base, environmental NGOs led by BirdLife Europe, the EEB, Friends of the Earth Europe and the WWF Europe, started their Nature Alert campaign to raise the profile of the on-going REFIT evaluation and to gather as many public responses to the European Commission’s online consultation as possible. At the end of its 12-week consultation in July 2015 the Commission had received 552,472 replies “the largest response [ever] received by the Commission to an on-line consultation”, which overwhelmingly sided with the NGOs.

After the consultation, a group of leading environmental consultancies and think tanks (Milieu, IEEP, ICF International and Ecosystems Ltd) contracted by the European Commission produced the expert review to support the fitness check. Finalised in March 2016, this review largely found, again, that the directives were fit for purpose. But it was not published by the Commission. Indeed, until a previous draft was leaked in June 2016, no public discussions were made of its findings. This is particularly striking as in the meantime both the Council and the Parliament had made the case for the directives – even David Cameron used them as a good example of why the UK needed to remain in the EU. Finally, despite a 500 000+ consultation, a clear expert review and a continuing NGO campaign, it took the European Commission six more months to come to a decision and declare the directives fit for purpose.

What does this case tell us about policy dismantling in the EU?

The Commission’s decision has been heralded by NGOs as a ‘huge victory for nature conservation’, but it also has broader implications for the pursuit of better regulation or modernisation and attempts to dismantle policies at EU level.

First, the long delay in publishing the report and coming to a decision confirms that REFIT, like other ex-post evaluation processes, is a political and not solely technical endeavour. REFIT has been used by this Commission (and its predecessor) to bolster its credentials as an opponent of ‘red tape‘. But the politicisation of better regulation begs a number of questions. Whose support is the Commission trying to attract? The Nature Directives Fitness Check has managed to mobilise EU civil society against the Commission: hardly a PR success. Moreover, this could not have been done at a worse time, as the apparent backtracking of the Commission on environmental leadership was used to undermine an environmental case for ‘Remain’ during the Brexit referendum.

Second, Nature Alert contradicts central assumptions in academic research on the costs of environmental policy dismantling. Social policy is characterised by diffuse costs and concentrated benefits, whereas environmental policy tends to be characterised by diffuse benefits and concentrated costs. Thus while dismantling social policy is expected to be politically costly because policy beneficiaries can organise easily and challenge the government; the same cannot be said for environmental policy. According to Bauer et al. (2012: 8) politicians may even expect to gain “some very powerful votes in retrenching environmental policy”. The (debatable) possibility of gaining support through cutting policies may seem even more alluring when considering EU-level dismantling – there is after all less media coverage, a less active civil society and a consensual political system which makes it relatively easy to avoid blame. But the Nature Alert campaign showed that it was possible to mobilise opposition to suspected policy dismantling (even for environmental policy) and to apportion blame (even at the EU level).

It is uncertain whether the Nature Alert success will be easy to replicate: NGOs were well prepared due to earlier attempts to undermine these policies in the UK, and biodiversity may be an easier policy area to defend (especially in terms of public mobilisation) than, for example, waste or chemicals. Yet it may make this Commission think twice before picking ‘easy’ targets in the environmental acquis, and invites scholars of policy dismantling to rethink what is and what is not possible at EU level.

 

The post Nature Directives ‘Fit for Purpose’: a turning point for EU policy dismantling? appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

Hollande and Sarkozy posing for Paris Match in order to defend the 2005 referendum on the EU constitutional treaty. At that time, they failed together.

After yet another eventful week marked by Hollande’s renouncement television address, French citizens can now be sure that neither of their two last presidents will be on their ballots for the presidential elections next spring. While the media would have loved to play a game of thrones, unfolding the ‘revenge’ narrative and ask Sam to play again his song about ‘hearts full of passion, jealousy and hate’, to many voters this comes as a relief.

Not so much really because of their relative failure with regard to the unrealistic pre-election promises and over-the-top reform announcements they were virtually forced to make by the highly antagonistic nature of French political culture. It is true that once in office, all French presidents since Mitterrand’s election in 1981 were caught in the pitfall of having to live up to the expectations they were obliged to raise with their electorate, while patently knowing that it was impossible to keep them. And none of them would have been re-elected, had it not been for the stupidity of the opposition (Mitterrand in 1988) or the need to fence off the Front National (Chirac in 2002). Which amounts, by the way, to a total of three decades of successive high hopes and disenchantments.

The real reason why Sarkozy and Hollande were considered unfit to run again by a large part of the population is in the concept of ‘embodiment’. Charles de Gaulle had a certain idea of France, and he also had a certain idea of its presidency and how to incarnate it.

For all the pompousness of protocol, the lovely oxymoron of the ‘Republican monarchy’ has become a famous and altogether fitting metaphor over the years. Both Sarkozy and Hollande were happy to use the extent of power granted to the Royal at the head of the French state. But they underestimated to what extent certain expectations with regard to conduct, behaviour and speech were inseparable from the function. Both can be said to have irremediably damaged the Gaullist ideal-type of the president. In fact, they have become the joint undertakers of French presidency.

Oh, they clearly enjoyed some of the privileges that come with the job. Like the incredibly stupid role play during press conferences in the Elysée, where follow-up questions are not permitted, which allows the president to answer totally beside the point or ridicule the defenceless journalist who spoke out an uncomfortable truth. Or the game of condescendingly putting cabinet members (including the Prime minister) in their place who implemented policies decided by the president but turning out to be unpopular or impracticable.

But neither of them understood that living up to the function would have required them to stay out of down-to-earth policy-making, delegate much more to their Prime minister, and make themselves rare. The presidential word is powerful only if it is scarce, solemn, and exceptional (and, ideally, slightly enigmatic). Sarkozy and Hollande were omnipresent, they simply talked too much. Sarkozy’s obsession with being in the limelight and show just how much he was in charge of everything, as well as his strategy of inundating the media with an uninterrupted flow of announcements to make sure they simply would not have the time and resources to follow up on them later, have earned him the nick-name of ‘hyper-president’, with all the connotation of ADHD this term implied. Towards the end of his term, he visibly tried, following the advice of his communication guru Patrick Buisson, to ‘represidentialise’ (believe me, the word exists in French) both his personality and his behaviour. To no avail, the harm was already done.

Hollande was just as effective as an undertaker. The very pre-electoral promise to be a ‘normal’ president was incompatible with the Fifth Republic’s design. A president who is normal, is useless. And a president who needs to juggle simultaneously with the hysterical (though justified) jealousy of his official partner, the presence of his ex-partner and mother of his four children in his own government, and the breakfast croissants he takes on a scooter to his second mistress is no longer an impressive womaniser (even for the permissive French who are rather tolerant in these matters), but comes closer to a clown. Even Sarkozy, who like a teenager before his parents stood before the press saying ‘with Carla, it’s serious’, looked less ridiculous in comparison.

When Hollande recently accepted the publication of the tell-all book written by two Le Monde reporters after hours and hours of interviews with the President, he probably thought that ‘A President Should Not Say That’ was a nice tongue-in-cheek title. As a matter of fact, the phrase turned out to be a 100% accurate summary of his entire misjudgement of expectations and mismanagement of his presidential function, annulling all efforts to react in a statesmanlike manner to the terrorist strikes against France.

What the ten years under Sarkozy and Hollande boil down to is the ‘desacralisation’ of the French presidency. It’s not entirely their fault. De Gaulle and Pompidou did not have to face up with a highly increased demand for transparency in decision-making, with the reactivity of social media, with fact checkers and fake news, and the overall acceleration and hysterically repetitive character of the political debate in the age of on non-stop news channels.

The next president will have to reconcile historically grown expectations, the damage done by his/her predecessors, and contemporary pressure on an office that seems increasingly out of sync with what 21st-century democracy would need. When Harris Interactive asked the French in a representative poll one month ago whether they considered ‘the capacity to embody the presidential function’ an important criterion in their choice next spring, 79% of them agreed. Unsurprisingly, younger voters seemed slightly less sensitive on this issue (still, they are 65% to agree among the 25-34 age-group). At the same time, only Alain Juppé was deemed to possess this capacity by more than half of the respondents. By over two thirds Sarkozy, Hollande and Le Pen were considered ‘poor’ embodiments of the presidency, while Fillon, Macron and Valls scored only slightly better, rated ‘poor embodiments’ for 57-59% of the respondents.

Whoever will be the successor of the two ‘undertakers’ Sarkozy and Hollande, her/she is likely to have a very hard time to live up to the legacy of de Gaulle and the tacit, but persistent expectations of the citizens.

Albrecht Sonntag
@albrechtsonntag

This is post # 6 on the French 2017 election marathon.
Post # 5 here.
Post # 4 here.
Post # 3 here.
Post # 2 here.
Post # 1 here.

The post France 2017: The Undertakers appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

Liberal democracy is in a parlous state. In America, Donald Trump is making his mark even before he enters the Oval Office. In Europe – despite heartening news from Austria – demagogues have the wind in their sails.

Meanwhile, free-thinking, liberal Muslim thought leaders and reformers are struggling to live and work in peace at home. Muslim-majority nations are either ruled by nasty autocrats, military strongmen or flawed and fragile democrats. In many places, to speak up is to find yourself dead or in prison. If you are lucky, you can go into exile – but perhaps not for long.

Escape routes to the West are closing fast. Islam-bashing has become the favourite sport not just of Trump but also of populist parties across Europe. Rants against Islam unite members of the ‘populist international’ on both sides of the Atlantic. As the far right looks set to perform well in elections in many Western countries in the coming months, expect the anti-Islam vitriol to get nastier.

Europe should indeed focus on keeping out Muslim extremists. But it must not ignore the plight of Muslim reformers who are caught between the devil and the deep blue sea. Speak up at home, and they are likely to be branded ‘kafir’ (unbeliever). Head for shelter abroad, and they turn into potential troublemakers or even terrorists.

“Space for freedom of expression has been shrinking in the Muslim world,” says Surin Pitsuwan, Thailand’s former foreign minister and a much-respected former secretary-general of the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN).

“Speak up at home, and you are branded ‘kafir’. Head for shelter abroad, and you turn into a potential troublemaker or even a terrorist”

“Muslim intellectuals cannot pursue their examination of laws and principles at home… they have to do that outside the Muslim world,” he told a World Forum for Muslim Democrats meeting in Tokyo last month. “Academics have to migrate in order to do their job. Muslim democrats feel the space for exercising their role is being limited… they cannot visualise their future.”

The Muslim world is suffering from a severe democratic deficit. Muslims long for freedom, the rule of law and representative government, said Nurul Izzah Anwar. She is Vice-President of the People’s Justice Party of Malaysia, which was set up by her father, Malaysian opposition politician Anwar Ibrahim (who is still in jail).

“There is confusion about how Muslims relate to democracy and to the challenge of facing extremism,” said Nurul Izzah. Muslims have to deal simultaneously with “fanatic ideologies and kleptocratic regimes”.

For many Muslims also, the struggle centres on efforts to reclaim their religion from the stranglehold of Saudi-based Wahhabist interpretations of Islam.

“It’s a fight that is long and difficult. Wahhabism is a dirty word in Indonesia. It is considered to be primitive,” said Indonesian scholar of Islam Azyumardi Azra. Unlike other countries, Indonesia is not dependent on money from Saudi Arabia, he said. “Our flowery Islam is embedded in our local culture.”

Yet for all its traditional tolerance and openness, Indonesia faces the challenge of protecting its minorities. Indonesian police has opened a criminal investigation into Jakarta Governor Basuki Tjahaja Purnama, better known as ‘Ahok’, for alleged blasphemy.

Ahok, a Christian, is the first member of Indonesia’s ethnic Chinese community to be elected as the capital’s governor. The investigation shows the authorities are “more worried about hardline religious groups than respecting and protecting human rights for all,” according to Rafendi Djamin, Amnesty International’s Director for Southeast Asia and the Pacific.

“As the extremists gain traction, the welcome for Muslims will wear even thinner in Europe.”

What happens in Indonesia is particularly relevant given the country’s reputation as a role-model for other Muslim countries.

Muslim reformers and intellectuals could once find shelter and asylum in the West. And while many have benefited from such protection and continue to do so, extremists in the United States and Europe are making clear that Islam is their new enemy.

As the extremists gain traction, the welcome for Muslims will wear even thinner in Europe. As former Egyptian member of parliament Abdul Mawgoud Dardery told the conference, “We feel betrayed by the US and Europe”.

Tragically, such betrayals are likely to become the norm. The US President-elect is likely to side with fellow ‘strongmen’ in the Muslim world. Europe’s populists can be expected to be just as indifferent to the plight of Muslim human rights defenders and democrats.

But Europe must keep its doors open to those in the Muslim world who want change, reform and democracy. As Surin underlined, “Muslim democrats have to face a dual challenge: we have to fight extremism in our midst and Islamophobia outside”.

Related content

• Friends of Europe: European Young Leaders Marseille summit – innovative ideas to solve the refugee crisis
• Europe’s World: Making a success of integration and diversity, by Muhterem Aras
• Debating Europe: Should the burkini be banned?

IMAGE CREDIT: CC / FLICKR – Friends of Europe

The post Europe must remain a safe place for Muslim reformers appeared first on Europe’s World.

General : Some 462 million children live in countries affected by war or national disasters and about 75 million of them need educational support. The EU and Unicef launched the Emergency Lessons campaign this year to highlight the importance of education for children affected by emergencies. On 6 December children, teachers and volunteers visited the Parliament in Brussels to talk about their experiences.

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

General : Some 462 million children live in countries affected by war or national disasters and about 75 million of them need educational support. The EU and Unicef launched the Emergency Lessons campaign this year to highlight the importance of education for children affected by emergencies. On 6 December children, teachers and volunteers visited the Parliament in Brussels to talk about their experiences.

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

https://tvnewsroom.consilium.europa.eu/uploads/council-images/thumbs/uploads/council-images/remote/http_7e18a1c646f5450b9d6d-a75424f262e53e74f9539145894f4378.r8.cf3.rackcdn.com/940d932a-7bed-11e5-80b3-bc764e083742_14.98_thumb_169_1479829667_1479829667_129_97shar_c1.jpg

EU Ministers of Justice and Home Affairs meet in Brussels on 8 and 9 December 2016 to  assess progress made towards improving the administration of criminal justice in cyberspace. Ministers are discussing the implementation of measures relating to migration and the reform of the common European asylum system as well as addressing the fight against terrorism and organised crime.

Download this video here.

https://tvnewsroom.consilium.europa.eu/uploads/council-images/thumbs/uploads/council-images/remote/http_7e18a1c646f5450b9d6d-a75424f262e53e74f9539145894f4378.r8.cf3.rackcdn.com/6_13_2014-102917---epsco-medical-devices-16-9-preview_22.4_thumb_169_1479829520_1479829520_129_97shar_c1.jpg

EU Ministers of Employment, Social Affairs, Consumer Protection, Health and Equal Opportunities (EPSCO) meet on 8 and 9 December 2016 in Brussels to try to reach a general approach on new regulations for the following agencies: Eurofound, EU-OSHA and Cedefop. They are taking stock of progress on posting of workers, accessibility and the equal treatment directives. Health ministers are discussing the public health related part of the annual growth survey 2017 and getting briefed about the European reference networks that from 2017 will give more patients, in particular those with rare diseases, access to highly specialised quality treatment throughout the EU.

Download this video here.

Brigadier General Peter Devogelaere, a Belgian national, has been appointed as mission commander of the EU training mission in Mali (EUTM Mali). He will take up his duties on 19 December 2016. He will take over from Brigadier General Eric Harvent, who held the post since July 2016.

EUTM Mali assists in the reconstruction of effective and accountable Malian armed forces capable of ensuring the long-term security of Mali and, under civilian authority, restoring the country's territorial integrity. To this effect, EUTM Mali delivers training to units of the Malian armed forces and develops autonomous training capability. The mission also provides advice to the Malian authorities on reforming the army. The mission was launched on 18 February 2013. Its mandate was recently extended to 18 May 2018. The headquarters of the mission are located in Bamako, Mali.

The mission is part of the EU's comprehensive approach to security and development in the Sahel. Two other CSDP missions are in place in the region: EUCAP Sahel Mali, which supports the Malian state to ensure constitutional and democratic order and the conditions for lasting peace as well as to maintain its authority throughout the entire territory; and EUCAP Sahel Niger, which supports the fight against organised crime and terrorism in Niger.

The decision was adopted by the Political and Security Committee.

 
Media advisory
Visit of the President of Colombia, Manuel Santos, in the margins of the Foreign Affairs Council

Monday 12 December 2016
Justus Lipsius building - Brussels

17.00  Informal discussion with the members of the Foreign affairs Council
            (roundtable - photo/TV opportunity)

17.30  Signature of the constitutive agreement of the EU Trust Fund for Colombia
            (livestreaming of the ceremony - http://europa.eu/!RX79dW)

18.00  Family photo (photo/TV opportunity)
  
18.05  Press Conference by HR Federica Mogherini and President Manuel Santos
            (pressroom, level 00 - livestreaming - http://europa.eu/!mW99xd)

* * *
Access to the press room (level 00) and participation to the photo/TV opportunities will be subject to the following conditions:
- 6-month badge (2nd semester 2016)
- Journalists without the above must send a written request by mail - deadline Friday 9 December at 17.00 - to press.centre@consilium.europa.eu, indicating their full name, media, date of birth and attaching a copy of their ID, a valid press card (if available) or a signed letter from their media confirming their professional status and that they are assigned to cover this event. No late request will be accepted.
Original documents need to be produced when collecting the badge.
Photos and video coverage of the event will be available for preview and download on http://tvnewsroom.consilium.europa.eu
 

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

Michel Barnier played his greatest hits during his first public foray as the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator.

Read more

On 7 December 2016, the Permanent Representatives Committee (Coreper) approved a compromise text agreed with the European Parliament on an amendment to the Schengen Borders Code to reinforce checks against relevant databases at external borders. 

"This achievement was only made possible through the hard work and commitment of everyone involved", said Robert Kaliňák, Interior Minister of Slovakia and President of the Council. "It is an important response to the increase of terrorist threat in Europe and particularly crucial in the context of tackling the problem of foreign fighters." 

The amendment obliges member states to carry out systematic checks on all persons, including persons enjoying the right of free movement under EU law (i.e. EU citizens and members of their families who are not EU citizens) when they cross the external border against databases on lost and stolen documents, as well as in order to verify that those persons do not represent a threat to public order and internal security. This obligation shall apply at all external borders (air, sea and land borders), both at entry and exit. 

However, where a systematic consultation of databases on all persons enjoying the right of free movement under Union law could lead to a disproportionate impact on the flow of traffic at a sea and land border, member states may carry out only targeted checks against databases, provided that a risk assessment shows this does not lead to risks related to internal security, public policy, international relations of the member states or a threat to public health.

As regards air borders, the institutions agreed that member states may use this possibility, but only during a transitional period of 6 months from the entry into force of the amended regulation. This period may be prolonged by a maximum of 18 month in exceptional cases, where at a specific airport there are infrastructural difficulties requiring a longer period of time for adaptations to allow for the carrying out of systematic consultations of databases without disproportionate impact on the flow of traffic.

Background 

This regulation to amend the Schengen Borders Code (SBC) was presented by the European Commission in December 2015. It is a response to the increase of terrorist threats and to the call from the Council in its Conclusions of 9 and 20 November 2015 for a targeted revision of the SBC in the context of the response to "foreign terrorist fighters". The agreement is also a tangible outcome of the Bratislava Declaration and Roadmap, agreed by the leaders of the 27 member states on 16 September 2016. 

While member states are obliged to check third country nationals systematically on entry against all databases for reasons of public order and internal security, the current provisions do not provide for such a check on exit in all databases. Nor do they provide for a systematic check of persons enjoying the right of free movement under EU law. The amendment will align the obligations to include systematic checks on exit to ensure that both third country nationals and EU citizens and their family members do not present a threat to public policy and internal security. 

The amendment makes the use of the Schengen Information System and other relevant Union databases more intensive and it gives the possibility for consulting other Interpol databases. Consultation of the Interpol database on stolen and lost travel documents is an obligation for checks of third country nationals and persons enjoying the right of free movement under Union law both, on entry and on exit. 

Next steps 

Now that the agreement has been confirmed by the Permanent Representatives Committee, on behalf of the Council, the regulation will be submitted to the European Parliament for a vote at first reading, and to the Council for adoption.

Air pollution and gridlocked traffic is part of the daily life for many people living or working in major cities around the world. Unsurprisingly, cities around the world have increasingly taken drastic measures to reduce both pollution and traffic. Many of these climate initiatives are miles ahead of national governments. The latest initiatives by four major cities (Paris, Mexico City, Madrid and Athens) is to ban diesel vehicles by 2025[i]. Similar to the ban on diesel cars mentioned in my previous blog post[ii], the aim of this initiative is to push people to drive electrical cars or to bike round the cities.

Air pollution, noise and gridlocked traffic is daily life for many commuters around the world. Indeed the Guardian Newspaper[iii] recently published a series on the huge traffic problems in Jakarta, where traffic is gridlocked most of the day due to lack of public transport and increasing living standards leading to more car owners, which have increased air pollution. Several major European cities have already introduced measures to reduce traffic, such as congestion charges in London and Stockholm and investment in cycle paths have made Copenhagen and Amsterdam famous. These initiatives all aim to change mobility patterns within the cities.

Air pollution continue to be a major issue for many cities and the latest European Environmental Agency (EEA) report on air quality[iv] states that “emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX) from road transport have not decreased sufficiently to meet air-quality standards in many urban areas.” According to the EEA, one of the reasons is due to diesel road vehicles polluting more than allowed (see figure below).  This impact public health especially in urban areas and city centres, where levels of NOx are higher than permitted by the EU Directive on air quality[v] and recommended daily limits by WHO. On a positive note, other pollutants from road transport have decreased (ibid). Thus progress is being made, but more is needed.

Leading climate cites have imposed stricter limits to road traffic than national governments and thus have achieved more than many national governments. Yet, Copenhagen[vi], which is often mentioned as a leader in sustainable transport, struggles with high levels of pollutions in certain areas in the city centre due to road traffic, which only demonstrates that cities on their own cannot tackle the problem of air pollution caused by road transport. Moreover, the initiatives taken by cities to change traffic behavior within their jurisdiction do not solve the general problem of increased traffic and its subsequent negative impact on the environment in other areas, instead some of the traffic problems have moved to the surrounding suburbs and commuter towns. As I have discussed in previous reflections in this blog, the negative environmental impact of increased traffic can only be solved through coordination between different levels of governance from the local through to international levels and by imposing stricter regulations on emissions from road vehicles to promote alternative fuels. Here the idea posed by the Swedish minister for climate Isabella Lövin to ban fossil fuel cars at EU level from 2030 is a good place to start addressing the problem with road transport pollution[vii].

Finally, cities are increasingly playing an important role in leading the way towards a new mobility paradigm and they can put pressure on governments to change national infrastructure and transport policies. Cities are actively participating in COP meetings and have set up various networks to share experiences and promote best practices. Together with Isabella Lövin’s idea to end sales of fossil fuel cars by 2030 on a European scale cites can put pressure on industry to create better and cleaner technologies to replace fossil fuel vehicles thereby simultaneously protecting free movements and the environment.

[i] http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-38170794

[ii] http://eutrack.ideasoneurope.eu/2016/10/31/challenges-ban-fossil-fuel-cars-2030/

[iii] https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/nov/23/world-worst-traffic-jakarta-alternative

[iv] http://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/stronger-measures-needed

[v] http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/legis.htm

[vi] http://politiken.dk/indland/ECE3342094/eu-kritiserer-danmark-i-goer-ikke-nok-mod-luftforurening/

[vii] http://eutrack.ideasoneurope.eu/2016/10/31/challenges-ban-fossil-fuel-cars-2030/

The post Major cities as climate leaders cannot solve the gridlocked traffic alone appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

I would like to congratulate you wholeheartedly on your appointment at the helm of the French government as Prime Minister. On behalf of the European Council and personally, I wish you every success in that high office.

At a time when France and the European Union are facing multiple political and economic challenges, it remains essential for the French government, the governments of all the member states and the EU institutions to work together to find joint solutions.

Yours sincerely,

OPINION on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Union Agency for Asylum and repealing Regulation (EU) No 439/2010
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Ramona Nicole Mănescu

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP