European Union

AMENDMENTS 1 - 154 - Draft report The Council’s Annual Report in accordance with Operative Provision 8 of the European Union Code of Conduct on Arms Exports
Committee on Foreign Affairs

Source : © European Union, 2018 - EP

The aim of the workshop, held on 26 February 2018, was to assess and discuss the EU’s approach to hybrid threats in its neighbourhood using the Western Balkans as a case study, in the context of the extensive use of propaganda by Russia and its meddling into several elections and in the aftermath of the 2014 events in Ukraine and the Russian annexation of Crimea.
The first speaker, Jean-Jacques Patry, presented the concept of hybrid threat at various levels and the EU approach and measures to tackle it, particularly in the Western Balkans. The second speaker, Nicolas Mazzucchi, delivered a presentation on Russia's declining influence in the Western Balkans (on behalf of Isabelle Facon, who authored the briefing but could not attend the workshop) and added some of his own analysis on energy and cyber issues. The presentations were followed by a debate with members of the Security and Defence Committee of the European Parliament.
Further information
Workshop report
Source : © European Union, 2018 - EP

The aim of the workshop, held on 22 November 2017, was to discuss the future of the European Defence Agency (EDA) against the backdrop of framing a common Union defence policy.
The first speaker, Dr Christian Mölling, provided an analysis of the issue of defence cooperation among EU member states and the difficulties it faces. In this context, he described the role and power of the EDA as well as possible options for its future. The second speaker, Professor David Versailles, focused on capabilities and competencies as well as on the interaction between civilian and military capabilities. The presentations were followed by a debate involving members of the Security and Defence Committee of the European Parliament.
Further information
Workshop report
Source : © European Union, 2018 - EP

OTP Bank and OTP Faktoring
Environment and consumers
The unfairness of an unclear contractual term which places the exchange rate risk on the borrower and does not reflect statutory provisions may be subject to judicial review

Oeuvre d’assistance aux bêtes d’abattoirs
Agriculture and fisheries
Advocate General Wahl proposes that the Court find that products from animals that have been the subject of ritual slaughter without prior stunning can be issued the European ‘organic farming’ label

Away from Salzburg and its repeat performance of ‘how we don’t really understand each other‘, the question that I’m getting asked a lot is whether there can be a second referendum.

This is an interesting one, because it’s often asked of me by people who’d like to see the end of Brexit and a return to How Things Were. In that sense, it’s a bit of an advance on fighting the first referendum, time and again.

That’s not to say it’s a bad thing to pursue, but rather to invite some reflection on the politics of it all and especially the framing.

Why do it?

Importantly, much hangs on why a second referendum would be happening at all, since at present there is very little chance of this government taking this course of action.

That matters because right now the people pushing for it, as I’ve just mentioned, are those who clearly would like a result that allowed a stop to the process of leaving. The overnight comments of the Czech and Maltese PMs that they’d also support such a vote merely reinforces that impression.

If Theresa May were now to accept the need for a vote, it would go much against what she has previously argued and worked to, namely as limited as number of people making decisions as possible: remember how hard she fought against even just Parliament having a role.

For that to change, May would have to find herself fully out of alternative options, probably after a hostile Parliament left her no other choice. Despite everything, that still looks a long way off.

As long as a second vote looks more like a means to an end, rather than an end in itself, it will struggle to have the credibility of the 2016 referendum (insert any punchline you feel like here), at least in the sense of having a fighting chance to overturn that decision.

How to do it?

That problem is heightened by the very obvious challenge of what might be on the ballot paper.

The UCL Constitution Unit has written a series of fine pieces on this (here), looking at technical ways one could manage the various options, but ultimately this would be an intensely political choice.

Broadly speaking, either you’re offering voters a choice between leaving with a deal or leaving without one, or also adding in an option not to leave at all. And that’s on top of any issues around wording (which were already problematic last time around).

Because that basic choice will be a political one, it offers up much scope for campaigners to suggest that the exercise is ‘rigged’ in some way that hurts their interests: two of the three options are about leaving; two of the three are about a deal; why muddy the waters with staying at all?

That’s problematic if the object of the exercise is to calm passions and rebuild popular engagement with the process and with the political system at large. If nothing else, a three-way vote risks an outcome that ‘wins’ without an absolute majority of votes.

These problems are well-understood and form a big part of the resistance to holding another referendum, but it’s worth chucking a couple more points to ponder.

Firstly,it’s not clear what a second referendum would be on.

As a reminder, the Withdrawal Agreement (WA) is a very limited document. It covers the resolution of various liabilities arising from the end of UK membership, including finances, regulation and governance, plus some arrangements to bridge to whatever new relationship might arise in the future (as long as that arises by the end of 2020).

What that document doesn’t do is set out that new relationship. Yes, there’ll be a Political Declaration alongside the WA, but that will not have the same full force of law and will be necessarily vague about the aspirations that both sides in that still-to-be-started negotiation might have.

As such, ‘Chequers’ doesn’t really get much of a look-in; certainly not in the WA, and not very much in the Declaration. That makes it harder to mobilise a narrative of ‘rejecting Chequers’, because it’ll not be the locus of the documents under consideration.

Moreover, what is the locus is not that pretty for the UK. It’s about the settlement of financial liabilities, the creation of an Irish backstop, the continuation of legal and regulatory obligations and a transition period where the UK is a pure rule-taker. The counterbalancing goodies in the Declaration are promissory and vague.

If you wanted to get people to vote against that document, then you’d find it easy to paint a picture of a failed negotiation process and of an opportunity to escape the grasping hand of an EU that seems to just take and not give.

The people factor

Secondly, any discussion of a referendum needs to take account of how people might vote.

Here, the evidence is very mixed. John Curtice points to the centrality of economic calculations, while YouGov reminds us that there’s no clear consensus on any outcome. In short, there’s no slam-dunk on the table, for anyone.

That matters because a second referendum is likely to be a one-shot policy: the chances of a third vote within the medium-term would be effectively zero. As Sarah Ludford rightly noted at an event I spoke at this week, it’s the best change for Remainers to stop Brexit, but it comes with a sizeable risk of resulting in a no-deal outcome.

(and just a quick reminder here that the last two national votes – in 2016 and 2017 – didn’t go how their authors thought they would)

Taken together, all of this points to a number of substantial issues that campaigners on all sides will need to get their heads around and then actively prepare for. Otherwise, we might find that a second referendum leaves more questions open than before.

The post The framing of a second referendum appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

It’s 72 years ago, on 19 September 1946, that war leader and former British Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, gave his landmark speech at the University of Zurich in Switzerland. He called for Europe to, “build a kind of United States of Europe” to create lasting peace.

Following the Second World War, Churchill was convinced that only a united Europe could guarantee peace. His aim was to eliminate the European ills of nationalism and war-mongering once and for all.

He proclaimed his remedy, just one year after the end of the war:

“It is to re-create the European family, or as much of it as we can, and to provide it with a structure under which it can dwell in peace, in safety and in freedom.

“We must build a kind of United States of Europe.”

Although Europe did not become, as Churchill then visioned and promoted, a federal ‘United States’, it did become a Union of 28 independent sovereign countries, trading and working together in peace and prosperity.

In remembering his grandfather’s speech, Conservative MP Sir Nicholas Soames said in the House of Commons:

“The speech was of great prescience and great vision. And it was also a speech of the most profound analysis.”

Sir Winston Churchill is recognised as one of the 11 ‘Founding Fathers’ of the European Union.

At the time of his 1946 speech, Churchill envisaged Britain helping to establish the ‘Union of European countries’, but not actually joining it.

But Churchill’s views later changed, as the British Empire and Commonwealth diminished, and Britain’s world influence shifted.

Churchill made his last speech about Europe at London’s Central Hall, Westminster in July 1957; some four months after six founding nations established the European Economic Community by signing the Treaty of Rome (France, Italy, West Germany, Belgium, The Netherlands and Luxembourg).

Churchill welcomed the formation of a ‘common market’ by the six, provided that ‘the whole of free Europe will have access’. Churchill added, ‘we genuinely wish to join’.

But Churchill also warned:

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

* (Source: Winston S. Churchill: His Complete Speeches Vol. 8 page 8681)

During the 1960s Churchill’s health rapidly declined, but his support for a united Europe didn’t.

According to Churchill’s last Private Secretary,  Sir Anthony Montague Brown, in August 1961, Churchill wrote to his constituency Chairman:

‘I think that the Government are right to apply to join the European Economic Community..’

Sir Anthony also confirmed, in his book  ‘Long Sunset’, that in 1963, just two years before he died, Churchill wrote in a private letter:

‘The future of Europe if Britain were to be excluded is black indeed.’

• Watch an extracted version of Winston Churchill’s speech of 19 September 1946, together with a commentary in the House of Commons by his grandson, MP Sir Nicholas Soames. (Video production by Jon Danzig):

• Related article by Jon Danzig: Winston Churchill: A founder of the European Union

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

________________________________________________________

 

The post Churchill’s antidote to war: A united Europe appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

AMENDMENTS 15 - 89 - Draft opinion Establishing the Connecting Europe Facility and repealing Regulations (EU) No 1316/2013 and (EU) No 283/2014
Committee on Foreign Affairs

Source : © European Union, 2018 - EP

MEPs delegation support deeper bilateral and regional political dialogues and initiatives. Foreign affairs MEPs advocate implementation of the recent EU- Kazakhstan Enhanced Partnership and Cooperation agreement, including defence of human rights. The Committee on Foreign Affairs of the European Parliament, led by MEP Cristian Dan PREDA, visited Kazakhstan (Astana and Almaty) on 17-19 September 2018.
Further information
Complete text of the press statement
Source : © European Union, 2018 - EP

R O
Area of Freedom, Security and Justice
The notification, by the United Kingdom, of its intention to withdraw from the EU does not have the consequence that execution of a European arrest warrant issued by that Member State must be refused or postponed

González Castro
SOPO
Pregnant workers, workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding who work shifts, some of which are at night, must be regarded as performing night work and enjoy specific protection against the risks that night work is liable to pose

Commission v France and IFP Énergies nouvelles
State aid
The Court holds that the General Court of the European Union must reconsider whether the Commission was justified in classifying the implied and unlimited guarantee granted by the French Republic to the Institut français du pétrole as State aid

The next AFET meetings are scheduled to take place on:

Thursday, 27 September 2018, 09:00-13:00, room JAN 2Q2

Further information
Information for visitors
Draft agendas
Source : © European Union, 2018 - EP

In recent years the EU concluded Association Agreements, including the creation of a Comprehensive Free Trade Areas with Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine. These are amongst the most complex and comprehensive legal treaties concluded by the EU with third countries. The treaties place a profound obligation on the partner countries of legal approximation, that is, to undertake extensive, binding commitments to adopt vast swathes of the acquis in order to stimulate political and economic development and institutional modernisation. This study shows that creating the institutional framework for implementation is a challenging and drawn-out process. While all countries have made some progress with devising these mechanisms, they are short of the necessary political leadership, policy planning, administrative capacity and there is a dearth of budgetary planning to enable effective implementation. There is also a notable need to embed implementation into wider reform strategies. While these issues are being addressed on the part of the countries, the EU can assist them by providing the necessary systemic support in an integrated, sequenced and long-term way.
Source : © European Union, 2018 - EP

DRAFT REPORT Annual report on the implementation of the Common Foreign and Security Policy
Committee on Foreign Affairs
David McAllister

Source : © European Union, 2018 - EP

AMENDMENTS 1 - 235 - Draft report Report on the 2018 Commission Report on Kosovo
Committee on Foreign Affairs

Source : © European Union, 2018 - EP

Source : © European Union, 2018 - EP

MPs debated a petition on Monday 10 September to withdraw Article 50 if Vote Leave broke electoral laws. But hardly any MPs turned up.

The petition, which had almost 200,000 signatures, requested:

‘If Vote Leave has broken any laws regarding overspending in 2016 EU referendum then Article 50 should be immediately withdrawn and full EU membership continued.’

Of course, we all now know that Vote Leave did break electoral rules, with allegations of fraud currently being investigated by the police.

But Tory and Labour frontbenchers rejected the calls to withdraw Article 50 over Vote Leave’s overspending.

Some MPs complained that the debate, in Westminster Hall, clashed with another debate in the main House of Commons chamber on the same afternoon on ‘Legislating for the Brexit Withdrawal Agreement’.

When I Tweeted a photo of the debate in Westminster Hall with hardly anyone there, many Tweeters expressed their fury.

• “Absolutely disgraceful, what has happened to MPs supposedly representing their constituents?” Tweeted @NotWhatIBelieve.
• “This image is a clear demonstration of how little our politicians care about the fact that Vote Leave cheated,” Tweeted @JayPatrol
• “How far has UK democracy sunk, that cheating is dismissed with a shrug of the shoulder,” Tweeted @julian_rowden.
• “Shows how grossly irresponsible and cowardly most MPs are being over Brexit,” Tweeted @ChristophBennet.
• “Outrageous,” Tweeted @Akinsey08
• “This is such a joke. Incompetent government, useless opposition, upholding the result of a fraudulent referendum. Democracy is dead; there is no integrity left in British politics,” Tweeted @audrymaeve.
• “If anyone remains in any doubt as to the democratic credentials of both Tory and Labour parties this should  clarify. This Country is mired in corruption,” Tweeted @MichaelMandb01.
• “I despair. MPs not doing their job. Democracy dead. Corruption admired. Fascist britain looms,” Tweeted @Jennie_Pawson.
• “That is our MPs for you.  Only interested in themselves and their own advancement,” Tweeted @Johnantifas.
• “If it was about a pay rise it would be standing room only,” Tweeted @ASupermum.

Many directly Tweeted their MPs to demand to know why they were not at the debate.

• “@ChrisRuane2017 As my MP and someone who claimed to support Remain in the 2017 GE, where are you in this picture? If you weren’t there, why not?” Tweeted @wible1
• “@DLidington as one of your constituents can you please advise me why it’s ok for politicians to break the law?” Tweeted @KatherineRoe
• “Did you attend this important debate @JDjanogly? If not, why not, when @vote_leave broke electoral law?” Tweeted @amandarandall5
• “@alexsobel did you attend this?” Tweeted @AngryRemainer.

Alex Sobel, Labour Co-op MP for Leeds West, and a strong anti-Brexiter, was one the only MPs to respond.

• “I was in the main chamber for the Legislating the EU Withdrawal Bill debate. Here is my contribution http://bit.ly/2CGgJF8 It was a big mistake to timetable two Brexit debates at the same time,” he Tweeted back.

Today, Mr Sobel emailed me the following comment:

“The Government knew there was a Westminster hall debate that day, triggered by many thousands of signatures. They then chose to put down their own Brexit debate on the same afternoon in the commons chamber, the houses premier debating chamber.

“It is regrettable that many MPs had to make the choice about which debate to attend. If the public are to trust that petition debates are valued, scheduling must be done better.”

Tonight I have asked Andrea Leadsom, Leader of the House of Commons, to respond. After all, it’s her job to announce every Thursday the timetable for Commons proceedings for the following week.

When Ms Leadsom announced that there would be a debate in the House of Commons on the afternoon of Monday 10 September, she already knew that the Commons Petitions Committee had also scheduled the debate on the petition to rescind Article 50 on the same afternoon.

(I will report back here if I receive a reply from Ms Leadsom).

During the debate about the petition in the empty Westminster Hall, the Brexit minister Chris Heaton-Harris said that while the government “respects the views and wishes” of those who signed the petition, the referendum result was one that “cannot be ignored”.

And Labour’s shadow Brexit minister Paul Blomfield said the law did not provide for overturning referendum results for cheating.

The government’s formal response to the petition stated:

‘The British people voted to leave the EU and the Government respects that decision. We have always been clear that as a matter of policy our notification under Article 50 will not be withdrawn.’

The response added:

‘The British people voted to leave the EU, and it is the duty of the Government to deliver on their instruction. There can be no attempt to stay in the EU.

‘The result of the referendum held on 23 June 2016 saw a majority of people vote to leave the European Union. This was the biggest democratic mandate for a course of action ever directed at any UK Government.

‘Following this, Parliament authorised the Prime Minister to trigger Article 50, passing the EU (Notification of Withdrawal) Act.

‘In last year’s General Election, over 80% of people then voted for parties committing to respecting the result of the referendum.

‘It was the stated policy of both major parties that the decision of the people would be respected. The Government is clear that it is now its duty to implement the will of the electorate.

‘This was not a decision made after just a few weeks of campaigning, but one that came after a debate that had taken place both in Parliament and across the country for decades.’

The statement added:

‘The British people can trust this Government to honour the referendum result and get the best deal possible. To do otherwise would be to undermine the decision of the British people.

‘The premise that the people can trust their politicians to deliver on the promises they make and will deliver them in Parliament is fundamental to our democracy.’

But the statement, by the Department for Exiting the European Union, made no reference to the cheating by the Vote Leave campaign and did not answer the premise of the petition, that Article 50 should be rescinded in the event that Vote Leave broke electoral laws.

The government’s statement concluded:

‘It is the Government’s duty to deliver the will of the people and reach a desirable final outcome.’

So, it appears the government believes that promises made by their politicians need to be ‘honoured’, even if those promises are based on lies, and the campaign to win the EU referendum was based on cheating. So much for democracy and fair elections.

But even if Westminster Hall had been filled to the rafters with MPs, it would not have made any difference. Although almost 200,000 people signed the petition for the Article 50 notice to be withdrawn if Vote Leave cheated, petitions carry no weight in Parliament.

Petitions debated by MPs in Westminster Hall cannot directly result in a change to legislation or policy. The only motion that can be voted on is that ‘This House has considered the petition…”

Of course, the vote can only be ‘Aye’: the petition has been considered by MPs. But it’s meaningless. Petitions to Parliament are meaningless. Democracy in the UK is becoming meaningless.

• Watch the video of the debate:

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

________________________________________________________

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

The post Empty hall as MPs debate petition to withdraw Article 50 appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

AMENDMENTS 1 - 182 - Draft report Implementation of the EU association agreement with Moldova
Committee on Foreign Affairs

Source : © European Union, 2018 - EP

will take place on Monday, 24 September, 15:00-16:00 in Brussels.

Organisations or interest groups who wish to apply for access to the European Parliament will find the relevant information below.

Further information
watch the meeting live
Access rights for interest group representatives
Source : © European Union, 2018 - EP