European Union

This week Prime Minister, Theresa May, told the House of Commons Liaison Committee that the UK could have frictionless trade with the EU, without being in the Single Market or the EU customs union.

SNP MP, Angus Brendan MacNeil, told the Prime Minister that her plans were “pie in the sky”. Not only is he right, but Theresa May knows her Brexit plans are pie in the sky.

Before the referendum Mrs May said clearly and persuasively:

“It is not clear why other EU member states would give Britain a better deal than they themselves enjoy.”

Yet that’s exactly what Mrs May now wants. She says she aims to achieve a new trade agreement with the EU that’s unique to us, that no other country in the world has ever achieved.

Of course, it’s not going to happen.

What’s the point of a club if you are going to allow non-members to enjoy the same or better benefits as members? What club allows that?

The EU most certainly will not accept Mrs May’s pie in the sky proposals.

So here’s the bottom line. Britain needs frictionless trade with the EU. We need free movement of goods, services, capital and people for our country not just to survive, but to thrive.

We need to continue with the status quo: the arrangement we have now.

Has this sunk in yet?

We’re leaving all the benefits of the EU, only to desperately try and get back as many of those benefits as we can after we’ve left.

We’re going to pay around £40 billion (the so-called ‘divorce settlement’) – money that will come from us, you and me – to try and achieve what we’ve got, but less of it, and on considerably inferior terms.

This is complete and utter madness. It will be much better to just keep the current arrangement. It will be cheaper, and we will all be better off.

• As an EU member:

① We have a say and votes in the running, rules and future direction of our continent. ② We have full and free access to the world’s largest free marketplace. ③ We enjoy the right to live, work, study or retire across a huge expanse of our continent. ④ We enjoy state healthcare and education when living and working in any other EU country. ⑤ We enjoy free or low-cost health care when visiting any EU nation. ⑥ We are protected by continent-wide rights that protect us at work, when shopping and travelling. ⑦ We benefit from laws that protect our environment (and have, for example, directly resulted in Britain’s beaches being cleaned up). ⑧ We enjoy excellent EU trade agreements with around 60 countries, with more on the way, on advantageous terms that Britain is unlikely ever to replicate.

So, we’re going to throw that all away, just so we can get an inferior arrangement with the EU, in which we’d still have to agree to the rules of EU trade (over which we’d have no say) and we’d have less access to our most vital customers and suppliers outside of our home market.

We are leaving for no good reason, not one. We are paying around £40 billion (money the UK has agreed we owe to the EU) to settle our debts with the EU, to enable us to have an inferior deal.

We will be poorer, and with less sovereignty, fewer rights and protections, restricted trade, and diminished power after we’ve left.

What’s the point? There’s no point.

There is no pie. There is no cake. There is no Brexit dividend. There is no Brexit that can work.

________________________________________________________

• 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:

(function(d, s, id) { var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = 'https://connect.facebook.net/en_GB/sdk.js#xfbml=1&version=v3.0'; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));

Pie in the sky Brexit

→ Brexit won't work. Get it? – Please sharePIE IN THE SKY BREXIT – Video and articleThis week Prime Minister, Theresa May, told the House of Commons Liaison Committee that the UK could have frictionless trade with the EU, without being in the Single Market or the EU customs union.SNP MP, Angus Brendan MacNeil, told the Prime Minister that her plans were "pie in the sky". Not only is he right, but Theresa May knows her Brexit plans are pie in the sky. Before the referendum Mrs May said clearly and persuasively:“It is not clear why other EU member states would give Britain a better deal than they themselves enjoy.”Yet that’s exactly what Mrs May now wants. She says she aims to achieve a new trade agreement with the EU that’s unique to us, that no other country in the world has ever achieved.Of course, it’s not going to happen.What’s the point of a club if you are going to allow non-members to enjoy the same or better benefits as members? What club allows that?The EU most certainly will not accept Mrs May's pie in the sky proposals.So here’s the bottom line. Britain needs frictionless trade with the EU. We need free movement of goods, services, capital and people for our country not just to survive, but to thrive.We need to continue with the status quo: the arrangement we have now.Has this sunk in yet?We’re leaving all the benefits of the EU, only to desperately try and get back as many of those benefits as we can after we’ve left.We’re going to pay around £40 billion (the so-called ‘divorce settlement’) – money that will come from us, you and me – to try and achieve what we’ve got, but less of it, and on considerably inferior terms.This is complete and utter madness. It will be much better to just keep the current arrangement. It will be cheaper, and we will all be better off.As an EU member:① We have a say and votes in the running, rules and future direction of our continent.② We have full and free access to the world’s largest free marketplace.③ We enjoy the right to live, work, study or retire across a huge expanse of our continent.④ We enjoy state healthcare and education when living and working in any other EU country.⑤ We enjoy free or low-cost health care when visiting any EU nation.⑥ We are protected by continent-wide rights that protect us at work, when shopping and travelling.⑦ We benefit from laws that protect our environment (and have, for example, directly resulted in Britain’s beaches being cleaned up).⑧ We enjoy excellent EU trade agreements with around 60 countries, with more on the way, on advantageous terms that Britain is unlikely ever to replicate.So, we’re going to throw that all away, just so we can get an inferior arrangement with the EU, in which we’d still have to agree to the rules of EU trade (over which we’d have no say) and we’d have less access to our most vital customers and suppliers outside of our home market.We are leaving for no good reason, not one. We are paying around £40 billion (money the UK has agreed we owe to the EU) to settle our debts with the EU, to enable us to have an inferior deal.We will be poorer, and with less sovereignty, fewer rights and protections, restricted trade, and diminished power after we’ve left.What’s the point? There’s no point.There is no pie. There is no cake. There is no Brexit dividend. There is no Brexit that can work.• Words and video by Jon Danzig• Please re-Tweet, and follow Reasons2Remain on Twitter.twitter.com/Reasons2Remain/status/1020200409347100672********************************************► Watch Jon Danzig's 50-minute video: 'Can Britain Stop Brexit?' Go to CanBritainStopBrexit.com********************************************• To follow and support Reasons2Remain just ‘like’ the page, and please invite all your friends to like the page. Instructions to ensure you get notifications of all our stories:1. Click on the ‘Following’ button under the Reasons2Remain banner2. Change the ‘Default’ setting by clicking ‘See first’.********************************************• Please rate Reasons2Remain out of 5 stars. Here's the link: facebook.com/Reasons2Remain/reviews/********************************************• Follow Reasons2Remain on Twitter: twitter.com/reasons2remain and Instagram: instagram.com/reasons2remain/********************************************• Explore our unique Reasons2Remain gallery of over 1,000 graphics and articles: reasons2remain.co.uk********************************************• Reasons2Remain is an entirely unfunded community campaign, unaffiliated with any other group or political party, and is run entirely by volunteers. If you'd like to help, please send us a private message.********************************************• © Reasons2Remain 2018. All our articles and graphics are the copyright of Reasons2Remain. We only allow sharing using the Facebook share button. Any other use requires our advance permission in writing.#STOPBREXIT #EXITBREXIT #PEOPLESVOTE

Posted by Reasons2Remain on Thursday, 19 July 2018

The post Pie in the sky Brexit appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

https://tvnewsroom.consilium.europa.eu/uploads/council-images/thumbs/uploads/council-images/remote/http_7e18a1c646f5450b9d6d-a75424f262e53e74f9539145894f4378.r8.cf3.rackcdn.com/b24deb08-8b23-11e8-a267-bc764e093073_159.44_thumb_169_1531984979_1531984976_129_97shar_c1.jpg

EU Ministers of Employment and Social policy and Health meet for an Informal session on 19 and 20 July 2018 in Vienna.

Download this video here.

https://tvnewsroom.consilium.europa.eu/uploads/council-images/thumbs/uploads/council-images/remote/http_7e18a1c646f5450b9d6d-a75424f262e53e74f9539145894f4378.r8.cf3.rackcdn.com/90d0a49a-1499-11e7-bfe6-bc764e093073_45.23_thumb_169_1529941418_1529941418_129_97shar_c1.jpg

Ministers of Foreign and European Affairs of the EU27 meet on 20 July 2018 in Brussels to take stock of the state of play of Brexit negotiations.

Download this video here.

Source : © European Union, 2018 - EP

Let’s suppose my university likes talking about the future. They might do fancy powerpoint presentations, with artists’ impressions of shiny buildings and other infrastructure, together with charts showing How It’s All Going To Be Great.

Looks wonderful, I might think. But how do we get there, I might also think.

And then it might turn out that between here and there is a period of optimising and belt-tightening, doing better to get more. That kind of thing.

Ah, I might think. And, indeed, oh.

And so it is with Brexit. And no ‘might’ about it, now.

The fine words split on both sides about building a constructive and meaningful relationship post-membership are legion. Last week’s White Paper was simply the latest iteration of this.

In all the argument about whether the White Paper vision can be realised in the face of determined domestic divisions, very little attention has been given to the more practical aspects of getting from here to there, practicalities that will exist whatever ‘there’ turns out to be.

Now, after some discussions with officials and other academics, I feel I understand the matter well enough to have a stab at lying it out for you.

The pitch

This all makes more sense if we work from the end backwards.

The White Paper envisages a series of legal documents, bound by a framework agreement that will encompass a wide range of policy areas. There seems to be a suggestion that this series will not be concluded simultaneously, but rather as they are ready: that makes sense, as a convoy approach might cause big delays for a relatively minor issue.

Moreover, the document also mentions an implementation period, directly in relation to auditing, and indirectly in relation to the famously-unexplainable Facilitated Customs Arrangement (FCA), which will have a phased introduction. However, there’s no more detail available about that implementation period.

Together, these things point to a situation where the end of the Withdrawal Agreement’s transition period at the end of December 2020 will not see the immediate and complete introduction and enforcement of a new end-state.

Instead, there might be some agreements in place – including, presumably, the framework text that contains the management, implementation and infringement architecture – with some of those agreements not being fully operational until a later date.

The questions

Which raises some questions.

The most obvious one is how long will this situation last? When does the end-state actually come into being?

In essence, you have one of two options on this front. Either you define the process by time or by conditions.

The time model (“we’ll have an agreement in place on this date”) is the one we’ve seen so far (on Article 50, and on transition), which offers a clear endpoint and stronger incentives to make progress, especially if interim arrangements lapse at that point.

The conditions-based model (“we’ll have an agreement in place as soon as we can satisfy our basic requirements”) is much less certain on timespan, but does ensure parties’ interests are better protected.

Either way, much would depend on the hierarchy of needs on both sides and the perceived distance of opening positions. However, such disaggregation does point to a period of years, rather than months, to get towards something approaching the end-state.

Of course, part of that will depend on the second key question: what happens in the meantime?

As matters stand, the transition ends in December 2020, and with it the entirety of the current arrangements. As I’ve discussed before, this cliff-edge is much more problematic to resolve than the March 2019 one, for both legal and political reasons.

Again, we have a limited number of options.

The first is to let the transition arrangements lapse and then build up to the end-state from scratch. Some of the EU’s current position on matters such as internal security implicitly use this view, treating the UK as a third country rather than as an ex-member state. Obviously that makes the cliff-edge at the end of 2020 very real, although it might incentivise getting more done sooner, to reduce its effect.

The second is to avoid the cliff-edge and extend the transition arrangements into the implementation period. In effect, you’d be keeping things the same until you knew what they were changing to. This is the principle behind the transition period and means only one adaptation process for operators (and citizens) to undertake.

The third would be to build some kind of new settlement for the implementation period; not nothing, but also no as close as in transition. This phased approach would allow all shapes to mark some progress and to spread the adaptation costs, but with the problem that it requires the most negotiation now to realise.

The problem

None of these options is cost-free and none is simple. And if you think they are, then remember that the Irish dimension is profoundly tied up in all of this too.

But perhaps just as importantly, none is being discussed at this stage.

I have yet to meet anyone who seriously believes that the transition period is long enough to negotiate and ratify a complete end-state agreement between the UK and EU. Likewise, I have yet to meet anyone with a detailed plan for a non-backstop resolution to Northern Ireland.

Amortising the problem across time might be one key way of managing these issues. By holding some parts steady, while focusing on others, it may be possible to break matters down into more manageable and less contentious chunks.

But that comes with challenges of its own; challenges that have barely registered so far in a political landscape that resembles – in the UK at least – nothing so much as the trenches of World War One: muddy, lethal and not getting anywhere fast.

Perhaps the key is to remember that the process will matter as much as the end-state: mutually agreeing a practical operationalisation for the strategy on getting to that deep and special relationship will make it more likely that all sides stick with the programme and get to turn those fine words into something like a reality.

The post Getting to an end-state appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

Iron cat 15-19 July 2018 on the Danube

Tag: Iron Cat

DRAFT REPORT on Military Mobility
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Tunne Kelam

Source : © European Union, 2018 - EP

In September 2017, when we took over the position of editors for the JCMS Annual Review, we came in with a vision to address the challenges facing the discipline of EU studies more broadly.

2017 was certainly an eventful year on all aspects of politics, economics and society and represented a critical moment for all of us studying the EU and its politics. This juncture is both exciting and equally daunting in EU history, not least because of the complexity of global challenges, be those addressed at the national, European or transnational levels. One of those grand challenges is precisely the outcome of the process of the departure of the UK from the European Union, following the 2016 EU Referendum.

To solve that puzzle, we invited Prof. Simon Hix (LSE) to deliver the JCMS Annual Review Lecture, addressing the state of play of the UK-EU relations post-Brexit. Prof. Hix was on board immediately and delivered a very engaging lecture at Portcullis House, in the heart of Westminster, where the majority of debates around Brexit take place. The lecture was a public event, attracting audience from all walks of life including practitioners, academics, students and engaged citizens.

In his lecture, which is published as a contribution to the JCMS Annual Review, Prof. Hix addressed the key positions of the UK and the EU in the negotiations one year into the process. Following a game theoretical process of ranking the outcomes of the type of relationship between the UK and the EU, Prof. Hix argued that the basic outcomes have been well-known in terms of a ‘soft’ or a ‘hard’ form of Brexit or a ‘no deal’ outcome. The UK has started to explore the possibilities of a ‘Canada plus plus plus’ agreement and this is certainly reflected in the way that negotiations have proceeded.

Having solved the bargaining game, Prof. Hix concludes that the likely deal between the UK and the EU27 will have the form of a a basic free trade agreement, mainly covering trade in goods with not much on trade in services. Certainly, current events at Chequers confirmed Prof. Hix’s position. In his words, “a basic free trade agreement would not be the end of the process.” The UK will have to negotiate additional agreements with the EU, occasions which are likely to be highly-salient events in domestic politics.

If the UK has to repeatedly fold in its position, then the EU will acquire an even more negative image in the UK, which will make opposition to closer cooperation much stronger. Prof. Hix concluded that in that case, the UK may be stuck with that basic free trade deal for a long time.

• Read the lecture here.
• Listen to an interview with Simon Hix about the lecture here.
• Listen to a recording of the lecture here.

Credit (all photos): Simon Usherwood

 

Dr. Theofanis Exadaktylos

Prof. Roberta Guerrina

Dr. Emanuele Massetti

Co-editors, JCMS Annual Review

University of Surrey

 

 

The post The JCMS Annual Review Lecture 2018 – Prof. Simon Hix on the future UK-EU relationship appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

DRAFT REPORT on a European Parliament recommendation to the Council, Commission and the Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy on the comprehensive agreement between the EU and the Kyrgyz Republic
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Cristian Dan Preda

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.
Source : © European Union, 2018 - EP

AMENDMENTS 1 - 63 - Draft opinion General budget of the European Union for the financial year 2019 - all sections
Committee on Foreign Affairs

Source : © European Union, 2018 - EP

There are now calls for the EU referendum to be scrapped and run again. It follows the Electoral Commission’s ruling that Vote Leave, the official Brexit campaign group, significantly broke spending limit rules during the referendum.

The group has been fined £61,000 by the electoral watchdog, which has also called for a criminal investigation.

Former Tory minister, Sir Nicholas Soames, said in the Commons today that the referendum, “needs to be blown up and started all over again.”

Senior Conservative MP Sarah Wollaston said there should be a re-run of the vote because, “we cannot have confidence that this referendum was secure”.  She added, “We are talking about deliberate cheating.”

Labour former minister David Lammy called on ministers to declare the referendum result “void”.

He said:

“Can the government declare this referendum void on the basis of the evidence that we’ve been provided by the Electoral Commission, and if not, given this was an advisory referendum by this parliament, can she bring forward the vote in this parliament to declare this referendum void?”

Labour’s Chuka Umunna described the Electoral Commission’s findings as “shocking”, telling MPs the actions of Vote Leave represented an “affront to our democracy”.

He said:

“Given there was a 4% gap between Leave and Remain, and Vote Leave overspent by just under 8%, does the minister agree with me that we cannot say with confidence that this foul play did not impact on the result?”

But the government was not supportive of this view, and Mrs May has already announced this week that another referendum was “out of the question.”

In addition to the fine, the Electoral Commission has referred David Halsall, the “responsible person” for Vote Leave, to the Metropolitan Police for making false declarations of campaign spending.

Darren Grimes, the head of a separate Brexit youth group called BeLeave – which received a £675,000 donation from Vote leave – has also been referred to the police and fined £20,000 by the Electoral Commission.

Bob Posner, Electoral Commission director of political finance, said that what happened represented “serious breaches of the laws put in place by Parliament to ensure fairness and transparency at elections and referendums.”

Under the rules of the referendum, Vote Leave was supposed to have stuck to a £7m spending limit while campaigning.

But the Electoral Commission ruled that Vote Leave secretly went nearly £500,000 over its limit when it made the undeclared £675,000 donation to Mr Grimes’ BeLeave group.

This comes after the Electoral Commission last May also fined Leave.EU, another pro-Brexit campaign group, the maximum £70,000 for multiple breaches of electoral rules.

The organisation is backed by Nigel Farage and funded by Arron Banks, and played a key role in campaigning for Brexit in the referendum.

The group failed to reveal “at least” £77,380 in its spending following the referendum vote, meaning it exceeded the legal spending limits for the referendum, as laid down by law.

The Electoral Commission has also referred a key figure in Leave.EU’s management team, Liz Bilney, to the Metropolitan Police due to “reasonable grounds to suspect” that criminal offences have occurred.

Both Vote Leave and Leave.EU have strongly denied the allegations.

Last May Mr Posner was also critical of Leave.EU for breaking electoral rules for the referendum.

Mr Posner said then:

“The rules we enforce were put in place by Parliament to ensure transparency and public confidence in our democratic processes. It is therefore disappointing that Leave.EU, a key player in the EU referendum, was unable to abide by these rules.

“Leave.EU exceeded its spending limit and failed to declare its funding and its spending correctly. These are serious offences. The level of fine we have imposed has been constrained by the cap on the Commission’s fines.”

The watchdog found the group had exceeded the spending limit for non-party registered campaigners by at least 10 per cent and said that the unlawful over-spend “may well have been considerably higher”.

A spokeswoman for Scotland Yard told The Independent:

“We can confirm that the Electoral Commission has referred a potential criminal offence under section 123(4) of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.

“This matter will be subject to assessment by officers from the Special Enquiry Team.”

The Electoral Commission’s investigation also uncovered that Leave.EU did not properly report the receipt of three loans from Mr Banks, totalling £6m, with dates around the transaction and the related interest rate incorrectly reported.

Because the EU referendum was advisory only, the safeguards that allow for legally binding elections to be re-run in the event of rule breaches do not apply.

This prompted Jolyon Maugham QC, the director of the Good Law Project, which launched the judicial review that arguably prompted the Electoral Commission into renewing its investigation into Vote Leave spending, to tell The Independent:

“Legally this ruling doesn’t mean anything for the country. Politically, it should be decisive.”

He explained that the referendum was no more than a “glorified opinion poll” in the eyes of the law.

Subsequently, “The normal safeguards that govern elections that give rise to legally binding outcomes were cut out from the referendum. It is unchallengeable. There is no recourse in law. There is no legal mechanism for overturning the result of this referendum.”

Mr Maugham and others, however, argue that the “cheating” and “very substantial” Vote Leave overspending ruled upon by the Electoral Commission should oblige MPs to disregard the referendum result.

Mr Maugham said:

“The referendum should no longer be pretended to provide any mandate for Brexit. It is now up to MPs to do their jobs and ask themselves whether a referendum that took place against a background of Vote Leave cheating can safely be said to represent the will of the people.”

But he also admitted: “If MPs allow cheats to prosper then we don’t have any democracy left, but, ultimately, if that is what they are prepared to do, there is nothing I or any other lawyer can do about it.”

According to ‘The Code of Good Practice on Referendums’ issued by the Venice Commission, if the cap on spending is exceeded in a referendum by a significant amount, “the vote must be annulled.”

The Code, which is a non-binding guideline, was adopted by the Council of Europe’s Venice Commission in 2006/2007.

The UK is a member of the Council of Europe and has signed up to the Venice Commission.

Their Code of Good Practice on Referendums states under clause 3.3. on referendum funding:

‘National rules on both public and private funding of political parties and election campaigns must be applicable to referendum campaigns.

‘As in the case of elections, funding must be transparent, particularly when it comes to campaign accounts.

‘In the event of a failure to abide by the statutory requirements, for instance if the cap on spending is exceeded by a significant margin, the vote must be annulled.

‘It should be pointed out that the principle of equality of opportunity applies to public funding; equality should be ensured between a proposal’s supporters and opponents.’

The Code is a guide only, and not legally binding.

However, it’s now becoming clearer by the day that the referendum campaign was seriously flawed.

There was significant overspending by both Vote Leave, and Leave.EU, that broke election law, in addition to allegations of criminality and data breaches.

And on top of all the lies and mistruths that the Leave campaigns had to rely upon to win the referendum, there are allegations of possible interference by Russia.

Anyone who believes in democracy, whether a Leave or Remain supporter, should now be seriously concerned about the validity of the result of the EU referendum of 23 June 2016.

________________________________________________________

• 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 The EU referendum must be annulled appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

https://tvnewsroom.consilium.europa.eu/uploads/council-images/thumbs/uploads/council-images/remote/http_7e18a1c646f5450b9d6d-a75424f262e53e74f9539145894f4378.r8.cf3.rackcdn.com/e97ebdbe-89ca-11e8-8d2f-bc764e092fac_1.09_thumb_169_1531838205_1531838205_129_97shar_c1.jpg

EU HR Mogherini participates in the Somalia Partnership Forum, taking place on 17 July 2018, in Brussels.

Download this video here.

DRAFT REPORT on the 2018 Commission Report on Bosnia and Herzegovina
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Cristian Dan Preda

Source : © European Union, 2018 - EP

DRAFT RECOMMENDATION on the draft Council decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the Union and of the Member States, of the Protocol to the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement establishing a partnership between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Kyrgyz Republic, of the other part, to take account of the accession of the Republic of Croatia to the European Union
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Cristian Dan Preda

Source : © European Union, 2018 - EP

https://tvnewsroom.consilium.europa.eu/uploads/council-images/thumbs/uploads/council-images/remote/http_7e18a1c646f5450b9d6d-a75424f262e53e74f9539145894f4378.r8.cf3.rackcdn.com/E84127BA-3481-4949-984C-D28E753C1CBBsmall_thumb_169_1530783956_1530783956_129_97shar_c1.jpg

The 25th EU-Japan Summit takes place on 17 July 2018, in Tokyo. At the summit, leaders are expected to sign the EU-Japan economic partnership agreement and the EU-Japan strategic partnership agreement. Also, they discuss strategic cooperation and international relations. The EU is represented by Donald TUSK, President of the European Council, and by Jean-Claude JUNCKER, President of the European Commission. Cecilia MALMSTRÖM, European Commissioner for Trade, also participates at the Summit. Japan is represented by Prime Minister Shinzo ABE.

Download this video here.

https://tvnewsroom.consilium.europa.eu/uploads/council-images/thumbs/uploads/council-images/remote/http_7e18a1c646f5450b9d6d-a75424f262e53e74f9539145894f4378.r8.cf3.rackcdn.com/f8503b5e-8990-11e8-bf79-bc764e092fac_39.74_thumb_169_1531812016_1531812016_129_97shar_c1.jpg

The Informal Meeting of the Ministers responsible for Competitiveness is held on 16 and 17 July 2018, in Vienna. The meeting focused on Internal Market and Industry takes place on 16 July. On 17 July, the meeting focuses on Research.

Download this video here.

Declaration by the High Representative, Federica Mogherini, on behalf of the European Union on the occasion of the Day of International Criminal Justice, 17 July 2018.

The Council adopted the Omnibus regulation on simpler EU financial rules.