Union européenne

It is a matter of hours before the final results of the British Referendum on European Union Membership will be declared by Chief Counting Officer Jenny Watson in Manchester. Differently from general elections, there will be no exit poll; provisional results would be ready on Friday 24 June around 1 am, while official results will wait until 7 am the same day. Political scientists specialised on electoral dynamics in UK claim that the city of Lancaster will be the litmus test of British electorate’s choice. The last poll released by consultant agency Populus, carried out online and before voting opened, showed remain on 55 % and leave on 45 %. Among the uncertainty, residents have started standing in long queues in front of ATMs. As seen last years in Greece, cash withdrawal can be interpreted as one of the main signs that signals the eve of a financial catastrophe. If that will not be the reality tomorrow, nevertheless the degree of panic and uncertainty reached around the issue today will mark the fate of relationship between UK and the rest of the member States on one side and political balance within the UK itself. Notably, panic and fear, as signalled in one previous article, are not positive in political dynamics (while a electoral booster in time of campaigning). The truth is, even if Brexit will not concretise, the society tomorrow will be divided. If Brexit will gain the majority, the economic and financial world will need to hold their breath for a long time.

One of the first dark horses is the fate of the government, as Cameron cabinet is based on a fragile majority and his party will be furthermore divided. As highlighted by consultant Tom White of Global Counsel agency, the first after-referendum day will see Tories obliged to face the quest for a new party leader. At the same time, in the event of a majority for the Leave choice, the distribution of favour in geographical terms will pose another issue, this time at constitutional level. If Cameron will remain Prime Minister, he will be seriously challenged in terms of legitimacy when opting for or against the starting procedure of an exit based on a formal request to European Institutions based on article 50 of the European Union Treaty. Until now, Scotland and Northern Ireland have appeared pro-Remain in the conducted polls. As mentioned in a previous article, Scotland nationals are generally pro-European, with their Scottish National Party voting against the European Union Referendum Bill during its second reading at the House of Commons on 9 June 2015 (when the Bill actually passed with 544 votes against 53). Remote villages in Scotland and Wales have particularly benefited in the past of European Structural Funds, which constitutes the bulk of their point of view: Remain is not only a political question, but a matter of convenience. Several surveys shows that sixty to seventy-five percent of Scottish voters are in favour of remaining inside the EU, with the very heart of Scotland, the Highlands, depending largely today from trade and tourism, two sectors that will be severely damaged by the detachment from the EU. While in northern England social housing and lack of contribution from national budget have been the main topic concentrating critiques towards the EU, in Glasgow the inhabitants of social housing blocks financed by EU funds (with parameters of modernity and suitability for human living annexed) have interiorised the positive evolution of national social housing policy as a consequence of belonging to European Union. As stated journalist Hans Von der Brelie in the Insiders: “Many Scots are convinced: Europe bears ordinary working class people in mind; Europe shares, and Europe practices solidarity”. 1,3 billion euros have been promised as future investment in social housing by the European Investment Bank, a budget that can fund nearly 20.000 new homes. The cost of a Brexit will not only be economical, but political: one direct consequence of Britain concretely starting negotiation to leave the EU will be that of offering the occasion for another referendum over Scottish Independence. And the actual uncertainty does not offer answers of a potential domino effect that this search of independence will trigger on Welsh and Northern Irish voters.

If the real prospect of a member State leaving the Union has positively conveyed the attention of European policy makers on the absence of a clear procedure according with article 50 of the European Union Treaty, the uncertainty of the procedure and the unpredictability of the length of negotiations is doubling the worries of politicians, economists and entrepreneurs. Economic disadvantages that would be caused by Brexit on both the continent and on British soil have been well portrayed by a rich contribution of reports published by international organisations as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Trade Organisation (WTO), the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), and by national institutions as the Ministry of Treasure and the Bank of England. If the projections differ in terms of short and long-term scenarios, the main result points at years of recession following an initial shock and then a GDP loss, around – 9% in 2030 in the worst scenario.

The problem of this stream of reports has been reflected in several studies that show how more educated people have demonstrated a pro-european stance probably because capable of processing the information provided by the press during the campaign. On the contrary, poorly educated people have been more sensible to populist’ and eurosceptical’ claim to the myth of “regaining sovereignty and a full control on UK budget”. Only one economic study has been published supporting this last position, a report by “Economist for Brexit” that claimed the dishonesty of other experts. Their study, which even stated that leaving the EU would lead to gaining 4% of GDP in ten years, has promptly demolished by London School of Economics. Interviewed by SkyNews at the beginning of this month, Brexiter Secretary of Justice Michael Gove has not been capable of indicate any economist that had explicitly supported the Leave option.

The problem is that today a large part of voters will express themselves unaware of the detailed implication of their choice on their economy. Not only because the narrative during the campaign has not been truly explicative, bur also because of the technicality of certain topics. One example is the debate over tech sector, which had a minor echo in English economical press. It shows the paradox of the effect of Brexit on this sector in terms of juridical consequences on business development. Tech sector is one of the business fields that should be more opened as possible, in terms of financial and human capital. Valuable and innovative projects capable of attracting investors and contributions in terms of skills and ideas can be developed only if people are naturally drawn to a certain market. And the UK market outside EU would not be more attractive neither more opened. Nearly 90% of respondents in a poll conducted by among stakeholders in tech industry in the UK have opposed Brexit. According to a range of CEOs and lawyers surveyed by Business Insider (The Guardian), abandoning EU will harden recruit and maintenance of international “best talents” and certainly start-ups will find new obstacles in raising capital. If we consider the “operational” side of human capital management at international level, tech industry in Britain will face the lack of capability in managing (attracting) significant contributors. Firstly, last years Britain did not provide a successful record in issuing tech sector visas. As proved by official data, between 2014 and 2015, government organisation Tech City UK managed to issue seven visas on a objective of 200. Secondly, very few start-ups can become large enough in the UK alone, has it has been chosen until now as “bridge” between Europe, the US and Asia.

Here comes the problem of an unaware or misinformed electorate. One of the flags of the Leave campaign has been “getting rid of the EU red tape”, that is to say to release British business from the burden of EU regulation. But, in reality, leaving the EU would paradoxically imply a double burden to keep running tech business at European level. The reason lays in the fact that this industry sector is based on data sharing and nowadays data are treated in Britain in accordance with the European system. This last is disciplined by the GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation), a new EU-wide regulatory regime that will come into force in 2018. If Britain will actually leave the EU starting in 2016, considering that negotiations will last at least two years, UK tech companies will go through hard time as the specific regulatory regime they will have to adapt will not be defined, while the new system will entry into force and other European competitors will have the advantage of time to adapt. Not knowing the exact amount of time negotiations will take, a post-Brexit Britain will need a data regulatory framework in accordance with the GDPR, either one scheme that mirrors the European system, either a radical new one. The easier option will be to adopt the GDPR, in the sense that businesses looking to operate in both Britain and the EU would operate with a solely system, while nothing will change for their consumers, following Switzerland’s example. An adequacy decision by the Commission will then be needed, in order to ensure the transfer of personal data from EU to UK. But if the eurosceptic wave will still dominate the debate (and push the government), mirroring EU without being part of it will be a no-go. Then a radical new framework to handle data will be created, financially burdening businesses that will have to switch between two different schemes, an obstacle to both European investors willing to operate in the UK and UK companies willing to operate on the Continent. If the GDPR will remain stricter in comparison with the new UK framework, companies will opt for the stricter system in order to adapt once and for all their activities and save money and time. For most start-ups and tech businesses, which aim is to open offices in major markets in which they operate, this just wouldn’t be an option. On the continent, EU-based businesses with limited resources, facing a separate regulatory regime, will probably abandon Britain in favour of other European markets, at the expense of British consumers. Last but not least, Europe-wide registries uphold currently the rights to trademarks and designs, while the creation of a similar registry for patents is now under construction (European Unitary Patent), i.e. a European hardware start-up will needs to register its design as its intellectual property in one Member State to gain protection across the others.

It is true that under the question of Leaving or Remain there is an ocean of implicit, hidden, un-debated, overly-debated, hardly comprehensible questions. The choice the British electorate will launch tomorrow a newer debate, no matter what the direction will be, on how European politicians and policy makers have underestimated the event, how political and juridical belonging to European Union need to be reshaped and, hopefully, how to put breaks on this eurosceptical drift.

Francesca Sanna

For further information

• “Brexit could have a devastating effect on the UK tech industry”, BusinessInsider,http://uk.businessinsider.com/brexit-tech-industry-consequences-hiring-regulation-vc-ip-2016-5
• Michael Gove’s interview by SkyNews, ‘EU: In Or Out?’, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8D8AoC-5i8
• “Nae Brexit say Scots unwilling to follow England out of Europe », Euronews-Insiders, http://www.euronews.com/2016/06/10/nae-brexit-say-scots-unwilling-to-follow-england-out-of-europe/
• « Le Brexit peut-il être une chance pour l’économie britannique? », Le Figaro, 31 mai 2016, p. 15.

 

Classé dans:QUESTIONS INSTITUTIONNELLES ET BUDGETAIRES

Un nouveau document européen de voyage accélérant le retour des citoyens non européens en situation "irrégulière" dans les États membres sans pièces d'identité valides a été approuvé de manière informelle par les députés et les ministres européens ce jeudi soir. L'un des enjeux du débat était d'augmenter la tolérance du document par les pays tiers en améliorant des détails techniques. Pour entrer en force, cet accord doit être accepté formellement par le Parlement et le Conseil des ministres.
Commission des libertés civiles, de la justice et des affaires intérieures

Source : © Union européenne, 2016 - PE

Aujourd’hui, un numéro spécial de Libération consacré au Brexit. Superbe mise en page. D’un côté, les arguments du «in», de l’autre, ceux du «out», le tout vu tant d’un point de vue britannique qu’européen. Mes articles sont ici: pour le remain , pour le leave.

The objective of this hearing, on 30 June from 9.00-11.00, is to assess whether the use of drones complies with international law including respect for human rights and international humanitarian law. Issues related to civilian casualties and impact on affected communities, the question of transparency and accountability as well as the need for meaningful compensation mechanisms will also be addressed.
Location : PHS 4B001, BRUSSELS
Programme
Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

Séance plénière : L'objectif européen en matière d'énergies renouvelables - 20% de la consommation totale d'ici 2020 - a déjà été atteint par de nombreux États membres de l'Union. Mais d'autres sont en retard et doivent faire davantage, insistent les députés dans une résolution adoptée jeudi portant sur le "rapport d'étape relatif aux énergies renouvelables" de la Commission européenne.

Source : © Union européenne, 2016 - PE

On 20 June, marked World Refugee Day, Enrique Guerrero Salom, European Parliament's Standing Rapporteur for Humanitarian Assistance, and Elena Valenciano, Chair of the European Parliament's Subcommittee on Human Rights issued the following statement:

"On today's World Refugee Day, we have little to celebrate but much to reflect on the hardship millions of families face, the courage and resilience they demonstrate, the dedication of those who come to their aid and the need for an adequate international response ..."

Full press statement
Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

"Where are European governments in face of brutal repression in Egypt? Is Italy still a friend of Egypt? Do friends kill each other?" are amongst the questions addressed by the parents of EU citizen Giulio Regeni murdered in Egypt earlier this year, to the Human Rights Subcommittee Members during a debate on Wednesday 15 June.
Full press statement
Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

Current financial crisis of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) will have a direct impact on victims of human rights violations in the regio.

"Solutions must be found" to the current financial crisis of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), jointly stated members of the European Parliament Subcommittee on Human Rights, of the Delegation to the Euro-Latin American Parliamentary Assembly and of the Delegation for relations with the countries of the Andean Community after they debated with IACHR representatives on Wednesday 15 June.
Full press statement
Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

Following up on the arrest of human rights defender Nabeel Rajab, the Chair of the European Parliament Subcommittee on Human Rights (DROI), Elena Valenciano (S&D, ES), made the following statement:

"I strongly condemn the arrest on 13 June 2016 of Nabeel Rajab, who is a leading human rights defender and President of the Bahrain Centre for Human Rights. Mr Rajab was once again arrested for simply exercising his right to freedom of expression and for his peaceful human rights work. This arrest constitutes a blatant violation of Bahrain's commitments under international human rights law..."



Full press statement
Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

Ils s’appellent John, Andrew, Matthew, Dan, Thomas et Lizzie. Ils ont entre 18 et 25 ans et vont devoir, jeudi 23 juin 2016, faire le choix de rester dans ou de quitter le cadre familier de l’Union européenne (UE). À écouter une partie des commentateurs, les jeunes seraient majoritairement en faveur du «stay (1)» (2) et pourraient faire pencher la balance s’ils se mobilisent le jour du scrutin. Le point de vue mérite cependant d’être approfondi et sorti des données abstraites. Bien sûr, cette analyse ne prétend pas être exclusive ni représentative du point de vue de l’entièreté de la jeunesse britannique. Il ne s’agit pas là d’étudiants en sciences politiques, en économie ou en relations internationales, ni de jeunes impliqués politiquement – il s’agit de la jeunesse en général, écoutée sans que l’accent soit mis sur son éducation ou son engagement, celle qui a tout autant le droit à la parole et tout autant à dire, sinon plus. Le parti pris est donc de décentrer le point de vue pour essayer de comprendre les sentiments de cette jeunesse britannique européenne qui pourrait bien avoir l’issue du vote entre ses mains.

Ça commence au King’s Head, un pub typique du Surrey où l’on se retrouve entre amis, autour d’un verre, après une journée de travail. Il ne faut pas quinze minutes pour que la conversation se dirige presque naturellement vers le référendum du 23 juin : « Hey, in or out ? ». C’est vrai, il y en a bien certains qui veulent rester dans l’UE autour de la table, mais aucun ne fait preuve de passion ou d’enthousiasme débordant quand il s’agit de le dire : réactions en demi-teintes, absence de réels arguments… Personne n’évoque l’éventail des possibilités culturelles et professionnelles que leur offre l’UE. Personne n’évoque un sentiment d’appartenance à des valeurs communes ou à un projet européen commun. En bref, c’est l’habitude résignée d’être dans l’UE qui parle, l’idée que c’est là un moindre mal et surtout le confort de savoir ce que l’on a, comparé à la peur de s’engager dans l’inconnu.

Si ceux qui se prononcent en faveur du maintien du Royaume-Uni dans l’Union manquent quelque peu de vigueur et de conviction, les partisans du «out» sont beaucoup plus vindicatifs.

Comparé à la France, le taux de chômage au Royaume-Uni, et notamment ici celui des jeunes, en ferait pâlir plus d’un (3). Qui pourrait dire alors que le marché du travail apparaît très tendu pour certains d’entre eux, qui ont pourtant un emploi ? Pour les jeunes entrepreneurs, dans ce cas des artisans, l’UE n’est que synonyme d’embûches. Plombiers et électriciens, entre autres, pointent du doigt les travailleurs mobiles européens qui, selon eux, mettent en péril leurs emplois en offrant des tarifs plus attractifs, malgré des prestations de moindre qualité, favorisant une concurrence inégale et injuste légalement soutenue par l’Union européenne. Cependant, hors de toute considération sur la véracité de ce ressenti, rien ne dit qu’un Brexit signifierait la fin des travailleurs européens au Royaume-Uni, ou tout au moins la régulation de leur présence par permis de travail. Il n’est en effet pas exclu que les accords économiques entre Londres et Bruxelles soient maintenus (4), ce qui laisserait la situation de ces jeunes artisans inchangée, en tout cas pas pour le meilleur, comme ils pourraient l’espérer avec un Brexit. Le fond du problème se trouve au-delà de la simple question de ce qui se fera effectivement ou non si sortie de l’UE il y a.

Il y a quelque chose de presque «viscéral» (5) dans cette discussion, dans ce manque d’intérêt, voire ce dédain, pour l’Union européenne. Le mot qui revient dans la bouche de tous autour de la table, qu’ils soient «in» ou «out», c’est celui de «souveraineté nationale», concept brandi par ces jeunes comme une valeur cardinale de la citoyenneté britannique qu’ils considèrent aujourd’hui bafouée. C’est là le point-clé derrière chaque argument avancé au King’s Head et qui chagrine jusqu’aux moins pessimistes du groupe.

L’UE, c’est cette entité qui ampute la démocratie britannique et la capacité des citoyens d’agir sur ceux qui décident pour eux en les sanctionnant aux prochaines élections. L’UE, c’est cette entité qui restreint le rayonnement britannique en termes de commerce international en ne lui laissant aucune autonomie dans la conclusion de partenariats ou traités commerciaux, quand le Royaume-Uni pourrait jouir pleinement du Commonwealth. L’UE, c’est cette hydre de plus en plus complexe chaque année, qui échappe au contrôle du citoyen «normal» qui subit de plein fouet les conséquences de décisions en décalage par rapport à la réalité. Ces mots dans la bouche de jeunes citoyens européens «normaux» sont exactement les mots utilisés par les partisans du «Leave», que l’on retrouve en couverture et quatrième de couverture du journal Metro (6), disponible dans toutes les gares et stations de métro deux jours avant le référendum. La jeunesse a perdu son optimisme face à l’UE, et même l’idée d’Erasmus ne fait pas pencher la balance. Pour John et les autres, au final, rien ne changera vraiment quelle que soit l’issue du vote. En tout cas rien de négatif ne leur vient en tête. Faut-il alors lire, même chez les «remainers», un lien inconscient entre effet négatif et Union européenne ?

C’est une crise de la parole européenne qui touche même ceux qui n’ont connu qu’elle. La faille se trouve dans l’incapacité à apporter des réponses satisfaisantes aux inquiétudes exprimées, et à penser que ce référendum n’est qu’une question d’avis tranchés. Bien sûr, on rétorquera, pour affirmer l’existence d’une véritable souveraineté nationale dans le processus décisionnel, que l’UE n’impose rien qui ne soit approuvé par les chefs d’État, de gouvernement, ou les ministres des domaines concernés. Mais la logique ne suffit plus, et camper sur une vision manichéenne de l’Union ne fait qu’échauffer les esprits et donner plus de crédit aux partisans du « out ». Ce groupe de jeunes n’est en fait que l’écho d’un groupe plus important, qui dépasse l’échelle nationale. C’est le groupe de ceux qui perdent leurs illusions politiques et ne trouvent personne pour leur apporter des raisons de croire à nouveau au projet européen.

Échanger avec des jeunes qui ne font qu’opposer un raisonnement et des points pratiques dans le fonctionnement des institutions européennes souligne le besoin de recréer du lien dans l’UE. S’il est impossible de prédire ce qui ressortira des urnes, il est néanmoins certains que l’Union européenne, députés européens en première ligne, doit se rapprocher des citoyens et renforcer leur souveraineté, nationale et même supranationale. Le 23 juin va inévitablement changer quelque chose dans l’atmosphère bruxelloise. C’est peut-être là l’occasion rêvée de repenser le projet européen, en replaçant les citoyens en son centre et en faisant confiance à sa jeunesse.

Par Amelie Ancelle

__________

(1) Rester (dans l’UE)

(2) Pour voir une simulation de l’impact de l’âge des votants en fonction d’autres critères, voir le site YouGov [en ligne : https://yougov.co.uk/turnout-o-meter/?turnout=64&overallremaing=0&agefactor=1.4&classfactor=0.8, consulté le 20/06/2016]

(3) Voir le site du gouvernement britannique [en ligne, http://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/bulletins/ukl abourmarket/june2016#young-people-in-the-labour-market, consulté le 20/06/2016] ainsi que « Le chômage des jeunes baisse en Europe… Mais flambe en France, Capital, 8/01/2016 [en ligne : http://www.capital.fr/carriere-management/

(4) WHEELER Brian, HUNT Alex, “The UK’s EU Referendum: All You Need to Know”, BBC News, 14/06/2016 [en ligne: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-32810887, consulté le 19/06/2016]

(5) Ce terme est volontairement entre guillemets, après que Dan, lors de la discussion, l’a utilisé pour décrire son incapacité à expliquer concrètement pourquoi il voulait voter la sortie du Royaume-Uni de l’UE.

(6)Journal gratuit, plus conséquent que celui distribué en France et qui possède un large lectorat.

Classé dans:Uncategorized

Séance plénière : "Il est temps pour notre peuple de vivre libre, sans murs ni points de contrôle", a exhorté le Président de l'Autorité nationale palestinienne, Mahmoud Abbas, dans son discours devant les députés jeudi. Il a transmis la gratitude de son peuple au Parlement européen pour la reconnaissance d'un État de Palestine et a critiqué Israël de poursuivre son occupation des territoires palestiniens.

Source : © Union européenne, 2016 - PE

Séance plénière : Les députés ont voté jeudi de nouvelles lois déterminant quel juge devra être en charge dans les cas de divorces internationaux et décès. Ces textes mettront fin à des procédures parallèles coutant près de 1,1 milliard d'euros par an, dans différents États membres dont les tribunaux doivent régler des conflits de propriété. Elles s'appliqueront aux 18 pays qui ont souhaité rejoindre cette "coopération renforcée".

Source : © Union européenne, 2016 - PE

Séance plénière : Une proposition visant à accorder à la Belgique une aide européenne de 1.824.041 euros pour soutenir la réinsertion sur le marché du travail de 488 travailleurs licenciés par plusieurs fabricants de machines de construction en Wallonie a été approuvée par les députés jeudi. Environ 300 autres jeunes chômeurs devraient également bénéficier de l'aide, provenant du Fonds européen d'ajustement à la mondialisation (FEM).

Source : © Union européenne, 2016 - PE

Séance plénière : Le Parlement européen a voté jeudi un accord européen avec Monaco, visant à rendre plus difficile pour les citoyens européens d'échapper au fisc en cachant de l'argent liquide sur des comptes bancaires. Dans le cadre de l'accord, l'Union européenne et Monaco échangeront automatiquement des informations sur les comptes bancaires de leurs résidents à partir de 2017.

Source : © Union européenne, 2016 - PE

Plenary sessions : The EU multiannual plan for managing Baltic Sea cod, sprat and herring stocks was approved in plenary on Thursday. This is the first new Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) regional plan that takes account of interactions between species. It aims to ensure the sustainability of fisheries and offer fishermen better economic conditions in the long run. Parliament and Council negotiators reached an informal agreement on it in March.

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

Séance plénière : Les députés invitent toutes les parties se battant dans le nord-est du Congo à mettre "fin à la violence, déposer les armes, libérer tous les enfants de leurs rangs et à promouvoir le dialogue" vers une solution pacifique, dans une résolution votée jeudi, après un débat mercredi. "Il ne peut y avoir d'impunité pour les coupables", ajoutent-ils.

Source : © Union européenne, 2016 - PE

Séance plénière : Le Parlement a nommé les 65 membres de sa commission d'enquête sur les révélations dites des "Panama Papers", en lien avec l'évasion fiscale et le blanchiment d'argent jeudi, après avoir approuvé son mandat le 8 juin. L'abréviation de la commission sera "PANA".

Source : © Union européenne, 2016 - PE

On July 2014, the European Council decided to adopt a package of economic sanctions against Russia. This was in response to a perceived Russian inference with the democratic process in Ukraine, the annexation of Crimea by Russian forces, and further perceived threats posed by Russia against Ukraine’s territorial integrity. The sanctions targeted specific sectors in Russia, including energy, banking, defense, and included a ban on the purchase and sale of new bonds, stocks, and long-term debts from some Russian banks. This initial sanctions package was extended in June 2015 until 21 January 2016, and further extended to 31 July 2016 in December 2015.

Recently, there had been discussion on further extending the sanctions package past 31 July 2016. In a statement made on 26 May 2016, Germany Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier announced that, “we are aware that resistance has increased in the EU with regards to extending the sanctions on Russia,” but that, nevertheless, an agreement should be reached. This recent debate on the renewal of sanctions against Russia came as a result of a lack of progress made in implementing the Minsk Agreement; there is doubt in the European community that the Minsk Agreements will be totally implemented by the end of June, and as such, some began to call for an extension of sanctions against Russia. Still, there was a lack of consensus as to the correct course of action to take given the present situation.

Some member states, such as Greece, voiced their resistance to an extension of sanctions against Russia. During an April 7 visit to Russia, Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras stated that, “to get out of this profound crisis, we need to leave behind this vicious cycle of sanctions.” Indeed, this is the worst relations between Russia and the EU have been since the Cold War. Tsipras further confirmed his beliefs during Putin’s visit to Athens on 27 May 2016 when he, again, spoke out against the “vicious cycle of sanctions, militarisation, and Cold War rhetoric”. Still, Tsipras pledged to stick to the agreements Greece has as a member of the European Union; this did not speak, however, to any potential resistance Greece could show in talks over renewing sanctions.

Greece was not the only voice casting doubt over an extension of sanctions. In April 2016, France’s lower house of Parliament voted in favour of lifting EU sanctions against Russia, in a non-binding vote. On 23 May 2016, France permitted Russia’s Agricultural Minister, Alexander Tkachev, a travel visa, despite the fact that he is one of many Russian diplomats on an EU-wide travel ban. In January 2016, Germany refused Tkachev a travel visa.

However, even Germany seemed to be in support of eventually easing economic sanctions imposed on Russia. On 27 May 2016, a spokesperson for the German Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated that Germany would support a gradual easing of sanctions against Russia, given that progress would definitely be made in implementing the Minsk agreements. Hungary, the Czech Republic, Austria, and Italy could also be counted among the skeptics, and had been experiencing varying levels of internal backlash against extending the strict sanctions regime without any changes. They are among the countries that have been most affected by the sanctions package.

A year after the sanctions went into effect, the Parliament published a briefing in October 2015 that outlined the economic consequences of the sanctions on EU member states, and the economic consequences of the counter-sanctions imposed on the EU by Russia. The briefing explained that, as Russia is only the EU’s third largest trading partner, the counter-sanctions imposed by Russia on the EU would only have a contained effect in certain sectors. Indeed, Russia banned (with some exceptions) fruit and vegetable, dairy, and meat imports from Europe. As a result, the agri-food sectors in many member states were affected, to varying degrees. Germany, as the biggest exporter to Russia in the EU, was hit the hardest. Indeed, in late 2015, the German Farmers’ Association (DBV) had already begun calling for an end to sanction. The agriculture industry had suffered heavily in 2015, part of which was attributed to the Russian embargo imposed on agriculture products. From 2014-2015, the average income of a farmer in Germany fell by 35%. As a result of this, the European Commission had agreed to unlock a €500 million package in emergency aid for farmers who had been hit by the embargo; part of this aid package was designated to helping unlock routes to markets in 3rd countries, specifically in Asia. Still, this did not quell anger over such a significant loss of revenue, and job security.

However, despite these setbacks, the EU did vote to extend the economic sanctions package against Russia in June 2016, for at least another six months; the decision was made in a unanimous vote by ambassadors from all 28 members states. In a visit to St. Petersburg, head of EU Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, stated, “on Minsk, the European Union is united. And so is the G7. Russia is party to the Minsk agreements. Therefore, the next step is clear: full implementation of the agreement. No more, no less. This is the only way to begin our conversation, and the only way to lift the economic sanctions that have been imposed.” Therefore, it seems that the EU will not compromise its values, and will continue the sanctions no matter their adverse effects.

Ultimately, a few conclusions can be drawn from this:

• There is vocal support for easing or ceasing the economic sanctions package against Russia
• Representatives of the agri-food sector in several countries have required aid due to damaging counter-sanctions imposed on food imports by Russia
• Sanctions against Russia will be extended indefinitely until such time that Russia has fully implemented the Minsk agreements

Maria Gladkikh

More information is available at these links:

• Juncker says visit to Russia is to “continue dialogue”, despite tensions:https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/16/juncker-russia-visit-sanctions-eu
• EU seen on track to renew sanctions against Russia:http://www.reuters.com/article/us-ukraine-crisis-eu-russia-idUSKCN0YA134
• Will the EU prolong economic sanctions against Russia:http://www.ecfr.eu/article/commentary_will_the_eu_prolong_economic_sanctions_against_russia_this_7026
• German foreign minister: ease Russia sanctions “step-by-step”:http://www.politico.eu/article/german-foreign-minister-ease-russia-sanctions-step-by-step/
• Time to reconsider EU sanctions against Moscow, say German farmers:http://www.euractiv.com/section/agriculture-food/news/time-to-reconsider-eu-sanctions-against-moscow-say-german-farmers/
• Economic impact on the EU of sanctions over Ukraine crisis:http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2015/569020/EPRS_BRI(2015)569020_EN.pdf
• Ukraine territorial integrity: EU extends sanctions by Russia for 6 months:http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2016/03/10-ukraine-territorial-integrity/

Classé dans:BREVES, Droit international, RELATIONS EXTERIEURES

Séance plénière : Davantage doit être fait pour lutter contre les nouvelles formes de radicalisation, y compris la montée de la radicalisation de "loups solitaires" via internet, ainsi que pour faire face aux diverses formes de haine et de violence dirigées contre différents groupes dans la société, ont fait valoir les députés lors d'un débat avec le Conseil et la Commission mercredi après-midi.

Source : © Union européenne, 2016 - PE

Séance plénière : "Le gouvernement élu d’Israël a été et est toujours en faveur d’une solution à deux États pour deux peuples", a déclaré le Président de l’État d’Israël Reuven Rivlin aux députés ce mercredi. Cependant, "un accord de paix permanent entre nous et les Palestiniens ne peut être conclu à l’heure actuelle", a-t-il ajouté, appelant l’Union européenne à contribuer à établir la confiance entre les deux parties.

Source : © Union européenne, 2016 - PE