European Union

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

As the European Union gears up for its 60th anniversary next March, there’s good news and bad news.

Let’s celebrate the renewed interest in the EU, both at home and abroad. But let’s also be prepared for a long and difficult struggle with those working against Europe.

The surge in interest in Europe is encouraging. Demands for change and new ideas to build a more dynamic, vibrant and relevant EU are not in short supply.

Interesting ideas – some big, some small – came fast and furious at Friends of Europe’s annual State of Europe brainstorm and conference last week.

The voices of those who have thought about, talked about and worked for Europe for many years are valuable. They should be listened to.

But importantly, others across Europe are beginning to speak up too. They include young people, women and minority groups whose engagement in EU affairs has been minimal. Business leaders, trade unionists, civil society representatives, academics and journalists are making their voices heard. They should be encouraged to say and do more.

Ironically, the shock of Brexit has enlivened the conversation. The Brexiteers may have damaged Britain’s economy (and much more) but they have, unintentionally, also sparked heightened awareness of and popular interest in the EU.

“Those who believe in the EU will have to take their arguments to the people, not wait for people to fill the conference halls”

Such renewed curiosity is an opportunity to start a new conversation about Europe. It should be one which looks at the EU’s past, present and future.  It must look at the achievements but also at the failures and weaknesses of the Union.

The confrontation between different visions of Europe is already part of daily life. This contest was evident in the run-up to the 23 June referendum in Britain and will be an essential part of the negotiations on Britain’s withdrawal from the EU.

There are Euro-enthusiasts and Euro-doubters in national capitals and parliaments, and in all EU institutions.

And then there are the populists, both in and out of government, who are not just against the EU but also fighting actively to undermine liberal democratic values. In uneasy and uncertain times, their message of intolerance, xenophobia and “Little Europe” is already attracting voters.

With elections scheduled in France, Germany and the Netherlands next year, the fight for the hearts and minds of Europeans is going to get even fiercer.

France’s National Front, the Dutch Party for Freedom and Germany’s Alternative für Deutschland – like Hungary’s Viktor Orban and his friends in Poland, Slovakia and the Czech Republic – have no scruples about publicising their dark vision of Fortress Europe. Their voices will get louder.

But those who believe in an open and compassionate Europe should be equally passionate about voicing their beliefs. Contrary to what the populists want us to believe, a majority of Europeans do not share their nightmare version. They also need to be seen and heard.

“Today, Europe is too serious and too important to be left to politicians”

In a new world where truth and facts appear to matter less than lies, perceptions and fiction, the confrontation between the two visions of Europe is going to be dirty and ruthless.

The naysayers’ simplistic anti-EU diatribes must be countered by equally simple but clever slogans.

Those in favour of Europe should be proud of what has worked, and what makes the EU relevant and important – for example, contrary to conventional wisdom, the EU “peace project” still makes sense in a world where violence and war still rage just a few kilometres from Europe’s borders.

But enthusiasts must also be frank enough to say what has not worked.

Gentle speeches in comfortable settings just won’t do the trick. Those who believe in the EU will have to take their arguments to the people, not wait for people to fill the conference halls.

Those who favour Europe must be as charismatic, eloquent and single-minded as those who oppose it.

Next March’s anniversary of the EU should trigger a discussion on repairing and renewing the EU, but must also be a moment for reflection on what it means to be European in a complex and challenging world.

As former Australian prime minister Kevin Rudd told the Friends of Europe conference, Europeans must ‘buck up and not talk yourselves into a funk’.

More than ever, Europe is a vibrant mix of people, cultures and religions. The EU is an important part of peoples’ lives, often taken for granted, often criticised and much too often under-estimated and under-sold by self-seeking politicians.

French statesman Georges Clemenceau famously said that ‘War is too important to be left to the generals’.  Today, Europe is too serious and too important to be left to politicians.

Related content

• Friends of Europe: State of Europe high-level conference: read our Storify summary of the event
• Europe’s World: John Bruton – The lessons of Brexit: how British and European leaders can deal with the disruption
• Debating Europe:  Does Europe need a common enemy?

The post The curious contours of a new European conversation appeared first on Europe’s World.

The inquiry committee into emission measurements in the car industry (EMIS) continued its work on Thursday morning by hearing Alexander Dobrindt, the German Federal Minister of Transport and Olaf Lies, Lower Saxony’s State Minister for the Economy, Labour and Transport.
Committee of Inquiry into Emission Measurements in the Automotive Sector

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

The inquiry committee into emission measurements in the car industry (EMIS) continued its work on Thursday morning by hearing Alexander Dobrindt, the German Federal Minister of Transport and Olaf Lies, Lower Saxony’s State Minister for the Economy, Labour and Transport.
Committee of Inquiry into Emission Measurements in the Automotive Sector

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

Length of video : 86'
You may manually download this video in WMV (983Mb) 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

Intel Corporation v Commission
Competition
Advocate General Wahl considers that Intel’s appeal against the imposition of a €1.06 billion fine for abuse of its dominant position should be upheld

Anyone in hope of elucidation on Brexit this week will have been a bit disappointed, even by recent standards.

With submissions to the High Court providing no killer arguments either side – and both sides firmly stating that any loss will be challenged up to the Supreme Court and an immigration debate that has sunk to the level of whether someone looks like a child or not, there has not been much advance in our understanding of what might happen, or how.

To underline the point, a discussion this morning at Chatham House on public opinion pointed to further issues.

Put briefly, the British public doesn’t really know what it – collectively – wants from Brexit, except that it wants something substantially different from what currently exists in the UK-EU relationship.

Immigration is important, but less so when placed against assorted trade-offs, and immigration control might be just part of a bigger competence issue about the ability of a government to make decisions for itself. And all of it might collapse or change radically when confronted with some concrete proposition.

This matters for a variety of reasons. Most obviously, if people were voting to take back control, then that becomes very difficult if there’s no consensus about what that control might be used for.  It also complicates matters for a government that is now committed to triggering Article 50, but with no fixed agenda of objectives. And in the end it will mean that a sizeable chunk of the population is going to end up disaffected by how things have turned out, to the detriment of the democratic system as a whole.

But let’s step back, before we end up catastrophizing some more. Politics is always a contingent and conditional process, a series of best guesses about the present and the future. Yes, the scale of the contingency is greater on this occasion, but the principles remain the same. So let’s try to sketch out a muddling-through path for Theresa May.

The starting point is probably the inchoate nature of public opinion. If we assume that people will follow May’s lead, because she seems to know what she’s doing and she has the confidence of her government, then the priority then becomes keeping that confidence. Thus, any Article 50 deal will need to keep backbenchers onside, rather than any particular voter demographic.

Following on from this, we might assume that the public’s attention is limited and will be swayed – in part, at least – by broader concerns over whether one’s job is secure, or the volume of immigration is falling (which it might, given the fragile state of the economy). It’s not such a stretch to suggest that the government might take the view that as long as they look like they are on the Brexit case, people will give them a broad pass.

Based on these assumptions, two paths offer themselves.

The first is the semi-permanent transition. Here, the UK keeps its Brexit wishlist short, when making its notification, focusing on a stronger brake on free movement. The EU27 then take that as a lead and offer a simple deal under Article 50, with the bare minimum of elements. This includes budgeting, staff pensions for UK nationals in the institutions and re-location of EU agencies out of London, as well as a mechanism to set in train a new negotiation for the relationship. In short, the UK becomes a member in all but name, losing representation and voting rights, but with a clear process from moving to a new relationship.

Because that new negotiation will be very big and complex, it will also be slow, with the capacity to last at least a decade. The government would defend itself by saying it had secured formal exit and a limit of immigration and was working now on getting the best deal for the country, and would then largely hope that this would bleed the eurosceptics’ blood. In time, attention would drift and a solution favourable to the UK and EU27 would emerge in its own time, away from the heat of recent years.

The problems are obvious: flashpoints could occur at any stage, and carrying the process out over more than one Parliament would risk some other government taking it somewhere unexpected (or unwanted). In particular, the meagre majority that the Conservatives currently enjoy make it easy to force matters on the Cabinet, which itself is split in various exciting ways.

Also problematic would be that limiting the size of the Article 50 deal to a bare minimum also limits the UK’s leverage, since it pushes the new relationship into a period when it is formally a third state, rather than a member state.

Which leads nicely to the second option, namely the Article 50 splurge. Here, the government puts everything into its Article 50 requests and tries to do it all in one go. This cuts down the transitional problems, maximises what influence the UK has over matters and cuts the backbench grumbles to a minimum.

It also makes any discussion about extension of Article 50 more viable, especially if there is seen to be good progress in resolving issues. Path-dependency suggests that the EU27 will not want to throw away two years of negotiation unless it looks fatally flawed, especially if the rest of the political agenda continues to demand their time. It cuts out the need for transitional arrangements, because the UK would remain a member state until its conclusion.

Which is the obvious flaw in this.

To return to the start of this, the big question is going to be what can be sold by May to her party and (then) to the public. At the moment, the betting would have to be on the former being more of a problem than the latter. As Daniel Korski’s very frank piece today underlines, not having a strategy and a vision can come at a very high price.

The post The Great British Muddle Through 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/00ce0e72-3d40-11e6-a83c-bc764e092fac_235.62_thumb_169_1476802931_1476802931_129_97shar_c1.jpg

EU Heads of State or Government meet on 20 October 2016 in Brussels to take stock of the latest developments regarding the EU's migration policy. EU leaders are also discussing relations with Russia and the situation in Syria.

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_3_2014-102811-stockshot-on-trade-16-9-preview_5.61_thumb_169_1476805858_1476805858_129_97shar_c1.jpg

EU Heads of State or Government meet on 21 October 2016 in Brussels to address the ongoing negotiations for trade agreements and the modernisation of Trade Defence Instruments.

Download this video here.

Good afternoon. Sorry, but I'll be very brief, because I still have a few preparatory meetings ahead of the Summit.

Let me start with CETA. The negotiations are still going on, as we speak. I hope that Belgium will once again prove that it is a true champion in compromise-making; and that on Friday we will have an agreement that will pave the way for signing CETA. But the question goes beyond CETA. If we are not able to convince people that trade agreements are in their interest, if we are not able to convince them that our representatives negotiate FTAs to protect people's interests, then we will have no chance to build public support for free trade. Which means, I am afraid, that CETA could be our last free trade agreement. That is also why we need effective tools to protect ourselves against unfair trade practices; and this is why the discussion on trade defence instruments is so important today.

We will also discuss Russia and its role in Europe and our neighbourhood. It is difficult, even impossible to talk about this, and not refer to the current attacks on civilians and hospitals in Aleppo. Today is not about decisions, but I want to underline that the EU should keep all options open, including sanctions, if the crimes continue.

Finally, let me say that I'll be very happy to welcome Prime Minister Theresa May today. Some media described her first meeting in the European Council as entering the lion's den. It's not true. It's more like a nest of doves. She'll be absolutely safe with us. And I hope that she will also realise that the European Union is simply the best company in the world. 

After the third TV duel in the US election campaign 2106, all the attention is on Donald Trump's statement that he might not recognise the results. In saying this Trump has sullied democracy and declared himself a loser, commentators say. They also warn that if the old guard wins, we have not seen the end of populism.

Russian President Vladimir Putin paid a visit to German Chancellor Angel Merkel in Berlin for the first time since 2012. Together with the French and Ukrainian presidents they agreed on a plan of action for Eastern Ukraine. Merkel also criticised Russia's "inhuman" actions in the Syrian war. But without a strategic vision, Europe's leaders are powerless against Putin, commentators complain.

A dispute is brewing between the EU and Switzerland over the immigration controls the Swiss voted for in a referendum in February 2014. At stake is whether limits on immigration are compatible with the EU freedom of movement agreement. With Brexit negotiations looming the EU won't be willing to make any concessions, some commentators say. Others warn against making an example of Switzerland.