European Union

According to Advocate General Mengozzi, the agreement on the transfer of passenger name record data, planned between the European Union and Canada, cannot be entered into in its current form

https://tvnewsroom.consilium.europa.eu/uploads/council-images/thumbs/uploads/council-images/remote/http_7e18a1c646f5450b9d6d-a75424f262e53e74f9539145894f4378.r8.cf3.rackcdn.com/76eef8e4-750a-11e6-a984-bc764e093073_37.85_thumb_169_1473260856_1473260834_129_97shar_c1.jpg

European Councl President Donald Tusk visits the leaders of 27 EU countries in preparation for the 16 September Bratislava informal summit. 

Download this video here.

RPO
Taxation
In the view of Advocate General Kokott, the exclusion of electronically supplied digital books, newspapers and periodicals from the reduced rate of value added tax is compatible with the principle of equal treatment

General : For the best ideas for Europe's future, why not ask the next generation? In May 7,000 young Europeans gathered in Strasbourg for the second European Youth Event (EYE) during which they discussed how to best tackle the many challenges facing Europe. Fifty of the best ideas have been collected in a report, which was presented to Parliament on 6 September. Some of the ideas will be forwarded to parliamentary committees, which starting 11 October will discuss them with the young people involved.

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

General : For the best ideas for Europe's future, why not ask the next generation? In May 7,000 young Europeans gathered in Strasbourg for the second European Youth Event (EYE) during which they discussed how to best tackle the many challenges facing Europe. Fifty of the best ideas have been collected in a report, which was presented to Parliament on 6 September. Some of the ideas will be forwarded to parliamentary committees, which starting 11 October will discuss them with the young people involved.

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

GS Media
Approximation of laws
The posting of a hyperlink on a website to works protected by copyright and published without the author’s consent on another website does not constitute a ‘communication to the public’ when the person who posts that link does not seek financial gain and acts without knowledge that those works have been published illegally

The Stabilisation and Association Council (SA Council) between Albania and the European Union held its eighth meeting on 8 September 2016. 

The SA Council noted that the Commission report 2015 on Albania concluded that the country made further progress towards meeting the political criteria for membership and, overall, steady progress continued in the five key priorities for the opening of accession negotiations. 

The SA Council noted the conclusions of the General Affairs Council of 15 December 2015, which recognised Albania's continued commitment on the reform agenda. On that occasion, the Council underlined that judicial reform remained key to further forward movement on Albania's EU accession process and could also be transformative for other reforms. 

The SA Council confirmed that Albania maintained an overall sustained pace in the implementation of public administration reform measures. The EU welcomed the unanimous adoption in July of a set of constitutional amendments for a thorough and comprehensive reform of the justice system. The SA Council took note of the recent adoption of the law on the vetting of judges and prosecutors, which represents an important step forward for the implementation of the justice reform. It is essential to proceed with a swift implementation of the reform. The EU also welcomed that Albania took further steps in the fight against corruption and organised crime, as well as on human rights matters. 

The SA Council welcomed the continued active participation of Albania in regional initiatives and structures in South Eastern Europe and its good neighbourly relations and constructive regional stance. The EU acknowledged Albania's role in the region as a pro-active and constructive partner, and underlined the importance of Albania's commitment to a positive engagement in the region, including through the conclusion of bilateral conventions, and to further promoting regional cooperation. The EU reiterated that good neighbourly relations and regional stability are essential elements of the Stabilisation and Association process. 

The SA Council welcomed the full alignment of Albania to Council decisions and in the field of Common Foreign and Security Policy.

The meeting was chaired by the Prime Minister of Albania, Edi Rama. The EU delegation was led by the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy / Vice-President of the Commission, Federica Mogherini. The Commissioner for Neighbourhood Policy and Enlargement negotiations, Johannes Hahn, represented the European Commission. The Albanian delegation included the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Ditmir Bushati, the Minister for European Integration, Klajda Gjosha, and the Chair of the European Integration Committee of the Albanian Parliament, Majlinda Bregu, as representative of the opposition.

https://tvnewsroom.consilium.europa.eu/uploads/council-images/thumbs/uploads/council-images/remote/http_7e18a1c646f5450b9d6d-a75424f262e53e74f9539145894f4378.r8.cf3.rackcdn.com/g20-2016-china_thumb_169_1472640129_1472640129_129_97shar_c1.jpg

G20 leaders meet in Hangzhou, China, on 4-5 September 2016. Donald Tusk, President of the European Council, and Jean Claude Juncker, President of the European Commission, represent the EU at the summit.

Download this video here.

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

As Europe gets back to serious work, there is much to discuss, and much to do. Problems abound. Europe faces a host of challenges – many internal, some external – and next year won’t be any easier. Brace yourselves for an autumn and winter of discontent.

The world kept turning as the EU took a summer break. The war in Syria continued to wreak havoc – children were killed or wounded, and refugees fled devastation. The earthquake in Italy killed and injured hundreds. There were more suicide bombs, in Yemen, Turkey and Afghanistan. Strongmen in Ankara and Moscow tightened their grips. And the American election thundered poison and venom.

There were points of light: the Olympics brought some relief and excitement in an increasingly angry, intolerant and difficult world. There was also a landmark peace deal in Colombia between the government and the main left-wing rebel group, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (Farc), putting an end to one of the world’s longest-running insurgencies.

Europe reacted to the events of course – but internal difficulties took centre stage. Europe’s focus is on itself, its challenges and dilemmas. And rightly so. Global events matter, and the EU’s voice needs to be heard. But in these difficult times, Europe’s focus must be internal.

Even when it comes to taking a holiday. It is certainly good politics for European leaders to take their vacations in Europe. Brisk trekking in the Alps (rather than, say, in the Himalayas) shows that a European leader – like Britain’s new Prime Minister Theresa May – is careful with money and committed to Europe. German Chancellor Angela Merkel also played it safe in South Tyrol.

But staying close to home has its disadvantages. Staying inside the European cocoon may be cheap, comfortable and familiar. But it leads to complacency. If EU leaders had travelled a bit further – to Asia, for instance – they would know they need to take urgent action to restore the EU’s lustre.

Europe has certainly been in the global headlines over the summer. But the reports have been less than flattering. Media across the world has focused on three key questions which unfortunately appear to define Europe in 2016: burkinis, borders and Brexit.

Gone for now are the compliments and the glowing words, the soft focus on European cities, museums and food, abiding admiration for European integration efforts, the noble pledge to steer clear of war and turmoil.

It’s difficult to talk about “European values” when, for much of the summer, France grabbed the headlines with the bizarre decision of some local authorities to ban so-called “burkinis”. Images of Muslim women being ordered to undress on French beaches caught the global imagination, triggering animated debates on what had happened to a country known and admired for its commitment to “liberté, égalité et fraternité”.

The burkini debate is, of course, only the tip of the iceberg. As the country heads for presidential elections in 2017, the French debate on Islam is expected to become even fiercer – and coarser. Marine Le Pen, the leader of the xenophobic and anti-Muslim National Front, will call the shots – and other politicians will struggle frantically to keep up.

The game in France over the coming months will be simple: who can sound tougher on Islam and Muslims. Le Pen is unlikely to become French President. But she will set the political agenda for the country and dominate the political discourse for months to come.

Which brings us to borders, refugees and Europe’s struggle to deal with the large number of migrants and asylum seekers already here – as well as with those who keep knocking on its doors.

The EU once captured the headlines for its bold moves to eliminate borders and create a frontier-free single market. The image now is of an EU determined to protect itself with barbed wire fences, armed policemen and more. This is especially the case in many eastern European states, where restrictive new laws are in place for asylum seekers and refugees who are accused of being “intruders” and “potential terrorists”, bent on destroying Western civilisation and Christianity.

And then of course there is Brexit. The world can’t really believe that a country would willingly leave a much-coveted rich men’s club. And no-one seems as confused as Britain’s Prime Minister Theresa May and her disunited band of Brexiteers – Boris Johnson, David Davis and Liam Fox.

May’s mantra of “Brexit means Brexit” is beginning to ring hollow, not least because the government has yet to decide just when to invoke Article 50, which will kick-start negotiations on Britain’s withdrawal from the EU.

Europeans once stood out for their post-modern values and aspirations, their ability to make friends with former enemies, their commitment to inclusion, and their diversity. That’s no longer the case. Europe in the autumn of 2016 appears fragile, fraught and fearful – and very few EU watchers are celebrating.

Related Content:

• Friends of Europe: ‘State of Europe’ high-level roundtable “Disruption, Disorder and Division: Brexit’s impact on Europe” – 13 October 2016
• Europe’s World: Brexit special section 
• Debating Europe: Is Europe’s migrant crisis finally under control?

IMAGE CREDIT: JRBJR/Bigstock.com

The post Burkinis, borders and Brexit – unfortunate new symbols of a fragile and fearful Europe appeared first on Europe’s World.

So it turns out that Usherwood’s Law is simply that things can always get worse. It’s not quite my childhood dream, but (appositely) it could be worse.

Since publishing The Brexit Clusterf**k earlier on, I’ve had lots of feedback on Twitter, essentially boiling down to “you forgot some other things”. Since I’m apparently on a roll here, I thought I’d add in those things right away.

My original post was focused on the difficulties attached to the process and content of Brexit negotiations, but there’s another element which I neglected, namely outcomes. This comes into play not only at the end, but also much, much earlier.

The party

While I suggested one cause for less-than-complete pessimism was that the Tories had rebounded after the vote, that is a highly conditional situation. Theresa May might be the firm and reassuring hand that many in the party were looking for, but she was a Remainer (however half-heartedly). She heads up a government with a small majority and enough visceral eurosceptics to make life difficult-to-impossible for her legislative agenda. That we hear repeated calls from the backbenches to get on with Art.50 is not just frustration, but also a warning to May.

Of course, she could try to improve her immediate situation by calling an early election, to capitalise on the turmoil in Labour and the seeming deflation of UKIP. Almost certainly, she would pick up seats, reinforcing her mandate and her room to keep the sceptics in their box. However, after everything that has happened this year, “almost certainly” isn’t certain enough: better to slum it now than risk it all, especially if it means an even greater chance of keeping Corbyn in office for longer.

The sceptic core will matter throughout the coming years. Firstly, they will be the big internal source of pressure to notify the EU on Art.50, with the clear sanction that they will turf out May and seek to find a more compliant replacement. Secondly, they’ll be constantly pushing for the most UK-friendly deal possible within Art.50 (the “they’re lucky to have us” gambit), which will make any of the pretty inevitable compromises needed to bridge differences very hard indeed to achieve. Here the sanction is the ‘hard Brexit’ option: refusing any deal and leaving after the two-year period is up.

This sounds possible: it preserves British integrity and will make others see that its very much their loss. However, this option has its own problems, not least of which is that WTO membership is linked to EU membership for the UK, so there would have to be renegotiation of tariff-schedules and the rest, under WTO unanimity rules (i.e. including the EU27). LostLeonardo reasonably asks why third-party agreements would have to fall: certainly, there could be agreement by all parties to grandfather the UK’s position post-Brexit, but given the size and structure of the British economy, some parties might see opportunity to improve their positions, asking for concessions to ‘help’ the UK avoid a more painful renegotiation. In short, the WTO option isn’t as simple or quick as it seems.

Finally the sceptic core might seek to secure parliamentary approval for any final deal, again seeking more concessions from a government that will struggle to gain them in an Art.50 process that gives it scant locus. It’s not too much of a push to imagine some sceptics playing the ‘give the people a voice’ card again, this time to kill an agreement and head to ‘hard Brexit’.

The people

If the party is a millstone to the government, then the people are going to be ones who ultimately suffer.

The Leave campaign succeeded in part because it built a very broad church: the ‘take control’ slogan was open to many interpretations and agendas, especially because no fixed plan for Brexit was presented or defended. For the purpose of winning a vote that made sense, but now the cost becomes clear.

As the last two months have shown, there are many, many models of Brexit theoretically possible: and recall the May wants a British model, not a Norwegian or Swiss or anyone else’s one. However, as I noted in my original piece, May talks about limiting free movement of people and changing market access.

Almost by definition, whatever the deal might be reached (or indeed not reached), it will not be what those who voted Leave wanted. While that might be marginally offset by some Remainers feeling that (on reflection) it’s an improvement on the status quo ante, there is a clear risk that the wider forces of disaffection will see the outcome of Brexit as further betrayal by the ‘system’. That plays out in elections, especially if Labour and UKIP can reassert their “defence of the common man” position, but it also breeds further disaffection and disengagement, which can never be good in a democratic system.

To pull all of this together, someone’s nose is going to be put out of joint by Brexit, and probably quite soon. What will matter is whose nose it is and what they decide to do about it. Maybe it drives them back to a Remain stance – although you’d need a lot of people to decide that to have any chance of reversing the fundamental position – but much more likely it means that when decisions come to be made – in government, parliament, elections or elsewhere – they’ll be even more wildcards in play.

Like I say, things can always get worse.

The post More Brexit clusterf**king appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

Good afternoon. It is great to be here in Dublin. I would like to thank the Taoiseach, not only for his warm Irish welcome, but also for our excellent co-operation over the past years. Ireland is, and always has been, a respected voice around the European table. After the dark days of the banking crisis, your return from the edge to be the fastest growing economy in Europe is really remarkable. Enda, you are a symbol in Europe of effective crisis management. Without Ireland's sacrifice and example, the European Union would be in a worse situation now. And we know it.

No one in Europe should question that the reasons for the success of your country are wise political leadership, and the hard work, creativity, and the determination of the Irish people.

I am in Dublin today to consult with the Taoiseach ahead of our summit of 27 leaders in Bratislava next week. We will be meeting to discuss what Brexit means politically for the future of the European Union. I know that Brexit is a very disorientating prospect for Ireland. You are a committed EU member. Sooner or later, your biggest trading partner - and the country with which you share a long history- will not be. The consequences of this are serious, also for the situation in Northern Ireland. The Taoiseach and I are working together closely to ensure that your country does not suffer from a decision that it did not make. Enda, I know you are in constant touch with Prime Minister May. You will also be the first leader that I brief after my own meeting in London tomorrow.

The Bratislava summit is not about Brexit per se. It is about bringing back political control of our common future. People are turning against what they perceive as an irrational openness. They see the world around them getting more chaotic: uncontrolled migration, terrorism, injustices linked to globalisation. We have to confront such issues with real and uniform political leadership. And by saying leadership I don't mean the institutions but first of all the community of member states and their leaders. What must be delivered is a sense of security and order. We in Europe cannot build a political community only on the concept of mandatory and total openness for everyone. The Union also has to be about protection - protection of our freedoms, our security, our quality and way of life. Our goal is to regain the sense that globalisation is an opportunity and not a threat. There is a balance to be restored. I think the Union is one of the best tools we have to do it.

Bratislava needs to show that the political elites in Europe are not detached from reality. That we will be open to the outside world, but always bearing in mind the best interests of our own citizens. That is why I want our leaders to have a political discussion without any taboos about the future.

To conclude, I know there has been a tremendous debate already here over the European Commission's decision in the Apple case. The Taoiseach has explained to me the reasons why the Irish government wants to take the issue to court. I will not comment on this case because this will now be up to the Court. But let me add that I don't expect taxation to be a major issue in Bratislava. Thank you.

To receive the Brussels Briefing in your inbox every morning, sign up here.

The “cultural counter-revolution” has started, at least according to Hungary’s Viktor Orban and Poland’s Jaroslaw Kaczynski. The two conservative ideologues from Europe’s east made a long-anticipated joint appearance on Tuesday night and showed political love can still blossom on this crisis-ridden continent. Our correspondents on the scene in Krynica-Zdroj in southern Poland saw the duo “exchange gushing compliments”, before denouncing the workings of Brussels, uncontrolled migration and the “smell” of “international capital”. Here are some extracts from Henry Foy and Neil Buckley’s report.

Read more

With the UACES 2016 conference coming to a close, Viviane Gravey and Anna Wambach offer some suggestions for postgraduate researchers on how to make the most of a conference once it has finished. They recommend maintaining the momentum, both for one’s research and network, and planning ahead for future conference opportunities.

UACES 2016 (Photo by UACES)

The run-up to a conference can be quite stressful – preparing and sharing your paper, ironing out your presentation, reading as many papers from other authors as possible. The conference itself is often so hectic that you have no time to think beyond which panel to attend next. Now that UACES 2016 is coming to a close, here are a few tips to making the most of your conference experience!

1. Keep your network going

You have met lots of new people, or perhaps caught up with colleagues you have not seen since last year’s conference. Once the conference finishes, delegates often lose contact, but this does not need to be the case. In fact, you will get a lot more out of your conference if you make an effort to stay in touch. There are a few things you can do to maintain your newly woven network:

• Even if you were not particularly active on Twitter yourself, you can check #UACES2016 and the Storify to find people who contributed and who you find interesting. Follow them to keep up to date with developments in the field, upcoming jobs and conference opportunities.
• If you found a presentation particularly interesting, don’t hesitate to email the author(s) to ask for their papers or, if you already have the papers, to provide additional comments.

2. Keep your paper going

Finishing off your paper in the run-up to the conference may have been taxing, and it’s quite tempting to simply shelve it and move on, especially with the beginning of term and teaching duties around the corner. Turning your paper into a publication can take a long time, and a number of further iterations, but there are a few steps you can take in the short term to keep the momentum going:

•  After your panel, or in the days following the conference, take some time to think about the feedback you received and how you plan to address it. Write down a to-do list which you can easily go back to, even if you find no proper writing time for a few weeks or months.
• Keep it manageable: if revising the entire paper appears too daunting at first, you can focus on key issues, or a single section. This can also be helped by writing a blog post on this topic, which will allow you to get targeted feedback from your peers. This blog, for example, is very keen to publish ongoing research by PhD students in EU studies.
• Finally, it is a good idea to present your paper – especially if it’s one of your first papers – in different settings: at another conference or in your own departmental seminars, for example. The UACES SF conference, held annually in spring/early summer, is a good opportunity to test-run your paper before the general conference season in early September. Presenting to multiple audiences can help you receive feedback on the paper’s progression, on specific issues you had at earlier stages, as well as get a variety of views (e.g. from different disciplines).

3. Plan your next steps

UACES 2016 may be over, but now is the time to start planning your upcoming conferences. Calls for Papers for next year’s conferences have either already opened or will open in the next few months.

•  Look out for smaller events in the forthcoming months. These can help you keep contact with your PhD peers or with scholars working in your field. For example, the UK in a Changing Europe initiative frequently organises events across the UK, and the forthcoming UACES SF seminar (18 November in London) will bring together PhD students from across the EU to discuss teaching, fieldwork and how to adapt to the post-Brexit world.
• Take a hard look at all the conferences you attended this year. Is it worth submitting an abstract for their next edition? Did the conference work for you? Did you receive sufficient feedback, or was your paper the odd one out? Shop around for conferences that fit your research.
• Once you have chosen one (or many) conferences you would like to attend, consider organising your own panel. This can be a great way to strengthen your professional network and to guarantee useful feedback for your paper. Well-organised panels can also lead to publishing together in special issues or other forms of collaboration. Conference organisers are always thankful for pre-organised panels, but keep in mind that for general conferences panels mixing PhD students with more established academics is preferred.

The post What next after #UACES2016? appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

Thank you for inviting me to speak to you today at your Annual Meetings. A few months ago I spoke to Guntram (Wolf) about this event and about a possible topic for my remarks. There are elections coming up in France, Germany and my country, the Netherlands. At the same time, the polls - not to mention the outcome of the Brexit referendum - highlight the appeal of populists all over Europe. My remarks today will focus on what Europe's agenda should be to counter these populist trends.

Where are we today?

Let me first talk briefly about where we are.

Despite global headwinds, our economy is recovering. Growth has returned to almost all EU countries. Growth in the eurozone in the last quarters was higher than in the US. Unemployment is expected to decrease to slightly over 10% this year which is still far too high. And our deficits are falling as well; 19 countries left the EDP since 2011 and debt levels are steadily declining. The general government deficit in the euro area in 2009 was over 6%, and is expected to decrease to slightly below 2% in 2016.

So, all in all, there are many positive developments to report. However, reading today's newspapers you would guess differently. In fact, you'd encounter quite a lot of doom and gloom.

-     'Europe is old and inward-looking'
-     'Europe's economy is in a bad shape'
-     'Europe is slow, expensive and inefficient'

I could go on for a while.

According to Europe's populists, the solutions are relatively simple and straightforward. Just close the borders, leave the eurozone, leave the EU and don't sign any more trade deals in the future.

So where is all this pessimism coming from?

To answer this, let us first go back a few years, to the end of 2008, when we were faced with something unprecedented: a huge banking crisis. Which then became a sovereign debt crisis. We are still recovering from this, and then last year, we were faced with a big refugee crisis.

Using the word crisis, is beginning to be inflated. It is used too much. I'm beginning to wonder if we are not suffering from a post-traumatic stress syndrome. Every event that occurs is immediately framed as the next big crisis. Take the volatility in the stock markets at the beginning of this year, for example. Or how the markets behaved ahead of the Brexit vote. Even the slightest headwind seems to be framed as the beginning of the next crisis.

This preoccupation stemming from the trauma of 2008 - 2010 blurs our vision on the real issues at stake.

It is true, in my mind, the EU has failed to deliver on its main tasks.

The EU, and the euro area in particular, is a unique construct in the world, but in recent years it underperformed. The refugee crisis and the threat of terrorism, coming on top of the financial crisis, made it painfully clear that we were unable to guarantee people the prosperity and security that they rightly ask of us. Today, whilst the EU has become more and more intrusive, people feel that the EU has not been the solution to their problems.

The EU is also unique because of its high standard of socioeconomic security. That's something we can - and should - be very proud of. The welfare state is part our core social-cultural heritage, it is part of our identity. We, policy makers, should be much more aware of this. And yet, this social system cannot remain static. Our welfare state is under increased pressure due to several reasons.

Firstly, the economic and financial crisis created pressure. All member states have to increase competitiveness while bringing back their finances on a sustainable footing at the same time. This requires  for politicians to make difficult choices between solidarity and investing in future growth. Preferably keeping the both together.

Secondly, demographic ageing forces us to define the scope of our solidarity even further. Our population is turning increasingly grey, which poses a challenge to our public finances, for example due to the costs of health care, long-term care and pensions.

But also the ratio of people over 65 and those aged between 15-64 that changes drastically, making our social welfare state unaffordable without adaption.

Thirdly, migration may seem to offer an attractive solution to ageing, but it would be hard to realise this in practice. Immigrants face barriers because of their language or cultural backgrounds.

Their skills don't match many of the new jobs in our societies.

Without a job they rightfully receive income support benefits and this can put pressure on our welfare states, again. And, when immigrants do enter the labour force they tend to occupy jobs in the lower segment. This means that natives face increased competition, which can put further pressure on their wages and reduce their employment opportunities. Indeed, these concerns played a major role during the Brexit debate in the UK.

And lastly, globalisation. Globalisation can be seen as another threat to our welfare state although it has brought many benefits.  Take for example the rise of China,. Not only have millions of Chinese people been lifted out of extreme poverty, but lower prices for many goods have also boosted growth in advanced economies. However, too often we have focused on these aggregate gains which conceal substantial redistributive effects. Workers in sectors which competed directly with countries like China have seen their factories close and have faced lower wages or unemployment.

We often assumed that the transition to new sectors would take place automatically. But this has proven harder than predicted and the workers who have lost out have become sceptical of free trade.

We may have underestimated these side effects of globalisation. We have to face up to the fact that some have simply benefitted more than others.

So what does this mean for our agenda today?

First of all, let me say this; in recent years politicians in all our countries embarked on lots of reforms to solve problems, despite the risk of losing elections. Sometimes we were forced by external factors, implosion of banks, risk of defaults of sovereigns. Sometimes we forced each other to reform, like in programme countries. These reforms have been perceived and sometimes skillfully framed as an attack on the social security system. They have been framed as an abuse of the crisis to get rid of governments. Feeding directly into populism.

My direct response to populism would therefore be to ensure fairness and equity, between the generations, between insiders and outsiders, and between globalisation's winners and losers. Because inequality is not a given. Because ageing and migration don't require us to dismantle the European social model. And because implementing reforms doesn't mean we have to diminish our social welfare state. Fairness and equity are not the answer to everything, but they surely have a vital role to play, also to understand the rise of populism in Europe. We need well-designed and well-timed reforms to increase fairness along different dimensions.

Let me mention a few.

First, fairness of people's opportunities. Here education is the most important investment for people to get ahead. High quality education give our children the opportunity to become smarter and more productive. Training gives adults the chance to develop new skills to adapt to a changing world. The OECD's 2016 'Going for Growth' report indicated that the biggest gains in labour productivity are achieved through educational reforms. Oo little attentioj is given to that. So we need to invest in education, vocational training, improving the quality of our teachers and providing early childhood education. This is by far the most socially beneficial type of reform. It will promote fairness and equal opportunities for all. And it will help both migrants and their children. And those who are at risk of losing out from free trade.

Secondly, fairness is also about who pays the bill at the end of the day. Each and every individual or company should contribute its fair share. Let me give a few concrete examples what this entails. It means multinationals that profit from a well-functioning educational and judicial systems, also contribute by paying for these services.

This is at the top of our agenda today. If we were part of the problem in the past, now The Netherlands need to be part of the solution. We need to fix our tax systems, also in the Netherlands.

That means fighting tax avoidance and increasing tax compliance. This is a fundamental issue to fairness. A fair and effective way to allocate the costs also means if a bank fails, the investors who took the risk should carry the burden. The well-known shift from bail-out to bail-in. If you want the profits in good times, you will carry the losses in bad times.

Another example of “who pays the bill” in relation to fairness is about sharing burdens across generations. Ageing comes at a price. We share the burden of this equally over generations by linking life expectancy to retirement age.

Thirdly, we need fairness in adapting to globalisation. In this respect ensuring fairness between globalisation's winners and losers requires on the one hand that we acknowledge that trade deals will bring benefits but also concentrated costs. So we will need to provide short-term social support as well as also long-term labor market reforms to stimulate employment shifts between sectors. On the other hand it will also be necessary to ensure other countries do not compete by lowering their labour standards or ignoring environmental  standards. We'll need to protect our standards in the trade deals we sign. There is a third element - to avoid a race to the bottom - the free movement of labour also requires we assure employees from elsewhere cannot work here by undercutting our national minimum wage.

Fourth, we need to reform our tax systems, true for almost all countries in the eurozone, to reduce the tax burden on labour. Taking on a worker is still very expensive in Europe. We can help fix the labor market and improve income equality by reforming our taxes, if we focus our efforts on the lower parts of the labour market.

To conclude, I would be the first to say that fighting the different types of inequality is not the sole solution to today's populism. But I'm absolutely convinced that inequality is one of the biggest drivers of people's concerns. And many populist parties understand that very well and put the social welfare state on their agenda. Let's take it back. So, fairness and equity should be the leitmotif in our approach today.

Solving the real underlying problems is one thing we have to do. Another is avoiding to repeat old mistakes. The EU has in past decades been built by taking big, historic steps. Taking a lot of risks of weakening the whole construct. So let's not take any more big leaps in the dark as we have done in the past.

As I said the EU is a unique construct with no simple governing structure. And yet questions of migration and globalization are too big for individual member states. My response to populism is not a lecture on how we can improve the governing framework of the EU. It is not to think of another big project that requires a deep dive in the pool of integration. Not now, at a time when our fundamentals are so unstable and people question the legitimacy of the EU as a whole. The worst response to real problems is to simply repeat the old answer of more and deeper integration.

Let's take a pragmatic and yet fundamental approach. Let's take on the questions of migration, globalization, ageing and technological disruption from the angle of equity and fairness, to reduce the many threats to our electorates. Security and prosperity should again be the key deliverables of the EU. Step by step.

Strengthen what we have and actually complete it. Secure our outside borders in order to manage migration and integration. Reform our welfare state so it becomes and remains beneficial for all generations. And finish projects such as the Banking Union, so it really protects tax payers, the Capital Markets Union, so capital becomes available to smaller companies and start-ups, and the Single Market, which can still contribute to growth.

Explain what Europe is and isn't. And stop using Europe as the convenient scapegoat for the difficult decisions we need to take.

Thank you.

https://tvnewsroom.consilium.europa.eu/uploads/council-images/thumbs/uploads/council-images/remote/http_7e18a1c646f5450b9d6d-a75424f262e53e74f9539145894f4378.r8.cf3.rackcdn.com/unsc.logo__thumb_169_1455630895_1455630737_129_97shar_c1.jpg

The European Union's commitment to effective multilateralism, with the United Nations at its core, is a central element of its external action.

Download this video here.

UPDATED: read a second installation here, after all your comments.

 

Summer is over: winter is coming in the world of Brexit. As politicians return from their sojourns in the sun, they open up their emails and briefings to find that things are going about as badly as they could.

I’m writing this at the end of the UACES annual conference in London, where colleagues from across Europe have been debating and discussing the referendum and the next steps. The mood has been sombre, not only because most people were strongly pro-Remain, but because the mess that has been created looks even worse once some more systematic thought has been given. Suffice to say that – when offered the choice over breakfast this morning – colleagues all plumped for this above title over ‘omnishambles’. In essence, however, problematic you think Brexit is, it’s actually going to be worse than that.

Refreshingly – for me at least – discussion here has not been about how to overturn the vote, but about how to make it happen. The anger and frustration that many Remain voters have felt in the past couple of months is still there, but there is a broad feeling that -however contentious – the decision is the decision and has to be worked to. If nothing else, no one I spoke to thinks that a second referendum would have anything other than the same result, and probably with a much bigger majority.

For my own part, a self-enforced break over the past couple of weeks has been useful in stepping back and thinking about what comes next. I’d like to say that it’s my problem if that has left me much more pessimistic about things, but sadly, it’s also your problem too. Certainly, nothing I’ve heard in the past three days has given me any reassurance.

So in that spirit, let’s just run through how much of a mess Brexit is in right now.

The underlying legitimacy of the referendum remains contested. While it’s nice that many more people are coming round to the view that an uncodified constitution is not really any way to underpin a modern state, it doesn’t change the fact that when people have to talk about procedural aspects, they undermine the integrity of the decision.

To be clear, this isn’t so much about the ire of the 48%, but about the lack of clear relationship between the vote and the rest of the political system: parliamentary approval(s), the hierarchy of dominance between the people and parliament and general sense that we’re making it up as we go along (which we are, largely). The various legal challenges now in train are thus inevitable and there’s a non-negligible chance that one or more of them with succeed, causing further uncertainty.

Linked to this, there is no clear process on the UK side. That means we don’t really know how we get to Article 50 notification, how it will manage and oversee Art.50 negotiations or those for the subsequent new relationship or those for new third-state agreements.

The root problem here is the intentional lack of pre-planning by the government, which was terrified over any such plans coming to light through Freedom of Information requests and of looking anything less than confident about the outcome of the vote. Just about the only body that did seem to have a plan was the SNP and that focused almost solely on reviving the independence campaign.

This lack of UK planning is matched by a lack of EU planning too. For all the constant refrain about getting into the Art.50 process, there is no clear process at the moment. The hurried formation of units in the Commission and Council has yet to deliver a process document or template to which to work. Even if someone did get sent down into the archives to dust off the Greenland documents from the mid-1980s, they’d have found almost nothing of use, just as they’d find nothing from the pre-referendum discussion, again because the EU27 largely worked on the basis that they’d not have to deal with this.

The lack of process on both sides is compounded by the lack of positions.

The UK government evidently doesn’t know what it wants to achieve, beyond leaving the EU. Theresa May does speak of making sure that free movement of people is curtailed (rather than stopped), but also of ensuring as much market access as possible. While we have to suppose that the former will be privileged over the latter, this does still not amount to a plan of action.

This in turn drives delay in notification. May knows enough to see that once inside Art.50, the UK gets very little say on things, so it makes complete sense to pursue as much as possible pre-notification. However, it’s exactly for that reason that the EU27 want to get to notification as soon as possible.

While the UK indecision is much discussed, it’s also important to recognise that the EU27 themselves don’t agree on what to do. The Ventotene meeting of Merkel, Hollande and Renzi produced nothing more than some warm words about Altiero Spinelli, while the coming Bratislava summit is unlikely to advance matters. While Germany wants a close relationship, Italy wants to mark a clean break, France is caught up in limiting concessions that can be used by Marine Le Pen in the presidential elections, Ireland fears for its economy and security, Hungary sees opportunities to pursue more ‘eurorealism’ and Poland toys with its increasing isolation. And that’s before we even get to a European Parliament that looks set to be a complete pain in the neck about any Art.50 deal that undermines the EU’s core ideas.

The paucity of positions reflects a paucity of developed options. The summer was going to be when bright young things in foreign ministries or think tanks were going to produce the cunning plans that would set a direction of travel. But nothing has come through yet, anywhere: there is no Schaeuble-Lamers paper, no Cockfield report, no Adonnino report.

Here, I’m less clear why this should be. Perhaps it’s because it’s so big and complex that nothing can be produced in short order, perhaps because everyone thinks it’s someone else’ problem. Part of it might be that – on the British side at least – the government doesn’t want to have its lack of idea made all the more obvious.

Contributing to all this is the lack of institutional capacity. The new Department for Exiting the EU remains in a process of creation, with under half its intended complement of staff and an uncertain relationship with the Foreign Office and the International Trade Department. Moreover, it is clear that many civil servants with EU experience have either chosen to steer well clear of the whole affair, or have been discouraged from signing up because they might have become tainted by contact.

And all of this is before we even get to the specific issues that present no good solutions.

First and foremost, in my mind, is the Northern Irish border. There is a basic and fundamental incompatibility between the UK’s territorial integrity, EU freedom of movement and the Good Friday peace arrangements. Whether you fancy a hard border, soft border, no border between Northern Ireland and Ireland, Northern Ireland and Britain, the British Isles and the EU: all present obvious and (seemingly) intractable problems.

Second, there’s a broader problem of territorial reorganisation, with the resurgence of the Scottish independence debate. While the lack of clear shift in polling in favour of independence will hold back the SNP for now, the party is well-placed to press its advantage, especially if Art.50 goes badly. Again, issues of EU membership, borders and the rest are daunting.

Third, there’s the huge problem of transitional arrangements. Any deal within Art.50 will only provide for immediate terms of exit, but the new relationship will take much longer to negotiate and then implement. Assuming all third-party agreements that the UK is part of within the EU fall, then it not only needs to renegotiate these, but also add in any new deals it might want. Quite aside from capacity issues, none of this is fast, so businesses will be operating in any uncertain legal and economic environment for a long time to come.

Better now you got that off your chest?

So are there any grounds for optimism? Perhaps, but not many.

Most obviously, we haven’t hit the depths that many feared. Economically, this is partly because nothing has actually changed yet in the UK’s status, but there has been more contingency planning among businesses than in the political sphere, so there is some course of adjustment that could be followed. Politically, the ability of the Conservatives to regroup post-referendum (helped by Labour’s floundering) means that early elections look to be off the cards for now.

I’d also point to the (diminishing) stock of goodwill on all sides around Brexit. Possibly because of a general awareness of how bad things are (and can be), people are trying to find solutions and make allowances for each other. That’s clearly not unlimited, especially if notification drifts beyond early 2017, but the old EU habit of muddling through to some compromise dies hard. The huge range of elements involved mean complexity, but also opportunities for package deals, log-rolling and trade-offs; the very stuff of European integration.

Let’s leave it like this: we’re not screwed, yet.

 

Read more here.

The post The Brexit clusterf**k appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

The Irish Minister of Finance Michael Noonan has likened Apple to a "seed potato" that brings Ireland jobs and growth. The European Commission, on the other hand, sees the company as a tax dodger that is tricking Dublin out of tax revenues. Commentators condemn Brussels' decision to make Apple pay 13 billion euros to Ireland in back taxes, but also urge the Irish government not to burn its bridges to the EU.