European Union

Plenary sessions : Tax avoidance by companies cost EU countries €160-190 billion in lost revenue a year. MEPs discussed new measures to fight the most common practices on Tuesday 7 June and vote in favour of them the following day. Read more about the legislation and check our infographic that shows corporate tax rates and respective tax income by member state.

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

DRAFT OPINION on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement (Georgia)
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Andrejs Mamikins

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

Wednesday 8 June 2016
Justus Lipsius building - Brussels

from 11.30
Arrival of the President of Georgia Giorgi Margvelashvili
Welcome by the President of the European Council Donald Tusk
(VIP entrance, level 02 - photo/TV opportunity)

+/-12.00
Press Statements
(VIP entrance, level 02)

Access to the VIP entrance (level 02) for the photo opportunity will be granted to all journalists holding an EU Council 6-month badge. 
Journalists without the above badge must send a request by e-mail to press.centre@consilium.europa.eu - deadline Tuesday 7 June at 14.00.

With only a couple of weeks left until the referendum on the UK’s membership in the EU, articles and analyses on Brexit make the headlines almost every single day. For the tech industry a potential Brexit is a major issue, given that every aspect of the economy and of our lives has been digitised, and we are dealing with an increasingly cross-border market. Through the Digital Single Market (DSM) strategy, the European Commission wants to put Europe on the digital map and remove the borders for the online world in order to boost the economy, and open up cross-border trade for businesses and consumers. However, countries outside of the EU will not be able to reap the benefits of full market access that Member States enjoy and will likely fall into a legal limbo.

Britain is already in the process of taking advantage of the benefits of the digital economy, so what would the UK tech sector look like if the UK leaves the EU?

London could lose its status as Europe’s tech hub

London is currently Europe’s tech hub and its tech sector is one of the success stories for the UK. According to the European Digital City Index, London is the number 1 city in Europe for supporting digital startups and scale-ups. Research by KPMG also shows that hiring in the UK tech sector has been growing in the last three years, and the business activity growth in the tech sector exceeded that of the entire UK economy.

The tech sector has a lot to gain from not being isolated from the advancement in the rest of Europe. According to Tim Farron, the leader of Liberal Democrat party, “Brexit would be a disaster for the UK’s tech sector … London’s status as the digital capital of Europe would be at risk if we shut the door on the world’s largest market”. If the UK leaves the EU, tech companies looking for opportunities could choose not go to London, but to other capitals with a high focus on technology, such as Berlin. One of the key reasons will be the high level of legal uncertainty and risk attached with a potential Brexit.

Tech companies in London have already shown their support for remaining in the UK. A poll of members of techUK, an association representing more than 900 tech companies in the UK, mostly SMEs, reveals widespread support for staying in the EU. Approximately 70% of its members favour remaining in the EU because EU membership makes the UK more attractive to international investment, more globally competitive and gives the UK a better position in trade relationships. They believe that leaving the EU could increase uncertainty for their businesses. Recently, Microsoft has also showed its support for the UK to remain in the EU. In a letter to its 5,000 British staff and to 25,000 businesses in its network, Microsoft UK CEO, Michel Van der Bel, wrote that the UK being part of the EU has been one of the main reasons why it is an attractive place for Microsoft investment in Europe. The company has been investing in Britain since it opened its first office there in 1982 and is the first US tech company to make a statement on the referendum.

British citizens might not get to benefit from a European digital single market

The European Commission launched its Digital Single Market (DSM) strategy in May 2015, aimed at positioning Europe as a tech leader and at creating a unified set of rules for all 28 Member States.

In the event of a Brexit, the legislative areas being harmonised by the DSM will no longer apply to the UK. This will leave businesses around the world in a state of legal uncertainty when working with companies in the UK. For instance, the Commission is currently working on creating EU-wide rules on e-commerce, which aim to make it easier to sell digital goods and content across the EU. If the UK leaves the EU, the British online shopping industry will lose access to the cross-border market of 27 other countries in the Union, and could risk missing out on online cross-border trade.

Regular citizens also have a lot to gain from the DSM. Take roaming charges for example, which will be abolished in the EU as of June 2017. The UK government has assured British consumers that they would still benefit from the drop in roaming charges even if they choose to leave the EU. However, after a Brexit, negotiations will have to take place to determine the conditions of the future EU-UK trading relationship. These are very likely to be extremely difficult negotiations, which will only be made worse by any moves from the UK to try and exclude freedom of movement from any EU-UK deal.

UK consumers will also benefit from one of the Commission’s latest reforms to allow for Europeans travelling anywhere in the EU to still have access to online services, such as Netflix, which they have paid for in their home country. British Prime Minister David Cameron has praised such reforms by saying they are one of the reasons why his country should not leave the EU: “The UK has been pushing for a digital single market that delivers for consumers across the EU … These proposals deliver just that.”

Data transfers between the EU and the UK could become illegal

Data protection and data transfers are very sensitive subjects in Europe, as the EU defends high standards on privacy. This became clear in October last year when the European Court of Justice invalidated the ‘Safe Harbour’ data transfer agreement with the US, on the basis that the US does not provide adequate protection for EU citizens’ data. Should Britain choose to leave, this situation could set a precedent for a similar call for the UK to demonstrate it protects EU citizens’ data. Proving this could be a particularly challenging task given the current reforms the British government is pushing through on government monitoring and access to data. These measures have been criticised by privacy activists and legal experts, who claim they do not meet EU data protection requirements. Recently, more than 200 senior lawyers signed a letter saying that the proposed Investigatory Powers Bill ‘compromises the essence of the fundamental right to privacy’ set out in EU law and fails to meet international standards for surveillance powers. In this context, it could prove difficult for the European Commission to credibly negotiate a data transfer agreement with the UK, leaving many companies in limbo or, worse, isolated from the European digital single market.

 

Technology is global, and it will impact every one of us, regardless of physical borders. As such, the impact of Brexit on the tech sector is also not simply contained to the UK. A potential Brexit will mean that the UK will not be able to influence EU legislation anymore, certainly not to the same extent as it does now, taking its pro-market, pro-technology voice out of the EU debate. Given the importance of tech legislation like the ones in the DSM strategy and the benefits of the digital economy, this opportunity should not be missed.

 

By Andreea Ghita, Technology Practice

The Eurovision Song Contest can be a useful and fun allegorical tool for explaining the dynamics of the EU, writes Anna Wambach. She argues that, although comparisons between the two can create strong cognitive associations over time, if taken too seriously such links can lead to misunderstandings about how the EU works in practice.

Conchita Wurst Press Conference, Greens/EFA, CC-BY-2.0

It is tempting to equate the Eurovision Song Contest with the EU. The EU itself can appear mind-bogglingly complex and boring. So why not use the ESC to explain the EU’s unappealing institutions to its citizens in an entertaining way? There seem to be so many parallels. The ESC provides a useful means of breaking down complicated processes of supranational decision-making through a commonly shared pop culture reference. However, the equation – although tempting – is not without negative consequences, since the discursive links have the potential to mislead judgement about the EU.

Despite its objective as an opportunity for European countries to showcase themselves, the ESC has always been a political event. Voting patterns have long been interpreted as symptoms of international alliances or tensions. In the week prior to the 2016 ESC in Stockholm, this trend intensified, particularly in the UK’s debate on EU membership. British journalists, commentators and campaigners explicitly linked Eurovision to the in/out referendum in June.

The BBC started a Snapchat campaign in which it explicitly – although light-heartedly – combined the referendum debate and the Eurovision Song Contest. Vote Leave, the official campaign for the UK to leave the EU, produced a video in which it compared the UK’s status in the EU with its past performances in the ESC. The conclusion is simple: the UK is persistently outvoted by its European neighbours.

Two years earlier, in 2014, the Guardian published an op-ed in which Christina Patterson explained that the British regard both of them as a frivolous waste of money. The EU would need to change in order to lose this ESC reputation.

The list of examples goes on. The discursive link between EU politics and the ESC is reinforced every year. Discourse in this context does not refer to one communicative event or an extended piece of text but rather – in Foucault’s sense – to socially constructed knowledge or social practice, a more or less regulated way of doing things (Van Leeuwen 2008). In this case, knowledge about the EU is constructed by linking it to knowledge about the ESC.

It is understandable. Few people are interested in the details of EU policy-making. It is boring and somewhat distant. The ESC, however – love it or hate it – is certainly not boring. People can relate to it.

Particularly in the UK, many of the dominant discourses about both the EU and ESC seem to match perfectly, as the above examples illustrate. The UK’s lack of success in the ESC can be interpreted as a symptom of feelings towards the EU: no support, no understanding and blocs of nations ganging up against the UK.

The voting system combining jury and public votes can be interpreted as undemocratic – just like the EU with its unelected bureaucrats infringing on British sovereignty. The whole show – be it ESC or EU – is a waste of money in which Britain invests but never gets anything in return.

Shared cultural knowledge is used to explain a complex political process – to make it relatable. This is a handy and effective shortcut. No further explanation is needed. From a journalist’s or commentator’s point of view, this is appealing because it saves time and space. However, by discursively linking, repeating and reinforcing it year after year, it becomes manifested in citizens’ minds.

It is a powerful discursive link, but one that is misleading in two ways. Firstly, it can lead to a factual misunderstanding of the EU. Secondly, it may have an effect on attitudes towards the EU and European integration. This effect, however, is based on misjudgement. During a campaign like the British in/out referendum, but also in more routine times, this can have a negative impact on support for the EU.

The factual differences between ESC and EU are more obvious and can be pointed out easily. ESC participants go far beyond the EU’s borders – for example, the 2016 final included Australia, Israel and Azerbaijan. The ESC is run for entertainment purposes – the EU for political and economic ones. The outcome of the ESC has practically no impact on citizens’ lives, whereas the outcome of EU decision-making does very much.

The effect of this discursive construction of EU knowledge by linking it to social practices of the Eurovision Song Contest may, however, be resistant to factual clarifications. By illustrating shared, historical discourses about the relationship between the UK and the EU with ESC metaphors, common myths are reinforced rather than overcome. Because the discourses about the EU and ESC, as well as the UK’s position in either, can be so elegantly integrated, disentangling the discourses again is difficult.

If they match so nicely, and help citizens understand the EU, then one could argue that the discursive link between ESC and EU might be useful after all, if only to engage citizens in the debate. The equation of the EU and the ESC, however, is akin to drawing a caricature of the EU. It oversimplifies, exaggerates and can even be plain wrong. It might fit into historical discourses about the EU, but even those can often be misleading with regard to the relationship between the UK and EU. Therefore we should attempt to unpack and challenge those dominant discourses instead of fuelling them with pop culture references.

In the end, the link is a misjudgement of both the EU and Eurovision. Neither of them can receive a fair verdict from its audiences. In the case of Eurovision, this might not seem too dramatic. It could have more far-reaching consequences for attitudes towards the EU among its citizens, if they judge it based on a cheesy entertainment spectacle.

Please note that this article represents the views of the author(s) and not those of the UACES Student Forum or UACES.

Comments and Site Policy

Shortlink for this article: bit.ly/1P8HRYh

.
Anna Wambach | @AnnaWambach
Newcastle University

Anna Wambach is PhD Candidate in Politics at Newcastle University and a Committee Member of the UACES Student Forum. Her research focuses on how the the EU is portrayed in the UK news media.

.

The post Exactly Like the EU, Just a Little Bit Cheesier? Discursive Links Between the EU and the Eurovision Song Contest appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

DRAFT OPINION on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on establishing an information exchange mechanism with regard to intergovernmental agreements and non-binding instruments between Member States and third countries in the field of energy and repealing Decision No 994/2012/EU
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Eduard Kukan

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

On 7 June 2016 the Council adopted a general approach on a draft directive on the recognition of professional qualifications in inland navigation. The proposal aims to provide new career prospects and promote the mobility of people working in the sector. It sets up a common system of certificates for the entire crew, from apprentices to boatmasters. Holders of such a certificate will be able to practice their profession on inland waterways across Europe.

Melanie Schultz van Haegen-Maas Geesteranus, the Netherlands Minister for Infrastructure and the Environment and chair of the meeting, said: "Through this new EU certificate crewmembers of inland waterway vessels can work without restriction throughout Europe. Newcomers can earn this certificate by demonstrating that they have broad knowledge and skills agreed at the European level. This increases the mobility of workers in the sector and helps to reduce the shortages of qualified personnel."

A single competence-based system for all crew members

The current EU legislation on mutual recognition in the sector only covers boatmasters - and only when they operate on rivers and canals other than the Rhine. The rest of the deck crew is covered by the horizontal directive on the recognition of professional qualifications.

The draft directive will establish a single system that will apply to all deck crew working on any EU inland waterway falling within the scope of the directive, including the Rhine.

The new system will, following calls from the sector and member states, introduce a  competence-based framework similar to those used in other modes of transport.

Better careers in inland navigation

The new system is expected to lower barriers to entry into professions in inland navigation. It will improve career prospects in the sector, making the whole profession more attractive. Automatic mutual recognition will make it easier for people to take jobs wherever they are available. It will also help companies to recruit staff from across Europe. As many companies that are active in the sector are fairly small, increased interest in the profession could help them to expand their businesses, giving a boost to the whole sector. Competence-based qualifications should also improve safety and reduce accident costs.

Strengthening the role of CESNI

The draft directive is, as is the case with the directive on technical requirements for inland waterway vessels, closely linked with the European committee for drawing up standards in inland navigation (CESNI), an international body set up under the auspices of the Central Commission for Navigation on the Rhine (CCNR). CESNI will develop various standards in the field of professional qualifications for the Union and the CCNR. As soon as a standard becomes available, a reference to it will be included in the directive.

Taking into account member states' differing circumstances

The general approach introduces a degree of proportionality into the directive, to take account of the situation of member states with little or no inland navigation activity. In such cases, where objective criteria are met, member states will not be required to transpose the directive or certain parts of it.

How will it become law?

The general approach adopted today is the Council's position for talks with the European Parliament. The Parliament has not adopted its position yet. Both institutions must agree on the text before it can enter into force.

Bolstering the use of inland waterways

Inland navigation is a particularly cost-effective and environmentally friendly mode of transport. The draft directive is one of the measures which aim to improve its quality and promote its use, particularly for freight shipping (NAIADES II package).

On 7 June 2016 the Council adopted mandates that allow the Commission to start negotiations on comprehensive EU-level air transport agreements with four key partners: the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Turkey.

The agreement with ASEAN is set to become the first EU bloc-to-bloc aviation agreement. The UAE, Qatar and Turkey are among the most dynamic and fastest growing aviation markets. All agreements are directed at allowing market development and growth based on common rules and transparency.

Melanie Schultz van Haegen, the Netherlands Minister for Infrastructure and the Environment and chair of the Council meeting, said: "Europe is showing leadership in its external aviation policy with a balanced approach consisting of market opening based on fair and transparent market conditions."

The goal of comprehensive EU-level aviation agreements is to create new business opportunities, improve market access and ensure fair competition under transparent market conditions. They also aim to increase Europe's international connectivity and ensure a high quality of service for passengers. Airlines, airports and passengers will benefit from enhanced regulatory cooperation and convergence in areas such as aviation safety, aviation security and economic regulation.

The Commission will carry out the negotiations on behalf of the EU and its member states.

Plenary sessions : Tax avoidance by companies cost EU countries €160-190 billion in lost revenue a year. MEPs will discuss new measures to fight the most common practices on Tuesday 7 June and vote on them the following day. Read more about the legislation and check our infographic that shows corporate tax rates and respective tax income by member state.

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

Plenary sessions : Tax avoidance by companies cost EU countries €160-190 billion in lost revenue a year. MEPs will discuss new measures to fight the most common practices on Tuesday 7 June and vote on them the following day. Read more about the legislation and check our infographic that shows corporate tax rates and respective tax income by member state.

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

Wednesday 8 June 2016
11.30 Meeting with President of Georgia Giorgi Margvelashvili (photo opportunity - press statement ±12.00) - 6-month badge/special accreditation will be required to access the Justus Lipsius VIP entrance

19.00 Working dinner with NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg and European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker

Friday 10 June 2016
15.30 Meeting with Prime Minister of Denmark Lars Løkke Rasmussen and the steering committee of the liberal party in Denmark

On 6 June 2016, the Council increased the budget of EUCAP Sahel Mali by EUR 4 925 000, bringing the total budget of the mission for 2016 to EUR 19 million. This EU civilian mission supports the three Malian internal security forces: police, gendarmerie and national guard.

Following security incidents in Bamako, notably the November 2015 attack against the Radisson Hotel, and the March 2016 attack against the EUTM Mali compound, the Council decided to increase the budget of EUCAP Sahel Mali. This will enhance the ability of the mission to support Malian security sector reform and ensure the mission' staff are protected by appropriate security measures.  

EUCAP Sahel Mali supports the Malian state to ensure constitutional and democratic order and the conditions for lasting peace as well as to maintain its authority throughout the entire territory. The mission provides training and strategic advice to the Malian police, gendarmerie and national guard as well as relevant ministries in order to support reform in the security sector. The mission is part of the EU's comprehensive approach to security and development in the Sahel. Two other CSDP missions are in place in the region: EUTM Mali which contributes to the restructuring and the reorganisation of the Malian Armed Forces through training and advice and EUCAP Sahel Niger which supports the fight against organised crime and terrorism.

EUCAP Sahel Mali was launched on 15 April 2014. The Head of mission is Mr. Albrecht Conze, from Germany. His mandate was recently extended to 14 January 2017. The headquarters of the mission are located in Bamako, Mali.

The 31st plenary session of the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly (JPA) will take place in Windhoek, the capital of Namibia, in Southern Africa, from June 13 to 15 2016. The session will be opened formally by its Co-Presidents Louis Michel for the European Parliament, and Netty Baldeh (Gambia) for the ACP.

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP