European Union

General : "It is easy to blame Europe or Schengen for security failures in our Member States, and wave the illusion that retreating behind national borders somehow immunises against - often home-grown - terrorists", said the EP President Schulz in his opening speech before the European Council of 17-18 December dedicated to pressing issues, such as migration, counter terrorism and the British referendum. "If we want to preserve our freedom of movement, then we must act fast and decisively."

Source : © European Union, 2015 - EP

General : "It is easy to blame Europe or Schengen for security failures in our Member States, and wave the illusion that retreating behind national borders somehow immunises against - often home-grown - terrorists", said the EP President Schulz in his opening speech before the European Council of 17-18 December dedicated to pressing issues, such as migration, counter terrorism and the British referendum. "If we want to preserve our freedom of movement, then we must act fast and decisively."

Source : © European Union, 2015 - EP

The Paris COP21 climate conference was interesting in that it managed to produce a deal which was considered as historic to some and yet disappointing to others.

The latter will argue that the following make for a weak deal. The agreement does not make INDCs binding, the aggregated INDCs put the world on track to over 3°C temperature increase, and there isn’t nearly enough money in the pot to compensate poor countries or help them mitigate the effects of global warming.

Why is it considered historic then?

Because the risk for Paris was not so much to fail on climate as it was to fail on diplomacy. No one actually expected COP21 to result in a globally binding deal where country pledges would limit global warming to 2°C. Ironically, accepting this in the first place is why the conference was a success; any attempt to force such commitments on the Parties would have resulted in a Copenhagen 2.0. COP21 was a twelve-day fine-tuning session where all Parties already knew which lines could be crossed and which ones couldn’t.

Where politicians could not fail however was on the direction, on the vision that would come out of Paris. And when 195 countries manage to sit down and commit to pursuing their efforts to limit global warming to 1.5°C, you know something big happened that Saturday 12 December in Paris.

Although some consider it disappointing, the COP21 agreement’s impact on legislation should not be underestimated as its overall direction will give legitimacy for the institutions to push for more ambitious climate and energy policies. Green activists in Brussels will hold the 31-page agreement over policymakers’ heads to make sure whatever comes out of the Berlaymont is in line with what came out of Le Bourget. The long-term view to limiting global warming to 1.5°C immediately raised the question in Brussels of knowing if the EU needed to reconsider and raise the ambition of its targets for 2030, even before they had a chance of being translated into legislation.

While Commissioner Cañete’s latest declarations indicate that the Commission does not intend to push for raising the EU’s 40% GHG emission reduction target before the next Commission takes office, his successors will be under pressure to adjust the 2030 target upwards in order to reach full decarbonisation by the end of the century. The argument is likely to be used by the Commission however to try and raise the energy efficiency target from 27% to 30% for 2030, something it has clearly indicated it intended to do. Paris just gave it a reason. The European Parliament gathered this week in Strasbourg for the last Plenary of the year went even further, adopting a resolution calling for a binding and 40% energy efficiency target.

Expect a number of conferences on ‘COP21: Challenges and Opportunities’ to be held in the upcoming months. Paris gave the ‘long-term investment signal’ one part of industry was waiting for. The fact that other commentators actually had to reaffirm that ‘industry can be/is part of the solution’ is interesting in itself. It’s almost  like there are those who believe we can do this without industry. In reality, as a delegate from Mali reminded me at COP21, “industry is the solution!” The only thing left for it to do is let the others know.

Nareg Terzian

 

The public hearing presented an overview of the current CSDP partnerships with third countries and organisations, the possibilities of evolution and general tendencies.
Location : Altiero Spinelli 1G-2
Programme
Programme
Presentations
Presentation by Rory Keane, Head of the UN Liaison Office for Peace and Security, Brussels
Presentation by Prof. Dr. Joachim A. Koops, Dean of Vesalius College & Director, Global Governance Institute (GGI)
Source : © European Union, 2015 - EP

On 18 December 2015, the Permanent Representatives Committee (Coreper) confirmed the compromise texts agreed with the European Parliament on data protection reform. The agreement was reached between the Council, Parliament and Commission on the 15 December. This agreement is in line with the request from the European Council for negotiations on data protection reform to be concluded by the end of 2015.

Félix BRAZ, Luxembourg Minister of Justice and President of the Council said: "It is a fundamental agreement with important consequences. This reform not only strengthens the rights of citizens, but also adapts the rules to the digital age for companies, whilst reducing the administrative burden. These are ambitious and forward-looking texts. We can have full confidence in the result."  

Data protection reform is a legislative package proposed by the Commission in 2012 to update and modernise the data protection rules.  It concerns two legislative instruments: the general data protection regulation (intended to replace directive 95/46/EC) and the data protection directive in the area of law enforcement (intended to replace the 2008 data protection framework decision). 

The protection of persons in relation to the processing of their personal data is a fundamental right laid down in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (Article 8) and in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (Article 16).

General data protection regulation

The general data protection regulation aims at enhancing the level of data protection for individuals whose personal data is processed and increasing business opportunities in the digital single market including through reduced administrative burden. 

An enhanced level of data protection

The principles and rules on the processing of personal data of individuals must respect fundamental rights and freedoms, notably the right to protection of personal data. These strengthened data protection rights give data subjects (the individuals whose personal data is being processed) more control over their personal data: 

• more specific rules allowing data controllers (those responsible for the processing of data) to process personal data, including through the requirement for the consent of the individuals concerned.
• easier access to their personal data.
• better information about what happens to personal data once it is shared. This includes informing individuals about their privacy policy in clear and plain language, which can also be done via standardised icons.
• a right to erase personal data and "to be forgotten". This enables, for example, subjects to require the removal, without delay, of personal data collected or published on a social network when the individual was still a child.
• if a youngster of below 16 years wishes to use online services, the service provider has to try to verify that parental consent has been given. Member states may lower this age ceiling without going below 13 years.
• a right to portability, facilitating the transmission of personal data from one service provider, such as a social network, to another. This will not only increase data protection rights but also enhance competition among service providers.
• a right to object to the processing of personal data relating to the public interest or to legitimate interests of a controller. This right covers the use of personal date for the purposes of 'profiling'.
• common safeguards covering the processing of personal data for archiving purposes where that is in the public interest and for scientific and historical research or statistical purposes.

To ensure proximity of legal redress, data subjects have the right for a decision of their data protection authority to be reviewed by their national court, irrespective of the member state in which the data controller is established. 

Increased business opportunities in the digital single market

The regulation provides for a single set of rules, valid across the EU and applicable both to European and non European companies offering on-line services in the EU. This avoids a situation where conflicting national data protection rules might disrupt the cross-border exchange of data. It also provides for increased cooperation between member states to ensure coherent application of the data protection rules across the EU. This will create fair competition and will encourage companies, especially small and medium-sized enterprises, to get the most out of the digital single market. 

To reduce costs and provide legal certainty, in important cross-border cases where several national supervisory authorities are involved, a single supervisory decision is taken. This one-stop-shop mechanism allows a company which is active in several member states to deal only with the data protection authority in the member state of its main establishment. This mechanism also provides for a single decision applicable to the entire EU territory in case of disputes. 

With a view to reducing administrative costs, the regulation applies a risk-based approach: data controllers can implement measures according to the risk involved in the data processing operations they perform. Different businesses have different activities and the risks of such activities in terms of privacy can vary. The regulation  provides for no one-size-fits all solution: the stronger the risks of the activities for the personal data, the more stringent the obligations. 

More and better tools to enforce compliance with the data protection rules

The regulation provides a range of measures to increase the responsibility and accountability of data controllers in order to ensure full compliance with the new data protection rules. Data controllers must implement a number of security measures, including the requirement in certain cases to notify personal data breaches. To future-proof the regulation, the principles of data protection by design and by default are introduced. Public authorities and those companies that perform certain risky data processing must designate a data protection officer to ensure compliance with the rules. 

Data subjects, and in certain conditions, data protection organisations can lodge a complaint with a supervisory authority or seek judicial remedy in case the data protection rules are not complied with. Data controllers can face maximum fines of up to €20 million or 4% of their global annual turnover. 

Guarantees on the transfer of personal data outside the EU

The regulation lays down the rules for transferring personal data to third countries and international organisations. Transfers may take place provided that a number of conditions and safeguards are met, in particular where the Commission has decided that an adequate level of protection exists. New adequacy decisions will have to be reviewed at least every 4 years. Existing adequacy decisions and authorisations remain in force until amended, replaced or repealed.   

Data protection directive in the field of law enforcement

This directive is aimed at protecting personal data processed for prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, including the safeguarding against and the prevention of threats to public security. 

It is crucial to ensure a consistent and high level of protection of personal data of individuals while at the same time facilitating the exchange of personal data between law enforcement authorities in the different member states. 

Broader scope of application

In addition to covering activities aimed at preventing, investigating, detecting and prosecuting criminal offences the new directive has been extended to cover the safeguarding and prevention of threats to public security. 

The new directive would apply to both the cross-border processing of personal data as well as the processing of personal data by the police and judicial authorities at purely national level. The framework decision, which will be replaced, covered only cross-border exchange of data. 

Data subject's rights

The rules strike a balance between the right to privacy and the need for the police not to reveal that data is being processed at an early stage of an investigation. However, the text lists the information that the data subject is always entitled to receive in order to protect his or her right if they fear that an infringement of their data has taken place. 

The new rules will also cover the transfer of personal data to third countries and international organisations. 

Compliance

The new directive foresees that a data protection officer is appointed to help the competent authorities to ensure compliance with the data protection rules. 

Another tool to ensure compliance is impact assessment. Where a type of processing is likely to result in a high risk for the rights and freedoms of individuals the competent authorities must carry out an assessment of the potential impact of a certain processing, in particular when using new technology.   

Monitoring and compensation

The text of the directive is aligned with the text of the regulation in order to ensure that in broad terms the same general principles apply. In addition, the rules on the supervisory authority are to a large extent similar because the supervisory authority established in the general data protection regulation can also deal with matters falling under the directive. The new directive would also grant data subjects the right to receive compensation if they have suffered damage as a consequence of a processing that has not respected the rules.                        

NEXT STEPS

On 17 December, in an extra-ordinary meeting, the European Parliament's Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) Committee endorsed the texts agreed in the trilogues. This support enabled Coreper today to confirm the final compromise texts on the regulation and the directive. After a legal-linguistic review of the texts, they will be submitted for adoption by the Council and, subsequently, by the Parliament. The regulation and the directive are likely to enter into force in spring 2018.

Plenary sessions : Ensaf Haidar accepted the 2015 Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought on Wednesday on behalf of her husband Raif Badawi, a Saudi human rights activist who remains in prison. A day earlier, Eurogroup President Jeroen Dijsselbloem attended plenary for the first time to discuss the euro, while the European Commission presented its plan for reinforcing the EU's external borders.

Source : © European Union, 2015 - EP

Plenary sessions : Ensaf Haidar accepted the 2015 Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought on Wednesday on behalf of her husband Raif Badawi, a Saudi human rights activist who remains in prison. A day earlier, Eurogroup President Jeroen Dijsselbloem attended plenary for the first time to discuss the euro, while the European Commission presented its plan for reinforcing the EU's external borders.

Source : © European Union, 2015 - EP

If you are not European enough but nevertheless have been living in Europe, and especially in Western Europe, for a while, it is almost impossible not to hear the following statement: “Europeans are racist.” It is an echo of Palestine-born American literary critic Edward Said’s famous conclusion that he arrived in his classic book Orientalism: “Every European, in what he could say about the Orient, was a racist, an imperialist, and almost totally ethnocentric.” In a more globalized, polymorphous, fluid world where the borders are becoming more and more porous, this echo consequently sounds higher than its original; now, the Orient can be replaced by not only any non-European identity, but also some Europeans that are not European enough such as East Europeans.

Therefore, the statement that “Europeans are racist” constitutes a basic fact, a state of affairs, for millions of people living in Europe. When one grasps the gravity of this staggering situation, it takes only one step to understand the current crises in Europe, how some certain cities in Europe could have become a home for jihadists who hate Europe, how people who grew up in Europe could commit such barbaric crimes towards their “own” people?

However, the problem is that that one step is usually taken too hastily by ignoring the tremendously complex and novel aspects of these phenomena. That is, that enormously heavy statement passes before us too fast, too unreflectively. It seems to me that we take for granted too easily the “fact” that “Europeans are racist” without clearly knowing what we mean by “racism.” Rather than paying attention to the peculiarity of what is happening before us, we are still trying to fit current phenomena to previous schema; and hence, we conclude, “Europeans are racist” and that is precisely the reason why these are happening today, the reason behind Europe’s failure. But then I wonder: By repeating this reasoning over and over again, are we doing justice to Europe that has changed enormously after Second World War, which has now entirely new generations who have grown up in a Europe without internal borders, in a Europe that is becoming gradually intercultural? Are taking into consideration these facts when we accuse Europeans of being racist?

Having lived in three different Western European countries, to be sure, I would not argue that Europeans are not racist. I felt and am still feeling that I do not belong here, there are existential walls hidden behind kind smiles. I am aware of this. But still, I do not believe that the image of the racist that pops up in our mind (which still has strong connotations from cold-war era) when we accuse Europeans of being such, corresponds to the racism that we have in contemporary Europe. To be sure, there are still people, for example, who thinks that just because they are white, they are superior; but I do not believe that they constitute the majority of Western Europe, that they reflect the genuine ideas of an ordinary “white man” in the streets of Western Europe.

Then if we ask “What is this new racism? What distinguishes it from its preceding forms?”, I would answer by proposing a notion round which contemporary racism articulates itself – namely, ambivalence.

Let me try to explain what I mean by ambivalence.

As a non-European living in Europe for almost six years, it has been quite rare that I could make a Western European friend. But what is even more surprising is that I could never make a friend who was from the country I currently was living in. Absurdity of this might make you think that, it is a personal issue, but I assure you that these are quite common phenomena, as you can also see in the compartmentalization within cities amongst different cultures.

What I have noticed in this absurd reality was that I could only become friends with a certain type of a European and the condition that made our friendship possible was not that they were “open to the Other” – as it is commonly assumed. The discourse of the Other, by setting an impossible ideal for itself (namely, unconditional openness to the other), in fact impaired its own possibility. It was, in other words, too demanding to expect from someone to be open to such an extent that that very openness results in devouring his/her own singularity. Neither was it fair. What I have noticed therefore was that, rather than to the Other, they were open to ambivalence. They did not leave their singularity behind, that which makes them what they are, but nevertheless they were okay with the possibility of contamination. They were aware of the fact that ambivalence was the very ground on which different cultures meet. They were neither absolutely open, nor unconditionally closed. Rather, they were not quite sure, as the word ambivalence itself beautifully conveys, they had “mixed feelings or contradictory ideas about” what was going on. It was precisely the uncertainty, unsureness that comes with ambivalence which they were open to. Of course, we were making “racist jokes”, mocking each other; that is to say, there was no “political correctness”, no “discourse of the Other” between us; rather we were negotiating our differences, and this was precisely the way we could get to know each other. It was both the price and the gift of accepting ambivalence, that is, of not being afraid of contamination – the very acceptance that there can be no pure, untouched cultures.

On the other hand, there were the majority of Europeans beyond whose kind smiles I could not take a single step further. They were always gentle and kind, so incessantly were they smiling that, sooner or later, it lost its meaning. It did not matter anymore if they were smiling at me, or if it was the default setting of their character towards the Other. They were taught to respect the Other; no matter what, they had to respect the Other – which means, first of all, that they needed to have the Other. As Sartre put years ago, if there were no Other, they would have to invent it indeed – but with a slight difference this time, not to dehumanize but to respect him or her! So they invented me. Whenever we encountered, it was not me who they saw, it was rather a general figure, a category, of their own imagination which they invented to respect. The question if they really had any sympathy, admiration, interest, or knowledge about that which they respected was of no importance at all. The Other, on this account, was just an undifferentiated, blank face who was put into distance and hindered from any possibility of touching their singularity; and this was done precisely by respecting his or her otherness. What they really wanted was thus “un-contamination”; and they had the strongest tool for building insuperable walls between “them” and “us”, to keep “themselves” safe from people like me, from the Other. That tool was “political correctness:” an indifferent respect, a desolate smile. What they deny was precisely ambivalence that ensues from the cultural encounters. They did not want it. That equivocation scared them. They rather insisted on their conformity and security with which they were endowed by the alleged purity of their singularity, call it, whiteness, Dutchness, Germanness, or Flemishness. And furthermore, they asked themselves, “Why on earth would we leave the safe borders of our singularity while everything outside is falling apart? Why would we really open ourselves to them while we could still enjoy the privileges of being white, European, and wealthy? Why would we welcome ambivalence and become not so sure about our own singularities, while millions of people waiting behind our borders to become one of us?” They thought that they had enough reasons to be the way they are, they acted as if they knew what they are, what whiteness, Dutchness, Germanness, or Flemishness essentially consists in. As such essences returned to us in a new fashion which demanded un-contamination precisely by respecting the Other.

Hence, when you face this smiling racism, you know that everything has been decided for you at the very moment when you say where you are from – at that very moment you become a blank face that has to be respected. No doubt that he or she will tell you how beautiful your country was when they visited it, after all what is the non-European world but, as it were, an enormous zoo for the European. They pay the entrance fee (for them it it cheap), walk around the world, look at us who are dwelling behind the fences, feed us, and leave. And when they encounter one of “us” beyond those fences, of course, they would say how beautiful our cage was, which is a “politically correct” way of saying “You are not one of us! Remember your place!” Liberal multiculturalism and political correctness are perfect tools to keep “them” outside even when “they” are inside, keep “our” cultures un-contaminated by draining others of any significant singularity.

What I have tried to reveal with the latter type is precisely what I meant by the new form of racism that took hold of contemporary Europe today. What is important to notice there is that this new form of racism is not a reactive hate, not a projection of our own wickedness. It is rather a peculiar, insidious defense mechanism, a selfish nihilism that is trying to cling onto the very last piece of privilege and joy before the world collapses. It is a consoling lie that Europeans tell themselves in order to remain blind to the atrocities around the world. It is not simply lacking consideration for the other people, rather it is a stubborn attempt to deny that they do not care about other people. It is a generous way of becoming selfish.

Though essences returned, European racism is no longer a form of Nazism. It has also learned from its mistakes. Therefore, it has a very idiosyncratic, self-agonizing structure, for deep inside it knows very well that it has to acknowledge ambivalence, that what it is doing is selfish and hypocritical, that it cannot remain pure and un-contaminated — nothing can! Its explicit denial (i.e., respect for the Other) indicates the hope trapped behind its nihilist surface. Put differently, political correctness and teh stubborn attempts to live together show that contemporary racism in Europe does not derive any longer from prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against some certain people, rather it derives from nihilism. By nihilism, I am referring to the last man of Nietzsche, to quote from Slovaj Zizek’s article on Charlie Hebdo massacre:

Long ago Friedrich Nietzsche perceived how Western civilisation was moving in the direction of the Last Man, an apathetic creature with no great passion or commitment. Unable to dream, tired of life, he takes no risks, seeking only comfort and security, an expression of tolerance with one another: “A little poison now and then: that makes for pleasant dreams. And much poison at the end, for a pleasant death. They have their little pleasures for the day, and their little pleasures for the night, but they have a regard for health. ‘We have discovered happiness,’ – say the Last Men, and they blink.

The contemporary racism in Europe no longer consists in the alleged superiority of the racist. To the contrary, the racist no longer cares about the Other. The Other is a blank face that he respects. The less the racist knows about the Other and his culture (though he knows all the stereotypes and cliches about it), the better for him, for then he can wallow in his comfort and security and enjoy his life that he loves so much without having have to think about the Other. Beyond that blank face, there is a risk for him, there is ambivalence. Why would he care? If you force him, if you insist on having a face before him, if you insist on existing, he would shout in distress and pain:

“I respect you whoever you are, is this not enough?”

I venture to say, no, it is not.

I can easily find substantial reasons to join the chorus and repeat that “Europeans are racist”, for many years I have been living in countries where I have been treated as if I am one of those TV channels which do not have any signal. Countless times I experienced that abrupt and brutal transformation into an undifferentiated, blank face, that sudden collapse into nothingness accompanied by kind, politically correct, gestures of the Europeans. Yet, I do believe that there is something peculiar about this attitude which, instead of being dismissed, if it can be understood properly, maybe, can be transformed into a new form where ambivalence is slowly being accepted so that we can finally in the genuine sense of the word begin living together.

The post Are Europeans racist? appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

http://tvnewsroom.consilium.europa.eu/uploads/council-images/thumbs/uploads/council-images/remote/http_7e18a1c646f5450b9d6d-a75424f262e53e74f9539145894f4378.r8.cf3.rackcdn.com/e6b8880e-a330-11e5-b1a5-bc764e084e2e_4.3_thumb_169_1450187498_1450187498_129_97shar_c1.jpg

EU leaders are expected to decide further measures to reinforce  EU action against terrorism and discuss migration topics, the Five presidents' report on the Economic and Monetary Union, the completion of the single market and a forward-looking climate policy following a historic climate deal at the COP21 in Paris. The European Council also discusses the state of play on the referendum in the UK over EU membership and is expected to adopt conclusions on Syria.

Download this video here.

Good evening. Today, leaders discussed the handling of the migration crisis. All the elements of a strategy are there, but there is still a delivery deficit when it comes to hotspots, relocation, resettlement and returns. Above all, we are failing to protect our external borders. That is why leaders have decided to speed up on all these issues.

In my view, the most important discussion today was on the EU's external borders. Not only because I have been advocating external border control from the very beginning of this crisis, but also because without it we will fail as a political community. And by that I mean potentially more serious consequences than dismantling Schengen. Tonight, we can be a bit more optimistic, because all leaders have agreed to protect Schengen. In this context, we agreed to rapidly examine the European Commission's proposal of strengthening the EU's external borders, including the European Border Guard idea. Ministers should adopt their position by July, but the leaders' broad acceptance means that in the future Europe will not remain vulnerable because the Schengen border is insufficiently protected.

This evening I have also received good news from Frontex about an agreement with Greece on deploying a Rapid Border Intervention Team already in December. This is yet another indication that we have started to move in the right direction when it comes to the protection of the external border.

On the UK, we had a substantive and constructive discussion over dinner. I didn't want to sound too dramatic before the meeting but I do believe that tonight was a make-or-break moment. Prime Minister Cameron set out in detail his position, in particular regarding benefits and free movement. He explained his request for a model based on four years and reiterated the openness to alternative solutions only if they could achieve the same objective. Leaders voiced their concerns, but also demonstrated willingness to look for compromises. Building on this positive debate, we agreed to work together to find solutions in all four baskets raised by PM Cameron. Hard work on all baskets is still ahead of us. First, we will work closely with the UK and the Commission. And in the run-up to the February European Council, I will table a concrete text to all the leaders.

The European Council will reconvene tomorrow at 10 to discuss strengthening the Economic and Monetary Union and the Energy Union, as well as the fight against terrorism. Thank you

http://tvnewsroom.consilium.europa.eu/uploads/council-images/thumbs/uploads/council-images/remote/http_7e18a1c646f5450b9d6d-a75424f262e53e74f9539145894f4378.r8.cf3.rackcdn.com/e1f8a368-a4ec-11e5-bd9d-bc764e08d9b2_308.14_thumb_169_1450378061_1450378060_129_97shar_c1.jpg

EU leaders are expected to decide further measures to reinforce  EU action against terrorism and discuss migration topics, the Five presidents' report on the Economic and Monetary Union, the completion of the single market and a forward-looking climate policy following a historic climate deal at the COP21 in Paris. The European Council also discusses the state of play on the referendum in the UK over EU membership and is expected to adopt conclusions on Syria.

Download this video here.

The European Union welcomes the signature of the Libya Political Agreement, and pledges support to the upcoming Government of National Accord. 

A historic step has been taken today towards restoring peace and stability for the Libyan people. The signature of the Libya Political Agreement by representatives of the members of the House of Representatives and General National Congress, Independents, Municipalities, political parties and civil society paves the way to a peaceful solution to a terrible crisis that has divided, impoverished, and inflicted so much suffering on the Libyan people, and which poses a growing threat not just to Libya itself but also its neighbours, including the EU. 

The EU pledges its support to the upcoming Government of National Accord, and will no longer have official contacts with individuals claiming to be part of institutions which are not validated by the Libya political agreement. 

The EU stands ready to offer immediate and substantial support in a number of different areas that will be prioritised together with the Libyan authorities: a 100 million euro aid package is already available including for the delivery of services the Libyan population urgently needs. 

The EU underlines the Libyan ownership of this process and the importance of continuing to keep it open and inclusive. The responsibility lies with the Libyans for the successful implementation of the agreement and the EU, and the international community stand ready to support them in this endeavour. The EU expresses its gratitude to UNSMIL and the UNSGSR Martin Kobler for the dedication and skill they have shown in bringing Libyan parties together for this important step.