European Union

OPINION on the prevention of radicalisation and recruitment of European citizens by terrorist organisations
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Charles Tannock

Source : © European Union, 2015 - EP

OPINION on Private sector and development
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Sabine Lösing

Source : © European Union, 2015 - EP

OPINION on the recommendations to the European Commission on the negotiations for the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP)
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Francisco José Millán Mon

Source : © European Union, 2015 - EP

OPINION on the European Energy Security Strategy
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Arne Lietz

Source : © European Union, 2015 - EP

OPINION on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1215/2009 introducing exceptional trade measures for countries and territories participating in or linked to the European Union's Stabilisation and Association process and suspending its application with regard to Bosnia and Herzegovina
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Cristian Dan Preda

Source : © European Union, 2015 - EP

OPINION on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council providing macro-financial assistance to Ukraine
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Jacek Saryusz-Wolski

Source : © European Union, 2015 - EP

OPINION on discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2013, Section III – Commission and executive agencies
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Anneli Jäätteenmäki

Source : © European Union, 2015 - EP

OPINION on discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2013, Section X - European External Action Service
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Anneli Jäätteenmäki

Source : © European Union, 2015 - EP

OPINION on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU, EURATOM) No 966/2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Christian Ehler

Source : © European Union, 2015 - EP

OPINION on the proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion of the Doha Amendment to the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the joint fulfilment of commitments thereunder
Committee on Foreign Affairs


Source : © European Union, 2014 - EP

OPINION on discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2012, Section III – Commission and executive agencies
Committee on Foreign Affairs
María Muñiz De Urquiza

Source : © European Union, 2014 - EP

OPINION on Discharge 2012: general budget - European External Action Service
Committee on Foreign Affairs
María Muñiz De Urquiza

Source : © European Union, 2014 - EP

OPINION on the draft Council decision on the conclusion of a Framework Agreement on Comprehensive Partnership and Cooperation between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Indonesia, of the other part, as regards matters related to readmission
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Emilio Menéndez del Valle

Source : © European Union, 2014 - EP

OPINION on the proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Azerbaijan on the facilitation of the issuance of visas
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Anneli Jäätteenmäki

Source : © European Union, 2014 - EP

OPINION on the proposal for a Council decision concerning the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Azerbaijan on the readmission of persons residing without authorisation
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Anneli Jäätteenmäki

Source : © European Union, 2014 - EP

The new Circular Economy package includes no fewer than 54 legislative and non-legislative actions to be completed in the next years with a view to “close the loop” of product lifecycles and bring benefits for both the environment and the economy. To help you understand how the actions interact and their impact on business, we have mapped all of them for you.

Time will tell us whether the EU can actually deliver on Circular Economy and beyond, on Better Regulation. Let’s not forget indeed that this package is one of the most striking examples of the Commission’s efforts to make its services work together and turn the Better Regulation agenda into reality.

Circular Economy Timeline

Are higher recycling targets more ambitious?

 The Circular Economy package’s legislative proposals mainly focus on reducing waste and establishing targets. Whilst the Action Plan has been generally positively welcomed by different groups, the lowering of some of the waste reduction, reuse and recycling  targets – compared to the 2014 withdrawn proposal – has already been criticized by some as being “not ambitious”. And indeed, what better way for the EU to show strong commitment towards reducing and recycling waste than higher targets?

Things may however be slightly more complex. Taking into account the significant differences that exist between Member States, one could also question whether setting higher targets would be realistic and, perhaps more importantly, the most effective way to actually reduce waste and improve waste management in Europe. With its new package, the Commission seems to have followed the latter reasoning. First, the waste proposals show that ambition can be served by more than higher targets. Improving EPR schemes and acknowledging that a few Member States may need more time to deliver are just a few examples. Second, it is not only about waste as most proposed actions support a long-term strategy that addresses the full product cycle.

Does it close the loop?

Whereas the previous Circular Economy proposal from 2014 was criticized for being too much “waste-focused”, ultimately leading to its withdrawal, the Commission has clearly taken a more holistic approach by working across a number of different policy areas. The Action Plan for the Circular Economy establishes a novel programme with measures covering the whole cycle: from production and consumption to waste management. No fewer than 54 legislative and non-legislative actions are foreseen to be completed in the next years with a view to “close the loop” of product lifecycles and bring benefits for both the environment and the economy.

On paper then, the Commission has delivered. Will these actions ever come to reality and more importantly will they contribute to building a new socio-economic model everyone seems to be calling for? Time will tell us whether the Commission will keep the same momentum and circular economy is more than another buzz word in the EU bubble.

First hints from the Parliament and the Council

As codecision is about to start on the waste proposals, the European Parliament and the Council already gave us a taste of how discussions could look like. In the Parliament, it looks like the EPP and the S&D will be able to work together. While we should of course expect disagreements of several specific points, both groups have stated that the package constitutes a good starting point.  The Greens however, and some voices in the ALDE group, have unsurprisingly expressed more disappointment. Meanwhile in the Council, Member States have welcomed the package. When reacting to Commissioner Vella’s presentation though, criticism appeared. The UK raised concerns about not only the role and ambition-level of the targets, but also over the differentiated targets. Sweden, on the other hand, questioned the ambitiousness of the package and stated that Substances of Very High Concern need to be phased-out and called for a landfill ban. Italy responded in a more technical manner and asked for clarification on the definition of waste and the methods for calculating urban waste and recycling targets.

 What’s next?

The ambitious programme of actions will now have to be executed in the next few years. The annex to the action plan sets out a timeline showing when we can expect the Commission to get started on each action. Clearly, timing is not as precise as it could (should) be. One thing is very clear though: 2016 is a critical milestone for Circular Economy. It is next year that a significant amount of the activities will be kicked off, covering all stages of the product lifecycle as well as various sectorial actions.

By Lara Visser, Pauline Tawil and Malte Helligsoe

Why don’t they want Belgian chocolates? Or Italian spaghetti?

Europe’s frustration is mounting over its slow, difficult trade negotiations with Japan. The 15th round of talks is coming in February next year, and Europe is hungry for signs that it is worth carrying on.

In October, Japan joined the US and 10 other nations in sealing the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which covers 40 per cent of the global economy. But there is little sign of that momentum carrying over into a quick deal with Europe.

Mauro Petriccione, Brussels’ chief negotiator with Japan, warned on Thursday that enthusiasm for an accord with the world’s third biggest economy could wane if the deal is not finalised next year.

“If we don’t make it in 2016, we’ll have to explain why, and we cannot exclude a resurgence of the scepticism towards the possibility of a new Japan-EU [free trade agreement] that we had before we started,” he told reporters. “It took us a long time to persuade sceptics that it was worth trying this. If they see that we don’t succeed in 2016, they will start asking themselves questions again.”

Read more

Britain's David Cameron addresses the press on his way into the EU summit on Thursday evening

David Cameron is in a hole. His flagship policy to curb EU migration – a four-year ban on benefits for migrant workers – looks doomed. When it was announced more than a year ago, Cameron was told it violated a fundamental EU principle of non-discrimination. If the EU stands for anything, it is ensuring EU workers don’t pay a higher effective tax rate on the basis of their passport.

This was flagged up by British officials at the time. Cameron nevertheless ploughed on. While Downing Street were drafting the Conservative party election manifesto, aides suggested leaving out the four-year idea. He ploughed on. When Mr Cameron preparing a letter to other EU leaders on his reform demands, he was told by Whitehall and Brussels the four-year ban was all but impossible and should be dropped. He ploughed on.

The final reckoning may come this evening. Cameron makes a make-or-break pitch for the idea. Having spent far too long trying to understand how the problem will be fixed, it may also be my last opportunity to inflict a benefit reform listicle on Brussels Blog readers.

So while there is still time: behold the nine ways Cameron’s four-year benefits saga may end.

Read more