European Union

For decades, the global human rights community has seen human rights as a matter of law, mostly international law. Economic, social and cultural rights, however, are meant to be progressively realized making use of all available resources. The violations approach and the work on their justiciability do not address the structural factors that constrain the enjoyment of these rights. Human rights are about policy and politics as much as about law. There is room for human rights advocacy outside and beyond the limits of the law.

Abstract of a chapter by Koldo Casla in Can human rights bring social justice?, book edited by Amnesty International Netherlands in the Changing Perspectives on Human Rights collection.

 

The post Dear fellow jurists, human rights are about politics, and that’s perfectly fine appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

Length of video : 183'
You may manually download this video in WMV (2Gb) format

Disclaimer : The interpretation of debates serves to facilitate communication and does not constitute an authentic record of proceedings. Only the original speech or the revised written translation is authentic.
Source : © European Union, 2015 - EP

Tax competition as such cannot be avoided, but today’s system has reached its limits and led to unwanted side effects. Small firms should not have to bear the tax burden of multinationals that pay very little. Action is needed to harmonise corporate tax practices across Europe, so as to make tax competition clearer and fairer. This was the key sentiment voiced at Tuesday’s meeting of the Special Committee on Tax Rulings with finance ministers from Luxembourg, Italy, France, Spain and Germany.
Special Committee on Tax Rulings and Other Measures Similar in Nature or Effect

Source : © European Union, 2015 - EP

Tax competition as such cannot be avoided, but today’s system has reached its limits and led to unwanted side effects. Small firms should not have to bear the tax burden of multinationals that pay very little. Action is needed to harmonise corporate tax practices across Europe, so as to make tax competition clearer and fairer. This was the key sentiment voiced at Tuesday’s meeting of the Special Committee on Tax Rulings with finance ministers from Luxembourg, Italy, France, Spain and Germany.
Special Committee on Tax Rulings and Other Measures Similar in Nature or Effect

Source : © European Union, 2015 - EP

Viktor Orban, Hungary's prime minister, during a visit to Brussels to discuss the crisis this month

When the European Commission this month unveiled its scheme to share out 120,000 refugees, on top of the 40,000 agreed in July, it added a new beneficiary country to the programme: Hungary. But unlike the other two targeted in the scheme as EU front-line countries, Greece and Italy, Hungary didn’t want to be included, despite being subject to a massive influx from its border with Serbia.

The dispute has become one of the primary reasons agreeing the scheme has taken so long. Originally, the plan said that 54,000 refugees would be sent from Hungary to other member states. The remaining 66,000 would come from Italy (16,000) and Greece (50,000).

Commission officials admitted Hungary’s inclusion was a bit of political jujitsu. For months, Hungary’s combative prime minister, Viktor Orban, argued his country was being overrun with people trying to enter Germany. The relocation scheme provided the opportunity for Budapest to offload 54,000, quiet Brussels’ loudest critic, and peel off Hungary from the hardening anti-relocation alliance of Visegrad countries.

The publicly-stated reason Orban doesn’t want to participate is a matter of principle: Budapest does not see itself as a front-line state. Nearly everyone arriving in Hungary has come through Greece first and Budapest argues that, if Greece was doing its job, Hungary would not be facing a problem. “The elephant in the room is Greece,” insists one top Hungarian official.

Read more

On Sunday, Alexis Tsipras, Greek Prime Minister and leader of the left-wing SYRIZA party, managed to achieve the inconceivable: time travel! After seven months in government, capital controls, a referendum, a failed negotiation with international creditors and a new memorandum, Alexis Tsipras’ party not only managed to get elected with a significant difference over its main rival, the centre-right New Democracy party, but will maintain a coalition with the Independent Greeks (ANEL), his former conservative coalition partner, just like on 25 January 2015. The balance of power may appear to have remained the same, however, does this mean that nothing has changed for Mr. Tsipras (and for us) in seven months?

What hasn’t changed – the overall political landscape:

1. Yesterday’s win can only be credited to Mr. Tsipras. The lack of concrete proposals on a series of critical reforms, did not put SYRIZA in pole position, however it was Tsipras’ charisma that managed to unite voters and convince them to give him, and not necessarily his party, a second chance. This new type of “cult of personality” is something to look out for in other European elections, such as Poland and Spain. Voters may turn to leaders such as Pablo Inglesias from Podemos to incarnate “a new vision” even if their parties do not put forward extremely innovative ideas.
2. Greeks don’t see their future outside the Eurozone, though hard times lie ahead. This is the reason why Popular Unity, a SYRIZA offshoot, which suggested an alternative to the euro, did not manage to score above the 3 per cent benchmark in order to enter the Parliament. The demise of anti-euro parties will put pressure on Mr. Tsipras to manage to maintain SYRIZA’s anti-systemic and anti-austerity rhetoric while conforming to his creditors’ requests. In the coming months, he will have to manage citizens’ disenchantment with the harsh measures prescribed in the new memorandum while going ahead and implementing measures he has actively disagreed with. The end of October will be particularly critical, as the first reform appraisal will take place. Greece is already behind on deadlines for passing reforms and some of the most contentious dossiers, such as the increase in VAT in islands, social security reform and the recapitalization of banks, have not taken place. Indeed, this will be the government’s big stress test both internally, with citizens and its coalition partners, and with its creditors.

What has changed – peoples’ belief in politics:

3. Greeks have become increasingly disenchanted over the very short electoral cycles Tsipras’ party may have won 35.5 per cent of votes, however, that result must be put into perspective. Only 43 per cent of Greeks went to vote in yesterday’s elections; that is a notable decrease from 64 per cent participation in the January 2015 elections. Through abstention, Greeks not only demonstrated their disagreement over the government’s decision to call for a general election for the second time in seven months but also their disbelief that elections would change Greece’s current situation. Going forward, low turnout may put pressure on Mr. Tsipras to work very hard to maintain stability in his Coalition, as Greeks indicated they are not in for another election in six months. However, similarly to Andreas Papandreou’s rise in the 1980s, Mr. Tsipras is also likely to ride the “charisma versus apathy” wave, making him a potential “long-term leader” in Greek politics for the next years.
4. SYRIZA’s “mainstreaming” opens a debate on the future of social-democratic parties in Europe. SYRIZA’s divide from Populist Unity managed to mainstream the party, yet maintaining an anti-systemic rhetoric; that enabled SYRIZA to gain more influence in the space traditionally covered by parties that identified themselves as social-democratic. However, even if he manages to unite the left, in a similar fashion to Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership of the Labour party in the UK, a significant number of moderate social-democrats remain unrepresented. Will they shift their support to centre-right parties, themselves often indulging into populism to gain votes from its conservative factions, or will new powers emerge? This remains to be seen.

What’s on for Europe?

5. Tsipras’ win may also impact the debate on the reform of the Eurozone. Over the past months, there have been increased discussions on the strengthening and development of mechanisms that would enable the Eurozone to get back on track for economic recovery and to prevent another crisis in the future. However, wouldn’t that reform be automatically put on the backburner, if more parties with anti-austerity rhetoric get elected in Europe? With one Member State being led by a party lacking credibility by its peers to deliver the necessary reforms in his country, the needed reforms on an Economic and Monetary Union scale seem to be wishful thinking at this point.

On Sunday, Mr. Tsipras proclaimed that “SYRIZA was die hard.” Excitement aside, both Mr. Tsipras and Mr. Kammenos, ought to move on fast from triumphant “die hard” to realistic “work hard”. If they don’t deliver on the reforms Greece may find itself in a difficult situation vis-à-vis its creditors and back into political turmoil with a new round of elections in the coming six months. In the words of John McClane, “Welcome to the party, pal!”

Ilektra Tsakalidou, with help from Claire Bravard and Martin Bresson

Goods or substances that may be misused for torture or execution should not be promoted for export, so as to prevent their spread, said the International Trade Committee, voting on Tuesday to strengthen EU “Anti-torture” rules. MEPs want to widen today’s EU ban to include services, e.g. marketing in expos or online catalogues, but also finance, transport and insurance. They also want to ban transit of prohibited goods via the EU and add a “catch-all” clause to allow checks on dubious new ones.
Committee on International Trade

Source : © European Union, 2015 - EP

Goods or substances that may be misused for torture or execution should not be promoted for export, so as to prevent their spread, said the International Trade Committee, voting on Tuesday to strengthen EU “Anti-torture” rules. MEPs want to widen today’s EU ban to include services, e.g. marketing in expos or online catalogues, but also finance, transport and insurance. They also want to ban transit of prohibited goods via the EU and add a “catch-all” clause to allow checks on dubious new ones.
Committee on International Trade

Source : © European Union, 2015 - EP

The summer holiday season is over and everyone are back at work. Many people have taken a plane to somewhere nice, sunny and warm or driven to a faraway destination or been on a road trip. Yet this leisure travel, which we take for granted has a negative impact the environment. I’m not saying that we shouldn’t go on holiday, but how many stop up and consider the environmental impact of our leisure travel! Although, airlines will ask us if we want to offset our carbon emission, it does not prevent us from flying, indeed paying a few euros to offset our emission has the same feel good effect as buying dark organic fair trade chocolate. This clearly begs the question of how to adopt more sustainable transport behavior.

From a sustainable mobility perspective it is important to make a distinction between transport needs and wants. Basic transport needs are defined as transport to work, education, health facilities and food shopping[i], by comparison transport wants are defined as leisure travel, which include going to the gym/sport, socialising and visiting family. Crucially holidays and weekend breaks, where people might choose to fly, are clearly a transport want not a transport need. The distinction between transport needs and wants is tied into the principle of free movement, which most of us take for granted, and which is central to any democratic state. Indeed free movement (goods, persons, services and capital) is integral to the EU.

Our daily transport pattern is determined by the distance between home and work/education, our working hours, the opening hours and location of children’s daycare/school and availability of public transport or road network. Here the structure of our lives influence our mobility patterns, as such we have limited agency over our daily mobility compared to our leisure travel, where we have more agency to choice how we would like to spend our time. The choices we make in terms of our leisure travel, i.e. transport wants, is just as important as our choice of how to meet our transport needs as leisure travel contribute negatively towards the environment.

During the summer, there are queues on the German autobahn and on the motorways in France as people choose their car as the main mode of transport for their summer holiday, this not only puts pressure on the infrastructure but also impact the environment negatively. During the summer charter flights take people to their holiday destinations although, some people choose a staycation to explore their own country.

Crucially, we decide how we want to spend our leisure time this agency is not available in our daily lives. Yet how many make decisions about where to go on holiday based on how much their holiday will impact the environment? Most holiday decisions are made based on affordability and personal interests e.g. beach versus active, city versus country versus sea holidays.

In August I took the train to Munich from Roskilde (town near Copenhagen). My decision to take the train for this leisure travel was influenced by three factors. Firstly, it was a question of which transport mode pollutes the least here the train had clear benefits[ii] (see figure below). Second it was a question of avoiding taking 2 days off work for travelling, although the train journey is 11 hours compared to 1 hour and 40 minutes by plane, there is no security checks and waste time in the airport instead you get on the train in the morning and start working. I chose comfort over speed. Third, the economic cost of travelling by train and plane were the same.  The option of driving was not part of my decision-making, and as the figure shows cars, and road vehicles in general, are the most polluting modes of transport. Significantly, road transport account for around 83 percent of all passenger transport in EU28. Thus, how can we change our travel behaviour and what are the politicians doing to encourage more environmental conscious transport behaviour?

 

One idea would be to introduce an individual carbon footprint, similar to the existing EU Emission Trading System. Whilst the introduction of individual carbon footprint would be an effective method to help people quantify their emission[iii], it is not an idea supported at the political level on the contrary restricting personal mobility contradicts the EU principles of free movements. Significantly, the past 30 years of liberalization of transport modes have encouraged more travel, especially cheap air travel, which has increased our personal agency in terms of leisure travel. Several EU member states are currently planning to invest in new high speed railways and new road networks to facilitate the increased demand for travel. Importantly, new infrastructure investment will give us more choice and encourage more travel. Yes, some national policies attempts to regulate transport behaviour through pricing, e.g. making public transport cheap. The theme for the annual EU mobility week (18-22 September 2015) is multimodality, which encourages people to think about their patterns of mobility and explore new means of travelling but does not integrate the environmental dimension.

Overall, policies seem to encourage and support increased level of mobility due to demand, these policies do not solve the environmental crisis. Thus, there is a need for alternative ideas about a future more sustainable transport paradigm to emerge and challenge the current paradigm, here personal agency is important not only for changing transport behaviour but also for making sure alternative ideas are put to the fore of the political debate.

[i] Holden, E., K. Linnderud and D. Banister (2013) ”Sustainable Passenger Transport: Back to Brundtland” Transportation Research Part A  volume 54, pp. 67-77

[ii] http://reiseauskunft.bahn.de/bin/query.exe/en?application=ECOLOGYINFO&start=1&dbkanal_007=L01_S01_D001_KIN0001_qf-umwelt_LZ003&S=M%FCnchen+Hbf&REQ0JourneyStopsSID=&Z=Hoeje+Taastrup+st&REQ0JourneyStopsZID=A%3D1%40O%3DHoeje+Taastrup+st%40X%3D12268801%40Y%3D55648621%40U%3D80%40L%3D008601031%40B%3D1%40p%3D1438767591%40&date=Mo%2C+10.08.15&time=09%3A00&timesel=depart&returnTimesel=depart&qf.mobil.button.umweltmobilcheck=1

[iii] For a discussion of individualisation of carbon offsetting see Paterson, M & j. Stripple (2010) “My Space: governing individuals’ carbon emissions” Environmental & Planning D: Society and Space vol 28, no 2 pp 341-362

The post Environmental impact of our leisure travel; a structure-agency perspective! appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

Length of video : 210'
You may manually download this video in WMV (1.9Gb) format

Disclaimer : The interpretation of debates serves to facilitate communication and does not constitute an authentic record of proceedings. Only the original speech or the revised written translation is authentic.
Source : © European Union, 2015 - EP

Parliament should not endorse spending by the European Council and the Council of the EU for 2013 because they have failed to provide the information and documents requested, the budgetary control committee said on Tuesday. Parliament has refused toclear the Council´s accounts every year since 2009.
Committee on Budgetary Control

Source : © European Union, 2015 - EP

Parliament should not endorse spending by the European Council and the Council of the EU for 2013 because they have failed to provide the information and documents requested, the budgetary control committee said on Tuesday. Parliament has refused toclear the Council´s accounts every year since 2009.
Committee on Budgetary Control

Source : © European Union, 2015 - EP