European Union

Let me start by thanking Prime Minister Cerar for his invitation, hospitality and for welcoming me in Bled. This place is one of the most beautiful in Europe and the world. Unfortunately, the reality is not as nice as this place.

My visit to Slovenia, and later to Croatia, is the first one after the summer break. But the challenges facing Europe take no holidays. First of all, we talked at length about the ongoing migration crisis. This is the most important issue for Europe today. The summer has confirmed that migration will remain a key issue for Europe in the years to come.

The European Union cannot and should not be blamed for the migration crisis, but we need to do more at European level to solve it. We have to alleviate the unbearable human suffering and tragedies that have become almost daily news stories in Europe now. In short, the European Union has to help provide solutions to the major problems facing European citizens and countries today.

And this is exactly what we are trying to do. In April I called an emergency summit on the migration crisis in the Mediterranean. In June, the European Council agreed a new policy for relocation, resettlement and return that is now being implemented. In October the European Council is meeting again. In November, I will chair the Malta Conference where European and African leaders will meet and try to find practical solutions to this shared problem. Likewise will there be a high-level conference on migration along the Western Balkans route. And only yesterday, the Luxembourg Presidency of the Council called an emergency meeting of Justice and Home Affairs ministers to assess the situation on the ground, discuss next steps - to strengthen the European response. This will include Frontex, the EU border agency, the European Asylum Support Office and more work on our return policy, international cooperation as well as investigation and measures to prevent trafficking of migrants. Today this may be the most urgent challenge. As we have witnessed both in Austria and in the Mediterranean, human trafficking and smuggling of migrants are not only a dirty business, it is in fact mass murder. And smugglers today are potential mass murderers. We must do everything we can to stop it.

So a lot of work is ongoing. But the truth is that this is a very complex problem and requires a complex set of actions. There are no quick-fixes. Had there been, they would have been used long time ago. The reasons for the unprecedented levels of migration are war, conflict, failing states and poverty. I have no doubt that in the short term, we need to concentrate our efforts on containing the inflow of migrants - obviously in a humane way respecting all legal obligations.

Today, the Prime Minister and I had a good exchange on what the European Union is already doing - in terms of assistance and migration - and how we can target our efforts even more. This is as much a problem in the South as in the Western Balkans.

Finally, we also discussed the situation in the Western Balkans. Slovenia's experience and knowledge of the region is of great value. The Prime Minister and I shared ideas how the European Union can and should help create more stability and prosperity. And we agree that enlargement should remain a strong priority for the EU. Thank you.

http://tvnewsroom.consilium.europa.eu/uploads/council-images/thumbs/uploads/council-images/remote/http_7e18a1c646f5450b9d6d-a75424f262e53e74f9539145894f4378.r8.cf3.rackcdn.com/39717ee2-4fc7-11e5-846f-bc764e08d9b2_1.28_thumb_169_1441015723_1441015722_129_97shar_c1.jpg

Donald TUSK, President of the European Council, visits Slovenia on 30 and 31 August 2015.

Download this video here.

General : A Greek government request for EP involvement in the regular review of the country’s third loan programme is to be discussed on Thursday at a meeting of the President and political group chairs. In the committees, members are to discuss migration and vote on the use of genetically modified food and on the next year’s EU budget. Parliament’s political groups also prepare for the plenary, including Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker's first State of the European Union speech and debate.

Source : © European Union, 2015 - EP

General : A Greek government request for EP involvement in the regular review of the country’s third loan programme is to be discussed on Thursday at a meeting of the President and political group chairs. In the committees, members are to discuss migration and vote on the use of genetically modified food and on the next year’s EU budget. Parliament’s political groups also prepare for the plenary, including Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker's first State of the European Union speech and debate.

Source : © European Union, 2015 - EP

This summer has been a dramatic one for China's stocks markets, with most indices registering losses of more than 40 % from their annual high. European markets have also suffered, and many observers across the globe are now nervously focused on the Asian giant whose economy drove so many other countries' in recent years. Yet the real economic significance of the drama in China may not stem from its bourses' losses; those who lost money on China's stock market are only a small percentage of its citizens, and many are simply shaving their precipitous profits, rather than facing calamitous losses. A more significant economic outcome may result from the Chinese government's efforts to intervene in its stocks markets. The measures adopted by Beijing since the sell-off began – in some cases, measures that were quickly abandoned – would be unthinkable in a fully market economy. Many measures largely contradict the government's commitments to open and transparent financial exchanges. As the liquidity that a slowing Chinese economy badly requires is frozen, it could be Beijing's heavy-handed involvement in local markets – and not their pared prices – that determines the economic fallout from the summer losses.
Source : © European Union, 2015 - EP

http://tvnewsroom.consilium.europa.eu/uploads/council-images/thumbs/uploads/council-images/remote/http_7e18a1c646f5450b9d6d-a75424f262e53e74f9539145894f4378.r8.cf3.rackcdn.com/39e8f740-4e66-11e5-8390-bc764e08d9b2_6.32_thumb_169_1440867710_1440864009_129_97shar_c1.jpg

The Ministerial Meeting on Cross-border cooperation against terrorism and rail security takes place on 29 August 2015, in Paris.

Download this video here.

Some of the media seem to be in a state of panic this week with the news that the number of foreign-born people living in Britain has reached 8 million, and net migration to the  UK has reached record levels.

So what’s the big deal here?

Not all those born abroad can be described as ‘foreigners’, contrary to the alarmist reports splashed in newspapers such as The Express, The Telegraph and the Daily Mail.

For example, London Mayor and Conservative MP, Boris Johnson, was born in the USA. Ashes winning cricketer, Ben Stokes, was born in New Zealand.

Actress Emma Watson was born in France. Mo Farrah, Olympic gold medallist for Britain, was born in Somalia. Actress Joanna Lumley was born in India. And the Queen’s husband, the Duke of Edinburgh, was born in Greece… to mention just a few.

In any case, why does it matter? Where we live is surely more important than where we’ve come from.

We have all arrived from a long ancestral journey that spanned the planet for tens of thousands of years. We are, actually, all descended from migrants.

But it’s not only the record number of foreign-born residents in Britain that has been targeted as ‘bad news’ by much of the media and many politicians this week. The word ‘migration’ now seems to have become toxic. So also presented as ‘bad news’ this week was the report that net migration to the country reached a new record high in the year to March 2014, with 330,000 more migrants coming to the UK than left.

This was reported as presenting a big headache for UK Prime Minister, David Cameron, because he had promised to bring down ‘net migration’ to tens of thousands from the current level of hundreds of thousands.

But why is migration here considered such a terrible thing? Instead, the record numbers of people wanting to come to Britain could be celebrated as a huge success story.

The fact is that most migrants come to Britain to work or study – and that’s primarily what they do. Most migrants who come to work in Britain are in gainful employment, making significant net contributions to our treasury and helping the British economy to thrive.

And those migrants coming here to study are contributing billions to the running costs of our colleges and universities – foreign revenue which those educational establishments very much need, and which the wider community also benefits from through extra spending by foreign students.

The reason so many migrants are currently coming here to work is because the British economy is doing so well compared to other European countries – resulting in many new vacancies being created which cannot simply be filled by those unfortunate to be registered as unemployed.

Benefit tourism? Where’s the evidence for that? The proportion of migrants claiming benefits is considerably lower than for British citizens. Three times the European Commission asked the British government for evidence of so-called ‘benefit tourism’ by EU migrants coming to work in the UK. Three times the British government failed to provide any.

And migration is not a one-way trip. Many British people also migrate to other countries mostly for the exact same reason that migrants mostly come here: to work. Britain is the biggest exporter of people to the rest of Europe, and the world’s third biggest exporter of people across the planet.

Isn’t it a bit odd that people in Britain should consider migration here to be such a bad thing, when British people make fuller use of ‘free movement of people’ across Europe than any other EU nationality?

And another thing: many migrants quoted as coming to Britain were actually British people returning home from living abroad. How many newspapers reported that?

The British government has pledged to reduce net migration to less than 100,000. Why? I cannot find any economic reasons for such a policy. And in the absence of an economic reason, what other reason could there be to want to reduce migration to the country? Could it simply be that the government has been responding to an irrational fear and dislike of foreigners?

Has anyone actually considered that reducing net migration to Britain to less than 100,000 might make the country – and all of us – poorer? Do we really want to deter workers and students coming to the UK who are making such a significant contribution to our economy?

Rather than continually trying and failing to stem the flow of natural and legal migration here in pursuit of jobs and studies, wouldn’t it be more cost effective for the government to invest considerably more in our infrastructure, such as homes, schools and hospitals? In that way, the residents of Great Britain – of whatever nationality – could be properly accommodated, allowing them to get on with what most of us want to do: work or study.

Other articles by Jon Danzig:

• Eurosceptic plan to stop Brits retiring to Spain
• Fact: Most migrants come to work or study
• The free movement of people: it works both ways

To receive regular updates on this and other ongoing stories, please click the ‘Like’ button on my new Facebook page: Jon Danzig Writes

_________________________________________________________

When I ask racists if they believe the descendants of immigrants should ‘go home’, they invariably reply, ‘Yes’. Watch the video to hear my withering response. (1 minute):

Click here to view the embedded video.

Media in panic because 8 million foreign-born live in Britain. So what? See my Facebook post: http://t.co/QfDdquebx5pic.twitter.com/suEOToSbFN

— Jon Danzig (@Jon_Danzig) August 28, 2015

Click here to view the embedded video.

The post Why is Britain so against migration? appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

Sunday 30 August 2015
Visit to Slovenia
16.00  Meeting with Prime Minister Miro Cerar
19.30  Working dinner hosted by Prime Minister Miro Cerar

Monday 31 August 2015
Visit to Slovenia
11.00  Meeting with Prime Minister Miro Cerar
11.45  Joint press conference
13.00  Meeting with President Borut Pahor followed by working lunch
16.00  Keynote address at the 2015 Bled Strategic Forum panel "Global Order: Confrontation or Partnership"

Tuesday 1 September 2015
Visit to Croatia
10.30  Meeting with President Kolinda Grabar-Kitarović
11.35  Joint press conference
12.10  Working lunch hosted by President Kolinda Grabar-Kitarović
14.00  Meeting with Prime Minister Zoran Milanović
15.15  Press statements

Wednesday 2 September 2015
12.00 Meeting with President of the European Commission Jean-Claude Juncker (Berlaymont)

Thursday 3 September 2015
09.00  Address at the annual EU Ambassadors' conference (Charlemagne building)
11.00  Meeting with Prime Minister of Hungary Viktor Orbán (photo opportunity)

The European Union very often likes to remind us that it is a community of values – solidarity, non-discrimination, human rights, and so on. This is all very well but, as Khrushchev once reminded Marxist enthusiasts in the Politburo, you cannot simply put theory into your soup. The question therefore is, what do these values mean in practice?

European citizenship is perhaps an area that raises eyebrows on all sides: it confuses eurocrats, while EU citizens merely understand its meaning beyond having the same coloured passport, or the right to vote in the European Elections, including in Member States they might be residing that are other than their own. Consular assistance to EU citizens is, however, one area that clearly deserves more publicity than it is given. Why? Well, numbers speak for themselves: according to the Commission, 90 million EU citizens travel annually outside the EU, of which 7 million travel or work in third countries where their Member State has no consulate or an embassy. Now, with a new Council Directive in place, this under-estimated but extremely important (and, it is safe to say, sensitive) area of European cooperation deserves a few words from an analyst who has been following its development now for a number of years.

Although consular cooperation in one form or another has been in existence since the Single European Act (1986), it was the Maastricht Treaty that explicitly stipulated that ‘every citizen of the Union shall, in the territory of a third country in which the Member State of which he or she is a national is not represented, be entitled to protection by the diplomatic or consular authorities of any Member State, on the same conditions as the nationals of that Member State’.

In 1995 the Council agreed on a Directive (95/553/EC) which included basic provisions on issues such as stolen passports, detention, victims of crime and repatriation. The Directive, however, was not ratified by Member States’ legislatures until after the September 11 Attacks in the US brought the security of EU citizens abroad high on the agenda.

The post-9/11 debate opened two big questions. Firstly, string of man-made and natural disasters (Asian Tsunami, Bali bombings, Mumbai bombings or the 2006 war in Lebanon) shifted a focus on cooperation to post-disaster response, such as immediate humanitarian relief and repatriation away from the disaster area.

With lack of coordination between Member States (for example, planes carrying aid South East Asia in the wake of the 2004 tsunami have been accused of flying back to the EU empty), the Civil Protection Mechanism within the European Commission’s Directorate General for Humanitarian Aid & Civil Protection (DG ECHO) was re-organised to provide support in case of consular emergencies. This included a monitoring centre, and the possible dispatching of EU-funded transport and medevac planes.

Secondly, from 2006 and, in particular, from the coming into effect of the Treaty of Lisbon, further debate emerged on the possibilities of shared or even EU consulates in EU delegations. When the European External Action Service (EEAS) was created, a Consular Crisis Unit was put together in order to create a monitoring centre and work on possible EU-level synergies.

True, EU delegations (also backed up by the EEAS’ inherited Consular Online communication system) have provided armoured buses to evacuate 100 EU citizens from Gaza in 2009, and in March 2011 the EU Delegation in Tripoli provided important assistance on the ground to Member States’ evacuation efforts, as well as the Civil Protection Mechanism’s sponsored flight.

However, the possibility of the EEAS and its Delegations abroad to receive any formals role in consular assistance remained wishful thinking. The fact of the matter was that (except for obvious legal challenges) the EEAS continuous to have neither the funding nor the expertise to provide such service. Delegations abroad continue to be the reflection of their former past in DG RELEX, and their staff work on technical projects, rather than being representatives as in the case of national embassies or consulates. Quite frankly, the setting up of fore-mentioned monitoring centre within the EEAS was a useless duplication that Catherine Ashton sought to unsuccessfully address through a merger with DG ECO structures.

Further, while Member States continue to wrestle with falling foreign ministry budgets, very few have been prepared to give up sovereignty over an area where the foreign ministries have direct access with the public. Nevertheless, through the period, and as was reflected in the lengthy negotiations over the new Directive, financing remained a big issue.

Bigger Member States, in particular, became increasingly afraid that they will bear much of the burden of ‘open access’ consular assistance. Some Member States, including the United Kingdom, refused to formally accept consular assistance as a ‘right’ of EU citizens (despite it being enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU), but merely an ‘entitlement’, stipulating neither the minimum nor maximum level of protection a Member State consulate is obliged to provide.

Not surprisingly, the new Directive reflects this pain-staking development. Firstly, the consultation was launched by the Commission in 2006 and a proposal to the Council and the European Parliament was only published in November 2011. The Directive was eventually concluded in April of 2015, and a long road of ratification in Member States is expected.

At the same time, the Directive sees a shift from the debates of the previous decade; speculations about the role of the EEAS and its network of Delegations have been put to rest. Enthusiasts of a truly European diplomatic and consular service (including the former French foreign minister and EU Commissioner Michel Barnier) will be disappointed to find a mere supporting role of the EEAS, including provisions for providing relevant information on their rights to EU citizens, and organising local consular cooperation.

The Civil Protection Mechanism has clearly been highlighted as an important tool to be used in crisis situations. However the Mechanism’s most important input is the financial reimbursement mechanism, which the Hungarian Presidency used in March 2011 to dispatch a plane to Tripoli. In practice, however, dispatching and coordination of transport or consular teams remains more practical on the Member State level, where a designated Lead State is responsible in particular third country, without the necessity to community back and forth with Brussels.

Finally, financing was solved two-fold. Firstly, an EU citizen cannot be charged for assistance by a consulate more than the citizens of the Member State assisting them. Secondly, if costs cannot be paid immediately, the Member State of his or her nationality will pay the costs incurred, but only once the citizen signs an undertaking to repay such costs to his or her Member State upon safe return.

The question then remains, was this low-profile Council Directive part of a long-term strategy or a vision, or did it symbolise a loss of interest in cooperation? In short, there is no loss of interest, but grand ideas are missing. Michel Barnier will clearly not see his vision of EU consulates fulfilled any time soon, nor will we necessarily see EU-hatted rescue teams appearing too often.

The Directive is, however, an important step in clearing up a technical mine field. The 95/553/EC Directive was vague and opened more questioned than it helped to answer. That the new Directive has 14 detailed pages, in comparison to 4, is a testament to this. They are not 14 pages of delightful bed-time reading that will stand proudly on one’s book shelf, but they are 14 pages of important details that help to pave a way towards a better organised cooperation in the next decade.

Grand visions might be buried for now, but a more practical framework has been created instead. Writing this piece in a day dominated by terrorist attacks in France, Tunisia, Kuwait and conflicts across the globe, providing better protection to EU citizens has never been more important. That this new Directive has not been given a fanfare is more a testament to the EU’s awful ability to communicate with the citizens, than its capacity to provide a better managed system to save and protect well-beings of those travelling further and farther.

It is a welcomed decision that deserves a better recognition but, nevertheless, a telling reflection of our ability to create a Europe serving its citizens and, perhaps, making people proud of their burgundy-coloured passports. Overall, a positive conclusion for a debut article!

Igor Merheim-Eyre

This piece was originally published in the Vocal International (July 7, 2015)

The post Consular Protection to EU citizens in third countries: A loss of interest? writes Igor Merheim-Eyre appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

General : Being an MEP involves more than just debating and voting on legislative proposals. They can be tasked with drawing up a report to represent the Parliament's position on a legislative proposal or any other matter. They can also act as group coordinators in a committee, follow the progress of a legislative report or be in charge of preparing an opinion on a proposal. Read on to find out more about the different responsibilities MEPs are able to take on in the European Parliament.

Source : © European Union, 2015 - EP

General : Being an MEP involves more than just debating and voting on legislative proposals. They can be tasked with drawing up a report to represent the Parliament's position on a legislative proposal or any other matter. They can also act as group coordinators in a committee, follow the progress of a legislative report or be in charge of preparing an opinion on a proposal. Read on to find out more about the different responsibilities MEPs are able to take on in the European Parliament.

Source : © European Union, 2015 - EP

The Week Ahead 31 August – 06 September 2015

Source : © European Union, 2015 - EP

Source : © European Union, 2015 - EP