European Union

Source : © European Union, 2019 - EP

Source : © European Union, 2019 - EP

The dates will be confirmed after the elections to the European Parliament in May 2019.

Source : © European Union, 2019 - EP

Since 2016, the European Union has developed a number of new initiatives on security and defence. In particular, the introduction of Permanent Structured Cooperation and the European Defence Fund have been designed to allow the EU to become a more autonomous actor with regard to crisis management, capacity building and protecting Europe and its citizens. Yet the development of these new initiatives raises questions about
their overall coherence and the role of parliamentary scrutiny. It is necessary to analyse the role of the European Parliament and national parliaments in relation to the scrutiny of the European Defence Fund. There is a need for recommendations on how parliamentary scrutiny can be enhanced at the EU level in the area of security and defence.
Further information
Full study
Source : © European Union, 2019 - EP

On Tuesday 9 April, Brussels will host the 21st EU-China summit. This time around, the underlying tone of the meetings may be slightly different than before, following the recent “Strategic Vision” submitted by the Commission to the Council.

In its relations with the People’s Republic of China the EU is said to be unable to speak with one voice. It’s true that the recent decision of the Italian government to officially join the Belt and Road Initiative, or the eagerness with which several Central and Eastern European member-states have embraced China’s offer in an association known as the ‘16+1’, do not exactly point in the direction of a joint European position.

This makes the ‘strategic vision’ published by the Commission on 12 March all the more interesting. The document has been widely commented upon, which is no surprise, given that it clearly takes no precautions to avoid hurting Chinese sensitivities. Identifying the PRC as a ‘systemic rival’ and openly reminding the extent to which its commitment to multilateralism is very ‘selective’ comes close to a ‘Copernican Revolution’ in attitude and tone, as François Godemont put it in a recent post.

The rather dense document of eleven pages seems to spell the end of a certain European naïveté in its dealings with a major power that is simultaneously referred to as ‘cooperation partner’ and ‘economic competitor’. It lists a whole series of usual demands, for more reciprocity and fair-play, which at last should ‘demonstrate China’s commitment to a mutually beneficial economic relationship’. A sentence that certainly sounds almost aggressive to Chinese ears.

Where does this spectacular turnaround come from? Tracing back the origin of some wordings in the Commission’s paper, we are tempted to link this change of strategy to a change of awareness and, consequently, doctrine in Germany.

To put it bluntly, Germany is scared.

Scared to lose its position as major global industrial player, to be overtaken in tomorrow’s most important economic sectors, and to lose its prosperity on the way.

A policy paper published in January by the German Industrial Federation (BDI), bears the very term ‘systemic competitor’ already in its title. Asking ‘How Do We Deal with China’s State-Controlled Economy?’, the entire 23-page document is a call to Europe, punctuated by a list of 54 demands and propositions, to formulate a genuine European industrial policy in face of a ‘partner’ that is increasingly depicted as an ‘adversary’.

As early as February, this policy paper was followed by the publication of ‘Strategic guidelines for a German and European industrial policy’ for 2030 by the Federal Ministry of Economics headed by Peter Altmaier. This text, too, is very explicit about the efficiency of the PRC’s ‘Made in China 2025’ agenda and the threat it poses to ‘the industrial and technological sovereignty of our economy’. And it breaks with the traditional liberal doctrine by calling for massive public interventions in protecting German and European economic interests against China’s state capitalism. It also makes it clear that ‘German industrial policy must always be European industrial policy’, and that ‘the European Union needs a Council of Industrial Ministers’ in the near future.

All this is rather new and might be interpreted as a “Mitterrand U-turn Moment”, though in reversal, and coming from Berlin. Nonetheless, it is perfectly in line with what leading voices in Germany have been requesting for some years now, especially after the purchase of the robotics firm Kuka by the Chinese company Midea in 2016. Economic leaders like Jörg Wuttke, for instance, the former president of the European Chamber of Commerce in Beijing, have repeatedly asked for a change in attitude among German policy-makers (see here or here). The same can be said about a new generation of researchers on contemporary China, who, according to a recent article by the GPPI’s Thorsten Benner, cast an increasingly critical and disillusioned eye on Xi Jinping’s neo-Maoist China rather than apply old perspectives of exotism and exceptionalism.

It is possible that Germany has been cradled until a few years ago in the certainty of systemic superiority, like in the good old times of the Cold War when « Wandel durch Annäherung » – change through rapprochement – was based on the firm conviction that its Social Market Economy, anchored in a liberal, pluralistic democracy, would simply win in the long run.

Not any more.

There seems to be a growing awareness in Germany today that what worked with its small Eastern German neighbours, will not be successful with the huge Chinese steamroller. Quite the contrary: it seems to be dawning on German policy-makers that in this new systemic competition, China might be the winner, by its sheer force and the ruthlessness of its governance. As Peter Altmaier has it in the above-mentioned paper: “this would have dramatic consequences for our way of life”.

Visibly inspired by a change of mind in Berlin, the new ‘strategic vision’ from Brussels suggests that, more than ever, the German political class, across the ‘Grand Coalition’, sees the European Union as an indispensable multiplier of its own power resources on the global stage. In a world of increased great power competition and big data, scale is again paramount. Germany cannot make it alone, it needs the full weight of Europe behind.

It also shows that in the quest for a ‘Europe that protects’, especially against external threats to its free-market model, the Merkel government is more aligned with Emmanuel Macron’s vision than it used to be (the words ‘protect’ or ‘protection’ appear thirteen times in the French president’s recent letter to all European citizens).

In this perspective, the unprecedented staging of Xi Jinping’s recent state visit to Paris, to which Angela Merkel and Jean-Claude Juncker were invited, definitely makes sense. And so does the new Treaty of Aachen (officially ‘Treaty on Franco-German Cooperation and Integration’) signed in January, and which may well turn out to be a new joint leadership impetus rather than a ‘weak’ and ‘exclusive’ symbol as some commentators wanted to have it).

It remains more than doubtful whether Germany and France will be able to get a significant majority of other member-states on board in their new China strategy. But while the UK is absorbed in its self-mutilation and the Italian government overbids itself in provocations for reasons of internal power struggles, the Franco-German tandem at least offers a tentative road map.

Having said that, Franco-German impetus is indispensable, but certainly not sufficient. If a European industrial policy is to work, it needs to be inclusive. The centres of decision making of the future European champions and innovation hubs cannot only be concentrated in Paris, Berlin, Stuttgart and Munich. The European “G2” needs to work with other key partners in the north and the south, starting with The Netherlands and Spain, and make sure it remains open to other countries who want to join in this more strategic endeavour. If it fails to be convincing, many will be tempted to abandon the EU core and drift towards Beijing and/or Washington.

Albrecht Sonntag is Professor at ESSCA School of Management
and Miguel Otero-Iglesias is Senior Analyst at Elcano Royal Institute

The post EU-China: the origin and future path of the new doctrine appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

All the past British Prime Ministers since 1957 wanted Britain to be a member of the European Community. Could they all have been wrong?

In the past 62 years, there’s only one Prime Minister who wants us to turn our back on Europe – the current incumbent, Theresa May.

(However, before she became Prime Minister, she told the nation that it was in Britain’s best interests to remain in the EU.)

Britain is now throwing away the combined wisdom of ten consecutive past Prime Ministers, all of whom wanted Britain to be in the European Community.

• PRIME MINISTER HAROLD MACMILLAN – CONSERVATIVE, 1957 to 1963

In 1961, Harold Macmillan applied for Britain to join the European Economic Community, just four years after it was formed with the signing of the Treaty of Rome by six other European countries.

Mr Macmillan explained to the nation:

“By negotiating for British membership of the European Economic Community and its Common Market, the present Conservative Government has taken what is perhaps the most fateful and forward looking policy decision in our peacetime history.

“We did not do so lightly. It was only after a searching study of all the facts that we came to accept this as the right and proper course.”

He added:

“By joining this vigorous and expanding community and becoming one of its leading members, as I am convinced we would, this country would not only gain a new stature in Europe, but also increase its standing and influence in the councils of the world.”

• PRIME MINISTER SIR ALEC DOUGLAS-HOME – CONSERVATIVE, 1963 to 1964

Mr Macmillan’s successor, Sir Alec Douglas-Home, was briefly prime minister for one year from 1964. He supported Britain’s application to join the European Community. Sir Alec said:

“I have never made it a secret that I cannot see an alternative which would offer as good a prospect for this country as joining the EEC [European Community].”

As Foreign Secretary in Edward Heath’s government, Sir Alec said:

“I, too, have concluded through the years that membership of the Community would be advantageous to Britain.

“I almost add ‘necessary for Britain’, because I am acutely conscious that there are two questions which have to be asked : not only whether we should go in, but what is the prospect for Britain if we stay out.

“Those two questions have to be asked because, whether we are in or out, the Community goes on.”

• PRIME MINISTER EDWARD HEATH – CONSERVATIVE, 1970 to 1974

It was Conservative Prime Minister, Edward Heath, who joined Britain to the European Community following the backing of Parliament after 300 hours of debate.

On the evening of 28 October 1971, Mr Heath addressed the House of Commons during the momentous debate on Britain joining the European Community. He said:

“Surely we must consider the consequences of staying out. We cannot delude ourselves that an early chance would be given us to take the decision again.

“We should be denying ourselves and succeeding generations the opportunities which are available to us in so many spheres; opportunities which we ourselves in this country have to seize”

Mr Heath added:

“..tonight when this House endorses this Motion many millions of people right across the world will rejoice that we have taken our rightful place in a truly United Europe.”

Parliament did endorse the Motion, and Britain subsequently joined the European Economic Community on 1 January 1973.

Mr Heath explained to the nation just before we joined:

“The community which we are joining is far more than a common market. It is a community in the true sense of that term.

“It is concerned not only with the establishment of free trade, economic and monetary union and other major economic issues, important though these are — but also as the Paris Summit Meeting has demonstrated, with social issues which affect us all — environmental questions, working conditions in industry, consumer protection, aid to development areas and vocational training.”

• PRIME MINISTER HAROLD WILSON – LABOUR, 1964 to 1970 and 1974 to 1976

In 1975, just two years after Britain joined the European Community (also then called ‘the Common Market’), Prime Minister Harold Wilson offered the nation a referendum on whether to remain a member.

In that referendum, Mr Wilson endorsed the ‘Yes’ vote which won by a landslide – by 67% to 33%.

Before the referendum, Mr Wilson told the House of Commons on 7 April 1975:

“My judgment, on an assessment of all that has been achieved and all that has changed, is that to remain in the Community is best for Britain, for Europe, for the Commonwealth, for the Third World and the wider world.”

During the referendum campaign, he said that he was recommending continued membership in “strong terms”.

He said that it would be “easier and more helpful” to solve Britain’s economic problems “if we are in the Market than if we were to be out of the Market.”

In recommending continued membership, Mr Wilson’s government sent a pamphlet to every household explaining the primary aims of the Common Market:

• To bring together the peoples of Europe.

• To raise living standards and improve working conditions.

• To promote growth and boost world trade.

• To help the poorest regions of Europe and the rest of the world.

• To help maintain peace and freedom.

• PRIME MINISTER JAMES CALLAGHAN – LABOUR, 1976 to 1979

As Foreign Secretary during the first referendum on Europe in 1975, James Callaghan supported the ‘Yes’ vote for Britain’s continued membership of the European Community, having led the negotiations for Britain’s new terms of membership.

He said, “Britain is in, we should stay in” and he also said, “The Government asks you to vote ‘Yes’, clearly and unmistakeably.”

Although critical of the European Community’s “nonsense” agricultural policy, Mr Callaghan as Prime Minister supported continued membership. For his party’s 1979 manifesto he wrote:

“We are ready and willing to work with our European partners in closer unity.”

The manifesto called for Greece, Portugal, and Spain to “receive an early welcome into the Community” and for reforms to the European Community’s Common Agricultural Policy.

• PRIME MINISTER MARGARET THATCHER – CONSERVATIVE, 1979 to 1990

During the referendum campaign of 1975, the Conservative leader, Margaret Thatcher, strongly campaigned for Britain to remain a member of the European Community.

In a keynote speech at the time she said:

“It is not surprising that I, as Leader of the Conservative Party, should wish to give my wholehearted support to this campaign, for the Conservative Party has been pursuing the European vision almost as long as we have existed as a Party.”

During her tenure as Prime Minister, Mrs Thatcher is credited with pushing for, and making possible, the Single Market of Europe.

In September 1988 Mrs Thatcher gave a major speech about the future of Europe. She said:

“Britain does not dream of some cosy, isolated existence on the fringes of the European Community. Our destiny is in Europe, as part of the Community.”

She added:

“Let Europe be a family of nations, understanding each other better, appreciating each other more, doing more together but relishing our national identity no less than our common European endeavour.”

Crucially she said in support of the Single Market:

“By getting rid of barriers, by making it possible for companies to operate on a European scale, we can best compete with the United States, Japan and other new economic powers emerging in Asia and elsewhere.”

• PRIME MINISTER JOHN MAJOR – CONSERVATIVE, 1990 to 1997

It was Conservative Prime Minister, John Major, who negotiated and won Parliament’s backing to sign the Maastricht Treaty, that among other benefits gave us EU Citizenship rights allowing us to reside, work, study or retire across a huge expanse of our continent.

At the Tory Party Conference of 1992, just six months after John Major won a surprise victory in the General Election, he said to the party faithful:

“I speak as one who believes Britain’s future lies with Europe.”

And Mr Major warned about Britain walking away from Europe:

“We would be breaking Britain’s future influence in Europe. We would be ending for ever our hopes of building the kind of Europe that we want.

“And we would be doing that, just when across Europe the argument is coming our way. We would be leaving European policy to the French and the Germans.

“That is not a policy for Great Britain. It would be an historic mistake. And not one your Government is going to make.”

He added,

“Let us not forget why we joined the Community. It has given us jobs. New markets. New horizons. Nearly 60 per cent of our trade is now with our partners. It is the single most important factor in attracting a tide of Japanese and American investment to our shores, providing jobs for our people..

“But the most far-reaching, the most profound reason for working together in Europe I leave till last. It is peace. The peace and stability of a continent, ravaged by total war twice in this century.”

• PRIME MINISTER TONY BLAIR – LABOUR, 1997 to 2007

Tony Blair, Labour’s longest-serving Prime Minister and, so far, the longest-serving Prime Minister of this century, was and still is a natural pro-European.

Mr Blair was recently described by Andrew Adonis, his former policy chief, as:

“The most instinctively pro-European prime minister since Edward Heath.”

In his memoirs, Mr Blair wrote:

“I regarded anti-European feeling as hopelessly, absurdly out of date and unrealistic.”

Mr Blair’s first manifesto, just before coming to power in 1997, promised that:

‘We will give Britain the leadership in Europe which Britain and Europe need.’

In a keynote speech to the European Parliament in 2005, Mr Blair said:

“I am a passionate pro-European. I always have been. My first vote was in 1975 in the British referendum on membership and I voted yes.”

He added that the European Union is:

“a union of values, of solidarity between nations and people, of not just a common market in which we trade but a common political space in which we live as citizens. It always will be.”

He continued:

“I believe in Europe as a political project. I believe in Europe with a strong and caring social dimension. I would never accept a Europe that was simply an economic market.”

Mr Blair concluded:

“The broad sweep of history is on the side of the EU. Countries round the world are coming together because in collective cooperation they increase individual strength.”

• PRIME MINISTER GORDON BROWN – LABOUR, 2007 to 2010

Gordon Brown was the first Prime Minister from a Scottish constituency since the Conservative’s Sir Alec Douglas-Home in 1964. He came into power just as the world was going into economic meltdown.

But he saw the European Union as being uniquely placed to “lead the world through global crisis.”

In a speech to the European Parliament in 2009, Mr Brown said:

“Today we enjoy a Europe of peace and unity which will truly rank among the finest of human achievements and which is today a beacon of hope for the whole world.”

He was proud to say that Britain today was a country “not in Europe’s slipstream but firmly in its mainstream”.

Europe was uniquely placed to lead the world in meeting the challenges of globalisation precisely because it had achieved:

• “the greatest and biggest single market in the world”,

• “the most comprehensive framework of environmental protection”,

• “the world’s biggest programme of aid” and

• “the most comprehensive social protection anywhere in the world”.

• PRIME MINISTER DAVID CAMERON – CONSERVATIVE, 2010 TO 2016

David Cameron was the only leader of a main political party to call for a second referendum on Britain’s membership of the European Community.

During the subsequent 2016 referendum campaign, he urged the country to vote to ‘Remain’ in the EU, which was his government’s official position.

In a keynote speech just days before the vote, Mr Cameron told the country:

“I feel so strongly that Britain should remain in Europe. Above all, it’s about our economy. It will be stronger if we stay. It will be weaker if we leave.”

He added:

“Britain is better off inside the EU than out on our own. At the heart of that is the Single Market – 500 million customers on our doorstep…a source of so many jobs, so much trade, and such a wealth of opportunity for our young people.

“Leaving the EU would put all of that at risk.

“Expert after expert – independent advisers, people whose job it is to warn Prime Ministers – have said it would shrink our economy.”

He concluded:

“I believe, very deeply, from my years of experience, that we’ll be stronger, we’ll be safer, we’ll be better off inside Europe. To put it as clearly as I can: our economic security is paramount.

“It is stronger if we stay. If we leave, we put it at risk.”

 ALL OF THESE 10 PRIME MINISTERS had good points and bad points, and policies that not everyone agreed with.

But during their premierships, they all without exception unanimously supported our membership of the European Community as being in Britain’s best interests.

Could they all have been wrong? Please think about it.

Just one Prime Minister (Theresa May), out of Britain’s eleven Prime Ministers of the past 62 years, wants us out of Europe, when all the other Prime Ministers wanted us in. * Before Harold Macmillan, Sir Anthony Eden was Conservative Prime Minister from 1955 until he resigned on 9 January 1957. He was a Eurosceptic who made the momentous decision for the UK not to be a founder member of the European Economic Community, when six other European countries signed the Treaty of Rome, just two months after Sir Anthony left office. * Before Sir Anthony Eden, Sir Winston Churchill was the Conservative Prime Minister from 1951 to 1955. In the immediate post-war years, he strongly promoted ‘a union of Europe as a whole’ and a ‘United States of Europe’ but he did not envisage at that time Britain joining such a union. There is compelling evidence, however, that Churchill – who is recognised as one of the 11 founders of the European Union – changed his mind in the late 1950s. Please see my separate report ‘Winston Churchill: A founder of the European Union’

• My campaign, Reasons2Remain, is three years old. 2-minute video:

• Follow my journalism page on Facebook: Jon Danzig writes
• Follow my Stop Brexit campaign on Facebook: Reasons2Remain

________________________________________________________

• Join and share the discussion about this article on Facebook:

 

The post Brexit means destroying the pro-Europe legacy of all past Prime Ministers since 1957 appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

All European Final of the European Moot Court Competition takes place at the Court of Justice of the European Union in Luxembourg on 5 April

Verkehrsbetrieb Hüttebräucker and BVR Busverkehr Rheinland
Transport

Germanwings
Transport
An air carrier is only required to compensate passengers for a delay of three hours or more where an aircraft tyre is damaged by a screw lying on the runway if it fails to prove that it deployed all means at its disposal for limiting the delay of the flight

Plenary and committee meetings, Brussels

Source : © European Union, 2019 - EP

xitIn a moment when so much is changing so fast, it’s hard to know where to begin in trying to make sense of it all. From the upheaval of Parliamentary procedure to the sudden reaching-across-the-aisle by Theresa May, even that which was unthinkable seems to be both thinkable and actually happening.

With that in mind, perhaps the more useful approach is to consider some of the underlying dynamics at work here.

In particular, the moves towards finding a decision in the UK represents a partial confronting of the ambiguities that have existed in and around Brexit from the very beginning.

During the referendum, both sides built up very broad coalitions of activists and supporters. Because of the nature of such a vote, where every single vote counts equally and where there is necessarily going to be one winner, there was a very strong incentive to say whatever it took to secure those votes.

To be more precise, the incentive was to communicate different messages to different voter groups, to secure their support. You’re concerned about immigration? Then voting for us will address that. You’re losing sleep over what they’re doing to our Great British bananas? Sign up here.

There is no judgement about the validity of the different concerns, because what matters at that stage is the vote itself.

And the reason for that is that it is the result of the referendum that matters to political operators: they take it and use it to further their assorted projects and programmes. You’ll recall that the second half of 2016 was a time of many different people telling you “what the referendum really meant was…”.

That sets up the present blockage.

Everyone was able to feel that the referendum was fought on the terms they were interested in, because at the time they could find activists who would be willing to talk in such terms, but now most people discover that the terms are now being set by others.

To take the most obvious example, few people (especially outside Northern Ireland) made their choice in 2016 on the basis of the potential disruption to the Good Friday Agreement and the implications it might have for the territorial integrity of the UK. But now the backstop is front-and-centre in the debate. Likewise, hardly anyone bothered themselves with how customs unions work and what implications they might have, but apparently this is now a resigning matter.

One of the most crucial insights that we can have into politics is that what we talk about matters at least as much as how we talk about it. If you control the agenda, then you have already won half the argument, because you have chosen the points of reference and the language we use.

All of which is to say that this current phase of the British debate was always going to occur. At some point, someone’s conceptualisation of “what Brexit means” had to come to dominate, at which point the disillusion would set in much harder among those whose conceptualisations didn’t succeed.

The problem has been that the collapse of the ambiguity has come very late and with great difficulty.

Parliament still contains many different visions of Brexit, with their proponents all convinced that they can win the day: when everyone around you looks weak and damaged, where is the incentive to compromise or to give ground?

All of this is reflected in the numerous votes of the past weeks: even the process for reaching a decision is confused and uncertain, long before actually winning out in those processes.

I won’t even try to guess what might be the outcome of it all, but I would be happy to suggest already now that whatever decision is reached, the further collapse of the multiplicity of interpretations and framings of Brexit will drive more discontent in the short-term. Whether those who succeed in securing their vision are able to build longer-term buy-in to that, and so create an increased likelihood that it will endure, remains very much to be seen.

The post Collapsing the ambiguities appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

La creación de una Guardia Europea de Fronteras y Costas (GEFC) y la propuesta de transformar la Oficina Europea de Apoyo al Asilo (Easo) en una Agencia Europea de Asilo (AEA) en 2016 responde a la necesidad de garantizar la implementación de las medidas adoptadas por la Unión Europea (UE) en el Espacio de Libertad Seguridad y Justicia (ELSJ). Tras la “crisis de los refugiados” tanto la GEFC como la AEA están llamadas a asistir sobre el terreno a aquellas autoridades nacionales sujetas a presiones extraordinarias en sus sistemas de registro, recepción y asilo, así como a garantizar respectivamente el espacio Schengen y el Sistema Europeo Común de Asilo. Si bien los nuevos nombres con los que se ha bautizado a las anteriormente conocidas como Frontex y Easo parece sugerir que la UE cuenta ya con un verdadero Cuerpo Europeo de Guardias de Fronteras y Asilo, debe señalarse que los nuevos reglamentos de estas agencias se limitan a reforzar las tareas operativas que les fueron inicialmente delegadas.

Ahora bien, la constante expansión de los poderes operativos de la GEFC y la AEA pone de manifiesto una tendencia en el ELSJ por la que la ejecución de las medidas adoptadas por la UE deja de ser una competencia exclusiva de los Estados miembros para gradualmente devenir en una competencia compartida. El desarrollo de funciones de implementación por parte de la GEFC y la AEA plantea un importante desafío: el impacto directo de las tareas operativas de estas agencias europeas en los derechos fundamentales de los nacionales de terceros países a los que asisten. Así, los reglamentos de la GEFC y la AEA incluyen un mecanismo administrativo de denuncia que faculta a los individuos a plantear una queja ante la propia agencia si consideran que alguna de sus actividades ha conculcado sus derechos fundamentales. Este mecanismo está llamado a fomentar una responsabilidad más integral de la GEFC y la AEA pues cualquier persona afectada por las acciones del personal que participa en una operación y que considere que debido a estas actividades se han vulnerado sus derechos fundamentales, así como cualquier parte que represente a dicha persona puede presentar una queja contra las agencias.

El novedoso mecanismo de quejas de la GEFC y la AEA se basa en los arts. 41 y 47 de la Carta de Derechos Fundamentales de la UE. El art. 41.3 declara que todo particular ha de ver reparados los daños que la UE, instituciones o agentes le hayan ocasionado en el ejercicio de sus funciones. El art. 47 establece que toda persona tiene derecho a la tutela judicial efectiva. Asimismo, los arts. 263 y 340 del Tratado de Funcionamiento de la UE habilitan a los particulares a presentar un recurso ante el Tribunal de Justicia de la UE (TJUE) solicitando la anulación de un concreto acto de una agencia europea destinado a producir efectos jurídicos frente a terceros, así como que la UE repare cualquier daño que les haya sido infligido. Sin embargo, la creciente cooperación entre la GEFC y la AEA en los recientemente establecidos hotspots, la falta de transparencia de las operaciones que desarrollan, el complicado entramado multinivel de responsabilidad derivado de los numerosos actores implicados en las fronteras exteriores o la obligación de los nacionales de terceros países de probar ante el TJUE que las actividades de la GEFC y la AEA les afectan directamente dificulta, cuando no impide, su derecho fundamental a una buena administración y a un recurso judicial efectivo.

En concreto, la principal limitación del mecanismo de denuncia de la GEFC y la AEA es su falta de independencia e imparcialidad, así como su carácter puramente administrativo. Toda queja admitida a trámite por el oficial de derechos fundamentales de la GEFC y la AEA ha de dirimirse internamente, bien por el director de la agencia o bien por el Estado miembro implicado, en función de si la denuncia se refiere a un miembro del personal de la agencia o a uno de los oficiales nacionales desplegados. No obstante, ni el director de estas agencias (nombrado por el Consejo de Administración de la agencia y compuesto mayoritariamente por representantes nacionales), ni por supuesto los Estados miembros que se encargan de garantizar un seguimiento adecuado de la denuncia y adoptar las medidas disciplinarias o acciones que consideren pertinentes para resarcir a la víctima son independientes a las agencias.

Asimismo, si la queja presentada es considerada inadmisible, si las medidas adoptadas por la GEFC y la AEA para resarcir la violación alegada se estiman por el denunciante como insuficientes o si las medidas no se ponen efectivamente en práctica porla agencia, el mecanismo de denuncia no prevé ningún recurso administrativo o judicial adicional. La inadmisión de una queja por el agente de derechos fundamentales, la disconformidad del denunciante con el examen de su queja y/o las medidas adoptadas al respecto por la GEFC y la AEA deberían calificarse, a nuestro parecer, como actos que producen efectos jurídicos frente a terceros y así poder ser objeto de control por el TJUE.

En definitiva, las reforzadas tareas operativas conferidas a laGEFC y a la AEA comportan una creciente responsabilidad de las agencias y un mayor impacto de estas en los derechos fundamentales de los nacionales de terceros países. Si bien las tareas delegadas a los agentes de derechos fundamentales deberían haberse expandido al menos en igual medida que las tareas operativas conferidas a la GEFC y la AEA, sus agentes no están facultados para indemnizar y compensar directamente a los denunciantes por daños, ni pueden terminar, suspender o retirar el apoyo financiero a una operación de las agencias en la que haya quedado probado que los derechos fundamentales de los nacionales de terceros países han sido vulnerados. El agente de derechos fundamentales no está facultado para emitir decisiones vinculantes o investigar de manera independiente e imparcial quejas relativas a violaciones de derechos fundamentales.

Por ello, estimamos que la eficacia e imparcialidad del mecanismo de denuncia diseñado por los reglamentos de la GEFC y la AEA se vería claramente reforzado si sus agentes de derechos fundamentales fueran las autoridades competentes para llevar a cabo la investigación de las quejas y para hacer cumplir las medidas adoptadas en su totalidad. Esto es, el actual mandato de los agentes debería ser reformado con el fin de permitirles aplicar mejoras operativas internas, ejecutar las medidas adoptadas por la GEFC y la AEA o los Estados Miembros respecto a una denuncia admitida a trámite e imponer, si fuera preciso, sanciones contra las propias agencias.

 

Este post apareció en primer lugar en el Blog del Instituto Universitario de Estudios Europeos en el marco del proyecto: “Mi Propuesta para una Europa mejor”

 

The post Mi Propuesta: “Un mecanismo de quejas efectivo para Frontex y Easo” appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

Plenary and committee meetings, Brussels

Source : © European Union, 2019 - EP

Length of video : 207'
You may manually download this video in WMV (1.8Gb) 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, 2019 - EP

Source : © European Union, 2019 - EP

Length of video : 202'
You may manually download this video in WMV (2.2Gb) 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, 2019 - EP

Length of video : 108'
You may manually download this video in WMV (1.2Gb) 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, 2019 - EP

Climate politics are increasingly looking at decarbonizing the transport sector. Part of the debate focuses on increased pollution from civil aviation, where Ryanair is in the top 10 of EU emitters. Part of the debate focuses on flying less, i.e. twitter #flyingless, and staying on the ground, i.e. rail travel. More recently, the Danish Socialist People’s Party has proposed to increase cross-border rail travel thereby taking the debate into mainstream climate politics. Thus, there is an increased focus on the railways to deliver cross-border services.

Why is cross-border train travel so difficult? The short answer, railways are inherently national whereas aviation and maritime are international in nature. The European Commission has promoted the European railways, for almost 30 years, through market opening and Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T). Simultaneously, the EU has liberalized air travel and road haulage. Whilst air travel have become cheaper and more competitive, the railways continue to be mainly state-owned railway companies financed by national governments.

The EU railway governance structure and market opening attempt to create transparent administrative procedures at national level that enable cross-border rail travel and  domestic market opening. However, some member states and incumbent railways have not supported market opening, which are reflected in EU decision-making (for detailed discussion see my book).

Some of the obstacles to more cross-border rail travel mentioned in the flying less debate are; lack of one-stop shop ticketing, expensive fares, lack of night trains and lack of investment in high-speed trains

The Commission has talked about a one-stop shop, including ticketing, since I was a PhD student doing interviews a decade ago. Some rail operators have started to work together to provide online ticketing e.g. https://www.raileurope-world.com/, just as you can book international journey on individual operators’ websites, e.g. bahn.de. The man in seat 61 website tells you how to get around Europe by rail and how to get the best deals. However, these tentative steps cannot compete with the traditional travel websites. Instead, there is a need for collaboration between rail operators and traditional travel website to make international rail travel more accessible.

Rail fares are expensive and the idea of breaking up journeys to save money is new to many who are used to booking flights. Governments can use taxes and charges to faciliate modal shift from air to rail, e.g. many climate movements have suggested a carbon tax on flying. Another option is to create an EU fund or use regional funds or TEN-T funds to facilitate start-up operations of cross-border rail traffic, such rail service promotes mobility and cultural exchange, which are central to the EU principles, crucially the programme would have to comply with state aid rules. Nevertheless, member states would have to agree on funding in the new multi-annual budget.

The lack of night trains in some parts of Europe is problematic. The geographical periphery like the Baltic countries and the Nordic countries would benefit from cross-border night trains to the geographical centre. By comparison, ÖBB, the Austrian railway company, is successful in operating cross-border night trains to neighbouring countries. Moreover, night trains can be expensive, and more demand for night trains necessitate change in consumer behaviour, so consumers see night trains as part of the holiday and an extra hotel stay.

The TEN-T investment in cross-border high-speed rail infrastructure is behind schedule because large-scale cross-border infrastructure projects are difficult, e.g. the Eurotunnel and more recently the Fehmarn bridge. It takes time for big national infrastructure projects to find the right window of opportunities, and international projects require different national agendas to merge into one window of opportunity. Thus, there is no real prospect that all the planned priority TEN-T rail projects will be built in the near future.

Overall, successful cross-border rail traffic requires strong bottom-up mobilisation to push for change at national level and EU level. More importantly, it requires grass-root pressure on the railway industry and traditional travel agencies to deliver competitive rail travel solutions. Until then, “EU railway market … is not a high-speed train, which is quickly reaching its destination – A Single European Railway Area – instead it is a slow regional train, stopping at all stations” (Dyrhauge 2013: 160).

The post Flying less and the problems with cross-border trains appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

Source : © European Union, 2019 - EP

Since 2016, the European Union has developed a number of new initiatives on security and defence. In particular, the introduction of Permanent Structured Cooperation and the European Defence Fund have been designed to allow the EU to become a more autonomous actor with regard to crisis management, capacity building and protecting Europe and its citizens. Yet the development of these new initiatives raises questions about their overall coherence and the role of parliamentary scrutiny. It is necessary to analyse the role of the European Parliament and national parliaments in relation to the scrutiny of the European Defence Fund. There is a need for recommendations on how parliamentary scrutiny can be enhanced at the EU level in the area of security and defence.
Source : © European Union, 2019 - EP