European Union

Committee and political group meetings, Brussels

Source : © European Union, 2019 - EP

ABSTRACT
The European Union faces an increasingly challenging security environment, with a climate of international instability and a level of tension not seen since the end of the Cold War. Repeated chemical attacks by both State and non-state actors in the context of the Syrian conflict, the Novichok attack in Salisbury and the disruption of two ricine terror plots in Germany and in France in 2018 came all as stark reminders that the threat remains real and that Member States could be affected. In this context, the European Union (EU) continues to strengthen its capacities in the field of CBRN preparedness and response. The use of EU mechanisms and Member States' military assets is one of the possibilities for strengthening prevention capacities that must be explored more thoroughly.
Further information
EU preparedness against CBRN weapons
Source : © European Union, 2019 - EP

Entry into office of new Members at the Court of Justice and at the General Court of the European Union

The SEDE committee meeting will take place on Tuesday 2nd April, from 14:30 - 18:30 in Brussels (room ASP 3E2).

Organisations or interest groups who wish to apply for access to the European Parliament will find the relevant information below.

Further information
Watch the meeting
Access rights for interest group representatives
Source : © European Union, 2019 - EP

Arib and Others
Area of Freedom, Security and Justice
An internal border of a Member State at which border control has been reintroduced cannot be equated with an external border within the meaning of the ‘Returns Directive’

Length of video : 91'
You may manually download this video in WMV (1Gb) 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 : 87'
You may manually download this video in WMV (1Gb) 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

Over the weekend, I had a twitter conversation about who is a climate researcher. Twitter is obviously not the place for deeper and complex conversations. Thus, this blog post explains my argument that it is not helpful to debate who is or is not a climate researcher, instead climate research requires interdisciplinary dialogue and cooperation in order to solve the multiple crises we are facing.

Let me start by outlining the argument I met this weekend. A climate researcher is someone who research the physical and chemical processes in the atmosphere!

I do not disagree that such a person is a climate researcher. My point is that climate research and climate change is much broader because it affects all elements of life on Earth. The changes in the atmosphere affect our ecological systems and socio-economic structures. Thus, everything is connected and to be able to understand these connections we need to talk across disciplines to find ways of breaking the current structures that are causing climate change.

It is not helpful that natural sciences, social sciences, humanities, engineering etc. are standing in our own corner looking at the big climate elephant in the middle of the room whilst trying to understand it from our own perspective. By focusing on disciplinary research alone, we only understand parts of the climate elephant. What we need is for natural scientists and social scientists to talk together. For example, natural scientists show how climate change affects our ecological systems, whilst social scientists identify how socio-economic structures contribute to climate change. Similar, engineering develops technological solutions to mitigate climate change. In short, we need each other to develop successful climate mitigations at all levels and across all areas.

Importantly, many of us are already work with colleagues in other fields on shared climate change problems, which we only can solve through shared research.  Similarly, research grants increasingly require us to develop interdisciplinary research proposals, which often end up with different fields of social sciences, e.g. politics, sociology and geography, working together. Indeed, we need to think wider in terms of our research partners and we have to start talking with colleagues in other fields, who are looking at similar climate change issues. It is only through interdisciplinary research that we can change the projections in the IPCC reports and achieve a low carbon society in 2050.

Does it matter how we define ourselves? Of course, but limiting the definition of a climate researcher to someone studying the atmosphere is not useful when all research from all fields show that climate change is affecting us all in many different ways. Thus, let us move on from this debate over definitions, and instead talk about how we together can solve the climate crises. After all, that is what all the students striking last Friday 15th March, were asking us grownups to do.

The post Climate change: We need more interdisciplinary dialogue and research appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

At the end of 2018, the UACES  Gendering EU Studies Research Network and the Quaker Council for European Affairs (QCEA) brought together a group of academics, civil society, policy makers, practitioners and military officials who work on gender to consider the integration of gender into peace and security from a European perspective. The resulting discussions shed light on some of the current challenges and future opportunities to realising an inclusive vision of peace and security and the transformative potential of the Women, Peace and Security agenda. Despite the different backgrounds and perspectives of participants, some key issues emerged which we consider further here. They related to ownership, advocacy, insider-outside coalitions and ensuring the change we pursue is the ‘right’ change.

The Women, Peace and Security (WPS) agenda is encapsulated in UN Security Council Resolution 1325 and the seven follow-up resolutions (UNSCR 1820, 1888, 1889, 1960, 2106, 2122 and 2242). It calls for women’s inclusion in peace and security, but also highlights their particular needs in conflict and post-conflict situations. It calls on the UN and member states to integrate gender into their peace and security apparatus. As the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF) highlight, the WPS agenda has transformative potential or ‘the potential to escape cycles of conflict, to create inclusive and more democratic peacemaking and to turn from gender inequality to gender justice’.

Who can claim ownership of the Women, Peace and Security agenda? The UN, many member states and regional organisations including the EU, NATO, African Union (AU), Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) all claim the relevance of WPS to their own work through their respective policies on the issue. This is in many respects a positive development, yet, it also requires reflection. WPS did not originate out of thin air with the adoption of UNSCR 1325 by the UN Security Council in 2000. Indeed, the Resolution built on decades of feminist organising inside and outside of the UN. From The International Women’s Congress in The Hague in 1915 to the UN Conference on Women in 1995. This knowledge building created the space to consider a reconceptualisation of what ‘peace’ and ‘security’ mean for those whose needs are often marginalised or excluded from such policy considerations. It is crucial that academia, civil society and those working within institutions on WPS acknowledge this, as well as the global nature of the WPS agenda.

At a European level, much scholarship has emerged to examine regional engagement with WPS by actors such as the EU and NATO. While this is welcome, it also bears reflection that Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) (which has been the focus of much of this research) is not the only EU policy area for which gender is relevant. If, as we claim, the EU and EU Studies are co-constitutive – meaning that the way we study the EU ‘shapes the way we understand it and determines which elements take center stage’ – then feminist scholars need to be cognisant not to reify a narrow militaristic definition of security, and relatedly the relevance of WPS, in their own work. They need to heed the warning of their civil society counterparts.

As we approach the 20th Anniversary of UNSCR 1325 we can see that there has been much progress. Yet, in many countries, including within Europe, we see pushback and regression on gender equality. Gender and gender studies are under attack and often branded as ‘gender ideology’. We are then at a critical juncture for the WPS agenda, will it go forward or will it go backwards? And will we know what distinguishes these two trajectories? In order to ensure we are pursuing the ‘right’ change gender advocates need to be reflective. This means considering whose security are we talking about? How do we make sure it is as inclusive as possible? And, who do we involve in addressing these security concerns?

Within our own fields (be it the military, policymaking, civil society or academia) we also face push back. Be it day-to-day microaggressions because of our work as gender advocates or the still all too common assumption that ‘gender’ = ‘women’. Something only reinforced by the title of the Women, Peace and Security agenda (even if it does encompass gender mainstreaming and provisions for men and boys). This speaks to one of the compromises made to ensure the UN Security Council would adopt the WPS agenda, ‘gender’ was felt to be too ‘political’ for some members of the Security Council to palate. Naming the agenda Women, Peace and Security also centered women and moved them away from the margins of peace and security. Yet this decision has contributed to reinforcing perceptions that gender is only applicable to women.

Building on this, our discussions also drew attention to the fact that men’s experiences of ‘doing’ gender are often very different to women. Often their expertise is not questioned in the same way as women’s often is. Men can also face an assumption that it is somehow more noteworthy that they are engaging with gender issues than their women colleagues (again often built on a false premise that gender = women). Practically, men as gender advocates can use their positions to draw attention to the work of women colleagues in this area (who may not be getting credit which is due), they can also refuse to participate in all-male panels which we found to be an issue across all our areas of work.

The symbolic exclusion of women remains pervasive across civil society, policymaking, academia and military circles. Yet women’s inclusion across peace and security issues is a key underlying principle of the WPS agenda. Women’s absence is noticeable in the all-male panels which are still evident in some panels at conferences such as the 2018 Paris Peace Forum and the International Studies Association (UACES has now banned all-male panels). Some of the responses often received by those who call out an all-male panel are nicely summarised in these bingo cards produced by Sam Cook (and free to download). One token women on a panel is just as damaging as an all-male panel, with that women effectively speaking for all women as a homogenous group. Having no women is a visible representation of a silence in the field. How do we ensure the message of representation and inclusion is heard?

For feminist academics within the discipline of Politics and International Relations there are signs of progress, with many Universities now actively appointing gender scholars. And while this is welcome, there is a real danger that these scholars then come to embody the institution’s commitment to gender equality at the expense of real structural change. The same could be said for the appointment of Gender Advisors in militaries or at the EU or NATO, and gender positions within civil society organisations. We need to be careful that this does not let others of the hook for their own responsibilities for ‘knowing’ gender.

The feedback we received from the workshop highlighted the value of conversations across silos. Bringing together academia, civil society, policy makers and military demonstrated some of the commonalities in the challenges we face. It provided a space to share lessons and strategies from our own experiences. So how can ‘outsiders’ and ‘insiders’ better support each other? Part of the answer certainly lies in recognising the value of situated and experiential knowledge of gender as well as that gleamed from scholarship endeavour (see also Aiko Holvikiki’s discussion of this). There are significant experiences in our shared experiences as gender advocates, learning from each other has to be part of pushing for transformative change to the current flawed peace and security architecture.

——-

The workshop was held on the 26- 27th November 2018 at Quaker House in Brussels under Chatham House rule. It was co-convened by the Quaker Council for European Affairs (QCEA) and the Academic Association for European Studies (UACES) Gendering EU Studies Research Network. It also received funding from Newcastle University. We would like to thank all the participants for their contributions.

About QCEA: The Quaker Council for European Affairs (QCEA) works to bring a vision based on the Quaker commitment to peace, justice and equality to Europe and its institutions. It does so through a peace and a human rights programme through its publications, a quiet diplomacy approach and through its networks such as the European Peacebuilding Liaison Office and Human Rights and Democracy Network.   It recently published Building Peace Together, which makes the case for peacebuilding, including through gender inclusiveness.

About the UACES Gendering EU Studies (GES) Research Network: is funded by UACES and brings together a rich and growing body of work in the area of gender and EU politics and policies. The Research Network seeks to explore and challenge the obstacles which curtail feminist influence in EU Studies and leave gender analysis on the periphery.

The authors and conveners of the workshop:

Olivia Caeymaex (QCEA), Katharine A. M. Wright, Newcastle University (GES)
Hanna Muehlenhoff, University of Amsterdam (GES), Toni Haastrup, University of Kent (GES, Roberta Guerrina, University of Surrey (GES), Annick Masselot, University of Canterbury, New Zealand (GES)

The post Towards an Inclusive Peace and Security: taking stock on the gender dimension appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

The Dutch Prime Minister, Mark Rutte, this week described the vote by UK MPs to block a no-deal Brexit in any circumstances as, “the Titanic voting for the iceberg to get out of the way.”

It’s worse than that. The entire Brexit fiasco has sunk our democracy, leading the country to disaster.

Yes, Brexit is the iceberg, our Parliament is the Titanic, and we are heading for one almighty crash.

There is no band playing, there is no re-arranging of the deckchairs.

Instead, at the very last minute, MPs have been discussing amendment after amendment, voting on the same déjà vu deal over and again, and traipsing in and out of lobbies, whilst an imminent and crushing Brexit impact is just days away.

The country is now close to a state of emergency, with a government minister admitting that he’s the world’s biggest buyer of fridges, so that vital medicines can be stockpiled as they will be in short supply if we default to a ‘no deal’ Brexit.

Businesses across the country are in a state of panic and distress as the government has suddenly announced new tariffs that will be applied to exports and imports if ‘no deal’ happens.

Dover and other Channel ports are bracing themselves for months of disruption if we leave without a deal.

And really, all that is just the tip of the iceberg.

• How on earth did the country spend three tiresome years navigating itself to this?
• And is there now any quick and easy emergency escape from the chaos that now confronts us?

The answer to the first question is complicated, but in a nutshell, the journey to where we are now started off as being entirely undemocratic.

If democratic principles and safeguards had been applied from the start, we would not now be in such a calamitous situation.

And the answer to the second question is yes, there is a quick and easy way out of this. (But you’ll have to read on to find out what it is).

The assault on our democracy began when, in 2015, Parliament approved a referendum on EU membership which, because it was advisory only, did not have the same checks and balances of a legally binding vote.

Then the government responded to the referendum result as if it was a legally binding decision, but at the same time, not allowing our Parliament the usual scrutiny and oversight that should have followed an advisory-only referendum.

If the referendum had been legally binding, then Parliament would have set a minimum threshold for Leave winning – just as Parliament did for the 1979 referendum on whether Scotland should have its own assembly.

On that occasion, ‘Yes’ won 52% to 48% – just like the EU referendum.

But ‘Yes’ didn’t win, because Parliament had set a minimum threshold of 40% of the electorate having to vote for an assembly before Scotland could have one.

Less than 40% of the Scottish electorate voted for an assembly, so on that occasion the ‘Yes’ vote failed.

Only 37% of the electorate voted for Leave in the EU referendum. So, if the same rules had applied as the 1979 referendum, Leave would not have won.

In any event, Leave should not have won with only 37% of the electorate voting for it.

Most democratic countries across the world that have referendums would not allow such a minority vote to win such a major referendum.

Indeed, even your local golf club would not allow 37% of its members to change their constitution.

But there’s worse.

We now know that the Leave campaigns only won – by the slimmest of margins – because of lying, cheating and law breaking.

• They overspent what’s allowed under electoral law by a significant margin.
• Masses of stolen personal data were used to target potential voters in illegal ways.
• The Electoral Commission is suspicious that millions of pounds given to the Leave.eu campaign originated from a foreign source – which would be illegal.
• There are now several ongoing criminal investigations into Leave campaigns and campaigners (none against Remain).

And here’s the rub.

If the referendum had been a legally binding vote, then under UK law, such illegalities and irregularities of such magnitude would have resulted in the referendum result being annulled by the courts.

But as the referendum was an advisory exercise only, it escaped such legal scrutiny – even though the referendum result was treated as if it was legally binding.

The courts cannot annul an advisory vote in the same way that a legally-binding vote can be annulled when serious irregularities may have affected the result.

It could all have been so different.

Following the referendum, the new Prime Minister, Theresa May, could have appointed a Royal Commission to explore and decide which form of Brexit was viable and then asked Parliament if it wanted to do that Brexit.

Instead, Mrs May was in a hurry to trigger the Article 50 notice by bypassing Parliament, using the ancient and arcane ‘Royal Prerogative’.

Gina Miller’s legal challenge stopped that.

The Supreme Court confirmed that the referendum was only an advisory exercise and that the decision to leave the EU had to be taken by Parliament.

However, Parliament wasn’t given an opportunity to decide whether the UK should leave the EU.

The then Brexit Secretary, David Davis, erroneously advised Parliament that such a Parliamentary decision wasn’t necessary, as ‘the decision’ to leave had already been taken by the referendum.

A ‘decision’ that the Supreme Court had already ruled that the referendum wasn’t capable of making.

Mr Davis told Parliament that, since the ‘decision’ to leave the EU was already made, all that Parliament was required to do was to give the Prime Minister authority to notify the EU of an ‘intention’ to leave.

Parliament was presented with one of the shortest bills ever, ‘The European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill’.

When Parliament passed this Act to give power to Theresa May to notify the EU of a decision that had yet to be made, the world was led to believe that Parliament had voted to leave the EU.

Nothing of the sort had happened.

Parliament has never actually debated and voted on the specific question of whether the UK should leave the EU.

• So, since the referendum couldn’t make a decision to leave the EU, and Parliament didn’t make the decision, who did?

That mystery was unravelled in June last year, at a ‘permission hearing’ in the High Court regarding the validity of Article 50.

That hearing established that the Prime Minister, Theresa May, exclusively and individually made the executive decision for the UK to leave the EU.

Lord Justice Gross and Mr Justice Green unusually made their judgment citable and ruled that the decision to leave the EU was contained in the Prime Minister’s Article 50 notification letter of 29 March 2017, to Donald Tusk, President of the European Council.

[∞ Link to judgement]

In that letter, the Prime Minister stated that ‘the people of the United Kingdom’ had made ‘the decision’ to leave the EU, even though the Supreme Court had ruled that the referendum was advisory only and not legally entitled or capable of making any decision.

She then erroneously advised Mr Tusk that ‘the decision’ to leave the EU had been ‘confirmed’ by the United Kingdom Parliament.

Parliament had only given the Prime Minister permission to give notice to the EU of an ‘intention’ to withdraw from the EU. That’s not at all the same as a specific decision to leave.

Had Parliament been asked following the advisory referendum to debate and specifically vote on whether the UK should leave the EU, a bill to this effect would have required a plan, impact assessments and evidence from all the Brexit committees.

Parliament has recently been asked twice if it wants to leave the EU on the terms negotiated by the Prime Minister.

The House of Commons has twice voted NO with historic majorities.

Parliament is deadlocked because the executive tricked us all by asking Parliament the wrong question following the referendum.

The question put to Parliament following the referendum should have been the same one that the UK electorate was asked:

‘Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?’

Asking Parliament instead if it will give permission for the Prime Minister to notify the EU of an ‘intention’ to leave is not at all the same as a debate and vote on whether we should remain or leave.

Now, Parliament is alarmed that we are just days from crashing out of the EU without any deal, which almost all politicians – and businesses – agree will cause chaos.

At the last minute, this week Parliament voted by a large majority that the UK must not leave the EU without a deal.

But the Dutch Prime Minister, who compared that to, “the Titanic voting for the iceberg to get out of the way,” was depressingly right.

Parliament has no power to stop the UK leaving without a deal.

Our Parliamentarians have been led into a cul-de-sac by a cunning government, which has acted dictatorially rather than democratically, and in their own narrow interests, rather than that of the country.

The only way to avoid a ‘no deal’ exit is for Parliament to either ratify Theresa May’s deal, or revoke Article 50.

Extending Article 50 will merely push back the impact of the iceberg, and doesn’t take away the potential danger.

(Although a delay would give time for a new referendum on Brexit, so ‘the people’ could decide whether they accept ‘the only deal on the table’ or to remain in the EU after all. However, so far, Parliament has voted against having another referendum).

• So, what’s the easy way out of Brexit that was promised at the start of this article?

Since it’s been demonstrated in the High Court that it was the Prime Minister alone who made ‘the decision’ to leave the EU, she also has the power to undo what she has done.

The most sensible and honourable course for the Prime Minister to take now would be to revoke her Article 50 notice and order a Brexit Inquiry.

She can do this entirely on her own without any statute or Parliamentary approval.

The Inquiry would have to explore how our country:

• was taken on an undemocratic course to calamity;
• on the ‘decision’ of a minority of the electorate;
• in a non-binding vote, that was only won by illegalities and irregularities;
• of such breath-taking proportions, that had the referendum been a legally binding vote, it would have been annulled.

Yes, Brexit is a titanic sham.

 

• Thanks to Liz Webster for her assistance on this article.

• 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 has sunk our democracy appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

Participants of the Madrid meeting, December 2018. Photo credits: S4D4C

Including science and technology as key dimensions of foreign policy and international relationships at different political levels is one of the calls backed by a group of scientists, research administrators, officials and policy makers. They see a confluence of interests in the benefit of both the scientific endeavour as well as legitimate broader political and societal objectives.

After a meeting in Madrid ‘EU Science Diplomacy beyond 2020’, organized by S4D4C, a Horizon 2020 funded initiative coordinated by Austria’s Centre for Social Innovation, a group developed the “Madrid Declaration on Science Diplomacy” which aims to foster agreement and raise awareness about the need to strengthen science diplomacy strategies and practices world-wide.

Science diplomacy is often not fully exploited at all levels of governance, and especially at supranational levels: A greater scientific voice would add value to bi- and multilateral discussions and decisions about global challenges and directly or indirectly serving to advance diplomatic goals. More explicit science diplomacy strategies would allow for a more effective alignment of interests and a more efficient coordination of resources. It is an extremely useful tool for addressing global challenges and for improving international relationships as long as it is not distorted by ideological goals compromising the independence of science. Thus, science diplomacy should be given a greater role in efforts to solve global challenges and promote sustainable development.

The Madrid Science Diplomacy declaration sees science diplomacy as a multi-actor effort in which diplomats, scientists and science managers as well as other non- state actors can have a role and can contribute to its deployment. This applies at the local, regional, national and international level. This innovative model brings new governance and coordination mechanisms that need to be managed in dialogue with all stakeholders.

The reach of the declaration is truly global, the declaration features signatories from India, the United States, Latin America and Korea as well as several international scientific institutions.

This blog post has been prepared by the representatives of the S4D4C consortium.

The post What role for science diplomacy in addressing global challenges? appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

Item 5 - Security aspects of EU - Asia relations
Item 6 - The role of the EU Military Committee in the current evolution of the CSDP
Item 7 - State of play of the Pilot Project and the Preparatory Action on Defence Research
Item 8 - DSACEUR
Source : © European Union, 2019 - EP

Length of video : 94'
You may manually download this video in WMV (708Mb) 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 : 94'
You may manually download this video in WMV (708Mb) 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

REPORT on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance (IPA III)
Committee on Foreign Affairs
José Ignacio Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra, Knut Fleckenstein

Source : © European Union, 2019 - EP

REPORT on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Committee on Development
Charles Goerens, Frank Engel, Pier Antonio Panzeri, Cristian Dan Preda

Source : © European Union, 2019 - EP

REPORT on a European Parliament recommendation to the Council, the Commission and the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy concerning the Institutional Framework Agreement between the European Union and the Swiss Confederation
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Doru-Claudian Frunzulică

Source : © European Union, 2019 - EP

REPORT on a European Parliament recommendation to the Council, the Commission and the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy on the new comprehensive agreement between the EU and Uzbekistan
Committee on Foreign Affairs
David McAllister

Source : © European Union, 2019 - EP

RECOMMENDATION on the draft Council decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Union and its Member States, of a Protocol to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the State of Israel, of the other part, to take account of the accession of the Republic of Croatia to the European Union
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Cristian Dan Preda

Source : © European Union, 2019 - EP

REPORT on a European Parliament recommendation to the Council and the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy concerning the Proposal of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, with the support of the Commission, to the Council for a Council Decision establishing a European Peace Facility
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Hilde Vautmans

Source : © European Union, 2019 - EP