European Union

Plenary session, Strasbourg

Source : © European Union, 2019 - EP

The next AFET meeting is scheduled to take place on:

Monday, 18 March, from 15:00-17:00, jointly with LIBE, PHS 3C50
Monday, 1 April, from 15:00-18:30 and Tuesday 2 April, 09:00-12:30, JAN 2Q2

Further information
Information for visitors
Draft agendas
Source : © European Union, 2018 - EP

Blaise and Others
Agriculture and fisheries
Advocate General Sharpston: there is no factor affecting the validity of the Regulation concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market

Tjebbes and Others
Citizenship of the Union
EU law does not preclude the loss of the nationality of a Member State and, consequently, the loss of citizenship of the EU, where the genuine link between the person concerned and that Member State is durably interrupted

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 scope and mandate for EU Special Representatives
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Hilde Vautmans

Source : © European Union, 2019 - EP

Source : © European Union, 2019 - EP

Source : © European Union, 2019 - EP

ERRATUM on the state of EU-Russia political relations (2018/2158(INI))
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Sandra Kalniete

Source : © European Union, 2019 - EP

Source : © European Union, 2019 - EP

Izsák and Dabis v Commission
Law governing the institutions
The Commission erred in law by refusing to register the European citizens’ initiative aimed at improving the situation of national minority regions

Tweedale v EFSA
Law governing the institutions
EFSA’s decisions refusing access to the toxicity and carcinogenicity studies on the active substance glyphosate are annulled

The Scope and Mandate for EU Special Representatives
Association between European Communities and their Member States and the State of Israel
Establishing the Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument - (2018/0243 (COD)) - (Committee on Foreign Affairs / Committee on Development (Joint committee procedure – Rule 55 of the Rules of Procedure)
Source : © European Union, 2019 - EP

Source : © European Union, 2019 - EP

18-19 février 2019 Institut polonais des affaires internationales
compte rendu rédigé par Kinga Torbicka

Le 18 février 2019, à l'Institut polonais des affaires internationales a eu lieu la conférence "Renforcer l'économie de l'UE: la perspective V4-France”. Elle s'est déroulée dans le cadre du projet "Développement d'une nouvelle voie pour une coopération renforcée et améliorée V4-France" (cofinancée par les gouvernements de la République tchèque, de la Hongrie, de la Pologne et de la Slovaquie grâce aux subventions du Fonds international de Visegrad). Le lendemain ont eu lieu des ateliers d'experts sur la compétitivité et l'intégration dans l'Union européenne de la perspective du groupe de Visegrad et de la France ainsi que sur l'avenir de „l'Europe sociale”.

En tant qu'organisation régionale à forte ambition géopolitique et économique, le groupe Visegrad doit redéfinir ses relations avec la France comme l'un des partenaires stratégiques en Europe. La volonté de renforcer le partenariat franco-allemand sur le forum européen, l'approche du Brexit va changer l'avenir du processus décisionnel au niveau de l'UE, sa dynamique de pouvoir et la construction d'une coalition. La nouvelle situation reste sans aucune doute un défi pour l’unité du V4 et la défense de leurs intérêts communs. Par conséquent, il est nécessaire de trouver un niveau de coopération socio-économique bilatérale et / ou multilatérale entre le V4 et la France.

Durant la première journée la conférence a servi aux échanges parmi des invités. Selon Daniel Bartha (Centre d'intégration euro-atlantique et de démocratie) du point de vue du pragmatisme économique, la France reste et restera à jamais un partenaire plus important pour la Hongrie que d’un point de vue politique. Vincent Biret (Conseiller pour les affaires économiques de l'ambassade de France en Pologne) estime que la coopération entre la France et le V4 crée des fondements importants pour la coopération au niveau de l'UE.

Emmanuel Macron, dans son discours à la Sorbonne à Paris le 26 septembre 2017, a souligné la nécessité de réformes dans l'UE afin de protéger l'économie européenne. Pour la France, le V4 reste un partenaire économique important en Europe. Une éventuelle coopération peut avoir lieu dans le cadre du marché unique numérique. Cette position est partagée par Martin Michelot (Institut Européen pour la politique européenne).

La République tchèque considère la France comme un partenaire important dans le commerce et l’investissement. Matej Navrátil (Département des sciences politiques, Université Comenius) a souligné que le V4 reste une force économique régionale importante. La Slovaquie, en tant que membre de la zone euro, participe à presque tous les projets ID. Selon Sebastian Płóciennik (Institut polonais des affaires internationales), l'Allemagne, en raison de sa proximité avec les pays du V4 et de la vigueur de son économie, reste un partenaire économique important en tant que facteur d'équilibre de la coopération germano-française.

L’adaptation des réglementations légales, y compris les réglementations fiscales, au développement de la coopération économique dans de nouveaux domaines, tels que les nouvelles technologies, l’innovation, le secteur bancaire et les infrastructures, constitue le défi le plus important auquel sont actuellement confrontés les pays de V4. Le projet de la création d’une zone de développement industriel en Europe centrale à l’instar de la "Silicon Valley” constitue un défi pour l’avenir.

Il est important de montrer la coopération entre le V4 et la France dans un contexte européen. Il existe de nombreux problèmes communs dans lesquels il est possible de rapprocher (ou non) le V4 de la France: le budget de l'UE, le changement climatique, la Chine, l'union bancaire et les règles de la compétitivité.

Un rapport spécial sera publié à la fin de 2019.

----------

18-19 luty 2019 Polski Instytut Spraw Międzynarodowych
Konferencja i warsztaty „Wzmocnienie gospodarki UE: perspektywa V4-Francja”

18 lutego 2019 roku w Polskim Instytucie Spraw Międzynarodowych miała miejsce konferencja „Wzmocnienie gospodarki UE: perspektywa V4-Francja” zorganizowana w ramach projektu „Opracowanie nowej drogi dla wzmocnionej i ulepszonej współpracy V4-Francja” (współfinansowany przez rządy Czech, Węgier, Polski i Słowacji poprzez granty Wyszehradzkie z Międzynarodowego Funduszu Wyszehradzkiego). Następnego dnia miały miejsce warsztaty ekspertów dotyczące konkurencyjności i integracji w Unii Europejskiej z perspektywy Grupy Wyszehradzkiej i Francji oraz przyszłości „Europy socjalnej”.

Grupa Wyszehradzka jako organizacja regionalna z silnymi ambicjami geopolitycznymi i gospodarczymi w zaistniałej sytuacji musi przedefiniować swoje relacje z Francją, jako jednym ze strategicznych partnerów w Europie. Chęć wzmocnienia partnerstwa francusko-niemieckiego na forum europejskim, zbliżający się Brexit zmienią przyszłość procesu decyzyjnego na szczeblach UE, jej dynamikę władzy i budowanie koalicji. Nowa sytuacja stanowi bez wątpienia wyzwanie dla jedności V4 i obrony wspólnych interesów. Wobec tego konieczne jest znalezienie płaszczyzny społeczno-ekonomicznej współpracy bilateralnej i/lub multilateralnej między V4 a Francją.

Według Daniel Bartha (Centre for Euro-Atlantic Integration and Democracy). Z punktu widzenia ekonomicznego pragmatyzmu Francja jest i będzie dla Węgier ważniejszym partnerem niż z perspektywy politycznej. Vincent Biret (Conseiller do spraw ekonomicznych Ambasady Francji w Polsce) uważa, że współpraca między Francją a V4 stwarza ważne fundamenty kooperacji na płaszczyźnie UE. Emmanuel Macron w swojej przemowie na Sorbonie w Paryżu 26 września 2017 roku podkreślał, że w UE jest potrzeba reform aby chronić gospodarkę europejską. Dla Francji V4 pozostaje ważnym partnerem gospodarczym w Europie. Potencjalna możliwa współpraca może odbywać się w ramach jednolitego rynku cyfrowego. Stanowisko to podziela Martin Michelot (EUROPEUM Institute for European Policy). Republika Czeska postrzega Francję jako istotnego partnera w wymianie handlowej i inwestycjach. Matej Navrátil (Departament of Poliitcal Science, Comenius University) podkreślił, że V4 pozostaje znaczącą regionalną siłą ekonomiczną.

Słowacja jako członek strefy euro uczestniczy w prawie wszystkich projektach DI. Zdaniem Sebastiana Płóciennika (Polski Instytut Spraw Międzynarodowych) Niemcy ze względu na bliskie sąsiedztwo z krajami V4 i silną gospodarką pozostają ważnym partnerem ekonomicznym jako czynnik równoważący współpracę Niemcy-Francja. Najważniejszym wyzwaniem jakie stoi obecnie przed państwami V4 to dostosowanie regulacji prawnych, w tym podatkowych do rozwoju współpracy gospodarczej w nowych dziedzinach, takich jak nowe technologie, innowacyjność, sektor bankowy, infrastruktura. Takim wyzwaniem może być stworzenie w Europie Środkowej na wzór „silicon valley” strefy rozwoju przemysłowego.

Ważne pozostaje ukazanie współpracy między V4 a Francją w kontekście europejskim. Pojawia się dużo wspólnych problemów, w których pojawia się możliwość zbliżenia (lub nie) między V4 a Francją: budżet UE, zmiany klimatyczne, Chiny, unia bankowa, zasady konkurencyjności.

Podsumowaniem dwudniowego spotkania ma być raport, który będzie opublikowany pod koniec 2019 roku.

Committee and political group meetings, Brussels

Source : © European Union, 2019 - EP

Committee and political group meetings, Brussels

Source : © European Union, 2019 - EP

Length of video : 150'
You may manually download this video in WMV (1.7Gb) 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 : 25'
You may manually download this video in WMV (294Mb) 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

As we move into the final weeks of the original Article 50 time period, it is useful to try and round up several aspects of the EU27’s positions, insofar as they impinge on the UK’s decisions (which is to say, a lot). As much as Parliament is caught up in working out what it might accept, it is essential that this is done in the context of understanding the EU side, given that this is a negotiation.

Renegotiation and the backstop

The first stopping point on this has to be the question of renegotiation.

The EU, both collectively and in its member states, has been very firm that it will not consider renegotiation of the Withdrawal Agreement itself, although that does not preclude discussions on the Political Declaration or another document to provide elaboration of position.

However, those discussions will not include the kinds of changes still being discussed in Westminster, such as an end-date to the backstop or an unilateral exit clause.

This is best understood as a function of three elements that have reinforced the firmness of the EU’s stance.

Firstly, the Irish border issue has long been framed in terms that make it very hard indeed for the EU to move on its requirements. The Irish government was very successful in its lobbying of the Union and other member states that the border issue was an fundamental one for Ireland, that also threatened several core EU values, not least the peace project on the island that the Union has long supported and promoted. Moreover, other small member states have recognised that leaving Ireland exposed on this at any point much cause problems should they themselves need help on something in future.

Secondly, the EU view the backstop as something that they have already made major compromises on: the temporary customs arrangement was a concession to the UK and causes substantial concern in several member states, on the grounds that it gives the UK unfair access to the EU, including for smuggling. To be told that it is the UK that has given all the ground has not made a positive impression in Brussels or elsewhere.

Thirdly, the British approach to date has been to offer problems, rather than solutions. Dislike of the backstop is well-understood, but the repeated request on the EU side is for detailed proposals on how to address this, to which very little has been forthcoming. The EU sees it as the UK’s responsibility to take the lead, given that it is the one that will be leaving and since it should know better what is likely to be acceptable to Parliament.

Extension

Of increased importance is the matter of an extension to Article, 50 since even the most problem-free path to approving the Withdrawal Agreement seems to be taking the UK past 29 March.

The EU’s position is cautiously framed at present, but the main thrust appears to be that it is willing to consider and agreed to an extension. However, this comes with several caveats.

Procedurally, it must be remembered that the EU27 have to give unanimous approval to an extension. This leaves open the possibility of one or more states pressing from side-payments, especially if they are not so exposed to the direct effects of a no-deal Brexit: this possibility would only grow if there were to be future requests for further extensions.

Politically, the EU has long-underlined that extension must be for a purpose: it cannot be given simply in the hope that something might pop up. Thus a short extension to allow the UK to complete ratification of the Withdrawal Agreement and/or enabling legislation would be acceptable, as would a longer extension for a general election or referendum that would have a material impact on British government policy.

The European elections will be one major issue in all this.

Recall that that European Parliament has to approve the Withdrawal Agreement too: its last sitting is 18 April, so it cannot give that approval between then and 2 July, when it first sits post-election.

Legal advice to both the UK and EU suggests that an extension to the end of June would be unproblematic, since while the UK would not participate in the elections, MEPs would not be sitting. However, that bumps up against the need for approval of the Agreement, not to mention that the Court of Justice – if asked – might come to a different view on the need for elections on 23 May.

If the UK remains a member states past the end of June without MEPs, then this would be an infringement of Art.223 TFEU, which requires direct elections: proposals to second or appoint MEPs have been floated, but without any great support to date.

However, if the UK does hold elections and/or appoints MEPs, then this is also problematic. The Parliament forms its groups on the basis of minimum numbers of MEPs from a minimum number of member states: currently two groups would not meet the threshold without UK MEPs. Groups matter because they also determine the allocation of Parliament’s officers, speaking time and funding, even before it gets to the matter of voting for the new Commission in the late summer. Those member states that are due to receive additional seats post-Brexit would also have to work out whether to elect to these seats pre-Brexit.

No-Deal

Behind all of this is the concern over a no-deal Brexit, something that is a clear and substantial concern for all EU member states and its institutions.

While the primary effort has been directed to secured a Withdrawal Agreement, there has also been very substantial work (especially in the past year) on preparing for a no-deal outcome. The consistent advice from many national agencies in the EU27 has been that until there is a signed and ratified Withdrawal Agreement, there is nothing and business and individuals would be sensible to prepare as such.

The extent of resources available can be gauged from the websites available from the Commission and the governments of Ireland, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany and Denmark (to take just the immediate neighbourhood): each provides a lot of information on the impact of no-deal for assorted groups and individuals. These also highlight the substantive funding that has gone into place already, including 580 new customs officials in France and 400 in Ireland.

However, despite the very substantial range of work, it is also evident that very major gaps remain. As the Institute for Government notes, only Germany, Cyprus and Malta will have full legislation in place to protect UK citizens’ rights by 29 March: Spain will only have arrangements ready in relation to voting, rather than residence or access to services. Likewise, reports from various member states report very incomplete preparation by businesses (especially smaller ones), which will make the impact of the uncertainty generated by a no-deal even more substantial.

Finally, it should be noted that a no-deal would also strongly condition how member states and the EU approach any subsequent negotiations. The first priorities will be any life-critical systems not already addressed, but then the focus will be on securing the resolution of the content of the Withdrawal Agreement – that is citizens’ rights, financial liabilities and the Irish backstop – before any discussion of future trading arrangements. Given that the UK would no longer be a member state at that point, there is no indication that there would be any immediate reason to offer more generous terms on these points than are already embodied in the Agreement.

The post The EU view on the Article 50 endgame appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

Outside the EU, we’ll only have a say in our country, and there will be barriers to trade with our most important customers and suppliers in the world.

But inside the EU, we have a say in our country AND our continent, and enjoy NO barriers to trade with our most important customers and suppliers in the world (by far).

Brexiters say we must have full sovereignty over Britain. Why would that be a good thing?

The definition of sovereignty is ‘supreme power or authority’. Only one country in the world has that. North Korea.

But whilst North Korea has cast iron sovereignty over its nation and people, in the outside world it has very little power, authority or influence.

Indeed, North Korea is considered to be a pariah state, shunned and excluded by the outside world, and with tough sanctions imposed upon it.

In the modern, rational, democratic world, countries recognise that sharing some sovereignty actually increases their power and strength….and sovereignty.

NATO countries realise that in their promise to come to the immediate aid of another NATO country under attack. That’s a classic example of sharing power and sovereignty.

Brexiters say that Britain was misled into thinking that the European Community was only ever about free trade. That, of course, is nonsense – which any cursory study of history will reveal.

The European Economic Community (now called the European Union) was always about a Union of countries sharing some of their power, sovereignty and strength for the common good.

Back in 1961, when Britain first applied to join the European Community, there was much talk about what impact joining would have on Britain’s sovereignty.

The then Prime Minister, Harold Macmillan, explained to the British people:

“Accession to the Treaty of Rome would not involve a one-sided surrender of ‘sovereignty’ on our part, but a pooling of sovereignty by all concerned, mainly in economic and social fields.

“In renouncing some of our own sovereignty we would receive in return a share of the sovereignty renounced by other members.”

Mr Macmillan added:

“The talk about loss of sovereignty becomes all the more meaningless when one remembers that practically every nation, including our own, has already been forced by the pressures of the modern world to abandon large areas of sovereignty and to realise that we are now all inter-dependent.

“No country today, not even the giants of America or Russia, can pursue purely independent policies in defence, foreign affairs, or the economic sphere.

“Britain herself has freely made surrenders of sovereignty in NATO and in many other international fields on bigger issues than those involved in the pooling of sovereignty required under the Treaty of Rome.”

Almost 60 years later, one might have thought these issues would have been settled and agreed by now.

But it seems some British people (actually, they most often refer to themselves as ‘English’ rather than British) do not accept this idea of sharing some sovereignty for the common good.

They want England to have ‘supreme power’, meaning complete sovereign rule over its nation and its people, presumably just like in the ‘good old days’ when England had supreme power over its nation, its citizens and its Empire.

For those of us who belong to the modern world, we can see this makes no sense.

Britain is part of a planet that increasingly needs to work together with other nations, and working together, means sharing some power and agreeing some rules.

That’s our road to more civilisation, safely and prosperity.

That, of course, is the great strength of the European Union. 28 neighbouring countries coming together to share power and influence for the common good. It’s a huge success.

The EU is the world’s most successful economic, trade and political union of countries. No one can deny that the EU is the world’s biggest, richest trading bloc, and that it has considerable influence in the world.

Brexit means less sovereignty. In the EU, we gain sovereignty over our continent. In the EU, we have MORE control, not less.

Let’s not throw that away by retreating into an island mentality. Having 100% sovereignty – like North Korea – will not make Britain Great. It will make us small.

• 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 The truth about sovereignty appeared first on Ideas on Europe.