European Union

On 11 December, the Foreign Affairs Committee, together with its Subcommittee on Human Rights and the Committee on Development, will meet this year's Sakharov Prize laureates, the democratic opposition and political prisoners in Venezuela. The Venezuelan opposition will be represented by Antonio Ledezma, who recently escaped from his house arrest in Venezuela, and relatives of a number of political prisoners.
The Sakharov finalist Lolita Chavez as well as Bethlehem Isaak - daughter of the second finalist Dawit Isaak - will also participate in the meeting.

The award ceremony will take place in the plenary on 13 December. The Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought is awarded each year by the European Parliament to honour individuals and organisations defending human rights and fundamental freedoms.
Further information
Watch the meeting
Source : © European Union, 2017 - EP

Sometimes one has the impression that everyone involved in European politics is a big fan of Douglas Adams: certainly, as far as Article 50 goes, each new day brings absurdity piled upon absurdity.

The last week has made this point better than most, with the sudden rush to agreement on Monday then brutally undercut and a new stasis emerging.

It’s easy to be very negative about it all – confirming as it seemingly does – everything you thought was wrong with everything.

But for once I’d prefer to stress the positives from the latest batch of events, in the spirit of goodwill to all.

The most obvious positive to take away from it all is the capacity of both sides to demonstrate flexibility and movement in their positions.

Prior to the start of last week, there had been little evidence for this. The British government had stuck to its vague pronouncements that didn’t cohere, while the EU seemed to be on a loop in restating its principles and red-lines.

The apparent clarification on finances helped to open this up: the UK committed more clearly to honouring the large bulk of current liabilities, including the RAL (which makes up most of these), which removed one of the biggest blocks in the road. More importantly, the finances was the most fungible of the Phase I issues and the most pressing for most of the EU27, so it set a positive tone for what might come next. The money was thus both important in itself and as a marker of intent, not to mention signalling that the UK might come round much more to the EU’s position than the other way around.

Even if citizens’ rights was still stuck on the role of the CJEU – something that will be coming back before long – the second key development was a consensus among the negotiators that a statement of intent on the Irish border would be enough to move this latter topic on to ‘sufficient progress’.

This matters because the underlying difficulties of resolving the border question remain as stark as ever. The incompatibility of the EU’s single market, the Good Friday Agreement, the common travel area, UK territorial integrity and UK withdrawal from the single market/customs union has no solution in purely formal terms. Even the UK’s vagueness about ‘technical solutions’ couldn’t really address this point, as Dublin had made repeatedly clear.

Importantly, Phase I is the point at which Ireland has the most leverage, especially since the rest of the EU appeared to stand squarely behind it: to let the UK get away with what it had offered previously would be to risk losing any chance to pin it down, as the agenda moved on.

The compromise then was to work on a statement of principles that would apply whatever the outcome – i.e. including a no-deal scenario – to keep the border open and the GFA operative. With some linguistic fancy footwork on ‘regulatory alignment‘, it was possible to carve out a bit of space whereby the EU could claim no regulatory gap – so removing on key arm for needing a hard border – and the UK could claim it had its own regulatory process – albeit one that one have to very closely follow EU rules.

Put differently, the EU moved on form – from a detailed plan to a detailed set of principles – while the UK moved on substance – effectively tying themselves into the EU’s preferences and regulation.

This compromise seemed to work well enough for all the principals to sign off on it, right up to the point that the DUP raised their objections. But this shouldn’t obscure that the movement took place at all. It now sets the agenda for the work going on right now.

And this is the second big positive to take away: everyone’s working very hard for a deal.

Of all the counter-productive language since last June, ‘no deal is better than a bad deal’ has been the most problematic (and the one producing the firmest response from experts).

Every since Monday afternoon, when the wheels came off the compromise deal, figures on all sides have been very keen to stress the positives. The May-Juncker press conference was very brief, but couched entirely in such language, while briefings on all sides kept to the script too. While it would have been tempting to stick the boot into the DUP, the Irish government has made repeated positive noises about the chances of salvaging a new text this week or next, and appears determined not to rock the boot for May.

Just as important has been the language in the UK. With Davis distracted by the impact assessments this week – which also says something about the British situation – it was May taking the lead and again pushing the line that agreement was still possible. While it might be understandable, given her position, it was also apparent that most of her party wasn’t trailing the ‘no deal’ line and that Labour was challenging her competence, rather than the substance of what she had negotiated.

Most importantly in all of this is the Douglas Adams point about deadlines. Yesterday had been set by the EU as the last date to get text agreed in time for the EU27 to discuss prior to next week’s European Council. That has now drifted out to at least tomorrow and possibly early next week. Moreover, Leo Varadkar’s statements also open up the possibility of a special European Council early in the new year, should things not pan out, so that Phase II doesn’t have to wait until February.

Taken together, the impression is that Article 50 is still a going concern and that all sides are serious about making it happen. Certainly, the UK still has tremendous problems with its internal politics, but the fact that it could move as it did should give cause for some positivity about it all.

But a final word of caution. This past week also suggests that the outcome of Article 50 is now likely to be only one of two outcomes: either a deal very largely on EU terms, or a complete lack of agreement. The middle path of a more tailored deal looks less and less probably now. That might sound good to some, but the polarisation of outcomes also raises dangers, especially as and when Phase II opens.

The post Brexit silver (dead)lining playbook appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

López Pastuzano
Area of Freedom, Security and Justice
A decision may not be adopted to expel a third-country national who is a long-term resident for the sole reason that he or she has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of more than one year

Coca-Cola v EUIPO - Mitico (Master)
Intellectual and industrial property
Coca-Cola may oppose the registration of the sign ‘Master’ which uses the same font as its own for the marketing of beverages and food products

Today in Parliament, Prime Minister Theresa May said of Brexit, “The negotiations are in progress and very good progress has been made in those negotiations.”

Did you notice her nose grow an inch?

We can’t believe anything this government tells us.

The Brexit negotiations are going disastrously wrong. Did Mrs May fly to Brussels on Monday just for a free lunch? No. It was one of the most expensive lunches in British history.

She went there expecting to announce a deal had been struck with the EU to enable Britain to proceed to discussing a new trade agreement post-Brexit.

Apparently, everything had been resolved: the issue of EU citizens living here, British citizens living there, the amount owing to the EU, and that thorny issue of the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic Ireland.

So, had Mrs May achieved the impossible on the border issue?

Just two days before last year’s referendum, she warned that if Britain voted for Brexit, it was “inconceivable” that there would not be a new hard border with Ireland.
She told the BBC on the eve of the referendum:

“If we are out of the European Union with tariffs on exporting goods into the EU, there would have to be something to recognise that between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.

“And if you pulled out of the EU and came out of free movement, then how could you have a situation where there was an open border with a country that was in the EU and had access to free movement?”

How on earth was she going to fix something that only last year Mrs May said was unfixable?

Easy peasy! Just enable ‘regulatory alignment’ between Northern Ireland and the EU.
What does ‘regulatory alignment’ mean? Who knows? Who cares? Clink of glasses. Tuck into the main course.

Oh hold on, the DUP – the small Northern Ireland party that graced Mrs May with the favour of staying in power after last June’s disastrous general election (well for a small consideration of just £1 billion pounds, so easily plucked from Theresa’s famous ‘money tree’) – were having none of it.

With a thunder face, Arlene Foster, the DUP leader, stormed onto our TV screens, with her tiny entourage of MPs, to rule out any move “which separates Northern Ireland economically or politically from the rest of the United Kingdom”.

‘Will you be staying for dessert, Theresa?’ ‘No, Jean-Claude, I had better get home’.
‘But we’ll have to make an announcement to the media’. ‘Ok, but let’s keep it short.’ ‘Will 45 seconds be ok?’ ‘Yes, of course’.

No leading questions from the UK media. Nothing new there.

The DUP now has the real power over the UK’s future relationship with the EU. Mrs May… she just has empty words, and a nose that grows longer by the day.

Did you watch the five o’clock nose (sorry, news)? David Davis the Brexit Secretary, told Parliament that the 58 Brexit impact reports that he’s been boasting about for over a year don’t actually exist.

Like a naughty boy, Mr Davis had been summoned to the Commons Committee for Exiting the European Union to explain why he hadn’t produced full details of the sector-by-sector Brexit impact reports that Parliament had voted he must disclose.

“There is no systematic impact assessment,” Mr Davis replied.

An incredulous Hilary Benn, the Labour MP who chairs the committee, asked Mr Davis if the government had carried out any forecasts on the possible impact of Brexit on the automotive, aerospace or financial services sectors.

“The answer’s going to be no to all of them,” Mr Davis replied.

Asked by Mr Benn whether there had been ANY economic assessment of the impact of leaving the customs union, Mr Davis replied:

“Not a formal, quantitative one.”

Mr Benn said that the Brexit Secretary’s admission was “quite extraordinary”. Mr Davis said it wasn’t (he would say that, wouldn’t he? Does it matter any more what he says?)

In December one year ago Mr Davis told the same committee that:

“We are in the midst of carrying out about 57 sets of analyses, each of which has implications for individual parts of 85% of the economy. Some of those are still to be concluded.”

He added:

“We’ve got a lot to do, but that’s one of the reasons we are taking our time to get prepared on all fronts. That’s why our 57 studies cover 85% of the economy. Everything that’s not affected by international trade.

“So, we are aiming to get ourselves into a position where we can negotiate within the Article 50 process.”

Oh, his nose looked long then. It’s looking longer today.

Mr Davis is not in any position to negotiate anything.

The bottom line is that he and his department have not done any substantial analyses on the impact of Brexit.

He and his Brexit boss and fellow ministers are so intent on getting us out of the EU, that the details matter not one jot to him, or them.

That’s why the government has no vision, no plan, no blueprint, no manifesto for Britain after Brexit. They have not got a clue what Brexit will mean for Britain, and have not bothered to do any meaningful research to find out.

They are running the country blind, because they have blind faith that Brexit is going to be oh, so wonderful.

There are calls now to hold Mr Davis in contempt of Parliament. Surely that’s a mistake?

The entire government should be held in contempt of Parliament. They are running the state whilst being enemies of the state.

The current government is not acting in the best interests of the country.

Brexit was sold to the nation using a pack of lies. And now Brexit is being imposed on the nation using a pack of lies.

I nose that. You nose that. And they nose that.

This government must go. Nothing could be worse than the incompetent, imbecilic, inept gang of charlatans now running Britain to the ground.

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

• Watch Jon Danzig’s video, ‘How newspaper lies led to Brexit’

The post The government of long noses appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

ERRATUM to the report on the Annual report on the implementation of the Common Security and Defence Policy
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Michael Gahler

Source : © European Union, 2017 - EP

The energy transition known as the “Energiewende” in Germany is key to Europe’s economic success in the future. It is not just about putting up wind farms and solar panels in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions: it is also about using energy storage to create smart energy and transport systems, that will no longer be dependent on burning the fossil fuels of coal and oil. The knowledge gained by the implementation of the energy transition in Europe, will itself become an export commodity to countries such as China and India, which are desperate to move away from polluting coal fired power stations, not only to fight climate change, but also to improve the air quality for their own citizens.

There is some resistence to EU environmental protection regulations from those “Bundesländer”, federal states in Germany, that have traditionally depended upon coal for employment. In an article of 22nd August 2017 published on the website of www.tagesschau.de entitled, “Braunkohle-Länder fordern Klage”, which translates as lignite states call for legal action: it was reported that the Minister President of Saxony, Stanislaw Tillich had written a letter to the Minister of Economic Affairs, Brigiite Zypries, of the German federal government complaining about stricter EU regulations limiting the emissions of mercury and nitrogen oxide from lignite burning power stations. Tillich – who was writing on behalf of his own state of Saxony and three other states of Brandenburg, North Rhine-Westphalia, and Saxony-Anhalt involved in the open-cast mining of lignite and electricity generation from burning lignite – said that to keep to the EU’s regulations would be technically impossible.

However the answer for Germany’s future economic prosperity will not be to fight against the EU’s climate protection and anti-pollution regulations, but rather to phase out the open-cast mining of lignite altogether. In the process new technology will be developed to bring many more local clean energy power sources onto the electricity grid. This will involve retraining and re-employment of management and workers – who previously worked in the fossil fuel energy sector – to implement the energy transition successfully. Instead of resisting the EU’s environmental regulations: politicians, energy companies and unions should now be lobbying the EU institutions for grants to help with these structural changes of energy supply towards renewable energy and storage technology, that will phase out fossil fuels, in order to create a clean and sustainable energy future.

Sources

http://www.tagesschau.de/inland/braunkohle-laender-grenzwerte-101.html

http://jolyongumbrell.ideasoneurope.eu/2016/04/05/renewable-energy-deal-europe/

http://jolyongumbrell.ideasoneurope.eu/2015/11/24/obsolescence-coal-oil/

http://jolyongumbrell.ideasoneurope.eu/2015/03/30/will-britain-left-behind-energy-storage/

The post Prosperity versus pollution in Germany appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

AMENDMENTS 1 - 281 - Draft report Recommendation to the Council, the Commission, and the EEAS on cutting the sources of income for Jihadists - targeting the financing of terrorism
Committee on Foreign Affairs

Source : © European Union, 2017 - EP

Just two days before last year’s EU referendum Theresa May insisted there would have to be border controls with Ireland if the UK voted to leave the European Union.

She said then that it was “inconceivable” that there would not be any changes on border arrangements with the Republic of Ireland if Brexit happened.

As home secretary, Mrs May visited County Down on 21 June 2016 and told the BBC:

“If we are out of the European Union with tariffs on exporting goods into the EU, there would have to be something to recognise that between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.

“And if you pulled out of the EU and came out of free movement, then how could you have a situation where there was an open border with a country that was in the EU and had access to free movement?”

Now, of course, she is insisting that Brexit will not result in a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland – but she hasn’t been able to find a way to do it, just as she predicted would happen before the referendum.

How can anyone believe this woman ever again? She is not fit to be our Prime Minister.

In a speech in April 2016, Mrs. May spoke firmly against Brexit and in favour of Britain’s continued membership of the EU.

She said then:

“My judgement, as Home Secretary, is that remaining a member of the European Union means we will be more secure from crime and terrorism.”

And as for replacing the trade we do with the EU with other markets, she asserted that this would be a an unrealistic route. She said:

“We export more to Ireland than we do to China, almost twice as much to Belgium as we do to India, and nearly three times as much to Sweden as we do to Brazil. It is not realistic to think we could just replace European trade with these new markets.”

And there were other serious risks too.

“If we do vote to leave the European Union, we risk bringing the development of the single market to a halt, we risk a loss of investors and businesses to remaining EU member states driven by discriminatory EU policies, and we risk going backwards when it comes to international trade.”

And other risks too.

“Outside the EU, for example, we would have no access to the European Arrest Warrant, which has allowed us to extradite more than 5,000 people from Britain to Europe in the last five years, and bring 675 suspected or convicted wanted individuals to Britain to face justice.”

And leaving the EU, she said, could lead to the disintegration of the EU, resulting in “massive instability” with “with real consequences for Britain.”

In addition, Brexit might prove fatal to “the Union between England and Scotland”, which she did not want to happen.

And if Britain left the EU, she argued, we might not be successful in negotiating a successful divorce settlement.

Explained Mrs May:

“In a stand-off between Britain and the EU, 44 per cent of our exports is more important to us than eight per cent of the EU’s exports is to them.”

She added, “The reality is that we do not know on what terms we would win access to the single market.

“We do know that in a negotiation we would need to make concessions in order to access it, and those concessions could well be about accepting EU regulations, over which we would have no say, making financial contributions, just as we do now, accepting free movement rules, just as we do now, or quite possibly all three combined.”

She added:

“It is not clear why other EU member states would give Britain a better deal than they themselves enjoy.”

And in summary, Mrs May said:

“Remaining inside the European Union does make us more secure, it does make us more prosperous and it does make us more influential beyond our shores.

“I believe the case to remain a member of the European Union is strong.

“I believe it is clearly in our national interest to remain a member of the European Union.”

Now her tune has changed.

“Brexit means Brexit and we’re going to make a success of it.

“There will be no attempts to remain inside the EU.

“There will be no attempts to re-join it by the back door; no second referendum.

“As Prime Minister I will make sure that we leave the European Union.”

How is it possible for Theresa May to lead Britain in a direction which only last year she advocated was not in the country’s best interests?

Theresa May is a hypocrite. Enough is enough. She has to go.

My vote is for the UK to Remain in the European Union, and for Theresa May – with her hapless band of Brexiters – to leave office.

Now, all we need is a ballot.

•  Share and join the discussion about this article on Facebook:

The post Theresa May is a hypocrite appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

Coty Germany
Competition
A supplier of luxury goods can prohibit its authorised distributors from selling those goods on a third-party internet platform such as Amazon

Promoting women’s participation in CSDP missions and operations is important to sustain EU’s credibility, to improve effectiveness, to promote equality at home and abroad, to increase the talent pool for personnel, and to make the best use of our financial resources. More needs to be done by both member states and the EU to fulfil promises to implement the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325 on Women, Peace and Security. This report looks at three issues that contribute to more inclusion and better effectiveness: First, the structures that promote equality in the security sector institutions within the EU; second, the effects of women’s participation in missions and operations; third, how CSDP structures and EU member states policies could be further adapted to create a working environment that is conducive to both men and women contributing their full potential to better solutions to security challenges. Political commitment and hands-on leadership by the EU and its Member States is key to more diversity and inclusivity in CSDP structures. A pro-active approach to recruitment and retention of female staff, adapted job-descriptions, comprehensive family policies, and employing an approach that values diversity and creates a positive work environment are all necessary in this regard.
Source : © European Union, 2017 - EP

The European Union consists of 28 member states. All treaty changes or enlargement of the EU require the unanimous consent of every single member, however large or small.

The Union of the United Kingdom consists of four member states: England, Scotland, Wales and the province of Northern Ireland.

In the referendum, two of them voted to remain in the EU: Scotland and Northern Ireland. Yet the UK government is going ahead with Brexit, without the unanimous consent of all the UK’s member states.

That couldn’t happen in the European Union, where all member states of the EU, however large or small, each have an equal vote and a veto on new treaties.

If the UK was run on the same democratic principles as the EU, then the UK could never leave the European Union without the unanimous agreement of all its four members: England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

But in last year’s EU referendum, the democratic wishes of Scotland and Northern Ireland were ignored by the UK government, splitting the United Kingdom in two.

Similarly, Gibraltar – a British Overseas Territory which also had a vote in the EU referendum and strongly chose Remain – also saw their objections to Brexit ignored.

Even though Northern Ireland voted for Remain, one party – the pro-Brexit DUP – is being allowed to dictate what future relationship the province will have with the EU (and therefore the entire UK’s relationship with the EU), because it’s only that party that’s keeping the Tories in power.

The EU’s remaining 27 member states will have a greater say and vote on the final Brexit deal than the devolved areas of the UK and the overseas territory of Gibraltar.

Even the European Parliament will have a greater say on Brexit than our Tory government wants to give our Parliament in Westminster.

Brexiters claim that the EU is ‘undemocratic’.

But in reality, the EU is more democratic than our system in the UK, where we still have an unelected second chamber; where the wishes of devolved UK states can be ignored, and where we still have an antiquated voting system of first-past-the-post (MEPs are voted to the European Parliament using a system of proportional representation).

Brexiters tell us that the EU is run by faceless bureaucrats.

But the truth is that all EU laws can only be passed by the democratically elected European Parliament, in concert with the Council of Ministers, that comprise the ministers of democratically elected governments of EU member states.

The European Commission is the servant of the EU, and not its master. The European Parliament elects the Commission President, has to approve each Commissioner, and has the power to dismiss the entire Commission.

If that isn’t democratic, I don’t know what is.

This time last year, Brexiters mocked that a region of Belgium, called Wallonia, had the power to block the new free trade agreement between Canada and the EU.

But that shows how Belgium, a country only a tenth the size of the UK, has a better democracy than ours.

Under Belgium’s constitution, regional parliaments such as the one governing Wallonia, must give their unanimous agreement before Belgium, as an EU member state, can give its consent to any EU Treaty.

The regions of Belgium have much more democratic power than our devolved parliaments of the UK. That’s how Wallonia came to block the EU-Canada agreement, called Ceta.

Eventually, Wallonia sought and received assurances about the Ceta deal, and lifted their objections, so the EU-Canada free trade agreement could go ahead, which it did.

The EU-Canada trade agreement, incidentally, is calculated to be worth an estimated £1.3bn a year to Britain – but of course only whilst we are an EU member.

Last year, whilst the parliaments of Belgium and other EU countries were democratically considering Ceta, the UK’s international trade secretary, Liam Fox, had to apologise to MPs for not allowing our Parliament to have a debate on the Ceta deal.

There’s something else that makes Belgium arguably more democratically accountable than the UK.

Since 1894 voting in Belgium’s elections has been compulsory. Everyone must vote.

Contrast Belgium’s system of compulsory voting with what happened in Britain’s referendum last year, where around 20 million people who could vote, didn’t vote.

That included around 13 million who registered to vote but didn’t, and around a further 7 million who could have registered to vote, but didn’t.

What a difference 20 million voters could have made to the EU referendum result if it had been compulsory for them to vote.

Polls indicate that those 13 million who registered to vote but didn’t would have supported Remain 2-to-1.

So, in summary:

• The Tory government is going ahead with Brexit, without the unanimous consent of all the UK’s countries, and without the consent of our overseas territory, the state of Gibraltar.

• Although Northern Ireland voted for Remain, just one small Northern Ireland party, the pro-Brexit DUP, is being allowed to have the final say on the province’s (and therefore the UK’s) future relationship with the EU, because that party is keeping Mrs May and her Tories in office.

• The Tory government hasn’t allowed Parliament to have a vote on whether Britain should leave the EU, saying the decision was already made by the referendum (even though the Supreme Court ruled that only Parliament could make the decision, as the EU referendum was advisory only).

• The Tory government does not want our Parliament to have a proper vote on the final Brexit deal.

• The Tory government doesn’t want our Parliament to have a say on which EU laws brought into UK law should be kept, amended or scrapped. 

So, which has the better system of democracy: the EU or the UK?

•  Share and join the discussion about this article on Facebook:

► Watch Jon Danzig’s video: ‘Why the EU referendum was flawed’

The post Which is better: UK or EU democracy? appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

Xiaomi v EUIPO - Apple (MI PAD)
Intellectual and industrial property
Apple succeeds in preventing the registration of ‘MI PAD’ as an EU trade mark in respect of electronic devices and (tele)communication services

MB
SOPO
Advocate General Bobek considers that a requirement in national law for a person who has changed gender to be unmarried in order to qualify for a state retirement pension is unlawful

M.A.S. and M.B.
FIN
The obligation to protect the financial interests of the EU must be reconciled with observance of the principle that offences and penalties must be defined by law

Length of video : 193'
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, 2017 - EP

This is what Prime Minister, Theresa May, said about Brexit and Scotland back in April last year, when she was Home Secretary and (allegedly) pro-Remain:

“..if Brexit isn’t fatal to the European Union, we might find that it is fatal to the Union with Scotland. The SNP have already said that in the event that Britain votes to leave but Scotland votes to remain in the EU, they will press for another Scottish independence referendum.

“And the opinion polls show consistently that the Scottish people are more likely to be in favour of EU membership than the people of England and Wales.

“If the people of Scotland are forced to choose between the United Kingdom and the European Union we do not know what the result would be.

“But only a little more than eighteen months after the referendum that kept the United Kingdom together, I do not want to see the country I love at risk of dismemberment once more.

“I do not want the people of Scotland to think that English Eurosceptics put their dislike of Brussels ahead of our bond with Edinburgh and Glasgow.

“I do not want the European Union to cause the destruction of an older and much more precious Union, the Union between England and Scotland…

“We should remain in the EU.”

• Theresa May’s speech against Brexit – full text 25 April 2016 

•  Share and join the discussion about this article on Facebook:

The post What Theresa May said about Scotland appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

Olivier Bégin-Caouette

In the Europe of Knowledge, there are strong pressures on national governments to increase funding for research; one of Europe 2020’s headline indicators is to increase combined public and private investment in R&D to the equivalent of 3% of the GDP (see graph below). Beyond the amount of resources invested, it appears critical for both scholars and policymakers to question whether funding coming from different sources or taking different forms have a similar impact.

Progress towards investing 3% of GDP in research and development in EU member states. Source: European Commission

 

Focusing our analysis on four Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden), public funding and research produced in academic settings, we have attempted to analyze the impact of four funding streams, according to the perspectives of actors located within different levels of the higher education systems. Complementing studies based on bibliometric data, our actor-centered approach aimed at grasping the multifaceted and complex phenomenon of research production in a holistic manner. Part of a lager study (see also Bégin-Caouette, 2016), our recent article ‘The perceived impact of research funding streams on the level of scientific knowledge production in the Nordic higher education systems’ published in Science and Public Policy (Bégin-Caouette, Kalpazidou Schmidt, and Field, 2017) relied on a MANOVA processed on 456 questionnaires and a thematic analysis processed on 56 interview transcripts to explore how actors perceived the impact of four funding streams, defined as the funding flows at the actor level including various instruments and consisting in an intermediary layer between public authorities and researchers (Lepori et al., 2007): block funding, competitive funding, excellence funding and strategic funding.

 

The quality, equity and efficiency of funding streams

Analyzing the average survey scores obtained by the four funding streams, we noted that all streams obtained positive scores, but that, in all countries, competitive funding (defined as funding allocated to researchers based on “traditional” a peer-review process) was perceived as having the greatest impact. On the contrary, strategic funding (defined as a stream stimulating research in specific predefined areas) obtained the lowest scores in all countries but Sweden where it tied with excellence funding (defined as long-term peer-reviewed funding to groups of researchers).

 

Funding arrangements in Nordic countries have for long being characterized by a large block funding, and participants from all countries and at all levels confirmed it contributed to an equitable distribution of funding, and that equity was linked to the quality of the research produce since no funding body can know in advance where groundbreaking discoveries will occur (Öquist and Benner, 2012). Block funding based on performance measures would also increase research production in an efficient way since the small premium would create a signaling effect and generate symbolic capital for high achievers (Bloch and Schneider, 2016).

 

The competitive stream was perceived positively across countries because it enhanced quality research in an equitable manner since researchers from all institutions and disciplines could apply. It was however also perceived as being increasingly inefficient because of the diminishing acceptance rates, the correlated ‘Matthew Effect’ (Langfeldt et al., 2013) and the burden of writing multiple applications (von Hippel and von Hippel, 2015). Participants made similar comments regarding an excellence stream, which, despite concerns over equity and efficiency, would enhance the quality of the research production by being more stable, facilitating further grant applications (Bloch and Schneider, 2016) and fostering a critical mass of researchers (Bloch and Sorensen, 2015). Whether commenting on the block, competitive or excellence streams, participants made an association between an equitable allocation of resources and efficiency in research production. Strategic funding, although at the core of multiple recent policy initiatives, was still perceived at the periphery of traditional academic research systems, becoming a niche for emerging areas with less academic prestige (Benner and Sörlin, 2007).

 

Differences between the four Nordic countries

The MANOVA comparing survey scores by countries revealed some small but significant differences. Finnish participants attributed less importance to block funding than their Danish and Swedish counterparts. Swedish participants, for their part, attributed less importance to excellence funding than their Finnish and Norwegian counterparts. Like previously noted by Öquist and Benner (2012), Swedish participants considered research funding as being decentralized, complex and contradictory. In Denmark, actors attributed significantly higher scores to the block stream, which does represent a higher percentage of their country’s HERD than in other countries. Our thematic analysis is consistent with Välimaa’s (2005) observation that Danish policymakers were more concerned about supporting basic research than innovation, and with Öquist and Benner’s (2012) remark that the Danish National Research Foundation had channeled a massive increase of funding into the excellence streams, thus contributing to the increase in publications and citations.

 

In Norway, the excellence stream mitigated the negative impact of a scattered competitive stream by stabilizing the research system, fostering strong interdisciplinary centers and allowing promising scholars to attract sufficient funding for path-breaking discoveries (Asknes et al., 2012). It is finally interesting to note that, although the strategic stream is particularly important in Finland and could accelerate the innovation process, participants did not think it had a strong positive impact on the level of academic research produced.

 

Implications

This study provides concrete example of how different funding arrangements intertwine with existing academic traditions and are interpreted differently by actors located in different contexts. Streams’ adequacy to countries’ culture, history, national environment, industrial R&D and military development could have as much impact as the amount of funding or the specificities of the instrument developed. Despite shortcomings regarding national nuances and differences in actors’ perceptions, our article suggests that funding streams are perceived to have the most impact when they are consistent with academic traditions and the norms regarding an open, equitable and meritocratic competition between scholars.

 

 

Olivier Bégin-Caouette, former Canada-Vanier Scholar, is a postdoctoral research at the Inter-University Center for Research on Science and Technology (CIRST), based at the Université du Québec à Montréal (UQÀM). He also holds a PhD in higher education (comparative, international and development education) from at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE) at the University of Toronto. His research focuses on interactions between political-economic structures and academic research production. He also held the position of visiting scholar at HEGOM (University of Helsinki) and the Danish Centre for Studies on Research and Research Policy (Aarhus University).

 

Evanthia Kalpazidou Schmidt is an associate professor and research director at the Department of Political Science, Aarhus University, Denmark. Kalpazidou Schmidt´s research interests include European science policy and evaluation, science and society studies, higher education studies, and gender equality in science. She has been involved in a number of European Union funded projects and has frequently been engaged as expert in the evaluations of projects funded by the European Union.

 

Cynthia Field is a doctoral candidate in higher education at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE), at the University of Toronto. Her research interests include institutional differentiation, academic drift, sessional faculty and the academic profession.

 

References

Asknes, D., Benner, M., Borlaug, S.B., Hansen, H.F., Kallerud, E.K., Kristiansen, E., Langfeldt, L., Pelkonen, A. and Sivertsen, G. (2012) ‘Centres of excellence in the Nordic countries’. Working Paper 4/2012. < http://www.nifu.no/publications/963610> accessed Jan 25 2017.

Bégin-Caouette, O. (2016). Building comparative advantage in the global knowledge society: Systemic factors contributing to academic research production in four Nordic higher education systems. In C. Sarrico, P. Texeira et al. (Eds).  Global Challenges, National Initiatives, and Institutional Responses: The Transformation of Higher Education, Edition: 9 (pp. 29-54). Netherlands: Sense Publisher.

Bégin-Caouette, O., Kalpazidou-Schmidt, E. & Field, C. (2017). The perceived impact of research funding streams on the level of scientific knowledge production in the Nordic higher education systems. Science and Public Policy. Doi: 10.1093/scipol/scx014.

Benner, M. and Sörlin, S. (2007). ‘Shaping strategic research: Power, resources and interests in Swedish research policy’. Minerva, 45(1): 31-48.

Bloch, C. and Schneider, J.W. (2016). ‘Performance-based funding models and researcher behavior: An analysis of the influence of the Norwegian Publication Indicator at the individual level’. Research Evaluation, 47(1): 1-13.

Bloch, C., Sørensen, M.P. (2015). ‘The size of research funding: Trends and implications’. Science and Public Policy, 42(1): 30-43.

Evans, L. (2015) ‘What academics want from their professors: Findings from a study of professorial academic leadership in the UK’. In U. Teichler and W. Cummings (eds.), Forming, Recruiting and Managing the Academic Profession, pp. 51-78. Dodrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.

Frølich, N. (2011). ‘Multi-layered accountability. Performance-based funding of universities’. Public Administration, 8(3), 840-859.

Langfeldt, L., Borlaug, S.B., Asknes, D., Benner, M., Hansen, H.F., Kallerud, E., Kristiansen, E., Pelkonen, A. and Sivertsen, G. (2013) ‘Excellence initiatives in Nordic research policies’. Working Paper 10/2013. <https://brage.bibsys.no/xmlui/bitstream/handle/11250/2358609/NIFUworkingpaper2013-10.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y> accessed Jan 25 2017.

Lepori, B., van den Besselaar, P. Dinges, M. Poti, B. Reale, E., Slipersæter, S., Thèves, J., and B. van der Meulen (2007), ‘Comparing the Evolution of National Research Policies: What Patterns of Change?’, Science and Public Policy: 34(6), July, pp. 372-388.

Öquist, G. and Benner, M. (2012) Fostering breakthrough research: A comparative study. Stockholm: Royal Swedish Academy of Science.

The Economist (2011) ‘Academic publishing: Of goats and headaches; One of the best media businesses is also one of the most resented’. Economist, 399(8735), 69. <http://www.economist. com/node/18744177> accessed Jan 22 2017.

Välimaa, J. (2005) ‘Globalization in the context of Nordic higher education’. In: A. Arimoto, F. Huang, and K. Yokoyama (eds.). Globalization and Higher Education, pp. 93-114. Higashi-Hiroshima, Japan: Research Institute for Higher Education and Hiroshima University.

Von Hippel, T., von Hippel, C. (2015) ‘To apply or not to apply: A survey analysis of grant writing costs and benefits’. PLoS One 10(3): doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0118494.

The post Public research funding streams and the perspective of system actors appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

Today’s big news is that Northern Ireland could get a special relationship with the EU to enable no-border with Ireland.

It’s being called “regulatory alignment” between Northern Ireland and the EU. Nobody is yet sure what that means.

But in any other name, it might be called staying in the EU Single Market.

Or in two words: the ‘Norway option’.

Of course, nothing about Brexit can be simple or straightforward. We will need to await further clarification (not just about this, but about all of Brexit. Nobody knows what Brexit means).

But on the face of it, it seems that the proposal is that Northern Ireland will have a ‘special relationship’ with the EU, but the rest of the UK won’t.

Immediately Nicola Sturgeon, the First Minister of Scotland, Tweeted to say:

‘If one part of UK can retain regulatory alignment with EU and effectively stay in the single market (which is the right solution for Northern Ireland) there is surely no good practical reason why others can’t.’

She later Tweeted:

‘If it’s not some kind of Norway status for whole UK, it must mean some kind of special deal for NI. Has to be one or the other. And if latter, why not also for Scotland, London & Wales (if it wants it)?’

Sadiq Khan, Mayor of London, Tweeted:

‘Huge ramifications for London if Theresa May has conceded that it’s possible for part of the UK to remain within the single market & customs union after Brexit. Londoners overwhelmingly voted to remain in the EU and a similar deal here could protect tens of thousands of jobs.’

The BBC’s Political Editor Tweeted,:

‘Scotland and Wales will be looking v. v. closely too – if NI can have special deal why can’t they?’

But the DUP – upon whom the Tory government relies upon to stay in power – were having none of it. They said it “will not accept” a deal on the Irish border being brokered by Prime Minister, Theresa May.

Arlene Foster, the DUP leader, ruled out accepting any move “which separates Northern Ireland economically or politically from the rest of the United Kingdom”.

She added:

“We have been very clear. Northern Ireland must leave the EU on the same terms as the rest of the United Kingdom.

“We will not accept any form of regulatory divergence which separates Northern Ireland economically or politically from the rest of the United Kingdom.

“The economic and constitutional integrity of the United Kingdom will not be compromised in any way.”

Brexit is unravelling. We knew it would, because it simply doesn’t make sense. It has not been thought through with any measure of forethought or intelligence.

To maintain an open border between Northern Ireland and Ireland almost certainly means that Northern Ireland would have to stay in the EU Single Market in all but name.

Tory Brexiters believe that a hard border could be avoided by the use of clever technology. But that is unlikely to be acceptable (or even achievable).

If Northern Ireland maintains a ‘special relationship’ with the EU, then why not Scotland, Wales, London – everywhere, with perhaps the exception of Boston, Great Yarmouth and Cornwall?

Either Brexit breaks up, or the United Kingdom breaks up. It seems now that it may come down to one, or the other.

There is an alternative, of course.

Let’s get back to normal. Let’s keep our Union of the United Kingdom intact, and our membership of the European Union intact.

Just think how much money we’ll save by just stopping this madness. Were things really so bad before 23 June 2016?

• Join the discussion about this article on Facebook:

• Watch Jon Danzig’s video, ‘Why the EU referendum was flawed’:

The post Break-up of Brexit or break-up of the UK? appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

https://tvnewsroom.consilium.europa.eu/uploads/council-images/thumbs/uploads/council-images/remote/http_7e18a1c646f5450b9d6d-a75424f262e53e74f9539145894f4378.r8.cf3.rackcdn.com/10_1_2013-100240---railway--tte-16-9-preview_137.8_thumb_169_1510246962_1510246962_129_97shar_c1.jpg

EU Ministers for Transport, Infrastructure, and Communications meet on 4 and 5 December 2017 in Brussels to agree their position on an updated mandate for the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communication (BEREC). Ministers also look at the progress made on a proposal on ePrivacy and discuss draft rules on the free flow of non-personal data. On Tuesday, the Council takes stock of the progress made on the mobility package proposals relating to market access and social aspects and discusses the road charging proposals. Ministers look at the progress made on the proposal to safeguard competition in air transport. The Council is also due to adopt three sets of conclusions.

Download this video here.