European Union

Spain's conservative ruling party led by Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy remains at the centre of the investigations into the country's biggest ever corruption case. The case involves manipulated financial records, illegal donations from construction companies and bribery. The party has now been accused of obstructing justice by destroying evidence. Spain's press is shocked by the party's reaction to the investigations.

Twenty-seven years after the collapse of the Soviet Union the archives of the Soviet secret service the KGB, dubbed the "Cheka sacks", still haven't been opened to the public in Latvia. Now the commission that was tasked with evaluating the documents has called for this to change, triggering a lively debate in the country about whether this is wise.

The military in Zimbabwe took control of the country on Tuesday night and placed its 93-year-old president Robert Mugabe under house arrest. The background to the move is the dispute over who will replace the elderly leader. The military leadership has promised that its move is only a temporary measure. Europe's commentators focus on what will happen now that Magabe's rule has apparently ended.

https://tvnewsroom.consilium.europa.eu/uploads/council-images/thumbs/uploads/council-images/remote/http_7e18a1c646f5450b9d6d-a75424f262e53e74f9539145894f4378.r8.cf3.rackcdn.com/consilium_16289_40175_26733_143.53_thumb_169_1507719180_1507719180_129_97shar_c1.jpg

EU Ministers of Education, Culture, Youth, Sport and Communication meet on 20-21 November 2017 in Brussels to discuss a wide range of topics. During the Youth session ministers aim to reach a general approach on the European Solidarity Corps, as well as adopt conclusions on Smart Youth Work. Education ministers then discuss the renewed EU agenda for higher education, as well as school development and excellent teaching. On the second day, the Culture session focuses on the adoption of conclusions on promoting access to culture via digital means with a focus on audience. During the final session on Sports, ministers adopt conclusions on the role of coaches in society and close up the meeting with a resolution on further developing the EU Structured Dialogue on sport.

Download this video here.

https://tvnewsroom.consilium.europa.eu/uploads/council-images/thumbs/uploads/council-images/remote/http_7e18a1c646f5450b9d6d-a75424f262e53e74f9539145894f4378.r8.cf3.rackcdn.com/9f7716d8-a39f-11e7-a571-bc764e093073_286.47_thumb_169_1507719352_1507719352_129_97shar_c1.jpg

EU Ministers of Foreign and European Affairs meet on 20 November 2017 in Brussels to start preparations for the December European Council. Also on the agenda are the interinstitutional agreement on better law-making, the Commission's work programme for 2018, and the 2018 European Semester roadmap. In addition, the Council is adopting conclusions on cybersecurity.

Download this video here.

https://tvnewsroom.consilium.europa.eu/uploads/council-images/thumbs/uploads/council-images/remote/http_7e18a1c646f5450b9d6d-a75424f262e53e74f9539145894f4378.r8.cf3.rackcdn.com/90d0a49a-1499-11e7-bfe6-bc764e093073_121.23_thumb_169_1507719477_1507719477_129_97shar_c1.jpg

EU Ministers of Foreign and European Affairs meet in Brussels on 20 November 2017 to discuss the state of play of the Brexit negotiations and in the margins of the meeting vote on the new locations for the EU agencies currently based in the UK.

Download this video here.

On 22 November, the Subcommittee will discuss, with the involvement of 3 experts, risks and trends and their security implications for the EU as well as EU efforts to mitigate the security relevant effects of climate change. It will also examine to what extent increased economic/military activities, impact on desertification, land degradation, water and food scarcity can be linked to climate change and what major effects they have on EU security.
Further information
Draft programme
hearing documents
Source : © European Union, 2017 - EP

Committee meetings, Brussels

Source : © European Union, 2017 - EP

https://tvnewsroom.consilium.europa.eu/uploads/council-images/thumbs/uploads/council-images/remote/http_7e18a1c646f5450b9d6d-a75424f262e53e74f9539145894f4378.r8.cf3.rackcdn.com/social-summit-logo_thumb_169_1510675683_1510675683_129_97shar_c1.jpg

Stefan LÖFVEN, Prime Minister of Sweden, together with Jean-Claude JUNCKER, President of the European Commission, hosts a Social Summit in Gothenburg on 17 November 2017, focusing on promoting fair jobs and growth.  The Social Summit for Fair Jobs and Growth gathers heads of state or government, the social partners and other key players to work together on a more social Europe and to promote fair jobs and growth. 

Download this video here.

Der Schatz an Metaphern, den der Fußball für die Politik bereithält, ist immer wieder erstaunlich. Gar nicht so einfach, ihnen zu widerstehen; sie drängen sich ja oft geradezu auf. Und oft genug gehen sie semantisch nach hinten los. Aber jetzt, da sogar Jürgen Habermas der Versuchung erlegen ist, sei es gestattet, eine seiner Vorlagen aufzunehmen.

In seinem starken Plädoyer im Spiegel, die Europa-Rede Emmanuel Macrons in der Sorbonne ernst zu nehmen und seine Ideen aufzugreifen, kam Habermas zu dem Schluss, der „Ball Europas“, den Macron im März noch „in der französischen Spielhälfte“ gesehen hatte, liege nun in der „deutschen Hälfte“.

Das Bild ist recht stimmig: tatsächlich muss der französische Präsident, laut Habermas, um mit Deutschland an einem besseren, „politisch handlungsfähigen“ Europa zu arbeiten, erst einmal gegen „die deutsche Regierung mit ihrem robusten Wirtschaftsnationalismus“ spielen.

Führt man den Gedanken und die Metapher weiter, kommt man nicht umhin, sich ein intensives französisches „Gegenpressing“ zu wünschen, um zu sehen, wie die deutsche politische Klasse mit intensivem Nachsetzen umgeht.

Copyright: Oleg Starynskyi

Für Leser, die mit den Feinheiten der Fußballtaktik weniger vertraut sind, sei kurz erklärt, was mit „Gegenpressing“ genau gemeint ist. Die damit verbundene Spielweise beruht auf der Beobachtung, dass dominante, an Ballbesitz orientierte Teams genau dann am meisten verwundbar sind, wenn sie den Ball erobert haben. In diesem Moment gilt es, sich eben nicht in die Defensive zurückzuziehen, sondern sofort koordiniert im Schwarm die ballführenden Spieler unter Druck zu setzen. Idealerweise schlägt Gegenpressing unerwartete Breschen in die gegnerische Verteidigung.

Die Art und Weise, mit der die deutsche Politik gegenwärtig die konstruktiven Vorschläge aus den Reden Emmanuel Macrons entweder ignoriert oder, im Falle der FDP, kurzerhand abbürstet, sollte man vielleicht in der Tat mit einem Gegenpressing kontern.

Von Frankreich aus erscheint die deutsche Regierung – die vorherige wie die kommende – wie eine dieser Mannschaften, die das Spiel über Jahre hinweg dominiert haben. Im Glanz ihrer vergangenen Erfolge verdrängt sie, dass sie schon in eine Phase des Niedergangs eingetreten ist. Trotzig auf ihren Gewissheiten und ihrer gegebenen Überlegenheit beharrend, verschließt sie sich neuer Spielweisen, immer unter dem Vorwand, die „Fans“ würden das nicht akzeptieren.

Wie die Welt- und die Fußballgeschichte nahelegen, ist dieser „wohlgefällige Selbstbetrug“, den Habermas diagnostiziert, ein verhängnisvoller Wahrnehmungsfehler, sowohl was die Überschätzung eigener Stärke betrifft als auch die Beibehaltung einer herablassenden, selbstgerechten Haltung gegenüber den Ideen eines jungen „Trainers“, der einen neuen Ansatz verfolgt.

Wird es Macron gelingen, die deutsche Abwehr unter Druck zu setzen? Die Hoffnung sei erlaubt. Was ihm in die Hände spielen wird, ist die Vermutung, dass die deutsche Politik das Ausmaß seiner Entschlossenheit noch gar nicht begriffen hat. Offenbar geht man davon aus, er sei mangels besserer Alternativen hauptsächlich deshalb gewählt worden, um Marine Le Pen zu vermeiden, die von einer Reihe deutscher Qualitätsmedien trotz besseren Wissens während des gesamten Wahlkampfs quasi-obsessiv als zukünftige Präsidentin auf den Titelseiten plakatiert wurde.

Im Gegensatz zu Jürgen Habermas scheint man in der deutschen politischen Klasse den ehrlichen Willen Macrons, dem europäischen Integrationsprozess neuen Schwung zu verleihen völlig zu unterschätzen, genauso wie man die geopolitische Rolle (und auch das wirtschaftliche Potential) Frankreichs systematisch herunterspielt. Vielleicht kann man sich in der deutschen Politik auch gar nicht mehr vorstellen, dass ein europäische Regierungschef sich tatsächlich traut, ein besseres Europa ganz oben auf seine Agenda zu setzen und offensiv gegenüber dem ewig skeptischen Diskurs-Trott zu verteidigen.

Wenn der gegenwärtige Koalitions-Mercato abgeschlossen und die neue Mannschaft aufgestellt sein wird, dann wird sich zeigen, wie sie reagiert, wenn ihr ein wirklich guter Spieler gegenübersteht. Emmanuel Macron ist ein Spielgestalter, der den feinen Pass in die Tiefe spielen kann. Einer, der den Mut hat, der allseits dominierenden Taktik des Europa-Bashings nicht mit einer ängstlichen Defensiv-Strategie zu begegnen, sondern offensiv dagegenzuhalten. Macron ist noch nicht abgenutzt von den langen europäischen Abenden in Brüssel und anderswo, frisch genug, um in die Verlängerung zu gehen. Es stimmt, er tendiert dazu, sich selbst an seiner Spielintelligenz und Vision zu berauschen, und nicht jede seiner Vorlagen ist allein deshalb genial, weil sie seiner Inspiration entspringen. Die eine oder andere kann schon mal im Aus landen. Aber man darf damit rechnen, dass er bei den Einwürfen wieder nachsetzt. Und wie man seit einem Jahr beobachten kann, lässt er sich von imposanten Kulissen und miesepetrigen Berichterstattern nicht einschüchtern.

Noch ist es zu früh, um vorherzusagen, ob sein Gegenpressing erfolgreich sein wird. Aber zumindest gibt es jetzt endlich wieder ein spannendes Match „auf Augenhöhe“. Schau’n mer mal!

The post Zeit fürs Gegenpressing! 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/11_15_2011-94901_-_20111115_an_overview_of_the_eu_budget_en-16-9-preview_47.86_thumb_169_1507719041_1507719041_129_97shar_c1.jpg

EU Ministers of Finance meet in Brussels on 17 November 2017 to prepare negotiations with the European Parliament on the EU's general budget for 2018. The negotiations are held at a conciliation committee meeting the same day.

Download this video here.

https://tvnewsroom.consilium.europa.eu/uploads/council-images/thumbs/uploads/council-images/remote/http_7e18a1c646f5450b9d6d-a75424f262e53e74f9539145894f4378.r8.cf3.rackcdn.com/eu-africa-logo_thumb_169_1510937270_1510937270_129_97shar_c1.png

The fifth African Union - European Union (AU-EU) summit takes place on 29-30 November 2017 in Abidjan, Côte d'Ivoire. The AU-EU summit is a key moment and opportunity to strengthen political and economic ties between the two continents.

Download this video here.

An amendment by Labour to protect our EU rights and protections after Brexit has been defeated in the House of Commons.

The Labour front bench sought to amend the EU (Withdrawal) Bill to ensure that after Brexit, EU derived employment rights, environmental protection, health and safety standards and consumer standards can only be amended by primary legislation.

But the amendment was slimly defeated in the Commons on Wednesday night this week.

Ken Clarke was the only Tory to vote for the amendment.

(Ken Clarke is arguably the only true Tory left in the Conservative Party: the party that had previously applied for the UK to join the European Community; the party that joined the UK to the European Community; the party that practically invented the Single Market of Europe; the party that pushed hard for the expansion of the European Union. Where is that Conservative Party now?)

During the Commons debate, Mr Clarke warned that there are some Government ministers who are “not excessively fond of workers’ rights” and retaining them after Brexit.

The former Chancellor and pro-European asked why, if the Government did not intend to water down workers’ rights after Brexit, ministers were not prepared to enshrine this in the Bill by backing the amendment?

The defeat of this amendment means that after Brexit, government ministers will be free to keep, amend or scrap EU protections and standards at their will without the usual scrutiny of Parliament – i.e. ‘secondary legislation.’

Despite voting with the Government, the former Conservative attorney general Dominic Grieve – a strong Remain supporter – warned that laws protecting such rights will be brought to the “lowest possible status” in Parliament after Brexit.

Shadow Brexit minister, Matthew Pennycook, said that Labour had put forward the amendment to the bill to prevent secondary legislation being used by future governments to “chip away at rights, entitlements, protections and standards that the public enjoy and wish to retain” after Brexit.

He added that Labour wanted to ensure that retained EU law – on employment, equality, health and safety, consumer and environment – “is accorded a level of enhanced protection that it would otherwise not enjoy”.

But of course, this is the key to what Brexit is all about. Instead of getting our country back, we’re going to lose it. The ruling classes want Brexit because they don’t want the likes of us, ordinary people, having rights that get in the way of the rich making more money, and lots of it.

Those who also thought that Brexit meant our Parliament will get more sovereignty should think again. Our Parliament is losing sovereignty; they are giving it away, eroding our democracy and our current rights and protections, with the false pretence that this is what ‘the people’ want and voted for.

MPs in the Commons also voted down an amendment to the EU Withdrawal Bill put forward by Green Party MP, Caroline Lucas, by 313 votes to 295.

Her amendment sought to ensure that animals continue to be treated as sentient beings after Brexit in domestic law.

Under EU law, animals are currently recognised as being capable of feeling pain and emotion. But MPs voted to drop the inclusion of animal sentience into the Withdrawal Bill.

The Government argued during the debate that animal sentience is already covered by the Animal Welfare Act 2006.

But Farming UK reported the RSPCA as saying that this wasn’t the case. RSPCA Head of Public Affairs David Bowles said it was a “truly backward step” for animal welfare.

“It’s shocking that MPs have given the thumbs down to incorporating animal sentience into post-Brexit UK law,” Mr Bowles explained.

Mr Bowles added that the decision by Parliament “flies in the face” of the Environment Secretary Michael Gove’s pledge for high animal welfare standards post-Brexit.

“In the EU, we know that the recognition of animals as sentient beings has been effective in improving animal welfare across the region” he said. “If the UK is to achieve the Environment Secretary’s objective of achieving the highest possible animal welfare post-Brexit, it must do the same.”

During the debate on Labour’s amendment to ensure that EU rights and protections are protected after Brexit – known as ‘new clause 58’ – Shadow Brexit minister, Mr Pennycook, explained that a substantial part of UK employment rights is derived from EU law, and an even larger body is guaranteed by EU law.

“As such,” said Mr Pennycook, “key workers’ rights enjoy a form of enhanced protection.”

He added that, “Those include:

• protections against discrimination owing to sex, pregnancy, race, disability, religion and belief, age, and sexual orientation;

• equal pay between men and women for work of equal value;

• health and safety protection for pregnant women, and their rights to maternity leave;

• a degree of equal treatment, in broad terms, for the growing number of fixed-term, part-time and agency workers;

• rights to protected terms and conditions, and rights not to be dismissed on the transfer of an undertaking;

• and almost all the law on working time, including paid annual leave and limits on daily and weekly working time.”

Mr Pennycook warned that whilst the Government had promised to ensure that workers’ rights are fully protected and maintained after the UK’s departure from the EU, “in the absence of stronger legal safeguards, there are good reasons to be sceptical about that commitment.”

He reminded the Commons that, “Prominent members of the Cabinet are on record as having called for workers’ rights to be removed.”

For example, Boris Johnson, the Foreign Secretary, had written that we need “to root out the nonsense of the social chapter—the working time directive and the atypical work directive and other job-destroying regulations.”

During the referendum, the then Minister for Employment, Priti Patel, called for the UK to “halve the burdens of EU social and employment legislation”.

The newest member of the Brexit ministerial team—Lord Callanan—has openly called for the scrapping of the working time directive, the temporary agency work directive, the pregnant workers directive and “all the other barriers to actually employing people.”

The LibDem Brexit spokesman, Tom Brake, interjected to make the point that the inventor, James Dyson, had also said last week that he welcomes the fact that leaving the EU means “he will be able to hire and fire people more easily.”

Mr Pennycook concluded the arguments for his proposed amendment by saying:

“We should not take risks with rights, standards and protections that have been underpinned by EU law.

“Hard-won employment entitlements, along with entitlements relating to the environment, health and safety, equalities and consumer rights, should not be vulnerable to steady erosion by means of secondary legislation outside of the powers contained in this Bill.

“In future, Ministers should be able to change the workers’ rights and other rights that came from the EU only through primary legislation, with a full debate in Parliament. On that basis, I urge hon. Members on both sides of the House to support new clause 58.”

But Conservative MPs spoke strongly against the amendment; indeed, all the proposed amendments to the Bill were lost last night, as one after the other the government managed to have them voted down.

Tory MP, Priti Patel, who lost her job last week as Secretary of State for International Development said, “Over the past 45 years, the European Communities Act 1972 has been the mechanism by which the sovereignty of this Parliament has been eroded, with more areas of law being taken over by the EU. The Bill puts all those EU laws, regulations and other measures under our control.”

Conservative MP, James Cleverly asked Ms Patel if she agreed that, “the implication that somehow Britain would be a horrible, ungovernable place were it not for the benign guiding hand of the European Parliament and European legislators is a massive insult not just to Members, but to every single person in the country?” She replied that was “an important point.”

Tory back bencher and leading Brexiter, John Redwood tried to offer reassurance:

“I have heard strong assurances from all parties that there is absolutely no wish to water down employment protections or environmental protections, and I see absolutely no evidence that anyone would try to do that,” he said.

“I am quite sure that, were they to try, they would soon discover that there was an overwhelming majority in the Commons, on the Government and Opposition Benches, of very many people who would say, “You cannot do that,” and we would have every intention of voting it down.” 

But Labour back bencher, a strong Remain supporter, Chuka Umunna, said it was important to have more than assurances to protect some of the vital rights that are currently protected in EU law. “In particular, we should protect their [current] enhanced status,” he said.

Mr Umunna made the point that during the debate, the Solicitor General and other Government Members were asking the House to give Ministers “the benefit of the doubt regarding these rights, particularly the employment law rights.”

He said, “We are being asked to give Ministers our confidence that they will protect these rights.”

But he warned:

“Since I joined the House, I have seen the Government – first the coalition and then the current Conservative Government – ride roughshod, unfortunately, over some of the vital employment rights that people enjoy.” 

However, at precisely 6:44pm the Commons voted 299 votes to 311 against the proposed amendment to protect the current status of EU protections and rights.

As Ken Clarke said during the debate, if the Government did not intend to water down workers rights after Brexit, why wasn’t the government prepared to back the amendment protecting those rights after Britain leaves the EU?

Isn’t it true that Parliament has just burnt our right to rights?

**********************

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

► Watch Jon Danzig’s video: ‘Can Britain Stop Brexit?’ 

 

The post No guarantee of EU rights after Brexit appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

The upsides of getting older are relatively few and far between, but one of the best is that you get to annoy younger people by dragging up things from the past that they have no memory of.

And so it’s been this week: I’ve been musing on the late 1980s and the oddities of monetary policy, while several of my colleagues have sat there, giving me the smile you give old people when they start off again.

Since you’ve got this far, I’ll assume you’re either: a) at least as old as I am, or: b) one of those particularly bright young people, genuinely wishing to learn from the past. Your pick.

So back in the 1980s and early 1990s, much of British European policy was about money, and specifically Sterling’s relationship with the Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM). In essence, the government sought to find an accommodation with that system that tried to satisfy several policy objectives at once.

Most importantly, it was trying to stabilise Sterling’s position in forex markets: the eighties had been rather a rollercoaster, with big impacts on public finances (and thus public policy). Secondly, the hardening of ERM – fewer and fewer changes in central target rates between member currencies – was making the block an ever more important reference point for the British economy, not least in the broader context of the 1992 single market programme. And finally, there was a big bunch of party politics going on, as Thatcher moved into her later years in office.

The failure of multilateral instruments in the early and mid 1980s seemed to close down that route, so the Treasury – which then ran the Bank of England and exchange rate policy – cast around for other options: if you’d like a good summary of all this, then Philip Stephens’ Politics and the Pound should be your first port of call.

For a year, from early 1987, the option that was followed was shadowing of the Deutschmark, but in secret. The then Chancellor, Nigel Lawson (father of Nigella, younger readers), instructed the Bank to keep the exchange rate just under 3.00DM, but never formulated it as formal policy, nor discussed it with anyone else.

Of course, the rapid mounting up of foreign reserves and the large amount of public speculation eventually brought this to a close, when Thatcher shut the door on it, just in time to cut the legs from under Lawson’s 1988 budget. This seemed to harden his resolve to move towards ERM membership and so to his sacking by Thatcher.

However, Thatcher’s determination not to join was ultimately undermined by her Cabinet’s insistence, including of the men brought in to replace her old guard. Eventually, Sterling did join in 1990, in the dying days of Thatcher’s premiership, but at a rate that was to prove unsustainable. In September 1992, that pressure led to Sterling’s ejection - Black Wednesday - which both trashed the Conservative’s reputation as economic managers for a generation, while also lying the conditions for a period of strong economic growth.

So what, grandad?

The reason this all comes back to mind is that some parallels with the Brexit process seem to be in order.

Most obviously, the episode points to the importance of credibility in commitments. The UK is about to move into a period where it is managing a divergent relationship with the EU, potentially with much of that resting on unilateral commitments to respect EU regulation. The Withdrawal Bill will be the mainstay of this, but there will necessarily be a need for more general political commitment to playing by externally-set rules.

The ERM saga highlights the difficulties of doing such a thing when others either don’t know you’re doing that or don’t believe you’re doing it. Money markets were able to make sizeable profits off playing government policy: Black Wednesday famously saw fortunes made, as speculators refused to believe that the BoE would reservedly back Sterling, and that other central banks would do the same. That the Bundesbank seemed indifferent to the fate of Sterling merely underlined matters – all the more so a year later, then it fought hard to keep the French Franc in.

Clearly, credibility is in equally short supply now: European partners remain unclear about the UK’s intent post-withdrawal, even as the UK faces much pressure to carve out exceptions and changes to the acquis in the medium-term. Even if the UK commits now to retaining that acquis, that seems to be a less-than secure guarantee of equal standards and procedures, which in turn raises questions of market access.

But the period also raises issues of British particularity. It was evident that economic cycles weren’t synchronised – and that no one was prepared to try to synchronise them – and that shocks tended to be asymmetric: Bernard Connelly’s Rotten Heart of Europe is a great bit of economic analysis (sprinkled with a pile of rage). The fundamentals weren’t really in place to help the policy work, whatever the politics.

The question is whether that has now changed. We’re 30 years on from shadowing and market integration has proceeded afoot, but it’s worth reflecting on whether economics might lead politics once more. The strengthening of the Eurozone and the weakening of the British economy will create a number of incentives to act that might not align with the political imperatives.

And finally, this blast from the past poses the big question of who’s in control. The ERM ‘stab in the back’ was a big part in the myth-making around Thatcher – she was right to fight off membership, and we shouldn’t trust those who seek European policy solutions – but in the end, the main message seemed to be that markets set exchange rates, not politicians, whatever their politics.

Of course, we worry less about exchange rates than we used to. But the point still holds: the economic effects of Brexit will be sizeable, to the point that either the British government nor the EU can mitigate or avoid them fully, even if they wanted to.

This doesn’t mean that policy-makers shouldn’t try, but rather that they should be frank about the limits to their power and about the range of potential outcomes. One hallmark of the late 1980s-early 1990s was that all these policy issues were debated and decided within a very small circle of politicians. Their failings contributed to the weakening of trust that now makes our current situation all the more challenging.

If I were being dull I’d close by wheeling out the old Santayana quote about the past, but while hunting for the reference I noted another quote from his Life in Reason: “Fanaticism consists in redoubling your efforts when you have forgotten your aim.” Something else to think about, as you get older.

The post A trip down memory lane: Shadowing, ERM and lessons for Brexit appeared first on Ideas on Europe.