European Union

Holiday recess

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

Delegations

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

The Council has agreed its negotiating stance on amendments to EU rules aimed at boosting investment in venture capital and social enterprises.

On 16 December 2016, the Permanent Representatives Committee, on behalf of the Council, asked the incoming presidency to start talks with the European Parliament, once the Parliament has agreed its stance.

The proposed regulation is part of the EU's plan to develop a fully functioning capital markets union, diversifying funding sources for Europe's businesses and long-term projects. It is also linked to the EU's investment plan for Europe.

"We need to develop new possibilities for financing European start-ups, innovative SMEs and social enterprises.  Access to venture capital and social entrepreneurship capital is key for this segment of the economy."

Peter Kažimír, Slovak minister for finance and president of the Council
Two types of funds

The proposal sets out to make European venture capital funds (Euveca) and European social entrepreneurship funds (Eusef) available to fund managers of all sizes. Amending regulations 345/2013 and 346/2013, it expands the range of companies that Euveca and Eusef funds can invest in. It also makes the cross-border marketing of such funds cheaper and easier.

Euveca and Eusef fund structures were created in 2013 to offer new opportunities for raising capital to, respectively:

• young and innovative companies;
• enterprises whose aim is to achieve a positive social impact.

Regulations 345/2013 and 346/2013 lay down requirements for managers of collective investment undertakings that wish to use the Euveca and Eusef designations for the marketing of their funds.

The funding gap

The availability of financing for SMEs is an important factor behind their growth and development, yet banks are not always able to support their financing needs. The funding gap has been repeatedly cited as an obstacle to economic growth.

The EU is falling further behind the United States as concerns the venture capital market. According to the Commission, if EU venture capital markets had been as developed as in the US, €90 billion would have been available for financing companies between 2009 and 2014.

Amendments

As agreed by the Council, the main amendments to regulations 345/2013 and 346/2013 involve:

• enabling larger fund managers, i.e. those with assets under management of more than €500 million, to market and manage Euveca and Eusef funds;
• expanding the range of companies in which Euveca funds can invest, including unlisted companies with up to 499 employees (small mid-caps) and SMEs listed on SME growth markets.

Procedure

The regulation requires a qualified majority for adoption by the Council, in agreement with the Parliament. (Legal basis: article 114 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.)

Regulations 345/2013 and 346/2013 were normally due for review in 2017, but the Commission decided to bring forward that review. It identified a number of factors holding back the development of Euveca and Eusef funds that are addressed in its proposal.

Place:
Justus Lipsius building, Brussels 

Chair:
László Sólymos, Minister for the Environment of Slovakia 

All times are approximate and subject to change 

+/- 08.30
Arrivals 

+/- 08.45
Doorstep by Minister László Sólymos 

+/- 09.30
Beginning of Environment Council meeting (Roundtable)
Adoption of the agenda
Adoption of non-legislative A items
Adoption of legislative A items (public session)          

+/- 09.45
ETS revision (public session)              

Any other business:
- Non-ETS (public session)
- Clean Energy For All Europeans
- Reports on recent international meetings: Marrakesh climate conference 

Chemicals, human health and the environment (public session) 

Any other business:
- Sustainable European future
- European Sustainable Development Week

+/- 13.00     Press conference (live streaming) 

+/- 13.30
Lunch: Sustainable development (Agenda 2030 and SDGs) 

+/- 15.00
Any other business: environment
- Fitness check of the EU nature legislation (Birds and Habitats Directives)
- Reports on recent international meetings
- Circular economy: waste package (public session)
- REFIT evaluation of the EU Ecolabel
- Budapest Water Summit 2016 
- Odour nuisance
- Work programme of the incoming Maltese presidency

Plenary sessions : Islamic State survivors and Iraqi Yazidi activists Nadia Murad and Lamiya Aji Bashar, received Parliament’s Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought at the December plenary which was also the last one to be fully presided over by Martin Schulz. MEPs adopted a report on fundamental rights in the EU and updated Parliament's internal rules to improve procedures and transparency. Read about these and other subjects in our article.

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

Plenary sessions : Islamic State survivors and Iraqi Yazidi activists Nadia Murad and Lamiya Aji Bashar, received Parliament’s Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought at the December plenary which was also the last one to be fully presided over by Martin Schulz. MEPs adopted a report on fundamental rights in the EU and updated Parliament's internal rules to improve procedures and transparency. Read about these and other subjects in our article.

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

To receive the Brussels Briefing in your inbox every morning, register for a free FT account here and then sign up here.

Brexit, briefly

Read more

Let me start with Syria. Today I invited the chairman of the local Council in Aleppo to personally address the leaders so that the voice of the people of Aleppo is heard, at least in this symbolic way. To be clear, faced with the brutality of the Syrian regime and its supporters, notably Russia and Iran, we are not as effective as we would like to be. But we are not indifferent to the suffering of the Syrian people. We will exert pressure on other global players who are present in Syria using all available diplomatic channels. The aim is clear: the immediate opening of humanitarian corridors to allow aid into Aleppo, and for civilians to be evacuated safely under neutral, international supervision. There must be full and unrestricted access for all medical personnel and aid workers. The protection of civilians is the absolute priority.

Another point on the agenda was migration. Leaders stressed their commitment to implement the EU-Turkey Statement, which also requires continued efforts from Turkey. High Representative Mogherini reported progress with African countries. For example, our partnership with Niger is reducing the numbers of people using smugglers to get to Libya. But we know that more needs to be done, and so we will discuss Libya and our approach to the Central Mediterranean route at our next informal summit in Malta in February. As for the reform of the common asylum system, Prime Minister Muscat will continue this work under his presidency. The aim will be to achieve consensus.

As regards Ukraine, we did what we could to help save the Association Agreement that has been ratified already by 27 Member States and the European Parliament. We have adopted a legally binding decision of the leaders to facilitate the ratification in the Netherlands. This decision addresses all the concerns expressed by the Dutch voters earlier this year. Now the responsibility lies with the Netherlands. The ratification is important not only for Ukraine, but also for Europe's geopolitical standing and credibility. We are counting on our Dutch colleagues.

Today we also agreed to step up our work on security and defence, in partnership with NATO. It is evident that Europe needs to do more to fulfil our international responsibilities and to protect our own citizens,. We committed to increase cooperation and to allocate more resources to security and defence.

Moving on to Brexit, the EU27 had a short informal meeting where we finalized procedural arrangements and reconfirmed our principles, meaning the indivisibility of the four freedoms, the balance of rights and obligations and the rule "no negotiations without notification". We adopted the organisational structure with the European Council maintaining political control over the process, and the Commission as the Union's negotiator. And Michel Barnier as the Commission's Chief Negotiator.

Finally, let me thank Prime Minister Fico and his team for a very successful and productive presidency. Not only did you host the historic EU27 summit in Bratislava, but thanks to your professionalism you have also succeeded in making a number of promises from Bratislava a reality. To give a few examples, the Council agreement on the Trade Defence Instruments, the Visa Suspension Mechanism and the Schengen Borders Code. So let me conclude by again thanking Robert and the entire Slovak Presidency for a great performance.

On 15 December 2016 the European Council adopted conclusions on Ukraine.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

It was the moment the UN General Assembly changed the face of international human rights law. Fifty years ago, on December 16 1966, the assembly passed a single resolution containing two new treaties: the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), covering rights to housing, social security and adequate standards of living, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), regarding rights to a fair trial, freedom of expression and physical integrity.

Together, these two treaties constitute the core of the international system that protects human rights. Both treaties entered into force a decade later in 1976, only a few weeks apart. And both of them have received approximately the same number of ratifications to this day: 168 for the ICCPR and 164 for the ICESCR. Like all other European countries, the UK is a party to both of them.

Degrees of separation

But there are significant differences between these two treaties. The intention of those who drafted them was to flesh out the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights by making the protection of rights legally binding for states. But considering that the 1948 Universal Declaration contained civil, cultural, economic, political and social rights in a single text, by creating two separate documents it was clear that the drafters wanted to introduce differences between these rights.

While all this happened during the political context of the Cold War, this was not the main reason why different types of human rights were treated differently. Rather, the decision had to do with states’ general preference for a weaker duty to protect their citizens’ economic, social and cultural rights. Countries were willing to proclaim these rights as long as this proclamation did not entail strong accountability mechanisms.

The second difference between the two treaties refers to the clarity and burden of words. Article 2(1) of the ICCPR talks about states’ obligations “to respect and to ensure [civil and political rights] without distinction of any kind”. Yet the same article in the ICESCR uses much more cryptic language about how the compliance of states to the treaty on economic, social and cultural rights will be monitored. It states:

Each state party to the present covenant undertakes to take steps, individually and through international assistance and co-operation, especially economic and technical, to the maximum of its available resources, with a view to achieving progressively the full realisation of the rights recognised in the present covenant by all appropriate means, including particularly the adoption of legislative measures.

It’s difficult to assess compliance if rights are meant to be “achieved progressively”, or to decide the “appropriateness” of the “means” authorities are making use of. And can we blame governments if they promise “to take steps”, but not just yet?

There are also differences in the ways states who violate these two sets of rights are held to account. When the ICCPR was adopted, it brought with it an independent monitoring body known as the Human Rights Committee.

This had three responsibilities: examining states’ abidance by the treaty approximately every five years; dealing with interstate complaints (although to date this has never been used); and receiving complaints from individuals who consider themselves to be victims of a violation of any of the political and civil rights contained in the ICCPR. A complaint can lead to detailed recommendations on the specific case which countries are expected to implement. To date, 115 countries have let their citizens complain to the UN like this, but the UK is not one of them.

But when it came to economic, social and cultural rights, the ICESCR did not contain anything similar, and this was only partly corrected in 1985 when the UN created a body to periodically assess the general level of enjoyment of these rights in those countries which have ratified the treaty.

All this means that there are three degrees of separation between the two sets of rights: different treaties that states could pick and choose from, different legal wording, and different accountability mechanisms.

An unfortunate hierarchy

Something similar happened in the European context. In 1950, the European Convention on Human Rights was set up with a relatively resourceful European Court of Human Rights devoted essentially to civil and political rights. Then, in 1961, the European Social Charter was established (and then revised in 1996). This is monitored by the much weaker European Committee of Social Rights.

The impact of this hierarchy in which civil and political rights are given more weight than economic, social and cultural rights is visible at the domestic level, too. In the UK, for example, the very important Human Rights Act 1998 gives judges the means to apply the European Convention on Human Rights, but not the European Social Charter or the ICESCR, although the UK has ratified both treaties.

Not to pick and choose from.
StepanPopov/shutterstock.com

Half a century since the adoption of the two landmark human rights treaties, it is time to close the gap between human rights.

Independent human rights bodies, scholars and a growing number of practitioners have worked to define the meaning of economic, social and cultural rights and the contours of states’ obligations to uphold them.

Since 2013, individuals in 22 countries, ranging from Argentina to France and Mongolia, can also complain directly to the UN if their economic, social and cultural rights have been violated. This only applies to countries that have ratified the 2008 Optional Protocol to the ICESCR. Unfortunately, the UK is not one of them.

Yet, even in the UK, a minority of the judges in the Supreme Court has accepted that given their nature, some human rights treaties (although not the ICESCR for now) should be “directly enforceable in UK domestic law”, even without an act of parliament.

Half a century ago, human rights were internationalised with some degrees of separation. Luckily, we now have some tools that we lacked at that time – but we need to tell the government to make use of them.

Koldo Casla, PhD candidate: human rights, international politics and law, King’s College London

 

The post After 50 years, it’s time to close the gap between different human rights appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

 

The ideal Christmas gift! (For your French friends only).

In case you have friends or family in France and you don’t know what to offer them for Christmas, my suggestion is: buy them a set of jerrycans. They may come handy in 2017. Not at once, but once the summer is over, they might be more useful than ever.

This advice is based on the commonly held view that the French left has no chance whatsoever to weigh on the forthcoming presidential and legislative elections. In the former its main role will be to help block the ascent of the Front National; in the latter, it will serve as punching ball for massive dissatisfaction with the previous government and simply try to limit the damage with regard to the number of seats in the Assemblée nationale. Whatever the desperate posturing of ex-Prime minister Manuel Valls, it is difficult to see how he could beat either François Fillon or Marine Le Pen and make it to the second round.

And once Fillon will be elected and provided with a parliamentary majority, the configuration will be slightly reminiscent of 1995, when a popular President (Chirac) and a brilliant Premier (Juppé) were finally going to bring about the reforms this country so urgently needed.  The Juppé government (of which Fillon was a member, in charge of technology, information and La Poste) set out to make the redistributive retirement scheme and Social Security financially sustainable.

Photo can be used every five years. Just replace name of PM as appropriate.

The French, who expected to be delivered on Chirac’s promise to heal the ‘social divide’, felt betrayed and erupted with anger. The country was totally paralysed for weeks in a row by massive strikes including not only transport, but also health and electricity services, and when two million people took to the streets on 12 December, Chirac gave in, buried the largest part of the reforms and spent the rest of his eleven and a half years in office as ‘The idle king’ (as Sarkozy once called him).

In 2017 the left may appear hopelessly divided and exhausted by five years of governmental responsibility in truly exhausting times, but the disappointment with Hollande does not mean the founding values of the left have lost their power of mobilisation. And once the painful slap in the face of the spring and summer elections overcome by the end of August, the people of the left will be ready to make sure ‘la rentrée’ in early September will be ‘chaude’ (which does not mean ‘warm’, but ‘burning hot and ready for ignition’).

If Doctor Fillon is determined to administer only half of his bitter medicine, the trade unions will be offered the rallying cry they desperately need to exist. In a country where strikes are not the ultimate means when everything else fails in negotiation, but a prelude to talks that gauges the level of bargaining power, the public services – Fillon’s main target and the union’s major stronghold – may be stalled in no time. And the unions are not alone: they might well be joined by an improbable coalition of the ‘sleeping’ movement of ‘Nuit debout’ that is only waiting to wake up again and several other professional groups in defense of archaic privileges. The latter will have a wonderful opportunity to disguise their interest-driven motivations as rightful indignation and struggle for dignity.

Considering the amount of angry demonstrators brought to the streets in recent months by the relatively meek reform bills of the socialist government – including professional groups like notaries and policemen! – it will not take much to set to fire the explosive mix of accumulated anger and frustration.

In the worst-case scenario (which would not even come as a surprise) public transport would be the first sector to be massively impacted, and it might promptly be followed by numerous road blockades orchestrated by exasperated farmers, infuriated lorry drivers and maddened taxi drivers. And the most important thoroughfares to be blocked are of course the access roads to the huge refineries in Gonfreville/Notre-Dame-de-Gravenchon (Le Havre), Donges (Nantes-Saint Nazaire) and Martigues (Marseille). After a few days, the petrol stations will have run dry and France come to a halt.

That will be the moment when your jerrycan Christmas gift will be fondly remembered.

Albrecht Sonntag
@albrechtsonntag

This is post # 7 on the French 2017 election marathon.
Post # 6 here. Post # 5 here. Post # 4 here.
Post # 3 here. Post # 2 here. Post # 1 here.

 

 

 

 

 

The post France 2017: Jerrycans for Christmas! appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

On 16 December, the Permanent Representatives Committee (Coreper) endorsed, on behalf of the Council, a deal with the European Parliament on a draft regulation on mercury. The new rules aim to enhance the protection against the pollution by this highly toxic substance. 

The text was agreed by the Council's presidency and the European Parliament during a trilogue meeting on 6 December 2016. 

Mercury represents a global and major threat to human health, including through the presence of its compound methylmercury in fish and seafood. Once emitted into the air or the water, mercury can travel long distances. That is why mercury pollution needs to be tackled at international level. 

Minamata Convention 

The changes agreed will ensure EU legislation is aligned with international rules as set out in the Minamata Convention. This will allow for swift EU ratification of the text and therefore pave the way for its entry into force. 

Mercury pollution is found all around the globe, even in virgin lands very remote from pollution sources. This proves how dangerous and global this pollution is. Today we have shown that we remain committed to halting mercury pollution. This deal will enable a swift ratification of the Minamata Convention by the EU. 

László Sólymos, Slovak Environment Minister and President of the Council 

Plans to boost greenhouse-gas emission curbs through the EU carbon market (EU ETS) were backed by the Environment Committee on Thursday. MEPs propose reducing the carbon credits to be auctioned by 2.4% each year, and doubling the capacity of the market stability reserve (MSR) to absorb the excess of allowances on the market.
Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

Plans to boost greenhouse-gas emission curbs through the EU carbon market (EU ETS) were backed by the Environment Committee on Thursday. MEPs propose reducing the carbon credits to be auctioned by 2.4% each year, and doubling the capacity of the market stability reserve (MSR) to absorb the excess of allowances on the market.
Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

General : Martin Schulz stressed the importance of cooperation and solidarity in his last speech as Parliament President at a European Council meeting. Addressing heads of government at the summit in Brussels, he called on them to make progress on issues such as defence, migration and Russia. “You all agreed that you need the EU, that the EU is the only means to tackle the challenges we are facing in this century. This spirit should never be forgotten and should guide your actions over the years to come.”

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

General : Martin Schulz stressed the importance of cooperation and solidarity in his last speech as Parliament President at a European Council meeting. Addressing heads of government at the summit in Brussels, he called on them to make progress on issues such as defence, migration and Russia. “You all agreed that you need the EU, that the EU is the only means to tackle the challenges we are facing in this century. This spirit should never be forgotten and should guide your actions over the years to come.”

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

First of all let me thank you for your visit and for this opportunity to listen to you. Honestly speaking, I have nothing to add to what has been said or written about the tragedy of your city, Aleppo.

The last thing your people in Aleppo need today is more words of sympathy. The only thing you need today is real and effective protection and assistance. I am absolutely aware of this fact. Your words, the words of the people of Aleppo and the facts are much more powerful than any of our words or declarations. Our main goal today is to protect as effectively as possible your civilians in Aleppo.

Please believe me, no-one is indifferent in the EU. I am talking about people, institutions, politicians. There are some global limitations and problems, but this is what we want to do, to be more effective when it comes to protection and assistance. We should and we will try to do everything we can to help you and the civilians in Aleppo.

Length of video : 79'
You may manually download this video in WMV (730Mb) 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, 2016 - EP