European Union

General : One in every three girls in developing countries is married before turning 18, and one in nine before 15. Child marriages limit future prospects as children are usually forced to drop out of school. Girls also face dangerous complications from pregnancy and childbirth, the leading causes of death among adolescent girls in developing countries. They are also at great risk from suffering abuse. On 11 April Parliament's women's rights and human rights subcommittee discussed the issue with experts.

Source : © European Union, 2017 - EP

On 12 April 2017, EU ambassadors agreed the Council's negotiating stance on macro-financial assistance for the Republic of Moldova.

Up to €100 million is proposed in EU assistance, of which €60 million in loans and €40 million in the form of grants. It would supplement resources provided by the IMF and other multilateral institutions.

The assistance would be aimed at supporting the country's economic stabilisation and structural reform agenda, helping to cover its external financing needs over the coming two years.

Ambassadors asked the presidency to start talks on the proposed decision with the European Parliament, as soon as the Parliament has agreed its own stance.

The Republic of Moldova's economy was affected by political instability during the period between elections in November 2014 and January 2016. It has also been affected by a banking fraud scandal, weak economic activity and import bans imposed by Russia. Since early 2016, the authorities have adopted a number of reforms, but need to undertake further efforts in implementing them, whilst those responsible for banking frauds need to be brought to justice. Reforms in the financial sector and in the management of public finances have been undertaken in the framework of negotiations on an IMF programme.

In July 2016 the Moldovan authorities and the IMF agreed a three-year extended credit facility and extended fund facility arrangement for $178.7 million. The Republic of Moldova requested complementary assistance from the EU in August 2015 and renewed that request in March 2016.

The EU assistance would be subject to a memorandum of understanding (MOU), including precise and specific conditions, to be agreed by the Republic of Moldova with the Commission.

A precondition would be that the Republic of Moldova respects effective democratic mechanisms, including a multi-party parliamentary system. It would have to respect the rule of law and guarantee respect for human rights. Objectives also include the efficiency, transparency and accountability of public finance management, an effective prevention of corruption and money laundering, and financial sector governance and supervision.

The Commission and the European External Action Service would regularly monitor the fulfilment of these preconditions and objectives.

The decision requires a qualified majority within the Council, in agreement with the Parliament. The legal basis is article 212 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

Length of video : 116'
You may manually download this video in WMV (1Gb) format

Disclaimer : The interpretation of debates serves to facilitate communication and does not constitute an authentic record of proceedings. Only the original speech or the revised written translation is authentic.
Source : © European Union, 2017 - EP

DRAFT OPINION on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council setting up a Union regime for the control of exports, transfer, brokering, technical assistance and transit of dual-use items (recast)
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Marietje Schaake

Source : © European Union, 2017 - EP

The European Court of Justice provoked considerable controversy last month when it decided that banning the wearing of headscarves in the workplace could be lawful if part of a general policy barring all religious and political symbols.

The Court, judging a case referred from Belgium, held that a ban on wearing visible signs of political, philosophical or religious beliefs did not amount to direct discrimination. But a ban could amount to indirect discrimination unless such a policy could be justified by a legitimate aim and the means of achieving that aim were appropriate and necessary.

Security company G4S Secure Solutions had an unwritten policy banning the wearing of all visible signs of political, philosophical or religious beliefs. When a Muslim receptionist, Samira Achbita, said that she wanted to start wearing a headscarf, G4S explained that this would contravene company policy. G4S approved an amendment to the workplace regulations, to put the prohibition in writing. The policy stated “employees are prohibited, in the workplace, from wearing any visible signs of their political, philosophical or religious beliefs and/or from giving expression to any ritual arising from them.” Achbita was dismissed.

The Court held that G4S’s “position of neutrality” in its contacts with customers was a legitimate aim if it applied only to employees dealing with customers directly.

“Overblown rhetoric is not only way off the mark, but it seriously risks damaging efforts to integrate religious minorities”

The test of legitimacy and proportionality will be context-sensitive and, ultimately, for national courts to decide. What constitutes ‘reasonable’ will inevitably vary depending on the national identity of the EU member state concerned. This is reflected in the fact that G4S operates a neutral clothing policy only in Belgium, which has a deep-rooted custom of neutrality. But from a British perspective, the recent ruling will change nothing. As a spokesperson for G4S in the United Kingdom, where the company has its global headquarters, said: “We work hard to create an inclusive environment for our employees in all countries where we operate. The recent opinion issued by the advocate-general in a case in Belgium will not affect our UK business.”

This is because the court’s opinion simply mirrors existing British equality and anti-discrimination law, which protects diversity and promotes social cohesion by offering the same level of protection of religious minorities as anyone else. Such laws protect the rights of individuals to manifest their religion or belief, but clearly there is sometimes a balance to be struck. The right to manifest a religious belief is not absolute. The European Court of Justice ruling simply reflects this.

The reactions of press and social media to the judgment were perhaps more problematic than the judgment itself. The ruling was seized upon by both the far-right and the regressive left to further their narratives. Judicious analysis made way for clickbait sensationalism. Headlines around Europe suggested that employers now had a free reign to prohibit headscarves and other items of faith.

The actual ruling was far more nuanced than this, but that didn’t stop those peddling victimhood from claiming that the ruling represented the enshrining of ‘Islamophobia’ into law. One British commentator went as far as to claim that the ruling was a clear sign that “Islam and Muslims are no longer welcome in Europe”.

Overblown rhetoric such as this is not only way off the mark, but it seriously risks damaging efforts to integrate religious minorities by promulgating a false and divisive narrative. Such commentators also fail to recognise the many efforts that have been made to integrate religious communities. As long ago as 2001, London’s Metropolitan Police Service accommodated the hijab as an optional part of the force’s official uniform, and many other police forces have since done the same.

“A secular state that is fair to all its citizens is the best model for guaranteeing freedom of religion and belief”

Concerns about the potential harm that restrictions on religious clothing could inflict on integration of religious minorities are valid. It is in nobody’s interest – other than hard-line Islamist clerics – to further marginalise and push Muslim women out of public life. But that doesn’t mean that liberal Western democracies must sacrifice principles they hold dear to accommodate every religious demand.

Islam has many faces, and social cohesion will not be best served by capitulating to demands from interpretations of Islam that care nothing for liberal pluralism.

The case concerned the Muslim headscarf specifically, but the principle applies to the wearing of any form of religious clothing. There are clearly circumstances where it will be both reasonable and appropriate for businesses to restrict the wearing of the full Islamic face veil. This judgment allows for that. But there is however nothing in the ruling that should worry religious minorities or embolden the far-right.

The judgment simply acknowledges that there may be circumstances where a business may wish to place restrictions on employees manifesting their beliefs in the workplace, and doing so may be legal, provided that workplace clothing rules are applied equally across the board, and that the company’s actions are fair and reasonable. This is a high barrier.

A secular state that is fair to all its citizens – a state based around common citizenship rather than religious identities – is the best model for promoting social cohesion and guaranteeing freedom of religion and belief. Such states should be open to plurality, but at the same time willing to defend their principles in the face of Islamic exceptionalism.

IMAGE CREDIT: rrodrickbeiler/Bigstock

The post Headscarf ruling reminds us that religious freedom is not absolute appeared first on Europe’s World.

Environment MEPs put forward a number of possible measures to cut the EU 88 million tonnes per year food waste by half by 2030 on Tuesday. MEPs called on the European Commission to lift existing restrictions on food donations and stressed a solution is needed for the confusion created for many consumers by the “best before” and “use by” labelling.
Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety

Source : © European Union, 2017 - EP

Environment MEPs put forward a number of possible measures to cut the EU 88 million tonnes per year food waste by half by 2030 on Tuesday. MEPs called on the European Commission to lift existing restrictions on food donations and stressed a solution is needed for the confusion created for many consumers by the “best before” and “use by” labelling.
Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety

Source : © European Union, 2017 - EP

AMENDMENTS 1 - 313 - Draft report Towards EU strategy for international cultural relations
Committee on Foreign Affairs, Committee on Culture and Education

Source : © European Union, 2017 - EP

Source : © European Union, 2017 - EP

The Maltese Presidency today struck a provisional deal with the European Parliament on the participation of the EU in a partnership to develop innovative solutions for sustainable water provision and management and food production in the Mediterranean region. The initiative, known as PRIMA (Partnership for Research and Innovation in the Mediterranean Area), will pool the know-how and financial resources of the EU and participating states. The partnership currently involves nine member states: Cyprus, Germany, Greece, Spain, France, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta and Portugal; and six non-EU countries: Egypt, Jordan, Israel, Lebanon, Morocco and Tunisia. 

The EU's participation will include a contribution of  €220 million from its Framework Programme for research and innovation, the "Horizon 2020" Programme. 

"The PRIMA partnership will help improve the health and livelihoods of those living in the Mediterranean region. It is also expected to encourage economic growth and stability in the longer-term," said Chris Agius, the Maltese Parliamentary Secretary. "Today's agreement in just one trilogue meeting means that PRIMA can be operational in early 2018, as planned." 

The presidency will submit the outcome of the talks for approval by member states in the coming  weeks.

Length of video : 40'
You may manually download this video in WMV (481Mb) 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

https://tvnewsroom.consilium.europa.eu/uploads/council-images/thumbs/uploads/council-images/remote/http_7e18a1c646f5450b9d6d-a75424f262e53e74f9539145894f4378.r8.cf3.rackcdn.com/5d154574-1e8b-11e7-aae3-bc764e092fac_37.18_thumb_169_1491897957_1491897956_129_97shar_c1.jpg

The 2017 G7 Foreign Ministers' Meeting is held on April 10 and 11, 2017 in Lucca, Italy.

Download this video here.

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

Host Mariano Rajoy, the Spanish prime minister, proudly tweeted the menu shortly after lunchtime, describing it as an “homage to Spanish cuisine”: artichokes with Spanish ham, sea bass cooked in Galician wine with leeks, followed by caramelised torrijas (a version of French toast) with ice cream. The white wine was a bone-dry Albariño, the red came from Rioja.

Read more

Length of video : 149'
You may manually download this video in WMV (1.7Gb) format

Disclaimer : The interpretation of debates serves to facilitate communication and does not constitute an authentic record of proceedings. Only the original speech or the revised written translation is authentic.
Source : © European Union, 2017 - EP

On 11 April 2017, the Council extended until 13 April 2018 its restrictive measures responding to serious human rights violations in Iran. These measures consist of: 

• a travel ban and an asset freeze against 82 people and one entity
• a ban on exports to Iran of equipment which might be used for internal repression and of equipment for monitoring telecommunications

These measures were first put in place in 2011. The legal acts are published in the Official Journal of 12 April 2017. They were adopted by written procedure.

Climate change is the single most pressing global injustice facing present and future generations, and one of the greatest human rights challenges of our time.

But climate change is not gender neutral. Women are disproportionately affected by climate change, but only a small part of climate funding is allocated specifically to the needs of women in the most affected countries.

And while there is a gender gap on climate funding, there is also a gender gap when it comes to the increasing problem of climate change denial.

Recently-published research shows that climate change denial is strongly correlated with accepting patriarchal or hierarchical structures. One extremely visible example of this is the new President of the United States, Donald Trump. He has attacked women’s reproductive rights and produced a litany of sexist remarks; he has also referred to climate change as a “hoax” and promised to withdraw the US from the 2015 Paris climate change agreement.

Climate denial is also on the rise in Europe, linked to an old faith in oil and coal as job-creating money machines, and to nationalism. Climate change is an inconvenient truth for nationalism: it is a problem that cannot be solved at a national level; it requires collective action between states and between all actors in society at all levels. And perhaps more provocatively, it calls for gender equality and the renouncement of a western masculine identity with its links to consumption patterns.

“Climate change is an inconvenient truth for nationalism: it is a problem that cannot be solved at a national level”

Lifestyles with a larger carbon dioxide footprint are linked to a high income, while lower incomes are linked to lower energy consumption. The traditional distribution of money and power, with men in possession of greater wealth and freedom of movement, therefore results in men being responsible for higher levels of greenhouse gas emissions. While rich women in the western world are responsible for higher CO2 emissions than poor men in developing countries, they are still likely to have a lifestyle that emits less CO2 than men with the same income do.

Research shows that polluting habits attributed to men are the result of the norms and values which define traditional masculinity and femininity. These images are very strongly embedded in our minds, reinforced by advertising aimed at increasing consumption. A car, for example, is sold as symbol of a man’s wealth and social status; we are told that ‘real’ men eat meat. Hegemonic masculinity explains why some forms of masculinity become dominant and others subordinate, and why certain traits come to define a ‘real man’. These traits change over time and vary between cultures, but are usually associated with power, strength, domination and aggression.

Breaking with traditional norms of consumption can therefore encourage a more gender-equal society and combat climate change, with both genders encouraged to use public transport and adopt a vegetarian diet. While this presents no problem for many progressive men, others – including many on the conservative right – have their identities increasingly tied up with notions of traditional masculinity. This makes green policies even more provocative: they challenge a gendered identity.

Considerations of gender are also necessary as we work to limit the negative impact of climate change upon the world’s population. Globally, women are more vulnerable to the effects of climate change than men, primarily because women constitute two-thirds of the world’s poor and because their livelihoods are more dependent on the natural resources that are threatened by climate change.

In 2015 the World Bank published a report showing that climate change in poorer regions such as sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia could force more than 100 million people into extreme poverty by 2030. Without a fair distribution of resources we face a world with millions of climate refugees: the United Nations estimates that there will be 200 million climate refugees by 2050. But with a rapid, inclusive and gender-sensitive development agenda focused on adapting to changing climate conditions, most of these impacts can still be prevented.

“Globally, women’s livelihoods are more dependent on the natural resources that are threatened by climate change”

Raising awareness of climate justice, the need for gender mainstreaming and the consequences of climate change is a prerequisite to tackling the challenges we face. The balance between adaptation and mitigation is unjust, and those who need the most frequently receive the least. Climate funding has become ‘big business’, and the most affected and most vulnerable are not part of the deal. The Paris agreement offers, for the first time, a chance for climate policymakers to focus on human rights and gender equality. This is crucial to ensure that climate mitigation and adaptation policies do not endanger the full enjoyment of human rights.

Women and men living in rural areas within developing countries are especially vulnerable. They face great challenges in securing water, food and fuel for cooking and heating. For women this issue is frequently coupled with limited mobility and unequal access to both resources and decision-making processes. In short, women often face social, economic and political barriers that limit their coping capacity. It is vital to identify gender-sensitive strategies to respond to the environmental and humanitarian crises caused by climate change.

Integrating gender into climate policy is efficient policymaking and a necessary tool to achieve climate justice on a global level. By introducing gender aspects into climate measures, policymakers will have to consider how different social factors, such as gender, education, income and age, determine our access to resources and our opportunities to act in a climate-friendly way.

The result of a gender-sensitive approach is that the diversity of social groups is more likely to be taken into account when formulating climate policies. That is why gender analysis is the starting point in making climate policy socially fair – and why climate change is certainly a feminist issue.

IMAGE CREDIT: CC/Flickr – Annette Bernhardt

The post Climate change is a feminist issue appeared first on Europe’s World.

Plenary sessions : Social media not only serves as a source of news for nearly half of Europeans, but it also has made spreading fake news easier and faster. Six out of ten news items are shared without actually being read. MEPS raised concerns about the spread of disinformation, political propaganda and hate speech in plenary on 5 April. However, they disagreed on the best way to respond to the problem. Watch our video above for an overview of the debate.

Source : © European Union, 2017 - EP

Plenary sessions : Social media not only serves as a source of news for nearly half of Europeans, but it also has made spreading fake news easier and faster. Six out of ten news items are shared without actually being read. MEPS raised concerns about the spread of disinformation, political propaganda and hate speech in plenary on 5 April. However, they disagreed on the best way to respond to the problem. Watch our video above for an overview of the debate.

Source : © European Union, 2017 - EP

Recent proposals to expedite the return of migrants who are not entitled to refugee status will be debated in the Civil Liberties Committee on Tuesday morning.
Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs

Source : © European Union, 2017 - EP

Recent proposals to expedite the return of migrants who are not entitled to refugee status will be debated in the Civil Liberties Committee on Tuesday morning.
Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs

Source : © European Union, 2017 - EP