European Union

To receive the Brussels Briefing in your inbox every morning, sign up here. You must be a registered user of the Financial Times, which is available here.

Warsaw tore up a mooted $3.5bn deal with Airbus, starting a diplomatic war with Paris and worsening an already strained relationship with Berlin in the process.

Read more

In 2002 Romano Prodi, then-president of the European Commission, anticipated the EU to become a ‘real global player’, capturing an era when the European Union (EU) was determined to achieve ‘sustainable stability and security’ within the EU, and, ‘from Morocco to Russia and the Black Sea’.

So what happened to these aspirations?

Today, the EU lacks leadership, frustration grows within the Union, while increasingly failing to make a positive impact beyond. The result of Britain’s referendum was but one example of this wider crisis. Can this be simply attributed to lack of unity? The problem, as the Bratislava summit nears, is somewhat deeper and more alarming. Drunk on its self-perception, the EU has lost creativity of thought, which threatens the survival of the integration project.

Unfortunately, this is not merely a crisis affecting the EU’s policy-makers, but also the academic field and think tanks that provides the Brussels elites with tools to think about Europe. Perhaps, at the core of this problem is the fundamentally dangerous belief in the civilising mission of the European integration (spurred on by the German philosopher Jurgen Habermas and his intellectual heirs), whose thinking has proliferated in Brussels and beyond.

Habermas, as one of the most important thinkers in Europe, can be satisfied –  the combination of his beliefs in emancipation (moving from exclusive state structures towards inclusive universal moral frameworks) and the importance of European integration as its instrument have been heard across the Continent. Few of his heirs would dispute that anything but an ‘ever closer union’ and ‘European values’ are simply but the only means to a brighter future, not only within the Union’s borders, but also beyond.

It is not that Habermas has been uncritical of the EU. After all, on more than one occasion the German philosopher highlighted the lack of institutional legitimacy and democratic participation of the European demos in the political process. However, the core problem here is not merely the problem of critiquing the current state of the European integration (though this too is fundamentally absent). Rather, there is a genuine lack of critique of the EU integration project as an end itself – its aims, intentions and, above all, the increasing inability and, indeed, heresy of diversity. The European Union, for its part, has turned into an instrument of obedience and control, victim of its own normative agenda. Where ‘Europe’ was once supposed to be a project of liberty, it is increasingly turning into a project of subversion.

Consequently, there is a lack of critique of the EU integration project as an end itself – its aims, intentions and, above all, the increasing heresy in diversity. The EU has turned into a victim of its own normative agenda. Where ‘Europe’ was once supposed to be a project of liberty, it has increasingly been turning into a dictatorship of thought, by those who spent decades arguing that the enlightened European project will solve issues that sovereign states no longer can. As a result, there is a little understanding of the internal and external consequences of thinking about the civilising mission of an ‘ever closer union’ as the only vision for the Continent’s future.

In this logic, alternatives have no place in Europe. The question of ‘Brexit’ provides an important case. It is not a question of believing in the UK’s exit from the Union, but rather that the argument for ‘Remain’ must be subject to scrutiny.  Instead, as we have witnessed quite often over the past months, ‘Leave’ has been perceived as a ‘lunacy’ or ‘suicide’.

Perhaps, the path chosen by the British people may well turn out to suicidal. However, there is a need to critique the wider belief that simply more integration is the only rational remedy to on-going crises and challenges – more EU on the external borders, more EU in monetary affairs, more EU in defense policy. Alternatives are side-lined, perceived as either mad or heretical – after all, how could anyone possibly want to willingly live outside this great project without, like Norway, paying a high price for it?

It is not that the ‘Leave’ campaign have provided the right solutions (rather the opposite). Unfortunately, a Union set on simply promoting a singular vision of the future (however bright) merely breeds intolerance to alternative visions rather than ‘unity in diversity’, as the EU’s motto claims. After all, as one of the founding fathers, Robert Schuman made clear: ‘Europe will not be made all at once, or according to a single plan’.

And what of the European integration project’s external dimension?

Potential new members of the Union must conform to EU conditions. This, of course, makes every sense if you wish to join any club, whether this involves a weekly game of squash or a monetary union; but clubs generally provide different membership options, dependent on members’ willingness than the club’s expectation.

But what of those who have little or no possibility (or wish) of joining the club? Must they also conform? According to the believers in the primacy of EUropean values, the answer is an obvious yes. As one EU official put it to me not so long ago with regards to the countries of the eastern neighbourhood – ‘they are our neighbours, and so must be close to our rules’. Our Rules, Our Neighbours. End of conversation.

The tragic case of the small Republic of Moldova provides a good example. Locked between the neighbourhood power struggles of the EU and Russia, Moldova’s internal politics is constantly determined by geopolitics. Yet, the country has been highlighted as the star pupil of the EU’s regional programme, and Moldova is the only eastern neighbourhood country to receive a visa-free regime as a ‘carrot’ for its efforts to follow EU norms.

Due to EU priority conditionality and financial support, Moldovan Border Police is, arguably, the most modern government institution in the country, while irregular migration reaching the EU through Moldova is in the 10s. No doubt, a remarkable success when compared to the dire situation in the Mediterranean, where ‘illegal’ migration is in the 100,000s.

This, however, is a sharp contrast to its socio-economic and political situation. Marred by emigration, corruption, oligarchy and political instability, Moldova highlights the dangers of limiting relations with its neighbours merely to conformity with European norms and values. Again, perceived as the only possibility for reform, the Union arrogantly disregards third countries’ interests and needs. Consequently, Moldova is left with a state of the art border management, and an oligarch-controlled political system that has witnessed 6 governments in 6 years, and €1bn euros stolen from its banks.

The heresy of diversity from an ‘ever closer union’ as an end, therefore, has major consequences. Within the Union, the democratic exercise exemplified in the UK referendum is snared at; externally, the EU pushes it own narrowly-defined reform agenda, as the only means of reaching the paradise.

However, as the Czech priest-reformer Jan Hus (burnt at stake for ‘heresy’ against the Catholic Church) stressed: Obedience is heresy. The EU, in its current state, in much the same way as the Catholic Church of the Middle Ages, requires not obedience, but resistance by questioning the end mission of a narrowly-defined project. It must be recognised that salvation does not merely exist in Brussels-centred catechism.

Resisting does not mean striking down the Brussels Leviathan. Rather, it requires the ability to imagine different visions of Europe, playing closer attention to the needs, interests and, indeed, different understanding of how Europe ought to be achieved – recognising that the challenge to its future existence does not lie in diverging voices, but in seeking conformity. Each club needs rules, but these rules are important only as long as they stimulate productivity or creativity. As soon as they seek to control, they become a hindrance and a threat to the system they seek to uphold.

As history has taught us, a singular vision of the future can have dangerous consequences. To this extent, however potentially costly, the British referendum should serve as a point of departure for a new vision of Europe where critical voices are not simply ignored. Let us, therefore, put behind crusading and search for obedience. The aim, as we move towards the Bratislava summit, must be to kill the necessity of an emancipatory (civilising) Europe, not only to revive our thinking about Europe, but to make Europe again a relevant interplay of productive and dynamic ideas.

Igor Merheim-Eyre is a doctoral researcher at the University of Kent and a visiting scholar at KU Leuven

This article was originally published by EurActiv on 15 September 2016.

The post ‘The European Union has lost its creativity: We need a new vision of Europe’ by Igor Merheim-Eyre appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

DRAFT OPINION on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Union Agency for Asylum and repealing Regulation (EU) No 439/2010
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Ramona Nicole Mănescu

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

The Budgets Committee demanded more funds, in a vote on Tuesday, to help young people into jobs, to boost economic growth and assist third countries with a view to mitigating the migration crisis. MEPs had earlier reversed all the cuts proposed by the Council to the draft 2017 EU budget. Part of the additional funds are expected to be financed via new appropriations to be obtained through the ongoing mid-term revision of the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF).
Committee on Budgets

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

The Budgets Committee demanded more funds, in a vote on Tuesday, to help young people into jobs, to boost economic growth and assist third countries with a view to mitigating the migration crisis. MEPs had earlier reversed all the cuts proposed by the Council to the draft 2017 EU budget. Part of the additional funds are expected to be financed via new appropriations to be obtained through the ongoing mid-term revision of the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF).
Committee on Budgets

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

The result of Britain’s referendum on EU membership gives cause for thought for both the United Kingdom and the European Union.

In Britain, the people have spoken, and Brexit will mean Brexit. But if the UK wants talks on its withdrawal from the EU to work well, it needs to ensure that it asks itself what is good for Europe as well as what is good for Britain.

A good negotiation starts with an intelligent appreciation of the interests of the people on the other side of the table. If Britain is concerned only with its own interests, the talks will fail. The UK government needs to think: what are our economic and social priorities? And how can these be made compatible with those of the rest of the EU?

The trouble is that it is not yet totally clear what Britons want. Many voted Leave because they wanted more protection from global competition. But many of the campaign’s leaders favour the opposite: a deregulated economy, fewer social rights, more global competition.

So Britain must choose which of these contradictory economic approaches it wants, because only when it has done so can it decide what sort of relationship it wants with the EU. That choice will determine what the UK says in its Article 50 letter, to be prepared by the end of March 2017.

And the UK must use the next six months to prepare its letter and negotiations well: short-term uncertainty is a very small price to pay for avoiding a botched or ill-prepared exit negotiation.

When the moment comes to trigger Article 50, I believe that there will be two negotiations: one on withdrawal, and one on the framework of a future UK-EU relationship. The two must run in parallel.

The other 27 EU leaders rightly insist that the EU’s four freedoms of movement – of people, goods, capital and services – go together. Nobody has any idea yet how the UK will propose to get around that.

“A good negotiation starts with an intelligent appreciation of the interests of the people on the other side of the table”

Clearly, the most sensitive freedom is that of free movement of people. But immigration as political issue in the UK will decline, irrespective of immigration controls, if the UK becomes less wealthy. A fall in the purchasing power of sterling and a slowdown caused by the unravelling of the UK’s balance of payments deficit automatically make the UK a less attractive destination for migrants.

Trade is another key topic. Until its withdrawal is finalised, the UK will still be a member of the EU, bound by EU rules and a participant in all key EU decisions (except those concerning its own exit terms).

The UK cannot do trade deals with other countries while it is still in the EU. It cannot even enter into commitments about future deals, particularly ones that may undercut EU negotiating positions. Instead, the UK must, under Article 4 of the Treaty, act in ‘sincere cooperation’ with its EU partners.

But Britain’s current EU partners must also heed the lessons of the Brexit vote. The old ways of doing EU business do not inspire the loyalty of enough EU citizens. The EU needs to improve its performance on at least three topics – trade, treaty change and democracy.

If trade becomes too difficult for the EU to complete trade agreements because a few states hold things up then the EU’s utility as a trade negotiator will fade away. We should not forget that many who favoured Brexit argued that the UK could negotiate trade deals more easily outside the EU, without having to wait for 27 other countries to agree.

Treaty change must also be easier. Every living institution must be able to amend its rules. If EU treaty change is off the agenda as a matter of principle then the EU will eventually freeze up and die. If such change becomes impossible, European states will look to other, less open, less democratic and less transparent institutions to advance their collective interests.

Democracy must also be enhanced. One of the most frequent – if ill-informed – criticisms of the EU heard during the UK referendum was that the EU was ‘undemocratic’ and run by ‘unelected bureaucrats’. The best way to respond would be to make the treaty changes that enable the EU to be more democratic and accountable.

“If they are to have greater allegiance to the EU, citizens must feel they can, by the way they vote, influence the direction of the EU policy”

If they are to have greater allegiance to the EU, citizens must feel they can, by the way they vote, influence the direction of the EU policy. And they should be able to do that, collectively as Europeans, rather than just as citizens of member states.

So what does this mean concretely? I suggest three ideas.

First, the entire electorate of the EU should elect the President of the European Commission directly, in a two-round election. This should be done without changing the legal powers or composition of the Commission. The direct election of its President would help to increase the moral authority of the Commission.

Second, the President of the Eurogroup should be similarly elected. This would introduce a valuable democratic element into debates about economic policy, without threatening the independence of the European Central Bank.

Third, give national parliaments, if a minimum number agree, a power to require the Commission to put forward legislative proposals. Any proposal would then have to go through normal procedures after that, but such a move would give a positive dimension to national parliaments’ discussions on the EU.

Uncertainty will continue. There has been disruption to the system. Disorder and division are the consequences.

To overcome these consequences, both Britain and Europe need to learn the right lessons from the referendum. Britain will have its Brexit, and the UK government promises to make a success of it. Its government will need cool heads and an understanding of Europe’s position.

For the rest of the EU, it is time to turn this crisis into an opportunity – to grasp the chance to renew the Union and make changes for the better.

IMAGE CREDIT: © European Union

The post The lessons of Brexit: how British and European leaders can deal with the disruption appeared first on Europe’s World.

DRAFT RECOMMENDATION on the proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion of a Protocol to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an Association between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Lebanon, of the other part, to take account of the accession of the Republic of Croatia to the European Union
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Ramona Nicole Mănescu

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

DRAFT REPORT on the implementation of the Common Foreign and Security Policy
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Elmar Brok

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

https://tvnewsroom.consilium.europa.eu/uploads/council-images/thumbs/uploads/council-images/remote/http_7e18a1c646f5450b9d6d-a75424f262e53e74f9539145894f4378.r8.cf3.rackcdn.com/consilium_16210_39350_24889_41.81_thumb_169_1474553614_1474553614_129_97shar_c1.jpg

EU Finance ministers meet in Luxembourg on 11 October 2016 to discuss the financing aspects of climate change, ahead of a UN conference in November, as well as health care systems and fiscal sustainability. The October G20 and IMF meetings and the European Semester process are also on the agenda.

Download this video here.

“We’ve had this discussion…before where a number of ministers say, look whatever happens in Basel it cannot lead to higher capital requirements, and I said then and now that I don’t think that is the right starting point,” Mr Dijsselbloem told reporters. “I think the approach should be different.”

Read more

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

Length of video : 77'
You may manually download this video in WMV (932Mb) 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

Length of video : 40'
You may manually download this video in WMV (455Mb) 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

Length of video : 23'
You may manually download this video in WMV (287Mb) 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

General : Can Dündar and fellow defenders of freedom of thought and expression in Turkey, the Crimean Tatar leader Mustafa Dzemilev, the Yazidi survivors and public advocates Nadia Murad Basee and Lamiya Aji Bashar are this year's finalists for the Sakharov Prize following a vote by the foreign affairs and development committees on 11 October. The laureate will be selected by the EP President and the political group leaders on 27 October and the award ceremony will be held in Strasbourg on 14 December.

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

General : Can Dündar and fellow defenders of freedom of thought and expression in Turkey, the Crimean Tatar leader Mustafa Dzemilev, the Yazidi survivors and public advocates Nadia Murad Basee and Lamiya Aji Bashar are this year's finalists for the Sakharov Prize following a vote by the foreign affairs and development committees on 11 October. The laureate will be selected by the EP President and the political group leaders on 27 October and the award ceremony will be held in Strasbourg on 14 December.

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

"1.             WELCOMES the Paris Agreement's objective to make finance flows consistent with a pathway towards low greenhouse gas emissions and climate-resilient development. REITERATES that this requires action by all parties individually and collectively.

2.             REAFFIRMS that the EU and its Member States are committed to scaling up the mobilisation of climate finance, as part of a global effort, led by developed countries, in particular to assist developing countries with respect to mitigation and adaptation to implement their country driven strategies, notably the Nationally Determined Contributions. HIGHLIGHTS that the EU and some EU Member States, in Paris at the 21st Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC, announced scaled up amounts of public climate finance foreseen in the coming years thereby also increasing predictability. HIGHLIGHTS that the EU and its Member States provide a substantial part of public climate finance and STRESSES the need for fair burden sharing amongst developed countries and the future participation of a broader range of contributors. EMPHASISES the importance of an outcome-oriented perspective on climate finance, ensuring the greatest possible impact of funds provided and mobilised.

3.             WELCOMES the work by developed countries to prepare a concrete roadmap to achieve the goal of jointly mobilising USD 100 billion per year by 2020 for mitigation and adaptation from a wide variety of sources, public and private, bilateral and multilateral, including alternative sources of finance, in the context of meaningful mitigation actions and transparency of implementation. LOOKS FORWARD to the roadmap's finalisation ahead of the UNFCCC COP22.

4.             AFFIRMS that the EU and its Member States are committed to mobilise their share of the developed countries' goal to jointly mobilise USD 100 billion per year by 2020 and through to 2025 for mitigation and adaptation, from a wide variety of sources, instruments and channels.

5.             REITERATES that public climate finance will continue to play a significant role. CONFIRMS that the EU and its Member States will continue to provide public climate finance for mitigation and adaptation purposes.

6.             REQUESTS the Commission to provide an overview on climate finance from the EU and its Member States for 2015 for the Council to endorse this contribution prior to the UNFCCC COP22.

7.             STRESSES the importance of the scaling up of resources to support those developing countries that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse consequences of climate change and that have significant capacity constraints.

8.             Also WELCOMES the commitments made by most multilateral development banks (MDBs) to strengthen the integration of climate mitigation, adaption and resilience considerations throughout their portfolios and within their mandates, including their commitments to scale up their climate related investments. ENCOURAGES international and regional financial institutions and UN agencies to provide information to Parties through the UNFCCC secretariat on how they mainstream climate objectives and incorporate climate resilience measures into their development assistance and climate finance programmes.

9.             WELCOMES the important climate finance contributions by some emerging economies and developing countries. HIGHLIGHTS that the Paris Agreement encourages Parties other than those committed under the Convention to provide or continue to provide financial resources on a voluntary basis.

10.         RECOGNISES the private sector as a key source for climate finance and other relevant investment flows. ACKNOWLEDGES that private sector finance is complementary to, but not a substitute for public sector finance, where public finance is needed. NOTES that the EU has in place and will continue to develop a broad set of instruments to mobilise private sector finance for international climate actions including mobilised local private sector finance.

11.         WELCOMES that the Paris Agreement sends a strong signal to the private sector to re-orient financial flows to low-carbon, climate-resilient investments. NOTES ongoing efforts within the EU to align investment incentives to EU climate objectives e.g. through the Capital Markets Union and the Investment Plan for Europe; and in this context WELCOMES the work of the G20 and the Financial Stability Board, as important contributions to reorient private investment. UNDERLINES that carbon pricing is one of the key components of an enabling environment for shifting investments which can be achieved through a variety of tools, including regulation, emission trading and taxes. In this context, SUPPORTS carbon pricing initiatives as well as initiatives promoting the phasing out of environmentally and economically harmful subsidies and inter alia the phasing down of financing for emission intensive projects.

12.         HIGHLIGHTS the efforts of the EU and its Member States to scale up mobilised climate finance as set out in the 2016 submissions on strategies and approaches. RECALLS that scaling up climate finance is an iterative process which goes hand in hand with governments developing enabling environments, investment strategies, projects and programmes which should all include the engagement of private sector action. In this context WELCOMES the efforts undertaken by developing countries.

13.         HIGHLIGHTS the importance of supporting adaptation to help mainstreaming climate objectives into developing countries' development strategies and to build more climate resilient livelihoods. UNDERLINES the importance of achieving a balance between adaptation and mitigation finance in line with countries' own priorities and objectives, and HIGHLIGHTS that the EU and its Member States collectively are making, and will continue to make efforts to channel a substantial share of public climate finance towards adaptation, especially by addressing the needs of the poorest and particularly vulnerable developing countries such as Least Developed Countries (LDCs) and Small Island Developing States (SIDS).

14.         HIGHLIGHTS that the transparency framework will be key to the successful implementation of the Paris Agreement by improving and accountability of climate finance. STRESSES that this framework should provide clarity on support provided, mobilised and received, including on the actions to make financial flows consistent with a pathway towards low greenhouse gas emissions and climate-resilient development, also with a view to informing the global stocktake. The framework should be accompanied by clear and common methodologies, building on existing methodologies and progress achieved in the preparation of the OECD/CPI study. SUPPORTS the development of accounting modalities on financial resources provided and mobilised through public interventions to reflect Parties' efforts of all relevant sources in a credible manner. LOOKS FORWARD TO the Biennial Assessment and overview of climate finance flows of the Standing Committee on Finance to guide further work on Measurement, Reporting and Verification (MRV) of support.

15.         STRESSES the importance of support for capacity building for mitigation and adaptation planning and efficient and effective implementation. Further STRESSES the need for development of a pipeline of attractive projects and programmes in order to maximise financial resources and effectiveness, as well as the importance of accessibility of available funds for developing countries and crowding in private finance. HIGHLIGHTS the EU and Member States' continued support for capacity building for developing countries in need, including in the field of technology cooperation. STRESSES the importance of ensuring efficient access to financial resources to support country-driven strategies through simplified approval procedures within the context of the Financial Mechanism and enhanced readiness support for developing countries, in particular LDCs and SIDS.

16.         RECOGNISES and SUPPORTS the importance of ambitious global implementation of Nationally Determined Contributions. HIGHLIGHTS that EU and Member States' development cooperation with third countries should fully take into account the synergies between climate objectives and the sustainable development goals as adopted by the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, the Addis Ababa action agenda for financing for development, and other international agenda. HIGHLIGHTS that co-ordination between stakeholders on financing in support of Nationally Determined Contribution implementation will be essential: each institution will need to act in partnership and coordination with the others to maximise impact on the ground.

17.           WELCOMES that the Financial Mechanism of the Convention shall serve as the Financial Mechanism of the Paris Agreement. HIGHLIGHTS the role of the Green Climate Fund as a key multilateral vehicle to support developing countries in promoting the paradigm shift towards low carbon and climate resilient development pathways. WELCOMES the approval of further projects and programmes, and FURTHER WELCOMES the endorsement of the Green Climate Fund's Strategic Plan and its ambition to enhance the Fund's transformational impact. HIGHLIGHTS that a substantial share of the funds committed (47 per cent) and made available comes from EU Member States. WELCOMES contributions from developing countries to the Green Climate Fund and URGES all countries that are in a position to do so to contribute."

Europe should continue to support film creation and distribution as important tools for our cultural diversity, MEPs and filmmakers underlined on Monday evening in a Lux Prize 10th anniversary debate. Translation and subtitling help to circulate works and promote European values, especially in time of crisis, they added. Film directors Ken Loach, Céline Sciamma and Andrea Segre participated in a very animated debate with Members of the Culture Committee on this occasion.
Committee on Culture and Education

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

Europe should continue to support film creation and distribution as important tools for our cultural diversity, MEPs and filmmakers underlined on Monday evening in a Lux Prize 10th anniversary debate. Translation and subtitling help to circulate works and promote European values, especially in time of crisis, they added. Film directors Ken Loach, Céline Sciamma and Andrea Segre participated in a very animated debate with Members of the Culture Committee on this occasion.
Committee on Culture and Education

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP