European Union

Length of video : 187'
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, 2016 - EP

All but the smallest EU firms importing tin, tungsten, tantalum, gold and their ores will have to do "due diligence" checks on their suppliers, to stop this trade being used to help fund conflicts and human rights abuses, says a political understanding reached by MEPs, ministers and the EU Commission on Wednesday. Due diligence will also be mandatory for smelters and refiners. The EU Commission will press big manufacturers to disclose details of products that might contain conflict minerals.
Committee on International Trade

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

All but the smallest EU firms importing tin, tungsten, tantalum, gold and their ores will have to do "due diligence" checks on their suppliers, to stop this trade being used to help fund conflicts and human rights abuses, says a political understanding reached by MEPs, ministers and the EU Commission on Wednesday. Due diligence will also be mandatory for smelters and refiners. The EU Commission will press big manufacturers to disclose details of products that might contain conflict minerals.
Committee on International Trade

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

Good afternoon, I am delighted to be here in Helsinki. Let me start by thanking Prime Minister Juha Sipilä for his great hospitality.

We have just ended a good and fruitful meeting, the first part of our meeting, during which we discussed some of the most pressing issues for both Finland and Europe as a whole.

These are truly testing times for the European Union with many existential threats and challenges confronting us: the massive influx of refugees and migrants, terrorism, an aggressive Russian foreign policy, the continuing global economic challenges, and last but not least, the risk of “brexit”. The European Union is not and cannot be a fair-weather project. It is also made for rainy days, like here today, which we are demonstrating through our concerted efforts to tackle our common problems, one by one, together.

On the migration and refugee crisis we have managed to close the Western Balkan route, by starting to re-apply our common Schengen rules and by cooperating with Turkey. We have moved from almost 7.000 daily arrivals from Turkey to the Greek islands in October last year, to less than 50 per day in the last month. It shows that our strategy delivers. The June European Council will focus on how to return the economic migrants coming from Africa to Europe via the Central Mediterranean. Let me in this context recognise Finland as a front-runner in terms of relocating people. You have already fulfilled around a third of your national commitment and deserve credit for that. Likewise, other Member States need to step up and honour their commitments and follow Finland's example.

On Russia's violation of Ukraine's territorial integrity and sovereignty, we have stayed the course, keeping our unity despite systematic attempts to undermine it. Our principle political message has been heard throughout the neighbourhood and beyond. Sanctions on Russia continue to be linked to the complete implementation of the Minsk Agreements.

We are also working to broaden and deepen our security agenda with NATO. In the run-up to the NATO Warsaw summit, we are working to take our EU-NATO cooperation to a new level of ambition, in very practical ways. EU Member States and NATO Allies face the same challenges, and our responses need to be synchronised. I would like to thank Finland for being so forthcoming, even enthusiastic, in these discussions, including on stepped up action to tackle hybrid and cyber threats.

On the economic and financial crisis Europe has responded over the last years by supporting the efforts of the most affected countries to reform their economies. At the same time, institutional changes such as the banking union have made us more resilient. However we need to work harder to strengthen Europe's competitiveness and growth prospects and thank you for your support in this context . The Single Market, in particular the Digital Single Market, offer huge, still unexploited sources of durable growth. We need swift and determined progress on these issues. Therefore a strong message to this effect should be coming out of the June European Council. I know I have Juha's full support in this endeavour. I hope it will be effective.

And lastly on the question of the UK referendum. History has taught us that we were always defeated when divided. And that we always won when we stood united. Europe without the United Kingdom will be distinctly weaker. This is obvious. Equally obvious is that the UK outside the EU will be distinctly weaker too. Instead of seven years of political limbo and uncertainty in our relations, which will be the inevitable and direct result of “brexit”, we can have a fast and lasting less than one year implementation of the new settlement for the UK in the EU, negotiated by David Cameron. The UK has achieved a position of a key state in the EU, whose voice is respected. Today more than ever before. Many of the British ideas about the EU are gaining support all over Europe. There are so many things we can do together. Leaving now doesn't make any sense. Thank you.

The EU has agreed on a framework to stop the financing of armed groups through trade in conflict minerals, after negotiations between the Commission, Council and Parliament. It aims for EU companies to source tin, tantalum, tungsten and gold responsibly. These minerals are typically used in everyday products such as mobile phones, cars and jewellery.

"The EU is committed to preventing international trade in minerals from financing warlords, criminals and the human rights abusers", said Lilianne Ploumen, the Minister for Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation of the Netherlands, on behalf of the Council of the European Union. Along with the Chairman of the European Parliament's INTA Committee, Bernd Lange, INTA Rapporteur Iuliu Winkler, and the EU Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmström, a political understanding was reached on a framework for an EU Regulation to stop profits from trading minerals being used to fund armed conflicts.

"This political understanding on conflict minerals will help trade to work for peace and prosperity, in communities and areas around the globe affected by armed conflict," said EU Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmström. Chairman Lange agrees "we need to step up to our responsibilities and finally break the vicious cycle between the trade in minerals and the financing of conflict". The EU approach will build upon the OECD Due Diligence Guidance for responsible mineral sourcing.

"This framework paves the way for an effective and workable EU Regulation that will make a real impact on the ground", said Rapporteur Iuliu Winkler. The agreed framework carries clear obligations for the critical 'upstream' part of the conflict minerals supply chain, including smelters and refiners, to source responsibly. The vast majority of metals and minerals imported to the EU will be covered, while exempting small volume importers from these obligations.

In addition, the Commission will carry out a number of other measures - including the development of reporting tools - to further boost supply chain due diligence by large and smaller EU 'downstream' companies, i.e. those companies that use these metals and minerals as components in goods.

Today's political understanding sets the Regulation on track for technical work and final adoption in the coming months.

With the referendum on UK EU membership fast approaching, both the Leave and Remain campaigns have put forward their views on the future of environmental policy in the UK and its relationship with the EU. This political debate raises a number of questions:  how green is the European Union; how effective or in some cases cumbersome are its regulations; will the UK be more pro-environment, or more influential outside the block. These questions have informed academic debate on EU environmental politics and policies since the early 1990s.

Twenty-four years ago a special issue in the Journal of Environmental Politics brought together for the first time research studying the ‘green dimension’ of the European integration process: from the rise of green parties in national political systems to the role of key European institutions in ‘greening’ policies (making them more environmentally-friendly) and to key concepts such as environmental policy integration. Interestingly, this first stock-taking exercise took place in the shadow of what was then felt to be a great threat for EU environmental policies: British demands for repeal and repatriation of environmental legislation in the wake of the Danish ‘no’ to the Maastricht Treaty in 1992.

Back then, environmental policies were at the heart of the British ‘hit list’ of policies to be repatriated. Now, environmental issues are struggling to be heard in the EU referendum debate. Over the past twenty-four years or so, researchers on EU environmental policy and politics have ploughed the furrows delineated in the 1992 special issue – investigating how green the European Parliament really is, how successful environmental policy integration has been, and the role of Green political parties and environmental groups across the EU – as well as developing new agendas for research. In the early 1990s, slow progress stimulated concerns over the implementation of EU environmental policy, while from the run-up to the Kyoto Protocol (in the mid-1990s) onward, the EU’s climate policies and its role as an environmental leader gained traction. Finally, the 2000s saw a surge in research on the effects of the EU on its member states, and the effect of the three waves of enlargement to Central and Eastern European Countries on the functioning of the EU and on its green credentials.

Interestingly, the EU UK referendum debate appears to focus more on what could happen to environmental policies were the UK to leave. But what about a Remain vote? Is the EU as ‘green’ or pro-environment as it used to be? This question was at the heart of an academic workshop (ECPR Joint-Sessions) in April 2016. Bringing together twenty-one EU environmental policy scholars, the workshop discussed emerging new dynamics and directions in EU environmental policy and politics.

The ECPR ‘Whither the Environment in Europe?’ workshop participants

Where next for the environment in Europe?

We discussed three central issues. First, the changing role of central EU institutions in environmental policy, such as the European Commission and the European Court of Justice. The Commission has conventionally been depicted as an institution churning out new legislation at great speed. By contrast, the cutting-edge research shows that the European Commission is profoundly changing, both in its inner structure and in the activities it carries out. In two of its traditionally strong sectors of activity (policy-making and enforcement) the Commission appears to be stepping back by reducing the amount of new policy proposals, and indeed, in some cases, pursuing policy dismantling. It is also actively developing concepts for environmental governance and reinforcing retrospective (ex-post) evaluation of its policies. Concomitantly, the Commission appears to allow civil society to take a more active role in checking the application of EU law, effectively outsourcing parts of its enforcement duties to environmental groups.  This, in turn, links with the role of courts, where environmental groups have gained increasing legal standing, thus potentially shifting enforcement mechanisms in the EU. A recent example if this in the UK is the victory of the environmental law firm Client Earth against the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in the UK Supreme Court on the UK implementation of EU clean air rules in 2015.

A second set of papers considered activities in parts of the EU that have so far received less attention, such as policy implementation in the new member states, as well as the role of the EU in regional environmental regimes in the Baltic. Developing a much deeper understanding of policy dynamics at the EU’s periphery is thus one of the areas that will likely draw future attention, and it also interlinks with the broader questions on EU leadership in environmental governance and the role of its newer members, who have at times been much more reluctant to endorse ambitious policy proposals, particularly on climate change. A focus on the latter appears to be driving current environmental policy research.

Third, a number of papers picked up a return of politics and the increasing contestation of the European Union project. Linked to ideas on policy dismantling, but also the current public debates on the future of the EU, there was a real sense among workshop participants that more integration and more ambitious environmental policy isn’t necessarily the only direction of travel within the EU. This necessitates an engagement with the broader ideas of European (dis)integration, the developments at its core, the borders of the European Union, and increasingly differentiated, or regional, forms of collaboration.

Curiously, the fact that academics have increasingly focused on the minutiae of European policy making and filling gaps in knowledge about governance processes stands somewhat at odds with the ongoing societal and political debates about the future of the European integration project more generally. It appears that these ultimately political questions are forcing their way back into a field that has increasingly focused on lower-level dynamics. Much like the EU itself, the future of environmental policy in it (and its study) remain in flux.

The post Is the EU as green as it used to be? appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

Universal Music International Holding
Area of Freedom, Security and Justice
The occurrence of purely financial damage in a Member State does not justify in itself the jurisdiction of the courts of that State

Universal Music International Holding
Area of Freedom, Security and Justice
The occurrence of purely financial damage in a Member State does not justify in itself the jurisdiction of the courts of that State

Vereniging Openbare Bibliotheken
Freedom of establishment
In the view of Advocate General Szpunar, the lending of electronic books is comparable to the lending of traditional books

Vereniging Openbare Bibliotheken
Freedom of establishment
In the view of Advocate General Szpunar, the lending of electronic books is comparable to the lending of traditional books

One of the most striking quotes ahead of Britain’s referendum was Michael Gove’s claim that “people in this country have had enough of experts”. As this polling data shows, the Brexit backing justice secretary was on to something, at least when it comes to Leave supporters.

The YouGov pollsters gauged public trust in the views of “experts” and politicians when they speak about the EU referendum. It is no surprise that both Leave and Remain supporters are wary of politicians – both at home and abroad – albeit by different margins.

When it comes to experts, though, there is an chasm. Remain supporters tend to believe academics, economists and people from the Bank of England. Leave backers mistrust them all, especially if they come from Threadneedle Street (net trust minus 45 per cent). You can add business leaders to that list too (plus 28 per cent trust among Remainers, and minus 28 for Leavers).

There is a paradox to this. As the FT’s Chris Giles notes today, there has rarely been such “expert” consensus on an issue. While economists argue over how harmful Brexit would be, there is near unity that it would be harmful to the economy. The dismal science is in speaking in concert for once and the public just don’t seem to be listening. As Tobias Buck found in a report from revolutionary Bracknell, middle England is in an iconoclastic mood.

Read more

Length of video : 145'
You may manually download this video in WMV (1.3Gb) 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

On 17 June 2016, the Council extended the restrictive measures in response to the illegal annexation of Crimea and Sevastopol by Russia until 23 June 2017.

The measures apply to EU persons and EU based companies. They are limited to the territory of Crimea and Sevastopol. The sanctions include prohibitions on:

• imports of products originating in Crimea or Sevastopol into the EU;
• investment in Crimea or Sevastopol, meaning that no Europeans nor EU-based companies can buy real estate or entities in Crimea, finance Crimean companies or supply related services; 
• tourism services in Crimea or Sevastopol, in particular, European cruise ships cannot call at ports in the Crimean peninsula, except in case of emergency;  
• exports of certain goods and technologies to Crimean companies or for use in Crimea in the transport, telecommunications and energy sectors and related to the prospection, exploration and production of oil, gas and mineral resources. Technical assistance, brokering, construction or engineering services related to infrastructure in these sectors must not be provided either.

As stated in the declaration by the High Representative for Foreign Affairs And Security Policy on behalf of the EU on 13 March 2016, the EU continues to condemn the illegal annexation of Crimea and Sevastopol by the Russian Federation and remains committed to fully implement its non-recognition policy.

Thursday 23 June
Justus Lipsius building - Brussels

12.45 Arrival of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas
Welcome by the President of the European Council Donald Tusk
(VIP entrance, level 02 - photo/TV opportunity)

+/- 13.15  Press statements
(VIP entrance, level 02 - photo/TV opportunity)

Access to the VIP entrance (level 02) for the photo opportunity and the press statements will be granted to all journalists holding a 6-month badge.

Journalists without the above badge must send a written request by mail - deadline Friday 17 June 2016, 17.00 - to press.centre@consilium.europa.eu, with a copy of their ID, press card (if available), or a signed letter from their media confirming their professional status and that they are assigned to cover this event.

Important: If you have never attended a summit organised by the Council, you must provide a signed letter from your media even if you hold a press card.

Original documents need to be produced when collecting the badge.

Photos and video coverage of the event will be available for preview and download on http://tvnewsroom.consilium.europa.eu
Livestream on http://video.consilium.europa.eu

General : Agriculture faces many challenges ranging from climate change to rising food demand due to population growth. On 7 June MEPs adopted an own-initiative report on how technological innovation could help to increase agricultural productivity in a sustainable way. Report author Anthea McIntyre, a UK member of the ECR group, answered questions about it during a live broadcast on the Parliament's Facebook page.

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

General : Agriculture faces many challenges ranging from climate change to rising food demand due to population growth. On 7 June MEPs adopted an own-initiative report on how technological innovation could help to increase agricultural productivity in a sustainable way. Report author Anthea McIntyre, a UK member of the ECR group, answered questions about it during a live broadcast on the Parliament's Facebook page.

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP