European Union

General : In a region still reeling from the effects of the Arab Spring four years, Tunisia is seen as an example, succeeding the transition to democracy. Tunisian Prime Minister Habib Essid visited the Parliament on 28 May to discuss challenges facing his country and the region with EP President Martin Schulz and the foreign affairs committee and the human rights and security subcommittees. We talked to him to find out his views on the migration crisis and the secret of why Tunisia is doing so well.

Source : © European Union, 2015 - EP

General : In a region still reeling from the effects of the Arab Spring four years, Tunisia is seen as an example, succeeding the transition to democracy. Tunisian Prime Minister Habib Essid visited the Parliament on 28 May to discuss challenges facing his country and the region with EP President Martin Schulz and the foreign affairs committee and the human rights and security subcommittees. We talked to him to find out his views on the migration crisis and the secret of why Tunisia is doing so well.

Source : © European Union, 2015 - EP

http://tvnewsroom.consilium.europa.eu/uploads/council-images/thumbs/uploads/council-images/remote/http_7e18a1c646f5450b9d6d-a75424f262e53e74f9539145894f4378.r8.cf3.rackcdn.com/7535a7f6-05d9-11e5-af52-bc764e08d9b2_23.58_thumb_169_1432887913_1432887892_129_97shar_c1.jpg

EU and Japan Leaders meet on 29 May to return to the ongoing negotiations for a strategic partnership and a free trade agreement.

Download this video here.

The Informal Meeting of EU Chief Officers of Plant Health Services took place on 27-28 May under the Latvian Presidency of the EU Council bringing together 58 participants, including five European Commission representatives. The participants discussed the harmonisation of import controls procedures and a common framework for action in the event of a plant disease outbreak, reducing the maximum of adverse impacts.

The Informal Meeting of EU Chief Officers of Plant Health Services took place on 27-28 May under the Latvian Presidency of the EU Council bringing together 58 participants, including five European Commission representatives. The participants discussed the harmonisation of import controls procedures and a common framework for action in the event of a plant disease outbreak, reducing the maximum of adverse impacts.

Political group and committee meetings, Brussels

Source : © European Union, 2015 - EP

Ten years ago today, the French voted down the European Constitution Treaty, which was supposed to replace existing EU Treaties and institute key changes such as the appointment of a EU foreign minister. This was followed by an even stronger ‘No’ in the Netherlands three days later. These ‘No’ votes succeeded where the Danish 1992 ‘No’ to Maastricht and the Irish 2000 ‘No’ to Nice had failed, forcing EU leaders to come-up with a new reform Treaty, the Lisbon Treaty.

At a time when the UK is gearing up for the in/out referendum on EU membership, this post reflects on the 2005 referendum campaigns and their aftermaths in France and the Netherlands. It highlights key similarities – the ‘No’ votes revealed how disconnected European elites and the general population had become – as well as central differences in the ways the two countries re-engaged with Europe since these votes. I explore these differences in “European strategies” by looking at French and Dutch engagement with EU environment and climate policy.

From pro-Europe to confused-about-Europe

The 2005 referendums revealed the thin consensus on Europe among both citizens and elites in France and the Netherlands. In 2005 the main French left party, PS (Parti Socialiste), was divided with the ‘Yes’ staunchly defended by the infamous former IMF chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn and the ‘No’ upheld by current Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius.[1] Both main right and left wing parties stood officially together for ‘Yes’, leading to an infamous picture of Francois Hollande and Nicholas Sarkozy – both party leaders at that time – standing next to each other.

Sources:  France Culture, Paris Match and Grasset

In the Netherlands, Eurosceptic parties remained at the margins throughout the 1990s and early 2000s, but put increasing pressure on the mainstream parties[2]. The clear ‘No’ vote showed how the Dutch political elite (and the Dutch media) were out of sync with the public, leaving the political class “divided and confused[3]”.

The referendums thus left the two countries’ relations with Europe in shambles – pushing these member states toward disengagement with European affairs. This is because the referendums made the EU toxic for the French socialist party, striving to mend the breach between the ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ sides, and for the Dutch parties in the subsequent 2006 election, who avoided raising the European issue. The referendums opened the way for a more openly critical attitude to the EU among political elites in both countries. In the Netherlands this critical view was at its strongest under the first Rutte government (2010-2012), the country’s first minority government supported by the Eurosceptic party PVV (Partij voor de Vrijheid). In France the 2012 election saw both Nicolas Sarkozy and François Hollande going “EU-Negative”, with Hollande criticising the European Budgetary Pact and Sarkozy pledging to revise Schengen rules.[4]

Reengaging with Europe – two distinct strategies

The two countries’ trajectories diverged when it came to re-engaging with Europe. Dutch positions on the EU before the referendum were often presented as paradoxical, “for, as well as against”. On the one hand, the Dutch turned more negative on defence cooperation, intergovernmental efforts in general, any favouritism for big member states and on migration policies. On the other hand, the Dutch policy supported economic integration and a strong European Commission – but also, conventionally, environmental legislation. After the referendum the Netherlands held on to their position, supporting further European integration only in certain areas.[5]

Recent Dutch governments have been strong advocates for subsidiarity and proportionality in EU actions, and for reduced EU ‘red tape’.  Over the last ten years Dutch influence on these issues grew,[6] while crucially EU environmental policies changed status – from favoured policy to potential ‘red tape’. For example, in 2009 the Dutch Prime Minister asked for a review of Nature Policies, in 2013 the Dutch Foreign Minister, Frans Timmermans, produced a subsidiarity review, and the Dutch government initiated the “Make It Work” initiative with the UK and Germany to review EU environmental legislation. The Dutch position on green ‘red tape’ grew more influential when Timmermans became First Vice President for Better Regulation and Subsidiarity in the Juncker Commission. Subsequently, the new Commission’s 2015 working programme came under criticism for hindering environmental policy expansion, and pledging to update key nature policies.

Whereas the Netherlands were instrumental in changing the way the Commission worked in the last ten years, France appears to have grown weaker in Brussels: this is supported by its weakness inside the European Parliament, a smaller number of high ranking French officials in the Commission and constantly changing European Ministers. France has long had a problematic relationship with EU environmental policies – from the opposition of its hunter lobby to the birds’ directive, to implementation problems on nitrates pollution from farm activities or to its fisheries’ impact on young fish stocks. Thus a weakened France could in principle have been good for environmental policies. But despite its decreasing weight in “everyday” Brussels, France still managed to influence EU environmental legislation at critical points – both positively and negatively. For example, Sarkozy’s 2008 European Presidency signalled a “return to Europe” – building on the success of the 2007 German presidency it yielded a deal on the Climate and Energy package. But one should not exaggerate the impact of this French “victory” for climate policy: France did not become a green leader after 2005. This is perhaps best illustrated by the recent 2013 Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) reform, where France opposed CAP greening, and thus undermined a key attempt to mainstream environmental policy in the EU.

Ten years later, it may be up to Laurent Fabius, then advocate of the ‘No’ to the Constitution Treaty, now head of Paris COP21[7] in December, to signal further French re-engagement with Europe. The climate negotiations offer the French another opportunity – indeed an obligation – to lead on environmental issues on behalf of the EU. But, irrespective of the outcome of COP21 and of the French flair for shining in high politics, the last ten years saw a degradation of French influence and engagement in Brussels, which will take long – and more than a successful COP! – to fix.

Lessons for the UK Referendum

While the UK situation differs considerably, the two referendums offer useful lessons: first, referendums cast a long shadow on national politics – it can be very difficult to return to ‘normal’ after a lost referendum. Second, although some issues may be given prominence during campaigns before a referendum, the outcome impacts all policies – thus, the UK in/out referendum is not ‘just’ about migration or even the welfare state. Finally no two referendums are the same: the variety of political systems in the EU means that different states will find their own unique way back in – or out – of Brussels.

[1] Previously, the French right had split on the narrowly won Maastricht Treaty referendum in 1993.

[2] Startin and Krouwel (2013, p.67)

[3] Rood (2009, p.70)

[4] Vassallo (2012, p.79)

[5] Rood (2009, p.71)

[6] See for example the diffusion of the Dutch Standard Cost Model across Europe and at EU level.

[7] Conference of Parties

The post Ten Years after the French and Dutch ‘No’: How the Two Countries Reinvented their Relationship with Europe appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

It has been sixty years between the idea to create a truly pan-European competition for football clubs and the Champions League final in Berlin between Barcelona and Juventus next week. But it has not been a linear evolution from the first tournament launched with sixteen clubs handpicked by the journalists from L’Equipe and today’s huge multi-million euro business. Right in the middle of these sixty years, on 29 May 1985, there was a traumatic watershed moment after which nothing was the same anymore. ‘The Heysel’, as the tragic event is still referred to today across the continent, has become a European lieu de mémoire.

The Heysel stadium is named after King Beaudouin today, but that does not exorcise the haunting memory of European football’s darkest hour, when 39 mostly Italian supporters died in the Brussels football stadium in a stampede after Liverpool hooligans had invaded the section reserved for Juventus supporters just before kick-off of the European cup final. Six hundred more were severely injured.

Whatever the name given to it – ‘disaster’, ‘massacre’, ‘tragedy’ – the Heysel is a European traumatism. The ‘live televised death’ as La Repubblica labelled it, left a deep mark on the millions of Europeans that had switched on their television set in excited anticipation for what was expected to be a summit of European football culture. As Michel Platini, who scored the decisive goal in the match that took finally place despite what happened around the pitch, declared in 2010, no one who witnessed this tragedy ‘will ever be able to erase it from their memory’.

In an excellent chapter in a recent book on European football memory (1), Clemens Kech describes how the simultaneous Europe-wide media coverage turned this event first into a collective experience perceived to be massively shared across national borders, then into a genuine ‘European site of memory’ by making a European public engage in the discussion and evaluation of what had happened.

He also shows how over time the interpretation of the event slowly changes. At first, there is a strong emphasis in public debate on the archaic barbarism and brutal savageness displayed on that day. Among the different emotions triggered by this perception, the most powerful is no doubt a sort of collective shame across the continent, a reaction that comes close to the phenomenon of ‘moral panic’. Most importantly, this panic was felt and expressed by a clearly transnational public despite the well-known linguistic and cultural barriers within the European media landscape. Emotions were explicitly expressed in the name of ‘European values’ or ‘European civilization’.

Years later, in the collective commemoration of the event – whose remembrance is never completely extinguished but regularly activated with peaks every five years – the symbolic value assigned to it started to shift towards issues of crowd control and security issues. From today’s perspective, ‘the Heysel’, whose impact was reinforced by other disasters like ‘Hillsborough‘ (1989), marks a turning point in the organisation of large football events. It may be considered a watershed not only in the perception of football violence in general, but also in international cooperation on European level with regard to stadium design and regulations, crowd policing and spectator safety.

One way or another, the Heysel, which has a wikipedia entry in over twenty languages, will continue to be remembered as ‘a symbol of manmade tragedy’ as Clemens Kech summarises. It has become a reference point in the history of a common, transnational culture.

(1) European Football and Collective Memory,
edited by Nils Havemann and Wolfram Pyta,
London: Palgrave-Macmillan, 2015, published
within the ‘Football in an Enlarged Europe’
book series.

The post 30 years ago – European football’s major lieu de mémoire appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

On 28 May 2015, the Council agreed on a compromise text for a draft directive aimed at creating a new status for single-member private limited liability companies. 

The agreement is based on a compromise text tabled by the presidency. It constitutes the Council's general approach, which will serve as the basis for forthcoming negotiations with the European Parliament.  

Chairing the Council meeting, the Latvian Minister for Economics Dana Reizniece-Ozola said that  "this dossier is a concrete example of the advantages digitalisation can bring to the single market and to all of us: to citizens who are considering joining the start-up movement and establishing their own company, to employees who will work at these companies, to SMEs which are considering establishing subsidiaries, and to public administrations which will become more digital. Everyone stands to benefit in terms of modernisation, growth and jobs".  

Societas Unius Personae: a new name to facilitate cross-border business  

The draft directive aims to facilitate the cross-border activities of businesses, particularly SMEs, and the establishment of single-member companies as subsidiaries in other member states, by reducing the costs and administrative burdens involved in setting up these companies. This will enable businesses to enjoy the full benefits of the internal market. 

To achieve this objective, the draft directive introduces a common framework governing the formation of single-member companies. 

Member states would have to ensure that their national legal systems provide for a form of company that complies with common rules established in the directive. The legal form would be established at the national level. It would have an EU-wide abbreviation: SUP (Societas Unius Personae).  

The main elements of the agreement include:  Online registration  

A major innovation in the draft directive is that the SUP can be registered on-line using templates provided by member states. This aims at facilitating economic activity to create growth and jobs, in line with the EU's digital agenda. 

Some member states already have their own national schemes in place for electronic registration of companies. 

The agreed text seeks to make on-line registration as secure and compliant with existing national rules as possible.  

Minimum capital requirement of € 1  

Currently, the minimum capital required for the formation of a single-member private limited liability company varies among the member states. 

The general approach contains a symbolic minimum share capital requirement of €1 (or one equivalent unit of a member state's currency if not the euro). 

In order to ensure adequate protection of creditors and other stakeholders, member states will have to ensure that their national laws provide mechanisms to prevent SUPs from being unable to pay their debts. 

Examples of such mechanisms include requiring companies to create legal reserves, establish balance sheet tests and/or issue a solvency statement. 

Transfer of seat to another member state

Provisions related to the separation of the company's seat have been removed from the original Commission proposal in order to respect member states' competences and traditions. Similarly, aspects of labour law will remain covered by existing national laws.

I am delighted to attend the opening ceremony of the thirteenth European Film Days in Tokyo. When I talk with people about Europe, they often stress our power as a trading bloc, our special role on the world stage or and staying united in these difficult times as 28 Member States. But the Film Days reminds us that Europe is also known for its culture and creativity. In fact, culture is more important than politics. We hope that, thanks to the 29 films screened here in Tokyo, and the 19 shown in Kyoto in July, Japanese audiences will feel closer to Europe.

It is a special pleasure this evening to be joined by Signe Baumane, Director of the Latvian film many of you have just watched. An impressive movie ("Rocks in my Pockets"), which is about one of the most important themes of our time - also here in Japan - that is women's empowerment.

Gender equality is the most important fundamental value of the European Union. The Treaty of the European Union obliges Member States to promote equality between women and men but there is still a lot of work to be done. It is also a condition to build modern, efficient and prosperous societies. I have no doubts that none understands me better than Mrs. Abe, when I talk about women's empowerment.

I would like to thank the National Film Centre for hosting this event, and would also like to express my appreciation to all the European Union Member States Embassies and Cultural Institutes in Japan. They are our partners in organising this festival. I hope you will enjoy yourselves, and will watch many of the films. Thank you.

The Latvian presidency of the Council and the European Parliament on 28 May 2015 reached a provisional agreement on a European fund for strategic investments (EFSI) aimed at stimulating the economy.

The agreement still has to be confirmed by the Council once the full text of the regulation is finalised at technical level. The regulation will then be submitted to the European Parliament for a vote at first reading, and to the Council for final adoption. 

"Today's positive outcome will enable us to finalise an overall agreement in June and will pave the way for new investments to begin this summer," said Jānis Reirs, minister for finance of Latvia and president of the Council. 

The agreement was reached during a trilogue meeting in Brussels. Presidency and Parliament met in eight trilogues since 23 April 2015, having agreed their respective negotiating stances in March and April. 

A broad range of projects 

The EFSI will be established within the European Investment Bank by an agreement between the Commission and the EIB. For an initial investment period of three years, the fund will support projects in a broad range of areas, including transport, energy and broadband infrastructure, education, health, research and risk finance for SMEs. It will target socially and economically viable projects without any sectoral or regional pre-allocation, in particular to address market failures. The EFSI will complement and be additional to ongoing EU programmes and traditional EIB activities. 

Lifetime of the fund 

Before the end of the initial investment period, the Commission will submit an independent evaluation which will assess whether the EFSI has achieved the objectives of the regulation. Based on the conclusions of its report, the Commission will, as appropriate, present a proposal to either set a new investment period or terminate the EFSI. 

Funding 

The fund will be built on €16 billion in guarantees from the EU budget and €5 billion from the EIB. To facilitate the payment of potential guarantee calls, a guarantee fund will be established so as to gradually reach €8 billion (i.e. 50% of total EU guarantee obligations) by 2020. 

EU funding will come from redeploying grants from the Connecting Europe facility (transport, energy and digital networks) and the Horizon 2020 programme (research and innovation), as well as unused margins in the EU's annual budget. However the Council presidency and the European Parliament agreed to increase the share of financing coming from unused margins, in comparison with what the Commission proposed, in order toreduce contributions from Horizon 2020 and Connecting Europe facility (CEF). 

The agreement reached on funding is as follows: 

• Redeployment will amount to €5bn, of which €2.8bn from CEF and €2.2bn from Horizon 2020;
• Funding from unused margins will amount to €3bn over the period 2016-2020. The source of this financing includes €543 million and €457 million specifically earmarked from the global margin for commitments for the 2014 and 2015 budgets respectively.
• Extension of payments until 2023 to provision the EFSI guarantee fund. 

 Furthermore, it was agreed that €500 million of CEF-transport financial instruments will be redeployed for CEF-transport grants. 

The EFSI will have an enhanced risk-bearing capacity. By taking on part of the risk of new projects through a first-loss liability, the fund will enable private investors to participate under more favourable conditions. Thereby the EFSI is estimated to reach an overall multiplier effect of 1:15 in real investment. Such leverage will eventually allow more than €300bn of additional investment to be mobilised during the three-year investment period. 

Governance of the fund 

The EFSI would have a two-tier governance structure:

-                     A steering board will set the overall strategy, investment policy and risk profile of the fund. To ensure an impartial steering board and avoid political influence over the selection of projects, the board members will come from the Commission and the EIB only. Their numbers will reflect the institutions' size of contributions in the form of cash or guarantees. The steering board will take decisions by consensus. It will regularly consult stakeholders. 

-                     An independent investment committee will select projects to receive EFSI support. Accountable to the steering board, it will consist of eight independent experts and a managing director. The managing director will be responsible for the day-to-day management of the EFSI and the preparation and chairing of meetings of the investment committee. The committee will take decisions by simple majority. Any project supported by the EFSI will require approval by the EIB. 

Contributions to the fund 

Member states can contribute to the EFSI in guarantees or cash, while third parties can contribute in cash. However, contributions will not entail any influence over the fund's governance.  

Third parties, including member states' national promotional banks, will be able to co-finance projects together with the EFSI, either on a project-by-project basis or through investment platforms. 

Identifying new projects 

The regulation will also set up a "European investment advisory hub" to provide advisory support for the identification, preparation and development of projects across the EU. It will further establish a "European investment project portal" to improve investors' knowledge of existing and future projects. 

On 28 May 2015 the Council confirmed a political agreement on the reform of the Travel Package Directive.  

The new directive will update current EU rules on package holidays by aiming to adapt to travel market developments in order to meet the needs of consumers and businesses in the digital era. 

It will extend the protection for traditional packages to combinations of separate travel services, in particular if sold online.  

Latvian Minister for Economics, Dana Reizniece-Ozola, made the following comments: "This piece of legislation will provide travellers and industry with the long-awaited framework which is fit for purpose and future-proof for the ever growing and evolving tourism industry. In particular, it will strengthen the rights of travellers when booking online and take into account new ways of booking. Beside strengthened consumer rights, businesses, in particular small and medium sized enterprises, will also benefit from this Directive".  

The new conditions will promote a level playing field for businesses by harmonising rules and removing obstacles to cross-border trade.  This will generate a broader choice for booking holiday products and may therefore lead to cheaper prices for consumers.  

Next steps 

The European Parliament is expected to confirm the text of the Council's political agreement with a vote in second reading at an upcoming plenary session.  

The text will undergo a legal-linguist revision before the Council can formally approve it. It should be published in the Official Journal of the EU before end 2015.

The new provisions will apply 30 months after the entry into force of the directive.

As the situation in Syria continues to deteriorate, the Council has extended EU restrictive measures against the Syrian regime by one year. 

One additional person has been targeted with a travel ban and an EU asset freeze. This person is a high-ranking military deemed responsible for repression and violence against the civilian population in Damascus and Damascus countryside. Over 200 persons and 70 entities are now targeted by EU sanctions over the violent repression against the civilian population in Syria. 

The decision also extended the existing sanctions including the oil embargo and the restrictions on certain investments until 1 June 2016.  

In December 2014, the Council reiterated that the EU would continue imposing and enforcing sanctions that target the regime and its supporters as long as repression continues. For the EU, a lasting solution to the conflict can only come through a Syrian-led political process that leads to a transition. The EU continues to encourage all efforts to this end. 

The legal acts, including detail regarding the person added to the list, are available in the EU Official Journal of 29 May 2015.

On 28 May the EU signed short-stay visa waiver agreements with St Lucia, the Commonwealth of Dominica, Grenada, St Vincent and the Grenadines, the Republic of Vanuatu, the independent State of Samoa and the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago, at a ceremony that took place in Brussels. On behalf of the EU, the agreements were signed by Ms. Zanda Kalniņa-Lukaševica, Parliamentary State Secretary for EU Affairs, Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Latvia, and by Mr. Dimitris Avramopoulos, Commissioner for Migration, Home Affairs and Citizenship. On the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group (ACP) side, representatives from the 7 countries signed the agreements.

The new visa regime provides for visa-free travel for EU citizens when travelling to the territory of these countries and for citizens of these countries when travelling to the EU, for a period of stay of 90 days in any 180-day period. "Today's agreements will encourage people-to-people contacts, boost  tourism, and invigorate business between the EU and these seven ACP countries",  said Ms. Zanda Kalniņa -Lukaševica, Parliamentary State Secretary for EU Affairs of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Latvia.

In order to benefit from visa-free travel, citizens from the EU and the signatory countries must be in possession of a valid ordinary, diplomatic, service/official or special passport. Visa-free travel applies to all categories of persons and for any kind of purposes of travel (for instance tourism, cultural visits, scientific activities, family visits, business etc.), except to persons travelling for the purpose of carrying out a paid activity.

The decisions on the conclusion of the agreements will now be sent to the European Parliament with a view to obtaining its consent before they can be concluded. However, they will apply on a provisional basis as from 28 May 2015.

Ireland and the United Kingdom will not be subject to the application of the agreement, in accordance with the protocols annexed to the EU treaties. The visa regime to these member states remains subject to their national legislation.

1. The Council welcomes the publication by the Commission of preliminary information on 2014 EU Official Development Assistance(ODA), analysing the trends with regard to EU collective and individual ODA commitments. The Council stresses that ODA is an important and catalytic element in the overall financing available for developing countries most in need.
   
   
2. On 17 June 2010 the European Council requested the Council to make an annual report on the EU and Member States' commitments and delivery on ODA. This is the fifth such report to be submitted to the European Council.

 

1. 2015 is a pivotal year for gender equality, human rights and the empowerment of women and girls in the global context with the inter-governmental negotiations on the post-2015 development agenda. In that context, particular focus must be put on promoting and fulfilling the rights of women and girls, notably in light of the 15th anniversary of UN Security Council Resolution 1325 on Women, Peace and Security and the 20th anniversary of the adoption of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action. The Council reaffirms its commitment to the implementation of the Beijing Platform for Action, the Cairo Programme of Action, and the outcomes of their review conferences, and the fulfilment of the obligations under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. It further welcomes the Political Declaration adopted at the 59th session of the Commission on the Status of Women, and the calls for the full realisation of women's and girls' full and equal enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms and the achievement of  gender equality and the empowerment of women and girls throughout their life cycle.
   
   
2. The High Level Event on 'Women's Empowerment and Sustainable Development', hosted by the Presidency of the Council of the European Union in Riga on 2 March 2015 in the context of the European Year of Development, provided an opportunity to renew political momentum and to reaffirm the strong EU commitment on gender equality, social justice, non-discrimination and human rights.
   
   
3. The EU and its Member States remain committed to the promotion, protection and fulfilment of all human rights for all. The Council welcomes the leading role that the EU and its Member States are playing in supporting international initiatives to promote women's and girls' rights, gender equality and the empowerment of women and girls, and calls for continued cooperation and coordination with UN bodies, notably UN Women, as well as with other relevant international fora and actors. Women's organisations are crucial partners of the EU with respect to the full realisation of women's and girls' rights, gender equality and the empowerment of women and girls.

 

Source : © European Union, 2015 - EP