European Union

As Europe is waking up to the Chinese party-state’s growing influence inside its territory, China experts in Europe need to make themselves heard, write Tabitha Speelman and  Matej Šimalčík.

Written by Tatjana Evas,

Fotolia

As a follow-up to the European Parliament resolution of 9 June 2016 calling for an open, efficient and independent European Union administration – 2016/2610(RSP), rapporteur: Heidi Hautala (Greens/EFA, Finland) – the Parliament’s Committee on Legal Affairs (JURI) asked the European Parliamentary Research Service’s European Added Value Unit to carry out a public consultation. The aim of the consultation was to survey public opinion, first, on general perceptions and attitudes towards the EU administration; second, on personal experience in dealing with the EU institutions; and, third, on further action that the EU should take in the area of EU administrative law to address the shortcomings identified.

In response to the consultation, the Parliament received 166 fully completed online responses from 20 EU Member States. Incomplete responses were not taken into consideration for analysis but not for statistical purposes. Among the 166 completed responses, 155 contributions came from individuals and 11 from organisations.

The key findings of the public consultations are summarised in figure 1 below:

Specific trends:

General perceptions of the EU administration were mixed: 52 % had a positive perception while 36 % had a negative perception of the functioning of the EU institutions. Professional interests, direct experience and media were three main sources of information underpinning the opinions formed by respondents regarding the EU administration. Perceived general awareness of what services the EU institutions provided for the public and companies was high: 73.5 % of respondents indicated that they knew what services were provided by the EU institutions. At the same time, only 45.8 % of all respondents indicated that they were familiar with their right to submit a petition to the European Parliament.

Experiences with the EU institutions were also mixed: 24 % of respondents had a negative experience, 30 % mixed and 46 % positive. The European Commission, European Parliament and EU agencies were the administrations with which respondents had had most direct contact. Access to documents (46 %); requests for general information (44 %) and EPSO competitions (31 %) were the top three reasons for respondents having had contact with the EU administration. The three main problems contributing to negative experiences included the length of the procedure (42 %), difficulty in finding information (37 %), and the quality of the reply received (30 %).

There was a high level of support from the respondents (76 %) for additional measures at EU level to reinforce EU administrative procedures. The two main reasons why respondents would like the EU to take action were: to improve efficiency (57 %), and to improve the transparency (50 %) of the EU administration. In response to the question on how the EU should best reinforce the functioning of the EU administration, 82 % of respondents were in favour of adopting a new law (52 % supported a new law setting out minimum standards, while 30 % supported a new law with full harmonisation). The proportion of respondents who supported the adoption of a non-binding code of conduct was low (7 %). While not in favour of a new law, 23% of respondents would prefer the EU to improve existing legislation; similarly, 23 % did not support a new law but would rather see measures focusing on technical ways to simplify public access to the EU administration.

Read the complete study on ‘EU law for an open independent and efficient European administration: Summary report of the public consultation‘.

European Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker and US president Donald Trump talked again on Friday to follow up their meeting in Washington last Wednesday, the commission announced Monday. The two sides "are currently putting in place the relevant structures that are needed" to start trade talks agreed by the two leaders, a spokeswoman said. She insisted that neither agriculture nor public procurement would be part of the talks, despite US claims.

Written by Marcin Grajewski,

© Delphotostock / Fotolia

The politically charged negotiations on the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union moved forward a little in July, when the British Cabinet put detailed proposals on the table for the future framework of EU-UK relations. The document, which envisages relatively close ties between the EU and UK, in trade and several other areas, after Britain leaves in March 2019, prompted the resignations of two senior ministers David Davis and Boris Johnson, who favour an even harder Brexit. EU officials have said that the new proposals contain some constructive elements, although many questions remain unanswered.

This note offers links to reports and commentaries from some major international think-tanks and research institutes on Brexit negotiations and related issues. More reports on the topic can be found in a previous edition of ‘What Think Tanks are thinking’, published in May 2018.

Brexit: Next steps in UK’s withdrawal from the EU
House of Commons Library, July 2018

UK business should play for extra time in the Brexit negotiations
European Policy Centre, July 2018

The Brexit White Paper: What it must address
The UK in a Changing Europe, July 2018

Brexit brief
Institute of International and European Affairs, July 2018

Brexit and the British growth model
Police Exchange, July 2018

An equal exit? The distributional consequences of leaving the EU
Institute for Public Policy Research, July 2018

The EU’s problem with May’s plan for Brexit
Centre for European Reform, July 2018

Brexit: One failed plan, two resignations, and plenty of uncertainty
Atlantic Council, July 2018

Four Brexit scenarios
Carnegie Europe, July 2018

A second Brexit referendum: The practical questions
Institute for Government, July 2018

Deal, no deal, or extension?
UK in a Changing Europe, July 2018

After Chequers, what has changed on Brexit?
Institute for Government, July 2018

The UK’s first international trade negotiation: Agriculture at the WTO
European Centre for International Political Economy, July 2018

Brexit: Time for a moratorium
LSE Blog, July 2018

Trump backed Brexit: Then he used it as leverage
Brookings Institution, July 2018

The Brexit White Paper: Room for improvement
Policy Exchange, July 2018

Trump’s misguided attack on European unity
Council on Foreign Relations, July 2018

Preparing business for a Brexit ‘no deal’: Questions the Government needs to answer
Institute for Government, July 2018

Brexit and European defence: What to expect from a “no-deal” outcome?
Instituto Affari Internazionali, July 2018

A Brexit deal is still not achieved
Bruegel, July 2018

The Brexit White Paper offers a compromise approach for negotiations, but seems to have little support in Parliament
Open Europe, July 2018

Europe’s response to May’s plan could cost her more ministers
Centre for European Reform, July 2018

Will UK working parents lose out after Brexit?
UK in a Changing Europe, July 2018

Brexit: Heading to a deal or no deal while UK politics implodes?
Scottish Centre on European Relations, July 2018

Britain must decide what kind of power it wants to be after Brexit
Chatham House, July 2018

Why Theresa May can’t figure out Brexit
Chatham House, July 2018

Theresa May’s Brexit model: Many questions, not least ‘why leave?’
Centre for European Policy Studies, July 2018

A political crisis looms over Brexit
Carnegie Europe, July 2018

Shattered illusions: The new Brexit proposals on customs
Centre for European Policy Studies, July 2018

Dead or alive? A UK-US trade deal
Centre for European Reform, July 2018

Chequers: ‘Soft’ Brexit or just any Brexit?
Scottish Centre on European Relations, July 2018

Brexit: Last call
European Policy Centre, July 2018

British fudge: Where now for the future UK-EU framework?
Scottish Centre on European Relations, July 2018 

Safer together: The United Kingdom and the future of European security and defence
Friends of Europe, June 2018

No ‘Global Britain’ after Brexit
Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, June 2018

Brexit report
DCU Brexit Institute, June 2018

Spain and the prospect of Brexit
Real Instituto Elcano, June 2018

Striking a balance: A blueprint for the future UK-EU economic partnership
Open Europe, June 2018

Which role for the Benelux post-Brexit?
Egmont, June 2018

Maintaining Europol security ties after Brexit
Rand Corporation, June 2018

The Brexit trap: Checking out is easier than leaving the EU
Atlantic Council, June 2018

Europe is experiencing a period of extreme heat and drought. Devastating forest fires are raging not only in Greece but also in Sweden. Farmers expect huge harvest losses. For scientists this extremely hot summer is a visible consequence of global warming. Journalists call for a debate on the consequences of climate change.

The groundwork is being laid and candidates are being selected across Europe for the European Parliament elections 2019. Not just since the announcement by US right-wing extremist Steve Bannon that he would support Europe's right-wing populists have fears been mounting that illiberal parties will make major gains. Journalists discuss what can be done to counter this trend.

In his annual speech in the Romanian spa town of Băile Tușnad Viktor Orbán called on the people to vote the "liberal elite" out of office in next year's elections to the European Parliament. In 2014 Orbán had already announced his commitment to the "illiberal democracy" that has spread in Europe. How programmatic are his statements this time?

Eight months before the deadline for the UK leaving the EU, fears about the impact of a hard Brexit without a deal with Europe are growing. The media must refrain from creating panic among the people with horror scenarios, some commentators criticise. Other warn that not just the British should be worried about underestimating the consequences.

Tens of thousands of people have demonstrated in Russia against a planned pension reform. Moscow wants to raise the retirement age progressively, from 60 to 65 for men and from 55 to 63 for women. While some commentators see the reform as crucial, for others it's pure cynicism.