European Parliamentary Research Service Blog

With European elections coming up in May 2019, you probably want to know how the European Union impacts your daily life, before you think about voting. In the latest in a series of posts on what Europe does for you, your family, your business and your wellbeing, we look at what Europe does for football fans.

Twitter Hashtag #EUandME

Following your team for their away matches this season? EU law on free movement of people makes it easy for football fans to travel to watch their national or club team play live.

© Monkey Business / Fotolia

If you want to watch a match from your living room, European Commission decisions made the procedures for selling media rights more open, transparent and non-discriminatory. This made some national leagues commitments concerning the sale of media rights legally binding ─ a move that benefits football fans. The EU Court of Justice has also ruled that licences for the retransmission of football matches, granting broadcasters national exclusivity, that stop you watching the match with a decoder card in another EU country, are illegal. The Court also confirmed that EU countries can halt exclusive broadcasts of all World Cup and EURO football matches on pay TV, so that everyone gets a chance to watch.

The EU has also tackled other aspects of the beautiful game. A 1995 EU Court of Justice decision (known as the Bosman ruling) means players can leave a club on a free transfer as soon as their contract expires. The EU adopted a handbook with recommendations for international police cooperation to tackle hooliganism, and put measures in place to prevent and control violence connected to international football matches, as well as match-fixing. And for football fans who want to stay fit, the ‘Eurofit‘ project engages fans in health-promoting lifestyle changes.

Further information

• Eurofit,
  http://eurofitfp7.eu/
• EU Football handbook,
  https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32016G1129%2801%29
• EPRS publication on ‘Match-fixing: Issues and policy responses’, 2016,
  http://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document.html?reference=EPRS_BRI%282016%29580891

With European elections coming up in May 2019, you probably want to know how the European Union impacts your daily life, before you think about voting. In the latest in a series of posts on what Europe does for you, your family, your business and your wellbeing, we look at what Europe does for football players.

Twitter Hashtag #EUandME

Whether you’re a fan or a player, you will know that EU football clubs play under the supervision of the UEFA – the Union of European Football Associations. In 2014, UEFA estimated the total number of EU players to be close to 18 million, competing under the watchful eyes of more than a quarter of a million referees. Meanwhile, total European football market revenues keep growing, and reached almost €25 billion in 2015/2016.

© Bits and Splits / Fotolia

Much of what modern football looks like today is a result of the landmark 1995 Bosman case, in which the European Court of Justice (ECJ) upheld the principle of free movement of EU workers. The court allowed football players to move to another club once their contracts expired, without a transfer fee or the consent of the releasing club. This enabled players to demand sign-on fees and pay rises from their current club. Apart from making the transfer system more flexible, the ruling also ended any discrimination on grounds of nationality. Pre-Bosman the UEFA ‘3+2’ rule permitted a maximum of three foreign players and two ‘assimilated players’ to play in European competitions. The ECJ ended these quotas and any limit on the number of foreign players that can play for a team. Other cases extended these rules to players from non-EU countries who already play in a Member State.

To protect players from investors controlling their sporting career, the European Commission upheld FIFA’s ban on third party ownership. The Commission also supports making football governance more transparent and fights corruption and match fixing, hooliganism and doping.

Further information

• EPRS publication on EU sport policy,
  http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2015/565908/EPRS_IDA(2015)565908_EN.pdf
• EPRS publication on third party ownership of football players,
  http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/ATAG/2016/573940/EPRS_ATA%282016%29573940_EN.pdf
• EPRS publication on match fixing,
  http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2017/603971/EPRS_BRI(2017)603971_EN.pdf

Written by Magdalena Pasikowska-Schnass,

© wckiw / Fotolia

European Languages Day on 26 September is devoted to the variety of languages spoken by EU citizens. However, not all people can speak, or hear others speaking. Some use sign languages, which policy-makers consider in the context of the rights of people with disabilities, or as a linguistic minority right. The United Nations has launched International Day of Sign Languages, to be celebrated for the first time on 23 September 2018.

Sign languages and their users

Sign languages (SL) are not modelled on spoken languages, yet are languages in their own right, with equally complex rules, grammatical structures and vocabulary that evolve and vary by region, social and age groups; convey meanings and emotions; create social and family bonds; and meet artistic and identity needs.

Varieties

There is no universal SL, and the EU has a large variety of SLs, including a French SL in France, (a different) French and Flemish SLs in Belgium, as well as, for example, Catalan and Galician ones besides the Spanish SL in Spain. The United Kingdom, the United States and Ireland do not use the same SL; Ireland uses its indigenous SL, while the US SL, having been introduced by the French, has a lot in common with the French SL.

Nevertheless, there is an international system called the International Sign, a sort of lingua franca used at international conferences and meetings where participants do not share a common SL. It does not have a fixed grammar or vocabulary and relies heavily on gestures and context.

The users

One in a thousand persons in the EU (approximately half a million deaf or hard-of-hearing persons) communicates in one of 31 national or regional sign language as their first language. SLs have many more users, since people without hearing problems use them to communicate with deaf family members or friends.

Sign languages in the EU

Interpretation into and between SLs is necessary in communication between deaf and hard-of-hearing persons and other communities, or among themselves. Debates in the European Parliament are rendered in sign language for those Members who need it. Since the ratio of sign language users to interpreters varies among Member States, as does the quality of interpretation, in 2016 the EP adopted a resolution on professional SL interpreters, and backed the introduction of international sign language interpretation for all plenary debates.

The Erasmus+ programme has supported training sessions on SL interpreting and a course in quality in educational interpreting, co-organised by the European Forum of Sign Language Interpreters. An Insign pilot project, ‘Real-Time Sign Language Application and Service’ (on communication between the deaf or hard-of-hearing and the EU institutions, funded by the Commission), and a research SignSpeak project have investigated the potential of ICT in providing real-time interpretation into sign languages.

A study for the Scientific Foresight Unit of EPRS – ‘Language equality in the digital era. Human Language Project’ – analysed language technologies applied to human languages and their contribution to language teaching, learning, translation and interpretation. It identified the lack of multilingual data on sign language as a significant barrier for researchers in sign language technologies and for progress in this area.

In September 2018, in a recital to an own initiative resolution, the EP recognised that sign languages, being an element of Europe’s linguistic diversity, need to be supported by language technology. ICT solutions could be helpful in providing sign language interpretation. ICT is also seen as a factor for accessibility to audiovisual media services, in a recital of the Audiovisual Media Services Directive due to be adopted in plenary in October.

Download this at a glance note on ‘Sign languages in the EU‘ in PDF.

With European elections coming up in May 2019, you probably want to know how the European Union impacts your daily life, before you think about voting. In the latest in a series of posts on what Europe does for you, your family, your business and your wellbeing, we look at what Europe does for skiers.

Twitter Hashtag #EUandME

Your ski holiday in Europe is becoming safer, more accessible, affordable, and environmentally friendly, thanks to the EU. The EU strategy for the Alpine region helps protect the fragile Alpine ecosystem, to help avoid natural risks like avalanches. It also makes access to ski resorts easier and safer by supporting local transport and mobility projects. Skiers can now easily identify the resorts best suited to their financial and family requirements, thanks to a 2011 EU survey comparing ski resorts. When you take the ski lift, it’s also reassuring to know that they have to meet with EU legislation on the safety of cableways carrying persons.

© blende64 / Fotolia

Ski resorts are improving their skiing infrastructure throughout the EU, from Slovenia and Slovakia to countries further south, such as Greece, thanks to EU structural funds. This means more EU citizens can ski safely and with modern infrastructure in their own countries, rather than having to travel abroad. New airports closer to the slopes (e.g. in the Scandinavian mountains) are also being constructed with EU funding.

Good snow conditions are a must for skiers. Research on snow production, such as a new snow-gun which uses 15 % less energy, produces 8 % more snow, and makes much less noise is being funded by the EU Horizon 2020 programme. Encouraging artificial snow production in more areas is of great importance to winter destinations that have seen less snow in recent years. To predict snow quantity from one week to several months ahead, another EU project aims to build a meteorological prediction system for the ski industry.

Further information

• EU Strategy for the Alpine Region,https://www.alpine-region.eu/
• European Commission webpage on cableways, https://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/mechanical-engineering/cableways_en

With European elections coming up in May 2019, you probably want to know how the European Union impacts your daily life, before you think about voting. In the latest in a series of posts on what Europe does for you, your family, your business and your wellbeing, we look at what Europe does for sportspeople.

Twitter Hashtag #EUandME

While responsibility for sports policy lies primarily with national governments and sports organisations, decisions taken by the EU institutions can have a major impact on your career as a professional sportsperson, helping to change rules that are detrimental to you. The best-known case is the European Court of Justice’s ‘Bosman ruling’, which eliminated transfer fees for footballers whose contracts had ended and banned restrictions on foreign EU players signed by European clubs. Another example is the decision by the European Commission against the severe penalties imposed by the International Skating Union on athletes participating in competitions not approved by the federation.

© full image / Fotolia

The EU, which has a dedicated budget line for sport under the Erasmus+ programme, also finances numerous projects that can support you and improve your training and working conditions. Examples include initiatives to enhance the well-being of young athletes; help sportspeople combine their sporting careers with work or education; promote quality coaching; raise youth awareness on the dangers of doping; or improve the governance of sports organisations.

Raising the number of sports enthusiasts is a priority for the EU, given the positive health effects of physical activity. The European Week of Sport, held every September across Europe, aims to engage more Europeans, from children to pensioners, in sports and physical exercise. Your own discipline might well be in the spotlight on that occasion, as part of the general bid to persuade more people to get involved.

Further information

• European Commission’s website on sport, https://ec.europa.eu/sport/
• EPRS publication on EU sport policy, 2015, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2015/565908/EPRS_IDA(2015)565908_EN.pdf
• European Week of Sport, https://ec.europa.eu/sport/week_en

Written by Ivana Katsarova,
Graphics: Samy Chahri, Nadejda Kresnichka-Nikolchova,

© yoshi5 / Fotolia

The low levels of physical activity among both children and adults in the European Union (EU) are alarming, and have become a matter of great concern to policy-makers. To raise awareness of the role and benefits of sport and physical activity, the European Commission launched the European Week of Sport back in 2015. The fourth annual round of the event will officially kick off in Vienna’s Prater Park on 22 September this year.

Physical inactivity and obesity: a global epidemic

The World Health Organization (WHO) identifies physical inactivity as one of the leading factors for global mortality, provoking 6 % of cases of coronary heart disease, 7 % of type 2 diabetes, 10 % of breast cancer, and 10 % of colon cancer. If inactivity decreased by 10 % to 25 %, it would be possible to avoid between 533 000 and 1.3 million deaths every year. Similarly, research shows that the cost of obesity worldwide stands at €1.8 trillion – equivalent to the GDP of Italy or Russia – and has the same impact on the global economy as armed violence, war and terrorism.

Physical activity guidelines

There is a strong and growing body of evidence indicating that regular physical activity is one of the fundamentals of adult health. The WHO recommends a minimum of 150 minutes of physical activity a week for adults, and 60 minutes a day for children.

Physical (in)activity in the EU

Map of physical inactivity in the EU

Worryingly, the results of the 2018 Eurobarometer survey on sport and physical activity show that nearly half of respondents (46 %) never exercise or play sport – up 7 % from 2009 – (see Figure 1). Moreover, the WHO estimates that a quarter of European adults and four-fifths of European adolescents are insufficiently active. It also reveals that each year, physical inactivity claims over 500 000 lives across Europe and generates €80.4 billion in economic costs for the EU-28. This amount represents 6.2 % of all European health spending, €5 billion more than the annual global spend on cancer drugs, and half of Ireland or Portugal’s annual GDP. Conservative estimates put the annual cost of physical inactivity in 2030 at over €125 billion (in 2012 prices).

An early start is key

Introducing physical activity in the daily routine from an early age is essential for children, since it allows them to grow, learn and develop. More importantly, it helps them remain physically active as they get older, because physical activity will already be an important part of their life. Outside school, children have fewer opportunities to be active, due to the increasing popularity of the car as a mode of transport and the computer or the TV as a mode of recreation. Given that children spend extensive periods of time at school and that up to 80 % of them only practice sport there, schools become instrumental in promoting physical activity.

Being physically active at school

Recommended annual minimum number of hours of compulsory physical education in primary and secondary schools

Physical education is included in all school curricula in the EU, and is compulsory in primary and secondary (see Figure 2). However, on average, less than 70 hours a year are dedicated to this subject, which is roughly a third of the time dedicated to the language of instruction and around half of that for maths. While some believe more sport will leave children with less time to achieve better marks, this does not seem to be the case. A number of researchers have found a positive link between children’s physical activity and academic achievement. Indeed, various studies indicate that increased participation in physical activity leads to enhanced learning and better grades.

EU support and involvement The fourth round of the European Week of Sport kicks off in September

The idea for a European Week of Sport originated in a 2011 European Parliament resolution on the European dimension in sport, which recommended setting up an annual large-scale event to raise awareness of the role and benefits of sport and physical activity. The event is an EU‑wide initiative, led by the European Commission and implemented at EU, national, regional and local level, with the help of national coordinators and in partnership with sports organisations and stakeholders. The first edition of the European Week of Sport took place in 2015 and received a positive appraisal. Since then, nearly 15 million Europeans have taken part in over 37 000 events organised as part of the initiative in the 32 participating countries across Europe. On 29 September 2017, a spin-off of the sports event – the European School Sport Day® – engaged more than 2 million students from 26 countries in 7 000 events.

Erasmus+: creating opportunities for children and adults

In July 2017, the Council adopted a new three-year EU work plan for sport. Furthermore, financial support was for the first time allocated for sport in Erasmus+ – the EU programme for education, training, youth and sport for the 2014-2020 period. The allocation amounts to around €266 million over the entire period and serves to fund various projects (see Figures 3 and 4).

Read this ‘At a glance’ note on ‘Ready, steady, go: European Week of Sport 2018‘ on the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Click to view slideshow.

Written by Marcin Grajewski,

© Oleg / Fotolia

In September, Russia held its largest military exercise since 1981, the height of the Cold War, deploying 300 000 troops and also inviting Chinese forces to participate. The event highlighted Russia’s growing assertiveness in security and foreign policy, following its annexation of Crimea and military intervention in Syria. The policies of President Vladimir Putin, who was re-elected earlier this year, pose a dilemma for the European Union and the United States, with some observers accusing him of trying to sabotage Western liberal democracy and others saying that he wants to regain the position of global player that the Soviet Union once occupied.

This note offers links to commentaries and studies by major international think tanks, which discuss Russia’s policies and how to respond to them. More reports on the topic can be found in a previous edition of ‘What Think Tanks are Thinking’, published in March 2018. Some more papers on US-Russian relations are available in another edition from the series published in August 2018.

Security and foreign policy

Huge military drills show both the limits and the durability of China-Russia ties
Rand Corporation, September 2018

Putin is sneaking up on Europe from the south
Council on Foreign Relations, September 2018

Tensions en mer d’Azov
Groupe de Recherche et d’Information sur la Paix et la Sécurité, September 2018

Russia and the Baltics: A testing ground for NATO–EU defence cooperation
Istituto Affari Internazionali, September 2018

Japan-Russia relations: The Kremlin has the upper hand
Finnish Institute of International Affairs, September 2018

Russia-Israel relationship transformed by Syria conflict
Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, September 2018

Antagonisms in the EU’s neighbourhood
Bertelsmann Foundation, August 2018

Retour de la Russie en RCA : Entre multiples intérêts et lutte d’influence
Groupe de Recherche et d’Information sur la Paix et la Sécurité, August 2018

Status stalemate in the Caucasus
Carnegie Europe, August 2018

Did Russia really dump its U.S. debt?
Council on Foreign Relations, August 2018

Russia’s Arctic illusions
Brookings Institution, August 2018

Walking a fine line on Russian sanctions
Rand Corporation, August 2018

China and Russia in global governance: Long-term obstacles to cooperation
Finnish Institute of International Affairs, August 2018

10 years after Bucharest: Why NATO should double-down on Georgian membership
European Policy Studies, July 2018

The US-Europe vs. Russia triangle
Istituto Affari Internazionali, July 2018

At Helsinki Summit, Trump and Putin become partners in destruction
Chatham House, July 2018

NATO needs a strategy for countering Russia in the Arctic and the Black Sea
Chatham House, July 2018

Trump’s attitude toward NATO makes Putin’s job easier
Carnegie Europe, July 2018

Re-establishing Reality in U.S.–Russia Relations after Helsinki
German Marshall Fund, July 2018

Russia’s return to the Middle East: building sandcastles?
European Union Institute for Strategic Studies, July 2018

No end in sight in Eastern Ukraine
Carnegie Europe, July 2018

EU-Russia relations in the new Putin era
International Centre for Defence and Security

Prospects for ‘Lisbon to Vladivostok’: Limited by a double asymmetry of interests
Centre for European Policy Studies, June 2018

The US and the EU need a stronger dialogue on Russia sanctions
European Policy Studies, June 2018

Russia’s role on North Korea: More important than you might think
Council on Foreign Relations, June 2018

Russia’s new state armament programme: Implications for the Russian armed forces and military capabilities to 2027
Chatham House, June 2018

Rethinking the regional order for post-Soviet Europe and Eurasia
Rand Corporation, June 2018

Winning the normative war with Russia: An EU-Russia power audit
European Council on Foreign Relations, May 2018

Russia’s active measures architecture: Task and purpose
German Marshall Fund, June 2018

Chechnya’s status within the Russian Federation
Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, May 2018

Who’s afraid of Russian gas? Bridging the transatlantic divide
Center for Strategic and International Studies, May 2018

Regional security in northeast Asia and the Russia–Japan–U.S. triangle
Russian International Affairs Council, May 2018

Hybrid conflict: The roles of Russia, North Korea and China
Clingendael, May 2018

Russia’s Afghan policy in the regional and Russia-West contexts
Institut français des relations internationales, May 2018

Do the Western Balkans face a coming Russian storm?
European Council on Foreign Relations, May 2018

Russia as restraining factor in the Iranian-Israeli confrontation in Syria
Institute for National Security Studies, May 2018

EU-Russia: Specific co-operations or global partnership?
Institut Thomas More, April 2018

From Chechnya to Syria: The evolution of Russia’s counter-terrorist policy
Institut français des relations internationales, April 2018

The Russian challenge
Rand Europe, April 2018

A test of strength: The escalation of the crisis in Russian-American relations
Centre for Eastern Studies, April 2018

Germany’s Russia policy shows no signs of softening
Chatham House, April 2018

Filling the void: Why the EU must step up support for Russian civil society
Wilfried Martens Centre, April 2018

Control of the Syrian airspace: Russian geopolitical ambitions and air threat assessment
Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, April 2018

New sanctions on Russia are not enough
Brookings Institution, March 2018

The challenges of Putin’s fourth (and last?) term
Istituto Affari Internazionali, March 2018

Towards Putin’s last presidency?
Istituto Affari Internazionali, March 2018

EU member states and Russia: National and European debates in an evolving international environment
Finnish Institute of International Affairs, March 2018

Putin and Russia’s new nuclear weapons: Whoever dies with the most toys wins?
Center for Strategic and International Studies, March 2018

Does Europe have a Russia policy?
Carnegie Europe, March 2018

Anti-corruption et capitalisme de connivence en Russie
La Vie des Idées, March 2018

Contested space: Eastern Europe between Russia and the EU
Centre for European Reform, March 2018

The Russia file: Russia and the West in an unordered world
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Auswärtige Politik, Center for Transatlantic Relations, February 2018

The real and hidden costs of Russia’s foreign policy
European Union Institute for Strategic Studies, February 2018

Putin’s re-election

Putin 4.0: ’If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it’
Finnish Institute of International Affairs, May 2018

Putin after Putin
Fundacion Real Instituto Elcano, April 2018

No shock in Russian election: But can Europe surprise Putin?
Centre for European Reform, March 2018

Putin and Russia in 2018–24: What next?
Chatham House, March 2018

Russia’s reform failures and Putin’s future challenges
Wiener Institut für Internationale Wirtschaftsvergleiche, March 2018

The arrival of post-Putin Russia
European Council on Foreign Relations, March 2018

Energy

Nord Stream 2: Is Germany ‘captive’ to Russian energy?
Council on Foreign Relations, August 2018

Beyond Nord Stream 2: A look at Russia’s Turk Stream project
Bruegel, July 2018

Should Germany dump Nord Stream 2? Can it?
Carnegie Europe, June 2018

Nord Stream 2: Rule no more, but still divide
European Policy Centre, June 2018

From vassalisation to emancipation: The model of Ukrainian-Russian gas co-operation has been revised
Centre for Eastern Studies, March 2018

Cyber-security

Trump’s election meddling sanctions will not deter Russia
Atlantic Council, September 2018

Defining Russian election interference: An analysis of select 2014 to 2018 cyber enabled incidents
Atlantic Council, September 2018

How Ukraine’s government has struggled to adapt to Russia’s digital onslaught
Council on Foreign Relations, August 2018

Russia wants a deal with the United States on cyber issues: Why does Washington keep saying no?
Council on Foreign Relations, August 2018

Here’s how Russia will try to interfere in the 2018 elections
Rand Corporation, August 2018

Russian election interference: Europe’s counter to fake news and cyber attacks
Carnegie Europe, May 2018

Russian social media influence: Understanding Russian propaganda in Eastern Europe
Rand Europe, April 2018

Mapping the links between Russian influence and media capture in Black Sea countries
Center for the Study of Democracy, April 2018

Domestic issues

Pension reform in Russia: A test of the regime’s resilience and citizens’ patience
Finnish Institute of International Affairs, September 2018

Kremlin launches risky pension reform
Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, July 2018

How Russian society created Putin
German Marshall Fund, June 2018

Read this briefing on ‘Russia‘ on the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Carla Stamegna and Angelos Delivorias (1st edition),

© BillionPhotos.com / Fotolia

The increasing importance of central counterparties (CCPs) and challenges such as the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU call for a more comprehensive supervision of CCPs in EU and non-EU countries to secure financial market infrastructure and build confidence. In June 2017, the Commission proposed amendments to Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 (ESMA – European Securities and Markets Authority) and Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 (EMIR – European Market Infrastructure), to strengthen the regulatory framework: EU CCPs would be supervised by national authorities in agreement with ESMA, and third-country CCPs subject to different requirements depending on whether (or not) they are systemically important. The European Parliament Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee (ECON) adopted its report in May 2018. Review in Council is ongoing.

Versions

• September 2018: ‘Review of the European Market Infrastructure Regulation (EMIR): Updated rules on supervision of central counterparties‘ (1st edition)

Proposal for a regulation amending Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 establishing a European Supervisory Authority (European Securities and Markets Authority) and amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 as regards the procedures and authorities involved for the authorisation of CCPs and requirements for the recognition of third-country CCPs Committee responsible: Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON) COM(2017) 331
13.6.2017 Rapporteur: Danuta Maria Hübner (EPP, Poland) 2017/0136(COD) Shadow rapporteurs:

 

  Roberto Gualtieri (S&D, Italy)
Kay Swinburne (ECR, United Kingdom)
Petr Ježek (ALDE, Czech Republic)
Matt Carthy (GUE/NGL, Ireland)
Philippe Lamberts (Greens/EFA, Belgium)
Jörg Meuthen (EFDD, Germany) Ordinary legislative procedure (COD) (Parliament and Council on equal footing – formerly ‘co-decision’) Next steps expected: Trilogue negotiations

Written by Ariane Debyser (1st edition),

© Mike Mareen / Fotolia

On 17 May 2018, the Commission adopted the proposal for a directive amending Directive 2008/96/EC on road infrastructure safety management. It is part of the third and last ‘Europe on the Move’ package that includes initiatives supporting the transition towards a safe, clean, automated and connected mobility for all.

The revision, consistent with the goals laid down in the 2011 White Paper on Transport and in the Policy Orientations for Road Safety 2011-2020, was presented together with another legislative proposal on vehicle and pedestrian safety and non-legislative initiatives to promote safe mobility.

The general objective of the proposal, which seeks to address the shortcomings of the existing legislation, is to reduce both road fatalities and serious injuries by improving the safety performance of road infrastructure. It proposes key changes to strengthen road infrastructure safety management procedures and extends the scope of the directive beyond the trans-European transport network (TEN-T).

Versions

• September 2018: ‘Road infrastructure safety management‘ (1st edition)

Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2008/96/EC on road infrastructure safety management Committee responsible: Transport and Tourism (TRAN) COM(2018) 274
17.5.2018 Rapporteur: Daniela Aiuto (EFDD, Italy) 2018/0129 (COD) Shadow rapporteurs:

 

  Claudia Schmidt (EPP, Germany)
Karoline Graswander-Hainz (S&D, Austria)
Mark Demesmaeker (ECR, Belgium)
Matthijs van Miltenburg (ALDE, The Netherlands)
Kateřina Konečná (GUE/NGL, Czech Republic)
Michael Cramer (Greens/EFA, Germany) Ordinary legislative procedure (COD) (Parliament and Council on equal footing – formerly ‘co-decision’) Next steps expected: Publication of draft report

Written by Frederik Scholaert (1st edition),

© vectorfusionart / Fotolia

As part of the next EU budget framework for the 2021-2027 period, the European Commission published its proposal for a regulation on the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) on 12 June 2018. The new fund will continue to support the EU common fisheries policy and the Union’s maritime policy. The proposal aims to simplify the delivery of the fund compared to the very complex legal framework in use for the current EMFF. It therefore presents a more flexible architecture: this would allow Member States to use the funds where they see the greatest need, instead of being bound to a list of pre-defined measures and eligibility rules. Small-scale coastal fisheries and outermost regions would receive an increased preferential treatment. It further proposes increased support for international ocean governance and stronger synergies with other EU policies. The fund is also expected to contribute to the development of the blue economy and support the EU’s climate objectives.

Versions

• September 2018: ‘European Maritime and Fisheries Fund 2021-2027‘ (1st edition)

Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and repealing Regulation (EU) No 508/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council Committee responsible: Fisheries (PECH) COM(2018) 390
12.6.2018 Rapporteur: Gabriel Mato (EPP, Spain) 2018/0210 (COD) Shadow rapporteurs:

 

  Ulrike Rodust (S&D, Germany)
Czesław Hoc (ECR, Poland)
Nils Torvalds (ALDE, Finland)
Liadh Ní Riada (GUE/NGL, Ireland)
Marco Affronte (Greens/EFA, Italy)
Rosa d’Amato (EFDD, Italy) Ordinary legislative procedure (COD) (Parliament and Council on equal footing – formerly ‘co-decision’) Next steps expected: Discussion of draft report in committee

 

Written by Gisela Grieger and Roderick Harte,

© Itan1409 / Fotolia

Growing geopolitical rivalry, escalating trade tensions between the United States and China (both big players in Latin America and the Caribbean – LAC) and a US trade policy shifting away from a multilateral towards a bilateral approach based on ‘America First’, have created uncertainty in this part of the world. The ongoing commitment and shift of LAC countries towards multilateralism and free and fair trade provides the EU with a window of opportunity to strengthen its footprint in a region with which it maintains close cooperation and political dialogue on account of its historical, cultural and economic ties. Although the 33 countries forming the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) are together currently the EU’s fifth largest trading partner, the EU has in the past two decades lost market share to the USA and China.

Since the 1990s, the EU has pursued a strategy of promoting sub-regional integration initiatives within LAC and bi-regional integration between the EU and the then existing four sub-regional LAC groupings (the Andean Community of Nations (CAN), Cariforum, the Central America group, and Mercosur) as well as bilateral integration with Chile and Mexico. This has resulted in a number of agreements governing trade relations, including fully fledged agreements with two sub-regional groupings (Cariforum and Central America), a multiparty free trade agreement with three countries of the Andean Community (Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru; Bolivia may join at a later stage) and bilateral agreements with Mexico and Chile. Since November 2017, a new agreement with Cuba, governing trade relations (the EU-Cuba Political Dialogue and Cooperation Agreement (PDCA)), has also been provisionally applied (although it is not very comprehensive). In addition, the EU has an inter-regional framework agreement with Mercosur as well as bilateral framework agreements with its founding members (Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay). Since 1999, the EU and Mercosur (excluding Venezuela) have been negotiating a fully fledged bi-regional agreement governing trade relations. Negotiations have gained momentum since 2016, with both parties aiming at a political agreement in 2018 (after earlier expectations for such an agreement by the end of 2017 were not met).

Alongside the ongoing EU-Mercosur negotiations, the EU is also in the process of modernising its 2000 Global Agreement with Mexico (negotiations are currently being concluded after an ‘agreement in principle’ was reached in April 2018) as well as its 2003 association agreement with Chile (for which negotiations are ongoing). The trade pillars of both of these existing agreements are less comprehensive and advanced in terms of liberalisation compared with recently negotiated trade agreements such as the EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA). They lack, among other things, specific provisions on sustainable development (which are covered in softer political dialogue frameworks) and have limited World Trade Organisation plus (WTO+) provisions on intellectual property rights (IPR), services, investment, public procurement and regulatory cooperation.

Overall, the EU’s agreements governing trade relations with Latin America and the Caribbean differ considerably in terms of coverage and methodology, depending on the time at which they were concluded and the context of the negotiations.

Read the complete in-depth analysis on “EU trade with Latin America and the Caribbean: Overview and figures“.

Click to view slideshow.

Written by Katarzyna Sochacka and Clare Ferguson,

© European Union 2018 – Source : EP

The highlight of September’s plenary session was the State of the Union speech by the President of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, announcing a number of legislative proposals to come by the end of the Commission’s mandate. The debate on the Future of Europe continued, this time with the Prime Minister of Greece, Alexis Tsipras. Lebanon’s President, Michel Aoun, addressed Parliament as well as the Prime Minister of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Zoran Zaev. Parliament approved, inter alia, proposals on the European Solidarity Corps, Single Digital Gateway, and countering money laundering. Parliament also voted an amended report on copyright in the digital single market which is now ready to be negotiated with the Council.

State of the EU-US relations

An own-initiative report on the state of EU-US relations was adopted. Despite recent divergences between administrations, Parliament and the US Congress remain committed to working together on issues linked to trade in the framework of WTO rules. The Parliament calls for the EU’s full and definitive exemption from US customs duties on steel and aluminium. Members support a new balanced and mutually beneficial transatlantic trade agreement. They also suggest strengthening the EU-US relationship on cybersecurity, counter-terrorism, the fight against tax fraud, energy, climate change, digital and migration.

European Solidarity Corps

Parliament adopted an agreement negotiated with the Council on the European Solidarity Corps. Parliament has been keen to ensure that this new opportunity for young people to volunteer in education, health, environmental protection, disaster prevention, and the reception and integration of migrants and asylum-seekers, is funded by fresh money, rather than reallocations. Parliament’s negotiators were largely successful in ensuring that the Corps will provide meaningful, non-profit opportunities that help the vulnerable while also improving young people’s job prospects. The budget will provide €375.6 million over the period from 1 January 2018 to 31 December 2020. It provides that financial support for solidarity activities should be at an indicative level of 90 % for volunteering projects and 10 % for training courses or jobs, or both, with a maximum of 20 % being allocated to activities limited to national level.

Structural Reform Support Programme

Members adopted the trilogue agreement on the proposal to amend the Structural Reform Support Programme. The Commission had proposed to expand the scope and financing of the programme to cover future euro-area membership preparations. Parliament wanted such requests to be prioritised, and stressed that other cohesion policy priorities should not be impacted.

Copyright in the digital single market

The modern digital environment has changed the way copyright-protected works and content are created, produced, distributed and used in the EU and beyond, rendering current legislation inadequate to deal with the issues thrown up by widespread use of the internet. Members voted (438 votes for, 226 against and 39 abstentions) on the amended Commission proposal, supporting provisions to tackle exceptions to copyright protection in the digital single market for research and education (text and data mining), press publishers’ rights, and the ‘value gap’ created by online sharing. The debate followed the rejection in plenary in July of the Legal Affairs Committee’s agreed mandate to negotiate with the Council on the proposal. The main differences between the European Parliament and the Council are on Article 13, on the exclusion of small and micro-enterprises for the Parliament, and the softening measures backed by the Council. Trilogue negotiations can now start.

Controls on cash entering or leaving the Union

The European Parliament approved, by a large majority, the trilogue agreement reached in May of this year on the proposed regulation aiming to reinforce controls on movements of cash into and out of the EU. This is intended to close the gaps in existing laws that could be exploited for the purposes of money laundering or financing terrorism, specifically by tightening up definitions of ‘cash’.

Countering money laundering through criminal law

Members approved the trilogue agreement on the proposal for a directive concerning the fight against money laundering through criminal law. It provides for a maximum prison sentence of at least four years and a number of alternative sentences for the infringements listed in the directive, such as a temporary or permanent exclusion from access to public funding. Member States will have up to 24 months to transpose the new provisions into their national laws.

Protection of personal data processed by the Union institutions and bodies

Parliament debated and voted a compromise text on the protection of personal data processed by the Union institutions and bodies. Parliament’s Civil Liberties, Justice & Home Affairs Committee is keen to see a harmonised regime that also covers the sort of sensitive operational data processed during judicial and police cooperation.

Single Digital Gateway

Parliament debated and voted a compromise text agreed with the Council on the Single Digital Gateway. Digitalisation should make it easier for citizens to obtain information or carry out an administrative procedure throughout the EU. The Commission accordingly made a proposal for a single digital gateway. Member States will now have to provide their most frequently used procedures online, in at least two languages. Parliament’s Committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection succeeded in modifying the proposals to ensure the facility is clear, simple, and provides adequate data protection and access for the disabled.

Plastics in a circular economy

Around 2 % to 5 % of plastics produced end up in oceans, damaging coastal and marine ecosystems. While plastic is a cheap, durable and convenient material, poor treatment of plastic waste impacts on nature, the climate and human health. Parliament’s Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety has urged the Commission to increase recycling of plastics and curtail the use of single-use plastics by 2020, and following a joint debate on the EU strategy for plastics in a circular economy, Parliament voted a resolution on the Commission’s strategy for plastics in a circular economy.

Amending budget No 4/2018: mobilisation of the EU Solidarity Fund

Parliament approved Amending Budget No 4 to the 2018 EU budget allowing aid of €34 million to be paid out to support reconstruction efforts in Greece, Poland, Lithuania and Bulgaria, following natural disasters in 2017. This support, under the EU Solidarity Fund, provides for €16.9 million for Lithuania (heavy rain and flooding), €12.2 million for Poland (violent storms) and €2.2 million for Bulgaria (flooding). Greece will receive €2.5 million following an earthquake in 2017 on Kos.

Implementation of pesticides legislation

Parliament voted a report on the implementation of the Plant Protection Products Regulation that expresses concerns regarding misuse of emergency authorisations allowing individual countries to apply derogations.

Opening of trilogue negotiations

Ten decisions of parliamentary committees (JURI, IMCO, ITRE, TRAN, EMPL, ECON and LIBE) to enter into interinstitutional (trilogue) negotiations were confirmed. Only one vote was held, on the LIBE report on listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement, and the decision to enter into interinstitutional negotiations was approved in that case.

Read this ‘At a glance’ note on ‘Plenary round-up – Strasbourg, September 2018‘ on the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

With European elections coming up in May 2019, you probably want to know how the European Union impacts your daily life, before you think about voting. In the latest in a series of posts on what Europe does for you, your family, your business and your wellbeing, we look at what Europe does for young taxpayers.

Twitter Hashtag #EUandME

If you are just starting out in your working life, taxes can seem a bit scary, but they are the price of a modern and fair society. Learning about the basic principles of a modern tax system can prove very useful. Taxes pay for healthcare, education, infrastructure like roads and bridges, and much more. To achieve a more equal and inclusive society in the EU, all citizens need to make a fair contribution. It is important, therefore, to understand why we pay taxes and know how to pay them.

© Syda Productions/ Fotolia

To help you understand what can seem a very complex system, and gain basic financial skills, a pilot European project, TAXEDU, provides a wealth of material on taxation, including a forum where young people are welcome to discuss their experience of the different tax systems that exist in the EU. The project also provides resources for teachers, and several e-learning and microlearning tools. Children can learn what taxes are used for and in which situations they also pay taxes, while teenagers can learn about the basic principles of collective action, why taxation is legitimate and what the different types of tax are. More practically, the project can help young adults learn how to pay taxes as an employee, self-employed person, or as a young entrepreneur.

Further information

• European Union website on TAXEDU, https://europa.eu/taxedu/home_en

With European elections coming up in May 2019, you probably want to know how the European Union impacts your daily life, before you think about voting. In the latest in a series of posts on what Europe does for you, your family, your business and your wellbeing, we look at what Europe does for small and home producers of alcohol.

Twitter Hashtag #EUandME

Home-made alcohol is a much cherished tradition in many parts of Europe. Beers, wines or spirits produced in small quantities come with a local flavour and preserve precious artisanal traditions, providing consumers with an alternative to industrial production.

To ensure a level playing field for small producers, the European Union adopted flexible rules on excise taxes. According to existing EU legislation, all Member States must collect excise taxes on alcoholic beverages at or above a minimal threshold established by the EU. Small breweries (producing up to 20 million litres of beer per year) or distilleries (producing up to 1 000 litres of pure alcohol per year) can benefit from a reduced rate (up to 50 % off standard duties). Moreover, home-made wines, beers and other fermented beverages, for own consumption, may be fully exempted from excise duties.

© draghicich / Fotolia

The European Commission began a public consultation in 2015 on improving the existing rules and the strong growth of micro-breweries and distilleries is acknowledged in its assessment. Possible changes could be reduced excise rates for small wine producers and no duty on private ethyl alcohol production, but this latter is a divisive issue for national governments. The Commission has yet to decide whether it will make a legislative proposal.

Small producers who export their products or sell them to larger companies for further processing and commercialisation also benefit from EU internal market rules on mutual recognition of products, and from the EU system of geographical indications that protect locally made products.

Further information

• European Commission website on taxation (excise duties),https://europa.eu/youreurope/business/vat-customs/excise-duty/index_en.htm
• European Commission website on excise duties – alcoholic beverages,
  https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/business/excise-duties-alcohol-tobacco-energy/excise-duties-alcohol/excise-duties-alcoholic-beverages_en#revision
• EPRS publication (implementation appraisal) ‘Excise duty on alcohol’, 2017
  http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2017/611018/EPRS_BRI(2017)611018_EN.pdf

Written by Ionel Zamfir,

As democracy faces multiple challenges, the EU is stepping up its support

As a community of like-minded states, the EU is based on certain fundamental values, such as democracy, human rights and the rule of law. The Union strives to realise these both internally and externally, and they guide all its policies. In line with commitments enshrined in its Treaties to pursue these values, the EU has developed specific policies to support democracy in the world. Moreover, the Union aims to integrate the pursuit of peace and democracy in all its other external actions, such as external trade, development policy, enlargement policy, neighbourhood policy, its common foreign and security policy, as well as its political and diplomatic relations with third countries and multilateral institutions.

The EU has established a strong reputation as an organisation guided by the normative vision of a democratic world, and as en effective actor in supporting democratisation on the European continent and beyond, through its democracy and electoral assistance, its electoral observation missions in the world and many other actions (to find out more about this, see a recent EPRS briefing: Democracy support in EU external policy, March 2018). Strengthening peace and democracy globally has never been an easy task. The EU recognises that it can only play the role of assisting, since the ownership of democratisation is exclusively for domestic forces. Today, EU action takes place in an increasingly difficult environment. Restrictions imposed by authoritarian governments against civil society and human rights defenders, which have been among the EU main partners in matters of democracy, require new ways to support democracy.

The EU has leveraged the special partnerships it has established with various groups of countries such as candidate states for EU accession, countries from its neighbourhood, and African, Caribbean and Pacific countries (the ACP group) to support democratisation. It has acted mainly through dialogue and assistance, but also imposed sanctions and restricted its development aid in response to major crises that have seriously undermined democracy in third countries. For example, according to an EPRS briefing that analyses EU democracy support to African countries (EU support to democracy and good governance in Africa, November 2017), EU assistance has had a major positive impact, despite the specific challenges and multiple shortcomings of political systems on the African continent.

An important challenge for democracy today in Europe and abroad is how to tackle citizens’ dissatisfaction with democratic systems. Citizens often complain that their voice is not heard, and that they have no meaningful opportunity for political participation. The new digital environment provides plenty of opportunities yet to be exploited that could broaden citizens’ participation in political life and decision-making, such as social media, deliberative software and e-voting systems. According to an EPRS study that explores the potential of digital tools for fostering e-democracy (Prospects for e-democracy in Europe, February 2018), ‘E-participation and in a broader sense e-democracy – the practice of democracy with the support of digital media in political communication and participation – are seen as a possible remedy for democratic shortcomings at European level (as well as at local and national levels)’.

Digital tools can also strengthen citizens’ trust in the electoral process, which is central to the functioning of democracy. The EU is one of the leading organisations conducting electoral observation missions around the world, and the European Parliament plays a central role in these. An EPRS briefing (“Digital technology in elections: Efficiency versus credibility?”, September 2018) analyses the advantages and risks of using digital technologies in elections all over the world. For example, online databases and digital registration of voters hugely facilitate the task of creating and managing accurate and up-to-date electoral rolls, an important challenge in less developed countries, whose citizens often lack reliable identity documents. For some aspects of election management, digitalisation is more controversial. Electronic voting machines count votes quickly and accurately, but the intangible nature of digital processes makes detecting tampering more difficult. Even more controversial is the idea of internet voting. While they could help to reverse a worrying decline in voter turnout across the world, current technology does not allow internet voting systems to be fully secured against cyber-attacks.

The increasing digitalisation of the public sphere not only brings benefits with regard to citizens’ political participation. Forces hostile to liberal democracy use new communication channels to disseminate fake news and disinformation. According to an EPRS briefing (Foreign influence operations in the EU, July 2018), social media today enable potentially disruptive messages to spread instantaneously. Disinformation is an increasingly diverse, hybrid ‘toolbox’ at the disposal of authoritarian state actors. The dissemination of deliberately false information by non-state and state actors can be used to undermine citizens’ faith in democratic systems and in the EU as a democratic organisation (such as Pro-Kremlin information campaigns, or the Brexit campaigns that depicted the EU as an authoritarian structure insensitive to citizens’ concerns). In response, the European Union and the European Parliament are stepping up efforts to tackle online disinformation ahead of the European elections in 2019.

EPRS publications

“Digital technology in elections: Efficiency versus credibility?”, EPRS Briefing, Martin Russel, Ionel Zamfir, September 2018

Democracy in Africa: Power alternation and presidential term limits, EPRS Briefing, Ionel Zamfir, April 2016

Democracy support in EU external policy, EPRS Briefing, Ionel Zamfir, March 2018

Disinformation, ‘fake news’ and the EU’s response, EPRS ‘At a glance’ note, Naja Bentzen, May 2018

EU support to democracy and good governance in Africa, EPRS Briefing, Ionel Zamfir, November 2017

Foreign influence operations in the EU, EPRS Briefing, Naja Bentzen, July 2018

Prospects for e-democracy in Europe. Study summary, EPRS STOA External Study, February

 

Written by Marcin Grajewski,

© santiago silver / Fotolia

Attempts at influencing or distorting elections in the United States and other countries, including some European Union Member States, have drawn attention to what is commonly referred to as ‘fake news’, or false news posing as factual stories. Although the phenomenon of generating misleading news stories is at least as old as the printing press, the growth of social media has led to a very significant proliferation of this phenomenon. Some outlets use deceitful headlines and content to boost readership, in a search of higher advertising revenue. Other sources, often sponsored by certain state actors, are accused of spreading ‘fake news’ for entirely political ends.

In March 2018, the European Commission published the Final Report of the High Level Expert Group on Fake News and Online Disinformation, which proposes ways to combat the phenomenon. In April a Commission communication followed, entitled ‘Tackling online disinformation: a European Approach.’

This note offers links to recent commentaries and reports published by international think tanks on ‘fake news’ and broader related issues.

Les manipulations de l’information, un défi pour nos démocraties
Centre d’analyse, de prévision et de stratégie, September 2018

News use across social media platforms 2018
Pew Research Center, September 2018

EU elections in the era of fake news
Friends of Europe, BEUC, August 2018

Bots in Brazil: The activity of social media bots in Brazilian elections
Wilson Center, August 2018

The legal framework to address “fake news”: Possible policy actions at the EU level
Centre for European Policy Studies, July 2018

Trust, misinformation, and the declining use of social media for news: Digital News Report 2018
Reuters Institute for Journalism Studies, June 2018

Searching for a stronghold in the fight against disinformation
Centre for International Governance Innovation, June 2018

How Sweden is preparing for Russia to hack its election
Carnegie Europe, May 2018

Privatising censorship
Centre for European Policy Studies, May 2018

Russia’s active measures architecture: Task and purpose
German Marshall Fund, May 2018

How Europe and Canada are fighting foreign political ads on social media
Council on Foreign Relations, May 2018

The Russian propaganda machine stutters along, blinkered
Wilson Center, May 2018

Russian social media influence: Understanding Russian propaganda in Eastern Europe
Rand Corporation, April 2018

The “European approach” to fighting disinformation: Lessons for the United States
German Marshall Fund, April 2018

It’s not just Facebook: Countering Russia’s social media offensive
German Marshall Fund, April 2018

How can social media companies stop the spread of fake news?
Royal united Services Institute, April 2018

Managing the risk of fake news
Hoover Institute, April 2018

Fighting fake news: Caught between a rock and a hard place
European Council on Foreign Relations, March 2018

The science of fake news
Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, March 2018

Ungoverned space: How surveillance capitalism and AI undermine democracy
Centre for International Governance Innovation, March 2018

Is social media replacing journalism?
Carnegie Europe, March 2018

Responsible reporting in an age of irresponsible information
German Marshall Fund, March 2018

The danger of truth decay across Europe
Rand Corporation, March 2018

The dark side of big data
Demos, March 2018

A beginner’s guide to battling fake news: Three approaches to consider before ‘sharing’
Atlantic Council, March 2018

Understanding the promise and limits of automated fact-checking
Reuters Institute for Journalism Studies, February 2018

Measuring the reach of “fake news” and online disinformation in Europe
Reuters Institute, February 2018

Could Europe’s New Data Protection Regulation curb online disinformation?
Council on Foreign Relations, February 2018

Fake news and what (not) to do about it
Clingendael, February 2018

Gummibäume, fake news und barbusige Proteste
Friedrich Naumann Stiftung, January 2017

Online information laundering: The role of social media
German Marshall Fund, January 2018

Social networks are creating a global crisis of democracy
Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, March 2018

The diminishing role of facts in American public life
Rand Corporation, January 2018

Don’t let liberals end opinion diversity under cover of ‘fake news’ campaign
Heritage Foundation, January 2018

Bias, bullshit and lies: Audience perspectives on low trust in the media
Reuters Institute for Journalism Studies, December 2017

In social media broken?
Cato Institute, December 2017

The ‘combination’: An instrument in Russia’s information war in Catalonia
Fundacion Real Instituto Elcano, November 2017

Countering Russian information operations in the age of social media
Council on Foreign Relations, November 2017

The fake news toolkit
Demos, November 2017

To filter or not to filter: That is the question
Centre for European Policy Studies, September 2017

Fakten checken reicht nicht
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Auswärtige Politik, September 2017

The political slant of web portal news and the implications relating to the fake news phenomenon
Korea Development Institute, September 2017

Weeding out fake news: An approach to social media regulation
Wilfried Martens Centre, July 2017

Countering online radicalisation
European Council on Foreign Relations, July 2017

Was tun gegen fake news?
Friedrich Naumann Stiftung, June 2017

Fake news is bad enough: But fake science is even more dangerous
Hoover Institute, June 2017

Russian election interference: Europe’s counter to fake news and cyber attacks
Carnegie Europe, May 2017

The cyber-enabled information struggle
Finnish Institute of International Affairs, May 2017

Political communications in the “fake news” Era: Six lessons for Europe
German Marshall Fund, February 2017

Can fake news be beaten?
Carnegie Europe, January 2017

Hacking, fake news, disinformation: Business as usual in the US-Russian relations or a deeper democratic challenge?
Barcelona Centre for International Affairs, January 2017

How to avoid a post-truth world
European Council on Foreign Relations, January 2017

Fake news und Social Bots im Bundestagswahlkampf
Hanns Seidel Stiftung, January 2017

What science tells us about how to combat fake news
Brookings Institution, January 2017

Reporting politics in ‘post-truth’ America
Brookings Institution, December 2016

Fake news is not a technology problem
American Enterprise Institute, December 2016

Read this briefing on ‘‘Fake news’‘ on the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Ana Claudia Alfieri (1st edition),

© Jérôme Rommé / Fotolia

The common European value added tax (VAT) system was set up in 1967 and reformed to adapt it to the entry into force of the internal market in 1993. Therefore, the existing rules governing intra‑Community trade, which were intended to be transitory, are 25 years old. VAT is an important source of revenue for both national governments and the EU budget, but the current system is ill-adapted to the challenges of a modern economy. It presents such problems as vulnerability to fraud, high compliance costs for businesses, and a heavy administrative burden for national authorities.

As part of the action plan on VAT, the European Commission adopted a new proposal in May 2018. This proposal would amend the VAT Directive (Directive 2006/112/EC) to introduce the detailed technical measures of the definitive VAT system for the intra-EU business to business (B2B) trade of goods. It is part of the action plan on VAT and follows another proposal that sets out the basic features of the reform of the common EU VAT system. Some aspects of the previous proposal were taken out of the negotiations to be examined with this one.

Versions

• September 2018: ‘Detailed technical measures for the definitive VAT system‘ (1st edition)

Proposal for a Council directive amending Directive 2006/112/EC as regards the introduction of the detailed technical measures for the operation of the definitive VAT system for the taxation of trade between Member States Committee responsible: Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON) COM(2018) 329
25.5.2018 Rapporteur: Fulvio Martusciello (EPP, Italy) 2018/0164 (CNS) Shadow rapporteurs:

  Roberts Zīle (ECR, Latvia)
Thierry Cornillet (ALDE, France)
Molly Scott Cato (Greens/EFA, United Kingdom)
Barbara Kappel (ENF, Austria) Consultation procedure (CNS) – Parliament adopts a non-binding opinion Next steps expected: Publication of draft report

Written by Didier Bourguignon,

© ChrisVanLennepPhoto / Fotolia

Global material use has tripled during the past four decades, in particular as a result of increasing living standards. The use of materials, which need to be extracted from our environment, can pose environmental challenges. It can also be threatened by resource scarcity and price volatility. This is particularly true for Europe, which is strongly dependent on imported materials.

There are a number of ways to consider material use in the European Union (EU). The breakdown of material use by types of materials indicates that non-metallic minerals, which include sand and gravel, account for almost half of the materials used in the EU. Material flows provide an overall picture of how materials enter, are used and finally leave the economy. Some of these materials stay in stocks, which are growing year after year. However, the efficiency of material use, measured through resource productivity, has increased substantially since 2000, in part as a result of the economic crisis.

Material use in the EU is steered by policies related to different areas such as energy, waste and industry. Relevant policy documents include the 2011 roadmap to a resource-efficient Europe, the 2013 seventh Environment Action Programme and the 2015 circular economy action plan.

The EU supports these policies with funding. Funding channels include the Horizon 2020 framework programme for research and innovation, which allocated about €635 million between 2014 and 2020 for research on raw-material-related challenges. The European structural and investment funds also support developing more efficient material use practices.

The European Parliament has advocated making the use of harmonised indicators for resource efficiency legally binding in the Member States and setting targets for increasing resource efficiency. Parliament has also supported broadening the scope of eco-design requirements to gradually include all relevant resource-efficiency features in product-design requirements.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Material use in the European Union: Towards a circular approach‘ on the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Martin Russell and Ionel Zamfir,

© Lisa F. Young / Fotolia

Digital technology brings greater efficiency in many walks of life, and elections are no exception. Online databases hugely facilitate the task of creating and managing accurate and up-to-date electoral rolls. In less developed countries, whose citizens often lack reliable identity documents, biometric technology can help to identify voters, thus preventing fraud in the form of multiple voting.

However, for some aspects of election management, digitalisation is more controversial. Electronic voting machines count votes quickly and accurately. First used in the United States, they have spread to several Latin American and Asian countries. However, the intangible nature of digital processes makes detecting tampering more difficult; as a result, most European countries are sticking to tried-and-trusted conventional paper ballots.

Even more controversial is the idea of internet voting. On the one hand, allowing citizens the convenience of casting their vote online without the need to visit polling stations could help to reverse a worrying decline in voter turnout across the world. On the other hand, current technology does not allow internet voting systems to be fully secured against hackers, a major concern given the growing sophistication of cyber-attacks (for example, from Russia). To date, only Estonia gives all voters the option of online voting in national elections.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Digital technology in elections‘.

Countries that use electronic voting

Countries that use internet voting

Written by Tarja Laaninen (1st edition),

© krisana / Fotolia

On 1 February 2018, the European Commission published a proposal for a recast of the Directive on the quality of water intended for human consumption (the Drinking Water Directive). The proposal responds to the European Citizens’ Initiative, Right2Water, and builds on a fitness check which concluded that the 20-year old directive is fit for purpose, but needs updating. The main elements of the proposal consist of updating the water quality standards, introducing a risk-based approach to the monitoring of water, improving and streamlining the information provided to consumers, harmonising the standards for products in contact with drinking water, and imposing obligations to improve access to water. In the European Parliament, the Committee on Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (ENVI) considered the draft report on 7 June 2018; the vote in committee is planned for 10 September 2018.

Versions

• September 2018: Revision of the Drinking Water Directive (1st edition)

 

Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the quality of water intended for human consumption (recast) Committee responsible:

Rapporteur:

Shadow rapporteurs:

 

 

 

 

 

  Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (ENVI)

Michel Dantin (EPP, France)

Rory Palmer (S&D, United Kingdom)

Jørn Dohrmann (ECR, Denmark)

Ulrike Müller (ALDE, Germany)

Lynn Boylan (GUE/NGL, Ireland)

Benedek Jávor (Greens/EFA, Hungary)

Eleonora Evi (EFDD, Italy)

Sylvie Goddyn (ENF, France) COM(2017) 0753 of 1.2.2018

2017/0332(COD)

 

Ordinary legislative procedure (COD) (Parliament and Council on equal footing – formerly ‘co-decision’) Next steps expected: Vote in ENVI committee on draft report