European Parliamentary Research Service Blog

Written by Martin Russell,

© Stephen / Adobe Stock

The United Kingdom’s vote to leave the European Union (‘Brexit’), by referendum in June 2016, raised particular concerns in and about Northern Ireland, which had voted by 56 per cent to remain within the European Union. Principal among these concerns was the prospect of a ‘hard’ border, potentially upsetting the delicate balance between the region’s status as part of the United Kingdom and its close relationship with Ireland. There were fears that this in turn could disrupt the peace process and the progress made since the 1998 Good Friday/Belfast Agreement.

Given the UK’s insistence on leaving the EU’s customs union, the question of avoiding a hard border without introducing new divisions between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK was a particular challenge in the withdrawal negotiations. The Withdrawal Agreement eventually adopted in January 2020 envisages that the region will nominally be part of UK customs territory, but retain close ties to the EU customs union and single market regulations on manufactured and agricultural goods, with the aim of enabling unobstructed trade to continue between the two parts of the island of Ireland. Much will depend on the detailed arrangements for implementing the Agreement, to be worked out by a specialised committee of EU and UK representatives, which met for the first time on 30 April 2020.

With uncertainty as to how Northern Ireland’s rather ambiguous status under the Withdrawal Agreement will work in practice, trade and investment could see some disruption. Economic effects could also result from migration restrictions – given the large number of EU nationals working in Northern Ireland – and the loss of some EU funding. There are also political implications, with the Brexit process having brought debate on Northern Ireland’s status as part of the UK back on to the political agenda.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Northern Ireland after Brexit‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Gisela Grieger and Enrico D’Ambrogio,

© Zstock / Adobe Stock

North-east Asian countries have deep and historical economic, human and cultural connections with China, based on their geographical proximity to the latter country, and were the first to be exposed to the coronavirus contagion after its initial outbreak. They were not caught unprepared, having dealt with the SARS and the MERS epidemics in recent times.

South Korea and Taiwan, in particular, have successfully showcased a model characterised by minimal restrictions on economic activities and daily lives, where safeguarding the health of the people has not had devastating consequences for the health of the economy, as witnessed in other parts of the world. They have also showed that it is possible to effectively manage the coronavirus threat transparently, without authoritarian methods. Their models, illustrating that it is possible to implement a successful – albeit sometimes unnoticed – alternative to a liberal laissez-faire model or to a drastic lockdown, could become precious assets for public diplomacy and soft power tools.

Given the high rate of information and communications technology penetration in the region, it has been easier for the authorities to make use of big data and contact-tracing by smartphone in order to prevent the pandemic from spreading, as well as collect information on those infected. However, this approach has raised issues of privacy, especially as the details collected allow the identification of those infected and could possibly expose them to stigmatisation.

Despite the coronavirus outbreak, South Korea is a healthy democracy. It successfully held a general election on 15 April 2020, giving substance to the statement made by the European Parliament’s President, David Sassoli: ‘Democracy cannot be suspended in the face of Covid-19’.

Read the complete briefing on ‘China’s democratic neighbours and coronavirus: Protecting populations without lockdowns‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Magdalena Pasikowska-Schnass,

© zest_marina / Adobe Stock

The EU’s cultural and creative sectors (CCS) are a European Union economic and societal asset, providing an important contribution to GDP, and shaping identity and diversity.

Despite the significant contribution of the CCS to the economy and people’s wellbeing, the situation of operators and workers in the sector is often precarious and their work seasonal. The outbreak of the Covid‑19 pandemic particularly threatens the future of artists, creators and cultural operators, who are severely impacted by the enforcement of social distancing measures and the consequent postponements, cancellations or closures of events, live performances, exhibitions, museums and cultural institutions.

EU Member States reacted quickly to counterbalance the consequences of Covid-19 containment measures with support for cultural institutions and artists. At the EU level, measures have been introduced to protect the small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), which predominate in CCS; the self-employed, who are very numerous among artists and in CCS; as well as those who have lost their jobs, a constant threat for those working in CCS. Sector specific measures have also been discussed to protect the most vulnerable, including performing artists. A series of surveys and mappings of different sectors are planned to help design a path towards the sector’s recovery from the confinement measures and the resulting change in audience behaviour.

The European Parliament, and its Committee on Culture and Education, call for sector-specific support measures and funds to be earmarked for those who have supported confined populations and health service professionals in particular, with their artistic output.

Read the complete briefing on ‘EU support for artists and the cultural and creative sector during the coronavirus crisis‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Alessandro D’Alfonso,

© Dmitry Guzhanin / Shutterstock.com

The European Commission is ultimately responsible for the execution of the European Union’s budget. However, the process also involves a range of other players, including Member States, to which the Commission delegates implementing tasks relating to a significant share of the budget.

Each year, the discharge procedure ensures that there is ex-post democratic oversight at political level of how the EU’s annual budget has been used. It aims to verify whether implementation was in accordance with relevant rules (compliance), including the principles of sound financial management (performance).

The decision on whether to grant discharge for the execution of the EU budget is made by the European Parliament, which acts on a non-binding recommendation by the Council, the other arm of the EU budgetary authority. Another key institution is the European Court of Auditors, the EU’s independent external auditor, whose reports are a fundamental part of the procedure.

The discharge procedure has proved to be a powerful tool, which has had an impact on the evolution of the EU’s budgetary system, while helping to increase the Parliament’s political leverage. Recent years have shown a trend towards a greater focus on results and performance, strongly supported and promoted by the European Parliament. For example, the 2018 version of the EU’s Financial Regulation simplified the rules for budgetary implementation and introduced the ‘single audit’ approach to shared management. Another noteworthy issue is the question of how to ensure EU-level democratic scrutiny of financial tools set up to respond to crises either outside the EU’s institutional framework (e.g. the European Stability Mechanism) or at least partially outside the EU budget (e.g. EU trust funds).

This Briefing updates a previous edition of April 2016.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Discharge procedure for the EU Budget: Political scrutiny of budgetary implementation‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

© European Union 2018 – Source : EP

The European Parliament’s committees carry out detailed examination of proposed EU laws and draw up proposed changes, upon which Members subsequently debate and vote. The committees are fundamental to EU decision-making systems and to the powers of the European Parliament.

The European Parliament has 20 parliamentary committees composed of Members. Each committee is headed by a Chair and Vice-Chairs (collectively known as the ‘Bureau’), and is supported by a secretariat. Some committees have sub-committees linked to them; for instance, the Committee on Foreign Affairs has two sub-committees: one on human rights and the other on security and defence.

Legislative and non-legislative files

Parliamentary committees prepare work for consideration in the European Parliament plenary sessions. The committees mainly work on legislative proposals put forward by the European Commission, as well as on non-legislative positions of the European Parliament on specific topics. In the committees, work on these two types of files (legislative and non-legislative) is broadly similar.

Lead committee and committee for opinion

Usually, but not always, one committee is designated as a ‘lead committee’ for a file. Other committees, for which the file is partly relevant, may be designated to provide an opinion. The scope of responsibilities of each committee is set in the European Parliament’s rules of procedure. In case of disagreement about the role of committees on a specific file, the matter is brought before the Conference of Committee Chairs.

Rapporteurs and shadow rapporteurs

The procedure to work on a file in both lead committees and those providing an opinion is broadly the same. The file is assigned to a political group, who designates a Member to be the ‘rapporteur’ responsible for steering the whole procedure through Parliament, and where appropriate, to lead negotiations with other institutions such as the Council of the European Union. Other political groups in Parliament designate a Member, known as a ‘shadow rapporteur’, responsible for following the file closely and negotiating compromises within the committee. As a rule, a file is followed by a rapporteur and up to six shadow rapporteurs from the other political groups in each committee.

Report and opinions

Once the rapporteur and shadow rapporteurs are appointed, work on the file is usually organised as follows: after a first exchange of views, the rapporteur drafts his or her ‘draft report’ (in a lead committee) or ‘draft opinion’ (in a committee providing an opinion). This text is subsequently submitted to Members for amendment. Once Members have tabled their amendments, the rapporteur and the shadow rapporteurs usually work on reaching agreement on compromise amendments. Members subsequently vote on all the amendments and the committee then adopts its report or opinion.

Committees providing an opinion usually work ahead of the lead committee, so that the lead committee can consider the adopted opinions before it adopts its report. Once the lead committee adopts its report, it is put forward to the plenary for a vote.

This process can be illustrated with a few examples. The legislative proposal on single-use plastics had one lead committee – the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety Committee and six committees providing an opinion. Parliament’s report on the consent on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union was led by the Constitutional Affairs Committee, and ten committees for opinion. For the legislative proposal on Horizon Europe for research and innovation 2021–2027, the lead committee is the Industry, Research and Energy Committee with seven committees for opinion. The Employment and Social Affairs Committee leads the non-legislative report on Quality traineeships in the EU, with one committee for opinion.

Keep sending your questions to the Citizens’ Enquiries Unit (Ask EP)! We reply in the EU language that you use to write to us.

Further information

• Legislative observatory, European Parliament.
• Legislative train schedule, European Parliament.
• Rules of Procedure, European Parliament.

Written by Svetla Tanova-Encke,

© Shawn Hempel / Shutterstock

Accurate, reliable and timely information about scientific or health topics has always been important, but in a pandemic, it becomes critical. The demand for credible and science-based data today is enormous, as people seek analysis and expert opinion in response to the crisis. Despite the worrying spread of false claims about Covid‑19, it seems that in critical times people increasingly return to scientific evidence and rediscover that expertise matters. It is therefore essential to provide as much reliable information from trustworthy sources as possible.

The European Science-Media Hub (ESMH), launched two years ago by the European Parliament’s Panel for the Future of Science and Technology (STOA), has a mission to promote trustworthy, science-based information and knowledge dissemination at the interface between the Parliament, the scientific community and the media. The ESMH focuses on the nature and effectiveness of science journalism and science communication. Fulfilling its mission during the novel coronavirus crisis, the ESMH has launched a number of initiatives to promote sound science and accurate science information.

One of these new products is a series of interviews with leading European virologists and immunologists about the strategies to fight the epidemic and the experience in different European countries. With the help of science writers, the ESMH team conducted interviews with experts from Italy, Spain, Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, and continue to collect further scientists’ opinions. These Covid‑19 interviews were included among the top resources and information listed by the Science Advice for Policy by European Academies (SAPEA) website, which forms an integral part of the European Commission’s Scientific Advice Mechanism (SAM).

The interviewees discuss the public health measures, confinement, the importance of testing and active surveillance and better healthcare system preparedness for a pandemic. All the experts underline the urgent necessity for cooperation and coordination at European level of research data, studies, data from clinical trials and drug development.

The EU is certainly aware of this need: On 20 April 2020, the European Commission, together with several partners, launched a European Covid‑19 data platform to enable the rapid collection and sharing of available research data. The platform is part of the ERAvsCorona action plan that aims at supporting researchers in Europe and around the world in the fight against the coronavirus outbreak.

Another recommendation from the experts – to establish an epidemiological expert council – proposed by Professor Alexander Kekulé has, in the meantime become reality: on 17 March 2020 the European Commission launched an advisory panel on Covid‑19, composed of seven leading European researchers.

One of the members of the advisory group, Professor Marion Koopmans warns in her interview that we could see more of this kind of danger in the future ‘if we topple natural balances’. Professor Ilaria Capua, Director of the One Health Center of Excellence for Research and Training, at the University of Florida in the United States of America, holds a similar position.

Professor Capua and other scientists are raising the question of better communication of science evidence to the general public and to policy-makers. According to Professor Kekulé, more scientists need to communicate and interact with the public. However, his firm opinion is clear: ‘Scientists should not take the political decisions. Ultimately, the decisions need to be taken by democratically elected politicians’.

In this context, the role of STOA as a parliamentary panel providing advice in the field of science and technology developments is an essential aid to parliamentary activities in relation to the crisis. The ESMH, operating under the political responsibility of the STOA Panel, will continue to gather European researchers’ opinions and to promote science evidence and sound science.

Written by Vivienne Halleux,

© Jiri Prochazka / Adobe Stock.

Nearly three quarters of emerging infectious diseases in humans are caused by zoonotic pathogens. The majority of them originate in wildlife. Human activities, such as trade in wildlife, increase opportunities for animal–human interactions and facilitate zoonotic disease transmission. Several significant diseases, including Ebola and the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) outbreak, have been traced, in part, to substantial animal-human contact along the trade chain. Current information suggests that the Covid-19 pandemic may have started from a local Chinese wildlife market.

Wildlife trade, though difficult to quantify, is one of the most lucrative trades in the world. It is regulated under the Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species of Flora and Fauna (CITES), an international agreement to which the European Union (EU) and its Member States are parties. Through a permit system, CITES aims to ensure that international trade in listed species is sustainable, legal and traceable. Curbing illegal trade, however, remains a challenge. In 2016, the EU adopted an action plan on wildlife trafficking, which runs until 2020 and is currently under evaluation. The European Parliament supports its renewal and the strengthening of its provisions.

The coronavirus crisis has thrown into sharp focus the threat of disease transmission posed by trade in and consumption of wild animal species, prompting calls for bans on wildlife trade and closure of wildlife markets. Others advocate better regulation, including enhanced health and safety and sanitation measures. With matters relating to zoonotic diseases outside CITES’ mandate, some have suggested the development of a new international convention to address the issue. To reduce the risks of future outbreaks, many recommend an integrated approach, which would notably also cover nature preservation and restoration.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Coronavirus and the trade in wildlife‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Krisztina Binder, Maria Diaz Crego, Gianna Eckert, Silvia Kotanidis, Rafal Manko and Micaela Del Monte,

© Ivelin Radkov / Adobe Stock

With the first case of unknown pneumonia reported in the province of Wuhan (People’s Republic of China) on 31 December 2019, within few weeks the coronavirus (Covid-19) was declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization on 30 January 2020. Since then it has spread to most corners of the globe. While the health threat it poses and the challenge it represents for human health is paramount, no less important is the strain it puts on the legal order. For most of the affected countries, in particular in the EU, this outbreak is posing unprecedented institutional challenges and has obliged institutions and governments to adopt strict measures affecting citizens’ rights in a way unparalleled since the Second World War.

While some Member States’ constitutions include mechanisms allowing for recourse to a ‘state of emergency’ or the entrustment of special powers to specific institutions, other Member States’ legal orders do not, either for historic reasons or owing to institutional tradition. Crucial aspects of the exercise of public powers under a pandemic threat include not only the extent of the measures adopted, but also their legitimacy, raising the question of their duration and of the degree of parliamentary oversight. This briefing is the first in a series intended to offer a comparative overview of the institutional responses adopted in different Member States, in the light of i) the constitutional framework for the state of emergency or legitimation of the emergency legislation ii) the specific measures adopted, iii) the extent of the parliamentary oversight exercised over the measures adopted. This first briefing, therefore, offers an overview of the responses to the coronavirus pandemic in Belgium, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Poland and Spain.

Read the complete briefing on ‘States of emergency in response to the coronavirus crisis: Situation in certain Member States‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Ivana Katsarova,

© Solarisys / Adobe Stock

With the onset of the coronavirus pandemic, which has caused the shutdown of some 70 000 cinemas in China, nearly 2 500 in the US and over 9 000 in the EU, the joy sparked by the success of the film industry in 2019 has quickly given way to anxiety. Shootings, premieres, spring festivals and entertainment events have faced near-total cancellation or postponement due to the pandemic, thus inflicting an estimated loss of US$5 billion on the global box office; this amount could skyrocket to between US$15 billion and US$17 billion, if cinemas do not reopen by the end of May 2020.

The EU film sector is essentially made up of small companies employing creative and technical freelancers, which makes it particularly vulnerable to the pandemic. The domino effect of the lockdown has triggered the immediate freeze of hundreds of projects in the shooting phase, disrupted cash flows and pushed production companies to the brink of bankruptcy. To limit and/or mitigate the economic damage caused by coronavirus, governments and national film and audiovisual funds across the EU have been quick in setting up both general blanket measures (such as solidarity funds and short-term unemployment schemes) and/or specific industry-related funds and grants (helping arthouse cinema and providing financial relief to producers and distributors).

For its part, the EU has acted promptly to limit the spread of the virus and help EU countries to withstand its social and economic impact. In addition to the Coronavirus Response Investment Initiative (CRII) and the CRII+, both approved by the European Parliament and the Council in record time, the Commission has set up a Temporary Framework allowing EU countries to derogate from State aid rules, and proposed a European instrument for temporary support (SURE) to help protect jobs and workers affected by the coronavirus pandemic.

In the meantime, various film festivals have gone digital and a number of streaming companies have started offering free options to all those confined to their homes by the lockdown. Similarly, major studios are also releasing films to home video earlier than what has been the norm thus far. It remains unclear as to how long it will take before audiences go back to cinemas and what unexpected consequences the various mitigation measures in place could have.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Coronavirus and the European film industry‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Cinema sites and cinema screens in the EU-27, 2018

Written by Philip Boucher, Mihalis Kritikos, Silvia Polidori and Gianluca Quaglio,

Striking the right balance between managing the health-related risks of the Covid‑19 pandemic and mitigating the possible socio-economic impacts of the containment measures is a delicate political exercise, being performed on the basis of imperfect data. This was one of the main conclusions reached at the first-ever online event in the history of Parliament’s Science and Technology Options Assessment (STOA) Panel, which took place on 23 April 2020. The meeting, moderated by Chair of the Panel Eva Kaili (S&D, Greece), was focused on the current pandemic crisis and the main scientific pathways that have been developed to manage its effects. Joining the discussion were: Dr Andrea Ammon, Director of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC); Professor John Ioannidis, C.F. Rehnborg Chair in Disease Prevention at Stanford University; Professor Paolo Vineis, Chair of Environmental Epidemiology at Imperial College; Jean Stéphenne, Chairman of the Supervisory Board of CureVac – a pioneering clinical stage biopharmaceutical company in the mRNA-based drugs field (including a potential vaccine for Covid‑19; and Marko Russiver, co-founder of Guaana, a hackathon and ideation platform. Participants discussed the effectiveness of the measures to combat the health crisis, the reliability and comparability of the data grounding the various national strategies and the timeline for the development of an effective treatment and/or vaccine.

Most of the speakers argued for the need to take extreme care in removing lockdown measures (or ‘Phase 2′), and when discussing the timing for the development of an effective treatment and/or vaccine. One of the main findings of this online experts’ meeting was that data upon which national strategies are grounded remain imperfect and do not allow experts to reach solid conclusions about the behaviour of the virus, or develop long-term strategies. All the speakers recommended caution when implementing Phase 2 and suggested that the latter would be better limited, initially, to certain geographical areas. Each country should have implemented adequate testing and solid contact tracing and should further develop credible epidemiological indicators and offer the highest level of protection to those people most at risk – health personnel and people living in nursing homes – until such time as an effective vaccine is discovered.

More specifically, Professor Ioannidis presented data on the relative risks of Covid‑19 infection among people less than 65 years old in Europe which show that those under 65 years of age had a 34- to 73-fold lower risk of dying of Covid‑19 infection than those 65 years and older. He argued that a vast proportion of infections are asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic (they remain unnoticed and untested), and that the risk to death from Covid‑19 is very low, and largely confined to subjects with pre‑existing diseases. His main suggestions centred on the need to implement draconian infection-control and hygienic measures in hospitals and nursing homes, and associate the gradual removal of lockdown measures with continuous epidemiologic surveillance, as well as paying closer attention to studies on Covid‑19 treatments that are performed without a control group or without randomised trials.

STOA meets experts on coronavirus

Professor Vineis highlighted the need to move to Phase 2 in a step-wise fashion. Transition policies need to take account of the recent analysis by Imperial College London researchers of the likely impact of multiple public health measures on slowing and suppressing the spread of coronavirus. He proposed a strategy based on ‘test-trace-isolate’ measures, with particular emphasis on high-risk and fragile subjects and on the measurement of a series of indicators that could define when a country is ready for a gradual re-opening. He argued in favour of interaction between integrated informational systems, mathematical modelling and a sound network of public health professionals, as the tools required for a safe transition to Phase 2. He also questioned the accuracy of immunological (serological) tests as a credible means of estimating the prevalence of infection and the development of herd immunity.

Dr Ammon explained the data collection strategy at ECDC, which relies on event-based surveillance, data reported by EU Member States and population-based surveillance to address the massive information requirements of Member States and the EU institutions. The ECDC is also encouraging countries to implement participative surveillance systems, engaging citizens through mobile apps, online questionnaires, hotlines, and in other ways. She presented evidence indicating that, in 20 EU/European Economic Area (EEA) countries, the initial wave of transmission appears to have passed its peak. Dr Ammon, nevertheless, stressed that caution should be exercised when starting to lift some of the measures that have been implemented in the Member States and that ECDC has provided guidance to the European Commission on the recently published joint European roadmap towards lifting Covid‑19 containment measures.

Jean Stéphenne highlighted the range of relevant measures, including lockdown, masks, diagnostics and treatments, but pointed to the importance of developing a vaccine as the ultimate solution to the crisis. He set out the key elements in an ambitious vision towards the development and production of an mRNA vaccine (mRNA vaccines represent a promising alternative to conventional vaccine approaches because of their high potency, capacity for rapid development and low-cost manufacture.) During the first development phase, there is a need for sufficient investment capital (~€1 billion) and research subjects (~500 for first-stage testing, then ~17 000 for second-stage testing). He anticipated that CureVac could begin production of the vaccine in the first quarter of 2021, based on conditional approval, itself based on a benefit/risk assessment.

Marko Russiver reported that hackathons organised on their platform have generated 30 solutions to problems associated with the coronavirus crisis within a rapid timeframe, with eight of the solutions already in use. The hackathon approach has spread quickly, and is being scaled-up to a global platform that has already helped over 200 000 people worldwide. They have run over 50 hackathons in the last month, escalating into a ‘global hack’ with ideas coming from 98 different countries. He described teams comprising individuals of eight different nationalities, whom have never physically met, collaborating and building tools to respond to the crisis in an innovative way.

In the discussion that followed, the participants highlighted the need for continuous assessment of the entire range of prevention and containment measures before entering Phase 2. In his concluding remarks, STOA second Vice-Chair Ivars Ijabs (Renew Europe, Latvia), highlighted the need to pay particular attention to the quality and comparability of the data submitted by the Member States. The current pandemic crisis should be seen as an opportunity to strengthen the capacity of the current risk management structures to respond to public health emergencies in a coordinated manner.

Written by Giulio Sabbati,

Graphics: Samy Chahri, Lucille Killmayer,

This infographic aims to present the latest available data on migrant flows to the EU in the year 2019. It covers the detection of illegal crossings on the EU’s external borders, numbers of deaths of migrants on those crossings, the number of asylum applications in EU Member States and their decisions on those applications. This Infographic updates and complements previous editions issued in September 2015 (PE 565.905), in April 2016 (PE 580.893), in February 2017 (PE 595.918), in December 2017 (PE 614.604) and in May 2018 (PE 621.862).

Detections of illegal border crossings in the EU (2019)

Frontex, the EU border surveillance agency, collects data on detections by national border-control authorities of illegal crossings of the EU’s external borders. External borders are those between Member States and third countries, as well as between Schengen Associated Countries (Norway, Iceland and Switzerland) and third countries.

The map shows the different routes and the number of illegal entries into the EU in 2019 for each route. The line chart shows the number of illegal crossings at six-monthly intervals, and the pie chart the share that each route represents in the total. The four boxes below denote the monthly average number of illegal border crossings for each route. The table shows the top 15 nationalities of migrants

Missing migrants along the Mediterranean migratory routes

Missing migrants along the Mediterranean migratory routesThe International Organization for Migration (IOM) carries out the Missing Migrants project, aimed at compiling data on migrants who have died or gone missing, either at the external borders or in the migration process. It excludes, for instance, deaths in refugee camps or during return to a migrant’s homeland, or as a result of labour exploitation. Various sources of data are used such as relevant national authorities, IOM field missions, direct reporting by IOM and other organisations receiving survivors, and media reports. IOM and UNHCR make sure that data are consistent.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Recent migration flows to the EU‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Visit the European Parliament page on ‘Migration in Europe‘.

Written by Jana Titievskaia (1st edition),

© sahachat / Adobe Stock

The EU has opened up its public procurement markets to third countries to a large degree, yet many of these countries have not granted the EU comparable access. In 2012, the European Commission tabled a proposal for an international procurement instrument (IPI). It then revised the proposal in 2015, taking on board some recommendations from Council and Parliament. However, the revised proposal did not advance owing to differences in Member States’ positions. In 2019, discussions in Council gained new momentum in the context of a changed global trading environment, and growing recognition of the need to take a more strategic stance vis-à-vis China. The IPI would give the EU leverage in negotiating the reciprocal opening of public procurement markets in third countries.

Versions

• March 2020:  ‘EU international procurement instrument‘ (1st edition)

Amended proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the access of third-country goods and services to the Union’s internal market in public procurement and procedures supporting negotiations on access of Union goods and services to the public procurement markets of third countries Committee responsible: International Trade (INTA) Revised legislative proposal:
COM(2016) 34 Rapporteur: Daniel Caspary (EPP, Germany)

Initial proposal: COM(2012) 124

Shadow rapporteurs: Inmaculada Rodríguez-Piñero Fernández (S&D, Spain)
Liesje Schreinemacher (Renew, the Netherlands)
Reinhard Bütikofer (Greens/EFA, Germany)
Geert Bourgeois (ECR, Belgium) 2012/0060(COD)

Ordinary legislative procedure (COD) (Parliament and Council on equal footing – formerly ‘co-decision’) Next steps expected: Awaiting progress towards general approach in Council following deadlock, before Parliament finalises its position for trilogue negotiations

Written by Ralf Drachenberg and Annastiina Papunen,

© Adobe Stock.

At the European Council’s video-conference meeting on 23 April, EU leaders demonstrated greater willingness to achieve a coordinated response at EU-level to face the coronavirus crisis than had previously been the case. Although concrete decisions were postponed, Heads of State or Government adopted a more united approach and took decisive steps towards collective action. Notably, they welcomed both the ‘Joint European Roadmap towards Lifting Covid-19 Containment Measures’ and the ‘Roadmap for Recovery’, but also agreed to ‘work towards establishing’ an urgently needed recovery fund ‘dedicated to dealing with this unprecedented crisis’. However, whilst asking the European Commission to shape the recovery strategy and to clarify the link between the Recovery Fund and the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF), EU leaders gave little guidance on specific details, such as the total amount, whether it would provide loans or grants, or on a precise timetable.

Furthermore, EU leaders called on Turkey to end its illegal drilling activities off Cyprus in the island’s Exclusive Economic Zone. They also announced a video-conference between EU Heads of State or Government and their counterparts from the Western Balkans, on 6 May 2020, date of the previously planned EU-Western Balkans Summit.

1. Video-conference of EU Heads of State or Government

On 23 April, the members of the European Council held their fourth video-conference meeting aimed at defining a coordinated EU response to the Covid-19 outbreak. EU Heads of State or Government stressed their ‘strong will to move forward together’. The President of the European Council, Charles Michel, in his invitation letter, called on EU leaders to ‘show even greater determination in overcoming our differences’. This call for unity was also shared by the President of the European Parliament, who, as at ordinary meetings of the European Council, addressed EU leaders at the start of the meeting, stressing that ‘the time has come to put blinkered self-interest to one side and to make the solidarity which is at the heart of the European project our guiding principle once again’. Other participants in the 23 April video-conference were the Presidents of the European Central Bank, Christine Lagarde, and of the Eurogroup, Mário Centeno, as well as the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy/Vice-President of the European Commission (HR/VP), Josep Borrell.

The video-conference working method, besides being rather challenging for discussions in the European Council, especially on technical issues, has another consequence, which is that there are in fact more people ‘in the room’ than just the members of the European Council and the above-mentioned guests. In contrast to normal ‘physical meetings’ in Brussels, some leaders had their advisors with them during the discussions.

2. Results of the video-conference

As was the case with the European Council video-conferences of 10 March and 17 March, the ‘Conclusions of the President’, rather than formal conclusions, outlined the results of the discussions. The video-conference of 26 March, on the other hand, concluded with a joint statement.

Table 1 gives an overview of the main points resulting from the video-conference, the type of action taken or answer given by the European Council as well as the envisaged follow up. The wording used in the conclusions is rather vague and less decisive, and is mostly of a reactive nature (i.e. welcoming actions of other players) rather than providing any concrete decisions.

Table 1: Overview of main elements of the European Council video-conference of 23 April 2020

Topic European Council action Tasks and follow up Various dimensions of the European response to the pandemic discussed The European Council will continue to follow the situation closely Joint European roadmap towards lifting of Covid-19 containment measures welcomed The European Council will coordinate as much as possible to ensure gradual and orderly lifting of restrictions Joint Roadmap for Recovery

welcomed

The European Council will monitor progress in close cooperation with other EU institutions

Eurogroup agreement on three important safety nets for workers, businesses and sovereigns endorsed The package should be operational by 1 June 2020 Recovery fund agreed to work towards establishing The Commission will analyse the exact needs and urgently come up with a proposal

MFF

mentioned The Commission will adjust its MFF proposal and clarify the link to the recovery fund

Recovery Fund and MFF

remains committed to

Give the necessary impetus to find a balanced agreement as soon as possible

Economic situation

tasked The Eurogroup, in an inclusive format, will continue to closely monitor and prepare the ground for a robust recovery 3. EU recovery strategy

As flagged up in the EPRS outlook, this video-conference focused on the recovery plan, which EU leaders had requested at their 26 March video-conference. EU leaders welcomed the joint roadmap for recovery presented on 21 April by Charles Michel and the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen. As previously announced by Charles Michel, it focuses on four areas for action:

1. The internal market,
2. an unprecedented investment strategy,
3. a global recovery strategy, and
4. EU resilience and governance.

The President of the European Council indicated that ‘this roadmap will be complemented by a more detailed Action Plan setting out the measures to be taken with the appropriate timings’. In this context, Charles Michel also stressed that producing ‘essential goods in Europe’ was a means of increasing the EU’s strategic autonomy.

4. EU recovery fund and the next Multiannual Financial Framework

One of the core topics of the video-conference meeting was the long term recovery of the EU. The leaders asked the Commission to submit urgently a proposal for the financing of the EU recovery strategy, possibly combining two instruments: 1) a recovery fund, based on Article 122 TFEU, and ‘dedicated to dealing with this unprecedented crisis’, and 2) a strengthened 2021-2027 MFF.

EU Heads of State or Government agreed ‘to work towards establishing a recovery fund’ which ‘shall be of a sufficient magnitude, targeted towards the sectors and geographical parts of Europe most affected, and be dedicated to dealing with this unprecedented crisis’. Yet, the mechanics and the size of the fund, questions which were left unresolved following the Eurogroup meeting of 7-9 April – as countries could not agree on the financing modalities – were again left open. Thus, the Commission was tasked with analysing the exact needs, and with clarifying the fund’s link with the EU’s long-term budget or MFF.

Ursula von der Leyen expressed her conviction that ‘there is only one instrument that can deliver this magnitude of tasks behind the recovery and that is the European budget clearly linked to the recovery fund’. Therefore she was glad that the Heads of State or Government had demonstrated unity and encouraged the Commission to explore innovative financial instruments in relation to the MFF. She announced that the Commission would propose to increase the headroom (i.e. the space between the existing ceiling in the MFF and the own resources ceiling). Based on ‘the legal guarantee of the Member States, the European Commission will be able to raise funds which will then be channelled through the European budget into the Member States’. The current estimates by the Commission assume that ‘an Own Resources ceiling of around 2 per cent of GNI for two or three years instead of the current 1.2 per cent will be required’. President von der Leyen announced that the money would be concentrated in four areas which would receive increased investment:

1. increased financial support for investment and reforms in Member States and cohesion;
2. modern policies: the European Green Deal, digital transition and increased strategic autonomy;
3. the EU’s common crisis response; and
4. strengthening the support to the EU’s neighbourhood and partners.

She indicated the investment should be front-loaded in the first years. According to some estimates, the new recovery fund and MFF package could amount to up to €2 trillion.

The Commission President indicated that her aim was to present the revised MFF proposal in the second or third week of May. However, many questions will need to be answered before the Commission can actually do so. Next to legal considerations linked to the strict rules applying to the MFF, consensus will need to be achieved on issues such as the required balance between loans and grants.

5. Main messages from the European Parliament President

When addressing the European Council, the President of the European Parliament, David Sassoli, relayed Parliament’s recently adopted resolution to the Heads of State or Government. He stressed that Parliament supported the idea of a dedicated ‘recovery fund’, provided that certain key conditions be met, first and foremost, the embedding of the recovery fund in the MFF. For Parliament, this requires a significantly strengthened MFF, which draws on existing EU funds as well as on innovative financial instruments, such as recovery bonds backed by the EU budget. President Sassoli underlined that this fund needed to come quickly, and promised that ‘the European Parliament, as the democratic representative of EU citizens and one arm of the budgetary authority, will do its part, and it expects to be fully involved’.

6. Other items Turkey’s illegal drilling activities

EU leaders reaffirmed their ‘full solidarity’ with Cyprus, and recalled their previous conclusions condemning Turkey’s illegal drilling activities in the Cypriot Exclusive Economic Zone and calling for their end.

Western Balkans

EU Heads of State or Government will hold a video-conference with their counterparts from the Western Balkans on 6 May 2020, the first day on which an informal EU-Western Balkans summit had initially been scheduled to take place in Zagreb. President Michel stressed that Albania and North Macedonia had recently been given the green light to open accession negotiations, and that the meeting would consider the EU’s priorities for the Western Balkans.

Secretary-General of the Council

Member States also agreed to renew the mandate of Jeppe Tranholm-Mikkelsen as Secretary-General of the Council, to be formally confirmed subsequently by written procedure.

7. Next steps

Apart from the Western Balkans video-conference scheduled for 6 May, no date has been set for a follow-up meeting of the European Council on the roadmap for recovery. However, the European Council has announced that it would monitor progress on all the elements of the strategy in close cooperation with other EU institutions. And since a revised MFF proposal is expected early in May, another meeting of Heads of State or Government can be expected in mid- to late May. Charles Michel reported the political will of the EU leaders to work together on the MFF and the recovery fund, and take decisions in the coming weeks. In this context, EU Heads of State or Government have promised to complement the roadmap with ‘a more detailed Action Plan setting out the measures to be taken with the appropriate timings’. What form this roadmap takes remains to be seen.

Incidentally, as a result of this new crisis, Charles Michel will probably not be able to publish his own work programme for the European Council anytime soon, and is likely to find himself in a similar situation to his two predecessors, who could only present their own work programmes in their second mandates once the respective crises they had faced (i.e. the economic and financial, and the migration crises) had receded.

Read this briefing on ‘Outcome of the European Council video-conference of 23 April 2020‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Read all EPRS publications on the coronavirus outbreak

Written by Nicole Scholz,

© s-motive / Adobe Stock.

Medicines shortages have been a growing problem in the European Union (EU) in recent years. As the coronavirus outbreak unfolds, the risk of bottlenecks in the supply of medicines to patients has become particularly high. More broadly, problems with the availability of, and access to, new medicines – most frequently associated with high-priced medicines – have also been a central topic in political debates for some time now.

The causes underlying medicines shortages are complex and multi-dimensional. The European Commission links them to manufacturing problems, industry quotas, legal parallel trade, but also to economic aspects, such as pricing (which is a competence of the Member States). The coronavirus crisis has brought to the fore the geopolitical dimension of these shortages, that is, the EU’s dependency on countries beyond its boundaries, especially China and India, for the production of many active pharmaceutical ingredients and medicines.

Solutions to the problem are believed to entail collaboration and joint action, as well as the involvement of multiple stakeholders, including regulators, industry, patients, healthcare professionals, and international players. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the World Health Organization, in particular, are conducting work to improve access to medicines. Medicines supply-chain stakeholders have all weighed in on the debate, offering explanations and recommendations for addressing the problem.

Key EU institutions, several Council presidencies and the Member States have addressed the challenge of shortages and more broadly, that of safeguarding access to medicines, through various initiatives. The European Parliament has specifically addressed the issue in a March 2017 resolution. Ensuring the availability of medicines and overcoming supply-chain problems revealed by the coronavirus crisis are also expected to be important topics in the Commission’s forthcoming pharmaceutical strategy.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Addressing shortages of medicines‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Tania Latici,

© Jörg Hüttenhölscher / Adobe Stock

While armed forces may find it difficult to distance themselves from what is perceived as their primary mission, the coronavirus pandemic largely challenges society’s vision of their role. This has been showcased through the vital contributions of the military to civilian authorities’ responses to contain and stop the spread of coronavirus.

Exchanging guns for bags of food supplies and disinfectant spray, military personnel have been among the first responders in the coronavirus pandemic. Whether distributing food, building hospitals or shelters for the homeless, European armed forces were mobilised early. Trained to react quickly in highly dangerous conditions, the military carried out missions of repatriation and evacuation of citizens and transported medical supplies and protective equipment. Almost all European Union (EU) Member States have mobilised their armed forces in one way or another.

Discouraging post-crisis economic projections indicate that the impact of the coronavirus pandemic will not spare the defence sector, nor will it weaken geopolitical tensions. With resources further under strain, countries’ abilities to meet the EU’s defence ambitions with the required investments is under question. However, current EU defence initiatives, if appropriately financed, could see the EU being better prepared to face future pandemics among other threats. Examples include various projects under the permanent structured cooperation (PESCO) mechanism, as well as the European Defence Fund, whose precursor already envisioned pandemic-relevant projects. While EU missions and operations abroad continue, they too have seen their activities limited. However, this has not stopped the EU from deploying staff to help locals in host countries to tackle the virus.

In coordination with the EU, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) has also provided vital assistance to Allies and partners. Its disaster relief coordination centre, as well as the strategic lift platform and rapid air mobility mechanism, successfully ensured the swift provision of essential equipment and supplies. Around the world, armed forces have demonstrated their added value by closely assisting authorities and citizens in battling the pandemic.

Read this briefing on ‘The role of armed forces in the fight against coronavirus‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Giulio Sabbati,

In May 2019, on a turnout of 51%, European Union citizens elected their representatives to the European Parliament for the next five years. On 31 January 2020, the United Kingdom withdrew from the Union. Of the 73 seats vacated by Members elected in the UK, 27 have been redistributed among 14 Member States, while 46 remain available for potential EU enlargements and/or the possible creation of a transnational constituency in the future. The number of seats in the Parliament has fallen from 751 to 705. The 705 MEPs elected have an average age of 50 years (with the youngest being 21 and the oldest 83). A majority of MEPs (414) are new to the Parliament. Women now represent 39.5% of all MEPs.

© European Union 2020, EPRS

Read this ‘at a glance’ on ‘Members of the European Parliament from February 2020‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Rachele Rossi,

EU farmers are among the few key workers who have not seen a dramatic change in their daily routines since the coronavirus crisis began. They are still farming to supply EU citizens with food. Some public health protection measures have however affected farming activities and sales badly. While the EU has taken a number of measures to mitigate this impact, the possibility of further measures is high on the agricultural policy agenda.

Impact on farming activities

© Minerva Studio / Adobe Stock

Although farming has continued during the pandemic, farming activities are in distress. Disruptions to the EU agri-food supply chain range from difficulties accessing supplies and farm workers, to limitations or closures of the destination markets for produce. The situation varies by product and region, with the crisis hitting at different times. Seasonal labour plays an important role in various stages throughout the production process for fruit and vegetables, wine and other permanent crops. Beyond supply chains, the crisis is also affecting prices and final demand. The absence of the demand normally sparked by springtime religious festivities and private celebrations has already had a major impact on sectors as diverse as sheep-meat production and floriculture. The closure of restaurants and catering services is having a dramatic effect on meat and wine consumption. The European Commission’s April 2020 outlook notes the effects of consumers neglecting high-value bovine meat cuts in favour of less expensive poultry meat. Farmers’ representatives have highlighted costs relating to the seasonal nature of certain products (such as flowers and ornamental plants, the sector worst affected with demand falling by up to 80 %) and to the loss of usual markets (such as for eggs and egg products). Surplus volumes of milk are resulting from a drop in demand, and some dairies cannot process all milk deliveries. Although agricultural production is on track for this year, the final impact will depend on how the crisis develops and on the strategies put in place.

EU support measures

The EU has taken several measures to alleviate the impact of the crisis on farmers and farming activities.

Preserving the food supply chain: The guidelines issued by the Commission in mid-March – on ensuring the availability of goods and essential services and the free movement of workers – are helping Member States to work together despite the restrictive border management measures adopted to protect health. The objectives are to let lorries transporting goods pass through fast-track border crossings (‘green lanes’), and to allow workers in critical occupations (including seasonal farm workers) to travel to their workplaces.

Supporting activities and simplifying business operations: Recent legislative initiatives have adapted common agricultural policy (CAP) rules to the crisis. Farmers and rural development players now have more time to apply for EU subsidies, as the deadline has been postponed from 15 May to 15 June 2020 (several Member States have decided to take advantage of this extension and allow CAP beneficiaries more time). Increased advances on payments of EU subsidies for the year 2020 will help to augment cash flows (such increases mean higher advances on both direct payments, from 50 % to 70 %, and rural development payments, from 75 % to 85 %). The reduction of physical on-the-spot checks for CAP aid, accompanied by flexibility on checking requirements needed prior to payments, will help to cut red tape and avoid delays in payments, while minimising physical contact between farmers and inspectors.

The Coronavirus Response Investment Initiative Plus (CRII+) introduces flexibility and simplification to the use of the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), including favourable conditions for loans and guarantees, cover for operational costs of up to €200 000, and leeway for EU countries to amend their rural development programmes so as to reallocate residual funds.

In addition to CAP measures, the temporary framework for State aid enables Member States to secure liquidity for businesses through a range of measures, such as public loans and direct grants. Farmers can benefit from up to €100 000 each, topped up by de minimis aid (national support for agriculture granted without the need for prior Commission approval) of €20 000 (or in some cases €25 000) per farm.

Sustaining agricultural markets: On 22 April, the Commission announced a series of measures to support those agricultural markets worst hit by the crisis. The package of proposals would provide aid for the withdrawal from the market and private storage of certain products (skimmed milk powder, butter, cheese, beef, and sheep and goat meat). The crisis management measures would become a priority in the use of funds in the market support programmes for wine, fruits and vegetables, olive oil, apiculture and the EU’s school scheme. Derogations from competition rules would also allow milk, floriculture and potato sector operators to cooperate on production planning or product withdrawal.

Investing in agriculture and the bioeconomy: In early April, the European Investment Bank (EIB) launched a programme of loans worth €700 million with a view to unlocking close to €1.6 billion in investment in the agriculture and bioeconomy sectors. The financing initiative aims to support a wide range of projects, for investments ranging from €15 million to €200 million by companies operating in agriculture, forestry, fisheries and aquaculture, or in the up- or downstream value chain.

Debate on further EU instruments and action

Both national authorities and stakeholders welcomed the initial EU measures. However, many have pushed for further and more targeted measures and for funding outside the CAP budget. Members of the European Parliament’s Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development (AGRI) and EU agriculture ministers have urged the Commission to make further efforts to address the difficulties of EU farmers. The Commission has stressed the need to use up any unspent rural development funds, given the lack of money at a time when most of the funds have run out and the future budget has not yet been agreed.

Market measures: The rules on common organisation of the markets in agricultural products (the CMO Regulation) provide that the Commission can activate exceptional and emergency measures, such as those announced on 22 April and presented above, to address market disturbances. Such measures have been the most common and pressing request of all stakeholders, together with more specific proposals, such as crisis support for the distillation of wine into ethanol for the manufacture of disinfectant.

Crisis reserve: The CAP’s financial rules (CAP horizontal regulation) provide for a reserve for crises in agriculture, based on an annual reduction of direct payments to farmers to finance exceptional measures. If not used, such amounts are reimbursed to farmers at the end of the year. The deployment of the reserve could free up to €478 million, but such a decision would mean less money for farmers later on.

Rural development: The EU’s rural development policy is based on multiannual national (sometimes regional) programmes, co-financed by Member States. According to the Commission some €6 billion is still available in programmes ending in 2020, or more than double that if calls for applications not yet finalised are considered. Adjustments are possible to redirect the remaining funds towards measures that could help those farmers and rural areas hardest hit by the crisis, such as support for investment in restoring the production potential of farms or setting up medical facilities in rural areas. Moreover, when the programmes include risk management tools, these can compensate farmers for their losses.

Future agricultural budget: EU support for farmers and rural areas still plays a major role in the EU budget, with direct payments to farmers representing the bulk of total CAP expenditure. Such payments help to make farming more profitable, but they can also function as a safety net in cases of agricultural income loss in difficult times. Their hectare-based nature directs them towards certain types of farm. Proposals under discussion for the post-2020 EU budget and CAP envisage a reduction in agricultural funds for the 2021-2027 period. If resources are redirected owing to the current crisis, safeguarding an adequate post-2020 CAP budget that gives full consideration to agricultural policy’s key role will prove extremely challenging.

Trade: The role of trade in the EU’s food system goes beyond food and drink exchanges, to include trade in agricultural inputs, packaging materials, machinery, and any supplies that contribute to food security. As food security is not achievable at local level, and self-sufficiency cannot work everywhere, the EU can act to prevent the restrictive measures adopted to protect health from limiting trade in the internal market, while also outlawing unfair trading practices. In addition, the EU can act at global level to favour exchanges, by means of bilateral talks with trade partners (for instance regarding US customs tariffs on EU exports) and the promotion of EU products on the market. On the defensive side, there are calls to revise the rules on EU import quotas from third countries, and to put agriculture-sensitive trade negotiations aside.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Coronavirus crisis support for EU farmers‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Marcin Grajewski,

© wernerimages / Adobe Stock

The coronavirus pandemic poses a serious challenge to the European Union, arguably testing at once its solidarity, resilience, capacity and even relevance. Some analysts see the current crisis as an ‘existential’ threat to the Union, whilst others sense it to be a significant opportunity to assert the need for collective solutions and to build greater systemic strength for the future. A lively debate has broken out among thinkers and commentators about the implications of the crisis for the future of European integration, the policy priorities of the Union, and the capabilities and resources of its institutions.

This note offers links to recent commentaries and reports from international think tanks on the challenges of the coronavirus for the EU and related issues. The papers gathered here have all been written before the European Council video-conference of 23 April 2020.

Covid-19: A turning-point for the EU?
European Policy Centre, April 2020

Corona will kill or cure the EU
Friends of Europe, April 2020

Covid-19: Lessons from the ‘euro crisis’
European Policy Centre, April 2020

The great lockdown: Impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on the global economy
Polish Institute for International Affairs, April 2020

European vision and ambition needed: Italy and Germany must promote a global EU response to Covid-19
Istituto Affari Internazionali, April 2020

Why the EU should take the global lead in cancelling Africa’s debt
Centre for European Policy Studies, April 2020

How the EU should co-ordinate an end to the Covid-19 lockdown
Centre for European Reform, April 2020

Defence against the coronavirus, or the soldier and the welfare state
Egmont, April 2020

Beyond coronabonds: A new constituent for Europe
Istituto Affari Internazionali, April 2020

Covid-19 : En qu(o)i les Français ont-ils confiance?
Fondation Jean Jaurès, April 2020

Protecting employment in the time of coronavirus
Centre for European Policy Studies, April 2020

Will Covid-19 reduce the resistance to Eurobonds?
Centre for European Policy Studies, April 2020

Européaniser notre relance économique
Fondation pour l’innovation politique, April 2020

A global agreement on medical equipment and supplies to fight Covid-19
European Centre for International Political Economy, April 2020

Covid-19 and the liberal international order: Exposing instabilities and weaknesses in an open international system
Finnish Institute of International Affairs, April 2020

Why the EU should lead talks between Kosovo and Serbia
European Council on Foreign Relations, April 2020

The EU needs a more comprehensive vision to tackle pandemics
Carnegie Europe, April 2020

Coronavirus does not mean the end of globalisation
European Centre for International Political Economy, April 2020

Covid-19: La fin du leadership américain?
Institut français des relations internationales, April 2020

10 ways of thinking about crisis resilience
Heinrich Böll Stiftung, April 2020

Coronavirus: Trends and landscapes for the aftermath
Real Instituto Elcano, April 2020

From Strategic Autonomy to the internationalization of the euro: Europe’s challenges and the impact of the Covid-19 crisis
Istituto Affari Internazionali, April 2020

The pandemic and the toll of transatlantic discord
German Marshall Fund, April 2020

L’UE face au coronavirus: Comment financer l’économie européenne en temps de crise?
Confrontations Europe, April 2020

A coordinated, unlimited and flexible insurance policy to respond to the pandemic
Real Instituto Elcano, April 2020

Eurozone passes coronavirus rescue plan, but political unity remains elusive
Atlantic Council, April 2020

Europe’s missing coronavirus exit strategy
Carnegie Europe, April 2020

Take me to your leader! Or how the EU could emerge stronger from the corona crisis
Egmont, April 2020

Corona: EU’s existential crisis
Clingendael, April 2020

The EU can emerge stronger from the pandemic if Merkel seizes the moment
European Council on Foreign Relations, April 2020

Debt monetization and EU recovery bonds
Fondation Européenne d’Etudes Progressistes, April 2020

A joint effort to increase production of medical masks in Europe
Clingendael, April 2020

Climate ambition in times of corona
Friends of Europe, April 2020

Covid-19: Can the EU avoid an epidemic of authoritarianism?
Centre for European Reform, April 2020

Europe’s debate on fiscal policy: Too much yet too little
Centre for European Policy Studies, April 20

A proposal for a coronabond: The Pandemic Solidarity Instrument
Centre for European Reform, April 2020

Boosting Europe’s resilience with better health systems: Lessons from the Covid-19 crisis
European Policy Centre, April 2020

Will SURE shield EU workers from the corona crisis?
Centre for European Policy Studies, April 2020

EU trade in medical goods: Why self-sufficiency is the wrong approach
Bruegel, April 2020

How is the Covid-19 crisis serving the EU?
European Policy Centre, April 2020

A European approach to fund the coronavirus cost is in the interest of all
Bruegel, April 202

Bouncing back again: How past crises can help Eastern Europe fight Covid-19
European Council on Foreign Relations, April 2020

Trouble for the EU is brewing in coronavirus-hit Italy
Centre for European Reform, April 2020

Kaczynski’s folly: Time for Europeans to speak out
European Council on Foreign Relations, April 2020

The coronavirus crisis: An opportunity to mend Polish-Ukrainian relations
European Council on Foreign Relations, April 2020

In the corona crisis, who is the more reliable international partner?
Bertelsmann Stiftung, April 2020

The ripple effects of the coronavirus in Turkey
Carnegie Europe, April 2020

Why an inclusive circular economy is needed to prepare for future global crises
Chatham House, April 2020

Coronavirus and the future of democracy in Europe
Chatham House, April 2020

Read this briefing on ‘Coronavirus: Implications for the EU‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Read all EPRS publications on the coronavirus outbreak

Written by Cécile Remeur,

© Thomas / Adobe Stock

The coronavirus pandemic and its financial and economic consequences have caused a major economic downturn, and the European Union (EU) has moved rapidly to respond with monetary and fiscal policy measures. The fiscal policy instruments deployed include the adaptation of State aid rules to the exceptional circumstances to allow Member States to support their economies by means of direct or indirect intervention.

From a competition law point of view, measures that constitute State aid are in principle illegal, unless issued under an exemption, such as the De minimis Regulation or the General Block Exemption Regulation, subject to notification and European Commission approval. The State aid rules do, however, already allow for aid to compensate for damage caused by natural disasters and exceptional events, such as a pandemic.

State aid can also be used to remedy serious disturbances to the economy. The temporary framework adopted by the Commission in March 2020 sets out temporary State aid measures that the Commission will consider compatible with the State aid rules, allowing Member States full flexibility in supporting their coronavirus-stricken economies. The temporary framework is in place to address Member States’ various needs more effectively.

The framework initially focused on measures to ensure liquidity. In early April, it was broadened to include measures to support the economy and coronavirus-related medical investment, research and production, as well as measures to ease the social and tax liabilities of companies and the self-employed and measures to subsidise workers’ wages.

Read the complete briefing on ‘State aid and the pandemic: How State aid can back coronavirus economic support measures‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Monika Kiss,

© Angelov / Adobe Stock

The coronavirus pandemic and the measures taken to curb its spread have had far-reaching and lasting consequences in different sectors of the economy, in the form of job and income losses or significantly modified working conditions.

This briefing gives an overview of the host of problems confronting workers and employers due to the pandemic and its consequences, and presents possible solutions that can be applied at different levels. A set of solutions concerns the level of the individual worker or the company employing them. Certain types of occupations, for instance, allow ‘going digital’ (even if teleworking also has its challenges). In other cases, the company can pay partial or total wages or sick leave to its employees.

At yet another level, that of the Member States, short-time work schemes can be introduced or have their scope further extended. Governments can also regulate parameters of teleworking or extend income replacements to groups of workers benefiting from lesser social protection.

Through initiatives such as the Support to Mitigate Unemployment Risks in Emergency (SURE) and the Coronavirus Response Investment Initiatives, the European Union is taking an active part in tackling the coronavirus crisis by supporting Member States, companies and workers to face the challenges. At its 16-17 April plenary session, the European Parliament voted on and adopted a number of important coronavirus-related proposals, concerning among others workers in certain sectors (healthcare, fishermen and aquaculture farmers) as well as more flexible use of the European structural and investment funds.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Coronavirus and the world of work‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.