European Parliamentary Research Service Blog

Written by Giulio Sabbati,

Within the European Parliament, Members (MEPs) sit in political groups, whose members come from several countries and come together on the basis of political affinity. Our table shows the number of MEPs in each political group in the European Parliament, broken down by Member State, as well as the non-attached (NI) Members who are not in any group.

At the moment, there are seven political groups in the Parliament, and many of those were also present in the last term:

EPP – Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats)

S&D – Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament

Renew Europe Group

Greens/EFA – Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance

ID – Identity and Democracy Group

ECR – European Conservatives and Reformists Group

GUE/NGL – Confederal Group of the European United Left – Nordic Green Left

The figures are supplied by our colleagues from the Members’ Administration Unit. Please note that these figures are subject to change and as a result we will update this table periodically throughout the five years of  the current parliamentary term

© European Union, EPRS

To find out more about the rules for forming a political group, see this EPRS briefing. To see the table of political groups in the 2014-2019 parliamentary term, see our previous blogpost.

Read this ‘at a glance’ on ‘Size of Political Groups in the EP (2019-2024)‘ in PDF.

Written by Nikolina Šajn (1st edition),

© vegefox.com / Fotolia

On 11 April 2018, the European Commission published a proposal for a new directive on representative actions for the protection of the collective interests of consumers. Currently, consumer organisations or independent public bodies can bring actions in the name of consumers in courts or before administrative authorities to stop infringements of consumer legislation. According to the proposal, they would be able to demand compensation for consumers as well. While work on the proposal is ongoing in the Council, the European Parliament adopted its first-reading position on 26 March 2019. It added safeguards to protect companies against abusive litigation, and deleted a precondition that consumers should wait for a final injunction order establishing the existence of an infringement before being allowed to demand compensation.

Versions

• April 2019:  ‘Representative actions to protect the collective interests of consumers: A new deal for consumers‘ (1st edition)

Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on representative actions for the protection of the collective interests of consumers, and repealing Directive 2009/22/EC Committee responsible: Legal Affairs (JURI) COM(2018) 184, 11.4.2018. Rapporteur: Geoffroy Didier (EPP, France) 2018/0089(COD) Shadow rapporteurs: Mady Delvaux (S&D, Luxembourg)
Angel Dzhambazki (ECR, Bulgaria)
Jens Rohde (ALDE, Denmark)
Kostas Chrysogonos (GUE/NGL, Greece)
Heidi Hautala (Greens/EFA, Finland)
Laura Ferrara (EFDD, Italy) Ordinary legislative procedure (COD) (Parliament and Council on equal footing – formerly ‘co-decision’) Next steps expected: Launch of trilogue negotiations

Written by Ionel Zamfir,

© Sergey Nivens / Fotolia

The practice of linking human rights with trade liberalisation has gained ground among many trade partners. Not only the EU, but also other important trade powers, such as the US and Canada, embed human and labour-rights provisions in their new trade agreements. For the EU, this ensues inevitably from the normative vision underlying all of its external policies, as enshrined in the Treaties. Accordingly, the EU has committed to respecting and promoting human rights and democracy through its external action.

The main mechanism for incorporating human rights into the EU’s bilateral agreements consists of an ‘essential elements’ human rights clause that enables one party to take appropriate measures in case of serious breaches by the other party. The clause, which also covers democratic principles and often the rule of law, is more than just a legal mechanism enabling the unilateral suspension of trade commitments in times of crisis. It enshrines the parties’ commitments to human rights and thus puts EU relations with third countries on a solid regulatory base, opening the path to dialogue and cooperation on human rights issues. So far, the EU has clearly preferred a constructive engagement to more restrictive measures, and has not activated the clause to suspend trade preferences under any of its trade agreements. Civil society and the European Parliament have, on the other hand, encouraged the European Commission to use the clause in a more robust way in order to respond to serious breaches of human rights and democratic principles.

This briefing focuses exclusively on the EU’s bilateral and regional free trade agreements. EU unilateral human and labour rights provisions in trade arrangements are addressed in a separate briefing. A forthcoming EPRS paper will provide more information about labour rights (many of which also form part of the human rights enshrined in international conventions) in EU bilateral agreements.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Human rights in EU trade agreements: The human rights clause and its application‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Katarzyna Sochacka and Clare Ferguson.

© European Union 2019 – Source : EP

The first parliamentary session of the ninth legislature took place in Strasbourg from 2-4 July 2019. The Members of this new Parliament (sitting from 2019 to 2024), dealt with elections of their peers to the most important offices in Parliament – the President, Vice-Presidents and Quaestors. Under Rule 14 of Parliament’s Rules of Procedure, the outgoing President opened this first, constituent session, during which Members also adopted a decision on the numerical strength of the standing committees and debated the outcome of the European Council meeting of 20 and 21 June 2019, and the follow-up meeting earlier this week.

Election of the President of the European Parliament

In a secret ballot that ran to two rounds (under Rule 16 of the Rules of Procedure), the newly elected Members first voted on a field of candidates, put forward by the political groups (or individual Members amounting to 1/20th of the whole Parliament), for the position of President. David‑Maria Sassoli (S&D, Italy) was elected for the next two and a half years, by 345 votes, out of the 667 valid votes cast.

Election of Parliament’s Vice-Presidents

In three rounds of voting, Members then elected 14 Vice-Presidents. The Vice-Presidents, who also serve for a two-and-a-half year term, chair debates when the President cannot, and each Vice-President is responsible for specific aspects of parliamentary business.

New parliamentary committees

Parliament adopted a decision, tabled by the Conference of Presidents (of the political groups) under Rule 206, concerning the numerical strength of the standing committees, i.e. the number of Members to sit on each of Parliament’s 20 standing committees and 2 sub-committees. Following that vote, the nominations of individual members to committees were announced. The committees will hold their constituent meetings next week, during which they will elect their chairs and vice-chairs. These appointments are generally the subject of an informal accord among the political groups, based on the d’Hondt method, with an eye to reflecting the plurality of Member States and a fair representation of political views. Among the first issues to be dealt with by the new committees will be to consider their approach to ‘unfinished business‘ from last term. The IMCO and REGI committees are likely to hold hearings this month, for the replacements of the two Commissioners that have taken up seats in Parliament following the elections: Andrus Ansip (digital single market) and Corina Creţu (regional policy).

Election of parliamentary Quaestors

Members elected Parliament’s five Quaestors, who are responsible for any administrative and financial matters that directly concern Members and their working conditions, by acclamation, since there were only five nominations. Together with the President and Vice-Presidents, the Quaestors complete Parliament’s Bureau, in which they participate in an advisory capacity.

Conclusions of the European Council meeting of 20 and 21 June 2019

Members debated the outcome of the European Council and Euro Summit meetings on 20-21 June 2019, at which leaders adopted the Strategic Agenda for 2019 to 2024, setting four priority areas for EU action. They also discussed appointments to high-level EU positions and finally agreed to elect, nominate or propose candidates for high-level EU positions (Presidents of the European Council, European Central Bank, and European Commission, and the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy), during a further meeting between 30 June and 2 July. Parliament is due to vote on the candidate for Commission President, Ursula von der Leyen, at the next plenary sitting, from 15 to 18 July 2019

ty / Fotolia

The European Parliament regularly receives enquiries from citizens about staff working for Members of the European Parliament.

Members are free to choose their own staff, although they may not employ close relatives. To cover the costs of hiring staff, Members have a monthly budget of about €25 000 at their disposal. However, the Parliament does not simply give these sums to the Members. Parliament pays their staff salaries directly – and contributes to the relevant tax and social security authorities.

Three categories of staff work for Members: ‘accredited parliamentary assistants’, ‘local assistants’ and trainees.

Members choose their accredited parliamentary assistants. The European Parliament then hires them under a direct contract. They assist Members in the exercise of their functions in the Parliament’s premises at one of its three places of work (Brussels, Luxembourg or Strasbourg). Members of the European Parliament can recruit a maximum of three accredited assistants or, in certain circumstances, four. At least a quarter of the total budget must be used for the employment of accredited assistants.

Members hire local assistants to work for them on EU matters in the country where they were elected, under employment contracts governed by national law. A maximum of three quarters of the total budget can be used for these local assistants.

Trainees have a traineeship agreement with a Member. They can work either in the Parliament’s premises or in the country of election.

Several Members can pool together to recruit one or several accredited or local assistants.

Staff working for Members carry out a wide range of tasks, which are determined by the Member, based on his/her official functions within Parliament (such as Vice-President or Quaestor), his/her interests, as well as his/her personal style.

Common tasks carried out by Members’ staff include administration (such as organising meetings, answering calls or managing the Member’s agenda and mailbox); parliamentary work (such as drafting amendments, following the activities of committees, preparing plenary sessions or negotiating with other Members’ assistants); policy (for instance building expertise on files where the Member is active); and communication (for example drafting speeches or managing the Member’s social media accounts). The names of staff of Members of the European Parliament are published on the Parliament’s website.

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

Further information

• Staffing arrangements: parliamentary assistants, Frequently Asked Questions put to Parliament’s Spokesperson’s Department, European Parliament
• About MEPs, European Parliament

Written by Wolfgang Hiller,

© Architectes : Vandenbossche SPRL, CRV S.A., CDG S.P.R.L., Studiegroep D. Bontinck, ©Façade et Hémicycle – Arch M. Boucquillon Belgium – European Union 2019 – Source : EP

Better law-making is at the same time both a policy objective and a process. As a methodology, its purpose is to design and to decide on regulation that is fit for purpose.

This is achieved through a set of measures applied at all stages of the policy cycle, starting from agenda-setting, policy design and consultation, through to the actual moment of decision-making by the co-legislators, and finally to ex-post evaluation, when, after a period of transposition and implementation, the laws and regulations are evaluated to determine whether they have fulfilled their purpose or if they require adaptations to better meet evolving needs.

The responsibility for better law-making is shared between the European Union (EU) institutions. At European level, this was confirmed by the entry into force of the current Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making in April 2016, which has provided a new impetus to the joint efforts of the EU institutions to boost evidence-based policy-making at the various stages of the legislative and policy cycles. The aim is to generate European legislation of the highest possible quality for the benefit of European citizens.

The way forward: Better law-making in the future

To evaluate past experience of better law-making in practice, the European Commission undertook a comprehensive stock-taking exercise in early 2019, to find out what has worked well and what needs to be improved in this regard in the future. The European Parliament and its Directorate for Impact Assessment and European Added Value contributed to this exercise in various ways and have made their own reflections on the Parliament’s work in this field. The exercise confirmed that the use of better regulation tools in the European law-making process are, by international comparison, well established and largely appreciated by stakeholders. Nevertheless, to improve its effectiveness and to achieve its objective of better laws for European citizens in future, work needs to continue at all levels. To this end, the Parliament’s Directorate for Impact Assessment and European Added Value stands ready to support parliamentary committees in this process.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Impact Assessment and European Added Value work during the eighth legislative term, 2014-2019‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Ralf Drachenberg,

© fotolia

After a lengthy meeting, lasting from 30 June to 2 July with interruptions, the European Council agreed on a package of candidates for the EU high-level positions. The German Defence Minister, Ursula von der Leyen, was proposed as candidate for European Commission President, now subject to election by the European Parliament.

The package of candidates proposed by the European Council

The special European Council meeting started late on 30 June and went on, with interruptions for individual discussions (bilaterals) and a break for reflection, until early evening on 2 July.

The package the European Council finally agreed upon includes:

• Ursula von der Leyen (Germany) for European Commission President;
• Charles Michel (Belgium) for European Council President;
• Josep Borrell (Spain) for High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy
• Christine Lagarde (France) for President of the European Central Bank

Figure 1: Overview of high-level office-holders since the 2009 EP elections

Treaty-based roles of the European Council and the European Parliament for high-level appointments

The offices of President of the European Commission and of the European Central Bank would, for the first time, be held by women (see Figure 1). The office of President of the European Council will for the second time go to a Belgian national, but for the first time to the Renew Europe (ex ALDE) political family.

The President of the European Council, Donald Tusk underlined that, although Germany abstained on the candidate for Commission President, the package of EU high-level positions was agreed on without a dissenting vote and moreover achieves ‘a perfect gender balance’. At the informal meeting in Sibiu on 9 May, when outlining a procedure for the appointments, he had stressed that these nominations should reflect the EU’s demography and geographical balance, but also gender and political balances. He had also indicated that these decisions were to be taken by consensus, if possible, but that he ‘would not shy away from putting [them] to the vote’ if needed.

Addressing the European Council, the outgoing President of the European Parliament, Antonio Tajani, reiterated the Parliament’s position in support of the Spitzenkandidaten principle. However, earlier proposals for a package, taking into account the ‘lead candidate’ process, did not gather the necessary qualified majority support (i.e. at least 72 % of the Member States representing 65 % of the EU’s population). President Tusk recalled that the Spitzenkandidaten procedure was not a legal obligation, but that the European Council had attempted to respect the process in its reflections. He also stressed that ‘the European Council took note of Ursula von der Leyen’s intentions to nominate Frans Timmermans and Margrethe Vestager as highest ranking Vice-Presidents of the Commission’.

Regarding the election of the Parliament’s President, Antonio Tajani, had pointed out that the choice was completely independent from the proposals made in the European Council. This notwithstanding, President Tusk did indicate that the EU leaders had recommended the election of a European Parliament President coming from the S&D family, and also suggested a person from central and eastern Europe, who would then be followed in the second half of the term by someone from the EPP group. However, on 3 July, the European Parliament finally elected an Italian, David-Maria Sassoli (S&D), as its new President. The other candidates were Ska Keller (Greens/EFA, DE), Sira Rego (GUE/NGL, ES) and Jan Zahradil (ECR, CZ).

Specific procedures for each appointment

The procedures set out in the Treaties for appointing the various high-level office-holders differ according to the position concerned (see Table 1). The only person having been effectively ‘elected’ on 2 July was Charles Michel, whose two-and-a-half-year mandate (renewable once) as European Council President will begin on 1 December. He was also elected, by the Heads of State or Government of the contracting parties to the Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union whose currency is the euro, as President of the Euro Summit for the same term.

The candidate for President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, was ‘nominated’ by the European Council, and still needs to be elected by the European Parliament, by a majority of its component members (Article 17(7) TEU). Regarding the other positions, the conclusions of the European Council only mention that the European Council ‘considers Josep Borrell Fontelles to be the appropriate candidate for the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy’, since the choice needs to be formally agreed by the President-elect of the Commission. Similarly, for President of the European Central Bank, the European Council ‘considers’ Christine Lagarde to be the appropriate candidate. Before formally appointing her, it needs to receive a recommendation from the Council, after consultation of the European Parliament and the Governing Council of the European Central Bank.

Table 1: Treaty-based roles of the European Council and the European Parliament for high-level appointments

Position Treaty article European Council role European Parliament role President of the European Commission 17(7) TEU Propose candidate Elect candidate President of the European Council 15(5) TEU Elect None High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy 18(1) TEU Appoint (with agreement of the President of the Commission) Part of the approval of the college of Commissioners President of the European Central Bank 283(2) TFEU Appoint Consulted Next steps

The European Parliament is expected to vote on the candidate for Commission President, Ursula von der Leyen, on 16 July. At this stage, her election is not guaranteed, as some political groups have reiterated the European Parliament’s attachment to the Spitzenkandidaten process, under which she was not a candidate.

If she does not obtain the required majority, Article 17(7) TEU provides that ‘the European Council, acting by a qualified majority, shall within one month propose a new candidate who shall be elected by the European Parliament following the same procedure’.

Read this ‘at a glance’ on ‘Outcome of the special European Council meeting of 30 June-2 July 2019‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Laura Tilindyte,

© Nmedia / Fotolia

Having been elected to the European Parliament, two current members of the College of Commissioners have resigned as Commissioners in order to take up their seats. As a general rule, a vacancy caused in this way needs to be filled by a new Commissioner of the same nationality – unless the Council unanimously decides otherwise. On 16 June 2019, given the short duration of the remainder of the current Commission’s mandate, the Commission President, Jean-Claude Juncker, proposed not to replace the departing Commissioners.

European Commission proposal

The College of Commissioners currently consists of one national per Member State. Any Commissioner elected to the European Parliament who decides to take up their seat is required to resign, as the two offices are incompatible (Article 245 TFEU and Article 7(1) of the Electoral Act). This is the case for two Commissioners (Andrus Ansip, Estonia, and Corina Creţu, Romania) following their election to Parliament in May 2019. The EU Treaties require, as a general rule, that a vacancy caused by such resignation is filled for the remainder of the Commission’s term of office by a new member, of the same nationality, appointed by the Council. However, the Council may, acting unanimously, on a proposal from the President of the Commission, ‘decide that such a vacancy need not be filled, in particular when the remainder of the Member’s term of office is short.’ Such a Council decision has been taken once before, in July 1999.

Against this backdrop, on 12 June 2019, Jean-Claude Juncker announced that he would propose not to replace the departing Commissioners, and later made this proposal formally. He noted that, as the current Commission’s term in office ends on 31 October 2019, during the remaining four months, the Commission’s focus will be on completing pending proposals instead of proposing new initiatives. Moreover, pointing to the financial burden entailed by such replacements, Juncker suggested that, given the current practice of working in ‘project teams’, other Commissioners would be ‘fully capable’ of stepping in for departing colleagues. The proposal, if adopted, would also entail there being no member of the College of Estonian or Romanian nationality until a new Commission takes office.

Procedure and Parliament’s role

The proposal was considered by Coreper on 3 July. Without unanimous support for the proposal, new Commissioners would need to be appointed by the Council, in common accord with Juncker, and after consulting the European Parliament (Article 246 TFEU). Such appointments are different from the ‘regular’ procedure, due in autumn 2019, in which the Commission is subject as a body to a vote of consent by Parliament before being formally appointed by the European Council. Although the ‘replacement’ procedure only requires Parliament’s consultation, the 2010 Framework Agreement on Relations between Parliament and the Commission (pt. 6) commits the Commission President to ‘seriously consider‘ the result of Parliament’s consultation before giving their accord to the Council’s appointment. In July 2014, after the last European elections, Parliament approved the appointment of five new Commissioners. Rule 125(9) calls for hearings of any replacement Commissioner, or indeed of existing Commissioners taking over a portfolio.

Article 246 TFEU (second and third paragraphs)
A vacancy caused by resignation, compulsory retirement or death [of a Member of the Commission] shall be filled for the remainder of the Member’s term of office by a new Member of the same nationality appointed by the Council, by common accord with the President of the Commission, after consulting the European Parliament and in accordance with the criteria set out in the second subparagraph of Article 17(3) of the Treaty on European Union.
The Council may, acting unanimously on a proposal from the President of the Commission, decide that such a vacancy need not be filled, in particular when the remainder of the Member’s term of office is short.

Read this ‘at a glance’ on ‘(Non-)replacement of Commissioners elected to EP‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Ioannis Zachariadis,

© Julien Eichinger / Fotolia

The substantial reduction in trade costs and the rapid technological advances characterising the global economy over the past three decades have allowed multinational enterprises (MNEs) to increasingly break up their supply chains and spread them across different countries. The principal implication of this change relates to the concept of value added and the way it is created and captured across MNE-controlled global value chains (GVCs). The dynamic nature of transfers within MNEs, the increasing role of services and intangible assets in manufacturing, and most critically the unfolding digital revolution have all intensified the mobility of value-generating factors within GVCs, and highlighted the difficulty of defining the exact location where value is generated.

These developments have significant policy implications. One critical area is that of tax policy, where the challenges posed by the new economic landscape are numerous and multifaceted. On the one hand, governments seek to encourage trade and investment by MNEs by removing tax and regulatory barriers they face. Some governments go even further by resorting to harmful tax competition that drives corporate income taxes to the bottom. At the same time, many MNEs continue to employ enhanced tax arbitrage to minimise their tax obligations across jurisdictions; furthermore, business models are increasingly becoming borderless and highly mobile, and therefore difficult to tax. In view of these challenges, consensus is gradually emerging that tax systems need improved alignment to ensure that profits are taxed where the economic activities generating them are performed and where value is created. Yet, allocating jurisdiction to tax business profits in the context of MNE-controlled GVCs remains a highly complex process.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Multinational enterprises, value creation and taxation: Key issues and policy developments‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Paul De Ryck,

© metamorworks / Fotolia

Looking back on 20 years of the euro, it is widely acknowledged that it has proved successful as the common currency of the euro area, and that it has also developed into a vehicle for international trade, having become the second most widely used currency in the world.

However, this growing international role is not reflected in the external representation of the euro in international financial fora, notably the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

Over the years, various attempts have been made to change this. The latest of these attempts came in the wake of the Five Presidents’ Report of 2015, which subsequently led to a Commission proposal for a Council decision on unified representation of the euro area in the IMF.

The proposal aims to secure representation of the euro area on the IMF’s Executive Board through the creation of a single euro-area constituency, and by the Eurogroup in the remaining IMF bodies.

Member States have shown reluctance to give up the current form of representation on the IMF Executive Board in favour of a unified euro-area constituency.

Their objections are mainly geopolitical in nature. They tend to consider that their national interest is best served in the framework of the existing IMF governance structure.

Although the proposal has been on Council’s table since 2015, there has been no visible progress to date, with the 2025 implementation deadline proposed by the Commission now called into question.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Towards unified representation for the euro area within the IMF‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Listen to podcast ‘Towards unified representation for the euro area within the IMF‘.

Written by Marcin Szczepański,

© Alexander Limbach / Fotolia

Artificial intelligence plays an increasingly important role in our lives and economy and is already having an impact on our world in many different ways. Worldwide competition to reap its benefits is fierce, and global leaders – the US and Asia – have emerged on the scene.

AI is seen by many as an engine of productivity and economic growth. It can increase the efficiency with which things are done and vastly improve the decision-making process by analysing large amounts of data. It can also spawn the creation of new products and services, markets and industries, thereby boosting consumer demand and generating new revenue streams.

However, AI may also have a highly disruptive effect on the economy and society. Some warn that it could lead to the creation of super firms – hubs of wealth and knowledge – that could have detrimental effects on the wider economy. It may also widen the gap between developed and developing countries, and boost the need for workers with certain skills while rendering others redundant; this latter trend could have far-reaching consequences for the labour market. Experts also warn of its potential to increase inequality, push down wages and shrink the tax base.

While these concerns remain valid, there is no consensus on whether and to what extent the related risks will materialise. They are not a given, and carefully designed policy would be able to foster the development of AI while keeping the negative effects in check. The EU has a potential to improve its standing in global competition and direct AI onto a path that benefits its economy and citizens. In order to achieve this, it first needs to agree a common strategy that would utilise its strengths and enable the pooling of Member States’ resources in the most effective way.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Economic impacts of artificial intelligence (AI)‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Listen to podcast ‘Economic impacts of artificial intelligence (AI)‘.

Written by Clare Ferguson,

European Parliament (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)

The agenda of the next parliamentary session in Strasbourg from 2-4 July 2019 will be a little different from the usual. Meeting for the first time, the 751 directly elected Members of this new, ninth Parliament (sitting from 2019 to 2024), will deal with elections of their peers to the most important offices in Parliament. The outgoing President, or a Vice-President (or alternatively, the longest-serving Member) will open this first, constituent session (under Rule 14 of Parliament’s Rules of Procedure). To allow time for the continuing delicate negotiations on nominations to key offices, no voting or debates are scheduled for Tuesday after the official opening of Parliament.

No business can take place without Parliament having a President in office, therefore electing a president is the newly elected Members’ first task, and voting should begin first thing on Wednesday morning. The political groups (or individual Members amounting to 1/20th of the whole Parliament), propose the presidential candidates. While in previous terms this process has been quite straightforward, with the two biggest groups losing their majorities and continued uncertainty on how long Members elected in the United Kingdom Members will stay in Parliament, this time political alliances are more difficult to predict. Members will elect their President for the next two and a half years by absolute majority, in a secret ballot (with repeat rounds, under Rule 16, if there is no agreement).

Once the new President takes the chair, the election of 14 Vice-Presidents follows. Their role is to chair debates when the President cannot, and each also takes responsibility for specific aspects of parliamentary business. Vice-Presidents are elected in a single ballot by an absolute majority of votes cast (two further rounds of voting are possible, under Rule 17, to fill any remaining seats). Parliament’s five Quaestors, who are responsible for administrative and financial matters directly concerning Members and their working conditions, are then elected by absolute majority in up to three ballots (under Rule 18). In practice, the aim is that the office-holders together reflect the numerical strength of the political groups, as well as respecting geographical and gender balance. The President and Vice-Presidents make up the new Bureau of the Parliament, in which the Quaestors participate in an advisory capacity.

As is the custom in other parliaments, the Conference of Presidents (of the political groups) proposes the number of Members to sit on each of Parliament’s committees, and their decision will be voted on on Wednesday (under Rule 199 and Annex V). The Conference of Presidents will then decide on the appointment of Members to the committees, to be announced during this week’s session. The committees will hold their constituent meetings next week, at which they will elect their chairs and vice-chairs. These appointments are generally the subject of an informal accord among the political groups, based on the d’Hondt method, with an eye to reflecting the plurality of Member States and fair representation of political views.

Traditionally, as can be seen from the above, it is during this session that the strength of the Parliament’s political groups is at its most evident, as they provide support for their preferred candidates. Since the May 2019 European elections, new and re-elected Members have taken part in negotiations to form these political groups (Members sit with others of similar political persuasion, rather than by nationality). This transnational party cooperation, unique to Europe and crucial in shaping European politics, dates back to the days of the European Steel and Coal Common Assembly. The groups, to a great extent, reflect previous constellations. They must comply with certain rules before informing Parliament’s Secretary-General of their composition, and may encompass Members belonging to more than one European political party. The Presidents of these political groups also make up, along with the President of Parliament, the Conference of Presidents. This body also decides whether Parliament resumes work on any unfinished business – including around 44 legislative files at an early stage, meaning that plenary had not adopted a position by the end of the eighth legislature. Such files are deemed to have lapsed at the end of the last session before elections, and the parliamentary committees will have to consider whether they want to resume work (continuity of parliamentary business is covered under Rule 240). Even when the plenary has already adopted a position in the last term, the Parliament may decide to ask the European Commission to modify or withdraw a proposal. In the background, Parliament also ensures that Members do not hold any office that is incompatible with the office of Member of the European Parliament.

Time permitting, Thursday morning should also feature interventions by the outgoing Presidents of the European Council and the Commission, Donald Tusk and Jean-Claude Juncker, on the outcome of the European Council and Euro Summit meetings on 20-21 June 2019, at which leaders adopted the Strategic Agenda for 2019 to 2024, setting four priority areas for EU action. They also discussed the appointments for high-level EU positions, but were unable to agree; a further meeting on that issue commenced on 30 June, and will reconvene on 2 July. With the European Council evidently having difficulty agreeing on a candidate for the job of Commission President, it remains to be seen whether the Parliament will have a candidate to vote on at the next plenary sitting, from 15 to 18 July. When a candidate is put forward, they will need to gain the support of the absolute majority of Members of the European Parliament (half plus one). Moreover, it as yet unclear whether the candidate put forward will have emerged from the Spitzenkandidaten process, as called for by the outgoing Parliament.

As the process of appointing Parliament’s office-holders will take some time, the customary statement on the priorities of the incoming Finnish Presidency, which begins on 1 July, will only take place during the second sitting in July.

Written by Kristina Grosek,

© BillionPhotos.com / Fotolia

With European elections held on 23-26 May 2019, the eighth parliamentary term formally ends on 1 July 2019, a day before the constituent part-session of the newly elected Parliament. Despite the efforts of the co-legislators, agreement could not be found on a number of legislative proposals before the end of the parliamentary term, and these form a major part of the business that needs to be picked up again in the new term. In order to ensure continuity in its work, therefore, Parliament has adopted rules on how to deal with unfinished files.

Unfinished business in the European Parliament

‘Unfinished business’ refers to any procedure on which parliamentary work was still ongoing at the end of the parliamentary term, i.e. where the plenary had not taken a final decision. According to Rule 240 (previously Rule 229) of the EP’s Rules of Procedure, ‘at the end of the last part-session before elections, all Parliament’s unfinished business shall be deemed to have lapsed’, unless the Conference of Presidents – at the beginning of the new term – decides ‘on reasoned requests from parliamentary committees and other institutions to resume or continue the consideration of such matters’. Furthermore, the EP can (Rule 61, previously Rule 63) ask the Commission to refer a proposal again to Parliament for work to restart.

Unfinished files at the end of the eighth parliamentary term

As of June 2019, there are around 168 ongoing ordinary legislative procedure files at different stages of the legislative process. Of these, the EP administration has identified 44 files which remained at an early stage in the legislative process at the end of the last term. There are also a number of other unfinished files (e.g. special legislative procedures, budgetary procedures, and non-legislative procedures). In line with Rule 240, in the early days of the new parliamentary term, the Chair of the Conference of Committee Chairs (CCC) will invite each committee to provide information on the state of play of unfinished files, and on how they intend to handle them (resume work, or ask the Commission to modify or withdraw the proposal). The Conference of Presidents will then decide on which of the proposed files work will resume and in what manner. On the basis of that decision, the President will then inform the Commission and Council of the EP’s plans.

Unfinished files at the end of the seventh parliamentary term

On 16 July 2014, the Chair of the CCC wrote to the chairs of all committees requesting them to examine the unfinished files and inform him on how they proposed to proceed. At its meeting on 18 September 2014, the Conference of Presidents took a decision on reasoned requests from parliamentary committees to resume work on 47 files under the ordinary legislative procedure (compared to 23 files carried over from the sixth parliamentary term). On a further 82 files on which a first-reading position had already been adopted in plenary, Parliament asked the Commission to refer its proposal again (Annex I). Work was to resume on 13 files under other legislative procedures (Annex II), while the Commission was asked to withdraw 19 legislative proposals (Annex III) and the Council to re-consult parliament on one file (Annex IV).

The Commission and Council

The Treaties do not set out a specific procedure for handling unfinished legislative files at the end of a parliamentary term, but they do allow the Commission to change a proposal as long as the Council has not acted (Article 293(2) TFEU). For those files where the first reading is concluded in the EP and where Council has already transmitted its first-reading position, Treaty deadlines for second reading must be respected. It should be noted that the joint declaration on practical arrangements for the co-decision procedure stipulates that the institutions coordinate their work, to enable proceedings to be conducted in a coherent and convergent fashion (point 6), with maximum efficiency (point 20).

Read this ‘At a glance’ note on ‘Continuation of work in progress from last term‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Lieve Van Woensel with Richelle Boone,

© Maxuser / Shutterstock.com

What if blockchain revolutionised voting? What if your emotions were tracked to spy on you? And what if we genetically engineered an entire species? Science and policy are intricately connected. Via monthly ‘What if’ publications, the Scientific Foresight Unit (STOA; part of the European Parliamentary Research Service) draws Members of the European Parliament’s attention to new scientific and technological developments relevant for policy-making. The unit also provides administrative support to the Panel for the Future of Science and Technology (STOA), which brings together 25 Members from nine different parliamentary committees who share a strong interest in science and technology in the context of policy-making.

Science, policy and society influence each other in many ways. For instance, scientific developments often give us new ideas about ourselves and our place in the world. These new ideas might change our expectations and moral standards, and might therefore call for a revision of established policies. Furthermore, new technological innovations and possible solutions to societal challenges put forward by scientists can only be implemented through policy. Scientific results and technological innovations could also spark new problems, dangers or ethical concerns. It is up to policy-makers (in interaction with scientists and societal actors) to address, mitigate and regulate those cases. Policy-makers however do not only deal with the products of scientific endeavour, they also have the power to prioritise certain fields of research and development, and to steer scientific practice by (binding) rules or (voluntary) ethical codes. The decisions made in all these types of science–policy interaction can be highly political.

Science and policy mainly meet at the agenda-setting and consultation stages of policy-making. In the agenda-setting phase, scientists (or others) highlight new scientific and technological developments that call for legislation or ethical regulation; the need for mitigation of certain rules limiting scientific freedom; or a detected pressing issue in society or nature, such as the need for new work skills or strategies to combat climate change. In the consultation phase, policy-makers might turn to scientific advisors for policy advice concerning research topics scientists are working on, such as the safety of artificial colorants in food. Looking to science for inspiration and information contributes to evidence-informed policy-making. It should however be noted that evidence-informed decisions are in the end always the result of a negotiation between such scientific input on the one hand, and the societal/political context on the other.

To support Members’ work in the agenda-setting phase, the Scientific Foresight Unit (STOA), prepares, among other things, monthly ‘What if’ publications to help Members detect new and interesting developments in the fields of science and technology. These publications cover both current developments that might spark immediate policy action and possible future developments that demand reflection today. Such considerations about future possibilities could, for instance, elucidate current debates, or make sure the first elements of an ethical framework are in place when a potentially disruptive new technology actually arrives, or they could be used to decide if a developing technology or strand of research should preferably be stimulated or even halted. To create the ‘What if’ publications, the Scientific Foresight Unit investigates the current state of a development and employs foresight methodology to map potential impacts on society and wider developments, and to list possible anticipatory policy options for Members.

Potential impacts and developments

As mentioned above, each ‘What if’ publication includes an overview of potential societal impacts and wider developments of the scientific or technological innovation in question. These include, for example, possible future advances, existing and future applications, ethical and societal concerns, normative challenges and probable consequences for daily life, uncertainties, risks and dangers, philosophical considerations, and new types of questions, specific to the particular technology. Both intended and possible unintended applications of a new technology are listed. Unintended applications could for instance include cases of dual-use, of the technology ‘falling into the wrong hands’, of unexpected side effects relevant to some stakeholders, or of creative uses in new domains, such as the use of drones to deliver commercial goods. By examining the potential impacts of a scientific or technological development from many angles (from social, technological, economic, environmental, political/legal, ethical and demographic viewpoints), and by taking many stakeholders’ perspectives into account, the Scientific Foresight Unit tries to make the analyses as complete as possible. Of course, some impacts and developments will always remain unforeseen.

Taking for instance the three ‘What if’ publications referred to in the introduction of this paper: each of the technologies mentioned would bring both opportunities and risks. Applying blockchain technology, for example, can speed up elections and reduce the risk of fraud, which would reduce costs and possibly lead to higher voter turnouts. However, to build a strong democracy, the whole electorate – even those disappointed with the result – must accept that the voting process was legitimate and reliable. It is not yet clear whether an intricate blockchain process can inspire enough public confidence. Moving on to the next kind of innovation, facial recognition technology can have many kinds of applications in many different fields, especially when it is combined with emotion recognition: it could identify potential shoplifters, track mental health, personalise marketing, facilitate faster entrance to events, or provide a patient’s medical history in emergency situations. The technology comes, however, with many ethical dilemmas, for example: what if it were used by state authorities or malicious employers to carry out mass surveillance, tracking peoples’ moves and emotions without their consent? And, finally, gene-drive technology – the technology that could be used to genetically engineer an entire species, by introducing a modified gene that easily spreads through a population – could be used to eradicate malaria, to fight invasive species that cost the European economy billions of euros, or to decrease resistance to pesticides or herbicides in pests and weeds. However, at the same time, hostile nations could turn gene-drive technology into a biological weapon by targeting species key to European ecosystems, such as bees.

Anticipatory policy-making

As impact and development analyses show: the introduction of a new scientific idea or a new technology can lead to many different futures, depending on the way in which the innovation is implemented and spread. The Scientific Foresight Unit (STOA) maps these different futures and identifies policy options for stimulating desirable futures and avoiding undesirable ones. Of course STOA analysts remain neutral, and it is up to Members to decide which futures they consider desirable or undesirable. Returning to our three examples: for blockchain voting procedures, the ‘What if?’ publication illustrated that the process would have to comply with various areas of European law, such as data protection for voters; to secure transparency and fairness in facial recognition technology, the paper underlined the option for Parliament’s Members and committees to play an active role in EU institutions’ efforts to formulate regulations and guidelines for artificial intelligence; and on gene-drive technology, the ‘What if?’ paper highlighted scientists’ calls for an appropriate risk assessment framework and a ban on for-profit exploitation.

To facilitate Members’ and committees’ preparations for policy action, STOA offers a wide range of services. Members can, for instance, apply for an extensive technology assessment or foresight study, or request a workshop on their topic of interest. Experience during the eighth parliamentary term proves that these services can be very effective: the STOA foresight study on the ‘Ethics of cyber-physical systems‘ contributed substantially to the February 2017 Parliament resolution on ‘Civil law rules on robotics‘.

Read this ‘at a glance’ on ‘What if policy anticipated advances in science and technology?‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Listen to podcast ‘What if policy anticipated advances in science and technology?‘.

Written by Ralf Drachenberg and Suzanna Anghel,

© JohnKwan / Fotolia

At their most recent meeting, EU Heads of State or Government postponed decisions on nominating a set of high-level EU appointments, including the position of President of the European Commission. EU leaders will now reconvene for a special meeting of the European Council on 30 June, with the aim of reaching an agreement on a package of candidates. On climate policy, the European Council did not achieve consensus on ensuring climate neutrality by 2050 either. Conversely, it adopted the strategic agenda for 2019-24, setting four priority areas that will guide the work of the EU institutions over the next five years. EU leaders also discussed a wide range of external relations issues, including the situation in eastern Ukraine and the Azov Sea, and reconfirmed economic sanctions on Russia.

1. Implementation: Follow-up on previous European Council commitments

The President of Romania, Klaus Iohannis – whose country currently holds the six-monthly rotating presidency of the Council of Ministers – provided an overview of the progress made in implementing previous European Council conclusions.

Table 1: New European Council commitments and requests with a specific time schedule

Policy area Action Actor Schedule Strategic Agenda Discuss the follow-up European Council October 2019 MFF Exchange of views European Council October 2019 Climate change Finalise its guidance on the EU’s long-term strategy European Council Before the end of 2019 Eastern Partnership Present long-term policy objectives Commission and
High Representative Early 2020 2. European Council meeting Next institutional cycle High-level appointments

EU Heads of State or Government discussed nominations for a range of high-level appointments, and agreed on the need for a ‘package reflecting the diversity of the EU’. Prior to the meeting, the President of the European Council, Donald Tusk, had changed his view from ‘cautiously optimistic to more cautious than optimistic’. President Tusk concluded that, based on his ‘consultations and statements made within the European Parliament, there was no majority on any candidate,’ with diverging views amongst EU leaders, notably German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Emmanuel Macron, on the impact of this lack of majority on the Spitzenkandidaten process itself.

A special European Council meeting was called for 30 June. Before then, President Tusk will continue his consultations, including with the European Parliament, in order to find a solution acceptable for both the Member States and the institutions involved. He held individual meetings with the leaders of several of the political groups in Parliament on 24 June.

Main messages of the President of the European Parliament: President Tajani reminded the EU Heads of State or Government of the EP’s position on the procedure of appointing the European Commission President. He re-emphasised the principle of the Spitzenkandidaten system.

Strategic Agenda 2019-24

As flagged up in the EPRS outlook before the meeting, the European Council adopted the 2019-24 Strategic Agenda for the Union. The main priorities for the next five years will be:

1. protecting citizens and freedoms;
2. developing a strong and vibrant economic base;
3. building a climate-neutral, green, fair and social Europe;
4. promoting European interests and values on the global stage.

Table2: Selected changes in the Strategic Agenda 2019-24 compared to earlier drafts

Policy area Changes in the Strategic Agenda 2019-24 compared to earlier drafts Climate and environment New points not previously included

• Promote sustainable agriculture
• Guaranteeing food safety
• Fostering quality production
• Mobilisation of private and public investment

Defence Deletions of parts of points previously mentioned

• The EU needs to take greater responsibility for its collective own security and defence
• Enhancing defence investment

New points not previously included

• Capability development and operational readiness;

Additions to points mentioned previously

• Cooperate closely with NATO, in full respect of the principles set out in the Treaties and by the European Council, including the principles of inclusiveness, reciprocity and decision-making autonomy of the EU

Energy New points not previously included

• Respect Member States’ right to decide on their energy mix
• Increase energy efficiency
• Diversify the EU’s [energy] supplies

Foreign policy New points not previously included

• EU needs to increase its capacity to act autonomously to safeguard its interests
• EU will support the UN and key multilateral organisations

Migration Additions to points mentioned previously

• Fight illegal migration and human trafficking

New points not previously included

• Ensure effective returns
• A consensus needs to be found on the Dublin Regulation to reform it based on a balance of responsibility and solidarity, taking into account the persons disembarked following search and rescue operations

Social New points not previously included

• Need to pay key attention to social issues
• Implement the European Pillar of Social Rights
• Rights and equal opportunities for all
• Consumer protection and food standards

Following discussions among Member-State Permanent Representatives to the EU (Coreper) on the strategic agenda, the final version evolved substantially on various points from the outline discussed at the informal meeting of Heads of State or Government in Sibiu and subsequent draft versions. The biggest changes concern the fourth priority, where two concepts, 1) climate neutrality and 2) social Europe, previously only touched upon (see table 2), were added. More precise objectives were set on both. Other noteworthy deletions or additions relate to defence and migration. Overall, the final text is more proactive and assertive, and less defensive, than previous draft versions.

Multiannual Financial Framework

EU leaders welcomed the work done under the Romanian Presidency of the Council on the future Multiannual Financial Framework, and called for further efforts on developing the ‘negotiating box’ under Finland’s Presidency. EU Heads of State or Government aim to agree on the MFF before the end of the year.

Climate change

The European Council reconfirmed its commitment to the implementation of the Paris Agreement, and underlined the necessity of transforming the EU into a carbon-neutral economy. Due to persistent diverging views among Member States, it did not manage to commit to a date. President Tusk mentioned that ‘reaching unanimity was not possible today’, whilst underlining ‘that a vast majority of Member States has committed to climate neutrality by 2050’, as expressed in a footnote in the conclusions. Analysts spoke of a missed opportunity to show global leadership at the forthcoming United Nations Secretary-General’s Climate Action Summit, to be held in New York in September 2019. EU leaders will come back to the issue in the autumn with a view to adopting the EU’s long-term strategy, which is to be submitted to the UNFCCC early in 2020. With respect to international climate finance, EU leaders acknowledged the EU’s and Member States’ commitment to scale up mobilisation and work towards ‘a timely, well-managed and successful replenishment process for the Green Climate Fund’ in support of green projects in developing countries.

Disinformation

Based on a report from the Romanian Presidency of the Council of the EU, showing great variation in Member State practices, the European Council discussed the issue of disinformation, insisting on the need to ‘increase preparedness and strengthen the resilience’ of European democracies. It welcomed the European Commission’s initiative to evaluate the implementation of the Code of Practice on Disinformation aimed at continuously adapting the EU’s response to countering disinformation. EU leaders also invited the EU institutions and the Member States to work jointly on better protection of the EU’s information and communication networks.

External relations

The European Council discussed the situation in eastern Ukraine and in the Azov Sea. It confirmed the prolongation of economic sanctions on Russia, by six months, following the illegal annexation of Crimea. The President of France, Emmanuel Macron, and the Chancellor of Germany, Angela Merkel, updated their colleagues on the implementation of the Minsk agreements and of the Normandy framework negotiations. The European Council reconfirmed its attachment to the Minsk agreements, deplored current breaches and stressed that it will continue to monitor the evolution of the situation in eastern Ukraine. It expressed concern about the issuing of Russian passports in areas of eastern Ukraine, suggesting that their non-recognition could be part of a series of possible options. EU leaders reiterated their call for an unconditional release of detained Ukrainian sailors, the return of vessels and compliance with international law in the Kerch Strait by allowing the free passage of ships. They also noted the fifth anniversary of the downing of flight MH17 and reiterated their call to ‘establish truth, justice and accountability’ for the victims and their families.

EU leaders expressed solidarity with Cyprus, and requested that Turkey respect Cyprus’s sovereign rights by refraining from conducting illegal drilling activities in the eastern Mediterranean. They pointed to the ‘serious immediate negative impact’ of Turkey’s actions on EU-Turkey relations, and invited the EU institutions to rapidly ‘submit options for appropriate measures.’

In addition, the European Council referred to the 10th anniversary of the Eastern Partnership, the situation in Moldova, and the EU’s strategic partnership with Africa. It confirmed the EU’s commitment to finding a stable and inclusive political solution in Libya, underlining its support for the UN-led process. It also welcomed developments in EU-Morocco bilateral relations ahead of the Association Council to be held on 27 June 2019. Although the escalating situation in the Gulf was not on the agenda, Presidents Tusk and Juncker confirmed that the EU’s position on Iran remained unchanged, stressing the EU’s concerns over recent developments.

Other items Country-specific recommendations

In the framework of the European Semester, EU Heads of State or Government discussed the 2019 country-specific recommendations (CSR), which set the goals for Member States’ fiscal and economic policies. While the endorsement by the European Council is legally not required, this is the first time since the launch of the CSR in 2011 that the European Council did not endorse them, but only discussed them.

Enlargement

EU leaders endorsed the conclusions of the June 2018 General Affairs Council on enlargement and the stabilisation and association process. The Council postponed decisions on the opening of accession negotiations with Albania and North Macedonia to October 2019.

Brexit

EU-27 leaders also addressed Brexit, reconfirming their unity on the matter and taking note of the EU’s preparations for a ‘no-deal’ scenario. The EU-27 indicated that they: ‘i) look forward to working together with the next UK Prime Minister; ii) want to avoid a disorderly Brexit and establish a future relationship that is as close as possible with the UK; and iii) are open for talks when it comes to the declaration on the future UK-EU relations if the position of the United Kingdom were to evolve, but [that] the Withdrawal Agreement is not open for renegotiation’.

3. Euro Summit

On 21 June, the Euro Summit took note of a broad agreement on the euro-area budget – a budgetary instrument for convergence and competitiveness – and on the revision of the Treaty on the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) reached a week before in the Eurogroup. The leaders tasked finance ministers to swiftly come up with solutions for financing this budget and to prepare the full package on ESM revision by December 2019.

Written by Vitalba Crivello,

Some 70 enthusiastic young journalists from all over the EU met in Strasbourg from 4 to 7 June 2019, for the first edition of the European Youth Science and Media Days (#eysmd2019) – the summer school on ‘Artificial intelligence and journalism’ organised by the European Science-Media Hub (ESMH/STOA) in cooperation with the European Youth Press network of media-makers (EYP).

The event was the first of its kind for Parliament’s Science and Technology Options Assessment (STOA) Panel and the European Parliamentary Research Service (EPRS), and it proved a success in terms of participant engagement and feedback received so far. The idea behind this format is to turn it into a regular forum, offering young media-makers the opportunity to learn about the latest technology tools and practice using them for their work. The results of the satisfaction survey distributed to the participants will help the ESMH to collect suggestions and remarks to take on board for the next edition.

Ten artificial intelligence (AI) experts (researchers, policy-makers, journalists and media representatives) shared their experience and reflections on key aspects of the intersection between AI and journalism:

• What does the rise of automation mean for media-makers?
• How does AI affect journalism?
• What role can algorithms play in this changing context and what are the possible ethical implications?
• How will AI and humans combine in the journalism of the future?

 The programme was dense and diverse, ranging from thematic panels, hands-on training and case study presentations (including an AI tool demo), workshops for participants and a virtual reality experience.

Thematic panels focused on ‘AI, EU & ethics’, ‘AI in the newsrooms’ and ‘AI & algorithm literacy’. The European approach to AI aims at putting Europe in the lead globally by deploying only ethically embedded AI, while promoting innovation and investment. Robots can definitely play a game-changing role, as they accelerate the interpretation of information, challenging the professional practice of journalists and researchers. However, the fundamentals of providing sense and critical assessment with ethics, integrity and sound judgement remain valid and relevant. AI in newsrooms is real, but AI can be made ‘uncool’ again, according to Mattia Peretti (LSE, JournalismAI), through understanding of the challenges and opportunities presented by the adoption of AI-powered technologies in newsrooms and what AI can, should and should not do for journalism.

Mattia Peretti @xhgMattia at #eysmd2019 #ESMH summer school: "’Nowdays everybody talks about AI, everybody is impacted by AI and everybody wants to know about AI (…) But we have a serious problem of imagination about AI." @european_youth @Europarl_EN pic.twitter.com/PXIlJsZsnn

— STOA Panel (@EP_ScienceTech) June 4, 2019

Other issues addressed by the thematic panels and the accompanying discussions with the audience included:

• Automation and AI have already made their way into newsrooms, helping journalists do their work quicker or better. State-of-the-art algorithms can already provide decent, brief and readable summaries of research papers, opening up the possibility of automated science press releases and news.
• Notwithstanding the fact that growth and development of AI is spreading into creative domains, the emerging challenges relate mostly to the distribution of content using AI, rather than to the use of AI in content creation.
• Editorial thinking helps to hold algorithms accountable for possible consequences. An algorithm is simply a set of instructions, similar to a recipe. Like any set of instructions, they reflect the biases of the people who create them. The tech industry might not have a codified body of ethics, but media professionals do, and they are committed to truth, transparency, accountability and harm minimisation.

"The tech industry might not have a codified body of ethics, but as media professionals, we do. We are committed to truth, transparency, accountability and the minimization of harm."@ameliapisapia at #eysmd2019 #ESMH pic.twitter.com/jqrYbXgGRo

— STOA Panel (@EP_ScienceTech) June 5, 2019

In algorithmic literacy, the key question is: what can or should be automated and what are inherently human tasks? ‘Augmented journalism’ is a novel concept, which differs from the idea of AI and machines that are smarter than humans.

The ‘machine learning’ hands-on training offered journalists the opportunity to learn how machine learning really works and also how to distinguish facts from myths, to cut through the hype about AI, as well as the misinformation about what it can and cannot do.

Participants also experienced a demonstration of INJECT, a new digital tool (EU-funded) available to newsrooms to support journalists in writing more original pieces, by using different technologies to enhance and empower journalists faced with less time, and fewer resources.

A full session was devoted to case studies from the European Institute of Innovation & Technology (EIT) community, showing that EIT is running one of the biggest AI programmes in Europe with education, innovation and entrepreneurship activities, helping to shape the future of Europe’.

Finally, the virtual reality (VR) experience included a VR cinema screening a selection of three films on AI for participants (‘Alteration’, ‘Merger’, and ‘I saw the future’). Moreover, participants could use three ‘room-scale’ VR stations to test a space-themed experience (Mercury project), a vertigo-themed experience ‘spheres’, and an artistic experience to paint in 3D.

The afternoons were devoted to nine working groups where the young journalists produced outcomes on selected topics discussed during the summer school. These groups produced several interesting media products on AI, which they showcased on 7 June. Stay tuned to the ESMH webpage to see them!

For more details on the event:

• Tuesday 4 June, 13.30- 18
• Wednesday 5 June, 9.30-12.30
• Thursday 6 June, 9.30-13

Click to view slideshow.

Written by Christian Salm,

Paul-Henri Spaak speaking to the hemicycle of the ECSC Common Assembly

Taking a variety of shapes and forms, European transnational party cooperation is a unique international phenomenon. This is true of transnational party cooperation both outside and within the European Parliament. Moreover, transnational party cooperation in the Parliament and elsewhere is key to explaining the success of European integration and the various existing transnational party families at European level are crucial in shaping European politics.

However, when the forerunner of today’s Parliament, the Common Assembly of the Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), was established in 1952, the creation of transnational political groups was not envisaged at all. The Treaty of Paris, signed in 1951 by the ECSC’s six founding states and laying the ECSC’s foundation, did not mention the creation of political groups sharing a same ideology and similar persuasion within the new assembly. Nevertheless, as early as at the first ECSC Common Assembly plenary session in September 1952, it appeared that members would group along political instead of national affiliation. Consequently, at its plenary session in June 1953, and only a couple of months after its inauguration, the Assembly unanimously decided to insert the creation of political groups into its rules of procedure.

According to the Assembly’s rules of procedures, all that was required to form a political group was a declaration of formation, including the name of the group, its executive and the signatures of its members. The only restrictions were: first, that groups be politically, not nationally, based; second, that they have at least nine members; and third, that no individual could belong to more than one group. As a result, three political groups were officially authorised in 1953: the Christian Democratic Group, the Socialist Group, and the Group of Liberals. All three political groups are still represented in today’s Parliament, albeit under other names. With their official authorisation in 1953, the first three political groups began to develop organisational structures and the members’ work within the political groups was gradually strengthened in the following years. Furthermore, the political group bureaus extended their administrative structures, internally resembling the structures of political groups in national parliaments. Nevertheless, the political groups’ structures remained relatively small until the 1970s.

Fostering transnational cooperation at European level became a more serious prospect for Parliament’s political groups during the 1970s. The decision taken at the European Community (EC) summit in The Hague in December 1969, in favour of direct European Parliament elections, provided a new impetus to extend and strengthen their organisational structures. In an influential article published in 1978, the British political scientist David Marquand anticipated a much greater role for political parties and parliamentary political groups, in view of the increased politicisation of the EC in the wake of the first direct elections to the European Parliament scheduled for June 1979. Parliament’s political groups reacted to this decision by setting up more working units dedicated to specific policy areas. In addition, the number of members per political group constantly increased over time, due to various rounds of Community enlargement. Likewise, the number of staff employed by the political groups has grown constantly. While consisting of only a handful of staff in the 1950s, all political groups together employed 1 103 temporary staff members in 2018. As political groups grew and political groups’ staff levels increased, the European Parliament’s expenditure for political groups also increased. In 2017, for example, Parliament gave a total of €60 000 000 to fund the administration of the political groups. Finally, the number of political groups itself has risen. Starting with three political groups in 1953, the largest number of political groups ever to be simultaneously represented in the European Parliament was at the beginning of the 1989-1994 parliamentary term, with ten political groups. At the end of the 2014-2019 parliamentary term, there were eight political groups.

The eight political groups in the outgoing 2014-2019 Parliament in order of size were:

• Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) (EPP), with 219 Members of the European Parliament;
• Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament (S&D), with 189 Members;
• European Conservatives and Reformists Group (ECR), 70 Members;
• Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE), 68 Members;
• Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance (Greens/EFA), 52 Members;
• Confederal Group of the European United Left – Nordic Green Left (GUE/NGL), 51 Members;
• Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy Group (EFDD), 44 Members; and
• Europe of Nations and Freedom (ENF), 36 Members.

In contrast to earlier times, to form a political group today, a minimum of 25 Members of the European Parliament, elected in at least one quarter (currently seven) of the EU’s Member States is required. Furthermore, recent changes to Parliament’s Rules of Procedure require all members of a new group to declare in a written statement ‘that they share the same political affinity‘ (Rule 33(5)). The President of Parliament must receive notification of a group’s formation in a statement that must contain: (a) the name of the group; (b) a political declaration; setting out the purpose of the group; and (c) the names of its members and bureau members.

Looking back, the political groups’ history shows that, from the very beginnings of the ECSC Common Assembly to today’s Parliament, Members have prioritised political rather than national affiliations, highlighting the supranational character of the institution. It was therefore only natural that, despite their initial omission, it only took a couple of months after the constituent plenary session of the ECSC Common Assembly in September 1952, for the creation of political groups to be suggested.

For more detailed information on the political groups in the European Parliament and their history read:

• Political groups in the European Parliament since 1979: Key facts and figures
• Rules on political groups in the EP
• The ECSC Common Assembly’s decision to create political groups: Writing a new chapter in transnational parliamentary history

Written by Maria Diaz Crego,

According to UNCHR, those fleeing their own countries for fear of persecution travel collectively around two billion kilometres per year to reach a safe haven. To honour their resilience and determination and to remind us of the long and tortuous journeys they are forced to make on their way to safety, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has launched the www.stepwithrefugees.org campaign to mark 2019 World Refugee Day.

Many Europeans may not remember today, but the main international piece of legislation protecting refugees, the Geneva Convention, was adopted in the aftermath of World War II with the aim of protecting refugees of European origin. It is estimated that over 40 million people were displaced in Europe in May 1945, and many more would have to flee during the final throes of the war and in the years that followed. The Geneva Convention therefore limited its scope of application to the events occurring before 1 January 1951 in Europe (State parties could opt to extend the application of the Convention outside Europe). It was not until the adoption of the 1967 Protocol that the protection afforded to refugees became universal, with the removal of the geographical and temporal restrictions under the Convention. In the post-war period, millions of displaced Europeans were repatriated to their countries of origin, but others were resettled in the United States, Australia, Israel, Canada or Latin American countries, travelling long distances to find a safe home.

#StepWithRefugees

Of the 25.9 million refugees in the world, nearly 60 % come from Syria, Afghanistan and South Sudan. Some 80 % of those refugees are hosted by developing countries, with the world’s largest refugee populations currently present in Turkey, Pakistan and Uganda. However, some European Union countries do host significant refugee populations, with Germany, France and Sweden being among the top 25 countries hosting the largest numbers of refugees in the world.

People in need of international protection often travel long distances to arrive on our shores. Syria, Afghanistan and Irak were the top three countries of origin of those applying for asylum in 2018 in the European Union. In many cases, they have to rely on smugglers and make perilous journeys across the Mediterranean to be able to lodge an asylum application in the European Union, as their possibilities to reach European soil using legal migration pathways are scarce. It is estimated that 90 % of those granted international protection in the European Union arrive via irregular channels.

To resolve the issue, the European Commission proposed to establish a permanent European Union resettlement framework that would allow displaced persons in need of international protection to enter the Member States legally and safely. Similarly, the European Parliament has repeatedly called for the adoption of humanitarian visas at EU level, ultimately adopting a resolution calling on the European Commission to submit a proposal establishing a European humanitarian visa by 31 March 2019. Both proposals are still to become law but, if adopted, they would grant some relief to those trying to find safety within European borders.

Written by Philip Boucher,

© Anton Khrupin anttoniart/Shutterstock

Technology and the arts are generally considered as distinct sectors of contemporary society, albeit with some important links akin to those between commercial, industrial and legal sectors. However, technology and the arts have a long and special relationship that permeates all stages of human development. Indeed, this relationship is invoked with every mention of the word technology, which has its origins in the Ancient Greek tékhnē, meaning art.

From the first paintings to the production of musical instruments and contemporary cinema, art as we know it would be simply impossible without recourse to humanity’s historical cache of technology development. Throughout history and modernity, technologies from ink, paper and glass to cameras, microphones and computers have enabled new forms of art. Without them, it is would be impossible to realise the paintings, ornaments, photography, cinema and contemporary digital works that fill our museums and galleries. Looking at art in this way invites a key question: How does technology development enable new dimensions of artistic endeavour?

The reverse of this relationship is also important, with the arts driving innovation and generating substantial demand for technology products. In the course of their work, artists often develop new techniques and push the boundaries of the imagination in ways that can provoke new directions in technology development. Wider activities in the arts – from restoring ancient works to producing stunning visual graphics and immersive environments – also generate substantial demand for innovation. One may also see demand for technology in the consumption of art, notably in audio-visual equipment and content. Looking at technology in this way invites a second key question: How do artistic endeavours enable new dimensions of technology development?

The two questions reveal different aspects of the same deep synergetic relationship between technology and the arts. They support each other, and the outcomes are valuable for artists and technologists while also providing wider social, cultural and economic benefits. This invites a third key question: How could the synergetic relationship between technology and the arts be optimised to maximise its benefits?

In this context, STOA recently launched two studies to examine the past, present and future of the synergetic relationship between technology and the arts. Each study sought to answer all three questions. The study conducted by Artshare reviews historical developments, from cave paintings to photography, while the study conducted by Nesta focuses on the digital era. Both studies suggest policy options that could help optimise the relationship and maximise its beneficial outcomes. A STOA Option Brief, combines and further develops these options, and includes a range of options for policy action to promote art and technology activities independently, promote crossovers and collaborations between the two sectors, further understand and develop their synergies, and target skills development that span art and technology.

Your opinion counts for us. To let us know what you think, get in touch via stoa@europarl.europa.eu.

Further information

• ‘The historical relationship between artistic activities and technology development‘
• ‘The relationship between artistic activities and digital technology development‘
• ‘Technology and the arts: Past, present and future synergies‘

Written by Ralf Drachenberg and Suzana Anghel,

© fotolia

The June 2019 European Council meeting, the last regular one in the current institutional cycle, has a full agenda. First, EU leaders will discuss, and potentially agree on, high-level appointments to EU institutions. Moreover, they are expected to adopt their 2019-24 strategic agenda, setting the EU’s political priorities for the next five years. The European Council will also discuss the timetable for the adoption of the next Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) and the EU’s common climate change position ahead of the United Nations Secretary-General’s Climate Action Summit. Other agenda items include deciding on the number of Commissioners, concluding the 2019 European Semester, possible decisions on opening accession negotiations with Albania and North Macedonia, countering disinformation, and the situation in Ukraine. Finally, EU-27 leaders will meet for a Euro Summit in extended format, to discuss the report submitted by the Eurogroup on EMU reform.

1. Agenda and follow-up to previous European Council commitments

The Leaders’ Agenda had identified the MFF, institutional appointments and the new strategic agenda as the main topics for the June 2019 European Council meeting. The annotated draft agenda introduces other topics, reflecting previous commitments or a call by several Member States.

Policy area Previous commitment Occasion on which the commitment was made Fighting disinformation The European Council will come back to this issue at its June meeting on the basis of a report on the lessons learnt prepared by the Presidency in cooperation with the Commission and the High Representative, in order to inform our long-term response. March 2019 Climate change Further discussion in the European Council in June 2019 March 2019

At the start of the meeting, there will be an address by Antonio Tajani, President of the European Parliament, and Klaus Iohannis, President of Romania, which currently holds the rotating six-month presidency of the Council of Ministers, will provide an overview on the progress made in implementing previous European Council conclusions.

2. European Council meeting Next institutional cycle High-level appointments

The ‘relevant decisions on appointments for the next institutional cycle’ concern the positions of President of the European Commission, President of the European Council, and High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. In addition, the President of the European Central Bank also has to be chosen. These appointments should reflect the EU’s demographic and geographical balance, as well as gender and political balances, and are thus treated by many as a ‘package’. Although the President of the European Council, Donald Tusk, aims to ’provide clarity on all these posts already in June’, and while intensive discussions have taken place since the European elections, there is no guarantee that the European Council will reach a final ‘package deal’ in June.

Position Treaty article European Council role European Parliament role President of the European Commission 17(7) TEU Propose candidate Elect candidate President of the European Council 15(5) TEU Elect None High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy 18(1) TEU Appoint (with agreement of the President of the Commission) Part of the approval of the college of Commissioners President of the European Central Bank 283(2) TFEU Appoint Consulted

For the positions of Presidents of the European Council and the European Central Bank, as well as the HR/VP, the decisions rest mainly with the European Council. Regarding the election of the President of the European Commission, the European Council and European Parliament are, as stipulated in Article 17(7) TEU, jointly responsible: ‘taking into account the elections to the European Parliament and after having held the appropriate consultations, the European Council, acting by a qualified majority, shall propose to the European Parliament a candidate for President of the Commission’. President Tusk has repeatedly stressed that the decision on a candidate for European Commission President (as well as for the others) should be taken by consensus in the European Council, if possible, but that he ‘would not shy away from putting [it] to the vote’ if needed. If a vote on the candidate is necessary, a ‘reinforced’ qualified majority’ would be needed. According to Article 238(3)b TFEU this would require at least 72 % of the Member States representing 65 % of the EU’s population. Subsequently, the candidate needs to be elected by Parliament by a majority of its component members (376 of 751).

Decision-finding process in the European Council: At their informal meeting on 28 May 2019, EU-28 Heads of State or Government reiterated their agreement that there could be ‘no automaticity’ in proposing the lead candidate of the political family that gained most votes at the EP elections for this position; consequently, they gave President Tusk a mandate ‘to engage in consultations with the European Parliament, as foreseen by the Treaty’. Indeed, Declaration 11 annexed to the Treaty stipulates that ‘the European Parliament and European Council are jointly responsible for the smooth running of the process leading to the election of the President of the European Commission. Prior to the decision of the European Council, representatives of the European Parliament and of the European Council will thus conduct the necessary consultations …’. This procedure is now being used for the first time; back in 2014, the Parliament had rapidly declared its firm support for the EPP Spitzenkandidat, Jean-Claude Juncker, and he was subsequently agreed upon by the European Council. This time, the Parliament has not declared its support for a common candidate, and a more formal consultation procedure is thus required.

In that context, President Tusk is consulting individual members of the European Council. In parallel, six EU Heads of State or Government – the prime ministers of Croatia, Andrej Plenkovič (EPP), Latvia, Krišjānis Kariņš (EPP), the Netherlands, Mark Rutte (Renew Europe), Belgium, Charles Michel (Renew Europe), Spain, Pedro Sánchez (PES) and Portugal, Antonio Costa (PES) – were nominated as negotiators for their political families to discuss the high-level appointments informally. Since the European Council does not include any Green Head of State or Government (Current make-up: eight EPP members, eight Renew Europe, six S&D/PES, two ECR, and one GUE/NGL), the Green family is not included in this process.

Discussions in the European Parliament: On 28 May, in view of the results of the European Parliament elections, the EP Conference of Presidents recalled the EP resolutions emphasising the Parliament’s support for the lead candidate process. Subsequently, four of the main political groups – EPP, S&D, Renew Europe and the Greens/EFA – agreed on a political process aimed at defining a programme for change for the next legislative period, to which the new President of the European Commission would need to commit in order to enjoy a broad and stable majority in the EP.

Discussions between the EP and the European Council: On 5 June, President Tusk and the President of the European Parliament, Antonio Tajani, held consultations on the high-level appointments ahead of the June European Council meeting. President Tusk also met individually with leaders of some of the main political groups. On 18 June, he met the Parliament’s Conference of Presidents.

2019-24 Strategic Agenda for the Union

The European Council will also adopt the EU’s strategic agenda for 2019-2024. Its substance is based on the outline prepared by Donald Tusk and the discussion at the informal meeting of EU-27 Heads of State or Government on 9 May 2019 in Sibiu, and sets four core priorities:

1. protecting citizens and freedoms,
2. developing a strong and vibrant economic base,
3. building a more climate-friendly, green, fair and inclusive future,
4. defending European interests and values on the global stage.

The order of the priorities corresponds to the concerns of EU citizens, as indicated in the most recent standard Eurobarometer. Migration is the main concern, followed by terrorism (both part of priority 1). Then come the state of Member States’ public finances and the economic situation (both considered to be part of priority 2). Climate change and unemployment are next on the list of citizens’ concerns (both part of priority 3). And fourth comes the EU’s influence in the world (priority 4). The European Council is likely to invite the other EU institutions to implement these strategic priorities and will monitor their implementation.

Size of the European Commission: In 2013, EU leaders had indicated that they would come back to the issue of a possible reduction in the number of Commissioners – to two-thirds of the number of Member States – before the next European Commission takes office. In accordance with the possibility provided for in Article 17(5) TEU, the European Council is expected to decide unanimously to maintain one Commissioner per Member State, as it had already done in 2009.

Multiannual Financial Framework

The Romanian Council Presidency will update the European Council on the state of play in the Council MFF deliberations. On 14 November 2018, Parliament adopted an interim report on the MFF package, arguing for an increase in the MFF ceiling from the current 1.0 % to 1.3 % of EU gross national income. EU leaders will discuss whether to maintain the calendar set in December 2018, aiming at ‘an agreement in the European Council in autumn 2019’, or to adjust the timeline.

Climate change

The European Council will again consider climate change, at a time when divergent views on the way forward towards a carbon-neutral EU economy persist. A group of Member States (initially eight and now 18) as well as the European Parliament have recently expressed their support for the European Commission’s communication ‘A Clean Planet for all’, pleading for an ambitious and timely climate policy promoting EU carbon-neutrality by 2050. Early agreement on the level of ambition ahead of the United Nations Secretary-General’s Climate Action Summit in September is key if the EU is to play the leading role it aspires to in the global fight against climate change.

Other items

European Semester: EU Heads of State or Government are expected to endorse the 2019 country-specific recommendations (CSR), which set the goals for Member States’ fiscal and economic policies, outlining necessary structural reforms, thus concluding the policy-guidance phase of the European Semester. In a June communication, the Commission pointed to the worse implementation of 2018 CSRs than in previous years. In addition, EU leaders might address Italy’s public debt (132.2 % of GDP in 2018); the Commission and the Eurogroup believe that an excessive deficit procedure under the Stability and Growth Pact is warranted.

Disinformation: Based on a report from the Romanian Council Presidency, EU leaders will discuss the next steps in countering disinformation. The report assesses efforts made to counter disinformation in the context of the 2019 EP elections, and outlines lessons learned thus far.

Enlargement: EU Heads of State or Government might consider the outcome of the General Affairs Council, following the European Commission recommendation, for the second year in a row, to open accession negotiations with North Macedonia and Albania. Member States remain divided. Some, including France, Germany and the Netherlands, consider it premature to open accession negotiations with one or both, whereas 13 Member States have expressed support for such a move.

External relations: The European Council will consider the situation in Ukraine, including the renewal of the economic sanctions imposed on Russia following the illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014, and the illegal issuing of Russian passports in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions of Ukraine. EU leaders will discuss the Eastern Partnership, and will most probably mandate the Commission and the High Representative to undertake an evaluation of ‘existing instruments and measures’ by early 2020. Moreover, they are expected also to examine Turkey’s actions in the Mediterranean, and reiterate their solidarity with Cyprus. EU leaders might decide to consider freezing ‘talks on an upgraded customs union’ if Turkey’s actions in the Mediterranean do not cease.

Brexit: Although Brexit is not on the agenda, it can be expected that President Tusk will update EU‑27 leaders on developments in the UK, in the margins of the Euro Summit.

3. Euro Summit

On Friday 21 June, EU-27 leaders will meet for a Euro Summit in an extended format. In December 2018, euro-area leaders had endorsed the agreement reached in the Eurogroup meeting of 3 December on elements of the banking union package: (i) the European stability fund (ESM) will provide a backstop to the single resolution fund (SRF); (ii) the ESM will be able, under strict conditionality, to provide precautionary loans to Member States. On 13 June, the Eurogroup, which reports directly to the leaders, reached broad agreement on ESM treaty revision and the main features of the euro-area budget. On the European deposit insurance scheme (EDIS), the third pillar of the banking union, the Eurogroup did not take any decisions, with the exception of single supervision and a single resolution mechanism.

Read this briefing on ‘Outlook for the European Council and Euro Summit meetings, 20-21 June 2019‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.