European Union

Minister for Justice and Equality
Area of Freedom, Security and Justice
According to Advocate General Tanchev, the execution of a European arrest warrant must be postponed where the competent judicial authority finds not only that there is a real risk of flagrant denial of justice on account of deficiencies in the system of justice of the issuing Member State but also that the person who is the subject of the warrant is exposed to such a risk

Doctors have voted overwhelmingly to ‘oppose Brexit as a whole’ following a vote at the AGM of the British Medical Association, the trade union and professional association for doctors and medical students in the UK.

The medics said that leaving the EU is ‘bad for Britain’s health’ and endorsed a new public vote on the final Brexit deal.

The motion called on the BMA to ‘publicly announce that it is concerned that Brexit poses a major threat to the NHS and the nation’s health’, while supporting ‘open border arrangements with free movement of healthcare and medical research staff’.

Until now the BMA has adopted a neutral stance on Brexit. But after today’s debate, some 76% of representatives voted to remain in the single market, and 91% supported free movement of healthcare workers and research staff.

Following the vote, it will be BMA policy to ‘support the idea of the public having a final say on the Brexit deal, now that more is known regarding the potential impact of Brexit’.

The Royal College of Nursing and the Royal College of Midwives have already backed calls for the public to have a final say on Brexit.

Dr William Sapwell, who proposed the motion, said:

“The fact is that the government is woefully underprepared to ensure the United Kingdom’s health and wellbeing is secure in time for the self-imposed deadline of 29 March 2019. Brexit is bad for Britain’s health.

“Let’s put that on the side of a big red bus and once we have made that clear, the public should vote on the deal.”

He added that 7-10% of doctors working in the NHS are from the European Economic Area, and 40% of those have plans to leave “because of uncertainty about their immigration status and negative attitudes towards EU workers.”

Dr Sapwell told the conference said that many people were changing their minds about Brexit as the implications of the move became better known. He said:

“If a democracy can’t change its mind then it ceases to be a democracy, and isn’t it right that, as doctors, we inform the debate? After all, we believe in fully informed consent.”

Reasons2Remain has been running a poster campaign asserting that ‘informed consent’ was never given for Brexit, as the electorate was misinformed.

Dr David Strain said that 20% of NHS research and development funding came from European drug companies and a further 23% from European small enterprises.

“If we lose our parity with the European Clinical Trials Directive that money may disappear,” he said.

Dr John Chisholm, of the BMA’s medical ethics committee, told delegates Brexit was “a disastrous act of national self-harm”. He said the EU was better for the NHS, public health, research, science, universities, access to pharmaceuticals and international cooperation in research. He said:

“We need to speak out about the damage Brexit will do to our patients and to healthcare professionals.”

Dr Chandra Kanneganti, who sits on the BMA GP Committee, added, “We oppose what’s happening and we want a good deal to be part of the European Union because we appreciate the enormous contribution of the European healthcare workforce, who work in the NHS everyday.

“That’s the main reason we support this motion and I think we showed a strong message today as well, that the doctors across the NHS support our European colleagues.”

Dr Paul Williams, a GP and the Labour MP for Stockton South, told the Guardian that support for the motion was “a sign of the growing momentum behind the people’s vote campaign”.

He said nobody voting in the EU referendum wanted to harm the NHS but that Brexit was already causing severe problems in staff recruitment and retention.

Dr Williams added:

“Instead of the £350m a week for the NHS we were promised by the Brexiters, we have had cuts and closures as the NHS loses staff and struggles with budgets that are limited by the Brexit economic squeeze.

“If Brexit actually happens, it seems certain it will only make things worse – with new drug treatments, investment in research and sustainable funding all under threat.”

Responding to the BMA declaring support for the people to have the final say on the Brexit deal, Liberal Democrats Brexit Spokesperson Tom Brake said:

“The BMA’s decision to back a final say on the deal demonstrates the extent to which Brexit threatens our health service.

“With EU nurses and doctors leaving the UK, and an alarming 87% drop in the number of nurses and midwives joining the register from the EU, we are already witnessing the disastrous impact of Brexit on our overstretched health workforce.

“The NHS is our nation’s most treasured institution and it must be protected at all costs. The Tories are not only making a mess of Brexit but are now damaging the NHS. The Liberal Democrats are the only party offering a final say on the deal and an exit from Brexit.”

________________________________________________________

• Follow my journalism page on Facebook: Jon Danzig writes
• Follow my Stop Brexit campaign on Facebook: Reasons2Remain

________________________________________________________

• Join and share the discussion about this article on Facebook:

 

The post Doctors vote to oppose Brexit appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

REPORT on a European Parliament recommendation to the Council on the 73rd session of the United Nations General Assembly
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Eugen Freund

Source : © European Union, 2018 - EP

https://tvnewsroom.consilium.europa.eu/uploads/council-images/thumbs/uploads/council-images/remote/http_7e18a1c646f5450b9d6d-a75424f262e53e74f9539145894f4378.r8.cf3.rackcdn.com/65475fbc-7a05-11e8-b298-bc764e092fac_309.33_thumb_169_1530102542_1530102542_129_97shar_c1.jpg

On 27 June 2018, Federica Mogherini, EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, participates in the "Ukraine Reform Conference - A Driver for Change", in Copenhagen.

Download this video here.

Committee and political group meetings, Brussels

Source : © European Union, 2018 - EP

C and A
Area of Freedom, Security and Justice
Advocate General Mengozzi proposes that the Court should rule that the Netherlands law requiring a person who already has the right to family reunification to pass a second civic integration examination in order to obtain an autonomous residence permit is incompatible with EU law.

Berlusconi and Fininvest
Freedom of establishment
Advocate General Campos Sánchez-Bordona proposes that the Court of Justice should declare that the EU Courts have exclusive jurisdiction to review the legality of ECB measures and of preparatory measures adopted in procedures for authorisation to acquire or increase qualifying holdings in banks

https://tvnewsroom.consilium.europa.eu/uploads/council-images/thumbs/uploads/council-images/remote/http_7e18a1c646f5450b9d6d-a75424f262e53e74f9539145894f4378.r8.cf3.rackcdn.com/90d0a49a-1499-11e7-bfe6-bc764e093073_108.45_thumb_169_1527083243_1527083243_129_97shar_c1.jpg

Ministers of Foreign and European Affairs of the EU27 meet on 26 June 2018 in Luxembourg to prepare the European Council (Article 50) by discussing the state of play of Brexit negotiations and the conclusions to be adopted by the leaders.

Download this video here.

REPORT containing a motion for a non-legislative resolution on the draft Council decision on the conclusion of a Partnership and Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Iraq, of the other part
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Tokia Saïfi

Source : © European Union, 2018 - EP

The recent wave of government-sponsored referendums in Europe should be read in light of the upsurge of populist movements, argues Cecilia Sottilotta. Based on her recent article in JCER, she analyses the way in which the governments of Greece, Britain, Hungary and Italy strategically used referendums between 2015-2016, and debunks the political risk calculations. 

The Union Jack waves in front of Big Ben © Melinda Nagy / Adobe Stock

Greece in 2015, Britain, Hungary and Italy in 2016: government-sponsored referendums seem to be ubiquitous in today’s European politics.

This phenomenon is not particularly new in itself, as governments  have  often  used  referendums as tools to achieve specific political goals  in  both  democratic  and  non-democratic  regimes. What is new about the recent wave of government-sponsored referendums in Europe is that they have taken place in a polarised political climate characterised by an upsurge of populist parties.

Greece

During the sovereign debt crisis in Europe, Greece was in the eye of the hurricane. On 27 June 2015, after five months of fruitless negotiations with the country’s creditors, recently elected Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras called a consultative referendum, asking the Greek people ‘to rule on the blackmailing ultimatum’ imposed by the European Commission, the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund – the so-called ‘Troika’.

Once it found itself cornered during the financial bailout negotiations, the Greek government tried to strengthen its hand, performing a political risk calculation where the expected payoff would have been a stronger mandate to negotiate more favourable terms with the Troika. However, while the government’s calculation about the domestic dimension of the referendum was correct, and the 5 July vote undeniably reinforced the Prime Minister in his anti-austerity stance, the calculation about the ‘external’ effects of the referendum was not equally accurate. In fact, the position of the other negotiators was hardened rather than softened, in the face of the Greek government’s tactic.

The UK

In the case of the 23 June 2016 referendum held in the UK, the calculation behind Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron’s decision to offer an EU membership referendum was multifaceted. First and foremost, the promise of an in/out EU plebiscite was directly aimed at attracting the votes of UK Independence Party (UKIP) supporters in the 2015 general election.

Second, Cameron tried to make the looming referendum a bargaining chip with the EU, and the spectre of Brexit a ‘credible threat’, to extract concessions from his European counterparts in his renegotiation of the terms of Britain’s EU membership. Third, holding the referendum and placing himself at the head of the ‘Remain’ campaign were also ways for the Prime Minister to attempt to maintain his party’s and cabinet’s unity. The tensions and discontent within the Conservative party were epitomised by the defection of two Tory MPs to UKIP in 2014 and their subsequent returns to Westminster in by-elections, as well as by backbench rebellions.

Hungary

In  the wake of the 2015 ‘migrant crisis’,  the Council of the European Union approved a plan by qualified majority to gradually relocate 120,000 refugees from frontline member states Italy and Greece to other member states. The Hungarian government, led by right-wing Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, defiantly opposed the relocation plan and eventually succeeded in removing Hungary de facto from the scheme. Nevertheless, on 24 February 2016, Orbán called a referendum on the ‘compulsory resettlement of non-Hungarian citizens in Hungary’.

From the government’s standpoint, the obvious political gain, hypothetically, from a favourable outcome in the referendum – that was, a victory of the ‘No’ vote with a turnout exceeding 50 per cent of the electorate – would have been a strengthening of the ruling party’s position both domestically (vis-à-vis the radical right Jobbik party) and on the EU stage. On the other hand, the likelihood of a negative outcome was low, considering the relatively high level of anti-immigration sentiment in Hungary and the remarkable campaign efforts put in place by the government. The most likely worst-case scenario for the government was instead the possibility, which in fact did materialise, that the minimum 50 per cent turnout threshold would not be reached.

Italy

In February 2014, former Florence Mayor Matteo Renzi was appointed as Italy’s prime minister and formed a new government whose agenda hinged on structural reforms, including a new electoral law and new constitutional architecture. Nevertheless, the final text of the constitutional reform bill did not obtain the two-thirds majority necessary to avoid the possibility of a confirmatory referendum. A request to hold such a referendum in 2016 was filed not only by opposition MPs, but also majority MPs, confirming Renzi’s intention, expressed on multiple occasions, to submit the reform to a popular vote in any case.

Adopting an attitude reminiscent of de Gaulle’s plebiscitary understanding of referendums, Renzi repeatedly vowed that he would resign and abandon politics for good if the constitutional reform was rejected, effectively turning the referendum into a plebiscite on his administration as a whole. A victory for the ‘Yes’ vote would have consolidated Renzi’s leadership of the divided Democratic Party. It would have also represented a formidable political victory for the ruling coalition over the populist Five Star Movement, whose attacks against the ‘establishment’ embodied by the Renzi government typically rested on the claim that it lacked popular legitimacy. On the other hand, it was clear from the beginning that a negative outcome would have cost Renzi his premiership – a scenario which eventually materialised, after 59.1 per cent of participating voters rejected the government-sponsored constitutional reform on a 68.5 per cent turnout.

Referendums in European States

Different as these countries and their political systems are, the attempts by their executives to use referendums strategically indeed bear some similarities – the most striking of which is the ubiquitous involvement of anti-establishment parties and the role of populism as a discursive frame. In fact, the 2015 referendum in Greece was brought about by the leader of the anti-establishment ruling party. In Britain, Hungary and Italy, the ruling mainstream parties instead adjusted their positions to cater to voters supporting anti-establishment parties. Against the backdrop of increasing distrust in mainstream political parties and the recent trend toward populist decision-making in EU member states, the interplay between anti-establishment politics and resorting to referendums in consolidated democracies deserves more attention by scholars and policymakers.

This article is based on the author’s article in the Journal of Contemporary European Studies (JCER) Vol 13 No 4. 

Please note that this article represents the views of the author(s) and not those of the UACES Graduate Forum, JCER or UACES.

Comments and Site Policy

Shortlink for this article: http://bit.ly/2lBCHxE

Cecilia Sottilotta | @csottilotta
American University of Rome (AUR)

Cecilia Emma Sottilotta is Assistant Professor of International Relations and Global Politics at the American University of Rome (AUR). Her research interests span themes such as political risk, including security issues, state-MNEs relations, trade, regionalism and development, and the current and future dynamics of European fiscal and monetary integration.

 

The post The Strategic Use of Government-Sponsored Referendums in Contemporary Europe appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

Source : © European Union, 2018 - EP

RECOMMENDATION on the draft Council decision on the conclusion of a Partnership and Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Iraq, of the other part
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Tokia Saïfi

Source : © European Union, 2018 - EP

REPORT on climate diplomacy
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety
Arne Lietz, Jo Leinen

Source : © European Union, 2018 - EP

https://tvnewsroom.consilium.europa.eu/uploads/council-images/thumbs/uploads/council-images/remote/http_7e18a1c646f5450b9d6d-a75424f262e53e74f9539145894f4378.r8.cf3.rackcdn.com/940d932a-7bed-11e5-80b3-bc764e083742_17.99_thumb_169_1527083129_1527083129_129_97shar_c1.jpg

EU Ministers of Foreign and European Affairs meet on 26 June 2018 in Luxembourg to discuss draft conclusions of the June European Council and hold a first hearing on the rule of law in Poland. They are expected to adopt conclusions on enlargement and the Stabilisation and Association Process.

Download this video here.

France.com v EUIPO - France (FRANCE.com)
Intellectual and industrial property
The sign ‘france.com’ cannot be registered as an EU trade mark

MB
SOPO
A person who has changed gender cannot be required to annul the marriage which he or she entered into before that change of gender in order to be entitled to receive a retirement pension at the age provided for persons of the sex which he or she has acquired

Conclusion of a Partnership and Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Iraq, of the other part - 2010/0310(NLE)
Resolution on the draft Council decision on the conclusion of a Partnership and Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Iraq, of the other part – 2010/0310(NLE)
Recommendation to the Council on the 73rd session of the United Nations General Assembly - 2018/2040(INI)
Report on the state of EU-China relations - 2017/2274(INI)
Source : © European Union, 2018 - EP

Source : © European Union, 2018 - EP

The Council adopted the EU priorities at the UN and the 73rd UN General Assembly.

The Council adopted conclusions on the Sahel/Mali.