European Union

OPINION on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council providing further macro-financial assistance to Georgia
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Andrejs Mamikins

Source : © European Union, 2018 - EP

On 23 January 2018 at 15:00, AFET hosted Ekaterina Zaharieva, Bulgaria's Minister of Foreign Affairs. The Minister, also serving as a Deputy Prime Minister for the Judicial Reform, presented global policy priorities of the Bulgarian Presidency of the EU. The Presidency will focus on the EU-related reforms and connectivity of the six Western Balkan EU aspirants. In May, Sofia will host a Summit joining together the EU and Western Balkans' leaders.
Further information
Watch the recording of the meeting
Source : © European Union, 2018 - EP

Mr. Alaeddin Boroujerdi, the Chairman for the Committee for Foreign Policy and National Security of the Islamic Consultative Assembly of Iran, participated in an Exchange of Views during the next AFET Committee meeting of 23 January 2018. He presented further information on the Iranian position on regional developments, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action and the current political situation in Iran.
Further information
Watch the recording of the meeting
Source : © European Union, 2018 - EP

The next AFET meeting is scheduled to take place on:

Thursday, 1 February 2018 as follows:

09:00-10:30, room JAN 4Q1 in a joint AFET/LIBE/DEVE meeting
and
10:45-12:30, room PHS 3C50.

Further information
Information for visitors
Draft agendas
Source : © European Union, 2018 - EP

Committee and political group meetings, Brussels

Source : © European Union, 2018 - EP

Providing further macro-financial assistance to Georgia – 2017/0242(COD)
The next MFF: Preparing the Parliament’s position on the MFF post-2020 - 2017/2052(INI)
The next MFF: Preparing the Parliament’s position on the MFF post-2020 - 2017/2052(INI) ORAL AM. 1
The next MFF: Preparing the Parliament’s position on the MFF post-2020 - 2017/2052(INI) ORAL AM. 2
The next MFF: Preparing the Parliament’s position on the MFF post-2020 - 2017/2052(INI) ORAL AM. 3
Discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2016, Section X - European External Action Service - 2017/2145(DEC)
Discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2016, Section III - Commission and executive agencies - 2017/2136(DEC)
Gender equality and women’s empowerment: transforming the lives of girls and women through EU external relations 2016-2020– 2017/2012(INI)
Establishing the European Defence Industrial Development Programme aiming at supporting the competitiveness and innovative capacity of the EU defence industry 2017/0125(COD)
Source : © European Union, 2018 - EP

Length of video : 198'
You may manually download this video in WMV (1.8Gb) format

Disclaimer : The interpretation of debates serves to facilitate communication and does not constitute an authentic record of proceedings. Only the original speech or the revised written translation is authentic.
Source : © European Union, 2018 - EP

F
Area of Freedom, Security and Justice
An asylum seeker may not be subjected to a psychological test in order to determine his sexual orientation

Schrems
Area of Freedom, Security and Justice
Mr Schrems may bring an individual action in Austria against Facebook Ireland

Length of video : 168'
You may manually download this video in WMV (1.5Gb) format

Disclaimer : The interpretation of debates serves to facilitate communication and does not constitute an authentic record of proceedings. Only the original speech or the revised written translation is authentic.
Source : © European Union, 2018 - EP

DRAFT RECOMMENDATION on the draft Council decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the Union and of the Member States, of the Protocol to the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement establishing a partnership between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Uzbekistan, of the other part, to take account of the accession of the Republic of Croatia to the European Union
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Jozo Radoš

Source : © European Union, 2018 - EP

The Czech Republic is a state whose political system is heavily based upon parliamentary power with government as the main executive body. This tradition, which was firmly set up after the Velvet revolution in 1989, for a long time implied an indirectly elected president with purely symbolic powers. In this way, Václav Havel was twice elected as president, just like his successor Václav Klaus.

However, when Klaus´s second election in 2008 was surrounded by scandals and rumours that some MPs’ votes had been bought, the major political parties discovered in 2012 that the president could also be directly elected by the people. As a result, the system was changed and in 2013, the Czech voters chose their president directly for the first time. Unfortunately, without any changes in the political system, since the presidential competences and powers remained untouched.

Miloš Zeman, the first directly chosen inhabitant of the Prague castle – and one of the most talented ‘power technologist’ in modern Czech history – used his position to go frequently and extensively beyond his formal powers. A couple of months after he became the president, he circumvented the Chamber of Deputies and appointed a government which comfortably ruled almost one year without having parliamentary confidence.

Mr. Zeman also pursued his own foreign policy, much more focusing on the East (Russia and China) than the official governmental position would have been. He and his closest fellows – chancellor Mr. Mynář, advisor Mr. Nejedlý (and, last but not least, spokesperson Mr. Ovčáček) managed to transform the presidential office into an influential and visible actor of the Czech politics. This became even more obvious recently after the last Czech parliamentary elections in October 2017 when Mr. Zeman appointed Mr. Babiš as a prime minister – and enabled him to compose new government – even though Mr. Babiš did not have a chance to obtain parliamentary support.

Mr. Zeman’s controversial style and decisions quite quickly divided the whole society. Whereas some social groups (particularly those of lower socio-economic status) have welcomed both his behaviour – which can be summed up in the word ‘proletarian’ – and concrete actions, other parts of society have firmly rejected it. This division – the latter groups can be found among the more educated voters living in urban areas – has become a stable factor in both Czech political life and discourse. And when Mr. Zeman announced in March 2017 that he would seek re-election in 2018, an ‘audition for a challenger’ started.

The incumbent (left) and the challenger (right).

Particularly during the second half of 2017, candidates for the presidency slowly started to emerge. As the most promising challenger of Mr. Zeman appeared Jiří Drahoš, a 68-year-old physical chemist and former head of the Czech Academy of Sciences. His profile perfectly met the expectations of the second half of Czech society – the ‘anti-Zeman’ part – for the presidential office: non-partisan, pro-European, professionally recognised, and cultivated. However, Mr. Drahoš was not the only one demonstrating these characteristics. The race was joined by the similarly profiled Michal Horáček, inter alia former owner of the betting company Fortuna, who was actively involved in the Velvet revolution in 1989, or Pavel Fischer, a former diplomat and collaborator of Václav Havel. In the latest stage, Mirek Topolánek, the former Czech prime minister who was responsible for the 2009 EU Council Presidency, also submitted a bid. Altogether, there were 9 candidates (including Mr. Zeman) who entered the campaign.

The campaign, at least in its supposedly ‘hot’ phase, was boring. This was due to two major reasons. First, Mr. Zeman officially did not run any campaign. He refused to take part in TV debates and made just a few public appearances. Still, the whole country was plastered by billboards with his photo and slogan ‘Miloš Zeman again!’ This PR line was mostly funded by a group called ‘Miloš Zeman friends’ whose background remains unclear. This, again, led to speculations about possible Russian influence and interest in favouring Mr. Zeman´s re-election. Second, most of the remaining 8 candidates expressed very similar opinions and rather than competing among themselves, they defined themselves against the non-present Mr. Zeman.

The first round of the elections took place on Friday 13 and Saturday 14 January. Voting was marked by a politically motivated attack on Mr. Zeman. When he voted on Friday, he was accosted by a topless woman shouting, ‘Zeman: Putin’s slut’, a reference to the Czech president’s close ties with his Russian counterpart. It was revealed that this woman was involved in the activist movement FEMEN.

The results of the first round, with an attendance rate of 61,92% of eligible voters – brought some surprise. While the victory of Mr. Zeman was expectable, a bigger share of the votes – definitely above 40% – had been predicted. Even the distance between him and the winner of the ‘challenger contest’ – in this case Mr. Drahoš – had been expected to be larger. However, this was not the case. Mr. Drahoš managed to beat the rest of the peloton convincingly. What is probably more important, he immediately secured support from Mr. Fischer, Mr. Horáček and Mr. Hilšer – the latter being probably the biggest surprise in terms of votes gained – for the second round. If all those who supported these candidates come to the second round – which is scheduled for the last weekend of January (29 – 30), he will have a good chance of unseating Mr. Zeman.

On the other hand, Mr. Drahoš may expect some tough final campaign days. Mr. Zeman is not a politician who gives up and his experience is levels above Mr. Drahoš. At his first win 2013, Mr. Zeman received only 24 percent of the vote in the first round of the 2013 election but more than doubled his share in the second round after running what was widely seen as a smear campaign against his opponent. As Mr. Zeman´s and his fellows’ stakes are high, this scenario may well repeat itself…

The post Czech Presidential Elections: Audition for a Challenger appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

Length of video : 204'
You may manually download this video in WMV (1.8Gb) format

Disclaimer : The interpretation of debates serves to facilitate communication and does not constitute an authentic record of proceedings. Only the original speech or the revised written translation is authentic.
Source : © European Union, 2018 - EP

Length of video : 223'
You may manually download this video in WMV (2.6Gb) format

Disclaimer : The interpretation of debates serves to facilitate communication and does not constitute an authentic record of proceedings. Only the original speech or the revised written translation is authentic.
Source : © European Union, 2018 - EP

Length of video : 219'
You may manually download this video in WMV (2.5Gb) format

Disclaimer : The interpretation of debates serves to facilitate communication and does not constitute an authentic record of proceedings. Only the original speech or the revised written translation is authentic.
Source : © European Union, 2018 - EP

Source : © European Union, 2018 - EP

F. Hoffmann-La Roche and Others
Competition
The agreement between the pharmaceutical groups Roche and Novartis designed to reduce the use of Avastin in ophthalmology and to increase the use of Lucentis might constitute a restriction of competition ‘by object’

The electorate wasn’t sufficiently informed in the 2016 referendum to know whether it was right to leave the EU.

The referendum campaign did not give clear answers. The Leave campaign had to rely on colossal lies to present their case. Who knew what to believe?

But now it’s becoming clearer by the day what Brexit means.

It means Britain, and Britons, being poorer and having fewer rights and protections than we have as a member nation of the EU.

We now know that all the reasons to leave the EU were based on lies, misinformation and false promises.

The biggest lie of all – that Britain sends £350m a week to the EU which after Brexit would be spent on the NHS – was the single lie that secured Leave’s victory.

Recently the Campaign Director of Vote Leave, Dominic Cummings, admitted:

“Would we have won without £350m/NHS? All our research and the close result strongly suggests no.”

So, to think, Leave only won because of one big lie.

We are leaving the EU not because of any sound information or knowledge, but because the nation was sold a promise by the Leave campaign which can never be delivered.

If we knew then what we know now, would ‘Leave’ have won? Almost certainly not.

We are now discovering there are absolutely no benefits to Brexit. None. Zero.

But neither the Tory government nor the Labour opposition are willing to give us, the people, a chance to reconsider Brexit, even though we’re now so much better informed.

It’s as if we agreed on one hot summer’s day to buy double-glazed windows, only to discover that we can’t change our minds, even though the contract hasn’t yet been signed, the windows haven’t yet been installed, and we’ve now found out that the glass is single and not double glazed.

Am I saying that Britain has been conned? Yes, I am.

But legal advice, and the opinion of leading EU politicians, have now confirmed that Britain could withdraw the Article 50 notice and remain in the EU.

I’m not suggesting we should do this without the say-so of us, the people. But we should demand another vote on our EU membership.

We could do a democratic U-turn on Brexit. And if that’s the new ‘will of the people’, why not?

All of us should be allowed to change our minds if we think a mistake has been made.

Just look at all the benefits we’re destined to lose on leaving the EU in March next year. How many of us knew or properly understood that on 23 June 2016?

• LOSS OF FREE TRADE

In the EU, the UK enjoys full free trading status with all the other EU member states – representing the world’s most lucrative market place, and by far our most important trading partner.

As such, almost half of our exports go to the EU, and over half of our imports come from the EU.

The EU has an iron tariff wall against non-members. Outside of the EU, we will be on the wrong side of that wall.

Even non-European countries that have negotiated ‘free trade’ agreements with the EU don’t enjoy full free trade access to Europe’s internal market, as Britain does as an EU member.

• LOSS OF OUR SAY IN EUROPE

As a leading member, Britain has a say – and a veto – in the EU. Britons also have a vote every five years to directly elect members of the European Parliament, which democratically passes the laws of the EU.

As an ex-EU member, Britain and Britons will lose the right to have any say or vote in the running or future direction of our continent.

• LOSS OF ‘FREE MOVEMENT’ ACROSS THE EU

Leaving the EU means we will lose the right to go and live, work, study or retire across all of the EU plus Norway, Switzerland, Liechtenstein and Iceland.

And citizens from the rest of the EU will also lose the right to come here to live and work, making it much more difficult to fill key vacancies, both skilled and unskilled, for which Britain has a chronic shortage of workers.

• LOSS OF EU PROTECTION

EU laws protecting the rights of workers, consumers and travellers across our continent are probably among the most important EU membership benefits.

For example, 4-weeks paid holiday a year; the 48-hour working week; anti-discrimination law; guaranteed rights for agency workers; guaranteed worker consultation – all of these protections largely exist because of the EU.

No single national government can assure safety and protection across our continent. It needs the reach of a pan-European intergovernmental organisation to achieve that (albeit with the democratic consensus of member states).

When we lose the strong armour of EU employment law, workers’ rights will be at the mercy of a Conservative government. Anyone who believes they would then be in safe hands may be in for a rude shock after we leave the EU in March 2019.

• LOSS OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Britain enjoys cleaner beaches as a direct result of EU directives on protecting the environment.

In addition, the EU is leading the world in tackling climate change – something that individual countries alone simply can’t undertake.

When Britain leaves the EU in March 2019, we will lose the benefit of EU-wide legislation to protect the very air we breathe.

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the British government must make plans to clean our air, in accordance with the EU air quality directive. The case only came about when an environmental pressure group took the government to court, because tens of thousands of British residents die every year as a result of our polluted air.

Would the government bother to act without the legal protection offered to us by the EU? It’s unlikely.

After Brexit, the government is proposing to take away the rights of British citizens to sue them over issues such as workers’ rights, environmental policy and business regulation. This right to sue our government is something we currently only enjoy under EU law.

• LOSS OF NEGOTIATING POWER

Because the EU is the world’s richest, biggest market-place, and the world’s biggest exporter and the world’s biggest importer, it can negotiate the best trade agreements with other countries.

It’s often said that when negotiating, you get better deals if you’re the same size or bigger than your opposite number.

As one of the world’s biggest economies, the EU has the muscle to negotiate extremely favourable trading terms with the world’s nations, and has done so with over 50 countries so far (including one recently with Canada).

Could Britain, being much smaller than the EU, achieve similarly good trade agreements with the world’s countries? It’s unlikely, but in any event, it will take many years to find out after we have left the EU in March 2019.
______________________________________________________________

► If you believe that Brexit is a mistake, it’s time to speak up, loudly and clearly, before we leave the EU at midnight on 29 March 2019 and take a one-way ticket into the unknown. ► If you’re one of the 17 million who voted for Brexit but have now changed your mind; if you’re one of the 16 million who voted against Brexit; if you’re one of more than 30 million who didn’t or couldn’t vote and are against Brexit: it’s time we let our political masters know what ‘the people’ really want.

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

The post EU benefits versus Brexit appeared first on Ideas on Europe.