European Union

To fight the growing resistance of bacteria to today’s antibiotics, the use of existing antimicrobial drugs should be restricted, and new ones should be developed, said Environment and Public Health Committee MEPs on Wednesday. In a vote on draft plans to update an EU law on veterinary medicines, they advocate banning collective and preventive antibiotic treatment of animals, and back measures to stimulate research into new medicines.
Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

To fight the growing resistance of bacteria to today’s antibiotics, the use of existing antimicrobial drugs should be restricted, and new ones should be developed, said Environment and Public Health Committee MEPs on Wednesday. In a vote on draft plans to update an EU law on veterinary medicines, they advocate banning collective and preventive antibiotic treatment of animals, and back measures to stimulate research into new medicines.
Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

DRAFT OPINION on Implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities with special regard to the Concluding Observations of the UN CPRD Committee
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Richard Howitt

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

Tomorrow we will meet in the European Council. It will be a crucial moment for the unity of our Union and for the future of the United Kingdom's relations within Europe.

After my consultations in the last hours I have to state frankly: there is still no guarantee that we will reach an agreement. We differ on some political issues and I am fully aware that it will be difficult to overcome them. Therefore I urge you to remain constructive.

The negotiations are very advanced and we must make use of the momentum. There will not be a better time for a compromise. It is our unity that gives us strength and we must not lose this. It would be a defeat both for the UK and the European Union, but a geopolitical victory for those who seek to divide us.

We will work on the basis of the proposal that I put forward on the 2nd of February, with technical and legal clarifications which have been worked out by our Sherpas to be circulated today. But all the political issues will remain open for tomorrow. The objective has been clear from the start: to reach a legally binding and irreversible agreement which addresses UK concerns, while being satisfactory to all. At the same time we will not undermine our fundamental values. It is my goal to do the deal this week.

On choreography: after the traditional exchange of views with the President of the European Parliament, and the family photo, we will address the UK issue at our first working session on Thursday afternoon. This will be an opportunity for all members to state their positions and voice their concerns. Given that we are talking about a legally binding agreement, we will need time to assess all the necessary changes overnight and revert to the issue on Friday morning.

Over dinner, we will discuss the latest developments regarding migration. In December we agreed on a number of priorities to be addressed urgently. The detailed reports drawn up by the Dutch Presidency and the Commission show that the strategy we have put together is beginning to yield results but the progress achieved so far is not sufficient. I want us to keep up the pressure on all elements of the overall strategy. We should agree the conclusions at the end of the discussion. As the EU-Turkey Action Plan plays a crucial role in our strategy, I will meet PM Davutoglu beforehand to assess the progress and discuss speeding up the agreement so as to achieve a substantial and sustainable reduction of the number of illegal entries from Turkey into the EU.

We will meet on Friday morning in an informal session with a discussion on the United Kingdom. The President of the European Parliament will join us for the debate. The exact timing is still to be decided as we may need to meet for bilateral consultations. Once the final text is ready, we will resume the plenary session to adopt it formally.

Later we will turn to the situation in Syria and Libya, and adopt the remaining conclusions. Finally, we will endorse the euro area recommendations, under the revamped European Semester. I look forward to meeting you in Brussels tomorrow.

OPINION on discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2014, Section III - Commission and executive agencies
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Cristian Dan Preda

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

OPINION on discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2014, Section X - European External Action Service
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Cristian Dan Preda

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

National Front's Nanterre offices during Wednesday morning's police raid

Workers in the National Front’s Nanterre headquarters had a poor start to the day on Wednesday. Their office was raided by a bunch of gendarmes.

But this wasn’t any run-of-the-mill raid. The French police acted as part of a European parliament investigation into Marine Le Pen’s far-right party for alleged expense fiddling by its MEPs.

The party – which is now consistently running first or second in polling for next year’s French presidential race and remains the largest French party in the European parliament itself – were accused by EU authorities last year of fraudulently claiming €7.5m to cover the pay of 20 MEP assistants who worked only on national matters – which is against EU rules.

As expected, FN are not happy it. They hit back, in typically bombastic style, labelling the investigation “a political operation directly led by François Hollande and Manuel Valls with the goal of obstructing, monitoring and intimidating the patriotic opposition”.

Read more

Length of video : 193'
You may manually download this video in WMV (1.7Gb) 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, 2016 - EP

The nuclear agreement with Iran marked the end of a long period of sanctions and gave a new impetus to Iran-EU relations. On Tuesday, Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif appeared before Parliament's foreign affairs committee to discuss the future of EU-Iran relations as well as the situation in the Middle East. “Iran is open to work with Europe to reduce the concerns and tensions in the region,” he said, but added: “We both need to gain each other’s trust."
Committee on Foreign Affairs

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

The nuclear agreement with Iran marked the end of a long period of sanctions and gave a new impetus to Iran-EU relations. On Tuesday, Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif appeared before Parliament's foreign affairs committee to discuss the future of EU-Iran relations as well as the situation in the Middle East. “Iran is open to work with Europe to reduce the concerns and tensions in the region,” he said, but added: “We both need to gain each other’s trust."
Committee on Foreign Affairs

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

The nuclear agreement with Iran marked the end of a long period of sanctions and gave a new impetus to Iran-EU relations. On Tuesday, Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif appeared before Parliament's foreign affairs committee to discuss the future of EU-Iran relations as well as the situation in the Middle East. “Iran is open to work with Europe to reduce the concerns and tensions in the region,” he said, but added: “We both need to gain each other’s trust."
Committee on Foreign Affairs

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

http://tvnewsroom.consilium.europa.eu/uploads/council-images/thumbs/uploads/council-images/remote/http_7e18a1c646f5450b9d6d-a75424f262e53e74f9539145894f4378.r8.cf3.rackcdn.com/1d080392-d5b0-11e5-bfbf-bc764e08d9b2_182.92_thumb_169_1455741242_1455741243_129_97shar_c1.jpg

Leaders of Croatia, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Slovenia, and Serbia join President TUSK and President JUNCKER to discuss the latest developments in the region.

Download this video here.

http://tvnewsroom.consilium.europa.eu/uploads/council-images/thumbs/uploads/council-images/remote/http_7e18a1c646f5450b9d6d-a75424f262e53e74f9539145894f4378.r8.cf3.rackcdn.com/2c195c3a-cb21-11e5-a103-bc764e084e2e_1.08_thumb_169_1456136519_1456136519_129_97shar_c1.jpg

Two years ago, Ukrainians stood on Maidan demanding their right to determine the future of their country. People of Maidan is a 12 part series produced by the EU that tells the story of the Maidan revolution through the eyes of the people who were there and their hopes for Ukraine in the future. The series consists of 12 video portraits spoken in Russian, Ukrainian and English.

Download this video here.

The publication of the UK’s draft EU settlement marks another milestone in the refashioning of its relationship with the EU. The proposals – which remain to be agreed in the European Council and thus could change – are noteworthy for their comprehensive and exacting nature. They represent a new mode of engagement between a Member State and the EU.

As I have written previously, this is the first time a Member State has unilaterally sought a renegotiation of its own terms of membership. This draft deal is not a means of accommodating a country trying to ratify an EU treaty (like Denmark with Maastricht or Ireland with Lisbon). Nor is it inherently in response to a particular policy change at European level. It is the product of national politics and the implementation of a manifesto pledge.

The ramifications for the EU of this unilateral approach remain unclear. How long before the novelty wears off and other countries seek their own individual settlements? Some will suggest that such a prospect is unlikely and that the UK is a special case. However, other Member States have opt-outs, protocols and reservations in their favour – having opt-outs does not in itself make a Member State unique.

It is true that the likelihood of another state (particularly a less influential one) succeeding in winning its own EU settlement is marginal. Nevertheless, the argument could be made, and refusal to accept it might damage the EU’s legitimacy. More to the point, how could Britain seriously stand in the way of another country following in its footsteps?

The draft deal would make a number of substantive changes to the EU’s architecture. If agreed, the potential qualifications of the free movement of workers would be ground-breaking. Over time, the implications of such a move could certainly be wider than the drafters ever intended.

Other measures are important but less radical, such ‘taking account’ of opposition by national parliaments to EU legislative proposals on grounds of subsidiarity. Agreement to eventually attach a protocol to the EU treaties clarifying that ‘ever closer union’ does not equate to obligatory political integration for the UK is less substantive.

Regardless of the meaning of creating ‘an ever closer union of the peoples of Europe’, the UK would have always had a say in any treaty change, and if it did not want to take part a significant new EU initiative, it would surely have received an opt-out, as it has always had before.

More importantly, the eventual settlement will carry a strong symbolic value. It attempts to codify the UK’s EU membership, listing all the opt-outs it already holds, such as on Economic and Monetary Union, the Schengen acquis and parts of police and judicial cooperation. It singles out specific elements of one country’s relationship with the EU – a sort of bespoke terms and conditions of membership. This kind of agreement runs counter to how the EU has always worked before.

Moreover, such differentiation would set the UK apart from the other Member States. The UK will not help Eurozone countries in financial crisis (who presumably will not be lining up to help the UK if it ever needed it). It will not treat EU workers equally under certain circumstances. In short, it will not participate in much of what the EU is meant to be about.

This arrangement would likely sap much of the goodwill from the UK’s EU membership. It is understood, and accepted, that the UK will not partake in particular elements of European integration. However, coldly stating the fact, codifying it and adding on to it are unlikely to endear Britain to the rest of the EU. It moves in the direction of reducing the UK’s membership to a transactional relationship between it and the other EU Member States.

The EU has always been about more than transactions, even for countries largely averse to political integration. Presuming the deal is agreed, it will have broader implications for the UK’s place in the EU. It has the potential to generate sizeable ill-will from the other Member States, which will have compromised much for the UK. It could also damage the UK’s long-term influence in the EU. If countries perceive the UK as semi-detached from the Union, they may not take it and its views as seriously as they would have otherwise.

All of this is of course predicated on the settlement being agreed and the UK subsequently voting to remain in the EU. Should Britain instead vote to leave, it will perhaps not be off to the best start in the withdrawal negotiations, having just wasted the other Member States’ time in reaching a now void settlement that concedes much of what is important to them about the EU.

This article was originally published (under a different title) on the LSE BrexitVote Blog.

Please read the comments policy before commenting.

Shortened link: britainseurope.uk

How to cite this article:

Salamone, A (2016) ‘Britain’s New Settlement Could Remove the Goodwill from its EU Membership’, Britain’s Europe (Ideas on Europe), 17 Feb 2016, britainseurope.uk

The post Britain’s New Settlement Could Remove the Goodwill from its EU Membership appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

Length of video : 191'
You may manually download this video in WMV (2.1Gb) 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, 2016 - EP

Welcome to Wednesday’s edition of our new Brussels Briefing. To receive it every morning in your email in-box, sign up here.

Ukraine's Arseniy Yatseniuk speaks during last night's "no confidence" debate in parliament

Amidst the ongoing refugee crisis, and the more recent fever over Britain’s efforts to renegotiate its relationship with the EU and avoid Brexit, the crisis that once dominated the European agenda and threatened to plunge the continent into another Cold War disappeared from the headlines. But mounting accusations of rampant corruption in Kiev have thrust Ukraine back into the spotlight, culminating with yesterday’s call by President Petro Poroshenko for the resignation of his erstwhile ally, prime minister Arseniy Yatseniuk.

Last night, the Ukrainian parliament failed to comply, coming up 32 votes short of the 226 needed to pass a no-confidence motion that would have left the country in a state of suspended animation, stuck between choosing a new technocratic government or early elections. Despite that failure, the fallout from the split between Mr Poroshenko and Mr Yatseniuk – who head the legislature’s two largest parties, which are both part of the governing coalition – is likely to make an already unstable situation even shakier.

The current crisis was sparked by the resignation earlier this month of Aivaras Abromavicius, the government’s reform-minded economy minister who stepped down after accusing the government of condoning corruption and cronyism akin to the disgraced regime of Viktor Yanukovich, the onetime president topped in the 2014 Maidan revolution. The International Monetary Fund, which is still leading a $40bn Western bailout of Kiev after the Russian-instigated civil war plunged the Ukrainian economy into an abyss, piled on with chief Christine Lagarde warning the programme could not continue without a “substantial new effort” to invigorate reforms.

Read more

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP