European Union

http://tvnewsroom.consilium.europa.eu/uploads/council-images/thumbs/uploads/council-images/remote/http_7e18a1c646f5450b9d6d-a75424f262e53e74f9539145894f4378.r8.cf3.rackcdn.com/9cd77866-44e9-11e6-8d6a-bc764e093073_1.17_thumb_169_1467968263_1467968262_129_97shar_c1.jpg

Donald TUSK, President of the European Council and Jean-Claude JUNCKER, President of the European Commission, meet Barack OBAMA, US President  for an EU-US leaders meeting., taking place on 8 July. This meeting provides an opportunity to underline transatlantic unity and discuss common political, economic and international security challenges.

Download this video here.

http://tvnewsroom.consilium.europa.eu/uploads/council-images/thumbs/uploads/council-images/remote/http_7e18a1c646f5450b9d6d-a75424f262e53e74f9539145894f4378.r8.cf3.rackcdn.com/maxresdefault_thumb_169_1467822574_1467822516_129_97shar_c1.jpg

On 8-9 July, the NATO summit takes place in Poland. The European Union is represented by Donald TUSK, President of the European Council; Jean-Claude JUNCKER, President of the European Commission; and Federica MOGHERINI, High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy.

Download this video here.

The Paris Agreement opens a whole new chapter in the history of climate change governance, which will also require a paradigm shift in research. What are the main challenges in bringing about this shift?

A remarkable feature of the 2015 Paris Agreement is that it allows countries to draw on a vast array of governance options to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to climate change. And yet, knowledge about these governance options remains scarce. Even more complex is the issue of how to address climate change more effectively. How can well performing policies be diffused more rapidly and effectively? How can their effectiveness in reaching different types of climate-related goals be better assessed? Will citizens accept future costs and/or change their behaviour? Providing answers to these questions challenges researchers to clearly identify and devise potential remedies.

Fifteen early career researchers based at several European universities met in February 2016 to discuss these very issues. The two-day workshop “Understanding data frontiers in climate governance research” was hosted by the Department of Political Science of the University of Zurich. While aspiring to respond to the questions posed earlier goes beyond our scope, in this post, we want to draw on the discussions around them that took place during the workshop.

Workshop participants in discussion

The Paris Agreement represents a paradigm shift for climate policy and challenges regarding its implementation and evaluation have been mentioned elsewhere already. Little attention has however been paid to the data-related obstacles to governing climate change after Paris. This is what we focused on during the workshop and would like to briefly outline here.

Firstly, it is clear that no one policy can address the complex task of mitigating climate change alone. This means that we need to consider policy mixes – the interactions between all policies – and also other governance arrangements, including private ones – that may impact climate-related goals in a specific jurisdiction, even if these policies are not specifically meant to address climate change. But, what are relevant policies and how do we assess them? How can their effects be assessed and weighted against each other? Crucially, what data and information do we need to successfully identify and evaluate these policy mixes? From this, it becomes evident that there is an overwhelming need to employ existing – and built new – indices and databases in innovative ways building on bottom-up contributions coming from state and non-state actors. One needs to keep in mind too that for the first time in history Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) have been prepared by 189 countries (latest being Guyana’s submission on 20th May 2016), so that information will be needed for a much larger set of countries than ever before.

With regards to climate change adaptation, the picture is especially unclear. A topic that has been heatedly debated since the early 2000, many scientific discussions still focus on establishing what adaptation measures really comprise. In a research field where many different ideas and concepts exist but data is scarce and often contested, efforts to track adaptation in a systematic manner are not only welcomed but greatly needed. The fact that nation states are now formally yet not bindingly requested by the UNFCCC to report their strategies and measures for adaptation, is a useful tool for comparative climate change research. However, particularly for the case of adaptation this comes with a range of challenges. Adaptation policies have implications for an array of different sectors and often, policy choices are constrained by decisions taken at the national level while benefits of adaptation measures are predominantly expected at the local level.

Finally, the change of paradigm requires a better understanding of drivers of policy change, because states will be expected to improve their climate-related policies and commitments in five-year cycles. They will thus need to know how to best encourage those policies that work better. This aspect is probably the most political of the ones featured. However, so far we do not have sufficient systematic information about, for example, the positions that political parties have on issues closely related to climate change mitigation or adaptation. Some recent experimental research has provided insights into citizens’ needs and motivations regarding climate policy.

Beyond the traditional role of states in climate governance, the Paris Agreement highlights the role of non-state actors and how they can cooperate with states in a way that catalyses efforts to strengthen mitigation and adaptation action. Also in this area there is substantial room for improvement. Given the myriad of non-state initiatives that seem to emerge, and how they are strongly interlinked, having comprehensive and accurate information regarding their goals, scope, membership and actual implementation is extremely challenging. Many datasets are emerging that seek to address this goal. However, the available information particularly on effects and effectiveness remains very limited.

The workshop proposal has been jointly written by the Early Career Investigators Network of the COST-funded action INOGOV. The participants owe special thanks to Paula Castro and Jonas Schoenefeld, who dedicated a lot of time and effort to organize this event. The workshop would not have happened without the financial support of the Swiss National Science Foundation.

The authors wanted to thank Paula Castro, Sebastian Sewerin and Jonas Schoenefeld for their comments on earlier drafts of this article.

The post Where are the frontiers of climate governance data? appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

Future Enterprises v EUIPO - McDonald's International Property (MACCOFFEE)
Intellectual and industrial property
According to the General Court, the repute of McDonald’s trade marks makes it possible to prevent the registration, for foods or beverages, of trade marks combining the prefix ‘Mac’ or ‘Mc’ with the name of a foodstuff or beverage

To get the Brussels Briefing into your inbox, sign up here.

“Don’t like it? Then don’t do it” has become a mantra for EU governments in recent months when it comes to rules of which they are not fond.

The latest leader to ascribe to the philosophy is French prime minister Manuel Valls, who is unhappy with the unreformed law on posted workers.

Countries such as France argue that it allows social dumping, with international companies able to depress wages by bringing in expat workers on the cheap, and want the directive changed.

Read more

http://tvnewsroom.consilium.europa.eu/uploads/council-images/thumbs/uploads/council-images/remote/http_7e18a1c646f5450b9d6d-a75424f262e53e74f9539145894f4378.r8.cf3.rackcdn.com/774c833e-41dd-11e6-87bc-bc764e093073_101.02_thumb_169_1467633154_1467633152_129_97shar_c1.jpg

Argentina has a long tradition of European immigration which has led to strong economic, social and cultural transatlantic links with the European Union. The Framework Trade and Economic Co-operation Agreement between the EU and Argentina entered into force in 1990. It includes as fundamental principles two recurrent cornerstones of our cooperation policy: the strengthening of democracy and human rights, as well as regional integration.

Download this video here.

http://tvnewsroom.consilium.europa.eu/uploads/council-images/thumbs/uploads/council-images/remote/http_7e18a1c646f5450b9d6d-a75424f262e53e74f9539145894f4378.r8.cf3.rackcdn.com/6ddeae76-4282-11e6-9340-bc764e090014_46.54_thumb_169_1467704195_1467704195_129_97shar_c1.jpg

EU HR Mogherini attened the Western Balkans Summit on 4 July 2016 in Paris.

Download this video here.

Like a couple in a strained marriage, the EU’s 27* national leaders will in September head to Bratislava for a day by the Danube to get away from it all and try to remember why they are still together.

“Sometimes member states need to have intensive discussions among themselves,” said Robert Fico, the Slovakian prime minister who will play host/marriage counsellor. The reason for the city break? “Brussels tends to have a rather negative connotation these days,” says Mr Fico.

Read more

The Monthly Highlights publication provides an overview, at a glance, of the on-going work of the policy departments, including a selection of the latest and forthcoming publications, and a list of future events.
Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

What have Brexit and England in the 2016 UEFA Euro Cup in common? Defeat for some, happiness for others. What have David Cameron and Roy Hodgson in common? A sad resignation for some, the beginning of a new era for others.

Having a crucial referendum and an important football match within just a few days can have massive impacts on their outcomes. The overall assumption, that if England got kicked out the Euro Cup before the UK’s EU referendum more people would have voted forleave,is thankfully not relevant as it was not the case. There are nevertheless some interesting parallels of the EU referendum and England’s performance in the Euro Cup.

The last couple of days have been very eventful, yet also tempestuous and chaotic. Towards the end of the campaigns around the UK’s EU referendum, which took place on 23 June 2016, tensions between the Remain camp and the Leave side heated up. The tone of campaigning on both sides became as ugly as the behaviour of supporters of the English national football team. Politicians and many others involved in the Brexit/Bremain campaigns made unattainable goals and promises, and triggered a high number of xenophobic comments around the country which have seen significant increase since the announcement of the win for the Brexit camp.

On the other hand, English football fans have done a great job in receiving more attention than their football team. Even before the kick-off, English football fans clashed with the counter-parts on the Russian sides on 11 June in Lille. With the elimination of the English team as well as others who had troubles with their supporters, hopes are high that the upcoming matches will focus rather on football than on clashes among hooligans.

Interestingly, both the EU referendum and England’s participation in the Euro Cup have resulted in what was against the odds, at least if you believe the Evening Standard, Politico and alike.

So, what has been happening since the outcome of the EU referendum and England’s elimination from the Euro Cup? The Prime Minister David Cameron has resigned, hence the UK is in need of a new Prime Minister, both the Conservative Party and the Labour Party have entered a state of internal fragmentation, and the country’s economy and society have stepped into a stage of uncertainty. Similarly, Roy Hodgson has also resigned as manager of the English football team and thus it is looking for a new manager to replace him, England has yet to wait for a victory in a major football competition since it became world champion in 1966, and English football has soon to deal with the consequences of Brexit, i.e., with the future of its numerous players from the European mainland.

A week after the UK’s EU referendum and just a few days after England’s departure from the 2016 Euro Cup, some lessons can be learned. First, being a partial England football supporter watching the Euros has not been much fun, especially thanks to the ‘humiliation’ about which the media is talking about. Now some are putting their hopes on Wales. Second, the contributions in the media about British politics has increasingly become monotonous — actually, this was already the case before the referendum was held. It is now time to focus the attention back to other issues, such as the current migration and refugee crisis, ongoing outbreaks of armed conflicts in Syria and Iraq, as well as the desperate need of people in South Sudan. Third, it is also time for the European Union to rethink its origins and its founding ideas. The UK is not the only country with fragmented perceptions and similar referendums might be expected in the future in any of the other 27 member states. Lastly, a final lesson learned is that referendums of such importance should not be held again during a major sports event — winning and loosing can have impacts on political elections and referendums.

 

By Nele Marianne Ewers-Peters, PhD Candidate, University of Kent, Canterbury

The post Brexit and the Football Euro Cup – Chaos in the Making? appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

The greatness of a country is not determined by its area, the greatness of a country is not determined by its population. Today we speak of Slovakian greatness not by measuring it in square kilometres, nor based on demographic statistics, but by evaluating the results of your work, your determination, patience and wisdom.

You have demonstrated these attributes since the beginning of your indeed challenging history. You have built your independence with patience and wisdom, and with equally great determination you have built your position in Europe. You have shown everyone what it means to be proud. You asked no alms of anyone. You didn't want anything for free. You demanded only respect and understanding for your ambitions. Great, but justified ambitions. And today you quite rightly enjoy the respect and recognition of all of Europe, all of the international community.

You have also proved that despite difficult historical and political circumstances you are able to build good relations with all your neighbours. I appreciate this ability of yours not only as the President of the European Council, but also as a Pole. In tough times for Europe, your responsibility, resourcefulness and common sense can set an example for others.

That is why I am happy that it is Slovakia that for the first time takes up the EU presidency. From this moment on, a great responsibility lies with you, both for the daily management of Europe for the next six months as well as for the process of revitalisation of our community. It is Bratislava that in September will host the 27 European leaders who will be debating the future of post-Brexit Europe.

Looking at how much you have achieved over the past years, and how you are coping in this critical moment for Europe, I have to say that the EU couldn't wish for a better presidency.

(The speech was delivered in Slovak.)

Written by Marcin Grajewski,

© mrallen / Fotolia

Challenges to security in Europe will take centre stage at the NATO summit in Warsaw on 8-9 July when its heads of state and government will discuss issues ranging from Russia’s conflict with Ukraine and its growing military assertiveness to turmoil across the Middle East and North Africa, and the future of the military alliance.

This note highlights a selection of commentaries, studies and reports by some of the major international think tanks and research institutes on European security and defence published in the run-up to the NATO summit. More reports on the subject can be found in a previous edition of ‘What Think Tanks are thinking’ from in November 2015.

NATO summit

NATO Summit 2016: From reassurance to deterrence. What’s really at stake?
Barcelona Centre for International Affairs, June 2016

The Warsaw summit and the return of Western nationalism
Danish Institute for International Studies, June 2016

Warsaw summit
Atlantic Council, June 2016

NATO Summit 2016: NATO must reaffirm its “open door” policy
Heritage Foundation, June 2016

National priorities for the NATO Warsaw summit
German Marshall Fund, May 2016

NATO defence planning between Wales and Warsaw: Politico-military challenges of a credible assurance against Russia
Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, January 2016

What NATO for what threats? Warsaw and beyond
Istituto Affari Internazionali, December 2015

Preparing for NATO’s Warsaw summit: The challenges of adapting to strategic change
Danish Institute of International Studies, December 2015

Other studies

Restoring the power and purpose of the NATO alliance
Atlantic Council, June 2016

Time to restore conventional deterrence-by-denial
Egmont, June 2016

A new strategy: Implications for CSDP
Clingendael, June 2016

All not quiet on NATO’s eastern front
Carnegie Europe, June 2016

A threat-based strategy for NATO’s southern flank
Carnegie Europe, June 2016

Security in the Baltic Sea Region: Activation of risk potential
Finnish Institute of International Affairs, June 2016

The future of Transatlantic security
Rand, June 2016

Evaluating future U.S. Army force posture in Europe
Centre for Strategic and International Studies, June 2016

NATO must stop crowding Russia
Cato Institute, June 2016

European defence: From strategy to delivery
Clingendael, May 2016

Embedding NATO into the European Union Global Strategy: The missing link?
European, May 2016

Closing NATO’s Baltic gap
International Centre for Defence Studies, May 2016

Russia: A test for Transatlantic unity
Transatlantic Academy, German Marshall Fund, May 2016

A historic reminder, an ever-present dilemma? Assessing Brexit’s potential consequences for European security
European Policy Centre, May 2016

Russian “countermeasures” to NATO are coming
Brookings Institution, May 2016

EUISS yearbook of European security 2016
European Union Institute for Security Studies, April 2016

Envisioning European defence: Five futures
European Union Institute for Security Studies, April 2016

For a “new realism” in European defense: The five key challenges an EU defense strategy should address
German Marshall Fund, April 2016

A new Helsinki needed? What security model for Europe?
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Auswärtige Politik, April 2016

The parliamentary dimension of defence cooperation
Clingendael, April 2016

European defence spending 2015: The force awakens
European Union Institute for Security Studies, April 2016

Do we need an EU army? Which way for the European security and defence cooperation
Mendel European Centre, March 2016

NATO’s guns point the wrong way
Friends of Europe, March 2016

NATO, the US and Baltic Sea security
Swedish Institute of International Affairs, February 2016

The annexation of Crimea: Lessons for European security
Fondation Robert Schuman, February 2016

Ensuring deterrence against Russia: The view from NATO’s front-line States
Heinrich Böll Stiftung, February 2016

Forces terrestres et réassurance: Quelles options pour l’Alliance?
Institut français des relations internationales, January 2016

The defence of Europe before European Defence: Returning to the Schuman method
Fondation Robert Schuman, January 2016

A stronger CSDP: Deepening defence cooperation
Clingendael, January 2016

Defence budgets and cooperation in Europe: Developments, trends and drivers
Istituto Affari Internazionali, Consortium of Think Tanks, January 2016

Reinforcing deterrence on NATO’s Eastern flank: Wargaming the defense of the Baltics
Rand, January 2016

NATO and European security: back to the roots?
Istituto Affari Internazionali, December 2015

The EU, Russia and the quest for a new European security bargain
Clingendael, December 2015

European strategy, European defence and the CSDP
Egmont, November 2015

L’Europe à la croisée des chemins: La politique de défense et de sécurité a besoin d’initiatives franco-allemandes
Institut français des relations internationales, November 2015

Filed under: International Relations, PUBLICATIONS Tagged: At a glance, CSDP, defence policy, EU army, European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP), Marcin Grajewski, Nato, what think tanks are thinking

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP