European Union

Saturday 23 April 2016
Visit to Gaziantep (Turkey) together with Federal Chancellor of Germany Angela Merkel and EU Commission First Vice-President Frans Timmermans.
17.40 Visit to Nizip temporary protection centre
19.15 Visit to Gazientep Child protection support centre
20.50 Joint press conference by President Tusk, Chancellor Merkel, First Vice President Timmermans and Prime Minister Davutoğlu
21.50 Leaders' meeting

Tuesday 26 April 2016
13.00 Meeting with European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker and European Parliament President Martin Schulz (Berlaymont)

Wednesday 27 April 2016
11.30 Meeting with President of Albania Bujar Nishani (photo opportunity - press statements ±12.00)

AMENDMENTS 71 - 372 - Draft opinion on the proposal for a regulation on the European border and coast guard
Committee on Foreign Affairs

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

Good afternoon. Welcome everyone, welcome to Amsterdam. Let me debrief you on the Eurogroup meeting. Many of us were already in Washington at the IMF spring meetings, discussing the state of play in the global economy, rising risks on the basis of the advice and analysis of the IMF. The good news, however, for major economies, this also goes for the Eurozone economy, is that our economies have weathered global events quite well. I believe we are still on the right track with economic growth that is broad-based, stronger supervision of banks and signs that investment is starting to pick up throughout the Eurozone.

Greece

Having said that, and on that positive note, let's first turn to Greece, which took up a major part of our time today. We discussed the state of play of the first review of the ESM programme and next steps to be taken.

Cooperation between the institutions and the Greek authorities has been strong and productive, but the institutions will say more about that. We believe that substantial progress has been made, reducing the number of open issues, and getting close to an agreement on a number of key areas such as pension reform, income tax reform, the NPL strategy and the establishment of the privatisation fund. On some issues more work will have to be done to fully conclude that, but we are very close.

Today we also looked at and clarified the way to go forward to bridge the issue which is about insecurity of a forecast and confidence that we can have in the implementation of what has been agreed.

We came to the conclusion that the policy package should include a contingent package of additional measures that would be implemented only if necessary to reach the primary surplus target for 2018. The contingency mechanism needs to be credible, legislated upfront, automatic and be based on objective factors which would trigger these contingent measures.

That needs further work: the design of that, how it would work, what kind of measures there would be and what would trigger it. I'm happy to say that with the commitment of the Greek minister to work on that constructively and as quickly as possible, the institutions have said that they stand ready to work as quickly as possible, in the coming days, on this contingency mechanism. On that basis, if we have the package which needs to be done and delivered upfront, and if we have the contingency package and the mechanism to support that, we can have a further Eurogroup next Thursday. This is not for sure yet, but we are aiming for a meeting next Thursday which would then come to positive conclusions on those two elements, on the upfront package and the contingency package, and have a serious discussion on debt sustainability. As you know we have a long standing promise which was reaffirmed during the summer agreement, that if necessary and on condition that the Greek government fully delivers on what has been agreed in the programme, if necessary, we stand ready to consider more measures to assure debt sustainability.

Ministers today have given us a mandate to work on that, to make the analysis, and to prepare possibilities within, of course, some limitations. To mention two main ones: there is no support in the Eurogroup for nominal haircuts on the debt, and what we will design and propose needs to stay within the agreement of last summer. So we will look at possibilities of re-profiling and if necessary possible additional measures, looking at maturities and grace periods as outlined in the agreement last summer. And hopefully we will meet again next Thursday to bring those elements all together and come to a political agreement which would be very important for Greece and for the Eurozone.

Insolvency frameworks

Secondly, let me go on in our agenda. Second item was work we are doing on insolvency frameworks. This is very important for strengthening our economies, dealing with our banks, and opening space for new investments throughout the Eurozone. It is of course also an issue for the EU 28, so the follow up that we will give on the issue will also be on the agenda in Ecofin for some months. We have asked the Commission to do further work on that, to improve the quality of the data that we have and to develop an approach aimed at improving the effectiveness of national frameworks, trying to reach convergence at a higher level, in speed, affordability and predictability of insolvency procedures.

So on work that has been done so far, the Commission will do more on improving the quality of data, and developing a method of benchmarking on insolvency frameworks.

SSM

Finally, on the SSM. We welcomed Danièle Nouy, the chair of the Single Supervisory Mechanism to the Eurogroup. She regularly joins the Eurogroup to present to us the state of play in the SSM. Today she presented the annual report. She informed us about the execution of the supervisory tasks of the SSM. She spoke specifically on the many options and national discretions that are still in our banks and in our bank legislation and regulations. She is making a lot of progress from the SSM. Work also needs to be done by legislators. The Commission will work on that and put forward proposals to improve our level playing field for our banking union.

Those were the key issues.

The Eurogroup is fully committed to supporting economic growth and jobs and holds regular thematic discussions to explore and define common policy ambitions to this end. The Council recommendation on the economic policy of the euro area in the context of the European Semester clearly indicates the areas where reform is the most pressing.

Since the beginning of the year, we have discussed twice the recommendation to improve national insolvency frameworks, an area explicitly addressed in the Council recommendation to the euro area for 2015 and 2016 as well as in the individual 2015 Country-Specific Recommendations for several euro area Member States.

Private sector debt remains high in a number of euro area countries and contributes to holding back the recovery in investment and consumption. In particular, the high level of non-performing loans in banks' balance sheets constrains the supply of credit, thereby hampering the monetary transmission mechanism, and reduces the efficiency of capital allocation. Having effective and efficient insolvency frameworks in place is key to ensuring a smooth deleveraging process, thereby facilitating adjustment processes within the euro area, while improving the business environment and supporting private investment. It would also support deeper financial integration within the euro area, which will be beneficial for the strengthening of the Banking Union, fostering growth and resilience to asymmetric shocks. It would also contribute to building the Capital Markets Union, recognising that this work takes place in the EU-28 setting.

While a number of euro area Member States have carried out significant reforms in the recent past, the Eurogroup is conscious that more efforts are needed. Today we agreed on a number of core common principles that could serve as guidance for improving the efficiency of national regimes in dealing with insolvency. While we aim to converge to a high level of efficiency and transparency of national insolvency rules and practices within the euro area, we recognise that when applying these common principles, country-specific circumstances - in particular national legal frameworks - need to be taken into account.

Speed, cost and predictability are of the essence for efficient national insolvency regimes, together with clear rules on cross-border insolvency. In order to promote speedy and cost-effective insolvency procedures, debt distress should be identified at an early stage. Early restructuring procedures with limited court involvement - in particular out-of-court settlement - should be developed further as a priority and resorted to where appropriate. Insolvency procedures should be easily accessible and affordable for both debtors and creditors. Honest distressed debtors should also be given a second chance after a certain period of time. Moreover, insolvency frameworks should be governed by predictability. In particular, creditor claims in secured lending should be enforced in an effective manner. Finally, clear rules on cross-border insolvency are of paramount importance in order to encourage cross-border investment. At EU level a Regulation and a Recommendation are in place and a legislative proposal is being developed by the end of 2016.

The Eurogroup also discussed the need for adequate flanking policies. In particular, enhancing the institutional framework for insolvency was recognised as critical to ensure an effective implementation of the insolvency legislation. Supervisory measures can contribute to support an accelerated process of banks' balance sheet clean up.

The Eurogroup intends to regularly take stock of the progress made by euro area Member States in reforming their insolvency regimes in line with these common principles and in coherence with parallel work streams led by EU institutions in the framework of the Commission's Action Plan on building a Capital Markets Union. We underlined the importance of benchmarking our common ambitions. We support the Commission's work to improve data availability and quality and we mandate the EWG to engage with this work as a matter of priority. We agreed to revert to the matter in autumn of this year.

This is Friday’s edition of our daily Brussels Briefing. To receive it every morning in your email in-box, sign up here.

Barack Obama arrived last night in the British capital, where he is expected to give his full-throated support for the UK to remain in the EU – an intervention that is as highly anticipated as it is fraught with political danger. There is no set-piece speech the White House has engineered; instead, the US president has offered up an op-ed in today’s Daily Telegraph, and administration officials say he will speak “as a friend” if he is asked about the issue during his two-day stay. Which is something of a foregone conclusion, particularly with a Downing Street press conference set for this afternoon.

Read more

Ireland v Commission
State aid
The General Court confirms the decision of the Commission ordering the repayment of the tax exemptions granted by France, Ireland and Italy for alumina production

Ireland v Commission
State aid
The General Court confirms the decision of the Commission ordering the repayment of the tax exemptions granted by France, Ireland and Italy for alumina production

Ireland v Commission
State aid
The General Court confirms the decision of the Commission ordering the repayment of the tax exemptions granted by France, Ireland and Italy for alumina production

Wolfgang Schäuble’s destiny is to be a man who keeps having to listen to people talking about things he doesn’t want to hear about.

Germany’s finance minister, together with his counterparts from around Europe, will gather in Amsterdam on Friday to discuss, among other things, the future of the Banking Union — the major policy push undertaken by the euro area over the last few years to centralIze how it oversees its banks.

But like a band with growing musical differences, ministers can’t agree on what the next steps of the project should be, with Mr Schäuble playing the role of the blues purist who wants the group to move away from grand concepts and get back to basics.

Read more

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

Source : © European Union, 2015 - EP

Framework Agreement on Partnership and Cooperation between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of the Philippines, of the other part (2013/0441(NLE))
Framework Agreement on Partnership and Cooperation between the EU and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of the Philippines, of the other part, to take account of the accession of the Republic of Croatia to the EU (2014/0224(NLE))
Accompanying motion for a resolution to the Framework Agreement on Partnership and Cooperation between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of the Philippines, of the other part
Space capabilities for European security and defence
Peace Support Operations - EU engagement with the UN and the African Union
Recommendation on the 71st session of the United Nations General Assembly
Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

Isn’t it strange how history sometimes seems to repeat itself? Not always in exactly the same way, but in ways to make it seem uncanny.

Take the remarkable resemblances between the referendum of 1975 and the one we’re having now, both regarding Britain’s future in Europe.

Back in 1974 Labour leader, Harold Wilson, won a general election with a very slim majority.

One year earlier Britain joined the European Economic Community (later to be called the European Union) under a Conservative government led by Edward Heath.

Prime Minister Wilson promised to re-negotiate the terms of Britain’s membership and then to hold a referendum on whether to remain in the EEC.

The Labour government was in favour of Britain’s continued membership. But the cabinet was split. So Mr Wilson suspended Cabinet collective responsibility. Cabinet members were allowed to publicly campaign against each other.

In total, seven of the twenty-three members of the Labour cabinet opposed EEC membership, mostly the left-wing stalwarts of the Labour Party, such as Michael Foot, Tony Benn and Barbara Castle.

In some ways, the 1975 referendum was a mirror image of today.

Unlike today, in 1975 the Labour Party and the TUC were against Britain’s membership of what was then nicknamed the Common Market. Indeed, the Labour Party conference voted 2-to-1 against continued membership.

Also unlike today, in 1975 all main British newspapers were in favour of Britain’s continued membership.

And unlike today, Conservative Party members in 1975 were mostly in favour of Britain’s membership. Indeed, the then leader of the Conservative Party and the Opposition, Margaret Thatcher, fervently campaigned for Britain to stay a member.

Some of the same language was used in the 1975 referendum as today. When Labour cabinet minister, Tony Benn, claimed that Britain had lost half-a-million jobs as a result of membership of the EEC, the Daily Mirror responded by calling him, “The Minister of fear.”

Although many Eurosceptics today claim that, in 1975, they were only told that the European Economic Community was to do with free trade, that wasn’t reflected in the campaign literature of the time. In the ‘No’ campaign brochure voters were warned about Common Market membership:

• To end a thousand years of British freedom and independent nationhood is an unheard of constitutional change.

• Do you want us to be a self-governing nation, or to be a province of Europe?

• Do we want self-government as a great independent nation, or do we want to be governed as a province of the EEC by Commissioners and a Council of Ministers, predominantly foreign, in Brussels?

• Do we want to lose the whole of our individual influence as a nation, which is still great, in order to enhance the status of Europe, which would then function largely outside our control?

David Cameron also only won the General Election in 2015 with a very slim majority.

Just as Prime Minister Harold Wilson had promised in 1974, Prime Minister David Cameron also promised in 2015 that he would renegotiate Britain’s membership of the European Union and then hold a referendum.

Just as detractors in 1975 described Mr Wilson’s reforms of Britain’s membership as ‘cosmetic’, so have Eurosceptics today similarly described Mr Cameron’s reforms.

Just as Harold Wilson’s Labour government was in favour of Britain’s continued membership, so is David Cameron’s Conservative government.

Just as the Labour Party membership was mostly against EEC membership in 1975, in 2016 most Conservative Party members are against Britain’s membership of the European Union.

And just as Harold Wilson allowed his Cabinet Ministers in 1975 to campaign against each other on the question of Britain’s future membership, so has David Cameron in 2016 allowed his Cabinet Ministers to campaign against each other.

Just as in Harold Wilson’s Labour government of 1975, a total of seven of David Cameron’s 22 Cabinet Ministers are campaigning for Britain to leave the European Union.

They are mostly the right-wing stalwarts of the Conservative Party including Michael Gove, Chris Grayling and Iain Duncan-Smith (who recently resigned as a Cabinet Minister).

In June 1975, the electorate voted overwhelmingly – two-to-one – in favour of Britain remaining a member of the European Economic Community.

However, the Labour Party was never the same again.

Nine months after the referendum, Prime Minister Harold Wilson resigned.

Four senior Labour Party members later split from the party and formed the Social Democrats in 1981, later to be merged with the Liberal Party.

The 1974 Labour victory wasn’t to be repeated again for 23 years, when Tony Blair won the General Election for Labour in 1997.

Of course, to what extent, if any, the 1975 referendum was responsible for the change in Labour’s fortunes is difficult to prove, and there were many other factors.

However, it’s interesting to compare the striking similarities between Britain’s referendum of 1975 and the one we are about to have in ten weeks time.

Britain’s second referendum campaign on the question of our membership of the European Community has now officially begun. The vote will take place on 23 June, and we will know the result on 24 June.

Will there be any other similarities to the 1975 referendum? We will have to wait and see..

__________________________________________________

Other stories by Jon Danzig:

• EU is the not the USSR
• What does Brexit look like? Nobody knows
• Can’t vote or don’t vote?
• List of the latest articles by Jon Danzig

To follow my stories please like my Facebook page: Jon Danzig Writes

_________________________________________________

• Share and join the discussion about this article on Facebook:

The post The EU Referendum Repeat appeared first on Ideas on Europe.