European Union

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

http://tvnewsroom.consilium.europa.eu/uploads/council-images/thumbs/uploads/council-images/remote/http_c96321.r21.cf3.rackcdn.com/15369_169_full_129_97shar_c1.jpg

Bilateral relations between the Kyrgyz Republic and the EU have been governed by a Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (PCA) since 1999. Technical and financial support to the Kyrgyz Republic is provided through the EU's Development Cooperation Instrument (DCI). 

Download this video here.

Good afternoon. Let me begin by thanking you, Prime Minister, for your warm welcome here in Prague. Also in your capacity as the Visegrad Group (V4) Presidency. Thank you for your constructive attitude and approach, which is helpful for V4 and for all of Europe.

Our meeting today is part of my final round of consultations in the run up to the European Council in only two days' time. It will be a summit dealing with two main challenges: The United Kingdom's future membership of the European Union and the migration crisis. On both topics, the Czech Republic and the Visegrad Group hold strong views.

First on Britain: At stake is the United Kingdom as member of the EU. A question which ultimately only the British people will decide. But the answer will affect us all. At stake are also changes to the functioning of the European Union, where we will all have to decide together, and where we cannot and will not compromise on our freedoms and values. It is in this spirit that I drafted my proposal for a new settlement for the UK in the EU.

There are still unsolved problems such as future treaty change, an emergency brake for non-euro area countries, a safeguard mechanism on access to in-work benefits, and finally the notion of ever closer union. We need to find solutions to all those issues.

In the Czech Republic as well as in other Visegrad countries, the issue of access to social benefits continues to be among the most sensitive. I believe that the proposal I have put on the table is fair and balanced; for all. It protects the freedom of movement, while helping the UK to address all its concerns when it comes to their specific system of in-work benefits. The safeguard mechanism on access to in-work benefits is not designed to apply to EU citizens currently working in the UK. We will now have to sort out the remaining issues in a constructive spirit of trust and cooperation. The position of V4 is very clear. In view of that I have no doubts: There is an extra mile we will have to walk to reach an agreement.

Let me add a remark on migration, which we will also discuss on Thursday. I hope the bilateral support you have offered to the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to protect its borders can make a difference, especially when it comes to the humanitarian situation in the Western Balkans. Still, we must not forget about our fellow EU Member States most affected by this crisis, such as Greece. They need our continued and even increased assistance to cope with the flows. We need to help them protect their borders and to receive the migrants in a proper way. This is what I discussed with Prime Minister Tsipras earlier today in Athens. We all need to show solidarity. And that also means respecting and implementing all our common decisions and rules. From protecting our borders to relocating refugees. Let me be very clear: Only when united can we solve this crisis.

Let me conclude by thanking you once again for receiving me here in Prague, Prime Minister. Děkuji moc.

Length of video : 215'
You may manually download this video in WMV (2.4Gb) 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 European Union and the Republic of Tajikistan held their fifth Cooperation Council meeting on 16 February 2016. 

During the Cooperation Council, the European Commission reaffirmed its commitment to provide new development funding of €251 million to Tajikistan for the period 2014-2020. The funds will focus on vital sectors for growth and social stability, such as rural development, health, and education, which are particularly important in the present economic climate prevailing in Central Asia. 

The Cooperation Council also reaffirmed the commitment of both parties to strengthen relations in a number of cooperation areas, and took stock of the progress made since the fourth Cooperation Council meeting between the EU and the Republic of Tajikistan in October 2014. 

The EU emphasised that for the development of Tajikistan an open-minded policy based on respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms is essential. 

The Cooperation Council reiterated the importance of a comprehensive implementation of the EU Strategy for Central Asia, both on a regional and national basis, and welcomed Tajikistan's active engagement in the EU regional initiatives for Central Asia. Developments were discussed as relating to the three flagship initiatives of Rule of Law, Education, and Environment; and beyond this, issues of mutual importance such as political and administrative reforms, rule of law and human rights, religious freedoms, trade and economic relations, and border security. 

The Cooperation Council also addressed regional developments in the energy sector as well as security-related challenges, including border management and radicalisation. The Stability of Central Asia is of common interest to Tajikistan and the EU, and the parties will seek to increase their cooperation in this area.

The EU was represented at the Cooperation Council by Mr Bert KOENDERS, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, acting as head of the EU delegation. The delegation of Tajikistan was led by Mr Sirodjidin ASLOV, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Tajikistan.  Mr Aslov will also meet the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Ms Federica Mogherini. Tuesday 16 February.

After the nuclear deal with Iran there is room to develop EU-Iran relations, but not at the expense of human rights, said Foreign Affairs Committee MEPs in Tuesday’s debate with Iran's Foreign Affairs Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif. Ways to end violence in Syria and Yemen, and Iran's relations with Saudi Arabia were also among the topics discussed.
Committee on Foreign Affairs

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

After the nuclear deal with Iran there is room to develop EU-Iran relations, but not at the expense of human rights, said Foreign Affairs Committee MEPs in Tuesday’s debate with Iran's Foreign Affairs Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif. Ways to end violence in Syria and Yemen, and Iran's relations with Saudi Arabia were also among the topics discussed.
Committee on Foreign Affairs

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

After the nuclear deal with Iran there is room to develop EU-Iran relations, but not at the expense of human rights, said Foreign Affairs Committee MEPs in Tuesday’s debate with Iran's Foreign Affairs Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif. Ways to end violence in Syria and Yemen, and Iran's relations with Saudi Arabia were also among the topics discussed.
Committee on Foreign Affairs

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

General : In the case of a deal on a reform of the UK’s EU membership, Parliament will do its utmost to support it, but the result is not guaranteed, warned EP President Martin Schulz. He spoke out after UK Prime Minister David Cameron discussed Parliament’s position with leading MEPs on Tuesday. The visit came ahead of Thursday’s European Council summit when heads of state will try to come to an agreement. Schulz will attend to present Parliament’s position.

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

General : In the case of a deal on a reform of the UK’s EU membership, Parliament will do its utmost to support it, but the result is not guaranteed, warned EP President Martin Schulz. He spoke out after UK Prime Minister David Cameron discussed Parliament’s position with leading MEPs on Tuesday. The visit came ahead of Thursday’s European Council summit when heads of state will try to come to an agreement. Schulz will attend to present Parliament’s position.

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

“This website uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. For more details about cookies and how to manage them, see our cookie policy”.

In 2007, the European Commission decided that people should be protected from spyware and other tracking software being planted in their devices without their knowledge. This led to the ‘cookie law’, designed to give people ‘clear and comprehensive’ information about what was being tracked and why, so that they could choose to allow it or not. The Commission’s logic is as follows: give people information, and they will make informed choices.

In a world where we exchange our data willingly for free services like email and search, most of us would like to be able to make informed choices about what data we share, based on how it will be used and what we get out of it. We are all vaguely aware that when we get something for free online,  our data is being used in some way to bring profit to the companies providing the services we use, for example for advertising.

Helping people make informed choices about how their data is used is a lot harder than it sounds.

Unfortunately, the cookie pop-ups we see on every website we visit don’t actually lead to us making informed choices about how our data is tracked and used. In many cases, the pop-up simply disappears after a few seconds – or, if needed, we just click the ‘close’ button and get on with what we came to the website to do. The Commission’s logic is wrong – if you give people information, it doesn’t necessarily mean they will use it to make informed choices. Helping people use information to make informed choices about how their data is used is actually a lot harder than it sounds.  When the cookie law came into force in the UK, I was in London working for tech business JustGiving. Like most companies, we understood there was a legal obligation to add this pop-up and we put aside valuable time and resources to do it. But the guidance from the Commission was unclear and contradictory. We looked at the Commission’s own website hoping for a best-in-class example of implementation, and were dismayed to see reams of text obscuring half of the homepage, written in legalistic language that most people wouldn’t understand. What is the point of this, we wondered?

Data protection law in the EU is also based on this logic. Companies have a wide remit to use our personal data for almost any purpose, as long as we consent to it. If we tick the box, EU law considers that we have made an informed choice. But again, in reality, how many of us tick the box without reading the privacy policy which comes before it?

We need a shift from the decades-old offline system of adding labels and warning.

The problem is that the Commission hasn’t invested enough in thinking about the best way to help people make informed choices. They simply transferred a decades-old system from the offline world to online – essentially, adding labels and warnings. This may be the only solution when it comes to adding product safety information to electronic appliances, for example. But online there are many more possible ways of displaying information – which could be more effective in helping people understand, learn more and make informed choices. Giving people information is important, but it needs to be done in the right way, at the right time.

In the e-commerce world, every word and picture on a website is chosen and positioned in exactly the right way to help people find the information they need. Every variable is tested thoroughly to improve the browsing experience. Should that link be in the top-left or top-right of the page? What size should the font be? What colour makes people click on it the most? How will it look on a smartphone, or a tablet? It would make sense to apply the same approach to the way information about privacy and cookies is presented to users. How should it be written and presented in order to make sure people actually read and engage with it, rather than simply clicking it away?

The geo-blocking debate risks following the same flawed logic as the cookie law.

Unfortunately, policymakers still seem to be pushing the same old logic of ‘give people information and they will make informed choices’, without further thought as to how this information should be presented. The logic is threatening to creep into new pieces of legislation that are currently being developed as part of the Digital Single Market. In recent documents published by the Commission about the upcoming geo-blocking legislative proposal, there are ominous references to ‘imposing transparency obligations’ to explain when and why geo-blocking is being used. This rings cookie law alarm bells in my head. The logic is there again – give people information about geo-blocking practices, and they will make informed choices. I can imagine pop-ups appearing every time I click on a different product as I do my online shopping:  “This product is only available in our UK, German, French and Dutch stores. It is not available in the Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Spain or Greece. It may be available in Estonia, Ireland and Luxembourg subject to our geo-blocking policy. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of geo-blocking. For more details about geo-blocking and how to manage it, click here to read our geo-blocking policy”.

The challenges of the DSM are not purely regulatory. The implementation is also crucial.

Maybe it’s time for policymakers to step back and consider alternative ways to help people make informed choices online. Simply throwing information at us does not seem to be working. And the more information we have to wade through in order to do basic things online, the less we will care about what it actually says. As the Commission moves forward with the Digital Single Market (DSM), it has the opportunity to bring together expert stakeholders from across the tech sector to try and find a better way to achieve this. They could bring in UX experts, web designers, e-commerce and online marketing analysts, experts in online behaviour and monitoring and many, many others. The challenges of the DSM are not purely regulatory. The implementation is also crucial and, when it comes to digital policy, regulation needs to be designed with the implementation in mind. This can be done hand-in-hand with industry experts, who would welcome the opportunity to avoid another cookie law coming into force in several years’ time. Let’s not repeat the mistakes of the past with the geo-blocking proposal.

Catherine Armitage