European Union

2015 Report on Turkey
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/kosovo_flag_ok_thumb_169_1361534608_1361534411_129_97shar_c1.jpg

The relations between the European Union and Kosovo are based on the Stabilisation and  Association Agreement signed on 27 October, in Brussels.

Download this video here.

When we last met in December, I pledged that Europe would stay the course on Ukraine, and I asked the same of Ukraine. Since then, we have delivered on that commitment.

The Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area is now provisionally applied, which will contribute to improving Ukraine's economy and strengthen its economic reform agenda.

Tomorrow marks two years since the illegal annexation of Crimea and Sevastopol by the Russian Federation. I assured President Poroshenko that our policy of non-recognition will remain in place.

We continue to support the diplomatic efforts aimed at implementing the Minsk agreements. Further determined efforts are needed. Our economic sanctions against Russia remain linked to the complete fulfilment of the Minsk Agreements.

We have also discussed the issue of Nadiya Savchenko, who is still in illegal detention in Russia. Let me in this context reiterate the call by the EU for her immediate release, along with Oleh Sentsov and all other illegally detained Ukrainian citizens.

President Poroshenko also outlined the efforts to overcome current political difficulties inside Ukraine. I hope that a solution will soon be found, which will enable Ukraine to continue the reforms demanded by the Ukrainian people. The IMF package needs to be delivered in full and the EU stands by you in these reform efforts.

I am also happy to note that further steps have been taken on visa liberalisation. Following the positive report by the Commission in December, Ukraine has taken the key steps in meeting its outstanding commitments. I trust it will soon be possible to take the next steps towards finalising this process.

Now let me make a few short comments on the European Council meeting. Most of the attention is focused on the objective to agree on a further strengthening of our cooperation with Turkey. As the negotiations intensify and we are moving into difficult talks, I want to recall three basic principles that will guide our work.

 First, the agreement must be acceptable to all 28 Member States, no matter big or small.

 Second, the agreement must fully comply with EU and international law.

And third, the agreement must effectively help to solve the migration crisis and contribute to our comprehensive strategy, which includes getting back to Schengen, ending the wave-through policy, humanitarian assistance to Greece, support to the Western Balkans and of course the reinforced cooperation with Turkey.

Only if we all work together in a coordinated manner and keep our cool, will we achieve success. I am cautiously optimistic, but frankly speaking more cautious than optimistic.

Mirza
Area of Freedom, Security and Justice
The Dublin III Regulation allows Member States to send an applicant for international protection to a safe third country, irrespective of whether it is the Member State responsible for processing the application or another Member State

Ruijssenaars and Jansen
Transport
National authorities carry out general monitoring activities in order to guarantee air passengers’ rights but are not required to act on individual complaints

Mc Fadden
SERV
Advocate General Szpunar: the operator of a shop, hotel or bar who offers a Wi-Fi network free of charge to the public is not liable for copyright infringements committed by users of that network

The new “Privacy Shield” framework on EU-US transfers of personal data by private firms, which is to replace the former "Safe Harbour" one, will be debated by Civil Liberties Committee MEPs in a hearing on Thursday afternoon. Austrian citizen Max Schrems, whose court case against facebook led to Safe Harbour's downfall, the US lead negotiator, the EU Data Protection Supervisor, representatives from the Article 29 Working Party, the European Commission and others will all be quizzed on the deal.
Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

The new “Privacy Shield” framework on EU-US transfers of personal data by private firms, which is to replace the former "Safe Harbour" one, will be debated by Civil Liberties Committee MEPs in a hearing on Thursday afternoon. Austrian citizen Max Schrems, whose court case against facebook led to Safe Harbour's downfall, the US lead negotiator, the EU Data Protection Supervisor, representatives from the Article 29 Working Party, the European Commission and others will all be quizzed on the deal.
Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

Length of video : 155'
You may manually download this video in WMV (1.4Gb) 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

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

Richard Nixon, left, with British prime minister Harold Wilson at Downing Street in 1969

Frost: “So in a sense what you’re saying is that there are certain situations…where the president can decide that it’s in the best interest of the nation or something and do something illegal?”

Nixon: “Well, when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal.”

When it comes to the refugee crisis, Nixonian thinking appears to have taken over the EU’s institutions. Since the outline of a controversial deal with Turkey emerged last Monday, officials have repeated the mantra: whatever the EU does, it will be legal – and in the best interests of Europe. But doubts, both legal and practical, still remain.

On Wednesday, Frans Timmermans, the orotund first vice president of the European Commission, spelled out how the EU will try to return migrants and asylum seekers to Turkey without trampling on EU and international law. He said all asylum seekers on Greek islands would be subject to a proper hearing to determine whether their application is admissible – as is required in the Geneva Convention. This principle is also contained in a draft EU-Turkey agreement distributed to national capitals last night by Donald Tusk, who will host a two-day summit to hammer out the refugee deal starting today.

But for this to happen, Greece’s asylum system needs to be bulked up to cope with 10,000 arrivals per week. Extra judges and translators will be flown onto its islands, while reception facilities must be transformed into something resembling detention centres. In short, the system needs to be transformed from a dysfunctional mess labelled “degrading” by the European Court of Human Rights into the bulwark of the EU’s response to the refugee crisis. If the Greeks fail, and the system degenerates into a network of kangaroo courts rubber stamping decisions, then Europe’s actual courts – in either Strasbourg (European Court of Human Rights) or Luxembourg (European Court of Justice) – would likely strike the deal down.

Read more

 

There’s not much that’s clear so far in the referendum, but one thing that looks pretty certain is that the campaign has yet to catch the public’s interest fully. Indeed, it might not be pushing things too far to say that most people don’t really care.

The reasons for this are many and various. Firstly, the EU has not been an issue of significant public interest for over a decade: as much as it’s motivated Tory MPs and Eurosceptic activists, the same hasn’t been true of the wider population. Secondly, and related to this, levels of knowledge about the EU remain low, which acts as a disincentive to engage with substantive points of debate. Finally, this is a very long campaign, having been set in train properly by Cameron’s general election success last May, with a couple of years before that of it being a possibility.

In short, people don’t care, don’t understand and don’t feel a sense of urgency.

Clearly, some of this is contingent: as we close in on 23 June, so more people will become interested and engaged. However, the question will be whether this is a big or a small effect.

Why does this matter?

There are two main arguments on this. The main one is the democratic need for participation in a mechanism that is precisely designed to let people have a voice. Whatever the outcome, if it results from a low turnout, then it robs that decision of much of its legitimacy. That holds notwithstanding the British political convention that non-participation is a valid political act: since politicians have decided that they cannot make the decision themselves, it falls to the citizenry to take that role.

The second argument is more self-serving for the Remain camp. Turnout looks more and more to be the crucial factor in this referendum: the polling strongly suggests that the higher that turnout, the more likely a Remain vote will be. This matters all the more, given the lack of obvious movement in polls in recent weeks, despite the European Council deal, Boris’ coming-out or any other event. Of course, the flip side of this is that if turnout can be raised, and Leave still win, then Leave’s mandate will be all the stronger.

How do you get lift-off?

Motivations to one side, the question then is one of how you get significant public engagement. As I’ve argued on these pages many times before, engagement would not only be good for democracy, but also for the consolidation of a clearer British policy towards the EU, which has long floundered on a lack of obvious objectives.

If we assume that there will not be a spontaneous engagement by most people, then something needs to happen to make engagement look attractive. Here it’s helpful to think about this in terms of positive and negative drivers.

On the positive side, we might have the arrival of a strong voice into the debate, who fuels a lot of public interest. However, even writing that sentence highlights the difficulty: we’ve shot our bolts on Boris, Blair, Obama, Clarkson and even the Queen, so it’s not going to be anyone you’ve heard of.

Likewise, the structural inability of the Leave campaign to settle on a single plan for post-membership and the indifference of Remain to strategise how they will continue to promote British interests within the EU mean that the scope of a positive agenda also looks slim.

Negative drivers look more likely. The reaction to external voices – essentially, “butt out of our debate” – illustrates this well, where debate is not valued per se, but only within a heavily gate-kept framework. The things that are more likely to cut through that are also more likely to be negative articulations of fears or risks.

Partly, that comes from the wider environment. An EU facing another summer of the migrant crisis, weak Eurozone economic performance, aggressive Russian posturing, awkward Turkish and TTIP negotiations and assorted populist challenges within member states looks a lot like a recipe for multiple negative headlines. Worse still, those potential points of weakness or failure would go straight to challenging what limited legitimacy the EU has, based on its outputs.

Making that even more difficult, both sides in the campaign might be tempted to push negative claims about each other. While Leave might have an embarrassment of riches in extrapolating from the EU’s failures, so too can Remain make hay from the contradictions that arise from the multiple alternative futures offered outside the EU. Whatever one thinks of “Project Fear” type agendas, shock stories do have some media value. It’s not hard to imagine pieces about either outcome will destroy the NHS, cripple the economy, mean the end of the British countryside as we know it, and the rest.

To some extent, all of these things are already out there: indeed, that rather proves the point that publics aren’t that engaged. Drivers can only got so far if they lack receptive audiences. The danger is that the only things that matter are those that occur in the final couple of weeks: given the extent of the ramifications of the decision, that looks rather careless, both on the part of politicians and on the part of citizens.

The post Achieving lift-off in the referendum appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

Good evening. We have just had a useful Tripartite Social Summit. I am glad that we have changed the format so we meet at a sensible distance from the European Council. This way we can take the views of the social partners more fully on board. I think everyone appreciated the freer atmosphere in which we had a really substantial exchange of views.

Today, we discussed job creation and inclusive growth. The situation in the European Union is far from terrible with average unemployment now down to less than 9 per cent. At the same time, serious issues remain. We need to keep the recovery going. In this respect, implementing reforms to boost the growth potential of our economies is key. We have to demonstrate that prosperity is really returning. This is a race against time and against the populists.

The migration crisis affects all of us, but the social partners are truly on the front-lines. This is why we discussed today how we can protect our own people from the negative impact of the current crisis, while also doing our duty to those seeking international protection. I am happy to say that the partners came to the table today not just with their concerns, but also with constructive ideas. We examined the possibilities and challenges of integrating those seeking asylum into our labour markets.

Let me end with a few remarks on the European Council on migration tomorrow and Friday. Firstly, the objective of the summit is clear: To conclude an agreement to further strengthen our cooperation with Turkey in order to stem the flow of migrants from Turkey to Europe. But as my talks in the last ten days have proven as well as my trip to Nicosia and Ankara yesterday, there is still a lot to be done before we can reach an agreement acceptable to each and everyone of our 28 Member States and Turkey.

Secondly, there is still a number of issues to be resolved and on which we are working. The most important one, where we cannot and will not compromise, is the absolute need to respect both our EU law and international law. This is indispensable. Without that Europe will no longer be Europe.

Lastly, while we all focus on how we can further strengthen our cooperation with Turkey on migration and beyond, we should not forget the larger picture. No matter how good and game-changing such an agreement is, it will not in itself end the migration crisis. But it can and should help. That is why we cannot afford to rely on this agreement alone. And that is why we have to remain serious on our common European comprehensive strategy that goes beyond Turkey. Thank you.

The Committee of Permanent Representatives (Coreper) of the Council took note of a provisional agreement reached by the Netherlands presidency on 15 March 2016 with European Parliament representatives, aimed at establishing a multiannual plan on fisheries of cod, herring and sprat in the Baltic Sea. The terms of the agreement are subject to confirmation by Coreper in the coming weeks.

Commenting on the agreement, the Dutch minister for Agriculture, Martijn van Dam, said that "this multi-annual fisheries plan is the first of its kind after the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) in 2013. The plan is consistent and fully in line with the principles of this major reform. The agreement on this new plan paves the way to prepare similar multi-annual plans for fisheries in other geographical areas according to the same model, starting with the renewal of the multi-annual fisheries plan for the North Sea". He also hailed the work made by previous presidencies and the excellent cooperation of the European Parliament and the Commission in achieving the agreement. 

The new plan will replace the existing management plan for the Baltic Sea cod stocks, in place since 2007, with a multispecies approach, including the stocks of herring and sprat which were not yet subject to a management plan. 

It seeks to ensure the sustainable exploitation of these stocks and provide stability of fishing opportunities, while ensuring that management is based on the most up to date scientific information. The new plan will benefit from the involvement of those who know the region best as they will be able to adapt the measures at regional level to the specificities of the fisheries concerned. 

It is also an useful example for a new generation of multiannual fisheries management plans, which are one of the main operational tools of the new CFP.   

Next steps 

After endorsement  by the Coreper of the draft regulation, the Council and the European Parliament will have to formally adopt the final text of the regulation before its publication in the Official Journal of the EU.   

Background

In October 2014, the Commission presented a proposal for a draft regulation on the multi-species plan in the Baltic Sea. The Council adopted a general approach on 20 April 2015 and the European Parliament voted on amendments on 28 April 2015.

AMENDMENTS 1 - 29 - Draft opinion Implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities with special regard to the Concluding Observations of the UN CRPD Committee
Committee on Foreign Affairs

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

General : The terrorist attacks in Paris last November have led to the European Commission proposing updated rules to prevent guns ending up in the wrong hands. However, could these new rules have unintended consequences? The internal market committee debated the proposals and their possible impact with experts during a hearing on Tuesday 15 March.

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

General : The terrorist attacks in Paris last November have led to the European Commission proposing updated rules to prevent guns ending up in the wrong hands. However, could these new rules have unintended consequences? The internal market committee debated the proposals and their possible impact with experts during a hearing on Tuesday 15 March.

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

On 16 March 2016 the Council agreed to the use of funds from the EU budget to finance emergency support for Greece and other member states overwhelmed by the refugee crisis. 

By backing draft amending budget no 1 as proposed by the Commission on 9 March 2016, Council agreed to make available of €100 million in commitments and €80.2 million in payments from the 2016 EU budget.

“This decision enables the EU to cover immediate and urgent needs resulting from the massive inflow of refugees. We want to alleviate the poor humanitarian situation for migrants within the EU as soon as possible. That's what this EU emergency support mechanism is all about”, said Jeroen Dijsselbloem, Minister for Finance of the Netherlands and President of the Council.

The resources approved by the Council are financed through redeployments within heading 3 (Security and citizenship) of the EU's multiannual financial framework. Depending on the evolving needs the Commission may make further proposals to secure the necessary funding of the emergency support for countries faced with major humanitarian crises, such as large numbers of arriving refugees. 

The Commission estimates that €300 million will be needed to provide emergency support relating to refugees in 2016, and a further €200 million in each of the years 2017 and 2018. 

By accepting draft amending budget 1/2016 the Council also approved the reinforcement of staffing levels of the European counter-terrorism centre in Europol. This is to enable the agency to play a central role in the fight against terrorism in the EU following the terrorist attacks in Paris of 13 November 2015. 

Next steps 

Draft amending budget 1/2016 still needs the approval of the European Parliament. If the Parliament accepts the Council's position the amending budget will be adopted. If the Parliament adopts amendments a three-week conciliation period would start. 

Background

The approval of draft amending budget 1/2016 follows the creation of an EU emergency support mechanism on 15 March 2016. On the same day the Council activated this new instrument for helping Greece and other member states to deal with the current influx of refugees.

Dear colleagues,

Our European Council Thursday and Friday, including our meeting with Turkey's Prime Minister, will just like 10 days ago be dominated by the migration crisis.

When we met on the 7th of March, we received the new proposal from Turkey on how to further strengthen our cooperation too late to allow for a common decision. Instead you mandated me to prepare an agreement on the basis of a number of principles outlined in our statement. The objective is clear: an agreement acceptable to all 28 Member States as well as to our Turkish partners. Work is progressing but there is still a lot to do.

I have asked my staff to present a first full draft for a joint EU-Turkey Statement to your ambassadors today to move forward in our discussions on how we can address the concerns raised in our meeting last week. The catalogue of issues to be resolved before we can conclude an agreement is long. An absolute priority is to ensure that our decisions respect both EU and international law. We also have to look into how to prevent new sea or land routes for irregular migration opening from Turkey to the EU. And we have to be ready to assist Greece with the practical implementation of the new return mechanism, via the European Asylum Support Office and if necessary via direct assistance from Member States.

Another priority is to see how we can speed up the disbursement of the initial € 3 billions to Syrians under temporary protection in Turkey as well as to discuss modalities for voluntary resettlement.

To prepare our meeting, I held intensive talks in Nicosia and Ankara yesterday. When it comes to the accession process, my conviction is that we need to find a way of using the process of reenergising EU-Turkey relations, which goes far beyond migration, so that this process also becomes an opportunity to support the settlement talks in Cyprus. Only if this is possible, can we move forward here.

Let me conclude with a few remarks on the running order. On Thursday, we will start at 16h00 with the traditional exchange of views with the President of the European Parliament followed by the family photo. Our afternoon working session will, as usual in the Spring, begin with a discussion of the economic situation,  the implementation of structural reforms undertaken by Member States  and the  setting of priorities for the European Semester. The President of the European Central Bank will join us for that discussion. We will adopt the conclusions on this part of our agenda at the end of the discussion. I would also like to use this working session to agree our conclusions on climate change and energy security.

Over our working dinner, we will hold a comprehensive debate on migration and EU-Turkey relations. Beyond agreeing a common position on an EU-Turkey agreement, we also need to take stock of the situation along the Western Balkans route after our common decision to end the irregular flows last week as well as our effort to massively step up humanitarian support, not least to Greece. On Friday morning, EU Heads of State or Government will reconvene at 10h00 for a breakfast meeting with Prime Minister Davutoğlu with a view to adopting the EU-Turkey Statement. That meeting should conclude our proceedings. I look forward to seeing you in Brussels tomorrow.