European Parliamentary Research Service Blog

Written by Michael Kaczmarek,

© andriano_cz / Fotolia

The forthcoming mid-term elections in the United States, to be held on 6 November 2018, are likely to offer a closely watched political verdict on the first two years of Donald Trump’s presidency. They will define not only the composition of the 116th US Congress, to meet from 3 January 2019 to 3 January 2021, but also the power balance both within Congress and between Congress and the President.

In US mid-term elections, the entire House of Representatives and one third of the Senate are up for election. The Democratic party, currently the minority in both chambers, aims to regain control of the House of Representatives, at least, although the conditions for its winning back the Senate are less favourable.

Any shift in power towards the Democrats will result in increased scrutiny and pressure on the sitting President, and might lead to detailed investigations in Congress into the performance of his Administration, and potentially to an impeachment attempt against President Trump personally. By contrast, if the Republicans succeed in retaining control of both chambers, this will consolidate the President’s power-base within his own party, create a more favourable backdrop to his intended run for re-election in 2020, and exacerbate the identity and leadership crises within the Democratic party.

This Briefing provides background to the forthcoming mid-term elections, by offering an overview of how the US Congress is elected, by explaining issues such as voter registration, voting methods, the way the primaries work, election security issues and gerrymandering. It goes on to analyse the potential political implications of the mid-term election results.

Read the complete briefing on ‘The US mid-term elections of November 2018‘ on the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Naja Bentzen,

© Robert Wilson / Fotolia

The techniques used by anti-democratic state and non-state actors to disrupt or influence democratic processes are constantly evolving. The use of algorithms, automation and artificial intelligence is boosting the scope and the efficiency of disinformation campaigns and related cyber-activities. In response, the EU is stepping up its efforts to protect its democratic processes from manipulation ahead of the European elections in May 2019.

Background: evolving information influence techniques

Computational propaganda has been defined as ‘the use of algorithms, automation, and human curation to purposefully distribute misleading information over social media networks’. These activities can feed into influence campaigns: coordinated, illegitimate efforts of a third state or non-state agent to affect democratic processes and political decision-making, including (but not limited to) election interference. Experts assert that disinformation (deliberately deceptive information) turns one of democracy’s greatest assets – free and open debate – into a vulnerability. This affects us all: by 2020, virtually everyone in the world will be online. Two-thirds of US adults and over half of Europeans get their news on social media, despite concerns over inaccuracy. Social media are key for young people to develop their political identities.

Algorithms, bots, trolls and artificial intelligence Algorithms on social media and search engines

Algorithms are processes in (computational) calculations or operations. Online platforms such as Google, Facebook and Twitter use various algorithms to predict what users are interested in seeing, spark engagement and maximise revenues. Based on a user’s habits and history of clicks, shares and likes, algorithms filter and prioritise the content that the user receives. As users tend to engage more with content that sparks an emotional reaction and/or confirms already existing biases, this type of content is prioritised. This can isolate different user groups within echo chambers: social spaces that reinforce beliefs among like-minded users, contributing to political polarisation. When data from 87 million Facebook users (including that of 2.7 million EU citizens) were improperly shared with the political consultancy company Cambridge Analytica, data about sexual orientation, race and intelligence were gathered by algorithms and used to micro-target and mobilise voters in the US presidential election and the UK referendum on EU membership. Calls for greater algorithmic accountability and transparency keep mounting.

Bots: automated accounts

A bot (short for robot) is an automated account programmed to interact like a user, in particular on social media. For disinformation purposes, illegitimate bots can be used to push certain narratives, amplify misleading messaging and distort online discourse. Some of the bots used to spread disinformation in the context of the 2017 French presidential election had previously been used in the US election to spread pro-Trump content, indicating that there is a black market for reusable disinformation bot networks. Responding to growing concern about the impact of disinformation bots, Twitter suspended up to 70 million accounts between May and June 2018. Facebook removed 583 million fake accounts in the first quarter of 2018 in an attempt to combat false news. Experts predict that the next generation of bots will use natural language processing, making it harder to identify them as bots.

Trolls: online bullies

Trolls are human online agents, sometimes sponsored by state actors to harass other users or post divisive content to spark controversies. However, ordinary citizens can also engage in trolling activities. One prominent example of coordinated, state-sponsored trolling is the Russian Internet Research Agency IRA), based in St Petersburg and run by Yevgeny Prigozhin, a close aide of Russian President Vladimir Putin. In February 2018, US Special Counsel Robert Mueller indicted Prigozhin and 12 other individuals for their roles in the 2016 US presidential election. On 17 October 2018, Twitter disclosed data on millions of tweets, images and videos linked to troll farms in Russia and Iran, shedding light on their activities from 2013 to 2018.

Artificial intelligence, MADCOMs and deep fakes

Machine-driven communications (MADCOMs) marry artificial intelligence (AI) with machine learning to generate text, audio and video content, making it easier to tailor messages to individual users’ personalities and backgrounds. For example, MADCOM can use chatbots using natural language processing to engage users in online discussions, or even to troll and threaten people. As deep-learning algorithms evolve, it is becoming easier to manipulate sound, image and video for impersonation, or to make it appear that a person did or said something they did not (‘deep fakes’). This will make it increasingly difficult to distinguish between real and (highly realistic) fake audiovisual content, further hampering trust online.

Related cyber-activities

Disinformation activities are often combined with cyber-attacks, such as hacks, during which information is collected and selectively leaked to undermine the adversary. The main state actors involved in cyber-attacks on foreign adversaries are China, Russia, Iran and North Korea. A number of techniques are described below.

Spear phishing

In spear phishing (targeted phishing), emails with infected attachments or links are sent to individuals or organisations in order to access confidential information. When opening the link or attachment, malware is released, or the recipient is led to a website with malware that infects the recipient’s computer. During the 2016 US presidential campaign, Fancy Bear – a hacker group affiliated with Russian military intelligence – used spear phishing to steal emails from individuals and organisations associated with the US Democratic Party. The online entities DCLeaks and Guccifer 2.0 leaked the data via media outlets and WikiLeaks to damage Hillary Clinton’s campaign. In July 2018, Special Counsel Robert Mueller indicted 12 Russian intelligence officers alleged to be behind the attack. Another state-sponsored Russian hacker group, Cozy Bear, has used spear phishing to target Norwegian and Dutch authorities. This prompted the decision to count the votes for the 2017 Dutch general election by hand.

Distributed denial of service (DDoS)

In DDoS attacks, massive amounts of information are sent to targeted websites, overloading and freezing them. In the first known coordinated cyberwar against a country, the removal of a Soviet war memorial in Estonia sparked street protests, followed by cyber-attacks, including DDoS attacks that paralysed the government, banks, telecommunications companies, internet service providers and media outlets for weeks. Estonia blamed Russia for the attacks. The Kremlin denied any involvement. In July 2018, hackers used DDoS to disrupt Democratic campaign websites during the US primary election campaign.

Brute force attacks on internet of things (IoT) devices

Ahead of the July 2018 summit between US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Helsinki, China-based hackers launched a wave of attacks on IoT devices in Finland, aiming to take control of the devices to collect audio or visual information. IoT devices are often poorly secured, thus vulnerable to brute force attacks – trial-and-error attempts to crack a password – on remote management ports.

Related EU policy responses: defending democratic elections in a digital age In his 12 September 2018 state of the Union address, President Jean-Claude Juncker announced the Commission’s proposed new rules to protect Europe’s democratic processes from manipulation by third countries or private interests. These measures, as laid out in the Commission’s September 2018 communication on securing free and fair European elections, include recommendations on election cooperation networks, online transparency, protection against cybersecurity incidents and steps to counter disinformation campaigns in the context of the European elections. As election periods are a strategic target of hybrid threats, the Commission and the High Representative identified steps in June 2018 to boost resilience and capabilities. Increased EU-NATO cooperation on hybrid threats has materialised in the European Centre of Excellence for Countering Hybrid Threats, established in Finland in 2017. Following Parliament’s call to look into the problem of fake news, in its 26 April 2018 communication on online disinformation the Commission issued an action plan and proposed tools to counter online disinformation, including a code of practice for online platforms to increase clarity about algorithms and close down bots and fake accounts. The Facebook/Cambridge Analytica revelations highlighted the relevance of the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation, which took effect on 25 May 2018 and gives the EU tools to address the unlawful use of personal data, including during elections.

Read this At a glance on ‘Computational propaganda techniques‘ on the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Philip Boucher,

© brat82/AdobeStock

Until recently, discussions of technology and elections focused primarily on e-voting. Controversies highlighted the potential for modernising the voting system, as well as the security flaws that open opportunities for interference and manipulation. Now, the role of technology in elections is much broader – and so are the controversies.

On one hand, social media platforms have made communication between politicians and the electorate more direct than ever. On the other, electoral campaigns can target smaller groups of people with highly customised messages, which can lead to the fragmentation of debates and the emergence of polarised political bubbles. The opportunities for outside interference and manipulation have multiplied, as any actor can deploy targeted messages, even if they are not part of the official campaign. Furthermore, automated ‘bots’ flood social media platforms with messages that simultaneously promote various extreme perspectives with the ultimate aim of polarising society.

Information about these messages is imbalanced in favour of the platforms and their paying clients. They have access to masses of information and analytical data about the citizens, while citizens have no access to the processes that decide which information they receive, nor to the full range of promises made and sentiments aired to other groups. This makes it difficult to make well-informed voting decisions before elections, and to hold politicians to account after elections. The burden falls upon the citizen to choose between risking exposure to cutting-edge propaganda techniques if they use social media, and missing out on key loci for democratic participation if they avoid such platforms.

STOA and its European Science-Media Hub (ESMH) are organising a workshop entitled ‘How to win elections: Reflections on the use and misuse of technology in electoral campaigns’. This will be an opportunity to learn more about the use of technology and analytical techniques in the context of contemporary electoral campaigns, and to participate in a debate with key experts in the subject. The workshop will open with a welcome address from STOA Chair Eva KAILI (S&D, Greece), and an introduction from the workshop’s chair and Lead STOA Panel Member for this event María Teresa GIMÉNEZ BARBAT (ALDE, Spain). This will be followed by a panel discussion, including presentations from Jeroen van den HOVEN (Delft University of Technology), Sophie LECHELER (University of Vienna), Inès LEVY (Liegey Muller Pons) and David STILLWELL (University of Cambridge). The event will conclude with a Q&A session and a debate with all participants.

Interested in joining the workshop? Register to attend or watch the live webstream on the STOA event page.

With European elections coming up in May 2019, you probably want to know how the European Union impacts your daily life, before you think about voting. In the latest in a series of posts on what Europe does for you, your family, your business and your wellbeing, we look at what Europe does for consumers making cross-border payments.

Twitter Hashtag #EUandME

Whether you are travelling for leisure or business within the European Union, you should be able to make deposits in or withdrawals from a payment account, make payment transactions, or send money home in an easy and secure way. To achieve this goal, the EU has set up the necessary legal framework (the Payment Services Directive, first referred to as PSD 1 (2007/64/EC) now replaced by PSD 2 (EU) 2015/2366), and Regulation (EU) 924/2009 on charges for cross-border payments), and contributed to the establishment of the single euro payments area (SEPA).

© rh2010/ Fotolia

The legal framework on payment services helps – among other things – to ensure that institutions offering these services have good governance standards and provide clear information, both before and after providing their services. It also lays down rules to ensure that customers are refunded if a payment transaction has been wrongly authorised by a payment provider. In addition, it sets strict requirements to protect financial data. Lastly, it has equalised fees for cross-border and national payments in euro within the EU, reducing transaction fees to a few cents.

The single euro payments area (SEPA), meanwhile, harmonises the way cash-less euro payments are made across Europe, allowing consumers, businesses and public administrations to make and receive credit transfers, direct debit payments and card payments under the same basic conditions.

Further information

• Payment services (PSD 1) – Directive 2007/64/EC, https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/payment-services-psd-1-directive-2007-64-ec_en
• Payment services (PSD 2) – Directive (EU) 2015/2366 , https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/payment-services-psd-2-directive-eu-2015-2366_en
• Single euro payments area (SEPA), https://ec.europa.eu/info/business-economy-euro/banking-and-finance/consumer-finance-and-payments/payment-services/single-euro-payments-area-sepa_en

With European elections coming up in May 2019, you probably want to know how the European Union impacts your daily life, before you think about voting. In the latest in a series of posts on what Europe does for you, your family, your business and your wellbeing, we look at what Europe does for weight-loss dieters.

Twitter Hashtag #EUandME

If you are one of the many among us who have already tried all sorts of diets while trying to lose weight, you don’t need anyone telling you ‘just eat less and exercise more’. As everyone knows, it’s much more complicated than that.

On a positive note, the European Union has agreed on uniform labelling requirements, requiring all packaged food to display a list of ingredients and information on nutrition. Whether you are avoiding carbohydrates, fat or sugar, you can compare how much each product contains per 100 grams, as well as its total energy content.

If you decide to go for meal replacement products for a while, the EU has also set specific compositional requirements for them, based on a scientific opinion by the European Food Safety Authority, to make sure they give you the essential nutrients that your body needs. New, updated rules will apply from October 2022.

©Picture-Factory / Fotolia

In addition, there is legislation in place to protect consumers from false nutrition and health claims. Any claims, such as ‘low fat’ or ‘high fibre’, have to be based on scientific evidence and be authorised for use in the EU.

Drinks can be tricky, too. A drink described as ‘sparkling water with fruit juice’ can contain as many calories as a regular sugary soft drink. And not many people are aware that dry white wine (77kcal per 100 ml), contains more calories than a regular cola (42kcal per 100 ml). For the energy content of alcoholic drinks, you still need to go and search the internet, as alcoholic drinks are exempt from the obligation to list ingredients and nutrition information.

Further information

• European Commission’s Directorate General for Health and Food Safety website, https://ec.europa.eu/food/safety/labelling_nutrition/labelling_legislation_en
• European Commission’s Directorate General for Health and Food Safety website, https://ec.europa.eu/food/safety/labelling_nutrition/special_groups_food/weight_reduction_en
• European Food Safety Authority’s website, https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/science/nutrition

With European elections coming up in May 2019, you probably want to know how the European Union impacts your daily life, before you think about voting. In the latest in a series of posts on what Europe does for you, your family, your business and your wellbeing, we look at what Europe does for people from sparsely populated areas.

Twitter Hashtag #EUandME

People living in sparsely populated areas (e.g. parts of Scandinavia, Spain, Italy, Greece or Croatia) face common challenges, including a limited range of job opportunities, high poverty levels and the dilapidation of public services, such as transport, education and healthcare. These regions often feature specific geographic characteristics: they might be islands, mountainous areas or border regions. Usually, sparsely populated areas are a long way from major urban centres and lack transport connections to them. Transport for goods and people may be expensive and take a long time.

© dinosmichail / Fotolia

The EU recognises that regions that suffer from severe and permanent natural or demographic handicaps, such as the northernmost regions with very low population density and island and mountainous regions deserve special attention. It therefore plays an active role in helping people in these areas to improve their living conditions by means of various programmes and measures. These focus mostly on the areas of research, innovation, new technologies, sustainable management of natural resources, investment in renewable energy, energy efficiency and support for small and medium sized companies. In addition, a number of other EU funds in various policy fields can further contribute to supporting these regions in the areas of immigration, education and culture, etc. The idea is to use these funds to benefit people by means of economic growth, the creation of jobs, sustainability and innovation.

Further information

• EPRS briefing on Sparsely populated and under-populated areas, 2016, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2016/586632/EPRS_BRI%282016%29586632_EN.pdf
• EPRS Guide to EU Funding 2014-2020, 2017, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/EPRS/Funding_Guide.pdf

With European elections coming up in May 2019, you probably want to know how the European Union impacts your daily life, before you think about voting. In the latest in a series of posts on what Europe does for you, your family, your business and your wellbeing, we look at what Europe does for users of wearable sensors.

Twitter Hashtag #EUandME

Have you noticed people watching their wrist while doing sport? Perhaps, like an increasing number of people, you enjoy using mobile and wearable devices to track your fitness by measuring your athletic performance, calculate the calories you burn, your sleep, or stress level.

Wearable devices are used for different purposes including healthcare (e.g. to monitor heartbeat or the level of insulin in diabetic patients and provide tailored treatments). Relying on built-in sensors that recognise human features and the environment they can combine large amounts of data. Europe is the second largest market for wearable sensors and the EU has funded several projects on wearable computing.

© LMproduction / Fotolia

However, as the use of ‘wearables’ like smart clothes and watches grows, the risks related to monitoring and sharing of personal data also increases. Wearables process and share personal data (including location data or internet address) with other connected devices, raising concerns about data protection and other rights. About 50 % of people in the EU say they are worried about the recording of everyday activities via phone or mobile applications.

The EU makes sure that privacy and data protection rules adapt to new technologies to protect your rights. From May 2018, a new European framework strengthens these rights, including getting easy-to-understand information about how your data is used; having several options to give consent (browser privacy settings); and having your data deleted. The new rules should include analytical data gathered from apps and data emitted by terminals, like wifi.

Further information

• EPRS publication ‘Reform of the e-Privacy directive’, 2017, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2017/608661/EPRS_BRI(2017)608661_EN.pdf
• EPRS publication on fundamental rights implications of big data, 2017, https://epthinktank.eu/2017/03/10/fundamental-rights-implications-of-big-data-plenary-podcast/
• European Commission’s Directorate General for Justice and Consumers, data protection website https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-topic/data-protection_en

Written by Marcin Grajewski,

© theaphotography / Fotolia

At the European Council meeting on 18 October, European Union Heads of State or Government vowed to step up the fight against illegal migration, by intensifying efforts to crack down on smuggling networks, protect external borders and cooperate with countries of origin and transit. The EU’s southern borders remain under pressure from irregular migrants escaping poverty and conflicts in the Middle East and Africa, although the leaders noted that illegal border crossings into the EU have declined by 95 % from their peak in October 2015. The leaders also said in their conclusions that a joint task force should be established at Europol’s European Migrant Smuggling Centre. The European Commission is to propose a comprehensive set of implementation measures by December, and the leaders urged the European Parliament and Council to examine promptly the recent proposals on the Return Directive, the Asylum Agency and the European Border and Coast Guard.

This note offers links to commentaries and studies on migration by major international think tanks. Earlier papers on the same topic can be found in a previous edition of ‘What Think Tanks are Thinking’, published in June 2018.

Reforming Europe’s refugee policies: Austrian-Danish plan will not work
Centre for European Policy Studies, October 2018

Creating legal pathways to reduce irregular migration: What we can learn from Germany’s Western Balkan Regulation
German Marshall Fund, October 2018

More for less? Europe’s new wave of ‘migration deals’
European Council on Foreign Relations, October 2018

Migration is in the eye of the beholder
Istituto per gli Studi di Politica Internazionale, October 2018

The impact of refugees on the labour market: A big splash in a small pond?
Centre for European Policy Studies, October 2018

EU migration policy and regional integration in Africa: A new challenge for European policy coherence
Istituto Affari Internazionali, October 2018

Vom Notfall zum Regelfall: Der EU-Treuhandfonds für Afrika
Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, October 2018

Tech jobs for refugees: Assessing the potential of coding schools for refugee integration in Germany
Migration Policy Institute, October 2018

Die Zukunft von Schengen
Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, October 2018

Jobs in 2028: How will changing labor markets affect immigrant integration in Europe?
Migration Policy Institute, October 2018

Socio-economic challenges in Morocco: Migration, education, and employment
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Auswärtige Politik, October 2018

Sea arrivals to Italy: The cost of deterrence policies
Istituto per gli Studi di Politica Internazionale, October 2018

10,000 border guards for Frontex: Why the EU risks conflated expectations
European Policy Centre, September 2018

Libya: Getting serious about negotiations
Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, September 2018

Offshoring asylum and migration in Australia, Spain, Tunisia and the US: Lessons learned and feasibility for the EU
Centre for European Policy Studies, September 2018

Prioritising people: A progressive narrative on migration
Federation for European Progressive Studies, September 2018

Migration et développement: Trois graves erreurs
Institut des relations internationales et stratégiques, September 2018

The governance of migration and border controls in the European-North African context
Istituto Affari Internazionali, September 2018

Halting ambition: EU migration and security policy in the Sahel
European Council on Foreign Relations, September 2018

Sex and populism
Centre for European Policy Studies, September 2018

Is Europe afraid of migration?
Carnegie Europe, September 2018

Migratory management in Morocco: What do the stakeholders think?
Istituto Affari Internazionali, September 2018

On Europe’s external southern borders: Situation report on migration management
Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, August 2018

Centres contrôlés et plateformes régionales de débarquement: Vers une percée dans la solidarité entre États membres?
Jacques Delors Institute, August 2018

Deciding which road to take: Insights into how migrants and refugees in Greece plan onward movement
Migration Policy Institute, August 2018

Libya between conflict and migrants: Rethinking the role of militias
Istituto per gli Studi di Politica Internazionale, August 2018

The EU’s new migration partnership with Mali: Shifting towards a risky security migration development nexus
Egmont, College of Europe, August 2018

Analysing migration policy frames of Lebanese civil society organizations
Istituto Affari Internazionali, August 2018

Why access to energy can empower refugees
Chatham House, August 2018

Migrations: L’Europe à l’épreuve de la crise italienne
Institut français des relations internationales, July 2018

Profiteers of migration? Authoritarian states in Africa and European migration management
Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, July 2018

The oranges in Europe taste better
Heinrich Böll Stiftung, July 2018

EU policies for refugee protection and immigration: Why we need productive engagement with our neighbours, not border fences
Center for Social and Economic Research, July 2018

Read this briefing on ‘Migration‘ on the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Visit the European Parliament homepage on migration in Europe.

Written by Ralf Drachenberg and Suzana Anghel,

© fotolia

Although Brexit was the most anticipated point on the agenda, the European Council (Article 50) meeting of 17 October 2018 did not make any significant progress towards finalising a withdrawal agreement; nor did it decide to hold a special meeting on Brexit in November. There was consensus amongst EU Heads of State or Government that ‘for now, not enough progress has been made’ but they would ‘continue talks in a positive spirit’. At the regular European Council meeting, Heads of State or Government continued discussions on migration as well as internal security, following up on their informal meeting in Salzburg on 20 September. Regarding migration, they stressed the need to cooperate with countries of origin and transit, as well as in fighting people-smuggling-networks. On internal security, they adopted conclusions regarding many of the new threats the EU is facing, including cyber-attacks, disinformation campaigns and terrorism. They also addressed a number of external relations issues, including EU-Africa relations, the upcoming EU-League of Arab States meeting and climate change. The informal Euro Summit assessed the state of play on EMU, specifically the completion of banking union and the reform of the European Stability Mechanism.

1. European Council commitments: Implementation and new deadlines

Sebastian Kurz, Austrian Chancellor, and President-in-Office of the Council, provided an overview on the progress made in implementing previous European Council conclusions. The follow-up to new commitments made at this European Council meeting will be reported on at future meetings.
Table 1: New European Council commitments and requests with a specific time schedule

Policy area Action Actor Schedule Migration Develop operational measures to better monitor and disrupt smuggling networks’ online communication Council/ Commission 31 December 2018 Internal security Conclude negotiations on all cybersecurity proposals Co-legislators 18 April 2019 Internal security Agree on the proposal on e-evidence Co-legislators 18 April 2019 Internal security Agree on the proposal on access to financial information Co-legislators 18 April 2019 Internal security Agree on the proposal to better combat money laundering Co-legislators 31 December 2018 Internal security Conclude negotiations on a strengthened European Criminal Records System Co-legislators 31 December 2018 Internal security Conclude negotiations on the EU civil protection mechanism proposa Co-legislators 31 December 2018 Internal security Assess the implementation of the Code of Practice on disinformation Co-legislators 31 December 2018 2. European Council meeting Migration

At its formal meeting on18 October 2018, the European Council called for continuing the work on all elements of its ‘comprehensive approach to migration’. While recalling that ‘the number of detected illegal border crossings into the EU has been brought down by 95 % from its peak in October 2015’, it cautioned that ‘some recent internal and external flows warrant sustained attention’. The conclusions stressed that, following the informal Leaders’ discussions in Salzburg, cooperation with countries of origin and transit, particularly in North Africa, should be strengthened. This reiterates previous European Council conclusions since the start of the migration crisis, such as at the November 2016 summit in Valletta.

In the fight against people-smuggling networks, the European Council called for establishing a joint task force, with third-country partners, within Europol. It also invited the co-legislators to examine, as a matter of priority, the proposals on the return directive, the Asylum Agency and the European Border and Coast Guard. Heads of State or Government reiterated their call to do more on facilitating effective returns, in particular by better implementing existing readmission agreements and concluding new arrangements. Regarding the reform of the common European asylum system (CEAS), the European Council encouraged the Council Presidency to continue its work and conclude it as soon as possible. In this context the European Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs wrote a letter to the Austrian Council Presidency on 10 October 2018, expressing its disappointment on the state of play in the negotiations on CEAS reform, as despite two and a half years of negotiations, the co-legislators had not been able to adopt any of the seven specific proposals. They requested clarity from the Austrian Council Presidency on its plans to take this issue further, and stressed that Parliament rejects reopening negotiations on any of the specific proposals where agreement had already been reached by the co-legislators under the Bulgarian Council Presidency.

Main messages of the EP President. Referring to the reform of the CEAS, the President of the European Parliament, Antonio Tajani, stated: ‘the Council has not yet been able to adopt a negotiating mandate on two of the [7] proposals …. We in the Parliament find it difficult to understand why the Council does not apply the qualified majority rule …. We cannot go on being hostages to the unanimity principle.’ Regarding the issue of relocation and the principle of solidarity, he supported the idea that ‘those who do not want to take in asylum-seekers should be able to display their solidarity by other means, for example by providing financial or administrative support to the States receiving refugees’.

Internal security

On the issue of internal security, EU Heads of State or Government discussed many of the new threats the EU is facing, including cyber-attacks, hostile activities of foreign intelligence networks, disinformation campaigns, and radicalisation and terrorism. For many of the new policy initiatives in this area, they urged the co-legislators to consider them as a matter of priority, while also inviting them to speed up work on several of the ongoing legislative files in this area (see Table1).

As indicated by President Tusk prior to the meeting, EU Heads of State or Government condemned the hostile cyber-attack carried out against the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) and called for measures to ‘further strengthen [the EU’s] deterrence and resilience against hybrid, cyber, as well as chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear (CBRN) threats’. In this context, the European Council welcomed the adoption of a new regime of restrictive measures to address the use and proliferation of chemical weapons, and anticipates progress being made on the listing of relevant individuals and entities.

Following a recent letter by the governments of the UK, the Netherlands, Romania, Finland, Estonia and Lithuania, the European Council also agreed that, in the context of cybersecurity, work on restrictive measures should be taken forward.

EU Heads of State or Government also agreed on providing ‘law enforcement authorities and Europol with adequate resources to face new challenges posed by technological developments and the evolving security threat landscape’. They also called for examination of the proposal to extend the competences of the European Public Prosecutor’s office to cross-border terrorism.

Main messages of the EP President. As regards measures to combat disinformation and fake news, ‘I am delighted that the European Council considers the protection of our democratic system as a priority. […] We cannot stand idly by while our citizens’ rights to choose their elected representatives, freely and in full knowledge, is jeopardised.’

External relations

As flagged up in the EPRS outlook, EU Heads of State or Government discussed climate change ahead of the UN Climate Change Conference (COP24) to be held in Katowice, Poland, in December 2018. Referring to the latest special report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, they reiterated their support for the full implementation of the Paris Agreement, and expressed the view that parties to the Agreement should set more ambitious and comprehensive implementing rules.

The European Council prepared for the upcoming summit with the League of Arab States, to be held in Egypt in February 2019. The primary focus of the summit will be on the external dimension of migration, as announced by Donald Tusk at the informal European Council meeting held in Salzburg in September 2018.

Moreover, the European Council reiterated the EU’s commitment to taking the EU-Africa partnership to a new level, by developing ‘a fair and equal partnership’, underpinned by the necessary resources, aimed at advancing the socio-economic transformation of the African continent, and not just focused on migration. Heads of State or Government welcomed the initiative for a new Africa-Europe Alliance for Sustainable Investment and Jobs and called for proposals from Member States in this regard. They also emphasised their commitment to the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustain­able Development, and welcomed the Commission’s intention to publish a reflection paper in 2018.

Main messages of the EP President. President Tajani called for increased support in replenishing the EU Trust Fund for Africa, as well as for mobilising investments in the region.

3. Euro Summit

The informal Euro Summit, which took place over lunch on Thursday, assessed the state of play on EMU reform, specifically the completion of banking union, the reform of the European Stability Mechanism and the establishment of the European deposit insurance scheme. Decisions on these issues are expected in December.

The Commission President, Jean-Claude Juncker, confirmed that the Italian prime minister had presented his country’s budget to the leaders, but that the issue had not, however, been discussed in depth. He added that the Commission ‘will be examining [the Italian budget] with the same rigour and the same flexibility as is applied to examin[ing] others’.

4. European Council (Article 50) meeting

The most anticipated point on the agenda was clearly the European Council (Article 50) dinner discussion on Brexit. Preceding this, the UK Prime Minister, Theresa May, addressed the EU-27 leaders. She outlined the UK perspective on the state of play in the Brexit negotiations, but reportedly provided no new elements which could enable the discussions to be unlocked. Subsequently, based on a presentation by the EU’s Chief Negotiator, Michel Barnier, EU-27 Heads of State or Government discussed ways of taking the negotiations forward. There was consensus amongst Heads of State or Government that ‘so far not enough progress has been achieved’, but that negotiations should be continued in a positive spirit. Thus, for the moment, they postponed a decision to call a special meeting on Brexit – expected for November – although Donald Tusk declared his readiness to convene such a meeting, if and when the Union negotiator reports that decisive progress has been made. Prior to the meeting, he had already indicated that recent reports on the progress of the negotiations gave ‘no grounds for optimism’. He added that, for a breakthrough to take place, new facts were needed. These did not materialise at this meeting, in particular regarding the Irish border issue. President Tusk concluded that the European Council (Article 50) had again expressed its full trust in Michel Barnier, and asked him to continue efforts to achieve an agreement.

While the length of the transition period was not discussed, Mr Tusk indicated that if the UK would prefer a longer period than set out in the draft withdrawal agreement, the leaders ‘would be ready to consider it positively’. Jean-Claude Juncker indicated that extension of the transition period was a good option, which would provide room to find a sustainable solution.

While still hoping to reach an agreement, EU-27 Heads of State or Government called for a stepping-up of the EU’s preparations for a ‘no-deal’ scenario. While they did not discuss the issue, Heads of State or Government were informed by Jean-Claude Juncker, on the Commission’s work in this respect.

Main messages of the EP President. Participating for the first time at a European Council (Article 50) meeting, President Tajani reiterated the Parliament’s three priority issues for the Brexit negotiations, and stressed that ‘without resolving these three key points, it will be impossible for us to vote in favour of the agreement’. The Parliament wanted to achieve a withdrawal agreement, but not at any price. He also underlined that the EP favoured a three-year transition period.

Written by Wouter van Ballegooij and Cecilia Navarra,

EU Member States have committed to offering protection to those who have to leave their home country to seek safety from persecution or serious harm. Through the ‘Common European Asylum System’ (CEAS), the EU has developed legal and policy instruments for the management of asylum in the EU that apply from the moment someone has lodged an asylum application until the moment the application has been recognised or rejected upon appeal.

Gaps and barriers

© fotolia

However, there are significant structural weaknesses and shortcomings in the design and implementation of the CEAS and related measures, as exposed by the handling of the relatively high number of asylum applications during recent years. A new cost of non-Europe report maps gaps and barriers in the CEAS and related measures along the stages of the asylum journey from the pre-arrival phase, to the arrival, application and post application phase. The gaps identified arise either from shortcomings in the implementation of EU legislation at national level, or from gaps in current EU legislation or policies, and include:

• a lack of legal pathways to the EU for the purpose of applying for international protection;
• the lack of sustainable sharing of responsibility for asylum applicants across the EU;
• inadequate reception conditions;
• weak implementation of procedural rights and substantive criteria to qualify for asylum or subsidiary protection;
• limited services aimed at facilitating refugees’ social and economic integration;
• a lack of mechanisms to ensure the safe return of those not eligible for protection in the EU.

The report points out that non-compliance with fundamental rights is a concern throughout all stages of the asylum process.

Impacts

This cost of non-Europe report draws a distinction between impacts at the individual level, due to an inadequate protection of fundamental rights and freedoms, and economic impacts upon Member States and the EU.

Beyond the tragic loss of 8 000 lives in 2016-2017 alone in the Mediterranean, the report uses established methodologies to estimate both the individual impact in terms of fundamental rights protection and the economic costs of gaps and barriers in the CEAS. The cost of the status quo is estimated at approximately €50.5 billion per year (out of which the estimated cost of lives lost is around €12 billion). This figure includes costs incurred due to irregular migration, lack of accountability in external action, inefficiencies in asylum procedures, poor living conditions and health, and reduced employment prospects that lead to lower generation of tax revenue.

Policy options

This report identifies seven policy options the EU could adopt to tackle the identified gaps and barriers:

1. introducing EU legislation on humanitarian visas;
2. further expanding the mandate of the European Asylum Support Office;
3. improving implementation and monitoring of the CEAS;
4. taking individual preferences into account when identifying the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application;
5. fostering access to employment and integration;
6. ensuring human rights and financial accountability in external funding and returns to third countries; and
7. EU accession to the European Convention on Human Rights.

The report’s conclusions argue that these policy options would bring about many benefits for EU Member States, including better compliance with international and EU norms and values; lower levels of irregular migration to the EU and costs of border security and surveillance; increased effectiveness and efficiency in the asylum process; faster socio-economic integration of asylum-seekers; increased employment and tax revenues; and reinforced protection of human rights in countries of return. Once the costs are considered, the net benefits of adopting these policy options in the field of asylum would be at least €23.5 billion per year.

Read this study on ‘The Cost of Non-Europe in Asylum Policy‘ on the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Visit the European Parliament homepage on migration in Europe.

Written by Clare Ferguson,

Following the recent warning from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that action needs to be taken more urgently to keep global temperatures down, it is unsurprising that a strong environmental focus kicks off the agenda for the European Parliament’s second plenary session of October, with a joint debate on Monday evening on the EU position for the UN Climate Change Conference in Katowice, Poland (COP24) and the 14th meeting of the Convention of Biological Diversity (COP14). Two oral questions concern progress on EU climate change measures. A key supporter of the Paris Agreement, Parliament is seeking significant progress on action under the Agreement, not least through calls from the Committee on Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (ENVI) to raise the EU emissions reduction target from 40 % to 55 % by 2030. Parliament will set out its position in a motion for resolution scheduled for a vote on Thursday lunchtime, when it will also take a position in advance of the 14th Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (COP14) of the Convention on Biological Diversity in November, in Egypt.

On Monday evening, Parliament will debate EU water quality standards, which date from 1998; today over 98.5 % of drinking water tested in the EU meets those standards. However, not least in response to the first successful European Citizens’ Initiative, ‘Right2Water’, the Commission has proposed to revise the Drinking Water Directive to ensure the safety and sustainability of the water supply, including through encouraging restaurants to supply customers with free (or low cost) tap water, which would have the added benefit of reducing the use of plastic bottles. Such single-use plastics have a severe impact on the marine environment in particular, and a debate will also take place on Monday night on proposals to reduce marine litter: single-use plastics and fishing gear, which threatens marine and coastal biodiversity. The demands of Parliament’s ENVI committee include reducing plastics use by 50 % by 2025 and 80 % by 2030, and setting a 50 % minimum collection rate for fishing gear.

When it comes to road transport, Parliament is keen to apply the ‘user pays’ and ‘polluter pays’ principles, and particularly in the charging of heavy goods vehicles for using road infrastructure. A wholesale revision of what is known as the Eurovignette Directive is under way, with Parliament pushing for greater harmonisation in road toll charges for heavy goods and heavy duty vehicles, that today neither cover costs nor incentivise cleaner operations. Members will debate the proposal on Wednesday evening, before discussing measures to move towards ‘clean mobility’ through the promotion of clean and energy-efficient vehicles for use by public services – which has met with limited success to date. Parliament’s ENVI committee considers that contracting authorities and entities that face additional costs due to these measures need EU financial support, and links the proposals to EU measures on alternative fuels infrastructure, on the agenda for debate on Thursday morning.

The next in the series of debates on the future of Europe is scheduled for Tuesday morning with Klaus Iohannis, the President of Romania. Members will hear European Council and Commission statements on the conclusions of the European Council meeting held on 17 and 18 October 2018 on Wednesday morning, as well as a statement from the Commission on its work programme for 2019 on Tuesday afternoon, and on the use of Facebook users’ data by Cambridge Analytica and the impact of this on data protection on Tuesday morning.

As usual at this time of year, Parliament will also debate the EU budget for next year. On Monday evening, Parliament’s reading of the 2019 EU budget will consider whether and how to amend the Council’s position in the light of the Committee on Budgets report reversing most of the Council’s proposed cuts, and increasing funding for Parliament priorities on sustainable growth, competitiveness, security, migration and young people. Votes on all sections of the draft general EU budget for 2019 will take place on Wednesday lunchtime.

On Tuesday lunchtime, Parliament consent is sought for two appointments, for the managing and deputy managing directors of the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI). Wilhelm Molterer, and Iliyana Tsanova are likely to have their appointments renewed, following their earlier hearings before the EP. Later on Tuesday evening, Parliament will debate the second reports on the remaining EU institutions awaiting budgetary discharge for 2016. Parliament’s Budgetary Control Committee, insisting that the expenditure of all EU institutions is scrutinised in exactly the same way, proposes to refuse to grant discharge to the Council and the European Council, as in recent years, due to the ongoing lack of transparency in spending by those institutions, particularly on buildings. The committee also proposes to grant discharge for the European Asylum Support Office, where the spending and staffing issues that previously gave cause for concern, are considered to have been sufficiently resolved.

Parliament is well aware of EU citizens’ demands to better address migration and security challenges and to counter terrorism and serious crime in the EU. However, it is also determined not to strengthen security measures at the expense of safe treatment of personal data. Parliament’s Civil Liberties, Justice & Home Affairs (LIBE) Committee is in favour of stronger centralisation of data such as fingerprints, and is calling for further harmonisation of alerts on refusals of entry to the Schengen area. The committee is also concerned about the ineffectiveness of the current EU policy on returning unsuccessful asylum candidates to third countries. Following an informal agreement on a package of measures on the use of the Schengen Information System with the Council, Parliament will consider the final texts in a joint debate on Tuesday afternoon.

A joint debate on the animal medicines package, which includes improved rules on authorisation of medicinal products for human and animal use, veterinary medicinal products and the manufacture, sale and use of medicated feed, is scheduled for Wednesday evening. The proposed changes to the current framework seek to ensure that medicines are available where they are needed, yet not abused, which may lead to raised antimicrobial resistance, for instance. Parliament particularly insists that EU food standards are reciprocal, and that trading partners respect EU rules on antibiotics and antimicrobials that aim to protect citizens’ health.

Finally, while no EU legislation exists at present on the import of cultural goods (except from Iraq and Syria), on Wednesday afternoon, Parliament will debate a proposal to simplify EU customs rules, while ensuring that trade operators and buyers can be certain of the legality of the artefacts they buy.

A list of all material prepared for this Plenary Session: Charging of heavy goods vehicles (available in DE – EN- ES – FR – IT – PL) Marine litter: Single-use plastics and fishing gear (available in DE – EN- ES – FR – IT – PL) Discharge for 2016 – Second reports (available in DE – EN- ES – FR – IT – PL) Import of cultural goods (available in DE – EN- ES – FR – IT – PL) COP24 climate change conference in Katowice (available in DE – EN- ES – FR – IT – PL) Promotion of clean and energy-efficient vehicles (available in DE – EN- ES – FR – IT – PL) Revision of the Drinking Water Directive (available in DE – EN- ES – FR – IT – PL) Animal medicines package (available in DE – EN- ES – FR – IT – PL) Use of the Schengen Information System (SIS) (available in EN) European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI): Management appointments (available in EN) Parliament’s reading of the 2019 EU budget (available in EN)

Written by Nera Kuljanic,

© Natalia Mels / Shutterstock.com.

The link between high consumption of trans fats, sugar and salt, found in large amounts in processed food, and an increased risk of cardiovascular diseases (CVDs), type 2 diabetes and various cancers is well established. In the current food market, calorie-rich, processed food, wrapped with ambiguous labels, is readily available, cheap and heavily promoted. But what if consumers could be prompted to make healthier food choices?

Recently, the United Kingdom introduced a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs). The idea behind this levy is that manufacturers will reduce the sugar content of their products and that consumption of beverages high in sugar will fall due to their added costs. However, the extent to which such levies are effective is debatable. While there is ample evidence to suggest that food taxes lead to a decrease in consumption of targeted foods, the evidence as to whether this leads to a fall in the development of chronic disease is less convincing.

In the absence of an EU strategy, prior to the UK´s adoption of a sugar tax, Finland, Hungary, France and Denmark had also implemented food tax strategies. This was done in an attempt to adhere to the WHO’s Global Action Plan for the Prevention and Control of Non-communicable Diseases 2013-2020, which aims to promote healthy eating through fiscal policy. The Danish and Finnish experiences highlighted some of the issues that can arise from punitive fiscal strategies. In both cases the taxes have since been abolished.

Studies comparing punitive policies with ´reward´ schemes have shown that subsidies granted to companies for the production of wholesome food also significantly alter dietary consumption. Price decreases due to subsidies for healthy food saw an increase in the consumption of healthier products, and clearly affected the overall improvement of consumers’ diets. The same studies also concluded that fiscal policy should not be applied in isolation, since promotion, advertising and nutrition education could also accentuate the dietary changes achieved through subsidies.

Developments in behavioural economics, a method of economic analysis that applies psychological insights into human behaviour to explain decision-making, have made it possible to better understand what kind of messages the public responds to and what kind of ‘nudges’ can be applied to influence the decisions people make when selecting products and adhering to certain dietary choices. Subsidies, therefore, are not only effective as fiscal policies, but could also act as a means of encouraging large food and beverage companies to join in with wider efforts being made to sway the public towards making healthier choices.

Potential impacts and developments

A handful of behavioural science insights provide an understanding of why it is challenging to make healthy choices in the current environment. These, in turn, can help to inform the design of health interventions shaped by the public sector for potential implementation by the private sector, which has more resources to spend on promotion than governments and NGOs. Large corporations also have broader experience in marketing strategies and tend to create more memorable media messages.

A key finding from psychological studies is that interventions promoting healthy behaviour are generally more effective than those condemning unhealthy behaviour. This is likely to be because positive messages, such as those concerning consumption of fruit and vegetables, are more readily received than negative ones on, for example, sugar consumption. Promotion of enticing, government-approved messages for healthy foods is something food and beverage companies, both large and small, could be more willing to undertake with a monetary incentive.

Insights into effective communication have gone further. Psychologists have separated human thought processing into two systems. Nobel Prize winner Daniel Kahneman calls them ‘System 1’, which is fast and impulsive, and ‘System 2’, which is slower and reflective, used when processing complex inputs such as numerical information. Information such as displays of nutrients on packages, presented in milligrams and grams, may often go ignored, as this requires time and effort to process. Simpler ways of transmitting information, directed towards System 1, such as the traffic light system adopted in the UK, or pictograms, could be more effective ways of profiling food, and thereby guiding the public in making healthier food choices. In April 2016, the European Parliament voted down the concept of nutrient profiles on food labels because of the serious and persistent problems in its implementation. The REFIT evaluation on nutrition and health claims is revisiting the issue, in the hope that a comprehensive nutrient profiling system could be determined. Incentives for clear messaging based on strict guidelines on what can be labelled as healthy may deter companies from printing misleading labels. The risk of misleading information nevertheless remains, given that food companies have the option of reformulation in response to food taxes, but that lowering the excessive amount of one ingredient does not necessarily result in a healthier product. Another concern when it comes to labelling is the ‘compensation effect’. This was seen, for example, in one study which found that people ate more M&M sweets when these were labelled as ‘low fat’.

The human tendency to stick to default options, which are habitual and automatic, known as the ‘status quo bias’, is also a relevant behavioural science insight. Currently, many pre-prepared convenience food options come in calorie-dense portions, which results in excessive intake. By taking advantage of the status quo bias, policies implemented by food and beverage producers could perhaps also help reduce calorie consumption.

What does this mean for European policy-making?

Businesses are becoming increasingly willing to shift towards production of food products that contribute more to a healthy diet, as consumer demand for them continues to rise. It therefore seems to be the right time for the public sector to formulate policy strategies that will boost this change. Reports such as the Access to Nutrition Index will be required to assess which food and beverage companies have stepped up their efforts to encourage better diets, and to what extent. Likewise, actions taken by EU Member State governments should be evaluated in order to determine what measures work best and can potentially be applied more widely. Evidence-based guidance will enable planning and support at the EU level.

While a fiscal policy that supports subsidies could be promising, and would eradicate concerns around competitive disadvantages of companies in countries that have introduced food taxes, it is important to assess how subsidies could be distributed amongst businesses. For example, while the top 10 multinationals produce more than 50 % of all soft drinks, the top 10 packaged-food companies supply only 15 % of worldwide sales. Therefore, it is important to work with SMEs as well as big corporations to guide them along the right path.

Food labelling is already regulated within the EU. More comprehensive rules are nonetheless needed. Companies are able to make health claims on the absence of unhealthy ingredients or high amounts of specific ingredients that offer health benefits. Some products, however, may not entirely justify their ‘healthy’ image. A clear and simple labelling system should be established, enabling consumers to compare products according to their health benefits. Governments have taken the lead in changing the public’s perception of smoking and drink driving, and many hope that eating habits could be remoulded in much the same way. With the right guidance, and appropriate marketing techniques, food and beverage companies will be better positioned to spread messages to this effect in the future.

Read this At a glance on ‘What if ‘nudging’ good habits could make us healthier?‘ on the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Ron Korver,

© Fotolia

Taxation and money laundering are  hot topics these days. Following numerous scandals such as the ‘Lux leaks’ revelations, the ‘Panama Papers and the continuing banking scandals, many people ask whether the current system in which some companies and the super-rich get away with low or zero taxes – whereas ordinary citizens have to foot the full tax bill – is still fair. With public expenditure under pressure, some feel they have to compensate for the ‘race to the bottom’ in the area of corporate taxation to keep the public sector going.

Today’s meeting of the European Parliament’s Special Committee on Financial Crimes, Tax Evasion and Tax Avoidance (TAX3) will be devoted to ‘golden visa’, ‘free ports’ and ‘letterbox companies’ from a money laundering and tax evasion perspective. During the meeting on 18 October 2018, in-house researchers from the EPRS Ex-Post Evaluation Unit and the European Added Value Unit will present three in-house studies to TAX3 Members.

The first study, on citizenship by investment (CBI) and residency by investment (RBI) schemes in the EU analyses the state of play and issues surrounding citizenship and residency by investment schemes (also known as ‘golden passports’ and ‘golden visas’) in the EU. It looks at their economic, social and political impacts and examines the risks they carry in respect of corruption, money laundering and tax evasion. The study compares the schemes offered by several EU Member States.

The second study provides an insight into the money laundering and tax evasion risks in connection to free ports, particularly those that function as (semi-) permanent storage for high value goods, such as art, antiques, diamonds or luxury wines. It provides an appreciation of the effectiveness of the Union Customs Code, the EU Anti-Money Laundering Directive and the Directive on Administrative Cooperation in addressing these risks and makes the connection to the unregulated market of ‘investment art’. Part of the research consists of a case study into the legal and supervisory framework at ‘Le Freeport’ in Luxembourg.

The third study gives an overview of shell companies in the European Union, the main common feature of which is the absence of real economic activity in the Member State of registration. The study aims to contribute to a better understanding of the phenomenon of shell companies by seeking to estimate the incidence of such companies, by means of a set of ‘proxy’ indicators at Member State level. It also explains the main risks associated with shell companies and current policies aimed at mitigating the risks identified.

The three studies contribute together to provide the TAX3 Committee with a comprehensive overview of the policy options for dealing with tax avoidance in the EU.

Written by Mihalis Kritikos,

© Perception7 / Shutterstock.com

Gene-editing techniques are still relatively new, but are constantly multiplying, and they seem exciting in their promise, especially since a more precise version – CRISPR-Cas9 – has recently been used for the first time in a human trial. The use of CRISPR-Cas9 has generated a series of socio-ethical concerns about gene editing, which trigger societal debates and regulatory initiatives.

The announcement, in November 2016, that gene editing had been tested in a person for the first time was received as a potential ‘biomedical Sputnik’ moment marking a breakthrough in the field of cancer research. In February 2016, the UK became the first country to authorise the genetic modification of human embryos using CRISPR-Cas9[1] and related techniques, for research. Gene editing is a rapidly developing area of biotechnology that allows scientists to edit the genome of a living organism by inserting, deleting or replacing pieces of DNA. The capacity to engineer genomes in a systematic and cost-effective way has been a long-standing objective in the field of genomic studies.

Several gene-editing techniques have recently been developed to improve gene-targeting methods, including CRISPR-Cas9, transcription activator-like effector nucleases (TALENs) and zinc-finger nucleases (ZFNs). This multitude of techniques illustrates the potential of gene editing in targeting genes in a precise and cost-effective manner and modifying human genomes even at the embryonic stage. CRISPR-Cas9 is a powerful tool that has the potential to cut the DNA of any genome at any desired location, replace or add parts to the DNA sequence by introducing the Cas9 protein and appropriately guide RNA into a cell. It currently stands out as the biggest ‘game changer’ in the field of gene editing due to its efficiency and low cost. This technological trajectory is expected to enhance our capacity to target and study particular DNA sequences in the vast expanse of a genome.

Potential impacts and developments

CRISPR-Cas9, being a fast-moving technology, has a lot of potential as a tool for directly modifying or correcting the fundamental disease-associated variations in the genome and for developing tissue-based treatments for cancer and other diseases by disrupting endogenous disease-causing genes, correcting disease-causing mutations or inserting new genes with protective functions. Two first-in-human safety trials have been initiated to study whether CRISPR-edited immune cells could kill tumour cells in people with terminal cancer. Researchers hope to use it to adjust human genes to eliminate diseases, fight with constantly evolving microbes that could harm crops, wipe out pathogens and even edit the genes of human embryos, which could eventually lead to transformative changes in human well-being. CRISPR-Cas9 can be used to alter the genes of a wide range of organisms with relative precision, and also create animal models for fundamental research. Editing the genes of animals could improve disease resistance, control mosquito populations to mitigate or tackle malaria transmission, or even lead to the creation of farmaceuticals, which are drugs created using domesticated animals or crops. Recently, scientists discovered how mosquitoes become virulent virus hosts unlocking the mechanisms by which yellow fever virus (YFV), Zika virus (ZIKV) and West Nile virus (WNV) antagonise antiviral small RNA pathways in disease vectors. In addition, the technique is expected to facilitate transplanting animal organs into people by eliminating copies of any retrovirus present in animal genomes that may harm human recipients. CRISPR-Cas9 may develop the potential to enable the creation of human organs in chimeric pigs, with the possibility of having an unlimited supply of organs not rejected by the immune system of human recipients.

At the same time, the use of CRISPR has generated a series of socio-ethical concerns over whether and how gene editing may be used to make heritable changes to the human genome, lead to designer babies, or even disrupt entire ecosystems, leading some scientists to recommend a moratorium on making inheritable changes to the human genome. For instance, the application of CRISPR as a pest-control technique may produce off-target effects and mutations, which could lead to the dispersion of gene drive, the disappearance of a whole animal population, or accidental releases and/or the irreversible disturbance of entire ecosystems. Taking into account the non-maleficence principle in risk assessment, and distinguishing the clinical and therapeutic aims of gene editing from its enhancement applications/uses have also become sources of major concern. Other important problems are linked to the efficient and safe delivery of CRISPR-Cas9 into cell types or tissues that are hard to transfect and/or infect. These range from the prospect of irreversible harms to the health of future children and generations, all the way to concerns about opening the door to new forms of social inequality, discrimination and eugenics. In October 2017, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe reaffirmed its opposition to contemplating germline changes, as expressed in the ‘Oviedo Convention’, on the grounds that they cross ‘a line viewed as ethically inviolable’ (see Recommendation 2115 (2017) on the use of new genetic technologies in human beings).

Anticipatory policy-making

Given the rapid pace of scientific developments in the field of gene editing, its regulatory oversight seems more necessary than ever before. However, there is a lack of scientific and legal consensus as to whether this transformative technology should be regulated as such, or whether its techniques and products should instead be controlled individually following a result-based approach. International discussion, especially in the frame of the Nagoya Protocol, is currently focused on the regulatory status of genome-editing techniques. Within this frame, the European Commission is working on a legal interpretation of the regulatory status of products generated by new plant-breeding techniques so as to minimise legal uncertainties in this area. In July 2018, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled that genome-edited organisms qualify as products of genetic engineering and hence fall under the scope of the 2001/18 Deliberate Release Directive. The Court declared that genetic modification includes genetic changes ‘in a way that does not occur naturally’. The ruling emphasises that organisms obtained by mutagenesis, a set of techniques which make it possible to alter the genome of a living species without the insertion of foreign DNA, are GMOs and are, in principle, subject to the obligations laid down by the relevant EU-wide authorisation rules. Patenting CRISPR-Cas9 for therapeutic use in humans is also legally controversial. In September 2018, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit awarded, for the first time, intellectual property on the use of CRISPR in ‘eukaryotic cells’, which include plant and animal cells, to the Broad Institute, MIT, and Harvard, which had been the first to obtain a CRISPR patent in 2014. The risks of heritable, unintended and unpredictable genetic mutations also raise questions about the safety of the technique and the attribution of liability in case of damages. In a recent report under the title ‘Gene Drives on the Horizon: Advancing Science, Navigating Uncertainty, and Aligning Research with Public Values’, the US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine urged caution when releasing gene drives into the open environment and suggested ‘phased testing’, including special safeguards in view of the high scientific uncertainties and potential ecological risks.

In fact, many scientists caution that there is much to do before CRISPR is deployed in a safe and efficient manner, given that anyone with the appropriate equipment could engineer a vaccine‐resistant flu virus or invasive species in a laboratory. Finally, yet importantly, CRISPR might create additional challenges from a risk assessment standpoint, in that organisms produced by these methods may contain more pervasive changes to the genomes of living organisms than traditional genetic modification techniques. Given the variety of concerns surrounding the potential unintended consequences of these techniques, public debates on responsible use of this promising technology are needed at local, national and supranational levels.

Read this At a glance on ‘What if gene editing became routine practice?‘ on the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Ralf Drachenberg and Suzana Anghel,

© niroworld / Fotolia

As has become the norm with European Council meetings, EU Heads of State or Government will convene on 17 and 18 October 2018 in different formats with varying compositions and levels of formality: a regular meeting of the European Council, and an enlarged Euro Summit of 27 Member States on 18 October, preceded by a European Council (Article 50) meeting on the 17 October over dinner. The agenda of the European Council meeting focuses on migration and internal security. Specific foreign policy issues might also be addressed at this meeting. The Euro Summit will discuss the state of play of negotiations on the deepening of Economic and Monetary Union (EMU), with a view to the next Euro Summit in December. However, the priority issue for Heads of State or Government will be Brexit. At the European Council (Article 50) meeting, EU-27 leaders are expected to discuss the progress that has been achieved in the negotiations so far, and possibly call for an extraordinary summit in November 2018.

1. Implementation: Follow-up on previous European Council commitments

The Leaders’ Agenda identifies both migration and internal security as topics for the October 2018 European Council meeting. This is reflected in the annotated draft agenda. Heads of State or Government will follow up on the discussions held at their informal meeting in Salzburg in September, and in accordance with commitments made in previous conclusions, return more specifically to the reform of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS, Table 1). However, the issue of international trade, which was planned to be discussed in a Leaders’ Agenda session at this European Council meeting, will most likely not be addressed. This could be due to the change of length of this meeting – originally it should have taken place over two days, from 18 to 19 October – and/or because of recent developments regarding trade between the EU and the US.

Policy area Previous commitment Occasion on which commitment was made Migration Report on progress regarding the reform for a new Common European Asylum System European Council June 2018 Migration Issue conclusions on Migration Leaders’ Agenda October 2017 Internal security Issue conclusions on Internal security Leaders’ Agenda October 2017 Trade Hold a Leaders’ meeting on future trade policy and the role of the EU in the multilateral trade system Leaders’ Agenda October 2017 2. European Council meeting Migration

As so often over the past three years, migration will again be one of the main priorities for discussion at the European Council meeting of 18 October 2018. As set out in the conclusions of 28 June 2018, Heads of State or Government will return to the sensitive issue of the reform of the CEAS, and be updated by the current Austrian Presidency of the Council of the European Union on progress on this matter.

The European Council will follow up on Heads of State or Governments’ discussions on migration in the margins of the 20 September 2018 informal European Council meeting in Salzburg. Following that meeting, the President of the European Council, Donald Tusk, indicated that EU leaders had agreed to organise a summit with the League of Arab States in February next year. The October European Council might provide further details of this planned summit. President Tusk also reported that the recently-launched dialogue with the Egyptian President, as well as similar initiatives, received backing from the European Council. It can be expected that the European Council will be briefed on the follow-up to the dialogue with Egypt and other countries, and express its views on the process. In this context, the foreign minister of Morocco, Nasser Bourita, recently categorically rejected the possibility of his country hosting EU asylum centres. The idea of ‘regional disembarkation platforms’ was one of the main migration-related conclusions of the 28 June 2018 European Council meeting. Also originating then was the agreement that, on a voluntary basis, Member States would share the effort to take care of rescued people on EU territory, according to international law. ‘Controlled centres’ would be set up in the Member States, to distinguish irregular migrants, who will be returned, from those in need of international protection.

A continuous call of the European Council has been to work more closely with North African partners. A further item discussed in Salzburg, which might be further detailed at this European Council meeting, is the High-Level Forum Africa-Europe on 18 December 2018.

The recent Commission proposal for a strengthened European Border and Coast Guard is also expected to feature high on the European Council agenda. According to President Tusk, Heads of State or Government agreed in Salzburg to prioritise this proposal, even if further discussions are needed on issues regarding sovereignty and the size of Frontex. Until now, the European Council had always considered the European Border and Coast Guard in relation to migration, but in Salzburg, Heads of State or Government discussed this issue in the context of the internal security debate. This change of categorisation illustrates a recent trend in the European Council towards more blurred lines between migration and internal security. (See EPRS Briefing, The role of the European Council in internal security policy).

Internal security

The October European Council meeting will be following up on the results of the previous discussions of Heads of State or Government at the Leaders’ Agenda meeting on internal security in Salzburg in September, and issue conclusions. Those discussions on internal security were based on a Leaders’ Agenda note by President Tusk, and concentrated on police and judicial cooperation, border security, cybersecurity and crisis-response capabilities.

Prior to the meeting in Salzburg, the European Commission had already adopted its proposal on ‘preventing the dissemination of terrorist content online’. Heads of State or Government are expected to welcome this proposal in their conclusions. Other points agreed on in Salzburg are expected to be further detailed in the European Council’s conclusions, notably those aiming to step up the fight against all forms of cyber-crime, manipulation and disinformation, and to speed up work on the Civil Protection Mechanism.

The European Council will also call for greater protection of the Union’s democratic systems and the combating of disinformation, including in the context of next May’s European Parliament elections. This issue was also an important element in the State of the Union speech by the President of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, in September, which was accompanied by concrete proposals. EU leaders are also expected to call to speed up legislation to better combat money laundering, and consider extending the competences of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office to include cross-border terrorist crimes.

Following a cyber-attack against the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons in The Hague, which is assumed to have been carried out by the Russian military intelligence service (GRU), EU Heads of State or Government will consider cybersecurity as part of their deliberations, as Donald Tusk has announced. They are expected to deplore the incident and discuss means to strengthen cooperation on cybersecurity. In this context, the Heads of State or Government are also expected to ‘call for progress on the listing of relevant individuals and entities on the new EU chemical weapons sanction regime and to speed up cybersecurity legislation’. On 15 October 2018, the EU Foreign Affairs Council adopted a new sanctions-regime targetting the use of chemical weapons, as requested by the June European Council meeting.

The European Council will also reaffirm its previous conclusions regarding fighting terrorism and preventing radicalisation; inter-agency cooperation and improved information exchange; and improving the interoperability of information systems and databases

External relations

The European Council may address certain foreign policy issues. EU leaders might refer to the outcome of the consultative referendum held on 30 September 2018 in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and reaffirm the EU’s open-door policy. In a joint statement, the European Council President, Donald Tusk, and the NATO Secretary-General, Jens Stoltenberg, stressed that the ‘overwhelming majority of those voting’ favoured a European path for their country and invited the political elite ‘to seize this historic opportunity’.

Other issues

The European Council could reaffirm its commitment to the full implementation of the Paris Agreement in the run-up to the UN Climate Change Conference (COP24) to be held in Katowice in December 2018. The special report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, issued for COP24, also highlights the need to strengthen climate policies around the world to achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement. In the framework of the ‘Future of Europe’ debate in the European Parliament, several members of the European Council have stressed that the EU should set itself more ambitious goals in the fight against climate change.

3. Euro summit

On 18 October, EU leaders will meet for a Euro Summit in an inclusive format of 27 EU Member States (19 euro-area members, those Member States which have ratified the Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the EMU, TSCG, plus the Czech Republic). They will discuss the state of play of negotiations on the deepening of Economic and Monetary Union (EMU), with a view to the next Euro Summit in December.

Although President Tusk, in his letter to EU leaders of 21 September 2017, called for a first set of concrete decisions on EMU reform to be taken in June 2018, this did not happen. Instead, the June Euro Summit invited the Eurogroup and co-legislators to continue their work in the area of the Banking Union, so that the leaders could come back to these issues in December. Thus, the question of risk-sharing in financing the restructuring and resolution of failing banks will presumably be high on the agenda of the 18 October Euro Summit. It was agreed on 29 June 2018 that the European Stability Mechanism (ESM), which is owned by the 19 euro-area members, could be called upon to provide loans and guarantees as a last resort, but only if sufficient progress has been achieved on reducing the risks of bank failure in Member States beforehand. At that time, leaders also noted that the Economic and Financial Affairs Council on 25 May 2018 adopted its position on a package of measures aimed at reducing risk in the banking industry. As the President of the Eurogroup, Mário Centeno, has pointed out, these efforts should pave the way to setting up the ESM as a backstop to the Single Resolution Fund (SRF); furthermore, work on the European Deposit Insurance Scheme (EDIS) could also begin.

The Euro Summit on 18 October could also take up a number of issues regarding reform of the ESM, especially its future role in crisis prevention and in the design and monitoring of programmes involving Member States in trouble. These topics were discussed in the Eurogroup on 1 October.

4. European Council (Article 50) meeting

On 17 October, the Heads of State or Government of the EU-27 will review the state of play in the Brexit process. According to Donald Tusk, this will be the ‘moment of truth’ for these negotiations, as the European Council (Article 50) is expected to decide ‘whether conditions are there to call an extraordinary summit in November to finalise and formalise the deal’.

In July 2018, the UK government published its negotiating position, in the white paper on ‘The Future Relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union’, otherwise known as the ‘Chequers Plan’. Following the Salzburg summit, at which EU-27 leaders also addressed Brexit, Donald Tusk reported the European Council’s united view ‘that while there are positive elements in the Chequers proposal, the suggested framework for economic cooperation will not work. Not least because it risks undermining the Single Market.’ Donald Tusk also indicated that the Chequers proposals needed ‘to be reworked and further negotiated’ regarding the Northern Ireland border question. Finding an agreement for the latter issue remains one of the main stumbling-blocks in the negotiations for the withdrawal agreement. Following a meeting with the Taoiseach, Leo Varadkar, on 4 October 2018, President Tusk also recalled that the ‘EU is united behind Ireland and the need to preserve the Northern Ireland peace process’.

Besides the withdrawal agreement, the Article 50 negotiations should also produce a political declaration outlining how the future UK-EU relationship should look. President Tusk reiterated the EU’s willingness to conclude a ‘Canada plus, plus, plus deal’ with the UK, which would be far-reaching on trade, internal security and foreign-policy cooperation. Analysts report that there is a consensus among the EU-27 on a brief and relatively general declaration about the future relationship.

If EU-27 leaders agree to hold an special summit on Brexit, this could take place in mid-November 2018, as indicated by Donald Tusk and Jean-Claude Juncker.

Read this briefing on ‘Outlook for the meetings of EU Heads of State or Government, 17-18 October 2018‘ on the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Monika Kiss (1st edition),

© ALDECAstudio / Fotolia

An employer’s obligation to inform their employees on the conditions applicable to their contracts is regulated by Directive 91/533/EEC. Major shifts in the labour market due to demographic trends and digitalisation, spawning a growing number of non-standard employment relationships (such as part-time, temporary and on-demand work), have made it necessary to revise the directive.

The European Commission has responded to the need for a change with a proposal aimed at updating and extending the information on employment-related obligations and working conditions, and at creating new minimum standards for all employed workers, including those on atypical contracts.

In the European Parliament, the Committee for Employment and Social Affairs (EMPL) has published a draft report focused on the scope of the directive, on employees’ working hours and the conditions for making information available to them, and on employers’ responsibilities.

Versions

• October 2018: ‘Ensuring more transparent and predictable working conditions‘ (1st edition)

Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and the Council on transparent and predictable working conditions in the European Union Committee responsible: Employment and Social Affairs (EMPL) COM(2017) 797
21.12.2017 Rapporteur: Enrique Calvet Chambon (ALDE, Spain) 2017/0355(COD) Shadow rapporteurs:

 

 

  Dennis Radtke (EPP, Germany)
Javi López (S&D, Spain)
Anthea McIntyre (ECR, United Kingdom)
Paloma López Bermejo (GUE/NGL, Spain)
Tamás Meszerics (Greens/EFA, Hungary)
Laura Agea (EFDD, Italy)
Joëlle Mélin (ENF, France) Ordinary legislative procedure (COD) (Parliament and Council on equal footing – formerly ‘co-decision’) Next steps expected: Vote in committee

Written by Costica Dumbrava, Katrien Luyten and Sofija Voronovna (1st edition),

© Nmedia / Fotolia

To strengthen EU external border management and enhance internal security, the European Commission has made several proposals to upgrade and expand European border and security information systems. As part of a broader process to maximise their use, the Commission presented legislative proposals for two regulations in December 2017 (amended in June 2018), establishing an interoperability framework between EU information systems on borders and visas, and on police and judicial cooperation, asylum and migration. The proposals seek effective and efficient information exchange and data sharing between EU information systems, by providing fast, seamless, efficient, systematic and controlled access to all the data authorities need to accomplish their tasks.

Versions

• October 2018: ‘Interoperability between EU border and security information systems‘ (1st edition)

A: Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on establishing a framework for interoperability between EU information systems (borders and visa) and amending Council Decision 2004/512/EC, Regulation (EC) No 767/2008, Council Decision 2008/633/JHA, Regulation (EU) 2016/399 and Regulation (EU) 2017/2226, Regulation (EU) 2018/1240, Regulation (EU) 2018/XX [the Regulation on SIS in the field of border checks] and Regulation (EU) 2018/XX [the eu-LISA Regulation]
B: Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on establishing a framework for interoperability between EU information systems (police and judicial cooperation, asylum and migration) and amending [Regulation (EU) 2018/XX [the Eurodac Regulation], Regulation (EU) 2018/XX [the Regulation on SIS in the field of law enforcement], Regulation (EU) 2018/XX [the ECRIS-TCN Regulation] and Regulation (EU) 2018/XX [the eu-LISA Regulation] Committee responsible: Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) A: COM(2017) 793, 12.12.2017 amended by
COM(2018) 478, 13.6.2018 Rapporteur: A: Jeroen Lenaers (EPP, the Netherlands)
B: Nuno Melo (EPP, Portugal) B: COM(2017) 794, 12.12.2017 amended by COM(2018) 480, 13.6.2018
2017/0352 (COD) Next steps expected: Committee votes Ordinary legislative procedure (COD) (Parliament and Council on equal footing – formerly ‘co-decision’)

Written by Gregor Erbach (1st edition),

© malp / Fotolia

In May 2018, the Commission proposed a regulation setting the first-ever CO2 emission performance standards for new heavy-duty vehicles in the EU, as part of the third mobility package. It would require the average CO2 emissions from new trucks in 2025 to be 15 % lower than in 2019. For 2030, the proposal sets an indicative reduction target of at least 30 % compared to 2019. Special incentives are provided for zero- and low-emission vehicles. The proposed regulation applies to four categories of large trucks, which together account for 65 %-70 % of CO2 emissions from heavy-duty vehicles. The Commission proposes to review the legislation in 2022 in order to set a binding target for 2030, and to extend its application to smaller trucks, buses, coaches and trailers.

Heavy-duty vehicles are responsible for around a quarter of CO2 emissions from road transport in the EU. Without further action, their emissions are expected to grow due to increasing road transport volumes.

In the European Parliament, the proposal was referred to the Committee on Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, where the rapporteur presented his draft report in July 2018.

Versions

• October 2018: ‘CO2 emission standards for heavy-duty vehicles‘ (1st edition)

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council setting CO2 emission performance standards for new heavy-duty vehicles Committee responsible: Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (ENVI) COM(2018) 284
17.5.2018 Rapporteur: Bas Eickhout (Greens/EFA, the Netherlands) 2018/0143(COD) Shadow rapporteurs:

 

  Christofer Fjellner (EPP, Sweden)
Damiano Zoffoli (S&D, Italy)
Nils Torvalds (ALDE, Finland)
Stefan Eck (GUE/NGL, Germany)
Joëlle Mélin (ENF, France) Ordinary legislative procedure (COD) (Parliament and Council on equal footing – formerly ‘co-decision’) Next steps expected: Vote in ENVI committee

Written by Marcin Grajewski,

© denisismagilov / Fotolia

The heads of state or government of 51 countries will gather in Brussels on 18 and 19 October for the 12th Europe-Asia summit (ASEM) to discuss closer relations and global challenges. The meeting will focus in particular on trade and investment, connectivity, sustainable development, and climate and security challenges. The EU attaches growing importance to relations with Asian countries as the region’s economic and political weight increases and as US trade policy is increasingly unpredictable.

This note offers links to selected recent commentaries, studies and reports from major international think-tanks on EU-Asian relations, the situation in the region and some of its countries. The publication does not cover issues related to China, which were the topic of one of the previous editions in the series.

EU-Asia

How Asia and Europe should really be working together
Friends of Europe, October 2018

To counter extremism, Asia and Europe can empower women and increase their participation
Friends of Europe, October 2018

ASEM has a role to play in improved Asia-Europe cooperation on security
Friends of Europe, September 2018

Japan-EU EPA moving towards ratification: Its significance and prospects
Japan Institute of International Affairs, July 2018

European Union-Asia multilateral cooperation in financial services
Centre for European Policy Studies, June 2018

Prevention better than cure: The EU’s quiet diplomacy in Asia
European Union Institute for Security Studies, June 2018

Digital trade in Europe and Central Asia
Asian Development Bank Institute, June 2018

Reinvigorating market momentum and inclusive economies in Europe and Eurasia
German Marshall Fund, June 2018

The new EU strategy for Central Asia: A case for cultural diplomacy
Institute for European Studies, May 2018

Europe’s pivot to Central Asia
Royal United Services Institute, May 2018

Health diplomacy of the European Union and its member states in Central Asia
Institute for European Studies, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, April 2018

Europe and South-East Asia: An Exercise in diplomatic patience
European Centre for International Political Economy, April 2018

Budding ties? The impact of Brexit on Europe-Japan relations
Japan Institute of International Affairs, April 2018

Macron’s passage to India: A missed opportunity for Europe
European Council on Foreign Relations, March 2018

Assessing the effectiveness of the EU’s and Russia’s cultural diplomacy towards Central Asia
Institute for European Studies, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, February 2018

Reimagining Europe’s partnerships with India and Japan: A new trilateral?
Clingendael, Febraury 2018

Security and foreign relations

The future of the Quad is in Southeast Asia
International Institute for Strategic Studies, September 2018

Conflict zone Asia-Pacific
Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung, June 2018

France and Central Asia: Time for a new vision?
Centre international de formation européenne, June 2018

Reinvigorating market momentum and inclusive economies in Europe and Eurasia
German Marshall Fund, June 2018

Twenty years into nuclear South Asia: Pathways to stability
Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, June 2018

The sun rises in the East: Asia’s increasing influence in Africa
Observer Research Foundation, May 2018

Uzbekistan: A new model for reform in the Muslim world?
Central Asia-Caucasus Institute and Silk Road Studies Program, May 2018

2018 en Asie: La démocratie à l’épreuve
Institut des relations internationales et stratégiques, May 2018

Turkey: Towards a Eurasian shift?
Istituto per gli Studi di Politica Internazionale, April 2018

Cooperation in Eurasia: Linking identity, security, and development
Istituto per gli Studi di Politica Internazionale, April 2018

Ce que nous dit le Boao Forum sur les plans de la Chine pour l’Asie
Institut Thomas More, April 2018

Russian-Chinese relations in Eurasia: Harmonization or subordination?
Finnish Institute of International Affairs, April 2018

Getting out from “in-between”: Perspectives on the regional order in post-Soviet Europe and Eurasia
Rand Europe, March 2018

Regionalism à la ASEAN: Past achievements and current challenges
Finnish Institute of International Affairs, March 2018

Southeast Asia seeks new partners in the era of “America First”
Council on Foreign Relations, March 2018

Regards sur l’Eurasie : L’année politique 2017
Centre d’études et de recherches internationales, February 2018

Cooperation and competition: Russia and China in Central Asia, the Russian Far East, and the Arctic
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, February 2018 

Is Southeast Asia really in an arms race?
Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, East Asia Forum, February 2018

Taiwan’s role in East Asian security: Overlooked actor in a pivotal position
Finnish Institute of International Affairs, February 2018

Taiwan als Demokratievorbild in Asien
Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, February 2018 

India: The Modi factor
Istituto per gli Studi di Politica Internazionale, February 2018 

Abe’s diplomacy at a crucial moment
Japan Institute of International Affairs, February 2018

Global security challenges and Japan’s national security thinking: Room to cooperate with the EU?
Istituto Affari Internazionali, February 2018 

Indiens Antwort auf die chinesische Seidenstraßeninitiative
Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, January 2018

Economy and trade

Strengthening maritime cooperation and security in the Indian Ocean
International Institute for Strategic Studies, September 2018

ASEAN as the architect for regional development cooperation
The Asia Foundation, September 2018

ASEM open and fair trade area: From vision to reality
Friends of Europe, September 2018

An Asia super grid would be a boon for clean energy, if it gets built
Council on Foreign Relations, September 2018

China-India-Japan in the Indo-Pacific: Ideas, interests and infrastructure
Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, September 2018

Financing and implementing the quality infrastructure agenda
Centre for Strategic and International Studies, September 2018

The roles of Japan and ASEAN in concluding RCEP negotiations
Japan Institute of International Affairs, August 2018

Asia leads the world’s response to protectionism
Peterson Institute for International Economics, July 2018

Could India become an economic superpower?
Institute for Foreign Affairs and Trade, April 2018

The Asia–Africa growth corridor: Bringing together old partnerships and new initiatives
Observer Research Foundation, April 2018

Of streams of data, thought, and other things: Digitalisation, energy policy, and innovation capacity from an Asian perspective
Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, April 2018

Along the road: Sri Lanka’s tale of two ports
European Union Institute for Security Studies, April 2018

Regulating for a digital economy: Understanding the importance of cross-border data flows in Asia
Brookings Institution, March 2018

Fostering green finance for sustainable development in Asia
Asian Development Bank Institute, March 2018

Introducing greening strategies in emerging economies
The Asia Foundation, February 2018

Connecting the dots: Eurasian transport in 2030
Friends of Europe, February 2018

The geopolitics of online taxation in Asia-Pacific: Digitalisation, corporate tax Base and the role of governments
European Centre for International Political Economy, January 2018

Written by Maria Niestadt (2nd edition),

© am / Fotolia

The European Union aims to ensure that road transport rules are applied effectively and without discrimination. The current rules governing the access to the international market for coach and bus services appear to have been only partly effective in promoting this mode of transport. There are still differences in rules on access to national markets, differences in openness of national markets, diverse national access arrangements and discrimination in access to terminals in some EU countries.

In an attempt to address the issue, the European Commission adopted a legislative proposal on 8 November 2017 to amend the EU rules for access to the international market for coach and bus services. The proposal is part of its ‘Europe on the Move’ package, which aims to modernise European mobility and transport. The rapporteur published his draft report on 15 June 2018, and the Parliament’s Committee on Transport and Tourism is expected to vote on it in the coming months.

Versions

• October 2018: ‘Access to the international market for coach and bus services‘ (2nd edition)

Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 1073/2009 on common rules for access to the international market for coach and bus services Committee responsible: Transport and Tourism (TRAN) COM(2017) 647
8.11.2017 Rapporteur: Roberts Zīle (ECR, Latvia) 2017/0288 (COD) Shadow rapporteurs:

 

  Luis de Grandes Pascual (EPP, Spain)
Peter Kouroumbashev (S&D, Bulgaria)
Dominique Riquet (ALDE, France)
João Pimenta Lopes (GUE/NGL, Portugal)
Michael Cramer (Greens/EFA, Germany)
Georg Mayer (ENF, Austria) Ordinary legislative procedure (COD) (Parliament and Council on equal footing – formerly ‘co-decision’) Next steps expected: Vote in committee