You are here

Home » Feed aggregator » Sources

European Parliamentary Research Service Blog

Subscribe to European Parliamentary Research Service Blog feed European Parliamentary Research Service Blog
European Parliamentary Research Service Blog
URL: https://epthinktank.eu
Updated: 2 weeks 3 hours ago

Diabetes sufferers [What Europe does for you]

Thu, 08/02/2018 - 08:30

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 diabetes sufferers.

Have you had your blood sugar level checked lately? Did you know that a simple test can diagnose diabetes and spare you a lot of health problems, or even save your life? Diabetes is a chronic disease affecting over 33 million EU citizens, characterised by elevated levels of blood sugar that over time can cause serious damage to the heart, blood vessels, eyes, kidneys, and nerves. There are two main types of diabetes: type 1 results from a lack of insulin production and type 2 from the body’s ineffective use of insulin. Type 2 diabetes accounts for almost 90 % of diabetes cases and can often be prevented by a healthy lifestyle, regular physical activity and maintaining a normal body weight.

Twitter Hashtag #EUandME

© Kwangmoo / Fotolia

EU countries are responsible for their own healthcare policies. The EU complements these policies, and focuses on prevention and research, in particular in the context of its work on non-communicable diseases. From 2007 to 2013, projects under the EU’s Seventh Framework Programme gave a big boost to diabetes research. The programme funded over 150 projects on diabetes, totalling €376 million. Under the current Horizon 2020 research programme, the EU is still supporting effective efforts to prevent the disease and treat patients. Recent examples include Feel4Diabetes, which is developing a community-based approach for families, because diabetes tends to recur in families with history of the disease. PAMperR involves research into diabetic retinopathy, POWER2DM aims to develop a system for diabetes patient empowerment, while ePREDICE focuses on early prevention of diabetes complications.

Further information
Categories: European Union

People who exercise to keep fit [What Europe does for you]

Wed, 08/01/2018 - 08:30

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 who exercise to keep fit.

Most people know they should get more exercise. There is a strong link between physical activity and physical and mental wellbeing, and between membership of associations like sports clubs and community cohesion. But too few Europeans practise any sport or exercise. For many, the issue is not so much motivation as finding the time and opportunities. Initiatives like the European Week of Sport and the sport chapter of Erasmus+ were conceived to show Europeans just how easy it can be to make small but regular amounts of physical activity a habit. Sport and fitness are part of public health policy, which is mostly decided by national governments, but the EU is taking steps to remove barriers to cross-border collaboration and recreation through sport.

Twitter Hashtag #EUandME

© WavebreakMediaMicro / Fotolia

The European Week of Sport was launched in 2015 and takes place every year in September. The week is an occasion for events across Europe encouraging people of all ages, backgrounds and fitness levels to experiment with a physical activity under the hashtag #beactive. This can be anything from yoga at home to outdoor calisthenics, lifting weights at the gym, or something as simple as taking the office stairs. Erasmus+, mostly known for its educational exchanges, also supports sport and fitness through not-for-profit pan-European events; research and data-gathering to inform policy-making; and small collaborative partnerships in areas such as tackling prejudice in sport. The EU is convinced that one way of getting Europeans to be more active is by making it easier to exercise together.

Further information
Categories: European Union

People who exercise outdoors [What Europe does for you]

Tue, 07/31/2018 - 08:30

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 who exercise outdoors.

You do not need to be a member of a gym to exercise. City streets, parks and green belt areas offer plenty of space to walk, run, practise yoga or do other bodyweight exercises. We cannot influence the weather, but there are other ways in which the public space can be made more inviting for people who want to exercise outdoors. One is by offering more and better purpose-built facilities, such as protected cycle paths, athletics tracks, pull-up bars and outdoor ice skating rinks. The other is by improving air quality, which can be a significant disincentive to exercising outdoors in urban centres.

Twitter Hashtag #EUandME

© baranq / Fotolia

Local and national authorities take the urban planning decisions that shape facilities in public parks and the space given to walkers and cyclists, but the EU does influence those decisions by promoting greener urban planning through sustainable urban transport plans, including by handing out annual prizes and offering detailed guidance on how to improve city transport networks, step by step. The EU’s urban air quality standards are among the strictest in the world, allowing less than half as much nitrogen dioxide as the US or Canada. By encouraging people to switch to exercise-intensive transportation like cycling, and by attracting people outside with cleaner air, the EU is helping people who want to exercise outdoors.

Further information
Categories: European Union

Reform Support Programme 2021 2027 [EU Legislation in Progress]

Mon, 07/30/2018 - 18:00

Written by Agnieszka Widuto (1st edition),

© Thomas Reimer / Fotolia

The European Commission adopted the proposal on the establishment of the Reform Support Programmeon 31 May 2018, as part of the package for the upcoming multiannual financial framework for 2021-2027. The programme will provide financial and technical support for Member States to implement reforms aimed at increasing the resilience and modernising their economies, including priority reforms identified in the European Semester.

The overall budget for the programme is €25 billion. It comprises three elements: a reform delivery tool (financial support); a Technical Support Instrument (technical expertise, building on the current Structural Reform Support Programme 2017-2020); and a convergence facility (preparation for adopting the euro). The Reform Support Programme will be open to all Member States on a voluntary basis, with no co-financing required.

In the European Parliament, the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON) and Committee on Budgets (BUDG) will work jointly on this file under Rule 55 of Parliament’s Rules of Procedure. The next step is the publication of the draft report, expected in autumn 2018.

Versions: Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the establishment of the Reform Support Programme Committees responsible:

Rapporteurs:

 

  Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON) and Budgets (BUDG) (jointly under Rule 55)

Caroline Nagtegaal (ALDE, the Netherlands)

Eider Gardiazabal Rubial (S&D, Spain)

  COM(2018) 391 of 31.5.2018

2018/0213 (COD)

Ordinary legislative procedure (COD) (Parliament and Council on equal footing – formerly ‘co-decision’) Next steps expected: Publication of draft report

 

Categories: European Union

EU law for an open independent and efficient European administration: Summary report of the public consultation

Mon, 07/30/2018 - 14:00

Written by Tatjana Evas,

Fotolia

As a follow-up to the European Parliament resolution of 9 June 2016 calling for an open, efficient and independent European Union administration – 2016/2610(RSP), rapporteur: Heidi Hautala (Greens/EFA, Finland) – the Parliament’s Committee on Legal Affairs (JURI) asked the European Parliamentary Research Service’s European Added Value Unit to carry out a public consultation. The aim of the consultation was to survey public opinion, first, on general perceptions and attitudes towards the EU administration; second, on personal experience in dealing with the EU institutions; and, third, on further action that the EU should take in the area of EU administrative law to address the shortcomings identified.

In response to the consultation, the Parliament received 166 fully completed online responses from 20 EU Member States. Incomplete responses were not taken into consideration for analysis but not for statistical purposes. Among the 166 completed responses, 155 contributions came from individuals and 11 from organisations.

The key findings of the public consultations are summarised in figure 1 below:

Specific trends:

General perceptions of the EU administration were mixed: 52 % had a positive perception while 36 % had a negative perception of the functioning of the EU institutions. Professional interests, direct experience and media were three main sources of information underpinning the opinions formed by respondents regarding the EU administration. Perceived general awareness of what services the EU institutions provided for the public and companies was high: 73.5 % of respondents indicated that they knew what services were provided by the EU institutions. At the same time, only 45.8 % of all respondents indicated that they were familiar with their right to submit a petition to the European Parliament.

Experiences with the EU institutions were also mixed: 24 % of respondents had a negative experience, 30 % mixed and 46 % positive. The European Commission, European Parliament and EU agencies were the administrations with which respondents had had most direct contact. Access to documents (46 %); requests for general information (44 %) and EPSO competitions (31 %) were the top three reasons for respondents having had contact with the EU administration. The three main problems contributing to negative experiences included the length of the procedure (42 %), difficulty in finding information (37 %), and the quality of the reply received (30 %).

There was a high level of support from the respondents (76 %) for additional measures at EU level to reinforce EU administrative procedures. The two main reasons why respondents would like the EU to take action were: to improve efficiency (57 %), and to improve the transparency (50 %) of the EU administration. In response to the question on how the EU should best reinforce the functioning of the EU administration, 82 % of respondents were in favour of adopting a new law (52 % supported a new law setting out minimum standards, while 30 % supported a new law with full harmonisation). The proportion of respondents who supported the adoption of a non-binding code of conduct was low (7 %). While not in favour of a new law, 23% of respondents would prefer the EU to improve existing legislation; similarly, 23 % did not support a new law but would rather see measures focusing on technical ways to simplify public access to the EU administration.

Read the complete study on ‘EU law for an open independent and efficient European administration: Summary report of the public consultation‘.

Categories: European Union

Brexit: Latest state of play [What Think Tanks are thinking]

Mon, 07/30/2018 - 12:00

Written by Marcin Grajewski,

© Delphotostock / Fotolia

The politically charged negotiations on the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union moved forward a little in July, when the British Cabinet put detailed proposals on the table for the future framework of EU-UK relations. The document, which envisages relatively close ties between the EU and UK, in trade and several other areas, after Britain leaves in March 2019, prompted the resignations of two senior ministers David Davis and Boris Johnson, who favour an even harder Brexit. EU officials have said that the new proposals contain some constructive elements, although many questions remain unanswered.

This note offers links to reports and commentaries from some major international think-tanks and research institutes on Brexit negotiations and related issues. More reports on the topic can be found in a previous edition of ‘What Think Tanks are thinking’, published in May 2018.

Brexit: Next steps in UK’s withdrawal from the EU
House of Commons Library, July 2018

UK business should play for extra time in the Brexit negotiations
European Policy Centre, July 2018

The Brexit White Paper: What it must address
The UK in a Changing Europe, July 2018

Brexit brief
Institute of International and European Affairs, July 2018

Brexit and the British growth model
Police Exchange, July 2018

An equal exit? The distributional consequences of leaving the EU
Institute for Public Policy Research, July 2018

The EU’s problem with May’s plan for Brexit
Centre for European Reform, July 2018

Brexit: One failed plan, two resignations, and plenty of uncertainty
Atlantic Council, July 2018

Four Brexit scenarios
Carnegie Europe, July 2018

A second Brexit referendum: The practical questions
Institute for Government, July 2018

Deal, no deal, or extension?
UK in a Changing Europe, July 2018

After Chequers, what has changed on Brexit?
Institute for Government, July 2018

The UK’s first international trade negotiation: Agriculture at the WTO
European Centre for International Political Economy, July 2018

Brexit: Time for a moratorium
LSE Blog, July 2018

Trump backed Brexit: Then he used it as leverage
Brookings Institution, July 2018

The Brexit White Paper: Room for improvement
Policy Exchange, July 2018

Trump’s misguided attack on European unity
Council on Foreign Relations, July 2018

Preparing business for a Brexit ‘no deal’: Questions the Government needs to answer
Institute for Government, July 2018

Brexit and European defence: What to expect from a “no-deal” outcome?
Instituto Affari Internazionali, July 2018

A Brexit deal is still not achieved
Bruegel, July 2018

The Brexit White Paper offers a compromise approach for negotiations, but seems to have little support in Parliament
Open Europe, July 2018

Europe’s response to May’s plan could cost her more ministers
Centre for European Reform, July 2018

Will UK working parents lose out after Brexit?
UK in a Changing Europe, July 2018

Brexit: Heading to a deal or no deal while UK politics implodes?
Scottish Centre on European Relations, July 2018

Britain must decide what kind of power it wants to be after Brexit
Chatham House, July 2018

Why Theresa May can’t figure out Brexit
Chatham House, July 2018

Theresa May’s Brexit model: Many questions, not least ‘why leave?’
Centre for European Policy Studies, July 2018

A political crisis looms over Brexit
Carnegie Europe, July 2018

Shattered illusions: The new Brexit proposals on customs
Centre for European Policy Studies, July 2018

Dead or alive? A UK-US trade deal
Centre for European Reform, July 2018

Chequers: ‘Soft’ Brexit or just any Brexit?
Scottish Centre on European Relations, July 2018

Brexit: Last call
European Policy Centre, July 2018

British fudge: Where now for the future UK-EU framework?
Scottish Centre on European Relations, July 2018 

Safer together: The United Kingdom and the future of European security and defence
Friends of Europe, June 2018

No ‘Global Britain’ after Brexit
Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, June 2018

Brexit report
DCU Brexit Institute, June 2018

Spain and the prospect of Brexit
Real Instituto Elcano, June 2018

Striking a balance: A blueprint for the future UK-EU economic partnership
Open Europe, June 2018

Which role for the Benelux post-Brexit?
Egmont, June 2018

Maintaining Europol security ties after Brexit
Rand Corporation, June 2018

The Brexit trap: Checking out is easier than leaving the EU
Atlantic Council, June 2018

Categories: European Union

Transplant patients [What Europe does for you]

Mon, 07/30/2018 - 08:30

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 transplant patients.

In the European Union, 16 patients die every day waiting for the organs they need. Around 60 000 patients are on waiting lists. Organ transplantation is becoming an increasingly common way to save human lives or to improve their daily life, but its application is limited by the shortage of available organs. Kidneys are the most frequently transplanted organ.

Twitter Hashtag #EUandME

© tunedin / Fotolia

Transplant patients have been able to rely on EU quality and safety standards since 2010. The European action plan on organ donation and transplantation also strengthened cooperation between EU countries, therefore now those in need of an organ can benefit from the wider range of organs that cross-border donation can provide. Several EU initiatives help increase people’s awareness and willingness to donate. Recently, the European Parliament proposed the EUDONORG pilot project, which organises training for health professionals and other relevant groups, as well as national awareness events in EU countries.

The third EU health programme (2014-2020) funds projects and joint action with national authorities. One EU-funded project is FOEDUS (‘facilitating exchange of organs donated in EU Member States’) on cross-border organ exchange. The EU also finances the HOTT project, investigating the trafficking in human beings for the purpose of organ removal.

The results are encouraging and shows that when Europe pools its resources and expertise, it can deliver real results for patients.

Further information
Categories: European Union

Women in the military and in peace-keeping and peace-making [What Europe does for you]

Fri, 07/27/2018 - 08:30

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 women in the military and in peace-keeping and peace-making.

Women have proved they can perform the same police, military and civilian roles to the same standards and under the same difficult conditions as their male counterparts. They are also key agents in mediation and peace-making.

Twitter Hashtag #EUandME

© Getmilitaryphotos / Fotolia

Currently, most EU countries have policies that either prohibit or restrict women’s participation in the military, especially with regard to combat roles and hostile environments. Only 11 EU countries allow women in front-line combat positions – Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania and Sweden. In 2015, women accounted for 10.8 % of military personnel in NATO armed forces.

The EU has made significant progress in recent decades on fostering equality between women and men and it has committed itself to increasing female labour market participation and equal economic independence through its endorsement of the strategic engagement for gender equality 2016-2019.

The EU has also signed landmark United Nations Resolution 1325 on women, peace and security. The 2015 Global Study on the implementation of Resolution 1325 found that women’s involvement in peace processes increases the probability of a peace agreement lasting at least two years by 20 % and the probability of it lasting 15 years by 35 %. The aim is now to involve women in decision-making processes and in all fields of peacekeeping and increase by 40 % the percentage of women in the EU’s internal decision-making mechanisms and management positions in such missions by 2019.

Further information
Categories: European Union

2021-2027 multiannual financial framework and new own resources: Analysis of the Commission’s proposal

Thu, 07/26/2018 - 14:00

Written by Matthew Parry and Magdalena Sapała,

2021-2027 multiannual financial framework and new own resources

This in-depth analysis is a follow-up to the EPRS briefing ‘Post-2020 MFF and own resources – Ahead of the Commission’s proposal’, published in April 2018, shortly before the Commission published its proposals for a multiannual financial framework (MFF) for the 2021-2027 period and a new system of own resources. It provides an assessment of some of the proposals’ most important elements, as well as an overview of how they respond to a series of issues raised by the European Parliament.

For the expenditure side of the EU budget, the European Commission has proposed an MFF for 2021-2027 totalling €1 134 583 in commitments, and €1 104 805 in payments (2018 prices). Proposed commitments are equivalent to 1.11 %, and proposed payments to 1.08 %, of the EU-27’s GNI. Superficially, this amounts to an increase on the 2014-2020 MFF, which is an estimated 1.02 % of EU-28 GNI (commitments), but a number of factors make comparisons difficult. To begin with, the Commission’s proposed new MFF would incorporate the European Development Fund for the first time. Additionally, the United Kingdom’s expected withdrawal from the EU means that the next MFF will be for a Union of 27 countries. A smaller EU means a smaller GNI, affecting how the EU budget measures up in relative terms. Depending on one’s perspective, the proposal can be seen as either an increase or a decrease on the current MFF. What is clear, however, is that the proposal is significantly less than the 1.3 % of GNI called for by Parliament.

The proposal for the future MFF also differs structurally from the current version. The headings chosen by the Commission show a move away from the current nomenclature based on the Europe 2020 strategy, such as ‘smart and inclusive growth’, towards other EU priorities, such as the digital economy, migration, border management and defence. This shift in priorities can be seen in the choices made to increase or decrease funding: increases are most visible in the areas of research and innovation, support for investment, migration and border management, and security and defence. Cuts have mainly fallen on cohesion policy and the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy. Instruments outside the MFF have generally been boosted and the rules adapted to afford the EU more flexibility within its seven-year financial plan.

MFF: Next steps

On the revenue side of the EU budget, the Commission has taken the political opportunity presented by Brexit to propose a gradual phasing-out of most of the correction mechanisms that discount certain Member States’ contributions to the EU budget. The proposal for a new own resources decision also takes up the recommendation of the High-Level Group on Own Resources to introduce new own resources explicitly linked to EU policies.

A comparison of the Commission’s proposals with the EP’s position shows, for example, that they broadly coincide when it comes to enhancing the flexibility of the MFF (particularly the proposals to create a Union Reserve and to increase the amounts budgeted for special instruments), to setting up a budgetary mechanism to uphold the rule of law, to budgetisation of the EDF, and to reforming the EU’s system of own resources. However, the proposal differs from Parliament’s position as far as the overall size of the next MFF is concerned, and the choices made in terms of cuts and increases. Unlike the EP, the Council has yet to express a common position on the future MFF and own resources. National governments have expressed a range of views.

The MFF will be adopted by Council after the Parliament has given its consent. The new own resources decision will also be adopted by Council, after consulting the EP. However, Parliament has made clear that it sees the two files as a package, and has insisted on linking consent to the MFF with progress on reform of own resources. To this end, the EP has already taken steps to organise itself internally, in order to coordinate its interaction with Council and the Commission.

Read the complete in-depth analysis on ‘2021-2027 multiannual financial framework and new own resources‘.

 

Single market, innovation and digital

Cohesion and values

Natural resources and environment

Migration and border management

Security and defence

Neighbourhood and the world

European public administration

Categories: European Union

Local and regional civil servants [What Europe does for you]

Thu, 07/26/2018 - 08:30

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 local and regional civil servants.

Local and regional authorities play an important role in implementing EU policy as they work close to the public. Efficient service and a high level of expertise are crucial for the quality of public administration.

Twitter Hashtag #EUandME

© bnenin / Fotolia

EU-funded programmes under the e-Government initiative have helped expand online public services and improve administrative efficiency for businesses and citizens. Local and regional authorities can use the funding to simplify procedures, improve the processing of information and statistics, implement IT systems, exchange data and establish cooperation with public administrations in other EU countries.

The European Territorial Observatory Network (ESPON) helps local and regional practitioners by conducting research and analysis on various aspects of regional development. In addition, funding from the EU’s structural funds can be used to fund specialised training for civil servants, modernise equipment and infrastructure in their working environment, organise information campaigns and events, and conduct evaluations and studies.

The European Committee of the Regions, the EU body representing local and regional authorities, cooperates with civil servants across the whole of the EU via consultations and organises numerous events throughout the year. Best known is perhaps the European Week of Regions and Cities held in Brussels, where civil servants as well as experts and academics from all over EU can attend thematic workshops free of charge on topics such as territorial development, cohesion policy, social inclusion, environment, transport, research and innovation.

Further information
Categories: European Union

Mechanism to resolve legal and administrative obstacles in a cross-border context [EU Legislation in Progress]

Wed, 07/25/2018 - 18:00

Written by Christiaan van Lierop (1st edition),

© Nikolai Sorokin / Fotolia

Often isolated, and with generally poorer access to public services, the EU’s border regions face a unique set of challenges. This has been recognised under Article 174 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which provides that particular attention should be paid to cross-border regions when developing action to strengthen the EU’s economic, social and territorial cohesion. Yet while the EU has provided significant support over the years, particularly within the framework of European territorial cooperation, helping to strengthen connectivity and create new growth and jobs, numerous obstacles continue to hamper cross-border cooperation.

Organised to identify these remaining bottlenecks, the Commission’s 2015 cross-border review revealed legal and administrative barriers to be the main obstacle to cross-border cooperation while, in parallel, the 2015 Luxembourg Presidency put forward plans for an EU cross-border mechanism, with an informal working group set up to develop the idea. Both processes have fed into discussions in recent years to create a mechanism for cross-border areas, leading to the current proposal, introduced as part of the multiannual financial framework’s cohesion policy package.

Versions Proposal for a regulation on mechanism to resolve legal and administrative obstacles in a cross-border context Committee responsible:

 

Rapporteur:

Shadow rapporteurs:

 

  Regional Development (REGI)

Matthijs van Miltenburg (ALDE, the Netherlands)

Joachim Zeller (EPP, Germany)

Bronis Ropė (Greens/EFA, Lithuania)

Rosa D’Amato (EFDD, Italy) COM(2018) 373 from 29.5.2018

2018/198 (COD)

Ordinary legislative procedure (COD) (Parliament and Council on equal footing – formerly ‘co-decision’) Next steps expected: Publication of draft report

 

Categories: European Union

Translators and interpreters [What Europe does for you]

Wed, 07/25/2018 - 08:30

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 translators and interpreters.

Are you a translator or interpreter working in some of the European Union’s 24 official languages? As the EU has grown, so has the number of official languages, now more than any other organisation (the United Nations has only six).

Twitter Hashtag #EUandME

© Minerva Studio / Fotolia

Multilingualism is therefore at the heart of the EU, which needs to make sure that its laws are understood by all 500 million citizens, and to listen to what they have to say in their own languages. To make this happen, the EU employs 4 300 translators and 800 interpreters on its permanent staff, as well as freelancers. As a result, the EU is by far the biggest employer of linguists in the world. Why not apply for a job and join them?

The EU promotes translation and interpreting in many ways. For example, EU interpreters regularly teach courses at European universities, and produce training materials. If you are still a student, the EU organises the annual Juvenes Translatores competition for young translators. Or, if you’re an already established interpreter or translator, you might like to use the EU’s IATE terminology database, a valuable, and free, resource for language professionals.

Finally, the EU is at the forefront of machine translation technology development. When readers only need to understand the gist of a text, the European Commission’s MT@EC service provides instant raw translations. However, many documents still require the human touch, and EU translators are not at risk of losing their jobs to computers yet. Machine translations are a useful starting point, helping to make the job easier, and speed up the translation process.

Further information
Categories: European Union

New STOA study examines 3D bio-printing for medical and enhancement purposes

Tue, 07/24/2018 - 18:00

Written by Philip Boucher,

© Crystal Eye Studio / shutterstock

3D printing refers to the production of physical artefacts by the gradual addition of layers of material. Scientists are now exploring methods of 3D bio-printing, defined here as the production of biological and ‘biologically relevant’ materials for medical and human-enhancement purposes.

The 3D bioprinting sector is often subject to optimistic predictions and exaggerated headlines. The term ‘organ printing’ was only introduced in 1999, but by 2003 Mironov et al. felt ‘safe to predict’ that they would be as widely used for biomedical research in the 21st century as the electron microscope was in the 20th century. Snappy headlines about lifesaving 3D-printed hearts and portable skin printers might attract readers, but these applications, in fact, face substantial technical barriers – not to mention regulatory, commercial and other hurdles – that will not be resolved any time soon.

Despite the hype, 3D bio-printing does offer substantial benefits in other more realistic, if less sensational, domains. This includes the production of surgical tools and instruments, such as drilling and cutting guides and knives that can be designed for specific one-off procedures, allowing surgeons to work with greater precision and speed. Anatomically accurate models of patients could also be produced, which would allow doctors to practice for a specific operation, or could be used by medical students as part of their training. The same anatomical models could also be used to facilitate discussions about procedures with patients, and might even be used to produce ‘before and after’ mock-ups of a patient’s body, which could be useful for reconstructive, therapeutic or cosmetic surgery. 3D printing also has substantial development potential in the production of prosthetic limbs. While 3D printing is not yet widely used, the level of personalisation it allows could bring improvements in their functionality, aesthetics and fit, this last being a crucial factor in their success.

It is difficult to estimate which medical uses of 3D printing will break through, but some applications can develop extremely quickly. For example, all US manufacturers of hearing aids shifted to 3D printing in less than two years, with late adopters pushed out of the market. Such anecdotes provide no guarantees, but illustrate the potential game-changing power of 3D printing for ‘mass customised’ and biologically relevant products.

This week, STOA published the results of its study on 3D bio-printing for medical and enhancement purposes. The study was requested by Dario Tamburrano (EFDD, Italy), and carried out by the European Technology Assessment Group (ETAG), under the management of STOA. The study followed STOA’s foresight methodology, which starts with the identification of broad trends and their potential impacts, before moving on to the development of scenarios to support the exploration of possible futures and, finally, back to the present day with reflections on how to prepare for and shape the future. Three key challenges are identified in the approach to regulation, in managing the distribution of costs and benefits, and in the role of citizens in technology development. The study offers two distinct sets of policy options in response to each of these three challenges.

The whole study is described in detail in a report, which is augmented by a further analysis of legal and ethical issues. The key insights of the study are summarised and developed in an In-Depth Analysis, which offers concluding remarks on three key trends (decentralisation, DIY and mass customisation), the ambiguous boundary between medical recovery and human enhancement, responsible research and innovation, managing expectations of the technology, and how to develop socially acceptable technologies.

Your opinion counts for us. To let us know what you think, get in touch via email.

Read the In-Depth Analysis on ‘3D bio-printing for medical and enhancement purposes‘ on the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Categories: European Union

Global Trendometer – Essays on medium- and long-term global trends – July 2018

Tue, 07/24/2018 - 14:00

Written by Leopold Schmertzing,

© Vijayabhosale / shutterstock

The EU faces challenges from both outside and within its borders. Most of these are the symptoms of big underlying trends, and handling them requires foresight. The annual Global Trendometer aims to provide such foresight for decision-makers in the EU, by analysing the changes in these long-term trends. The publication does not offer answers or make recommendations; rather, it presents summarised information derived from a range of carefully selected sources.

This latest issue of the Global Trendometer analyses the following long-term trends:

The future of India: Aligning ambition and potential

  • India possess essential demographic, political and economic ingredients for long-term success, but also has major constrains to overcome, such as regionalism, nationalism, and sorting out relations with their neighbours, Pakistan and China.

The future of the labour share of income

  • Over forty years, labour compensation as part of the national income shrank, while the share of capital increased. This trend correlates with the rise in inequality. Digitalisation, globalisation and demographic change might further decline the labour share.

Democracy in the age of artificial intelligence

  • Artificial intelligence can diminish or increase democratic freedoms. It can polarise or enliven the political debate. It will probably take a central place in pro- or anti-democratic beliefs. One thing is certain: AI will force democracies and authoritarian states to adapt.

The US political system after Trump: Lasting damage to the republic:

  • Donald Trump has shattered political rules, reinterpreted the role of the US President like none of his predecessors, and changed relations with Congress, the judiciary and bureaucracy, but is his administration an exception, or a new standard, and is he a threat to the republic?

Remittances: a hidden contribution to development

  • Remittances sent from migrants abroad are a significant and stable source of income, exceeding direct investment globally. They increasingly help women, and could be revolutionised with crypto-currencies, however nationalism and anti-terror legislation may limit remittance income.

Food (in)security in China

  • With rising wealth and demand, in 2030, China might no longer be able to cater to increasing food demands. Political sensitivities and environmental issues come into play and future global land-grabbing by China might not be sufficient to meet its population’s rising demand for meat.

Long-term economic waves: Fact or fiction?

  • 40 to 60-year economic cycles explain the patterns seen after the inventions of the steam engine, railroads, chemical and electro-technology, the automobile and lately information technology. The next cycle might be related to ecology, ageing and biotechnology.

Public procurement in the city of the future

  • Urban public procurement is tied to trends such as a shift of power to cities, greater administrative flexibility and greater use of the private sector. Adequate monitoring of data might solve ecological issues and spread participation.

Deep fake: from fake news to fake reality?

  • A ‘deep fake’ is disinformation based on digitally manipulated data, for example videos. Due to the plausibility of such forms of data, they have a great negative impact. Artificial intelligence and declining trust might make this worse. What will such practices do to journalism and privacy standards?

Climate engineering, a miracle solution to climate change?

  • Technically possible, geoengineering tools involve interventions on land, in the oceans or in outer space. Although many techniques remain hypothetical, concerns are raised. What are the uncertainties? Can a climate-safe future be created?

The Global Trendometer uses a specific foresight tool – trend analysis – which asks: how will developments catch up with us in the future? It is, however, not only focusing on trends, but also on uncertainties – key questions that decide the future trajectories of trends – and on disruptions – low probability, high impact opportunities and threats. This is the third edition of the Global Trendometer, following earlier issues in 2016 and 2017. The Global Trends Unit has produced a total of 32 articles on future issues that are still relevant today. Why not read for yourself?

Read the complete study on ‘Global Trendometer – Essays on medium- and long-term global trends – July 2018‘ on the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Categories: European Union

Tourism operators [What Europe does for you]

Tue, 07/24/2018 - 08:30

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 tourism operators.

There is no specific EU fund for tourism but, as a tourism operator, you can apply for funding from various EU sources, such as the European structural and investment funds.

Twitter Hashtag #EUandME

© dima_sidelnikov / Fotolia

The European Union has launched various initiatives to help entrepreneurs manage tourism businesses and improve staff quality and mobility, for instance if they are restructuring or are short of qualified workers. The EU helps tourism operators to find business partners, funding and information (for instance via its Tourism Business Portal). It also helps them to go digital (for example via webinars or by offering financial support for the development of tourism-related apps), and provides guidance on starting up tourism businesses. EURES – the EU’s job mobility portal – has a dedicated section for tourism and hospitality sector skills passports. The EU also conducts surveys that help give tourism operators a better understanding of the tourism preferences of the European public.

Furthermore, the EU is helping tourism operators to attract more tourists by promoting destination Europe. It has created the visiteurope.com website and has run various campaigns (such as 2018 EU-China Tourism Year).

Lastly, the EU is engaged also in visa facilitation, while strengthening internal security. It has removed internal border controls for those travelling within the Schengen Area (most EU countries), while retaining external border controls.

Further information
Categories: European Union

New EU rules on labelling of tyres [EU Legislation in Progress]

Mon, 07/23/2018 - 18:00

Written by Alex Benjamin Wilson (1st edition),

© WilliamJu / Fotolia

On 17 May 2018, the European Commission adopted a proposal for a new regulation on the labelling of tyres for the purposes of fuel efficiency, safety, and noise reduction. This would repeal and replace the 2009 Tyre Labelling Regulation (TLR), while maintaining and reinforcing most of its key provisions.

The proposed regulation seeks to increase consumer awareness of the tyre label and improve market surveillance and enforcement of TLR provisions across the EU Member States. It would oblige suppliers to display the tyre label in all forms of purchase, including where the tyre is not physically shown in the store and where it is sold online or on a long-distance basis. Whereas the tyre label is currently only applicable to passenger and light-duty vehicles, in future it would also apply to heavy-duty vehicles. The new label would include visual information on tyre performance in snow or ice conditions, and could be adjusted by means of delegated acts to include information on mileage, abrasion or re-studded tyres. Some outdated label scales would be readjusted by means of delegated acts. From 2020, all tyre labels would be included in the product registration database being set up as part of the revised EU framework for energy efficiency labelling.

Versions Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the labelling of tyres with respect to fuel efficiency and other essential parameters and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1222/2009 Committee responsible: Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE) COM(2018) 296
17.5.2018 Rapporteur: Michał Boni (EPP, Poland) 2016/0148 (COD) Shadow rapporteurs:

  Edouard Martin (S&D, France)
Ashley Fox (ECR, UK)
Dominique Riquet (ALDE, France) Ordinary legislative procedure (COD) (Parliament and Council on equal footing – formerly ‘co-decision’) Next steps expected: Publication of draft report

Categories: European Union

A Parliament unlike any other? Academic perspectives on the European Parliament

Mon, 07/23/2018 - 14:00

Written by Desmond Dinan and Gaby Umbach,

A Parliament unlike any other? Academic perspectives on the EP

The European Parliament (EP) has long been a magnet for academic inquiry, especially since the relance européenne of the late 1980s. While supranationalists and liberal-intergovernmentalists sparred over the reasons for the EU’s revival, a new generation of quantitative and comparative political scientists turned their attention to the conduct of legislative decision-making. They focused on the EP, seeing it as a distinctive but not necessarily unique entity, best understood by means of comparative analysis. The idea of the European Union (EU) as a complex polity, as a system of multi-level governance, grew out of this approach.

Nevertheless, a gap opened between what political scientists observed and what officials and politicians experienced. People working in the EP undoubtedly enjoyed this academic attention, although they could not always recognise themselves or their institution in the books and articles that resulted from it. The contrast between works by practitioners and academics is sometimes striking, with thick description and empirical evidence being increasingly at odds with theoretical frameworks and conceptual approaches.

The problem might not simply be the result of over-specialisation, methodological innovation, and rising barriers to academic advancement. It could also be due to excessive faith in comparativism. The EP is, indeed, a parliament, to which the tools of parliamentary studies can, and should, be applied. However, the EP is not like any other parliament. It is a supranational, directly elected body, the only one of its kind in the world. The challenges and idiosyncrasies that come with such a singular status risk being lost in highly quantitative, comparative analyses. The greatest loss may be the failure of many academic works on the EP to capture the colour, drama, and political theatre that infuse the institution.

The apparent similarity between the EP and national parliaments, which the work of comparative political science has strongly reinforced, is both a blessing and a curse. On the one hand, the seemingly close comparison between the EP and its national analogues helps to make the EP more familiar to European citizens, thereby strengthening the institution’s informal legitimacy. On the other hand, the evident uniqueness of the EP, which comparative studies often miss or simply pass over, undermines the same informal legitimacy.

The best approach to analyse the EP, perhaps, is to use comparative methods to the extent that they help students and scholars of the EU to understand better how the EP operates. At the same time, it behoves EU scholars to emphasise the uniqueness of the EU polity and institutional apparatus, including the EP. Otherwise, EU scholarship runs the risk of missing a vitally important point about the EP, which is, quite simply, that it is a parliament unlike any other.

Inaugural lecture

These reflections formed the backdrop against which Desmond Dinan, Professor of Public Policy at George Mason University, Virginia, USA, and the first European Parliamentary Research Service Visiting Fellow, inaugurated the new EPRS Annual Lecture series on 11 July 2018, at the EP’s Library Reading Room in Brussels. Welcomed by Anthony Teasdale, Director-General of EPRS, and introduced by Mairead McGuinness, First Vice-President of the European Parliament, Dinan presented his analysis of the development of academic research on the EP, highlighting main trends and elaborating on discernible gaps.

In his lecture, Dinan sought to draw a mental and intellectual map of EP studies. The EP, as an institution in the broadest sense, incorporating norms, values, behaviour and organisational features, forms the features on this map. Academics are the self-appointed mapmakers, who try to outline the contours of the terrain and discern the connections between different EP features. The terrain of EP studies is multi-dimensional, and requires a multi- and an inter-disciplinary approach.

In general, Dinan identified a certain critical gap between academics analysis and parliamentary practice that often did not seem to reflect the same reality. Moreover, the strong focus on quantitative research and addiction to data mining often resulted in blindness towards the impressive environment parliament offered, including its ‘soft’ features and ‘sense of theatre’ that characterised supranational parliamentary work and life. Contextualisation of results was hence often missing in quantitative approaches, making them partially myopic to the reality of EP politics.

Acknowledging that his EPRS fellowship had deepened his personal, academic, and institutional understanding of such EP characteristics, for the purpose of his lecture, Dinan adopted a temporal perspective as well as an historical institutionalist approach. He subdivided his review of historical, political science, sociological, and anthropological research on the EP into four broad periods: 1952-58, corresponding to the existence of the Common Assembly of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC); 1958-79, from the launch of the European Economic Community, and with it the European Parliamentary Assembly, to the first European Parliament elections; 1979-92; from the first elections to the Maastricht Treaty, as a result of which the EP acquired real legislative power; and the period since 1992.

The Common Assembly

Mairead McGuinness, Vice-President of the European Parliament,

From 1952 to 1958, the Common Assembly became subject to academic attention in view of growing interest in European integration. The dominant perspective of this phase in political sciences was International Relations (realism and liberal internationalism being especially relevant), while subsequent studies drew on diplomatic history. These two central disciplinary perspectives were later challenged by comparative politics in the case of the former and by political, social, and cultural history in the case of the latter, when research on the EU witnessed its ‘polity-building’ turn. Social and cultural institutionalism from the anthropological and political sociology perspective added to this.

Related to the early, academically often dismissed period of European integration, researchers were particularly interested in post-war global and regional institution building. The United Nations and the Council of Europe became special reference points of analysis in this phase. The early 1950s witnessed a shift of attention towards the assemblies of these new global and regional institutions, also putting the Common Assembly of the ECSC on an academic radar that was still more populated by studies on the consultative assembly of the Council of Europe, which contemporary academics expected to become the most relevant regional institution for Europe. Research on European integration at that time was partially influenced by German academic interest in federal institution-building, at a national level in the new Federal Republic and at the supranational level in Europe.

US – or US-based – academics were especially important, thanks to generous government funding, not least because of intense interest in geostrategic developments. Ernst B. Haas, a German-born, American academic, wrote his seminal work, The Uniting of Europe (1958), following a sabbatical year studying the High Authority in Luxembourg. In this book, Haas developed the theory of neo-functionalism to explain the emergence of the European Community and predict its development. This theory posited the idea of policy spillover, and suggested that European business and political elites would gradually shift their allegiance from the national to the European level of decision-making. For that reason, Haas was extremely interested in the role of the transnational families in the Common Assembly.

Other academics at the time were drawn to the Common Assembly not only because its members organised themselves into political groups, but also because of the Common Assembly’s right to hold the High Authority to account, and the eagerness of its members to extend the Assembly’s limited powers. Indeed, the behaviour and attitude of its members was different from any other assembly of the period as, from very early onwards, they pushed hard to maximise the political influence of their dual national and European mandates, aiming to extend the competences of the newly established supranational (parliamentary) level. Early scholars of European integration realised that the Common Assembly was far more interesting and politically important than the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe.

Subsequent historical analyses of the Common Authority bore out the assessments of the early scholars. The work of Sandro Guerrieri stands out, in particular his 2016 magnum opus, Un Parlamento oltre le nazioni. L’Assemblea comune della CECA e le sfide dell’integrazione europea (1952-1958). Two other, recent contributions by historians are also noteworthy: an article by Mechthild Roos (2017) on the EP’s gain in power, 1952- 1979, and a book by Jacob Krumrey (2018), on the symbolic politics of European integration, which includes two chapters on the Common Assembly.

The European Parliament: early years

Desmond Dinan, Professor of Public Policy at George Mason University, Virginia, USA, and the first European Parliamentary Research Service Visiting Fellow

This period of initial interest in the Common Assembly was followed by a second period of research, from 1958 to 1979, which was arguably the least satisfactory for the analysis of the EP. Not many new scholars turned their attention towards the Parliament. Developments in European integration itself added to the deceleration of academic enthusiasm for the EP, and debunked the dominant theory of neo-functionalism. Specifically, the Empty Chair crisis was not only a disruptive episode for the nascent European Community (EC), but also for scholarship on European integration. From this crisis emerged Stanley Hoffmann’s article (1966) on the resilience of the nation state, which inspired a realist-intergovernmentalist perspective on the trajectory of European integration during the problematic period of the 1970s.

The economic and political setbacks of the ‘long’ 1970s led some academics to suggest that the EC had entered the ‘dark ages.’ Recently, historians have pointed out that the Community was surprisingly vibrant at that time. There were important initiatives in fields such as global development, the environment, monetary policy, and foreign policy. There were also significant institutional developments, notably the treaty changes of 1970 and 1975 granting budgetary authority to the EP; the launch of the European Council in 1975; and the decision finally to hold direct elections to the EP, which took place in 1979. The prospect of direct elections elicited considerable academic interest, including a number of general texts on the EP. As many of these academic works pointed out, however, the EP was still far from being a ‘real’ or a ‘normal’ parliament, primarily because it still lacked legislative authority.

Analysts of the first direct elections asked a question which recurs to this day, after each round of EP elections: are these elections truly European or are they really separate sets of national elections? Karlheinz Reif and Hermann Schmitt answered the question in 1980 by claiming that the first direct elections were really nine second-order national elections (the EC then had nine Member States). Subsequent academic analyses, after each round of EP elections, has confirmed this conclusion. The first European elections in 1979 were nonetheless a huge event for the European Community as a whole, and a wake-up call for scholars analysing the EP, even if this led to occasional insomnia in EP studies between election phases, rather than to a sustained interest in the EP.

Acceleration of European integration

The fortunes of the EC, and with it the EP, changed profoundly during the next period under review, from 1979 to 1992. The year ‘1992’ became a catchphrase for the revival of European integration following implementation of the Single European Act (SEA) in 1987, and the launch of the single market programme at the end of the decade. The EP contributed to the relaunch of the EC with its famous Draft Treaty on European Union, which emerged from the work of Altiero Spinelli, the veteran Euro-federalist, who formed a cross-party group of MEPs to advocate treaty change. Academics at that time continued to write about direct elections (in 1984 and again in 1989), and about the emergence of the Draft Treaty and its possible impact on the inter-governmental negotiations that resulted in the SEA. Academics also appreciated that the SEA brought about a major increase in the EP’s legislative power. Though still unique, the EP was becoming more ‘normal’.

Academic interest in the EC picked up considerably in tandem with the acceleration of European integration. There was a return to ‘grand theory’, as academics sought to explain what was happening. The most striking of these contributions was an article by Andrew Moravcsik (1991), which argued that the SEA had come about because of a convergence of domestic policy preferences for market liberalisation and integration among the EC’s three leading Member States (France, Germany, and the United Kingdom). This was the basis of Moravcsik’s theory of liberal intergovernmentalism, which he developed in his book (1998), The Choice for Europe. With the revival of grand theory, came a revival of supranationalism as a means of understanding the events of the late 1980s. After all, the activism of Commission President Jacques Delors and the momentum that was building for monetary union seemed to be classic examples of supranational entrepreneurism and policy spillover.

At the same time, historians were producing the first, major, archive-based examinations into the origins and development of the European Coal and Steel Community and, later in the 1950s, of the European Economic Community (EEC). Foremost among them were John Gillingham, whose book (1991) Coal, Steel and the Rebirth of Europe, 1945-1955: the Germans and French from Ruhr Conflict to European Community, is a masterwork of economic and diplomatic history, and Alan Milward, the ‘father’ of European integration history. Having written a book (1984) about the economic recovery of Western Europe after the Second World War, Milward wrote a widely influential book (1992) on the origins of the EEC. The thesis of the book was contained in its title: The European Rescue of the Nation-State.

Dominance of comparative politics

Desmond Dinan, Professor of Public Policy at George Mason University, Virginia, USA, and the first European Parliamentary Research Service Visiting Fellow

Although Moravcsik’s liberal-intergovernmentalism and Milward’s state-centrism dominated discourse about the nascent EU, an academic earthquake was turning the study of the EU away from international relations and towards comparative politics. The two seismic events were a book (1992) edited by Alberta Sbragia, and an article (1994) written by Simon Hix. Sbragia was then a scholar of US politics, who had not previously worked on the EC. Hix was a graduate student at the European University Institute. Sbragia had become interested in the EC because of the political implications of the SEA. While on sabbatical in Washington, she invited a number of other comparative political scientists to write about the emerging EU. In the ensuing book, Euro-Politics, Sbragia urged scholars of the EU to use the tools and techniques of comparative politics to explore the nascent polity. Similarly, Hix pointed out that an international relations approach was useful for understanding the development of European integration, but a comparative politics approach was essential for understanding the EU.

Because of the emergence of the EU as a political system in the 1990s, thanks first to the SEA and then to the Maastricht Treaty, research on the EU and the EP increased greatly, and experienced a major turn towards comparative politics. The subject of analysis had morphed into a political system; to describe its character, comparison was the name of the game. Subsequent scholarship continued to focus on direct elections, but also examined in detail the EP’s involvement in the cooperation and codecision legislative procedures. Following the Amsterdam Treaty, a revised form of codecision became almost the sole focus of such research. (codecision became the ordinary legislative procedure in the Lisbon Treaty). Other topics of interest to EP scholars include the organisation and cohesiveness of the political groups; the extent to which the main groups cooperate or collude in the conduct of EP affairs; the influence of the EP in the Constitutional Convention of 2002-2003; EP input into the intergovernmental conferences resulting first in the Constitutional Treaty, and second in the Lisbon Treaty; and the behaviour of individual MEPs.

The comparative approach to EP studies brought with it a major ‘quantitative turn,’ as scholars have mined datasets of roll call votes and other information to develop their arguments and hypotheses. Although of undoubted value for the analytical depth of disciplinary and specialised research on the EP, the contribution of such studies to general knowledge of the EP remains subject to debate. As a counter-balance to such specialisation, a number of EP practitioner-scholars have written articles and books explaining to academic and interested lay readers how the EP works. Notable among these authors are Richard Corbett, who was an EP official before becoming an MEP from 1999-2009 (he was re-elected in 2014); Francis Jacobs; Michael Shackleton; and Martin Westlake, who subsequently became Secretary-General of the Economic and Social Committee.

Q&A

Opening his reflections on academic research on the EP to discussion with the audience, Dinan responded to questions concerning the geographical provenience of scholars working on the EP; academic attention to the EP’s scrutiny powers; the decline and return of neo-functionalism as a grand theory; contemporary trends in grand theory; trends in interinstitutional relations; and current and possibly future developments, such as the Spitzenkandidaten process and transnational lists for EP elections.

As the lecture and discussion showed, scholarship on the EP is vibrant and remains highly relevant for understanding the course of European integration. Nevertheless, a new ‘qualitative and behavioural turn’ in research might help to provide answers to the pressing questions posed by ‘post-truth’ and ‘post-factual’ political discourse. EPRS and the academic community are ready to contribute evidence-based analysis to this new phase in research on the EP and, more broadly, on the EU.

Click to view slideshow.
Categories: European Union

Latest on the digital economy [What Think Tanks are thinking]

Mon, 07/23/2018 - 10:00

Written by Marcin Grajewski,

© Aleksey / Fotolia

The digital revolution, which is reshaping the global economy and societies offers numerous opportunities, but also poses many challenges, thereby putting governments in a dilemma on how to shape it. While empowering individuals in many ways and spurring impressive inventions, it poses threats of cyber-attacks and privacy abuse. It also raises concern about the future of the labour and social security markets.

This note offers links to commentaries and studies on the digital economy 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 May 2017.

Meeting Europe’s connectivity challenge: The role for community networks
Centre for European Policy Studies, July 2018

Trading invisibles: Exposure of countries to GDPR
Bruegel, July 2018

No middle ground: Moving on from the crypto wars
European Council on Foreign Relations, July 2018

Quality criteria for algorithmic processes
Bertelsmann Stiftung, July 2018

Game over? Europe’s cyber problem
Centre for European Reform, July 2018

Women, technology and entrepreneurship: How European women use technology to get ahead and why it matters for Europe as a whole
Lisbon Council, June 2018

Protecting Europe against software vulnerabilities: It’s time to act!
Centre for European Policy Studies, June 2018

10 trends shaping innovation in the digital age
European Political Strategy Centre, May 2018

The global debate on the future of Artificial Intelligence
Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, May 2018

Missions for EU innovation policy: Why the right set-up matters
Jacques Delors Institute, Berlin, May 2018

How big is China’s digital economy?
Bruegel, May 2018

Takes two to tax: On fair taxation of the digital economy
Jacques Delors Institute, Berlin, May 2018

Attribution in cyberspace: Beyond the “Whodunnit”
GLOBSEC Policy Institute, May 2018

Bei bester Gesundheit? Deutschlands E-Health im Check-up: Zukunftsplattform Bayern: Digitales Gesundheitswesen 2020
Hanns Seidel Stiftung, May 2018

What Europe needs to create more Spotifys
Centre for European Policy Studies, May 2018

How to manage successfully citizen consultations on Europe in the digital age?
Jacques Delors Institute, Berlin, May 2018

Data governance in the digital age
Centre for International Governance Innovation, May 2018

Automation and the future of work: scenarios and policy options
Centre for International Governance Innovation, May 2018

Industry 4.0 and European innovation policy: Big plans, small steps
Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, May 2018

The ethics of artificial intelligence: How AI can end discrimination and make the world a smarter, better place
Lisbon Council, May 2018

How e-commerce reshapes markets and firms’ strategies
Bruegel, May 2018

Russian election interference: Europe’s counter to fake news and cyber attacks
Carnegie Europe, May 2018

The smart state
Policy Exchange, May 2018

Making America first in the digital economy: The case for engaging Europe
Atlantic Council, May 2018

The case for a transatlantic AI centre of excellence
GLOBSEC Policy Institute, May 2018

Digital Australia: An economic and trade agenda
Brookings Institution, May 2018

The invisible silk road: Enter the digital dragon
European Institute for Asian Studies, May 2018

Of Facebook revolutions and Twitter presidents: How digitalisation changes political decision-making
Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, April 2018

Fair working conditions for platform workers
Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, April 2018

Cost and Value in banks: A model fit for the digital era?
Centre for European Policy Studies, April 2018

Are European firms falling behind in the global corporate research race?
Bruegel, April 2018

Rules for robots: Why we need a digital magna carta or the age of intelligent machines
Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, 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

More than just bitcoin: The potential of blockchain technology, using the example of Latin America
Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, April 2018

Économie collaborative: Comment encadrer et encourager le pouvoir de la “multitude”?
Terra Nova, March 2018

How local government reform is key to Europe’s digital success
Lisbon Council, March 2018

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

Digital trade: Is data treaty-ready?
Centre for International Governance Innovation, February 2018

The application of artificial intelligence at Chinese digital platform giants: Baidu, Alibaba and Tencent
Research Institute of the Finnish Economy, February 2018

The Internet and jobs: Opportunities and ambiguous trends
Centre for European Policy Studies, February 2018

Digital health: How can the EU help make the most out of it?
European Policy Centre, January 2018

The known traveller: Unlocking the potential of digital identity for secure and seamless travel
World Economic Forum, January 2018

Supporting press publishers in a digital era
European Policy Centre, January 2018

Cyber-diplomacy: The making of an international society in the digital age
Egmont, January 2018

Perspectives Asia: Digital Asia
Heinrich Böll Stiftung, January 2018

Who governs the Internet?
Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, January 2018

Read this briefing on ‘Latest on the digital economy‘ on the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Categories: European Union

Bus drivers [What Europe does for you]

Mon, 07/23/2018 - 08:30

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 bus drivers.

Bus and coach travel plays a significant role in the daily life of many Europeans. In 2015, over 8 % of all passengers made use of these services, compared with 9.8 % for air transport and 6.7 % for rail. In 2014, there were over 361 000 road passenger transport enterprises in the EU. European roads are the safest in the world and the EU is striving to move closer to zero fatalities in road transport by 2050.

Twitter Hashtag #EUandME

© Jörg Hüttenhölscher / Fotolia

People wishing to work as bus or truck drivers undergo compulsory initial training. Subsequently, every five years professionals go through in-service training to update and refresh their skills and to renew their licences, which have a uniform validity. A medical check-up is a compulsory part of each renewal. The drivers’ training system is designed to increase their awareness of risks and ways to mitigate them. In 2018, the EU updated its rules on training for professional drivers, placing an emphasis on safety and the environment, easier recognition of training received in another EU country, and clearer minimum age requirements.

As tiredness is a major factor in 20 % of road accidents involving heavy commercial vehicles, the EU has standardised the time professional drivers can spend behind the wheel when part or all of the journey is in another EU country. This time should not exceed nine hours a day or 56 hours a week. Furthermore, drivers are obliged to take a break of at least 45 minutes after four and a half hours of driving.

Further information
Categories: European Union

Revision of the European Electronic Tolling Service (EETS) Directive [EU Legislation in Progress]

Fri, 07/20/2018 - 08:30

Written by Ariane Debyser (1st edition),

© am / Fotolia

On 31 May 2017, the Commission adopted a proposal for a directive on the interoperability of electronic road toll systems and facilitating cross-border exchange of information on the failure to pay road fees in the Union. It was presented within the context of the Commission’s first ‘Europe on the Move’ package that seeks to modernise mobility and transport.

Tying in with the 2015 energy union strategy and the Commission’s 2016 European strategy for low‑emission mobility, and announced in the 2017 Commission work programme, the revision of the European Electronic Tolling Service (EETS) was presented together with the revision of the directive on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures (the Eurovignette Directive).

In June 2018, both Parliament and Council adopted their positions on the Commission’s proposal, opening the way for interinstitutional (trilogue) negotiations to begin.

Versions Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and the Council on the interoperability of electronic road toll systems and facilitating cross-border exchange of information on the failure to pay road fees in the Union (recast) Committee responsible: Transport and Tourism (TRAN) COM(2017) 280
31.5.2017 Rapporteur: Massimiliano Salini (EPP, Italy) 2017/0128(COD) Shadow rapporteurs:

 

  Olga Sehnalová (S&D, Czech Republic)
Evžen Tošenovský (ECR, Czech Republic)
Matthijs van Miltenburg (ALDE, The Netherlands)
Jakop Dalunde (Greens/EFA, Sweden)
Rolandas Paksas (EFDD, Lithuania) Ordinary legislative procedure (COD) (Parliament and Council on equal footing – formerly ‘co-decision’) Next steps expected: Trilogue negotiations

Categories: European Union

Pages

THIS IS THE NEW BETA VERSION OF EUROPA VARIETAS NEWS CENTER - under construction
the old site is here

Copy & Drop - Can`t find your favourite site? Send us the RSS or URL to the following address: info(@)europavarietas(dot)org.