European Parliamentary Research Service Blog

Written by Marie Lecerf,

© Andrey Popov / Adobe Stock

In 2020, most European Union (EU) Member States have a statutory minimum wage (21 of 27), while six others have wage levels determined though collective bargaining. Expressed in euros, monthly minimum wages vary widely across the EU ranging from €312 in Bulgaria to €2 142 in Luxembourg (July 2020). The disparities are significantly smaller when price level differences are eliminated. Expressed in purchasing power standard, the minimum wage ranges from PPS 547 in Latvia to PPS 1 634 in Luxembourg.

The question of setting a minimum wage is one of the most analysed and debated topics in economics. Over recent years and in the context of the economic and social crisis engendered by the Covid‑19 outbreak, the creation of a European minimum wage is increasingly considered as a useful instrument to ensure fair wages and social inclusion.

In November 2017, the EU institutions jointly proclaimed the European Pillar of Social Rights, setting out the European Union’s commitment to fair wages for workers. Since then, the European Commission has shown its willingness to address this issue. In particular, Commission President Ursula von der Leyen stated in her political guidelines that she will propose a legal instrument to ensure that every worker in the Union has a fair minimum wage. Such minimum wages should be set according to national traditions, through collective agreements or legal provisions.

On 14 January 2020, the Commission launched the first phase of consultation with social partners on fair minimum wages for workers in the EU, to gather social partners’ views on the possible direction of EU action. Based on the replies received, the Commission concluded that there is a need for EU action. The second phase of consultation was launched on 3 June 2020; with a deadline of 4 September 2020 for social partners to provide their opinion. A Commission proposal is expected by the end of 2020.

The European Trade Union Confederation welcomed the European Commission’s initiative and called for the Commission to propose a directive. Conversely, employers’ organisations believe wage-setting should be left to social partners at national level. In their view, if the Commission wished to act, only an EU Council recommendation would be acceptable.

The European Parliament has often debated the issue of low income and minimum income over the last decade, advocating a more inclusive economy.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Minimum wage in the EU‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Ralf Drachenberg,

© Adobe Stock

Without reaching any new decisions, the European Council meeting of 15-16 October 2020 addressed a series of important issues, including the coronavirus pandemic, EU-United Kingdom relations and climate change. It also discussed numerous external relations issues, notably relations with Africa, the EU’s southern neighbourhood, Belarus and Turkey. In the context of rising Covid‑19 infections across all Member States, the European Council expressed its very serious concern about the developing pandemic situation and agreed to intensify overall coordination at EU level and between Member States. Regarding the negotiations on future EU-UK relations, EU leaders expressed their concern about the lack of progress and called on the UK to make the necessary moves. They stressed that the Withdrawal Agreement and its Protocols needed to be implemented in a full and timely manner. As regards the fight against climate change, whilst agreeing to increase the EU’s ambition for the coming decade and to update its climate and energy policy framework, the discussion did not lead to any concrete results and was mainly a preparatory stage before their meeting in December. Finally, following European Parliament President David Sassoli’s address reiterating Parliament’s demands on the 2021‑2027 long-term budget, EU leaders raised the issue, but categorically refused to re-open discussion on the package agreed in July.

1. European Council meeting: General aspects and new commitments

In accordance with Article 235(2) TFEU, the President of the European Parliament, David Sassoli, addressed the European Council at the start of its proceedings. Although negotiations on the multiannual financial framework (MFF) were not on the agenda for the European Council, he insisted on the urgency of achieving an outcome. Recalling Parliament’s key demands, President Sassoli stressed that Parliament was not obstructing the negotiations, but that ‘it is up to the EU leaders to unlock the negotiations on the new EU budget’, thus concluding that ‘the negotiating mandate issued to the German Presidency needs to be updated’. After the meeting, Chancellor of Germany, Angela Merkel reported on the exchange of views with President Sassoli, stressing the European Council’s willingness to negotiate, indicating the existence of some leeway and underlining the need for an agreement on the MFF within the coming weeks, yet categorically refusing to reopen the package agreed in July 2020. As President-in-Office of the Council, Angela Merkel provided an overview of the progress made in implementing previous European Council conclusions.

Table 1 – New European Council commitments and requests with a specific time schedule

Policy area Action Actor Schedule Coronavirus Come back to this issue regularly European Council 2020-2021 Climate change Return to the topics European Council December 2020

Due to the fact that the Polish Prime Minister, Mateusz Morawiecki, was self-isolating after being in contact with a coronavirus-infected person, Poland was represented by the Prime Minister of Czechia, Andrej Babiš. For similar reasons, both the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, and Sanna Marin, Prime Minister of Finland, had to leave the meeting early. The latter was thereafter represented by the Swedish Prime Minister, Stefan Löfven. The increasing number of EU leaders who are unable to attend, or have to leave, European Council meetings, highlights the worsening Covid‑19 situation and raises the question as to whether upcoming physical meetings will take place as planned. President Charles Michel reported on a discussion between EU leaders on this issue and indicated that decisions on the format of EU leaders’ meetings would need to be taken on a case-by-case basis. The informal summit on China in Berlin, planned for November 2020, has already been cancelled.

2. European Council agenda points Coronavirus pandemic

President Charles Michel reported on a ‘long and intense debate on Covid‑19’ between EU Heads of State or Government. As flagged by the EPRS outlook, EU leaders assessed the current epidemiological situation and welcomed the progress achieved so far on overall coordination at EU level, including the recommendation on a coordinated approach to the restriction of free movement. This recommendation, adopted by the General Affairs Council on 13 October 2020, includes common criteria to collect data across the Member States so that the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) can provide a common map of Europe highlighting the degree of infection with green (low infection rate), orange (medium infection rate) or red (high infection rate) zones. Moreover EU Heads of State or Government called on the Council, the European Commission and the Member States to continue overall coordination regarding quarantine regulations, cross-border contact tracing, testing strategies, joint assessment of testing methods and temporary restrictions on non-essential travel into the EU.

The European Council also welcomed the work at EU level on the development and distribution of vaccines. It reiterated the need for a robust authorisation and monitoring process, the building of vaccination capacity in the EU, and fair and affordable access to vaccines. EU Heads of State or Government also encouraged further cooperation at global level. Chancellor Merkel indicated that EU leaders will regularly exchange information on the situation by video-conference.

EU-UK relations

Asked to put aside all mobile devices for this session, EU leaders took stock of the negotiations with the UK, noting insufficient progress on matters of importance for the EU. The Heads of State or Government called on the UK to take the necessary steps, in full respect of European Council guidelines, statements and declarations, in particular regarding the level playing field, governance and fisheries. Regarding the UK’s Internal Market Bill, the European Council underlined the need for the Withdrawal Agreement and its Protocols to be implemented in a full and timely manner.

President Michel emphasised EU leaders’ support for the work of EU Chief Negotiator Michel Barnier. The latter recalled the EU’s determination to reach a fair deal with the UK, but not at any cost. He underlined that principles had been clear from the outset: if access to the single market were to be granted, a level playing field is an essential prerequisite. He stressed that there was ‘good will’ on agreeing ‘fair play rules’ that would open the door for UK goods to the EU’s market, tariff and quota free. Regarding fisheries, Michel Barnier noted that all 27 EU Member States were united, underlining that eight countries were heavily dependent on fishing quotas in UK waters. He stressed the need for a sustainable, lasting agreement, with stable and reciprocal access to fisheries and a fair distribution of quotas. Michel Barnier acknowledged the UK’s desire for regulatory divergence. However, the EU requires guarantees that this divergence would not only be reasonable, regulated, and transparent, but also embedded in a dispute-settlement system that would ensure enforcement. Should infringement occur in the area of competition policy, the EU would thus be able to take unilateral measures to avail itself of its rights. The two negotiation teams are expected to discuss the outstanding issues during the week of 19 October 2020. The European Council has called upon Member States, Union institutions and all stakeholders to accelerate work at all levels – and for all outcomes – and invited the Commission to give timely consideration to unilateral and time-limited contingency measures that are in the EU’s interest.

Main message of Parliament’s President: David Sassoli conveyed Parliament’s support for an agreement with ‘free and fair competition at its core, a long-term, balanced solution on fisheries, and a robust mechanism to ensure that the rules are observed’. Parliament urges the UK to honour its commitments with respect to the implementation of the Withdrawal Agreement and, as such, to remove the controversial provisions from the UK Internal Market Bill.

Climate change

As announced by President Michel, the European Council held an ‘orientation debate’ on the fight against climate change. Concrete decisions were postponed to December 2020, as a political consensus on the EU’s level of ambition for 2030 is still in the making. President Michel indicated that there was ‘more and more support’ for an increased level of ambition for 2030. Prior to the summit, 11 Member States had expressed clear support for a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by at least 55 % by 2030, in line with the target date set in the Commission’s communication on ‘Stepping up Europe’s 2030 climate ambition’. President von der Leyen stressed that the minimum 55 % reduction target is an ambitious and achievable goal. The European Council underlined that an increase in the level of ambition for 2030 was needed to meet ‘the objective of a climate-neutral EU by 2050’, an objective to which all except one Member State – Poland – committed in December 2019. Nevertheless, at this meeting, EU leaders seem to have changed course: Achieving climate-neutrality by 2050 would now be a ‘collective EU commitment’, rather than a commitment undertaken by each Member State. This new approach would allow for all Member States to participate and their national situations to be taken into account, as it would provide them with flexibility; however, it would also lower individual levels of ambition as expressed in the nationally determined contributions (NDCs), which Member States have to submit by the end of the year to the UNFCCC. Over the medium to long term, this could hamper the EU’s climate diplomacy efforts and the bloc’s ability to act as a leader on climate change.

Main messages of the EP President: President Sassoli underlined that the proposed European Climate Law represents a cornerstone of the Green Deal, by making the objective of 2050 climate neutrality legally binding and by setting a higher target for greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions of 60 % by 2030. He expressed Parliament’s attachment to this more ambitious GHG reduction target and stressed that the EU ‘must act decisively now’ to protect the environment and create new jobs. He also reminded EU leaders of the commitment to implement the Paris Agreement and stressed that the EU ‘must act more resolutely at global level’ on fighting climate change.

External relations Relations with Africa

President Michel spoke of a ‘strategic debate’ on relations with Africa aimed at preparing the ‘strategic meeting’ with the African Union (AU) on 9 December 2020. The European Council stressed its attachment to a strengthened partnership with the AU, based on ‘mutual interests and shared responsibility’. It recalled that ‘Africa is a natural partner’ for the EU and that it is important to further deepen cooperation ‘in all fields’. It added that, in the context of the coronavirus pandemic, it was crucial to strengthen health systems in Africa, whilst developing and distributing vaccines. EU leaders expressed their commitment ‘to furthering international debt relief efforts for African countries’ and tasked the Council with preparing a ‘common approach’ by end-November 2020.

EU leaders identified five sectors as key for cooperation with Africa: 1) digital and knowledge economy; 2) renewable energy; 3) transport; 4) health; and 5) agri-food systems. In addition, they recalled the EU’s commitment to human rights, non-discrimination, good governance and the rule of law. They stressed EU support for peace and security efforts undertaken by African counterparts and for economic integration at both regional and continental level. Engaging with African partners on migration, both legal and illegal, was one of the points most discussed by the EU leaders, underlining that the guiding principles for cooperation on migration should be ‘solidarity, partnership and shared responsibility’.

Main messages of the EP President: President Sassoli stressed that Africa and Europe were ‘united by a shared future’ and should step up their cooperation on climate change, digital economy and health, and welcomed the EU humanitarian air bridge set in place following the coronavirus outbreak. He stressed that, once in force, the new post-Cotonou agreement would foster parliamentary cooperation and respond to the aspirations of citizens.

Southern neighbourhood

EU leaders marked the 25th anniversary of the Barcelona process and announced their intention to hold a ‘strategic discussion’ on the southern neighbourhood in December 2020. The last such discussion was scheduled in October 2015. Leaders then focused primarily on the crises in Syria and Libya, leaving consideration of the neighbourhood policy proper to the Council.

Belarus

Belarus has featured constantly on the agenda of the European Council since 19 August 2020, when EU leaders first discussed the situation in the country. EU leaders expressed solidarity with Lithuania and Poland, which are facing retaliatory measures from Belarus; condemned violence; and endorsed the Foreign Affairs Council’s conclusions of 12 October 2020.

Turkey

A last-minute addition to the European Council agenda, conclusions on Turkey were not initially envisaged, but were adopted at the request of Greece. EU leaders reaffirmed the position expressed earlier in the month, and deplored Turkey’s renewal of exploratory activity in the eastern Mediterranean. They stressed the importance of the status of the Varosha area, reaffirmed the EU’s solidarity with Greece and Cyprus, and confirmed that it remained ‘seized of the matter’.

Main messages of the EP President: President Sassoli called on Member States to speak with one voice and to support German-led mediation efforts in support of the de-escalation of tensions. He called on Turkey to refrain from further provocation and to comply with international law.

Flight MH17

On several occasions (August 2014, October 2015, June 2018, June 2019) the European Council has called on Russia to support efforts to establish the truth as regards the downing of flight MH17 and to continue negotiations with Australia and the Netherlands. It stressed that ‘after more than six years since this tragic event the 298 victims and their next of kin deserve justice’. The other Russia-related item – sanctions following the attempt to poison Alexei Navalny – was not discussed, as sanctions had already been adopted by the Council prior to the European Council meeting.

Read this briefing on ‘Outcome of the European Council meeting of 15-16 October 2020‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Matthew Parry and Carmen-Cristina Cîrlig  –  Graphics: Giulio Sabbati,

© Carsten Reisinger / Adobe Stock

In August 2020, the two major political parties in the United States (US), the Democrats and the Republicans, formally nominated their respective candidates for the 59th US presidential election, which takes place on Tuesday, 3 November 2020. An initially crowded field of contenders in the Democratic primaries developed into a two-horse race between former US Vice-President Joe Biden and Senator Bernie Sanders, with Biden declared the Democratic nominee on 18 August. He will now contest the presidential election against the Republican candidate, who faced no significant primary challenge, the incumbent US President, Donald Trump.

The US President is simultaneously head of state, head of government and Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. Presidential elections are therefore a hugely important part of American political life. Although millions of Americans vote in presidential elections every four years, the President is not, in fact, directly elected by the people. Citizens elect the members of the Electoral College, who then cast their votes for the President and Vice-President.

While key elements of the presidential election are spelled out in the US Constitution, other aspects have been shaped by state laws, national party rules and state party rules. This explains why presidential campaigns have evolved over time, from the days when presidential candidates were nominated in the House of Representatives by the ‘king caucus’, to an almost exclusively party-dominated ‘convention’ system, and finally to the modern system of nominations based very largely on primary elections, introduced progressively to increase the participation of party supporters in the selection process. A number of additional developments have also played an important role in shaping today’s presidential elections, notably political party efforts to limit ‘front-loading’ of primaries; the organisation of the Electoral College system and the changes to the campaign financing system.

A previous version of this Briefing, written by Carmen-Cristina Cîrlig and Micaela Del Monte, was published in 2016.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Understanding US Presidential elections‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Who can vote in primaries
and caucuses?

Written by Eric Pichon,

On 9 October 2020, the Norwegian Nobel Committee awarded the Nobel Peace Prize to the United Nations World Food Programme (WFP) ‘for its efforts to combat hunger, for its contribution to bettering conditions for peace in conflict-affected areas and for acting as a driving force in efforts to prevent the use of hunger as a weapon of war and conflict’. Adding to a worrying rise in food insecurity, the impacts of the coronavirus pandemic have pushed millions more people to the brink of famine. The WFP’s expertise on emergencies, often in conflict areas, has provided relief to the most fragile populations. The EU supports the WFP through funding, knowledge-sharing, and protecting its vessels from piracy in certain waters.

Food security during the coronavirus pandemic

The Global Report on Food Crises 2020 (GRFC 2020) counted 135 million acutely food-insecure people in 2019 in its analysis of 55 countries and territories – the highest figure since the first report in 2017. A September 2020 update of the report estimates that between 83 and 132 million more people might be under-nourished in 2020 due to the pandemic. This update – covering 26 of the 55 GRFC 2020 countries and territories, plus Togo – confirms that measures to combat the pandemic have compromised access to food for millions. Lockdown and quarantine measures have reduced economic activity and revenue for both households and governments, while infected people have had to face increased health expenditure. The measures also disrupted the food supply chain. Despite the fact that most countries endeavoured to keep essential food and agricultural activities running, lockdown and border closures have hindered food transport and trade, leading also to higher levels of food loss. Food shortages caused by this disruption, combined with revenue losses, have increased nutritional deficiencies for the already most fragile populations, including those with higher nutritional needs such as aged and sick persons, pregnant and lactating women. The first year of the pandemic may have caused more than 120 000 additional nutrition-related child deaths in low- and middle-income countries. Moreover, Covid‑19 restrictions have complicated humanitarian access and therefore obstructed food supply for refugees, internally displaced persons, and other victims of man-made and natural disasters (such as internally displaced persons in central Africa,

Numbers of acutely food-insecure people by key driver (2019)

Venezuelan migrants or Syrian refugees). Coronavirus concerns have also distracted global attention from other crises. Most development aid providers – including the EU and its Member States – have reoriented their funds towards coronavirus-related programmes and projects. Vaccination campaigns against other diseases have slowed. Peace-keeping missions have been scaled back, while at the same time coronavirus-related measures have exacerbated tensions and triggered unrest due to their economic consequences or their impact on freedom of assembly, leaving room for jihadist and other armed groups in fragile countries to operate. This will have a direct impact on food security, as conflict and insecurity are one of the main drivers of food crises (and the primary driver in 22 countries, see Figure 1). The Chair of the Norwegian Nobel Committee underlines that not only does conflict create hunger, and hunger trigger conflicts, but hunger can also ‘be used as a weapon’, despite its prohibition under international humanitarian law.

Read the complete ‘at a glance’ on ‘World Food Programme: Food for peace‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Suzana Anghel, Izabela Bacian, Ralf Drachenberg and Annastiina Papunen,

© Adobe Stock

The role of the European Council is to ‘provide the Union with the necessary impetus for its development’ and to define its ‘general political directions and priorities’. Since its creation in 1975, the European Council has exercised considerable influence over the development of the European Union, a process enhanced by its designation as a formal institution of the Union under the Lisbon Treaty in 2009.

The European Council Oversight Unit within the European Parliamentary Research Service (EPRS) monitors and analyses the activities, commitments and impact of the European Council, so as to maximise parliamentary understanding of the political dynamics of this important institution.

This EPRS publication, ‘Key issues in the European Council’, which is updated every quarter to coincide with European Council meetings, aims to provide an overview of the institution’s activities on major EU issues. It analyses twelve broad policy areas, explaining the legal and political background, the main priorities and orientations defined by the European Council and the results of its involvement to date, as well as some of the future challenges in each policy field.

Read this study on ‘Key issues in the European Council: State of play in October 2020‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Clare Ferguson,

© European Union 2020 – Source : EP

Parliament’s second plenary session in October will be the first ever to be held entirely virtually, due to the ongoing pandemic. Despite meeting online, however, Members will nevertheless address a full agenda that features, among other things, the conclusions of the European Council meeting and discussion of the future relationship with the United Kingdom, as well as hearing the European Commission’s plans for its work programme for 2021. Parliament will also announce the laureate of the Sakharov Prize for outstanding achievements in the service of human rights, on Thursday.

The session commences on Monday evening with an important joint debate on efforts to regulate new technologies to ensure that they maximise benefits to people in the EU while also minimising the risks. Parliament has long called for revision of the outdated EU framework for online services, particularly in the light of large discrepancies in application of the rules between EU countries. In advance of the expected Commission proposal on a Digital Services Act package, Parliament’s committees have tabled three reports setting out an initial position on the revision. An Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO) Committee legislative-initiative report details the measures necessary to update legislation to reflect new information society services. These should ensure that the rules apply to all goods and services providers, regardless of where they are located, and better protect EU consumers against fraudulent practices, targeted advertising, and automated decisions. The parallel Legal Affairs (JURI) Committee legislative-initiative report recommends standards to which platforms should be held and the application of different approaches to ‘legal ‘and ‘illegal’ online content. The report seeks to balance the requirements to protect both users’ rights and their right to freedom of speech. The Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) Committee own-initiative report echoes the IMCO and JURI concerns and calls for improved cooperation between service providers and national supervisory authorities, as well as the creation of an independent EU body with the power to sanction online operators who do not comply. While the Commission is not obliged to include Parliament’s position in its proposal, its President has pledged to take account of Parliament’s views.

Parliament has also been active in considering the implications – both positive and negative – of harnessing the potential of artificial intelligence (AI) technology, for the lives of people in the EU. In the same joint debate on Monday evening, Parliament will also consider three reports from the JURI committee on ethics, civil liability, and intellectual property in artificial intelligence, setting out Parliament’s positions. The first legislative-initiative report deals with the requirements for a framework of ethical principles for the development, deployment and use of AI, robotics and related technologies, which will be vital to ensuring innovation takes a direction that protects people’s rights. A second legislative-initiative report sets out recommendations for a legal framework for civil liability that identifies a hierarchy of risks, and measures to compensate for harm caused by the technology. A third own-initiative report highlights the need to foster the free flow, access, use and sharing of data, while also protecting intellectual property rights and trade secrets.

Tuesday morning will be devoted to another important joint debate, on the Commission’s package of three legislative proposals to overhaul the common agricultural policy (CAP) for 2021‑2027. While Parliament supports modernisation of the CAP, it warns against moves to introduce budget cuts, particularly in view of the challenges facing this vital sector, which needs to restructure to play its part in protecting the environment and rural communities, and to attract younger people to the sector. One of the proposals seeks to combine interventions under two pillars of the CAP (income and market support, and rural development) in a strategic plan for all expenditure. Another concerns the improved financial management of CAP funding, with Member States allocated greater responsibility for conformity and control of agricultural support funding. A further Commission proposal concerns amendments to regulations on agricultural product quality schemes – specifically wine production in the EU’s outermost regions, including controversial issues regarding authorised wine grape varieties and the labelling of plant and dairy-based meat substitutes. Parliament is expected to adopt its position for negotiations with Council following the debate.

Agricultural production – of which the EU is a major importer – is also a major driver of global deforestation. On Wednesday afternoon, Members return to efforts to halt the continued loss of forests, which are so vital to the fight against climate change. An Environment, Public Health & Food Safety (ENVI) Committee legislative-initiative report calls on the European, Commission to take regulatory action to prevent products associated with deforestation or forest degradation from entering the EU market. The ENVI committee proposes an EU framework to protect forests worldwide, guaranteeing that commodities imported into the EU are legal and sustainable, and that safeguards indigenous peoples and local communities’ human rights.

In view of the strategic review of PESCO taking place this year, later on Monday evening, Members will consider the implementation and governance of Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO), the EU’s Treaty-based military and defence cooperation mechanism that aims to boost EU responsibility for its own security in a vastly more challenging geopolitical environment. Under PESCO’s binding commitments, participating Member States aim at achieving a competitive European defence industry through collaborative projects. Parliament has long supported the creation of PESCO. However, it is critical of certain shortcomings, including the lack of coherence between, and strategic justification for, projects to date. Parliament also calls for increased scrutiny powers, including for national parliaments.

Parliament is also expected to vote on recommendations on relations with Belarus on Tuesday afternoon, following a report from the Foreign Affairs Committee (AFET) on relations with Belarus. While agreeing with the overall EU stance towards Belarus following the disputed August 2020 elections, the AFET committee supports the general EU line of action, recommends that Parliament decline to recognise Lukashenka as the legitimate president of Belarus and calls for a peaceful resolution to the standoff.

With exclusive competence to grant, postpone or ultimately refuse discharge for the execution of the EU budget (once the Council has delivered its recommendation), Parliament returns on Monday evening to the discharge of the 2018 EU general budget for the European Council and Council and the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC). Having postponed a decision in May 2020, Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control (BUDG) has re-examined the files and proposes that Parliament refuse discharge in both cases. Parliament has seen no change in the lack of cooperation from the European Council and Council, specifically on accountability and transparency, which has led Parliament to refuse to grant discharge since 2009. Parliament also considers the EESC has displayed a lack of accountability, budgetary control and good governance of human resources in relation to serious misconduct by one of its senior members.

Finally, the last agenda item on Monday evening concerns a request to mobilise €2 054 400 from the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund to support workers who have lost their jobs as a result of financial difficulties at two shipyards in Galicia (Spain). Parliament’s Committee on Budgets (BUDG) report on the proposal agrees with the proposal to support workers, which will also help them to reskill in what was already a region of low employment before coronavirus struck.

Written by Magdalena Sapala with Sophia Stutzmann,

© exopixel / Adobe Stock

Access to stable and adequate financial resources is a crucial condition for the realisation of the global goals of intergovernmental organisations (IGOs). In recent decades, alongside global political changes and the evolution in the role of multilateral cooperation, the resourcing and budgetary management of IGOs have also changed. Moreover, funding available to IGOs has become ever more diversified and complex both in terms of its origin and type.

This briefing presents selected aspects of the financing of three of the world’s largest IGOs: the United Nations (UN), the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). It presents the size and evolution of their budgets as well as the main contributing countries to these budgets, with a particular focus on the EU Member States. The analysis is based mainly on budgetary data for the financial year 2018.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Understanding the financing of intergovernmental organisations: A snapshot of the budgets of the UN, NATO and WTO‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Listen to policy podcast ‘Understanding the financing of intergovernmental organisations: A snapshot of the budgets of the UN, NATO and WTO’ on YouTube.

 

Written by Anja Radjenovic with Gianna Eckert,

© European Union 2020 – Source : EP / Emilie GOMEZ

The severe coronavirus outbreak has forced governments across the world to resort to drastic measures in order to slow down the spread of the virus and prevent a public health crisis. As elsewhere, these emergency measures taken in Europe have affected all aspects of societal life and profoundly impacted people’s personal freedoms and individual rights, as enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

Although certain human rights can be suspended in situations of emergency, human rights conventions, such as the ECHR, continue to apply even then. In fact, many human rights instruments provide for such situations and contain dedicated ’emergency clauses’ that give governments additional flexibility to address crises. Indeed, within the ECHR framework, Article 15 is one such clause that allows Council of Europe (CoE) member states to temporarily diverge from their ordinary convention obligations to resolve an emergency, provided certain conditions are met.

During the coronavirus pandemic, derogation clauses such as Article 15 of the ECHR, have gained particular importance, as so far 10 CoE member states have notified their intention to derogate from certain ECHR provisions in order to tackle the outbreak.

This briefing explains the functioning of Article of the 15 ECHR and its application to the current health emergency. Furthermore, it lists some fundamental rights and freedoms that have been affected by the coronavirus emergency measures, while also showcasing how Member States have sought to reconcile measures to protect public health with the fundamental rights principles enshrined in the ordinary framework of the ECHR. The briefing also stresses that it is key to protect the human rights of vulnerable persons, including during the implementation of recovery strategies.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Upholding human rights in Europe during the pandemic‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Listen to policy podcast ‘Upholding human rights in Europe during the pandemic’ on YouTube.

Written by Izabela Bacian and Ralf Drachenberg,

© European Union 2020 – Source : EP / Emilie GOMEZ

Only two weeks after the last European Council meeting, EU Heads of State or Government gather again on 15-16 October 2020, to address future EU-UK relations, EU-Africa relations and climate change. On climate, EU leaders will evaluate the progress on the EU’s objective of climate neutrality by 2050 and hold an orientation debate. Regarding EU-UK relations, they will assess the implementation of the withdrawal agreement, receive an update on the negotiations on the future EU-UK partnership and discuss the preparatory work for all scenarios after 1 January 2021. In addition to EU-Africa relations, other external relations issues are likely to be discussed, notably the poisoning of Alexei Navalny. EU leaders will also return to the handling of the coronavirus pandemic.

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

At the start of the European Council meeting, the President of the European Parliament, David Sassoli, will address the Heads of State or Government. Angela Merkel, the Chancellor of Germany, which currently holds the rotating six-month presidency of the Council of the EU, will provide an overview of progress made in implementing previous European Council conclusions.

As announced in the new Leaders’ Agenda 2020-21, EU leaders will discuss the EU-UK negotiations, hold an orientation debate on climate and focus their exchanges in the external relations field on Africa. At the special European Council meeting of 1-2 October, EU leaders also pledged to return to the matter of the poisoning of Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny as well as regularly coming back to the handling of the coronavirus pandemic.

Policy area Previous commitment Occasion on which commitment was made External relations The European Council will return to the poisoning of Alexei Navalny 1-2 October 2020 Coronavirus The European Council will return to this issue regularly 1-2 October 2020 Climate change Come back in June 2020 to the objective of achieving a climate-neutral EU by 2050 12-13 December 2019

One outstanding task for the European Council is to define the strategic guidelines for legislative and operational planning within the area of freedom, security and justice, as required by Article 68 TFEU. The European Council had been expected to adopt new ‘strategic guidelines for legislative and operational planning’ within the area of freedom, security and justice in spring 2020, but the topic has still not been included on the European Council’s agenda to date, nor is it mentioned in the Leaders’ Agenda 2020-21.

2. European Council agenda points EU-UK relations

The EU and the UK have been engaged throughout the year in discussions on a new partnership agreement encompassing a wide range of areas including trade, fisheries, thematic cooperation, and internal and external security. To date, nine negotiation rounds have been held, on the basis of the Political Declaration accompanying the Withdrawal Agreement – both finalised in October 2019. The political declaration outlines the areas for negotiations, with 11 chapters opened as follows: 1. Trade in goods; 2.Trade in services and investment and other issues; 3. Level playing-field for open and fair competition; 4. Transport (aviation and roads); 5. Energy and civil nuclear cooperation; 6. Fisheries, 7. Mobility and social security coordination; 8. Law enforcement cooperation and judicial cooperation in criminal matters; 9. Thematic cooperation; 10. Participation in Union programmes; and 11. Horizontal arrangements and governance. Foreign policy, security and defence are not formally included in these talks, but as outlined in the Political Declaration, the UK’s participation in specific EU instruments and programmes is possible.

The European Council emphasised in its guidelines of March 2018 that the future relationship should be based on a balance of right and obligations, ensure a level playing-field and respect for the integrity of the single market and the customs union, as well as the indivisibility of the four freedoms. The scope and depth of the future relationship would be determined precisely by the commitment of both parties to adhere to high standards in the areas of State aid, competition, social and employment standards, environment, climate change, and relevant tax matters.

The European Commission’s Chief Negotiator, Michel Barnier, has repeatedly stressed that the EU has paid particular attention to the UK’s three ‘red lines’, namely, ability to determine its future laws without constraints, no role for the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the ability to manage its own fisheries independently. Progress has however been slow since the very beginning. Despite convergence of positions in many areas such as trade in goods, services and investments, and Union programmes, and recent positive developments in, inter alia, social security coordination and respect for fundamental rights and freedoms, divergences have persisted on issues of major significance for the EU. These are: i. level playing-field provisions on State aid, competition, state-owned enterprises (SOEs), taxation, labour and social protection, environmental protection and the fight against climate change; ii. the governance framework, specifically on dispute settlement/ enforcement; and iii. an agreement on fisheries. While convergence is likely on competition and SOEs, difficulties remain on interpretation by the CJEU of EU law (State aid), respect for the principle of non-regression (tax avoidance, labour, environment and climate) and alignment of future legislation (labour, environment and climate change).

The negotiations were shaken up following the publication by the UK, on 9 September 2020, of the internal market bill, which, if adopted in its current form, would be in clear breach of the terms of the Protocol on Ireland and Northern Ireland attached to the Withdrawal Agreement, with respect to state aid and customs obligations. Indeed, the Protocol states that EU State aid rules will apply to any UK act affecting trade between Northern Ireland and the EU, and while Northern Ireland remains in the UK’s customs territory, the Union Customs Code will still apply to the flow of goods between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. Clauses 41-45 of the bill would over-ride these provisions. Despite the Commission’s request to amend the bill before 30 September 2020, the British government did not withdraw these provisions, leading to the launch of infringement proceedings, on 1 October 2020, as the Withdrawal Agreement provides for legal remedies in the event of violations of the obligations within it. The UK has one month to provide a reply to the Commission. The implementation of the Protocol, under the responsibility of the EU-UK Joint Committee, will also need to be stepped up as ‘no grace’ period will be granted after the end of the transition period, as stressed by Mr Barnier in July when it was clear that the UK did not wish to extend the transition period. The state of play of the negotiations was discussed briefly at the 1-2 October special European Council meeting, a substantive discussion will however take place on 15‑16 October to assess the situation as well as future scenarios after 1 January 2021. Meeting with Micheál Martin, Taoiseach of Ireland, on 8 October, Charles Michel stressed that the EU stood in full solidarity with Ireland regarding the implementation of the Withdrawal Agreement, as what is at stake is the ‘peace and stability of the island of Ireland and the integrity of the single market’. He urged significant steps to be taken in the negotiations, not only on fisheries, the level playing-field and governance, but also on trade in goods, energy and water transport, as ‘nothing is agreed until everything is agreed’.

Climate change

The European Council will hold an ‘orientation debate’ on climate change, on the basis of the Commission’s 2030 Climate Target Plan. Commission President Ursula von der Leyen confirmed the EU’s determination to cut greenhouse gas emission by at least 55 % by 2030, stressing that the target was ‘ambitious, achievable and beneficial for Europe’. Voting on the proposed European Climate Law, the European Parliament supported an even higher binding target of 60 % greenhouse gas emissions cuts by 2030. Furthermore, the Parliament considers the funding for climate related projects under the 2021-27 Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) insufficient to allow both the 2030 and 2050 climate targets to be met. Ahead of the coming European Council meeting, civil society representatives called for a more ambitious climate policy, warning that the Paris Agreement goal of limiting the rise of global temperature to 1.5 °C could only be met by achieving at least a 65 % reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030.

EU leaders will most probably also consider progress made on achieving climate neutrality by 2050. At their last discussion on this matter in December 2019, all but one Member State, Poland, had agreed to make climate neutrality by 2050 a binding commitment to be set in the European Climate Law. In the interim, Poland has reviewed its 2040 energy roadmap and showed openness to commit to climate neutrality – albeit without confirming 2050 as a target.

Usually, at their October meeting, EU leaders take stock of progress made in the implementation of the Paris Agreement ahead of the yearly UN Conference of Parties (COP). However, due to the coronavirus outbreak, COP 26 in Glasgow was postponed by a year, to 1-12 November 2021. Nonetheless, progress will be needed in finalising and submitting national long-term strategies, as only 15 out of 27 Member States had done so by July 2020.

External relations Africa

The coronavirus outbreak led the European Council to postpone the strategic debate on relations with Africa, initially planned for June 2020. For similar reasons, the EU-African Union summit planned for autumn 2020 will most likely only take place in early 2021. The EU High Representative, Josep Borrell, recognised that the pandemic had slowed down ‘outreach efforts’, but confirmed that the ‘ambition’ to increase partnership with Africa remains intact.

A strengthened partnership with Africa has been a priority for the Presidents of both the European Council, Charles Michel, and the Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, from the beginning of their respective mandates. EU-Africa relations were on the agenda of the first European Council meeting chaired by Mr Michel in December 2019. He then put cooperation in stemming the spread of coronavirus in Africa high on the agenda and welcomed the efforts made, particularly through the G20, to reduce African debt. He was active at both multilateral and bilateral levels, attending in person or by video-conference: the African Union summit, several summits with the G5 Sahel countries, as well as a series of bilateral meetings with African leaders at which economic, development and security aspects were considered. Similarly, Ursula von der Leyen spoke of Africa as ‘our close neighbour and our most natural partner’, calling for a ‘comprehensive strategy on Africa’ and making her first visit as President outside the EU to the African Union. More recently, in the ‘State of the Union’ address she underlined that the new strategy with Africa is a ‘partnership of equals’ since ‘both sides share opportunities and responsibilities’, and it will enable them to shape the world of tomorrow by working closely on climate, trade and digital.

Alexei Navalny poisoning

Following confirmation from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) that Russian opposition leader Navalny was indeed the victim of a poisoning attempt using a nerve agent, the European Council is expected to discuss his case again. Calling once again on Russia to cooperate fully with the OPCW, President Michel confirmed that EU leaders would discuss possible sanctions against Russia. Setting sanctions would allow some of the sensitivities expressed recently by certain Member States’ representatives, including the President of Lithuania, Gitanas Nausėda, as regards relations with Russia to dissipate. However, more needs to be done to ensure that EU Member States speak with one voice. To facilitate further convergence, a strategic debate on relations with Russia is scheduled for March 2021.

Other external relations issues

The European Council could consider other external relations items, in particular the situation in regions or countries which it has committed to monitor closely, as is the case for the eastern Mediterranean, Nagorno-Karabakh, Belarus and Ukraine.

Other Items Taking stock of the coronavirus pandemic

EU leaders are also expected to exchange information on coordination efforts at national and European level regarding the coronavirus pandemic. On 4 September 2020, the Commission proposed a Council recommendation on a coordinated approach to the restriction of free movement in response to the Covid-19 pandemic. The proposal outlines: i) common criteria and thresholds in deciding on whether to introduce restrictions to free movement. It also includes, ii) the mapping of common criteria using an agreed colour code; iii) a common approach to the measures applied to persons moving to and from areas which are identified as higher risk; and iv) commitments to provide the public with clear and timely information. During a meeting of the General Affairs Council on 22 September, Member States ‘expressed broad support for the proposed approach to the collection and presentation of data by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC)’, and stressed the ‘importance of clear and timely communication between member states and to the public’. If the General Affairs Council of 13 October 2020 adopts this recommendation, it would most likely be welcomed by the European Council.

Read this briefing on ‘Outlook for the European Council of 15-16 October 2020‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Marcin Grajewski,

© vik_y / Adobe Stock

The United States is heading for a presidential election on Tuesday 3rd. November that will pit incumbent Republican candidate, Donald Trump, against the former Democrat Vice President and Senator, Joe Biden. Many analysts and politicians say that this contest may well be one of the most important since the end of World War II, as it will offer a stark choice between two entirely different paths for US foreign and defence policy. During his four years in office, analysts stress how President Trump, whose decisions were often unpredictable, has reversed many aspects of traditional US foreign and defence policy, which had previously been based on a respect for international institutions and a strong Transatlantic alliance.

This note offers links to recent commentaries and reports from international think tanks on the U.S. electoral campaign and the legacy of President Trump.

Les élections américaines et au-delà
Institut français des relations internationales, October 2020

Four years of Trump: The US and the world
Istituto per gli Studi di Politica Internazionale, October 2020

A new U.S. foreign policy for the post-pandemic landscape
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, October 2020

Bonding over Beijing
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, October 2020

A U.S. foreign policy for the middle class
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, October 2020

Trump’s ‘virtual reality’ foreign policy
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, October 2020

A ReSTART for U.S.-Russian nuclear arms control: Enhancing security through cooperation
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, October 2020

The world gave the United States one do-over
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, October 2020

What a Biden administration should learn from the Trump administration’s regulatory reversals
Brookings Institution, September 2020

Trump’s violent debate performance is a reflection of his racially violent policies
Brookings Institution, September 2020

Election 2020: Where are we?
Brookings Institution, September 2020

What a second Trump term would mean for the world
Brookings Institution, October 2020

Charts of the week: Coronavirus and swing states; fading American Dream; foreign-born population share
Brookings Institution, October 2020

From consensus to conflict: Understanding foreign measures targeting U.S. elections
Rand Corporation, October 2020

How Russia targets U.S. elections, black workers and Covid-19, TikTok
Rand Corporation, October 2020

The challenges of the post-pandemic agenda
Bruegel, July 2020

Trump’s international economic legacy
Bruegel, September 2020

Diversification and the world trading system
Bruegel, September 2020

Together or alone? Choices and strategies for Transatlantic relations for 2021 and beyond
German Marshall Fund, October 2020

Count people where they are
Center for American Progress, October 2020

Joe Biden’s alternative minimum book tax
American Enterprise Institute, October 2020

President Trump’s debate performance overshadows a record to support
Manhattan Institute, October 2020

Pulling U.S. forces from Europe: Show me the sense please
Friends of Europe, June 2020

America: A European power?
Friends of Europe, October 2020

Expect chaos for the November election
Heritage Foundation, September 2020

Diplomacy during the quarantine: An opportunity for more agile craftsmanship
Carnegie Europe, September 2020

A Biden victory could reset transatlantic relations
European Council on Foreign Relations, July 2020

How Europe can defend itself against US economic sanctions
European Council on Foreign Relations, August 2020

Touching the elephant: European views of the transatlantic relationship
European Council on Foreign Relations, September 2020

Trump’s Kosovo show: No big deal
European Council on Foreign Relations, September 2020

The pandemic was supposed to be great for strongmen. What happened?
European Council on Foreign Relations, September 2020

Why America is facing off against the International Criminal Court
European Council on Foreign Relations, September 2020

Trump’s dirty tricks
European Council on Foreign Relations, September 2020

Three dangers Trump’s Covid poses for the world
European Council on Foreign Relations, October 2020

Trump’s international economic legacy
Peterson Institute for International Economics, August 2020

The high taxpayer cost of ‘saving’ US jobs through ‘Made in America’
Peterson Institute for International Economics, August 2020

Trump’s trade war timeline: An up-to-date guide
Peterson Institute for International Economics, September 2020

How Trump’s export curbs on semiconductors and equipment hurt the US technology sector
Peterson Institute for International Economics, September 2020

Americans’ views of government: Low trust, but some positive performance ratings
Pew Research Center, September 2020

Voters’ attitudes about race and gender are even more divided than in 2016
Pew Research Center, September 2020

Trump-Biden, Round One: Lots of animosity, little in the way of straight answers
Hoover Institution, September 2020

Donald Trump’s foreign policy successes
Hoover Institution, September 2020

One thing Biden and Trump seem to agree on: We need to focus on innovation
German Marshall Fund, September 2020

What if elections didn’t matter? The Belgian solution
Cato, August 2020

Balancing tradeoffs between liberties and lives
Cato, September 2020

Covid-19 is also a reallocation shock
Cato, September 2020

Dutch views transatlantic ties and European security cooperation
Clingendael, September 2020

Trump has a serious young voter problem
NDN, September 2020

Donald Trump and Sonny Perdue’s USDA made the Covid-19 hunger crisis worse
Center for American Progress, September 2020

The GOP’s pivot away from fiscal relief hurts millions of Americans
Progressive Policy Institute, September 2020

Biden versus Trump
Institut der deutschen Wirtschaft, August 2020

The US troop withdrawal plan
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Auswärtige Politik, August 2020

An alliance of democracies: With the US or for the US?
Egmont, July 2020

Amerikas apartheid: Der neue alte Exzeptionalismus und seine außenpolitischen Folgen
German Council on Foreign Relations, July 2020

An all-mail election would be dangerous for democracy
Heritage Foundation, June 2020

Fostering Europe’s strategic autonomy: A new agenda for trade and investment
European Policy Centre, Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, June 2020

Democracy maybe: Attitudes on authoritarianism in America

New America Foundation, June 2020

Understanding gender equality in foreign policy
Council on Foreign Relations, June 2020

Read this briefing on ‘Trump or Biden: Where next for US foreign and defence policy?‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Katarzyna Sochacka and Clare Ferguson,

© European Union 2020 – Source : EP / Emilie GOMEZ

During the first October 2020 plenary session in Brussels, Parliament held a debate on the rule of law and fundamental rights in the context of introducing conditionality measures in the framework of the 2021‑2027 multiannual financial framework (MFF) and Next Generation EU. In parallel, Parliament’s negotiating team on the next MFF announced a pause in talks, due to concerns over the Council’s lack of engagement on the key issue of top-ups for 15 flagship EU programmes. Parliament also discussed the conclusions of the special European Council meeting of 1‑2 October and the preparations for the next regular European Council meeting, on 15‑16 October 2020.

Parliament approved the allocation of new responsibilities to Executive Vice-President of the Commission Valdis Dombrovskis and approved the appointment of Mairead McGuinness as member of the European Commission.

Parliament also debated the role of the European Supervisory Authorities in the Wirecard scandal, on the fight against money laundering, following the FinCEN revelations, and on the impact of the Covid‑19 outbreak on long-term care facilities. Parliament debated statements from the Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Josep Borell, on the resumption of hostilities between Armenia and Azerbaijan in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, on the EU diplomatic mission in Venezuela, and on the situation in Iran.

EU mechanism on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights

Members debated, and approved by a large majority, a Parliament legislative-initiative report on the creation of an annual monitoring mechanism on the rule of law, fundamental rights and democracy that proposes to integrate and reinforce respect for democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights (DRF) in the EU. These shared values are binding on Member States and the European Union (EU) institutions, and while several mechanisms have been created to promote them and ensure they are respected, these are judged not to be effective. Members were critical of the extent of the protection afforded to the EU budget under the current Council position now the subject of trilogue negotiations. However, Parliament’s aim is to have a mechanism that goes much wider to cover values beyond just the rule of law, as in the current MFF-linked proposal.

Digital finance

Members debated and adopted, by a large majority, an Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee (ECON) legislative initiative report with recommendations for the European Commission on regulating digital finance. The report takes a closer look at the emerging risks in crypto-assets and the regulatory and supervisory challenges, where fintech provides unprecedented opportunities for both a more efficient and transparent financial sector – and for financial criminals to escape detection. The ECON committee calls on the European Commission to propose comprehensive supervisory measures to regulate crypto-assets, such as Bitcoin, to boost cyber-resilience in view of the vulnerability of such virtual assets to cyber-attack, as well as to improve the management of associated data.

Capital markets union

Parliament focused on proposals for further development of the capital markets union, particularly to offer small businesses and individual investors a wider range of investment options and help drive the recovery. The ECON committee report Members debated and approved proposes the urgent removal of barriers to investment. It also calls for an EU framework for digital finance that provides high data-protection and privacy standards (and challenges the dominance of large technology companies); improved promotion of financial literacy; and for the EU to consider equivalence decisions for suitable third-country markets.

Amending budget No 7/2020: Update of revenue (own resources)

Members voted on amending budget No 7/2020, approving the Council position and definitively adopting the update to the revenue side of the current year’s EU budget, in view of the negative impact of coronavirus on the EU economic outlook, as well as other technical issues. Although income from value added tax and gross national income is falling as a result of the economic climate, and negative exchange rates have also had an impact, more positively, the amounts available from paid-up fines and penalties has increased.

European Climate Law

Members debated and approved the Commission’s proposal for a new European Climate Law. However, while the Commission is proposing a 55 % reduction in EU greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, Parliament endorsed the demands of an Environment, Public Health and Food Safety Committee (ENVI) report calling for greater ambition: 60 % reductions in 2030, a 2040 target and all Member States to be climate neutral in 2050. The vote determines Parliament’s position for trilogue negotiations once the Council adopts its position.

Gender balance on company boards

Members debated, with the Commission and the Council, the current state of play of the much-delayed proposed directive to ensure gender balance on company boards, agreed by Parliament in 2013. Parliament has long supported the measures and called for progress on the file, which remains blocked in Council. Proven to improve the health, value and transparency of companies, the proposal seeks to ensure that listed companies’ boards have at least 40 % of non-executive directors of the under-represented sex.

European forest strategy

A vital resource in the fight against climate change, to date the EU has no policy on forests and the forestry sector, meaning that management of this precious resource is somewhat fragmented. Members debated and adopted an Agriculture and Rural Development Committee report on the way forward for a European forest strategy. The strategy could pave the way for an ambitious approach to sustainable forest management where adapting to changing climate conditions and promoting environmental, societal and economic sustainability will maintain both economic viability and environmental sustainability, including helping to tackle disastrous forest fires.

Channel Tunnel

Parliament debated and endorsed two proposals on legislation to ensure the safe operation of the railway between France and the United Kingdom after December 2020. Negotiations between France and the UK can now begin on a new international agreement on safety arrangements. The current safety authority would retain oversight of operations in the tunnel.

Opening of trilogue negotiations

Members confirmed three mandates for negotiations: from the International Trade (INTA) Committee on the proposal for a regulation introducing exceptional trade measures for countries and territories participating in or linked to the European Union’s Stabilisation and Association process; from the Budgets (BUDG) and the ECON Committees on the proposal for a regulation establishing a Technical Support Instrument, and from the Employment and Social Affairs (EMPL) Committee on the proposal for a regulation on the introduction of specific measures for addressing the Covid‑19 crisis.

Read this ‘at a glance’ on ‘Plenary round-up – Brussels, October I 2020‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Eamonn Noonan,

Summary

© Adobe Stock

Strategic foresight can help near-term recovery become resilient over the long term. This is the key message of the European Commission’s first ever annual Foresight Report. The coronavirus crisis has shown the interconnectedness of today’s world, as well as the difficulty of effectively identifying and communicating emerging challenges. More than ever, systematic and participatory work to explore both opportunities and vulnerabilities, and to tease out synergies across sectors, is needed.

Background

With the 2020 Strategic Foresight Report, the effort to enhance the EU’s foresight capacity moves to a new phase. This is a response to the present pandemic and to earlier crises that called into question the effectiveness of EU horizon-scanning. It also takes forward the work of the interinstitutional ESPAS network, which has pressed the case for anticipatory governance through its activities and reports on global trends.

The report examines EU capacities, vulnerabilities and opportunities across four priority areas: socio-economic, geo-political, green, and digital. It emphasises the connections between sectors. One example is the interplay between new technology, job creation, education needs and stakeholder interests. Another is the case of critical raw materials. Reducing dependence on these can have benefits across the green, digital, strategic and economic agendas.

Economic and social sphere

Challenges abound in the wake of the pandemic. According to the report, ‘economic, gender, skills, regional, and ethnic inequalities have all worsened’. Regional inequalities and the problems of rural areas mean that a ‘geography of discontent’ must be addressed.

In order to reinvigorate Europe’s social market economy model, social and fiscal reforms need to be aligned with the objectives of inclusiveness, digitalisation, decarbonisation and sustainability. Resilience involves not simply the maintenance of existing social systems, but also adaptation to ensure that they thrive in the future.

Public and private investments are key to resilience and recovery, but there are questions about the narrow focus on gross domestic product (GDP) as a metric. A well-being index may well be more suitable now.

Open strategic autonomy

Against a background of renewed international tensions, the report suggests that ‘the EU needs a common understanding of the security environment’. Threats to cybersecurity are accelerating; key infrastructure must also be made more resilient.

But strategic autonomy cannot be seen as purely defensive. Quite the opposite. The report sees an opportunity to revitalise the rules-based multilateral order, based on the realisation that ‘global challenges require effective, agile international cooperation and common solutions’. Trade remains central to the EU’s power and resilience, and the promotion of a level playing-field can address existing vulnerabilities. Production capacity in Europe needs attention, especially in strategic sectors.

A green future

Environment policy can benefit from greater foresight capacity as it negotiates both huge challenges and huge opportunities. The International Labour Organization (ILO) suggests a well-managed shift to a greener economy could create 24 million new jobs globally by 2030. Clean, circular production can drive both competitiveness and growth. Environmental restoration will become increasingly important.

The stakes are high; global warming of 3 °C would result in a loss of 1.36 % of GDP, or over €170 billion a year –as well as tens of thousands of lives. Digitalisation has an environmental cost: the mining of bitcoins is reckoned to consume more energy than Austria or Czechia, while the global footprint of the tech sector is similar to that of the aviation industry.

Resilience is improved if growth and wellbeing can be decoupled from consumption of natural resources with the attendant environmental impact; this long-term challenge calls for long-term policy planning.

Digital opportunities and vulnerabilities

Opportunities abound in the digital sector; new technologies have a positive impact in several areas, from enhancing healthcare and the delivery of public services to augmenting productivity and reducing carbon footprints.

There are significant risks, including the accentuation of inequalities, the erosion of individual rights and the further spread of disinformation intended to undermine democracy.

Modern, secure, and high-speed infrastructure can help overcome today’s digital divides, whether social or between urban and rural areas. Structured foresight analysis can examine ways to steer innovation towards outcomes which mesh with the goals of inclusiveness, sustainability, democracy and security.

Strategic foresight as a resource for governance

The Commission report sets out several foresight techniques which will inform its policy-making.

• Horizon scanning is critical to the early identification of emerging threats.
• Scenario development can give a framework for high-level debates on preferred futures.

Another innovation is the use of resilience dashboards, alongside existing monitoring work on the Social Scoreboard and the Sustainable Development Goals. Dashboards are at the meeting point of foresight and policy. They offer the opportunity to compare where we are with where we want to be.

Identifying roadblocks is a first step towards designing instruments to overcome them, and to channelling resources to vulnerable areas.

They are all the more important at the intersection of levels of government. Linking the levels can help towards greater synergy between actions at regional, national and European level.

A similar approach has been followed by a risk mapping and capabilities and gaps mapping produced by the European Parliament as think pieces for the Foresight Report. This is a step towards systematically matching capabilities, at regional, national and EU levels, to the risks identified as most serious. As the EP risk mapping notes, there are high-impact risks for which the EU level currently has no available instruments; this needs particular attention.

The initiatives set out in the report, taken together, can align policy and planning across the geopolitical, green and digital areas, and thereby enhance social and economic resilience in the long run.

Conclusion

Strategy is a process, not an event. Recognising this, the Commission’s first Foresight Report emphasises the importance of a broad-based and participatory approach. Thus the ESPAS Conference will see the launch of an EU-wide Foresight Network, including both European and Member State bodies, and involving the private sector and independent experts. The Commission also anticipates that foresight work can contribute to the Conference on the Future of Europe.

Foresight is relevant across the entire policy cycle, and improved foresight capacity is all the more valuable a resource at a time when a pandemic has brought such acute challenges for governance in Europe and around the world.

Read this ‘at a glance’ on ‘Foresight for resilience: The European Commission’s first annual Foresight Report‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Agnieszka Widuto,

The Just Transition Fund will support European Union (EU) regions relying on fossil fuels and high-emission industries in their green transition. Our animated infographic shows how it works.

What is the Just Transition Fund?

The Just Transition Fund is an EU funding tool for regions dependent on fossil fuels and high-emission industries. The aim is to help them prepare for the transition necessary to achieve at least a 55 % reduction in emissions by 2030, and climate neutrality by 2050.

The European Green Deal and EU climate policies aim to improve environmental quality, ensure clean air and reduce health risks for the population. To achieve this green transition, the EU will support carbon-intensive regions in diversifying their economies and creating new jobs. Activities supported by the Just Transition Fund will include investments in small and medium-sized enterprises, research and innovation, renewable energy, emissions reduction, clean energy technologies, site regeneration, circular economy, and upskilling and reskilling of workers. The Just Transition Fund is part of a broader Just Transition Mechanism, which also includes two other pillars: a scheme under InvestEU aimed at mobilising private investments and a public sector loan facility to generate public financing.

The introductory section of the infographic provides an overview of the most important details of the Just Transition Fund.

How much funding?

In January 2020, the European Commission proposed an allocation for the Just Transition Fund (JTF) amounting to €7.5 billion under the 2021‑2027 EU budget. In light of the coronavirus pandemic, the Commission increased this amount to €10 billion from the EU budget and added a top-up of €30 billion from the Next Generation EU instrument in May 2020. This brought the total JTF amount to €40 billion. It is expected that the EU budget amount will be complemented by national co-financing and transfers from the European Regional Development Fund and the European Social Fund+. With additional funds generated through InvestEU and public sector loan facility, the Just Transition Mechanism is expected to mobilise at least €150 billion of investment.

Animated  infographic on Just Transition Fund

At the European Council meeting in July 2020, EU leaders proposed an allocation of €7.5 billion under the EU budget and €10 billion from Next Generation EU, reducing the total JTF budget to €17.5 billion. The European Parliament, in its amendments to the Commission proposal voted in September 2020, recommended raising the core budget amount of JTF to over €25 billion.

A section of the infographic called ‘Allocations’ shows a break-down of the amounts for each pillar of the Just Transition Mechanism, expected additional funding mobilised, and amounts proposed by each of the EU institutions during the negotiation process. By clicking on each respective EU institution, the infographic immediately shows the differences between their proposals.

Which regions will the JTF support?

Funding is available to all EU countries. The European Commission identified a preliminary list of eligible regions in each country.

The allocation method is based on the following socio-economic criteria: industrial emissions in regions with high carbon intensity; employment in industry in these regions; employment in coal and lignite mining; production of peat; production of oil shale and oil sands.

In the ‘JTF Allocation Method’ section, the infographic shows total JTF allocations by Member State and the aid intensity per inhabitant, according to the May 2020 Commission proposal. It explains the allocation method and provides graphs for each of the allocation components by Member State. Click on an individual country to see more detailed information on the allocations. The visualisation also takes the additional criteria mentioned in the proposal (minimum and maximum level of support and a prosperity criterion) into account.

The infographic was prepared by Sorina Ionescu and Frederik Scholaert. Each section of the infographic provides a link to Further reading materials, including an EPRS legislative briefing on the Just Transition Fund.

Written by Etienne Deschamps,

© European Parliament 2020

During the night of 9 to 10 November 1989, with absolutely no warning, the Berlin Wall opened at the same time as the communist government of the German Democratic Republic collapsed. For the first time in nearly 30 years, East Berliners could travel freely to the other side of the Iron Curtain: history was made, and the Cold War was coming to an end. A month later, the Brandenburg Gate officially opened, restoring free movement between the two German states. In less than a year, Germany regained both its unity and its sovereignty. This was a source of great satisfaction for the European Parliament, which was involved in the preparations for the reunification. Since 1990, the third day in October is celebrated as the Day of German Unity (‘Tag der deutschen Einheit’). Saturday 3 October 2020 marked the 30th anniversary of German unification, an event which profoundly changed the course of European integration.

This year, the European Parliament took the opportunity to pay tribute to this historic event, through an entirely virtual exhibition. The exhibition, entitled ‘It was 30 years ago: The European Parliament, the fall of the Berlin Wall and German reunification‘ is freely available in 24 languages on Europeana, the EU’s online library. The exhibition was launched in September by the Parliament’s liaison office in Berlin during the 2020 Berlin Lights Festival ‘Berlin leuchtet’, where the motto this year was ‘United’. The online exhibition aims to shed light on the important role played by the European Parliament and its increasing involvement in the process. It relates directly to the events that took place between 9 November 1989, when the Berlin Wall fell, and 3 October 1990, when Germany was reunified. However, the exhibition really begins in the middle of the Cold War, with the construction of the Berlin Wall, in August 1961, and illustrates the reaction of the then European Community. It also recalls that on numerous occasions from the 1960s to the 1980s, the European Parliament sought to uphold human rights and fundamental freedoms in the world, particularly in countries on the other side of the Iron Curtain.

However, the archive photos, texts and documents reproduced in the exhibition – which in some cases have never been displayed in public – also demonstrate what the consequences of unification would be for the European Parliament. For several months, the European Parliament provided a forum for the European leaders tasked with preparing Germany’s unification. In response to the political, economic and institutional implications of this historic moment for the European Community, the Members of the European Parliament supported German unification, and increasingly called for democratisation and respect for human rights in Central and Eastern Europe. For the European Parliament, the prospect of German unification was an historic opportunity to overcome the division of Europe. However, it was also a chance to consolidate political balances, promote détente, and encourage peace processes, to stimulate cooperation among the peoples of Europe and strengthen democracy and pluralism throughout the continent. This explains why Parliament set up a temporary committee with the task of assessing the effects of German unification on the European Community. The exhibition also provides information regarding the issue of the German Democratic Republic (GDR) representatives’ participation in parliamentary work. What would their status be? How many of them would there be and how would they be appointed? Would they have voting rights? Not forgetting the logistical issues … In the end, they were given observer status. Some would later be elected Members of the European Parliament in the June 1994 European elections. Finally, the exhibition also shows that, despite the speed of events, the Parliament played a key role in the adoption of all the necessary legislation to integrate the ex-GDR, as part of the united Germany, into the Union.

Click to view slideshow.

Written by Martin Russell,

Armenia and Azerbaijan are bitterly opposed over Nagorno-Karabakh, an Armenian-backed separatist territory that international law recognises as part of Azerbaijan. The fighting, which began in September 2020, is the worst since 1994, when a ceasefire ended a two-year bloody war. With Turkey openly backing Azerbaijan, there are fears that this could trigger conflict with Russia, Armenia’s main ally.

Historical background

Map – Armenia, Azerbaijan, Nagorno-Karabakh

Tensions between Armenia and Azerbaijan have mostly concerned Nagorno-Karabakh, a mountainous region inhabited by ethnic Armenians but recognised under international law as belonging to Azerbaijan. Part of Russia since the 19th century, Nagorno-Karabakh was incorporated by the Soviet Union into Azerbaijan in 1923. Under Soviet rule, tensions were mostly subdued, but as repression eased under Mikhail Gorbachev in the 1980s, Karabakh Armenians became increasingly resentful of what they saw as forced ‘Azerification’ of the region. This led to protests and, in 1988, demands for unification with Armenia. Clashes between Karabakh Armenians and Azerbaijanis became increasingly violent. In 1990, Armenia declared independence from the Soviet Union, followed by Azerbaijan one year later, leading Nagorno-Karabakh in turn to secede from Azerbaijan. The result was a bloody war that lasted two years, killed between 20 000 and 30 000 people and displaced around one million more from their homes. By the time a Russian-mediated ceasefire took hold in May 1994, Karabakh forces backed by Armenia had repelled Azerbaijan’s much larger army from most of the territory, as well as capturing adjacent areas of Azerbaijan. Together with Nagorno-Karabakh, these areas amount to around one-sixth of Azerbaijani territory outside Baku’s control.

A frozen conflict

The situation since 1994 has been more or less frozen, periodically heating up due to border clashes. Armenia has not recognised Nagorno-Karabakh’s independence, but it provides the province – which it refers to as Artsakh – with military and economic support, contributing half of its budget. The Minsk Group, which was set up by the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) in 1992 to mediate between the two sides and is co-chaired by France, Russia and the United States, has not managed to find a political settlement. In 2007, it presented the six Madrid principles, revised in 2009, as a basis for negotiations. The main elements of these are: a guaranteed interim status for the region, pending a legally binding referendum on its final status; the return of all occupied territories outside Nagorno-Karabakh to Azerbaijani control, with the exception of a corridor connecting to Armenia; and the right of all displaced persons to return to their former places of residence. However, Armenia and Azerbaijan have not been able to agree on these principles, or on how they would be implemented. Since 1994, hardly a year has gone by without violence along Armenia’s and Nagorno-Karabakh’s borders with Azerbaijan. The worst violence to date was in 2016, when a brief but intense episode claimed around 350 lives, according to a US estimate. In 2018, Nikol Pashinyan became prime minister of Armenia after a ‘Velvet Revolution’ toppled his predecessor Serzh Sargsyan. Pashinyan showed signs of willingness to settle the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict: after his first meeting with Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev, the two leaders agreed to work on reducing tensions and to set up a direct hotline between them. However, since then Pashinyan’s rhetoric has hardened: in August 2019, he called for unification between Karabakh and Armenia.

The latest clashes

A July 2020 border skirmish triggered massive protests in Baku, with thousands of demonstrators calling for the country to go to war with Armenia. Renewed hostilities, which each of the two sides blames the other for starting, began on 27 September in Nagorno-Karabakh. As of 5 October, the official (probably understated) death toll had already reached nearly 250, the highest number since 2016. Fighting is also more intense than in previous clashes, with tanks, fighter planes, helicopters and heavy artillery. Civilian targets have come under fire in Stepanakert, the capital of Nagorno-Karabakh. Although most of the fighting is in and around Karabakh, Azerbaijan claims that Armenian forces shelled Ganja, its second largest city, while Armenia says that it intercepted Azerbaijani drones close to Yerevan. Azerbaijan, Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh have all declared martial law and started to mobilise their troops.

Whereas Armenia has expressed willingness to engage in OSCE-led peace talks, Azerbaijan insists that a ceasefire is only possible once Armenia has withdrawn from Karabakh and all other occupied areas. Baku, which has a much larger and better equipped army, claims that it has already captured several villages, and may be hoping for further gains; however, the 1992-1994 war shows that significant advances against fierce Armenian resistance into Karabakh’s rugged terrain will be difficult.

International implications of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict

Although pipelines bringing Azerbaijani oil and gas to Europe pass not far from Armenia, analysts have downplayed the threat of disruption to energy markets. On the other hand, there is a more serious risk of the conflict embroiling the two main regional powers, Turkey and Russia. Russia is Armenia’s military ally (both countries are members of the Collective Security Treaty Organisation, CSTO) and main weapons supplier; since the 2016 clash, deliveries of Russian weapons (which are sold to Yerevan at a discounted rate) have increased substantially. Armenia also hosts 3 300 Russian soldiers at a base less than 10 kilometres from the Turkish border. However, Moscow also exports weapons to Azerbaijan (which has purchased five times more than Armenia since 2010). Although Baku has resisted joining Russian-led structures such as the CSTO and the Eurasian Economic Union, good ties with Moscow are key to its efforts to build a balanced foreign policy. Traditionally, Russia has played the role of mediator, for example through the Minsk Group.

While Russia and practically the entire international community – including the United Nations Security Council – have called on the two sides to immediately stop fighting and return to the negotiating table, Turkey has fully aligned itself with Azerbaijan’s position that Armenia first needs to withdraw from Nagorno-Karabakh. For nearly a century, Ankara’s relations with Yerevan have been poisoned by the Armenian genocide; on the other hand, Azerbaijan is close to Turkey as a Turkic-speaking nation, energy supplier and defence partner; in August 2020, the two countries held a major joint military drill. Turkey denies being directly involved in the conflict – for example, rejecting Yerevan’s claims that it downed an Armenian warplane – but it has also said that it will do ‘what is necessary’ to back Azerbaijan. There is evidence that Turkey may have sent Syrian rebel fighters to fight alongside Azerbaijani forces. According to French President Emmanuel Macron, who also denounced Ankara’s ‘warlike rhetoric’ as unacceptable, 300 jihadists transited Turkey on their way to Nagorno-Karabakh.

Nagorno-Karabakh has now become a third theatre of war – together with Syria and Libya – where Turkey and Russia back opposing sides. So far, the two countries have managed to compartmentalise their relations. For example, a February 2020 incident in which 33 Turkish soldiers were killed by Russia-backed Syrian government forces did not significantly strain ties. With Turkey looking to balance its increasingly difficult relations with the West, and Russia keen to broaden its influence in the Middle East, broader geopolitical interests still outweigh such differences in overall Turkey-Russia relations. However, that could change if the conflict escalates and Russia feels that its strategic interests are threatened by Turkey.

EU position: On 27 September, High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy/Vice-President Josep Borrell called on the two sides to stop fighting immediately and return to negotiations within the Minsk Group. The High Representative is due to make a statement to the European Parliament on 7 October.

Read this ‘at a glance’ on ‘Armenia and Azerbaijan on the brink of war‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

While the coronavirus crisis continues to strain Europe’s resilience to the very limit, there are nevertheless some positive outcomes. Many have come to question arrangements that previously seemed immutable – swapping the workplace for working from home, or recognising an opportunity to move towards greater strategic sovereignty for instance. Can the European Union harness such innovations to continue to make life better for Europeans? How can the European Union prepare to face such world-changing shocks in the future? Will we emerge stronger from the crisis?

EPRS analysts have taken advantage of the summer months to prepare a series of forward-looking Ideas Papers that seek to analyse how the coronavirus crisis has impacted various areas of EU policy and identify options for how those policies might be further developed in the future. These cover policy areas from public health to international trade, civil protection to the transport situation. A further set of Ideas Papers explore how the Union could develop greater resilience to withstand unexpected future shocks and strengthen its capacity for collective action.

Author Thinking about future EU policy Public health Gianluca QUAGLIO Social and employment Nora MILOTAY Food supply and food security Rachele ROSSI Civil protection capabilities Leopold SCHMERTZING European economic recovery Jerome SAULNIER Economic and Monetary Union Angelos DELIVORIAS Climate change and climate action Gregor ERBACH International Trade Jana TITIEVSKAIA Transport Jaan SOONE Towards a more resilient EU Democracy, freedom and the rule of law Wouter VAN BALLEGOOIJ Free movement within the EU Costica DUMBRAVA Linking the levels of governance Klemen ZUMER Strategic sovereignty for Europe Suzana ANGHEL Digital sovereignty for Europe Tambiama MADIEGA European interests and values Naja BENTZEN European competitiveness and global growth Stanislas DE FINANCE Future of multilateralism and strategic partnerships Elena LAZAROU

Written by Marcin Szczepański (1st edition),

© Richard Villalon / Adobe Stock

In May 2020, the European Commission adopted a proposal on a Solvency Support Instrument. The aim is to support otherwise viable companies in the Union that face solvency difficulties as a result of the coronavirus crisis, and to mitigate possible distortions to the single market and its level playing field. Such distortions are to be expected given the differing degree to which the Member States are affected and the likely unevenness of their responses, which may depend on their fiscal capacity and level of debt. The Commission proposes to increase the guarantee provided to the European Investment Bank under the European Fund for Strategic Investments and to use it to support financial intermediaries, which will then select companies eligible for solvency help.

At the European Council meeting in July 2020, EU Heads of State or Government did not take up the idea of the solvency support instrument. Both the European Parliament and Commission President, Ursula von der Leyen, have expressed regret at this. Continuing the examination of the proposal in Parliament, the co-rapporteurs have published a draft report in which they propose to widen the scope of eligible companies and ensure fair geographical distribution.

Versions

• Solvency Support Instrument

Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) 2015/1017 as regards creation of a Solvency Support Instrument Committee responsible: Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON)
Budgets (BUDG) jointly under Rule 58 COM(2020) 404
29.5.2020 Rapporteur: José Manuel Fernandes (EPP, Spain)
Irene Tinagli (S&D, Italy)
Nils Torvalds (Renew Europe, Finland) 2020/0106 (COD) Shadow rapporteurs: Frances Fitzgerald (EPP), Victor Negrescu (S&D), Billy Kelleher (Renew Europe), Gunnar Beck (ID), Hélène Laporte (ID), Claude Gruffat (Greens/EFA), Henrike Hahn (Greens/EFA), Bogdan Rzońca (ECR), Johan Van Overtveldt (ECR), José Gusmão (GUE/NGL), Dimitrios Papadimoulis (GUE/NGL) Ordinary legislative procedure (COD) (Parliament and Council on equal footing – formerly ‘co-decision’) Next steps expected: Adoption of report in joint committee

Written by Ralf Drachenberg,

© Adobe Stock

At the special European Council meeting of 1-2 October 2020, Charles Michel, President of the European Council, presented a new Leaders’ Agenda outlining his view of ‘the key challenges confronting the Union’ and setting a timetable for the Heads of State or Government to address these issues at meetings between October 2020 and June 2021. The new Leaders’ Agenda puts strong focus on the ‘green transition and digital transformation’, as well as on ‘Europe’s role in the world’, two core priorities in the EU Strategic Agenda 2019-24. Mr Michel intends to structure the approach to external relations discussions, notably through a series of strategic debates on relations with key partners. A number of EU priority topics are however missing, notably migration, the rule of law and the Conference on the Future of Europe. Mr Michel has, however, stated that the Leaders’ Agenda is a flexible tool, which can be updated as circumstances require.

Meetings and topics of the Leaders’ Agenda 2020-21

As flagged up in the EPRS outlook for the special meeting of 1-2 October 2020, President Charles Michel set out his vision of the main issues to be dealt with by his institution in the coming year in the form of a Leaders’ Agenda 2020-21. Along the lines of the Leaders’ Agenda put forward by then-President Donald Tusk in October 2017, this document sets out a work programme for the European Council up to June 2021. Surprisingly, it only covers a period of nine months, as opposed to 18 months for the first Leaders’ Agenda. Eight European Council meetings (including the 1-2 October one) are planned up to June 2021, including two informal meetings, one on China and the other on the social impact of the digital and green transformation, as well as a special meeting due to address both health issues and European security and defence (see Table 1). The agenda also includes two Euro Summits, in November 2020 and in March 2021, and envisages a series of summits with third countries: an EU-African Union Summit, an EU leaders-Chinese President meeting, a Western Balkans Summit, an ASEM Summit and a possible EU-CELAC summit.

Table 1: Main issues to be discussed at EU leaders’ meetings, October 2020 – June 2021

Date Meeting type Main issues 2020 1-2 October Regular European Council Digital, single market and industrial policy, and external relations (Turkey, China) 15-16 October Regular European Council EU-UK negotiations, climate (orientation debate) and external relations (Africa)) 16 November Informal European Council (Berlin) China 10-11 December Regular European Council Climate, trade and external relations (Southern Neighbourhood) Meeting with the African Union Euro Summit meeting Banking union and capital markets union 2021 February Special European Council Health, and European security and defence February Eastern Partnership Summit 25-26 March Regular European Council Digital, including digital taxation, single market and industrial policy as well as external relations (Russia) Euro Summit meeting International role of the euro 7-8 May Informal European Council (Portugal) Social impact of the digital and green transformation EU-India leaders’ meeting 24-25 June Regular European Council Future of Schengen and external relations (UK)

Presented as ‘an ambitious European Council agenda covering the key challenges confronting the Union, the new Leaders’ Agenda puts particular emphasis on the green transition and digital transformation, as well as on making the EU a strong global player. It aims to push ahead with the policy priorities outlined by the European Council in its Strategic Agenda 2019-24: i) protecting citizens and freedoms; ii) developing a strong and vibrant economic base; iii) building a climate-neutral, green, fair and social Europe; and iv) promoting European interests and values on the global stage.

As regards the fourth priority, Mr Michel aims at developing a more structured approach to dealing with the EU’s external relations. He has underlined that the ‘EU’s role in the world will be on every #EUCO agenda’, and indeed, all but one of the European Council meetings have a strategic discussion on a specific external relations topic. The exception is the planned informal meeting in May 2021, which will be dedicated to the ‘social impact of the digital and green transformation’, but will take place back-to-back with the EU-India meeting, which is not a European Council meeting. The Leaders’ Agenda notably includes a strategic discussion on Africa in October 2020 and one on Russia in March 2021. The last strategic discussion of the European Council on Russia was planned for 21-22 October 2016, but at that time, the European Council mainly discussed whether or not to introduce sanctions on Russia in relation to its involvement in the Syrian conflict. The new agenda confirms the recent trend to organise EU summits with third countries, such as the EU-Western Balkans summit, with the attendance of all or most EU Heads of State or Government, rather than just the presidents of the European Council and the Commission, the president-in-office of the Council, and the EU High Representative/Vice President.

The absence of a number of key issues from the Leaders’ Agenda is striking: next to the Conference on the Future of Europe, one of the four core priorities of the Strategic Agenda 2019-24, ‘protecting citizens and freedoms’ is barely included. Even though a discussion on the future of Schengen is planned for June 2021, sensitive topics such as migration and asylum, and the rule of law are missing.

Working method under the Leaders’ Agenda

Figure 1: Leaders’ Agenda decision-making process

The first Leaders’ Agenda was launched at the European Council meeting of 19-20 October 2017, in order to facilitate the finding of consensus among the EU leaders on otherwise intractable issues. It initiated a new working method for the European Council with the introduction of a special format of the European Council, Leaders’ Meetings, which were informal debates stimulated with ‘Leaders’ notes’ from the president, outlining the main challenges and sticking-points on the topic concerned. The aim was to help EU leaders reach agreement and enable them to approve conclusions at a subsequent, regular meeting of the European Council. The idea of only adopting conclusions at a later meeting has been kept in the new Leaders’ Agenda, which states that ‘where no immediate conclusions are drawn, the outcome of the debates will be reflected in later conclusions’. Whether special notes will be prepared or implementation reports drawn up remains to be seen. However, Mr Michel did mention the possibility of using smaller formats, with only some EU leaders, to prepare the discussions in the European Council itself.

Read this ‘at a glance’ on ‘European Council Leaders’ Agenda 2020-21‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Ralf Drachenberg and Suzana Anghel,

© Adobe Stock

The European Council meeting of 1-2 October 2020 was largely dedicated to external relations. EU leaders discussed a wide range of foreign policy issues, including relations with China, Nagorno-Karabakh and the Navalny poisoning attempt. Particular attention was paid to the situation in the Eastern Mediterranean, with EU leaders extending an offer to cooperate with Turkey – provided the current path to dialogue was maintained – while envisaging all options otherwise. On Belarus, the leaders agreed on restrictive measures against officials responsible for repression and election falsification. Also on the agenda were the single market, industrial policy and digital transformation, notably in the context of EU strategic autonomy. There was also an in-depth discussion on coordination of the coronavirus pandemic response. Finally, the President presented the new Leaders’ Agenda 2020-21, foreseeing the main topics for discussion up to June 2021.

1. European Council meeting: General aspects and new commitments

In accordance with Article 235(2) TFEU, the President of the European Parliament, David Sassoli, addressed the European Council at the start of its proceedings. He referred notably to three topics not formally on the European Council agenda: migration, the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) and the Conference on the Future of Europe. On the first topic, he stressed that the EU ‘must show the courage needed to reach agreement on a common immigration and asylum policy based on solidarity and responsibility’. On negotiations between co-legislators on the next MFF, President Sassoli stressed that the ‘delays are due to a lack of counter-proposals from the Council. Parliament has made many concessions to the Council. If there is a will, a political agreement can be reached quickly’. At the opening press conference, Charles Michel, President of the European Council, had briefly touched upon the recovery fund and the MFF, stressing that it was crucial to implement EU leaders’ decisions from July 2020 as soon as possible. Finally, on the planned Conference on the Future of Europe, Mr Sassoli invited EU Heads of State or Government ‘to take a decision at the next European Council which enables us to start the Conference in Strasbourg as soon as possible’.

The European Council welcomed the new Prime Minister of Belgium, Alexander De Croo. Swedish Prime Minster Stefan Löfven was unable to attend and was represented by the Finnish Prime Minister, Sanna Marrin. The French President, Emmanuel Macron, had to leave the meeting after the first day and was then represented by the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel.

An important development regarding the work of the European Council was the presentation by Charles Michel of the Leaders’ Agenda 2020-21. Designed as a work programme for the European Council, it outlines the main meetings of the EU Heads of State or Government up to June 2021 and the topics to be discussed (see EPRS publication European Council Leaders’ Agenda 2020-21).

Table 1: New European Council commitments and requests with a specific time schedule

Policy area Action >Actor Schedule Coronavirus Come back to this issue regularly European Council 2020-21 Digital policy Develop a digital compass, setting out the EU’s digital ambitions for 2030 European Commission March 2021 Develop an EU-wide framework for secure public electronic identification (e-ID) European Commission Mid-2021 Single market, industrial policy and digital Return to the topics European Commission March 2021 External relations Return to the Navalny case European Council 15-16 October 2020 Eastern Mediterranean Monitor developments and compliance closely and return to this issue European Commission December 2020 2. European Council meeting: Main agenda points Coronavirus

The European Council held an in-depth discussion on the coordination of the response to the pandemic, and in its conclusions called on the Council and the Commission ‘to further step up the overall coordination effort and the work on the development and distribution of a vaccine at the EU level’. Michel stated that Covid-19 vaccines should be considered as ‘a common good’.

Main message of Parliament’s President: David Sassoli argued that the coronavirus crisis had ‘high­lighted the need to give the EU a far greater role in the area of health, and to seek more innovative digital solutions in this area. This should translate into an increased budget for the EU4Health programme’.

Single market, industrial policy and digital transition

‘Achieving strategic autonomy while preserving an open economy’ was set as an objective for the Union, confirming the EU’s willingness to address existing vulnerabilities, build a robust industrial base and continue to cooperate with partners. Increased convergence on the notion of ‘strategic autonomy’ could be observed since the coronavirus outbreak, although sensitivities may persist.

Single market and industrial policy

EU leaders stressed the need to return to a fully functional single market as soon as possible and to remove unjustified remaining barriers, with strict implementation of the single market enforcement action plan. The European Council also endorsed the Council conclusions of 21 September 2020 on a ‘deepened single market for a strong recovery and a competitive, sustainable Europe’.

The European Council restated its commitment to updating the EU competition framework to meet the challenges of the twin digital and green transitions, and adapt it to the evolving global context. Possible rules on the role and responsibilities of online platforms should be explored as well as rules for all economic operators in the digital sector. The Digital Services Act expected before the end of the year will aim to define concrete measures on these issues.

Regarding trade matters, EU leaders reiterated their call for a reformed system of global economic governance based on a free trade agenda with the WTO at its core, while protecting the EU from unfair and abusive practices and ensuring reciprocity. They also called for more progress on ongoing legislative initiatives such as the Enforcement Regulation and the International Procurement Instrument, while also developing instruments addressing the distortive effects of foreign subsidies.

At the same time, EU Heads of State or Government stressed the need to make European industry more sustainable, greener and more resilient so as to be able to compete in the global competition setting. To achieve this, the EU leaders called, more specifically, for action to ensure a level playing field, the development of new industrial alliances, increased assistance to overcome market failures and enable breakthrough innovation, and EU autonomy in the space sector.

Digital policy

EU leaders stressed that the coronavirus crisis had made digital transition even more pertinent and urgent, highlighting the political will to build a truly digital single market and make the EU digitally sovereign. They agreed to earmark at least 20 % of the recovery and resilience facility under the recovery package for digital transition, including for SMEs. EU leaders also took stock of recent developments and action with regard to the data economy, cloud services, 5G deployment and the building of a framework for secure, trustworthy and ethical artificial intelligence systems.

External relations Eastern Mediterranean

Noting the EU’s strategic interest in a stable and secure environment in the eastern Mediterranean, EU leaders devoted much attention to the situation in the region, bringing to the table an offer of dialogue and cooperation with Turkey. While welcoming the recent de-escalation efforts and the renewal of dialogue between Greece and Turkey, the European Council reiterated its solidarity with Greece and Cyprus, stressing that their ‘sovereign rights’ needed to be respected. It also called for a swift resumption of talks under the auspices of the UN for the settlement of the Cyprus issue.

When it came to relations with Turkey, provided the latter pursued dialogue, EU leaders committed to ‘launch a positive political EU-Turkey agenda’ focused on ‘modernisation of the Customs Union’, trade, and cooperation in the field of migration on the basis of the 2016 EU-Turkey Statement. The Presidents of the European Council and Commission, Charles Michel and Ursula von der Leyen, supported by the High Representative/Vice-President, Josep Borrell, were tasked with developing a proposal for a renewed EU-Turkey agenda. However, as underlined by the European Council, were the situation in the eastern Mediterranean to deteriorate again, the EU would use all available instruments, including restrictive measures (sanctions) and the reduction or interruption of economic relations and financial aid, in accordance with Article 215 TFEU. EU leaders also proposed to organise a multilateral conference on the eastern Mediterranean, but its framework and timetable have still to be determined.

Turkey has increasingly been using its key geo-strategic position in an assertive way, through active involvement in conflicts in its neighbourhood. This is currently the case in Libya, Syria and Nagorno-Karabakh. French President Emmanuel Macron stressed that the EU needed a neighbourhood policy able to address the challenges posed by both Turkey and Russia, and that EU leaders should continue to discuss and shape the EU’s strategic vision.

Main message of the Parliament’s President: David Sassoli expressed the Parliament’s solidarity with Greece and Cyprus and stressed that the ‘EU must uphold their sovereign rights’. He underlined that a ‘lasting settlement’ in the eastern Mediterranean could only be reached through dialogue.

EU-China relations

The debate on Turkey overshadowed the debate on China completely, reducing it to a stock-taking exercise. EU leaders were informed of the outcome of the 14 September 2020 quadrilateral meeting with China. Conclusions were, as confirmed by Mr Michel, adopted without debate. The European Council ‘welcomed’ the signing of the agreement on geographical indications and reaffirmed the goal of finalising negotiations on ‘an ambitious EU-China comprehensive investment agreement’ by the end of 2020, provided pending issues are overcome. EU leaders called on China to engage in ‘negotiations on industrial subsidies at the WTO’ and to support global efforts to respond to the pandemic. When it came to the fight against climate change, an area where the EU and China can cooperate closely, EU leaders ‘welcomed’ China’s commitment to increase its level of ambition so as to achieve climate neutrality by 2060. The conclusions stressed however that human rights abuses in China and the situation in Hong Kong remained a matter of serious concern. They also confirmed the EU’s attachment to the joint communication, ‘EU-China: A Strategic Outlook’, not formally endorsed by the EU leaders when first presented in March 2019. Recognising this communication as a common working tool is a first significant step towards a common approach on China, as called for by several EU leaders, including Emmanuel Macron, and the Prime Minister of Estonia, Jüri Ratas.

Main message of the Parliament’s President: David Sassoli expressed concern on human rights abuses and called for ‘a level playing-field for free and fair trade’.

Belarus

EU leaders once again converged in their assessment of the situation in Belarus and invited the Commission to prepare ‘a comprehensive plan of economic support for democratic Belarus’. They gave the green light to restrictive measures against 40 individuals who have contributed to electoral fraud and post-election repression; the Council subsequently adopted the list by written procedure. The list does not yet include Alexander Lukashenko. French President Emmanuel Macron spoke of an ‘assumed choice’, which could open the path to mediation under the auspices of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE).

Main message of the Parliament’s President: David Sassoli urged the EU leaders to stand by EU values and to place sanctions on those responsible for electoral fraud and repression in Belarus.

Nagorno-Karabakh

EU leaders discussed the recent escalation of violence in Nagorno-Karabakh, inviting parties to cease hostilities and to work towards ‘the peaceful settlement of the conflict’. They expressed their support for the OSCE Minsk Group – comprising France, Russia and the US – which earlier in the day had called on Armenia and Azerbaijan to resume negotiations ‘in good faith’.

Main message of Parliament’s President: David Sassoli conveyed his condolences to the families of victims and called for the cessation of hostilities.

Alexei Navalny

The European Council condemned the attempt made to assassinate Alexei Navalny, as well as the use to that end of ‘a military chemical nerve agent from the “Novichok” group’. It pointed out that the use of chemical weapons constituted a breach of international law and called on Russia to cooperate fully with the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. EU leaders agreed to return to the Navalny case at their upcoming summit on 15 and 16 October.

Main message of the Parliament’s President: David Sassoli called for ‘impartial international investigation’ into Russia’s violations of the international chemical weapons regime.

Read this briefing on ‘Outcome of the special European Council meeting, 1-2 October 2020‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Gisela Grieger,

© alexlmx / Adobe Stock

On 21 April 2018, the EU and Mexico reached an agreement in principle on a modernised trade pillar of the EU-Mexico Economic Partnership, Political Coordination and Cooperation Agreement, also known as the Global Agreement, in force since 2000. On 28 April 2020, negotiations were formally concluded after the only outstanding item – EU access to sub‑federal public procurement contracts in Mexico – was agreed upon.

The trade pillar of the Global Agreement was the first trade liberalisation agreement the EU concluded with a Latin American country. It has contributed to a significant increase in EU‑Mexico trade in services and industrial goods. However, it has become outdated, as both parties have entered into a wide range of preferential trade agreements with state-of-the-art provisions reflecting new developments in trade and investment policies. Removing non-tariff barriers to trade, and further liberalising trade in agricultural goods would allow the EU and Mexico to enhance their competitive edge in each other’s markets.

After the trade pillar’s legal scrutiny and translation, it will become part of a three-pronged Global Agreement that will also contain revamped political dialogue and cooperation pillars and will be signed by the Council of the EU and its Mexican counterpart. The new Global Agreement will subsequently be submitted to the European Parliament for its consent.

Economic Partnership, Political Coordination and Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the United Mexican States, of the other part Committee responsible: International Trade (INTA) Rapporteur: Inmaculada Rodríguez-Piñero Fernández (S&D, Spain)