Feed aggregator

InnoLux kontra Bizottság
Verseny
The Court confirms the €288 million fine imposed on InnoLux for its participation in the cartel on the market for LCD panels

K and A
Area of Freedom, Security and Justice
Member States may require third country nationals to pass a civic integration examination prior to family reunification

K és A
A szabadságon, a biztonságon és a jog érvényesülésén alapuló térség
A tagállamok megkövetelhetik a harmadik országok állampolgáraitól, hogy a családegyesítést megelőzően beilleszkedési vizsgát tegyenek

Commission / France
Aide d'État
La France a manqué à ses obligations en s’abstenant de récupérer l’aide de 220 millions d’euros accordée à la SNCM au titre de certains services de transport maritime assurés entre Marseille et la Corse

Kommission / Frankreich
Staatliche Beihilfen
Frankreich hat seine Verpflichtungen verletzt, indem es unterlassen hat, eine der SNCM für bestimmte Dienstleistungen im Seeverkehr zwischen Marseille und Korsika gewährte Beihilfe von 220 Mio. Euro zurückzufordern

Commission v France
State aid
France has failed to fulfil its obligations by failing to recover aid amounting to €220 million granted to SNCM for certain ferry services between Marseille and Corsica

Bizottság kontra Franciaország
Állami támogatás
France has failed to fulfil its obligations by failing to recover aid amounting to €220 million granted to SNCM for certain ferry services between Marseille and Corsica

L’Allemagne et la Finlande sont furieuses : leurs partenaires de la zone euro sont passés outre leurs objections afin de boucler un accord avec la Grèce à la suite de la victoire du « non » au référendum. Soucieuse de garder le pays dans la zone euro, une large majorité de l’Eurogroupe (les dix-neuf ministres des Finances) a renvoyé aux calendes grecques la réforme des retraites, ce qui laisse présager de nouveaux dérapages budgétaires, et a accepté une restructuration immédiate de la dette qu’ils détiennent. Wolfgang Schäuble, le ministre des finances allemand, et Alexander Stubb, son collègue finlandais, savent que leur majorité ne suivra pas. Alors qu’un sommet de la zone euro doit se réunir le lendemain pour acter ce compromis, en pleine nuit, les chefs de gouvernement allemand et finlandais décident de convoquer pour la semaine suivante un référendum afin de répondre à une simple question : « acceptez-vous de renoncer à une partie des prêts que l’Allemagne/la Finlande a consenti à la Grèce » ? La réponse ne fait guère de doute : ce sera nein/ei. Et un retour au point de départ.

Ce petit scénario de politique-fiction illustre l’impasse dans laquelle la Grèce a précipité la zone euro en décidant d’organiser un référendum purement national sur une question qui ne l’engage pas seule, celle des conditions auxquelles les aides financières de ses partenaires sont consenties. Si chaque gouvernement se met à jouer son peuple contre celui des autres, l’avenir de la monnaie unique est compromis : la France pourrait organiser un référendum sur le respect des 3 % du PIB de déficit public (réponse assurée), les pays riches sur les mesures de solidarité financière (réponse assurée), les pays pauvres sur l’instauration de transferts financiers obligatoires (réponse assurée), etc.. Comment refermer une telle boîte de Pandore ?

Lorsque la crise grecque a éclaté, en 2010, les Européens ont découvert ce qu’ils avaient voulu oublier en 1992 en signant le traité de Maastricht : la monnaie unique n’était que le premier pas vers une fédération politique, condition sine qua non pour assurer sa viabilité à long terme. À l’époque, les conditions politiques n’étaient pas remplies pour aller plus loin. Il fut donc seulement convenu que chaque État gérerait son économie et son budget en respectant un ensemble de règles communes (le Pacte de stabilité). Lors du passage à la monnaie unique, en 1999, le « choc fédéral » prévu par Hubert Védrine, ancien conseiller de François Mitterrand, n’a pas eu lieu. Les marchés, estimant que la zone euro allait devenir de facto les États-Unis d’Europe, ont prêté à tous les États membres à des conditions allemandes. Puisque tout allait bien, pourquoi aller plus loin dans l’intégration ? Il a fallu le choc de la crise financière de 2007-2008, puis la révélation du mensonge de la Grèce qui avait divisé par trois son déficit réel, pour qu’ils paniquent et cessent de prêter de l’argent aux pays les plus fragiles.

La zone euro s’est alors aperçue qu’elle était une « maison partiellement achevée », comme le note le rapport « Compléter l’union économique et monétaire européenne »présenté par les présidents des institutions communautaires au Conseil européen des chefs d’État et de gouvernement de juin dernier : « lorsque la tempête a frappé, ses murs et sa toiture ont dû être rapidement renforcés ». En moins de deux ans, les États ont créé en tâtonnant les instruments nécessaires pour aider les pays attaqués par les marchés. Des prêts bilatéraux, on est passé au Fonds européen de stabilité financière puis au Mécanisme européen de stabilité doté d’une capacité d’emprunt de 750 milliards d’euros. La zone euro a renforcé sa gouvernance économique en se donnant les moyens de contraindre les États de respecter la discipline commune, ce qui passe par une intrusion plus grande dans les politiques nationales. Enfin, elle a confié la surveillance des banques à la BCE, les autorités nationales ayant eu tendance à cacher la vérité sur la situation réelle de leur système bancaire.

En dépit de tous ces progrès, on reste encore loin d’une véritable union politique. La zone euro est « un pain à moitié cuit », souligne ainsi Romano Prodi, l’ancien président de la Commission (1999-2004) : « Si l’Europe veut s’en sortir, elle doit réagir immédiatement en se dotant d’une authentique autorité fédérale ». C’est le sens du rapport des « cinq présidents » (Commission, Parlement, Conseil européen, Eurogroupe, BCE) qui propose d’achever l’union monétaire : contrôle démocratique de la Commission et de l’Eurogroupe par un Parlement de la zone euro, surveillance renforcée des économies et des budgets nationaux, création d’un budget de la zone euro afin « d’atténuer les chocs macroéconomiques » et enfin d’un « Trésor européen ». Pour Romano Prodi, cette fédéralisation, qui aboutirait en réalité à placer sous tutelle les politiques économiques nationales, est le seul moyen de sortir d’une zone euro gouvernée par des États « otages de leurs problèmes politiques internes », comme le démontre la Grèce.

Mais on peut se demander si la zone euro ne fait pas fausse route en s’ingérant toujours davantage dans les affaires intérieures des États membres. Car ce schéma n’empêchera pas une répétition du référendum grec par un État mécontent de telle ou telle mesure. Pour Daniel Cohn-Bendit, ancien président du groupe vert au Parlement européen, « aux États-Unis, il y a un budget fédéral qui finance des dépenses fédérales (armée, police, recherche, investissement, etc.). Les États fédérés, eux, restent maîtres de leur budget, sans ingérence possible du fédéral. Et lorsque la Californie frôle la faillite, ce dernier n’intervient pas : à elle de s’en sortir ». Pourquoi ne pas transposer ce modèle, puisque les dépenses et les recettes des États resteront votées par des parlements nationaux, ce qui ne peut que faire naitre des tensions entre le niveau fédéral chargé de forcer les budgets nationaux à converger et le niveau étatique ? À chaque niveau de gérer ses affaires.

Dans le cas grec, une fédéralisation à l’américaine aurait abouti à laisser le pays faire défaut, la zone euro se contentant de venir en aide à la population (grâce à des dépenses fédérales) et l’Union bancaire permettant d’éviter tout effet systémique aux faillites des banques grecques. La potion aurait été encore plus amère et brutale pour les Grecs (il aurait fallu couper du jour au lendemain 36,3 milliards d’euros de dépense sur 84 milliards pour équilibrer le budget), mais personne n’aurait pu accuser l’Europe de quoi que ce soit. Le seul référendum qu’aurait pu organiser un gouvernement aux abois aurait été un référendum de sécession.

N.B.: version longue de l’article publié dans Libération du 6 juillet

The services of the European Commission are currently reflecting on the follow-up to the Strategy for equality between women and men 2010-2015 (COM (2010) final). The EU's trade policy has not yet been fully integrated into this Strategy, providing an opportunity for the INTA committee to consider whether and how gender issues should be dealt with in the context of the EU's trade policies. Article 8 TFEU provides that “in all its activities, the Union shall aim to eliminate inequalities, and to promote equality between men and women.” The trade policy issues that are discussed by the European Parliament's INTA committee can have differing gender impacts across the various sectors of the economy. Understanding the gender dimension of trade agreements better will therefore contribute to better policy making and to ensuring that both sexes can take advantage of the benefits of trade liberalisation and be protected from its negative effects.
Source : © European Union, 2015 - EP

The services of the European Commission are currently reflecting on the follow-up to the Strategy for equality between women and men 2010-2015 (COM (2010) final). The EU's trade policy has not yet been fully integrated into this Strategy, providing an opportunity for the INTA committee to consider whether and how gender issues should be dealt with in the context of the EU's trade policies. Article 8 TFEU provides that “in all its activities, the Union shall aim to eliminate inequalities, and to promote equality between men and women.” The trade policy issues that are discussed by the European Parliament's INTA committee can have differing gender impacts across the various sectors of the economy. Understanding the gender dimension of trade agreements better will therefore contribute to better policy making and to ensuring that both sexes can take advantage of the benefits of trade liberalisation and be protected from its negative effects.
Source : © European Union, 2015 - EP

Dans le cadre des escales de l’OPV L’Adroit assurées par la Marine nationale au Cameroun, en Côte d’Ivoire et au Sénégal en mai et juin derniers, DCNS a conduit avec succès trois démonstrations en conditions réelles de son système de mission POLARIS, associé à la solution de liaisons de données tactiques interopérables NIDL. Ces expérimentations se sont déroulées au large des côtes du Golfe de Guinée, zone où se concentre plus du quart des actes de piraterie dans le monde.

• Lire la suite de DCNS valide dans le Golfe de Guinée ses solutions de surveillance maritime

Source : © European Union, 2015 - EP

Little over a month ago, Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras was still claiming that his party’s electoral victory last January had put an end to bailout programmes. A few days ago, he told the Greek people that a ‘No’ vote in the Greek referendum would lead to a deal with Greece’s creditors within 48 hours. More than 48 hours after the ‘No’ vote, there is no deal and his government has formally requested a third bailout programme.

This request coupled with Mr. Tsipras’ decision to replace controversial Finance Minister Yannis Varoufakis might produce the impression that the Greek government’s position has shifted closer to that of its creditors and that an agreement has become more likely. Sadly, this is not the case. Since the Greek government decided to abandon negotiations with its creditors to hold a referendum, the distance between the Greek government’s position and that of its creditors has grown greater.

The Greek people rejected the last offer that Greece was made before their government abandoned negotiations with its creditors. Additionally, the Greek government’s request for a third bailout programme has raised the issue of debt relief yet again. Greece’s creditors, however, have indicated that a third bailout programme will require Greece to accept stricter conditions than those included in the offer that the Greek people rejected. As far as debt relief is concerned, German Chancellor Angela Merkel was perfectly clear: ‘There can be no question of a haircut’.

Given that the distance between the Greek government and its creditors has increased, an agreement seems unlikely. Even if the Greek government agrees to stricter conditions than those that the Greek people have rejected, ratification of such an agreement by the Greek parliament cannot be guaranteed. In fact, the large margin by which the Greek people rejected the last offer of Greece’s creditors and the fact that their offer was rejected in every single constituency suggest that the seats of those MPs who might vote against stricter conditions are safe.

An agreement without stricter conditions might be possible, if Greece’s EU partners decided that ensuring the irreversibility of Eurozone integration is more important than enforcing compliance with Eurozone rules. Ratification of such an agreement by national parliaments cannot be guaranteed either. Opposition to additional financial assistance to Greece runs at about 70% amongst the German public. The seats of those MPs who might approve such financial assistance would not be safe.

Several months ago, then SYRIZA MEP Manolis Glezos had the integrity to apologise to the Greek people for his role in creating the ‘illusion’ that SYRIZA’s electoral victory would put an end to bailout programmes. Mr. Tsipras should follow his example. Not only has his government requested yet another bailout programme for Greece, but it also seems to have placed itself in a position, from which an agreement on a third programme seems unlikely.

Kyriakos Moumoutzis is a Lecturer in European and International Politics at King’s College London.

 

The post Mr. Tsipras owes the Greek people an apology appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

OPINION on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1236/2005 concerning trade in certain goods which could be used for capital punishment, torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Barbara Lochbihler

Source : © European Union, 2015 - EP

jQuery(document).ready(function(){jQuery("#isloaderfor-lhzdmp").fadeOut(2000, function () { jQuery(".pagwrap-lhzdmp").fadeIn(1000);});});

Nahla Valji, Officer in Charge of the Peace and Security Section at UN Women, told an IPI audience July 8th that achieving gender equality had a direct effect on the sustainability of peace processes. Speaking at a policy forum considering the Global Study on Resolution 1325, Ms. Valji declared it is imperative “to see gender equality and women’s empowerment as important and core to peace and security.”

Ms. Valji noted that including women in peace processes is about more than just diversity; there is an empirical record of improved results. “We’re now seeing the increased evidence of the correlation between women’s participation,” and, “the finalization of peace processes, the implementation of agreements, and the sustainability of the peace that they achieve,” she said.

The Policy Forum was co-sponsored by UN Women, and Ms. Valji represented the UN agency on the panel. Describing the early findings of the Global Study, she said, “Over the past 15 years, we have built an incredibly strong normative base.” However, she continued, “What we’re not seeing though, is consistent implementation.”

The Global Study, 15 years after its adoption, is a review of Resolution 1325, the landmark resolution of the United Nations Security Council on Women, Peace and Security. It recommends means for the resolution’s full execution in areas such as strengthening the gender architecture of the UN system, and removing obstacles to participation of women in peace and security operations.

Before the panel discussion, participants had met at the UN in small groups, to try to identify synergies with other reports.

Ambassador Christian Wenaweser, the Permanent Representative of Liechtenstein to the UN, also a co-host of the panel, opened the discussion by emphasizing it was essential, “to establish the connections between the different topics, to ensure that things are not looked at in isolation.”

To that end, Ambassador Gert Rosenthal brought to the attention of the panel a key interpretation of the High Level Review on Peacebuilding, for which he is Chair of the Advisory Group of Experts. “There is this idea in the United Nations that peace building is something that happens after a conflict,” he said. “In fact, on an agenda of the Security Council, the agenda item is called ‘post-conflict peacebuilding.’ And we think that’s the wrong concept. Peacebuilding can occur before, during, and after conflict.”

Youssef Mahmoud, IPI Senior Adviser, pointed out that men also bore responsibility for implementing Resolution 1325, criticizing “the prevailing erroneous notion that women peace and security is a women’s only issue that can only be addressed by women and understood by women.” Rather, he continued, it must be conceptualized as “a social agenda – an agenda for women and men.”

Dr. Jemilah Mahmood, Chief of the World Humanitarian Summit Secretariat, commented on the unique value women have brought to her multi-stakeholder consultations for the UN. “I think every regional consultation, something that has been said to us about what is important, it’s actually hope and security,” she said. “And women see things very differently in this sense, hope not just for themselves, but for future generations, for their children. It’s such a powerful message women are telling us.”

Ms. Valji similarly emphasized the need to incorporate women’s unique perspectives and stressed that their voices can even improve early warning mechanisms.

“Women have access to different sources of information, conflict analysis, early warning of conflict in communities,” she said. The Global Study found that women experience greater violence “as militarization and small arms spread in the months before conflict and tensions heighten.” These voices are lost, she explained, but could actually serve “as an early warning indicator, that we can use,” to prevent conflict.

The discussion concluded with the members of the audience posing questions to the panelists. Ms. Mahmood, answering a question about what it would take to ensure women are involved in implementing Resolution 1325, responded by asking her colleague to hold up her cell phone.

With the audience fixated on the device, Ms. Mahmood clarified, “If I had one wish, I would want every woman caught in crisis to have a solar powered mobile phone with unlimited credit, because it’s unbelievable how much information can be disseminated through the cell phone,” she said. “We have to look at the world through the future lens, the world in 2030. How will women have their voice, even when they try to quiet it down? How do we amplify? It’s the power of many working as one.”

IPI Senior Adviser Youssef Mahmoud moderated the conversation.

Watch event:

Source : © European Union, 2015 - EP

A lot will be written about today’s vote in the European Parliament on Trade Committee Chair Bernd Lange’s own-initiative report on TTIP. In the immediate aftermath of the vote, we noted that:

1. Rules can work in your favour if you have the right position

The European Parliament’s President Martin Schulz followed the Rules of Procedure to the letter, though he frequently had to read directly from the rules to explain his decision to his fellow parliamentarians on the voting priority of amendments. Schulz brought to vote Amendment 117 — that of Socialist & Democrats (S&D) member and International Trade Committee rapporteur Bernd Lange — to amend the paragraph about Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS). Speaking of ISDS, it is important to…

2. Keep the mind limber to solve complicated cases

The most contentious point was the Parliament’s position on Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS). Using a rhetorical Houdini-like escape act, the Parliament adopted a position which simultaneously allows MEPs to say that they have ‘killed’ ISDS while supporting work to develop a system for settling disputes between investors and states. The paradoxical amendment will prove difficult for many minds. It will result in reams of analysis between now and the end of this year. Most importantly, it could provide a pressure-release valve that creates space for constructive debate. Undoubtedly, the crafting and advancement of amendment 117 by Schulz and Lange, both part of the Socialist and Democrats (S&D) group, has consequences for internal cohesion as…

3. Political group fragmentation continues

It is even clearer that the political groups fragment easily, as we have noted in the past. There will be many simmering disagreements that may impede intra-group collaboration even outside of trade policy. The fragmentation inside parties is not the only problem. Between groups, rancor has increased as smaller groups attempt to remain relevant while they are not always necessary coalition partners. As a result…

4. The hemicycle can still deliver heated debate

The heated exchange between EP President Schulz and two members of the Greens group — Yannick Jadot (FR) and Reinhard Bütikofer (DE) — over the application of the Rules of Procedure revealed the confrontation. The applause and boos from the deputies provided political theatre rarely seen in sleepy Strasbourg. If only the dome of the hemicycle really did glow brighter as the volume in the chamber increased. Energetic words about TTIP will fly between the benches and the President’s desk again, because…

5. This is not the last time we will hear from the EP on TTIP

Let us not forget that the European Parliament had already in 2013 issued its opinion on TTIP when it adopted the resolution of former International Trade Committee Chairman Vital Moreira. And, once agreed, the Treaty of the European Union requires the Parliament’s consent to the final text of TTIP. That will be an even more passionate debate.

 

 

Michael Stanton-Geddes