European Parliamentary Research Service Blog

Written by Alina Dobreva,

© tai111 / Fotolia

The budget of the European Union (EU budget) provides the EU with the means to finance its policies and to respond to challenges which occur. Due to its scope, the perception of the EU budget is linked to citizens’ perception of the EU as a whole, its legitimacy and reputation, as well as the performance of the EU institutions. This briefing analyses public opinion surveys related to the EU budget, in particular citizens’ preferences for greater EU financial means and their evaluation of the EU budget as ‘good’ or ‘poor’ value for money. It sets the analysis of public opinion in the context of debate on reforming the EU budget and on setting the next multiannual financial framework.

According to recent Eurobarometer data, 37 % of Europeans support the EU having greater financial means given its political objectives, and 31 % think that the EU budget gives good value for money for EU citizens. Although the demand for greater support and the positive opinion of the EU budget both have positive trends over time, there is still much to be addressed.

A closer look at the data demonstrates significant differences between the opinions across the Member States. Although a more sceptical trend can be observed amongst net contributor Member States, the diversity in the data cannot be explained only by the positioning of a country on the net contributor-net beneficiary continuum. The opinions of citizens across Member States vary in their values as well as in their direction of change over time. In addition, the opinions on the EU budget can be linked to personal factors – younger Europeans tend to express stronger support for greater EU financial means than older ones.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Public opinion and the EU budget – Who supports the EU budget? ‘ on the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Katarzyna Sochacka and Clare Ferguson,

© European Union 2018 – Source: EP

The highlight of the October I plenary session was the debate on the preparation of the European Council meeting on 18 and 19 October 2018. The series of debates on the Future of Europe continued, this time with the Prime Minister of Estonia, Jüri Ratas. Montenegro’s President, Milo Đukanović, also addressed Parliament in a formal sitting. Parliament adopted, inter alia, legislative proposals on: audiovisual media services; VAT rules; strengthening the EU Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation (Eurojust); mutual recognition of freezing and confiscation of criminal assets; the free flow of non-personal data within the EU; health technology assessment; and emission performance standards for new passenger cars and light commercial vehicles. Parliament also voted its public procurement package, as well as a report on an amending budget regarding changes to pre-accession aid to Turkey.

Preparation of the European Council on 18 and 19 October 2018

Members made two main demands during the debate in advance of the European Council meeting on 18 and 19 October 2018: that EU leaders take significant steps on migration policy and reform of the European asylum system; and maintain a common position towards the United Kingdom while trying to reach an agreement on its withdrawal from the EU. In the migration context, the leaders will discuss a progress report at this European Council meeting, as agreed in their conclusions of June. Conclusions will also be adopted on internal security, resuming the discussions begun during the informal meeting and Leaders’ thematic debate held in Salzburg on 20 September 2018. Finally, on the margins of the session, a European Council (Article 50) meeting will take place, during which the 27 EU leaders are expected to review the overall state of the Brexit negotiations.

Formal sitting – Milo Đukanović, President of Montenegro

Montenegro’s President, Milo Đukanović, addressed the European Parliament, noting that the referendum in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia held on 30 September, while largely supportive of the proposed change to the country’s name, had elicited a low voter turnout. President Đukanović called for a change in EU policy towards the Balkans, and stated that greater preparation for the referendum would have helped citizens to better understand the importance of this decision for their country’s future.

President Đukanović also spoke about the progress his own country has made, becoming independent in 2006, and a member of NATO since 2017. With 31 of 33 negotiation chapters open, Montenegro is currently ahead of other EU membership candidates in the accession process.

Statements on UNRWA, Yemen and the UN instrument on corporations

Members debated with Commissioners Christos Stylianides and Johannes Hahn on the issue of the EU’s input to a United Nations Binding Instrument on transnational corporations with respect to human rights, as well as the situation in Yemen, and EU support for the UN agency for Palestinian refugees, UNRWA, following the United States’ withdrawal of financial support. With the exception of this last item, these statements were followed by a vote on EP resolutions. During the debate on UNRWA, several Members called upon the US to cancel its decision to cease contributions to UNRWA, and the Commissioner for European Neighbourhood Policy and Enlargement Negotiations, Johannes Hahn, reiterated the EU’s political and financial support for the agency.

Audiovisual media services

Following the recommendations of the Committee on Culture and Education, Parliament voted to adopt its position on the proposals for a revised Audiovisual Media Services Directive (452 votes for, 132 against and 65 abstentions), based on an agreement reached in trilogue on 26 April. It is now up to the Council to approve the new directive so that it can become law. The new rules will then apply 21 months after the directive enters into force. It should be noted that the agreed text includes better protection for children against harmful content, restrictions on advertising, and the application of new rules to video on demand and online video sharing.

Rules on VAT

Two reports on value added tax (VAT), where Parliament is only consulted, were debated and adopted, together with a third report on the application of the reverse charge and quick reaction mechanisms, seeking to update the VAT framework (which dates back to the 1960s), and take steps towards a definitive EU VAT system. Following several years of negotiations, the three texts in question were agreed between the Member States at the Ecofin Council on 2 October 2018. The first proposal concerns the harmonisation of VAT rates, which can distort the single market when, because of VAT charges, goods are more expensive in one country than in a neighbouring EU state. Countries would still be able to apply some VAT reductions in certain circumstances, and some goods would be exempted, but the proposed minimum would be 12 % to 15 %, with Parliament suggesting a maximum of 25 %. An EU VAT web information portal would also be set up to provide information on EU VAT rates, and Parliament expects the benefits of reduced rates to be transferred to consumers. The second proposal concerns the proposed VAT regime for cross-border trade; which aims to tackle VAT fraud, as well as simplifying the rules for e-commerce and for SMEs.

EU Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation

The agreed text on the proposal to reinforce and enhance the role of the EU Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation (Eurojust) was debated and adopted. This EU agency has seen its activities – in fighting terrorism, cybercrime, migrant smuggling and trafficking in human beings – escalate in recent years. Parliament is ready to support its increased workload through a new governance model, now that the equally necessary and connected function of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office has been decided.

Mutual recognition of freezing and confiscation orders

Parliament also voted in favour of a new regulation, also agreed with the Council in trilogue, aimed at improving the legal framework governing the freezing and confiscation of criminal assets in cross-border cases. The new regulation would improve mutual recognition in criminal matters in the EU, as well as the procedures recognising, freezing and confiscating criminal gains. Importantly, the proposals also prioritise the victims of such crime and their rights to compensation and restitution.

Free flow of non-personal data in the European Union

Members debated and adopted a text agreed in trilogue on the free flow of non-personal data within the EU, aiming at allowing businesses to stock and process non-personal data (personal data, meaning that which can identify an individual, are already covered by the General Data Protection Regulation, GDPR), anywhere in the EU without unjustified restriction (except for public security). The proposal enables data such as accounting and financial information to flow across borders in the EU, giving companies more choice in the location of their data services.

Amending budget No 5/2018: support to Turkey from IPA and reinforcement of ENI and of Humanitarian Aid

Parliament decided to cut the amount of pre-accession aid to Turkey in 2018 by €70 million. In its adoption (544 votes to 28 and 74 abstentions) of the report on draft amending budget No 5/2018, the EP expresses concern at the ongoing deterioration of fundamental rights and liberties and the rule of law in Turkey. Instead, Parliament chose to reinforce, in commitment appropriations, the European Neighbourhood Instrument (ENI) to fund additional actions linked to the Central Mediterranean migratory route, as well as reinforcing, in payment appropriations, the funding available for humanitarian aid.

Opening of trilogue negotiations

Two Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee (ECON) decisions to enter into interinstitutional (trilogue) negotiations were confirmed. The ECON committee may therefore begin negotiations in view of preparing reports on the proposal for a directive and for a regulation on the prudential supervision of investment firms.

Read this ‘At a glance’ note on ‘Plenary round-up – Strasbourg, October I 2018‘ on the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Christiaan van Lierop,

The world’s largest annual gathering of local and regional representatives, the European Week of Regions and Cities, is undoubtedly one of the high points of the year for the EU regional policy community. Attracting some 6 000 participants to Brussels for four days packed full of learning and debate from 8 to 11 October 2018, this year’s event looks set to be bigger and better than ever before, with over 150 sessions included on the 2018 official programme. What is more, with the EWRC moving to a new central Brussels venue in 2018, Europe’s go-to event for regional policy experts just got better – and the EPRS is delighted to be part of the action once again.

Organised under the headline of ‘For a strong EU Cohesion Policy beyond 2020’, the 16th European Week of Regions and Cities will place a strong emphasis on the current negotiations on the 2021-2027 cohesion policy framework, as well as focusing on such key issues as growth and regional development, the territorial impact of globalisation and digital transformation, and the regional dimension of climate change, as well as education, culture and youth.

As in previous years, the EPRS has published a Topical Digest to tie in with the event. Specially prepared for this year’s EWRC, this publication includes a selection of briefings and studies published by the European Parliament covering some of the main issues up for discussion at the EWRC, such as the legislative proposals under the new cohesion policy package, the digital single market and regional governance, to name but a few.

We will also be present at a special information stand during the whole week where experts from the EPRS’s Structural Policies and Linking the Levels units will be on hand to provide you with more information about EPRS research activities, and to distribute some of our specialist publications on regional policy and beyond. Moreover, we will also be providing visitors with information about the 2019 elections to the European Parliament, supported by our colleagues from Parliament’s Directorate General for Communications, including Parliament’s ‘What Europe does for me‘ project, an easy and clickable guide to what the EU is doing in your local area.

Our involvement in the 2018 European Week of Regions and Cities doesn’t just stop there. For the third year running, the EPRS will also be organising a workshop on research as part of the European Week of Regions and Cities’ Master Class on EU cohesion policy for students and early career researchers. As well as examining how the EPRS supports the work of the European Parliament during the policy making process, this year’s workshop will focus on the current negotiations on cohesion and regional policy, providing participants with the opportunity to share their ideas on the legislative proposals under the MFF package with EPRS experts. In particular, we will be encouraging participants to put forward their recommendations on how to address some of the key challenges identified in the Commission’s proposals, which the EPRS will publish after the workshop. This will give participants the opportunity to make a direct contribution to the policymaking process whilst at the same time putting into practice the EPRS motto, which guides us in all of our work: ‘Empowering through knowledge’.

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

Twitter Hashtag #EUandME

Did you know that 30 % of Europeans will be over 65 in 2060? Our population is ageing and the number of people with age-related impairments is expected to reach 84 million already in 2020.

To address the challenges posed by an ageing society, the EU promotes E-health solutions based on communication technologies to improve prevention, diagnosis, and patients’ treatment.

© De Visu / Fotolia

The EU funds several research projects in the field of telemedicine services for improving distant healthcare, especially for seniors living in remote or sparsely populated areas where there is a lack of specialised healthcare professionals. For instance, thanks to the CommonWell project, new solutions for a better monitoring of patients with heart failure were developed. Mobile Health services are also increasingly accessible using a mobile phone. For instance, apps can be used to remind you to take your medication or help administer insulin to a diabetic.

Service and care robots could also play a supportive role in the life of many patients and elderly people. That’s why the EU is funding research in robotics. Thanks to the Silver project, seniors can already purchase a robot to help them to walk better and stand up. The GrowMeUp Project is developing personal care assistant robots to help seniors and dependent or disabled people to live independently at home. Zacharias, a prototype robot, is being tested to assist people at home and will be able to alert your family or your doctor automatically in case of need.

Further information

• EPRS publication ‘How assistive technologies could make society more inclusive of people with disabilities’, 2018,
  https://epthinktank.eu/2018/01/17/how-assistive-technologies-could-make-society-more-inclusive-of-people-with-disabilities/
• European Commission webpage on policies for ageing well with ICT,
  https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/ageing-well
• European Commission webpage ‘Silver Economy strategy’,
  https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/growing-silver-economy-europe

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

Twitter Hashtag #EUandME

Are you one of the 71 % of people in the EU that use the internet every day or almost every day? The rapid development of digital technologies means we increasingly use the internet in our daily activities. As citizens and consumers, you probably use public institutions’ or companies’ services online: from filing a tax declaration to shopping online or using social media. When you access these services, personal data about you are collected and transferred. While more than 70 % of Europeans feel they have to provide personal data to obtain products or services, they are also concerned about not having complete control over what their data are used for.

© Andrey Popov / Fotolia

To promote fair use of personal data and allow you to enjoy your related rights, the EU has taken several initiatives. From May 2018, new rules, adapted to the new technologies, will strengthen these rights. These include: getting easy-to-understand information, in particular for children, on how data are used; being asked for your approval, unless there is a legitimate need to collect your data; freedom to transfer your data from one service provider to another (data portability); to have your data deleted if you no longer want them online and there is no legitimate grounds to keep them (the right to be forgotten). Data protection must also be respected when accessing free digital content (such as media platforms, online games) and when data are transferred outside the EU.

Now that you know about your rights, the EU also provides information on the remedies available in case of infringement.

Further information

• EPRS publication on Fundamental rights implications of big data, https://epthinktank.eu/2017/03/10/fundamental-rights-implications-of-big-data-plenary-podcast/
• EPRS publication on Contracts for the supply of digital content and personal data protection, https://epthinktank.eu/2017/05/16/contracts-for-the-supply-of-digital-content-and-personal-data-protection/
• EPRS publication on Transatlantic data flows, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/ATAG/2016/583773/EPRS_ATA(2016)583773_EN.pdf
• European Commission’s Directorate General for Justice and Consumers, data protection website https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-topic/data-protection_en

Written by Marcin Grajewski,

© niroworld / Fotolia

With less than six months to go before the United Kingdom is due to leave the European Union, there is a palpable sense of tension surrounding the Brexit negotiations. At their most recent meeting in Salzburg, Austria, in September, EU leaders in effect rejected British Prime Minister Theresa May’s ‘Chequers’ plan’ for the UK’s future relationship with the EU. The move prompted acrimony among British politicians and jolted the financial markets, fearful of a no-deal Brexit. However, both sides are working hard to make progress in negotiations ahead of the next European Council meeting, on 18 October.

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

Brexit brief
Institute of International and European Affairs, September 2018

Digesting the Salzburg summit
Bruegel, September 2018

After Salzburg: Time for realistic UK proposals on the Irish border and future relations
Scottish Centre on European Relations, September 2018

After Salzburg: How to salvage the Brexit negotiations
Centre for European Reform, September 2018

Brexit: Who will blink first?
Carnegie Europe, September 2018

The Brexit endgame: A guide to the parliamentary process of withdrawal from the European Union
A UK in a Changing Europe, September 2018

The UK’s chronic Brexit crisis
Scottish Centre on European Relations, September 2018

Extending the transition period
European Policy Centre, September 2018

The road to nowhere? Prospects for a post-Brexit trade deal
European Policy Centre, September 2018

Le Brexit et la grande lassitude du peuple britannique
Institut Montaigne, September 2018

A guide to Brexit and data flows
Jacques Delors Institute Berlin, September 2018

Brexit: Six months to go
Institute for Government, September 2018

There’s nothing ‘super’ about Boris Johnson’s tired old Brexit ideas
Centre for European Reform, September 2018

Post-Brexit: What could a transformative, values-based EU and UK partnership in Foreign Policy look like?
Foreign Policy Centre, September 2018

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

Brexit and the Irish question IN FOCUS: Part one: Ireland’s slow Road to peace
Wilfried Martens Centre, September 2018

Will Eurosceptics compromise to get Brexit over the line?
Chatham House, September 2018

Is a Brexit deal possible?
Carnegie Europe, September 2018

Negotiating Brexit: Policing and criminal justice
Institute for Government, September 2018

The cost of Brexit to June 2018
Centre for European Reform, September 2018

Do voters still want to leave the EU? How they view the Brexit process two years on
A UK in a Changing Europe, September 2018

Immigration after Brexit
Policy Exchange, September 2018

Cost of no deal revisited
A UK in a Changing Europe, September 2018

LSE blog: Brexit
London School of Economics, September 2018

The long arm of Whitehall post-Brexit: Evidence from the Common Assembly (1952-1956)
DCU Brexit Institute, September 2018

Brexit deadline looms for citizens’ campaign to secure permanent EU citizenship
Polish Institute of International Affairs, September 2018

Criminal justice and police cooperation between the EU and the UK after Brexit: Towards a principled and trust-based partnership
Centre for European Policy Studies, August 2018

Brexit: Beyond the transition
European Policy Centre, August 2018

Autumn surprises: Possible scenarios for the next phase of Brexit
Institute for Government, August 2018

Partnering for democracy: Protecting the democratic order in post-Brexit Europe
Real Instituto Elcano, August 2018

An orderly ‘no deal’ Brexit would still come with costs
Chatham House, August 2018

The Brexit white paper: What does it mean for higher education and research?
A UK in a Changing Europe, August 2018

Labouring toward a new Brexit vote
Carnegie Europe, August 2018

Sustaining Europe’s security trio
Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, August 2018

Ten different formulas for Gibraltar post-Brexit
DCU Brexit Institute, July 2018

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

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

Written by Magdalena Pasikowska-Schnass (1st edition),

© Freepik / Fotolia

Having considered the possibility of merging the Creative Europe programme with other programmes supporting European values, rights and justice, the European Commission has decided to continue the Creative Europe programme as a stand-alone programme and increase its budget by 17 %. The only programme focusing exclusively cultural and creative activities and enterprises, it falls under the ‘Cohesion and values’ heading of the 2021-2027 multiannual financial framework.

The existing programme focuses on the economic dimension of the cultural sector and its contribution to job creation and economic growth. Some stakeholders have voiced concern at taking such a strongly economic approach to culture. Under proposed programme, the economic dimension is one axis alongside the social dimension, and culture’s contribution to international relations. The proposed framework for cultural policy therefore highlights not only the economic dimension of the cultural and creative sectors, but also the role of culture in social cohesion and its relation to creative and artistic freedom and diversity, and freedom and plurality of media.

Versions

• October 2018: ‘Creative Europe programme 2021-2027‘ (1st edition)

Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the Creative Europe programme (2021 to 2027) and repealing Regulation (EU) No 1295/2013 Committee responsible: Culture and Education (CULT) COM(2018) 366
30.5.2018 Rapporteur: Silvia Costa (S&D, Italy) 2018/0190 (COD) Shadow rapporteurs:

 

 

  Bogdan Brunon Wenta (EPP, Poland)
Rupert Matthews (ECR, UK)
Mircea Diaconu (ALDE, Romania)
Martina Michels (GUE/NGL, Germany)
Helga Trüpel (Greens/EFA, Germany)
Isabella Adinolfi (EFDD, Italy)
Dominique Bilde (ENF, France) Ordinary legislative procedure (COD) (Parliament and Council on equal footing – formerly ‘co-decision’) Next steps expected: Publication of draft report

© iQoncept / Fotoli

Citizens’ frequently send enquiries to the European Parliament on the topic of seasonal clock changes. Whereas some citizens call on the institution to abolish the current summer and winter-time arrangements, others are in favour of keeping them.

The current EU legislation defining summer-time as ‘the period of the year during which clocks are put forward by 60 minutes compared with the rest of the year’, as well as its beginning ‘on the last Sunday in March’ and ending ‘on the last Sunday in October’, is Directive 2000/84/EC on summer-time arrangements. The directive states that a common date and time for the beginning and end of the summer-time period throughout the EU ‘is important for the functioning of the internal market’.

Commission proposal

Following the European Parliament’s resolution of 8 February 2018 and a public consultation on summer-time arrangements, the European Commission presented a proposal for a directive discontinuing seasonal changes of time and repealing Directive 2000/84/EC on 12 September 2018. The Commission proposes that ‘Member States shall not apply seasonal changes to their standard time or times’ (Article 1).

The new directive should apply from 1 April 2019 and aims ‘at contributing in a determined manner to the smooth functioning of the internal market’. The proposal also underlines that ‘it is desirable that Member States take the decisions on the standard time that each of them will apply as from 2019 in a concerted manner’.

Further information on the legislative procedure is available in file 2018/0332(COD) of the European Parliament’s Legislative Observatory.

Public consultation

The Commission’s proposal is accompanied by the report of results of the public consultation on EU summer-time arrangements carried out from 4 July to 16 August 2018.

The public consultation gathered European citizens’, stakeholders’ and Member States’ views on possible changes to the current summer-time arrangements and followed the Parliament’s resolution, as well as a number of requests from citizens and from certain EU Member States. The consultation received around 4.6 million replies. According to the results, 84 % of the respondents were in favour of discontinuing the bi-annual clock changes.

The European Commission opened a feedback period on the proposal for a directive (17 September – 12 November 2018).

European Parliament’s resolution

On 8 February 2018, the European Parliament held a debate on the summer-time arrangements. Members of the European Parliament subsequently adopted a resolution, in which the European Parliament calls on the Commission ‘to conduct a thorough assessment of Directive 2000/84/EC and, if necessary, come up with a proposal for its revision’. More information can be found in the press release ‘Parliament calls for thorough assessment of bi-annual time change‘.

Parliamentary questions and petitions

Summer-time arrangements have also been the subject of a number of parliamentary questions and petitions.

Further information

The European Parliamentary Research Service (EPRS) published the study ‘EU summer-time arrangements under Directive 2000/84/EC‘ in October 2017. The European Commission website on Mobility and Transport and the fact sheet on ‘State of the Union 2018: Q&A on the Commission’s proposal to put an end to seasonal clock changes‘ provide further information on the issue.

Continue to put your questions to the Citizens’ Enquiries Unit (Ask EP). We reply to you in the EU language that you use to write to us.

Written by Marcin Szczepański (1st edition),

© Pixelot / Fotolia

For the next long-term EU budget framework (2021-2027), the Commission is proposing a new, dedicated €4 billion programme aimed at empowering and protecting consumers, and enabling Europe’s many small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) to take better advantage of a well-functioning single market. The financial envelope will be supplemented with the additional allocation of €2 billion under the InvestEU Fund, in particular through its SME window.

The new programme aims to strengthen and streamline the governance of the EU’s internal market. It will support the competitiveness of business, and promote human, animal and plant health and a safe food chain, as well as financing European statistics to provide reliable data relevant to the single market. The proposal consolidates and streamlines a wide range of activities that were previously financed separately, and bundles them into one programme. The aim here is to generate benefits in terms of flexibility, simplification and synergies, and eliminate overlaps.

Versions

• October 2018: ‘Supporting the single market beyond 2020‘ (1st edition)

Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the programme for single market, competitiveness of enterprises, including small and medium-sized enterprises, and European statistics and repealing Regulations (EU) No 99/2013, (EU) No 1287/2013, (EU) No 254/2014, (EU) No 258/2014, (EU) No 652/2014 and (EU) 2017/826 Committee responsible: Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO) COM(2018) 441
7.6.2018 Rapporteur: Nicola Danti (S&D, Italy) 2018/0231(COD) Shadow rapporteurs:

  Inese Vaidere (EPP, Latvia)
Jasenko Selimovic (ALDE, Sweden)
Igor Šoltes (Greens/EFA, Slovenia) Ordinary legislative procedure (COD) (Parliament and Council on equal footing – formerly ‘co-decision’) Next steps expected: Publication of draft report

 

 

 

 

 

Estimated breakdown of the single market programme elements

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

Twitter Hashtag #EUandME

If you live in one of the European islands and territories far from the continent, the EU provides special assistance to your region. Nine regions are classified as EU outermost regions owing to their remoteness from the European continent: five French overseas departments (French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique, Mayotte and Réunion), one French overseas community (Saint-Martin), two Portuguese autonomous regions (Madeira and the Azores) and one Spanish autonomous community (the Canary Islands).

© yoann_f / Fotolia

These regions face particular challenges including, for example, remoteness, high unemployment, exposure to natural disasters, and energy supply, and the EU is committed to supporting them. The Treaty on the Functioning of the EU provides for specific measures in areas such as customs, trade and agriculture to support their development. For example, the ‘Programme of Options Specifically Relating to Remoteness and Insularity’, known as POSEI, promotes specific arrangements to ensure that food and other essential products remain affordable. A similar system is also in place for fisheries. The POSEI programme provides more than €100 million to Portugal, some €270 million to Spain, and almost €280 million to France. Together with the EU cohesion policy and €6.6 billion allocated under EU funds, the total support amounts to €13 billion.

This money turns into very concrete projects. In Mayotte, for example, the EU has funded the professionalisation of vanilla production, the creation of a university centre on the island in 2015 and the building of a hospital on ‘Petite Terre’ in 2014.

Further information

• “Outermost Regions (ORs) | EU Fact Sheets | European Parliament.” http://www.europarl.europa.eu/atyourservice/en/displayFtu.html?ftuId=FTU_3.1.7.html

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

Twitter Hashtag #EUandME

Falling in love is never predictable, and when a couple decides to marry, nationality is usually the last thing on their minds. A growing proportion of EU marriages are between persons of different nationalities, however cross-border marriages do come with additional formalities and legal complexities.

Laws on marriage are decided by individual EU countries. EU powers are limited to facilitating free movement of persons and developing judicial cooperation on cross-border issues.

If you are planning to marry a citizen of another EU country, you will be happy to learn that administrative formalities will soon be easier. Until recently, EU administrations demanded translation and legalisation of foreign documents, but this procedure was simplified in 2016 with an EU law. As of 16 February 2019, couples won’t need to pay for legalisation of their translated documents, and a multilingual standard form will be introduced for documents like birth or marriage certificates.

© glogoski / Fotolia

International EU couples may discover, however, that choosing a matrimonial property regime is subject to complicated rules. Recognising the problem, 18 EU countries cooperated to adopt a law in 2016 that sets out the rules applicable to matrimonial property regimes in cross-border situations.

Finally, EU rules come to the help of married couples when they move in together. Freedom of movement is one of the EU’s basic foundations. All EU citizens can move to another EU country to live, work and study. A spouse who wants to join their partner, but does not plan to work or study is entitled to residence as a dependant.

Further information

• European Commission website on marriage, https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/family/couple/marriage/index_en.htm
• European Commission website ‘Your EU spouse and children’, https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/residence/family-residence-rights/eu-wife-husband-children/index_en.htm
• Regulation (EU) 2016/1191 on promoting the free movement of citizens by simplifying the requirements for presenting certain public documents in the EU, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=LEGISSUM%3A230101_2

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

Twitter Hashtag #EUandME

Unfortunately, children are still victims of abuse and violence across Europe. Although it is difficult to assess the extent of violence against children and much of it remains hidden, existing estimates give cause for great concern. Violence against children can take various forms (physical, sexual or emotional abuse, or neglect) and can happen in numerous situations (at home or in the family, at school, within institutions responsible for childcare, or within the community).

Children have the same rights as adults because human rights apply to all age groups. Lacking in physical and psychological maturity they are particularly vulnerable and they need protection in order to grow and develop.

© soupstock / Fotolia

Although child protection systems are principally the responsibility of individual countries, the European Union also plays an important role. The EU is deeply committed to protecting children against violence. For that purpose, it has adopted a number of laws (for example against sexual abuse and exploitation and child pornography, against human trafficking, and for the protection of children in criminal proceedings) and initiatives (better internet for children). EU action in this area has a direct impact on the relevant laws and policies introduced by EU countries.

To protect children’s rights and combat violence towards children more effectively, the EU is also funding a number of projects within its Rights, Equality and Citizenship, and Justice programmes, both running until 2020.

Further information

• EPRS publication on violence towards children in the EU, 2014, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2014/542139/EPRS_IDA(2014)542139_EN.pdf
• European Commission, website on violence against children, https://ec.europa.eu/info/policies/justice-and-fundamental-rights/rights-child/violence-against-children_en
• EPRS publication on combating sexual abuse of children (Directive 2011/93/EU), 2017, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2017/598614/EPRS_STU(2017)598614_EN.pdf

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

Twitter Hashtag #EUandME

EU citizens are sometimes imprisoned without due process or sentenced after a politically motivated trial in non-EU countries that do not uphold the rule of law or human rights standards. These include journalists reporting from difficult situations, human rights defenders, and people visiting for personal reasons.

© vchalup / Fotolia

The EU is committed to promoting human rights and freedoms all over the world and has robust mechanisms in place to protect human rights defenders. It also aims to protect its citizens abroad as far as possible. EU diplomacy, coupled with individual EU countries’ efforts, can really make a difference. The EU monitors situations closely and often puts pressure on governments, either confidentially or publicly, to find a solution. Its diplomatic service sometimes issues statements calling for a fair trial or for the presumption of innocence to be upheld in line with international human rights norms.

The European Parliament also champions the causes of political prisoners with EU citizenship, highlighting their cases in its urgency resolutions and addressing their ordeals during MEP delegations’ visits to the countries concerned. Groups of EU parliamentarians can, meanwhile, issue statements or address letters to the national authorities in question. Finally, Parliament does its best to make sure that these people and their struggles are not forgotten. For instance, the Swedish-Eritrean citizen Dawit Isaak, a journalist detained in Eritrea since 2001, has twice been nominated – in 2009 and 2017 – as one of the three finalists for the Sakharov Prize.

Further information

• EPRS briefing EU support for human rights defenders around the world, 2017, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2017/614626/EPRS_BRI(2017)614626_EN.pdf
• European Commission webpage on Consular protection for European Union citizens abroad, https://ec.europa.eu/consularprotection/content/about-consular_en

Written by Marcin Grajewski,

© Rawf8 / Fotolia

China is a major strategic partner for the European Union, despite divergences on human rights issues, as well as on some economic and foreign policies. At their 20th EU-China summit in July, the two sides agreed to further develop their partnership and to seek to avoid global trade wars, which many analysts fear could be triggered by US President Donald Trump’s protectionist policies. They agreed, in principle, to support reform of the World Trade Organization, which has been snubbed by President Trump. However, China’s increasingly close military ties with Russia cause concern in the EU. Trade, security and connectivity will be important topics of the 12th ASEM (EU-Asia) summit in October, which will gather heads of state or government of 51 European and Asian countries.

This note offers links to recent commentaries, studies and reports from major international think tanks on China, its ties with the EU and related issues. More studies on the topics can be found in a previous edition of ‘What Think Tanks are thinking’, published in March 2018. One of the forthcoming publications in this series will be devoted to wider EU-Asia relations.

EU-China relations

China and the EU: The contradictions of exercising joint trade leadership
Centre for European Policy Studies, September 2018

‘Tell China’s stories well’: Implications for the Western narrative
Polish Institute of International Affairs, September 2018

Europe’s China vetoes
European Council on Foreign Relations, August 2018

US-China trade war: What’s in it for Europe?
Bruegel, August 2018

Europe’s dependence on critical raw materials: Implications for the competitiveness and independence of strategic industries
Istituto Affari Internazionali, August 2018

Trading places: How the EU-China summit underlined U.S. isolationism in trade under Trump
Council on Foreign Relations, July 2018

Europe, China and a changed global order
Friends of Europe, July 2018

Trump provides China an opening in Europe
Carnegie Europe, July 2018

Big in Asia: Behind the rhetoric of EU relations with China and Japan
European Council on Foreign Relations, July 2018

With “strategic partners” like this, Who needs competitors? Europe needs to change its military to military relations with China
German Marshall Fund, July 2018

Trump cannot bring Europe and China together
European Council on Foreign Relations, July 2018

China’s strategic investments in Europe: The case of maritime ports
Bruegel, June 2018

Reciprocity and mutual benefits: EU-China cooperation on and protection of geographical indications
Centre for European Policy Studies, June 2018

The strategic rationale for European engagement in China’s Belt and Road Initiative
Swedish Institute of International Affairs, June 2018

European and Chinese trade competition in third markets: The case of Latin America
Bruegel, June 2018

Tomorrow’s silk road: Assessing an EU-China Free Trade Agreement
Centre for European Policy Studies, June 2018

EU–China innovation relations: From zero-sum to global networks
Chatham House, May 2018

How China approaches international law: Implications for Europe
European Institute for Asian Studies, May 2018

Blue China: Navigating the maritime silk road to Europe
European Council on Foreign Relations, April 2018

China’s international relations in the new era of Xi Jinping: Implications for Europe
European Institute for Asian Studies, March 2018

Foreign relations and security

Why Russia and China are strengthening security ties
Carnegie Moscow, September 2018

China is filling the void at the United Nations
Observer Research Fundation, September 2018

China: Zwischen Schlüsselrolle und Marginalisierung
Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, September 2018

Chinese strategy, military forces, and economics
Center for Strategic and International Studies, September 2018

Russia and China have a message for the West
Istituto per gli Studi di Politica Internazionale, September 2018

Dispelling the dominant myths of China in Africa
Atlantic Council, September 2018

China’s summer of discontent
German Marshall Fund, August 2018

Beijing’s ultimate goal: The military-civilian fusion
Istituto per gli Studi di Politica Internazionale, August 2018

Fear and loathing on the new silk road: Chinese security in Afghanistan and beyond
European Council on Foreign Relations, July 2018

The South China Sea needs ASEAN more than ever
International Crisis Group, July 2018

China-Vatican talks: Covert negotiations aim to end decades of severed relations
Istituto Affari Internazionali, July 2018

The Rise of China’s security-industrial complex
Council on Foreign Relations, July 2018

China und der Kampf gegen die drei üblen Kräfte
Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, June 2018

The security strategies of the US, China, Russia and the EU: Living in different worlds
Finnish Institute of International Affairs, June 2018

China’s strength is in making the West doubt the value of doubt
Chatham House, June 2018

China-Taiwan relations
Council on Foreign Relations, June 2018

China and the international order
Rand Europe, May 2018

Economy and trade

Rule of law in China: A priority for businesses and Western Governments
Foreign Policy Centre, September 2018

Inequality in China
Bruegel, September 2018

China’s greater bay area has real economic power
Chatham House, September 2018

The unlikely, obvious solution to the trade war
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, September 2018

The 21st century maritime silk road
Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, September 2018

China’s Belt and Road Initiative turns five
Center for Strategic and International Studies, September 2018

The power of China’s energy efficiency policies
Institut français des relations internationales, September 2018

More shots fired in US-China trade war
Atlantic Council, September 2018

How did China manage its currency over the summer?
Council on Foreign Relations, September 2018

Trump and China formalize tariffs on $260 billion of imports and look ahead to next phase
Peterson Institute for International Economics, September 2018

China’s peaking emissions and the future of global climate policy
Brookings Institution, September 2018

How Chinese cybersecurity standards impact doing business in China
Center for Strategic and International Studies, September 2018

How the United States should confront China without threatening the global trading system
Peterson Institute for International Economics, August 2018

Goodbye deleveraging: Fiscal and monetary expansion to support growth in China
Bruegel, August 2018

Weaker renminbi is more than a snub to Trump
Chatham House, August 2018

The Chinese race to artificial intelligence
Istituto per gli Studi di Politica Internazionale, August 2018

China’s new investment rules
Brookings Institution, August 2018

Managing risk to build a better belt and road
Chatham House, July 2018

The global innovation sweepstakes: A quest to win the future
Atlantic Council, June 2018

What would happen if China started selling off its treasury portfolio?
Council on Foreign Relations, June 2018

It is America’s move in its competition with China
German Marshall Fund, June 2018

China’s new role in the global economy
Bruegel, May 2018

On Chinese investment and influence in Europe
Carnegie Europe, May 2018

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

Game of institutional balancing: China, the AIIB, and the future of global governance
Rajaratnam School of International Studies, May 2018

The role of investors in promoting sustainable infrastructure under the belt and road Initiative
Chatham House, May 2018

The future of nuclear power in China
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, September 2018

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

China’s financial opening: Will it be different this time?
Bruegel, May 2018

EU-China FDI: Working towards more reciprocity in investment relations
Mercator Institute for China Studies, April 2018

China a look behind the wall
Observer Research Foundation, April 2018

Beijing’s ambitions in the South China Sea: How should Europe respond?
Istituto Affari Internazionali, April 2018

China’s global connectivity politics: On confidently dealing with Chinese initiatives
Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, April 2018

High on the party, low on the state: A quantum leap in the process of China’s reconstruction
Centre for Eastern Studies, April 2018

China, the world and the next decade: Better growth, better climate
Grantham Research Institute on climate change, April 2018

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

Written by Mihalis Kritikos,

© Beautyimage / Shutterstock.com

Technological systems, once introduced in a particular socio-economic context, often evolve in unforeseen ways and may fall prey to unexpected power relations. Blockchain, as a technology that relies on decentralisation to enable storing and securing data-based transactions without central administration, is currently facing significant centralisation pressures that may undermine the purpose of operating a decentralised blockchain network. But what if blockchain fulfilled its promise to be truly decentralised?

Decentralisation, namely the notion that not one single entity has control over all the process, is often viewed as blockchain’s key innovation, and even its raison d’être. The fully decentralised, self-sufficient and self-contained character of blockchain, in which there is no central body or trusted third party to authorise transactions, has made this technology extremely popular worldwide, as it enables millions of previously excluded people to participate in the next wave of economic change. Blockchain could support new forms of fully decentralised infrastructure, for applications as varied as finance, cloud databases and the management of common assets and resources.

Because blockchain has no central authority, it relies on miners to maintain these decentralised services/databases collectively. Anyone can be a miner, respectively storing the blockchain and determining the transaction records. The value of decentralised control is that it removes intermediaries, increases transaction transparency, reshapes value chains, democratises data, improves trust and reduces the risk of cyber-attacks.

Centralisation tendencies

While decentralisation cannot be absolute, given that blockchain itself is a software developed in a centralised way as a public key infrastructure, there are strong indications that blockchain, despite its open source nature, has evolved into a highly centralised structure that can undermine the wider blockchain ecosystem. Oen of the best known blockhains is that of the currency, bitcoin. Now, it is largely in the hands of major holders, known as ‘whales’, who have the power to manipulate the bitcoin network. First of all, the process of verifying transactions and securing a blockchain ledger against attack, called mining, has become a capital-intensive industry which requires a large amount of capital to purchase the most advanced hardware and fast processing power. The control of manufacturing of mining equipment, and of a large proportion of the network’s hashing power – i.e. the amount of computing power the bitcoin network consumes in order to be continuously operational and generate new cryptocurrencies – by huge mining farms with strong mining resources, especially in China, has resulted in the top four bitcoin-mining operations holding more than 53 % of the system’s average mining capacity. In the case of Ethereum, 61 % of the system’s average weekly capacity is in the hands of only three miners.

It should however be noted that, as bitcoin miners depend entirely on the value of bitcoin for their revenues, dominating mining may have a negative effect on the price and integrity of bitcoin. BitInfoCharts found that only 1 000 of the 11 million bitcoin holders in the world control 35.4 % of all bitcoins in circulation. One of the main factors that reinforce centralisation tendencies is also the lack of ‘scalability’, meaning that blockchains are currently unable to deal with large numbers of users and, as the block size increases over time, only a few institutions will have the means to maintain blockchains. Moreover, while anyone is entitled to submit changes to the software (such as bug fixes, or incremental improvements), only a small number of individuals (the core developers) have the power to decide which changes will be incorporated into the main branch of the software.

Although originally designed as disintermediation tools, blockchain ecosystems are currently characterised by a number of third parties and profitable businesses offering intermediation services, with resilient asymmetries of information and power between developers and users. As a result of these centralisation tendencies, system vulnerabilities are emerging, and centralised failures may occur in the form of the threat of a ‘51% attack’. The emergence of a dominant player is a point of failure of the whole system: eliminating that player destroys the system. Given that whoever controls mining also controls the protocol, this decides which transactions are to be deemed valid, increasing the risk of abuse of a dominant position. Additionally, if the majority of the hashing power decides for or against a change, it is nearly impossible for other users of the network to oppose this decision. All these factors call into question the egalitarian potential of current distributed networks, their accessibility and their libertarian nature.

What do the centralisation trends of blockchain mean for European policy-making?

To prevent the above-mentioned centralisation tendencies in blockchain innovation, co-evolutionary design and democratised knowledge of the technical considerations behind protocol upgrades are needed. Some newer blockchain projects are planning to hardcode their decision-making processes into the software, in the form of smart contracts, a method known as ‘on-chain governance’, e.g. Tezos, Polkadot and Steemit.

Furthermore, authentication protocols should be designed in a way that minimises the risk of centralisation, through the introduction of the proof of stake mechanism. This is an innovative consensus algorithm that provides for mining opportunities in proportion to the amount of tokens held by a user on the network and facilitates voting for the approval of new blocks on the basis of the coins a user holds, rather than in accordance with their computing power. Pursuing innovative scaling solutions that provide alternative ways for businesses to offer lower fees and an efficient platform for users may also strengthen the decentralised nature and censorship resistance of blockchain. The introduction of open-sourcing patents such as the Blockchain Defensive Patent Licence (BDPL) is expected to encourage mining entities to grant their respective mining patents under a mutually defensive patent licence. Such a system will prevent any single mining consortium from obtaining the ability to launch majority (or near-majority) attacks, given that there is currently fierce competition amongst miners to obtain ‘killer’ patents that would essentially allow them to perform blockchain-related mining faster and in a more efficient manner, and address the relevant vulnerabilities.

Beyond these technical developments, the EU has adopted a series of institutional initiatives aimed at strengthening the decentralised character of this disruptive technology. The recent launch of the EU Blockchain Observatory and Forum in February 2018 has enriched the discussion on the opportunities and challenges of the decentralised character of the blockchain ecosystem. Recently, 24 European countries signed a declaration on the establishment of a European Blockchain Partnership, with a view to developing a blockchain infrastructure that can enhance value-based, trusted, user-centric digital services across borders within the digital single market. The partnership will be a vehicle for cooperation amongst Member States to exchange experience and expertise in the technical and regulatory fields, and prepare for the launch of EU-wide blockchain applications across the digital single market for the benefit of the public and private sectors. The European Parliament’s Industry Committee recently agreed a motion for a resolution on ‘Distributed ledger technologies and blockchains: building trust with disintermediation‘. The resolution, due to be voted by the full Parliament in October, emphasises the need to safeguard trustworthy blockchain decentralisation, and calls upon the European Commission to explore the possibility of creating an EU-wide, highly scalable and interoperable network that makes use of the technology possible for European citizens. The main challenge associated with all these EU-level initiatives is to create a framework of legal and institutional certainty that would facilitate the development of scalable, efficient and high-impact decentralised solutions to social innovation challenges arising from blockchain applications.

Read this ‘At a glance’ note on ‘What if blockchain were to be truly decentralised?‘ on the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Clare Ferguson,

European Parliament (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)

On the Parliament’s agenda for this first October session, the Council and Commission will make statements on Tuesday morning on the preparation of the European Council meeting of 18 and 19 October 2018, which is due to focus on the issues of migration and internal security, most recently discussed by EU leaders at their informal meeting in Salzburg in September. The future partnership with the UK, following its withdrawal from the EU, is also likely to be discussed by the 27 leaders, as they push for agreement on the framework for that future relationship. Looking to the future of Europe, on Wednesday, the plenary will hold the next in the series of debates on the future of Europe, this time with the Prime Minister of Estonia, Jüri Ratas.

On Monday evening, the Commission is set to answer an oral question on the issue of blockchains and distributed ledger technologies, which have reached a point where great claims are made of their potential applications across a wide range of fields, but the regulatory environment remains uncertain. Parliament’s Industry Committee thus wants to know the Commission’s plans to bring legal certainty to the sector and what it is going to do to support a competitive blockchain ecosystem in Europe.

Tuesday morning features a formal sitting, with an address by Milo Đukanović, President of Montenegro, a candidate country for EU membership. Later that day, Members will vote on draft amending budget No 5/2018, which cancels the reserve set aside to support Turkey under the Instrument for Pre-Accession (IPA II), due to the country not fulfilling the conditions for its disbursement. The funds will be reallocated to reinforce the European Neighbourhood Instrument (ENI) and to humanitarian aid for other urgent actions.

Few could have predicted the rapid changes in the audiovisual market just a few short years ago. There is a pressing need to update the rules to provide a more flexible and future-proof framework for the provision of audiovisual media services, and one that protects vulnerable viewers, such as children, limits advertising and regulates what can be shown on our screens. On Tuesday, Parliament is also due to vote on an overhaul of the Audiovisual Media Services Directive. While co-regulation and self-regulation will remain important, the proposals as agreed in trilogue with the Council expect VOD and VSP platforms to share responsibility for ensuring that harmful audiovisual content is controlled.

Two proposals from the Commission will be debated on Tuesday evening on updating the VAT framework (which dates back to the 1960s), taking the next steps towards a definitive VAT system for the EU. The first proposal concerns the harmonisation of VAT rates, which can distort the single market when, because of VAT charges, goods are more expensive in one country than in a neighbouring EU state. Countries would still be able to apply some VAT reductions in certain circumstances, and some goods be exempted, but the proposed minimum would be 12-15 %, with Parliament suggesting a maximum of 25 %. An EU VAT Web Information Portal would also be set up to provide information on EU VAT rates, and Parliament expects the benefits of reduced rates to be transferred to consumers. The second proposal concerns the proposed VAT regime for cross-border trade; which aims to tackle VAT fraud, as well as simplifying the rules for e-commerce and for SMEs.

Two more pieces of the law enforcement puzzle should fall into place on Wednesday afternoon when the proposals to reinforce and enhance the role of the EU Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation (Eurojust) are debated. This EU agency has seen its activities in fighting terrorism, cybercrime, migrant smuggling and trafficking in human beings increase in recent years, and Parliament is ready to support its increased workload through a new governance model, now that the equally necessary and connected function of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office has been decided. On Wednesday, Parliament will also debate a new regulation, aimed at improving the legal framework governing the freezing and confiscation of criminal assets in cross-border cases. The proposed regulation would improve mutual recognition in criminal matters in the EU, and improve the procedures recognising, freezing and confiscating criminal gains. Importantly, the proposals also prioritise the victims of such crime and their rights to compensation and restitution.

The issue of data is also on the agenda for Wednesday evening, but in this case, the debate will cover the free flow of non-personal data within the EU, allowing businesses to stock and process non-personal data (personal data, meaning that which can identify an individual, are already covered by the General Data Protection Regulation, GDPR) anywhere in the EU without unjustified restriction (except for public security). The proposal could enable data such as accounting and financial information to flow across borders in the EU, giving companies more choice in the location of their data services.

A list of all material prepared for this Plenary Session: The Audiovisual Media Services Directive (available in DE – EN- ES – FR – IT – PL) Steps towards a definitive VAT system (available in DE – EN- ES – FR – IT – PL) EU Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation (Eurojust) (available in DE – EN- ES – FR – IT – PL) Freezing and confiscation orders (available in DE – EN- ES – FR – IT – PL) Free flow of non-personal data in the EU (available in DE – EN- ES – FR – IT – PL)

Written by Carmen-Cristina Cîrlig,

© 008melisa / Fotolia

In order to respond more effectively to the challenge of criminals and terrorists hiding assets in other Member States, in 2016 the European Commission proposed a regulation on the mutual recognition of freezing and confiscation orders in criminal matters. The directly applicable instrument removes the need for national transposition, broadens the scope of the current rules to cover new types of confiscation and includes provisions on victims’ rights to restitution and compensation.

Provisional agreement having been reached in interinstitutional negotiations in June 2018, the European Parliament is due to vote on the agreed text of the regulation in October 2018. The Council should follow suit shortly. The regulation will apply 24 months after its entry into force.

Versions

• September 2018: ‘Mutual recognition of freezing and confiscation orders‘ (1st edition)

Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the mutual recognition of freezing and confiscation orders Committee responsible: Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) COM(2016) 819
21.12.2016 Rapporteur: Nathalie Griesbeck (ALDE, France) 2016/0412 (COD) Shadow rapporteurs:

 

 

  Salvatore Domenico Pogliese (EPP, Italy)
Emilian Pavel (S&D, Romania)
Monica Macovei (ECR, Romania)
Barbara Spinelli (GUE/NGL, Italy)
Eva Joly (Greens/EFA, France)
Ignazio Corrao (EFDD, Italy)
Lorenzo Fontana (ENF, Italy) Ordinary legislative procedure (COD) (Parliament and Council on equal footing – formerly ‘co-decision’) Next steps expected: First-reading vote in plenary

Written by Tarja Laaninen,

© Sergey Ryzhov / Fotolia

Eight EU Member States have launched, or are about to launch, national mandatory labelling schemes for certain food products, mainly for milk and milk used in dairy products, but also meat used in processed foods.

The regulatory basis for these national measures is the Regulation on the provision of food information to consumers, which allows Member States to adopt additional national measures concerning the mandatory labelling of foodstuffs, as long as these are justified by reasons specifically defined in the regulation.

The European Parliament has been supporting origin labelling in several resolutions. Consumer organisations have advocated it as well, while many industry stakeholders have highlighted the practical difficulties and costs it would bring. The European Commission has reiterated its position, based on its reports exploring the issue, that voluntary origin labelling is the best option at European level.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Mandatory origin-labelling schemes in Member States‘ on the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Enrico D’Ambrogio,

The 10th Asia-Europe Parliamentary Meeting (ASEP10) will take place at the European Parliament in Brussels on 27 and 28 September 2018. The meeting will focus on climate change and environmental challenges. The final declaration will be transmitted to the 12th ASEM Summit, to be held in Brussels on 18 and 19 October 2018.

ASEM

© European Union, 2018

The first Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) summit was held in Bangkok, Thailand, in 1996. At that time it involved 26 partners. Since then, summits have been held every two years, alternately in the EU and Asia. After several rounds of enlargement, ASEM today consists of 53 members, including: 30 European countries (28 EU Member States, plus Norway and Switzerland); 18 Asian countries (the 10 members of ASEAN plus Bangladesh, China, Japan, India, Kazakhstan, South Korea, Mongolia and Pakistan); as well as Australia, Russia and New Zealand, together with the ASEAN secretariat and the EU. ASEM partners represent 60 % of the global population, 65 % of the global economy, 55 % of global trade and 75 % of global tourism.

ASEM is an informal and flexible inter-regional process of dialogue and cooperation that is based on equal partnership and aimed at enhancing mutual understanding. ASEM represents a forum for sharing information, and building confidence, rather than a tool for negotiation and problem-solving. Because of its informality, no formal or structured agenda is set out. The Asia-Europe Cooperation Framework (AECF), which ASEM established in 2000, defines its working methods. ASEM has no secretariat, and the Singapore-based Asia-Europe Foundation (ASEF) is its only institution, set up with the aim to promote mutual understanding through intellectual, cultural and people-to-people exchanges. The ASEM dialogue addresses issues of mutual interest, divided into three pillars: political; economic and financial; and social, cultural and educational. Besides the ASEM summits, numerous meetings take place among ministers and senior officials, as well as regular dialogues.

From ASEM to ASEP

The Asia-Europe Parliamentary Partnership (ASEP) meeting gives a democratic input to this process. It is the parliamentary dimension of the Asia-Europe Meeting and assembles parliamentarians from the ASEM countries and the European Parliament (EP). It is normally convened on a regular bi-annual basis alternately in Asia and in Europe before ASEM summits (it did not take place in 1998 and 2000). ASEP 10 is scheduled for 27-28 September 2018, when, for the first time, it will take place at the European Parliament in Brussels.

ASEP10 is to focus on climate change and environmental challenges as a priority for the planet, and on multilateralism as a fair methodology to shape advanced and equitable international relationships. The programme includes three discussion panels on climate change and the environment’s impact on economy, migration and security. The final declaration will be transmitted to the 12th ASEM summit, scheduled to take place in Brussels on 18-19 October 2018, which should also discuss the Commission and the Vice President/High Representative’s joint communication on ‘Connecting Europe and Asia – Building blocks for an EU Strategy‘ adopted on 19 September 2018.

Climate change: a challenge for Europe, Asia and the world

In the summer of 2018, both Asia and Europe experienced the consequences of extreme weather, in countries such as Greece, India, Japan and Sweden. Cooperation between the EU and Asia on addressing climate change challenges is of increasing importance, especially after the US withdrawal from the Paris Agreement. Asia’s rapid economic expansion is expected to increase its contribution to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, projected to rise from 40 % in 2016 to 48 % in 2030. A 6oC temperature rise above pre-industrial levels is projected for the Asian landmass by the end of the century, which may even pose an existential threat to some countries. Asia is the most disaster-prone region in the world and 10 Asian countries are among the top 20 in the Global Climate Risk Index. Climate change impacts may slash up to 9 % off south Asia’s economy every year by the end of this century.

The European Union is committed to climate action and has been in the front line of setting ambitious climate and energy targets, with a view to assisting the shift towards a low-carbon economy. The EU is working towards cutting domestic GHG emissions by at least 40 % by 2030, compared to 1990 levels, with a medium-term goal of achieving a 20 % reduction by 2020. The long-term objective for 2050 is a reduction of GHG emissions of 80-95% compared to 1990. To meet the 20% target for 2020, the EU has set up an Emissions Trading System (ETS), the world’s biggest scheme for trading greenhouse gas emissions allowances. It has been reviewed in line with the EU’s 2030 climate and energy targets. EU climate legislation includes the ETS (reformed with the introduction of a future market stability reserve), eco-design and energy labelling, the Effort-Sharing Decision/Regulation, the Renewable Energy Directive, the Energy Efficiency Directive, CO2 limits for cars and vans, and legislation on fluorinated greenhouse gases.

The EU is also actively engaged in the international efforts to reduce GHG emissions under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement. The EU is the world’s largest contributor of climate finance to developing countries: together with its Member States and the European Investment Bank, it contributed €20.2 billion in public climate finance to developing countries in 2016. The EU’s flagship initiative is the Global Climate Change Alliance Plus (GCCA+). It also works closely with other countries and regions to advance dialogue and cooperation on climate change, for instance during the annual climate diplomacy weeks – in June and September 2018 – where EU delegations around the world reach out to communities and partner organisations.

European Parliament’s position ASEM and ASEP

Since 2002, the EP has been represented through ad hoc delegations at ASEP meetings. In 2018, the Parliament’s delegation is composed of up to 11 MEPs, including the president, the vice-president in charge of relations with Asia and the chairs of the ASEP-related delegations. In a resolution of 15 January 2014 on the future of EU-ASEAN relations, the EP stressed that ‘the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) and the Asia-Europe Parliamentary Partnership (ASEP), as the existing channels for dialogue between the EU and ASEAN, should be upgraded at governmental and parliamentary level and further extended’. In a resolution of 15 February 2017, MEPs welcomed the proposal from Mongolia (host of ASEP9 in 2016) to set up an ASEM centre, including a virtual/online facility. The Parliament also urged the Commission and the Vice President/High Representative to use ASEM summits or meetings to raise issues such as the situation of the Rohingya people, the freedom of expression in Vietnam and the situation of human rights in Laos.

Climate change

The EP advocates an ambitious EU climate policy with ambitious binding targets on climate and energy: a reduction by at least 40 % in domestic GHG emissions from 1990 levels; a 30 % share for renewable energy sources in energy consumption; and a 40 % increase in energy efficiency. Before the 23rd UNFCCC climate change conference (COP23), the Parliament voiced disappointment that, when introducing CORSIA, ICAO did not agree on emissions reductions in international aviation, but instead focused mainly on offsets. MEPs regretted that the quality of the offsets is not guaranteed, that the application of CORSIA is only legally binding from 2027 onward, and that there is a lack of commitment by major ICAO members. The EP voiced support for broad-based carbon pricing and the allocation of emissions-trading revenues to climate-related investments. It asked to phase out all fossil fuel subsidies by 2020. MEPs backed environmentally and socially sustainable biofuel production that does not lead to deforestation and rising food prices.

Read this ‘At a glance’ note on ‘ASEP10 gives priority to climate change‘ on the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Visit the European Parliament homepage on climate change.

Written by Nikolina Šajn (1st edition),

© disq / Fotolia

As part of the third ‘Europe on the move’ package of measures, on 27 May 2018, the European Commission presented a proposal for a regulation on type-approval requirements for motor vehicles and their trailers, as regards their general safety and the protection of vehicle occupants and vulnerable road users. The regulation is part of the EU’s efforts to halve the number of fatal and serious injuries in road crashes between 2020 and 2030. It would introduce a number of advanced vehicle safety features that passenger cars, vans, buses and trucks would have to have as standard equipment in order to be sold on the internal market. It would replace three current type-approval regulations: the General Vehicle Safety Regulation, the Pedestrian Protection Regulation and the Hydrogen-Powered Motor Vehicles Regulation. In the European Parliament, the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection is in charge of the file.

Versions

• September 2018: ‘General safety of vehicles and protection of vulnerable road users‘ (1st edition)

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on type-approval requirements for motor vehicles and their trailers, and systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles, as regards their general safety and the protection of vehicle occupants and vulnerable road users, amending Regulation (EU) 2018/… and repealing Regulations (EC) No 78/2009, (EC) No 79/2009 and (EC) No 661/2009 Committee responsible: Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON) COM(2018) 286
17.5.2018 Rapporteur: Róża Gräfin von Thun und Hohenstein (EPP, Poland) 2018/0145 (COD) Shadow rapporteurs:

  Olga Sehnalová (S&D, Czech Republic)
Daniel Dalton (ECR, United Kingdom)
Dita Charanzová (ALDE, Czech Republic)
Pascal Durand (Greens/EFA, France) Ordinary legislative procedure (COD) (Parliament and Council on equal footing – formerly ‘co-decision’) Next steps expected: Publication of draft report

Timeline