European Union

This is our new daily Brussels Briefing. To receive it via email every morning, sign up here.

David Cameron, the British prime minister, went before his parliament on Tuesday to report on last month’s EU summit, where leaders for the first time debated his request for a renegotiated relationship with Brussels ahead of an in-out referendum at home. During the appearance, he dropped a bit of a bombshell: his ministers will be allowed to campaign for Brexit even if his government recommends staying inside the EU. “It’s never been my intention to strong-arm people into a position they don’t believe in,” he told the House of Commons.

That sets up the prospect of Mr Cameron, widely expected to campaign for membership once he reaches a renegotiation deal at February’s EU summit, on the opposite side of such government luminaries as Iain Duncan Smith, the work and pensions secretary who was once Tory leader himself.

Our Brexit watcher in the FT’s Brussels bureau, Alex Barker, says that while the decision raised eyebrows even within his own party – and may lead many in Brussels to wonder what happened to the sacred British convention of a cabinet’s collective responsibility – there may not have been much else Mr Cameron could have done. Here’s Alex’s take on how Mr Cameron is tackling what may be his hardest Brexit task yet, managing his own party:

For some in Brussels, allowing British cabinet ministers to campaign against their government on such an existential question as EU membership will be bemusing, to say the least. Michael Heseltine, the europhile former cabinet minister, once said Cameron would be a “global laughing stock” if he lifted collective responsibility for the cabinet. Ken Clarke, another of the Tory party’s rare pro-Europeans, said it was a sign of the extraordinary challenge Mr Cameron faces in avoiding “splitting the part” as the referendum campaign revs up.

Read more

The English make up 85% of the UK’s population, with London home to a population equal to that of Scotland and Wales combined and an economy closely linked to Europe. But the capital and its country are at odds when it comes to Europe. Analysing patterns and differences of opinion in England, and especially the outlook of Londoners, is therefore vital to understanding how the UK will vote in the forthcoming referendum – and how the UK’s countries, regions and peoples will deal with the outcome.

Back in January 2013, when David Cameron committed a future Conservative government to holding an in/out referendum on the EU membership, he made clear that ‘it is time to settle this European question in British politics’. Today, one of the problems Cameron faces is that his European question is a multifaceted one that is more than to be or not to be in Europe. Look into what fuels the UK’s tensions with the rest of the EU and you soon find yourself grappling with such questions as the future place in the UK of both England and London. Because of its size, it will be in England where the referendum is largely won or lost. As the capital city and the UK’s biggest and richest region, what the result could mean for London will be a defining issue of the campaign and how the UK deals with the result.

A closer look at the Union

Breakdowns of the UK’s regional political differences often divide the Union into its four parts. The four may be equal constitutionally, but nothing could be further from the truth when it comes to population and economy. As the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish know only too well, England dominates the union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

 

*UK population mid-2014 (source here)

Population (2013) GVA Public expenditure per head Variation from expenditure average £ bn %UK £ per head Variation England 53,865,817 1,298 86.5% 24,091 103.0 £8,678 97 North East 2,610,481 45 3.0% 17,381 74.3 £9,576 107 North West 7,103,260 142 9.4% 19,937 85.2 £9,276 104 Y’shire/Humber 5,337,710 102 6.8% 19,053 81.4 £8,679 97 East Midlands 4,598,729 89 5.9% 19,317 82.6 £8,219 92 West Midlands 5,674,712 110 7.4% 19,428 83.0 £8,641 97 East England 5,954,169 130 8.7% 21,897 93.6 £7,950 89 London 8,416,535 338 22.6% 40,215 171.9 £9,866 110 South East 8,792,626 227 15.2% 25,843 110.5 £7,756 87 South West 5,377,595 114 7.6% 21,163 90.5 £8,336 93 N Ireland 1,829,725 33 2.2% 17,948 76.7 £10,961 123 Scotland 5,327,700 117 7.8% 21,982 94.0 £10,275 115 Wales 3,082,412 52 3.5% 16,893 72.2 £9,924 111 UK 64,105,654 1500 100% 23,394 100 £8,936 100

 

*UK Regions and Nations: Populations, Gross Value Added, and Public Expenditure per head around the UK in 2013 and 2014 (source here)

Furthermore we rarely see breakdowns of opinions across England. This is despite 54.3 million English inhabiting a country home to a wealth of cultures, economies, and political outlooks. To be fair, the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish are not single homogenous groups. But the debate sometimes risks overlooking differences within the English public opinion. Data (albeit to 2012) drawn from the British Election Study Continuous Monitoring Survey shows that support for the EU can vary across the UK and England.

ATTITUDES TOWARDS EU MEMBERSHIP BY REGION

Region

Response

option East Anglia (%)

East Midlands

(%)

Greater London

(%)

North

(%)

North West

(%)

Scotland

(%)

South East

(%)

South West

(%)

Wales

(%)

West Midlands

(%)

Yorkshire and Humberside

(%) Total (%) Strongly approve 11.3 9.4 18.1 10.6 11.3 15.4 10.7 10.9 11.9 10.7 10.9 12.0 Approve 33.3 35.0 40.5 37.8 37.1 43.7 36.0 34.6 40.7 35.8 36.1 37.2 Disapprove 33.6 33.6 25.8 33.2 32.0 26.3 32.7 32.5 29.8 31.9 32.9 31.2 Strongly disapprove 21.9 22.0 15.6 18.4 19.6 14.7 20.5 22.0 17.6 21.6 20.1 19.5

 

Question wording: ’Overall, do you strongly approve, approve, disapprove, or strongly disapprove of Britain’s membership in the European Union?’ Source: Source: British Election Study Continuous Monitoring Survey, June 2005-December 2012 (pooled monthly cross-sectional surveys). Weighted data.

*“Overall, do you strongly approve, approve, disapprove, or strongly disapprove of Britain’s membership in the European Union?”

Note: The data were provided by Dr Ben Clements and come from the British Election Study Continuous Monitoring Survey (BES CMS), based on the pooled June 2005-December 2012 monthly cross-sectional surveys (weighted data). The BES CMS dataset was obtained from the main BES 2009/10 project website.

Amongst the many differences that criss-cross England, London can make a fair claim to being so different as to be the UK’s undiscovered country. It has its own regional government in the form of the Greater London Authority and a Mayor. Its population will within a few years pass the 10 million mark, and if measured by metro area already stands at more than 14 million. That population is also Britain’s most diverse, with 36.7% Londoners born outside the UK, a figure that is growing. Such a fast growing and diverse population makes for distinct social and welfare challenges in terms of housing, policing, the environment and transport. Its economy – 22.6% of all of the UK’s generated by 13.1% of the population – races ahead of the rest of the UK and makes it one of the richest places in Europe and the world. As the BBC’s Robert Peston once argued when explaining why UKIP doesn’t do well in London:

Much of the rest of the UK sees globalisation and its manifestations – such as immigration – as disempowering, impoverishing and a threat. Whereas for Londoners, globalisation is an economic competition they are apparently winning.

London then is an English, British, European and international metropolis, booming thanks to its central place in the UK, Europe and the world.

The English Question and Europe

Despite people across the UK sharing some common concerns about the EU, polling data shows the English as a whole to be the most Eurosceptic of the four parts of the UK. No surprise then that UKIP scored well in large areas of England during the 2015 General Election, securing 14.1% of English votes and becoming the UK’s third most popular party by votes. It should also be noted that UKIP secured 13.6% in Wales, reminding us that other parts of the UK are not the home of pro-Europeanism as some might like to believe they are. Nevertheless, compared to the 1975 referendum when England was home to the most pro-European parts of the UK, today it is undeniably home to the parts that are the most Eurosceptic.

This can be put down to a number of reasons, not least of which is the failure of political parties in England, compared to those in the other three parts of the UK, to offer a pro-European message. It can also be attributed to the failure of the political parties to grapple with changes in English identity, with there being an often-noted connection between Euroscepticism and English nationalism. As Ben Wellings has argued: ‘Euroscepticism is the most formed-up expression of English grievance and an ideology that provides the political content for English nationalism.’

Surveys and analyses have shown an evolving sense of English nationalism is connected to feelings about an unfair treatment of England compared to Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and London. With no English Parliament or substantial regional governments of its own (excluding Greater London), England is run by a UK government based in London that can seem distant and beholden to other interests whether they be international ones or of the other parts of the UK. UKIP has been able to tap into this.

The European question in some areas of England is therefore not simply one of distrust of globalisation or the EU; it is also about negative views of a UK state and political parties that can seem weak, disinterested or beholden to others.

The London Question and Europe

Londoners are not known for being ‘little Englanders’. This is in no small part a result of Londoners being the least ‘English’ in England and the most likely to identify themselves as ‘British’ (according to the 2011 census). Its diverse population, economics and liberal politics make it a metropolis where parties such as UKIP struggle to make much headway. In the 2015 General Election UKIP secured 8.1% of Londoners votes, an improvement on its previous results but still its second lowest performance in the UK after Scotland. Nevertheless, UKIP has found success in some of the outer boroughs, especially in the east. That London suffers from major social, economic and community problems was all too clear during the 2011 London riots. While immigration is an issue, since the 1980s immigration has been key to the metropolis rebounding from its post-war decline. London’s Eurosceptic Mayor, Boris Johnson, has been amongst the UK’s most pro-immigration politicians.

A large part of the material wealth of London is tied to the economic vibrancy of the European market as part of wider transatlantic and global markets. Britain might not be in the euro, but that does not stop London handling more euro foreign-exchanges than the eurozone combined. Nor does it stop London being the headquarters of one hundred of Europe’s top 500 companies. Companies such as Goldman Sachs and the Lord Mayor of London have warned of the cost to London and the UK of an exit from the EU. The Mayor of London’s own 2014 report into Brexit and London – ‘The Europe Report: a win-win situation’ – might have argued that whatever the referendum outcome, London could win in varying ways (although see here for a critique). But even it made clear that close relations with the EU would be vital for any post-exit London.

London’s more pro-European outlook, its privileged position within the UK, unique population and identity have not passed unnoticed. ‘London’ has become a by-word for something that is distant, strange and out of control, similar to Brussels across the EU or Washington D.C. in the USA. While London has long been a place slightly apart from the rest of Britain, today people across the UK, and especially England, increasingly view London as a place far removed from the country they feel they inhabit. Suzanne Evans, a former Conservative councillor for Merton who defected to UKIP but lost her seat in the 2014 local elections, blamed UKIP’s poor performance in London on its young, educated, cultured, media-savvy population that can’t understand the heartache felt by the rest of the country. This might have been picked over for her insinuation that UKIP supporters elsewhere are old, not educated (to a certain extent Londoners are indeed younger and on average better qualified) or cultured and that the ‘media-savvy’ were somehow duped by media criticism of UKIP. But her warning that London is becoming a place apart from the rest of the UK has been echoed elsewhere. The EU referendum has the potential to highlight the differences between the capital city and its country and the need for this to be addressed.

A Kingdom of Many Parts

There can be little doubt that the UK’s referendum could have important implications for different parts of the UK. Most notably, Scotland’s place in the union and the Northern Ireland peace process could be changed. But by focusing on such areas we are at risk of missing the larger picture of what the result could mean for the place of England and London in the Union. It will be in England that the referendum is won or lost, and it will be in London and its relationship with England and the UK that we will see some of the most important consequences of the referendum result.

Note: this piece first appeared on the LSE’s Brexit Vote blog.

The post A Kingdom of Many Parts: England, London, the UK, and the EU appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

Sign up to the FT’s new daily Brussels briefing

Thus far, Brussels appears more willing to take on the Poles than it was the Hungarians. Just days after the new media law was introduced, Jean-Claude Juncker, the European Commission president, has announced he will hold a debate on the Polish moves at the commission’s weekly meeting next week.

Read more

General : The Netherlands will be at the helm of the Council of the EU for the first six months of this year. The country will focus on promoting economic growth and connecting with civil society. The priorities will be migration and international security; innovation and job creation; sound finances and a robust euro zone; a forward-looking climate and energy policy. We asked Dutch MEPs across the political spectrum about their expectations.

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

General : The Netherlands will be at the helm of the Council of the EU for the first six months of this year. The country will focus on promoting economic growth and connecting with civil society. The priorities will be migration and international security; innovation and job creation; sound finances and a robust euro zone; a forward-looking climate and energy policy. We asked Dutch MEPs across the political spectrum about their expectations.

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

http://tvnewsroom.consilium.europa.eu/uploads/council-images/thumbs/uploads/council-images/remote/http_7e18a1c646f5450b9d6d-a75424f262e53e74f9539145894f4378.r8.cf3.rackcdn.com/20160101-NLpresidency-Home_thumb_169_1451920578_1451919613_129_97shar_c1.png

The Netherlands Presidency of the Council of the European Union takes over on 1 January 2016.

Download this video here.

2016 will be an intense year in Brussels, with a number of initiatives launched by the Juncker Commission embodied in legislative proposals.

One of the EU founding members however is under the influence of a different agenda: in less than 18 months, presidential and general elections will be held in France, and the results of the regional elections of last December show the growing success of the Front National (FN) among the French citizens. Could the Eurosceptic FN have a decisive influence on the EU agenda of the coming years, although not formally in power?

What’s happened: FN stumbling on the second round of the regional elections

In December 2015, France lived one of the defining moments of its contemporary political history. In the first round of the regional elections, under the helm of Marine le Pen, the Front National (FN) had attracted more voters than the two main ruling parties, Parti Socialiste (PS – centre left) and Les Republicains (LR – centre right). The results of the second round confirmed this trend, with more ballots cast for the Front National than ever before. No region was however conquered by FN; PS and LR, and their respective allies, will retain power in the majority of the regions.

In 2017, when the next elections come, the “all-against-Le-Pen” line might be outdated.

A French well-known political saying states that electors chose in the first round, but eliminate in the second round. To ensure elimination of FN, PS has kept its “Republican barrier” strategy, i.e. withdrawing its lists before the second round when the FN is likely to stay in front, and supporting the candidates of the centre-right. This was rejected by former President and now LR leader Nicolas Sarkozy, who has been advocating for a “ni-ni” (“neither-nor”) strategy since 2011.

On the one hand, these combined strategies have proven successful in keeping FN out of power. On the other hand, the FN seems to paradoxically benefit from being cast aside, stressing the FN narrative of being victimized by establishment, deeming PS and LR the two sides of the same coin, and presenting itself as the sole alternative. With an ever-growing number of votes going to FN, the “all-against-Le-Pen” line might be outdated when the presidential and general elections come in 2017.

Self-fulfilling prophecy: declining French influence in the EU

One indirect consequence of the rise of FN may well be a self-fulfilling prophecy: declining French influence in the EU. In the run-up to the 2017 elections, the French government will likely try to avoid antagonising more potential FN voters. Recent polls have shown that although President Hollande is seen as a powerful leader at international level by French voters (and has the COP21 success to show for it), this does not influence their electoral choice for 2017 – namely: …not Hollande. Being a champion in Brussels will not square the circle –the Commission’ ambitious program for 2016 may lack a strong support from France.

French support and implementation of EU projects might be reduced if actions in Brussels become stigmas in Paris.

First thorny issue: the Stability and Growth Pact. The path towards structural reforms is taken reluctantly, as they are unpopular among working-class voters who already massively went to FN. Similarly, attaining the target of 3% of budget deficit by 2017 might lead to cuts in public services and health-care expenses. Marine le Pen then would only have to play her favorite tune: every reform is a “diktat imposed by Brussels”. French credibility to its European counterparts is however decreasing each time it fails to respect promises taken by all 28 Member States.

Moreover, finding a consensus on a much needed European solution for the refugee crisis might prove more difficult without a strong French voice. France is indeed part of the “coalition of the willing” of nine EU member States moving faster on a sharing mechanism. More European integration on the matter is however opposed by FN supporters, ranking first in the sadly symbolic Calais region.

Similarly, France would be instrumental for a new impetus on European counter-terrorist intelligence cooperation. Drawing a dangerous parallel between the two questions high on the 2016 EU agenda, FN has called for the end of the Schengen agreements throughout the aftermaths of the Paris terrorist attacks. Should the French government be tempted to listen too much to rising anti-Schengen voices, 2016 could see one of the pillars of the EU single market, free movement of people, falter.

Finally, French support and implementation of EU projects launched by the Juncker Commission, such as the Capital Markets Union, the Digital Single Market or the Energy Union, might be reduced if actions in Brussels become stigmas in Paris. ‘Why does France do so much for Europeans when it does so little for its own people?’ would say Eurosceptic FN. Already weakened by timid growth and ever increasing unemployment rates, the French government is slowly losing its ability to be one of Europe’s driving forces in the coming year and a half.

Euroscepticism, first item in the 2016 EU agenda?

2016 will be a year for EU soul-searching, with referendums in the Netherlands and in the UK directly or indirectly linked to citizens’ sentiment towards the EU. PS & LR has not yet licked their wounds since the 2005 referendum on the Constitutional Treaty, when internal divisions between more liberal, federalist voices, and those attached to national sovereignty, were out in the open.

Increased support for FN may be partially explained of the unclear PS and LR position on EU. Left-wing voters, especially from the working class, are seemingly attracted by the FN stance that EU integration has caused more social harm than economic good. On the other side of the political spectrum, emphasis put on the erosion of national sovereignty within the Union is appealing to right-wing voters. Flanking its two main opponents from left and right, FN proposes to re-open the referendum Pandora Box, a fight that PS and LR are reluctant to pick up, as their 2005 coalition for a “yes” vote was seen as treason by many voters, including their own.

Front National’s euroscepticism is rapidly infusing into France’s position in the EU.

France’s position in the Brexit negotiations is therefore more than delicate. If the French is seen as too lenient towards the UK government, any concession would be advertised as another sign of weakness and loss of sovereignty. Should its stance be too tough, eventually alienating its negotiating partners, and paving the way to a Brexit, a precedent would have been set, on which FN would be playing. Counter to classic Clausewitz logic, having a weak France as opposing partner in the Brexit/BritIn negotiations will not be helpful to Mr Cameron’s ambitions; a French government imploding in national election mode, feeding the domestic agenda of a FN driven constituency will be at risk of not having any external flexibility to accommodate UK wants.

This leaves us with a puzzling question: could it be that one of the most influential EU politicians in 2016 will be Marine le Pen, a marginalized MEP and Eurosceptic regional MP? FN is not in power; its euroscepticism is however rapidly infusing into France’s position in the EU. By this, the new benchmark of French politics could very well become the mark by which we measure the flood through EU as a whole.

 

By Martin Bresson & Clement Luzeau

The Nordic passport union[i] from 1957, which allows citizens from all the Nordic countries (Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland and Iceland) to travel freely without passport within the Nordic countries, will effectively stop Monday 4th January 2016, where Sweden introduces ID checks at its borders. The introduction of ID check is caused by changes in Swedish immigration and asylum policies. However, the decision has severe implications for the around 30,000[ii] people who daily crosses the Øresund Bridge by train, their journey will longer and they have to change trains instead of taking a direct train. In the long term this can end the successful cross-border commuting and regional cooperation without solving the increased number of asylum seekers.

The number of asylum seeker in Sweden has doubled the past year, specifically 149,028 people applied for asylum in Sweden between January to November 2015 compared to 74,344 people during the same period in 2014[iii].  Since the summer Swedish authorities have checked people taking the train across the Øresund Bridge those seeking asylum have been registered and others have had to return across the bridge often stranding in Copenhagen Central Station, where the sight of sleeping families is not uncommon. From Monday 4th January 2016 the Swedish authorities will pass the responsibility to check people entering Sweden to all transport companies carrying passengers to Sweden.

The Øresund region is a big metropolitan area which extends from Greater Copenhagen area to Skåne (Scania) in Sweden, including Malmø and Lund. Since the bridge was opened in June 2000 there have been more regional cooperation between local councils and regions in addition to businesses, which operate on both sides of the borders. Many people in the region lives in one country and work in another. Moreover, many people cross the bridge for a day out for shopping or tourist activities or a night out in town. People are able to cross the Øresund Belt either by ferry, by car over the bridge or by train. In 2014[iv] 11.4 million people used the Øresund train, the figure for the first three quarters of 2015 is 9 million people, these people now all have to be registered by DSB, the Danish railway company.

From a transport perspective, DSB, which run the Øresund train, has to register all persons crossing the Bridge. It has decided to set up check points at Copenhagen airport (the last stop before Sweden) where all passengers from Monday 4th January 2016 have to change trains and go through designated check points, which will be run by an external company, Securitas[v]. According to Danish Radio the introduction of carrier liability is estimated to cost 200,000 DKK (€40,000) per day, and Skånetrafiken has promised to pay half the cost, which means the daily additional cost for DSB is 150,000 DKK (€20,000) yet The Danish Transport Minister Hans Christian Schmidt[vi] wants DSB to internalise the additional cost of checking ID. It is questionable if DSB in the long term DSB can continue to internalise these extra costs especially after the government has reduced its funding for DSB, which has to deliver the same for less. Thus the additional cost of registering Øresund passengers might have wider implications for the Danish railway network and rail prices. Effectively, the Danish tax payers will pay for Sweden’s introduction of border control.

The extended travel time between Copenhagen and Malmø , which is predicted to double the journey time from 35 min to over 1 hour, will mean people have to take an earlier train to get to work on time and will be home later, this extends their time away from home and have implications for day-care and afterschool activities. The question is whether these people in the long term with try to find jobs on their side of the bridge or will move to the other side of the bridge. Commuters from Sweden has set up a Facebook group called Øresundsrevolutionen[vii] and are protesting against what they see as an increased Stockholm focus, which ignores the close relations between Scania and Copenhagen and the region of Zealand. The close ties between Scania and Zealand region are historical and they have been further strengthened with the opening of the Øresund bridge in July 2000, which has created a big metropolitan area. Indeed, many Danes married to non-EU citizens moved to Scania during the 2000s due to the Anders Fogh Rasmussen governments introduction of stricter immigration rules, by moving to Scania the Danes were able to live with their spouse whilst working in Copenhagen and visiting family in Denmark.

In his New Year speech, the Danish Prime Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen emphasised the need for ‘us to look after Denmark’, and added that he might introduce border controls at the Danish-German border if the situation calls for it. Similar to the Øresund region the landlocked border regions between Denmark and Germany represents another example of close cross-border cooperation, where many people live on one side of the border and work on another.

Importantly, there are many successful cross-border cooperation throughout Europe, if EU member states suspend the Schengen agreement and introduce border controls what will happen to these regions? What will happen to Strasbourg, a big city on the border between Germany and France, which is a symbol of both the EU integration project and historical strife.

Finally, the EU’s principle of free movement and its support for regional cross-border cooperation, which the Øresund region is a prime example off, is challenged especially as it is unclear how long Sweden will impose these measures and if other EU member states will follow Sweden’s example. Crucially, it is unlikely that introducing border controls within Europe and between member states will reduce the number of asylum seekers and immigrants, or bring peace to the regions with civil wars and unrest instead the solution needs to be found elsewhere.

 

[i] http://www.norden.org/da/om-samarbejdet-1/nordiske-aftaler/aftaler/passpoergsmaal-statsborgerskab-og-folkeregistrering/den-nordiske-paskontroloverenskomst

[ii] http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/projects/denmark/cross-border-metro-could-build-capacity-over-oresund-strait

[iii] http://www.migrationsverket.se/Om-Migrationsverket/Statistik/Asylsokande—de-storsta-landerna.html

[iv] http://www.statistikbanken.dk/statbank5a/selectvarval/saveselections.asp

[v] http://politiken.dk/udland/fokus_int/Flygtningestroem/ECE2995347/dsb-laver-register-over-tusinder-af-rejsende-til-sverige/

[vi] http://www.dr.dk/nyheder/indland/transportminister-passagerer-skal-ikke-straffes-sveriges-id-kontrol

[vii] https://www.facebook.com/oresundsrevolutionen/

The post Sweden introduces border control at the expense of commuters in the Øresund region appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

General : Every year comes with new hopes and dreams and with renewed determination to pursue them. At the very end of 2015, we asked leading MEPs about their wishes for 2016. All of us at the European Parliament would like to join them in wishing you a happy and prosperous new year!

Source : © European Union, 2015 - EP

General : Every year comes with new hopes and dreams and with renewed determination to pursue them. At the very end of 2015, we asked leading MEPs about their wishes for 2016. All of us at the European Parliament would like to join them in wishing you a happy and prosperous new year!

Source : © European Union, 2015 - EP

Often photos can say more than words. In our slide show you will find this year's most important moments in the Parliament captured for you by our photographers.

Source : © European Union, 2015 - EP

General : As 2016 is rapidly approaching, it is a good occasion to look back at this year's most memorable moments, from the refugees crisis to the terrorist attacks. The European Parliament also dealt with issues such as tax rulings, Greece and debated the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) between the EU and the US. Watch our video to relive those moments.

Source : © European Union, 2015 - EP