European Union

Plenary sessions : Parliament urged member states to fulfil their pledges and pay for the EU migration actions that have been agreed by EU leaders. In Wednesday's debate, MEPs proposed to use an unexpected windfall of €2.3 billion from EU fines and customs duties to finance some of the measures. The Commission earlier said the new trust funds set up for Syria and Africa were short of €2.22 billion in national contributions.

Source : © European Union, 2015 - EP

The EU principle is quite clear. EU citizens are entitled to work in any other EU country and enjoy the same working rights as the nationals of that country. Those rights will vary EU country to country. But that isn’t the point.

The point is that if I go and work in France, as an EU citizen I can expect the same rights as French workers there. If I go and work in Germany, I can expect the same working rights as Germans. If I live in Spain, I’ll have the same rights as Spanish workers. That’s the EU principle, and I believe it’s a good one.

And this affects many Britons; more than two million have moved to live in the rest of the EU. Not all of them for work, of course; but most of them.

The concept of ‘free movement of people’ would fall down if workers moving from one EU country to another were discriminated against and didn’t have equal working rights with the workers of the host country.

I don’t think it’s a difficult concept to grasp. But it seems to me that the British Prime Minister, David Cameron, simply didn’t understand this principle, until now.

One of the key reforms that Mr Cameron hoped to win from the European Union was to allow workers moving to the UK from the rest of the EU to have less rights than British workers.

If this was to be permitted, it would in my view undo the entire raison d’être of free movement of people. The domino effect of such a policy could mean the end of EU workers willingly and easily moving from one EU country to another.

If Britain could discriminate against Germans working in Britain, then of course it could mean British workers in Germany having less rights than German workers; and British workers in France, Spain, Italy, Denmark, Belgium and so on being similarly discriminated against.

And what would be the point? I can’t find any.

Mr Cameron’s great reform idea was to discriminate against workers from the rest of EU by barring them from claiming any benefits for the first four years of their residency in the UK. That would be inequitable because British workers don’t have the same restrictions on claiming benefits.

Is there a real problem of EU workers claiming benefits? Not according to economist Jonathan Portes in his excellent blog yesterday for the National Institute of Economic and Social Research.

As Mr Portes points out, EU migrants come to Britain primarily to work, and their employment rates are considerably higher than that of the native population or non-EU migrants.

Only 2.2% of welfare claimants in Britain are EU migrants – just 114,000 out of a total of just over 5 million benefit claimants.

The situation is somewhat different regarding tax credits – or ‘in work’ benefits for migrants, that Mr Cameron has described as the main problem. EU migrants make up around 7% of those claiming tax credits, so about proportionate to the numbers of EU migrants working here.

But is this actually a problem? Not really, states Mr Portes.

“People who are in work, even in low-paid jobs, are after all contributing to the economy in a variety of ways; most analysis suggests that EU migrants, overall, improve the fiscal position, both in the short and (more importantly) in the long run.”

Mr Cameron often argues that it’s unfair for EU migrants to arrive in the UK, start a job, and immediately begin to receive public funds in the form of tax credits, having made absolutely no prior contributions. But the situation is exactly the same for British citizens, who can start a job for the first time and immediately claim in-work benefits. .

It’s the same for all insurance-based systems. You could insure your home today, paying just the first month’s premium, and if your home burnt down tomorrow, you’d still get a pay-out, even though you hardly made any contributions.

Child benefit is also often cited by Mr Cameron as a problem because EU migrants here can claim benefits for children not even living in the UK. That, of course, was never the intention of the child benefit system.

However, as Mr Portes points out, “the parent(s) are working and paying tax here (by no means true of all UK parents) and the children are certainly overall less of a cost to UK taxpayers than if they were actually living here!”

Mr Cameron has stated that he wants to reduce EU migrants coming to Britain (I can’t imagine why, since most of them are in gainful employment and making a significant net contribution to the Treasury and Britain’s wealth).

But is our benefits system really a ‘pull factor’ for EU migrants coming to Britain in the first place? The evidence is that welfare systems don’t generally drive immigration, according to Mr Portes. Nobody from Eastern or Central Europe comes to Britain to claim benefits; they come here for employment.

When the European Commission asked the British government for evidence of so-called ‘benefit tourism’, three times the government failed to provide any.

According to Mr Cameron, however, “40% of all recent European Economic Area migrants are supported by the UK benefits system.” But the data to back up the Prime Minister’s claim has never been published; almost certainly a violation of the Code of Practice on official government statistics.

The fact checking organisation, FullFact, has already submitted a formal complaint to the UK Statistics Authority.

The government’s numbers “look very odd” according to Mr Portes. According to published research, only a very small number of EU migrants would be affected by Mr Cameron’s 4-year-ban-on-benefits, because most EU migrants claiming the benefit have already lived in the UK for more than four years.

The four-year-ban, since it would affect such a small number of EU migrants, would be unlikely to make any difference to the numbers of migrants coming here.

So why did Mr Cameron want to risk Britain leaving the EU for a problem that doesn’t exist, and a solution that would make no difference?

Yesterday’s front page of the Evening Standard stated, “Cameron ‘retreat’ over EU migrant benefits”. It appears that the Prime Minister has now acknowledged that he cannot, after all, secure a four-year ban on welfare benefits to EU citizens exercising their right to work in Britain.”

Mr Cameron was quoted as saying, “Now I understand how difficult some of these welfare issues are for other member states.”

Isn’t it a bit late for Mr Cameron to “understand”? Shouldn’t he “understand” the issues first, and how important or otherwise they are, before risking the country’s future membership of the EU on demands that he should have known are incompatible with the principles and function of the European Union?

I am not confident that our Prime Minister knows what he is doing. It could be his, and the country’s, undoing. 

*Join the discussion about this article on Facebook.

_______________________________________________

Related stories by Jon Danzig:

• Why is Britain so against migration?
• Fiddling whilst the rest of the world burns?
• The end of free movement to and from Europe?

To receive regular updates on this and other ongoing stories, please click the ‘Like’ button on my new Facebook page: Jon Danzig Writes

_________________________________________________

• Comments are welcome – but please read ‘The rules of engagement’ 

 

Does @David_Cameron know what he’s doing on #EU reforms? Read and share my latest blog: https://t.co/YXdOONYd7C pic.twitter.com/qtzDT6WTvd

— Jon Danzig (@Jon_Danzig) November 11, 2015

The post Does the Prime Minister know what he’s doing? appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

Plenary sessions : European elections should be fought with formally endorsed, EU-wide lead candidates (“Spitzenkandidaten”) for the Commission presidency, Parliament said on Wednesday in a formal proposal for a change to EU electoral law. It says these candidates should stand for election to the EP themselves, and be formally nominated at least 12 weeks before the elections.

Source : © European Union, 2015 - EP

Plenary sessions : European elections should be fought with formally endorsed, EU-wide lead candidates (“Spitzenkandidaten”) for the Commission presidency, Parliament said on Wednesday in a formal proposal for a change to EU electoral law. It says these candidates should stand for election to the EP themselves, and be formally nominated at least 12 weeks before the elections.

Source : © European Union, 2015 - EP

Plenary sessions : To boost the EU's air transport economy, the EU needs to ensure a level playing field, while upholding high safety and social standards, says Parliament in a resolution passed on Wednesday and intended to feed into the Commission’s forthcoming aviation package.

Source : © European Union, 2015 - EP

Plenary sessions : To boost the EU's air transport economy, the EU needs to ensure a level playing field, while upholding high safety and social standards, says Parliament in a resolution passed on Wednesday and intended to feed into the Commission’s forthcoming aviation package.

Source : © European Union, 2015 - EP

I am happy to see so many of us here in Valletta today to discuss migration between our continents.

I would like to thank Prime Minister Muscat once again for kindly hosting us here in Valletta. I would also like to thank our senior officials for their hard work (until the early hours of this morning) in the preparation of a successful Summit.

As you know this meeting was suggested after the tragedy on 19 April, when hundreds of people lost their lives in the Mediterranean sea. This called on us to increase our efforts to try to stop such things from happening. The European Union took on the heavy responsibility of trying to save as many lives as possible. But this is dealing only with the symptoms. 

The only way we can manage migration is  by working together. Our purpose today is to agree a joint approach and concrete steps so that migration becomes fruitful exchange between our peoples, and not a tragic loss to all. We have a joint responsibility, and we must deliver on it in partnership and solidarity. That is why we are here.

Migration creates both challenges and opportunities and it affects us all - countries of origin, transit and destination. The number of people on the move globally has never been so big. Both Africa and Europe are put under heavy pressure trying to manage the scale and its effects on local communities.

Firstly, one of our biggest responsibilities is to address the root causes of the movements we are seeing. It is our job, as leaders, to ensure that people do not feel the need to risk their lives to achieve their aspirations. Security and opportunity are things that Europe and Africa already work on together. And we will continue to do so.

This means making our extensive development assistance more efficient, more targeted; creating more opportunities for young people to work. It also means stepping up our efforts to prevent and stop conflicts, and to help countries build systems of government that are accountable and open, that reinforce the rule of law, that respect human rights.

Secondly, people's aspirations and needs have to be met first and foremost at home. Legal migration can offer opportunities for some, but not for all. Routes for legal migration to Europe should remain open; mobility between our continents is a driver for growth on both sides.

Thirdly, and this is a crucial area for urgent action, we must do more to prevent the trafficking of human beings and the illegal smuggling of migrants by criminal gangs whose only motive is their own profit.

Fourthly, the EU and African countries have a history of protecting those entitled to international protection. We are ready to step up our support to you to help you deal with the displaced persons within Africa. At the same time, we will continue to offer international protection to those entitled to it.

Last, but definitely not least, proper return and readmission of those not entitled to international protection is essential. This is an international norm, and a responsibility of states to citizens. To keep the doors open for refugees and legal migrants, irregular migrants should be returned effectively and quickly. Voluntary return is always preferable. But when it is not possible, non-voluntary return is a pre-requisite for a well-managed migration policy. And once returned, we must all work together to reintegrate these people and provide them with the means to meet their aspirations.

Europe is taking its responsibility - saving lives, welcoming refugees and those entitled to international protection, offering more organised routes for legal migration, and dismantling criminal organisations.

We need our African partners to help us better address our common challenges. We have no choice but to be partners in this.

One of the strengths of our partnership is that we can have open and honest conversations about even difficult subjects.  We have these within the EU all the time.  Migration is a sensitive political topic within and amongst the EU Member States, as I am sure it is among African states too.  But we have to discuss it to find the right way forward for all of us. 

I look forward to our open and honest discussions. And more than that, I hope we will take the necessary action to forge our future cooperation. We have to turn our principles into action. Thank you.    

The School Fruit and Vegetables Scheme and the School Milk Scheme are currently separate programmes under which EU aid is allocated to member states. In January 2014, the Commission presented two proposals merging the schemes and amending the new Single Common Market Organisation (single CMO) regulation under the reformed Common agricultural policy (CAP)  and the regulation fixing certain aids and refunds. 

Following the examination of the proposal in the Council, on 12 October 2015 the Special Committee on Agriculture (SCA) granted the Presidency a mandate to enter the first trilogue with the European Parliament on this proposal. The first trilogue took place on 20 October. The main issue at the time was the legal basis of the proposal, on which the mandate prepared for the 2nd trilogue shows some opening.

At the end of the 2nd trilogue on 11 November, while recalling its attachment to reach a positive conclusion of this issue, the Presidency deems that it is appropriate to wait before setting the date of the next trilogue. It considers that further informal contacts in the meantime will allow to clarify some elements discussed and will facilitate those negotiations to resume efficiently as soon as possible.

Plenary sessions : Vice-president Mairead McGuinness drew the House's attention to the nightclub fire in Bucharest on 30 October in which at least 46 people died, with 100 or more still in hospital, and the Russian plane crash in Sinai on 31 October, which killed 224 people. She conveyed the House's condolences to the friends and families of the victims of both tragedies and to the people of Romania and Russia.

Source : © European Union, 2015 - EP

Plenary sessions : Vice-president Mairead McGuinness drew the House's attention to the nightclub fire in Bucharest on 30 October in which at least 46 people died, with 100 or more still in hospital, and the Russian plane crash in Sinai on 31 October, which killed 224 people. She conveyed the House's condolences to the friends and families of the victims of both tragedies and to the people of Romania and Russia.

Source : © European Union, 2015 - EP

Getting the green light for placing novel foods on the EU market will become faster and cheaper while the high level of protection of human health will be preserved. That's the main purpose of a draft regulation that the Council's Permanent Representatives Committee approved on 11 November 2015. The draft regulation was voted by the Parliament on 28 October 2015. Novel foods are foods not consumed in the EU to a significant degree before May 1997. They include for instance foods to which a new production process is applied. 

"The compromise approved today is a needed step towards faster innovation in the novel foods market while guaranteeing high levels of consumer protection for the European citizens", said Lydia Mutsch, member of the Luxembourg government and President of the Council. 

Cutting red tape 

Under the new rules the authorisation procedure for a novel food is expected to take on average around 18 months compared to three years under the current rules. The draft regulation also helps to reduce administrative burdens by switching to an EU-level procedure and providing for generic authorisations. This means that once authorised and added to the EU list a novel food may be placed on the market by any food business operator. This avoids the re-submission of new applications by other companies for the same novel food and should benefit in particular SMEs. Under the current rules, novel foods are authorised at national level and valid only for the applicant.

Easier access for traditional foods

The new rules will also facilitate the access to the EU market for traditional foods from third countries having a history of safe food use. For these foods an applicant must demonstrate that they have been safely consumed by a significant part of a third country's population for at least 25 years. 

Nanotechnology

The scope of the novel food rules explicitly covers food containing engineered nanomaterials. The Commission is mandated to adapt the definition of engineered nanomaterials to technical progress or the definitions agreed at international level. 

Insects

The new regulation provides also clarity that insects are covered and are hence subject to an authorisation procedure. 

Cloning

Food from animal clones will remain subject to the novel food rules. Commission proposals establishing specific rules on cloning are currently discussed in the Council and the European Parliament. 

Next steps

The Council is expected to formally adopt the new regulation on 16 November before it is published in the Official Journal of the EU. It will enter into force 20 days after its publication and will be applicable two years later. 

Background

The novel foods authorised under the current rules in the EU include for instance "rapeseed oil high in unsaponifiable matter", "rye bread with added phytosterols/phytostanols", "milk type products and yoghurt type products with added phytosterol esters", "coagulated potato proteins and hydrolysates thereof" and "phospholipids from egg yolk", "chias seeds" and "baobab extracts".

General : The Lux Prize not only gives recognition to some of the best European films, but also serves as an opportunity to show them to cinema lovers across the EU. Join the conversation on social media, enjoy the films and learn more about the Lux Prize and the people whose creativity and passion brought us this year's finalists: Mediterranea, Mustang and The Lesson.

Source : © European Union, 2015 - EP

General : The Lux Prize not only gives recognition to some of the best European films, but also serves as an opportunity to show them to cinema lovers across the EU. Join the conversation on social media, enjoy the films and learn more about the Lux Prize and the people whose creativity and passion brought us this year's finalists: Mediterranea, Mustang and The Lesson.

Source : © European Union, 2015 - EP

Source : © European Union, 2015 - EP