European Union

Following the EU-UK summit last month, I’ve finally got my ducks in a row on trying to track the substance of what follows.

You’ll recall that apart from the Security & Defence Partnership, there was not a single definitive legal instrument. Instead, there was lots of language about ‘working towards’ things or ‘exploring possibilities’: all very nice, but not really enough in an era of questions about the depth of international commitments.

Hence the tracker. As I’ve noted in my Bluesky thread on this, I’m only tracking those elements that seem to produce a formal agreement between the parties: potentially the list could grow, but let’s wait and see.

Rob Francis has written that Commission mandates for SPS, ETS linkage and Youth Experience aren’t coming until the autumn of this year, so formal negotiations seem unlikely until the back end of 2025. Given that each of these could throw up a bunch of issues (such as how much the UK is prepared to accept EU rules, and how much this is going to cost in contributions), reaching an agreement on any of these by the time of next spring’s summit looks hopeful.

Hence the tracker covers the entire lifetime of this Parliament.

Of course, if polls continue to be as unclear as now, the shadow of a non-Labour government is liable to cast a shadow on any negotiations from about 2027 onwards (given the time it’ll take to conclude, ratify and implement any individual deals), so this is the best opportunity for both sides to nail things down and minimise the chance of new administrations making bold choices.

As for the rest of the list, I’ve seen nothing to indicate timelines. Even if most of it is highly technical, it’ll still need work and political attention, something that’s been in short supply so far.

So the big question is whether long-term incentives will outweigh short-term distraction.

PDF: https://bit.ly/UshGraphic141

The post Tracking the UK-EU reset appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

AMENDMENTS 1 - 304 - Draft report Implementation of the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Committee on International Trade
Nina Carberry, Thijs Reuten

Source : © European Union, 2025 - EP

REPORT on the 2023 and 2024 Commission reports on Moldova
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Sven Mikser

Source : © European Union, 2025 - EP

REPORT on the 2023 and 2024 Commission reports on Montenegro
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Marjan Šarec

Source : © European Union, 2025 - EP

Length of video : 180'

Disclaimer : The interpretation of debates serves to facilitate communication and does not constitute an authentic record of proceedings. Only the original speech or the revised written translation is authentic.
Source : © European Union, 2025 - EP

Length of video : 90'

Disclaimer : The interpretation of debates serves to facilitate communication and does not constitute an authentic record of proceedings. Only the original speech or the revised written translation is authentic.
Source : © European Union, 2025 - EP

EP President Roberta Metsola highlighted Denmark’s ability to build consensus and produce results in uncertain times, ahead of the upcoming Danish Presidency of the Council of the EU.

Source : © European Union, 2025 - EP

EP President Roberta Metsola highlighted Denmark’s ability to build consensus and produce results in uncertain times, ahead of the upcoming Danish Presidency of the Council of the EU.

Source : © European Union, 2025 - EP

On Tuesday, the Agriculture Committee adopted its position on EU standards for the breeding, housing, and handling of cats and dogs.
Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development

Source : © European Union, 2025 - EP

On Tuesday, the Agriculture Committee adopted its position on EU standards for the breeding, housing, and handling of cats and dogs.
Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development

Source : © European Union, 2025 - EP

In early June 2016 – nine years ago – the UK stood on the edge of a knife.

YouGov’s poll-of-polls showed Remain and Leave running neck and neck ahead of the EU referendum. On 26 May, Remain led with 46% to Leave’s 42%. But by 1 June, the two were tied at 44%.

Even on the eve of voting day, no one could confidently predict the outcome. Some polls gave Leave the edge; others put Remain just ahead.

A day earlier, or a day later, and the outcome could have flipped. That’s how precarious the decision was.

For most of Britain’s 43 years as an EU member, public opinion leaned against Brexit. Ipsos Mori polling in June 2015 showed a record 75% in favour of staying in the EU.

But in the turbulent months before the vote, millions shifted to Leave, swayed by a campaign later revealed to be influenced by Russian disinformation and targeted anti-migrant sentiment.

[Watch theRussianConnection.co.uk]

Yet there was another key factor: turnout. Nearly 13 million eligible voters stayed home. According to the first post-referendum poll (Ipsos/Newsnight, 29 June 2016), these non-voters leaned towards Remain by a 2:1 margin. If they had voted, the result might have swung the other way.

On top of that, millions directly affected by the result were excluded: Britons abroad for over 15 years, and EU citizens living, working, and paying taxes in the UK.

A single day’s vote, on a question so close and unresolved, should never be allowed to lock a country in for generations.

General elections happen every few years. Voters can correct past choices and change governments. But with Brexit, no such democratic correction has been allowed. Since the referendum, the UK has had three general elections. Yet there has been no opportunity to revisit Brexit – no further referendum, no fresh public mandate, no attempt to see whether the public has changed its mind.

That is not how a mature democracy should handle a decision of such scale and permanence. Especially when the original vote was so finely balanced, so easily swayable by time and circumstance, and clearly left the nation divided.

A democratic decision isn’t a one-day contract for eternity. It must allow room to adjust, revisit, and renew based on the evolving will of the people. Britain deserves another say – not because democracy was ignored in 2016, but because true democracy doesn’t stop.

• Join the discussion about this post on Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube, Instagram, BlueSky

The post Brexit: What a difference a day made appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

Length of video : 135'

Disclaimer : The interpretation of debates serves to facilitate communication and does not constitute an authentic record of proceedings. Only the original speech or the revised written translation is authentic.
Source : © European Union, 2025 - EP

On Tuesday, the Transport and Tourism Committee voted to extend the EU road transport agreement with Ukraine until the end of 2025 to continue facilitating the transport of goods.
Committee on Transport and Tourism

Source : © European Union, 2025 - EP

On Tuesday, the Transport and Tourism Committee voted to extend the EU road transport agreement with Ukraine until the end of 2025 to continue facilitating the transport of goods.
Committee on Transport and Tourism

Source : © European Union, 2025 - EP

Kinsa
A third-country national who enters the European Union in an unauthorised manner cannot be penalised for facilitation of unauthorised entry solely because he or she is accompanied by his or her minor child

Length of video : 60'

Disclaimer : The interpretation of debates serves to facilitate communication and does not constitute an authentic record of proceedings. Only the original speech or the revised written translation is authentic.
Source : © European Union, 2025 - EP

About a new Issue of Public Reason, a Journal of Political and Moral Philosophy.

• How did It All Begin?

The Volumes contain Papers presented at the ECPR Summer School of Political Epistemology on July 27-31, 2020. The ECPR Standing Group on Kantian Political Thought organised the Summer School. Keele University and Jagiellonian University co-convened the Summer School.

The purpose of the Summer School was to convene scholars at different stages of academic careers. The aims were to meet and discuss key methodological issues in normative political theory, in particular in political epistemology.

There were 9 teaching sessions and 9 delegate presentations during the 5 days. I participated as a Paper presenter, hoping to receive feedback, make contacts, and that a scientific publication could grow out of this project.

Finally, authors from Canada, Estonia, Germany, Poland, the UK, and the US contributed to the Volumes.

• The Content of the Volumes

Jakub Szczepanski (Jagiellonian University) summarises in “Introduction” that the presentations discussed the role of knowledge and justification in politics; the problem of deep disagreement; epistemic injustice; democracy; the role of theory in politically relevant epistemic processes; constructivist and contractual accounts of justice; the role of sincerity and trust in politics; the epistemic value of electoral processes; the use of ignorance in political processes, included populism, propaganda and manipulation; uncertainty, and freedom of speech.

Robert Weston Siscoe (University of Notre Dame), “Epistemic Democracy and the Truth Connection.” The author discusses epistemic democracy and its relationship with truth. Siscoe argues that democracies have a truth-tracking feature and that they trace truth better than other political institutions. The article also discusses what truth is and how to trace it.

Lingyu Jing (University of York), “Speaking Truth to Power? A Foucauldian Theory of Whistleblowing in a Nihilistic World.” The article departs from the view that there is no truth outside power in our post-truth era. Therefore, the argument goes, whistleblowing, that has always been subjective, is even more losing its meaning.

Manuel Knoll (Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München), “The Significance of Deep Disagreements on Justice, Values, and Morals for Political Epistemology.” The author asks whether there is knowledge about values, the good, the just, and the morally right that could be applied to political issues. Knoll argues that there is no ultimate moral knowledge to ethically orientated political decisions but deep disagreements. The article refers to deep disagreements as disagreements in good faith that cannot be resolved through the use of reasons and arguments. Deep disagreements are resistant to rational solution because of a clash of underlying principles or framework propositions. Although political decisions are usually based on some kind of knowledge, the central question of political epistemology is whether there is any knowledge that can ethically orientate political decisions

Jaanika Erne (University of Tartu), “On the Meaning of Democracy in the European Union.” The author focuses on the limits of defining democracy. The aim is to show the functional nature of law, and the politics of meaning. Although law is aiming at being complete, it functions in the context of incompleteness of even the broadest research units – categories. Because empirics in itself cannot explain empirics, an empirical analysis can only circle. This happens even when one increases the number of categories. Only the question „Why?” will unveil the explanatory and interpretive dimensions. 

Kristoffer Ahlstrom-Vij (Birkbeck, University of London), “Political Knowledge: Measurement, Elitism, and Dogmatism. Public Reason.” The author shows the importance of the question of measurability of knowledge specifically in political elections. Ahlstrom-Vij asks what political knowledge is and how is it measured. The article argues that standard political knowledge tests measure political knowledge. The author uses counterfactual modeling to show the difference such knowledge can make to political choice.

John E. Roemer (Yale University), “Epistemological Issues in the Theory of Equality of Opportunity.” The author asks about the optimal policy of equal opportunities. In the end of the article he states that recruiting for social positions on the basis of merit alone is now quite rare.

• About Public Reason

Public Reason characterises itself as a peer-reviewed open-access journal of political and moral philosophy. The journal is also available in print. It publishes articles, book reviews, and discussion notes from all fields of political philosophy and ethics, included political theory, applied ethics, and legal philosophy.

Public Reason publishes also texts from other areas of philosophy if they are relevant for issues of moral and political philosophy.

The journal is committed to a pluralistic approach. It promotes interdisciplinarity and original perspectives, the ideals of critical thinking and clarity. The journal addresses the international philosophical community, and a broader public interested in political and moral philosophy. See the journal’s website at https://publicreason.ro/home

The post Public Reason, Vol. 15, No. 2, 2023 and Vol. 16, No. 1, 2024 appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

On Thursday, MEPs will host prominent Russian opposition voices for a discussion on EU support for Russia’s pro-democracy forces in the new geopolitical context.
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Subcommittee on Human Rights

Source : © European Union, 2025 - EP

On Thursday, MEPs will host prominent Russian opposition voices for a discussion on EU support for Russia’s pro-democracy forces in the new geopolitical context.
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Subcommittee on Human Rights

Source : © European Union, 2025 - EP

On Thursday, MEPs will host prominent Russian opposition voices for a discussion on EU support for Russia’s pro-democracy forces in the new geopolitical context.
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Subcommittee on Human Rights

Source : © European Union, 2025 - EP