European Union

https://tvnewsroom.consilium.europa.eu/uploads/council-images/thumbs/uploads/council-images/remote/http_7e18a1c646f5450b9d6d-a75424f262e53e74f9539145894f4378.r8.cf3.rackcdn.com/edf55d42-1675-11e5-b0a9-bc764e083742_5.84_thumb_169_1529571591_1529571591_129_97shar_c1.jpg

The Annual meeting of the Board of Governors of the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) takes place on 21 June 2018, in Luxembourg.

Download this video here.

Length of video : 218'
You may manually download this video in WMV (2.5Gb) format

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, 2018 - EP

Commission v Malta
Environment and consumers
By adopting a certain derogation regime allowing the capture of seven species of wild birds, Malta has failed to fulfil its obligations under EU law

M
Area of Freedom, Security and Justice
According to Advocate General Wathelet, the provisions of the Qualification Directive allowing a Member State to refuse or to revoke refugee status are compatible with EU law

Length of video : 53'
You may manually download this video in WMV (439Mb) format

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, 2018 - EP

Length of video : 54'
You may manually download this video in WMV (616Mb) format

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, 2018 - EP

Perhaps the least remarked aspect of this week’s Parliamentary shenanigans has been the distraction from the loss of another week of time to reach an Article 50 deal.

Important as a meaningful vote in Parliament is, it does not intrinsically produce an increased chance of a deal being reached. Indeed, the confirmation of a push-back of the publication of the government’s White Paper until July means that not only can there not be a report of substantial progress at next week’s European Council, but also that reaching a deal for October’s meeting is also highly unlikely.

The reasoning behind this is simply that Article 50 has not and will not progress by focused moments of progress, but by gradual processes of consensus-building and compromise. Think back to last autumn and the Joint Report: that emerged from a series of negotiations, referrals back to domestic audiences and then confirmation by press conference.

That’s because while the UK government and the Commission might be in the negotiating room, they represent various constituencies, who have to buy into the proposals that emerge from that room. ‘Speaking for’ others isn’t the same as ‘deciding for them’.

In addition, the EU has hived off Brexit discussions to separate sections of European Councils, without the UK present, so getting national leaders around a table needs specific and special planning: it can’t easily be shoehorned into the agenda.

In practice, that means that whatever the government comes up with in July, it will take time for other member states to digest, then agree a common position with the Commission, then debate with the UK, then find common ground, then agree a means of moving things on, then entering several rounds of to-and-fro, and only then agreeing some text. Throw in the delays caused by holidays and October looks really very near.

“But they could ditch their holidays!”, you cry. Well, maybe the negotiating teams will do that, but that doesn’t help, not unless everyone else in their constituencies does the same. And given that Brexit remains low on the list of EU policy dilemmas right now, it’s unlikely to happen.

But so what? If we run towards Christmas then does it really matter?

Yes, it does matter, and for several reasons.

The biggest thing here is time, or its lack. Already the scant two years of Article 50 has seen the loss of a couple of months to the snap General Election, a couple more to the disagreements on ‘sufficient progress’ on Phase I, and yet another couple more to the lack of paperwork coming out of London since Easter. And that was on the parts of the agenda that weren’t the most difficult.

Leaving a deal until Christmas means there’s almost no scope for any further delay or bust-up, simply because there isn’t enough time: recall the deal needs not only to be signed, but also ratified by 29 March, and that can’t be done at the drop of the proverbial hat.

And yet we have to assume that delays and bust-ups will occur, if only because of the issues at stake. In particular, the UK has to make some crucial decisions on what it is seeking, which in turn are likely to mean running over some part of the red lines currently in position. Even an approach of creating new means of kicking topics into some longer grass will incur consequences that might be politically difficult to carry, especially with a Parliament that looks ever less conducive to letting things slide.

Which brings the next big issue: less time for a deal means less time to make a meaningful vote meaningful. The closer to 29 March that the government brings a package to Parliament, the less realistic scope there is to do anything other than rubber stamp it. If nothing else, the inclusion of a departure date in the Withdrawal Bill – which rescinds the 1972 European Community Act, on which all UK acceptance of the EU’s legal order rests – means that even asking for an Article 50 extension requires an additional Parliamentary procedure to amend that.

In short, it’s a game of chicken, with the risk of a no-deal exit as a price of failure to swerve.

Given that no group is seriously advancing a no-deal outcome as desirable, or even tolerable, that represents a real issue. Whether those involved appreciate that danger or how their (in)actions now are making that more likely next spring is open to discussion.

 

The post Conspiring to cock up? appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

DRAFT OPINION on the draft general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2019
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Brando Benifei

Source : © European Union, 2018 - EP

The recently published Europe’s Brexit: EU Perspectives on Britain’s Vote to Leave concludes with several key themes about how the other 27 Member States and EU institutions approached and continue to handle Brexit.

As should be more than clear to many by now, the story of Brexit cannot be told from a British perspective alone. Nor can it be fold from one European perspective or from looking at a select few EU member states such as Germany or Ireland. Each of the other 27 EU member states, along with the EU’s various institutions, have been home to individual debates about Brexit, with each reflecting that country (or institutions) interests, links with the UK, and place in the EU.

Europe’s Brexit looks more closely at these multiple European views of Brexit. As Kevin Featherstone makes clear in his endorsement, taking into account these European views of Brexit is important ‘if you want to understand the negotiations and the possible outcome better. Ignore it if you prefer costly assumptions and think in one-dimensional terms.’

The book, with a foreword from former European Council President Herman Van Rompuy, is the product of a network of researchers in universities and think tanks across Europe dating back to 2013, the year David Cameron gave his Bloomberg Speech to which the origins of the 2016 referendum can most clearly be traced.

From 2013 onwards, the aim of the network was not only to broaden analysis beyond the UK but to ensure that the analysis covered as wide a range of countries as possible. Through publications with the DGAP, the LSE’s EUROPP blog and the LSE’s Brexit blog, the network followed the idea of a referendum become reality, the UK pursue a renegotiation, the shock of a referendum vote for Leave, and the EU’s response as it came to terms with the departure of the UK. The book, reports and blog series leave three sets of conclusions.

Europe’s Britain

Europe’s history of Brexit is a story of 27 different Member State governments and the EU’s institutions attempting to deal with a partner they all wanted to keep inside the EU tent. Britain might have been ‘an awkward partner’ but it was not ‘the awkward partner’, as some misquote the title of Stephen George’s 1990 book. Whether in balancing against French and German domination of the EU or pushing forward with European integration in a number of areas, the rest of the EU often (but not always) found the UK a constructive partner.

However, UK governments, especially since 2010, have increasingly appeared determined to isolate the UK. Why the UK did this is a story of growing British (and especially Conservative Party) political ignorance and disdain for the EU, growing UK isolation because of changing trade and Member State alliances within the EU, and a changing EU where the Eurozone was increasingly the centre of EU politics.

The UK failed to develop the institutional links and political outlook that would have connected it more closely with the rest of the EU. As a result, British politicians especially have increasingly taken the EU and its positions for granted, if they have thought about them at all. Witness how until the Brexit negotiations got underway, the UK’s debate about what new relationship to seek with the remaining EU rarely if ever considered what the other 27 Member States might think or agree to.

Too often British debate has been one of ‘Britain’s Europe’ without ever thinking much about ‘Europe’s Britain’. Even today, some in the UK – including in HM Government – struggle to understand why and how the EU is approaching Brexit and Britain as they do. As a result, they have struggled to understand how the rest of the EU has been as united as it has been. They have failed to appreciate, as touched on in Europe’s Brexit, that Brexit has not been seen as a test of EU-UK relations, but as a test of the EU’s unity.

Europe’s Brexit Themes

Five themes can be identified throughout Europe’s Brexit. First, if the rest of the EU has been united in its response to Brexit then the reason lies in a concern amongst the elites of many other EU Member States that it would fuel populism, Euroscepticism and illiberalism in the rest of the EU. In some Member States, Brexit may have helped drive up support for the EU, but populism, Euroscepticism and illiberalism remain strong.

Second, this political concern did not mean the governments of the other 27 Member States overlooked economic calculations. The UK ran a trade deficit with 23 of the 27 Member States, making the UK an important market for a majority of the EU. But that importance varies, and as is made clear throughout the book, maintaining the unity and coherence of the remaining EU Single Market is of greater concern.

Third, this is not to say Britain is unimportant. The UK is an important trade, security, social, and political partner to many other EU Member States. That importance, however, is relative to the importance of the remaining EU and close relations with its remaining leading players, especially Germany.

Fourth, the UK’s importance may be best understood by viewing it in terms of the importance of Brexit to the EU. Brexit is not necessarily at the top of the ‘to do’ list when it competes with problems in the Eurozone, Schengen, in relations with Russia and the USA, growing levels of illiberalism across Europe, to say nothing of domestic problems in various Member States.

Fifth, there is some debate elsewhere in the EU about how well the Union has so far performed over Brexit, especially compared to the other problems it faces. There are important lessons to be learnt, not least what role the rest of the EU may have played in helping create a situation in which the citizens of one of its largest Member States voted to Leave.

The EU’s Post-Brexit Europe

Debates in the UK, and to some extent elsewhere in the EU, about the future EU-UK relationship can overlook three things. First, debates similar to those in the UK have been held in the rest of the EU about the pros and cons of the Norway model, a Free Trade Agreement and so forth. If there is one aspect about a new relationship that is repeated throughout the book, it is that the UK’s dreams of getting a better deal than when it was in – the ‘having your cake and eating it’ option – is firmly rejected. As Donald Tusk made clear: ‘Buy a cake, eat it and see if it is still there on the plate.’

Whatever new relationship is agreed – and it’s worth recalling the EU and UK have not even formally begun negotiations over it – one of the problems Europe’s Brexit points to is the ratification minefield that lies ahead. If the new relationship is, as expected, a mixed agreement then it will need the approval of the other 27 Member States national parliaments, which in some cases will entail both upper and lower houses of parliament and, in the case of Belgium, the five regional parliaments. So far, the EU has succeeded in compartmentalizing Brexit into a technical and legal process, with the European Commission doing most of the work. It’s a reminder of how the EU can be a very effective way of depoliticising an issue through EU-level arrangements that can weaken the input from the domestic politics of the Member States. Ratification of treaties and agreements such as that which it is hoped the EU and UK will agree, is one of those moments when the domestic politics of Member States kicks back in.

It’s a reminder of the final concluding point of Europe’s Brexit: that making Brexit a success is about securing three sets of successful Brexits. First, successful deals over the UK leaving the EU and a new EU-UK relationship. Second, for the UK to come to terms domestically with the domestic causes of the Brexit vote. Third, for the remaining EU – 27 Member States and the EU’s institutions – to come to terms with a changed Union. For some of those remaining 27, a successful Brexit for the remaining EU is not just one that holds together, moves forward, and delivers for its citizens. It’s also one that avoids becoming a Union dominated by a ‘Carolingian model’ of France and Germany.

Europe’s Brexit: EU Perspectives on Britain’s Vote to Leave is out now from Agenda.

This blog post first appeared on the LSE Brexit Blog.

The post Europe’s Brexit: a successful outcome of negotiations for all? appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

REPORT on a European Parliament recommendation to the Council, the Commission and the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy on the negotiations on the EU-Azerbaijan Comprehensive Agreement
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Norica Nicolai

Source : © European Union, 2018 - EP

RECOMMENDATION on the draft Council decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the Union, of the Comprehensive and Enhanced Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Armenia, of the other part
Committee on Foreign Affairs
László Tőkés

Source : © European Union, 2018 - EP

REPORT Towards an EU external strategy against early and forced marriages – next steps
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Charles Goerens

Source : © European Union, 2018 - EP

REPORT on violation of the rights of indigenous peoples in the world, including land grabbing
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Francisco Assis

Source : © European Union, 2018 - EP

REPORT containing a motion for a non-legislative resolution on the draft Council decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the Union, of the Comprehensive and Enhanced Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Armenia, of the other part
Committee on Foreign Affairs
László Tőkés

Source : © European Union, 2018 - EP

Length of video : 168'
You may manually download this video in WMV (1.9Gb) format

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, 2018 - EP

Length of video : 27'
You may manually download this video in WMV (322Mb) format

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, 2018 - EP

Length of video : 139'
You may manually download this video in WMV (1.5Gb) format

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, 2018 - EP

Length of video : 127'
You may manually download this video in WMV (1.1Gb) format

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, 2018 - EP

Length of video : 166'
You may manually download this video in WMV (1.6Gb) format

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, 2018 - EP

Gnandi
Justice and Home Affairs
Member States are entitled to adopt a return decision as soon as an application for international protection is rejected, provided that the return procedure is suspended pending the outcome of an appeal against that rejection