European Union

The European Parliament is in recess over the summer holidays from 24 July 2017 to 20 August 2017.

Source : © European Union, 2017 - EP

Badica and Kardiam v Council
External relations
The General Court upholds the decision freezing the funds of the Badica and Kardiam companies in the Central African ‘conflict diamonds’ case

Today, UK in a Changing Europe publishes its report on “The Cost of No Deal“, to which I’ve contributed. Here I consider some of the wider ramifications.

There is one than one way that the Article 50 process might fail to reach an agreement and it is useful to consider each of these in turn, since they each carry quite varied political and reputational costs and benefits.

The most obvious path is that by late 2018 it becomes clear that there has not been much progress on substantive negotiations under Article 50 and that no amount of extension to the two-year period that ends in March 2019 will unblock this. By mutual agreement, both sides let the clock run out and the UK leaves at the end of the period.

Much will turn here on who did what and who blocked what. For both the UK and the EU, there will be considerable political and popular fall-out – all the more given that the start of the negotiations in summer 2017 appears to be relatively constructive – so there will be a strong desire to paint the other side as the spanner in the works.

The UK is unlikely to come out of such a battle of framing well: on the experience to date, it has been much less clear about its desired outcomes or its detailed positions, so the EU will be able to point to its much more public and visible approach as one of being transparent from the start. If the UK had problems with any of these points, then it had two years to make that clear.

Even if provisional agreement is reached on some issues – citizens’ rights, for example – everything is more than likely to lapse in the absence of an overall agreement, so those who thought they might miss the chaos of a ‘no deal’ outcome would also be sucked back in, raising questions about whether either side will make unilateral commitments.

More importantly, the absence of an agreed set of terms for withdrawal will leave the UK with a long list of uncertainties (discussed elsewhere) that will consume the very large majority of governmental and parliamentary business for some years to come, potentially enlivened with cases brought before international courts for compensation.

The failure to secure an agreement will also complicate international trade deals with third parties, who will be uncertain not only about the UK’s legal position, but also about whether it is a desirable negotiating partner: again the shadow of Article 50 will be long and will condition much thinking by others about how much British negotiators can be moved in their preferences.

However, the mutual impasse scenario is one that still leaves a fig-leaf of decency for the UK, since it requires the EU also to become implicated in the decision to run out the clock. It is not hard to imagine the political and media debate in such a situation, where ‘Brussels’ is to blame in large part: only if there has been a substantial organisation of soft- and anti-Brexiteers politically and a swing in public opinion in a similar direction will that translate into further problems for the government of the day. This is not to suggest it will be an easy option, but rather one that is highly fraught and uncertain, with no one response holding the upper hand.

By contrast, if Article 50 ends without agreement because of a unilateral British decision to remove itself from negotiations – maybe even to declare a unilateral and immediate withdrawal from the EU – then all of the costs and problems outlined above will be very much stronger.

In this situation, the uncertainties of the UK’s legal position would be much magnified, raising internal political debate about what might happen next. Of course, for this to come about, there would have to have been some governmental and parliamentary debate, and possibly a vote on the course of action, but given the current make-up of the House of Commons it is hard to see how any majority might operate with any stability or durability. In any case, the pressure from all sectors of business, citizens and others would consume the government to provide some clarity about the status of law and regulation. In addition, third parties might consider that a UK which up-ended its membership of the EU in such a manner might not be one with which to conclude any new treaty commitment.

This is perhaps the key point to take from any consideration of the political and reputational aspects: Brexit is not just about the EU. How the UK acts now and through the rest of the process, whatever the outcome, matters.

This breaks down into three basic elements.

Firstly, the British political system has already been thrown about by Brexit, which is likely to be the defining political event of this period. The choices made by the Conservative party, and Theresa May in particular, have put the country on a track that requires a satisfactory conclusion (i.e. a deal). Without it, there will be further profound dislocations in the party political system and more widespread discontent with the failure of the establishment. Since the UK would be in a position of being outside the EU, the current oppositional views to the government – softening or aborting Brexit all together – would no longer be viable, leaving all sides in a policy cul-de-sac.

Secondly, the EU would still be there. This basic truism is often forgotten in the British debate, but in the absence of a deal, it is inconceivable that there would be no dealings between the UK and the EU. If nothing else, the British Prime Minister and ministers will regularly bump EU counterparts at NATO, UN, G7, WTO and many other meetings: the EU has always been part of a bigger framework. As such, while it might be tempting to blame each other for a failure to agree a deal, this might in turn poison other relationships.

Finally, failure to agree will also compromise what little debate there is about the future path of the UK. The EU referendum did nothing more than conclude that the UK didn’t want to be a member of the EU; it did not set out a clear alternative path. If Article 50 does not produce that path, then the country is likely to find itself in an extended period of dislocation, short on friends, lacking in credibility as an international partner, and generally low on options.

The post The political and reputational costs of ‘no deal’ appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

At the end of 2015 the number of refugees worldwide stood at 65 million. There has never been more. Most people flee from their home countries to neighbouring ones, with Iraqis and Syrians seeking refuge in Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey; the efforts of these host countries in accommodating refugees cannot be adequately appreciated. It is hard to imagine the views of people in these countries when we in Europe claim that our continent is ‘full’.

When discussing refugees arriving in Europe, people often speak of a ‘river’ or ‘stream’ of refugees; sometimes  even a ‘wave’, or a ‘tsunami’. This imagery transforms those who arrive into an indistinct mass; it deprives them of their individuality. It creates the impression of being faced with a natural disaster. But this situation is anything but a natural disaster. It was caused by humans, and the wars which forced so many from their homes. Only humans can alleviate it.

Cologne has been at the centre of public debate about refugee accommodation, notably in the light of the 2015 New Year’s Eve attacks against hundreds of girls and women by men predominantly from North Africa. Our city has, however, upheld its welcoming culture, and a wealth of initiatives continue to encourage the integration of those residents awarded refugee status, now numbering more than one percent of the city’s population.

“If integration works once, it increases the chances that it will be successful again”

Cologne has just over one million inhabitants, and our population grows by several thousand each year. Over the past two years nearly 14,000 refugees have arrived in Cologne, as well as several hundred children and teenagers who were travelling alone. Some weeks we had to take in 400 people who arrived without prior warning. It goes without saying that these arrivals constituted an immense challenge. First, we had to find safe accommodation, food and clothing. Next, language courses had to be organised, as well as school and kindergarten places.

But I believe that, thanks to a joint effort with our city’s associations and organisations, we have managed it quite well. We have set up approximately 180 preparatory classes, and about half of arrivals are housed in adequate living spaces.

We only succeeded in this endeavour because we started to create the appropriate framework conditions for hosting refugees many years ago. Over the past two decades committees have been set up to establish a collective consensus on integration measures. We worked to ensure adequate public funding from the State of North Rhine-Westphalia and the German federal government in Berlin. We established guidelines for the provision of accommodation and a roundtable to create societal consensus on issues involving refugees. We established a clear common understanding: it is worthwhile investing in all people, even if they do not have the chance of being granted permanent residency.

All of these actions have been helpful in mobilising civic power. A considerable number of Cologne citizens have volunteered to help, including many church members. Among the volunteers were those who had arrived in Cologne as refugees or so-called ‘guest workers’ – something I was particularly pleased about. They were integrated; now they help integrate others. What this demonstrates is that if integration works once, it increases the chances that it will be successful again.

For a city that grows every year the procurement of housing alone poses a challenge. Our financial resources are limited. The coffers of German local authorities are not plentiful, and this applies in particular to Cologne. We need billions of euros to invest in the creation of housing and other infrastructure to keep up with our growing population, but we do not command the necessary financial resources.

From the start, we in Cologne have aimed to house refugees throughout the city, rather than confining them to accommodation outside the city gates. But living space is limited, so we have had to resort to offering places in container villages, sports halls and old hotels. Nevertheless, it is our priority to move as many refugee families as possible into regular flats, and avoid ‘ghettoisation’. Having refugees live among us allows us to get to know each other and engage in everyday interactions, which is the best way to prevent segregation, envy and resentment. This is evident from the lack of support for right-wing populists – of which, unfortunately, there are quite a few across Germany – in areas with a large migrant population.

If 14,000 people from a completely different cultural background suddenly come to live in Cologne, whether temporarily or permanently, existing residents will experience the stress of a new situation. But we must never forget: our stress is insignificant compared to the stress of those who were forced to flee. 14,000 refugees is a lot of people, but for a city of one million this amounts to a mere 1.3%. Look at this another way: imagine 80 people sitting together in a restaurant when one more person enters. He or she will be sure to find a place.

Of course we must face the negative side: the appalling New Year’s Eve attacks, which remain unsolved. This is a bitter fact, not least for the female victims. Some of the perpetrators had fled from their countries. But they were a tiny minority of all refugees. And it is never right to blame a group as a whole for crimes committed by a few wrongdoers. The Cologne attacks have polarised the discussion on hosting refugees in Germany, and provided a platform for those who oppose it. But the influx of refugees over the past few years has neither changed the security situation, nor our willingness to welcome them in Cologne.

“Europe is first and foremost a continent of cities”

It is my conviction that refugees are an asset to us, even in an economic sense. In Germany refugees are often divided in the qualified ones that we want to keep, and the less qualified that we do not. I believe this to be wrong. In my opinion, each and every one can help us; we can provide education and training to everybody. Germany has an ageing population and will soon suffer from a shortage of skilled workers. This is another reason why we cannot afford to marginalise migrants.

We must also consider that most refugees have lost everything: their relatives, their homes, their communities. But they have not lost their skills and knowledge. They have undertaken a journey into the unknown to improve living conditions for themselves and their children.

The European Union has not yet been able to create the necessary solidarity between its member states to handle the arrival of refugees properly, and this lack of solidarity has driven the EU into a deep crisis.

We, the cities, cannot sit back and wait for this to be resolved. Europe is first and foremost a continent of cities. We have to give constructive answers each day to deal with people’s concerns and problems. The Social Affairs Forum of EUROCITIES – a network of major European cities- recently launched a ‘Solidarity Cities’ initiative. It is a model for progress and a sign of hope that European solidarity will grow from the ground upwards.

IMAGE CREDIT: strassenstriche.net

The post Cities can create European solidarity and trust between residents and refugees appeared first on Europe’s World.

Source : © European Union, 2017 - EP

The European Parliament is in recess over the summer holidays from 24 July 2017 to 20 August 2017.

Source : © European Union, 2017 - EP

The European Parliament is in recess over the summer holidays from 24 July 2017 to 20 August 2017.

Source : © European Union, 2017 - EP

The European Parliament is in recess over the summer holidays from 24 July 2017 to 20 August 2017.

Source : © European Union, 2017 - EP

The European Parliament is in recess over the summer holidays from 24 July 2017 to 20 August 2017.

Source : © European Union, 2017 - EP

https://tvnewsroom.consilium.europa.eu/uploads/council-images/thumbs/uploads/council-images/remote/http_7e18a1c646f5450b9d6d-a75424f262e53e74f9539145894f4378.r8.cf3.rackcdn.com/26f249c2-6c94-11e7-b51e-bc764e093073_43.51_thumb_169_1501157203_1501157203_129_97shar_c1.jpg

Activities of Federica Mogherini, High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy.

Download this video here.

On 19 July 2017, the Permanent Representatives Committee (Coreper) endorsed, on behalf of the Council, a mandate for negotiations on a regulation regarding the qualification standards, status and  protection granted to refugees and persons eligible for subsidiary protection. On the basis of this mandate, the presidency will start negotiations with the European Parliament as soon as possible.

"The reform of the common European asylum system is a fundamental part of our comprehensive migration policy and therefore of utmost importance for Europe. Besides achieving equal rights and obligations for asylum seekers and beneficiaries of international protection across Europe, this will also reduce secondary movements and help those genuinely in need of protection. The actual amount of social payments will still be in the hands of each member state”, said Andres Anvelt, minister of interior of Estonia, following today's agreement on qualification and protection standards. “I also want to pay tribute to the Maltese presidency for their huge work on this file”, added Minister Anvelt.

EU ambassadors endorsed the text of the mandate on the understanding that the parts relating to other files of the common European asylum system (CEAS) reform will be revisited once there is agreement on those proposals. 

The main objectives of this draft regulation are: 

• ensuring that member states will apply common criteria for the identification of persons genuinely in need of international protection
• ensuring the same common set of rights is available for those persons in all member states

 Once the regulation is adopted, all applicants should be equally treated in all EU member states, therefore helping avoid secondary movements. 

The draft regulation defines the standards for qualification both for refugee status and for subsidiary protection. It also lays down the elements to be taken into account in the assessment of an application. 

The draft regulation details the protection granted to beneficiaries, including the duration of the permits and their rights in relation to access to employment, education, social security, healthcare, accommodation and integration measures. It limits the right to reside of beneficiaries of international protection to the member state which granted them the protection. 

The draft regulation also includes specific elements to take account of the situation of minors, in particular unaccompanied minors. 

Background 

Following its Communication of 6 April 2016 on the reform of the common European asylum system, the Commission presented in May and in July seven legislative proposals, including the above-mentioned proposal, with a view to: 

• improving the functioning of CEAS by eliminating differing treatment of asylum seekers and varying recognition rates among member states;
• reducing secondary movements and contributing to a fairer distribution among the member states of the responsibility to offer protection to those in need.

  

An art exhibition in Germany illustrated the tragic price of the migration crisis that is now effecting Europe. The theme of an art installation called Lampedusa 361 was about refugees who have drowned in the Mediterranean, while trying to make the sea crossing from Africa to Europe. The installation which has been exhibited in Dresden and Düsseldorf is not just a piece of artwork, but also acts as a memorial to those who have died and a warning to all of us.

The exhibition consisted of posters which were laid out rather like beach mats or towels on the ground in an open space. The posters were of photographs of the graves of refugees who died off the coast of southern Italy. Candles were placed on the ground beside the mats, which created the impression of actually being in a cemetery where the refugees had been buried. In the year 2016 over 5000 men, women, and children died while trying to cross the Mediterranean often in old leaky overloaded fishing boats. These events pose the question of why are these people going to such desperate measures to reach Europe?

Throughout history refugees have fled the terror of persecution and wars, which continues to the present day: at the time of writing there are wars going in South Sudan, Nigeria, Yemen, Iraq and Syria. These conflicts have created millions of refugees who have lost everything, but added to this is the phenomenon of climate change. Both of these problems of climate change and wars are global, and could be described as the force that is pushing the mass migration from the south to the north.

The mass migration is a symptom of a dying planet, where large areas of the planet are becoming uninhabitable. The human species is killing the planet and itself at the same time. Europe can no longer cope with mass immigration, but mass immigration is not the fault of the immigrants, everybody will do what they have to do to survive. If EU member states – including the UK irrespective of Brexit – are selling armaments to Saudi Arabia and other oil and gas producing states in the Middle East, then Europe is helping to make the problem of mass immigration worse.

Sources
http://lampedusa361.de/

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/09/saudi-arabia-becomes-worlds-biggest-arms-importer

http://www.thenational.scot/news/eu-to-probe-saudi-arms-trade.13087

©Jolyon Gumbrell 2017

The post Climate change and war appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

Rund zwei Wochen nach der Festnahme von zehn Menschenrechtsaktivisten in der Türkei wurde gegen sechs von ihnen Untersuchungshaft verhängt. Darunter sind die Landesdirektorin von Amnesty International (AI), ein deutscher und ein schwedischer Berater. Ihnen wird die Unterstützung einer Terrororganisation vorgeworfen. Welche Reaktion ist jetzt richtig?

Anders als versprochen kann US-Präsident Trump seine geplante Gesundheitsreform nicht durchsetzen. Die Republikaner sind bei dem Thema so zerstritten, dass sie eine Abstimmung im Senat abgesagt haben. Ihr Mehrheitsführer will nun zunächst über die komplette Abschaffung von Obamacare abstimmen lassen. Europas Medien sind skeptisch, dass die Probleme so gelöst werden können.