European Union

To receive the Brussels Briefing in your inbox every morning, sign up here.

Move over, France and the Netherlands: there might be another big election in the first half of 2017 with the potential of delivering a populist leader to the helm of government in an influential EU state.

Read more

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

Please accept my congratulations as you assume the responsibilities of Prime Minister of the Republic of Estonia.

I am gratified to learn that your new coalition intends to stay the course that Estonia has followed up to now in foreign and security policy, and that EU and NATO membership will continue to be the key pillars of Estonia's security and prosperity. In these difficult times, such stability is beneficial both for Estonia and the European Union.

You are taking up the lead of your government as Estonia moves towards assuming the rotating Presidency of the Council of the EU. I wish you success as you finalise preparations for this challenge, and look forward to working with you in this regard. I also look forward to meeting you at the December European Council.

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

As the shocking outcome of the Brexit referendum made utterly clear, Europe lacks a credible response to populist deceit. When overlapping economic and political crises threaten the wellbeing of ordinary citizens, technocratic arguments cannot inspire enthusiasm for the EU. A more emotional approach is needed. After a prolonged and self-imposed period of silence, it is time for the Erasmus generation to get organised, speak up and take the lead.

The EU’s founding fathers came together grudgingly, having lived through some of Europe’s most abhorrent experiences – totalitarianism, continent-wide conflict, genocide. Today’s Europeans see the continent as a space for freedom. For many young people, studying abroad on an Erasmus scholarship is the first step in breaking into Europe’s cultural complexity, pursuing the most rewarding educational, professional and social opportunities on offer. They see the EU as more than overregulation, fiscal austerity and ineffective responses to crises. By sharing life-changing experiences with friends from all over Europe, the Erasmus generation feels “European” and embraces togetherness. They are not reluctant peers, but the first generation of “Europeans”.

Despite its great attachment to the European cause, the Erasmus generation is one of the least politically-engaged groups. In June, only 36% of Britons aged 18-24 participated in the Brexit referendum, as opposed to 83% of people over 65. A similar phenomenon could be seen at the European Parliament elections in 2014, when a plethora of anti-EU movements seized an impressive number of seats. Several Erasmus alumni are professionals now in their late thirties or early forties. They are experienced and highly-qualified. But with the notable exception of the EU’s foreign policy chief, Federica Mogherini, they haven’t yet taken on roles of high responsibility.

Brexit has shown European integration is not irreversible, and nobody can be complacent about the status quo. The time has come for Europe’s enthusiasts to make their voice heard and be more passionately involved in the making of Europe – finding a middle way between the idealistic arguments of the technocrats and emotive drivel of the populists. Their enthusiasm about the European project may be infectious, and instil some optimism for the future. By highlighting to even the most sceptical European the benefits of economic integration for ordinary citizens, they can refashion the European narrative beyond halting old animosity between war-prone countries, and focus on the emergence of a truly European people.

“The time has come for Europe’s enthusiasts to make their voice heard and be more passionately involved in the making of Europe”

More than 90% of Europeans have no direct experience of the Second World War. Barely 50% have clear memories of the Cold War. Living in a peaceful continent – one that for centuries ran with
blood – is now taken for granted. So Europe needs new arguments to appeal to today’s Europeans. The Erasmus generation proves that Jean Monnet’s original plan of ‘uniting men’ rather than forming coalitions of states was not utopian. But rather than calling on prominent artists and scientists to explain what being European means, as the Juncker Commission recently did, Brussels should turn to its most genuine supporters. An abstract idea of European identity can turn into a reality only as a result of spontaneous, mutually-beneficial and continuous social interactions between individuals from different cultural backgrounds.

To increase its influence in the debate, the Erasmus generation needs to mobilise itself with active citizenship initiatives that transcend traditional parties and lay down the foundations for truly pan-European movements. Being fervent supporters of a fully-integrated Europe, they can push for more solidarity between countries when a crisis strikes or can build momentum for ambitious plans sketched out in Brussels. The Five Presidents’ Report, which called in 2015 for further economic (and, in reality, political) integration, cannot work if imposed from the top without popular backing.

Social networks are powerful tools for mobilising Europe’s optimists, creating groups at a national level that can turn into proper political movements represented in Brussels. With their ideologies becoming outdated, traditional parties are inadequate promoters of the European dream, which was often just a corollary of their political platform. UKIP existed to remove the UK from the EU, the Front National and Alternative für Deutschland question several of the European pillars like labour mobility, and Italy’s Movimento 5 Stelle wants to discard the euro. Why shouldn’t pro-EU voters create their own pan-European movement to defend their values against those who want to destroy them?

“The focus of the European Commission should shift from building transcontinental infrastructure to creating a truly European identity”

But strong engagement is not enough. Numbers matter too. Only five percent of all university graduates participate in this student-exchange programme, so the Erasmus alumni may be perceived as yet another elite. This is against the original spirit of the programme, which aimed to open up the continent to all Europeans. EU optimists should realise that the majority of the population, who have never had educational and professional experiences abroad, see only the costs of European integration. For the group of EU enthusiasts to grow and amplify its voice, Brussels should invest in a comprehensive common linguistic policy, in courses on European civics, and in exchange programmes for adults. As Italian intellectual Umberto Eco once provocatively said, ‘the Erasmus idea should be compulsory – not just for students, but also for taxi drivers, plumbers and any other worker’. Like it or not, the EU makes the most vulnerable, such as the least-skilled, even more vulnerable. To be engaged in a constructive and enlightened debate with the whole population, the Erasmus alumni should only be inspired by the European project, not blinded by it.

The focus of the European Commission should shift from building transcontinental infrastructure to creating a truly European identity, using the Erasmus alumni as a powerful tool to dissipate some of the pessimism surrounding the European project. And even more importantly, EU leaders should persuade younger generations, through ad hoc educational programmes, of the importance of actively participating in the political debate. The Erasmus generation is the living example of what the European Union is all about. It is now the group’s own responsibility to spread the word.

IMAGE CREDIT: RUZANNA/Bigstock.com

The post Time for the Erasmus generation to speak out appeared first on Europe’s World.

On 22 November 2016, the presidency of the Council and the European Parliament reached an informal deal on a regulation to stop the financing of armed groups through trade in conflict minerals. This regulation aims to encourage EU companies to source tin, tantalum, tungsten and gold responsibly. These minerals are widely used in everyday products including mobile phones, cars and jewellery.

"Today proves our determination to strengthen our efforts to prevent armed groups around the world from using trade in minerals to finance their activities and propagate conflict. This regulation will put into practice the EU's commitments to this effect. At the same time, there will be no additional red tape for European companies that trade respecting the rules, while EU citizens can be assured that their purchases do not affect human rights in conflict-ridden countries."

Peter Žiga, Slovak Minister in charge of trade and President of the Council

The regulation carries clear obligations to source responsibly for the 'upstream' part of the production process, which involves the extraction and refining of these minerals. The vast majority of metals and minerals imported to the EU will be covered, while small volume importers will be exempt from these obligations. The regulation also allows companies to become a responsible importer by declaring in writing to the competent authority in a member state that it follows the due diligence obligations set in the regulation. A list of these importers will be published by the Commission. The competent authorities will carry out checks to ensure that EU importers of minerals and metals comply with their due diligence obligations.

In addition, the Commission will carry out a number of other measures to improve due diligence by EU 'downstream' companies, which are those that use these minerals as components to produce goods. The Commission will also draft a handbook including non-binding guidelines to help companies, and especially SME's, with the identification of conflict-affected and high-risk areas.

For the Council, the agreement still has to be confirmed by member states. The presidency is expected to present the agreed text for approval by member states' ambassadors on 7 December 2016.

The Council adopted its position for these negotiations in December 2015.

To receive the Brussels Briefing in your inbox every morning, sign up here.

Message to the world: No, French pollsters are not to blame for failing to predict the stunning outcome of the French rightwing primary last Sunday.

Read more

No longer needed.

I did it!

I participated in the primary of the right and the centre on Sunday around lunchtime. It didn’t even hurt. I paid my contribution of 2 Euros, took the 7 ballot papers, and signed, without any conflict of conscience, the ‘Charte de l’alternance’, confirming that I was in favour of political change (which I am), committed to respect the republican values of the centre and the right (which I am) as well as to the ‘redressement de la France’ whatever that means (‘recovery’? ‘improvement’? ‘rebound’? Fine with me, I consider all of these necessary).

It appears I was one of 600,000 participants who do not traditionally belong to the French right, but who seized the opportunity to cast a vote of Sarkozy avoidance, with the hope to have someone else confront Marine Le Pen in what is likely to be the 2nd round of the presidential elections next May. Sarkozy’s intense fishing for votes on the extreme right was going to make him, in comparison to Le Pen, the ‘Pepsi’ offering a weak alternative to the real ‘Coke’. Yesterday morning, France woke up without Sarkozy, who had declared, somewhat pathetically on Sunday night, that he would withdraw from politics. And it didn’t even hurt.

Surprise winner François Fillon will now face former frontrunner Alain Juppé in the runoff next Sunday. While it is doubtful that the support from the left and centre will be enough to enable Juppé to close yesterday’s 15%-gap within one week, pollsters and media would be well advised not to rule out yet another surprise.

They did it!

The parties of the right and the centre who organised the primaries deserve unanimous respect. The logistical challenge was remarkable, and it was handled professionally, with all lessons learnt from the calamitous experience exactly four years ago, when the internal election of the president of the UMP (now called Les Républicains) was wrought with fraud and incompetency. In other words: a very well-organised event of active citizenship, which mobilised over 4 million voters. Chapeau!

The seven candidates deserve the same respect. The entire campaign, marked by an unprecedented total of three television debates was an exercise in political discussion where everybody refrained from crossing red lines but actually exchanged about the issues they cared most for. What a welcome change from the mud-slinging of the US elections and the dishonesties of the Brexit referendum. France may be a has-been in many respects, and the constitution of the Fifth Republic, as this blog will not get tired of repeating, is the country’s greatest enemy on its road to renewal, but at least democracy still has a taste of democracy. Ouf!

The only persons involved who were clearly not up to the standards are the TV journalists. During the third debate their complacency and smugness was almost embarrassing and their eagerness to ‘spice up’ a seemingly boring debate was totally out of sync with what the 5 million audience was perfectly happy with over two hours and a half, i.e. a serious, boring exchange on serious, boring issues. The candidates even had to fight for the right to develop their thoughts about the European Union, a topic which the journalists were only too keen of brushing aside in order to focus on more ‘sexy’ issues. Nul!

He did it!

Yet, even the intense focus on the primaries was interrupted by political rivals, who carefully chose the same week to catch a part of the limelight and grab media attention for some precious minutes.

The first one was Emmanuel Macron, the former economy minister and deputy general secretary of the Elysée, who announced his candidacy for the presidential elections on Wednesday. Macron, who had founded his own political movement En marche! after having left the government, chose a training centre in one of the Paris suburbs to make his announcement.

En marche! –which smartly reproduces the initials of its founder’s name – claims to have already over 100,000 followers and refuses to be categorised as ‘left’ or ‘right’, or even ‘centre’. It thus tries to replicate the Gaullist aspiration to become a political movement ‘above’ the party system rather than one party among others. Emmanuel Macron is popular – an Odoxa poll for France info revealed that the 57% of the French who spontaneously considered his candidacy ‘a good thing’ are spread across the entire party spectrum.

Macron should not be underestimated. Should François Fillon win the 2nd round of primaries of the right next Sunday, many moderate voters scared by his austerity and ‘putinophile’ attitude would be tempted to have a closer look at Macron’s programme at the presidential election. What remains perfectly uncertain, though, is how a President Macron, without the backing of a full-fledged political party, would be able to obtain a parliamentary majority in the legislative elections in June/July.

She did it!

The champagne is already being served.

And then there was Marine Le Pen. Unusually discreet over the last months, she also chose Wednesday (one day before the primaries TV debate) to unveil her brand-new logo for the presidential campaign. What a feast for semiologists! No mention of the Front National at all! No reminder of the FN’s traditional tricolour ‘flame’ emblem, and not even a reference to her family name! Which not only happens to be the same as her father’s – recently excluded from the party – but also as her niece’s, a much more dangerous adversary in the modernisation of the FN. The logo simply says ‘Marine for president’, while the baseline slogan – ‘In the name of the people’ – is, in her words, ‘a code of conduct and a profession of faith’.

The attention focused mainly, however, on the fact that she dared choose a blue rose as new symbol. A rose! The symbol of the Socialists that Mitterrand put at the centre of his famous inauguration march to the Pantheon in 1981. First she took the Socialists’ working-class electorate, then their most-cherished symbol, next will be the presidency. According to her own explanations the rose is meant to be a symbol of femininity, which came upon her as ‘an evidence’.

What a week! Political battle cries and moments of high-flying symbolism on all channels! Fortunately this blog still has some months to go, which should enable it to digest November’s overdose.

Albrecht Sonntag
@albrechtsonntag

This is post # 4 on the French 2017 election marathon.
Post # 3 here.
Post # 2 here.
Post # 1 here.

The post France 2017: Just do it! appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

This joint Parliamentary workshop between the Committee on Foreign Affairs (AFET), the Committee on Development (DEVE) and the Delegation for relations with Afghanistan aims to inform and to build awareness in the aftermath of the Brussels Conference, which was scheduled on 4-5 October 2016 bringing together more than 70 countries and 20 international organisations and agencies.
The aim of the Brussels Conference was to endorse a realistic reform programme to be implemented by the Afghan government and to ensure continued international political and financial support for political and economic stability, state building and development over the coming four years. Against this background, the workshop will consist of three different panels on political, security and economic/development aspects in Afghanistan, thus covering the cross-Committee nature of the EU-Afghanistan relationship.
Location : Altiero Spinelli (ASP 3G3), Brussels
Further information
Final Programme
Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

AMENDMENTS 1 - 369 - Draft report on an integrated European Union policy for the Arctic
Committee on Foreign Affairs, Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

Committee on Foreign Affairs - meeting 24/11/2016 (AM)
Committee on Foreign Affairs

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

Committee on Foreign Affairs - meeting 24/11/2016 (AM)
Committee on Foreign Affairs

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

To receive the Brussels Briefing in your inbox every morning, sign up here.

By Arthur Beesley

Read more

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Google+ Share on LinkedIn+var sbFBAPPID = '457641991045477';

My family and friends claim that I am rather outspoken. As if it were a negative trait, to call things by their name.

Some time ago, I engaged in a rather animated discussion over the character assassination(s) using media against political personalities. Although the latest of these ‘hits’ was the #2 of the commission, Martin Selmayr, the discussion was sparked by the remarks of Gunther Oettinger against the backdrop of the Donald Trump election.

During this discussion, I was reminded by my colleagues on the editorial team (once again) that when I speak, I must be careful to be “politically correct.”

Otherwise, I was warned, “society” will denounce me.

Which “society” would denounce me, however, we could not agree upon.

My friends, you seen, posit that the “society” legitimised to judge what one says, is the lumpenintelligentsia. It is a small group, or rather a grupuscolo, from within the Brussels bubble of bubbles, the “Sublime Porte” functionaries and their media satellites.

The purpose of their noble existence is to invent ways to “channel” to citizens, the way of life they consider would facilitate the rule of their patrons. They want citizens obedient, happy in their consumerist nirvana, all employees of a big employer and free of any embarrassing thinking.

The essence, as graphic as it may seem, is to destroy the power to imagine and the will to create of individuals and, in turn to characterise those resisting to “surrender” as politically “incorrect”. We are not talking in political terms here; this is not about the ‘right’ or the ‘left’, but about the elements of society that seek its evolution.

However, this small lumpenintelligentsia grupuscolo, is far from connected to the mainstream of society, and is even further from representing or commanding it.

The term “lumpenintelligentsia,” meaning pseudointellectuals, is a modified loan-word from Carl Marx definition of “lumpenproletariat,” deriving from the German word “lumpenproletarier.” Lumpen literally means “miscreant.” In The Eighteenth Brumaire of Luis Napoleon” (1852), Marx describes lumpenproletariat as decayed bourgeois, vagabonds, discharged soldiers, discharged jailbirds, escaped galley slaves, swindlers, mountebanks, lazzaroni, pickpockets, tricksters, gamblers, maquereaux (pimps), brothel keepers, porters, literati, organ grinders, ragpickers, knife grinders, tinkers and beggars.

In one word, what the French call “la bohème”.

With lumpenintelligentsia, we are not quite there, but metaphorically, we are close enough.

The “society” I have come to know is the real thing; and its mainstream component is the ordinary people of our lives. It includes those waiting for the bus or driving their car in the morning to go to work or open their small shop; and they number in the tens and hundreds of millions.

This society couldn’t care less about being politically correct or “racist” as it is intended by the lumpenintelligentsia; it is simply not in their vocabulary. This society simply and unquestionably obeys to the rules of the state, but as far as that. For this society, whatever is not explicitly prohibited by the law, is permitted. After all, this is the essence of our political civilisation.

In civilized societies, there are laws which define the relation among citizens. Unwritten laws are dictated only by the God and in this case, although I am a deep believer, I am an atheist.

The French law, penalizes the denial of the Holocaust. This law did not come out of the blue. It came as a necessity to confront a post World War II reality, because there are a few extremists, some now hidden within the 30% of the Front National, who were using the denial of the Holocaust as a political argument to serve domestic expediencies. In reality most of them not even know what the term “Holocaust” really means. Whether you like or dislike the Jewish people, is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the Holocaust is a historical reality and no one has the right to distort history for reasons of political propaganda.

From that point of departure, however, to the point of calling someone racist and homophobic, because they are opposed to calling the unity of a homosexual couple ‘marriage’, is a vast distance.

Our people that make up our societies are more resilient. The fad of political correctness has over-sensitized us, and in many cases acts as a shield, which does not allow us to discuss certain issues openly and at their core. I have read that in the US, some school districts are offering counselling services to students and staff upset about the election of Donald Trump to the presidency, and that universities have organised ‘cry-ins’.

Our next generation of leaders needs to be grounded, pragmatic, and needs to be tougher than that. God forbid they travel to China or Russia. Circa 50 countries in the world are run by dictatorial regimes, much worse than the worst incarnation of the many words of Donald Trump (even when we group them all together and give an entirely new context to them to create a MechaTrump); who mourns, cries, gets counselling or even complains about these leaders that represent about than half the entire world? Very few.

Political correctness is about not calling someone a ‘fag’, or a ‘nigger’, or not speaking openly against gay marriage or adoption; in the case of politicians, it can be as rudimentary as not calling Chinese people ‘slant-eyes’. And while the media have denounced these sorts of expressions, they aren’t only not extinct, but commonplace in our European societies.

Express yourselves to the fullest. It’s the only way to have real dialogue, engage honestly, and facilitate real change, development, and the evolution of our society.

If people are to understand why using toxic characterisations is damaging, that can only happen through dialogue. If they are to comprehend how issues such as adoption or marriage affect gay couples, and if/how that affects society, that too can only happen through dialogue.

Political correctness should not remain in our societies as a norm of social censorship, for it only manages to bury the issues that cause tension in societies under the rug, to the short-term benefit of the few who experience a numb calmness.

Evolution of society requires a clash of ideas and minds; the alternative is (often misplaced) hibernating resentment and brewing populism.

The post Lumpenintelligentsia vs. Society appeared first on New Europe.

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Google+ Share on LinkedIn+var sbFBAPPID = '457641991045477';

It is worth noting that immediately after his election, President-elect Donald Trump received in his headquarters, at Trump Tower in New York, MEP Nigel Farage. Farage was the first European politician to meet Trump after his election. And yes, the UK is still part of the European Union.

While Kassandra has no idea what the two men really spoke about, it would not be surprising if, among other issues, the two men discussed the architecture of the European Union and how it can be weakened to the advantage of the USA (and of course directly and indirectly to the advantage of Farage himself).

We’ve watched enough episodes of West Wing and House of Cards to know that unless the EU breaks the Farage-Trump bond, winter will be coming to the EU-US relationship.

The post European Union condemned in absentia appeared first on New Europe.

The Monthly Highlights publication provides an overview, at a glance, of the on-going work of the policy departments, including a selection of the latest and forthcoming publications, and a list of future events.
Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Google+ Share on LinkedIn+var sbFBAPPID = '457641991045477';

François Fillon, 62, has come first in the center-right Les Républicains primaries on Sunday, November 20. He is to face Alain Juppé, 71, in a runoff election on November 27. The Former President Nicolas Sarkozy, 61, conceded defeat coming third and has pledged his support to Fillon.

Primaries

Over three million people went to the polls in France to vote in the primaries of the center-right Les Républicains.

Seven candidates were seeking the nomination. The outsiders to the contest were Bruno Le Maire, 47, Nathalie Kosciusko-Morizet, 43, Jean-Francois Cope, 52, and Jean-Frederic Poisson.

These were the first open primaries of the centre-right party.

Anyone willing to pay €2 could vote. The result could very much determine who will be the next President of the Republic. Voting was not restricted to party members.

Former French Prime Minister Francois Fillon votes during the first round of the French right wing party ‘Les Republicains’ (LR) primaries in Paris,  EPA/JEREMY LEMPIN

The nominee could be the next President

Pollsters believe that Socialists have no chance of renewing their hold on the Élysée Palace. The Socialist Party introduced open primaries in 2011, but no one is watching the contest closely – if there is a contest rather than a coronation in January – since they look too divided politically to make a serious bid for The Elysée Palace.

For over a year, the favourite to win the first round of the French Presidential elections is the far-right leader Marine Le Pen. The Front National took 27% in regional elections in December 2015. The Economist estimates Ms. Le Pen has a 40% chance of becoming France’s next president. Recent polls suggest Le Pen could easily reach 30% in the first round of the French Presidential elections.

In theory, she would lose in the second round, as whoever comes second is likely to benefit from the pro-European vote across the board. However, the Brexit and Trump effect have largely discredited similar projections.

French Former President Nicolas Sarkozy in La Baule, France, 04 September 2016. EPA/EDDY LEMAISTRE EPA/EDDY LEMAISTRE

The candidates’ pitch

All candidates were running as “the opponent to Le Pen.”

Nicolas Sarkozy run a campaign as “Le Pen light.” He was seeking to return to the Élysée on a hard security and vehement anti-immigration and anti-Islamic agenda. That line of campaigning was echoed by Jean-Frederic Poisson, who emphasized the Christian identity of France, and Jean-Francois Cope, who wanted the right wing identity to be “uninhibited.”

Sarkozy was not merely polarizing but also tainted with scandals, most recently accused of taking money from Muammar Gaddafi for his 2007 Presidential campaign.

Alain Juppe submitted his candidacy as a unifying figure, willing to defend the notion of a multicultural albeit Republican France. Juppe emphasizes the private nature of religious belief and remains committed to multiculturalism. Pollsters considered him the front-runner, but he carried much of the “establishment luggage” that is unpopular. Juppe has been convicted of illegal party financing and he is not perceived as charismatic.

Francois Fillon, 62, is offering “blood and tears.” He wants deep market reforms, of the kind compared to Margaret Thatcher. He found his constituency crowded with both the “technocrat” Bruno Le Maire and the “liberal” Nathalie Kosciusko-Morizet.

The post Fillion wins first round of Les Républicains primaries and faces Juppé next Sunday appeared first on New Europe.

Fullscreen Mode...

Interested in our weekly print edition?

Our print edition is available to our Insider Extra subscribers and Print edition subscribers. 

If you are already subscribed in one of these programmes, please log in from the top of the page.

If you are a New Europe Insider, you can quickly upgrade to gain access to our print editions (including more than 1000 back issues). Just sign up to any of the other two subscription programmes and your fee will be prorated.

If you are not a New Europe subscriber, please take a look at our subscription offers. You can have premium access to New Europe for under €2 per week!

/*468421-start*/ #btnsx-468421{} #btnsx-468421 .btnsx-text-primary{} #btnsx-468421{} #btnsx-468421:hover{} #btnsx-468421{0000} #btnsx-468421:hover{} #btnsx-468421{-webkit-box-shadow:none;box-shadow:none;} #btnsx-468421:hover{-webkit-box-shadow:none;box-shadow:none;} /*468421-end*/

Russia’s Economic Development Minister Alexey Ulyukayev was detained earlier this week on suspicion of taking a $2 million bribe that allowed Russian oil giant Rosneft to wrap up the deal on purchasing the government’s 50% stake in Bashneft, TASS reported.

But the detention of one of the Kremlin’s top officials is unlikely to affect the energy deal, Slava Smolyaninov, a strategist at BCS, a brokerage firm in Moscow, told New Europe by phone on November 15. “It’s hard to say right now. It appe...

This story is part of New Europe's Premium content.

To Read the Full Story, Subscribe or Sign In from the ↑ Top of the Page ↑

 

Following a major defeat at the November 18 EU Justice and Home Affairs Council, Slovakia has promised to return to the table with a new proposal after its initial “effective solidarity” proposal was rejected by most ministers of the 28 European Union member states.

Robert Kaliňák, Slovakia’s Deputy Prime Minister and interior minister, appeared confident that the Slovakian EU Presidency will be successful in overcoming the danger of ultimately having mandatory quotas imposed on all member st...

This story is part of New Europe's Premium content.

To Read the Full Story, Subscribe or Sign In from the ↑ Top of the Page ↑