European Union

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

The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Federica Mogherini expressed her views on Trump election and the EU-Turkey relationship in an interview for Channelling Brussels.

Mogherini took the chance to reassure Teri Schultz that the ties between the Unites States of America and the European Union will not be negatively affected by the election of Donald Trump to the position of President of the United States.

On Trump Election

The US- EU relationship is not a matter of concern for the Commission’s Vice-President, which she defines now as “much deeper than any political turn.”

“We will have the responsibility to make this work” stressed Mogherini.

“We also know as Europeans that sometimes, what you do and what you say in an electoral campaign is different than what you do as a President and we will have to see what happens from 21st of January in Washington” highlighted Mogherini, in an attempt to downplay the concerns raised by the outcome of the elections.

“When the world will be looking at Europe, my impression is that also across the Atlantic the attention on Europe will grow, and we will have to be able to live up to this responsibility, establishing good ties with the new US administration when it will come in.”

Mogherini also highlighted the results that have been achieved through the mutual cooperation, especially with the precedent administration. “We still believe very strongly that the interests of the European and the American people are very much the same, and so we see the need to continue to work together.”

“I cannot hide and I do not hide [that] we worked incredibly well with the [Obama] administration, in particular on the many different crises that we have around us but also on the big global issues like climate change, the sustainable development goals and the Iran deal”.

On EU strength

The European Union Foreign Policy Chief explained that a Trump election does not necessarily entail negative forecast for the future, and urged a change in mindset in analyzing the situation.

“Europe has to rediscover his strength, and I would even say its greatness in this moment. What I see is always that Europeans and EU is much more appreciated from the outside than from the inside. Maybe this is the right chance for us to realize how much power we have, to role we should play, and this can be based only in a united confident EU. So I see this also as an opportunity for Europeans to come together in a much stronger way, to be more self-confident, to work more on their global profile.”

Mogherini named some concrete actions to strengthen the role of Europe globally. “I presented some options on how to work more on the EU defense for instance, in complementarity with NATO. We have to use more our tools.”

When asked if she was disappointed about not seeing finally a woman as President of the US, Mogherini was confident that there will be other possibilities ahead.

“America has already managed to break an important glass ceiling, probably more than glass ceiling electing Barack Obama as the first black American president, and American stays that great country that managed to show the way toward emancipation and equality”.

When asked whether she would feel awkward meeting President Trump knowing the things he said about women, Mogherini laughed and replied: “I am Italian… we have seen it all!”

On EU-Turkey relationship

After the publication of the Commission report on the state of play of EU-Turkey accession talks, Mogherini expresses serious worries and concerns about the current situation in Turkey.

“We have very worried, we have been talking about this concerns constantly with Turkish authorities, I was even this morning (last Wednesday) on the telephone with the Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu… We work day and night to try to guarantee that the rule of law, human rights, the independence of the judiciary, media freedom, all the standards that are required not only to be a member of the EU or a candidate country but also for being a member of the Council of Europe – which Turkey is – are respected in the country”.

Mogherini also excluded categorically any harsh tone behind the curtains in dealing the issue.

“The guiding lines of my work in this respect in these days is passing a very clear and united European message to our Turkish friends. They have to understand that this is the entire European Union, and not just one or two officials or ministers, with its institutions and its 28 member states that are asking Turkey where does it want to go. If Turkey intentions are still that of being close of the EU and the end of the process member of the European Union than their daily choices have to be consequent.”

When asked about the possible consequences of this situation, Mogherini said that Turkey remains a partner for working on common shared issues like Syria and Cyprus, or in tackling the refugee crisis, and that currently there are not going to be any repercussion on the membership talks.

“The EU is not going to take its relationship with Turkey only under the angle of the refugee crisis. For us, basic and fundamental are the respect of human rights and the rule of law. Is now up to turkey to tell us which direction is up to take. I am not worried about the migration deal, for the moment is holding. Priority number one for me in this moment is the work we can do together for Syria and the work we are doing together on Cyprus.” concluded Mogherini

The post Mogherini on Trump and Turkey: “Europe has to rediscover its strength” appeared first on New Europe.

General : World leaders gathered at the COP22 climate talks in Marrakesh for the last two weeks to negotiate how to implement the priorities of the Paris agreement. Today nearly 200 countries have backed a proclamation declaring implementing them an "urgent duty". The European Parliament was present at the conference with a delegation composed of 12 MEPs. We asked delegation head Giovanni La Via, an Italian member of the EPP group, about the next steps and the Parliament’s role.

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

General : World leaders gathered at the COP22 climate talks in Marrakesh for the last two weeks to negotiate how to implement the priorities of the Paris agreement. Today nearly 200 countries have backed a proclamation declaring implementing them an "urgent duty". The European Parliament was present at the conference with a delegation composed of 12 MEPs. We asked delegation head Giovanni La Via, an Italian member of the EPP group, about the next steps and the Parliament’s role.

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

For several decades, the United Kingdom has been vital to the formation of the European energy market. It was one of the first European countries to privatise and deregulate its national electricity and gas markets, and has since benefited from the collective power of the EU to counter the threats of energy exporters such as Russia, thereby minimising the risks for national energy security. How Britain’s exit will affect EU-Russia energy links and the EU’s energy security is of critical importance to Europe’s currently tense relationship with its large neighbour.

The British energy market is, at present, deeply integrated into the European energy market. Brexit will exclude the UK from a number of important European energy projects, the institutions responsible for the development of cross-border electricity interconnectors, and the harmonisation of energy prices. It will also force the EU to rethink its energy strategy and reorganise its institutions. If the UK decides to remain a member of the EU’s energy institutions, additional negotiations with EU member states will be needed, holding back substantive progress on the internal energy market and having unpredictable effects on its further design.

Despite this deep integration, the UK is dependent on fossil fuel imports from, among other countries, Russia. This dependency has increased significantly over the last decade due to the depletion
of British oil and gas reserves in the North Sea and the cessation of domestic coal mining. Before the referendum, Amber Rudd, a Remain backer and then energy secretary, signalled that Britain’s
withdrawal could make the country’s energy market vulnerable to Russian gas supply, saying that Russia could use Britain’s dependence as a weapon. This warning could now very plausibly
become reality.

Russian gas supplier Gazprom is currently negotiating with several major energy companies in the UK to increase its supply to Britain and several other European countries, acting via its subsidiary, Gazprom Marketing & Trading, which operates in Britain. Russian oil company Rosneft is working together with the UK’s BP – which just so happens to own 19.75% of Rosneft’s
shares – having seen the referendum result for Brexit as a great opportunity for the development of offshore projects. Since the implementation of EU economic sanctions against Russia, imposed
in response to the Ukraine crisis in July 2014, BP has not been able to participate in joint projects with Rosneft. Brexit could change this situation and grant Rosneft access to BP’s European projects. Russian national energy companies could, as a result, strengthen their position on the EU energy market for considerable economic benefit.

“For now, it’s unlikely that Brexit will weaken the EU’s position in its energy relations with Russia”

But the UK was one of the biggest supporters of economic sanctions against Russia. After the referendum, some high-ranking Russian politicians expressed their pleasure at the result, and hoped that economic sanctions would now be lifted sooner rather than later. European officials wasted no time in prolonging them until January 2017, and plan to further extend the sanctions until full implementation of the Minsk agreement on ending the conflict in eastern Ukraine. This isn’t a case where Britain’s engagement is significant enough to change the decisions of EU officials. The UK
will not leave the EU for two or three years at least, and negotiations on the look of the EU’s institutions without the UK will take time. It’s therefore unlikely that Brexit will seriously change the EU-Russia economic relationship.

Nonetheless, there should be no doubt that Moscow will try to force a review of the EU’s restrictive measures. It will play on the differences between European countries, lobbying those that criticise the EU’s stance on Russia, such as Greece and Hungary. It will back Eurosceptic movements across Europe. But it would be an exaggeration to think that Russia could significantly strengthen its influence on European decisions during and after the UK’s departure. The EU relies on Russian fossil fuel imports (Russia provides 45% of Europe’s oil, 39% of its gas and 28% of its coal), but around a third of Russia’s export revenues depends on the EU’s energy demand. That mutual dependency hinders Moscow’s ambitions for greater influence. And Russia isn’t immune to the market instability caused by the referendum vote. The Russian economy has already been suffering from the effects of Western economic sanctions, and a further serious political and financial crisis in Europe would have devastating effects for Russia too. This is not at all in line with the country’s interests.

The EU gives its members a free hand in taking decisions on energy production, the energy mix and energy supply, as well as on internal trade regulations. It has limited influence on national energy policies. But over several decades the EU has become a key actor in addressing the security of supply and climate dimensions of energy policy for its member states. With the implementation of the Third Energy Package for the internal gas and electricity market in 2009, the EU developed a tool that not only affects the foreign policies of member states in energy matters, but also challenges Russia’s dominance over the EU energy market.

“The EU relies on Russian fossil fuel imports, Russia’s export revenues depend on the EU’s energy demand. That mutual dependency hinders Moscow’s ambitions for greater influence”

For now, it’s unlikely that Brexit will weaken the EU’s position in its energy relations with Russia. But there is the possibility of a negative turn in many fields of European cooperation, and a shift
in the balance of energy policy away from Brussels to national governments, thereby weakening future collective action. This threat, if realised, would make the EU more vulnerable to Russian
influence. Brexit may open up more doors for Russia to achieve its foreign policy goals, but it will not necessarily make the EU an easier partner for the Kremlin.

IMAGE CREDIT: TTstudio/Bigstock.com

The post Russia hopes to benefit from Britain’s departure appeared first on Europe’s World.

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

This article is part of Amway’s ‘Driving Entrepreneurship in Europe’ Knowledge Network

According to Eurostat, in 2016 more than 6,6 million young people aged 15-24 years were neither in employment nor in education or training in the European Union, where at the same time EU youth unemployment rate is more than double the overall unemployment rate. While the media focus on the youth, the generation aged 50+ is also facing a major employment challenge.

Some countries’ unemployment rates have risen exponentially since the onset of the economic crisis. In Ireland, the 50+ unemployment rates more than tripled from 3.6% to 11.1%, In Portugal it almost doubled and in Greece it more than quadrupled (from 3.8% to 15.8%).

Demographics and social changes all over Europe in the recent years have increased the risks of a perception of conflict between generations, especially when it comes to the labour market.

However, one of the emerging trends that could provide a solution to the millennials generation unemployment is intergenerational entrepreneurship, where senior and 50 plus “second career” entrepreneurs have begun to team up with younger partners to form start-ups.

The aim is to fight against both youth unemployment and providing elders with a chance to use and transfer their skills and knowledge even after retirement. Stakeholders from the European Parliament, European Commission, academia and private companies came together to define intergenerational entrepreneurship last Tuesday at the public event “Boosting Europe’s Growth through Intergenerational Entrepreneurship” which took place at the EU Parliament in Brussels.

Full house for the event “Boosting Europe’s Growth through Intergenerational Entrepreneurship” promoted by 50+Entrepreneurship Platform Europe on 15 November 2016 – Courtesy of Aspect Consulting

The event, hosted by the European People’s Party (EPP) Group MEP, Ivan Stefanec, and the Alliance for Liberal and Democrats in Europe MEP, Dita Charanzova, was the occasion to present the 50+Entrepreneurship Platform Europe, a group of like-minded organisations, corporates, NGOs and academia whose mission is to ensure policy makers consider the important contribution that 50+ entrepreneurship can make to Europe’s economy and society. The event was a great chance for the 50+ Platform to discuss and learn about different perspectives on how a joint approach could be developed and implemented to harness the potential of intergenerational entrepreneurship.

“We are living a digital revolution. For younger generation, it could be a huge possibility for business, but sometimes they do not know how to transform their ideas in reality. Therefore, the intergenerational dialogue is crucial not to miss this potential” said Charanzova, who also underlined the importance of merging the 50 plus generation’s business experience with the digital skills of the millennials.  EPP MEP Heinz K. Becker addressed the socio-economic benefits of youth and seniors collaboration stressing out the importance of the know how that the 50 plus generation could bring in for young entrepreneurs. “Regarding how to handle risk in business, the elders have knowledge and know how, and they dare to risk because they know the potential risks and how to handle them” observed Becker. The 50+ platform harvested a great consensus across the political spectrum. Socialist & Democrat’s MEP Brando Benifei welcomed the initiative as a “milestone” for the European Parliament.

“It is time to take further actions in terms of the support to collaborative intergenerational business-models and start-ups. The calculated benefits of those potential initiatives are significant, both in economic and in social terms; we cannot miss this challenge” highlighted Benifei. A positive vision of the potential benefits that is shared also by private companies.

“The European Commission’s statistics show that more than 1/3 of the world population will be over 50 by 2030 and now more seniors than ever before wish to stay active and explore new entrepreneurial opportunities” said Michael Meissner, Vice President of Amway. “There is a need to establish formal schemes of supporting intergenerational entrepreneurship” said Meissner, “and Amway sees a necessity in bringing these demographics together and enhancing reciprocal intergenerational solidarity through exchange of knowledge and vital skills”. “Intergenerational entrepreneurship is a competitive advantage and an opportunity” concluded Meissner, calling Member States to build knowledge, understanding and support for 50+ entrepreneurship also at national level.

Amway is one of the world’s largest direct selling businesses that has put entrepreneurship promotion at the heart of its organization, and was one of the promoters of the 50+ Platform.

The post Intergenerational entrepreneurship: a way to tackle unemployment appeared first on New Europe.

Plenary session and committee meetings in Strasbourg

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

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

Geologists in Texas discovered an oil field in the Permian Basin that is estimated to have 20bn barrels of oil and 1,6bn barrels of natural gas.

50-to-60% could be recoverable according to experts.

That is estimated to be the biggest oil field ever discovered in the United States. It is three times the size of the Bakken formation in North Dakota.

The oil field is a “continuous oil” formation, which is a reference to unconventional formations like shale. The new shale oil technology allows the recovery of billions of oil barrels from areas that have already yielded billions in conventional oil.

Oil has been produced in the Wolfcamp area by traditional vertical wells since the 1980s. Now companies are drilling more than 3,000 horizontal wells in the area. However, the current oil prices mean that the oil is not recoverable.

Shale investment is unlikely to pick up until the price reaches the $60 to $65 range according to Morris Burns, the former president of the Permian Basin Petroleum Association.

Shale production is responsible for turning the US from a net importer to a net exporter of oil and gas in 2011. However, prices have tumbled, with prices going as low as $25 earlier this year.

Even with the advancement of technology and new production methods, unconventional oil costs more to produce. Many vertical wells have stopped their operation and investment has slowed by half a million barrels and could slow as much in 2017.

 

The post Discovery of the biggest oil field in US history appeared first on New Europe.

It looks as if Simon Usherwood was asked the same question I was: How to win at Brexit.

My answer would begin by taking a step back and loving the bomb.

Winning at Brexit is the wrong question. The goal is winning at life. Winning Brexit is simply the best way to do that, but by no means the only way.

Incidentally, this shows how singularly unsuited I am to frontline campaigning. That’s more of a job for people who think the next vote is the most important thing that’s ever happened.

I think the first step towards winning at life (Brexit-wise) is to think about abortion rights in America.

In the United States today, you couldn’t find a pro-choice conservative with two hands and a flashlight. But that hasn’t always been the case. Just look at Roe v. Wade itself. Among the seven Justices in the majority, surely Chief Justice Burger counts as a conservative, while fellow Nixon appointee Harry Blackmun actually wrote the opinion for the Court. Even 20 years later, when the currently controlling case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey came out, the plurality opion was a joint effort by centre-right Justices like Sandra Day O’Connor and Anthony Kennedy on the one hand, and left-ish Bush appointee David Souter on the other hand. So where have all the pro-choice Republicans gone?

While I’m no expert in this field, my understanding is that the answer is broadly twofold: Some pro-choice Republicans, particularly the “Rockefeller Republicans“, have become Democrats during the (3rd way) Clinton era. Others have adjusted their views on abortion so that they fit better in the Republican herd. This is not just a matter of Republican politicians saying what they think their core constituency want to hear. As much as we don’t like to think of ourselves that way, people are sheep who like conformity. If all our peers, the people that we compare ourselves to, are pro-life, we will tend to copy that stance regardless of where we started out.

But of course, that works both ways. This “mirroring” only works to the extent that we have inherent affinity for these peers. (Otherwise they wouldn’t be peers.) There has to be a shared group identity for this to occur. And that’s exactly the purpose of using wedge issues: to manipulate the groups that people identify with, so that they will conform their views in one way rather than another.

So where have the pro-EU Tories gone? As far as anyone can tell, there’s Ken Clarke, and then no one. But surely all the others who stood with Margaret Thatcher in the 1970s to fight for the EU against the Eurosceptic socialists haven’t all joined the LibDems or Tony Blair’s Labour party? They must still be out there.

But how could we persuade them to speak up in favour of the EU? (Which may or may not mean against Brexit. It could simply mean against leaving the Single Market. Being picky in your choice of allies is not helpful.)

By the logic above, we would have to separate them from the Conservative herd. For example through appropriate use of wedge issues.

Conveniently, there is no shortage of those since Mrs. May has taken office. In her determination to compete with UKIP for votes, she has left herself exposed on her centrist flank. In terms of electoral politics, that is smart, because neither tovarich Corbyn nor Tim Farron – bless him – will take those voters away from her. But when it comes to wider politics, this presents an opportunity.

An obvious example is Nissan. What did the government promise them to persuade them to stay? Giving money to big businesses but not SMEs can’t possibly be popular among the centre-right. Andrew Tyrie, the powerful (and scary) chair of the Treasury Select Committee, is already asking questions, and he should be supported as much as possible.

More generally, every other word out of the Remain side’s mouth should be “crony capitalism”. (Yes, I know that that’s two words.) I cannot recommend enough the recent blog post by George Peretz and Kelyn Bacon on the blog of the UK State Aid Law Association, exploring state aid law post-Brexit. If the goal is to bring the pro-business, libertarian-leaning part of the Tory party over to a place where they can be sympathetic towards the EU, we need to push the narrative of the EU as the UK’s last best hope against a government that hands out billions of taxpayer money to whoever lobbies most effectively.

With Nissan as an example, that cannot be a difficult story to tell.

The second half of this same story is Mrs. May’s industrial strategy, which she has helpfully failed to define so far. As long as no one knows what it is, there is no reason why it should not be framed as another handout to British business, favouring jobs for the boys over genuine competition. Again, that cannot possibly be a hard sell.

None of this will stop Brexit. Because of the same mechanism discussed before, the sides will harden not soften. The more you talk to Leavers about how stupid Leave is, the more convinced they will be that you are an idiot/stooge/not-their-kind-of-person. There will not be a massive swing in popular opinion, no matter how bad the economy goes. (Conveniently, economic growth comes without a counterfactual. So it’s impossible to prove that someone [cough] Osborne [cough] ran the economy into the ground.) Tory MPs will vote Leave because they’re afraid of being deselected, Labour MPs will vote Leave if they represent Leave constituencies, as many of them do, and Peers will vote Leave because they’re afraid of the Strathclyde review.

The only way to win is to frame this as a conversation about something other than Brexit, and to accept that Brexit may be involved. Remember: if the UK Brexits, they can always come back in. (That’s in art. 50 too.) And even if they don’t, defeating the Trumps, Farages and LePens of this world is more important than Brexit.

The post How to win at Brexit (2) appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

ECB President Mario Draghi committed the Eurozone to an indefinite period of low-interest rate policy on Friday.

He is not the only one who feels the need to assert the need for ultra-low rates. Wolfgang Schäuble, Donald Trump, and Theresa May have been voicing criticism on monetary policy, particularly low-interest rates that have hurt fixed income funds and savers.
Draghi and the ECB
Speaking at the European Banking Congress in Frankfurt on Friday, Draghi said that there was some optimism...

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 ↑

 

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

Germany’s justice minister, Heiko Maas, says Facebook is not a technology platform, but rather a media company according to Reuters. Maas favors making social media organisations criminally liable for failing to remove hate speech.

The German authorities are currently running a program that monitors the efficiency of Facebook in dealing with the removal of hate speech on its site by looking at how many comments are taken down within 24 hours of a complaint.

This decision comes after Facebook has been scrutinized for the way it has dealt with hate speech.  The EU specifically wants to address hate speech that corresponds to xenophobia and racism, two issues that have recently been important in Europe.  The EU has also set up a ‘code of conduct’ which, though not legally binding, pressures companies like Facebook and Twitter to respond to notifications of hate speech in under 24 hours.

According to the EU commissioner for justice, Vĕra Jourová, one of the main reasons for this new code is the radicalization of “young people” through the use of social media.

If Facebook were to be thought of as a media company and not a “technology platform,” the company could be held legally responsible for failing ro remove hate speech.  Recently, Facebook has been criticized due to its questionable decisions concerning the removal of pictures and other controversial material.  According to Reuters, though the EU currently does not impose legislation on social media, Germany will move to “take legislative measures if the results are still unsatisfactory” when the data from the program is analyzed.

According to a FORTUNE article published on November 17th, “one big reason is that being defined in such a way could open the network up to regulation, and impose a range of responsibilities on it that it probably wouldn’t like.”

The post Is Facebook a media or technology company? appeared first on New Europe.

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

The former Pilipino dictator, Ferdinand Marcos, was buried on Friday in the country’s Heroes’ Cemetery.

Marcos supporters, along with his family, have long held the view that as a former soldier and President, Marcos was entitled to the honour. Marcos had people murdered, over 34,000 tortured, and 70,000 people jailed over his 21-year rule. It is said he stole millions from the country’s coffers.

There is no media coverage of the burial, which the family requested to be “private.”

Thousands petitioned the denial of Marcos burial in the armed forces cemetery, intended for heroes, but the Supreme Court ordered on November 8 his burial. The Supreme Court’s decision came with an overwhelming 9-5 majority.

The main advocate for the burial honoring the former dictator was President Duterte.

Duterte has praised Marcos, and he has also demonstrated his own contempt for human rights abuses by proceeding with over 3,000 extrajudicial killings since he came to power.

Until Friday, the remains of the general had been kept for years in a refrigerated crypt of the family’s Mausoleum, while his family was in exile in Hawaii.

From Peru, where he is attending the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Summit, a spokesman for Duterte said that Filipinos should find it in their heart to forgive Marcos.

The post Former dictator Marcos gets a hero’s burial appeared first on New Europe.

https://tvnewsroom.consilium.europa.eu/uploads/council-images/thumbs/uploads/council-images/remote/http_7e18a1c646f5450b9d6d-a75424f262e53e74f9539145894f4378.r8.cf3.rackcdn.com/2_21_2014-92742--education-16-9-preview_1.32_thumb_169_1477322831_1477322831_129_97shar_c1.jpg

The Council is meeting on 21-22 November 2016 in Brussels to adopt a resolution on a New Skills Agenda and to reach political agreement on a recommendation establishing a Skills Guarantee. On the second day, the Council is taking note of a progress report on the proposal for a revised directive on audiovisual media services (AVMS), and is also expected to adopt a general approach regarding a proposal for a decision on a European Year of Cultural Heritage (2018).

Download this video here.

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

4,437 Turkish citizens have applied for asylum in Germany from January to October 2016, Funke Mediengruppe reported on Friday.

Last year there were just under 2000 application.

The number of applications has averaged 350 a month, surging to 485 in October.

The surge is linked to a purge of over 100,000 academics, journalists, the army, and the judiciary have been dismissed and/or arrested.

Earlier this month, the Social Democrat State Minister for Europe, Michael Roth, said Germany will welcome asylum applications from intellectuals prosecuted in Turkey. Speaking to the daily Die Welt, he asserted the government did not agree with the prosecution of lawmakers, critical journalists and academics.

But, there is no consensus in parliament for accepting them.

The Bavarian Christian Social Union (CSU) politician, Stephan Mayer, says opponents of Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan should not apply for asylum. The CSU politician is spearheading a revolt of the Christian Democratic Party’s sister party in Bavaria that opposes Chancellor Merkel’s immigration policy. “We cannot solve Turkey’s problems by inviting all critical citizens to apply for asylum here. That is exactly what he wants: the opposition disappears,” Mayer says.

Turkey’s Foreign Minister, Mevlut Cavusoglu, has accused Germany of lending its support to terrorist groups such as the Kurdish PKK and far-leftist DHKP-C.

The post Turkish asylum seekers in Germany double appeared first on New Europe.

During his farewell visit to Berlin, the outgoing US President Barack Obama was generous in his praise for German Chancellor Angela Merkel, declaring that she "stands for great credibility and is willing to fight for her values". Many journalists see Merkel as the last remaining guarantor of Western ideals after Trump's election victory. Others doubt whether she is up to the task.

Speculation is rife about Donald Trump's future strategies, including his economic policy. In the election campaign he promised lower taxes, deregulation, less free trade and more domestic investment. Commentators see the advent of a new era of protectionism in the US and ask whether the end of low interest rates could thwart his plans for major public investment.