European Union

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

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

On December 4, Italy is slated to hold a crucial referendum. At stake is the reform of the country’s Constitution proposed by the current government. The reform will see, among other things, Italy’s two chamber system radically change. The Senate will see its duties drastically reduced and it will be composed of regional and city councilmen.

With the vote nearing, the campaign is in full swing and for the first time is involving Italians abroad. Several politicians on both sides of the campaign have travelled around the world to promote their view on the issue. Brussels is no exception, given the importance of the local Italian community.

Over the past two days, there were meetings with the public led by important figures in favour and against the reform. The Basta un Si (A Yes is enough) committee organised a public meeting with Foreign Minister Paolo Gentiloni in between the Eurogroup meeting of Foreign Ministers, whilst the Io dico No (I say No) had Vice-President of the Italian Parliament Luigi Di Maio, MPs Gianluca Vacca and Simone Valente, and MEPs Isabella Adinolfi and Ignazio Corrao.

The main sponsor of Basta un Si is the Democratic Party (PD). Its meeting was held in the Piedmont regional office, which has a spacious hall and wine bar. Several activists from around Europe joined to explain what they have been doing in order to promote their view. Activities included aperitifs with other expats and dinners at home with other undecided expats. Activists from Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and the UK expressed their engagement with the campaign and spoke in positive terms about their experience so far.

Gentiloni gave a longer speech in which he praised the activists and underlined the importance of the reform. He also said how curious Italians abroad are about the referendum. In the Eurogroup, he has been asked many times about situation and, according to him, he was even asked about the referendum during his recent trip to Mali.

The minister didn’t touch on all the aspects of the reform in his speech, only some. Most notably, Gentiloni spoke about the reform of the Senate. He said that even the current system, which dates back to 1948, was accepted as a compromise by the Constituent Assembly. A reform of the model that has both the Parliament and Senate sharing the same duties and powers has been discussed repetitively throughout the years and in his view, it is an upgrade needed and much awaited.

The second aspect that Gentiloni spoke about was about the so-called Titolo V (Article V) that reshapes the duties of local governments in favour of the central state. About this, Gentiloni admitted that the actual situation, a result of previous Constitutional reforms, was a mistake that his party made, leaving a more confusing situation that needs to be clarified.

After the meeting, the minister went away whilst the committee invited the participant to have a glass of wine and discuss the reform one-on-one.

The Io dico No meeting was held in the Huis van het Nederlands, in one of its auditoriums. After a brief introduction by a local activist, the five MPs and MEPs gave one brief speech each and then passed the floor to questions from the audience.

All the politicians are part of the Five Star Movement and one of them, Luigi Di Maio, is one of the most prominent politicians. His speech was probably the longest and focused on the opportunity that a victory of the “No” vote would bring, with Matteo Renzi’s promise to resign. He thinks a victory of the “No” vote is a chance to “send back home” the current elite. He explained how the reform and most of the government policies of the past months have been made trying to conserve power and to avoid a Five Star Movement government.

Most of their speeches were very generic against the reform, and focused more on related topics or other issues that the Movement deems important. For instance, they spoke at length about the electoral law, explaining their own proposal that they will table to the President of the Republic in case of the government’s collapse. Also, another topic touched on was about lowering the cost of politics, one of the Movement stauncher propositioned. They were keen to underline how the reform won’t save much money as the government said, and rather their proposals will.

The audience’s questions were more focused on some aspect of the reform, but the mood was generally against it and with the hope that it won’t pass. A good part of them were mostly concerned with the votes from Italians abroad, that Di Maio earlier called at risk of fraud and invited all the public to be careful.

The meetings were both full of people, with no clear distinction between the two groups. On both sides, there were young professionals and older citizens, as well as older and younger expats. It shows that there is the will to confront and know more about the topic and the referendum. It also shows the different positions of Italy’s main parties.

The Five Star Movement is leading in the polls at a national level and it is not hard to see them gaining more and more votes. In many ways, they are in the same mould of many populist movements that are gaining importance all across the world and in the same way they may have avoided more technical questions or to dig deeper in their own proposal. Di Maio mentioned their ideas for a Constitutional reform but never really explained the details.

On the other hand, the Democratic Party and the “Yes” front have the advantage of being the government party, however this has lead them to sink in preferences and the reform is suffering from this. Moreover, the Democratic Party is not united on the issue. A minority is being led by former secretary and two time minister Pierluigi Bersani that is supporting the “No.” Gentiloni was very critical of these choices, noting that it is not the first time that the party showed signs of self-destruction.

 

The post Debating the Italian referendum in Brussels appeared first on New Europe.

Less than two weeks after his public apology, Commissioner for Digital Economy and Society Günther Oettinger is facing another alleged ethics breach.

Now the news is all about Oettinger “catching a lift” with businessman Klaus Mangold so he could get to a meeting with Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán on time, as he had been invited by the Hungarian government to attend a conference in Budapest, last May.

“Due to diary constraints he could not take a scheduled flight to be in time for ...

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';

Lithuania warned ion Friday morning that Vladimir Putin may choose to test NATO’s resolve in the weeks leading to Donald Trump’s coming to office.

Foreign Minister Linas Linkevicius said he was “very afraid” for the Baltics, as well as the Syrian city of Aleppo. Lithuania has a direct land border with Russia in the enclave of Kaliningrad. Lithuania claims Russia has been bolstering its military capability in Kaliningrad.

Over the last year, Lithuania has reintroduced military conscription, increased military spending, and is preparing citizens for ways to react in the event of a Russian invasion, including intelligence gathering.

Trump’s view that Russia should be a partner has raised fears of European security becoming a secondary concern.

From Berlin, US President Barack Obama urged his successor on Thursday to stand up to Russia if Moscow deviates from “international norms.” He also warned of a cyber arms race. President Obama is on his last tour of Europe, reassuring international partners that Washington remains committed to NATO.

In turn, Chancellor Merkel accepted – in line with Mr. Trump’s argument – that the US shouldered most of the burden and that Europe needed to spend more on defense.

The post Lithuania fears Putin may test NATO resolve before Trump comes to office appeared first on New Europe.

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

EU member states moved a step closer to giving Ukraine visa-free access after ambassadors gave the Commission the green light for new talks on easing the rules but only after the bloc beefs up a mechanism to suspend visa-free agreements in an emergency.

The ability for Ukrainians to travel through Europe’s so-called Schengen zone has been long sought by Kiev, since it would potentially give a jolt to cross-border trade.

But some European nations fear an influx of lower-wage workers from Ukraine will put more pressure on labor markets and add to the growing doubts about immigration on the continents.

Both Ukraine and Georgia, another former Soviet republic, are at the same stage in the process, waiting for a compromise between the European Council and the European Parliament on the suspension mechanism.

Ukraine, a former Soviet republic, has fostered closer ties with the EU since Moscow annexed its Black Sea peninsula of Crimea in 2014 and started backing rebels fighting Kiev’s troops in the east of the country.

Many difficulties to progress remain, not least Ukraine’s sluggish fight against endemic corruption and the EU’s caution on immigration after the arrival of about 1.3 million refugees and migrants in 2015, mainly from the Middle East and North Africa.

But, a week before an EU-Ukraine summit on Nov. 24, EU states gave their conditional backing to allowing Ukrainians to travel visa-free to the bloc for short visits.

Implementation, however, will take time as further negotiations are needed between the EU states, the European Parliament and the bloc’s executive European Commission.

The decision on Thursday also says visa liberalization for Ukraine should not take effect until after the bloc – wary of a repeat of last year’s refugee influx – rolls out a beefed-up mechanism to lift any visa waivers in case of emergency.

Talks on the so-called suspension mechanism have been making slow progress and diplomats say it could take weeks before it is in place.

The post Almost no visa: EU states agree to ease the rules for Ukraine appeared first on New Europe.

General : What brings EU citizens together is more important than what separates them, say 71% of Europeans, while 53% believe that being an EU member is good for their country, according to Eurobarometer’s latest “Parlemeter” poll, commissioned by the European Parliament and published on Friday.

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

General : What brings EU citizens together is more important than what separates them, say 71% of Europeans, while 53% believe that being an EU member is good for their country, according to Eurobarometer’s latest “Parlemeter” poll, commissioned by the European Parliament and published on Friday.

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

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

Nicknamed “Dr No” during the Greek debt crisis, German finance minister Wolfgang Schäuble may attract a similar moniker for the Brexit negotiations.

Read more

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

Global oil consumption will peak no sooner than 2040, the International Energy Agency (IEA) said in its annual World Energy Outlook.

“Global oil demand continues to grow until 2040, mostly because of the lack of easy alternatives to oil in road freight, aviation and petrochemicals, according to WEO-2016. However, oil demand from passenger cars declines even as the number of vehicles doubles in the next quarter century, thanks mainly to improvements in efficiency, but also biofuels and rising ownership of electric cars,” the IEA report, which is posted on its website, read.

The report noted that a detailed analysis of the pledges made for the Paris Agreement on climate change finds that the era of fossil fuels appears far from over and underscores the challenge of reaching more ambitious climate goals. Still, government policies, as well as cost reductions across the energy sector, enable a doubling of both renewables – subject of a special focus in this year’s Outlook – and of improvements in energy efficiency over the next 25 years. Natural gas continues to expand its role while the shares of coal and oil fall back.

“We see clear winners for the next 25 years – natural gas but especially wind and solar – replacing the champion of the previous 25 years, coal,” IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol said. “But there is no single story about the future of global energy: in practice, government policies will determine where we go from here.”

This transformation of the global energy mix described in WEO-2016 means that risks to energy security also evolve. Traditional concerns related to oil and gas supply remain – and are reinforced by record falls in investment levels. The report shows that another year of lower upstream oil investment in 2017 would create a significant risk of a shortfall in new conventional supply within a few years, the IEA said.

In the longer-term, investment in oil and gas remain essential to meet demand and replace declining production, but the growth in renewables and energy efficiency lessens the call on oil and gas imports in many countries. Increased liquefied natural gas (LNG) shipments also change how gas security is perceived. At the same time, the variable nature of renewables in power generation, especially wind and solar, entails a new focus on electricity security, the IEA said.

Coal consumption barely grows in the next 25 years, as demand in China starts to fall back thanks to efforts to fight air pollution and diversify the fuel mix. The gas market is also changing, with the share of LNG overtaking pipelines and growing to more than half of the global long-distance gas trade, up from a quarter in 2000. In an already well-supplied market, new LNG from Australia, the United States and elsewhere triggers a shift to more competitive markets and changes in contractual terms and pricing, the IEA said.

The Paris Agreement, which entered into force on November 4, is a major step forward in the fight against global warming. But meeting more ambitious climate goals will be extremely challenging and require a step change in the pace of decarbonization and efficiency.

The post IEA: Oil consumption won’t peak before 2040 appeared first on New Europe.

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

EU member states should “refrain from inciting fear and hatred in their citizens towards migrants and asylum-seekers for political gains”, said Civil Liberties Committee MEPs voting a resolution on fundamental rights in the EU on Thursday. The rights to free movement and life-saving abortion are also stressed in the text, which will now be put to a vote by Parliament as a whole.
Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

EU member states should “refrain from inciting fear and hatred in their citizens towards migrants and asylum-seekers for political gains”, said Civil Liberties Committee MEPs voting a resolution on fundamental rights in the EU on Thursday. The rights to free movement and life-saving abortion are also stressed in the text, which will now be put to a vote by Parliament as a whole.
Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

DRAFT OPINION on discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2015, Section III - Commission and executive agencies
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Zigmantas Balčytis

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

DRAFT OPINION on discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2015, Section X - European External Action Service
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Zigmantas Balčytis

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

AMENDMENTS 1 - Draft opinion on the proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada of the one part, and the European union and its Member states, of the other part
Committee on Foreign Affairs

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

The rapid pace of digitalisation will have a dramatic impact on the world of work. A popular view is that the advance of digitalisation, automation and “Industry 4.0” doesn’t augur well for low-skilled workers in European industry, with some reports forecasting a massive contraction in the job market for low-skilled workers. According to an extremely popular 2013 study by Carl Frey and Michael Osborne, almost half of all employees in the United States could be replaced by computerised systems over the next two decades. A study presented at the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos this year stated that digitalisation and automation will lead to a net loss of five million jobs in industrialised nations by 2020.

But this isn’t realistic. It would be ill-advised to deal in nightmare scenarios of unemployment in the thousands or millions. We still can’t confidently say whether and where jobs will be lost. In any case, no company, especially a small or medium-sized enterprise, is in a position to digitalise everything overnight, either commercially
or organisationally. There won’t be wide-scale technological unemployment or factories and offices devoid of people. One survey of almost 500 companies from the metal and electrical industry, carried out for the Institute for Applied Work Science (IFAA), found that fewer than one in five companies have initiated any plans or projects for implementing digital ideas. Industry 4.0 is yet to make its presence felt across all companies, and this will remain the case for years.

The potential offered by automation for professions and workplaces is, typically, overestimated. The implementation of new technologies often fails to take sufficient account of social, legal and ethical barriers. And no conclusions can be drawn with regard to the effect on the workforce as a whole. Rather than eliminating jobs, new technologies often change the nature of work. Employees are freed up to focus on activities that can’t be automated. For example, having previously centred on precision craftsmanship, the profession of watchmaking is now evolving to encompass the programming of digital models for 3D watch printing. The result is a vast increase in creative freedom.

Just as with previous technological evolutions, some roles will be eliminated. When diesel and electric locomotives came along, steam boilers – and stokers – were no longer needed. But new professions and opportunities emerge. We will need app programmers and 3D modellers. Vehicles will increasingly have electronic control systems, requiring engineers specialised in this field.

But the advance of digital technologies doesn’t mean the only jobs remaining will be ones requiring a high degree of technical expertise. Creativity won’t be the only thing occupying the employees of the future, although the proportion of routine tasks performed by employees will decline. Some routine activities can be eliminated from simple work, thereby enabling low-skilled workers to increase their share of value added. This will help to make work productive and competitive across different levels of expertise, thereby keeping this work in Europe.

Digitalisation is expected to have another positive effect. Low-skilled workers, particularly those who are less physically able, can increasingly be positively integrated into the workforce with the help of robot-assisted work systems and body suits – “exoskeletons”. These technologies lower the physical impact of ergonomically-unfavourable movements on the assembly line, reduce the strain posed by heavy weights, and lead to improved quality thanks to precision process control.

“The integration of refugees can be made easier by the use of data glasses that explain work processes in various languages and media formats”

It’s also conceivable that low-skilled workers will be integrated into the labour market to a greater extent as a result of digital assistance systems – tablets, smartphones, data glasses, networked monitors, and so on. Employees could be deployed more flexibly and in more varied roles as they will receive the necessary information on-site and in real time. This can happen quicker and at shorter notice, as assistance systems will massively expand the options for on-the-job training, with information provided intuitively. Like today’s smartphones, the use of assistance systems must be simple and user-friendly. This includes multimedia information with extensive possibilities, including choices of languages, images, and video sequences. Even the integration of refugees can be made easier by the use of data glasses that explain work processes in various languages and media formats.

With digital technologies evolving at a considerable pace, low-skilled workers will have to develop a strong willingness to learn and adapt. Needs-orientated qualification measures, such as for operating equipment, can help support employees. The relevant learning content for digitalisation can still only be described in general terms, which makes it necessary to permanently compare training content with the relevant requirements while also focusing on the interplay between everyone in the production process.

“The advance of digital technologies doesn’t mean the only jobs remaining will be ones requiring a high degree of technical expertise”

Digitalisation offers a number of attractive opportunities. It means greater flexibility for employees, more demanding tasks, the provision of tailored information and relief from monotonous routine work. As well as the increased availability of information, digitalisation will improve companies’ coordination and communication processes. We will need many highly-qualified employees to get Industry 4.0 and digitalisation on the road, and low-skilled workers will remain in demand. But for all this optimism, there is a risk. Digitalisation could go too far if we end up shaping the work of the future so that we humans become mere appendages of intelligent digital systems and machines. To counter this, we need a fundamental debate about morality and ethics – one that takes into account not only the numerous benefits
of digitalisation, but also occupational safety.

 

The post Rise of the machines isn’t the end for manual labour appeared first on Europe’s World.

It's vital Europe takes up the leadership in the fight against tax evasion, Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph E. Stiglitz told Parliament's inquiry committee investigating the Panama papers on 16 November. Stiglitz, who served as an advisor to the Panama government following the revelations, said the US was unlikely to be effective in tackling the issue: "When your [future] president is evader-in-chief, it’s hard to have confidence in where we are going to go."
Committee of Inquiry to investigate alleged contraventions and maladministration in the application of Union law in relation to money laundering, tax avoidance and tax evasion

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

It's vital Europe takes up the leadership in the fight against tax evasion, Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph E. Stiglitz told Parliament's inquiry committee investigating the Panama papers on 16 November. Stiglitz, who served as an advisor to the Panama government following the revelations, said the US was unlikely to be effective in tackling the issue: "When your [future] president is evader-in-chief, it’s hard to have confidence in where we are going to go."
Committee of Inquiry to investigate alleged contraventions and maladministration in the application of Union law in relation to money laundering, tax avoidance and tax evasion

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

These days, my bedtime reading consists of books on the EU referendum: The Brexit Club, Bad Boys of Brexit, Unleashing Demons and (currently) All Out War. All have provided another level of understanding to what happened over the past year or two, confirming some suspicions and challenging some assumptions.

Most strikingly so far has been the strategising that took place. From the Tate plot, to the Parliamentary manouvering on the Referendum Bill to the failed coup against Dominic Cummings, there are repeated instances of political actors working two steps ahead of their opposition.

Given the success that such an approach has had, and given the lack of apparent strategising going on in government on Article 50, this post tries to imagine what the two critical groups in Brexit might do, now and in the future. To be clear, I am not suggesting that this is what they are actually going and any examples I provide should not be taken as implementations of such ideas; instead, the intention is to scope out what the path ahead looks like at a critical juncture in British politics, where much feels contingent and open to change.

Let’s start by looking at those who have made most of this strategic approach to date, those pushing for a hard Brexit.

Harder still

The underlying situation is well-placed for hard brexiteers: they have the momentum from the referendum and own much of the media debate. However, David Cameron’s resignation immediately after the referendum meant that progress to Article 50 has become stalled.

The priority objective here has to be to get to Article 50 as soon as possible. This matters because it locks the UK much more firmly into leaving and because it opens up much more chance of making that departure a full one.

To tackle this last point first, Article 50 has a timetable and an extended number of veto players, anyone one of whom can block the conclusion of a negotiated deal. Failure to reach a deal means that the UK leaves after two years with a rupture. Either that is the objective, or it prompts the kind of crisis talks that lead to a deal in which the UK might have more opportunity to secure the trade-based relationship that many hard brexiteers want. In any case, the absence of agreement moves the UK very firmly – and possibly permanently – into the hard Brexit position.

Hence, getting to Article 50 matters. This means stamping hard on any sign of delay by the government, as well as calling out any and all who question any aspect of the situation, even if they are nominally ‘friendly’. Thus the various court cases might not question whether notification or Brexit should happen – only how – but by ramping up public dissent it makes it much more difficult for anyone to leverage those cases into further diversionary or limiting action.

Likewise, Parliament becomes a battleground, with a hard core of hard Brexiteers able to deprive the government of its majority, possibly to link up with an acquiescent Labour party in inflicting defeats on any area of policy that might cause Theresa May to think hard about defining them. Within the Tory party, that power also potentially extends to raising a challenge to their leader more directly, by triggering a leadership contest. While more of a nuclear option, it does have weight behind it, made more credible by the copious demonstrations of willingness to unleash havoc.

In short, the hard brexiteers probably do best by being unrelenting in their criticism of anyone who doesn’t cleave to the view that Brexit is quick and simple, pushing as hard as possible to get to Article 50, and then being unhelpful in finding a basis for cooperation, so that exit occurs on hard (ie. no) terms.

Whoa, Nelly!

If hard brexiteers might to push on being obstructive, then those that still want to fight for no brexit have a very different challenge.

For them, the referendum is a big, unavoidable problem and there is no easy way around it. So let’s assume that they will not directly challenge it. This opens up two lines of action, one short-term, the other longer.

In the short-term, the priority would have to be killing the momentum of the process. Cameron’s non-notification on 24th June opened up a big opportunity, but now it needs more work.

The logical first port of call is the Supreme Court next month. While neither party in Miller & dos Santos looks like changing their basic argument, the involvement of representation from the Scottish government and (possibly) the joining of the defeated Northern Irish action mean that there is scope for new elements to be introduced. To pick a recent idea, arguing that Article 50 notification needs not only the Act required by the High Court but also repeal of the 1972 European Communities Act would throw a huge spanner in the works, as this latter might mean years of legal unpicking before notification can happen.

The fall-back would be Parliament and efforts to expand the notification bill not only to improve oversight but to add further hurdles to getting to notification – such as the agreement of devolved assemblies – or the requirement for a second referendum to approve the final deal. Again, there are enough no-brexiteers in Tory ranks to cancel out the government majority, so work on getting Labour on-side would have to be a priority. Here, repeals would need to be multi-faceted, speaking to values and ideas that will resonate strongly with the leadership, i.e. not simply the benefits of EU membership.

Delaying notification is central in all of this, since it opens up the longer-term perspective, namely to effect a change in wider circumstances that make over-turning the referendum more feasible. That might include economic costs becoming more obvious, but also allowing more political events to accumulate. To take the most recent example, a Trump administration might be willing to cut a quick trade deal with the UK, but if that doesn’t happen then it makes the brexiteers’ argument about being a global player more difficult. Likewise, elections in France and the Netherlands in the first half of 2017 open up paths to more radical change within the EU that might render leaving moot.

Really?

Both these paths – hard brexit and no-brexit – are difficult and problematic. There is much to question about them and I’d have serious doubts about the viability of either.

However, the middle path – that of a managed brexit – is little easier. There have been some good pieces of late about how to strategise this, but that does not disguise the many pitfalls and bear-traps that exist. Perhaps the value of thinking more radically is that it exposes these, so that we might have more of a chance of getting to a sustainable future policy position.

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

Length of video : 165'
You may manually download this video in WMV (1.3Gb) 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, 2016 - EP