European Union

On 14 November 2016, the presidency reached provisional agreement with representatives of the European Parliament on a draft regulation on money market funds (MMFs), aimed at making such products more robust. 

The draft regulation is intended to ensure the smooth operation of the short-term funding market. It sets out to maintain the essential role that money market funds play in the financing of the real economy. It follows efforts by the G20 and the Financial Stability Board to strengthen the oversight and regulation of the 'shadow banking' system. 

With assets under management of around €1 trillion, MMFs are mainly used to invest excess cash within short timeframes. They represent an important tool for investors because they offer the possibility to diversify their excess cash holdings, whilst maintaining a high level of liquidity. 

While an overall agreement was reached at political level, a number of technical issues relating to the draft regulation are to be finalised in the coming days. The agreement will then be submitted to the Permanent Representatives Committee for endorsement on behalf of the Council. The Parliament and the Council will then be called on to adopt the regulation at first reading.

Role and features of MMFs

 There are currently two kinds of MMFs that are used for short-term financing for companies and government entities: 

• those that offer a variable net asset value (VNAV) that mainly depends on market fluctuations;
• those that offer a constant net asset value (CNAV) and aim to offer share purchases and redemptions for a fixed price. 

When markets are stressed 

The financial crisis of 2007-08 showed that MMFs can be vulnerable to shocks and may even spread or amplify risks throughout the financial system. Investors are likely to redeem investments as soon as they perceive a risk, which can force funds to sell assets rapidly in order to meet redemption requests. This can fuel an investor 'run' and liquidity crisis for an MMF, potentially triggering further negative effects on other parts of the financial system. 

Common standards 

The draft regulation lays down rules for MMFs, in particular the composition of their portfolios and the valuation of their assets, to ensure the stability of their structure and to guarantee that they invest in well-diversified assets of the highestcredit quality.

It also introduces common standards to increase the liquidity of MMFs, to ensure that they can face sudden redemption requests when market conditions are stressed. In addition, the text provides for common rules to ensure that the fund manager has a good understanding of investors' behaviour, thus preparing for any future redemption requests. It provides investors and supervisors with adequate and transparent information. 

Issues resolved 

The agreement reached at the final meeting of 'political' negotiators covers, in particular, the core issues concerning regulation of MMFs, such as liquidity and diversification requirements, assets on which MMFs can invest including the role of government debt, transparency. It also provides fora report by the Commission on the functioning of the regulation, accompanied by a review clause.  

As the 22nd session of the Conference of the Parties (COP 22) in Marrakech draws to a close, it is becoming increasingly clear that credible monitoring and transparency procedures are urgently needed. Otherwise national pledges to address climate change in the spirit of the 2015 Paris Agreement will not build sufficient global trust.

The 2015 Paris Agreement marked a shift towards countries making emission reduction pledges known as Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) and a new Transparency Framework (Article 13). This framework requires regular progress reports on pledges to address climate change. While the quick ratification of the Paris Agreement is a sign that the international community is eager to make progress, setting up a strong and effective transparency framework will likely require hard and sustained work for years to come.

Our new research, published today in Climate Policy, shows that the long term success of the Agreement depends on the availability of well-designed and functioning monitoring and review mechanisms. The EU has one of the most advanced climate policy monitoring systems in the world – but it still encounters persistent challenges that, crucially, could jeopardize the implementation of the Paris Agreement if these challenges persist within the EU and potentially also in other countries and regions. We show that the EU’s current approach to monitoring climate policies – largely borrowed from monitoring greenhouse gases, which is a vastly different task – has not supported in depth learning and debate on the performance of individual policies. Other important obstacles include political concerns over the costs of reporting, control, and the perceived usefulness of the information produced. The international community should therefore draw on the EU’s valuable experiences and also difficulties in monitoring climate policies in order to develop the practice further.

A vital part of the implementation of the Paris Agreement will hinge on whether political actors can muster the leadership in order to successfully navigate these monitoring challenges at the international level. Monitoring is probably the most underestimated challenge in implementing the Paris Agreement. In the past, it has been seen as a technical, data gathering task. We show that it is anything but a mere reporting exercise. Implementing more advanced monitoring at the international level will require substantial political efforts, resources, and leadership. In order to justify investments in monitoring and evaluation to the public, care needs to be taken to ensure that monitoring information is used effectively to evaluate and improve policy, rather than as a weapon to lay blame when things slip.

A key strength of the Paris Agreement is that so many countries are part of it and are willing to engage. Disengagement or even withdrawal could therefore imperil the whole Agreement and have grave ramifications for the set-up of a strong monitoring system. The EU’s experience shows that recognising the role of public policies in the NDCs should thus be seen as one step in a long journey to deeper understanding of what climate policies achieve and how policies can be improved.

Image credit: CGIAR Research Programme (Creative Commons)

The post Lessons from European Climate Monitoring Crucial for Paris Agreement Success appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

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

First, Emmanuel Macron, the young economic adviser the French president promoted as economy minister in 2014, is to confirm his presidential bid, whether or not his mentor decides to seek re-election next year.

Read more

AMENDMENTS 1 - 97 - Draft report containing a motion for a non-legislative resolution on the draft Council decision on the conclusion of the Framework Agreement on Partnership and Cooperation between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and Mongolia, of the other part
Committee on Foreign Affairs

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

1.           The forty-sixth meeting of the EEA Council took place in Brussels on 15 November 2016 under the Presidency of Ms Elisabeth Vik Aspaker, Minister of EEA and EU Affairs of Norway. The meeting was attended by Ms Aurelia Frick, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Liechtenstein, Mr Stefán Haukur Jóhannesson, representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Iceland, and Mr Lukas Parizek, representing the Presidency of the Council of the European Union, as well as by members of the Council of the European Union and representatives of the European Commission and the European External Action Service. 

2.           The EEA Council noted that, within the framework of the political dialogue, the Ministers would discuss Western Balkans, Ukraine/Russia, Migration, and the EU global strategy on Foreign and Security Policy. An orientation debate was held on the digital single market, including the collaborative economy. 

3.           The EEA Council acknowledged the key role played by the EEA Agreement for more than 20 years in advancing economic relations and internal market integration between the EU and the EEA EFTA States. The EEA Council highlighted that the Agreement had been robust and capable of adapting to changes in EU treaties and EU enlargements. The EEA Council recognised that increased efforts towards enhancing competitiveness would be key for jobs and growth in Europe. 

4.           The EEA Council emphasised the importance of a well-functioning Single Market as a driver in boosting economic growth and creating new jobs throughout Europe, and welcomed the steps already taken to implement the proposals contained in the strategies for a digital single market and for upgrading the Single Market, both launched in 2015, with a view to exploiting in full its untapped growth and productivity potential. The EEA Council agreed that a holistic approach is required to tackle some of the main challenges facing the Single Market, and stressed the importance of close involvement of the EEA EFTA States in the further design and development of single market policies and initiatives. 

5.           The EEA Council welcomed the adoption of the EEA Joint Committee decisions of the first package of legal acts related to the EU regulations on the European supervisory authorities in the area of financial services. The EEA Council also highlighted the high importance of promptly incorporating and applying the other outstanding legislation in the field of financial services as soon as possible in order to ensure a level playing field throughout the EEA in this important sector.

6.           Noting the progress report of the EEA Joint Committee, the EEA Council expressed its appreciation for the work of the Joint Committee in ensuring the continued successful operation and good functioning of the EEA Agreement. 

7.           The EEA Council emphasised the importance of solidarity among the countries of Europe to overcome social and economic challenges. In particular, the EEA Council expressed concern regarding the continued high level of youth unemployment in some EEA member states. 

8.           The EEA Council commended the positive contribution of the EEA and Norway financial mechanism 2009-2014 and of their predecessors in reducing economic and social disparities throughout the EEA and recognised the still existing need to alleviate social and economic disparities in the EEA. 

9.           The EEA Council welcomed the ratification of the agreement on an EEA financial mechanism 2014-2021 by Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway, and of the agreement between Norway and the EU on a Norwegian financial mechanism for the 2014-2021 period by Norway. The EEA Council further welcomed the provisional application of the agreement on a Norwegian financial mechanism for the 2014-2021 period as of 1 July 2016 and of the agreement on an EEA financial mechanism 2014-2021 as of 1 August 2016. 

10.        The EEA Council also welcomed the provisional application of the Protocol on trade in fish and fisheries products between Iceland and the EU as of 1 August 2016 and of the Protocol on trade in fish and fisheries products between Norway and the EU as of 1 September 2016. 

11.        Emphasising the fact that greater knowledge of the EEA Agreement throughout the EEA is in the interest of all contracting parties, the EEA Council urged them to ensure that information on the EEA Agreement is made readily and easily available. 

12.        The EEA Council noted that free movement of capital is a fundamental internal market freedom and an integral part of the EEA acquis and acknowledged that restrictions can be implemented only temporarily on the basis of the provisions of article 43 of the EEA Agreement. The EEA Council welcomed the progress of the comprehensive plan of the Icelandic government for removal of capital controls without threatening economic and financial stability of the country. 

13.        The EEA Council placed great importance on continued close cooperation between the EU and the EEA EFTA States in environment, energy and climate change polices, particularly in light of the 2030 framework for climate and energy and the framework strategy for a resilient Energy Union with a forward-looking climate change policy. The close cooperation should also continue in particular in the areas of internal energy market, energy security, emissions trading, promotion of competitive, climate resilient, safe and sustainable low carbon energy, energy efficiency, renewable energy resources, carbon capture and storage (CCS) and carbon capture and utilisation (CCU), as well as other environmental issues such as waste, chemicals, water resource management and industrial pollution. 

14.        The EEA Council recalled the historic global and legally-binding climate agreement reached in Paris in December 2015 and welcomed its entry into force on 4 November 2016, triggered by the EU ratification. The EEA Council welcomed the efforts undertaken by both EU member states and EEA EFTA States to ensure speedy completion of their national ratification procedures and encouraged other countries to ratify as soon as possible. 

15.        The EEA Council welcomed the broad support the joint initiative on European standardisation had achieved and the efforts the EU side had initiated with this successful collaborative co-regulation modernising the European standardisation system. The EEA Council also acknowledged that the involvement and contribution from EFTA in this field is an illustration of efficient EU-EFTA cooperation supporting a homogenous EEA. 

16.        The EEA Council welcomed the ongoing efforts made to both reduce the number of EEA-relevant EU acts awaiting incorporation into the EEA Agreement and to accelerate the incorporation process. While commending all the steps undertaken in the course of the last years, the EEA Council noted that the number of acts awaiting incorporation was still too high. The EEA Council called for continued work in order to significantly and durably reduce the current backlog and thereby ensure legal certainty and homogeneity in the EEA. It urged all parties to engage constructively to find solutions to pending difficult issues. 

17.        With regard to the third package for the internal energy market, the EEA Council welcomed progress made in recent months with regard to removing the remaining obstacles towards its incorporation in the EEA Agreement, notably as concerns the EEA EFTA participation in the Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER), and underlined the importance of swiftly finalising this work in order to establish a fully functional internal market for energy. 

18.        The EEA Council welcomed progress made in recent months with regard to the 2009 regulatory framework for electronic communications (including the regulation on the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications - BEREC), and the regulation on medicinal products for paediatric use.

19.        The EEA Council noted that progress was still needed on a number of important outstanding issues and looked forward to reaching a conclusion as soon as possible, in particular regarding the third postal directive, the EU legal acts in the area of organic production, as well as in the area of common rules and standards for ship inspection and survey organisations. 

20.        The EEA Council noted that there was a number of Joint Committee decisions, for which the six-month deadline provided for in the EEA Agreement with regard to constitutional clearance had been exceeded. It encouraged the EEA EFTA States to strengthen their efforts to resolve the pending cases as soon as possible and to avoid such delays in the future. 

21.        The EEA Council acknowledged the significance of the negotiations on an ambitious, balanced and comprehensive free trade agreement between the European Union and the United States. The EEA Council welcomed the continuous exchange of information between the European Commission and the EEA EFTA States, initiated in the EEA Joint Committee in December 2014. Bearing in mind inter alia Protocol 12 to the EEA Agreement, the EEA Council encouraged a continuation of this exchange of information. 

22.        The EEA Council acknowledged that the contracting parties, pursuant to article 19 of the EEA Agreement, had undertaken to continue their efforts with a view to achieving the progressive liberalisation of agricultural trade. The EEA Council looked forward to the signing of the agreements on the further liberalisation of agricultural trade and on the protection of geographical indications between the EU and Iceland, which were initialled on 17 September 2015, in the near future. The EEA Council noted the suspension of the negotiations between the EU and Norway on protection of geographical indications. 

23.        The EEA Council welcomed the progress made in the negotiations between the EU and Norway on further liberalisation of agricultural trade within the framework of article 19 launched in February 2015 and encouraged the parties to actively continue their efforts for further progress in the negotiations.

24.        The EEA Council looked forward to the adoption of the Joint Committee decision related to the agreement on the further liberalisation of trade in processed agricultural products within the framework of article 2(2) and article 6 of Protocol 3 to the EEA Agreement between Iceland and the EU, which was concluded on 17 September 2015, in the near future. 

25.        The EEA Council encouraged the contracting parties to continue the dialogue on the review of the trade regime for processed agricultural products within the framework of article 2(2) and article 6 of Protocol 3 to the EEA Agreement in order to further promote trade in this area. 

26.        Acknowledging the contribution made by EU programmes to building a more competitive, innovative and social Europe, the EEA Council welcomed the participation of the EEA EFTA States in EEA-relevant programmes to which they contribute financially. 

27.        The EEA Council recognised the active participation and full integration of the EEA EFTA States in the European research area and the successful association of Norway and Iceland in Horizon 2020, the EU's flagship programme for research and innovation. The EEA Council will continue to place high importance to the integration and policy alignment of EEA EFTA States with the EU in the area of research and innovation. 

28.        The EEA Council underlined the importance of continuing the practice of inviting officials from the EEA EFTA States to political dialogues held at the level of the relevant EU Council working parties.

29.        The EEA Council underlined the importance of inviting EEA EFTA Ministers to informal EU ministerial meetings and ministerial conferences relevant to EEA EFTA participation in the Internal Market, and expressed its appreciation to the current Slovak and incoming Maltese Presidencies for the continuation of this practice. 

30.        The EEA Council recognised the positive contributions made by the EEA EFTA States to the decision-shaping process of EEA-relevant EU legislation and programmes through their participation in the relevant committees, expert groups, studies and agencies, as well as through the submission of EEA EFTA comments. 

The EU and Lebanon adopted the partnership priorities for the coming four years, as well as a compact. The partnership priorities set up a renewed framework for political engagement and enhanced cooperation. They were agreed in the context of the revised European neighbourhood policy and the EU's global strategy for foreign and security policy.

The compact includes the mutual commitments through which the EU and Lebanon will fulfil the pledges they made at the London conference on supporting Syria and the region in February 2016. The objective is to improve the living conditions both of refugees temporarily staying in Lebanon and of vulnerable host communities.

The announcement was made jointly by Federica Mogherini, High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and Gebran Bassil, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Lebanon in Brussels on Tuesday 15 November.

Partnership priorities in EU-Lebanon relations for the coming years include: security and countering terrorism, governance and the rule of law, fostering growth and job opportunities, and migration and mobility.

The EU-Lebanon compact foresees an EU allocation of a minimum of € 400 million in 2016-2017, in addition to the bilateral assistance of more than €80 million for those two years.  It outlines specific mutual commitments to address the impact of the Syrian crisis and aims to turn the situation into an opportunity to improve the socio-economic prospects, security, stability and resilience of the whole Lebanon. In turn Lebanon commits to ease the temporary stay of Syrian refugees, in particular regarding their residency status. The country currently hosts at least 1.1 million Syrians. It is the country hosting the highest number of displaced persons and refugees both per capita and per square kilometre.

Finding reliable figures on the budgets and finances of the United Nations (UN) system is not easy, unless you know where to look for them. I’ll try to present some of this below and also bring you up-to-date on my research on budgeting and resourcing in international organizations.

First, a lot of the older UN budget data has been gathered by the Global Policy Forum, especially thanks to the help of Klaus Hüfner.

On the websites of the UN System Chief Executives Board for Coordination (UNSCEB), basically the body where the heads of all UN agencies and body coordinate, there are all kinds of UN system financial data, including in reusable (csv) formats for the years starting in 2010. Note that this data is annual although most UN budgets are biennial or, in some cases, even longer.

The UNSCEB (and its predecessor called ACC) have also been issuing reports on the financial situation of the UN system since the early 1990s, with the oldest reports including data going back to 1983. The latest report for the budget period 2014-15 has just been published at the end of October, and the figures above are from this report.*

My own research project in which we study UN budgeting and budget administration continues. We have just published a chapter titled “Changing Budgeting Administration in International Organizations” in the edited volume “International Bureaucracy” and are working on a special issue following our workshop on “Resourcing International Organizations” here in Munich. More is to come on the United Nations in the coming weeks and months.

If you also work on budgeting of international organizations or the questions related to resource matters in the UN system, in regional organizations or in other types of IOs, you can join our panel “Budget Formulation, Budget Administration and the Politics of Resourcing International Organizations” at the ICPP in Singapur in June 2017 (deadline of the CfP is in January).

* Note that this data does not represent budgets or expenditure but revenues that include government and private voluntary contributions made to the various UN organizations. In some of them, voluntary funds make up a large chunk of the money available (e.g. ~80% in WHO). I’ve added the figures for 2014 and 2015 for the chart.

The post The budget of the United Nations (UN) system: latest figures and research appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

Did you know that 16 November is the ‘International Day for Tolerance’? This year, more than ever before, let’s take a moment to contemplate.

Talk of openness and inclusion may appear quaint in a world dominated by hate and harshness. Who wants to “respect and recognise the rights and beliefs of others” – as the United Nations would like us to do on Wednesday – when there is so much fear to spread, and so many angry ‘strong’ men and women to elect?

Life is just too short to be polite. People want tough leaders, not more soppy political correctness. Let’s leave softies like Canada’s Justin Trudeau to fight injustice, oppression, racism and unfair discrimination. The rest of us have better things to do.

Actually, we don’t.

Being mean and nasty can be exhilarating for a naughty moment. There is a thrill in breaking taboos, hurling insults and breaching red lines. Building walls and fences and deporting immigrants can sound like great fun.

But the excitement won’t last. And a permanent state of hate and anger is not a recipe for societal well-being. Living together – even without ‘them’, just among ‘us’ – requires a degree of courtesy and polite interaction.

“Being mean and nasty can be exhilarating for a naughty moment… but the excitement won’t last”

Taming the demons of racism, nativism and populism unleashed by America’s president-elect Donald Trump during his election campaign – which may be cultivated over the next four years – will not be easy. But here are six ways can be done.

First, let’s remember that millions of Americans did not buy into Trump’s toxic rhetoric. While the Electoral College certainly voted for Trump, Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton secured a majority of the popular vote.

In other words, those who embrace pluralism, tolerance, inclusion – and who reject the nightmare version of a new Trumpian world order – cannot be easily shunted to the side lines. Their voice will continue to count. It may become even louder.

Second, it’s more important than ever to craft an inspirational narrative to counter and outsmart Trump’s European wannabes in France, Germany and the Netherlands.

As elections in these and other countries draw closer, instead of pandering to the ‘Populists International’, mainstream political parties in Europe must reach out with more conviction and passion to the majority of Europeans who believe in an open and tolerant Europe. Their voices are currently drowned out by extremists and ignored by others.

This is no time for old, wishy washy slogans and bland speeches. It’s time to fight fire with fire.

Third, underlining the principles of liberal democracy – as German Chancellor Angela Merkel did in her message of congratulations to Trump – is a good first step. But it will mean very little unless EU leaders take tougher action against those inside the EU – including Hungary’s Viktor Orban and the Polish government – who violate these very values.

Fourth, even as they lecture Trump, Russia’s Vladimir Putin or Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdoğan on human rights, EU leaders should make sure that they practice what they preach at home and that their own treatment of minorities – as well as migrants and refugees – is above reproach. For the moment, it isn’t.

“Not so long ago racism and discrimination in Europe led to wide-spread devastation, death and destruction – history should not be allowed to repeat itself”

Fifth, even seemingly small things matter. Christmas traditions like ‘Black Pete’ in the Netherlands may seem harmless to white Dutch people but they send a harmful message of exclusion to the country’s many black citizens.

Offensive language, of the kind European Commissioner Gunter Oettinger used recently when speaking of his Chinese counterparts, sends the wrong message to European citizens and a watching world.

Last, let’s debate and discuss the reasons for Trump’s success, the rise of populists, the flaws of liberal democrats and the pros and cons of globalisation. As with Brexit, there are important topics to analyse and reflected upon.

For the moment, the killing fields of the 21st century happen to be far away, in Afghanistan, Africa and the Middle East. But not so long ago it was here in Europe that racism and discrimination led to wide-spread devastation, death and destruction.

History should not be allowed to repeat itself.

 

Related content

• Friends of Europe: Report – Islam and the challenge of Muslim democrats
• Europe’s World: Throwing money at failing states isn’t working
• Debating Europe: Changing the Politics of Fear – new series

 IMAGE CREDIT: CC / FLICKR – Alexandros Plakidas

The post A good moment to reflect on tolerance appeared first on Europe’s World.

https://tvnewsroom.consilium.europa.eu/uploads/council-images/thumbs/uploads/council-images/remote/http_7e18a1c646f5450b9d6d-a75424f262e53e74f9539145894f4378.r8.cf3.rackcdn.com/222b505a-d19f-11e5-b6c6-bc764e08d9b2_207.74_thumb_169_1477322326_1477322326_129_97shar_c1.jpg

EU Ministers of Foreign and European Affairs meet in Brussels on 15 November 2016 to evaluate the Rule of Law mechanism, hear a presentation of the Commission's work programme for 2017 and start preparations for the December European Council.

Download this video here.

Place:        Justus Lipsius building, Brussels
Chair:        Ivan Lesay, State Secretary

All times are approximate and subject to change.

from 08.45
Arrivals

+/- 10.00 
Beginning of the Council meeting (Roundtable)
Adoption of the agenda

+/- 10.05
Council meeting to prepare the conciliation committee meeting (public session)

+/- 11.30
Conciliation committee meeting

+/- 12.30
Consultations in various formats

+/- ttbc
Conciliation committee meeting

+/- ttbc
Council meeting to take note of the results of the discussions (public session) 

At the end of the meeting
Press conference (live streaming)

The meeting might continue until 17 November 24.00 

https://tvnewsroom.consilium.europa.eu/uploads/council-images/thumbs/uploads/council-images/remote/http_7e18a1c646f5450b9d6d-a75424f262e53e74f9539145894f4378.r8.cf3.rackcdn.com/b863bf68-977e-11e5-b3f1-bc764e084e2e_463.5_thumb_169_1477322469_1477322469_129_97shar_c1.jpg

EU Ministers of Finance meet in Brussels on 16 November 2016 to prepare the negotiations with the European Parliament on the 2017 EU budget which will take place in a conciliation committee meeting the same day.

Download this video here.

DRAFT REPORT on statelessness in South and South East Asia
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Amjad Bashir

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

The UK would still be a member of the European Union if only the young people who supported Remain had actually bothered to vote. This analysis was impossible to ignore in the days and weeks following the Brexit vote, and was tempting enough for many to enthusiastically agree with it. After all, we know how bad turnout is among young people in election after election, and that’s based only on those who’ve actually registered.

The problem is that it wasn’t nearly as true as it first appeared. The original figure of 36% turnout among young people, compared to 72.2% overall, seemed to originate from Sky Data, based on conclusions they had drawn from 2015 UK general election data. Sky Data also claimed that if Scots had turned out in the same numbers as we had for our independence referendum, we could
have swung the result – never explaining how a 1.3 million vote margin would have been closed by 430,000 Remain votes north of the border. Despite this, the figures weren’t questioned and the
narrative was established: young people just hadn’t bothered. Fortunately, data compiled at the London School of Economics, released in mid-July, painted a different picture. Turnout among 18- to 24-year-olds was 64%, almost double the Sky Data figure, but not enough to compete with a turnout of more than 90% among over-65s, who overwhelmingly voted Leave.

Even with this new data, the question still stands: why, when faced with a decision that may have life-changing consequences for all of us, did one in three registered young voters not go to the
polls? There are, of course, a range of domestic reasons for this, and it’s worth looking at them before examining the wider issue of youth alienation and apathy across Europe.

First, the EU referendum debate itself was just terrible. The tone of both official campaigns was unreservedly negative, and often boiled down to two wings of the Conservative Party arguing about immigration and sovereignty in an entirely top-down manner. This was a referendum conducted by a few men in suits through televised debates and massive spending on billboards and newspaper adverts. Compare that to the UK’s previous experience of a high-turnout referendum, the 2014 vote on Scottish independence, which was an immersive affair with debates taking place at bus stops, in offices and classrooms across the country. In 2014, Scotland’s young people felt that politics was something we were all doing together, in which each of our voices was powerful. In 2016, the young people of the UK felt politics was something being done to them by largely remote and unlikeable establishment politicians.

“Why, when faced with a decision that may have life-changing consequences for all of us, did one in three registered young voters not go to the polls?”

The EU debate started off with most people very ill-informed. One senior Member of the European Parliament I know does not pretend to understand completely how the Union works. So what chance did we have of getting young people engaged and excited if, instead of positive and substantial debate, we offered a bitter and personal campaign – one that seemed far more about settling old scores than informing and persuading the public?

The referendum itself can’t be seen in isolation. British democracy hasn’t been at its healthiest for some time. A winner-takes-all and largely unrepresentative voting system, coupled with a distant,
arrogant political class drawn in large part from a tiny elite has persuaded many people – especially women, young people and working class people – that their vote won’t count and their voice
doesn’t matter. Expecting a single referendum – regardless of its importance – to undo this doesn’t begin to address the reasons why people aren’t voting. Even in Scotland, where the independence vote has had a legacy of high voter registration and increased turnout in the subsequent Westminster and Holyrood elections, it’s clear that 2014’s politics of mass participation is fading.

And just as the EU referendum didn’t happen in isolation from the rest of the UK’s electoral politics, British democracy doesn’t exist apart from European democracy – even if that’s how 52% of voters in the UK seem to want it. Across Europe, young people – and plenty of others – are uninterested, apathetic or alienated from the democratic process.

Like in the UK, there is a range of domestic reasons for this – some strikingly similar, others unique. In Greece, the anti-austerity coalition Syriza won an election and re-election with significant
support from young people. Those same young people, joined by many more, also voted overwhelmingly to reject the terms offered by the Troika of European and international institutions to deal with the crisis in their country. Despite three electoral victories in quick succession, their voice was resoundingly crushed by external forces. Is it any wonder those young people are disillusioned not just with their national democracy, but with Europe too? In Ireland, the economic crash caused many thousands of young people to leave the country in search of work. Though this led to heartwarming scenes last year, as many came “#HomeToVote” for equal marriage in a referendum, it again points to economic issues contributing significantly to young people’s alienation.

“Young people have watched the relative economic security of the previous generation destroyed by mistakes made by that very same generation”

And it’s important to recognise much of this as alienation, rather than apathy. Young people are often unfairly painted as lazy or even ignorant; instead, we should recognise how the political system has failed them and work to address it. Alienation is not apathy. Young people do care about their community, their society and the world they (and we) live in, but many feel powerless to do anything to change it. They feel defeated by forces far beyond their control, which more often than not seem abstract and difficult to identify in the real world.

Scottish trade unionist Jimmy Reid defined alienation, its causes and solutions in his legendary “rat-race” speech to Glasgow University in 1972. Printed in full by the New York Times and compared to the Gettysburg Address, it’s strikingly relevant to post-Brexit Europe. The solutions to this alienation are ambitious, far-reaching and will be met by considerable resistance from those who benefit the most from the status quo. They are the radical redistribution of economic power and political decision-making ability from a small number of people to our societies at large.
In our pursuit of a better Europe, one which will never again be shattered by war and where cooperation and solidarity are at the heart of the project, we must recognise that institutions have been
constructed that are unaccountable, distant, easily-caricatured by those who stand opposed to the European project, and used to the advantage of a tiny elite – thereby justifiably reinforcing the
caricature.

“Alienation is not apathy. Young people do care about their community, their society and the world, but many feel powerless to do anything to change it”

Young people have watched the relative economic security of the previous generation destroyed by mistakes made by that very same generation. They see the promise of democracy – which in many parts of Europe their parents and grandparents fought and often died for – swept aside by market forces and institutions so powerful and distant they don’t know how or even whether it’s possible to fight back. Their experience of politics is of something done to them, not something we all do together. That cannot last. To save the idea of a Europe united in pursuit of peace and economic, social and environmental justice, we must together take back power over our economy, our governments and the European institutions. A Europe in which every one of us has a stake is one worth turning out and voting for.

IMAGE CREDIT: CC / FLICKR – Garon S

The post Young people aren’t apathetic. They’ve just been alienated appeared first on Europe’s World.

Salaberria Sorondo
Principles of Community law
The exclusion of candidates more than 35 years of age from a competition for the recruitment of police officers required to perform operational duties is compatible with EU law

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

Length of video : 220'
You may manually download this video in WMV (2.4Gb) 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

Remember The Day of the Jackal? This thrilling movie released in 1973 and featuring Edward Fox as enigmatic contract killer, is based on the failed attempt to assassinate Charles de Gaulle on 22 August 1962 by the paramilitary underground organisation OAS (‘Organisation de l’armée secrète’), composed by extreme right-wing activists who considered the Evian Treaty, signed in March 1962 in order to pave the way to Algerian independence, an act of high treason.

The fanatics who machine-gunned de Gaulle’s legendary Citroën DS fortunately missed the General. But they seriously injured the young Fifth Republic, profoundly handicapping her for life. What they did was provide de Gaulle with an unexpected, most welcome opportunity to modify the constitution under the pretext of ‘protecting’ the country. (Any resemblance with current Turkish presidents purely coincidental).

And he seized it quickly, because he felt that the conditions under which the Fifth Republic had been tailor-made to his personality in the first place – the need to put an end to the Algerian crisis – were no longer provided.

Only one week after the incident he announced a constitutional revision in his Council of ministers and notified public opinion in a press release that he was actively ‘preparing to take the necessary initiatives’ in order to ‘ensure, under all circumstances and without losing any time, the continuity of the State’. And on 12 September – just returned, by the way, from a triumphal visit to Germany where he laid the foundations of the path-breaking Elysée Treaty signed a few months later – he registered a television address that was broadcast on 20 September, informing the French population that it was time to ‘protect the country from crises and partisan ploys’, reminding them that ‘all this pain, the tears and the blood’, had created an ‘exceptional bond’ between the French people and himself, and that, for the sake of those who would one day have the heavy task to succeed him, he would submit the election of the president ‘by direct universal suffrage’ in a forthcoming referendum.

De Gaulle thus managed to push a constitutional reform that was anti-constitutional in itself! As the vast majority of observers and even the Conseil d’Etat pointed out, constitutional changes had to be decided and discussed in both chambers of the parliament, a provision de Gaulle simply dismissed (any resemblance with current British prime ministers purely coincidental). The Assemblée nationale did what it had to do: it adopted a vote of no confidence, obtained a large majority for it on 5 October and … as a result, was dissolved right away by de Gaulle (one of the convenient prerogatives of the French president), with new legislative elections announced for after the referendum.

If one is to believe Alain Peyrefitte in his book C’était de Gaulle (Vol. 1, Paris: Fallois-Fayard, 1994), the President was fully aware of the implications, telling his young secretary of state ‘What we are going to do is at the limits of legality. I even believe we crossed the line. (…) If we win, we will be able to say it’s legal because the people wants it.’

‘YES, it’s YOU who will elect the President of the Republic’

On 28 October 62.25% of the French electorate approved the new electoral process. The referendum was promptly ratified by the Conseil constitutionnel which showed a total absence of democratic backbone at this historical occasion.

What an incredible manipulation of constitutional provisions and public opinion! And what a massive vote of defiance against the ‘establishment’, which had been against it in closed ranks: all major politicians, trade unions, media, intellectuals and academics had warned against it – to no effect whatsoever. Is it exaggerated to say that in 1944 de Gaulle had promised the French he would make their country ‘great again’, and in 1962 he more or less told them ‘I am your voice!’ (Any resemblance with…).

Given his historical achievements, one can only have the greatest respect for Charles de Gaulle. His courage and determination, his moral and political legitimacy are undeniable. But that does not change the fact that, very clearly, the high art of demagogy is not reserved to shabby opportunists and ruthless cynics. There are moments when it finds a masterly application in the hands of uncontested heroes and great statesmen.

In de Gaulle’s case, the move was motivated mainly by his profound distrust of parliamentary democracy, with its litany of partisan spirit, unsatisfying compromise, tedious negotiations and fragile coalitions. In 1946 already, in his famous speech in Bayeux, he insisted on the need for ‘national arbitration above the political contingencies’ and made it clear that ‘it is from the Head of State, placed above the parties, that the executive power must proceed.’ In 1962, he got his will.

De Gaulle’s manoeuvre did not actually change the scope of power of the French President. It did not have any major immediate impact either – de Gaulle was of course re-elected in 1965 – and it may even be argued that the direct universal suffrage indirectly paved the way for political changeover in 1981: would there ever have been a Socialist in the Elysée if the President had always been chosen by the electoral college like in 1958?

But the long-term heritage for French politics is devastating: more than half a century later the poor Fifth Republic is more than ever held in the firm grip of de Gaulle’s plot of 1962. The presidential election has become a self-locking, seemingly unbreakable padlock for French democracy (and someone seems to have thrown away the key). Several posts of this blog will deal with the concrete consequences of de Gaulle’s historical constitutional ‘rape’, as former French premier Paul Reynaud famously commented at the time.

Fortunately the French are able to laugh about the padlock themselves. In the hilarious spy movie parody OSS 117: Lost in Rio, Jean Dujardin as secret agent Hubert Bonisseur de la Bath, on mission in Rio de Janeiro in 1967, refuses to consider Brazil a dictatorship, despite the arguments of his young colleague from the Mossad. And when she objects, asking: ‘But what do you call a country which has as head of state a former military with full powers, a secret police, one single television channel, and where all information is controlled by the State?’, he pauses for a moment and declares solemnly: ‘I call this la France, Mademoiselle. And not just any kind of France. The France of the General de Gaulle.’

Today France has more TV channels than it needs and information is certainly no longer under control. But the electoral padlock is still shut.

Albrecht Sonntag
@albrechtsonntag

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

The post France 2017: How the padlock was shut appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

https://tvnewsroom.consilium.europa.eu/uploads/council-images/thumbs/uploads/council-images/remote/http_c96321.r21.cf3.rackcdn.com/15233_169_full_129_97shar_c1.jpg

The European Economic Area (EEA) was established on 1 January 1994 following an agreement between the member states of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) and the European Union (EU).

Download this video here.

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

By Stefan Wagstyl

Read more

The EU needs a European register of beneficial owners of companies, consistent definition - and handling - of suspicious transactions and enforced transnational cooperation like the US Financial Investigation Unit, experts on anti-money laundering enforcement in Belgium and Germany told Parliament’s Panama Papers Inquiry Committee on Monday.
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