European Union

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

The EU should do more to protect independent journalists and bloggers and human rights defenders, say MEPs in their report on the state of human rights in the world in 2015, approved by the Foreign Affairs Committee on Monday. Members point out that the "universality of human rights is seriously being challenged in many parts of the world" and say the EU "should ensure coherence between its internal and external policies with regard to respect for human rights".
Committee on Foreign Affairs

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

The EU should do more to protect independent journalists and bloggers and human rights defenders, say MEPs in their report on the state of human rights in the world in 2015, approved by the Foreign Affairs Committee on Monday. Members point out that the "universality of human rights is seriously being challenged in many parts of the world" and say the EU "should ensure coherence between its internal and external policies with regard to respect for human rights".
Committee on Foreign Affairs

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

The EU should do more to protect independent journalists and bloggers and human rights defenders, say MEPs in their report on the state of human rights in the world in 2015, approved by the Foreign Affairs Committee on Monday. Members point out that the "universality of human rights is seriously being challenged in many parts of the world" and say the EU "should ensure coherence between its internal and external policies with regard to respect for human rights".
Committee on Foreign Affairs

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

https://tvnewsroom.consilium.europa.eu/uploads/council-images/thumbs/uploads/council-images/remote/http_7e18a1c646f5450b9d6d-a75424f262e53e74f9539145894f4378.r8.cf3.rackcdn.com/2cf8dd46-79a1-11e5-8bd4-bc764e084e2e_3.16_thumb_169_1477322015_1477322016_129_97shar_c1.jpg

EU Ministers of Foreign Affairs and Defence meet in Brussels on 15 November 2016 to discuss the implementation plan on security and defence under the EU global strategy. On Tuesday, Defence ministers are reviewing EU-NATO cooperation and CDSP operation..

Download this video here.

A week after the Paris Agreement entered into force, the United States have elected Donald J. Trump as their 45th President – a man who famously described climate change as “created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.” His stance on climate change, his strong support for coal and pledge to “lift the restrictions on American energy” have raised fears about his likely actions once in office, and their impact on international efforts to combat climate change. Critically, while he is most vocal against climate change he is no strong supporter of environmental policy in general. While he has backtracked on completely shutting down the US Environmental Protection agency (EPA) he is promising to ‘refocus’ its work:

“The Trump Administration is firmly committed to conserving our wonderful natural resources and beautiful natural habitats. America’s environmental agenda will be guided by true specialists in conservation, not those with radical political agendas.  We will refocus the EPA on its core mission of ensuring clean air, and clean, safe drinking water for all Americans.  It will be a future of conservation, of prosperity, and of great success.” GreatAgain.Gov

In this blog post, I attempt to make sense of the challenges facing environment and climate policy in the US – and beyond – by reflecting on past efforts to undermine and roll-back environmental regulation in the United States of America.

Donald J. Trump is not, by far, the first Republican to run for office on an anti-EPA, anti-climate change action platform. Ronald Reagan made removing environmental ‘over-regulation’ one of his key campaign objectives in the 1980s. Newt Gingrich led a Republican victory in the 1994 Congressional elections on the basis of his opposition to environmental action and its cost. And finally, George W. Bush’s reluctance to act on climate change saw him pull the US out of the Kyoto Protocol in the early 2000s.

What can we learn from these previous deregulatory attempts and their partial failures?

First, that environmental policy is not just made in Washington D.C. – for example, Klyza and Sousa argue the US ‘Green State’ is not only influenced by federal legislation (both environmental and non-environmental) but also by state-level action, by court cases, by implementation of both federal and state policies, by administrative decisions made by the administration and finally by self-regulation from industries.

Second, that these different sites are where policies can both be made and unmade. There are thus many ways in which one can weaken a given policy. It is possible to roll-back a policy, or remove it entirely through legislation. But when doing so is not possible, as Reagan, Gingrich or Bush all found out when failing to weaken Clean Air or Clean Water programs in Congress, there are other tactics. Politicians and others may pursue what Judith Layzer calls “low profile challenges”.[1] They can for example, target the implementation agency – which is often the EPA in the US (air, water pollution) or the Interior Department (for biodiversity) or the Energy Department (for renewables). Congress can also defund specific programs. The President can further appoint anti-regulation, climate-deniers to the head of the EPA – as Donald Trump is expected to do. The President can alternatively use executive orders – as President Obama did repeatedly – to bypass Congress and push for more ambitious environmental policy. But what one President can adopt by executive orders, another can rescind – as Donald Trump is expected to do. It is also possible to use the courts by for example by encouraging businesses to litigate, or refusing to appeal when these businesses win against the EPA.  Conversely, this also means that, despite Republican control of Congress and the Presidency, other sites remain open for environmental policy expansion – in some states, such as for example California, more ambitious climate policies could be adopted now.

Third, that policies are more than a series of specific instruments but are underpinned by narratives and weakened or strengthened by public perception. Over the last 40 years, US Conservatives have reshaped how we think about environmental policy – not just in the US, but in the EU and globally. Layzer contends that US Conservatives have thus “created a storyline that undermines the environmental narrative by discrediting environmentalists and furnishing a principled basis for disputing their claims”.[2] Examples of such principled opposition include calling for the respect for property rights (v. habitats protection), pointing to the costs of environmental action which increases tax burdens on the poor (rarely compared to its benefits), rejecting the precautionary principle as not based on ‘sound science’, or conversely rejecting said ‘science’ as conducted by scientists as ‘in it’ for the money.

Trump and his current attacks on the Paris Agreement are not just a US story but matter to the entire world – as evidenced by Chinese calls for continued US engagement in the Paris Agreement. But Trump’s victory should not be considered in isolation. When it comes to the environment, it marks in many ways the next step in decades of a US Conservative challenge to environmental policy. This challenge has already been successful in reframing what makes a ‘good’ environmental policy; and has rapidly moved from the fringes of US politics to the global mainstream of environmental politics – think for example of the Regulatory Fitness Checks conducted by the European Commission, or efforts to cut environmental ‘red tape’ by UK governments.

In conclusion, reviewing past challenges to US environmental policy shows that US Conservatives and the Republican Party have often failed to dismantle legislation through Congress – but have been much more effective at limiting administrative capacity for implementation (through cutting budget, nominating anti-regulatory advocates to the EPA). They have further been successful at reshaping how environmental policy, in the US and also globally, is perceived, even when out of office, stressing its cost, the ‘red tape’, the losers of regulations and casting doubts on the role of science. Under the Trump Administration, pro-environmental actors need to be fully aware of these different battle grounds – inside the legislature, inside the administration, across the different states and courts – as well as the battle of ideas. Shut out of Washington, it now falls on pro-Environmental actors to not only oppose and report on the future administration challenges to the environment, but also to redefine how they think and speak about environmental policies.

 

[1] Judith Layzer (2012), Open For Business: Conservatives’ Opposition to Environmental Regulation, MIT Press p. 334

[2] Ibid, p.333

The post Donald Trump v. The Environment: learning from past attempts to dismantle environmental policy appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

On behalf of the European Council, I would like to extend my congratulations on your election as President of the Republic of Bulgaria.

It is my hope that your Presidency will enhance unity, prosperity and security in Bulgaria needed for your country to continue to play its key role in the region and in the European Union, including when it comes to protecting our common external border. 

I wish you every success in your term as President.

Luxembourg’s highly-developed economy and location in the heart of Europe have attracted spectacular levels of immigration. Foreigners currently make up 47% of the total population, so Luxembourg is a country where integration and social cohesion are part of daily life and of social policy. Luxembourg’s targeted investments and projects have been used successfully to avoid cultural tensions and promote the peaceful coexistence of around 170 nationalities.

One challenge, though, is the job market. Luxembourg has three official languages, which can be an obstacle for immigrants looking for work. Although unemployment has decreased over the last few years, it remains a challenge in terms of integrating immigrants, especially those with lower levels of education. But access to employment is essential to integration. Struggling to find work can lead to dangerous frustration with the country itself.

The Ministry for Family Affairs and Integration offers, among other things, a “Welcome and Integration Contract” (CAI), including language and citizenship classes and an orientation day. This contract allows immigrants to get acquainted with the history, customs, values and, most importantly, languages of our country. We put a lot of effort into increasing the numbers of language
classes as well as continued professional training classes. Many initiatives – from the government, the private sector or NGOs – facilitate training paths and offer access to special training and
conversation classes.

Municipalities play a very important role in the integration process, as they are on the front line, welcoming immigrants. Some of Luxembourg’s local authorities have even developed local integration plans. The Luxembourg Reception and Integration Agency (OLAI), which is part of the Ministry for Family Affairs and Integration, in collaboration with the Union of Luxembourg
Cities and Communes (SYVICOL), elaborated a practical guide to integration at the local level. This guide aims to help municipalities and local policymakers implement a long-term integration policy. The OLAI also grants subsidies to municipalities, to help them get started.

But social cohesion can be achieved only if integration works both ways. Immigrants need to make a step towards the host country, just as we need to consider their needs. Successfully integrating foreigners also hinges on good collaboration between the various government bodies, the municipalities and civil society.

The importance of this approach becomes clear when looking at the real estate market, for which Luxembourg tops the list of the most expensive countries in Europe. The housing shortage is a known issue for immigrants and nationals alike. For this reason, housing is also a priority on the government’s agenda. In an attempt to create affordable housing, the government launched a lower-cost housing scheme. It also financially supports municipalities that create and offer social housing. An important partner in the housing sector is the social real estate agency (Agence immobilière sociale), which helps socially-deprived people access housing and offers support and advice. Immigrants are systematically directed towards this body.

These measures, of course, have financial implications. But it’s first and foremost an investment in the future of our society and a necessary step towards social cohesion. It’s essential to support
immigrants in finding affordable housing, which can be a very difficult endeavour for anyone, and to offer them various services to which they can turn for help. By supporting them, we promote
their independence and boost their integration. We appeal to the immigrants’ sense of responsibility and ensure that the same support is offered to immigrants and nationals alike – thereby helping to avoid cultural and social tensions. So far, Luxembourg has managed this balancing act very well.

Education is a different story. There is no shortage of school places. Immigrant children, who may lack the necessary language skills and knowledge, are assessed by the Ministry of Education, which identifies the right class or school for those children. Specially trained teachers – so-called “intercultural mediators” – have been employed. They speak the most common native languages
of immigrants – such as Serbo-Croatian and Arabic – and help children catch up with the national school programme. Welcome classes, with the ultimate goal of integrating children and young adults into regular classes as soon as possible, have been multiplied recently to receive refugee children. This also entails costs, but our system has proved very effective. School is an important element in the integration process, as it allows the children to become familiar with Luxembourg’s culture and connect with local people. Furthermore, it can also be an incentive for their parents to integrate as fast as possible into society.

The arrival of refugees fleeing the Syrian conflict has presented new integration challenges for Luxembourg, from the lack of housing possibilities to communication problems. All our good practices were put to the test, as they weren’t necessarily designed for the particular needs of people from such a different cultural, linguistic, political and often religious background. We face a double challenge. First, we have to offer housing opportunities and social support for all – financially as well as psychologically. Second, when we integrate these people into our society we must make it understood that integration is not a one-way street, but a process that demands effort from both sides.

So far, we have managed this exceptional situation well thanks to good collaboration between various government bodies, the municipalities and civil society. Special language classes are offered, some municipalities provide housing, and the ADEM job agency is assessing employability. OLAI has launched a project called “Welcome to Luxembourg”, which is designed to give asylum-seekers basic information about the country and help them understand where they live. At the invitation of the Ministry for Family Affairs and Integration, and with government financing, the Red Cross created “LISKO”, a service that promotes integration and social cohesion for those granted refugee status by supporting them in administrative procedures and creating links to services and the population.

Cultural tensions can arise in a society where different religious beliefs, political views and cultural backgrounds have to mix and merge over a long period of time. But Luxembourg has proved that this doesn’t have to lead to permanent conflicts in a country whose multiculturalism is reflected in all aspects of society. We have succeeded because we give immigrants the tools and means to understand and integrate into a new society. We offer them the opportunity to participate in our society. That is what integration is all about.

IMAGE CREDIT: CC / FLICKR – Franz Ferdinand Photography

The post Integration is a two-way street appeared first on Europe’s World.

Europe has never been so prosperous, so secure nor so free’. These words may sound grotesque today, but they were used in good faith as an opening line of the first European Security Strategy only thirteen years ago. Its successor, published in June by the EU’s foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini, begins with a starkly different assessment of the world: ‘We live in times of existential crisis, within and beyond the European Union’. This point of departure in the new strategy may indicate the EU is finally ready to take off its rose-coloured glasses of the early post-Cold War era.

The European neighbourhood, both to the east and south, is plagued with democratic backsliding, fragility and war. Even more disturbingly, the European project is facing unprecedented internal challenges to its unity and stability. To cope with this rapidly-deteriorating environment, the EU Global Strategy has pushed several new ideas, such as strategic autonomy, principled pragmatism and resilience. While in principle these ideas might refresh a stale strategic discourse in the EU, the new strategy has articulated them in a rather ambivalent fashion.

Let’s begin with so-called “strategic autonomy”. Instead of taking this idea to its logical conclusion, the strategists hastened to water it down to pre-emptively appease Atlanticists. The Strategy has thus pledged to ‘keep deepening the transatlantic bond and our partnership with NATO’. Building the autonomy of the EU within NATO is inevitably a step to full autonomy from NATO. More integrated defence in Europe doesn’t automatically mean the end of NATO, but it does mean a decreased political need for having both. An organised denial of this simple geopolitical reality may massage the concerns of certain capitals, but it’s also a recipe for inaction.

Second, the Global Strategy has endorsed “principled pragmatism”, which combines ‘realistic assessment of the strategic environment’ with ‘idealistic aspiration to advance a better world’. While striking a better balance between realism and idealism is a welcome move, old habits die hard. The Global Strategy has declared the EU’s intention to ‘invest in win-win solutions, and move beyond the illusion that international politics can be a zero-sum game’. As a result, the “realistic assessment” that the strategy allegedly endorses relapses into a worldview according to which power politics is nothing but an illusion. This is too sloppy for a global power wannabe.

Third, the strategy has strongly endorsed the concept of “resilience”, or the ability to reform in the face of internal and external crises. Moreover, the EU aspires not only to enhance the resilience of its own democracies but to promote resilience throughout its neighbourhood. A cynic would suggest that resilience is just another smoke-screen buzzword adding little substance to the debate. While there may be a grain of truth in this, the use of the term is also a symptom of increased anxiety over the EU’s own fragility, as well as its inability to Europeanise its neighbourhood. If the EU is serious about promoting resilience abroad, it has to first demonstrate that it is itself resilient.

“The most resilient thing the EU could do in the face of Brexit would be to push forward defence integration”

Brexit is a big blow for the EU’s security and defence policy, as one of the most powerful military, diplomatic and economic states is due to leave the bloc. Brexit, though, has also created a unique window of opportunity for the EU to bounce back. The first step is for the Union to be honest about its own weaknesses. The EU cannot be both a normative power and a strategic player; a civilian power and a military powerhouse; autonomous from NATO and dependent on it; democratically deficient and a champion of democracy. The EU cannot have its cake and eat it. It’s about time the EU made some bold choices.

Some easy wins may arise from the fact that the UK has, for decades, slowed down Europe’s defence integration. London has blocked many initiatives that could have increased the EU’s strategic autonomy and weakened the role of NATO, from CSDP Operational Headquarters to the use of Battle Groups. If resilience is the ability to withstand crises and emerge from them stronger, the most resilient thing the EU could do in the face of Brexit would be to push forward defence integration, which is long overdue and  widely supported by a majority of Europeans. This will signal that the EU means business in world politics and that ever-closer union is a vision to be reckoned with.

Finally, if the EU seriously seeks to be a credible promoter of resilience in its neighbourhood, it will need to step back from its liberal tunnel vision that has characterised so much of its external action. Instead of trying to copy-and-paste European institutions into Africa or the Middle East, where they often produce façade democracies, the EU should start fostering organic solutions to security problems. These will often diverge from European practices, but allowing them to flourish is the only path to a neighbourhood that can take care of itself.

It is a moment of truth for the European project – a time to see whether the EU’s leaders can seize the opportunity and turn ambivalent rhetoric into a new strategic paradigm that will make the EU stronger, safer and better off.

IMAGE CREDIT: CC / FLICKR – European External Action Service

The post The EU’s Global Strategy needs some straight talking appeared first on Europe’s World.

General : Less than one year after adopting the Paris climate agreement, world leaders and negotiators are meeting for talks in Marrakesh. The COP22 conference on 7-18 November focuses on ways of implementing the first universally binding global deal on climate change, a matter of huge urgency for the planet. Parliament is represented at the talks by a delegation of 12 MEPs led by Italian EPP member Giovanni La Via.

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

General : Less than one year after adopting the Paris climate agreement, world leaders and negotiators are meeting for talks in Marrakesh. The COP22 conference on 7-18 November focuses on ways of implementing the first universally binding global deal on climate change, a matter of huge urgency for the planet. Parliament is represented at the talks by a delegation of 12 MEPs led by Italian EPP member Giovanni La Via.

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

Place:         Justus Lipsius building, Brussels
Chairs:       Ivan Korčok, State Secretary of the Ministry for Foreign and European Affairs of Slovakia
                    Peter Pellegrini, Deputy Prime Minister for Investments of Slovakia 

All times are approximate and subject to change

TUESDAY 15 NOVEMBER

+/- 11.30      
Arrivals 
+/-  11.45     
Doorstep by State Secretary Ivan Korčok 

+/- 14.30
Beginning of Council meeting (Roundtable)
Adoption of agenda
Adoption of non-legisative A items
Adoption of legislative A items (public session) 

+/- 14.35      
Mid-term review of the Multiannual Financial Framework (public session)         

 +/- 14.55
Evaluation of rule of law mechanism

+/- 15.55      
Commission 2017 work programme (public session) 

+/- 16.55      
Follow up to the European Council of 20 and 21 October 

+/- 17.10      
Preparation of the European Council of 15 and 16 December

+/- 17.30      
European Semester

+/- 17.45
Any other business 

+/- 18.30      
Press conference (live streaming) 

WEDNESDAY 16 NOVEMBER

+/- 08.45      
Arrivals
+/- 09.45
Doorstep by Deputy Prime Minister Peter Pellegrini 

+/- 10.00      
Modification of the common provisions regulation (public session) 

+/- 10.35
Results and new elements of cohesion policy 

+/- 14.30
Press conference (live streaming)

General : This week MEPs sit down with representatives of the member states and the Commission with the aim of striking a deal on the 2017 EU budget. Parliament's inquiry committee investigating the Panama papers scandal holds an exchange of views with experts including economist and Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz. With a twelve-strong delegation of MEPs taking part in the COP22 talks in Marrakesh, climate change is also high on the agenda. Read on to learn more about this week’s parliamentary business.

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

General : This week MEPs sit down with representatives of the member states and the Commission with the aim of striking a deal on the 2017 EU budget. Parliament's inquiry committee investigating the Panama papers scandal holds an exchange of views with experts including economist and Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz. With a twelve-strong delegation of MEPs taking part in the COP22 talks in Marrakesh, climate change is also high on the agenda. Read on to learn more about this week’s parliamentary business.

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

The EU foreign ministers met on the weekend to discuss how to react to Donald Trump's election. They announced stronger cooperation on foreign and defence policy. Some commentators fear the emergence of a new alliance between Washington and Moscow, with devastating consequences for Europe. Others see such fears as exaggerated.

Over the past four days thousands of people have taken to the streets carrying signs bearing the words "Not my president" - also outside the US. Commentators take a sceptical view of the protests, and some even believe they're counterproductive.