Public Affairs Blog

2016 will be an intense year in Brussels, with a number of initiatives launched by the Juncker Commission embodied in legislative proposals.

One of the EU founding members however is under the influence of a different agenda: in less than 18 months, presidential and general elections will be held in France, and the results of the regional elections of last December show the growing success of the Front National (FN) among the French citizens. Could the Eurosceptic FN have a decisive influence on the EU agenda of the coming years, although not formally in power?

What’s happened: FN stumbling on the second round of the regional elections

In December 2015, France lived one of the defining moments of its contemporary political history. In the first round of the regional elections, under the helm of Marine le Pen, the Front National (FN) had attracted more voters than the two main ruling parties, Parti Socialiste (PS – centre left) and Les Republicains (LR – centre right). The results of the second round confirmed this trend, with more ballots cast for the Front National than ever before. No region was however conquered by FN; PS and LR, and their respective allies, will retain power in the majority of the regions.

In 2017, when the next elections come, the “all-against-Le-Pen” line might be outdated.

A French well-known political saying states that electors chose in the first round, but eliminate in the second round. To ensure elimination of FN, PS has kept its “Republican barrier” strategy, i.e. withdrawing its lists before the second round when the FN is likely to stay in front, and supporting the candidates of the centre-right. This was rejected by former President and now LR leader Nicolas Sarkozy, who has been advocating for a “ni-ni” (“neither-nor”) strategy since 2011.

On the one hand, these combined strategies have proven successful in keeping FN out of power. On the other hand, the FN seems to paradoxically benefit from being cast aside, stressing the FN narrative of being victimized by establishment, deeming PS and LR the two sides of the same coin, and presenting itself as the sole alternative. With an ever-growing number of votes going to FN, the “all-against-Le-Pen” line might be outdated when the presidential and general elections come in 2017.

Self-fulfilling prophecy: declining French influence in the EU

One indirect consequence of the rise of FN may well be a self-fulfilling prophecy: declining French influence in the EU. In the run-up to the 2017 elections, the French government will likely try to avoid antagonising more potential FN voters. Recent polls have shown that although President Hollande is seen as a powerful leader at international level by French voters (and has the COP21 success to show for it), this does not influence their electoral choice for 2017 – namely: …not Hollande. Being a champion in Brussels will not square the circle –the Commission’ ambitious program for 2016 may lack a strong support from France.

French support and implementation of EU projects might be reduced if actions in Brussels become stigmas in Paris.

First thorny issue: the Stability and Growth Pact. The path towards structural reforms is taken reluctantly, as they are unpopular among working-class voters who already massively went to FN. Similarly, attaining the target of 3% of budget deficit by 2017 might lead to cuts in public services and health-care expenses. Marine le Pen then would only have to play her favorite tune: every reform is a “diktat imposed by Brussels”. French credibility to its European counterparts is however decreasing each time it fails to respect promises taken by all 28 Member States.

Moreover, finding a consensus on a much needed European solution for the refugee crisis might prove more difficult without a strong French voice. France is indeed part of the “coalition of the willing” of nine EU member States moving faster on a sharing mechanism. More European integration on the matter is however opposed by FN supporters, ranking first in the sadly symbolic Calais region.

Similarly, France would be instrumental for a new impetus on European counter-terrorist intelligence cooperation. Drawing a dangerous parallel between the two questions high on the 2016 EU agenda, FN has called for the end of the Schengen agreements throughout the aftermaths of the Paris terrorist attacks. Should the French government be tempted to listen too much to rising anti-Schengen voices, 2016 could see one of the pillars of the EU single market, free movement of people, falter.

Finally, French support and implementation of EU projects launched by the Juncker Commission, such as the Capital Markets Union, the Digital Single Market or the Energy Union, might be reduced if actions in Brussels become stigmas in Paris. ‘Why does France do so much for Europeans when it does so little for its own people?’ would say Eurosceptic FN. Already weakened by timid growth and ever increasing unemployment rates, the French government is slowly losing its ability to be one of Europe’s driving forces in the coming year and a half.

Euroscepticism, first item in the 2016 EU agenda?

2016 will be a year for EU soul-searching, with referendums in the Netherlands and in the UK directly or indirectly linked to citizens’ sentiment towards the EU. PS & LR has not yet licked their wounds since the 2005 referendum on the Constitutional Treaty, when internal divisions between more liberal, federalist voices, and those attached to national sovereignty, were out in the open.

Increased support for FN may be partially explained of the unclear PS and LR position on EU. Left-wing voters, especially from the working class, are seemingly attracted by the FN stance that EU integration has caused more social harm than economic good. On the other side of the political spectrum, emphasis put on the erosion of national sovereignty within the Union is appealing to right-wing voters. Flanking its two main opponents from left and right, FN proposes to re-open the referendum Pandora Box, a fight that PS and LR are reluctant to pick up, as their 2005 coalition for a “yes” vote was seen as treason by many voters, including their own.

Front National’s euroscepticism is rapidly infusing into France’s position in the EU.

France’s position in the Brexit negotiations is therefore more than delicate. If the French is seen as too lenient towards the UK government, any concession would be advertised as another sign of weakness and loss of sovereignty. Should its stance be too tough, eventually alienating its negotiating partners, and paving the way to a Brexit, a precedent would have been set, on which FN would be playing. Counter to classic Clausewitz logic, having a weak France as opposing partner in the Brexit/BritIn negotiations will not be helpful to Mr Cameron’s ambitions; a French government imploding in national election mode, feeding the domestic agenda of a FN driven constituency will be at risk of not having any external flexibility to accommodate UK wants.

This leaves us with a puzzling question: could it be that one of the most influential EU politicians in 2016 will be Marine le Pen, a marginalized MEP and Eurosceptic regional MP? FN is not in power; its euroscepticism is however rapidly infusing into France’s position in the EU. By this, the new benchmark of French politics could very well become the mark by which we measure the flood through EU as a whole.

By Martin Bresson & Clement Luzeau

Since Sunday night, Spaniards in Brussels must feel a little bit more at home. Following the announcement of electoral results, Spain follows the “Belgian example” meaning entering a period of what appears to be complex coalition negotiations in order to form a government.

Yesterday’s elections did not produce an outright winner. Rather, results highlighted the political impact of the European crisis. Prime Minister Rajoy’s People’s Party (PP) won just 29% of the vote or (123 seats out of the 176 needed to form a government) with the Socialists (PSOE) receiving 22% of votes (90 seats).

While traditional political powers (the Socialists scored their lowest percentage since 1989) lost part of their electorate, new parties capitalized on Spaniards’ austerity and unemployment fatigue. The radical left   Podemos, scored 21% or 69 seats with the liberal Ciudadanos at 14%, which amounts at 40 seats. As in many Southern European countries the political landscape is changing and two party systems are taking the biggest hit.

Similarly to SYRIZA’s successful strategy in Greece, Podemos and Ciudadanos campaigned against corruption and established societal mechanisms. In the backdrop of an economic situation slowly recovering and high levels of unemployment, political parties associated with the establishment gave space to new political powers.

So what comes next? Weeks of negotiations and potentially a new election in the next 3 months. Spain doesn’t have an imminent deadline (the King should appoint a candidate for Prime Minister on 13 January) in order to form a government; however no combination of parties seems to produce a viable solution at this point. What could initially be a minority government led by the People’s Party, could turn into a recipe for disaster facing opposition from the left on structural reform issues.

By contrast, a similar scenario to the Portuguese one in November could emerge. In spite of the conservatives’ winning first place, a coalition government would be formed with the Socialists and Podemos. However, being on the same side of the political spectrum does not equal automatic consensus. The Socialists and Podemos disagree on the contentious issue of Catalan independence, thus making difficult ensure their potential coalition’s stability; particularly considering they would need the support from the smaller regional parties to have a majority.

In these days following the vote, Rajoy would not be the only one scratching his head; Jean-Claude Juncker and his team at the European Commission must be waiting for the situation to unfold with caution, hoping that the Spanish rain would indeed stay mainly in the plains. A temporary political vacuum in Spain, would mean Rajoy remains as interim Prime Minister until a government is appointed yet has much less legitimacy to negotiate in Council and even if/when a “real” government would be formed, the difficulties of domestic alliance building would take precedence over active involvement in EU affairs, in areas such as state aid or agriculture.

With issues such as Brexit coming up in 2016, the benefits of having a stable government proactively working for the European agenda in one of Europe’s largest countries are undeniable; it would enable both for structural reforms to be carried out thus stabilizing the Spanish economy and giving fewer Eurosceptics the opportunity to capitalize on the South’s “lack of capacity” to reform.

In addition, depending on which coalition takes over the issue of Catalan independence could re-emerge. This is the last thing the Commission’s wants in a year where it will have to walk on eggshells in order to avoid the UK leaving the EU in the autumn of 2016.

In the year to come, what Brussels would like is for the EU to project an sunny image of unity over fragmentation. Seeing Spain’s election results, we’re not welcoming 2016 with the best of forecasts…. It looks like quite a bit of rain is coming our way…

Ilektra Tsakalidou & Martin Bresson

The Paris COP21 climate conference was interesting in that it managed to produce a deal which was considered as historic to some and yet disappointing to others.

The latter will argue that the following make for a weak deal. The agreement does not make INDCs binding, the aggregated INDCs put the world on track to over 3°C temperature increase, and there isn’t nearly enough money in the pot to compensate poor countries or help them mitigate the effects of global warming.

Why is it considered historic then?

Because the risk for Paris was not so much to fail on climate as it was to fail on diplomacy. No one actually expected COP21 to result in a globally binding deal where country pledges would limit global warming to 2°C. Ironically, accepting this in the first place is why the conference was a success; any attempt to force such commitments on the Parties would have resulted in a Copenhagen 2.0. COP21 was a twelve-day fine-tuning session where all Parties already knew which lines could be crossed and which ones couldn’t.

Where politicians could not fail however was on the direction, on the vision that would come out of Paris. And when 195 countries manage to sit down and commit to pursuing their efforts to limit global warming to 1.5°C, you know something big happened that Saturday 12 December in Paris.

Although some consider it disappointing, the COP21 agreement’s impact on legislation should not be underestimated as its overall direction will give legitimacy for the institutions to push for more ambitious climate and energy policies. Green activists in Brussels will hold the 31-page agreement over policymakers’ heads to make sure whatever comes out of the Berlaymont is in line with what came out of Le Bourget. The long-term view to limiting global warming to 1.5°C immediately raised the question in Brussels of knowing if the EU needed to reconsider and raise the ambition of its targets for 2030, even before they had a chance of being translated into legislation.

While Commissioner Cañete’s latest declarations indicate that the Commission does not intend to push for raising the EU’s 40% GHG emission reduction target before the next Commission takes office, his successors will be under pressure to adjust the 2030 target upwards in order to reach full decarbonisation by the end of the century. The argument is likely to be used by the Commission however to try and raise the energy efficiency target from 27% to 30% for 2030, something it has clearly indicated it intended to do. Paris just gave it a reason. The European Parliament gathered this week in Strasbourg for the last Plenary of the year went even further, adopting a resolution calling for a binding and 40% energy efficiency target.

Expect a number of conferences on ‘COP21: Challenges and Opportunities’ to be held in the upcoming months. Paris gave the ‘long-term investment signal’ one part of industry was waiting for. The fact that other commentators actually had to reaffirm that ‘industry can be/is part of the solution’ is interesting in itself. It’s almost  like there are those who believe we can do this without industry. In reality, as a delegate from Mali reminded me at COP21, “industry is the solution!” The only thing left for it to do is let the others know.

Nareg Terzian

The new Circular Economy package includes no fewer than 54 legislative and non-legislative actions to be completed in the next years with a view to “close the loop” of product lifecycles and bring benefits for both the environment and the economy. To help you understand how the actions interact and their impact on business, we have mapped all of them for you.

Time will tell us whether the EU can actually deliver on Circular Economy and beyond, on Better Regulation. Let’s not forget indeed that this package is one of the most striking examples of the Commission’s efforts to make its services work together and turn the Better Regulation agenda into reality.

Circular Economy Timeline

Are higher recycling targets more ambitious?

 The Circular Economy package’s legislative proposals mainly focus on reducing waste and establishing targets. Whilst the Action Plan has been generally positively welcomed by different groups, the lowering of some of the waste reduction, reuse and recycling  targets – compared to the 2014 withdrawn proposal – has already been criticized by some as being “not ambitious”. And indeed, what better way for the EU to show strong commitment towards reducing and recycling waste than higher targets?

Things may however be slightly more complex. Taking into account the significant differences that exist between Member States, one could also question whether setting higher targets would be realistic and, perhaps more importantly, the most effective way to actually reduce waste and improve waste management in Europe. With its new package, the Commission seems to have followed the latter reasoning. First, the waste proposals show that ambition can be served by more than higher targets. Improving EPR schemes and acknowledging that a few Member States may need more time to deliver are just a few examples. Second, it is not only about waste as most proposed actions support a long-term strategy that addresses the full product cycle.

Does it close the loop?

Whereas the previous Circular Economy proposal from 2014 was criticized for being too much “waste-focused”, ultimately leading to its withdrawal, the Commission has clearly taken a more holistic approach by working across a number of different policy areas. The Action Plan for the Circular Economy establishes a novel programme with measures covering the whole cycle: from production and consumption to waste management. No fewer than 54 legislative and non-legislative actions are foreseen to be completed in the next years with a view to “close the loop” of product lifecycles and bring benefits for both the environment and the economy.

On paper then, the Commission has delivered. Will these actions ever come to reality and more importantly will they contribute to building a new socio-economic model everyone seems to be calling for? Time will tell us whether the Commission will keep the same momentum and circular economy is more than another buzz word in the EU bubble.

First hints from the Parliament and the Council

As codecision is about to start on the waste proposals, the European Parliament and the Council already gave us a taste of how discussions could look like. In the Parliament, it looks like the EPP and the S&D will be able to work together. While we should of course expect disagreements of several specific points, both groups have stated that the package constitutes a good starting point.  The Greens however, and some voices in the ALDE group, have unsurprisingly expressed more disappointment. Meanwhile in the Council, Member States have welcomed the package. When reacting to Commissioner Vella’s presentation though, criticism appeared. The UK raised concerns about not only the role and ambition-level of the targets, but also over the differentiated targets. Sweden, on the other hand, questioned the ambitiousness of the package and stated that Substances of Very High Concern need to be phased-out and called for a landfill ban. Italy responded in a more technical manner and asked for clarification on the definition of waste and the methods for calculating urban waste and recycling targets.

 What’s next?

The ambitious programme of actions will now have to be executed in the next few years. The annex to the action plan sets out a timeline showing when we can expect the Commission to get started on each action. Clearly, timing is not as precise as it could (should) be. One thing is very clear though: 2016 is a critical milestone for Circular Economy. It is next year that a significant amount of the activities will be kicked off, covering all stages of the product lifecycle as well as various sectorial actions.

By Lara Visser, Pauline Tawil and Malte Helligsoe

I’ll begin with a confession. This blog should have been finished weeks ago. If my first 3 months working for FleishmanHillard have taught me anything, it is that when you’re working full time, things will always get in the way. This is hopefully the first blog of many and I’ll be writing about a range of things regarding communications, public affairs and how they overlap.

But enough about me. This blog isn’t about my life, it’s about Twitter. Specifically it’s about unlocking the potential of Twitter and using it in such a way that covering events becomes less about reflecting the argument and more about shaping it. Sound complicated? It’s not.

If you have an objective which you want to achieve and messages which you need to get across then you need to cut through the conversation. You need to be seen and hastily typing out some live text tweets simply isn’t enough. Those of us in Communications are lucky that Twitter offers us the potential to set and shape any given agenda and we need to stop wasting it.

Which brings us to Paris. The city of love, lights and (at least during last week) engaging and meaningful social content. Recently, I was part of a team which went with a major industry association to COP21. Whilst there, we communicated a range of specific and important messages in a space that wasn’t so much crowded as overloaded with people all trying to do the same.

The Challenge? Taking a complex and technical issue and communicating it to people inside and outside the event in a way that made them want to engage with it.

The plan? To make use all of the options given to us by Twitter and demonstrate that covering an event  isn’t necessarily about telling people what is happening, but rather showing them. Why tell people what is happening in the room when we can bring them in there with us?

So that’s what we did. Powered by the expertise and talent of FleishmanHillard Brussels’ in-house Digital, Social & Creative team we created several batches of content which viusalised the client’s messaging and delivered on their objectives. Using GIFS, Videos, Pictures, Vines, Animations, Caricatures and yes, text, we showed twitter users not only what was happening at COP21, but why and how the client was a part of it.

The results? More followers, more video views, more likes, more impressions, more engagements and more exposure on Twitter than we had got in the 3 months leading up to COP21. We were talking about what our client had to offer and we were covering an event, but we were doing it in such a way that people were sitting up and taking note. Don’t believe me? Before COP21 the association’s account was averaging 5 retweets a day. During the event it regularly topped 100.

The methodology we used is very simple. You need an objective, specific messaging and an understanding of both who your audience is and how to reach it. When you have all of that it is simply a matter of using those insights to shape your content.

The catch? Creating content which both stands out from the crowd and delivers on your objectives isn’t easy… but you can’t afford not to try.

Alex Burchill – Digital, Social and Creative Team

Companies and organisations hoping that the European Commission’s impact assessment on ED criteria will drive evidence-based policy with appropriate consideration of all costs and benefits should take warning of today’s ruling from the General Court of the European Union (Judgment in Case T-521/14 Sweden v Commission).

You may remember that in July 2014 Sweden decided to bring the European Commission before the Court for being late on delivering criteria to identify endocrine disrupting substances (ED) by December 13 2013 – as required by the biocides regulation. It turned out that Sweden was not the only one tired of waiting for the Commission to act as Denmark, France, the Netherlands, Finland, the European Parliament and the Council decided to join the case as well.

Following a markedly fast moving procedure, the Court has come to a decision on 16 December. The judges found  the Commission breached its clear, precise and unconditional obligation to adopt scientific criteria for the determination of endocrine-disrupting properties. Interestingly, the court notes that no provision forced the Commission to conduct an impact assessment before proposing ED criteria; an argument used by the Commission’s lawyers to justify the delay.

The ruling should not come as a surprise as the Commission clearly missed the deadline. A few important comments need to be made though.

From a legal perspective on the one hand, it is probably the first time that the binding nature of a deadline enshrined in legislation is so clearly recognised by the Court. According to the judges, the deadline is not a mere objective but a legally binding obligation. In other words, the Commission has no margin of maneuver. On the other hand, the case should also draw attention from a political perspective as it could affect the ongoing ED impact assessment process – most importantly how its outcome could be received.

The impact assessment will go on, of course, and eventually deliver the long-awaited ED criteria. However it remains to be seen how much the Commission’s credibility on this dossier could be (even more) weakened by the ruling. In bringing the Commission before the Court, Sweden had more than a legal objective in mind (otherwise Swedish authorities would challenge the Commission every time they miss a deadline). With the chemicals policy high on its political agenda – EDs in particular – it was particularly important for Sweden to have the Commission’s failure to adopt the criteria acknowledged by the European judge.

From that perspective, it is a success for Sweden and its supporters. A success that many more of their allies could use to challenge upcoming Commission’s decisions, when necessary.

by Pauline Tawil and Michael Stanton-Geddes

On Monday 7 December, the European Commission (EC) released its long-term strategy for the European aviation sector. The document touches on many elements including connectivity, competitiveness, safety and security.

The package is wide-ranging, despite the fact that the only legislative proposal contained is a revision of the Regulation on the powers of the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). It would in fact seem to be less a “package” of legislative measures, as the Commission had originally announced in December 2014, but rather a ‘roadmap’ for the next ten to fifteen years. This change of direction may be due to the fact that many of the actions needed for the European aviation sector are already under way with the focus being on proper implementation rather than new legislative proposals, especially on the internal market front. Alternatively, the Commission may be using the strategy to set the stage for stronger competitiveness measures in the future, responding to the rising nervousness of EU airlines towards competition from non-EU airlines.

The strategy does not, on first viewing, put forward concrete proposals to address some of the urgently identified needs from industry. For example, for the cost of infrastructure and the fragmentation national taxes, the Commission only proposes to work on an inventory and does not provide a timeline. The strategy might be described as a collection of good intentions and soft approaches, rather than a legislative hammer to resolve the challenges faced by European aviation. However, there are elements of significant business impact, the most notable perhaps being:

• The strategy brings forward significant proposals regarding external aviation policy, such as relaxing of ownership rules, and defensive measures against perceived unfair competition. These policy shifts will be taken step-by-step, and would seemingly indicate an effort to respond to the particular priorities of certain European airlines.
• The revision of the basic EASA regulation will impact both equipment manufacturers and their airline customers. For manufacturers, the revision should streamline some parts of the airworthiness and certification process, expanding and clarifying EASA’s competencies. However, there are areas of concern: any change to rules on environmental protection could result in stronger rules for aircraft in Europe compared to other regions of the world. For customers, the airlines who need access to certified equipment, it should result in more efficient processes and systems that result in higher safety levels.
• More flexible and proportionate safety rules can give more space to entrepreneurship and recognise the difference between various aviation sectors. In addition, with the shift towards a risk and performance-based approach, both Member State authorities and EASA itself will need to be on top of technological developments. The new regulation will interestingly give the possibility for national authorities to delegate “responsibility on implementation of EU legislation” to EASA on a voluntary basis.
• EASA looks set to acquire competence for the regulation of drones, which will be embedded in a new regulatory framework. This could represent a positive opportunity for the manufacturing sector, especially small and medium enterprises as well as for non-aviation businesses, which may be able to integrate drones in their activities.

• 2015: Council’s decision on mandates to the EC for negotiating bilateral agreements with third-countries.
• 2015: Revision of basic aviation safety regulation N° 216/2008 amending the powers of EASA, including introduction of provisions on drones
• 2016: Revision of Slots Regulation 549/2009
• 2016: Potential non-binding own-initiative report by the European Parliament’s Transport committee
• 2016/7: Evaluation of the Airport Charges Directive 2009/12/EC
• 2017: Evaluation of Groundhandling services Directive 96/67/EC
• 2017: Revision (Implementing act) of the air traffic management network functions, including the selection of the Network Manager
• 2019: Revision of performance scheme (gate-to-gate)

Stakeholders will likely be active in the coming months seeking to engage with the European institutions on potential future initiatives in the framework of the present strategy.

Download our assessment and summary here.

Yesterday, the Danes voted no in their latest EU referendum on whether or not to change the current situation, where Denmark is not participating in the Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) cooperation in the EU. It was rejected!

But let’s start with a little bit of background. A referendum on the ‘justice-opt-out’ has been planned for a while now. The opt-out, along with 3 others, was created as a response to the Danes initially rejecting the Maastricht Treaty in 1992. However, the justice opt-out became much more relevant with the Lisbon Treaty, in which the JHA pillar is set to move to the supranational level, a level at which the Danes legally can’t participate while their opt-out is active. So consequentially, six pro-EU parties agreed to take the matter to the ballots and negotiated for an ‘opt-in’ solution, which includes that the Danish Parliament would be able to choose which JHA policies to negotiate about and join on a case-by-case basis. They identified 22 justice policies (including Europol) that Denmark would have joined immediately, and guaranteed they would hold another referendum in case they wanted to join a common asylum framework in the future.

Confused? So were the Danes. The debate leading up to yesterday’s vote was arguably more about explaining the content of the complicated proposal, and the outcome is more a reflection of rising Euroscepticism and dissatisfaction with the established political parties, rather than a response to the actual content of the referendum. Despite the fact that the Danes are one of the most pro-EU countries in Europe, the “Yes” parties failed to make the population understand why an ever closer Union is needed in order to preserve EU benefits Danes are already enjoying. But combined with the EU being perceived – not only by Danes – to be in complete disarray (particularly its justice framework) over the ongoing refugee crisis and its consequences, the referendum was never going to be as safe as the “Yes” campaign had hoped.

Now, why do we care about the Danes voting to continue their status quo? While the referendum has gone more or less unnoticed in Brussels with the Brussels bubble waking up to Copenhagen’s intentions only in the past week, and a lack of comments from any EU official on the referendum, it is rather difficult to predict. Still, we can and should start thinking about what implications it will have for other, more high-profile EU topics.

For one, there is Europol! The parallel-agreement Denmark will likely have to negotiate on Europol will certainly be interesting to follow. No other EU member state has a similar agreement on any policy so essential to the functioning of a borderless Europe, and the result will likely help us understand what a potential two-speed Europe could effectively look like. The model could even set a precedent for how potential future opt-outs by Eurosceptic member states are handled. Most importantly, however, the Danish the vote comes at a time where people are expecting more integration on the justice front, not less, in particular amid talks of a “European FBI” and increased information-sharing is demanded for security reasons. Thus the Danish “No” could arguably not have come at a worse time.

The Danish government needs a solution to being left out of Europol fast in order to show that they haven’t completely lost the ability to act in the European arena. However, their European partners might feel less urgency; on the one hand, no one wants to be seen to be heavy-handed with the Danes or to not be respecting democracy. On the other hand, there is little appetite for rewarding bad behavior, so the other capitalso are likely to “hurry up slowly” during the negotiations. The content and pace of the negotiations will however not be decided by the Danes and their partners’ ability to come to a compromise, but rather will be decided by the impact it may have on much more important issues and debates, such as Brexit. After all, whether the Danes decide to move from a small reluctant player in JHA to not playing at all is unlikely to matter much for the rest of EU, nor indeed for the essential progress on key security challenges.

From a Brussels perspective, there is an important link between yesterday’s referendum and the British referendum, as the Danish “No” is likely to be picked up by the British “out” advocates. Former Labour Europe Minister Denis MacShane predicts that out voices will “praise the freedom loving Danes who dare say no to more European integration”. Furthermore, the “out” side will be very interested in Brussels’ response to the Danish vote. If Brussels gives the Danes a custom solution that is perceived to benefit Denmark, it is very likely that the British “out” campaigns will use it to show to the British public that a national can in fact easily reap the benefits of the EU while opting out in parts of the Union. Hence for those decision-makers who would like to avoid a Brexit, it is essential to convince their electorate of why the European Union has to be ever closer, whilst also making sure the debate doesn’t stray from discussion about the concrete benefits of staying in the EU and into vague and Eurosceptic territory – something that the Danish politicians seemed to have failed to do.

The trouble for Brits, however, is the Danes might just have made it a lot more difficult for them…

by Martin Bresson and Malte Helligsøe

Will EU Institutions next Monday (7 December), as it gives birth to a network and information security (NIS) directive, run the risk of fragmentation and adding more red tape in an effort to help build minimum resilience capabilities and common rules for incident reporting?

Cybersecurity is a comprehensive concept that encompasses several different dimensions of information security. It spans from consumer education to information sharing and even more complex issues such as critical information infrastructure protection and the fight against cybercrime and cyber-terrorism. It also plays a major role in defense and national security matters, yet the latter are not regulated by the EU, as competence falls exclusively with Member States. Yet when we speak about cybersecurity, the key word is “trust” – key for promoting information sharing, technical cooperation and exchange of best practices at international and at multi-stakeholder level.

The EU agenda on cybersecurity has undergone a two-step of evolution. Before 2013, the EU was merely interested in the topic and was handling it by “patch-working” sectoral legislations. The first comprehensive EU communication on cybersecurity came with the publication of the NIS directive, just months before Edward Snowden’s revelations on the US government surveillance programs.

Since then, the interest in Brussels on the subject has increased exponentially, as decision-makers have understood the need for urgent action. But as the draft bill now enters its final phase, an open question is who exactly will be obliged to report incidents, and under what conditions? Besides critical infrastructures, the EU institutions have agreed to expand the scope to “digital service providers” (e-commerce platforms, cloud computing services, search engines and others), and, while modalities for the former group are already defined, it is quite the opposite for the latter. Moreover, the issue of fragmentation appeared, as Member States obtained during the interinstitutional talks the privilege of identifying nationally which critical operators should comply with the bill.

Another issue is how this new legislation would avoid overlaps with existing rules.  While the text foresees an article on the matter, the latest Parliament proposals suggest that such duplications should be avoided for “sector-specific legislations”. It is questionable whether horizontal legislations, such as the expected general data protection regulation, would fall under this definition. The risk is that, if an incident on the network involves a data breach, the operator would have to equally report to the cyber-relevant authorities and to the data protection authorities – a mess with regards to technical and business operations, and an increased risk when it comes to compliance.

Finally, as the Commission took a new legislative shift in focusing on delivering “less and better regulation”, it is questionable to what extent a fragmented directive would fit this policy agenda. The process reminds me of a comment shared with me by a global security expert who said, “unfortunately, when it comes to cybersecurity, the interest exceeds the understanding”. I hope policymakers take the initiative to resolve these issues and prove him wrong.

Next Monday, Member States and Parliament will be responsible not only for finalizing this new bill, but also for guiding the Commission in its 2016 agenda on cybersecurity, as defined in the Digital Single Market strategy. For further details, have a look at the comprehensive DSM timeline developed by FleishmanHillard’s technology team.

Goran Gotev

Here it comes! The European Commission today will publish its long awaited Circular Economy package.

If you have been following this saga, you will know that a Circular Economy package first appeared in July 2014, when Commissioner Potočnik led on environmental policy. Soon after however, winds changed in Brussels. The package became a victim of the Better Regulation agenda and was withdrawn with Commission Vice-President Timmermans’ promise to “replace [it] by [a] new, more ambitious proposal by the end of 2015.”

Is the Commission delivering on its First Vice President’s promise? How do we rate the level of ambition?

This is about waste

The revision of the waste legislative framework is the backbone of the Commission’s package. Recycling targets, calculation methods, Extended Producers Responsibility – and more – should keep MEPs and Environmental attachés busy next year. In fact, codecision has not even started yet and we already hear a few disappointing (potentially angry) voices: How could the Commission lower the municipal waste recycling target? Why switching back to an input-based calculation method? And where is the food waste reduction target?

This is about reconciling environmental and economic ambitions

Beyond waste, the Circular Economy package is an attempt to transform production and consumption patterns in Europe; an attempt to reconcile our economic model with environmental imperatives. The Commission’s action plan is crystal clear. Before 2019, a number of key initiatives should be undertaken in order to “reinvent our economy and create new competitive advantages for Europe on a sustainable basis.” All stages of the product lifecycle from production to consumption and from waste to the secondary raw material market will be considered, to truly ‘close the loop’. Product design is particularly interesting in this regard as the Commission announces that the future Ecodesign framework should systematically take into account criteria such as reparability, durability, recyclability or the identification of certain materials or substances.

This is about the Juncker Commission

Today’s publication is last – but not least – a test for the Commission’s ability to deliver on objectives and new working methods. Since taking office a year ago, European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker has tried hard to stick to its ‘growth and jobs’ direction and transform Commission’s internal working methods accordingly.

The Circular Economy is no exception. In fact, the package is likely to be one of the best examples of what the Better Regulation agenda has delivered so far. Indeed, while the first circular economy package had been very much dominated by DG Environment, the new one results from a joined effort between Commissioners Timmermans’ (regulation and inter-institutional affairs), Katainen’s (economy), Vella’s (environment) and Bienkowska’s (industry) services.

Has the Commission finally managed to overcome its ‘silo’ mindset? Is the package delivering on competitiveness and the environment? Will Members States, the European Parliament and all interested parties be seduced by this approach? The next months will tell us more. Stay tuned.

NOTE: You would like to know more about Circular Economy? Want to discuss the content of the package and understand what it means for your company or your sector? Don’t hesitate to send us a message.

Pauline Tawil and Lara Visser

FH Chemicals and Environment Legislative Timeline

On Black Friday, the biggest shopping day of the year, Catherine Armitage takes a look at e-commerce in the EU and asks, is online shopping the key to the Digital Single Market?

Today is Black Friday – the biggest day in the e-commerce calendar. It started out as an American phenomenon, marking the busiest shopping day of the year (falling on the day after Thanksgiving) and signalling the start of the Christmas shopping period. However, over recent years Black Friday has spread across the Atlantic and retailers across Europe are now embracing Black Friday too. It’s not only Black Friday – there’s also ‘Cyber Monday’ which takes place next Monday.Wikipedia tells us this was actually invented as a ‘marketing term’ to encourage people to shop online. Online shoppers in France are currently seeing advertisements for ‘Cyber Week’ on e-commerce sites, and Amazon in the UK is announcing a full week of ‘Black Friday deals’.

So, on this momentous day (or, rather, week) for the e-commerce world, it seems appropriate to write this blog post about e-commerce in the EU and the Digital Single Market.

The European Commission’s Digital Single Market (DSM) strategy is increasingly looking more and more like it’s all about e-commerce. This is no surprise to many, like me, who have been excitedly following the DSM since the strategy was launched 6 months ago. The strategy document itself has a short ‘e-commerce’ section, which only appears to cover consumer protection. But a careful reading of the full document reveals that e-commerce is at the heart of the Commission’s DSM strategy. Online consumer protection is a start, but there is much more that could have a profound effect on any businesses that buy, sell or trade online.

Geo-blocking, for example, is all about e-commerce – now that it’s not about copyright (see my previous blog post on geo-blocking). Companies that use geo-localisation techniques to offer shoppers relevant information based on their location will need to persuade policymakers at the Commission why this is a positive, useful way of helping consumers navigate e-commerce websites. And they’ll need to show how this compares to the offline world.

The Commission’s ‘comprehensive assessment of the role of platforms’ announced in the DSM strategy will also touch on e-commerce sites, as well as services which enable online payments. In the public consultation on platforms, which was launched in September, the Commission mentions specific online market places (Amazon, eBay, Allegro, Booking.com) and payment systems (PayPal, Apple Pay). There are also measures which impact the whole ecosystem of online shopping, such as parcel delivery and harmonising VAT across the EU. Anyone working in the retail sector today will know just how much these two things can help or hinder selling online across the EU.

Finally, for any e-commerce sites which allow vendors to sell on their platforms, the Commission is looking at changing the rules on ‘mere conduit’, which would mean that in the future e-retailers could be required to actively police third-party listings on their sites and remove any content which breaches copyright rules – both for virtual goods (e.g. films, music) and physical goods (e.g. fake designer handbags).

So, even though only 1 out of the 15 sections of the DSM strategy is labelled ‘e-commerce’, online shopping is the thread that runs through a huge part of the Commission’s ambitions to create a true digital single market. To make it clearer, the team at Fleishman Hillard have developed a useful timeline which brings together all the e-commerce elements from the different bits of the DSM. As you can see, there’s a lot to digest. The DSM has the potential to fundamentally change the e-commerce landscape in the EU over the next five years. So, to all those who say the DSM is complicated, I say not at all – it’s simple. It’s all about shopping.

Catherine Armitage

The Digital Single Market needs no introduction when talking to people in Brussels. It is one of the Juncker Commission’s flagship initiatives, launched amid much anticipation back in May this year. The ‘DSM’ strategy announced a range of measures and ideas to improve access to online goods and services and help them ‘flourish’, and ‘maximise the growth potential’ of the Digital Economy in Europe. What does that mean exactly? Well, beyond the Commission-speak, it’s pretty simple really. But it takes a bit of digging to get to the core of what the Commission is trying to do.

First of all, it’s worth looking at why the DSM is such a big deal. This is an ambitious project. And, so far, attempts to introduce policy on digital issues at EU level have not been easy. There was the ‘Connected Continent’ proposal hailed by Commissioner Neelie Kroes as  ‘the single biggest thing the European institutions could finalise in 2014 to boost growth and jobs’. That was blocked in Council amidst squabbles over spectrum and roaming, and the institutions only managed to finalise it in October 2015 – having deleted most of the points which the Member States couldn’t agree on, leaving only about half of the original proposal. Then there is the General Data Protection Regulation, a hugely ambitious project to bring EU data protection laws into the digital era. That’s taken almost 3 years to finalise, and the Parliament and Council are still struggling to find agreement on some fundamental issues. And finally, the Network Information Security directive, a hugely important piece of legislation designed to protect us all from cybersecurity attacks – that’s also been in the works for almost three years. Just to put that into perspective, when the Commission wrote both these legislative proposals in 2011 and 2012, no-one had heard of Edward Snowden or Max Schrems and Uber, Snapchat and Tinder hadn’t been invented yet.

So, scene set. We get it. It takes a long time to pass legislation in the EU – that’s no surprise. But what I hope my little history lesson here has also shown is that when we’re talking about digital issues, the world moves fast even if the European institutions don’t. Which is why the Commission is trying to learn from past mistakes with its new flagship initiative, the DSM. This time, before even starting to write any legislative proposals, the Commission has been bending over backwards to get input from as many stakeholders as possible – both on a political and industry level. Politically, the Commission has been highly involved in the preparation of the Parliament’s report ‘Towards a Digital Single Market Act’ as they see it as an opportunity to figure out what MEPs want (or, more likely, what they don’t want) and forge some political compromise before the legislative process gets started. Similarly, industry has been trying to provide input to more than 10 public consultations launched on the DSM since September.

On the most ambitious (and, possibly, the most controversial) parts of the DSM, the Commission is moving forward cautiously. Geo-blocking, for example, was touted by Vice-President  Ansip as a ‘game-changer’ back when the DSM was launched in May this year. Ansip’s ‘crusade’ on geo-blocking, however, appears to have been scaled back. Whilst Ansip used to talk a lot about the frustrations of not being able to watch his favourite Estonian TV programmes online when he’s in Brussels, the public consultation on geo-blocking, which was launched in September, appears to focus almost entirely on geo-localisation techniques used by e-commerce sites – and largely overlooks the issue of copyright territoriality. The Commission has now announced that it will publish a proposal on ‘cross-border portability of online content services in the internal market’ under the banner of ‘copyright reform’. Which in all honesty sounds like it will tackle what Ansip originally called ‘geo-blocking’. Geo-blocking, therefore, appears to have been scaled back from a very complicated (and politically charged) question of copyright to focusing solely on e-commerce.

So, if geo-blocking is the first issue to be scaled back in the name of political compromise, what will be next? Lately, Commissioner Oettinger has been talking a lot less about his ambitions to regulate ‘platforms’, having faced strong criticism from MEPs across all parties and industry stakeholders. And what about copyright? We understand the Commission’s approach is to split it up into several ‘bite-sized’ pieces of legislation tackling specific issues, rather than attempting to reform all EU copyright rules in one go. But don’t worry – there’s still plenty of bite left in the DSM to keep everyone busy for the next year. The DSM may have come in like a lion, but it’s certainly not going out like a lamb.

Catherine Armitage

My first weeks as an intern in the technology team at FleishmanHillard have been a whirlwind, to say the least. As a Politics and Law student, I am very passionate about the work that me and my team do, and this has been the best educational experience for me so far.

For instance, I have become very interested in the Digital Single Market (DSM) and in issues such as data protection. The hot topic on data protection in Brussels over the past weeks has been the European Court of Justice’s decision regarding the Safe Harbour data transfer agreement between the EU and the US. Now, that might not mean a lot to people outside the Brussels bubble – but it should. The news strongly impacts both businesses and regular people, as it will, for instance, have an impact on e-commerce and online purchase. This has made me realise that perhaps not many people know very much about the Digital Single Market (DSM) either, and about the Commission’s work and how it impacts our everyday lives. So – here’s your crash course on the Commission and its DSM strategy!

What’s all this – digital single market?

Our world is changing as a consequence of technology, but online barriers mean we are not quite embracing the change yet. The European Commission is trying to break down online barriers and make the online and digital world more accessible through the Digital Single Market. Perhaps what interests young people the most is the availability of online goods and services – who doesn’t enjoy a little bit of online shopping?!? However, we still live at the border between the two worlds, the online and offline world, still with one foot in the other, not fully immersed in the wonders that the online world can offer us. We are the generation that is breaking down the barriers keeping us from enjoying the real digital experience, and the DSM is the regulatory tool that aims to help us by making the digital, online environment more accessible.

It can help you!

If you need convincing, let’s take an example! I was born in Romania, but I’m studying in the UK, and now working in Brussels – roaming charges are a pain! I constantly have around 4 SIM cards with me, because it is much cheaper to constantly change your phone number and use a local provider than keeping one number, and using roaming. The Commission, through the DSM, will end all roaming charges as of 15 June 2017. It might seem like a trivial thing to get excited about, but for people who travel a lot, this is really exciting news!

Something else that the DSM is aiming to achieve is to make e-commerce easier (hurray!) and tackle geo-blocking. Geo-blocking is a particularly annoying part of the online world – it means that, depending on which part of the world you are in, you might not have access to every online service available to other countries. For example, for many young people, including myself, online music and films play a big part in our daily lives. However, in Romania it is often the case that when trying to access this type of content I would get a message that it is not available in my country. Seems a bit annoying, doesn’t it?

Digital skills – need to adapt or run away?

Another, very important, aim of the DSM is to advance digital skills, making it easier to live in such a digitalised world. Take teachers for instance. Most of them do not belong to the digital generation, but they have to teach children who were born in it and who are sometimes more savvy than they are. Digital skills have also become a huge part of the job market – in a job market that increasingly puts an emphasis on an applicant’s digital skills, it’s almost impossible to find a job if you’re not tech savvy.

“Back to the future”

Now- a little bit of geek time! October 21st was “Back to the future” Day! For all fans of the 1985 and 1989 movies, this was the day when the truth came out: is 2015 as the movie makers imagined it 30 years ago? Hover-boards are still not a real thing, although technology has matched the writers’ imagination with gadgets such as video glasses, the existence of video calls, or big screen TVs. I believe this is our “back to the future” moment and we have the opportunity to change the world as we know it– 5 years from now, will we live in the Digital Single Market world? I hope so.

Andreea Ghita

“My greatest strength as a consultant is to be ignorant and ask a few questions,” said Peter Drucker, the father of management consulting. Had we met Mr Drucker we’d probably have asked him “what are the right questions to ask in order to become a good consultant to our clients?” Unfortunately for us, Peter Drucker passed away 10 years ago – fortunately, FleishmanHillard organises the “FH Fundamentals” training every six months for young consultants from all over the EMEA region to get to know each other and further familiarise themselves with the values that make FH the best communications agency in the world.

The latest generation of “FH Fundamentalists” from Brussels, London, Paris, & Milan

But let’s cut to the chase – what are the five questions a communications and public affairs consultant should ask himself or herself in order to provide its clients with the best services?

• Do I have enough “face time” with my clients? Even if one works day and night on an account spending time face-to-face with their client will enrich the relationship and will enable to address issues that are to “sensitive” to be discussed over email.
• I am thinking creatively about my account? Beyond the day-to-day tasks it is very important to shake the status quo and present your clients with new ideas. All ideas are good – may they be big or small. At FleishmanHillard, we try to present our clients with one new idea a month – ambitious? Not at all, considering the diversity of expertise we have in our office.
• Is Twitter the be all and end all of communications channels? Not at all! Once our client’s communications objectives and messaging is approved there are a wide range of channels to disseminate messages in order to target the right audience. Think creatively – all your money doesn’t have to go to full page ads in media and all your energy doesn’t need to focus on advertorials!
• Is measuring results necessary? Yes – our clients are constantly connected and want to feel in control of the information they receive. Hence, measuring results is paramount to developing productive relationships with them. However, all measurement is not good measurement. Our objectives need to be clear and mutually agreed from the very beginning and data should be analysed in a relevant way to fit the client’s business and advocacy objectives.
• I’m a young consultant – does this mean I should be terrified of presentations? Quite the opposite! Make sure you know what your role is; don’t read out a script (last time someone read you a story was probably your mother trying to send you to sleep); focus on the audience’s needs; keep eye contact with EVERYONE in the room; interact with your audience by asking questions – and above all REHEARSE. Assuming you know your subject, simple steps are the key to minimizing the pre-presentation stress.

In the FH pyramid of training FH Fundamentals is the basis – as we know the basis is the most important part; it ensures stability. And for communications consultants having good bases is key to understanding our clients’ needs. We may have not drunk from the Holy Grail however we did ask ourselves some questions about our current accounts – now it’s up our managers to embrace our improved selves!

Immavera & Adrien working on their mock pitch with colleagues from London and Munich

Building on Peter Drucker’s inspiring quotes, we too would like to contribute to the Consultant Hall of famous quotes, with a somewhat more impertinent twist to it.

For instance, young FH consultants like to say: “My colleagues are my best friends and my family at the same time.” What we mean: “I spend more time with my colleagues than with my friends and family combined.” Also heard: “I feel privileged to be exposed to such a high degree of expertise on a daily basis.” What that young and dynamic FH consultant actually means: “I can speak in acronyms for hours on end without ever feeling the need to rely on actual words.”

The latest “FH Fundamentalists”, Immavera Sardone, Ilektra Tsakalidou, and Adrien Rorive

Click on me !

What this will mean for both US and EU companies

Today thousands of potential jobs, billions in revenues and any cooperation such as medical research is put into question in a landmark decision by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in Luxembourg. After a multi-year back and forth nail-biting legal exercise the CJEU has today ruled that the Safe Harbor data-sharing agreement between the EU and the US is invalid. It has also ruled that national supervisory authorities should be able to launch court proceedings to over-rule any data-sharing agreements between the EU and third countries.

What does that mean? The US-EU is able to transfer data through various mechanisms including an agreement called the Safe Harbor Agreement. Previously that worked well as the EU saw that it provided adequate safeguards. Today the CJEU has ruled (courtesy of PRISM and Mr. Snowden) that it does not. So whilst the transfer of data is not invalid, the process to do so has become less clear with national data protection authorities now having increased powers as a result of this decision to intervene directly.

A cloud of uncertainty has covered the EU

If you thought moving your customers’ data to the Internet/Cloud was a risky and uncertain procedure well unfortunately it just got worse. A whole new can of worms has opened up.

We hope the sober minds of the US and EU will react sensibly to resolve the many issues now being raised. The most challenging and frightening outcomes are on the table include:

• Data flows between the EU and the US could be suspended. Without a valid EU-US data transfer agreement in place, it is unclear how trans-Atlantic data transfers could continue to take place.
• Negotiations between the EU and US to review the Safe Harbour are already in an advanced position will now have to be renegotiated.
• Negotiations to complete the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) could be delayed.

There is also the slippery slope. The GDPR, currently being negotiated, would allow for the Commission to define a list of third countries to which data can be transferred. This judgment means that this list would not be definitive. Each of the 28 Member States and pressure groups could launch court proceedings to over-rule this list and refuse data transfers to any country it considers not to have a high enough level of protection for EU citizens. This would cause uncertainty and fragmentation for businesses.

Next steps – don’t worry the world is not doomed…

• The European Commission is in the process of renegotiating the Safe Harbor agreement with the US – since 2013 (hopefully now with a new name made of numbers that doesn’t make it a target to regulators) . Today’s decision will likely complicate the talks and an increasing of the legal bar and requirements to be considered adequate safeguards.
• We understand that the US Government’s department of commerce is preparing guidance for companies, following today’s judgment. This is expected to come out at the end of this week.
• AmCham has already issued a response to the case. We expect that many other trade associations will also be issuing statements and guidance in the coming days.

Here’s a quick update : Official European Commission Response

Key highlights: Vice-President Timmermanns said the Commission was ‘not surprised’ by the ruling, as it is very much in line with the Advocate General’s opinion issued 2 weeks ago and a validation of the Commission’s own stance with the 13 recommendations they have been negotiating with the US on Safe Harbor since 2013. He sees it as ‘neither a huge reinforcement, nor a huge blow’.

The Commissioner Jourova highlighted 3 actions:

1. Safe Harbour negotiations: the European Commission will undergo is to ensure ‘sufficient’ safeguards will be met for EU citizens through stepping up and finalising its negotiations with the US on revising Safe Harbour. However, she declined to give a timeline, saying that negotiations had already been delayed past the expected deadline of summer 2015 due to national security reasons.
2. Data transfers: Commissioner Jourova confirmed that EU-US data transfers cannot continue under the Safe Harbour mechanism. She said that other international data transfer mechanisms must be relied upon instead, which are provided for in the current Data Protection Directive: standard contract clauses, binding corporate rules (for intra-company transfers) and derogations such as the performance of a contract, public interest grounds (including the fight against fraud), the vital interests of the data subject, or in cases where the individual has given free and informed consent.
3. Prevent uncertainty and fragmentation: The Commission will provide guidance to the National Data Protection authorities to ensure be coordinated on alternative ways for data transfer and as it applies to businesses. Information will be published on the Commission website soon. The Commission said it understands the business need for a coordinated approach to data protection in the EU, and avoiding fragmentation. They are already in ‘intensive discussions’ with national data protection supervisory authorities and the Chair of the Article 29 working party. More meetings will take place over the coming weeks.

GDPR: Commissioner Jourova said that the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) negotiations are still on track to be finalised by the end of the year. She said the ruling supports the regulation, as the regulation would strengthen the power of national data protection supervisory authorities.

The irony

The outcome of the case was the result of one student’s vision to taking on the US Government to prevent unlawful surveillance of personal data. BUT as Cynthia Rich, an analyst in Washington D.C., rightfully highlights in a blog that killing Safe Harbor will not have much of an impact on the surveillance rules of the US or all the other EU countries spying on foreign countries. It will however hurt the business and anything that requires international data transfers.

By the way there are benefits to the Internet!

Ever wonder how important the data flow between the US and the EU really is? The success of the Internet relies on the flow of information and data between countries. It is core to the Digital Single Market initiative to reboot Europe’s sluggish economy. While US internet companies are aggressively ramping up its storage and processing capabilities in the EU it is far from capable to take on the massive flow of data generated in the EU. For the moment the engine to really make cloud computing services as we know it work is storing and processing the data in the US. It gets worse. Cloud Computing mechanics is not clear cut to drop data in the EU and expect it provide the 99.9% reliability. Redundancy of data often means duplicating information several times around the world.

If we see companies, governments, consumers and scientists sharing information on a wide range of issues across the planet then we can start believing industry analyst figures that foresee the global cloud computing market will grow from a $40.7 billion in 2011 to $241 billion in 2020, according to Forrester Research. Cloud computing will generate nearly 14 million jobs worldwide from 2011 to 2015, according to a study by the analyst firm IDC. This is just the tip of the iceberg as tens of billions of euro in both public and private spend on medical and scientific research is made in the US and EU each year with increasing trans-Atlantic cooperation.

Ray Pinto

In case you haven’t heard it enough yesterday, the European Commission unveiled its long-awaited Capital Markets Union (CMU) Action Plan.

Well technically they did more than that … On top of announcing their detailed and long-term plan to achieving better integrated and functioning financial markets in Europe, they also published a first package of proposals – a new framework for securitisation as well as a new regime to better calibrate risk for infrastructure investments by insurers. And if that was not enough (try and keep your breath on this …) they also launched a consultation on covered bonds, venture capital and a cumulative impact assessment of the agreed legislation passed in the last five years on financial services in Europe….well if that isn’t something?

But, before we dive into the significance of all of this – let’s start at the beginning:

Let’s go back: What was this all for again?

Jobs and growth, my dear Watson! Jobs and growth …

Since Juncker’s team came into office, almost a year ago, we have seen its motto being repeated over and over again and this is no surprise when you take a look at the EU’s current economic situation. To overcome the bleak economic outlook, Commissioner Jonathan Hill was given the task to use the potential of financial markets to complement bank lending, “unlock funding for Europe’s growth” and support the Investment Plan and in general make the financial world a better place.

With a Green Paper out earlier this year – the Commissioner for Financial Stability, Financial Services, and Capital Markets Union has certainly been busy trying to find ways to remove obstacles to investment and making sure that capital markets better serve end-users – whether they may be corporates, SMEs, investors or citizens.

And this CMU Action Plan: what exactly is it supposed to achieve?

Undeniably, what was published yesterday is quite extensive! From trying to improve funding and access to finance for SMEs, via encouraging infrastructure investments, boosting pension funds, insurance, and fund managers, to supporting retail and citizens’ investments and savings opportunities – all the while trying to remove legal barriers to cross-border financial services activities.

Source: European Commission

That said, yesterday’s CMU Action Plan also aknowledges the role of banks which finance 75% of the real economy in Europe. The Simple, Transparent, Standardised (STS) Securitisation proposal also proposed yesterday by aiming to increase credit availability and reduce cost of funding for banks stands as one of the proposals recognising that freeing up banks’ balance sheets will support bank lending.

In addition, it is also about deeper integration and financial stability. The end-game results being that more uniform and integrated capital markets are supposed to help Member States share the impact of economic shocks and strengthen Europe’s resilience.

More than that, it is about reflecting and recalibrating complex and (most of the time) inter-dependent financial services legislation. This second attempt at looking at the cumulative impact of recent texts will also set an interesting benchmark for the next few years.

So what now – and where do we go from here?    

 This is probably the million-dollar question everyone will want the answer to.

You could argue yesterday’s stream of publication stands as an undeniable success. And it does because it delivers on the political promise that Commissioner Hill made at the start of his mandate to have a sound plan in place to achieve a ‘true and genuine’ CMU by 2019. It is also ambitious with a first set of proposals on infrastructure and securitisation also published yesterday – which anchors CMU as a concrete and immediate project.

You could also be dumbfounded by all the rest of the actions set down in Lord Hill’s plan for CMU – from (possible & set) legislation, launch of studies and working groups, support to industry-led initiatives and ongoing recalibration work: it is a lot to do in a limited timeframe.  Remember Bolkestein’s 1999 Financial Services Action Plan … so 2019 seems perhaps quite ambitious to carry out all these (experimental) investigations to better integrate financial markets in Europe.

Delivering on what Lord Hill often refers to as the ‘classic single EU market project’ will take time though and involves a lot of actors beyond the usual financial services crowd. Insolvency law and securities ownership legislation will mean national Justice Ministries will have to get on board if this project is going to be a success.

By nature, it will be a step-by-step project whose tangibility and impact will be hard to define – especially when you have 28 Member States at different stages in the development of their financial and banking markets. Completing it all also won’t have a symbolic ending line – which was the case for Banking Union. There are no plans to establish a single EU supervisor for financial markets here as Lord Hill alluded to in his press conference (despite Juncker in the 5 Presidents reports calling otherwise).

What’s for sure is that keeping track of all these initiatives, and making sure they stay coherent with each other and in line with the CMU objectives, could already be difficult enough for the Commission. But when you think of the unfinished business for financial services legislation and what’s to come –  bank structure, the introduction of the Leverage and the Net Stable Funding ratios, an expected CCP Recovery and Resolution Plans to name a few – coherence could then be even harder to achieve.

At least, we can be re-assured that a plan exists and wait for the next wave of CMU-related regulation. The review of the Prospectus Directive – to facilitate SMEs’ access to financial markets – is expected as soon as November.

Sandrine Lapinsonnière

My first few weeks of FleishmanHillard have been a real whirlwind of learning new skills, meeting new people, and just a little bit of socialising (on Plux of course!). Needless to say, I’ve already experienced some pretty amazing things, however, one of the best experiences I have had to date came when we (the interns) were taken from work, across Place Lux, and into the European Parliament itself. Not only were we getting the opportunity to see inside the Altiero Spinelli, Paul-Henri Spaak and József Antall buildings, but we were having this experience with the aid of two expert guides in Goran Gotev and Simon Rooze, two former MEP advisers. For a politics buff like myself, it really doesn’t get much better than this, so understandably, I was pretty excited – even if I was feeling slightly “mal à la tête” in the wake of a not insignificant Thursday evening at PLux.

The excitement built as we went into the back entrance of the Spinelli, through airport-esque security checks, and were given MEP guest badges. Goran and Simon then took us to the small event rooms near the restaurant, explaining the dos and don’ts of events, from remembering projectors to booking food and how to smuggle giant plants through security for events. As we moved on through the restaurant, Goran shared insights on where to meet an MEP for lunch (provided the topic of conversation didn’t require too much privacy). Avoid long tables, he said – who were we to doubt him!

We moved through the main lobby, past the banks, shops and one of the many smoking rooms (so alien to me as a Brit). Then came the best bit; we went into the viewing area and looked down on the hemicycle itself, and it was every bit as huge and imposing as one might imagine. This part was made even better by Goran and Simon knowing to take us into the empty reporters gallery nearer the action (were we part of the 4th Estate?). Our expert guides explained how the live translation worked during plenary sessions, showing us the various language booths. They also explained the seating arrangement of parties from left to right and the area where the President and staff sit. It was all pretty amazing, I suppose it’s like when you see a celebrity in real life, and you’re kind of awestruck trying to process the reality of that which you have seen in the semi-reality of the media so many times before. After anecdotes on the MEPs’ sitting arrangements, we moved on to the lifts, by TV studios, the moving (both literally and figuratively) ‘Confluence’ sculpture and up past the member’s post boxes, though as one might imagine, they aren’t used that much these days.

Lastly, we headed into the József Antall building and room ‘4Q2’, a mini hemicycle in which parties can meet and have votes or meetings. We sat down in the front row and Goran and Simon explained the Parliament’s nuances (hold on tight!), from committees and rapporteurs to ordinary legislative procedure. I think I speak for everyone when I say how impressed I was; not only by how complex and difficult to grasp these processes were, but also by just how much Goran and Simon knew about them! We finished with questions and minds abuzz we headed back towards the entrance. Whilst walking round the Konrad Adenauer footbridge and looking down through the glass on to the tourists below, I couldn’t help but feel a sense of smug superiority, they were outside, and if they got inside they’d only get a generic Parliament tour, whilst I had had the inside track, and what an experience it was.

Ben C. Merritt

On Sunday, Alexis Tsipras, Greek Prime Minister and leader of the left-wing SYRIZA party, managed to achieve the inconceivable: time travel! After seven months in government, capital controls, a referendum, a failed negotiation with international creditors and a new memorandum, Alexis Tsipras’ party not only managed to get elected with a significant difference over its main rival, the centre-right New Democracy party, but will maintain a coalition with the Independent Greeks (ANEL), his former conservative coalition partner, just like on 25 January 2015. The balance of power may appear to have remained the same, however, does this mean that nothing has changed for Mr. Tsipras (and for us) in seven months?

What hasn’t changed – the overall political landscape:

1. Yesterday’s win can only be credited to Mr. Tsipras. The lack of concrete proposals on a series of critical reforms, did not put SYRIZA in pole position, however it was Tsipras’ charisma that managed to unite voters and convince them to give him, and not necessarily his party, a second chance. This new type of “cult of personality” is something to look out for in other European elections, such as Poland and Spain. Voters may turn to leaders such as Pablo Inglesias from Podemos to incarnate “a new vision” even if their parties do not put forward extremely innovative ideas.
2. Greeks don’t see their future outside the Eurozone, though hard times lie ahead. This is the reason why Popular Unity, a SYRIZA offshoot, which suggested an alternative to the euro, did not manage to score above the 3 per cent benchmark in order to enter the Parliament. The demise of anti-euro parties will put pressure on Mr. Tsipras to manage to maintain SYRIZA’s anti-systemic and anti-austerity rhetoric while conforming to his creditors’ requests. In the coming months, he will have to manage citizens’ disenchantment with the harsh measures prescribed in the new memorandum while going ahead and implementing measures he has actively disagreed with. The end of October will be particularly critical, as the first reform appraisal will take place. Greece is already behind on deadlines for passing reforms and some of the most contentious dossiers, such as the increase in VAT in islands, social security reform and the recapitalization of banks, have not taken place. Indeed, this will be the government’s big stress test both internally, with citizens and its coalition partners, and with its creditors.

What has changed – peoples’ belief in politics:

3. Greeks have become increasingly disenchanted over the very short electoral cycles Tsipras’ party may have won 35.5 per cent of votes, however, that result must be put into perspective. Only 43 per cent of Greeks went to vote in yesterday’s elections; that is a notable decrease from 64 per cent participation in the January 2015 elections. Through abstention, Greeks not only demonstrated their disagreement over the government’s decision to call for a general election for the second time in seven months but also their disbelief that elections would change Greece’s current situation. Going forward, low turnout may put pressure on Mr. Tsipras to work very hard to maintain stability in his Coalition, as Greeks indicated they are not in for another election in six months. However, similarly to Andreas Papandreou’s rise in the 1980s, Mr. Tsipras is also likely to ride the “charisma versus apathy” wave, making him a potential “long-term leader” in Greek politics for the next years.
4. SYRIZA’s “mainstreaming” opens a debate on the future of social-democratic parties in Europe. SYRIZA’s divide from Populist Unity managed to mainstream the party, yet maintaining an anti-systemic rhetoric; that enabled SYRIZA to gain more influence in the space traditionally covered by parties that identified themselves as social-democratic. However, even if he manages to unite the left, in a similar fashion to Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership of the Labour party in the UK, a significant number of moderate social-democrats remain unrepresented. Will they shift their support to centre-right parties, themselves often indulging into populism to gain votes from its conservative factions, or will new powers emerge? This remains to be seen.

What’s on for Europe?

5. Tsipras’ win may also impact the debate on the reform of the Eurozone. Over the past months, there have been increased discussions on the strengthening and development of mechanisms that would enable the Eurozone to get back on track for economic recovery and to prevent another crisis in the future. However, wouldn’t that reform be automatically put on the backburner, if more parties with anti-austerity rhetoric get elected in Europe? With one Member State being led by a party lacking credibility by its peers to deliver the necessary reforms in his country, the needed reforms on an Economic and Monetary Union scale seem to be wishful thinking at this point.

On Sunday, Mr. Tsipras proclaimed that “SYRIZA was die hard.” Excitement aside, both Mr. Tsipras and Mr. Kammenos, ought to move on fast from triumphant “die hard” to realistic “work hard”. If they don’t deliver on the reforms Greece may find itself in a difficult situation vis-à-vis its creditors and back into political turmoil with a new round of elections in the coming six months. In the words of John McClane, “Welcome to the party, pal!”

Ilektra Tsakalidou, with help from Claire Bravard and Martin Bresson

The deadline for applications closed recently for a plumb new job in Brussels – the head of the new airline trade association representing Europe’s five largest airlines – AirFrance-KLM, easyJet, Lufthansa, IAG and Ryanair.

Following the tumultuous weeks before the summer that led to the fracturing of the airline association world in Brussels, the chosen candidate could be forgiven for wondering how she/he is going to bring the membership together to successfully advocate industry positions in Brussels. The timing for the sector is critical, especially with the European Commission currently preparing its Aviation Strategy for release in early 2016.

Reflecting upon the best practices we have seen with associations that FleishmanHillard supports, our transport team has identified five things that will be important for this new airline advocacy body to incorporate into its work.

1. Think beyond the traditional when it comes to airline positions

Traditional airline associations in Brussels have tended to focus on traditional airline issues, be it emissions trading, passenger rights, Single European Sky or state aid in the sector. Such industry specific issues will of course remain central priorities for the new association. However, policy-makers in Brussels, fixated on Europe’s future recovery and growth, are increasingly asking more of the major industry associations in Brussels than simply positions on core industry issues – a central role for the new association will be to convey its members’ vision for the future of the industry. Whether it be the digitalisation of services in the single market, the approach to multi-modal travel solutions or the future of carbon reductions for the industry, the new association will need to be able to convey forward-thinking and positive measures that mirror the agendas of the policy-makers themselves.

2. Leverage airlines’ national footprint in Brussels conversations on policy

The ability to collectively leverage the national influence that its membership provides will be a critical, especially as national interests more and more dominate the new Brussels environment. From the European Parliament, where MEPs and their offices are always alive to listening to their own national constituents, through to national ministry officials negotiating in Council working groups, the ability of the airlines to mobilise the national as well as European audience can serve well the advocacy goals.

3. Use channels that keep a drumbeat of conversation going with relevant policy-makers

At the same time as looking beyond traditional issues, the new association should also embrace the full span of channels with which to convey its messages. Meetings and events are important points in any ongoing advocacy activity, but increasingly, social media channels such as LinkedIn and Twitter allow the conversations with key policy makers to continue in-between those set-piece moments of engagement. A recent study by FH found that 61% of MEPs surveyed follow social media conversations daily in their legislative work. So to ignore such media would be to lose a huge opportunity in terms of conveying association positions.

4. Qualify contribution to jobs and growth beyond the sector

Growth and jobs are the centerpiece of the European Commission’s agenda. Under the new regime, Commissioners and Vice Presidents are litmus testing new initiatives against their contribution to jobs and growth. The aviation industry’s own contribution is well documented, most recently through ATAG’s Benefits Beyond Borders report. Such data will continue to be critical in underpinning the advocacy effort in Brussels, and demonstrating aviation’s “value add”. The sector’s positive impact of course spreads to nearly every corner of Europe’s economy – the ability of the new association to therefore harness the support of other industry sectors, that depend on aviation for their own economic well-being, will be key.

5. Deliver member value through bench-marking reputation and measuring improvement

A fresh start for an industry association provides a unique opportunity to put in place a robust system of performance bench-marking. Setting out and agreeing on a core set of measurable objectives will allow the association to clearly define its own success and calibrate its ongoing strategy. Doubtless a core aspect of the activities of the association will be to develop the reputation of the sector with policy-makers. Initially, and periodically henceforth, testing the policy-maker perceptions of the airline industry will allow a clear assessment of the ongoing effectiveness of the association in this regard.

Rob Anger