The European Political Newspaper

Two men and a woman were charged in London for their involvement in the logistical support of the terrorist cell that realized the Paris and Brussels attacks.

All three defendants lived in the Small Heath area in Birmingham. Two more men have been arrested but not as yet charged.

Mohammed Ali Ahmed, 26, is a British national; Zakaria Boufassil, 26, and his sister Soumaya, 29, are Belgians. They were charged on Friday for collecting and delivering funds for the Brussels and Paris attacks.

The two men handed over Mohamed Abrini £3,000 (€3,800) in November 2015, ahead of the Paris attacks. Abrini, 31, was the “man in the hat” spotted alongside the two suicide bombers on March 22 in the Brussels airport.

Boufassil’s sister, Soumaya, 29, mother of four, was charged for collecting money for terrorist purposes. Mrs Boufassil had withdrawn £16,000 (£20.000) from three bank accounts in what is thought to be an attempt to make a run for Syria.

The Birmingham-three trial begins on May 13th in London.

A fourth man, Fazal Sajjad Younis Khan, 40, also from the same quarter in Birmingham has been arrested on possession of a CS spray. A 59-year year old was apprehended and later released on strict bail.

All five were apprehended in the evening of April 14-15

(AFP, France 24, The Telegraph, The Guardian)

The post Paris attacks support network charged in London appeared first on New Europe.

Irish parties have formed a minority government following little over two months of negotiations on Friday.

Ireland went to the polls on February 26 and announced a deal on April 30th.  The political system in Ireland was never a traditional left right pendulum. But, it was a political bipolar system that was crushed by the economic crisis and austerity measures, as in Portugal, Spain, and Greece.

But, unlike Spain, the Irish hung parliament yielded a deal.

The two traditional political rivals, Fine Gael and Fianna Fail, have struck a deal to create a new government. Enda Kenny will remain Ireland’s Prime Minister. The two historical rivals are closer ideologically in socioeconomic terms, but have deep historical cleavages between them.

Together Fine Gael (50 seats) and Fianna Fail (44 seats) have a comfortable majority in the 158 seat lower house (Dail). The chief of the opposition will now be Gerry Adams, of the anti-Austerity Sinn Fein (23 seats).  The emerging political landscape will be more polarized along the left-right axis, with the Labour Party seeing its liquidation.

To ensure the government remains on track, the leadership of the two major political rivals have settled key policy issues, such as the reduction of water charges and the increase in rent subsidies, which should allow them to pass three annual budgets.

The detailed deal must now be approved by the two party’s parliamentary groups, who will reconvene on Wednesday.

Through 2015 Ireland was the fastest growing economy in the Eurozone with nearly 7% GDP growth, subduing unemployment to 8,9% in January 2016. The only Europeans that seem less than impressed by this performance are the Irish. In a familiar pattern, this was the third government in Europe to oversee the end of an austerity program and lose elections.

(AP, AFP, dpa, DW, Reuters, Irish Times)

The post Ireland has a government appeared first on New Europe.

This month marks the 30th anniversary of the world’s worst nuclear disaster – the meltdown of the Soviet plant in Chernobyl in Ukraine.

The first explosion of the reactor sounded in the early morning hours of April 26. It was followed by a cloud of radioactive material drifted all the way to Russia and Belarus and parts of northern Europe. Thousands of lives were forever changed.

One worker at the plant died immediately after the explosion. Another died in hospital shortly after. In the haunting months that followed, 28 fire fighters who had rushed to battle the flames also died.

Today, Chernobyl remains deserted – a ghost town. But just 15km away – inside the 30km exclusion zone, there live some 4,000 people. They spend 15 days inside and 15 days outside. They are the workers who are building the New Safe Confinement. This is a structure to contain the nuclear reactor that is currently under construction. It is slated to be finished at the end of next year.

Some 4km north of the doomed nuclear power plant is the abandoned city of Pripyat. Before the nuclear disaster, it was a thriving Soviet city and home to some 49,000 people. Today it is a ghost town. The hospital, school rooms and homes are all deserted, crumbling and eerie.

Copyright and photos by Vasilis Tsiolis www.vasilistsiolis.gr  https://www.facebook.com/vasilistsiolisphotography/

The post An eerie look at Chernobyl 30 years on appeared first on New Europe.

The post “Back to Eurogroup” – New Europe Print Edition Issue 1163 appeared first on New Europe.

Regulation. (EC) 833/2013 provides that the Director General of OLAF is elected for seven years and cannot be re-elected for a second term. The same is valid for the five members of the Supervisory Committee (SC) of OLAF.  They are prosecutors and judges from the Member States. The term of service of the Supervisory Committee is for five years and its members are, like the Director general, not eligible for re-election.

Recently, an application process for the appointment of five new SC members was opened, with the new members set to start their mandate in January 2017. There are 11 official candidates submitted by the Member States to the Council and a few other independent presented applications through the Commission and the Parliament.

According to the OLAF Regulation, none of the current members of the Supervisory Committee would be eligible to apply for re-election. The mandates of Herbert Bösch and Tuomas Pöysti have expired in January 2015 and March 2016 respectively. The mandates of Johan Denolf, Catherine Pignon and Dimitris Zimianitis’ end in 2017.

New Europe, learned that among the candidates, there are three members of the current Supervisory Committee who have applied for their re-election. This is controversial and rather strange as three members of this supreme organ controlling the legitimacy of the operations of the anti-fraud authority of the European Union, attempt to violate the law for their own interests.

To this effect, late last week, the Legal Service of the Council which is responsible for the coordination of the appointments, issued a Legal Opinion explicitly rejecting the three candidates.

This month, will convene CoRePer II, the body of the 28 Ambassadors representing Member States in the EU and will make a first evaluation of the candidates. Will follow a joint meeting of the three institutions, Council, Commission and Parliament to take the final decision.

n this context it seems that some quarters in the European Parliament are excreting their influence in order ignore the OLAF Regulation and appoint in the new Supervisory Committee the three or some of the three non eligible members.

This is, however, highly unlikely to happen.

Indeed, if this happens by the same argument, Italy may demand and obtain, the renewal of the appointment of Giovanni Kessler as Director General of OLAF for another seven years.

w

The post An Attempted Coup d’état appeared first on New Europe.

Mobilizing People  is a challenge for everyone and no society can aspire to excellence without the focus on talent.

The talent imperative is a contract of trust in the present agenda of change, an agenda of construction of a new effective vision for the future. Mobilizing People is a contract with a common future.

Mobilizing is the bridge between those that believe in the power of people in creating new solutions with new ideas to more complex problems that are arising in society and those that want innovation and creativity to be the platform of creation of value in a global competitive economy. Mobilizing People is the confirmation of a process of evolution of the integration of people in society – the individual contribution must be a case of commitment with the organization of society and its main elements.

Mobilizing People must be centered in an active entrepreneurial culture and attitude –  people  have most of the times  an effective negative attitude towards the financial risk, the focus on innovation and the share of a culture of positive dynamic.

We need society to have a new challenge. Society must be able to be the real Platform of a more Entrepreneurial Society, centered in new areas of knowledge and new sectors of value. In a Modern and Active Society, the key word is Co-creation. To promote a dynamic and active creation process involving each citizen is the big challenge for the next years in society.

In the future, a  Society of the Ideas must be the most complete example of positive attitude towards the future. The Talents must be the new competitive advantage of this new  Society of the Ideas pushed by the “enablers” of  Modernity, Added Value and Excellence.

A very clear idea that suits the big challenge that our society really faces and that requires new answers for different questions.

The act of global  participation in such a demanding society is an exercise of commitment between the individual creativity and the collective cooperation. This is the key for the right future for society.

The talents are the key for a contract of ambition. We must understand that in an open society, where the integration of people is a signal of a positive contribution to the future, the ambition of excellence is essential. We need to believe in the capacity of people giving society a strategic capability essencial to the challenges of the future.

This is the message of the People Agenda. This is the message of a new challenge for people and for society. This is the answer of a new generation of talents that know that the key for success is based on the contribution with freedom and equality.

The post Mobilizing People appeared first on New Europe.

Don’t call him Ambassador! Yes, Carlo Calenda may be Italy’s new ambassador to the European Union, but this permanent representative in Brussels is not a career diplomat.

Calenda had served as the deputy minister for economic development. He was appointed by former Italian Prime Minister Enrico Letta and then confirmed by Prime Minister Matteo Renzi.

But this choice for the country’s top envoy in Brussels came as a surprise and, as usual in Italy, was criticised. Despite the criticism, however, one thing is certain: it was very innovative and brave.

Calenda has two very big advantages. One is that he is very familiar with politics in Brussels and in Italy. The other is that he comes from the entrepreneurial world, which is the engine for growth in both Italy and the EU.

Throughout his career, Calenda has proven himself, especially during the Expo in Milan. He is also a successful supporter of the “Made in Italy” and of the European industry. His job in Confindustria and his support for SMEs have put him in a “non-hostile” position vis-a-vis the centre-right coalition. This means he can attract a very large political consensus.

New Europe spoke with four MEP’s to gain some insight and first impressions about his programme, which foresees regular weekly meetings in Rome with the PM and ministers on EU issues.

MEP Roberto Gualtieri, a member of the S&D Group and Chair of the Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee, said he is satisfied with the unusual choice made by Renzi.

“It’s important to build up a political position taking into consideration the role and interest of the various ministers in Rome,” said Gualtieri. “In this phase, a more political ‘ambassador’ could have a more active role in the construction of an Italian position at EU level not only to protect the national interests, but to play a better role among the EU partners.”

Gualtieri also stressed the need to make a more preventive-work, together with Rome, on the different political dossiers in order to avoid arriving too late, as was the case in the past.

In a similar vein, MEP Elena Gentile, member of the S&D Group, is also very positive about the recent appointment of Calenda. “This choice is full of value and quality because of its competences and know-how but also for his determination in accepting such a role,” she told New Europe.

Gentile also underlined the need for greater coordination between Rome and Brussels. Asked to list the key topics that Calenda needs to tackle first, the MEP said growth and development comes first, together with the protection of the “made in” culture. This should be followed by a modern vision for energy policies and a more balanced distribution of the refugees on EU soil.

Also, another S&D MEP, Alessia Mosca, has already identified some progress. “Since I arrived here two years ago, I saw a positive process in the collaboration with our permanent representation in Brussels,” she told New Europe. “Italy is more and more present on the big dossiers.”

Asked about Italy’s new top envoy in Brussels, she said: “I appreciated that among his first meetings he decided to see the Italians MEPs. This is a sign of respect for the European Parliament and our role. After that, it is early to say. We will have to work with him day by day to see the results.”

Asked about Calenda’s new initiative aiming to organise periodical meetings in Rome with the PM and the involved ministries, MEP Mosca said: “What we always asked for was a better coordination with our ministries and national institutions that were in the past, on some topics, not so well involved. Our job here is positive giving results if everybody, at all institutional levels, understands that they have to focus on what is going on here. Nobody should remain in its internal and local niche.”

On the other side of the political fence, MEP Tiziana Beghin, a member of the the EFDD Group and the Five Stars Movement, has quite a few doubts about Calenda.

“Carlo Calenda is more a technical person in comparison with the diplomats we have seen in the past,” she told New Europe. “I don’t share with him the same vision of laissez-faire in the economy. However, he positively demonstrated to be in favour of the “made in” and other protection measures for our industry.”

She continued on other crucial political topics, saying: “We don’t agree with his vision on immigration and I think this is going to be a big new challenge for him. It is positive that he seems very supportive vis-à-vis small and medium-sized entrepreneurs, even if I don’t agree on the technical point of view in some of his visions. Let’s accept his nice statement of intent.”

The post Meet Italy’s ‘surprise’ ambassador to Europe appeared first on New Europe.

How do you explain humour? The fashion word in the German media today is: Ziegenficker… Goat-f***er. A German humorist used the word to define the Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, alluding to certain practices popular folklore attributes to the Turkish countryside. Ziegenficker is how the German humorist Jan Böhmermann called the Turkish president, adding upon the insult: Erdoğan is the “boss on the Bosphorus”. Hey, it’s German humour, but Erdogan really didn’t like it.

How do you describe humour, even when gross, and do you explain freedom of expression? You can’t, so Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan sued that German humorist. After a little pondering, Angela Merkel allowed the court case to proceed, letting herself and her 27 EU dwarfs exposed to everybody’s derision in Europe and elsewhere.

That Erdoğan suffers from a delusion of grandeur is obvious. The palace he built for himself in Ankara is a painful aesthetic and architectural testimony to this, with its 200,000 square meters and the 1,150 rooms and halls. The US White House, compared to this, would seem the butler’s residence. But, not happy with being sultan only at home, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan tries now to enslave his EU partners to his whims.

His weapon is an army of some 3 million refugees that he threatens to unleash upon Europe. That very Europe that would be only too happy to see him taking care of the refugees problem for ever.

The EU countries are dependent on Erdoğan for solving this, but find themselves under hard strain to speak out against the erosion of media freedom in Turkey. Europe is turning a blind eye to Turkey’s rights record because it needs Ankara’s help curbing huge flows of refugees and migrants.

Educated in religious school, Erdoğan was a semi-professional footballer playing for Kasımpaşa Spor Kulübü and was involved in Islamist political movements as a student before being elected as the Mayor of İstanbul from the Islamist Welfare Party in 1994. He was banned from office and sentenced to 10 months in prison for religious intolerance in 1998 and later abandoned openly Islamist politics, only to establish the conservative AKP party in 2001.

He is now Turkey’s president, but sees conspiracies everywhere. Especially since he started losing some ground, in spite of his Ottoman-style grandeur and authoritarianism. Turkey’s supreme court has this month overturned the convictions of no less than 275 people, including a former military chief, who allegedly plotted to overthrow Erdoğan.

All the defendants in the “Ergenekon case” were thus released years later after investigations revealed that they were imprisoned by prosecutors and judges close to the Gülen movement based on forged and tampered evidence. The movement is so called after Erdoğan’s top foe, US-based opposition cleric Fethullah Gülen.

Also, beginning of March, Istanbul police used tear gas and water cannons against protesters who gathered outside the headquarters of Zaman newspaper to protest the fact the newspaper was taken over by the government. So much for press freedom.

What else? Well… Erdoğan’s wife spoke with nostalgia about women’s life in the harems of the old. She said the Sultans’ harems were ‘educational centres that prepared women for life’ (while Erdogan himself thinks a woman’s main role is as a mother).

In good taste, Erdoğan is trying to oversee an overall revival of Ottoman traditions, greeting Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas with an Ottoman-style ceremony in his new presidential palace, with guards dressed in imperial costumes.

How about those goats, then? Well, someone should explain to Erdoğan that the goat is simply the essence of tragedy, it is at its origin… The very word “tragedy”, in ancient Greek, comes from nothing else than “tragos” (goat), that animal used for sacrifices which is also at the root of the expression “scape-goat”. Scape-goats is what Erdoğan is looking for to chase away everything that is not functioning in today’s Turkey.

The post Recep Tayyip Erdoğan: Of goats and men appeared first on New Europe.

As many newspapers reported in the last days, the European Commissioner on Competition, Margrethe Vestager, moved forward charging Google over Android. She has expressed her concerns many times on how Google bundles certain apps, such as Gmail or Maps into Android platforms. We know that Android, which Google licenses to phone makers for free, ran on 81% of the 1.4 billion smartphones sold in 2015 and this determines Google as the most popular operating system of the world.

As Vice Chairman of the European Union Committee at the Italian Chamber of Deputies, two weeks ago, I issued a parliamentary question to the Italian Government to take position on Google’s dominant position in providing online services. In fact, within the broad field of telecommunications, technological and digital innovation, Google occupies a dominant position in providing online services, especially the Internet search engine (Google search), the Android OS  – software for smartphones and tablets – and Youtube platform that allows to share and view online videos. After taking into account all this, I am quite satisfied that also the European Commission is going to focus on the abuse of Google’s dominant position in the market.

Moreover, the web giant has been widely accused of holding such a dominant position by creating undue tax advantages, being able to offer its services for free on the net, thanks to the enormous profits on which the company would not have paid all due taxes and that clearly compromises the competition in the technological sector, which requires a fair competition and an effective market regulation.

Thus, now we call for answers and we need to act jointly while looking at the same direction, if we deeply wish to create a single digital market between the 28 EU Member States. However, reality is that politics struggles to catch up with digital companies while undue tax evasion harms competition, because it subtracts resources that could be used to sustain innovative companies. These are the main reasons why I asked the Italian Government to not remain with arms folded or not to wait for EU regulation, especially in the light of what is happening in other countries, such as Russia and the US.

I deem that a twofold action is desirable to address this contemporary framework. On one hand, we need to take initiatives in order to influence the EU making-decision on the mentioned subject, as also announced by Commissioner Margrethe Vestager, on the other hand, we must seek an appropriate regulation with the aim of fixing tax evasion issue raised over the past years.

In addition, if I take into account both the relevance of protecting competition and the rapidly evolving digital world, my wish is that the Commission goes even further and conduct a holistic examination of the unique cross-platform dominance and cross-context visibility that gives Google an unmatchable control over personal data that is crucial to an ever-expanding number of Internet markets.

At the end, Google’s vast and diverse data stores and pattern of conduct pose a long-term threat to global innovation and competition, including emerging Internet-connected markets.  Given the substantial market power that Google has already achieved, and its unique and self-perpetuating cross-market and cross-platform dominance in the collection, storage, and analysis of digital data, the Commission should consider the full range of solutions to address Google’s abuse of dominance which include structural remedies designed to ensure effective competition and innovation.

The post Google’s dominant position appeared first on New Europe.

In October last year, a month after he was ousted by a vote from his own party, former Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott travelled to Europe to urge its leaders to adopt his near obsessive “stop the boats” policy on asylum seekers. In a London address honoring one of his conservative idols, Margaret Thatcher, Abbott trumpeted Australia’s strong-armed efforts to stem the flow of overloaded and rickety vessels seeking its shores.

As many commentators pointed out at the time, applicable Australian lessons for European policymakers were, and remain, essentially nil. Where Abbott’s homeland has at most dealt with an influx of about 20,000 individuals a year (a figure he has often exaggerated), Europe was and is contending with arrivals in the hundreds of thousands. Moreover, the latter stands alone as a largely multi-state bloc with divergent economies, cultures, and histories, connected by direct land routes and porous borders to the sources of those seeking its protection.

These differences seemingly didn’t stop policymakers in Brussels and national European capitals from heeding the message, even if subconsciously. The recent 1:1 deal between the European Union and Turkey was straight out of the Australian playbook. Under former Prime Minister Julia Gillard in 2011, it pursued a swap deal with Malaysia that was subsequently struck down by Australia’s High Court, which found that the 800 individuals scheduled to be sent to the Malaysia would have no legal protection from further prosecution, and thereby have contravened Australia’s own migration act. Nonetheless, Australia continues to pay poorer countries such as Papua New Guinea and Cambodia to resettle refugees.

Now comes a further warning for Europeans who might still be looking far south for inspiration. On Tuesday this week, the Supreme Court of Papua New Guinea, declared illegal an arrangement the country also has for detaining Australia’s unwanted asylum seekers while their claims are processed. In rejecting a constitutional amendment imposed last year to facilitate this “offshore processing” system, for which Papua New Guinea receives significant sums of Australian money, the court called for governments in both countries to “take all steps necessary to cease and prevent” it. This built on persistent censure of Australia from the United Nations and other institutions over its rejection of international obligations, including through a blanket ban on permanent residency for those arriving via boat without a valid visa.

Furthermore, the ruling has now given rise to speculation that the asylum seekers detained on Papua New Guinea’s Manus Island—often for stretches lasting several years—could sue the Australian government over their illegal treatment. Like other centers that Australia maintains on the tiny island nation of Nauru, the Manus facilities have been the site of continual controversy. They have witnessed riots, the killing of one detainee, widespread reports of sexual abuse, and various other privations. News of these have reached the outside world despite gag orders on officials working there and bans on journalists visiting.

Europe has yet to pursue the offshore processing model that is the subject of the recent ruling. Nonetheless, a form of Australia’s strict border controls have been creeping into the continent’s policies and formal discussions for some time. United Kingdom Prime Minister David Cameron also recently raised the notion of turning back asylum seeker boats in the Mediterranean toward Libya, as Australia does with vessels setting off from Indonesia and other countries. On at least one occasion there was speculation Australia paid the people smugglers involved, despite these being the very people it claims to be thwarting in its compassionate justifications of its policies.

Some in the European policy sector are also mulling the detention center idea itself, albeit in a softer form. A Polish Institute of International Affairs paper released in January this year found that “since implementing its harsh policy towards the ‘boat people,’ the number of people trying illegally to reach Australia as well as deaths at sea have decreased drastically.” It subsequently argued for Europe housing asylum seekers in “transition” centers, which would be situated on the edge of the bloc in member state territory, to provide greater oversight.

It is true that the numbers of asylum seekers attempting to reach Australia via boat has dropped as a result of its strict policies. Nonetheless, critics rightly argue that this outcome fails to take account of the ultimate fate of those who seek resettlement elsewhere. Australia has channeled far more time and effort into advertising campaigns warning against attempted migration from places like Afghanistan than it has into finding a viable regional solution.

In its deal with Turkey, Brussels appears to have made a short-sighted decision of this nature. It has certainly made an Australian-like bargain with a regime that does not outwardly share its values.

This has opened the door to illegal practices by proxy. At the time of the deal’s unveiling, for example, Amnesty International claimed to have evidence of Turkish authorities “rounding up and expelling” 100 Syrians to their war-torn country—forbidden under relevant national, regional, and international laws. The cases allegedly included young children without their parents, and an eight-month pregnant woman.

Despite European Council President Donald Tusk recently celebrating the success of the Turkey deal, and reportedly calling Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s government “the best example in the world on how to treat refugees,” there are obvious warning signs for Brussels from Australia’s legal setbacks. Specifically, there is a threat that the EU’s current arrangements might one day be declared illegal themselves, with those subjected to them afforded the right to seek compensation. Claims from rights groups, legal scholars, and United Nations officials already allude to such a possibility. Moreover, there is clearly wisdom in avoiding other Australian-like policies such as indefinite detention of individuals, or turning back boats or caravans of desperate people, when another key plank of that country’s strategy has fallen.

The great tragedy in the Australian example is that domestic campaigners on behalf of refugees have long criticized the human rights records and institutional weakness of countries to whom their government has offloaded responsibilities. Now, a key body in one of those countries has successfully held up Australian policies to a higher standard than its own legal system.

It is difficult to see this exact dynamic playing out in Turkey, particularly with the authoritative Erdoğan in power and enjoying a high degree of control over the decisions of its courts. It is not unforeseeable, however, that the legality of the Brussels pact with Turkey might one day soon be considered by the European Court of Justice. Meanwhile, the Turkish example has borne out fears common in Australia that empowering foreign regimes with disparate values can backfire, as has been seen with Erdoğan’s increasing challenges of Europe’s tradition of free expression.

The European comparisons with Australia’s asylum seeker policies are ultimately useful for the sake of a warning rather than lesson. If the EU continues down the same path, the future is likely to be one of increasing criticism and questioning of its values, and, ultimately, its legitimacy under its own and others’ legal systems. Meanwhile, the greater regional and global problem will continue to go unresolved. Ultimately, policymakers on the continent would be better served by remembering that they are—unlike the decidedly insular and John Donne-shunning Australia—a part of the continent, with actions that have much broader and longer-lasting implications than they are currently contemplating.

The post Australia’s refugee policy has been declared illegal. Could Europe’s follow it? appeared first on New Europe.

Dr. Amal Abdullah Al Qubaisi was the first and only woman elected to the Federal National Council (FNC) of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) in 2006. Since then, in subsequent electoral terms, she has risen from member to deputy-speaker. At the end of 2015, she was elected the FNC’s president.

During her visit to the EU’s capital last week to meet with the EU leadership, Al Qubaisi sought to “build bridges of communication and better understanding.”

Dr. Al Qubaisi sat down with Alexandros Koronakis to discuss some of the most burning issues of today’s world: terrorism, the refugee crisis and the empowerment of women. Her first words were to express her deepest condolences “to the victims of the explosions that happened here in Brussels” by men who she described as cowards.

“We have to show solidarity too and we have to join forces as we all stand on one side and fight against terrorism and extremism,” she said.

Al Qubaisi is a politician who radiates humanity. She recounted her visit to the Maelbeek Station where a young woman was grieving. She had lost her best friend in the terror attacks. “I lost him, he was only 20 years old and we were studying law together,” the woman told her. As the young woman became more emotional, Al Qubaisi reached out and hugged her. The woman embraced her and started to cry on her shoulder. Al Qubaisi was observably moved by the incident, saying “I managed to be there for her when she needed someone beside her”.

“We are not doing this because we are politicians. We are doing this because, as human beings, we have to come together. If we don’t do our best now, our children will have no world to live in.”

Terrorism is not Islam

The message that the Muslim faith and terrorism are not connected is one that Al Qubaisi insists must be heard even louder.

“Islam has been hijacked by a group of ill people who have their own agenda,” she explained. “These people have nothing to do with religion. Islam is a religion of peace and we, as Muslims, share the same values as the Christians and with all the religions.”

Describing Islam as a religion of “peace and not intolerance,” Al Qubaisi was very unifying in her message: “We cannot let [the terrorists] win… because if they make us think that we have barriers and there is a gap between the religions, and that Muslims are terrorists… [This will] set us apart.”

During her meetings with HRVP Federica Mogherini and European Parliament President Martin Schulz, both leaders asked Al Qubaisi to keep projecting the very important message that Islam has been hijacked by extremists.

Al Qubaisi wasn’t sure what kind of welcome she would receive, but Mogherini and Schulz shared her thoughts about not allowing the terrorists to be tied to the Muslim faith in the eyes of the public.

“I was really, not only relieved, but also that we are both on the right track and that we are now joining forces so we can have the implementation of initiatives and partnerships… That they can join us and work against terrorism.”

Taking the message back home

When asked how this message can echo, not only in Europe, but also back in the UAE, Al Qubaisi spoke about the strides taken, not just in civil society but in the legal infrastructure.

The first priority, she said, is “drying the resources that finance them and combatting terrorism though also trying to work on ideology of our people and also the youth, because you need to create an immunity system so they cannot be brainwashed”.

Al Qubaisi expressed concern for the great extent to which terrorists are using the internet to target children. “Your children and mine,” she emphasised, “are not safe because [the terrorists] can get through to them via digital communication.”

On the legal side, she noted: “In 2015, we issued a law that makes hate and any discrimination because of religion a crime”.  Earlier in 2008, a law was issued to target the finances of terrorist organisations.

But the UAE is not tackling this alone. “We have joined forces with international organisations and import expertise from all over the world,” she said.

Migration

Before her trip to Brussels, Al Qubaisi was in Vienna, where the migration crisis is “changing the political map”.

“I know the impact of the refugee issue here in europe … people are very afraid and are also very frustrated. They want a change and … they are worried about the impact of refugees on their societies.”

With one of the biggest criticisms against the UAE being that they have not taken in any refugees, Al Qubaisi was quick to explain that many different types of support efforts have been made.

“We have 240,000 Syrians” in the UAE, she explained. “We have offered them jobs, and we have around 30,000 Syrian children studying for free in our schools.”

Al Qubaisi hopes that the refugees will be able to return and restore Syria. “We believe that we shouldn’t treat refugees as migrants. Refugees are innocent people who had to flee from their own country out of fear because they would have lost their lives. You need to stabilise them somewhere temporarily, so that they can always go back and rebuild their country,” she said.

The UAE has also pledged over €1bn for the refugee crisis. Two camps have been built that can house a total of 20,000 refugees in Jordan, hospitals, schools and mobile clinics have also been built, according to Al Qubaisi.

“We offer humanitarian aid through Red Crescent, inside Syria and Jordan. We also support countries like Turkey, Iraq, Lebanon that are hosting many of the refugees,” she said.

Al Qubaisi spoke firmly about UAE’s role. “When people say we don’t do our duty, I say no.

“At the end of the day we have an ethical duty towards them as human beings and we have also a religious duty as Muslims,” she added.

Women in UAE politics and workforce

The UAE has the youngest minister in the world, who heads up the country’s Youth Ministry. The minister was selected by the prime minister of the UAE after asking every university to produce a short-list of three male and three female candidates.

Al Qubaisi’s astounding career in politics was preceded by the study of architecture, and University teaching. Asked whether she considers herself a role model by young women, Al Qubaisi did not hesitate: “Yes we are looked upon as role models. Not only for young women but for the whole society, men and women. Because we are committed and work hard, and we didn’t reach where we are easily. We have proven that we are qualified to be where we are. The UAE have been very wise in the way that they thought that development won’t be achieved unless you empower all of society.”

The system for voting the parliamentarians in the UAE foresees that half of the 40 federal representatives are elected by the citizens of the UAE, while the other half are selected by the Electoral College and the leaders of each Emirate.

Al Qubaisi praised the progress made by the UAE. “We have eight female ministers, we have judges and diplomats and more than 30% of working positions are held by women. Also, women make up 66% of the federal workforce and, not only that, but you’ll find women fighters, women in the army.”

Mariam Al Mansoori, the first female fighter pilot of the UAE, was “the fighter who was the first to hit ISIS”, Al Qubaisi continued.

“It’s competence and qualification that really determined who gets the job; it has nothing to do with being a man or a woman anymore. So we have transformed in the UAE, from women empowerment, to empowerment by women.”

The post Terrorism is not Islam appeared first on New Europe.

Taking powers from the European Parliament, may allow the heads of state and government of the member states to regain control of the European Commission presidential elections.

But how good can this be?

There is unrest in the European Parliament. According to a report from the Dutch Presidency of the EU, the European Council may be ditching the 2014 European Commission Presidential election process (the ‘Spitzenkandidaten’ –  meaning leading candidate in German).

Friday’s Süddeutsche Zeitung reported that the vast majority of the EU member states are willing to take back powers from the European Parliament. The European Council had no comment to offer at the time.

Article 17 of the Lisbon Treaty, reads:

“taking into account the elections to the European Parliament and after having held the appropriate consultations, the European Council, acting by a qualified majority, shall propose to the European Parliament a candidate for President of the Commission. This candidate shall be elected by the European Parliament by a majority of its component members. If he does not obtain the required majority, the European Council, acting by a qualified majority, shall within one month propose a new candidate who shall be elected by the European Parliament following the same procedure.”

The first elections that this model was applied to were in 2014, where the European People’s Party (EPP) proposed Jean-Claude Juncker as its candidate. Having gained the Parliamentary majority, the EPP could be confident that the President’s seat was a certainty, despite German Chancellor Angela Merkel or British Prime Minister David Cameron having second thoughts about the process.

New Europe talked with German MEP Jo Leinen from the S&D Group, who together with EPP’s Danuta Hübner, are the two MEPs that have been tryind to stop this since last November. Leinen feels that the European Council aims to “kill this article” on the electoral law.

If this is the case, the European Council has to move fast, in order for the decision to be finalized within 2016, so that there is enough time and space given to national Parliaments to take the change into account for the 2019 elections. In order to be on schedule, the proposal must come out within the time constraints of the Dutch Presidency, before the end of June. On the Council’s intentions, Leinen stressed that “the Governments are more or less unanimously against Spitzenkandidaten.”

Leinen believes that this “shift of power” caused by the new model, has also made the procedure more democratic. “They don’t want it in 2019.” On the process of amending the article, Leinen clarified that the Council decides on the proposal of the European Parliament and after consensus is reached, the final approval is given by the European Parliament.

“This was not just a shift of method, it was a shift of power, a shift from diplomacy to democracy, a step forward to stop electing the Commission’s President ‘behind closed doors,’ adds Leinen. “Now it seems we are making a step backwards to the old times.” From establishing “a direct link from the vote of the citizens to the vote of the Commission, when the vote of the citizens is the starting point.” Now everything is about to change.

Looking for a reason why Spitzenkandidaten model is in danger, someone could think it is in danger of being taken back because of the wave of populism and extremism in European Member States. On the danger of populists taking over the European Parliament and the Commission, Leinen has a different opinion.

“I hope this will not happen. 80% of the MEPs are pro-Europeans and not populists. In order to fight populism against Europe, we need closer cooperation between the political groups,” and this is already happening. EPP, S&D, ALDE and sometimes GUE/NGL are uniting powers against populism in the European Parliament, Leinen suggested that “If [we] have a populist revolution in Europe, then this will be another Europe,” he said, using the Spitzenkandidaten electoral model “as an instrument to take back citizens, by being more transparent and democratic.”

The post Will Merkel and Cameron kill the EU’s Spitzenkandidaten electoral process? appeared first on New Europe.

The post #New Europe Shooting Gallery Issue 1163 appeared first on New Europe.

The refugee crisis that hit Europe in 2014 has reinforced anti-Islamic sentiments across EU member states. Islamophobia has now become a matter of everyday politics and populist leaders are investing heavily on this issue. Islamophobia, however, is not a new phenomenon in Europe. Some electorally successful political parties owe their luck to the exploitation of the widespread hatred against Muslims and their religion. In France and the Netherlands, for instance, islamophobia is an old phenomenon and one that is well-rooted in society.

But the current refugee crisis has also revealed that the dangers associated with Islam are in actuality part of a very well presented narrative. Populists in many EU member states, including those that were not obliged to take in considerable numbers of Syrians or other Muslim asylum-seekers, see an Islamic threat in the faces of the refugees.

Polish nationalists, for instance, worried their Christian identity was at stake when they learned that their country, with a population of 38 million, was slated to receive several thousand Muslim refugees. Slovaks, Hungarians and Czechs were also quick to react against any obligation to take in non-Christian refugees.

These anti-Muslim fanatics described themselves as ‘good patriots’ and ‘good Christians’. It became clear that local politicians’ rhetoric is not restricted to politics, but very often crosses into theology.

A few days ago, for example, one of the leaders of Germany’s Alternative of Germany (AfD) – a Europhobic party – argued that Islam cannot exist in harmony with democracy and with European values. The AfD leader said: “Islam is in itself a political ideology that is not compatible with the basic law”. Meanwhile, in Poland there were aggressive reactions against Pope Francis’ visit to the Greek island of Lesbos where he met with refugees.  In the Netherlands, the far-right party has repeatedly called for the closure of all mosques.

There are also countless other similar declarations against Islam being made by populist politicians and there are acts of aggression against Muslims in many EU member states.

It is obvious that populists either don’t realise the political dangers of their words and actions, or they don’t care as long as it serves to their potential electoral advantage.

But Islamophobia is, at the same time, a political risk and a direct threat to the core European values. There are millions of European citizens who are Muslim. Just like there are other Europeans who believe in other religions.   There are Europeans who are Muslim because their ethnic or religious groups are in Europe even before many modern states were born. Poland, Greece, Bulgaria, Romania and Cyprus, for instance, have thousands of citizens who are of the Muslim faith.

So why should we question their European identity? Why should we make them feel rejected by the entire European community, which is just as much theirs as it is ours?   

There are also millions of European citizens who are second or third generation immigrant Muslims. Their fathers or grandfathers arrived in Europe and became sincere and devoted citizens. They were also part of the economic and industrial revival of many EU states, including Germany, France, Belgium and Sweden. So why should we deny them what they acquired over generations? The political risk of Islamophobia is great. It raises a deep and unbridgeable divide among Europeans.

Islamophobia and the populists who exploit this phenomenon, however, are directly rejecting the core European value of tolerance. During the making of European Union, religious freedom, respect for every religion, was a question of principle. And it is still one of the key pillars of European culture.

Our dark past, which is riddled with crimes against humanity based on religious principles, should alert us of the lurking dangers. This is why the vulgar and unprincipled use and abuse of Islamophobia by modern populists must be condemned as anti-European.

The post The dangerous path of Islamophobia appeared first on New Europe.

Demanded by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and respected by the European Institutions, contingency measures are additional measures that should be legislated in such a way as to allow for their automatic activation and execution.

“The contingency measures need to be credible, legislated up front, automatic and be based on objective factors, which will trigger these contingent measures,” said Eurogroup President Jeroen Dijsselbloem. He was speaking after the April 29 Eurogroup meeting in Amsterdam that ended in agreement about the need to legislate such measures.

However, speaking just a few minutes after Dijsselbloem, Greece’s Finance Minister Euclid Tsakalotos explained that Greece cannot pass such measures for the simple reason that Greek legislation does not allow for this.

However, Greece has already legislated the “zero deficit clause” on Social Security Funds. This is a type of contingency measure that would allow Social Security Funds to be viable, by pulling a red line to deficits.

But the implementation of this measure has been technically postponed by the Syriza-Anel coalition government. The provision, however, returned in Greece’s third Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) of the third bailout programme.

Meanwhile, the European Commission has supported the Greek government’s view that there was no need to legislate any contingency measures in the beginning. The government argued that if the other Institutions asked Greece to do so in order to remain in the programme – this goes to the IMF’s side – they wouldn’t leave the table. 

European Commissioner for Economic and Financial Affairs, Taxation and Customs Pierre Moscovici had told reporters in Brussels before the Eurogroup meeting date was finalised that creditors must respect Greek law, which forbids legislating up front on future developments. “It is not necessary to have a precise and detailed set of measures, but a mechanism that shows precisely how such measures will be taken if this is judged necessary,” he said.

On the contingency package issues, he said: “The EU wants IMF on board at the programme.”

“We are 99 % there on the first package. As for the contingency mechanism, which, in our view, is not really justified by data, but politically necessary, let’s work on that,” he said referring to the 3% cuts on Greek GDP package. The contingency measures refer to demands to cut a further €3.6bn in future.

The question now is whether time is an issue or if the Greek government and the other Institutions just give more time? The answer to this question is no. Moscovici clarified that a final deal can “on no account wait until July,” as it is well understood that Greece needs a bailout package instalment in order to repay debts.

Several months ago, the Greek side had referred to May as a closing date as “late”. This was when Tsakalotos told the Greek Parliament that “if the review finalises in May or June, we are burned”. As such, any further delay would be bad for the Greek economy, as budgets are already tight for Athens.

After all, Greece should have already finalised its first review six months ago, in November 2015. Keeping the country in an on-off position with constant talks ultimately discourage investors. This is why Greece would like to achieve a one-off review per year – each spring – that would result to trigger this contingent fiscal break mechanism.

The issue is also political, as Europe needs to wrap up the Greek bailout case by June because other projects are coming up in the horizon as the summer approaches. For instance, the migration crisis could spike during late spring and summer. If this is the case, more attention and energy will need to be dedicated to this issue. Also, Greece would not want a repeat of last summer, as the migration crisis has already put too much pressure on tourism, the so-called “heavy industry” of this southern European country.

Expectations of the May 9 Eurogroup

The current situation, however, must not be mistaken for 2015.  All sides may keep expectations low at this Eurogroup by focusing on the realistic outcomes of such an extraordinary Eurogroup, but the joint announcement of all four Institutions doesn’t lie. Much progress has been made, the deal has to close soon and all sides know this very well.

So at this extraordinary meeting, the Greek government and the EU are expected to work on a package of contingency measures. The message this time is: “Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed”.

On debt talks, the aim is also to put it on the table on May 9. This is something the Greek government is hoping will happen. The debt talks are not expected to be as fruitful as the Greek side may have imagined when the third bailout package was agreed last summer, as the IMF is never fond of big debt restructuring and cuts.

What impression did the past dramatic week leave us with? European Institutions seem unable to conclude on common numbers and solutions for Greece, while differences remain between the EU member states. For instance, Germany, Austria and the Netherland are playing hard ball with Greece, while Italy, France and Portugal are offering a helping hand to Greece’s Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras and his government. Greece may end up with a successful review and contingency measures in the same basket, suggesting to future investors that there is a lack of trust on the country’s ability to achieve goals.

What’s more, the 3% measures should prove themselves to be sufficient in the long run, as many consider this package as a 2018 ticking bomb, where pensions are to collapse, even if the first package on the Social Security Fund reform is implemented. Primary residence auctions to non-preforming loans settlement may run unprotected at the end of 2017 as well. This also worries the opposition, as it is a never-ending story of the past government, passing the hot potato to the next, while presenting technical, short-term and overall fake improvements in macroeconomic terms.

As the date with the Eurogroup approaches, the Greek government keeps playing best tactics, applying pressure to Dijsselbloem to meet with Michel Sapin and Wolfgang Schaüble before the meeting. Hard work is expected to resume on May 3, as Greek officials return from their Orthodox Easter break and Greece gets back to its spring review decisions and reality.

The post Back to Eurogroup appeared first on New Europe.

Russian gas monopoly Gazprom said full-year profit increased almost five-fold in 2015, which means the government might rely on the state energy giant to plug a hole in the state budget.

Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev two weeks ordered state companies to pay 50% of their 2015 net profits under Russian or international accounting standards in dividends.

“Gazprom, the company, doesn’t look to be willing to ask for any exemptions so it seems Gazprom will pay,” Natalya Orlova, chief economist at Russia’s Alfa Bank, told New Europe by phone on April 29. “Basically this year they will approve the dividend payout ratio. I think it’s 50 percent of their profits and the state as a major shareholder will receive a proportion.”

Gazprom will make its dividend decision based on the government’s directive, Bloomberg quoted Igor Shatalov, first deputy head of the company’s finance department, as saying on April 28 on a conference call, adding that the board will review its dividend recommendation on May 19. Dividend policies should “balance the interests” of a company and its shareholders, Shatalov said.

Gazprom said in a statement on April 28 net income rose to 787 billion rubles ($12.2 billion) in 2015 from 159 billion rubles in 2014.

Total sales (net of excise tax, VAT and customs duties) increased by 483,507 million rubles, or 9%, to 6,073,318 million rubles for the year ended December 31, 2015 compared to the year ended December 31, 2014. The increase in sales is mainly driven by the increase in sales of gas to Europe and other countries, Gazprom said.

The Russian energy giant meets about 30% of Europe’s gas demand. Europe remains one of Gazprom’s most lucrative markets. Gazprom Management Committee Deputy Chairman Alexander Medvedev said earlier in April that Gazprom’s export to Europe would stay above 160 billion cubic metres in 2016.

Orlova said the two companies that will refurbish the budget are Gazprom and Rosneft, Russia’s biggest oil producer. “This is just one of the instruments to resolve the budget problem but the dividends per se will not be enough,” she said.

On April 22, Gazprom’s domestic rival, state-run Rosneft said its board had recommended paying a dividend of 11.75 rubles per share on its profits last year, up from the 8.21 rubles paid for 2014. The dividend payout will total 124.5 billion rubles ($1.87 billion), or 35% of Rosneft’s net profit under the international financial reporting standard (IFRS), the company said in a statement. The payout is less than the dividend rate of 50% of net profits that the government has ordered state-owned companies to pay. Orlova noted that Rosneft has a higher debt burden and plans to boost capital expenditure.

The Russian economy has plunged into recession since 2014 amid the drop of global oil prices and Western sanctions imposed over Moscow’s annexation of Crimea and involvement in Eastern Ukraine. “If oil will keep climbing and oil will go to 50 dollars per barrel the budget is balanced,” Orlova said. “So if oil will keep continue to climb and reach 50, then all problems solved for this year.”

follow on twitter @energyinsider

The post Gazprom to the Rescue! appeared first on New Europe.

Government departments in the United Kingdom lost more than €830m in fines for errors in spending European Union cash, according to the cross-party House of Commons Public Accounts Committee.

As reported by Bloomberg, Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne must now take urgent action to improve administration. Britain had the sixth-worst record in the 28-nation bloc for having to return money for farming that was “not used or administered in accordance with EU regulations and national rules”.

“Government inaction on EU penalties is costing taxpayers dear,” Meg Hillier, a Labour lawmaker and chairwoman of the committee, said in an emailed statement. “Money intended to support projects and programmes in the UK is instead being lost. The apparent lack of practical concern about this fact until recently will anger many people, whatever their views on Britain’s EU membership.”

Only Greece, Romania, Portugal, Bulgaria and Cyprus had to pay back more money between 2005 and 2015, the committee said, citing National Audit Office data.

“As a priority the Treasury and departments must identify the reasons they keep being penalized and take whatever action is necessary to rectify their mistakes,” Hillier said. “The experiences of EU member states, the UK private sector and UK universities point to some simple overall conclusions: the government has much to learn and the sooner it learns it, the better.”

The post Why the UK is losing millions for EU funding errors appeared first on New Europe.

Bernie Sanders has in effect accepted his campaign will not secure the Democratic nomination but has vowed to remain in the primaries to affect the policy agenda of the party.

The Vermont Senator and his advisers have made clear their objective now is to set terms for the party’s platform. Key demands are a federal minimum tax of $15 an hour, a single payer healthcare system (i.e. employer only), and a comprehensive plan against climate change. Sanders has brought into the campaign a number of issues that Hillary Clinton will oppose, including his opposition to the Keystone Pipeline and the Trans-Pacific Partnership deal, that is, a legacy issue for Barack Obama.

But, Sanders will also want to see that Democratic Party primaries become more accessible to non-party insiders. He will want the elimination of superdelegates as well as an open voting register for “independents,” that is citizens that are not party members.

Clinton will not want to appear as giving in on all policy demands put forward by the Vermont Senator, recalling that in 2008 she backed Senator Barack Obama without preconditions.

Sanders has resolved to be disruptive, Fortune magazine reports. The main precedent for such a convention is the Jimmy Carter versus Ted Kennedy 1980 convention. The nominee Carter at the time was forced to make a number of concessions and seeks reconciliation.

His work will focus on party committees. With 20% of delegates in each policy committee – a threshold that Sanders will easily reach – he can propose amendments that will make it to the floor of the open convention. He could thus pick public fights on policy issues that can hurt the Clinton campaign if they are opposed, such as the $15 minimum wage demand. However, opposition on electoral rules is not likely to be as harmful and this is a fight in which Clinton will have the support of the Democratic Party establishment.

The post Sanders sets policy terms to back Clinton appeared first on New Europe.

North Korean ruler Kim Jong Un has reportedly refused to accept the resignation of one of his senior officials who requested to resign because he was “overcome with stress”.

The resignation is reportedly not the only one, suggesting Kim Jong Un doesn’t have adequate levels of support from top cadres of the Korean Workers’ Party.

United Press International (UPI) quoted Ko Young-hwan, a former North Korean diplomat and defector, as saying that many senior North Korean officials are fearful of the “unpredictable” Kim and they “never know what could happen next”.

“Many high-level cadres are turning their backs on Kim and exiting the regime,” he added, noting that ordinary North Koreans have also “given up hope” in the future of the Kim regime.

According to Seoul’s unification ministry, official idolisation of Kim, who inherited power from his father, has increased, and has accelerated further since North Korea conducted its fourth nuclear test in January.

The post North Korea’s Kim Jong Un growing unpopular appeared first on New Europe.

Slovakia’s Finance Minister Peter Kažimír was reportedly surprised when the European Union’s statistical service Eurostat revealed the country’s public finance deficit for 2015 was actually well above target and much higher than figures presented by the government.

As reported by The Slovak Spectator, the public finance deficit last year was at 2.97% of GDP, Eurostat reported in its regular spring notification on April 21. In doing so, it refused to acknowledge some of the payments that the government had booked as revenue. Kažimír said he was surprised, adding that in the past such operations were never questioned by Eurostat.

“Such surprises from the side of Eurostat at the very last moment are not fair and we will insist on more discussions about this topic,” he said. Slovakia entered notification proceedings with a deficit of 2.56%.

Despite consultation, Eurostat did not acknowledge as revenue repayments of more than €117m in financial aid from rail firm ZSSK Cargo, or payments from the State Fund for Development of Housing (ŠFRB) of almost €200m.

Analysts see Slovakia’s fiscal deficit of 2.97% of GDP as a failure to meet the 2.49% targeted in the state budget.

Compared with 2014, Slovakia’s fiscal deficit increased and if Greece, which continues to struggle with its major financial problems, is omitted, Slovakia is the only member of the EU whose deficit increased year on year.

Slovakia entered the notification negotiations with a deficit of 2.56%, including corrections of 0.3% of GDP related to drawing of EU funds on which the finance ministry did not have any influence, Finance Ministry spokeswoman Alexandra Gogová told The Slovak Spectator.

Meanwhile, the Fico government is targeting a balanced budget by 2020, a postponement of this goal by two years from the original date of 2018.

“I perceive the postponement… as a de facto confession [of the government] that this goal will be not met,” Martin Reguli, analyst from the F. A. Hayek Foundation, told The Slovak Spectator. “I do not expect keeping of this obligation as realistic as priorities will probably emerge, especially in public investments and social programmes.”

Peter Goliaš, from the Institute for Economic and Social Reforms (INEKO) think tank, points to irresponsible governance since 2014.

“The government has preferred bigger spending to revitalisation of public finances,” Goliaš told The Slovak Spectator. “I expect the same development also this year when instead of the planned 1.9% deficit we get near 3%.”

The post EU statistics show Slovakia’s deficit on the rise appeared first on New Europe.