Written by Agnieszka Widuto (1st edition),
© Thomas Reimer / Fotolia
The European Commission adopted the proposal on the establishment of the Reform Support Programmeon 31 May 2018, as part of the package for the upcoming multiannual financial framework for 2021-2027. The programme will provide financial and technical support for Member States to implement reforms aimed at increasing the resilience and modernising their economies, including priority reforms identified in the European Semester.
The overall budget for the programme is €25 billion. It comprises three elements: a reform delivery tool (financial support); a Technical Support Instrument (technical expertise, building on the current Structural Reform Support Programme 2017-2020); and a convergence facility (preparation for adopting the euro). The Reform Support Programme will be open to all Member States on a voluntary basis, with no co-financing required.
In the European Parliament, the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON) and Committee on Budgets (BUDG) will work jointly on this file under Rule 55 of Parliament’s Rules of Procedure. The next step is the publication of the draft report, expected in autumn 2018.
Versions:Rapporteurs:
Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON) and Budgets (BUDG) (jointly under Rule 55)
Caroline Nagtegaal (ALDE, the Netherlands)
Eider Gardiazabal Rubial (S&D, Spain)
COM(2018) 391 of 31.5.2018
2018/0213 (COD)
Ordinary legislative procedure (COD) (Parliament and Council on equal footing – formerly ‘co-decision’) Next steps expected: Publication of draft report
Written by Tatjana Evas,
Fotolia
As a follow-up to the European Parliament resolution of 9 June 2016 calling for an open, efficient and independent European Union administration – 2016/2610(RSP), rapporteur: Heidi Hautala (Greens/EFA, Finland) – the Parliament’s Committee on Legal Affairs (JURI) asked the European Parliamentary Research Service’s European Added Value Unit to carry out a public consultation. The aim of the consultation was to survey public opinion, first, on general perceptions and attitudes towards the EU administration; second, on personal experience in dealing with the EU institutions; and, third, on further action that the EU should take in the area of EU administrative law to address the shortcomings identified.
In response to the consultation, the Parliament received 166 fully completed online responses from 20 EU Member States. Incomplete responses were not taken into consideration for analysis but not for statistical purposes. Among the 166 completed responses, 155 contributions came from individuals and 11 from organisations.
The key findings of the public consultations are summarised in figure 1 below:
Specific trends:General perceptions of the EU administration were mixed: 52 % had a positive perception while 36 % had a negative perception of the functioning of the EU institutions. Professional interests, direct experience and media were three main sources of information underpinning the opinions formed by respondents regarding the EU administration. Perceived general awareness of what services the EU institutions provided for the public and companies was high: 73.5 % of respondents indicated that they knew what services were provided by the EU institutions. At the same time, only 45.8 % of all respondents indicated that they were familiar with their right to submit a petition to the European Parliament.
Experiences with the EU institutions were also mixed: 24 % of respondents had a negative experience, 30 % mixed and 46 % positive. The European Commission, European Parliament and EU agencies were the administrations with which respondents had had most direct contact. Access to documents (46 %); requests for general information (44 %) and EPSO competitions (31 %) were the top three reasons for respondents having had contact with the EU administration. The three main problems contributing to negative experiences included the length of the procedure (42 %), difficulty in finding information (37 %), and the quality of the reply received (30 %).
There was a high level of support from the respondents (76 %) for additional measures at EU level to reinforce EU administrative procedures. The two main reasons why respondents would like the EU to take action were: to improve efficiency (57 %), and to improve the transparency (50 %) of the EU administration. In response to the question on how the EU should best reinforce the functioning of the EU administration, 82 % of respondents were in favour of adopting a new law (52 % supported a new law setting out minimum standards, while 30 % supported a new law with full harmonisation). The proportion of respondents who supported the adoption of a non-binding code of conduct was low (7 %). While not in favour of a new law, 23% of respondents would prefer the EU to improve existing legislation; similarly, 23 % did not support a new law but would rather see measures focusing on technical ways to simplify public access to the EU administration.
Read the complete study on ‘EU law for an open independent and efficient European administration: Summary report of the public consultation‘.
Written by Marcin Grajewski,
© Delphotostock / Fotolia
The politically charged negotiations on the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union moved forward a little in July, when the British Cabinet put detailed proposals on the table for the future framework of EU-UK relations. The document, which envisages relatively close ties between the EU and UK, in trade and several other areas, after Britain leaves in March 2019, prompted the resignations of two senior ministers David Davis and Boris Johnson, who favour an even harder Brexit. EU officials have said that the new proposals contain some constructive elements, although many questions remain unanswered.
This note offers links to reports and commentaries from some major international think-tanks and research institutes on Brexit negotiations and related issues. More reports on the topic can be found in a previous edition of ‘What Think Tanks are thinking’, published in May 2018.
Brexit: Next steps in UK’s withdrawal from the EU
House of Commons Library, July 2018
UK business should play for extra time in the Brexit negotiations
European Policy Centre, July 2018
The Brexit White Paper: What it must address
The UK in a Changing Europe, July 2018
Brexit brief
Institute of International and European Affairs, July 2018
Brexit and the British growth model
Police Exchange, July 2018
An equal exit? The distributional consequences of leaving the EU
Institute for Public Policy Research, July 2018
The EU’s problem with May’s plan for Brexit
Centre for European Reform, July 2018
Brexit: One failed plan, two resignations, and plenty of uncertainty
Atlantic Council, July 2018
Four Brexit scenarios
Carnegie Europe, July 2018
A second Brexit referendum: The practical questions
Institute for Government, July 2018
Deal, no deal, or extension?
UK in a Changing Europe, July 2018
After Chequers, what has changed on Brexit?
Institute for Government, July 2018
The UK’s first international trade negotiation: Agriculture at the WTO
European Centre for International Political Economy, July 2018
Brexit: Time for a moratorium
LSE Blog, July 2018
Trump backed Brexit: Then he used it as leverage
Brookings Institution, July 2018
The Brexit White Paper: Room for improvement
Policy Exchange, July 2018
Trump’s misguided attack on European unity
Council on Foreign Relations, July 2018
Preparing business for a Brexit ‘no deal’: Questions the Government needs to answer
Institute for Government, July 2018
Brexit and European defence: What to expect from a “no-deal” outcome?
Instituto Affari Internazionali, July 2018
A Brexit deal is still not achieved
Bruegel, July 2018
The Brexit White Paper offers a compromise approach for negotiations, but seems to have little support in Parliament
Open Europe, July 2018
Europe’s response to May’s plan could cost her more ministers
Centre for European Reform, July 2018
Will UK working parents lose out after Brexit?
UK in a Changing Europe, July 2018
Brexit: Heading to a deal or no deal while UK politics implodes?
Scottish Centre on European Relations, July 2018
Britain must decide what kind of power it wants to be after Brexit
Chatham House, July 2018
Why Theresa May can’t figure out Brexit
Chatham House, July 2018
Theresa May’s Brexit model: Many questions, not least ‘why leave?’
Centre for European Policy Studies, July 2018
A political crisis looms over Brexit
Carnegie Europe, July 2018
Shattered illusions: The new Brexit proposals on customs
Centre for European Policy Studies, July 2018
Dead or alive? A UK-US trade deal
Centre for European Reform, July 2018
Chequers: ‘Soft’ Brexit or just any Brexit?
Scottish Centre on European Relations, July 2018
Brexit: Last call
European Policy Centre, July 2018
British fudge: Where now for the future UK-EU framework?
Scottish Centre on European Relations, July 2018
Safer together: The United Kingdom and the future of European security and defence
Friends of Europe, June 2018
No ‘Global Britain’ after Brexit
Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, June 2018
Brexit report
DCU Brexit Institute, June 2018
Spain and the prospect of Brexit
Real Instituto Elcano, June 2018
Striking a balance: A blueprint for the future UK-EU economic partnership
Open Europe, June 2018
Which role for the Benelux post-Brexit?
Egmont, June 2018
Maintaining Europol security ties after Brexit
Rand Corporation, June 2018
The Brexit trap: Checking out is easier than leaving the EU
Atlantic Council, June 2018