European Parliamentary Research Service Blog

Written by Leopold Schmertzing with Pauline Boyer, Miro Folke Guzzini, Linus Olle Johanen Sioeland, Linda Kunertova, Gabriel Lecumberri, Sophie Millar, Arto Ilpo Antero Vaisanen,

The European Strategy and Policy Analysis System (ESPAS) held its latest annual conference On Monday, 14 and Tuesday, 15 October 2019 (see here for blog posts about past conferences). This was the last of the ESPAS cycle that started with the European Election in 2014 and the publication of the 2014 report ‘Global trends to 2030: can the EU meet the challenges ahead?‘.

This year’s conference can be counted as the first of a new ESPAS cycle, following the election of a new Parliament and the publication in April of a new ESPAS Report. ‘Global trends to 2030: Challenges And choices For Europe‘ was the basis for broad ranging discussions within the ESPAS community on the future of Europe and the world.

Setting the scene and opening address

In her welcome to the ESPAS conference session hosted in the EPRS Library Reading Room, Ann Mettler, Head of the EPSC and Chair of ESPAS, questioned Europe’s resilience in the face of an emerging age of impunity. Vice-President of the European Parliament, Othmar Karas (EPP, Austria), then opened the proceedings, welcoming the new commission’s proposal to institutionalise foresight. The European Parliament will be a partner in this effort; finding innovative ways to improve our common future is in the Parliament’s DNA. The EU can only shape the future through being persistent in its efforts and taking responsibility in the world. ESPAS can help by continuing to talk truth to power.

The future of equality

Member of the European Parliament, and returning STOA Panel Chair, Eva Kaili, chaired the first panel discussion of the day. In his introductory video, science fiction author Tom Hillenbrand focused on possible future inequalities caused by climate change and data injustice. Sergio Bitar emphasised the role of access to public goods and civic participation in governance in achieving a higher level of equality worldwide. Cinzia Alcidi of CEPS pointed to the need to prevent tax avoidance by multinationals that have exploited loopholes for too long. For Stijn Hoorens, increasing automation favours workers with intuitive creative skills and makes jobs with manual repetitive tasks disappear, thereby increasing inequality. Heather Grabbe of the Open Society Foundation argued that the combination of already-present social inequalities in society with new forms of highly personalised automated political targeting has given rise to the wave of populism we are seeing on a global scale.

The future of ageing

In a video introduction, Richard K. Morgan, author of the book and TV series Altered Carbon, evoked a future in which the rich would live forever, while the rest of the population would quickly become bored of life. Rainer Muenz, of the European Political Strategy Centre at the European Commission, stressed that there are three kinds of ageing: biological, as humans increase their life spans; demographic, as different age cohorts change size; and societal, as our understanding of what to do at a certain age changes. Lorna Harries of the University of Exeter highlighted that although ageing is natural, age-related diseases can be treated. With more funding into the causes of these diseases, we could live healthier for longer. For Mathew Burrows from the Atlantic Council, war-prone young populations and intergenerational inequality are the main side-effects of ageing trends internationally. Isabella Pirollo of the ESPAS Young Talent Network chaired this panel.

The future of universities

Lee C. Bollinger, President of Columbia University, started his keynote address by highlighting that the dual system of state and private universities in the USA has created a vibrant and creative atmosphere envied around the world. The main threats to the university come from the decreasing but still sizeable gap between university research interests and world affairs, from rising populist and nationalist politics, and from the general disrespect for truth and facts. In the ensuing conversation with the Parliament’s Secretary General Klaus Welle, President Bollinger discussed issues such as the need for an alliance of democracies that safeguard higher education and the challenges of the digital transformation. The session was chaired by the Director-General of EPRS, Anthony Teasdale.

Normandy Peace Index

Etienne Bassot and Elena Lazarou from EPRS and Serge Stroobants of the Institute for Economics and Peace (IEP) spoke about this new global peace index, developed by EPRS in collaboration with IEP. It measures each country’s position in relation to 11 key threats of peace, drawing attention to present and possible future areas of conflict. The Index is a new powerful tool for policy analysis and policy-making.

The future of power in a ‘poly-nodal’ world

In a video introduction, August Cole, author of Ghost Fleet, described how two fictional characters from his book, a silicon-valley big-wig and an eccentric space-industry billionaire, change the course of a US-Chinese conflict, set in 2040. Florence Gaub explained the concept of a poly-nodal world, in which winners and losers are determined by their ability to forge connections and rally others around a cause. She wondered whether Russia was able to build and maintain reliable connections. Simon Serfaty, formerly of CSIS, noted that the EU has enough wealth to be a power in the world – even if it is not a world power. He asked who would be at the top table in 2030, and suggested that for several years, too much time has been spent on marginal matters. Benedetta Berti of NATO’s policy planning staff underlined that strategic friendship is based on more than transactional content. Alexander Mattelaer of the Free University of Brussels argued for increased defence spending, and asked several challenging questions: should extra funding be spent within the NATO or the EU framework? What level of increase would create the possibility of EU strategic autonomy? In the chair, Maciej Popowski of EPRS noted the importance of being able to turn enemies into friends – a skill the USA seems to be neglecting.

From foresight to action

Ann Mettler led a discussion on the nature of foresight in government. She recalled the words of the new Vice-President of the European Commission for Interinstitutional Relations and Foresight, Maroš Šefčovič: ‘Foresight is not a luxury item. It’s a must’. Leon Fuerth, former National Security Advisor to US Vice President Al Gore, identified three differences between experts and politicians that have a negative impact on foresight: a lack of a common language; different missions; and conflicting values. Only a common purpose and the intervention of the public can overcome these issues. Mikko Duvfa of Sitra used three symbols for a new way to look at foresight. Entangled rubber bands stand for a holistic view of trends instead of a separated one. Campfires symbolise the need for humility and outreach. Thirdly, joint dreaming means inspiring the consumers of foresight instead of reporting to them. Oliver Gnad of the Bureau für Zeitgeschehen told the story of German government foresight. Germany’s strategic capacity improved only after changes to an anti-strategic mindset, the federal structure and misguided incentive structures. Finally, Bénédicte Rougé of the French Senate outlined the work of the Senate delegation for strategic foresight, which acts as a channel to political visibility and as a platform allowing citizens to tell their stories.

The future of ESPAS

Honorary President of ESPAS, James Elles, chairing the session, recounted how ESPAS developed into the inter-institutional system of long-term trends analysis that it is today and stated that its future looks bright. Klaus Welle noted that based on ESPAS research, Parliament had conducted a ‘back-casting’ exercise – it had looked at where it wanted to be in ten years and identified what capabilities were missing. Leo Schulte-Nordholt of the General Secretariat of the Council of the EU highlighted the value of the exchanges with academia and practitioners at the conference. ESPAS plays a vital role as a compass for the future and as a tool for cooperation. Ann Mettler voiced her appreciation at seeing ESPAS develop under her tenure. Pleased with the creation of an interinstitutional space of trust for important discussions, she looked forward to seeing others building on this success. Finally, Hervé Delphin of the EEAS stated that ESPAS is keeping decision-makers informed of foresight and its insights so that they can act on them, particularly in the foreign policy field, where short-term crisis seems to conceal long-term disasters. In closing, James Elles thanked the participants and Anne Mettler in particular, as outgoing chair.

Understanding EU environment policy: State-of-play and future challenges

Written by Vivienne Halleux and Ekaterina Karamfilova,

EPRS Director-General Anthony Teasdale introduced an EPRS Briefing Seminar on ‘Understanding EU environment policy: state-of-play and future challenges’ on Wednesday, 13 November 2019, as the second in a new series of events organised by EPRS, aiming to inform Members and their staff on EU policies and the institutions involved. The panel discussion, moderated by Sarah Blau, Head of Secretariat of the European Parliament’s Committee on the Environment, Food Safety and Public Health, featured speakers from the European Environment Agency, the European Commission and EPRS.

Ronan Uhel, Head of the Natural Capital and Ecosystems Programme of the European Environment Agency, explained the links between environmental issues and the evolution of EU environmental legislation. While it all started with the aim of tackling heavy environmental pollution and maintaining environmental media (e.g. air, water) in good shape, EU legislation has now become an instrument to address the degradation of our environment. In his view, the cause of this shift is that for the last 40-50 years, we have developed societies at the expense of their connection to their natural essence.

Silvia Bartolini, Head of the Inter-Institutional Relations Unit of DG Environment of the European Commission, presented the European Green Deal to which Commission President-elect Ursula von der Leyen committed in her political guidelines. Bartolini focused on the environmental pillar of the Green Deal, as well as on the financial aspects of the expected profound future transitions in the European economy and societies. In particular, in the coming years, the Commission will build its environmental policy on three flagship initiatives: biodiversity, a new circular economy action plan and a zero-pollution ambition for Europe.

Vivienne Halleux, Policy Analyst with the Economic Policies Unit of the EPRS Members’ Research Service, outlined the EU environment policy framework and presented an overview of Parliament’s work on the main legislative files in the last term, such as those linked to the circular economy action plan. She also highlighted some of the topics on Parliament’s agenda for the current term, such as biodiversity, water and air quality.

Ekaterina Karamfilova, a Policy Analyst with the Ex-post Evaluation Unit of EPRS, informed the public about the state-of-play of implementation of EU environment policy at national level. Referring to the findings of an EPRS study on the mid-term review of the ongoing 7th Environment Action Programme, she identified biodiversity, waste management, air pollution and noise as the most problematic areas. She also highlighted a few issues for the EP to watch during the new term and stressed on the importance of Member States’ capacities to implement environmental policies.

The fact that environmental concerns are not sufficiently integrated (mainstreamed) in other policy areas (for example, agriculture, transport, industry, etc.), and that breaking down these silos is needed, emerged as a shared issue of concern for the four panellists.

The next event in the series of EPRS Briefing Seminars will be held on Wednesday, 4 December, on Understanding EU policy on international crime and terrorism. As announced by Anthony Teasdale, a briefing seminar on EU climate policy is scheduled for February 2020.

Click to view slideshow.

EPRS Annual Lecture 2019 – Clash of Cultures: Transnational governance in post-war Europe

Written by Joanna Apap with Linus Siöland,

Focusing on transnational governance in the period since the end of World War II, this year’s EPRS annual lecture 2019 was delivered by Professor Wolfram Kaiser, Professor of European Studies at the University of Portsmouth, United Kingdom, who is this year’s non-Resident Visiting EPRS Fellow.

Director General of EPRS, Anthony Teasdale, launching the event, noted that it is the most recent in a series (that began with a lecture delivered by Professor Desmond Dinan), providing an opportunity to deepen our understanding of the history of the dynamics of the European Parliament. In addition, the lecture allows EPRS Fellows to present their research.

Wolfram Kaiser’s introduction then portrayed the peculiar mix of European governance traditions and practices that have evolved since the mid-twentieth century. These are: ‘technocratic internationalism’, the notion of governance by transnational experts in the interests of all; (ii) ‘neo-corporatist or consociational cooperation’ geared towards achieving broad consensus on policy-making, reflecting the EU’s heterogeneous character and government and societal actors’ national preferences; and (iii) the vision of the EU as ‘a supranational parliamentary democracy’, which puts ‘parliamentarisation’ of the EU centre stage.

Professor Wolfram Kaiser

Kaiser began by highlighting Jean Monnet’s technocratic internationalist idea of the ‘supranational character of cooperation’. Influenced by his work in the League of Nations and his wartime experiences, Monnet appreciated considering issues in their entirety, rather than in the frame of national interest or short-term gain, preferring to depoliticise issues and work towards a common interest. These views strongly influenced the early Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), providing an early basis for expert-driven decision-making. Kaiser continued by illustrating that neo-corporatist cooperation originated in the coal and steel cartels of post-war Europe, with proponents arguing that such working patterns could avoid ‘wasteful competition’. While Monnet was critical of cartels and did not include them in the ECSC, the practice of cooperative cartels nevertheless became embedded in the European economy, only declining with the increased prominence of liberal and free-market norms in the 1970s. Finally, Kaiser explained that the constitutionalisation of European integration followed warnings by French President Charles De Gaulle, among others, against the emergence of an ‘overbearing technocratic bureaucracy’, which lacked wider legitimacy. Kaiser then explained how the drive for a European parliamentary democracy that followed was shaped in large part by the emergence of European political groups, the European People’s Party and the Socialists and Democrats in particular.

For Kaiser, the historical development of European transnational government has produced four main challenges: by focusing on its output, rather than its legitimacy, the Commission has become an ‘easy target’ for criticism; consensus-driven policy-making has led to a perception of a lack of transparency that amplifies the populist rhetoric of ‘us versus them’; a number of Member States sought to blame the EU for a lack of solutions for inherently national issues at European level; the democratic deficit has persisted, despite Federalists’ hope that a stronger European Parliament would attenuate the issue. For Kaiser, the three governance traditions on which his research has focused have created tension and undermined each other, providing an opportunity for Europopulist attack.

Opening the ensuing discussion, Dr Heather Grabbe, Director of the Open Society European Policy Institute, highlighted the importance of taking a historical perspective of the EU. Only by studying these developments, can one properly understand the practices of transnational governance. Whilst Grabbe highlighted how adaptable the EU has proven to be, she also highlighted that, in new areas of policy action such as combating climate change, it is important that the EU takes care to avoid blame for individual states’ policy failures. However, it is exactly on policies such as climate change action, that the EU can make a bigger impact than national policy, looking to benefit future generations of Europeans.

Professor Brigid Laffan, Director of the European University Institute’s Robert Schuman Centre, then argued that today’s ‘joint decision trap’ has become more of a ‘politics trap’, with domestic politics increasingly influencing the work of the EU. Parliamentarisation may have increased politicisation, but the EU machinery has not yet adapted to this new landscape. In particular, she noted the continued and even increased relevance of European party families, with the growing influence of party group allegiance demonstrated in the recent Spitzenkandidaten process. However, Laffan noted, there is no democracy without politics. The period of intense treaty change that concluded with the adoption of the Lisbon treaty resulted in a much stronger EU, and today’s intensive transgovernmentalism. Pointing to the EU’s resilience in the face of financial and migration crises, Laffan also cautions against exaggerating the risk of the EU’s demise. In conclusion, Laffan argued that Euroscepticism should not be equated with nationalism in all cases, and that nationalism is not the same as populism. A liberal form of nationalism can be both pro-European and cosmopolitan. The EU has weathered the crises of the last decade and has emerged as a much stronger organisation. Ending on a positive note, Laffan feels that the EU can indeed adapt to the challenges it faces.

A recording of the EPRS Annual Lecture 2019 can be found here.

http://europarl.europa.eu/EPRS/Annual_Lecture_2019.MP3

Written by Marcin Grajewski,

© Respiro / Shutterstock.com

The European Union is a community of law, with the rule of law being a basic value since the Union’s inception. The President-elect of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, has confirmed a strong commitment to uphold the rule of law, which remains a shared responsibility for all EU institutions and all Member States. However, developments in several EU Member States – for example Czechia, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia and Malta – have raised concerns over how far this commitment is actualy being observed in practice, sparking a lively debate across the EU and action in the EU institutions themselves.

This note offers links to recent commentaries, studies and reports from major international think tanks on the rule of law debate.

GENERAL ISSUES

Why can’t the EU’s West and East work as one?
Carnegie Europe, November 2019

So why don’t we just call the whole rule of law thing off, then?
Verfassungsblog, October 2019

Europeans face the risk of democratic regression: What can be done?
Jacques Delors Institute, September 2019

Charting a new path for V4–France cooperation
EUROPEUM, September 2019

Luxemburg as the last resort
Verfassungsblog, September 2019

Russian information warfare in Central and Eastern Europe: Strategies, impact, and counter-measures
German Marshall Fund, June 2019

Rules enforcement in the EU: Conditionality to the rescue?
Jacques Delors Institute Berlin, May 2019

Rule of law infringement procedures: A proposal to extend the EU’s rule of law toolbox
Centre for European Policy Studies, May 2019

EU policy on strengthening resilience in Moldova, Ukraine and Georgia between the rule of law and oligarchic influence
European Policy Institutes Network, May 2019

Ten years after EULEX: Key principles for future EU flagship initiatives on the rule of law
Centre for European Policy Studies, May 2019

Rule of law in the EU beyond political divisions: Budgetary sanctions and a new programme for citizens
Stefan Batory Foundation, April 2019

Est-Ouest: Réalité et relativité d’un clivage
Notre Europe, March 2019

Systemic rivalry and balancing interests: Chinese investment meets EU law on the Belt and Road
Centre for European Policy Studies, March 2019

Can the V4’s priorities shape ‘Europe’s priorities’? The Multiannual Financial Framework 2021-2027
Institute for Foreign Affairs and Trade, February 2019

Safeguarding democracy in the European Union: A study on a European responsibility
Heinrich Böll Stiftung, December 2018

Was 2018 der Demokratie in der EU gebracht hat: Und worauf es jetzt ankommt
Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, November 18

Nationalistic populism and its reception in Central Europe
Österreichische Gesellschaft für Europapolitik, October 2018

The Polish law on the Supreme Court in light of rulings of the Court of Justice of the EU
Stefan Batory Foundation, June 2018

Divisions in Europe expose the need for an ambitious reform of the EU
ÖGfE, June 2018

From pro-European alliance to eurosceptic protest group? The case of the Visegrad Group
Swedish Institute for European Policy Studies, May 2018

How can Europe repair breaches of the rule of law?
Notre Europe, April 2018

First victims or last guardians? The consequences of rule of law backsliding for NGOs: Case studies of Hungary and Poland
Centre for European Policy Studies, April 2018

The consensus fights back: European first principles against the rule of law crisis
Verfassungsblog, April 2018

Beneath the surface of illiberalism: The recurring temptation of ‘national democracy’ in Poland and Hungary, with lessons for Europe
Wise Europa, Heinrich Böll Stiftung, February 2017

Five steps the EU must take to protect civil society
Open Society Foundation, January 2018

Illiberal democracies in the EU: The Visegrad group and the risk of disintegration
Barcelona Centre for International Affairs, January 2018

Frontiers of democracy: Embedding democratic values in Central and Eastern Europe – Good practices and limits of transferability
Center for European Neighborhood Studies, January 2018

The Commission takes a step back in the fight for the Rule of Law
Verfassungsblog, January 2018

Infringement proceedings as a tool for the enforcement of fundamental rights in the European Union
Open Society Foundations, October 2017

Europe and its discontents: Poland’s collision course with the European Union
European Council on Foreign Relations, September 2017

Defending EU values in Poland and Hungary
Carnegie Europe, September 2017

Core European values under threat
Bertelsmann Stiftung, August 2017

The open society and its enemies: An attack against CEU, academic freedom and the rule of law
Centre for European Policy Studies, April 2017

The Commission’s decision on ‘less EU’ in safeguarding the rule of law: A play in four acts
Centre for European Policy Studies, March 2017

INDIVIDUAL COUNTRIES

The role of the Kremlin’s influence and disinformation in the Czech presidential elections
European Values, February 2018

Activities of Czech President Miloš Zeman as the Kremlin’s Trojan horse
European Values, January 2018

Andrej Babiš and the European Union: What to expect in 2018?
EUROPEUM, January 2018

Can EU funds promote the rule of law in Europe?
Centre for European Reform, November 2017

After the elections in the Czech Republic: The end of liberal democracy in Central Europe?
Heinrich Böll Stiftung, October 2017

Poles and Hungarians move the pendulum
Carnegie Europe, October 2019

Hungarian politics in 2018
Friedrich Ebert Foundation, January 2019

Shrinking spaces in Hungary and Poland
Carnegie Europe, October 2017

Viktor Orbán’s survival games
Carnegie Europe, April 2018

Hungarian politics is about to enter a new period
German Marshall Fund, April 2018

Cohesion policy and perceptions of the European Union in Hungary: A cultural political economy approach
Center for Policy Studies, December 2017

Orbán’s theatrical struggle against big, bad Berlin
Heinrich Böll Stiftung, October 2017

Political discrimination in Hungary: Case studies from the Hungarian justice system, local government, media, agriculture, education and civil sector
Policy Solutions, February 2017

Demokratie als Enttäuschung: Transformationserfahrungen in Ungarn
Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, January 2017

Information warfare in Hungary
Institute for Foreign Affairs and Trade, January 2017

The Polish Senate under opposition control
Verfassungsblog, October 2019

Under siege: Why Polish courts matter for Europe
Stefan Batory Foundation, April 2019

System dyscyplinarny sędziów pod kontrolą ministra sprawiedliwości
Forum Obywatelskiego Rozwoju, February 2019

The revenge of the nation: Political passions in contemporary Poland
Notre Europe, January 2019

The Polish law on the Supreme Court in light of rulings of the Court of Justice of the EU
Stefan Batory Foundation, June 2018

Where the law ends: The collapse of the rule of law in Poland, and what to do
Stefan Batory Foundation, May 2018

The Court is dead, long live the courts? On judicial review in Poland in 2017 and “judicial space” beyond
Verfassungsblog, March 2018

Maintaining the rule of law in Poland: What next for the Article 7 proceedings?
Institute of International and European Affairs, February 2018

Report of the Stefan Batory Foundation legal expert group on the impact of the judiciary reform in Poland in 2015-2018
Stefan Batory Foundation, February 2018

Discussions on rule of law crisis in Poland
Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights, January 2018

Systemic threats to the rule of law in Poland: Between action and procrastination
Fondation Robert Schuman, November 2017

Polish civil society: Adapting to new pressures
Centre for Strategic and International Studies, December 2017

Stabilization policies and structural developments: Poland and the crises of 1929 and 2008
Center for Social and Economic Research, December 2017

The West matters to Poland
Carnegie Europe, November 2017

The influence of economic migration on the Polish economy
Center for Social and Economic Research, Fondation Robert Schuman, November 2017

New Pact for Europe: National Report, Poland
European Policy Centre, Institute of Public Affairs, November 2017

Deep rot in Slovakia
Verfassungsblog, October 2019

Frustration and hope: Slovakia after Kuciak’s murder
Centre for Eastern Studies, July 2019

An investigative journalist killed in Slovakia
Centre for Eastern Studies, February 2018

New Pact for Europe: National Report, Slovakia
European Policy Centre, GLOBSEC, November 2017

Strengthening Social Democracy in the Visegrad Countries: Limits and Challenges faced by Smer‑SD
Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, January 2017

Read this briefing on ‘Rule of law‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Clare Ferguson and Katarzyna Sochaka,

© European Union 2019 – Source : EP/Philippe BUISSIN

The November I plenary session highlights included statements and debates on the 30th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall and on the 30th anniversary of the adoption of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Parliament also debated statements made by the Vice-President of the European Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HR/VP) on Turkish drilling activities in European Union waters in the Eastern Mediterranean, and on the situation in Bolivia and in Chile. Debates took place, inter alia, on Commission and Council statements on the international day to end impunity for crimes against journalists, on the resurgence of Ebola in East Africa, as well as on the situation of migrants in Bosnia and Herzegovina and on the hotspots in Greek islands.

30th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall

Parliament marked the 30th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall in the presence of Wolfgang Schäuble, President of the German Bundestag. The European Parliament of the time closely followed the swift reunification of the German nation, which took less than a year. The former German Democratic Republic was able to integrate into the European Economic Community through a special procedure. Parliament set up a Temporary Committee, which emphasised the opportunities of German reunification to foster greater European integration, to prevent the undermining of the single market, and to take the wider context of relations with central and eastern Europe into account, all of which remain key issues for the EU today.

Children’s rights on the 30th anniversary of the Convention of the Rights of the Child

Members also marked the 30th anniversary (on 20 November) of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, debating Council and Commission statements on EU action in this field (and will vote on a resolution during the November II session). The convention was the first international treaty to recognise children as human beings with innate rights, outlining universal standards for the care, treatment, survival, development, protection and participation of all children. Since entering into force in 1990, conditions for children have improved, but child poverty in the EU remains a reality, and the Europe 2020 strategy is helping to tackle this. Nevertheless, children’s rights are a priority issue in EU external action, where pursuing the UN Sustainable Development Goals means emphasising healthy, well-nourished and protected children as the basis for a long-term sustainable society.

Situation of migrants in Bosnia

Members debated Council and Commission statements on the situation of migrants in Bosnia and Herzegovina, where around 8 000 people, originating from southern Asia and the Middle East are currently present, mainly in Bihać. Despite EU funds being available, the country has been unable to establish additional locations for temporary reception centres. Unable to cope, local authorities have restricted movement and forcibly transferred migrants to unsuitable sites, while neighbouring Croatia has allegedly pushed migrants back into Bosnia and Herzegovina, in violation of international norms on non-refoulement. Consequently, Bosnia and Herzegovina risks a serious humanitarian emergency in this winter.

Opening of trilogue negotiations

A Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs Committee (LIBE) decision to enter into interinstitutional (trilogue) negotiations was confirmed. The LIBE committee may therefore begin negotiations on the proposal for a regulation concerning transfer of the False and Authentic Documents Online (FADO) system to Frontex.

This ‘at a glance’ note is intended to review some of the highlights of the plenary part-session, and notably to follow up on key dossiers identified by EPRS. It does not aim to be exhaustive. For more detailed information on specific files, please see other EPRS products, notably our ‘EU legislation in progress’ briefings, and the plenary minutes.

Read this ‘at a glance’ on ‘Plenary round-up – Strasbourg, November I 2019‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Isabelle Gaudeul-Ehrhart,

The recent EPRS book talk centred on the art and craft of political speechwriting, a subject that aroused a good deal of interest. More than 200 people – MEPs, assistants, and staff of the European Parliament and other institutions – came to listen to one of the authors of ‘The Political Speechwriter’s Companion‘.

Eric Schnure, former speechwriter to Vice-President Al Gore, was in conversation with Gaby Umbach, from the European University Institute, here as moderator, and Isabelle Gaudeul‑Ehrhart, from EPRS, as the discussant.

Gaby Umbach introduced the conversation by framing it within the series of EPRS events and against the historical and current political backdrop. Eric Schnure then shared his experience of what makes a good speech, starting with his own experience of two speeches, one by President Reagan, the other by Vice-President Gore – a speech that would later evolve into the film ‘An inconvenient truth’. Both these speeches grew from a very small, specific element that was then shown to be relevant to everyone. The best speeches are the ones that are meaningful for the audience. Schnure then reflected on the level of the current political debate, in an age of instant communication and soundbites, and warned the audience against being too quick to blame social media.

As the discussant, Isabelle Gaudeul-Ehrhart first questioned whether speech writing and delivery are skills that can be learnt. Having explained that they can, referring to both extracts from the book and to her own experience, she then asked whether these skills are inherently American. Building on the authors’ experience of giving training in Europe, Asia and Africa, and touching on the history of rhetoric in Europe, from Ancient Greece to the present day, she concluded that the discipline is definitely not uniquely American but rather was born in Europe and resonates worldwide. Finally, she explored the reasons for the book’s emphasis on ethics.

Eric Schnure confirmed that, even if certain features can be very American (e.g. inviting a surprise guest to be present in the audience), the art of powerful speeches is universal and is ultimately about how we can relate to each other in society. On ethics, Schnure expressed his view that the sheer volume of lies in current political discourse is unprecedented, but argued, by contrast, that very little work is necessary to show a fallacious argument for what it really is.

Speeches are universal and so is storytelling. Once again, whereas Americans are more prone to telling stories in their speeches, that does not make storytelling an American-only feature. European leaders do tell stories as well and often with much impact.

The conversation included several questions from the audience on recent trends, including on how jokes can be risky whereas wit is reliable, the importance of treating your audience with respect, and the multicultural and multilingual dimensions of speeches at European level. The net result was to reveal a lively interest in a discipline that was born in Europe more than 2 000 years ago and is still very much needed in politics today.

The book talk concluded with a consideration of the relevance of these skills for speakers and speechwriters in the EU, and of this book for the European Parliament and its Research Service.

Eric Schnure – Gaby Umbach – Isabelle Gaudeul-Ehrhart

A recording of the book talk can be found here.

http://europarl.europa.eu/EPRS/Eric-Schnure.MP3

Written by Marcin Grajewski,

Taking the already excellent relations between the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the European Parliamentary Research Service (EPRS) to an even higher level, the IMF chose to launch its ‘European Regional Economic Outlook’ during an EPRS event on the direction of Europe’s economy in a global context on 6 November 2019. This first joint EPRS-IMF policy roundtable was also a new opportunity for the IMF to make a first presentation of a flagship, market-moving publication on EPRS premises, and took place in the European Parliament’s Library Reading Room. The event, entitled ‘Where next for the European Economy: The latest IMF European Regional Outlook in a global context’, discussed the short and medium-term future of the European economy in a global context, which is marred by a trade conflict between China and the United States, as well as uncertainty about the world’s rules-based economic and political order.

According to the IMF report, as in the rest of the world, European trade and manufacturing have weakened, with signs that the slowdown is spreading to the rest of the economy. The optimistic signal is that services and consumption remain relatively resilient in line with strong labour markets and looser financial conditions that support domestic demand. However, investment is starting to lose steam. The IMF therefore predicts that growth will moderate from 2.3 % in 2018 to 1.4 % in 2019, its lowest rate since 2013. In 2020, growth is projected to recover modestly, to 1.8 %, as international trade is expected to rebound. Nevertheless, if trade disputes remain unresolved, the outlook could darken.

‘We are currently in a synchronised global slowdown and Europe is no exception. Manufacturing and trade have weakened considerably … Consumption remains relatively resilient’, noted Poul Thomsen, Director of the European Department at the IMF, presenting the report.

The IMF advises those countries who can afford to do so to implement fiscal stimuli, while highly indebted countries should move towards the EU-mandated Medium Term Objectives, which encourage them to adjust their structural budgetary positions at a rate of 0.5 % of GDP per year as a benchmark. The European Central Bank policy should remain accommodative, although caution is required thanks to strong labour markets and wage growth in some countries.

Othmar Karas, Vice-President of the European Parliament, in charge of relations, among others, with the IMF, opened the conference with a scene-setting speech, while Anthony Teasdale, ERPS Director-General, moderated the event. Other members of the panel included Robert Holzmann, Governor of the Austrian Central Bank, and Maria Demertzis, Deputy Director at the Bruegel think tank.

http://europarl.europa.eu/EPRS/IMF.MP3

Vice-President Karas acknowledged that the European economic situation is not rosy. ‘The trade conflict, from which the USA has not spared Europe, lowers productivity by disrupting supply chains, causes turmoil on financial markets and reduces investment due to uncertainty. Foreign direct investment abroad by advanced economies came almost to a standstill’, he said. However, he noted that the EU is now stronger and more resilient than in the wake of the financial crisis, when some said that the euro area was in an existential crisis. ‘Our economy has grown for seven consecutive years, creating 14 million jobs. We mobilised considerable investment resources through the “Juncker Fund”‘ he said. Karas added that, in his role of Vice-President responsible for information policy, press and relations with citizens, he plans to organise a series of public seminars in national capitals, with the participation of organisations such as the IMF and the World Bank, to raise awareness of the common challenges and facilitate cooperation among governments.

Commenting on the IMF presentation, the President of the Central Bank of Austria, Robert Holzmann, offered an insightful analysis of the ECB’s monetary policies, and Bruegel’s Maria Demertzis pointed to several conundrums in the European economy. She explained that those countries that should stimulate their economies fiscally, cannot afford to do so; while those who do, should not do so in the short-term to avoid pro-cyclical policy. However, they could devise mid- or long-term investment plans. The impact of the ECB’s unconventional monetary measures, on the other hand, have not been studied enough. ‘In fiscal policy we do not have much space, and on monetary policy, if you decide to do some more, you will have to do it basically with your eyes closed’, according to Demertzis. Creating a substantial fiscal capacity at the level of the euro would be a good idea, but there is little political appetite for the move.

The next joint EPRS-IMF event is planned for the first semester in 2020.

Click to view slideshow.

Written by Clare Ferguson,

While the agenda for the European Parliament’s November I mini plenary session, to be held in Brussels on Wednesday, 13 and Thursday, 14 November, may at first glance look a little sparse, Members still have a busy week ahead, with hearings scheduled for Thursday for the three remaining Commissioners-designate.

© Architectes : Vandenbossche SPRL, CRV S.A., CDG S.P.R.L., Studiegroep D. Bontinck, ©Façade et Hémicycle – Arch M. Boucquillon Belgium – European Union 2019 – Source : EP

With the three candidates’ declarations of financial interests having satisfied the Legal Affairs Committee on 12 November, the first full hearing to take place will be that of Olivér Várhelyi, candidate for the neighbourhood and enlargement portfolio (before the Foreign Affairs Committee at 08:00 on 14 November). Currently Hungary’s Ambassador and Permanent Representative to the EU, Várhelyi, a lawyer, has long experience of working on EU affairs. The hearing before the Transport and Tourism Committee for Adina Vălean, a long-standing (since the country’s accession in 2007) Romanian Member of the European Parliament and the current Chair of the Industry, Research and Energy Committee, follows at 13:00. Candidate for the transport portfolio, Vălean has experience, as rapporteur, of related files, such as the e-Call legislation and Connecting Europe Facility. At the same time, the hearing for Thierry Breton, an accomplished businessman, academic and author and the French candidate for the internal market portfolio, will take place before the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, and Industry, Research and Energy committees jointly. Should the respective committees agree that the three Commissioners-designate are ready to take up these portfolios, a vote in Parliament’s plenary to confirm the 2019-2024 Commission as a whole would be expected to take place in Strasbourg on 27 November, allowing the von der Leyen Commission to take office on 1 December, one month later than planned.

As the previous Commission meanwhile continues as a caretaker administration, little new business is arriving with Parliament for scrutiny. Nonetheless, Parliament will still consider some highly topical issues. The first of these is scheduled for Wednesday afternoon, when Parliament will mark the 30th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall in the presence of Wolfgang Schäuble, the President of the German Bundestag. The swift reunification of the German nation, which took less than a year, was followed closely by the European Parliament of the time. The former German Democratic Republic was able to integrate into the European Economic Community through a special procedure, with a Temporary Committee set up by Parliament. That committee emphasised the opportunities of German reunification to foster greater European integration, to prevent undermining of the single market, and to take the wider context of relations with central and eastern Europe into account, all of which remain key issues for the EU today.

Members will also mark the 30th anniversary (on 20 November) of the United Nations Convention of the Rights of the Child on Wednesday (and will vote on a resolution during the November II session), with Council and Commission statements on EU action in this field. The convention was the first international treaty to recognise children as human beings with innate rights. Since its entry into force in 1990, conditions for children have improved, but child poverty in the EU remains a reality, especially for disadvantaged groups, and the EU is helping to tackle child poverty under the Europe 2020 strategy. Nevertheless, children’s rights are also a priority issue in EU external action, where following up on the UN Sustainable Development Goals means placing a fundamental emphasis on healthy, well-nourished and protected children as the basis for a long-term sustainable society. Migrant families are often among those groups where children are disadvantaged, and migration to the EU returns to the Parliament agenda on Thursday morning, with Council and Commission statements on the situation of migrants in Bosnia and in the hotspots on the Greek islands.

Finally, the outgoing Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the EU for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Federica Mogherini, is due to make a statement on Turkish drilling activities in EU waters in the Eastern Mediterranean. An increase in offshore gas exploration and exploitation in the region has long been predicted, but dispute has arisen between Cyprus and Turkey regarding drilling in the Cypriot economic exclusion zone.

© sdecoret / Shutterstock

The European Parliament regularly receives enquiries from citizens about how to contact the European Parliament, its Members and its departments. If you have a question, who should you contact?

Citizens’ enquiries

The Citizens’ Enquiries Unit (Ask EP) provides general information about the European Parliament and its activities, powers and structure. You can contact AskEP through this online form or through the Citizens’ App.

Liaison offices

The European Parliament Liaison Offices in EU countries provide the public with information and organise lectures, campaigns and debates on European issues. Citizens, stakeholders and media can contact them directly for local information.

Petitions

If you have a complaint or a request on an issue that falls within the European Union’s fields of activity, every EU citizen or legal resident has the right to submit a petition to the European Parliament, under Article 227 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The Parliament’s Committee on Petitions examines these petitions and decides on their admissibility.

Citizens and residents can submit a new petition or support existing ones through the petitions web portal, which also contains instructions on how to submit petitions in paper format.

Members and the President

Each Member of the European Parliament provides a wealth of information, including contact details, on their profile page on the European Parliament website. You can find individual members’ profile pages through this search page, using various filters to search by country or political group.

The President of the European Parliament’s contact information is available on the President’s webpage.

Political groups, committees and delegations

Members of the European Parliament can form political groups, organised based on political affinity rather than nationality. The political groups webpage contains links to the external websites of individual political groups.

Parliamentary committees propose amendments on legislative proposals and draft own-initiative reports in preparation for consideration in the plenary assembly. The committees webpage provides information about all standing, temporary and special parliamentary committees. A contact address for each committee secretariat is available on the right-hand column of each committee page.

The European Parliament’s delegations maintain relations and exchange information with parliaments in non-EU countries. Information on their members and their activities is available on the delegations webpage. Each delegation page gives a contact address for the delegation secretariat.

Webmaster

The webmaster is responsible for the functioning of the European Parliament’s internet pages (Europarl). Use the online form to report technical problems, remarks and suggestions regarding the Europarl website.

Keep sending your questions to the Citizens’ Enquiries Unit (Ask EP)! We reply in the EU language that you use to write to us.

Further information

• European Parliament social network.
• Contact, European Parliament website.
• Stay informed, European Parliament website.
• Be heard, European Parliament website.

Written by Irina Popescu,

© zaferkizilkaya / Shutterstock

On 30 May 2018, the European Commission issued a proposal to revise the fisheries control system by modernising and simplifying the monitoring of fisheries activities, improving the enforcement and updating a control system that was conceived before the 2013 CFP reform. The revision centres on the amendment of the Control Regulation 1224/2009. The proposal introduces requirements for more complete fisheries data, including an electronic tracking system for all fishing vessels, fully digitised reporting of catches with electronic logbooks and landing declarations applicable to all vessels, and catch-declaration rules for recreational fisheries. It improves traceability through digitalised identification and declaration along the supply chain for all fishery and aquaculture products, whether from EU fisheries or imported. The enforcement rules are thoroughly revised, with a common list of activities defined as serious infringements and corresponding sanctions, as well as a strengthened point system. The proposal also revises the mandate of the European Fisheries Control Agency (EFCA), to fully align its objectives with the CFP and to upgrade its inspection powers, and Regulation 1005/2008 on illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing, to introduce a digital catch certification scheme for imported fishery products.

Versions

• November 2019:  ‘Revising the fisheries control system‘ (1st edition)

Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009, and amending Council Regulations (EC) No 768/2005, (EC) No 1967/2006, (EC) No 1005/2008, and Regulation (EU) No 2016/1139 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards fisheries control Committee responsible: Fisheries (PECH) COM(2018) 368, 30.5.2018. Rapporteur: Clara Aguilera (S&D, Spain) 2018/0193(COD) Shadow rapporteurs: Francisco José Millán Mon (EPP, Spain)
Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (Renew, Spain)
Grace O’Sullivan (Greens/EFA, Ireland)
Rosanna Conte (ID, Italy)
Bert-Jan Ruissen (ECR, Netherlands)
João Ferreira (GUE/NGL, Portugal) Ordinary legislative procedure (COD) (Parliament and Council on equal footing – formerly ‘co-decision’) Next steps expected: Publication of new draft report by rapporteur for new parliamentary term

Written by Frederik Scholaert,

© balipadma/ Fotolia

Oceans cover more than two thirds of the earth and are a vital element of life on our planet. Not only are they a primary source of food, they are also central to the carbon cycle; they regulate the climate and produce most of the oxygen in the air we breathe. They also play an important socio-economic role. The ‘blue economy’, covering traditional sectors such as fisheries, extraction of oil and gas, maritime transport and coastal tourism, as well as new, fast-growing industries such as offshore wind, ocean energy and blue biotechnology, shows great potential for further economic growth, employment creation and innovation.

At the same time, oceans face pressures, mainly associated with the over-exploitation of resources, pollution and the effects of climate change. In recent years, ocean pollution from plastics has received more attention from the public and has been high on policy-makers’ agendas.

At global level, the European Union is an active player in protecting oceans and shaping ocean governance. It has made progress by taking measures in a series of areas: maritime security, marine pollution, sustainable blue economy, climate change, marine protection, and sustainable fisheries; by working towards the United Nations 2030 Agenda sustainable development goal on oceans; and by taking part in negotiations on a new international legally binding instrument on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction. In encouraging the blue economy, the EU also recognises the environmental responsibilities that go along with it. Healthy, clean oceans guarantee the long-term capacity to sustain such economic activities, while a natural decline threatens the ecosystem of the planet as a whole and ultimately, the well-being of our societies. The conservation of marine biological resources under the common fisheries policy, EU action under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive and the establishment of marine protected areas are key EU policies when it comes to protecting the marine environment. They are complemented by recent environmental legislation such as the Directive on single-use plastics to reduce marine litter.

Read this briefing on ‘Ocean governance and blue growth: Challenges, opportunities and policy responses‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Christian Salm,

© neftali / Shutterstock

This year marks the 30th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, set in motion by the events of 9 November 1989, which led to Germany’s full reunification within less than a year. The accession of the German Democratic Republic (GDR) to the Federal Republic of Germany (Federal Republic) completed the reunification process on 3 October 1990. Moreover, with the accession of the former GDR to the Federal Republic, the GDR integrated into the European Economic Community (EEC) of the time via a special procedure. As the GDR’s status as a subject of international law ended with its accession to the Federal Republic, a normal EEC Treaty accession procedure was not possible. The European Parliament followed the chain of profound political developments triggered by the fall of the Berlin Wall closely.

1989 – A historical turning point

In the contemporary history of Europe and its integration process, 1989 was a crucial turning point. The fall of the Berlin Wall in November of that year was one of several events that launched democratic change in central and eastern Europe. Events in 1989 included: the end of the Hungarian communist power monopoly (January); Tadeusz Mazowiecki’s victory in partially free elections in Poland (June); overthrow of the Bulgarian Head of State and Party Leader Todor Zhivkov (November); the execution of Romanian President Nicolae Ceauşescu, and the election of human rights activist Václav Havel as President of Czechoslovakia (December). Nevertheless, the fall of the Berlin Wall particularly characterised 1989 as a historical turning point, signalling the end of the 50-year east-west conflict and the beginning of today’s free movement throughout Europe. At the time, the EEC was about to implement the goals of the 1986 Single European Act, the first major revision of the 1957 Treaty of Rome, and intended to establish the single market by December 1992. Against this background, the European Parliament paid particular attention in its debates and analyses regarding the far-reaching political changes in central and eastern Europe and the impact of the process of German unification on the EEC.

European Parliament response to the fall of the Berlin Wall

The European Parliament reacted quickly to the November 1989 events in Berlin. As the Parliament’s Committee on Legal Affairs was meeting in the Reichstag from 8 to 10 November, some Members of the European Parliament actually experienced the opening of borders between East and West Berlin at first-hand. In a public statement of 10 November, the Committee welcomed the GDR authorities’ decision to ease border crossings at the inner-German border. Due to uncertainty regarding whether borders might remain open, the Committee’s public statement also expressed the hope that the GDR authorities would abolish remaining restrictions on passenger transport at the inner-German border within a very short time.

Some days later, on 22 November 1989, the European Parliament held a plenary debate on the events in central and eastern Europe. The attendance of two members of the European Council, French President François Mitterrand and Federal Chancellor Helmut Kohl, underpinned the high political relevance of this debate, with the fall of the Berlin Wall a prominent topic. In his speech, Kohl stated that ‘Germany will be completely united only if progress is made towards the unification of our old continent. Policy on Germany and policy on Europe are completely inseparable’. Kohl’s speech therefore clearly indicated that his enlargement policy was based on an awareness that a united Germany would need support from Europe and the EEC. The speech also aimed at allaying European partners’ fears that a united Germany would aspire to European hegemony.

A European Parliament resolution following the debate also included the message that German reunification and European integration were two sides of the same coin. It stressed that ‘having regard to recent developments in the GDR, and notably the opening of the Berlin Wall … the closer integration of the EEC will create the basis for closer cooperation with the states of Central and Eastern Europe … and closer ties between the German states’. To study the broader possible consequences of German reunification, especially with a view to the European integration process, the European Parliament set up a Temporary Committee to consider the impact of the German unification process on the EEC.

Temporary Committee to consider the impact of the process of German reunification on the EEC

Jacques Delors, President of the European Commission at the time, inspired the creation of the Temporary Committee, pointing out to the European Parliament in January 1990 that, given the special situation in the GDR after the fall of the Berlin Wall, it was conceivable that East Germany might rapidly integrate into the EEC. In response to this political assessment, Parliament decided to create a Temporary Committee tasked with analysing the impact of GDR integration into the EEC on the latter’s fields of activity, to make a constructive Community contribution to the German unification process, and to adapt the EEC itself to the new geopolitical landscape.

Set up in February 1990, the Temporary Committee consisted of 20 Members. Among them were three former foreign ministers: Claude Cheysson (France), Fernando Morán López (Spain), and Leo Tindemans (Belgium). Furthermore, former President of the European Parliament, Simone Veil (France), and former West German Ambassador to the United Nations, Rüdiger von Wechmar, sat on the committee. The inclusion of such major European political figures demonstrated the importance of the Temporary Committee within the European Parliament.

At its constituent meeting, the Temporary Committee drew up a plan of action enabling it to consider the institutional aspects of German reunification, the overall political context, and the impact on EEC sectoral policies. To cover these different areas, the Committee held discussions at its regular meetings with representatives of the governments of the GDR, the Federal Republic and even the United States and Soviet Union. Moreover, the Temporary Committee, with the help of the Parliament’s Directorate-General for Research, collected information and opinions on the situation in the GDR from across the political spectrum. These activities contributed to the work of the Committee’s rapporteur, Alan John Donnelly (United Kingdom), a Member of the Group of the European Socialists of the time. Parliament adopted Donnelly’s interim report in plenary in July 1990.

The report emphasised the need to bring about European integration in parallel with German reunification. It proposed to prevent derogations and transitional measures granted to the former GDR from weakening central EEC objectives, including the full achievement of the single market. Moreover, the report underlined the need to place the German reunification process within the wider context of relations with central and eastern Europe. The report argued that the GDR’s entry into the EEC could play an important bridge function with those countries. The report also looked at a number of other specific policy issues raised by German reunification, such as industrial and competition policy considerations, transport and telecommunications, energy and research, and economic and social cohesion. In addition, the report proposed to assign observer status in the European Parliament to representatives from the former GDR.

Representation of the former GDR in the European Parliament

The suggestion to give observer status to representatives of the GDR aimed at responding to the need to represent the 17 million inhabitants of East Germany in the EEC after the accession of the former GDR to the EEC. The Federal Republic refrained from both requesting additional Commissioners and greater voting power within the Council. However, it demanded representation for the East German Länder in the European Parliament. Complying with this demand raised two particularly problematic issues for the Parliament: First, any changes in the number of Members would have disturbed the balanced system of representation, according to the size of each country’s population but with an equal number of Members (81) for each of the EEC’s most populous countries (France, Italy, the United Kingdom and West Germany). Second, it would have been incompatible with democratic principles if, following German reunification, East German citizens were to be represented for a considerable period by Members they had not themselves elected. The solution found was to invite 18 non-voting Members from East Germany to the European Parliament as observers. Finally, in the 1994 election, the number of MEPs elected in Germany was increased by that amount. Current German Member, Constanze Krehl (S&D), was one of these East German observers from 1991 to 1994.

German reunification and European Union

The Temporary Committee adopted its final political report in November 1990. It again emphasised the need to pursue the process of German reunification in parallel with European integration. Moreover, the report stated that German reunification should be considered as a step towards European union. In fact, German reunification contributed to creating the momentum for the EEC leaders of the period to launch the December 1990 intergovernmental conference on European monetary union and political union, which concluded at the Maastricht Summit in December 1991, and the agreement to promulgate a new treaty on European Union.

Read this ‘at a glance’ on ‘European Parliament and the path to German reunification‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Laura Tilindyte,

© Grecaud Paul / Fotolia

Since its inception in 1951, the European Parliament has come a long way. Initially a consultative body composed of delegations of national parliaments, it became a directly elected institution, obtained budgetary and legislative powers, and now exercises influence over most aspects of EU affairs. Together with representatives of national governments, who sit in the Council, Parliament co-decides on European legislation, in what could be seen as a bicameral legislature at EU level. It can reject or amend the European Commission’s proposals before adopting them so that they become law. Together with the Council of the EU, it adopts the EU budget and controls its implementation.

Another core set of European Parliament prerogatives concerns the scrutiny of the EU executive – mainly the Commission. Such scrutiny can take many forms, including parliamentary questions, committees of inquiry and special committees, and scrutiny of delegated and implementing acts. Parliament has made use of these instruments to varying degrees. Parliament has the power to dismiss the Commission (motion of censure), and it plays a significant role in the latter’s appointment process.

Parliament has a say over the very foundations of the EU. Its consent is required before any new country joins the EU, and before a withdrawal treaty is concluded if a country decides to leave it. Most international agreements entered into by the EU with third countries also require Parliament’s consent. Parliament can initiate Treaty reform, and also the ‘Article 7(1) TEU’ procedure, aimed at determining whether there is a (risk of) serious breach of EU values by a Member State.

Read this briefing on ‘The powers of the European Parliament‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Gregor Erbach,

© vitanovski / Fotolia

It is hard these days to imagine (or remember) life without smartphones and computers, without online services helping us with almost every aspect of our daily lives, be that at work – for communication and general productivity – or in our free time – for travel bookings, shopping, banking or entertainment … The list goes on. Meanwhile, more and more everyday objects can now be connected to the internet. Lightbulbs, televisions, refrigerators, vehicles, medical devices and industrial control systems are just a few examples of devices that can be linked up to the ‘internet of things’.

Naturally, these developments offer countless opportunities for new services and business models in the digital single market. However, at the same time they also represent new ways for cybercriminals and others to steal data, money and identities, spread disinformation, and generally cause serious physical and economic damage. These threats are on the increase, in terms of both scale and impact, and can sometimes affect critical infrastructure and democratic processes, heightening the need for thorough risk analysis and effective protection.

This is the backdrop to European Cyber Security Month, which is run every October by ENISA (the European Union Agency for Network and Information Security) together with the European Commission and other partners. The campaign first took place on a small scale in 2012 and has been growing ever since. It now involves hundreds of activities and events throughout the EU and beyond, with a view to reminding citizens of the risks and threats, raising awareness of how to protect against them, and spreading best practice.

The general message for this October’s European Cyber Security Month was that cyber security is everybody’s responsibility. This message was supported by two main themes: the first was ‘cyber hygiene’, helping the public to get into the good habits necessary to stay safe on line; the second focused on staying safe in the context of new and emerging technology.

Meanwhile, in September 2017, the Commission adopted a cybersecurity package with new initiatives to further improve EU cyber-resilience and prepare for the challenges ahead. More specifically, the co-legislators adopted the Cybersecurity Act in April 2019. This new regulation has given ENISA greater powers and introduced a European cybersecurity certification framework to reassure buyers of digital products and services and improve market access for suppliers. To promote and coordinate European cybersecurity research, the Commission is proposing to set up a cybersecurity competence centre and network. The European Parliament adopted its position on the proposal earlier this year and is now in negotiations with the Council.

So, how is your cyber hygiene? The European Parliament’s IT department put together a special quiz for European Cyber Security Month: why not click on the link and give it a try!

Written by Elena Lazarou with Nicholas Lokker,

On 24 September 2019, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California), announced the launch of an impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump, the fourth President in the history of the United States to face the prospect of such an inquiry. The US Constitution provides for an impeachment process, but interpretations of the relevant clauses vary, creating controversy.

Background

© designer491 / Fotolia

On 24 September 2019, the Speaker of the United States (US) House of Representatives (the House), Nancy Pelosi, announced the launch of an impeachment inquiry into the President, Donald Trump. The direct motivation for this decision was a whistle-blower’s complaint alleging that Trump had pressured the Ukrainian President, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, to investigate Joe Biden, a potential Trump rival in the 2020 presidential election, during a phone call on 25 July. On 25 September, the House passed resolution H.RES. 576: ‘Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives with respect to the whistleblower complaint of August 12, 2019, made to the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community’. The resolution demanded immediate transmission of the whistle-blower’s complaint to the Congressional intelligence committees. The bill was introduced by Representative Adam B. Schiff (Democrat, California), Chair of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, which oversees the US intelligence agencies.

Impeachment in the US Constitution

An impeachment inquiry is one of the many steps of the process of impeachment and removal provided for in the US Constitution. Inquiry (also referred to as investigation) is a political process preceding the possible House vote on the articles of impeachment provided for in the Constitution.
Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution states that the ‘President, Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors’.

How does the impeachment process work? The roles of the House and the Senate

Article I, Sections 2 and 3 describe the impeachment process in the US Congress. As shown in Figure 1, while the House alone holds the power to instigate the process, the final vote to remove an official from office takes place in the Senate. Within the House, the impeachment process proceeds in three phases: (1) initiation of the impeachment process; (2) Judiciary Committee investigation, hearings, and mark-up of articles of impeachment (meetings to propose and vote on a draft bill ‘marking up’ the legislation before Committee members); (3) full House consideration of the articles of impeachment. Initiation can either take the form of a resolution calling for an impeachment (subsequently referred to the Committee on the Judiciary), or of a call for investigation of an official by a standing committee or a special committee for that purpose (subsequently referred to the Committee on Rules, which has jurisdiction over the authorisation of committee investigations). According to the Congressional Research Service, the 2019 process has proceeded on the basis of a third option, whereby, following the Speaker’s statement that the House is launching an ‘official impeachment Inquiry’, the House ‘might take the position that such an inquiry is already underway, and opt to allow its committees to continue their ongoing investigations or begin new inquiries using their existing investigative tools and authorities’. The Speaker’s statement directed six committees to proceed with the investigation, following which the Committee responsible may recommend a set of ‘Articles of Impeachment’ to the full House in the form of a simple resolution. If the articles are adopted, they are sent to the Senate for trial, presided over by the Chief Justice of the US (currently John G. Roberts, a 2005 Bush nominee). Although constitutional experts differ on whether the Senate is obliged to hold a trial, the current Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, has confirmed he would do so.

While the Constitution is sufficiently clear about who may be impeached and the process for doing so, there has been significant debate around permissible reasons for impeachment. Specifically, one can interpret ‘high Crimes and Misdemeanors’ in various ways. Academics have typically argued that this rules out impeachment ‘simply for incompetence or general unfitness for office […] It is a remedy for abuses of public office’. Yet, where one can choose to make this distinction for an individual case remains undefined. For instance, it is not clear whether an official must act with ill intention, or whether both private as well as public offences can be grounds for impeachment. One of the most contentious points is whether impeachment requires the literal breach of a US law. Certain experts have held that this is not necessary: ‘abuse of power, corruption and injury to the nation’ is enough. Yet, many take the opposite view, arguing that this interpretation is not ‘consistent with the text or spirit of the Constitution’.

Figure 1 – Impeachment in six steps

Impeachment and politics

Impeachment is in practice both a legal and a political process. Since the power of impeachment rests with
Congress, a politicised institution, it is natural that political calculations often affect the process. As former
US President Gerald Ford famously remarked, ‘An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history’. Following the mid-term election of 2018, the US Congress is divided, with a Democrat majority in the House of Representatives and a Republican majority in the Senate. While Democrats alone fulfil the percentage requirement in the House to move to trial (51 %), Republicans hold only 53 of the 100 Senate seats, where a two-thirds majority is required. Even if all Democrat and Independent Senators were to vote in favour of impeachment, at least 20 Senate Republicans would need to find the President guilty for the latter to be removed from office.

To date, the House has voted to impeach 19 officials; but only two Presidents: Andrew Johnson in 1868, charged with violating the Tenure of Office Act, and Bill Clinton in 1998, accused of obstructing justice by lying to a grand jury under oath. A third President, Richard Nixon, was the target of impeachment proceedings in 1974 for his cover-up of the Watergate scandal, but resigned before the House voted. Ultimately, the Senate voted to acquit both Johnson and Clinton. There is therefore no precedent for the removal of a US President from office by impeachment. Read this ‘at a glance’ on ‘Impeachment of the United States President‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Marcin Grajewski,

© Fotolia

The European Union’s key institutions held a joint annual conference on 14-15 October entitled ‘Challenges and Choices for Europe.’ The annual event was organised under the auspices of the European Strategy and Policy Analysis System (ESPAS), which is a framework for cooperation between the administrations of the European Parliament, European Commission, Council of the European Union, European External Action Service and other bodies, to work together on medium- and long-term trends facing or relating to the European Union.

This note brings together commentaries, analyses and studies by major international think tanks and research institutes on longer term trends – global and regional, with a focus on Europe. Some reports listed here were presented at the conference, some other can be found in the ESPAS’ repository of strategic studies called Orbis.

Politics and security

ESPAS Report 2019: Global Trends to 2030
European Strategy and Policy Analysis System, 2019

The MENA region: A great power competition
Atlantic Council, ISPI. October 2019

Europe’s new politics: Transnationalism vs. the nation
Friends of Europe, October 2019

Liberal overreach and the misinterpretation of 1989
German Marshall Fund, September 2019

Arab futures 2.0
European Union Institute for Security Studies, September 2019

Toward a new EU democracy strategy
Carnegie Europe, September 2019

Tomorrow’s EU democracy: Giving citizens a say
Bertelsmann Stiftung, September 2019

The future of work in Africa : Harnessing the potential of digital technologies for all
World Bank Group, August 2019

The geopolitical implications of future oil demand
Chatham House, August 2019

The future of meta-geopolitical competition in outer space
stituto per gli Studi di Politica Internazionale, July 2019

Walking on Thin Ice: A balanced Arctic strategy for the EU
European Political Strategy Centre, July 2019

The Eastern Partnership a decade on: Looking back, thinking ahead
European Union Institute for Security Studies, July19

Approaches to regional stability and the outlook for NATO
Instituto Affairi Internazionali, July 2019

Can regular replace irregular migration across the Mediterranean?
Centre for European Policy Studies, June 2019

Munich Security Report 2019: ‘The great puzzle: Who will pick up the pieces?’
Munich Security Conference, February 2019

Social imbalances: How are you doing, Europe?
Jacques Delors Institute, Berlin, Bertelsmann Stiftung, March 2019

Comparing global trends in multidimensional and income poverty and assessing horizontal inequalities
Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik, February 2019

What if….? Scanning the horizon: 12 scenarios for 2021
European Union Institute for Security Studies, January 2019

The global risks report 2019
World Economic Forum, January 2019

Global Trends to 2030: New ways out of poverty and exclusion
European Strategy and Policy Analysis System, January 2019

The Sino-Russian and US-Russian relationships: Current developments and future trends
Finnish Institute of International Affairs, December 2018

The future of work: A guide for Transatlantic policymakers
Bertelsmann Stiftung, December 2018

Migration and remittances: Recent development and outlook
Global Knowledge Partnership on Migration and Development, December 2018

Global Trends to 2030: The Future of migration and integration
Strategy and Policy Analysis System, 2018

The future of warfare
European Strategy and Policy Analysis System, 2018

Economy and energy

10 trends shaping the future of work in Europe
European Political Strategy Centre, October 2019

The single market remains the decisive power of the EU
Centre for European Policy Studies, October 2019

Energy ambitions for Europe 2024
Centre on Regulation in Europe, September 2019

Digital ambitions for Europe 2024
Centre on Regulation in Europe, September 2019

The future of gas in Europe
Centre for European Policy Studies, August 2019

Making the Single Market work: Launching a 2022 masterplan for Europe
European Policy Centre, August 2019

World resources report: Creating a sustainable food future
World Resource Institute, July 2019

The opportunities of the Modernisation Fund for the energy transition in Central and Eastern Europe
Centre for European Policy Studies, June 2019

Political warfare: Competition in the cyber era
Wilfried Martens Centre, April 2019

How civil society can adapt to the fourth industrial revolution
World Economic Forum, April 2019

Russia’s social awakening: A new challenge for the EU
Carnegie Europe, April 2019

The Future of government 2030+: A citizen centric perspective on new government models
Joint Research Centre, March 2019

China’s military modernisation: Recent trends
Observer Research Foundation, March 2019

Legislating for a low carbon and climate resilient transition: learning from international experiences
Real Instituto Elcano, March 2019

The future of shale
Atlantic Council, January 2019

Future of consumption in fast-growth consumer markets: India
World Economic Forum, January 2019

10 trends reshaping climate and energy
European Political Strategy Centre, December 2018

The future of work
Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, Labour Research Service, December 2018

A new future for European industry
European Policy Centre, December 2018

The future of international trade and investment
European Strategy and Policy Analysis System, 2018

Technology

Electric vehicles roll-out in Europe: Towards an improved regulatory regime
Centre on Regulation in Europe, October 2019

Cyber security: How GDPR is already impacting the public-private relationship
Real Instituto Elcano, October 2019

A vision for a sustainable battery value chain in 2030
World Economic Forum, September 2019

Alternate cybersecurity futures
Atlantic Council, September 2019

What is DARPA? How to design successful technology disruption
Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, July 2019

Top 10 emerging technologies 2019
World Economic Forum, July 2019

How young people are shaping the future of sustainable fashion
World Economic Forum, April 2019

Chinese FDI in Europe: 2018 trends and impact of new screening politics
Mercator Institute for China Studies, March 2019

Users, data, networks: Taxing the digital economy
Jacques Delors Institute, Berlin, Bertelsmann Stiftung, March 2019

Trends in artificial intelligence and big data
European Strategy and Political Analysis System, January 2019

The task ahead of us: Transforming the global economy with connectivity, automation and intelligence
Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, January 2019

Is the European automotive industry ready for the global electric vehicle revolution?
Bruegel, December 2018

Artificial intelligence and the future of humans
Pew Research Centre, December 2018

How 5G will shape innovation and security
Centre for Strategic and International Studies, December 2018

Our shared digital future: Building an inclusive, trustworthy and sustainable digital society
World Economic Forum, December 2018

Utilization of scenarios in European electricity policy: The ten-year network development plan
Oxford Institute for Energy Studies, December 2018

Is the Internet eroding Europe’s middle ground?
European Strategy and Policy Analysis System, 2018

Global Trends to 2030: Identities and biases in the digital age
European Strategy and Policy Analysis System, 2018

Trends in Artificial Intelligence and big data
European Strategy and Policy Analysis System, 2018

Read this briefing on ‘Global and regional trends‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Micaela del Monte and Silvia Kotanidis,

© EC – Audiovisual Service

The hearings of the Commissioners-designate before the European Parliament’s committees took place between 30 September and 8 October 2019. The plenary vote on the entire Commission was originally planned for 23 October in Strasbourg, after a presentation by the Commission President-elect Ursula von der Leyen of the full College and its programme. However, three Commissioners-designate did not successfully complete the hearings process, making it necessary for three Member States to nominate new candidates and for committees to carry out new hearings. The new Commission will not, therefore, now be able to enter into office on 1 November, as scheduled. The outgoing Commission will thus remain in office until the formal appointment of its replacement, although questions arise as to its powers in that period.

Background

Following the election by Parliament of Ursula von der Leyen as President-elect of the Commission, her next step was to announce, after a decision taken in common accord with the Council according to Article 17(7) TEU, the names and portfolios of the Commissioners-designate. They then had to undergo public hearings before the committees responsible for their portfolios, prior to the vote of consent of Parliament (a majority of the votes cast) on the President-elect and the Commissioners-designate (including the Vice-President appointed by the Council as High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy) as a body.

Ultimately, following that consent, the appointment of the Commission is done by the European Council, acting by qualified majority (Article 17(7) TEU). The hearings to which Commissioners-designate are subject are not required by the Treaties, but have long existed in a practice which has been codified in the Rules of Procedure of Parliament (Rule 125 and Annex VII). For the ninth term, the Conference of Presidents decided that the hearings would be held between 30 September and 8 October, with the plan being to vote subsequently on the Commission as a body at the Parliament’s plenary session of 23 October.

This process of scrutiny of the candidates and the ensuing hearings, which represent a fundamental democratic exercise, implies a possible need to adjust the steps and timetable. Indeed, after the scrutiny of the declaration of financial interests of Commissioners-designate László Trócsányi (Neighbourhood and Enlargement) and Rovana Plumb (Transport), the Committee on Legal Affairs concluded that both were unable to take up their duties in the Commission. Being a precondition for the holding of a hearing according to the Rules of Procedure (Article 2 of Annex VII), neither could proceed to that step.

In addition, after a first unsatisfactory hearing on 2 October, the Committees on Internal Market and Consumer Protection, and on Industry, Research and Energy requested the hearing of Commissioner-designate Sylvie Goulard (Internal Market) be resumed on 10 October, with, in the end, a negative outcome. With three Commissioners-designate not having successfully passed Parliament’s scrutiny, new appointments are required. As the date originally scheduled for a vote in Parliament on the Commission as a body has now passed, the new Commission cannot therefore take office on 1 November 2019 as required.

The notion of a ‘caretaker’ Commission

The question that arises is what are the consequences if the Commission is delayed in taking office, since the Juncker Commission’s term of office comes to an end on 31 October 2019. What limits are there, if any, on the exercise of the Commission President’s functions, and those of the College, and under what rules?

The Treaties do not explicitly take into account a possible delay in Commission taking office. Neither Article 17 TEU, setting out the term of office and the details of the procedure leading to the Commission’s election, nor any other provisions of the Treaties provide for this situation, although similar events have occurred more than once in the past (see below).

Article 246(6) TFEU, however, deals with a comparable situation, according to which, when all members of the Commission submit their resignation collectively, they are to remain in office and continue to deal with current business until they are replaced, for the remainder of their term of office. This provision embodies the principle, quite widespread in the life of both EU and national institutions, of institutional continuity. The Treaties do not define the powers of the ‘prolonged’ Commission, however some argue that the Commission must act as a ‘caretaker administration’ not only when it resigns collectively as a College but also when, as in this case, the new Commission does not take office immediately after the expiry of the term of office of the previous College.

In this context, ‘current business’ would include all daily, routine business as well as all acts that cannot be postponed to the next College. Against this background, the adoption of new legislative proposals would seem excluded except for emergency reasons. Some limited case law has helped in framing the scope of the Commission’s room for manoeuvre when the notion of ‘current business’ comes into play.

In 2003, the question arose in the case Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Commission of whether a State aid decision issued by a resigning Commission was lawful. On that occasion, the Court affirmed that the adoption of a State aid decision by the Commission after its collective resignation did fall within the scope of a caretaker administration, insofar as it did not constitute a new political initiative and the supervisory function of the Commission constituted part of the fulfilment of an ‘essential task of the Community’. In this sense, the Court considered that the Commission had not exceeded the powers entrusted to a ‘caretaker administrator’ but ‘confined itself to applying to that case a legal scheme of long-established rules and principles’.

In another case in 2012, European Parliament v Council, the Court argued that the same reasoning could be applicable ‘a fortiori in circumstances in which a pre-existing proposal remained pending’. In fact, in that specific case, the Barroso I Commission formally amended one of its own proposals – which was then adopted as Regulation 1286/2009 – in respect of its legal basis, to take account of the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty. This decision was taken at a time when the Barroso I Commission’s term of office had ended, but the new Commission had not yet formally entered into office. The Court also ruled in this case that such a ‘step was essential if the Union legislature was to continue with the pending procedure after the Treaty of Lisbon entered into force’. However, the Court did not provide additional clarifications on what should be considered as ‘essential’.

The current circumstances, the precedents in jurisprudence and the principle of continuity of institutional work allow a reasonable belief that the current Commission will work in a ‘current business’ mode until the new Commission does take office. Although some commentators expect that the new Commission will come into office in December 2019, how long the ‘caretaker’ administration continues will depend on new Commissioners-designate being nominated by France, Hungary and Romania, the agreement thereon of the President-elect, and those candidates then completing the hearings process successfully. After that, the entire College would need to obtain the consent of Parliament in a plenary vote.

A look back

The current situation is not an extraordinary one. The Prodi Commission was appointed to a term running until 22 January 2005, although its end was brought forward to 31 October 2004 under Article 45 of the Act concerning the 2004 enlargement. The Barroso I Commission should, therefore, have started on 1 November 2004. Due to uncertainties as to whether Parliament would support three of the Commissioners-designate initially put forward by Barroso (Rocco Buttiglione, László Kovács and Ingrida Udre) the vote of Parliament was postponed from 27 October to 18 November 2004. After election by Parliament, the Barroso I Commission (with two of those three candidates replaced, and the third taking a different portfolio than originally proposed) took office on 22 November 2004, i.e. three weeks after the statutory date.

Likewise, the Barroso II Commission took office with a few months of delay, starting work on 10 February 2010, instead of 1 November 2009, due to the delayed process of ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, which was finalised only in November 2009 and which consequently delayed the process of election of the Barroso II Commission which fell under the Lisbon rules. On that occasion, the Commission spokesperson, Johannes Laitenberger, declared that the Commission’s mandate was extended ‘based on the principle of institutional continuity’ so that the Commission could work in a ‘caretaker capacity’.

Read this ‘at a glance’ on ‘Commission as ‘caretaker administration’‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Clare Ferguson and Katarzyna Sochaka,

© European Union 2019 – Source : EP

The October II plenary session highlights included statements and debates on the outcome of the European Council meeting of 17 and 18 October 2019, and a review of the Juncker Commission’s term. Parliament also debated statements made on behalf of the Vice-President of the European Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HR/VP) on the Turkish military operation in north-east Syria and its consequences, and on the violent suppression of young people’s and students’ protests in Iraq. Debates took place, inter alia, on Commission and Council statements on the effects of the Thomas Cook bankruptcy, on the dangers of violent right-wing extremism, on criminalisation of sexual education in Poland and on storms in Europe, followed by debates on accession negotiations with North Macedonia and Albania. Members declined to approve the 2017 accounts of the European Asylum Support Office (EASO) and European Council/Council, and adopted Parliament’s position on the general budget of the EU for 2020, which now goes to conciliation.

Conclusions of the European Council meeting of 17 and 18 October 2019

Members debated European Council and Commission statements on the outcome of the European Council meeting of 17-18 October 2019. After endorsing a revised United Kingdom withdrawal agreement, and approving a revised political declaration in the European Council (Article 50) format, EU Heads of State or Government tackled contentious issues including the 2021-2027 Multiannual Financial Framework, enlargement, climate change and Turkey. Together with Commission President-elect, Ursula von der Leyen, EU leaders also discussed future EU political priorities and the follow-up to the 2019-2024 strategic agenda.

Review of the Juncker Commission

Although the renewal of the European Commission has been postponed beyond the scheduled date of 1 November, current President of the Commission Jean-Claude Juncker presented a statement, debated with Members, encompassing a review of the Juncker Commission. Whilst facing some challenging situations during 2014-2019, including terrorist attacks and increased refugee movements, analysis of the Juncker Commission’s 10 priorities shows that two thirds of the Commission’s proposals during the period resulted in changes to the law. However, progress has been slower on growth, jobs, investment and trade.

General budget of the European Union for 2020

Parliament adopted its position on all sections of the general budget of the European Union for 2020. Parliament’s Committee on Budgets proposed to reject the reductions made by the Council and to increase expenditure on social and climate target priorities instead. The budget will now be the subject of conciliation negotiations with the Council. If the institutions reach a compromise, Parliament would vote on that during the November II plenary session. In the absence of an agreement, the European Commission is required to submit a new draft budget.

Discharge 2017: European Asylum Support Office and European Council/Council

Members refused to approve the 2017 accounts of the European Asylum Support Office (EASO) and European Council and Council. The Budgetary Control Committee (CONT) report on EASO’s budget criticises its internal control system, but notes that the new EASO management has committed to reforms. As to discharge for the Council and European Council, the CONT Committee report underlines that the institution has again failed to provide information requested, to separate the budget of the European Council from the Council’s budget, and to align with the interinstitutional transparency register.

Read this ‘at a glance’ on ‘Plenary round-up – Strasbourg, October II 2019‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Christiaan van Lierop, 

Master Class at the European Week of Regions and Cities

While regular contact with researchers, academics and the broader policy-making community is part of our core business at the EPRS, it is always a particular pleasure to meet with PhD students and young researchers who are experts in regional policy. That is why we were very happy to be involved once again in the organisation of a specialist workshop as part of the European Week of Regions and Cities’ Master Class for early career researchers, which took place in Brussels from 7 to 10 October 2019.

Bringing together 29 specially selected early career researchers from across the EU, this year’s workshop examined the role of research in policy-making at the European Parliament by focusing on three main themes: forging closer ties between researchers and policy-makers, enhancing the communication of cohesion policy and, lastly, future trends and topics for research in the field of cohesion policy. As in previous years, discussions took place around three tables, one for each theme, with participants invited to get actively involved in the debate at each table, providing everybody with the chance to have their say. With each participant an expert in the field of regional policy, the stage was set for a frank, open and lively discussion. This led to a number of key findings, set out below.

Forging closer ties between researchers and policy-makers

Participants stressed the need for more continuous links between researchers and policy-makers at local government level in particular. Noting that the relationship between researchers and policy-makers is a multilevel process, coordinating and developing synergies between researcher/policy-maker relations at municipal, regional, national and European levels, they argued that interaction between researchers and policy-makers at the local government level called for different, more participatory styles of research that could elicit support and interest from local authorities. When it came to finding experts, speakers stressed the importance of using certain keywords for searches and considered that researchers should be proactive by highlighting their profiles through researchgate or h-index if they wanted to have greater visibility. Another idea was to draw up e-mail lists of experts in different topic areas using university databases, with one participant suggesting that universities could be required to keep their databases updated with information about their staff expertise.

Enhancing the communication of cohesion policy

The workshop found that if EU cohesion policy is to be brought closer to citizens and the knowledge gap between politicians and the general public closed, it is important to deliver a message that could have an impact across borders, to tell a story and to establish communication channels for active exchange. One way of doing this could be to strengthen EU identity by stressing the significance of Europe as an integration project and by helping people understand that Europe forms an integral part of their everyday lives. There was clearly a need to make local projects more visible: one idea was to make it compulsory for local municipalities that receive EU funding to allocate a fixed amount of the money received to communications activities about the funded project. Other ideas included organising more Open Day events at the EU institutions for citizens as well as sessions that bring together different groups of people, such as low-income workers or socially excluded groups, who may know little about the EU, to explain what the EU is doing for them. This would take the form of special meetings at the workplace or at community centres.

Future trends and topics for research in the field of cohesion policy

On a general note, participants felt that it was vital to make topics appealing by creating awareness and involving stakeholders. Equally, regional capacity-building was also important as this could help policy-makers learn to cope with various challenges through feedback loops of multilevel governance that could facilitate the process of better learning for policy-makers. More specifically, a number of topics were highlighted as possible areas of future research. These included issues such as how to implement cohesion policy more effectively or that of assessing absorption capacity of funds through multiple criteria such as GDP, migration, climate change or youth unemployment. The individual challenges facing certain types of regions were also the subject of discussion: participants drew attention to the question of planning in cross-border regions and cross-border cooperation in general and looked at how to help lagging regions by focusing, in particular, on why it is difficult for them to implement smart specialisation strategies.

This workshop for early career researchers certainly provided some valuable thoughts and ideas can help feed into the work of both researchers and policy-makers and we look forward to the next edition of this event in 2020.

Written by Monika Kiss,

© Nmedia / Fotolia

Economic and technical changes are redrawing the map of the world of work: new jobs are appearing while others are becoming obsolete, and atypical work patterns are replacing full-time work and open-ended contracts.

In addition, work is increasingly being carried out on online platforms connecting buyers and sellers, or by large project teams across borders and time zones.

Robotics and digitalisation raise new questions, as machines progressively replace the human workforce for routine tasks, and new types of professional and personal skills are required to respond to technological progress.

Active labour-market policies are gradually adapting to the changing reality in the world of work. This concerns social security systems, which increasingly face include new, and constantly changing requirements, as well as ethical and practical problems relating to robotics. The EU focuses on protecting workers’ rights while ensuring innovation, as the examples of the recently adopted Directive on Transparent and Predictable Working Conditions and the establishment of the new European Labour Authority illustrate. The need for the new digital skills that are essential to successfully master the challenges of the new working environment also continues to grow.

This is an update of an earlier Briefing on the Future of work in the EU, from April 2017, PE 599.426.

Read the complete briefing on ‘A fresh look at the future of work in the EU‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.