Mediaboss Marketing

On December 8, 2021, the European Commission adopted its proposal for a regulation to deter and counteract economic coercion measures by non-EU countries, such as Russia and China. The Commission committed to make a legislative proposal by the end of 2021 at the latest in a joint declaration by the Council, European Parliament and Commission in February 2021 highlighting the gap in the EUs international trade protection instrument armory.

It appears be an attempt to use the EUs exclusive legislative powers under the Common Commercial Policy (Article 207(2) TFEU) to allow the European Commission to adopt a new range of sanctions against foreign countries, companies and individuals beyond the current sanction regime, which only applies where consistent with international law. By assigning the tool to the realm of trade policy instead of foreign policy, the regulation may be passed by a qualified majority of governments, circumventing the usual unanimity requirement that frequently hampers the EUs foreign policy.

The mechanism is designed to target actions by third countries intended to coerce the EU or a member state to take or withdraw specific policy measuresin other words, state-sponsored efforts that exploit economic links, such as trade and investmentto push for political change in a national government or across the whole EU. However, coercion from private companies and individuals will also be penalized if the conduct is part of an subversive campaign led by a state actor.

The coercive measures that might trigger application of this instrument are not linked to the form of the measures but to the level of their intent to coerce the EU or a member state. The result is a very broad potential scope for coercive measures covered by the proposal.

While the 12 categories of Union Response measures listed in Annex I will require implementation by the member states, the Commission alone has the power to open an investigation of its own initiative and to adopt response measures. These could include:

The EUs countermeasures can target individuals, companies and/or third countries.

The instruments main objective is not to impose punitive measures; rather, it aims toward deterrence in order to preserve the EU and the member states legitimate right to make policy choices and decisions and prevent serious interference in the sovereignty of the EU or its member states. This objective suggests that sanctions will be used as a last resort, after all forms of international engagement have been exhausted.

Any member state, company or entity can bring a complaint to the Commission, which will then investigate the situation and gather the necessary evidence to see if the dispute amounts to economic coercion or relates to measures that fall under the WTOs jurisdiction.

If the Commission establishes that economic coercion has been used, it will proceed by engaging directly with the relevant country and begin negotiations to find a solution. However, if ultimately, such mediation fails and the coercion persists, the Commission can recommend countermeasures, which are then first debated before they can be approved by the member states. In certain urgent situations, the Commission is entitled to act alone to adopt temporarily measures, subject to subsequent scrutiny by the European Parliament and Council.

Once approved, all 27 member states will have to enforce the sanctions against the third country, even if they are not direct victims of the coercion campaign. Unity and solidarity remain key to uphold our values and interests, according to Commissioner Valdis Dombrovskis, who is responsible for EU trade policy.

The European Parliament and the Council have undertaken to consider the proposal in a timely manner. It has thus far received strong support in feedback in response to the Commissions previous consultations. A new consultation has been opened for the next two months, until February 14, 2022, providing stakeholders and citizens an opportunity to submit additional feedback, which the Commission will report to the Council and Parliament.

In addition, the proposal now needs to be discussed and agreed by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. It will be considered under the Ordinary Legislative Procedure, whereby the Parliament and Council will internally develop their positions before negotiating with each other in Trilogue discussions with the assistance of the Commission.

France and Germany appear to support the proposal alongside other member states expressing their concern about the growing trend of increasing economic coercion.

However, other countries like Sweden and the Czech Republic, the Nordics, and Ireland have expressed their unease with the far-reaching scope of the instrument, and the potential that it will lead to more protectionism. They emphasized that sanctions should remain exceptional, comply with international law and that their harmful effects on the blocs overall economy should be kept to a minimum. In a joint statement, Sweden and the Czech Republic stated that it would be extremely difficult (especially in a short time) to quantify economic and political damage and find appropriate countermeasures.

The main fear is that the economic coercion proposal would escalate trade disputes, by becoming a trade irritant instead of an effective deterrent against giants like Russia, China and the US. An EU countermeasure could trigger a chain of retaliation measures under the WTO Agreement, which can target completely different sectors. Such escalation is exactly what worries some countries within the EU as well as the blocs like-minded trading partners. It remains to be seen, therefore, if EU capitals will succeed in diluting the instrument.

Additional questions have been raised by economic actors operating in the EU regarding the consequences of potential measures countering coercive third-country actions. For example, the instrument does not provide (so far) for an opportunity to claim compensation for damage suffered by economic operators arising from the EU reactive measures and other actions under the instrument.

More:
"Economic coercionnew EU jargon for lobbying by third countries: Can the European Commissions proposed regulation to prevent foreign government...

For more than a decade, Neil Currie could sell his companys handcrafted black iron pans and cookware from Shropshire, the birthplace of Britains Industrial Revolution, to customers in Berlin as easily as he could to ones in Birmingham, less than 30 miles to the east. But this year, since Britain left the European Union, Netherton Foundrys sales into the bloc have plummeted.

For 12 months, British businesses have been confronting the reality of the countrys decision to distance itself from its largest trading partner. Initially, the new system collapsed: Perishable goods got stuck at ports, retailers discovered their supply chains were obsolete and trucking companies stopped delivering to the whole island of Ireland.

The worst of the problems (outside of Northern Ireland) eased after a few months. But what remains is a frustrating regime of higher costs, time-consuming customs paperwork and countless lost opportunities.

Netherton Foundrys website sales to the European Union are just draining away, Mr. Currie said. They have dropped 40 percent this year.

Before Brexit, the only discernible difference about sales to the continent were the extra delivery costs. Arranging the shipment took less than a minute. Now, for every different product leaving Britain whether its a specially designed tortilla press or a popular frying pan with locally sourced oak handles a four-page customs form needs to be completed, which takes up to 20 minutes per shipment.

For customers, theres sticker shock. Items cost at least 8.50 pounds ($11.25) more because couriers charge extra to cover the additional administration of customs checks and taxes. And every product takes longer to arrive at its destination. Besides the lost online sales from individual buyers, many European independent shops that used to stock Netherton Foundrys products have concluded its just not worth the cost or the hassle.

We can sell to people, we can do it, but its more expensive, Mr. Currie said. But there is a perception and I think this is possibly even worse that its too difficult.

In its first seven months, the new trade deal reduced Britains exports to the union by 14 percent and imports by 24 percent, according to an estimate by the UK Trade Policy Observatory, a research group. Thats about 44 billion in lost trade. Most of the exports were lost in January as many logistics companies stopped moving goods, overwhelmed by the number of deliveries that were being sent with inaccurate customs paperwork. Since that initial drop, exports have mostly recovered, official statistics show.

But the data doesnt capture how much harder businesses are having to work just to retain the customers they have as they become less competitive.

One of Netherton Foundrys largest customers, a department store in Germany, has required that the pans be sold to it via an intermediary in Belgium so it doesnt have to take on the extra work of importing directly from Britain. With, of course, all the additional costs, Mr. Currie said. We all know its crazy.

The trade deal granted goods made in Britain tariff- and quota-free access to the European Union. But the paperwork required to cross the border and prove the goods met the blocs regulatory standards have become a nuisance. Some companies decided it was not worth the extra costs. Marks & Spencer, a large British retailer, closed its 11 food stores in France, citing supply chain complexities created by Brexit.

Goods trade with Europe was nearly 16 percent below what it would have been in a world without Brexit, according to the latest report by the Center for European Reform, a group that supports the European Union.

These are only the beginnings of the long-run impacts of Brexit, which is expected to make the British economy 4 percent smaller than it otherwise would have been, according to the Office for Budget Responsibility. Thats twice as much scarring to the economy than the pandemic is expected to cause, it estimated.

Weve had a year of two halves, said Sally Jones, who leads the trade strategy and Brexit team at EY. Early on, companies were asking granular operational questions about how to keep their businesses running under the new rules. Now, they are working out the long-term issues that require substantial changes. For example, some retailers that relied on a single European distribution center in Britain are finding they cant afford to keep paying the additional tariffs imposed by moving imported goods back out of Britain. They are looking into opening other centers on the continent, relocating jobs and money.

Its something that Luceco, which makes and imports lighting and wiring products from China and sells them to retail stores, is having to consider. It mostly sells the imported products within Britain, but about 3 million to 4 million of the sales are made in the Republic of Ireland.

Its not, thankfully, the biggest chunk, said Matt Webb, the chief financial officer. But its been extremely difficult. The paperwork now thats involved in selling to even Northern Ireland is prohibitive, he said. In addition, tariffs on the items have to be paid twice: when they enter Britain from China and leave for Ireland.

There was always going to come a time when it made sense for us to have a hub in Ireland, Mr. Webb said. All that Brexit has done is brought that day a little closer.

The added costs and challenges of Brexit have arrived while businesses are already desperately trying to navigate the constant tumult of the pandemic, which has led to international shortages of goods, exorbitant shipping costs and surging commodity prices, particularly for energy.

At Netherton Foundry, the first thing that lands in Mr. Curries inbox each morning is an email from his purchasing manager of the top five expenses that have increased in price overnight. Luceco sees increases, too: It used to spend 2 million a year on sea containers shipping its goods from China. Now its 16 million. For customers, Lucecos prices have jumped 12 percent.

Recently, butter and cheese prices have risen 20 percent to 30 percent, said Michael Harte, the managing director of Bridge Cheese, which imports some of its cheeses from Europe and sells bespoke blends to food manufacturers and wholesalers, such as pizza companies, in Britain, on the continent and in the Middle East. And there are soaring energy prices to contend with. Bridge Cheese absorbed these extra costs as long as it could, but since September has passed on double-digit price increases to its customers.

As opposed to singular issues, everything is layered on top of each other, Mr. Harte said.

In an effort to keep Brexit-related costs under control, Bridge Cheese is willing to export only large orders because goods going to the European Union now all have to undergo veterinarian inspections to certify they met health regulations and to check labeling and storage. It costs the same to have 20 pallets inspected as it does just one, Mr. Harte said.

One of his frustrations is that Brexit means there is a massive market on your doorstep that cant be reached competitively for specialty products, he said. In the nine months through September, exports of food and drink to the European Union dropped 14 percent from the year before, according to an industry group. Cheese exports were down 13 percent, it said.

And there are more Brexit impacts to come. Starting Jan. 1, Britain will impose customs checks on goods being imported from the bloc. Also in the new year, companies will have to prove their products are sufficiently British-made to qualify for tariff-free trade. From the middle of next year, additional export border checks, including physical inspections of plant and animal products, will begin.

While the British government insisted on the success of its European trade deal, it was keen to shift companies focus to the promises of trading with countries farther afield. The real opportunities lie in the Indo-Pacific, officials have said.

Companies have sought out more distant customers, but out of necessity, not choice. Since the start of the year, Netherton Foundrys sales to the United States have increased, but they havent made up for the sales lost in Europe.

Some specialized retailers in Europe have remained customers, but the everyday cook shops havent, Mr. Currie said. A dedicated cohort of individual customers remain, too. Many of them are real Anglophiles, he added.

But we must be losing lots of people who are mildly indifferent to us, he said. Its those lost opportunities that we have at the moment, and those are hard to measure.

Link:
For U.K. Companies Brexit Meant Higher Costs and Endless Forms - The New York Times

Brexit turbulence

Almost two years after the UK left the EU and a year after the end of the transition period, things do not look good between London and Brussels.

The year began with new red tape on certain goods entering Northern Ireland from the British mainland.

It's all part of the Northern Ireland Protocol that London signed up to as part of the Brexit.

It keeps Northern Ireland -- part of the UK -- in the European Union's single market for goods. Brussels wants regulatory control on what comes into the single market, so the protocol saw checks imposed on goods arriving into Northern Ireland from the British mainland.

So, to avoid a border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, Brexit created a de-facto frontier in the Irish Sea.

London, despite signing up to the agreement, claims the protocol has burdened businesses with extra paperwork.

The UK wants to renegotiate the protocol, something Brussels has rejected. In late 2021, the can was kicked down the road into 2022.

Europe is highly dependent on the manufacturing power of China but human rights issues have soured the relationship.

In March, the EU slapped sanctions on Chinese officials citing alleged human rights abuses against the Uyghurs in China's Xinjiang region. Retaliation was swift: China blacklisted 10 individuals, including MEPs, over the EU's decision.

By November, the EU had announced a 300 billion spending plan to help build infrastructures in Asia, Africa and Latin America. The aim is to counter Beijings own overseas investment scheme, The Belt and Road initiative.

But that was not the only source of tension. Ending the year on a low, Lithuania called for a diplomatic boycott of the 2022 Winter Olympics in Beijing.

Hungary again clashed with the EU over LGBT rights.

MPs passed a law in June banning the use of LGBT content in schools. The aim of the law was to fight paedophilia and protect the children, claimed the government of Prime Minister Viktor Orban.

The controversy was a topic at an EU summit in June and European leaders signed a letter stating their support for the LGBT community.

Orban did not withdraw the legislation. Instead, he said, Hungary would hold a referendum on the issue so Hungarians could decide for themselves.

Along with Hungary, Poland is the other EU country at odds with Brussels.

Brussels and Warsaw are divided over the country's democratic values, the independence of its judiciary and LGBT issues.

Their relationship took a turn for the worse in October when Polands constitutional court ruled EU legislation in some cases did not have supremacy over Polish law.

This ruling calls into question the foundations of the European Union, said European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen.

Poland's prime minister, Mateusz Morawiecki, hit back. He said the constitutional court "not only fulfils all independence criteria, but it is a constitutional tribunal that stands guard of the constitution and ensures that it remains the highest law of the Republic of Poland".

Visit link:
Four key problems the EU faced in 2021 - Euronews

Dec. 30 (UPI) -- The French government on Thursday lifted its block on British citizens seeking to transit through France to return to their homes in the European Union.

France implemented the restriction earlier this month as COVID-19 cases ballooned to record numbers in the country. On Dec. 18, British citizens without French residency were no longer allowed to travel to or through France with few exceptions.

Such British citizens were considered "third-country nationals" and were thus unable to travel through France by road or train, including through the Channel Tunnel.

BBC News reported that Britons were surprised to learn there were no exemptions in place to allow citizens to cross France to reach their homes in EU countries. This was particularly problematic for Britons attempting to return to their EU homes after visiting Britain over the holidays.

The Eurotunnel, the train that carries passengers and their vehicles through the Channel Tunnel, turned away many British nationals due to the new rules this week, Politico reported.

The French Interior Ministry announced Thursday that the rules would be relaxed since many Britons traveled to Britain for the holidays "in good faith" and are now finding themselves unable to return home in the EU.

"Faced with this situation, instructions of tolerance have been sent to police officers at the borders with the United Kingdom, in order to allow these nationals to transit through France to reach their residence in a country of the European Union,after this Christmas and New Year period" the ministry said Thursday.

The new rules will allow Britons living in the EU to travel through France if they originally made their trip to Britain before Tuesday.

Continued here:
France relaxes ban on British travelers trying to return to EU homes - UPI News

London, United Kingdom Kiasi Sandrine Mputu has worked from the bedroom of her London flat since the pandemic struck in March 2020. Like legions of crisis-minted remote workers the world over, she says the arrangement has its pros and cons.

I love working remotely, the 30-year old told Al Jazeera. I dont think Ill ever be able to come back [to] the normal routine.

An assistant manager at a London-based import-export firm, Mputus home office is a testament to how personal and professional spaces can become quickly entangled by remote work: a desk with a company-provided computer monitor nestled next to a drawer full of clothes thats adjacent to her bed.

Though shes adjusted to the flexible sleep-work space, Mputu still struggles with feeling isolated from colleagues.

I [sometimes] spend all week by myself, she said.

Mputu says her employer occasionally organizes virtual social gatherings. But she wants the British government to follow Europes lead and do more to support the mental wellbeing of remote workers like herself.

But workers advocates want Europe to go even further by ensuring new laws addressing remote work arrangements cover all employees, no matter where they earn their living.

In a major victory for better work-life balance, Portugal last month rolled out new regulations for the remote-work era, including granting workers the right to disconnect by forbidding firms from contacting employees outside of working hours except in cases of emergencies.

The new rules designed with an eye towards attracting more tax-paying digital nomads to the country also require firms to help pay for home gas, electric and internet bills; forbid them from surveilling their remote workforce; and require them to allow parents of young children to work from home without getting prior approval.

But Portugal stopped short of granting workers the right to turn off their devices and ignore messages from their bosses outside of working hours a rule Italy enacted earlier this year.

Strides are also being made in France and Germany, where employers are required to have a valid reason for turning down employee requests to work from home.

Trade unions and experts in the European Union and the United Kingdom welcome the momentum to advance the rights and wellbeing of remote workers, but they want the new rules to go even further.

Experts say the explosion in remote work during the pandemic has laid bare how obsolete some labour laws have become.

The right to disconnect, for example, is a hot-button issue that predates the pandemic, with France putting a pioneering law on the books back in 2017. While other European countries followed suit, the European Parliament is still pushing the EU Commission to give workers throughout the bloc the right to power down their devices when they are not at work.

Heejung Chung, a researcher on overtime and work-life balance at the University of Kent and author of The Flexibility Paradox told Al Jazeera employers have been contacting workers outside of formal working hours more frequently as the boundaries between home and office are obscured, leading employees to work around the clock a growing problem the right to disconnect is designed to correct.

A sole focus on home working rights would create new inequalities for those in jobs where home working isnt possible

Frances O Grady, General Secretary for the Trades Union Congress

She also said that remote workers are often burdened with the flexibility stigma, where working from home is looked down upon as less productive than in-office arrangements. That negative perception, she said, can lead employees to work longer hours to compensate.

Many workers rights advocates say the right to disconnect is just a start, and that companies need to grant workers the power to determine their own work schedules to promote a healthier work-life balance.

A lot of the boundaries that were afforded by labor laws about [working] overtime [became] obsolete, said Chung.

Data cited by the European Trade Union Institute found that 27 percent of European remote workers were worried about their jobs when they were not actually doing them, and that 29 percent felt too tired after work to do some domestic chores.

Not interrupting employees outside of working hours will not prevent these workers from suffering stress when they are back to work, Ignacio Doreste, an adviser to the European Trade Union Confederation, told Al Jazeera.

While Mputu feels fortunate her boss does not contact her outside work hours, she said she would prefer to set her own work schedule, rather than be tethered to one her employer determines.

At the end of the day, we are at home, so if I can do my job at night or in the morning, that wouldnt really make a big difference, she said.

While many workers rights activists welcome the drive to empower remote workers, some are concerned that the relentless focus on work from home could leave behind a vast swath of the workforce.

A sole focus on home working rights would create new inequalities for those in jobs where home working isnt possible, said Frances O Grady, General Secretary for the Trades Union Congress (TUC), Britains largest trade union.

A poll conducted by TUC in June found that people in the United Kingdom who worked higher-paid jobs were much more likely to have worked from home during the pandemic than those in working-class jobs.

All workers need stronger rights to the full range of flexible working options like flexitime, predictable shifts and job shares, OGrady told Al Jazeera, otherwise there will be a new class divide, with some people getting the flexibility they need and others excluded.

Go here to read the rest:
As Europe leads on remote worker rights, will others benefit? - Al Jazeera English