Mediaboss Marketing

The European Commission has adopted (at long last) an updated version of the Standard Contractual Clauses (SCCs), bringing this popular data transfer mechanism in line with the GDPR and, we hope, the Schrems II decision issued by the Court of Justice of the European Union in July 2020. The SCCs are the most commonly used legal mechanism for transferring personal data from the EEA to non-EEA countries (known as third countries), so the new SCCs are very big news for organizations that transfer or receive personal data from the EEA (that is, the European Union plus Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein). We anticipate that many of our clients will soon adopt the new SCCs as their primary legal mechanism for personal data transfers which will also require getting to grips with the risk assessment and supplementary measures required by the Schrems II decision. Organizations will need to start using the new SCCS in mid-to-late September 2021 for new transfers, and adopt them by roughly the end of 2022 to cover old transfers (assuming you still have the data).

Most US companies that receive European personal data are aware that the GDPR prohibits the transfer of personal data from the EEA to third countries that dont have the benefit of a Commission adequacy decision (currently only 12 countries have one) unless

Given that we are still waiting for the new, additional data transfer mechanisms anticipated by the GDPR, such as Commission-approved privacy certifications and codes of conduct, the SCCs play a fundamental role in making personal data transfers from Europe legal. In many data transfer situations, the SCCs are the only viable option.

The Commission decision adopting the new SCCs will go into effect 20 days after the decision is published in the Official Journal of the European Union (which is published daily on weekdays). Organizations that want to use the SCCs as the legal basis for new data transfers will need to begin using the new form of the SCCs from the date that is three months after their effective date (so assuming the decision is published on June 7, 2021, new transfers would need to be done under the new SCCs starting on September 26, 2021). For transfers that are already subject to the old SCCs, in most cases, organizations will have a grace period of approximately 18 months from now to transition from the old SCCs to the new SCCs (so roughly by the end of 2022). Importantly, it appears from the Commissions decision that even if a transfer made under the old SCCs is complete, the new SCCs will need to be executed if the data are still being used by the data importer. Furthermore, the Schrems II requirements for a risk assessment with respect to national security laws and the adoption of supplemental protective measures to mitigate any risks apply now.

The new SCCs represent a vast improvement over the current SCCs, which were last updated in 2004 (for controller-to-controller transfers) and 2010 (for controller-to-processor transfers). The new SCCs are modular in nature, covering the following data transfer situations:

The new SCCs offer a number of improvements over the old SCCs:

The new SCCs turn the Schrems II decisions diligence and supplemental measures requirements into a contractual requirement. The exporter and importer must cooperate in the assessment and document their assessment in writing. The written assessment must be available to EU supervisory authorities (i.e., an interested national or regional data protection authority) on request. However, the assessment does not need to be attached to the SCCs as the European Data Protection Board had recommended to the Commission.

In a nutshell, the exporter and importer need to warrant that they have no reason to believe that the laws and practices in the third country of destination applicable to the processing of the personal data by the data importer, including any requirements to disclose personal data or measures authorising access by public authorities, prevent the data importer from fulfilling its obligations under these Clauses (Clause 14(a)). In making this warranty, the exporter and importer must take into account, among other things, the laws and practices of the third country of destination including those requiring the disclosure of data to public authorities or authorising access by such authorities relevant in light of the specific circumstances of the transfer, and the applicable limitations and safeguards (Clause 14(b)(ii)). The SCCs include a long footnote explaining that this analysis should not be limited to the letter of the law in the destination country. Instead, practical experience can and should be taken into account.

This critical footnote in the SCCs adds a much needed counterweight to the European Data Protection Boards statement in its November 2010 guidance on the Schrems II decision that the assessment must not rely on subjective factors such as the likelihood of public authorities access to your data in a manner not in line with EU standards. The SCCs footnote helpfully clarifies that practical experience counts as a relevant, objective element rather than a subjective element that must be disregarded:

As regards the impact of such laws and practices on compliance with these Clauses, different elements may be considered as part of an overall assessment. Such elements may include relevant and documented practical experience with prior instances of requests for disclosure from public authorities, or the absence of such requests, covering a sufficiently representative time-frame. This refers in particular to internal records or other documentation, drawn up on a continuous basis in accordance with due diligence and certified at senior management level, provided that this information can be lawfully shared with third parties. Where this practical experience is relied upon to conclude that the data importer will not be prevented from complying with these Clauses, it needs to be supported by other relevant, objective elements, and it is for the Parties to consider carefully whether these elements together carry sufficient weight, in terms of their reliability and representativeness, to support this conclusion. In particular, the Parties have to take into account whether their practical experience is corroborated and not contradicted by publicly available or otherwise accessible, reliable information on the existence or absence of requests within the same sector and/or the application of the law in practice, such as case law and reports by independent oversight bodies. (Fn 12)

Overall, the new SCCs bring greater clarity and certainty to the rules governing EU-to-third-country data transfers. They stick tightly to the GDPR, while also spelling out specific obligations in a way that is (for the most part) both precise and achievable. While the new SCCs will require much more thought and background work on the part of data exporters and importers, they should result in more robust organizational and technical protections for the data in question, and for the individuals whose data are transferred.

Now that the new SCCs are in their final form, its time for US data importers to review their transfers and start assessing the risk that the US government could demand access to the personal data. If theres a risk, the importer and exporter will need to adopt supplementary protections that are considered by EU data protection authorities to mitigate the risk and ensure that the personal data are protected to a standard equivalent to that of the GDPR.

Conducting a Schrems II assessment is a significant undertaking. Mintz has prepared a detailed guidance note to assist clients in stepping through the analysis and documenting their assessment. Our Schrems II guidance note covers the following:

Part 1, Introduction, explains the basic concerns and effects of the Schrems II decision.

Part 2, Conducting and Documenting a Schrems II Due Diligence Exercise, describes how to perform and document a Schrems II due diligence exercise.

Part 3, Schrems II Due Diligence Decision Tree, presents a practical due diligence framework for assessing, through a simple multi-step decision tree, whether a particular personal data transfer is at risk of exposure to US intelligence agencies in light of US national security laws.

Part 4, Additional Safeguards, discusses some of the risk mitigation measures recommended by EU data protection authorities, with a focus on the measures that are most likely to be both effective and achievable within many US organizations.

Appendix A contains relevant provisions of the European Commissions draft of the new Standard Contractual Clauses (SCCs).

Appendix B summarizes the key US national security laws that need to be taken into account when exporting personal data from the European Economic Area or United Kingdom to the US. It is designed to be incorporated (if desired) into the written documentation of the Schrems II due diligence exercise.

Appendix C, References and Resources, lists sources of additional information about the Schrems II decision, guidance issued by European data protection authorities, reference works concerning US national security laws and programs, and other resources that may be helpful for delving further into the matters covered by the guidance note.

We believe that our Schrems II guidance note will empower many clients to conduct assessments of routine, lower-risk transfers internally with limited need for outside counsel. However, we would be very happy to assist with assessments and discuss proposed transfers one-on-one, which may be particularly important for complex or higher-risk transfers.

[View source.]

Continued here:
Transferring Personal Data from Europe Working with the New Standard Contractual Clauses and Getting to Grips with Your Schrems II Assessment - JD...

Fully vaccinated travelers from all countries can now enjoy increased freedom and movement around the Caribbean island of St. Lucia.

With proof of full vaccination (meaning, for example, two weeks after a second Moderna or Pfizer shot or single Johnson & Johnson vaccine), visitors are given a wristband at the airport and are able to immediately move about freely on the island: exploring on their own with a rental car, visiting local markets and supermarkets, and eating at any restaurants.

Unvaccinated travelers to St. Lucia will need to continue to adhere to a mandatory 14-day stay at COVID-19 certified accommodations those that have been determined to adhere to all key health safety protocols. Unvaccinated travelers can leave the villa or hotel property only to eat at COVID-certified restaurants and take COVID-certified excursions and tours.

Americans can prove their vaccination status using their original vaccination cards issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Visitors from the United Kingdom can show their vaccination status via the National Health Service app.

Unvaccinated minors traveling with vaccinated adults will need to take a PCR (nasal swab) test within a day of arriving on the island. This is at the visitors expense. Once the test comes back negative, unvaccinated minors can travel with their vaccinated adult guardians freely.

All visitors to St. Lucia over the age of five vaccinated or not must show a negative PCR test at least five days prior to arriving on the island.

All visitors vaccinated or not must still be transported from the airport to their accommodations via a COVID-certified taxi, and those accommodations must be at a COVID-certified hotel or villa.

Health screenings, such as temperature checks, will take place at the airport for all incoming travelers. Local safety protocols must be observed, including wearing face coverings in public places.

And all visitors aged 18 and up must fill out a health registration form before arrival. Those forms differ based on country of origin.

While St. Lucia still allows unvaccinated visitors to enter the country, as of May 29, St. Kitts and Nevis is now only allowing those who are vaccinated to enter its borders, due to an uptick in positive cases.

St. Lucia has seen 5,072 positive COVID-19 cases since the pandemic began, with 80 confirmed deaths.

All details on the current policies and procedures in St. Lucia, plus a number of helpful FAQs regarding eased restrictions for vaccinated travelers, can be found on the St. Lucia Tourism Authority website.

Read more:
This Country Has The Cleanest Waters In The European Union - TravelAwaits

The last time Europe thought it was close to brokering a deal between Serbia and Kosovo, it didnt end well.

In August 2018, Kosovos President Hashim Thaci and Serbias Aleksander Vucic surprised everyone firstly by sitting next to each other on a panel in Austria, and then by confirming that bilateral talks to end two decades of estrangement were producing results.

An additional bombshell was that part of the talks might include border correction, which could see Serb majority areas of northern Kosovo handed to Serbia in return for ethnic-Albanian parts of Serbia. Kosovo is home to around 120,000 Serbs out of its population of 1.8 million.

EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini told reporters that whatever outcome is mutually agreed will get our support, which was widely interpreted to mean she supported land-swaps. She also announced talks between the two men in Brussels the following month.

Thaci did not waste any time rolling back his comments, telling a press conference days after the Austria event that the claims he supported land-swaps was fake news.

The international response was swift. German Chancellor Angela Merkel described any talk of redrawing borders as dangerous, while three former high representatives for Bosnia and Herzegovina came out against the idea in an open letter to Mogherini.

Days before Vucic and Thaci were due to meet in Brussels, the talks were abruptly cancelled.

Then came the equally abrupt - and ultimately bizarre - intervention by U.S. President Donald Trump, who dispatched his envoy, Richard Grenell, to the region. In June 2020, the Washington Agreement was signed at the White House by Kosovos Avdullah Hoti and Vucic, flanked by a beaming Trump, who appeared to believe the two countries were still involved in open conflict.

The deal took European negotiators by surprise, but it was privately acknowledged that it contained little substance and got the two countries no closer to normalisation. It provided no solution to the two main issues: Serbias refusal to recognise Kosovos 2008 independence declaration and the future of Kosovos Serb minority in a Kosovar majority state.

By this time Mogherini had moved on and the EU had dispatched Miroslav Lajk to the region as special representative for the Kosovo-Serbia dialogue. The dialogue had been underway since 2008, but had produced few tangible results. It was hoped that Lajk, a Balkans veteran, Serbo-Croat speaker and former Slovak foreign minister, could break the impasse.

Now Lajk is confident that progress in normalising relations between Kosovo and Serbia - which fought a bloody war in 1998-99 after Serb forces invaded the ethnic-Albanian majority province - is realistic, even imminent.

There was a change of government in Washington, bringing President Joe Biden to power, but also in Kosovo, where Albin Kurti won a landslide in February 2021. It marked a changing of the guard in Kosovo, especially coupled with Thacis resignation as president over war crimes charges dating from his time with the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA).

At first, Kurtis election didnt look good for the dialogue. He has called for an apology and war reparations from Serbia while his government is pursuing charges of genocide against Belgrade for the murder and displacement of ethnic Albanians. Vucic, meanwhile, has not shied away from nationalist rhetoric that presents Kosovo in its entirety as an essential part of Serbia.

Nonetheless, Lajk told Euronews he is optimistic, pointing out that what both politicians say in public and what they say around the negotiating table is different. Both Vucic and Kurti know, he said, that their only path to the EU membership - which both covet - is via the dialogue.

As for the role the Washington Agreement will play in the coming talks, Lajk was guarded.

It didnt help, it didnt hurt, he said.

We see it as an act that is not linked to the process and what is really important for us is the dialogue facilitated by the European Union. This is the dialogue that is based on European values, norms and standards and of course on the future of European membership.

Lajk is clearly relieved to see Biden in the White House, a man with a storied history of his own in the Balkans, and particularly Kosovo. Biden was an advocate of the NATO bombing campaign that forced Serbias withdrawal from Kosovo in 1999 and his late son, Beau, has a road named after him in Pristina in recognition of his role in post-conflict reconstruction.

Biden has visited the region several times, knows the issues, knows the problem, knows the people but also the senior appointments in his administration are people who know the history and who feel the responsibility and also the legacy, he said.

Unlike his predecessor as Balkan envoy, Lajk has clearly and repeatedly refused the idea of land-swaps as a solution to the Kosovo-Serbia impasse. Or, indeed, to any political stalemates in the region, such as in Bosnias Serb-majority province, Republika Srpska, whose leader Milorad Dodik has openly called for secession from Bosnia & Herzegovina.

Not only is talk of defining nations down ethnic lines dangerous in a region that three decades ago tore itself apart in bloody ethnic conflict, but Europe has committed to helping the nations of the Balkan become more European, he said, and ethnic nationalism is anathema to the European ideal.

We cant have multi-ethnic democracies in our member states and then ethnic states in the Western Balkans. What message would that send? That you cannot live with your neighbours, with whom you have been living for centuries - and at the same time, you claim to be able to live in the wider European family? The idea is wrong from the very beginning, he said.

It is very dangerous and it is clearly not European.

The EU has been criticised for being too soft on Dodik, who currently holds the rotating presidency of Bosnia & Herzegovina, especially given that the U.S. recently imposed sanctions on the nationalist leader. That criticism has been extended to Lajk personally, whose dealings with Dodik date back to the mid-2000s when he was EU special representative in Bosnia.

He would not confirm whether the EU had considered sanctions on Dodik, but he stressed that the European path for Bosnia & Herzegovina was as a united, multi-ethnic state, of which Republika Srpska is a part. That is a message that has been relayed to Dodik.

I [met] Mr Dodik recently and I told him what I just told you: That the offer for the European future is for Bosnia & Herzegovina in its current - and also future - [form], he said.

I dont believe that there can be a change to the territorial integrity of Bosnia & Herzegovina and the European Union strongly condemns any divisive - let alone secessionist - rhetoric. This is not what we support and we will never support it.

The other criticism of the EU throughout the Western Balkans is that almost two decades since many nations began talks over joining the EU, only one - Croatia - had become a member state.

In recent years, hostility towards enlargement from French President Emmanuel Macron and Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte has further stalled the accession process for Western Balkan nations, while North Macedonias bid has been blocked in a row with its neighbour, Bulgaria.

Critics have drawn a line between the failure to join the EU and the rise in nationalist - and often ethno-nationalist - politics across the region, from Dodik in Republika Srpska to Vucic in Serbia to the new government in Montenegro, which includes Serb nationalists and which ousted a pro-European government that had led the country for three decades.

This despite overwhelming support from the populations of the Balkans for European membership, which is as high as 90% in Albania, 80% in Montenegro and over 60% in Serbia.

I understand their frustration. The process has been long and painful, it is true Lajk said.

But [the EU] is not an administrative or mechanical body. It is a living organism that is dealing with other issues and sometimes the list of priorities are changing, so this is understandable.

The commitment is there. [This] European Commission and this European leadership have made it very clear that enlargement is one of the top priorities of the European Union.

He said that it is legitimate and important for existing member states to question whether new additions to the European family will improve the European Union.

Our partners in the Western Balkans must understand that what we need to see and hear from them is their commitment to reform, not only verbal but in their deeds, he said.

They should demonstrate that - in action - when they join [...] they will be fully functional and be able to contribute to the better functioning of the European Union.

He conceded, however, that there had been an issue of perception of the EU in the region.

It is important [...] that we dont blur the European perspective or [...] act as if we are moving the goalposts because the feeling in the region has been such and that does not help us, he said.

It has been suggested frequently that the EUs failures in the Western Balkans open the door for other global players, first among them Russia, to exert influence and established powerful proxies. This has been accentuated during the COVID-19 pandemic, with Moscow handing out millions of doses of the Sputnik V vaccine as Europe hoarded its own stocks.

"Look, the European Union does not have exclusive ownership of the Western Balkans. It is legitimate that other countries have identified their interests in the region, which is the case with any region of the world," Lajk said.

If we are absent - or if we are seen as absent. If we are seen as not really interested or not really credible then we are creating a void, and of course, the void is filled by third actors. We should not blame them for using the space that we have created by lack of our attention and political presence. This is absolutely in our hands.

'I want to deliver'

But as a Slovak who witnessed firsthand his countrys accession to the EU in 2004 and the benefits that it has seen since, he believed that Europes offer is one that cannot be beaten. The EU remains the Western Balkans biggest trading partner, its biggest provider of financial assistance, and the economic benefits of EU membership far outweigh any other options.

We should not be worried about the influence of third actors. No third actor has an offer that can beat our offer, he said.

Personally, Lajk said that it is this personal experience of transformation after joining Europe that drives him in the Western Balkans, where he has spent most of the last 20 years as a diplomat.

His mandate as EU special representative for Serbia and Kosovo lasts another 17 months, and he is hopeful that progress can be made in that time.

What I am doing right now is not a job, it is a mission. This is how I see it, and I really want to deliver on the mandate and on the trust that I received from the members of the EU, he said.

Somehow it happened that I spent the last 20 plus years [...] engaged with the Western Balkans, [and] it has become part of my professional life, but also part of my personal [life]. I feel strongly for the region. I believe in the European future for the Western Balkans.

I know how much they helped to change my own country and I want to help the people in the Western Balkans achieve the same positive transformation.

Excerpt from:
In the Western Balkans, ethnic nationalism threatens the path to Europe - Euronews

As described by Christopher Caldwell in Reflections on the Revolution in Europe, the European Union (EU) from its inception had as a central purpose of getting rid of inefficient economic nationalism, but over time it evolved into a project for getting rid of nationalism altogether. Nationalism, however, proved too vague a concept for the Brussels bureaucrats to root out but what they could root out was national sovereignty, and this they have done incrementally over the past 30 years.

This is relevant to the United States because the Biden administration, in its brief tenure, has launched an unparalleled assault on American sovereignty that is breathtaking in its scope and potential consequences. A partial list of the initiatives aggressively promoted by the Democratic Partys left wing would include the proposed global minimum corporate tax; the waiving of intellectual property rights of U.S. COVID-19 vaccine producers; the cancellation of the Keystone XL pipeline; the banning of offshore drilling, which torpedoes Americans hard-won energy independence; and, most egregiously, the abandonment of serious border control and tacit encouragement of the waves of migrants now engulfing our southern border.

To understand the genesis of these policies and how they relate to the EU, we need look not to President Obama, nor as far back as President Carter, but most specifically to the widely misrepresented but retrospectively transformational trade policies that became law during the Clinton administration: the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the World Trade Organization (WTO), and normalization of trade with China.

The impact of these laws is skillfully illuminated and given context in a recent book that explores 20th century economic history and is a biography of one of the most influential economists of modern times: The Price of Peace: Money, Democracy, and the Life of John Maynard Keynes, by Zachary D. Carter.

Carter asserts that the Clinton administration pursued a unified economic vision on every policy front that relentlessly transferred power from the government to financial markets, believing the latter to be much more efficient agents of change than the cumbersome processes of democracy, particularly the awkward requirement of often risky elections. Furthermore, it was well understood that the Clinton trade project amounted to a specific form of international political organization a rearrangement of the rights and powers between global elites and national democracies.

Ironically, this project involved a total rejection of Keynes, who consistently held that governments with all their imperfections were better instruments of the common good than financial markets, which always entailed the potential for dangerous instability unchecked by any trustworthy system of accountability.

At the same time the Clinton administration was building its new world economic order and supercharging the growing forces of globalization, people of a similar mindset across the Atlantic were creating the European Union, which they portrayed as a natural evolution of the successful European Economic Community but now aspiring to be a supra-national political entity built around the guiding principle of ever closer union proclaimed in the founding Maastricht Treaty of 1993.

In order to transform the EU into a true union and legitimize the European Parliament sitting in Strasbourg, a vote of the peoples of the member states would be required. But this ended disastrously in 2005, when the French people decisively rejected the new constitution, as shortly after did the Dutch by a 2-to-1 margin, leading to cancellation of the other scheduled elections.

Then, and subsequently, the peoples of Europe made clear that they were open to economic cooperation but not to forfeiting their national identities. The final death knell for EU grandiosity came with Brexit, when the sovereign British people chose the maintenance of their centuries-old democratic traditions over what world elites said was good for them.

Soon after the EUs 2005 electoral disaster, President Clintons project of swapping the wisdom of democracy for that of financial markets came to grief on an even grander scale with the economic crisis and Great Recession of 2007-2008. Fortunately for Clinton, he was out of office when these worldwide economic miseries occurred. Thus it would be Republicans, not Democrats, who would pay the political price for his deeply flawed economic vision.

Sadly, however, that vision has found new life in the Biden administration, where the ascendent progressives still see great virtue and political benefit in the dismantling of national sovereignty. Left unchecked, it is hard to see how this direction bodes well for the American people, or for the future of American democracy itself.

William Moloney is a Fellow in Conservative Thought at Colorado Christian Universitys Centennial Institute who studied at Oxford and the University of London and received his doctorate from Harvard University. He is a former Colorado commissioner of education.

See the article here:
Biden's assault on American sovereignty emulates worst flaws of European Union | TheHill - The Hill

*Image Credit: David Sassolis twitter[/caption]

It has been forty years since Greece joined theEuropean Union (EU)in 1981, named at the time European Economic Community.

To celebrate, an event was held at Zappeion Hall in Athens on Thursday, which was attended by a number of European leaders.

Greece and Europe helped shape each other, and just as we cannot exist without you, you have chosen not to exist without Europe, Charles Michel said.

Michels address focused around the words democracy and liberty, which lay at the foundations of the European Union.

Greeces membership in the EC was a return to their roots for Greeks, but Europeans also felt it was a return to their roots, as Europe was born in Greece, he said.

Michel also referred to the unique role classical Greece played in his personal education and identity and in creating Europes collective consciousness. A drawing on his desk depicting Socrates, he said, reminds him that Greece is the cradle of thought, liberty and democracy.

Forty years ago, Greece joined the European family, launching a new era for Europe by welcoming to its fold the historical cradle of democracy, said David Sassoli.

Highlighting Greeces contribution to the European Union, the successor to the EC, Sassoli emphasised that it had placed the idea of democracy at Europes heart, paving the way to a democratic renaissance of the continent and adding to its stabilisation.

He also made a special reference to Greeces contribution to culture: We cannot forget Greeces contribution to the progress of culture, and the fact that the concepts of democracy, freedom, truth, aesthetics, which run through the centuries with their transcendental dimension, led to Greeces current form and created Europes profile.

Greece influenced the European venture rather profoundly, he underlined, adding that looking at these 40 years since Greeces accession, we see the history of the European venture itself.

?y warmest thanks to @EP_President David Sassoli for participating in the celebration of the 40th anniversary of ??’s accession to the ?? Communities. During our meeting I highlighted @Europarl_EN's major contribution to reaching a compromise on the EU digital COVID certificate. pic.twitter.com/IxnLZcYKLn

— President GR (@PresidencyGR) May 27, 2021

Today we celebrate a great day for our country, Katerina Sakellaropoulou underlined.

Hellas could not be absent from this historic collective effort for the future of Europe, she said, quoting the late Prime Minister Constantine Karamanlis, who was instrumental in the membership process.

Sakellaropoulou then pointed out that Greece has changed quite substantially over the last 40 years, and she underlined that the decades following the fall of the countrys military dictatorship in 1974 was the most peaceful and progressive time in modern Greek history, and coincided with the golden age of European unification.

She also noted that Greeces economy owes much to European resources.

Europe is not turning back, she asserted. Just as its forefathers envisioned and inspired an open society and a free market, its leaders today are called upon to place a similar emphasis on security and protection of its peoples.

Since January 1, 1981, Greece is rediscovering its place in Europe with which it is historically and culturally connected, having common interests and goals. With these words, Constantine Karamanlis 40 years ago welcomed the accession of Greece to the then European Economic Communities, as its 10th member, Kyriakos Mitsotakis said.

Greeces membership is a non-negotiable aspect of the countrys identity, he underlined.

Today, Greece is a protagonist with credibility and power.Its economy is constantly improving, while its moves on the international chessboard bring results: in the defence of European borders but also in the humanitarian contribution to tackle the immigration problem and in the peace initiatives being developed in the Mediterranean of Europe.

Addressing the citizens of Europe, Mitsotakis emphasised that everyone can positively respond to the challenge of our generation: The next years are in our hands to become the years of recovery.With greater geopolitical influence of our Union.More cohesion in our societies.And by highlighting our common identity, which combines European with national pride.This is the bet we have to win.And we will win it.

Greece is moving fast in the third decade of the 21st century, celebrating the 200 years of its freedom and the 40 years of its European Union journey. And she remembers that always on this turbulent and turbulent journey, always in difficulties, she turned her gaze to Europe. And Europe has always been there for Greece, just as Greece was and is here for Europe, the Greek PM concluded.

Read the original post:
40th anniversary of Greece's accession to the European Union - Greek City Times - GreekCityTimes.com