Mediaboss Marketing

The narrative is logical:A recoveryfund will strengthenthe European Union, afterits fallinto economic hardship as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, and send a signal of solidarity. The strong helpthe weak. Because this kind of solidarity should go hand in hand withgratitude, theprogram should alsothwart Europe'spopulists. The more money from Brussels, the fewervotes for Italian Matteo Salvini and hisanti-EU crew.

DW editor Andreas Noll

Unfortunately, such simplistic equations have rarely worked out in the past. In contrast, onehistorical model is able to shine:Following World War II, the US organized a reconstruction fund for Europe, the legendary Marshall Plan.

However, there is currently little to rebuild in Europe and no food shortages to be addressed. Butthere are entitlements that need financing, such asunemployment and reduced work benefits, and pensions and health insurance contributions. Social protections are even more expensive in times of crisis, and national budgets are already under pressure. Yet for these budgetary holes, the EU is conceivably the most unsuitable place to turn.

You cannot discuss unemployment benefits without talking about the duration and amount of assistance needed. You cannot discuss pensions without discussingthe retirement age. No EU member statewants to allow voters outside its bordersto have a say in its budgetary issues and definitely not thecountries that are particularly vocalin asking for assistance.

Politiciansbehind the recovery deal know they can't convey a message of thisstate financing by the bloc being business as usual.They're emphasizing thatit's not about "bad old debts"but "good new debts."That's why future projects aimed at strengthening Europeare being clearly specified.

Of course, no one is thinking of repeating theso-called ghost airports in Spain thatwere built with EU money. But who willguaranteethat things will turn out better this time around? After all, more money needs to be spent in less time.EU citizens are aware of where things might go wrong. Bulgarians,who have been taking to the streets to protest government corruption,fear the injection of money from Brussels will again disappear into shady channels.

In Sofia, Bulgarians have demonstrated against government corruption over the past weeks

At some point, the younger generation will have to pay for this rapid flow of money from Brussels. Greek sociologist Michael Kelpanides evaluatedthis generation's European identity. He undertook the elaborate study where there should beparticularly strongunderstandingfor the needs of others: at the European School in Luxembourg, the oldest such institution on the continent.

His sobering conclusion: "Thecoming together of very heterogeneous national groups, whichpreviously had only superficial knowledge of one other, makes them aware for the first time of just how different they really are. Andthis understanding can lead toconscious detachment instead of cohesion."

Kelpanides' study is only one piece of the puzzle, butit shows that those who believe in the idea of European integration should not asktoo much of its citizens.

EU leaders reached an agreement on a coronavirus recovery plan after record-breaking talks

Now that the die has beencast, the EU should direct money to areas where Europeans will really need more communal strength in the future.Common European defense is one example, butit wasn't given much thought during the recovery plan negotiations,with only 7 billion out of the total 750 billion ($8 billion out of $874 billion)earmarked for thispurpose.

The EU could also carry on with the most beautiful symbol of European solidarity that it displayed during the coronavirus crisis. Several EU countries, plus Switzerland, took in seriously ill COVID-19 patients from overcrowded hospitals in northern Italy and eastern France.

A European register of intensive care beds and the promise that in times of crisis, all EU countries will unbureaucratically help one other out with health care services, hospitalbeds, medication and mask stocks now that would be a historicsign.And asign for which it would not be necessary to put up billboards saying: Financed with funding from the European Union.

The rest is here:
Opinion: EU coronavirus deal is the wrong answer for Europe - DW (English)

Sir Hilary Beckles

In an effort to deepen ties between the Caribbean and Europe and help The UWI protect the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) in the European Union (EU), a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed between The University of the West Indies (The UWI) and the European University Institute (EUI), is expected.

The agreement, which was signed virtually on July 14, 2020, includes the establishment of a research center. It was signed by Professor Sir Hilary Beckles, Vice-Chancellor of The UWI and Professor Renaud Dehousse, President of the EUI.

That center will help to promote inter-regional and intra-regional development and encourage discourse on how transnational and global issues impact the Caribbean Region and Europe.

After a year of negotiations, the EUI agreed to host a joint UWI-EU center. It will be anchored in Florence, Italy and will provide services to our foreign service community, business groups, advocacy leaders in issues such as public health, climate change, economics equity for small island nations, Vice-Chancellor Beckles explained.

The UWI and EUI partnership foresees collaboration in areas of studies and research common to both institutions. Areas of focus will include sustainable development, multilateral trade, gender equality, security, environment and climate change, migration, energy, regional integration processes, and transnational governance.

Last year, Vice-Chancellor Beckles began to pursue a strategy to position The UWI in the EU as a strategic response to Brexit.

He noted that The UWI had to step up to create academic research and business advisory hub in the EU.

He felt the region needed greater policy support within the EU, as the EU downgraded the regions finance sector, and responded poorly to the Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA).

Beckles referred to the relationship between Europe and the Caribbean over 500 years as one of the most intense historical experiences between two parts of the world and the basis of modernity as we know it.

He said, It is a relationship that has to be sustained within the context of its positive contributions, mutually to Europe and to the Caribbean and of course to the wider world. So, it is perfectly normal therefore that universities ought to be coming together within this context to sustain the benefits and to provide a vision for the future of this relationship.

Noting that joint activities by universities are very significant in effective achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), Beckles said that The UWI, for example, has been selected by the International Association of Universities to provide global advocacy around some of these sustainable goals, in particular, goal #13 which focuses on climate-smart issues.

Work has begun on the implementation of the MOU at both The UWI and the EUI.

Professor Dehousse said that given The UWIs excellent reputation, the partnership is a kind of bridgehead in the broader Caribbean and Latin American world and represents an opening towards a region of the world in which we are still developing contacts. He added that Europes problems today are no longer confined to what is going on within its borders, and it is absolutely indispensable for us to open up towards other regions of the world, as well as to other kinds of actors.

Follow this link:
UWI to protect CARICOM in the European Union | New York Carib News - NYCaribNews

The future of Europe depends on climate action. This is the resounding message that young Europeans have delivered to their leaders over the past two years. To be sure, the wave of young climate activists across the continent, from Fridays for Future to Extinction Rebellion, is part of a global response to the climate crisis. But for the EU in particular, it is also a warning from a new generation of Europeans to their leaders: our European identity hinges on your climate policies.

For our parents generation, the European Union defined itself as a protector of peace, a fortress against fascism and a society of (relative) social security. For our generation we are in our mid-20s this narrative does not resonate. We came of age in a Europe of crises: a financial collapse, a panic over migration, a surge of populism. These formative moments gave the lie to the notion of a united European identity. To many of us, the EU appeared less a project of democracy, diversity or solidarity than one of bureaucracy, xenophobia and fracture. What is more, Europes responses to these crises were hardly material for a new common narrative. Just the opposite: the responses were the crises.

But the climate crisis is different. For one, young Europeans see it not just as a threat, but also a genuine opportunity to build a better world (and a better Europe). An Eupinions poll last year found that 47% of 16- to 25-year-olds believe the environment should be the EUs top policy priority, nearly 10% more than those in older age groups. Poll after poll including one conducted by our Europes Stories research team, earlier this year finds young Europeans overwhelmingly supportive of eliminating the EUs carbon emissions by 2030.

EU leaders, mired in years of failed top-down projects to find a new narrative for Europe, have finally taken note. In December 2019, Ursula von der Leyens European commission made headlines with its European Green Deal, which aims to turn Europe into the worlds first carbon neutral continent by 2050. While finally bringing its fossil-fuel exit underway, Germany declared climate change one of the key policy priorities for its current council presidency. And European leaders have just negotiated the conditions of a recovery plan, earmarking 30% of both the EU budget and the new recovery fund for climate protection.

Yet so far, Europe has failed to match deeds to words. Negotiations about target dates for carbon neutrality across the continent have been sluggish. Worse, carbon neutrality has itself come to serve as a cover for outsourcing emissions to developing countries and investing in alternative fuels, such as biomass, that sound green but are really anything but. And despite all the talk, from the outset, the commissions recovery strategy was set to prop up high-carbon industries once again. Consider one particularly egregious example: airline bailouts. Rescue packages for Lufthansa, Air France and their fellow crisis-hit airlines, amounting to 34.4bn, all came without binding environmental conditions. In the latest budget deal, the safeguards used to guarantee that funds go to green technologies instead of polluting industries remain unclear. In this light, the EUs grand declarations of climate action could still amount to greenwashing, pure and simple a narrative without substance.

Hollow narratives cannot endure; they undermine themselves. If EU leaders and national governments continue to soft-pedal and greenwash, they will forfeit the already fragile faith of our generation.

This loss of faith has already begun: our generation has not failed to notice the discrepancy between EU leaders exemplary commitment to climate action on paper and their delays and obfuscations in practice. Our polling for Europes Stories suggests that just over half of young Europeans think authoritarian states are better equipped to tackle the climate crisis than democracies a worrisome but perhaps unsurprising trend that speaks to how urgently young Europeans want climate action, and to the failure of European democracies to meet the moment.

There is a better way forward. And, with governments opening their coffers to save their economies, its now or never. Here are a few specific proposals. Instead of asking for minimal (or no) climate commitments from failing airlines and auto manufacturers, the EU could institute a ban on short-haul flights a policy that 62% of Europeans support and accelerate the switch to electric vehicles. Instead of bowing to polluting industries on the sly, the EU could exclude emissions-intensive industries and practices, such as the fossil-fuel industry, chemical manufacturers or motorway expansions, from receiving recovery funds no exceptions and channel that money into a green public works programme. Instead of sticking with the loophole-ridden target of carbon neutrality by 2050, the EU could set a more appropriately ambitious target that includes strict trade regulations that pressure other emissions giants such as China and the US to speed up their own energy transitions. Oh, and stop cosying up to fossil-fuel lobbyists.

These measures would set Europe on a path to a just transition: from the third-largest polluter in the world to a genuine climate leader. They would also help to craft a new and durable European identity for a new generation of Europeans. It is up to Europes leaders to recognise, before it is too late, that the latter cannot succeed without the former. To save Europe, they will have to save the planet.

Daniel Judt, Reja Wyss and Antonia Zimmermann are graduate students and members of the Europes Stories project team at Oxford University

Excerpt from:
To save the EU, its leaders must first focus on saving the planet - The Guardian

On 24 July 2020, the governments of France and Spain agreed with Airbus SE to modify the terms of the Repayable Launch Investment granted by them for development of the A350 aircraft to reflect market conditions. Therefore, the European Union and the Members States concerned are now in full compliance with the rulings of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in the Airbus case.

In 2018 the WTO Appellate Body found that the Union and its Member States had not fully complied with the previous WTO rulings with regard to Repayable Launch Investment for the A350 and A380 programs. Hence, the WTO allowed the United States to take countermeasures against European exports worth up to 7.5 billion dollars. Airbus took action concerning the other challenged measures earlier and Frances and Spains agreement with the company address the last remaining measures condemned by the WTO.

The achievement removes any grounds for the United States to maintain its countermeasures on the Unions exports. However, if the United States opts to maintain its duties on European exports or decides to increase tariffs or apply them to new products, the Union will act to exercise its own sanction rights, based on the relevant WTO authorizations, as soon as the level of countermeasures is established by the WTO in the Boeing case.

The rest is here:
Aviation. The European Union and involved Member States take action to ensure full compliance in the WTO Airbus dispute - Lexology

LONDON - After five days of grueling and at times ill-tempered talks, European countries this week finally agreed on an $870 billion recovery package to help the weaker members of the European Union weather what's shaping up to be the most testing recession in the bloc's history.

There was relief when the negotiations concluded, and much talk in its immediate wake from EU bosses that the ill-natured Brussels summit had succeeded in strengthening the bloc and demonstrated that Europe is not too divided to handle the coronavirus pandemic and the economic repercussions.

But the shouting is not entirely over, and what was agreed to may cause more problems for a bloc that remains divided about what sort of club the EU is or wants to be, warn some analysts.

The package, which will see the EU for the first time collectively borrow large sums using the creditworthiness of the economically stronger members, like Germany, to lend and grant money to weaker ones, like Italy and Spain, still has to be approved by the European Parliament.

And midweek some EU lawmakers from the so-called frugal four countries Austria, the Netherlands, Denmark and Sweden, all of which are skeptical about the fund served notice that they intend to try to derail the package.

They are planning to oppose a series of new taxes agreed to Tuesday, including on digital services and on goods imported into the EU from countries with lower CO2 emission standards, to help pay for the recovery fund.

The leader of the center-right European People's Party, the largest party in the European Parliament, Germany's Manfred Weber, is also unhappy. He said Thursday that he was pleased the heads of government and state managed to reach agreement but added "I'm not happy about the deal."

Addressing the European Parliament on Thursday, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen acknowledged the deal would be "a pill difficult to swallow," but she urged lawmakers not to waste time in ratifying the seven-year EU budget of $1.2 trillion as well as the $870 billion recovery package.

"Ursula, we for the moment are not ready to swallow the pill you referred to," warned Weber, who wants cuts in the overall budget. He says the parliament will want to make some major changes. If it does vote for amendments, that will mean the entire budget and recovery fund will head back to the EU heads of government and state for agreement or further negotiation, delaying disbursements to southern European states and adding more friction.

Other opponents in the European parliament say they will press their governments or national parliaments to hold referendums on the EU budget.

Derk Jan Eppink, a Dutch MEP, says the recovery package is a wealth redistribution plan and that the people in the Netherlands should be allowed to vote on it themselves. Others want the European Parliament to be empowered to monitor disbursements to ensure they're being well-spent.

Analysts say it is highly unlikely the parliament will squash the recovery fund a majority will in the end endorse it and the budget. But the harsh response from some in the European Parliament is adding to the picture of European disarray and further exposing a dangerous level of mistrust at a critical time between different arms of the EU and between member states themselves.

The Brussels summit negotiations have left European leaders bruised. The intensity of the disagreements over the recovery fund shocked several people. Even the patience of the normally calm German chancellor, Angela Merkel, appeared to be stretched to a breaking point at one point she yelled at her Austrian counterpart. France's leader, Emmanuel Macron, slammed his fists in frustration on a table. Hungarian leader Viktor Orban, a former anti-communist dissident, accused the Dutch leader, Mark Rutte, of aping the Soviets in his bid to overcome dissent.

Future disputes

The clashes augur badly for the inevitable disputes ahead over the actual working of the fund and disbursements, worry some analysts, including Lucas Guttenberg of the Jacques Delors Institute, a research group headquartered in Paris.

The leaders of the frugal four managed to get written into the deal a so-called brake that allows any member government to object to another's spending plans when using loans or grants from the recovery fund. That spells trouble, he says, and could lead to some nasty squabbles.

He also says there is considerable ambiguity about the brake mechanism, how it will be invoked and enforced, as well as other conditions attached to disbursements.

Under the deal there are restrictions on disbursements to countries deemed in breach of rule-of-law standards. Hungary and Poland have both clashed with Brussels on judicial reforms that the European Commission says are eroding the independence of judges. But while disbursements can be cut for breach of the standards, it is unclear how that will be done.

'Historic step'

Nonetheless, Guttenberg agrees with EU bosses that "the Recovery Instrument is nothing short of an historic step." He tweeted, "It will substantially contribute both politically and economically to a stronger recovery, in particular in countries like Italy," which is set to receive $242 billion from the fund in the form of loans and grants.

Others are not so sure the amount of the fund is sufficient to cope with the scale of the economic crisis caused by the coronavirus pandemic.

"The macroeconomic value of the EU's 750-billion-euro Recovery Fund lies somewhere between modest and trivial," says Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, the international business editor of Britain's Daily Telegraph. "Part of it is reshuffling money that would have been spent anyway. The rest is spread thin over many years."

None of the grants, he notes, will start being disbursed until next year, blunting their effect as COVID-19 disaster relief, and the fund will do little, he says, to reduce the growing economic inequality between member states, which is seeing richer states doling out huge state aid and subsidies to support their pandemic-struck businesses, giving them an even greater competitive edge over rivals in poorer countries.

And an uneven economic recovery across the bloc risks fueling populist anger and anti-EU sentiment in the countries that lose out.

Excerpt from:
Will Europe's Recovery Fund Cause More Problems for the EU? - Voice of America