Mediaboss Marketing

The European Unions recent decision to freeze any further enlargement into the Balkans made me think of a moment from a quarter of a century ago, when I saw the EU flag for the first time. I was a 16-year-old Bosnian refugee, standing in dirt, holding a humanitarian aid package in my arms. The box I had received contained rice, flour and other relief items that were supposed to last me two weeks. I took out a can of corned beef and on the side saw a dazzling circle of gold stars on a blue background. The text beneath the EU flag read: Donated by the European Community.

This was not how we had imagined our future relationship with the European Union. Its flag was supposed to represent our aspiration for a higher state of existence, close to our heritage as Europes most diverse country. It was not the corned beef, but the dream of joining a community of tolerance and open borders that kept many of us going through rough times. It gave us hope because, deep inside, we knew that we belonged. This belief in what the EU represented was practically coded in our national DNA.

But now the doors seem to have shut in our faces following the decision by EU leaders to block the start of accession talks with North Macedonia and Albania.

To describe this decision as harmful for the western Balkans is an understatement. It is a blow for progressive political forces throughout our region, who have been working hard to build our EU future. Now we know that investing immense political capital to end longstanding disputes, take on difficult reforms, and make painful compromises even to the point of changing your countrys name, as Macedonia did recently to appease Greece will not gain us admission to Fortress Europe. The EU has sent us the message we feared the most: the EU no longer cares. It certainly does not care enough.

Worse than just keeping us outside the club, freezing the EU integration process risks fostering populism, contributing to instability and placing the region in a geopolitical limbo. The consequences will have to be mitigated through some smart EU policies and increased engagement in the region. For Bosnia in particular, this may be the only way out of its dire current predicament.

It might not seem apparent to current EU leaders, but the European Union and Bosnia were built on similar values and born at the same time. The EU (replacing the European Communities) was legally established by the Maastricht Treaty, signed on 7 February 1992. Only three weeks later, Bosnia voted in a referendum to become an independent state. In Bosnia, we saw this as the intertwining of our joint destinies. Just like the founders of Europe, we saw strength in our diversity, and were inspired by the optimism spreading across the continent. Our young nation was built on the narrative that we would eventually join the EU. This was our origin story, and we never imagined an alternative future.

Instead, decades of stagnation, ethnic tensions and failed attempts at reform followed our devastating war. In the past four years alone, 5% of our citizens have left the country. The national parliament has not held a single meeting this year, while the government has still not formed, more than a year after the last elections. The rhetoric of secession and war are pervasive. Bosnia has drifted further away than ever from the EU, and is now in full-blown political and existential crisis, at risk of disintegration. It is, according to President Macron, a time-bomb ticking on the borders of the EU.

Our leaders carry part of the blame. They have certainly lacked the vision, capacity and integrity to take our country forward. Many Bosnians remain entrenched in ethnic divisions and keep electing the same nationalist parties. However, ineffective politicians and a largely myopic electorate are a consequence, rather than the root cause, of the problem. The fault lies squarely with the system within which they operate, and which by default produces such outcomes.

The governance system created by annex 4 of the Dayton peace agreement our constitution is notorious for its complexity, ineffectiveness and discriminatory impact. A population of 3 million is governed by three presidents, 14 prime ministers, about 180 appointed ministers and more than 700 lawmakers, sitting in 14 different parliaments. Ethnic-based elections and appointments perpetuate tensions by continuously pitting the three main groups against each other. Blocking decisions has become the main political tool, and impasse long ago became the norm. Around 15% of the population, including all Jews and Roma, are effectively second-class citizens, unable to run for high political offices.

After more than two decades of sticking-plaster solutions, it is high time we recognised that the Dayton agreement was a valuable tool to end a war, but it created an unjust and unsustainable system. The crisis is real, but Macrons assessment of the situation is decidedly unhelpful. The EU must help Bosnia to lay a new constitutional foundation and rebuild its political structure from the bottom up.

This will be met with resistance from Bosnias governing elite, the only group that stands to lose in the process. Thousands of families are supported by the corrupt and inefficient system, and the political class will be understandably reluctant to let go. This loss has to be acknowledged and carefully managed, through a mix of incentives, pressures and safety nets that should accompany the constitutional makeover.

The process also entails serious risks; reopening a landmark peace agreement and rebalancing historic compromises at a time when Bosnia finds itself in an increasingly precarious geopolitical situation.

But the risk of doing nothing is greater still. Business as usual will lead to Bosnias leadership pivoting to the Gulf states, China and Russia, which will further jeopardise the countrys cohesiveness and its EU future, especially now, when the only national consensus that existed the hope of EU integration appears to be indefinitely postponed. It will become ever harder for Bosnia to avoid becoming a testing ground in a new cold war.

The European council and the new commission should be braver and more ambitious. Our common values and stability are at stake. Otherwise, all we may be left with is a failed state on the EUs doorstep and EU flags on humanitarian relief items sad reminders of a never-realised dream.

Boria Falatar is a Bosnian economist who lectures at Sciences Po, Paris. He stood in Bosnias 2018 presidential election for Naa Stranka, a member party of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe

Read more:
Bosnia is at risk of becoming a failed state. Does the EU want that on its doorstep? - The Guardian

The United States trade representative is receiving a chilly response to his efforts to broker a deal with the European Union to send more lobsters to Europe.

The American lobster industry is in the midst of a challenging time in part because of tariffs with China and the EU. U.S. trade representative Robert Lighthizer has asked EU officials to consider reducing tariffs on lobster, which is popular in many European nations, especially around Christmas.

A letter from EU trade commissioner Cecilia Malmstrm dated Nov. 6 said the European Union could potentially be interested in a broader trade package. However, Malmstrm balked at the idea of quickly approving a limited package of tariff cuts.

Such a deal should be part of a wider agreement to liberalize tariffs bilaterally for industries and products, including fisheries, Malmstrm wrote.

Neither Lighthizer nor Malmstrm responded to requests for comment.

Lighthizers attempt to roll back tariffs is coming as American lobster exports to Europe are falling. Canada, which exports the same species of lobster to Europe, brokered a new trade deal with the EU in 2017 that puts the U.S. at a disadvantage.

U.S. exports to France, valued at nearly $36 million in 2013, fell to less than $13 million last year. U.S. exports to China also have cratered due to trade hostilities between the two countries. And the American lobster fishery, based in Maine, is currently in the midst of a slower season than it has been accustomed to this decade, leading to some anxiety in the industry.

Three members of Maines congressional delegation sent a letter to Lighthizer on Thursday encouraging him to keep pushing for the elimination of the 8 percent tariff on live lobsters. The members Democratic Rep. Chellie Pingree, Republican Sen. Susan Collins and independent Sen. Angus King wrote that Maine lobster producers and dealers must find new customers for our states most iconic product.

Jeff Bennett, the senior trade specialist at Maine International Trade Center, said hes not surprised the EU isnt on board with a new tariff deal solely based on lobsters.

The EU has generally taken a broader approach than one off or standalone type agreements, Bennett said.

Previous

Next

The rest is here:
European Union rebuffs American pitch to reduce tariffs on lobsters - Press Herald

What happened?

Mario Draghi has recently come out to call for a unified fiscal stimulus effort by the Eurozone members. So did the newly elected ECB president Christine Lagarde. As Lagarde takes over on the December 12th ECB meeting, this might move markets a lot, were she to call for a more coordinated approach to fiscal policy between the member countries and move one step further.

Generally, the economy is moved significantly by two forces, or policies. Monetary policy, and fiscal policy. Monetary policy is pursued by the central banks of the country, whereas fiscal policy is the job of the federal government. Fiscal policy includes developing certain areas of the economy, creating jobs, growth-promoting projects, etc. This can be extremely stimulative for the economy, and this is why many economies try to pursue fiscal as well as monetary easing policies during recessions. Fiscal policy does create debt problems, as many times countries run a budget deficit and have to borrow to cover their expenses, however as we will see, the situation within the EU just might be right for such action.

The European Union and Eurozone economies, with some exceptions, have been rather stagnant throughout the last decade. Economic growth has been minimal, unemployment rather high, the equity markets generally underperformed compared to the S&P 500 of the US. The German yield curve is all but below zero, and while that is a concern, it also raises interesting opportunities for the Euro Area as a whole.

The opportunity lies within the ability to borrow at dirt-cheap costs (in Germanys case you borrow you get paid). So, in this sense, both Draghi and Lagarde are absolutely right. Fiscal stimulus can help Europe immensely in fighting the economic slowdown. Think of it this way: Japans Debt to GDP ratio is 250%. Many hedge fund managers have been calling for a debt crisis in Japan for years. However, it has not happened. So, what matters is not only the whole debt burden but also the interest rate at which you borrow. If you can create profitable projects that bring a return of more than what you pay for borrowed money, you will repay your debts in the long run and you will grow.

Bearing this in mind, and also the ever-increasing negative-yielding debt market, why not take the opportunity and borrow to fuel the economy by way of fiscal policy (Euro Areas Debt to GDP ratio is around 86%)? You will certainly find projects that are more profitable than 0%. While such borrowing is bound to increase the costs of debt in the future, as yields will rise as a result, there is an advantage to be taken of here.

This why I think there is big potential in such a policy. And Lagarde has already mentioned this as a viable option. How would markets react if this were to come to reality? Due to the increased supply of bonds, bond prices would fall, yields would rise. Equities, on the other hand, would rally. This would be definitely a stimulative action that could result in long term growth for the economies. That would also create jobs, and with that, profitability for companies. Moreover, since the European equity markets have been underperforming the US counterpart, there is much room for improvement. Take the FTSEurofirst 300 for example.

Source: The Financial Times

It has not even touched the heights of the two previous tops within the 2000 and 2007 equity rally. Whereas the S&P500 is reaching new highs as of late. There is quite a lot of room for growth.

This also comes with a striking difference between the situation in the US and the EU. Eurozone countries generally have more room for fiscal policy, whereas the US still has some room for monetary easing to spur growth in the economy and the equity markets.

See the rest here:
Fiscal Policy in the European Union - Tradimo

And he suggested as a country, Spain has "never really come to terms" with the loss of the Rock more than 300 years ago - or the fact that they will "never get it back".The election - Spain's second this year - saw Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez's Spanish Socialist Workers' Party win the largest number of seats, 120, three down compared with April's tally. Worryingly for Mr Sanchez however, the centre-right People's Party took 89 seats, up 23, while Vox, which advocates closing the border with Gibraltar, echoing the decision of former fascist dictator Francisco Franco to do precisely that for 16 years, won 52, up 28.

Mr Garcia toldExpress.co.uk: "Our concern has always been that the border has been a barometer of relations between Spain and Gibraltar over the years.

"It was completely closed from 1969 until 1985. It opened because Spain wanted to join the European Union and they could not have a closed border between the two sides."

Mr Garcia said the issue remained a contentious one, and had flared up three years ago as Britain made up its mind about whether to quit the European Union.

He explained: "During the referendum campaign the Spanish foreign minister at the time, Jose Manuel Garcia-Margallo, made particularly aggressive statements against Gibraltar, including stating that once we left the European Union all the options would be open to Spain, including closing the border completely.

"And they also said if we wanted a relationship with the EU in the future it would have to pass through shared sovereignty with Spain.

"Now we are very clear. We may have voted 96 percent to remain in the European Union and we don't believe that choice that the foreign minister put to us is necessarily the choice - but if the choice were to be having a relationship with the EU and sharing sovereignty, or being outside the EU with no relationship and 100 percent British, then we are 100 percent British and we have no relationship with the European Union.

"We are quite clear in that sense as where our loyalties are.

"So we had a very tough time with the previous foreign minister but once Mr Magallo was replaced by Alfonso Dastis, who had been Spain's ambassador before the European Union, who was a diplomat and not a politician, the relationship seemed to change, and Dastis authorised in 2017 that Spain engage directly with Gibraltar on Brexit issues, for the first time, so we had meetings directly with Spanish senior officials for the first time."

Ongoing talks in Madrid, London and Gibraltar itself had resulted in the Rock's inclusion in the withdrawal treaty which Boris Johnson will try to get ratified should he win a majority in December's election.

However, looking ahead, he acknowledged: "It really does depends on how the Spanish government pans out.

"If the Spanish Government includes the left wing parties as they are trying to form a Government at the moment it is likely that we will be able to work out a sensible and orderly Brexit going forward.

"The Spanish right is extremely aggressive against Gibraltar.

"The extreme right, Vox, is to close the border against Gibraltar so that what we are talking about.

"That is what they said throughout the election campaign so we have to take them at their word.

"Clearly they are not going to be the Government but they are propping up the regional Government of Andalusia, they cannot function without their votes.

"Vox doubled their representation - people here are concerned at the growth of the Spanish extreme right. We've coped with the Spanish right for decades, they've been in power with the socialists alternating, and things are better or worse depending on who is in.

"But the extreme Spanish right, which has sort of Francoist ideas, we haven't had since the days of General Franco."

In the elections, Vox had finished first in neighbouring Algeciras and second in every other town nearby, with leader Santiago Abascal the only party leader to raise the issue of Gibraltar in televised debates.

In terms of sovereignty, Mr Garcia said: "I think perhaps they have never really come to terms with that.

"If you look at Europe today, there are many states all over the European Union - Monaco, Lichtenstein, Andorra, San Marino - all these little states which have worked out a modus operandi with the European Union and with their neighbours.

"It's only really Spain which has not come to terms with the fact that they've lost Gibraltar over 300 years ago and that they are never going to get it back."

"The legal certainty that we have in Spain is that Spain ceded Gibraltar by treaty forever.

"The legal section is totally unassailable and beyond dispute.

"Things have changed - the days when you could transfer a population and bandy them about from one country to another, from one king to another king, ended hundreds of years ago.

"Now what counts are the wishes of people who have lived here for more than three hundred years and we assert our right to self-determination, to freely and democratically determine our future."

Follow this link:
Gibraltar is 100% British and will end relationship with EU if Spain forces them to choose - Express.co.uk

In Short

The Situation: On May 14, 2019, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Justice ("ECJ") issued a Judgment mandating that EU Member States require employers to register the daily working time of their employees.

The Result: In some European countries, the ECJ's Judgment will require legislative changes. Moreover, employers will need to modify their practices to monitor employee working time on a daily basis.

Looking Ahead: Employers should consider various options to assist them in registering their employees' working time on daily basis. Employers should evaluate these options in light of rapidly evolving employee work styles, which may make it increasingly more difficult to monitor employee working time each day.

The Context

On May 14, 2019, the Grand Chamber of the ECJ issued a Judgment declaring that EU Member States must require employers to register the daily working time of their employees (ECJ Judgment, Case C-55/18Deutsche Bank S.A.E.). The Judgment resolves a controversial legal debate that originated five years ago in Spain. In short, the ECJ declared: "Member States must require employers to set up an objective, reliable and accessible system enabling the duration of time worked each day by each worker to be measured." For further information about this decision, please refer to Jones Day's White Paper (June 2019), "European Court of Justice: Employers Must Implement a Daily Working Hours Registry."

On September 26, 2019, labor and employment lawyers from seven of Jones Day's European offices and our Dallas Office conducted a webinar titled, "Practical Consequences of the ECJ Decision on the Daily Registration of Working Time in Europe." A thorough review of legislation throughout the European Union led us to conclude that EU Member States fall into three groups with respect to the ECJ's decision: those countries that are currently in compliance with the ECJ's Judgment (i.e., Spain, France, and the Netherlands), those that are not in compliance (i.e., Germany, United Kingdom, and Italy), and those in which compliance is unclear (e.g., Belgium). If employers are not already complying with the ECJ's Judgment, they should soon begin taking steps toward compliance if they want to be on the safe side, given that existing law may be interpreted consistent with the ECJ's Judgment and countries that are not in compliance may pass legislation to align existing law to the ECJ's Judgment.

Practical Recommendations for EU Employers

We offered various practical recommendations in our webinar to assist EU employers with compliance with the ECJ's Judgment, including several recommendations based on practices used by employers in the United States, where employers routinely monitor daily employee working time. Such recommendations included:

Obviously, employers must ensure that all mandatory and conventional legal restrictions in their country are followed prior to implementing any of these measures.

Given the costs of employee working time litigation, employers should work to maintain compliance and stay abreast of legal developments. Legal requirements undoubtedly will evolve, given recent trends reflecting an increase in remote work by employees and the wide availability of technology that facilitates remote work.

Two Key Takeaways

Read the rest here:
Daily Registration of Employee Working Time in the European Union: Practical Recommendations for Employers - Lexology