Mediaboss Marketing

The EU funds should directly support healthcare systems in EU member states in their fight against the coronavirus pandemic. The initiative should allow the EU to buy urgent medical supplies, such as masks and respiratory equipment, transport medical equipment and patients in cross-border regions, finance the recruitment of additional healthcare professionals to be deployed to hotspots across the European Union, as well as helping member states to construct mobile field hospitals.

A total of 3.08 billion from the EU budget will be channelled mainly through the Emergency Support Instrument (2.7 billion) and through rescEU (380 million).

The package includes additional funds to finance repatriation flights (45 million) under EU Civil Protection Mechanism to reunite families stranded in third countries, to provide more resources for the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (3.6 million), but also to help Greece deal with increased migratory pressures (350 million), and to support Albania's post-earthquake reconstruction (100 million).

Budget Committee MEPs already called in March for available financial means remaining in the 2020 budget to be mobilised.

Vote results for the package:

Background

Recently, the Commission proposed two Draft Amending Budgets (DAB 1/2020 and 2/2020) as part of a comprehensive set of measures to provide support in the fight against the COVID-19 outbreak.

The Emergency Support Instrument (ESI) was created in 2016 to deal with the massive influx of refugees in Greece.

The rescEU medical capacity stock will be hosted by one or several member states. The hosting state will be responsible for procuring the equipment. The Commission will finance 100% of the medical supplies. The Emergency Response Coordination Centre will manage the distribution of the equipment to ensure it goes where it is needed most.

Go here to see the original:
COVID-19: MEPs free up over 3 billion to support EU healthcare sector | News - EU News

The European Union and UK government have agreed to resume post-Brexit talks next week, where they will confront entrenched divisions on trade and fishing rights over video link.

The two sides released a timetable for the next three rounds of negotiations in an attempt to get coronavirus-disrupted talks back on track, following a video conference on Wednesday between the prime ministers chief negotiator, David Frost, and his EU counterpart, Michel Barnier.

Following Brexit day on 31 January, the EU and UK managed only one round of talks before coronavirus crashed them. There were two cancelled sessions and the lead players were put into isolation.

Barnier came down with coronavirus in March and has recovered. Frost, who had mild symptoms of the virus, is no longer self-isolating. While the two leads were confined to their homes, the EU and UK continued working on draft legal texts, but progress ground to a halt.

In a joint statement, the two sides said recent technical work had been useful to identify all major areas of divergence and convergence, but they agreed there was a need to organise further talks in order to make real, tangible progress in the negotiations by June.

The next round will begin next week, with further talks scheduled for the weeks of 11 May and 1 June. Agendas for the negotiating sessions have not yet been published, but are expected to cover the 11 key topics of post-Brexit talks, including trade, security policy and fisheries.

During the video call, Frost told Barnier the UK did not intend to seek an extension to the 11-month transition period, which ends on 31 December 2020.

Yet EU diplomats are increasingly convinced that London will ask for an extension, as the fallout from coronavirus hammers the global economy and consumes political energy across Europe.

Any decision to extend the transition must be agreed by both sides by 1 July and would require a deal on new payments into the EU budget. The transition period which keeps the UK in the EU single market and customs union without voting rights can be prolonged for up to two years, but only once.

As the clock ticks down, EU diplomats are dismayed the UK has failed to produce a draft legal text on fisheries, despite a goal to agree on fishing rights covering 100 shared species by 1 July.

The absence of a UK text is perceived as an attempt by the British to gain the upper hand by attempting to delay difficult issues until the last minute. EU sources insist there will be no agreement on anything without a deal on fish.

The two sides have not narrowed their differences on any of the major sticking points, such as agreement on common environmental, social and competition law standards for free trade, or the role of the European court of justice.

Last Friday the UK handed two legal texts to the EU, covering energy and law enforcement, adding to previous documents sent to Brussels, which cover trade, air safety, air transport and civil nuclear.

The British have irritated EU diplomats by denying Barnier permission to share these texts with national capitals. That means the 27 EU member states, who will make the ultimate decision on the terms of the future relationship, are relying on analysis and summaries from Barnier and his negotiating team, rather than the original documents.

The commission has published its 440-page draft legal text online, reflecting its longstanding Brexit transparency policy and the reality that documents rarely remain secret for long in Brussels.

Original post:
EU and UK government to resume post-Brexit talks next week - The Guardian

17 Apr 2020

The coronavirus outbreak has struck Europe with stunning ferocity and presents a major challenge to the people and economies of the European Union. Today, our healthcare systems are under considerable pressure, which has led to the dramatic consequences we know today. As we write these lines, the pandemic has affected the day-to-day lives of billions of people and has taken 145,568 lives.

As physical distancing and lockdown spread throughout the world, governments took rapid action to support our economies, understanding the appropriate measures taken to contain the virus will result in far-reaching economic consequences. At the end of March, the European Commission released an emergency package, the Coronavirus Response Investment Initiative, both to contain the spread of the virus and to mitigate its impact on public healthcare. The 37 billion plan is a response to emerging needs in the most exposed sectors, such as healthcare, SMEs and labour markets. On 2 April, the European Commission launched a new initiative, the Support mitigating Unemployment Risks in Emergency (or SURE). This initiative will provide financial assistance of up to 100 billion in total to Member States in the form of loans granted on favourable terms. The aim is to help workers keep their incomes and help businesses stay afloat and retain staff. In addition, the European Commission has proposed specific measures to support Europes fishermen and farmers, and proposed to redirect every available euro from this years EU budget to save lives through a new EU solidarity instrument. See more on the EU response here.

Felicity Spors, Head of International Affairs Strategy at EIT Climate-KIC, welcomes these initiatives and argues it is vital we support an economic recovery, since without it, the economic and social repercussions on individuals would be disastrous. She emphasises the importance of ensuring these investments support our economies and societies to become more resilient to future potential risks (including additional pandemics and climate change) and reflects on lessons learned from the last time the EU had to support the economyduring the 2008 financial collapse.

Ursula von der Leyen introduced the Coronavirus Response Investment Initiative by saying: We will use all the tools at our disposal to make sure the European economy weathers this storm. This resonates with what happened after the 2008 global financial crisis. What are your first thoughts about the EU responses so far?

I welcome these initiatives, as they are essential to support Member States to manage the public health crisis and there is hope these measures will also mitigate the looming economic crisis. This health and social crisis have brought an unprecedented halt to the worlds activity and the economic consequences of the pandemic are causing great concern. Although we have survived sudden economic downturns in the past, such as the 2008 financial crisis, its important to recognise we are in a very different situation today.

The collapse in 2008 was triggered by unsustainable practices in the financial sector. Governments bailed out the largest players, which was rationalised on the grounds that some financial institutions were too big to fail i.e. the impact of their failure would be a greater cost than using public finance to support them. What we are facing today is very different. The coronavirus pandemic highlights vulnerabilities not just in the financial system but in our health systems, our value chains and our emergency response systems, which lack resilience and robustness in the face of crises.

This health crisis could lead to a full economic collapse, at a scale much bigger than in 2008. Between 2008 and 2014, 1.5 trillion in different forms of rescue packages was used to rescue Europes banks. Looking back today, we can only regret that we missed an enormous opportunity to use this public money to set the world on a more resilient and greener path by tying the bailout to sustainability objectives.

How do we make sure this doesnt happen again?

We need to look at how the current rescue packages will be delivered, and there is a legitimate fear the loudest voices will get the biggest piece of the cake. There have already been messages from the automobile industry in Germany to reduce environmental emission standards on cars to help them emerge from the Corona crisis.

A problem with todays situation is citizens are not alert to the avoidable emissions that rescue packages may be locking us into during a critical moment for climate change, and we cant expect them to be. Were in the middle of a pandemic. People are worried about their health and the health of their family, they have to home-school their kids, while making sure their work isnt disrupted. There is also an enormous economic concern among the population, as it becomes clear many small businesses (from hairdressers to books stores, restaurants, etc.) wont survive the economic crisis.

What specific impacts could this health crisis have on European sustainable policies?

Governments have the huge responsibility to balance the immediate needs brought by the coronavirus pandemic, with the longer survival needs of people, the ecosystem we live in and our planet. One of the main concerns today is the European Green Deal will be put on hold. Andrej Babis, Prime Minister of the Czech Republic, has already publicly said the European Green Deal should be set aside so countries can focus on fighting the pandemic. The European Commission assures they are going to proceed, but many observers are concerned the framing of the European Green Deal, the language around it, may change.

We know investment in the green deal will provide jobs and new economic growth opportunities. The European Green Deal Investment Plan will mobilise at least 1 trillion of sustainable investments over the next decade. With this framework, which aims to facilitate the public and private investments needed for the transition to a carbon-neutral, green, competitive and inclusive economy, the European Union has positioned itself to be a leader in climate change. It is so important it does not go backward.

What clear signs could the European Union send today, to show their commitment to build a sustainable future?

European policymakers have already committed, through the EU Taxonomy, for sustainable activities to align with a no gas, no oil, no nuclear future. Today, they have a very clear choice to make. It is to not utilise precious and limited public money to support polluting industries. We dont have to bail out conventional energy systems. Instead, we must scale back subsidies for fossil fuels, and help retrain workers. We need to be people-centred in the way we deal with health, climate and biodiversity crises.

The financial emergency package must also be used to fix broken systems such as our health systems (which we realise today, are not well equipped to face existential threats). The way governments decide to spend this money will shape our health, economic and political systems for years to come. While governments need to act quickly to answer this health emergency, the European Commission should make sure everyone is considering the long-term consequences of the bailouts.

This public money should be used to shape systems that serve the planets and peoples interest, not to go back to business-as-usual.

Speaking of going back: A few people, including President Macron, said there will be a before and an after coronavirus. Drawing lessons from the 2008 financial crisis, can you expand on why we shouldnt go back to where we come from?

I agree things wont ever be the same as well most likely have an economic collapse. The world is going through a very challenging time but it is a transition moment. Using these packages, that public money, to rebuild the pre-coronavirus society would be a mistake. We need to invest now in greater resilience to future pandemics, economic collapses and climate risks.

When it comes to the climate emergency, were past the warning stage. Time is running out, as shown in the latest reports by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Inaction did not serve us well in the Corona pandemic, it will not serve us ahead of the impending climate emergency.

The missing ingredient is the political will to act as if this is a shared global emergency, to drive the behaviour change that will allow these changes to be embedded in our framework. The health crisis has shown governments have the ability to take urgent and radical action to contain crisesto make bold leaps into a new world. This is the kind of leadership we need for the climate.

The question now is: Can we use this moment to pivot investments towards goals that governments have already set themselves internationally, and nationally? This is an important but difficult question to ask, and to answer. But we must not be shy of asking difficult questions. The mistake would be to not deal with these questions collectively. With COVID-19, we are learning the importance of collective coordination: It is the key to addressing these global crises and it is essential for meeting the climate goals.

We now need to move through this moment of real tragedy to invest in resilience, shared prosperity, wellbeing, and planetary health. We have long since exceeded our natural limits. It is time we try something new.

EIT Climate-KICs COVID-19 Response: We believe the world needs a simultaneous, multi-dimensional response to COVID-19, to address both the devastating immediate impacts on people, health systems and economy, and longer-term considerations. This includes the need to act now to ensure that economic recovery is aligned with climate and Sustainable Development Goals commitments as we consider ways to protect, reboot and regenerate economies. EIT Climate-KICs COVID-19-related communications will respond to all of these needs.

Please visit our COVID-19 Response Hub for more information.

Related Goal

More:
The EU's Coronavirus Response Initiative: An interview with Felicity Spors, Head of International Affairs Strategy at - Daily Planet`

Were there not four horsemen of the Apocalypse? Just as the virus was spreading in China, Europe was having to deal with the border crisis with Turkey, a humanitarian crisis in Syria, a civil war in Libya, keeping Russia at bay and responding to instability and terrorism in the Sahel. At the same time, Europeans were scratching their heads about how to deal with President Trumps America First strategy. There was a little thing called Brexit, too. Of course, none of these problems have gone away and they will remain regardless of how many future waves of COVID-19 appear.

Several commentators believe that these issues are nothing in comparison to the epochal changes we are about to face because of the pandemic. Many are already talking about the end of or, at the very least, a reconfiguration of globalisation. Linked to this assumption is the idea that strategic competition between the US and China will likely intensify as both states try to readjust their economies, while exercising a form of social distancing in strategic terms. With this reading, it is as if the horses of plague and conquest are already upon us.

Yet, Newtons laws of motion may help us to at least frame what might be around the corner. On the one hand, there are centripetal trends that might be aggravated and give rise to security concerns a lot sooner than they might otherwise have been expected. On the other, centrifugal forces may result in unexpected problems, such as the collapse of regimes and governments, civil unrest and even war. Europe needs to be prepared for all of these events; COVID-19 shows that we no longer have the luxury of saying big events may never happen.

There may be some comfort in knowing that even before the pandemic, the European Union was already beginning to take its strategic autonomy more seriously in areas like defence, currency and technology. However, COVID-19 emphasises the necessity of European solutions to cross-border crises. This crisis may call for a bold step forward in EU integration underpinned by treaty change, but it may equally result in governments seeking solace in the seemingly comfortable, albeit insufficient, bosom of national sovereignty.

What about the other two horsemen: war and famine? As of today, it seems likely that the EU will emerge from the pandemic before Africa and the Middle East. As Europe implements its economic stimulus package, there will be neighbouring countries that simply lack the medical and sanitation infrastructure to flatten the curve. They will lack the financial resources to kick start their economies too. Many in the EUs wider neighbourhood are already stricken by war, conflict and the aggravating effects of climate change. The crisis could lead to greater poverty and exploitation.

The migration crisis could be exacerbated too, and put additional strain on Europes southern states. The perfect storm of the pandemic, war and human trafficking is already upon us in Libya. Populists inside and outside of the EU may well seize on this issue, too. Furthermore, despite historically low oil prices, the virus could nonetheless significantly damage global food supply chains and undermine much-needed state-backed food subsidies in the poorest countries.

Any fresh or aggravated instability in Europes near and wider neighbours obviously needs to be avoided. This is why in April, a package of 20 billion was put together to support the EUs most vulnerable neighbours. The French President, Emmanuel Macron, has also spoken about debt relief for Africa.

Beyond money, however, we should expect calls for greater EU support, with police and military advice and logistical medical support to intensify. The EU is already on the ground in places such as the Sahel and the Horn of Africa. EU personnel in Mali have even contracted the virus. Yet, COVID-19 could require the mobilisation of different capacities, such as the airlifting of medical equipment to vulnerable countries, the setting up of mobile field hospitals or sharing best practices on how to manage country-wide lockdowns. Fortunately, the EU is uniquely well-placed to handle these tasks, given its more than 20 years worth of the experience in deploying civil, development, humanitarian, diplomatic and military tools in vulnerable countries and regions.

Yet, in dealing with the four horsemen of the Apocalypse, the EU will be up against a number of difficulties. For example, European assistance to Africa will be deployed alongside China, who have the resources and a desire to make amends for being the country where the outbreak began. This will not make aid coordination on the ground any easier, especially as the EU has already warned that medical aid could be instrumentalised for propaganda purposes. Partnerships with NATO, the UN, Japan, South Korea and others will be essential in upholding a genuine multilateral approach to the crisis that beckons in Africa.

However, perhaps the most worrying challenge facing European security right now is rooted in the continents economic recovery. Even though the EU put a number of tools in place in 2016 to enhance security and defence cooperation, years of under-investment in defence capabilities have taken their toll. In this regard, national approaches will not help Europe, and with Permanent Structured Cooperation and the European Defence Fund, there is no need to reinvent the wheel. Governments just need to invest in European cooperation its that simple.

Europes armed forces are playing a heroic role at home, and the way they have repatriated citizens and delivered medical equipment has been truly extraordinary. Yet, the looming economic recovery may take its toll on Europes armed forces and civilian experts - they will be expected to do more with less money. This has to be avoided at all costs. Without well-resourced and motivated civil and military actors, the four horsemen of the Apocalypse could trample all over Europes security.

____________

Are you a recognised expert in your field? At Euronews, we believe all views matter. Contact us at view@euronews.com to send pitches or submissions and be part of the conversation.

The rest is here:
The EU must not let the four horsemen of the Apocalypse weaken Europe's security View - Euronews

Several recent commentaries published on 38 North have addressed the much-needed evolution of the European Union and its member states policy towards North Korea. Some have argued it is time to talk to North Korea and to more strongly support South Koreas policy, while others have advocated multilateralizing US-DPRK negotiations and drafting a Borrell Peace Plan.

Many observers agree that the strategy of critical engagement the European Union member states (EUMS) have pursued for the past several yearsa combination of both incentives and pressurehas been a partial failure. However, what is needed is not just dialogue or idealistic and impractical policies, but rather agreement on concrete and detailed actions that should be taken to advance common European interests. As James E. Hoare recently commented, recommendations should find support at a political level among EUMS, and to do so, addressing the EUMS main concerns is essential.

The EU needs to pivot from a strategy of critical engagement to implementing a more proactive strategy of credible commitments in four areas: political engagement, nonproliferation, implementation of restrictive measures and engagement with the North Korean people. Such a renewed strategy should be highly coordinated, built on the many initiatives already being taken and facilitated by the appointment of a European Union Special Representative on North Korea.

An Enduring Crisis but a Partly Failed Strategy

The North Korean nuclear and ballistic missile crisis is the most serious proliferation crisis the European Union and its member states currently face on the world stage. All phases of North Koreas nuclear weapons program are currently continuing and the country is increasing its tactical and strategic ballistic missile capabilities, mastering new technologies such as solid rocket propellant technology.

This increases the risk of proliferation of missiles and dissemination of technologies. If such capabilities were ever to be present in certain theatres of operations closer to Europe, European states would face unprecedented challenges in terms of force projection and military operations. Avoiding such proliferation is fundamental to the interests and security of Europe.

For sure, the EU strategy of critical engagement has partly failed, and the levers available to the EU and its member states have been considerably reduced along with their diplomatic influence. Thus, Europeans must remain pragmatic and realistic. Engagement is a diplomatic tool, not a strategy, and the key is to define feasible, realistic political objectives and to adopt a strategy to reach them.

On one side, engagement between the US and North Korea at the working level has been limited, and Seouls engagement with Pyongyang has come to a halt despite the Moon governments repeated attempts. On the other side, North Korea has been wary of engagement with the EU because it does not perceive Brussels as a neutral actor or a mediator. Rather than engage constructively with the EU and EUMS, the North has sometimes tried to divide it, openly criticizing some EUMS while sending more conciliatory signals to others.

Wanted: A More Pragmatic and Coordinated EU Strategy

It is essential that the EU gives the challenges on the Korean peninsula the high priority they deserve, recognizing that its contribution will be limited by its lack of leverage. Although coordination with regional partners is essential, coordination at the EU level must be a priority for implementing an independent, but not unilateral, European policy.

The main problem the EU and the EUMS face today is not a lack of resources, but a lack of both political awareness and coordination. Indeed, several initiatives exist at the EU level (at the Council, the Commission and the Parliament), the EUMS level, and among local European actors such as universities and think tanks. This renewed activism must be accompanied by increased coordination through the publication of a strategyusing the model of the EC-DPRK Country Strategy Paper for 20012004based on credible commitments to political engagement, nonproliferation, implementation of international sanctions and engagement with the North Korean people.

An EU Special Representative on North Korea should also be appointed to advance this agenda, raise awareness in Europe of the stake it has in peace, stability and nonproliferation on the Korean peninsula, and facilitate coordination within the EU among the different directorates, between EU member states and with the EUs partners in the region. Its creation would send a strong diplomatic signal that the EU is credibly and proactively committed to protecting its interests.

Political Engagement

The EU and its member states should renew its diplomatic and political engagement with and on North Korea. The EU should pull three levers:

Nonproliferation

Nonproliferation is a widely supported priority of the EU and its member states, a key objective of the EU Global Strategy and an area of internationally acknowledged EU expertise. Three near-term priorities should be:

Restrictive Measures

The European Union and its member states are key actors in the implementation of restrictive measures imposed by the UNSC on illicit North Korean activities. There are two priority areas:

Engagement with the North Korean People

The EU and its member states have a moral and political obligation to promote the well-being of the North Korean population. This can be fulfilled by continuing to:

Conclusion

It is time to adapt the European Union strategy to North Korea, while being aware a consensus must be achieved first among the EUMS. Indeed, convincing them is key, especially when disagreement persists between countriesnot so much on the long-term objectives but on the best implementation strategy. Opening a public debate in Brussels and in EUMS capitals is much needed and must be based on concrete and pragmatic policy recommendations to defend European interests.

This comment draws on a longer report published for the EU Non-Proliferation and Disarmament Consortium in February 2020: From Critical Engagement to Credible Commitments: A Renewed EU Strategy for the North Korean Proliferation Crisis.

See more here:
Reinvigorating the EU's Strategy Toward North Korea: From Critical Engagement to Credible Commitments - 38 North