Mediaboss Marketing

The European Union and its Member States signed today a strategic blueprint, outlining the future of European development policy. This "New European Consensus on Development" represents a new collective vision and plan of action to eradicate poverty and achieve sustainable development.

Brussels, 7 June 2017 The jointly developed strategy, in the form of a Joint Statement, was signed today during the annual two-day European Development Days by the Prime Minister of Malta, Joseph Muscat, on behalf of the Council and Member States, the President of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, the High Representative/Vice President, Federica Mogherini, and the President of the European Parliament, Antonio Tajani.

The new European Consensus on Development constitutes a comprehensive common framework for European development cooperation. For the first time, it applies in its entirety to all European Union Institutions and all Member States, which commit to work more closely together.

The new Consensus strongly reaffirms that poverty eradication remains the primary objective of European development policy. It fully integrates the economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development. In doing so, it aligns European development action with the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development which is also a cross-cutting dimension for the EU Global Strategy. European leaders committed to three areas:

1. They recognise the strong interlinkages between the different elements of such action. This includes development and peace and security, humanitarian aid, migration, environment and climate, as well as cross cutting-elements, such as: youth; gender equality; mobility and migration; sustainable energy and climate change; investment and trade; good governance, democracy, the rule of law and human rights; innovative engagement with more advanced developing countries; and mobilising and using domestic resources.

2. The new Consensus furthermore takes a comprehensive approach to means of implementation, combining traditional development aid with other resources, as well as sound policies and a strengthened approach to policy coherence, recalling that EU development cooperation always has to be seen in the context of Europe's partner countries' own efforts. The Consensus provides the basis for the EU and its Member States to engage in more innovative forms of development financing, leveraging private sector investments and mobilising additional domestic resources for development.

3. The EU and its Member States will create better-tailored partnerships with a broader range of stakeholders, including civil society, and partner countries at all stages of development. They will further improve their implementation on the ground by working better together and taking into account their respective comparative advantages.

Background

Europe is a global leader in development, being the world's biggest provider of Official Development Assistance. The new European Consensus on Development was agreed jointly by all European Institutions and all EU Member States in an open and transparent manner, also in consultation with other partners. It is the EU's response to today's global trends and challenges, aligning EU external action to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

The 2030 Agenda was adopted by the international community in September 2015, and includes at its core the 17 Sustainable Development Goals and associated targets, which run to 2030. Along with the other international summits and conferences held in 2015 in Addis Ababa and in Paris, the international community has an ambitious new frame for all countries to work together on shared challenges. For the first time, the SDGs are universally applicable to all countries and the EU is committed to be a frontrunner in implementing them.

On 22 November 2016, the European Commission proposed its ideas for a strategic approach for achieving sustainable development in Europe and around the world, including a Commission proposal for a new Consensus. Since then the European Parliament, the Council under the Maltese Presidency, and the Commission have engaged in an intensive series of inter-institutional discussions aimed at agreeing to a new collective vision for development policy which responds to the 2030 Agenda and other global challenges.

Europe is a frontrunner when it comes to sustainable development and the 2030 Agenda, through external and other policies.

For More Information

A Joint Statement by the President of the European Parliament, Antonio Tajani, the President of the Council of the European Union, Joseph Muscat, the President of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker and the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy / Vice-President of the European Commission, Federica Mogherini

Follow this link:
The new European Consensus on Development EU and Member States sign joint strategy to eradicate poverty - Reliefweb

Theresa May will fail to secure a comprehensive free trade agreement with the rest of the EU by 2019 in a development that would mean a destructive cliff-edge Brexit for the UK, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has predicted.

In its latest Global Economic Outlookreport, the Paris-based multilateral economic organisation has upgraded its 2017 GDP growth forecast for the UK to 1.6 per cent, up from 1.2 per cent last November.

But it is still anticipating a sharp slowdown in UK growth to just 1 per cent in 2018.

This projection critically assumes that 'most favoured nation' treatment will govern UK trade after the United Kingdom leaves the European Union in 2019," the OECD says, referencing a description of the way that countries must trade with each other under minimal World Trade Organisation rules.

In her Lancaster House speech in January, Theresa May said that she wanted to conclude a a new, comprehensive, bold and ambitious free trade agreementwith the rest of the EU.

The Prime Minister also signalled her willingness to agree a transitionaldeal post 2019, which would allow trade to carry on unimpeded while such an overarching free trade agreement was concluded.

But she also warned that no deal is better than a bad deal, implying that she could also walk away from the negotiating deal and that the UK could crash out of the EUs single market and customs union with no new agreement in place.

That latter threat was also contained in the Conservative manifesto.

The WTO outcome would imply, among many other things, 10 per cent tariffs on UK car exports to the EU, tight quotas on agricultural exports and an abrupt end to the right of UK financial firms to operate in Europe.

The OECDs baseline assumption is that this is what materialises and also that the UK has no other new free trade deals with other non-EU countries in place by 2019.

It said that the channels through which this would likely adversely impact the UK economy next year were through weaker household consumption, confidence and investment.

The major risk for the economy is the uncertainty surrounding the exit process from the European Union. Higher uncertainty could hamper domestic and foreign investment more than projected,the OECD writes.

Catherine Mann, the OECDs chief economist, told The Independent that it was sticking with the same WTO Brexit outcome it used in previous UK forecasts made since last June's referendum.

Discussions regarding the nature of trade modalities, the timetable for any deal, as well as interim agreements are ongoing between the UK and the EU.We continue with the same assumption of WTO 'Most Favoured Nation' basis, as in our previous projections." she said.

The overwhelming majority of economists expect that a cliff-edge Brexit would be highly damaging for the UK economy.

Researchers from the London School of Economics estimate that it would cost 2.6 per cent of GDP by 2020, rising to 9.5 per cent by 2030.

The one detailed study that argues trading on WTO rules post 2019 would boost the UK economy has been severely criticised as methodologically flawed and making wildly implausible assumptions.

Business groups have warned loudly about the catastrophic impact of a "no deal" Brexit, with the CBI president Paul Dreschlersayingit would open Pandora's boxfor firms.

In its latest report, theOECD also argues that Britain needs a major increase in infrastructure spending, something more in line with Labour's manifesto pledges than the Conservatives'.

"Higher investment in transport infrastructure, in particular in less productive regions, would improve connectivity and the diffusion of knowledge," the OECD says.

Labour's manifesto also promises a free trade agreement with the EU and explicitly rejects "no deal" as a viable option.

The UK's GDP growth slowed to just 0.2 per cent in the first quarter of 2017, well down from the 0.7 per cent expansion in the final quarter of 2016.

This was the joint slowest quarterly expansion of any G7 country, alongside Italy, although growth is expected to pick up somewhat in the following quarter.

Responding to the OECD report, SirVince Cable, the Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesman, said: Voters should listen to this eve of poll warning on the major economic risk posed by Theresa Mays reckless approach to Brexit.

"The hardline approach [she] has taken, insisting that no deal is better than a bad deal and planning to take us out of the single market, will seriously damage opportunities and jobs for years to come. The Liberal Democrats will fight to keep Britain in the single market and customs union, and to ensure the people have the final say on the Brexit deal.

Read more:
Theresa May will fail to deliver EU trade deal in 2019 and UK heading for cliff-edge Brexit, OECD predicts - The Independent

On March 25, 2017, the 27 European Union (EU) member leaders gathered in Rome to celebrate 60 years of European integration and progress. What started in March of 1957 as the European Economic Community of six central European countries, has grown to an economic and political union of 28 countries spanning the entire continent. The formation of the EU did not happen by a single event or treaty, but rather it has been a continuously increasing integration effort by the member states. The 1957 Treaty of Rome started the process that eventually established a common market, a common currency and a common foreign policy.

Today, the EU is one of the most influential economic and political institutions in the world. As a single market with 28 member-countries, the EU is one of the worlds largest economies. In 2016, EU-wide GDP growth was slightly higher than the U.S., at 1.7%, while combined GDP was $17 trillion, slightly less than the U.S. The Euro currency, though relatively new, is the second most traded currency in the world. And the EU Commission (the EUs governing body) is one of the most effective institutions in regulating mergers and acquisitions, environmental protection, consumer rights and working conditions; with significant influence beyond its borders.

And yet, today the EU is facing some of its greatest challenges. The EU-wide unemployment rate is stubbornly high, at 8.0%. Worse than that, there is a high contrast of differences in the unemployment rates of individual countries (3-4% in Germany and the Czech Republic, versus 18-23% in Spain and Greece). This inequality between the prosperous north and the struggling south replicates itself in other areas a well, like personal and national wealth, investment and economic growth. The sovereign debt crisis and the continuing economic instability in Greece is threatening the sustainability to the Euro currency, while the recent decision of the UK to leave the EU (See also: Brexit and the EU) challenges the very existence of the common market.

Many other geopolitical crises are directly impacting Europe, and putting a real pressure on the EU. The rise of terrorism, first with Al Qaida and then with ISIS, has led to an increase in terrorist attacks within the EU. The protracted civil war in Syria eventually led thousands of refugees to try the unthinkable: flee en masse to Europe. Over a million refugees (and migrants) entered the EU in 2015, fleeing war-torn Syria, Iraq and Libya, in a way that overwhelmed the EUs capacity to control its borders. Russia invaded Ukraine (a country in the process of negotiating closer cooperation with the EU) and annexed part of its territory.

With all that on its plate, the EU Commission approached the 60th anniversary of the formation of the union with great ambition. On March 1, 2017, the European Commission released a White Paper on The Future of the European Union. This document outlines five different scenarios in which the EU can approach future integration. The question of Europes future has often been a binary choice, debating whether more or less integration is best. These plans are not concrete, but rather attempt to get the conversation started among EU leaders for what kind of EU they want to see in the future. Nonetheless, by 2025, the EU Commission hopes that the 27 remaining member states will be able to move forward together towards an ever closer union.

Scenario 1: Carrying on (business as usualno urgent need to change)The EU-27 would continue to implement and upgrade the current agenda through the current institutional framework and possibilities. Naturally, this scenario would also include strengthening the Euro, further defense cooperation in the fight against terrorism, improvement in border control and continuous improvements to strengthen environmental standards and sustainability, but no changes to current institutions, structures or processes.

Scenario 2: Nothing but the Single Market (just a common market and nothing else)This approach focuses entirely on deepening the single market. This scenario will strengthen trade in goods, services and capital markets, which would lead to the single market becoming the main reason to be an EU member. This could create potential risks for the Euro, as divergence and limited cooperation increase vulnerabilities for the currency.

Scenario 3: Those who want more do more (voluntary enhanced cooperation)This scenario would allow countries who want to work together on certain policies to voluntarily enhance their cooperation. Main policy areas could be defense, internal security, taxation or social matters. This strategy has proven to be successful in the past; consider the Schengen passport-free area and the Eurozone.

Scenario 4: Doing less more efficiently (enumerated areas of competence)Under this plan, the EU-27 would focus on specific areas for improvements, while doing less in other areas. This would allow the EU to prioritize issues that need to be addressed quickly, such as cooperation on border management and systematic counter-terrorism measures.

Scenario 5: Doing much more together (federalism)This is a scenario where the EU would decide to go further in all policy areas. In this scenario, member states would share more power and decision-making. Decisions would often be made on the basis of being beneficial for the whole union, at the European level, rather than at the national level serving the interests of the member states.

Moving Forward European-Style: A Multispeed Europe

Interestingly enough, especially with the UK exit from the EU, the current European consensus is on something resembling scenario 3 (voluntary enhanced cooperation). European national leaders, such as German Chancellor Angela Merkel, have mentioned support of different levels of cooperation within the EU. This multispeed Europe approach seems to be the most supported scenario for moving forward. France and Germany (the twin engines of EU integration) agreed that there should be ways in which the different levels of ambition among member states of the EU can be addressed to better contribute to the success of the EU. There is even a model advanced by a number of European luminaries for a continental partnership (see: Europe After Brexit: A proposal for a continental partnership), where there is an inner circle (the EU) with deep political and economic integration (a federal EU) and an outer circle with less integration that focuses only on trade and the common market (and could include the UK, Ukraine and maybe even Turkey).

EU Future Integration: Learning the Right Lessons

EU integration during the past 60 years has been a remarkable accomplishment, despite the many obstacles it had to overcome. The EU is a truly unique undertaking, which has a lot to learn from other integration efforts around the world. European thinking and efforts on ascertaining further future integration have always been very insular, looking only for a European solution to their current problems. While Europeans are facing an existential moment in their path to an ever closer union it might serve them best to draw inspiration and guidance from other parts of the world, like India and the United States. India shares many of Europes cultural, linguistic and racial diversities, while the U.S. represents a much more stable system of governance for a continent that is trying to achieve an ever-closer union.

India as inspiration for the EU

India and the EU are two very different unions with a remarkable similar temperament, with their many languages, religions and ethnic groups. India is what Pallavi Aiyar calls a proto-European Union. According to Ms. Aiyar, India has managed to stitch together a large region of diverse social and cultural fabric into a political and economic union just like the EU.

Culturally, India has 22 scheduled languages, while the EU has 24 official languages; a testament to the many different ethnic groups that make up both India and the EU. Administratively, India has 29 states (and 7 government administered territories), not unlike the EU which has 28/27 members-states. Politically, turnout in India is much higher for local elections, than for national elections (very much like the EU). Although Indias parliament (Lok Sabha) does have two major political parties with somewhat of a national appeal, it also has over 30 local parties. Euro-wide political parties are but a collection of local parties, with no real European identity. Economically, India has high levels of income inequality among its statesno different than the EU. Finally, Indias internal migrant population (4.5% of total population) is very similar to EUs (2.7% of total population).

Just like India successfully created a strong, common identity out of seemingly fractured multiplicity, says Ms. Aiyar, so can the EU. Europeans should draw inspiration from India, which has managed to maintain national cohesion while preserving local cultural and linguistic identities.

U.S. as a guide to political stability

On the other hand, Indias system of governance is not the best for emulation. The EUs political aspiration should be U.S. style federalism, but that has always been an anathema to Europeans who believe that to emulate the U.S. system of governance will lead to the extinction of any cultural/ethnic identity on the part of member states. Overall, the U.S. system of governance has four main components: three distinct centers of power/function at the federal level (executive, legislative and judiciarythe President, the Congress and the Supreme Courtall independent of each other, checking and balancing each other out), and independent State governments with their own unique spheres of jurisdiction (or competence).

It would not be at all a stretch for the EU to adopt the U.S. system of governance, considering that it already has three out of the four components: a bicameral legislature (EU Parliament and the EU Council), an independent supreme court in the European Court of Justice, and independent member state governments. Currently the EU Council is where national governments participate in the EU legislative process, but it would not be unthinkable to propose turning the EU Council to a U.S. style Senate (where each member state is represented equally, and the members could come from member state legislatures).

What is missing is the popularly elected, continentally unifying, executive leader, to bring the Union together and to finally allow it to have the kind of cohesive continental and global presence that it so much deserves. However, adopting a U.S.-style EU President will have to happen gradually, in order to allow people and national leaders time to adjust. In a process that takes (lets say) 20 years (four 5-year terms), the EU could gradually enhance the democratic legitimacy of an EU-wide President.

For example:

First Term: EU Presidential candidates selected by EU member state governments, but will have to be confirmed by EU Parliament (and maybe EU Council that represents member-states legislatures).

Second Term: EU Presidential candidates approved by EU Parliament (anyone who gets 10% support in the EU Parliament makes it to an EU-wide ballot), but election will be held by national legislative bodies (in proportionlike an electoral college).

Third Term: EU Presidential candidates approved by Parliament (anyone who gets 10% support in the EU Parliament makes it to an EU-wide ballot), and elected directly by the people (preferably in two rounds).

Fourth Term: Finally, EU Presidential candidates approved by European parties (through Euro-wide party conventionsno more prescreening by EU political institutions), and elected directly by the people (preferably in two rounds).

Overall, this EU President would still have a Commission that runs the EU bureaucracy, composed of nationals from all the EU member countries, but they will gradually become answerable to the people, and not the national governments.

There is no doubt that this is a critical moment in the future of the EU. Europeans need to do some serious soul-searching as to what kind of union they want. Ultimately, the future of the EU will come down to the same thing it always does: the political will of national leaders.

About the Authors: Nasos Mihalakas is an Assistant Professor of International Business, at SUNY Brockports School of Business Administration and Economics. Frances Karas is an International Business Major at SUNY Brockport, class of 2017.

View post:
The Future of the European Union: After 60 Years of European-Style Integration, Time to Learn from Others - Diplomatic Courier

A Nato Global Hawk drone. The EUs military ambitions have often outpaced what individual member states can agree. Photograph: Rainer Jensen/EPA

The European Union is mulling a 1bn (870m) defence fund, as Britains impending departure raises hopes of deeper military cooperation in the bloc. The EUs executive arm will outline plans on Wednesday for a fund to pool research into new military technology, such as drones, air-to-air refuelling planes and cyber-defence systems.

In an implicit challenge to Britain as it heads for the EU exit, the European commission will say that no single EU country not even the largest can afford to develop the most costly military equipment alone. The development of a new generation of many major defence systems is today beyond the reach of a single EU member state, states a draft paper seen by the Guardian. More Europe in defence and security is clearly needed.

If agreed by member states, it would be the first significant use of the EU budget for defence, although EU spending is likely to remain dominated by farm payments, road, rail and other infrastructure projects.

Sources in Brussels think the defence fund could rise to 1bn after 2021, following an initial 250m outlay in 2020 to kickstart new research projects. The figures have not been finalised and would have to be agreed by EU member states. Even if agreed, the defence fund would be a fraction of the EU budget worth 155bn in 2016 with almost three-quarters of spending earmarked for farmers and economic aid projects for poorer regions.

The commission will publish the plans on Wednesday, with a detailed budget proposal to follow in 2018.

The ideas will feed into a tough debate about the EUs post-Brexit budget. Battle lines are already being drawn over how to fill the 10bn hole that will be left by the UK, with net payers, such as Sweden, insisting they will not stump up more money.

Despite inevitable wrangles over money, European leaders think defence can help revitalise the 60-year-old European project, after years of battling existential crises, from migration to Brexit. But plans for deeper military cooperation were drawn up long before Britains decision to leave, as a response to war and instability on the EUs eastern and southern fringes.

While European Nato countries have been inching up defence spending, Brussels is concerned that Europe gets less bang for its buck, because of overlaps and duplication. Europe has 178 different weapons systems, compared with 30 in the US, which increases equipment costs. One standard Nato helicopter was developed in 23 different versions to accommodate differing national specifications.

Meanwhile, costs are escalating. The Eurofighter Typhoon jet cost 20bn alone in research and development, compared with total R&D spending of 9bn in the EU in 2014. The fighter jet, a joint project between Britain, Germany, Italy and Spain, was massively over budget and years behind schedule.

The EUs military ambitions have often outpaced what individual member states can agree. Since 2007, the EU has been able to send rapid-reaction forces of 1,500 soldiers known as battlegroups to stabilise foreign crises, but has never done so.

One senior EU diplomat recently described battlegroups as the biggest failure of European policy and said the idea had foundered because defence chiefs did not trust the EU.

The EU also scaled back plans for a common military command centre an initiative that has been incorrectly described by some British politicians as an EU army. Britain backed the plans in March, only to prevaricate on signing the legal text at the last minute, a delay that has infuriated some of the UKs closest allies.

EU leaders are expected to discuss defence at a summit in late June, days after Britain is due to begin negotiating its EU exit. Although the defence fund plans would not come to fruition until after Brexit, the British prime minister is entitled to take part in the June discussions.

In the Brexit white paper, the government said it wanted to use the UKs privileged position in international affairs to continue to work with the EU on foreign policy security and defence. The foreign secretary, Boris Johnson, has spoken of docking stations and doorways for further British involvement in EU foreign policy, but the issue has not featured heavily in the run-up to Brexit talks.

Here is the original post:
EU to outline plan to use funds for defence for first time - The Guardian

The news that the third London Bridge terrorist was an Italian national suggests that the European ideal of the free movement of people is now over. For the United Kingdom, it was going to end anyway when we left the European Union, but the effort to counter terrorism means that it is likely to be over across the continent within a matter of years.

Of course, this does not follow in a direct line. Most of those responsible for terrorist murders in this country are home-grown, just as they are in France and Belgium. And we must never allow terrorist outrages to feed xenophobia or anti-immigrant sentiment. One of the heroes of the London Bridge attack was Florin Morariu, the Romanian baker who hit one of the murderers with a crate. In London and Manchester, the attacks have united people who have been born here and drawn here, as Tony Walsh, the Mancunian poet, put it.

However, the story of Youssef Zaghba that is emerging, of a young man born in Morocco with Italian citizenship who had lived in Ireland, would probably have led to greater restrictions on movement in and out of the UK even if the country had not voted to leave the EU. The Italian intelligence services claim to have tipped off the British authorities about Zaghba after he was stopped at Bologna airport and prevented from travelling to Istanbul last year.

The same pressure to keep closer tabs on terrorist suspects is being felt across Europe. The Schengen Agreement, the EU no-passport zone, has been repeatedly suspended between various countries in recent years.

London Bridge terrorists: What we know so far

The Independent regrets the curtailing of the European dream, the freedom of which Caroline Lucas, the co-leader of the Green Party, in particular speaks so movingly, to live, love and travel across the continent. But all European states recognise that their first responsibility is to protect their citizens.

Many of the leaders of the EU, Angela Merkel prime among them, speak resolutely of the four freedoms of the Union:of goods, capital, services and people, and of their indivisibility. But there is a fifth freedom that cannot be ignored, and that is the freedom from the fear of murder. Free movement is already constrained in practice, not least by a system of surveillance and watch lists, so what will happen in the coming years is a matter of degree rather than of principle. It is a shame that movement will become more constrained rather than less, but the peoples of Europe will demand it.

The post-war European dream will have to adjust to new threats. Despite some of the more colourful warnings from David Cameron in the EU referendum campaign last year, the modern security threat in Europe is no longer that of war between nations, but of terrorism.

The great paradox of Brexit is that it is part of a movement that is happening across Europe. In many ways, the British referendum concernedthe wrong question at the wrong time. If Mr Cameron had been more resilient in fending off his internal opposition in the Conservative Party, it could be that restrictions on freedom of movement over the next few years might have made the referendum unnecessary.

As it is, it looks as if we will have to observe the end of the one of the founding principles of the EU from the outside.

Visit link:
Regardless of Brexit, the free movement of European people is coming to an end - The Independent