Mediaboss Marketing

Bloomberg/Getty Images

Malta was among the ten countries that joined the European Union in 2004.

When the European Union expanded in the 2000s, it had a negative impact on scientific collaborations between researchers in new member countries and elsewhere, a study has found.

Membership in the EU gives countries access to the blocs huge science-funding schemes and to the European Research Area (ERA), which strives for a border-free, well-funded, pan-European system of science. But according to a paper published on 12 April in Science Advances1, countries that joined in two waves of expansion ten new members in 2004 and two more in 2007, all but three of them part of the former Soviet bloc would have had more cross-border collaboration between scientists if they had not joined.

The findings challenge central tenets underlying ERA integration policies, write the authors.

In the paper, Alexander Petersen, a computational social scientist at the University of California, Merced, and his co-authors assess the collaboration rates of countries based on publication involving authors from more than one nation.

They found a much slower increase in Eastern European rates of collaboration per publication in the decade after 2004 than in previous ones (see Inter-EU brain drain). They also modelled what the cross-border publication rate might have been, had those 12 countries not joined the EU. According to the teams results, nations that joined in 2004 such as Poland and Lithuania saw 9% fewer cross-border publications than they might have expected given their scientific and economic metrics, such as spending on research and development.

When countries join the EU, their citizens generally also gain the automatic right to work in any other EU member state, which raises the risk of a brain drain. Petersen says that promising young academics who work in their home states often establish cross-border collaborations. But if those same researchers move west, their countries of origin lose not only their human capital, but also their bridges with the rest of the world. And this process naturally explains what we found in our paper Eastern European countries would have been more integrated within science had they never integrated within the EU, he says.

Petersen thinks that the ERA is great for multiple reasons, including that it brings together countries with different innovation systems. He also says that the EU is doing a good job of dealing with the problems identified in this paper, for instance through programmes that pair Eastern-European institutions with Western ones. The latest paper shows, however, that Eastern European countries should invest in collaboration with Western countries, but should also implement home-return conditions to make sure scientists come back at some point, he says.

The research comes at a crucial time for scientific collaboration in the EU, given that one of its major players the United Kingdom is about to leave the bloc. Several groups, including the League of European Research Universities (LERU) and the European University Association, called last month for new momentum to be given to the ERA, by setting more ambitious goals and expanding beyond Europe.

Of course there has been brain drain, says Kurt Deketelaere, secretary-general of LERU and a professor of law at the University of Leuven in Belgium. But it did not have to happen, he says. Deketelaere faults the new member states for not strengthening their own research systems in line with the ERA aims.

If they had done that, they would have experienced brain circulation, much less brain drain and have a much better-performing research system, he says.

Commenting on the paper, a European Commission spokesperson said in a statement, In recent years, transnational cooperation between member states has grown by 7.8% an encouraging sign that ERA is working. But it is now up to member states in particular to further improve the implementation of ERA.

The commission will assist with this by helping lower-performing countries improve their scientific efforts, the spokesperson added.

Read more:
Joining the European Union leads to less cross-border collaboration - Nature.com

The EU geopolitical outlook looks like the final round of a show jumping event.

Horse and rider stumbled at the first jump (Brexit), cleared the second fence (Dutch elections) and now face a very high bar (the French presidential election). Despite the pessimism, however, I dont believe the EU is in danger of unravelling and disintegrating, at least for the time being.

Eurobarometer polling shows two thirds of the EU population feel a citizen of the EU. Half the EU population thinks more decisions should be taken at the EU level, and half are optimistic about the future of the EU. Also, half of EU citizens feel very or fairly attached to the EU. Only 15 per cent say theyre not at all attached. Surprisingly, only 23 per cent of EU citizens have a negative perception of the EU. So things need to get a lot worse. But, unfortunately for the EU, they will.

EU integration versus disintegration is a battle between centripetal (moving towards the centre) and centrifugal (moving away from the centre) forces. While I dont believe the EU will disintegrate in the short term (over the next one to two years), thereafter all bets are off, with the strong possibility that the EU will face an existential crisis in the 2020s.

Read more: Its time to face facts: Pandoras Box is open and Europe is finished

The existential crisis is likely to be triggered by a combination of what I call the 4Ds, of the Sword of Damocles, hanging over the continent: the disconnect, demographics, default and digital effects. Lets look at each in turn.

Disconnect Eurobarometer polling shows the number one issue of concern for EU citizens is inward migration from outside the EU. The disconnect is between the views of the general population towards inward migration from outside the EU, and the EUs own assumptions regarding migration from beyond its border. European Commission projections show that between now and 2060 there will be 55m new migrants coming into the EU. This is a truly enormous figure, which is surely politically impossible. Going partially down the road towards 55m is likely to begin to unravel the EU.

Demographics The EU working age population declines every year between now and 2040 (around 0.4 per cent per annum). This is a huge economic challenge. The decline in working age population is not uniform, but it is severe in many countries. The demographic impact, according to the European Commission, is that in order to maintain pre financial crisis GDP growth rates, the EU will need to double its pre crisis productivity rate. A daunting challenge. The interaction between the disconnect and demographics means that the productivity challenge is even greater if migration is less.

Default This refers to the potential return of the euro crisis, with five contributing factors: one, a banking crisis almost certainly starting in Italy, due to a high proportion of non performing loans and the weakness in nominal GDP; two, continued austerity in peripheral economies; three, the scale of internal devaluation wage reductions required in the peripheral economies in order to regain competitiveness; four, the structural fault at the heart of the Eurozone, namely the lack of fiscal union; and five, a potential re-emergence of the sovereign-bank default link.

Read more: Italy is just three plausible steps away from crashing out of the Eurozone

Digital John Gillingham, Americas pre-eminent historian of the EU, has written that the very survival of the EU is now at stake. Gillingham argues that successful adjustment to the future technological and economic challenges the EU faces will require, as a first step, political devolution and the revival of national power. Gillingham sees moribund EU institutions as unable to cope with the twenty-first century challenges posed by technology.

But heres a really iconoclastic thought. Faced with an existential crisis, the EU could begin to disintegrate in the 2020s, but at the point of maximum danger a hard core of countries could trigger a big bang towards much deeper integration.

The old maxim that, whatever the problem, the solution is more Europe could ultimately come of age. Out of the ashes of disintegration could rise the phoenix of the United States of Europe (USE).

Here is the original post:
European Union and the French presidential elections: Four reasons why the EU will struggle to survive beyond the ... - City A.M.

Washington Times

EU's pressure on its own shows the extent of its cultural rot Washington Times This week the existential problems facing the European Union came into stark relief as Belgium threatened Poland and Hungary with legal action if they did not agree to commit cultural suicide by letting in hundreds of thousands of refugees from the ... and more »

See the rest here:
EU's pressure on its own shows the extent of its cultural rot - Washington Times

Liam Fox.

The U.K. is battling to stop the European Union blocking Prime Minister Theresa Mays drive to forge new trade partnerships as the country prepares for Brexit.

International Trade Secretary Liam Fox is challenging the attempt to lock the U.K. out of the blocs ongoing trade talks. Hes also opposing efforts to limit Britains power to negotiate commercial accords with other countries before Britain leaves the EU.

EU officials are reportedly pushing for the U.K. to be cut out of sensitive discussions because they are worried confidential information on trade deals would help Mays team negotiate favorable terms with the same countries after Brexit. At the same time, Britain has been warned it cant line up its own free-trade agreements with non-EU nations until it has formally left the bloc in 2019.

In an interview with Bloomberg, Fox hit back on both points. He insisted he has certainly got greater freedom to hold trade talks with other countries now May has formally triggered the Brexit process. And he declared Britain cannot be kept out of the EUs internal trade discussions while still a member of the bloc.

We are a full partner in the EU until we leave and intend to play our full role, Fox said. Clearly when the EU is discussing the U.K., thats a matter for the 27 and not the U.K. but we intend to exercise our full legal rights as one of the 28 members until such time as we stop being a member.

The question of third-country trade deals is a new flash point, with the EU and U.K. already at odds over the structure of the upcoming talks and the size of any exit bill. Such rows have sparked fears that the U.K. and EU wont reach an amicable divorce settlement and agree new terms for future trade in the tight, two-year window available for talks.

The European Commission warned last month there would need to be a discussion about the treatment of sensitive information in the context of certain trade negotiations, which the U.K. would continue to have access to while it remained a full member, the Financial Times reported.

EU officials are concerned that by participating in conversations about talks with countries such as Australia, the U.K. might glean confidential information it can use itself when it tries to win post-Brexit accords.

In the interview, Fox said Britain wanted its own deal with Australia and would not give up its right to see the EUs private trade plans. We think that the U.K. is a key liberalizing influence, and certainly from discussions Ive had other countries welcome us continuing to play that role right until we leave the EU itself, he said.

Now that Article 50 has been triggered, and Britain is clearly on the legal exit path, there is no reason not to start talks with other countries about future trade agreements, he added. Weve certainly got greater freedom now that we are in the process of leaving, he said.

Obviously we cant sign any agreements while we are still members legally of the European Union but we can certainly begin to talk about what we want.

Here is the original post:
Fox Fights EU Attempts to Limit U.K. Trade Powers Before Brexit - Bloomberg

Food consumed in the European Union (EU) continues to be either largely free of pesticide residues or to contain only residues the fall within legal limits, new figures show. The latest monitoring report published by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) finds that more than 97 percent of food samples collected across the EU in 2015 were within legal limits and that just over 53 percent were free of quantifiable residues. The figures are in line with those recorded in 2014. Among the key findings are:

Use theinteractive report to go beyond the headline figures and find out more about the findings from 2015.

As part of the annual report, EFSAs review of the results of the EU-coordinated control program (EUCP), under which reporting countries examine samples from the same basket of food items. For 2015 the products were aubergines, bananas, broccoli, virgin olive oil, orange juice, peas, sweet peppers, table grapes, wheat, butter and eggs.

The highest exceedancerate recorded was for broccoli (3.4 percent of samples), followed by table grapes (1.7 percent). Rare exceedances were found for olive oil, orange juice and chicken eggs. No exceedances were recorded for butter.

EFSA also performed a dietary risk assessment based on the EUCP. For both short-term (acute) and long-term (chronic) exposure the Authority concluded that the risk to consumers was low.

The same products were also examined in 2012, since when the overall exceedance rate has fallen slightly from 0.9 percent to 0.8 percent in 2015.

In its report EFSA makes a number of recommendations for increasing the efficiency of the EU-coordinated and national control programmes.

View original post here:
European Union food again found largely free of pesticides | Food ... - Food Safety News