Nine months after its delayed inception, the Conference on the Future of Europe is entering its second, concluding phase. The first two of the randomly selected European Citizens’ Panels have produced their recommendations, now transferred to the political level.
Last Friday and Saturday, the conference plenary—which in an unprecedented manner mixes elected politicians and other institutional actors with ordinary citizens—met to discuss the first 91 citizens’ recommendations received thus far. The two remaining panels, on ‘EU in the world / migration‘, and ‘A stronger economy, social justice and jobs / Education, culture, youth and sport / Digital transformation’, are due to finalise their work by the end of February.
Read more at:
The future of Europe: who holds the baton? – Alberto Alemanno
Showing posts with label Objectives. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Objectives. Show all posts
8/12/15
The EU Environmental Action Program to 2020
Over the past decades the European Union has put in place a broad
range of environmental legislation. As a result, air, water and soil
pollution has significantly been reduced. Chemicals legislation has been
modernised and the use of many toxic or hazardous substances has been
restricted.Today, EU citizens enjoy some of the best water quality in the world and over 18% of EU's territory has been designated as protected areas for nature.
However, many challenges persist and these must be tackled together in a structured way.
The 7th Environment Action Programme (EAP) will be guiding European environment policy until 2020. In order to give more long-term direction it sets out a vision beyond that, of where it wants the Union to be by 2050:
"In 2050, we live well, within the planet’s ecological limits. Our prosperity and healthy environment stem from an innovative, circular economy where nothing is wasted and where natural resources are managed sustainably, and biodiversity is protected, valued and restored in ways that enhance our society’s resilience.
Our low-carbon growth has long been decoupled from resource use, setting the pace for a safe and sustainable global society."
It identifies three key objectives:
- to protect, conserve and enhance the Union’s natural capital
- to turn the Union into a resource-efficient, green, and competitive low-carbon economy
- to safeguard the Union's citizens from environment-related pressures and risks to health and wellbeing
- better implementation of legislation
- better information by improving the knowledge base
- more and wiser investment for environment and climate policy
- full integration of environmental requirements and considerations into other policies
- to make the Union's cities more sustainable
- to help the Union address international environmental and climate challenges more effectively.
Read more: Environment Action Programme to 2020 - Environment - European Commission
4/1/15
Should the EU cooperate more closely with NATO despite conflicting and diverse objectives?
The European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization must find ways to cooperate even more closely
and that it is critical for European countries to spend more on defense, the NATO military alliance's chief Jens Stoltenberg said Monday.
Despite growing security threats, some European officials have voiced concerns about the potential for duplicating missions as the EU seeks to strengthen its defenses in the face of an assertive Russia and a turbulent Middle East.
NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg told the European Parliament that the EU and NATO, as two organizations whose members share territory and values, must face the new threats together.
But does Europe want to become an extension of US Geo-Politicalo objectives? Disagreements were evident especially when Mr. Stoltenberg urged European countries to meet the NATO goal of spending at least 2% of their GDP on defense, which the great majority fail to do.
Elmar Brok, the German parliamentarian who chairs the Foreign Relations committee, said that when the U.S. complains that European nations should spend more on defense, it ignores how much Europe spends on nonmilitary aid.
"We should remind the Americans that the costs include also the costs of soft power," Mr. Brok said. "It should be taken into account if we come to a fair definition of burden-sharing."
Rather than spending more, Mr. Brok said to applause from his colleagues, the priority should be on "getting more out of the money which is available."
The position of the countries with the Continent's largest economies — Germany, France and Italy — also complicates the issue. These countries do not feel directly threatened by Russia's actions in Eastern Europe, and they also have strong political and economic ties with Moscow.
They worry about the economic impact of present sanctions and counter-sanctions and would like to see a diplomatic solution to the conflict. However, they are also concerned with holding the European Union together and accommodating the conflicting strategic needs of its various member states.
Germany is in a particularly awkward position. Berlin and Moscow have strong business and energy ties, but they also compete for influence in Central and Eastern Europe. This is why Germany has taken such a direct role in the Ukrainian crisis. In the beginning, it supported opposition groups in the Kiev protests against the government of former President Viktor Yanukovich, and it has contributed financial support to the new government. Berlin has pushed for increasing sanctions against Moscow while also keeping negotiation channels open and opposing moves by the United States that could lead to an escalation of the conflict.
EU-Digest
Despite growing security threats, some European officials have voiced concerns about the potential for duplicating missions as the EU seeks to strengthen its defenses in the face of an assertive Russia and a turbulent Middle East.
NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg told the European Parliament that the EU and NATO, as two organizations whose members share territory and values, must face the new threats together.
But does Europe want to become an extension of US Geo-Politicalo objectives? Disagreements were evident especially when Mr. Stoltenberg urged European countries to meet the NATO goal of spending at least 2% of their GDP on defense, which the great majority fail to do.
Elmar Brok, the German parliamentarian who chairs the Foreign Relations committee, said that when the U.S. complains that European nations should spend more on defense, it ignores how much Europe spends on nonmilitary aid.
"We should remind the Americans that the costs include also the costs of soft power," Mr. Brok said. "It should be taken into account if we come to a fair definition of burden-sharing."
Rather than spending more, Mr. Brok said to applause from his colleagues, the priority should be on "getting more out of the money which is available."
The position of the countries with the Continent's largest economies — Germany, France and Italy — also complicates the issue. These countries do not feel directly threatened by Russia's actions in Eastern Europe, and they also have strong political and economic ties with Moscow.
They worry about the economic impact of present sanctions and counter-sanctions and would like to see a diplomatic solution to the conflict. However, they are also concerned with holding the European Union together and accommodating the conflicting strategic needs of its various member states.
Germany is in a particularly awkward position. Berlin and Moscow have strong business and energy ties, but they also compete for influence in Central and Eastern Europe. This is why Germany has taken such a direct role in the Ukrainian crisis. In the beginning, it supported opposition groups in the Kiev protests against the government of former President Viktor Yanukovich, and it has contributed financial support to the new government. Berlin has pushed for increasing sanctions against Moscow while also keeping negotiation channels open and opposing moves by the United States that could lead to an escalation of the conflict.
EU-Digest
2/9/13
Op-Ed Europe: EU budget sets the wrong priorities
The EU heads of state and government have finally agreed on a seven-year budget for the 27-member bloc but Deutsche Welle Christoph Hasselbach in his Op-Ed says that by seeking to please everyone, the budget has set the wrong priorities.
It was a difficult birth. After two summits and several grueling late night meetings, the EU's leaders emerged with a seven-year budget and blackened rings under their eyes. But despite all the work, the product is disappointing. In order to stave off numerous veto threats, three major groups of countries and interests had to be satisfied.
First, the rich countries of the north insisted on cuts to the entire budget. British Prime Minister David Cameron, just as during the summit last November, refused to give in - he's under too much domestic pressure. And now, for the first time, the EU budget will be smaller than it was the previous year.
Secondly, the countries with important agricultural sectors - above all France - wanted to keep their farm subsidies. And thirdly, there were the states of Southern and Eastern Europe, who were fighting to keep EU development money for poorer regions.
Some countries were represented in more than one of these groups, like Germany. While Chancellor Angela Merkel was demanding budget austerity, the minister of agriculture was pushing for German farmers to keep their subsidies with as few changes as possible.
And then, more and more countries began demanding a discount on their membership fees. Britain certainly fought to keep its "eternal" discount.
Read more: Opinion: EU budget sets the wrong priorities | Europe | DW.DE | 08.02.2013
It was a difficult birth. After two summits and several grueling late night meetings, the EU's leaders emerged with a seven-year budget and blackened rings under their eyes. But despite all the work, the product is disappointing. In order to stave off numerous veto threats, three major groups of countries and interests had to be satisfied.
First, the rich countries of the north insisted on cuts to the entire budget. British Prime Minister David Cameron, just as during the summit last November, refused to give in - he's under too much domestic pressure. And now, for the first time, the EU budget will be smaller than it was the previous year.
Secondly, the countries with important agricultural sectors - above all France - wanted to keep their farm subsidies. And thirdly, there were the states of Southern and Eastern Europe, who were fighting to keep EU development money for poorer regions.
Some countries were represented in more than one of these groups, like Germany. While Chancellor Angela Merkel was demanding budget austerity, the minister of agriculture was pushing for German farmers to keep their subsidies with as few changes as possible.
And then, more and more countries began demanding a discount on their membership fees. Britain certainly fought to keep its "eternal" discount.
Read more: Opinion: EU budget sets the wrong priorities | Europe | DW.DE | 08.02.2013
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)