News:

And we're back!

Main Menu

The EU thread

Started by Tamas, April 16, 2021, 08:10:41 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Josquius

#60
I'm going to have to learn Italian for a European passport aren't I <_<

Though seriously can't see it getting too far. How tied Switzerland is to the EU can't be understated. 1/4 of the Swiss population and 1/3 of the workforce are born abroad. Huge chunks of Geneva and Basel are in France, many other frontaliers  from elsewhere too.
██████
██████
██████

Zoupa

Fuck the Swiss. It's kinda hilarious how they think they can play hardball  :lol:

Zanza

#62
Oh well, the EU is not an imperial power, so if they don't want deeper cooperation, that's of course their sovereign decision.

It's an ambivalent thing for the EU. On the one hand, it needs to stay true to its own principles and implement the level playing field in the Single Market as well as possible. On the other, most of its neighbours are currently increasing distance to the EU - be it UK, Switzerland, most of the Western Balkans, Morocco, Turkey. The EU needs to review their approach towards neighbouring countries. Does not seem particularly successful.

But cherry-picking should never be permitted. I would rather have a cohesive, smaller market than a larger market with different levels of privileges that create further internal tensions.

Maybe it is time to just do the most basic administrative alignments on these foreign relations and concentrate on freezing out Hungarian, Polish (and Slovak/Czech?) authoritarian tendencies, Bulgarian corruption, generate some will to reform in Germany and Italy and support deeper European integration a la Macron first. This outreach to partners seems a waste of time and effort. Make a clear offer and then they can decide to take it or leave it.

Zanza

https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/swiss-reject-framework-agreement-deal-with-eu/46651454
QuoteThe government wants this new chapter to be based on "cultivating and developing" relations on the basis of the existing bilateral agreements, and it has proposed to launch a political dialogue with Brussels to pursue common priorities for the future.
What's in it for the EU? Seems an utter waste of time.

QuoteA review of Swiss legislation will also be done, to examine the current discrepancies between EU and Swiss law and to see if alignment is possible. This review will be done "autonomously", with changes only made "where it makes sense", Justice Minister Karin Keller-Sutter clarified.
:lol: That's not how the Single Market works. They can align all they want, without a treaty their law could be word-by-word the EU directive and it would still not remove the trade barriers.

QuoteThe government has also pledged to press the parliament to give the ok for the release of Switzerland's CHF1 billion ($1.1 billion) contribution to the EU cohesion fund – a key demand of Brussels – "as soon as possible".
Pff, peanuts. That's hardly buying any goodwill. Seems low for the level of integration they have with the Single Market.

Sheilbh

Quote from: Zanza on May 26, 2021, 11:08:52 AMOh well, the EU is not an imperial power, so if they don't want deeper cooperation, that's of course their sovereign decision.

It's an ambivalent thing for the EU. On the one hand, it needs to stay true to its own principles and implement the level playing field in the Single Market as well as possible. On the other, most of its neighbours are currently increasing distance to the EU - be it UK, Switzerland, most of the Western Balkans, Morocco, Turkey. They need to review their approach towards neighbouring countries. Does not seem particularly successful.
I think this is right but I also think part of it is because of a sort of imperial approach (a bit Middle Kingdom) of only really being able to set up a good structural relationship with neighbours in the context of some form of accession.

There are some sorts of association agreements but I think the EU does seem to have a problem in how to engage neighbours who don't want to join or become part of the EU's framework including the EEA (or can't or lose interest) - the UK, Russia, Ukraine, as you say the Western Balkans (especially since Macron blocked North Macedonian accession - because what is the point now, they know they'll get blocked), the Caucasus, Turkey, North Africa.

I don't know what that engagement looks like and it will vary based on the states around it. So the Caucasus is going to need a different relationship than Russia or Turkey. But I think the EU needs to imagine relationships outside of its own institutional infrastructure because it is either too limited for Europe's actual neighbours or the approach of the European decision-makers has been too constrained. I'm not sure which.

QuoteMaybe it is time to just do the most basic administrative alignments on these foreign relations and concentrate on freezing out Hungarian, Polish (and Slovak/Czech?) authoritarian tendencies, Bulgarian corruption, generate some will to reform in Germany and Italy and support deeper European integration a la Macron first. This outreach to partners seems a waste of time and effort. Make a clear offer and then they can decide to take it or leave it.
Slovenia is going in a very authoritarian direction too - not sure about Czech or Slovakia though.
Let's bomb Russia!

Zanza

I think what you describe is a consequence of the dual nature of the EU - the shared sovereignty between the federal and national level. Once you found a compromise between the 27 members and got EU parliament approval, there is very little space for further compromise with third countries. That's why the EU is so inflexible beyond its own rules and institutions. The internal cohesion always overrides foreign policy.

Take the UK as a counterexample. Westminster can more or less ignore the devolved administrations in its foreign policy and is thus more agile and able to find compromise, but potentially at the cost of internal cohesion.

Sheilbh

I think that's right. The EU is between basically intergovernmental and acting like a quasi-state.

And obviously this is particularly the case with foreign policy because it's an area where the EU has incredibly limited competencies, but is a vessel through which all the member states are able to multiply their power - I'm not sure how involved the European Parliament is outside of the realm of trade and purely symbolic resolutions on foreign policy. Institutionally I think this probably has an impact as well because trade and accession are European competencies - so they are involving the Commission and the Parliament; while foreign policy is the ultimate European Council competenciy. I know there is the High Rep but ultimately if there is a decision about doing something it's - as with Belarus - a Council decision. I think that institutional infighting is possibly part of this as well in that the accession framework and frameworks based on trade agreements are securely in the remit of the Commission and Parliament so those are the preferred tools of the European institutions.

What I am less clear on is whether the EU actually has, under the treaties, the institutional tools and framework to deal with neighbours outside of accession, or whether they do have alternatives but they're not being used because of the consensus point.
Let's bomb Russia!

Valmy

Quote from: Sheilbh on May 26, 2021, 12:51:15 PM
I think that's right. The EU is between basically intergovernmental and acting like a quasi-state.

It is kind of like a new Holy Roman Empire. Europe sure loves things like this, and the fact they keep making them is good evidence they are necessary no matter how clunky.
Quote"This is a Russian warship. I propose you lay down arms and surrender to avoid bloodshed & unnecessary victims. Otherwise, you'll be bombed."

Zmiinyi defenders: "Russian warship, go fuck yourself."

Zanza

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_integration

That Wiki page shows the sheer amount of treaties, institutions, organisations, opt-outs and opt-ins that currently define European integration.

In the last decades, many such initiatives were eventually incorporated into the European Union as the overarching political framework.

Iormlund

Quote from: Sheilbh on May 26, 2021, 11:35:53 AM
I think this is right but I also think part of it is because of a sort of imperial approach (a bit Middle Kingdom) of only really being able to set up a good structural relationship with neighbours in the context of some form of accession.

The EU is a trade bloc. Of course it sees relationships as matters of trade and accession. It's the only way it can do so by design.

Real foreign policy is a national matter and I can't see that changing anytime soon.

Zanza

Quote from: Iormlund on May 26, 2021, 01:36:17 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 26, 2021, 11:35:53 AM
I think this is right but I also think part of it is because of a sort of imperial approach (a bit Middle Kingdom) of only really being able to set up a good structural relationship with neighbours in the context of some form of accession.

The EU is a trade bloc. Of course it sees relationships as matters of trade and accession. It's the only way it can do so by design.

Real foreign policy is a national matter and I can't see that changing anytime soon.

The EU has foreign policy competences as expressed in the Treaty on the EU (as amended by the Lisbon Treaty). But the relevant sections clearly state that this foreign policy is defined by the Council (i.e. national executives) and requires unanimity. So there is little practical difference between national and Union foreign policy.

Sheilbh

Another Politico piece on Bulgaria and corruption - about which I know very little except from Politico. Which sort of makes me wonder if Orban and Duda are making a huge mistake by pushing their ideological case and they'd get away with far more and get far less attention in the rest of the world's press if they were just massively corrupt in a non-ideological way.

I don't know if the press in the rest of Europe covers Bulgaria a bit more but I don't think I've read anything about it in, say, the Guardian or the Times - only the EU Politico :hmm:
QuoteUS sanctions top Bulgarians for graft. EU does zilch.
Washington's move is the biggest one-day action under the Magnitsky Act.
By Boryana Dzhambazova and Lili Bayer   
June 2, 2021 10:50 pm

The United States on Wednesday rolled out sweeping anti-graft sanctions against high-profile Bulgarian power brokers and more than 60 entities, while the EU fails to confront the Balkan country's spiraling rule of law crisis.

America's unusually wide-reaching step is an embarrassment for the EU as it exposes the bloc's inability to police its own backyard over a welter of corruption scandals often tied to EU funds that end up in the hands of Bulgaria's mafia and powerful oligarchs. The move constitutes America's biggest-ever action in one day under the country's Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act, which targets perpetrators of corruption and human rights abuses around the globe.

"The United States stands with all Bulgarians who strive to root out corruption by promoting accountability for corrupt officials who undermine the economic functions and democratic institutions of Bulgaria," Office of Foreign Assets Control Director Andrea M. Gacki said.


By contrast, the EU has conspicuously chosen not to stand with Bulgarians fighting corruption.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and German Chancellor Angela Merkel have turned a blind eye to a rule-of-law meltdown in the EU's poorest state in recent years. Former Prime Minister Boyko Borissov, who dominated the country's politics for the best part of a decade, was their close ally on the EU political stage in the center-right European People's Party and was never challenged over his country's judicial failings. Although the former firefighter and karate champion lost power in an indecisive election in April, his GERB party is still ahead in polls ahead of another election on July 11.

While corruption has long been identified as a problem in Bulgaria, the scale of unfolding graft scandals over the past year has laid bare how an oligarchic mafia has effectively captured the state by exercising control through institutions such as the judiciary, security services and media.

The most high-profile tycoon to be sanctioned is Delyan Peevski, a controversial media mogul and former member of parliament.

Peevski "regularly engaged in corruption, using influence peddling and bribes to protect himself from public scrutiny and exert control over key institutions and sectors in Bulgarian society," the U.S. Department of the Treasury wrote in its sanctions decision.

Peevski, who is affiliated with the Movement for Rights and Freedom, a member of the liberal Renew Europe grouping, has emerged as one of the symbols of the country's corruption woes. The U.S. said he "worked to negatively influence the Bulgarian political process" in elections in 2019.

The department has also sanctioned fugitive casino baron Vasil "the skull" Bozhkov, one of Bulgaria's wealthiest citizens, and Ilko Zhelyazkov, who currently serves on the National Bureau for Control on Special Intelligence-Gathering Devices— as well as 64 entities connected to the men, cutting off their access to the American financial system.

In parallel, the U.S. Department of State announced entry bans on an even broader list of Bulgarian public figures and their families, including a former deputy minister. 

"The big question is, who did they corrupt?" said Elena Yoncheva, a member of the European Parliament, who is a leading critic of Borissov and a member of the Bulgarian Socialist Party.

Tip of the iceberg

In explaining its decision, the Treasury said that Bozhkov — who is currently a fugitive in Dubai but nonetheless registered a political party that won almost 3 percent of the votes in the April election — had "bribed government officials on several occasions," including  "a current political leader."

It also said that the businessman "planned to provide a sum of money to a former Bulgarian official and a Bulgarian politician earlier this year" in order to help him "create a channel for Russian political leaders to influence Bulgarian government officials."

The Treasury Department also accused Zhelyazkov of acting as a frontman for Peevski in corrupt dealings.

"Peevski used Zhelyazkov to conduct a bribery scheme involving Bulgarian residency documents for foreign persons, as well as to bribe government officials through various means in exchange for their information and loyalty," according to the U.S. government.

Hristo Ivanov, head of the anti-corruption Yes Bulgaria party, welcomed the sanctions.

"Peevski and Bozhkov are participants in a grand corruption scheme which needs to come undone, while Borissov needs to leave the political scene," he told reporters in Sofia.

Maya Manolova, a former ombudswoman and one of the leaders of Rise Up! Out With the Crooks!, an opposition party inspired by a wave of anti-corruption protests last year, said the sanctions highlighted a dire need for reforms. 

"Bulgarians would like to see their institutions finally stepping up their fight against corruption," she told online news platform Dnevnik.bg. The "Bulgarian state is the only one which has not realized the need for decisive anti-graft measures. "

In a statement late Wednesday, the Bulgarian foreign ministry did not address any specific cases but said the country is committed to the fight against corruption and that it remained ready for dialogue with Washington. Bozhkov's party declined to comment at the time of publication.

Peevski, meanwhile, rejected the U.S. move and vowed to challenge it.

In an open letter sent to Bulgarian media, he slammed the sanctions as "absolutely unacceptable, biased and violating the letter and the spirit" of the Magnitsky Act.

"I haven't done anything to violate internationally recognized human rights, I'm not a state official, and I haven't participated in acts of corruption," he said. 

Washington's reasoning for imposing the sanctions "does not include a single true fact," he added.
Let's bomb Russia!

The Larch

QuoteEuropean Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and German Chancellor Angela Merkel have turned a blind eye to a rule-of-law meltdown in the EU's poorest state in recent years. Former Prime Minister Boyko Borissov, who dominated the country's politics for the best part of a decade, was their close ally on the EU political stage in the center-right European People's Party and was never challenged over his country's judicial failings.

So, Orban 2.0. It seems that the best recipe for entrenching your corrupt network in your often overlooked country is to be part of the EPP.

Depending on how this ends up I have the feeling that Merkel's legacy won't be seen with much kindness in the future.

Sheilbh

Quote from: The Larch on June 03, 2021, 05:34:14 AM
QuoteEuropean Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and German Chancellor Angela Merkel have turned a blind eye to a rule-of-law meltdown in the EU's poorest state in recent years. Former Prime Minister Boyko Borissov, who dominated the country's politics for the best part of a decade, was their close ally on the EU political stage in the center-right European People's Party and was never challenged over his country's judicial failings.

So, Orban 2.0. It seems that the best recipe for entrenching your corrupt network in your often overlooked country is to be part of the EPP.
Well also the liberal group apparently - and obviously the Maltese Labour Party is in the PES. I think there is something to think about and look at the way the European party families have possibly been used for almost reputation laundering by corrupt states/parties.

But it does feel like we're asking a lot of European institutions to punish member states if informal associations of political parties can't even sanction one of their members.
Let's bomb Russia!

The Larch

Hope this is the right place for this piece of news:

QuoteU.S. and EU resolve 17-year Boeing-Airbus dispute

The two sides agreed to suspend for five years tariffs that stem from the dispute.
CNBC reported last week that the EU was pressing the White House to reach a deal to end trade tariffs imposed during the Trump administration.
Boeing and Airbus shares rose on the news.

LONDON — The United States and European Union said Tuesday they have resolved a 17-year-long fight over aircraft subsidies, agreeing to suspend tariffs for five years stemming from the Boeing-Airbus dispute.

"This meeting has started with a breakthrough on aircraft," said European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, who met with President Joe Biden at a U.S.-EU summit in Brussels. "This really opens a new chapter in our relationship because we move from litigation to cooperation on aircraft — after 17 years of dispute."

U.S. trade representative Katherine Tai said during a videocall Tuesday that: "Today's announcement resolves a longstanding trade irritant in the U.S.-Europe relationship."

"Instead of fighting with one of our closest allies, we are finally coming together against a common threat," she added, mentioning China.

She added in a joint statement with the EU that both sides "now have time and space to find a lasting solution through our new Working Group on Aircraft, while saving billions of euros in duties for importers on both sides of the Atlantic."

CNBC reported last week that the EU was pressing the White House to reach a deal to end trade tariffs imposed during the Trump administration, in relation to the Airbus and Boeing dispute that emerged in 2004.

As part of the deal, the EU and the U.S. agreed to provide research and development funding through an open and transparent process as well as to not give specific support, such as tax breaks, to their own producers that would harm the other side.

The idea is also to collaborate in addressing non-market practices conducted by other countries, including China.

Tuesday's big announcement marked Biden's first trip to the EU's headquarters and the first EU-U.S. summit since 2014.

"This shows the new spirit of cooperation between the EU and the U.S. and that we can solve the other issues to our mutual benefit. Together we can deliver for our citizens and businesses," Valdis Dombrovskis, the EU's trade chief, said in a statement Tuesday.

WTO rulings
The EU-U.S. relationship hit a low during the previous White House administration with then-President Donald Trump accusing the EU of being worse than China with its trade practices.

Trump imposed duties worth $7.5 billion on European products after the World Trade Organization ruled that the EU had given unfair subsidies to Airbus.

Shortly afterward the EU imposed tariffs worth $4 billion on U.S. products off the back of another WTO ruling that said the U.S. had granted illegal aid to Boeing.

Boeing shares were up 0.5% in the premarket on Tuesday morning, while Paris-listed Airbus shares were trading higher by 0.5%.

Separately, the United Kingdom also said Tuesday it was hoping for a similar deal with the United States within coming days.

The U.K. was a member of the EU when the dispute emerged and was hit by the trade tensions that developed during the Trump presidency.