DOCSLIB.ORG

Live Report Thursday 2 March 2017

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Live Report Thursday 2 March 2017 Live Report Thursday 2 March 2017 Plenary Live: Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker presents White Paper on the Future of Europe Thu, 2 March 2017 | DeHavilland EU Live Coverage Summary Plenary Session, Brussels, 01/03/2017, 15:00-17:10 On 1 March 2017, Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the European Commission, presented the White Paper on the Future of Europe to the plenary assembly of the EP. The White Paper presented five scenarios for the future of the EU, by the titles “Carrying on”, “Nothing but the Single Market”, “Those who want to do more do more”, “Doing less more efficiently” and “Doing much more together”. During his speech, Mr Juncker said that he would not say which his favourite option was, as the Commission did not want to “dictate”, but to make decisions in an inclusive way. While the EPP group welcomed the White Paper and its structure, the S&D said that the Commission should have taken the lead and present the EU its input for action. In full Views from the Commission The President of the Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, reminded MEPs that the 60th Anniversary of the Treaty of Rome would soon be celebrated and stated that this would also mark the birth of the EU 27. He said that it was time to answer to a question as old as the EU itself: “Quo vadis, Europe 27?”. He then moved on to considering present-day challenges, calling for the EU to face them and “remain awake and alert”. He said that “the future of Europe should not become hostage to elections, party politics or short term domestic views of success”. He then called for the EU to move forwards following Brexit. Going back to the initial question, Mr Juncker asked again where Europe was heading. He said that “our task will be to say clearly what Europe can and cannot do”. He brought as an example youth unemployment, saying that Europe could do little in that field without significant action from Member States (MS). He noted that “saying that Europe alone has responsibility is simply wrong” and underlined the fact that the EU “should not act as if it alone could solve all problems”. Mr Juncker said that often talks about the future of the EU were limited to more or less Europe, but said that that question alone was misleading. He then said that the Paper depicted five scenarios for the EU 27, not all of which met the “spontaneous agreement of the Commission”, but which were all under discussion. He then moved on to the analysis of the first scenario, “Carrying on”. He underlined that, since it took office, the Commission had already in part succeeded in restoring citizens’ confidence in the EU. He stated that the EU was now concentrating on important things, “the big things that are important for the people”. He talked about “permanent Brussels-bashing that makes no sense, because simply there is no basis for it” and called for an end to such practices. He agreed, however, that things could be done differently, focusing on important things, including the capital markets union and the defence union. He then asked MEPs whether this would be sufficient. He then said that the EU could focus on the internal market and limit itself to that. This, he said, would be the second scenario, “Nothing but the single market”. He said that if more and more MS want to limit the Commission to being the administrator of the internal market, then that could be an option. However, he underlined that the internal market and the euro were not aims in themselves, but that “they’re for the people”. As to the third scenario, “Those who want to do more do more”, Mr Juncker asked MEPs whether all MS had to move forward at the same pace. “It should be possible for those who wish to make progress in a certain area to move forward”, while the others should have the possibility to join later. He then argued that this approach could bring great progress for countries who “wish to exchange information on combating terrorism […] or pool defence capacities”, but said that it would also involve multiple concentric circles and that “Europe would be harder to understand”. He then said that there was a fourth possibility, “Doing less more efficiently”. This would be possible by having the EU 27 to do more in a certain number of areas. “So, this would mean following the principle “less is more””. He said that areas for increased cooperation would include terrorism and security, diesel gate, borders, and monitoring suspects. As for scenario number five, “Doing much more together”, he said that MS could decide to share more power and resources and move “full steam ahead”. He said that Europe could be a forerunner on climate change “whatever the US is doing” and mentioned also cooperation in other sectors, such as defence. Mr Juncker said that all of these plans were theoretically possible, and the choice was now open. He said that he rejected the idea that the EU could be reduced to a free trade area, but he refused to say which was his favourite option. He underlined the fact that the Commission would not be making “its choice in splendid isolation”, but said that it would also be up to national Parliaments, governments and civil society. He also underlined the fact that “the Commission does not dictate or instruct”, but that it listened before speaking. Mr Juncker said that a day would come when the Treaties should be adapted in order to answer to a collective wish. He said that such conversation should not only take place in Rome or on the occasion of summits, but in the cities and regions throughout Europe. “It is through you, honourable members, and the MS, that we will have a debate on the future of the EU”, he stated. It would then be up to the EU, he said, to answer all voices. He said that over the next few months the Commission would add to the debate by issuing a series of proposals on current major challenges. He said that social Europe would be a vital issue for the decades to come and added that the Commission would present its views on the deepening of the economic and monetary Europe, on interacting with globalisation, on defence and on finance. As for defence, Mr Juncker said that it was clear that MS would have to increase their military budget. He however noted that “stability is not a function of military budget” but explained that it was linked to other things, including climate change. “The EU needs to carry on with its commitments”, he said, “and we need to help those who are lagging behind to catch up”. He reminded MEPs that in 2019 there would be new elections and said that the institutions should be able to meet that challenge. “The European political parties should be able to provide their voters with lists and will have to make sure that European democracy remains credible”, he added. Mr Juncker then said he would not stand for a second mandate and said it would be right for citizens to be able to choose their next President. He also reassured MEPs that he was “not tired, nor out of ideas. You will see”. He then noted that there were 40 wars going on in the world, but that none of them was on European soil. “Seen from other parts of the world, Europe is still something magnificent”, he said, arguing that the EU had created an area of stability and prosperity. He noted that sometimes he felt like others admired it, while Europeans hated it. Mr Juncker also called for a correct application of the principle of subsidiarity, saying that sometimes he felt that people calling for subsidiarity were forgetting solidarity. “A happy patriotism, peace, solidarity, these are values that should continue to guide us”. The rule of law, he said, should be the rule underlying the EU’s existence. He also said that the EU should be proud of being built on openness. “Democracy is a European product and we will defend it everywhere with all our strength”, he added. He also said that “Europe continues to be a great ambition”. He stressed that some choices needed to be made, but that the future of the EU 27 was still in our hands. Reactions from MEPs Esteban González Pons MEP (EPP, Spain) said that the anniversary of the Treaty of Rome would also be the farewell to the UK. He said that the anniversary should be “the time to renew our commitments”. He then asked how the EU would deal with challenges, how it would move forward and whether it should move forward. Mr González Pons MEP thanked the Commission for proposing five scenarios even if it knew that they might not all be welcomed. He added that, for his group, there could also be a sixth one, merging the other five. “We may have forgotten where we come from: we come from war, poverty and hunger”, he said, before reminding MEPs that the EU was the best way to achieve peace. He repeated that the debate on the future of the EU was necessary. He underlined the fact that, by launching this debate, the Institutions were showing that they had realised that Europe was not built by the Council, the Commission or the EP, but by its citizens. Gianni Pittella MEP (S&D, Italy) said that the White Paper that the Commission had just presented had disappointed the S&D group.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Mr Josep Borrell Vice-President of the European Commission High Representative of the Union for the CFSP Rue De La Loi 170 1000 Brussels
    Mr Josep Borrell Vice-President of the European Commission High Representative of the Union for the CFSP Rue de la Loi 170 1000 Brussels Brussels, 16th April 2021 Dear Mr. High Representative; Mr Vice-President of the Commission: A delegation from the illegitimate National Assembly of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, which emerged from the electoral farce organised on 6th December 2020 by the regime of Nicolás Maduro, recently paid a visit to Brussels and was officially received by the institution you lead. According to a statement you made on behalf of the European Union on 6th December, this spurious process took place in the absence of electoral conditions that could have guaranteed its credibility, without any respect for political pluralism, and in an atmosphere of persecution and disqualification of democratic leaders whose legitimate rights were curtailed. Your statement concludes that such circumstances could not consider this process credible, inclusive, and transparent and therefore the results did not represent the will of the Venezuelan people. That initial statement was confirmed on 6 January of this year by a new declaration, in similar terms to those expressed on 6 December, and by the conclusions of the Foreign Affairs Council of 25 January. These reiterated the lack of recognition of the electoral process and regretted the behaviour of the authorities of the Maduro regime, whose actions are preventing a solution to the serious crisis in Venezuela. We were surprised and gravely concerned to learn that on 14th April, at your request, senior officials of the European External Action Service received the aforementioned delegation, comprising Iris Varela, Pedro Carreño and Desirée Santos Amaral, at the EEAS headquarters.
    [Show full text]
  • European Parliament 2019-2024
    European Parliament 2019-2024 Committee on Industry, Research and Energy ITRE_PV(2019)0925_1 MINUTES Meeting of 25 September 2019, 9.00-12.30 and 14.30-18.30 BRUSSELS 25 September 2019, 9.00 – 10.00 In camera 1. Coordinators’ meeting The Coordinators’ meeting was held from 9.00 to 10.00 in camera with Adina-Ioana Vălean (Chair) in the chair. (See Annex I) * * * The meeting opened at 10.04 on Wednesday, 25 September 2019, with Adina-Ioana Vălean (Chair) presiding. 2. Adoption of agenda The agenda was adopted. PV\1189744EN.docx PE641.355 EN United in diversityEN 3. Chair’s announcements Chair’s announcements concerning coordinators’ decisions of 3 September 2019. Chair has informed the Committee members that the Committee meeting of 7-8 October has been cancelled due to the Commissioner hearing. The next ITRE Committee meeting will take place on the 17 October 2019. 4. Approval of minutes of meetings 2-3 September 2019 PV – PE641.070v01-00 The minutes were approved. *** Electronic vote *** 5. Establishing the European Cybersecurity Industrial, Technology and Research Competence Centre and the Network of National Coordination Centres ITRE/9/01206 ***I 2018/0328(COD) COM(2018)0630 – C8-0404/2018 Rapporteur: Rasmus Andresen (Verts/ALE) Responsible: ITRE Vote on the decision to enter into interinstitutional negotiations The decision to enter into interinstitutional negotiations was adopted: for: 49; against: 12; abstention: 2. (Due to technical issues, roll-call page is not available) 6. Labelling of tyres with respect to fuel efficiency and other essential parameters ITRE/9/01207 ***I 2018/0148(COD) COM(2018)0296 – C8-0190/2018 Rapporteur: Michał Boni Responsible: ITRE Vote on the decision to enter into interinstitutional negotiations The decision to enter into interinstitutional negotiations was adopted: for: 56; against: 3; abstention: 4.
    [Show full text]
  • Ms Mairead Mcguinness European Commissioner for Financial Services, Financial Stability and the Capital Markets Union Mr
    TO: Ms Mairead McGuinness European Commissioner for Financial Services, Financial Stability and the Capital Markets Union Mr Valdis Dombrovskis European Commission Executive Vice-President for An Economy that Works for People CC: Mr Frans Timmermans European Commission Executive Vice-President for the European Green Deal Ms Kadri Simson European Commissioner for Energy Brussels, 13 April 2021 Dear Executive Vice-President Dombrovskis, Dear Commissioner McGuinness, We are convinced that the Taxonomy Regulation is crucial for the European Union to achieve both the new greenhouse gas emissions reduction target for 2030 and climate neutrality by 2050. Additionally, the Regulation should help strengthening the European Union’s strategic resilience and global economic competitiveness, maintaining its energy security and affordability, boosting growth and job creation and supporting a just and inclusive energy transition that leaves nobody behind. However, to what extent the Taxonomy Regulation will ultimately meet these expectations depends primarily on the technical screening criteria (TSC) defined in the Delegated Act on climate change mitigation and adaptation. We understand the European Commission will publish it later this month, whereupon the European Parliament may make full use of its scrutinizing prerogatives under Article 290 TFEU. In advance of its publication, we would like to share with you some of our major concerns regarding the revised draft version of this delegated act. Firstly, it is indispensable that the Taxonomy Regulation takes into account transition at the energy system level and supports the most cost-efficient decarbonisation pathway for each Member State in line with the principle of technology neutrality. In this context, it is key to acknowledge the role of gaseous fuels.
    [Show full text]
  • 30.6.2021 A9-0213/1 Amendment 1 Loránt Vincze, Frances Fitzgerald
    30.6.2021 A9-0213/1 Amendment 1 Loránt Vincze, Frances Fitzgerald, Ivan Štefanec, Paulo Rangel, Maria Walsh, Tomáš Zdechovský, Brice Hortefeux, Sven Simon, Michael Gahler, Esther de Lange, Isabel Wiseler-Lima, Jeroen Lenaers, Esteban González Pons, Peter Jahr, Vladimír Bilčík, Maria Spyraki, Jarosław Duda, Axel Voss, Gheorghe Falcă, Elżbieta Katarzyna Łukacijewska, Geoffroy Didier, Eugen Tomac, Rainer Wieland, Stefan Berger, Pilar del Castillo Vera, Michaela Šojdrová, Marian-Jean Marinescu, Christophe Hansen, Andrius Kubilius, Daniel Buda, Rasa Juknevičienė, Lena Düpont, Angelika Niebler, Helmut Geuking, Milan Zver, Inese Vaidere, François-Xavier Bellamy, Agnès Evren, Tomas Tobé, Jessica Polfjärd, Jörgen Warborn, Pernille Weiss, Iuliu Winkler, Henna Virkkunen, Danuta Maria Hübner, Miriam Lexmann, Annie Schreijer-Pierik, Nathalie Colin-Oesterlé, Franc Bogovič, Cláudia Monteiro de Aguiar, Anne Sander, Fulvio Martusciello, Pablo Arias Echeverría, Lídia Pereira, Christine Schneider, Sabine Verheyen, Romana Tomc, Tom Berendsen, Isabel Benjumea Benjumea, Mircea-Gheorghe Hava, Antonio López-Istúriz White, Colm Markey, Lukas Mandl, Álvaro Amaro, David Casa, Peter Pollák, Janusz Lewandowski, Anna-Michelle Asimakopoulou, Marion Walsmann, Gabriel Mato, Ralf Seekatz, Javier Zarzalejos, Juan Ignacio Zoido Álvarez, Christian Sagartz, Jan Olbrycht, Rosa Estaràs Ferragut, Sven Schulze, Traian Băsescu, Siegfried Mureşan, David McAllister, Seán Kelly, Markus Pieper, Christian Ehler, Deirdre Clune Report A9-0213/2021 Helmut Scholz Citizens’ dialogues and
    [Show full text]
  • Intercultural & Religious Dialogue
    INTERCULTURAL & RELIGIOUS DIALOGUE ACTIVITY REPORT 2018 INTERCULTURAL & RELIGIOUS DIALOGUE Activity Report 2018 INTERCULTURAL & RELIGIOUS DIALOGUE ACTIVITY REPORT 2018 3 INTERCULTURAL & RELIGIOUS DIALOGUE INTERCULTURAL & RELIGIOUS DIALOGUE Activity Report 2018 Activity Report 2018 INTRODUCTION TABLE OF CONTENT DATE ACTIVITY PAGE The EPP Group Intercultural and Religious Dialogue activities aim to promote mutual understanding and an active sense of European citizenship for a peaceful living together. Decision makers are called 6 February Working Group Meeting 7 to provide answers to the complex crisis with political, economic, religious and cultural implications on Initiatives of religious organisations to face climate change in Europe. with CEC 'Intercultural and Religious Dialogue’ does not mean theological discussions in the European 28 February Conference on Oriental Christians in MASHREQ Region: 9 Consequences of the conflicts in the Middle-East on the Parliament. It is about listening to people from the sphere of religion and exchanging views with Christians Communities and future perspectives representatives of academia, governments, European Institutions on issues of common interest or concern and in connection to religion and intercultural relations. 6 March Seminar on the Importance for Europe to Protect Christian 13 Cultural Heritage - Views from the Orthodox Churches The Working Group on 'Intercultural and Religious Dialogue' is an official structure of the EPP 13 March Working Group Meeting 16 Group and is co-chaired by Jan
    [Show full text]
  • Formal Sitting of the Court of Justice
    Court of Justice of the European Union PRESS RELEASE No 42/10 Luxembourg, 3 May 2010 Press and Information Formal sitting of the Court of Justice Solemn undertaking before the Court of Justice of the European Union by the President and the Members of the European Commission Formal sitting of 3 May 2010 Today at 16:00, the Court of Justice of the European Union held a formal sitting during which the President and the Members of the European Commission gave the solemn undertaking laid down by the Treaties. The following gave the solemn undertaking: Mr José Manuel DURÃO BARROSO, President, Ms Viviane REDING, Vice-President, Mr Joaquín ALMUNIA, Vice-President, Mr Siim KALLAS, Vice- President, Ms Neelie KROES, Vice-President, Mr Antonio TAJANI, Vice-President, Mr Maroš ŠEFČOVIČ, Vice-President, Mr Janez POTOČNIK, Mr Olli REHN, Mr Andris PIEBALGS, Mr Michel BARNIER, Ms Androulla VASSILIOU, Mr Algirdas ŠEMETA, Mr Karel DE GUCHT, Mr John DALLI, Ms Maire GEOGHEGAN-QUINN, Mr Janusz LEWANDOWSKI, Ms Maria DAMANAKI, Ms Kristalina GEORGIEVA, Mr Günther OETTINGER, Mr Johannes HAHN, Ms Connie HEDEGAARD, Mr Štefan FÜLE, Mr László ANDOR, Ms Cecilia MALMSTRÖM and Mr Dacian CIOLOŞ. The solemn undertaking given by the President and the Members of the European Commission is the following: “Having been appointed as a Member of the European Commission by the European Council, following the vote of consent by the European Parliament I solemnly undertake: to respect the Treaties and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in the fulfilment of all my duties, to be completely independent in carrying out my responsibilities, in the general interest of the Union, in the performance of my tasks, neither to seek nor to take instructions from any Government or from any other institution, body, office or entity, to refrain from any action incompatible with my duties or the performance of my tasks.
    [Show full text]
  • My “Warts and All” Portrait of the EU Budget Process
    FUTURE EUROPE My “warts and all” portrait of the EU budget process As the EU’s budget commissioner until mid-2014, Janusz Lenwandowski wrestled for five years with the inconsistencies and political pressures that shape the Union’s spending policies t is perhaps fashionable, and certainly legitimate, to think of the EU’s budget as a gateway to a more modern and competitive Europe. But that often means over-burdening the budget Iwith excessive expectations, for the budget is not only much misunderstood but is also smaller than many believe. The budget amounts to only 1% of EU countries’ total gross national income (GNI), or to put it another way, 2.5% of the public spending of the 28 member states. That’s well below the national budgets of most federal states – the U.S. federal budget, for instance, is a quarter of America’s GDP. It may also come as a surprise that on average national budgets have since the new century been expanding more than has the EU budget, despite the EU’s “big bang” enlargement in 2004. A good many politicians keep telling their voters that it’s all about “us” and “them”, pitting contributions to “their” national budget against that which is “for Brussels”, and so doing much to foster resentment against the European Union. Yet the truth is that the EU’s administrative share of the European budget is less than 6%, so that 94% of the funds in the EU budget are spent beyond Janusz Brussels and benefit research institutes, regions, businesses and Lewandowski students across Europe, to say nothing of, say, Syria’s refugees and MEP was victims of natural disasters worldwide.
    [Show full text]
  • Centrum Badania Opinii Społecznej
    CENTRUM BADANIA OPINII SPOŁECZNEJ SEKRETARIAT 629 - 35 - 69, 628 - 37 - 04 UL. ŻURAWIA 4A, SKR. PT.24 OŚRODEK INFORMACJI 693 - 46 - 92, 625 - 76 - 23 00 - 503 W A R S Z A W A TELEFAX 629 - 40 - 89 INTERNET http://www.cbos.pl E-mail: [email protected] BS/49/2009 SPOŁECZNY ODBIÓR POLSKICH PRZEDSTAWICIELI W INSTYTUCJACH UNII EUROPEJSKIEJ ORAZ OPINIE O PRACY EUROPOSŁA KOMUNIKAT Z BADAŃ WARSZAWA, MARZEC 2009 PRZEDRUK I ROZPOWSZECHNIANIE MATERIAŁÓW CBOS W CAŁOŚCI LUB W CZĘŚCI ORAZ WYKORZYSTANIE DANYCH EMPIRYCZNYCH JEST DOZWOLONE WYŁĄCZNIE Z PODANIEM ŹRÓDŁA SPOŁECZNY ODBIÓR POLSKICH PRZEDSTAWICIELI W INSTYTUCJACH UNII EUROPEJSKIEJ ORAZ OPINIE O PRACY EUROPOSŁA ¾ Co drugi badany uważa, że polscy europosłowie dobrze reprezentują Polskę i Polaków (51%) oraz należycie dbają o interesy kraju (50%), a ponad dwie piąte ankietowanych (43%) sądzi, że intensywnie działają na forum Parlamentu Europejskiego. ¾ Najlepiej odbieranym przedstawicielem naszego kraju w insty- tucjach unijnych jest komisarz Unii Europejskiej do spraw polityki regionalnej Danuta Hübner, natomiast największą nieufność wzbudza eurodeputowany LPR Maciej Giertych. ¾ Połowa Polaków uważa, że sprawowanie mandatu europosła daje politykom duże możliwości działania na rzecz kraju i wspierania polskich interesów. ¾ Niejednoznaczne pozostają opinie na temat ilości pracy i obowiąz- ków, jakie wiążą się z funkcją europarlamentarzysty. CZY, PANA(I) ZDANIEM, SPRAWOWANIE MANDATU EUROPOSŁA: wiąże się z dużą ilością pracy i obowiązków 37% Trudno 22% powiedzieć 41% tak naprawdę europosłowie niewiele mają do roboty Badanie „Aktualne problemy i wydarzenia” (226), 4–10 marca 2009 roku, reprezentatywna próba losowa dorosłych mieszkańców Polski (N=979). Na początku czerwca Polacy po raz drugi wybiorą swoich przedstawicieli do Parlamentu Europejskiego. Będzie to jednocześnie pierwszy od października 2007 roku realny test poparcia dla ugrupowań partyjnych funkcjonujących na polskiej scenie politycznej.
    [Show full text]
  • Ranking European Parliamentarians on Climate Action
    Ranking European Parliamentarians on Climate Action EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CONTENTS With the European elections approaching, CAN The scores were based on the votes of all MEPs on Austria 2 Europe wanted to provide people with some these ten issues. For each vote, MEPs were either Belgium 3 background information on how Members of the given a point for voting positively (i.e. either ‘for’ Bulgaria 4 European Parliament (MEPs) and political parties or ‘against’, depending on if the text furthered or Cyprus 5 represented in the European Parliament – both hindered the development of climate and energy Czech Republic 6 national and Europe-wide – have supported or re- policies) or no points for any of the other voting Denmark 7 jected climate and energy policy development in behaviours (i.e. ‘against’, ‘abstain’, ‘absent’, ‘didn’t Estonia 8 the last five years. With this information in hand, vote’). Overall scores were assigned to each MEP Finland 9 European citizens now have the opportunity to act by averaging out their points. The same was done France 10 on their desire for increased climate action in the for the European Parliament’s political groups and Germany 12 upcoming election by voting for MEPs who sup- all national political parties represented at the Greece 14 ported stronger climate policies and are running European Parliament, based on the points of their Hungary 15 for re-election or by casting their votes for the respective MEPs. Finally, scores were grouped into Ireland 16 most supportive parties. CAN Europe’s European four bands that we named for ease of use: very Italy 17 Parliament scorecards provide a ranking of both good (75-100%), good (50-74%), bad (25-49%) Latvia 19 political parties and individual MEPs based on ten and very bad (0-24%).
    [Show full text]
  • The European Commission 2010–14 Profiles and Priorities
    The European Commission 2010–14 Profi les and priorities You can find this booklet and other short, clear explanations about the EU online at ec.europa.eu/publications European Commission Directorate-General for Communication Publications 1049 Brussels BELGIUM Manuscript completed in April 2010 Photos: European Union Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2010 60 pp. — 16.2 × 22.9 cm ISBN 978-92-79-10627-9 doi:10.2775/43396 © European Union, 2010 Reproduction is authorised. Printed in Germany PRINTED ON WHITE CHLORINE-FREE PAPER The European Commission 2010–14 Profiles and priorities Introduction Karel De Gucht The European Commission at work .. 4 Generating prosperity, stability José Manuel Barroso and development ........................35 Setting long-term goals for the EU . 7 John Dalli Catherine Ashton Putting patients Promoting peace, protecting and consumers first .................... 37 the vulnerable and fighting poverty ..9 Máire Geoghegan-Quinn Viviane Reding Translating research into jobs ........39 A new era for justice Janusz Lewandowski and fundamental rights in Europe ....11 A strong and sound budget makes Joaquín Almunia a strong and sound EU ................. 41 CONTENTS Economic growth based on open Maria Damanaki and competitive markets...............13 Blue growth for a green economy...43 Siim Kallas Kristalina Georgieva Fast, safe and clean transport for all 15 Humanitarian aid, the European way: Neelie Kroes fast, coordinated and effective ......45 Full speed ahead for the online Günther Oettinger single
    [Show full text]
  • Download HRW Letter to President Barroso
    HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH Avenue des Gaulois, 7 1040 Brussels, Belgium Tel: + 32 (2) 732-2009 Fax: + 32 (2) 732-0471 Mr. José Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission Rue de la Loi 200 1049 Brussels Brussels, March 4, 2014 Re: Mandatory reporting on conflict minerals Dear President of the European Commission, We are writing ahead of the College of Commissioners’ meeting tomorrow to urge you to ensure that the Commission’s legislative proposal on responsible sourcing of minerals includes a mandatory obligation for companies to undertake supply chain due diligence—that is, measures that companies must undertake to identify, prevent, mitigate, and account for human rights abuses in their supply chains. It is our view that the proposal must include a clear mandatory supply chain due diligence requirement for companies that place unprocessed or processed tin, tantalum, tungsten or gold, or manufactured products containing these minerals, on the European market. This due diligence must include an obligation for companies to check and report on their supply chains, in line with existing international standards set by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). The OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Supply Chains of Minerals from Conflict-Affected and High-Risk Areas lays out a series of due diligence measures that companies should take to avoid contributing to armed conflict when sourcing minerals from conflict-affected and high-risk areas. The Guidance has been endorsed by OECD Governments, including EU Member States and the US, and was negotiated with the input of companies, governments, and civil society. In the United States, companies reporting under Section 1502 of the Dodd Frank Act are already required to do enhanced due diligence on products containing minerals from the Democratic Republic of Congo and neighboring countries, obliging companies to publicly disclose the source of minerals originating from the region.
    [Show full text]
  • Brussels Bulletin No. 526: 6 January 2017
    Brussels Bulletin No. 526: 6 January 2017 NATIONAL PARLIAMENT OFFICE HOUSE OF COMMONS BRUSSELS BULLETIN NO. 526 6 January 2017 Contents Page 2017 LOOK AHEAD .............................................................................................................................. 2 A YEAR OF CHANGE FOR THE EU INSTITUTIONS ........................................................................................ 2 POLAND ................................................................................................................................................. 5 MEPS DEBATE DEMOCRACY AND THE RULE OF LAW IN POLAND ............................................................... 5 OTHER NEWS ....................................................................................................................................... 8 BIRDS AND HABITATS DIRECTIVES TO REMAIN UNCHANGED .................................................................... 8 AFCO GIVES FINAL APPROVAL TO CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM REPORTS .................................................... 8 COUNCIL AGREES POSITION ON PACKAGE OF PSYCHOACTIVE SUBSTANCES LEGISLATION ......................... 9 COMMISSION TO TAKE LEGAL ACTION AGAINST UK IN LIGHT OF EMISSIONS SCANDAL ............................. 9 EP’S EMPL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS VOTING DOWN CETA ............................................................... 10 JHA COUNCIL AGREES ON PIF DIRECTIVE BUT EPPO TALKS CONTINUE ................................................ 10 EP AGREES REVISION OF ITS RULES OF PROCEDURE ...............................................................................
    [Show full text]