DOCSLIB.ORG

Current Developments in European Foreign Policy

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

HOUSE OF LORDS
European Union Committee
26th Report of Session 2005–06

Current
Developments in
European Foreign
Policy

Report with Evidence

Ordered to be printed 14 February and published 3 March 2006
Published by the Authority of the House of Lords
London : The Stationery Office Limited
£price

HL Paper 124

The European Union Committee

The European Union Committee is appointed by the House of Lords “to consider European Union documents and other matters relating to the European Union”. The Committee has seven Sub-Committees which are: Economic and Financial Affairs, and International Trade (Sub-Committee A) Internal Market (Sub-Committee B) Foreign Affairs, Defence and Development Policy (Sub-Committee C) Environment and Agriculture (Sub-Committee D) Law and Institutions (Sub-Committee E) Home Affairs (Sub-Committee F) Social and Consumer Affairs (Sub-Committee G)

Our Membership

The Members of the European Union Committee are: Lord Blackwell Lord Bowness
Lord Maclennan of Rogart Lord Marlesford
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood Lord Dubs
Lord Neill of Bladen Lord Radice
Lord Geddes Lord Goodhart Lord Grenfell (Chairman) Lord Hannay of Chiswick Lord Harrison
Lord Renton of Mount Harry Baroness Thomas of Walliswood Lord Tomlinson Lord Woolmer of Leeds Lord Wright of Richmond

The Members of the Sub-Committee which carried out this inquiry (Foreign Affairs, Defence and Development Policy, Sub-Committee C) are:

Lord Bowness (Chairman) Lord Boyce Lord Dykes Baroness Falkner of Margravine Lord Freeman Lord Hannay of Chiswick Lord Lea of Crondall Lord King of Bridgwater Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean Lord Tomlinson Lord Truscott

Information about the Committee

The reports and evidence of the Committee are published by and available from The Stationery Office. For information freely available on the web, our homepage is: http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/lords_eu_select_committee.cfm There you will find many of our publications, along with press notices, details of membership and forthcoming meetings, and other information about the ongoing work of the Committee and its Sub-Committees, each of which has its own homepage.

General Information

General information about the House of Lords and its Committees, including guidance to witnesses, details of current inquiries and forthcoming meetings is on the internet at http://www.parliament.uk/about_lords/about_lords.cfm

Contacts for the European Union Committee

Contact details for individual Sub-Committees are given on the website. General correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the European Union Committee, Committee Office, House of Lords, London, SW1A OPW The telephone number for general enquiries is 020 7219 5791. The Committee’s email address is [email protected]

CONTENTS Report

Paragraph Page

1

5

Appendix 1: Sub-Committee C (Foreign Affairs, Defence and Development Policy)

67

Appendix 2: Reports Oral Evidence

The Rt Hon Douglas Alexander MP, Minister for Europe; Mr Tim Barrow, Deputy Political Director and Assistant Director, EU External; and Mr Hugh Powell, Head of Security Policy Group, Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  • Oral evidence, 2 February 2006
  • 1

NOTE: References in the text of the report are as follows: (Q) refers to a question in oral evidence (p) refers to a page of written evidence

Current Developments in European Foreign Policy

1. 2.
The Committee asked the Minister for Europe, Mr Douglas Alexander MP, to give evidence on the most recent developments in European Foreign Policy. We thank the Minister for his time.

In this Report we make available, for the information of the House, the oral evidence given to Sub-Committee C (Foreign Affairs, Defence and Development Policy) by the Minister for Europe, accompanied by Mr Tim Barrow and Mr Hugh Powell, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, on 2 February 2006.

  • 3.
  • Key topics in the evidence are:

•••••••••••

Key developments of the United Kingdom Presidency. (Q 1) Financing of the Common Foreign and Security Policy. (QQ 5–8) Scrutiny of CFSP. (QQ 9–10) The presentation of CFSP. (QQ 37–39) Non-proliferation of WMD and small arms. (QQ 11–16) ESDP missions in Africa. (QQ 17–23) The future of the Western Balkans. (QQ 24–27) The possibility of a visa-free regime with Ukraine. (QQ 2–4) The Middle East Peace Process. (QQ 28–36) The future of the Barcelona Process. (Q 55) EU assistance to Iraq and Afghanistan. (QQ 40–54)

  • 6
  • CURRENT DEVELOPMENTS IN EUROPEAN FOREIGN POLICY

APPENDIX 1: SUB-COMMITTEE C (FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND DEVELOPMENT POLICY)

The members of the Sub-Committee which conducted this inquiry were:
Lord Bowness (Chairman) Lord Boyce Lord Dykes Baroness Falkner of Margravine Lord Freeman Lord Hannay of Chiswick Lord King of Bridgwater Lord Lea of Crondall Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean Lord Tomlinson Lord Truscott

Declarations of Interest

Please also see the Register of Members Interests
Lord Dykes

Chairman, The European Atlantic Group (19 September 2005). Visit with British-Italian parliamentary group to Portofino, Italy (5–6 November 2005). Hospitality and accommodation (but not travel) paid by Italian Government and corporate donors. Discussion on Defence and Security.

Lord Hannay of Chiswick

Chair, United Nations Association of the UK. Member, Advisory Board, Centre for European Reform. Member, Advisory Board, European Foreign Affairs Review.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean

Council of Ditchley Foundation.

  • CURRENT DEVELOPMENTS IN EUROPEAN FOREIGN POLICY
  • 7

APPENDIX 2: REPORTS Recent Reports from the Select Committee

Review of Scrutiny of European Legislation (1st Report session 2002–03, HL Paper 15)

Annual Report 2004 (32nd Report session 2003–04, HL Paper 186) The Draft Constitutional Treaty (41st Report session 2002–03, HL Paper 169)

Session 2005–2006 Reports prepared by Sub-Committee C

The European Union’s Role At the Millennium Review Summit (11th Report session 2005–2006, HL Paper 35)

Review of Scrutiny: Common Foreign & Security Policy (19th Report session 2005–2006, HL Paper 100)

Session 2004–2005 Reports prepared by Sub-Committee C

Current Developments in European Foreign Policy (2nd Report session 2004–05, HL Paper 44)

European Defence Agency (9th Report session 2004–05, HL Paper 76) Preventing Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction: The EU Contribution (13th Report session 2004–2005, HL Paper 96)

Session 2003–2004 Reports prepared by Sub-Committee C

Current Developments in European Foreign Policy (4th Report session 2003–04, HL Paper 28)

EU Development Aid in Transition (12th Report session 2003–04, HL Paper 75) Current Developments in European Foreign Policy (19th Report session 2003–04, HL Paper 118)

EU Security Strategy (31st Report session 2003–04, HL Paper180)

Session 2002–2003 Reports prepared by Sub-Committee C

EU Russia Relations (3rd Report session 2002–03, HL Paper 29) EU—Effective in a Crisis? (7th Report session 2002–03, HL Paper 53) The Future of Europe: Convention Working Group—Reports on Defence and External Action (15th Report session 2002–03, HL Paper 80)

Evidence by the Minister for Europe, Foreign and Commonwealth Office on European Security and Defence Policy Scrutiny, the General Affairs and External Relations Council of 18–19 March 2003 and the Current State of Common Foreign and Security Policy (19th Report session 2002–03, HL Paper 94)

The Future of Europe: Constitutional Treaty—Draft Articles on External Action (23rd Report session 2002–03, HL Paper 107)

A Fractured Partnership? Relations Between the European Union and the United States of America (30th Report session 2002–03, HL Paper 134)

Current Developments in European Foreign Policy (37th Report session 2002–03, HL Paper 152)

Minutes of Evidence

TAKEN BEFORE THE EUROPEAN UNION (SUB-COMMITTEE C)
THURSDAY 2 FEBRUARY 2006

  • Present
  • Bowness, L (Chairman)

Boyce, L Dykes, L
King of Bridgwater, L Lea of Crondall, L Tomlinson, L

  • Hannay of Chiswick, L
  • Truscott, L

Examination of Witnesses

Witnesses: Rt Hon Douglas Alexander, a Member of the House of Commons, Minister for Europe, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Mr Tim Barrow, Deputy Political Director and Assistant Director, EU External, and Mr Hugh Powell, Head of Security Policy Group, examined.

Q1 Chairman: Minister, good afternoon to you and in relation to the noted Ukraine Summit, which took to all your oYcials. Thank you very much for being able to arrange this date. We entirely understood why you could not come last week. We are very grateful that you are able to come so soon after nevertheless. Is there anything that you would like to say to us before we move to questions? place during our Presidency, and a revised counterterrorism strategy which necessarily, and perhaps inevitably, received widespread currency after the tragic events in London here on 7 July. We welcome the opportunity to be in front of the Committee today. I just also take this opportunity to introduce the two oYcials supporting me today. We have Tim Barrow on my right, Deputy Political Director and Assistant for the European team, and also Hugh Powell, who is the Head of Security Policy Group. I hope, with your permission, if there are specific subjects on which they could assist the Committee, they would also be able to join in answering your questions.
Mr Alexander: Perhaps it might be helpful, with your permission, Chairman, to make a brief introductory statement to contextualise some of the specific questions that the clerk has intimated to us. Of course, we are grateful for the opportunity to discuss the Common Foreign and Security Policy. As you are aware, ensuring an eVective and active CFSP was a priority during the Presidency that has just past, and I would highlight one or two of the key successes by way of introduction. We have launched a successful civilian ESDP mission in Ache—the first time there has been such a mission in Asia with the European Union beyond our borders—and, indeed, one at the Rafah border crossing in the Middle East, and also the integrated rule of law mission in Iraq, about which we will no doubt comment. We judge these to be crucial contributions and demonstrate that missions can be launched rapidly, although there have been specific challenges we have faced with rapidity, which will be the subject of one of the questions, but also, we judge, eVectively during our Presidency. The opening of accession talks both with Turkey and also with Croatia on 3 October, and the granting of candidate status for Macedonia, we also judge to be significant successes in this regard, along with the opening of SAE negotiations both for Bosnia and Herzegovina and also for Serbia and Montenegro, which took place respectively in November and October. There was also in the area of CFSP agreement on a long-term European Union strategy for Africa at the December European Council. Progress in relation to the European neighbourhood policy and, in particular, the first
Q2 Chairman: We would be very pleased. Can I ask you one question arising out of your introduction? You referred to the Ukraine and the negotiations with them. For a long time there has been talk of negotiating a visa-free regime. What is the position on that? Mr Alexander: I think—taking up the opportunity— given the next job to which Mr Barrow is moving, he is probably uniquely qualified to answer that point as our man in Kiev! Mr Barrow: We have started a process of talks on visa facilitation with the Ukrainians at the EU level. Of course, this is slightly diVerent for us as an EU Member State who is not part of the Schengen area, but we made sure that by the time of the summit we were in a position to get those talks started. We are hoping to make rapid progress, and there are related issues, not just to the question of visa facilitation but also to questions of a readmission agreement, which will be part of those negotiations as well.

Q3 Chairman: Do you expect something to come wave of action plans saw real progress, for example, forward fairly soon?

2

current developments in european foreign policy: evidence

2 February 2006  Rt Hon Douglas Alexander MP, Mr Tim Barrow and Mr Hugh Powell

Mr Barrow: It slightly depends upon the level of tasked to take forward the lead, covered both the ambition of the Ukrainians themselves. They are issue of streamlining procedures itself and also pretty busy heading up towards parliamentary looking at possible alternative mechanisms to elections as well, but I think there is a prospect of achieve the same end, for example, oV-budget

  • fairly rapid movement, yes.
  • financing by Member States. There were already

questions being raised by Javier Solana at the December Council meeting, and we will certainly be very interested in being informed of the progress that he makes. On your second point, in terms of is the uplift significant enough to cope with the potential demands that CFSP will face, I suppose the first point to make as a matter of record is that we were delighted by the uplift that was secured after considerable eVorts under the British Presidency. My recollection was the previous figure was approximately 62 million euros and we took the figure up to 102.6 million euros. Candidly, however, there can be no certainty, given the area of work that we are discussing, as to what any budget figure provides in terms of adequacy. We judge that this is a very significant uplift and one that we are pleased with, but we cannot sit with a crystal ball and predict every potential call on the CFSP budget at this stage. We would be much more relaxed in the Foreign OYce if we could anticipate every problem we were going to potentially confront over the next 12 months, but that is just an honest admission of the world in which we operate. In terms of where we find ourselves, I think the budget for this year is significant. The second point that I would make would be that we also will be working in terms of the future financial perspective to make sure that this is actually a sustained uplift, because while there have been a number of missions, which I mentioned, launched during the British Presidency, we anticipate that this should not be a one-oV uplift but rather a reflection of the importance that we attach. I suppose the only other point that I would make in my initial answer to your question would be, while the oYcial briefing that you get from the Foreign OYce on this point says that we want to have the capacity to take forward this work, I am sure if I was sitting next to my Treasury colleagues they would oblige me to say that this must be constrained within the necessary budgetary controls of the European Union, and in that sense there is always a balance to be struck between making sure that there is in general a sustainable and appropriate size of budget for the European Union and, clearly, from our national interest also recognising that within that there should be a CFSP budget which is adequate to the scale of challenges that potentially we face.

Q4 Lord Tomlinson: But after the elections on 26

March? Mr Barrow: Not necessarily, but possibly. We understand that might be the case, but it is not inevitable. Mr Alexander: My next meeting at four o’clock is with Mrs Tymoshenko, so I will have a clearer idea as to the opposition I will have in view of the progress slightly later this afternoon.

Q5 Lord Tomlinson: Minister, you are aware that

Javier Solana prepared this paper for the December European Council meeting. In it he warned that, while the funding mechanism for military operations was working smoothly, there were problems with the civil operation and fact-finding missions suVering from delays in releasing funding. Do you believe or have the Council considered whether there is a need

  • for
  • a
  • streamlined financing and procurement

procedure for crisis management operations? With it, as it arose from the same paper, could I raise the budgetary resource question. Javier Solana estimated in that paper a need for 120 million euros with additional funding required if new operations were launched, and yet the EU institutions agreed in December 2005 to set the CFSP budget at 102.6 million euros. Is this suYcient and how would we meet a shortfall if there were the demand? Mr Alexander: Thank you for both questions. Let me answer them in turn. Firstly, are we supportive of the work that Javier Solana has been tasked at Hampton Court with taking forward? Yes, in short, absolutely. We are in a curious position where, although we recognise that this is an issue, given that it is often, in terms of the management, administered by the Commission, while as a Council we can have a view on this matter, and as a member of the Council it is not entirely within our gift to resolve the challenge that has been identified, but I can assure you we are very supportive of the eVorts, not least on the basis of our own experience during the Presidency, where at times there needed to be a degree of creativity and genuine leadership shown by the United Kingdom to ensure that, in the necessarily constrained timescales under which we were operating, there was a capacity to be eVective and move quickly, so we are very supportive. Indeed, his initial report to the December Council when there was the first opportunity post Hampton Court for there to be a factual update of the Council on the progress on the six work-streams

Q6 Lord Tomlinson: If we take a pessimistic view

that there is a demand that exceeds the capacity of the 102.6 million euros in the budget, do you believe that which were identified at Hampton Court, of which there is suYcient both quantum of funds and ability CFSP was one and one where Javier Solana was to access them in relation to any reserve that exists in

current developments in european foreign policy: evidence

3

2 February 2006  Rt Hon Douglas Alexander MP, Mr Tim Barrow and Mr Hugh Powell

the European Union budget to meet a serious crisis Mr Barrow: The discussion was such that this was an where there was a common view that there was an imperative need? estimate by Javier which did not have a detailed breakdown to say that this specifically will come in at this much, because, as we found during our Presidency, as we looked at the missions some costs came down.

Lord King of Bridgwater: I think I have got the

answer. The answer is, no, there was not anything specific, just do it for less or get other people to pay. Fair enough.
Mr Alexander: Common sense dictates that you will find a way to address whatever challenge that you face. You would expect me to say that. I suppose the other points that I would make would be, firstly, we did secure agreement, as I mentioned, from other Member States at the December Council that we would see sustained uplifts in the future during the current financial perspective, which I think is significant. I also think there is a balance to be struck here between continuing to recognise and uphold the fact that CFSP is essentially inter-governmental and not being in a position where the need to secure funds compromises the present balance that is struck between the oversight of the European Parliament and the legitimate and appropriate role for the European Council.

Q9 Lord Lea of Crondall: I have got a couple of

questions about CFSP procedure. The first is that in recent years the Council has agreed a number of strategies, notably the security strategy and then the strategy for Africa, which you may know we are doing a separate inquiry into which Hilary Benn and Lord Triesman have eVectively come and given us some evidence on, and a strategy against the proliferation of small arms and light weapons. Have we understood correctly why none of these strategies has been adopted as legally binding common strategies? May I illustrate the confusion perhaps just in my own mind, is this because, for example, the strategy for Africa is headed towards an AU/EU pact, and it is contingent on other people getting ownership of it? Could you comment? Mr Alexander: It is a more general point than the specific one you raise in terms of the Africa mission. The standard starting point in this area is to recognise that CFSP is often implemented through nonbinding instruments as a general position, and so to suggest that there has somehow been a specific decision not to use common strategies reflects, first of all, the area of work in which declaration statements have a significance in and of themselves. When I probed oYcials on this prior to the hearing today, and enquired as to on what basis we had seen a reduction in the number of common strategies with legal eVect, I came upon, and oYcials were helpful in providing me with, a statement from Javier Solana which is drawn from the EU’s external projection

Improving the E Y ciency of our Collective Resources,

which was a document produced back in 2000, in which the High Representative himself indicated that a thorough evaluation of such action, speaking specifically of common strategies, should follow before proceeding to table new common strategy proposals. To go back to 2000, there was a recommendation from Javier Solana himself that we should not actually be using, unless there was a fundamental review, the legally binding method of the common strategy. The Council conclusions of February 2001 saw that report by Javier Solana welcomed and the fact that there have been other instruments used rather than common strategies, in fact, therefore, reflects back both an initial report

Recommended publications
  • The Process of Brexit: What Comes Next?

    The Process of Brexit: What Comes Next?

    LONDON’S GLOBAL UNIVERSITY THE PROCESS OF BREXIT: WHAT COMES NEXT? Alan Renwick Co-published with: Working Paper January 2017 All views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the UCL European Institute. © Alan Renwick (Image credit: Way out by Matt Brown; CC BY 2.0) The Process of Brexit: What Comes Next? Alan Renwick* * Dr Alan Renwick is Deputy Director of the UCL Constitution Unit. THE PROCESS OF BREXIT: WHAT COMES NEXT? DR ALAN RENWICK Executive Summary The phoney war around Brexit is almost over. The Supreme Court has ruled on Article 50. The government has responded with a bill, to which the House of Commons has given outline approval. The government has set out its negotiating objectives in a White Paper. By the end of March, if the government gets its way, we will be entering a new phase in the Brexit process. The question is: What comes next? What will the process of negotiating and agreeing Brexit terms involve? Can the government deliver on its objectives? What role might parliament play? Will the courts intervene again? Can the devolved administrations exert leverage? Is a second referendum at all likely? How will the EU approach the negotiations? This paper – so far as is possible – answers these questions. It begins with an overview of the Brexit process and then examines the roles that each of the key actors will play. The text was finalised on 2 February, shortly after publication of the government’s White Paper. Overview: Withdrawing from the EU Article 50 of the EU treaty sets out a four-step withdrawal process: the decision to withdraw; notification of that decision to the EU; negotiation of a deal; and agreement to the deal’s terms.
  • 18 October 2017 Your Freedom of Information Request

    18 October 2017 Your Freedom of Information Request

    Political Section UK Representation to the EU Avenue d’Auderghem 10 1040 Brussels Belgium Website: https://www.gov.uk 18 October 2017 Your Freedom of Information Request: 0731-17 Thank you again for your request for information which we received on 1 August 2017. In your request you said: “I am writing to you under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to request the following information from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office: 1. A list of the foreign trips made by Simon Case for the purposes of discussing or negotiating the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union, clearly stating the purpose of the trip (e.g. Discussion with relevant parties on the impact of UK exit from EU, or, Discussion on Department for Exiting the European Union Policy), where the trip was to, when they were there, and the time spent in each location (if possible, to the hour) since 29 March 2017; 2. The time spent abroad by each of the following people: Tim Barrow; Katrina Williams; as part of their responsibilities either as the UK’s permanent representatives to the European Union or as part of the UK’s negotiating team for withdrawing the European Union, where they were, when they were there, and the time spent in each location since the 29 March 2017. We confirmed in our letter to you of 31 August that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) does hold information relevant to your request. We have interpreted “foreign” to mean to countries other than the United Kingdom or Belgium, the latter of which is where Sir Tim Barrow, Simon Case, and Katrina Williams are all currently based as part of their roles at the UK Permanent Representation to the EU (UKREP).
  • ECON Thesaurus on Brexit

    ECON Thesaurus on Brexit

    STUDY Requested by the ECON Committee ECON Thesaurus on Brexit Fourth edition Policy Department for Economic, Scientific and Quality of Life Policies Authors: Stephanie Honnefelder, Doris Kolassa, Sophia Gernert, Roberto Silvestri Directorate General for Internal Policies of the Union July 2017 EN DIRECTORATE GENERAL FOR INTERNAL POLICIES POLICY DEPARTMENT A: ECONOMIC AND SCIENTIFIC POLICY ECON Thesaurus on Brexit Fourth edition Abstract This thesaurus is a collection of ECON related articles, papers and studies on the possible withdrawal of the UK from the EU. Recent literature from various sources is categorised, chronologically listed – while keeping the content of previous editions - and briefly summarised. To facilitate the use of this tool and to allow an easy access, certain documents may appear in more than one category. The thesaurus is non-exhaustive and may be updated. This document was provided by Policy Department A at the request of the ECON Committee. IP/A/ECON/2017-15 July 2017 PE 607.326 EN This document was requested by the European Parliament's Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. AUTHORS Stephanie HONNEFELDER Doris KOLASSA Sophia GERNERT, trainee Roberto SILVESTRI, trainee RESPONSIBLE ADMINISTRATOR Stephanie HONNEFELDER Policy Department A: Economic and Scientific Policy European Parliament B-1047 Brussels E-mail: [email protected] LINGUISTIC VERSIONS Original: EN ABOUT THE EDITOR Policy departments provide in-house and external expertise to support EP committees and other parliamentary bodies
  • Letter from the UK Permanent Representative Ambassador of 25 November 2018

    Letter from the UK Permanent Representative Ambassador of 25 November 2018

    Council of the European Union General Secretariat Brussels, 25 November 2018 WK 14538/2018 INIT LIMITE BXT WORKING PAPER This is a paper intended for a specific community of recipients. Handling and further distribution are under the sole responsibility of community members. NOTE From: General Secretariat of the Council To: Delegations Subject: Letter from the UK Representation to the EU of 25 November Delegations will find attached the above-mentioned letter addressed to the Secretary-General of the European Council, complementing the letter received on 24 November 2018. WK 14538/2018 INIT LIMITE EN The Permanent Representative Ambassador Sir Tim Barrow KCMG Avenue d'Auderghem 90 9040 Brussels Belgium UK Representation Tel.: +32 (2) 287 8279 to the EU Brussels Fax: + 32 (2) 287 8396 e-mail: [email protected] 25 November 2ox8 Mr Jeppe Tranholm--Mikkelsen Secretary-General Council of the European Union S� With regard to the letter of 24 November 2018 addressed by Donald Tusk, President of the European Council, and Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the European Commission, to Pedro Sanchez, President of the Government of Spain, and the Statement to the minutes of 'the European Council (Article 50) meeting on 25 November 2018 on the territorial scope of the future agreements to be concluded between the Union and the United Kingdom, the Government of the United Kingdom recalls that it has no doubt about the sovereignty of the United Kingdom over Gibraltar, including British Gibraltar Territorial Waters. Additionally, the United Kingdom stands by its assurances to Gibraltar never to enter into arrangements under which the people of Gibraltar would pass under the sovereignty of another State against their freely and democratically expressed wishes.
  • Brexit Interview: Raoul Ruparel

    Brexit Interview: Raoul Ruparel

    Raoul Ruparel Special Advisor to the Prime Minister on Europe August 2018 – July 2019 Special Advisor to the Secretary of State for the Department for Exiting the EU October 2016 – July 2018 Co-Director, Open Europe May 2015 – October 2016 11 August 2020 The renegotiation and the referendum UK in a Changing Europe (UKICE): How influential, do you think, Open Europe was in shaping David Cameron’s approach to the Bloomberg speech and the renegotiation? Raoul Ruparel (RR): I think we were fairly influential. Our chairman at the time, Lord Leach, who sadly passed away, was quite close to Cameron, especially on EU issues, and so had quite a lot of say in some of the parts of the Bloomberg speech. Obviously, Mats Persson also had some input to the speech and then went to work for Cameron on the reform agenda. That being said, before Mats got into Number 10 under Cameron, I think a lot of it was already set. The ambition was already set relatively low in terms of the type of reform Cameron was going to aim for. So I think there was some influence. Certainly, I think Open Europe had an impact in trying to bridge that path between the Eurosceptics and those who wanted to see Brexit, and were in that camp from quite early on, and the wider Page 1/30 public feeling of concern over immigration and other aspects. Yes, there certainly was something there in terms of pushing the Cameron Government in the direction of reform. I don’t think it’s something that Open Europe necessarily created, I think they were looking for something in that space and we were there to fill it.
  • PDF Report for Ukraine: a Euro-Atlantic Vocation

    PDF Report for Ukraine: a Euro-Atlantic Vocation

    PROGRAMME UKRAINE: A EURO-ATLANTIC VOCATION? Thursday 7 – Sunday 10 September 2006 818th WILTON PARK CONFERENCE with support from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office What impact from the results of the general election held in Ukraine after the Orange Revolution? What prospects for further economic and social reform? What role for civil society and the media? What are Ukraine’s security priorities? How do Ukrainian commentators and politicians see relations evolving with the European Union? What role for Ukraine in the region? What prospects for the recently established political cohabitation? THURSDAY 7 SEPTEMBER 1300-1430 Buffet lunch available 1500 Welcome to Wilton Park Adela GOOCH Programme Director, Transitional States, Wilton Park, Steyning 1515-1630 1 SESSION 1 UKRAINE IN THE WORLD: STRENGTHENING RELATIONS Anthony SMITH Director, European Political Affairs, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, London 1630 Photograph and Tea 1715-1845 2 SESSION 2 BUILDING PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACY: PROGRESS AND PROSPECTS Nat COPSEY Associate Tutor, Sussex European Institute, University of Sussex, Brighton Pavol DEMES Director for Central and Eastern Europe, German Marshall Fund, Bratislava Vladislav KASKIV Chairman, Political Council of Pora Civic Party, Kiev 1900 Drinks Reception 1945 Dinner FRIDAY 8 SEPTEMBER 0900-1030 3 SESSION 3 UKRAINE AND NATO: WHAT PROSPECTS FOR INTEGRATION? George KATSIRDAKIS Head of Defence Cooperation, NATO, Brussels Leonid KOZHARA People’s Deputy of Ukraine, Party of the Regions, Kiev James SHERR Fellow, Conflict Studies Research
  • 13002 CER Annual Report 2016 LOW RES PDF.Indd

    13002 CER Annual Report 2016 LOW RES PDF.Indd

    The year of Brexit and Trump Annual Report 2016 CENTRE FOR EUROPEAN REFORM 13002 CER Annual report cover for web eg Blue background 2016 etc.indd 2 08/02/2017 16:29 THE CER IN DECEMBER 2016 About the CER FROM LEFT TO RIGHT, TOP TO BOTTOM: John Springford, The Centre for European Reform is a European think-tank with Christian Odendahl, its head offi ce in London. It seeks to achieve an open, outward- Daniel Crewes, Ian Bond, Simon Tilford, looking, infl uential and prosperous European Union; and a Kate Mullineux, Agata mutually benefi cial relationship between the EU and the UK. Gostyńska-Jakubowska, The Brexit referendum makes the CER’s work more relevant and Rem Korteweg, Sophia Besch, necessary than ever. The EU badly needs reform, while the UK’s ties Anna Yorke, Jordan with it need serious and sensible analysis. The CER favours as close Orsler, Charles Grant, as possible an economic and political relationship between the UK Sophie Horsford and Luigi Scazzieri. and the EU, while respecting the result of the referendum. In the months after the referendum the CER reviewed its strategy and Absent: Camino decided on three shifts in its work and organisation. First, the CER will focus Mortera-Martinez on making practical and constructive proposals for the UK’s future links with the EU. It will tackle questions such as, what would be the economic impact of the various options available to the UK? Which of these options could work politically? Which people and institutions will play a leading role in the Brexit talks? How will Brexit aff ect the most important EU policies? And what does Brexit mean for the EU’s international role? Second, we have launched a programme of research and events on the economic causes of populism, to be concluded in the spring of 2018.
  • Whitehall in Brussels: the Uk Permanent Representation to the Eu

    Whitehall in Brussels: the Uk Permanent Representation to the Eu

    WHITEHALL IN BRUSSELS: THE UK PERMANENT REPRESENTATION TO THE EU MATT BEVINGTON WHITEHALL IN BRUSSELS: THE UK PERMANENT REPRESENTATION TO THE EU 1 FOREWORD The UK has left the European Union but the two sides, as neighbours, partners and competitors, will need to continue to work with each other. How this happens matters. The UK Permanent Represeenation to the European Union was, during the UK’s membership, a crucial cog in the machinery both of UK-EU interaction and of coordination within Whitehall. Renamed the UK Mission to the EU it will continue to play a vital role. I’d like to thank Matt Bevington for producing this report for us, and to recommend it to you as an invaluable summary both of how the UK interacted with the EU in the past, and what role UKMiss might play in those interactions going forward. More broadly, as Matt has now left UKICE to work elsewhere, this serves as an opportunity to thank him for all his work for us over the last few years. He will be sadly missed. In addition, thanks are due to Jill Rutter for editing and checking over the report, and Navjyot Lehl for handling design issues. I hope you find what follows interesting and useful. Anand Menon 10 March 2021 2 WHITEHALL IN BRUSSELS: THE UK PERMANENT REPRESENTATION TO THE EU CONTENTS Foreword 2 Introduction 4 The Permanent Representation to the EU 5 Size 6 Culture 7 Structure 8 Senior officials 13 Permanent Representative 13 Deputy Permanent Representative 17 EU Sherpa 19 Negotiation 24 Tactics 25 Personalities and experience 27 Engaging with Whitehall 31 Explaining Europe 31 A changing EU 34 Influencing policy 34 Influencing at EU level 38 The British approach 38 European Parliament 40 Bureaucratic positions 43 Brexit 46 The renegotiation 48 After the referendum 50 The UK Mission to the EU 55 Conclusion 58 WHITEHALL IN BRUSSELS: THE UK PERMANENT REPRESENTATION TO THE EU 3 INTRODUCTION The UK has left the EU, but a close and important relationship between the two is inevitable and needs to be maintained.
  • Toward a Future EU-UK Relationship in Foreign Policy and Defense

    Toward a Future EU-UK Relationship in Foreign Policy and Defense

    Atlantic Council EUROPE CENTER Toward a Future EU-UK Relationship in Foreign Policy and Defense Co-chairs: General (Ret.) Stéphane Abrial, Sir Peter Westmacott Rapporteur: Olivier-Rémy Bel Atlantic Council EUROPE CENTER The Atlantic Council’s Europe Center conducts research and uses real-time commentary and analysis to guide the actions and strategy of key transatlantic decision-makers on the issues that will shape the future of the transatlantic relationship and convenes US and European leaders through public events and workshops to promote dialogue and to bolster the transatlantic partnership. Toward a Future EU-UK Relationship in Foreign Policy and Defense Co-chairs: General (Ret.) Stéphane Abrial, Sir Peter Westmacott Rapporteur: Olivier-Rémy Bel Task Force Members: Lisa Aronsson, Sophia Besch, Clementine Starling, Anna Wieslander ISBN-13: 978-1-61977-157-4 Cover: Britain’s Prime Minister Boris Johnson meets European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen in London, Britain January 8, 2020. REUTERS/Toby Melville This report is written and published in accordance with the Atlantic Council Policy on Intellectual Independence. The au- thors are solely responsible for its analysis and recommendations. The Atlantic Council and its donors do not determine, nor do they necessarily endorse or advocate for, any of this report’s conclusions. February 2021 Toward a Future EU-UK Relationship in Foreign Policy and Defense Table of Contents Executive Summary 1 Introduction 3 1. Retracing the negotiations to better understand the political space 4 2. Putting foreign policy and defense back on the table 6 2.1. Foreign policy and defense will not return to the forefront by itself 6 2.2.
  • Denise Milizia English Language and Translation (L-LIN/12) Ateneo Denise.Milizia@Uniba.It Department of Political Science

    Denise Milizia English Language and Translation (L-LIN/12) Ateneo [email protected] Department of Political Science

    Denise Milizia English Language and Translation (L-LIN/12) Ateneo [email protected] www.denisemilizia.com Department of Political Science Piazza Cesare Battisti Department of Political Science Corso Italia 23 4th floor Room 28 Tel. +39.080.5717849 International and European Studies Private and Public Administration Science of Social Service International and European Studies Private and Public Administration SPRISE 2nd year 8 CFU SAPP 64 hours Science of Social Service 2nd year SSS 7 CFU 56 hours Common European Framework of Reference for Languages Attendance Attendance Highly recommended exam 1. written test exam 1st esonero 1. written test 2nd esonero 3rd esonero exam 1st esonero 1. written test 2nd esonero 3rd esonero 2. oral test What do we do? How do we do it? We study the language of politics through the language of politicians. POLITICAL CORPUS Examples taken from real life language use! What is a CORPUS ? POLITICAL CORPUS A CORPUS is a collection of texts that we can process automatically. What is a CORPUS ? POLITICAL CORPUS WRITTEN SPOKEN What is a CORPUS ? POLITICAL CORPUS WRITTEN COMPARABLE SPOKEN PARALLEL WRITTEN SPOKEN Euroscepticism and its roots The open sea Why British opposition to the EU goes deep Oct 17th, 2015 BRITISH EUROSCEPTICS tend to see the late Lady Thatcher as their inspiration. But it was an earlier Tory prime minister who first suggested that Britain would stand aside from post-war moves towards European integration. His stance helps explain why the country remains ambivalent today. In Zurich in September 1946, Winston Churchill called not just for reconciliation between France and Germany but also for a “kind of United States of Europe”.
  • Brexit and the European Scrutiny System in the House of Commons

    Brexit and the European Scrutiny System in the House of Commons

    House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee Brexit and the European Scrutiny System in the House of Commons Thirty-eighth Report of Session 2016–17 Report, together with formal minutes relating to the report Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 29 March 2017 HC 1124 Published on 7 April 2017 by authority of the House of Commons The European Scrutiny Committee The European Scrutiny Committee is appointed under Standing Order No. 143 to examine European Union documents Current membership Sir William Cash MP (Conservative, Stone) (Chair) Alan Brown MP (Scottish National Party, Kilmarnock and Loudoun) Geraint Davies MP (Labour (Co-op), Swansea West) Steve Double MP (Conservative, St Austell and Newquay) Richard Drax MP (Conservative, South Dorset) Kate Green MP (Labour, Stretford and Urmston) Kate Hoey MP (Labour, Vauxhall) Stephen Kinnock MP (Labour, Aberavon) Craig Mackinlay MP (Conservative, South Thanet) Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg MP (Conservative, North East Somerset) Chris Stephens MP (Scottish National Party, Glasgow South West) Graham Stringer MP (Labour, Blackley and Broughton) Michael Tomlinson MP (Conservative, Mid Dorset and North Poole) Mr Andrew Turner MP (Conservative, Isle of Wight) David Warburton MP (Conservative, Somerton and Frome) Mike Wood MP (Conservative, Dudley South) Powers The Committee’s powers are set out in House of Commons Standing Order No. 143. The scrutiny reserve resolution, passed by the House, provides that Ministers should not give agreement to EU proposals which have not been cleared by the European Scrutiny Committee, or on which, when they have been recommended by the Committee for debate, the House has not yet agreed a resolution.
  • Putin Discusses Anti-Terrorism with France's Le

    Putin Discusses Anti-Terrorism with France's Le

    5 International Nieghbor News Putin Discusses Anti-Terrorism President Xi with France’s Le Pen Congratulates Opening MOSCOW - Russian Presi- a fairly rapidly developing dent Vladimir Putin urged range of European political of Boao Forum for Asia BOAO, Hainan - Presi- conference to pool their joint international efforts to forces,” Putin told the presi- fight terrorism on Friday at dential hopeful, adding that dent Xi Jinping sent a con- wisdom on solving the a meeting in Moscow with Russian officials are inter- gratulatory letter to the major problems faced by French presidential candi- ested in exchanging opin- opening ceremony of the the world and regional date Marine Le Pen. ions with her on bilateral 2017 annual conference of economy, and jointly “We all live in very difficult relations and the situation the Boao Forum for Asia, push forward a more conditions. We must real- in Europe. held in China’s Hainan dynamic, inclusive and ize the reality of this danger “I have long advocated that Province Saturday morn- sustainable economic glo- and unite efforts in the fight Russia and France should ing. Since its establish- balization process. against terrorism,” Putin restore cultural, economic ment 16 years ago, the Talking about economic told the French right-wing and strategic ties, especially Boao Forum for Asia has globalization in a keynote leader, according to an offi- at the moment when a seri- played an important role speech at the opening cer- cial Kremlin transcript. ous terrorist threat looms in building Asian consen- emony, Chinese Vice Pre- Putin said Russia has no over us,” Le Pen said at the sus, promoting Asian co- mier Zhang Gaoli asked intention of influencing do- meeting.