DOCSLIB.ORG

Legislative Train02.2021

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Legislative Train02.2021 LEGISLATIVE TRAIN 02.2021 6A A BALANCED AND PROGRESSIVE TRADE POLICY TO HARNESS GLOBALISATION SCREENING OF FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENT IN STRATEGIC SECTORS [ ARRIVED ] > EU TRADE REGULATION CONTENT For a brief overview of the key points of the adopted text and its significance for the citizen, please see the corresponding summary note. Background and state of play On 13 September 2017 the Commission published a proposal for a regulation establishing a legal framework for the screening of FDI inflows into the EU. Parliament’s Committee on international trade (INTA) - associated committee: Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE) under rule 54, (rapporteur Reinhard Bütikofer (Greens/EFA, Germany)), - adopted its report on 28 May 2018 and the decision to enter into trilogue negotiations. Next to ITRE, the Sub-Committee on Security and Defence (SEDE)/Committee on Foreign Affairs (AFET), rapporteur Geoffrey Van Orden (ECR, United Kingdom) and the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON), rapporteur Roberts Zīle (ECR, Latvia), drafted opinions. As there were no requests for a vote in Parliament, INTA was authorised to start negotiations based on the INTA report. On 13 June 2018, permanent representatives of the EU Member States (COREPER) agreed on the Council's position. The trilogue phase started on 10 July 2018 and ended on 20 November 2018 with an agreement on a provisional text. After the text’s approval by COREPER, INTA endorsed it by 30 votes to 4 with 5 abstentions on 10 December 2018. On 14 February 2019, Parliament adopted the text by 500 votes to 49 with 56 abstentions. The Council formally endorsed the agreed text on 5 March 2019. The enabling framework entered into force in April 2019 as Regulation (EU) No 2019/452 of 19 March 2019, but will only be applied as of November 2020. On 13 March 2019, the Commission published a detailed analysis on FDI flows into the EU based on firm-level data, as announced in its 2017 legislative proposal. Commission proposal The Commission proposed: • to create an enabling legal framework which embraces the diversity of Member States’ approaches to FDI screening and their exclusive responsibility for national security, while taking into account the EU's competence for FDI; • to set basic requirements as well as time-limits for Member States’ FDI screening procedures; • a non-exhaustive list of factors that may be taken into consideration in the screening process; • to reaffirm that Member States may maintain, amend or adopt FDI screening mechanisms on grounds of security or public order under the conditions of the proposed Regulation, that Member States would not be obliged to create an FDI screening mechanism 1/5 and that they retain their final decision-making power on FDI; • to introduce a new Commission competence to screen FDI and issue a non-binding opinion, if i) an FDI in a Member State may affect the security or public order of projects or programmes “of Union interest”; ii) an FDI in a Member State may affect the security or public order of other Member States; • to create a cooperation mechanism between Member States and the Commission which aims to enhance the coordination of screening decisions taken by the Member State/s concerned and to increase the awareness of Member States and the Commission about planned or completed FDI that may affect security or public order by way of exchanges of information; • to introduce transparency and information requirements for screening and non-screening Member States linked to this new cooperation mechanism. European Council/Council position In June 2017, the European Council welcomed "the Commission's initiative (...) to analyse investments from third countries in strategic sectors, while fully respecting Members States' competences." Position of the European Parliament Parliament • added a new definition of “foreign government-controlled direct investment”; • complemented the non-exhaustive list of Union projects or programmes in the Annex; • added items to the proposed factors which have to be taken into account in the screening process such as media and election infrastructure and introduced new factors which may be considered such as the degree of reciprocity of market access and a level playing field for EU companies in the foreign investor’s market; • broadened the information exchange and dialogue to raise awareness and strengthened the sharing among Member States of the Commission opinion and Member States’ comments on an FDI to take place in one Member State that may affect the security or public order of one or more other Member States or in relation to a Union project or programme, while highlighting the need to ensure the confidentiality of sensitive information; • increased peer pressure on a Member State in which an FDI is planned, however without affecting its sovereign right to take the final decision on that FDI; this peer pressure would be highest in the event that one third of Member States raises concerns about an FDI; • proposed that stakeholders such as trade unions be allowed to request Member States' authorities to consider activating their FDI screening mechanism; • introduced an Investment Screening Coordination Group as a second institutional coordination body next to the envisaged FDI screening contact points; • required all Member States to submit an annual FDI report to the Commission and those Member States with FDI screening mechanisms to provide additional information on their application, based on which the Commission is to draw up and publish an LEGISLATIVE TRAIN 02.2021 6A A BALANCED AND PROGRESSIVE TRADE POLICY TO HARNESS GLOBALISATION 2/5 annual report. The provisional text • stresses that the proposed regulation's scope is strictly limited to FDI screening on grounds of security or public order; • eliminates language about the proposed right of the Commission to screen; • leaves the broadened list of factors non-exhaustive, adding among others directly or indirectly government-controlled investors and notably the media and electoral infrastructure; • splits the cooperation mechanism into two procedures: one for FDI undergoing screening and one for FDI not undergoing screening; • makes the drafting of a non-binding Commission opinion which Member States must “give due consideration” mandatory, if an FDI undergoes no screening and one third of Member States considers that their security or public order may be affected; • allows Member States to make comments and the Commission to issue a non-binding opinion up to 15 months after the completion of an FDI, if the FDI has undergone no screening; • allows Member States which consider that an FDI in their territory not undergoing screening is likely to affect their security or public order to request the Commission to issue an opinion; • as for FDI likely to affect projects or programmes of Union interest, the respective Member State must “take utmost account” of the Commission’s opinion and provide an explanation, if this opinion is not followed. References: • European Parliament, Legislative Observatory (OEIL), Screening of foreign direct investments into the European Union, 2017/0224(COD) • Regulation (EU) 2019/452 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 March 2019 establishing a framework for the screening of foreign direct investments into the Union, OJ L 791, 21 March 2019, p. 1-14. • Council of the European Union, Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for screening of foreign direct investments into the European Union (First reading) - Confirmation of the final compromise text with a view to agreement, 20 November 2018 • European Commission, Foreign direct investment in the EU, Commission staff working document, SWD(2019) 108 final, 13 March 2019; List of screening mechanisms notified by EU Member States. • European Commission, Proposal for a Regulation establishing a framework for screening of foreign direct investments into the European Union, COM(2017)487, 13 September 2017 • European Commission, Commission Staff Working Document accompanying the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for screening of foreign direct investments into the European Union, SWD(2027)297, 13 September 2017 • European Commission, Welcoming Foreign Direct Investment while Protecting Essential Interests, COM(2017)494, 13 September 2017 LEGISLATIVE TRAIN 02.2021 6A A BALANCED AND PROGRESSIVE TRADE POLICY TO HARNESS GLOBALISATION 3/5 • European Parliament, Report on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for screening of foreign direct investments into the European Union, 4 June 2018 Further reading: • European Parliament, EPRS, EU framework for FDI screening, Legislative briefing, April 2019 • European Parliament, EPRS, EU framework for FDI screening, Plenary at a Glance, February 2019 • European Parliament, EPRS, Foreign direct investment screening: A debate in light of China-EU FDI flows, Briefing, May 2017 Author: Gisela Grieger, Members' Research Service, [email protected] Visit the European Parliament homepage on globalisation. As of 20 November 2019. RAPPORTEUR Franck PROUST INTA HYPERLINK REFERENCES • https://what-europe-does-for-me.eu/en/portal/2/X06A_23001 • http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?lang=&reference=2017/0224(COD) • https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2019/452/oj • https://www.consilium.europa.eu/register/en/content/out?&typ=ENTRY&i=ADV&DOC_ID=ST-14764-2018-INIT
Load more

Recommended publications
  • List of Members
    Special Committee on Terrorism Members Nathalie GRIESBECK Chair Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe France Mouvement Démocrate Elena VALENCIANO Vice-Chair Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament Spain Partido Socialista Obrero Español Judith SARGENTINI Vice-Chair Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance Netherlands GroenLinks Jeroen LENAERS Vice-Chair Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) Netherlands Christen Democratisch Appèl Geoffrey VAN ORDEN Vice-Chair European Conservatives and Reformists Group United Kingdom Conservative Party Heinz K. BECKER Member Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) Austria Österreichische Volkspartei Ivo BELET Member Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) Belgium Christen-Democratisch & Vlaams Caterina CHINNICI Member Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament Italy Partito Democratico Anna Maria CORAZZA BILDT Member Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) Sweden Moderaterna Javier COUSO PERMUY Member Confederal Group of the European United Left - Nordic Green Left Spain Independiente 27/09/2021 1 Edward CZESAK Member European Conservatives and Reformists Group Poland Prawo i Sprawiedliwość Arnaud DANJEAN Member Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) France Les Républicains Gérard DEPREZ Member Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe Belgium Mouvement Réformateur Agustín
    [Show full text]
  • ROMA and LUXEMBOURGERS There Are People Who Love And
    ROMA AND LUXEMBOURGERS There are people who love and people who hate Europe. I happen to be a fan. The European Union ended wars, queuing up for the customs and it gave a voice to even the smallest member-states, like Luxemburg with 500.000 residents. Yet millions of other EU citizens have no say in the matter, no Commissioner of their own and no MEPs in Brussels, for the mere reason that they are an ethnic minority, like Roma and Sinti, Europe's largest minority. Why double standards? Is it because Luxembourgers are all white and Roma all dark? They are not. Thousand years ago, Roma left India and went to Russia, Persia, Turkey and Europe. Some intermarried with Jews and other non-Roma, or they lost their tan in Scandinavian countries. Even the Nazis noticed that racial purity is a difficult thing. They decided that 12.5 % of Roma or Jewish blood was enough to be deported. Gadje, non-Roma, also have mixed blood. New archeological findings reveal that only 10 up to 20 % of Europeans descend from the original tribes, the others have DNA from the Middle East or Asia. The major difference between Luxembourgers and Roma does not stem from ethnicity but from something that used to be very important in Europe: borders. Luxembourgers have them, Roma don't. The political relevance of the term "ethnic minority" is rather dubious. It means counting people in, not seldom to count them out. The reunification of Europe has deprived a whole nation from fundamental rights and this mainly happened because the 12 million Roma, present in larger numbers than Belgians, Swedes, Finns, Bulgarians, Czechs, Greeks, Danish, or Luxembourgers, did not live together in their own nation-state.
    [Show full text]
  • European Parliament Elections 2014
    European Parliament Elections 2014 Updated 12 March 2014 Overview of Candidates in the United Kingdom Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 2 2.0 CANDIDATE SELECTION PROCESS ............................................................................................. 2 3.0 EUROPEAN ELECTIONS: VOTING METHOD IN THE UK ................................................................ 3 4.0 PRELIMINARY OVERVIEW OF CANDIDATES BY UK CONSTITUENCY ............................................ 3 5.0 ANNEX: LIST OF SITTING UK MEMBERS OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT ................................ 16 6.0 ABOUT US ............................................................................................................................. 17 All images used in this briefing are © Barryob / Wikimedia Commons / CC-BY-SA-3.0 / GFDL © DeHavilland EU Ltd 2014. All rights reserved. 1 | 18 European Parliament Elections 2014 1.0 Introduction This briefing is part of DeHavilland EU’s Foresight Report series on the 2014 European elections and provides a preliminary overview of the candidates standing in the UK for election to the European Parliament in 2014. In the United Kingdom, the election for the country’s 73 Members of the European Parliament will be held on Thursday 22 May 2014. The elections come at a crucial junction for UK-EU relations, and are likely to have far-reaching consequences for the UK’s relationship with the rest of Europe: a surge in support for the UK Independence Party (UKIP) could lead to a Britain that is increasingly dis-engaged from the EU policy-making process. In parallel, the current UK Government is also conducting a review of the EU’s powers and Prime Minister David Cameron has repeatedly pushed for a ‘repatriation’ of powers from the European to the national level. These long-term political developments aside, the elections will also have more direct and tangible consequences.
    [Show full text]
  • List of Members
    Subcommittee on Security and Defence Members Anna FOTYGA Chair European Conservatives and Reformists Group Poland Prawo i Sprawiedliwość Christian EHLER Vice-Chair Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) Germany Christlich Demokratische Union Deutschlands Jaromír ŠTĚTINA Vice-Chair Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) Czechia TOP 09 a Starostové Clare MOODY Vice-Chair Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament United Kingdom Labour Party Sabine LÖSING Vice-Chair Confederal Group of the European United Left - Nordic Green Left Germany DIE LINKE. Laima Liucija ANDRIKIENĖ Member Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) Lithuania Tėvynės sąjunga-Lietuvos krikščionys demokratai Johannes Cornelis VAN BAALEN Member Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe Netherlands Volkspartij voor Vrijheid en Democratie Brando BENIFEI Member Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament Italy Partito Democratico Klaus BUCHNER Member Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance Germany Ökologisch-Demokratische Partei Jerzy BUZEK Member Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) Poland Platforma Obywatelska 30/09/2021 1 Aymeric CHAUPRADE Member Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy Group France Les Français Libres Javier COUSO PERMUY Member Confederal Group of the European United Left - Nordic Green Left Spain Independiente Arnaud DANJEAN Member Group of the European People's Party
    [Show full text]
  • Towards an Eu Strategy for Collective Security
    THE TRANSATLANTIC SOLUTION FOR NATO AGS EADS · GALILEO AVIONICA · GENERAL DYNAMICS CANADA · INDRA · NORTHROP GRUMMAN · THALES TOWARDS AN EU STRATEGY FOR COLLECTIVE SECURITY With media support from An international one day conference organized by the New Defence Agenda, EADS, TIPS and the Konrad Adenauer Stiftung. Towards an EU Strategy for Collective Security 3 February 2005, Palais d’Egmont, Brussels I am EADS My name is Aurora del Castillo. I’m in charge of Integrated Logistics Support for military aircraft at EADS CASA, the Spanish partner in the Eurofighter programme. A modern air force isn’t just aircraft, but a complex package of logistics services that range from pilot training and flight simulators to spare parts. My role is to liaise with senior officers from customers’ air forces, determine their needs and ensure these are fulfilled. I remain their key contact long after the aircraft has been delivered. I’m Spanish and European. I’m a woman in what is no longer a man’s world. I am EADS. www.eads.com AIRBUS EUROCOPTER EUROFIGHTER A400M METEOR GALILEO ARIANE The views expressed in this Report are personal opinions and not necessarily the views of the organisations they represent, nor of the New Defence Agenda, its members or sponsors. Contents Reproduction in whole or in part is permitted, providing that full attribution is made to the New Defence Agenda and INTRODUCTION 5 to the source(s) in question, and provided that any such reproduction, whether in whole or in part, is not sold unless Giles Merritt, Director, New Defence Agenda incorporated in other works.
    [Show full text]
  • Democratic Audit: European Elections 2019: What Will Happen in the East of England Region? Page 1 of 6
    Democratic Audit: European elections 2019: what will happen in the East of England region? Page 1 of 6 European elections 2019: what will happen in the East of England region? Traditionally this is a Conservative region at Westminster elections. Yet the East of England is strongly Eurosceptic and UKIP came top here in the last European Parliament elections in 2014, although the Tories hung on (just) to three seats. The Brexit Party now look certain to take over the UKIP vote and comfortably come first: on current polls they are guaranteed three of the region’s seven seats, and possibly one more. The latest polling indicates that Labour and the Liberal Democrats look assured of a single seat each. So the main uncertainty hangs on just how dominant the Brexit Party vote will be, whether the Tories’ slump means that they lose all of their seats here, and whether the Greens can pick up a seat. With voters able to cast only a single vote for a party list, the Democratic Audit team reviews likely outcomes for the parties and the main potentially electable candidates. Norwich cathedral. Picture: MemoryCatcher / 3041 images The East of England region juts into the North Sea and covers East Anglia down to the northern fringes of London. People here voted 56.5% to 43.5% for Leave in the Brexit referendum. Yet the area also includes some anti-Brexit cities such as Norwich and Cambridge. Last time UKIP won 35% of the vote and gained three MEPs (two of whom subsequently defected to other parties).
    [Show full text]
  • The European Union Symbols and Their Adoption by the European Parliament
    The European Union Symbols and their Adoption by the European Parliament Standard Note: SN/IA/4874 Last updated: 22 October 2008 Author: Vaughne Miller Section International Affairs and Defence Section This Note considers the symbols traditionally used by the European Union institutions and the recent formal adoption of them by the European Parliament. This information is provided to Members of Parliament in support of their parliamentary duties and is not intended to address the specific circumstances of any particular individual. It should not be relied upon as being up to date; the law or policies may have changed since it was last updated; and it should not be relied upon as legal or professional advice or as a substitute for it. A suitably qualified professional should be consulted if specific advice or information is required. This information is provided subject to our general terms and conditions which are available online or may be provided on request in hard copy. Authors are available to discuss the content of this briefing with Members and their staff, but not with the general public. Contents 1 The Symbols of the EU 3 1.1 Flag 3 1.2 Anthem 4 1.3 Europe Day 4 1.4 Motto 5 1.5 Euro 5 2 Attempts to formalise the symbols through Treaty change 6 2.1 The Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe 6 2.2 The Treaty of Lisbon 6 3 European Parliament amendment to Rules of Procedure 7 3.1 Constitutional Affairs Committee report 7 3.2 The Plenary adopts the symbols 7 4 Implications and reaction 9 2 1 The Symbols of the EU The process for the adoption of the EU single currency in three stages was enshrined in the 1991 Treaty on European Union (Maastricht Treaty), although the aim of economic and monetary union (EMU) had been acknowledged at the 1969 European Council summit at The Hague.1 The EU flag, anthem and Europe Day were adopted by the European Council in Milan in 1985, while the “United in Diversity” motto was adopted in 2000.
    [Show full text]
  • 2 0 1 8 a N N U a L R E P O
    A N N U A L R E P O R T R E P O R T B Y 2 0 1 8 T H E A T L A N T I C T R E A T Y A S S O C I A T I O N A N N U A L R E P O R T 2 0 1 8 A publication of Atlantic Treaty Association Club Prince Albert Rue des Petits Carmes, 20-24 B- 1000 Bruxelles Tel: +32 2 502 31 60 Email: [email protected] Web: www.atahq.org 1 CONTENTS MISSION & VISION FOREWORDS ATA President ATA Secretary General NATO PUBLICATION GENERAL ASSEMBLY BUCHAREST ATA MEMBERS Albania Italy Armenia Lithuania Austria Montenegro Azerbaijan Netherlands Bosnia & Herzegovina North Macedonia Bulgaria Norway Canada Portugal Croatia Romania Estonia Serbia Georgia Slovakia Germany Slovenia Greece Spain Hungary Ukraine Iceland United States (US) Israel 2 MISSION & VISION The Atlantic Treaty Association (ATA) is an organization of 37 national chapters that, since 1954, has been conducting research, analyses, training, education, and information activities on foreign policy, security and defense issues relevant to the Atlantic Alliance. Relying on its extended and highly qualified network, ATA produces top- notch knowledge on strategic themes and promotes a variety of programs and events. ATA initiatives draw together government and institutional authorities, political leaders, decision-makers, diplomats, civilian and military officers, academics, economic actors, media representatives, as well as young professionals and researchers, in an effort to further a cooperative approach to security and international relations. 3 ATA has established cooperation programs with likeminded organizations in countries of the NATO Partnership for Peace, Mediterranean Dialogue and Istanbul Cooperation Initiative.
    [Show full text]
  • Preventing and Tackling Violent Extremism – What Works Best?
    Preventing and tackling violent extremism – what works best? Wednesday, 31 May 2017 Science14 Atrium, Rue de la science 14b Brussels Conference Programme Morning session Time Topic Duration 08:30 Arrival and registration 30 min Welcome address 09:00 10 min - Hans Pung, RAND Europe Opening keynote speech 09:10 - Alexandra Antoniadis, Head of sector Prevention and radicalization, DG 20 min Home Panel 1 - EU and national responses to current security context, including terrorism and violent radicalization - Geoffrey Van Orden MEP 09:30 - Eva Joly MEP 75 min - Simon Smith, IMPACT Europe Advisory Board - Theo Muskee, Dutch National Police - Hans Pung, RAND Europe (Chair) 10:45 Coffee break 15 min Panel 2 - IMPACT Europe presentation - Joanna Hofman, RAND Europe 11:00 - Dianne van Hemert, TNO 60 min - Ron van Wonderen, Verwey-Jonker Instituut - Hans Pung, RAND Europe (Chair) 12:00 Buffet lunch 45 min This project has received funding from the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration under grant agreement no. 312235 Afternoon session Time Topic Duration Panel 3 - Ongoing measures to support countering violent extremism and their effectiveness and the contribution of IMPACT Europe - Merel Molenkamp, Radicalisation Awareness Network 12:45 - Ivan Calabuig-Williams, IMPACT Europe Advisory Board 90 min - Steffen Saigusa Nielsen, Aarhus Municipality - Ana Gomes MEP - Jean-Luc Marret, Fondation pour la recherche stratégique (Chair) Panel 4 - Emerging measures and approaches to preventing and countering violent extremism 14:15 - Rebecca Skellett, Strong Cities Network - Institute for Strategic Dialogue 70 min - Anissa Akhandaf, Antwerp Municipality - Prof. Hilary Pilkington, University of Manchester - Harald Weilnböck, Cultures Interactive (Chair) 15:25 Coffee break 20 min Panel 5 - Good practices and possible future initiatives for better understanding and tackling violent radicalization - Cristina Mattei, Hedayah 15:45 - Prof.
    [Show full text]
  • European Parliament Elections 2009 RESEARCH PAPER 09/53 17 June 2009
    European Parliament Elections 2009 RESEARCH PAPER 09/53 17 June 2009 Elections to the European Parliament were held across the 27 states of the European Union between 4 and 7 June 2009. The UK elections were held concurrently with the county council elections in England on 4 June. The UK now has 72 MEPs, down from 78 at the last election, distributed between 12 regions. The Conservatives won 25 seats, both UKIP and Labour 13 and the Liberal Democrats 11. The Green Party held their two seats, while the BNP won their first two seats in the European parliament. Labour lost five seats compared with the comparative pre-election position. The Conservatives won the popular vote overall, and every region in Great Britain except the North East, where Labour won, and Scotland, where the SNP won. UKIP won more votes than Labour. UK turnout was 34.5%. Across Europe, centre-right parties, whether in power or opposition, tended to perform better than those on the centre-left. The exact political balance of the new Parliament depends on the formation of Groups. The UK was not alone in seeing gains for far-right and nationalistic parties. Turnout across the EU was 43%. It was particularly low in some of the newer Member States. Part 1 of this paper presents the full results of the UK elections, including regional analysis and local-level data. Part 2 presents summary results of the results across the EU, together with country-level summaries based on data from official national sources. Adam Mellows-Facer Richard Cracknell Sean Lightbown Recent Research
    [Show full text]
  • Going Global: Europe's Security Policy Challenge
    CONFERENCE REPORT Co-organised by: Pub 76>,905.;/,-<;<9, *HYYPLY /HTPS[VU:\UKZ[YHUK 6[PZ 7YH[[ >OP[UL` :PRVYZR` <;*-PYL :LJ\YP[` >LHYL[OLJVTWHUPLZVM<UP[LK;LJOUVSVNPLZ>LLTWSV`ULHYS` WLVWSLHJYVZZ,\YVWLHUJV\U[YPLZ-YVT0YLSHUK[V :0?)<:05,::,: ;\YRL`HUKMYVT-PUSHUK[V7VY[\NHSV\YWYVK\J[ZHUK[LJOUVSVNPLZ 65,76>,9-<3*647(5@ WV^LYTVKLYUSPML¶H[OVTLH[^VYRHUKL]LY`^OLYLPUIL[^LLU >LKL]LSVWZLJ\YP[`HUKKLMLUZLJHWHIPSP[PLZ[VWYV[LJ[`V\MYVT OHYTHUKLUZ\YL[OH[V\YL]LYJOHUNPUN^VYSKY\UZIL[[LYMHZ[LY HUKTVYLLMÄJPLU[S`>LHYL<UP[LK;LJOUVSVNPLZ SECURITY AND DEFENCE DAY 2010 Conference Report 3 GOING GLOBAL: EUROPE’S SECURITY POLICY CHALLENGE CONFERENCE REPORT Security and Defence Day Palais d’Egmont - Brussels - 30 November 2010 4 Conference Report SECURITY AND DEFENCE DAY 2010 Giles Merritt Olivier Darrason Foreword In November 2010, the SDA and CEIS organised with that of the French Presidency in 2008 and that of their joint Security & Defence Day conference for the Sweden in 2009, the Belgian Presidency gave its sup- third year running. This annual event allows business port to this event from the outset, and naturally we hope leaders and policymakers from the European institu- that this will be the case with the Polish Presidency. tions and member states to freely express their views on Our thanks go out to our many distinguished speak- the key security and defence topics of tomorrow. ers for their contributions, and first and foremost to This latest SecDef conference covered a range of Pieter De Crem, the Belgian Minister of Defence, sensitive and important issues under the broad head- and Kristalina Georgieva, European Commissioner ings of the Lisbon Treaty’s implementation and the EU for International Cooperation, Humanitarian Aid and budget for 2014-2020.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 03 Sept. 2014 How the Sakharov Prize 2014 Is Awarded Background Briefing in the Next 10 Days, the Nominations of the Sakharov
    1 03 Sept. 2014 How the Sakharov Prize 2014 is awarded Background briefing In the next 10 days, the nominations of the Sakharov Prize for Human Rights will be decided by the European Parliament. The prize is awarded to “honour exceptional individuals who combat intolerance, fanaticism and oppression.”1 Previous winners include Nelson Mandela, Reporters without Borders and Anatoli Marchenko. If you believe that Azerbaijani human rights defenders – who are now in jail following years of work on behalf of the rights of others, and most recently on a list of political prisoners in Azerbaijan (on which they are now included) – then let the MEPs who vote on this know. Nominations for the Sakharov Prize can be made by: Political groups in the European Parliament. Or At least 40 MEPs. The deadline for nominations is Thursday 18 September at 12:00 in Strasbourg. NOTE: In order to decide on a nominee from their group some political groups have internal deadlines in the course of the next week. The next days are crucial. We focus here on four important political groups which might to support this nomination: The EPP Social Democrats Liberals Greens 1Source: The European Union website: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/aboutparliament/en/00f3dd2249/Sakharov-Prize-for-Freedom-of-Thought.html 2 Once the nominations are been made, the Foreign Affairs and Development committees vote on a shortlist of three finalists. This happens on either Monday 6th or Tuesday 7th October 2014. The members list for the foreign affairs committee can be found here: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/en/afet/members.html, while the development committee is here: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/en/deve/members.html#menuzone.
    [Show full text]