Tag Archive: European Union


Dependent on the European Union for Independence

Filed Under: European Union by BJL — Leave a comment
November 14, 2012

The Kingdom of Spain is facing another major crisis on top of its economic difficulty as the region of Catalonia threatens to secede and form its own independent democratic nation.  If Catalonia secedes, Spain will be losing one of its most economically prosperous regions, further driving Spain into impoverishment.  Catalonia seeks recognition from the European Union to establish its autonomy.  Catalonia claims that it is already a member of the EU because it is a region of the member state, Spain.  The region of Catalonia’s main issue is its status in the European Union, whether or not it is an automatic member or will be required to apply for membership.

If not accepted as an automatic member of the EU, Catalonia will need to fulfill conditions under the Copenhagen criteria in order to join the EU.  This requires a political, economic, and finally the fulfillment of the Maastricht Treaty; requiring each current member state as well as the European Parliament must agree to any enlargement.  Catalonia is a democracy that supports the Euro, is regionally wealthy, and therefore already meets most of the requirements to join the EU.  Catalonia faces difficulties dependent on whether or not the EU would automatically accept it as a member state if it does secede.

The ability to join automatically or require formal application and acceptance is a critical issue for the European Union.  If the EU were to allow the automatic acceptance of a member state’s regions, this acceptance authorization could cause serious division amongst the member states.  The automatic acceptance of a member state’s region into the EU would particularly affect Great Britain, Belgium, and Germany as each nation consists of regions with historically independent cultures.  On November 7th the Catalan President Artur Mas confronted the EU’s hesitant position by saying it would be “illogical” not to accept small, rich, pro-EU Catalonia as an automatic future member if it splits from Spain.  The EU is abstaining from discussing this issue until after the Catalan elections which will take place on November 25th 2012.

The Catalan elections occurring on November 25th are critical for Spain, the European Union, Catalonia, and restless regions of other EU member nations because the elections will force the European Union to take a position on regionalism.  President Artur Mas will seek to secede if his party wins the election, “The question will be if the EU is prepared to offer solutions to countries such as Catalonia, that have the will to be in Europe, that have the same rights as European citizens and that … only to change their political status.”

Tags: , , , , ,
Comment

EU Visa Liberalization – Unequal Outsiders in the Eyes of the EU

Filed Under: Attorneys, European Union, Uncategorized by KBW — Leave a comment
November 12, 2012

Article 18 of the TFEU states that, “Any discrimination on the grounds of nationality shall be prohibited.”  A look at the EU’s recent decisions regarding visa restrictions for third-country nationals makes it clear, however, that this policy can be superseded by Article 77 of the TFEU which vests the European Parliament and the Council with decision-making power regarding the granting of visas to third country nationals. An example of this can be seen in the European Commission’s recent proposal to the European Parliament and Council to add sixteen island nations to the visa-free list, five countries from the Caribbean and eleven from the Pacific islands (see also).  This proposal would allow citizens with a valid passport from these nations to travel within the EU for a period of up to ninety days without the need for a visa.

EU Home Affairs Commissioner Cecilia Malmström and leader for this proposal articulated the rationale behind such measures: “To facilitate travelling for tourists willing to visit Europe, and to spend their time and money, is crucial for our economy, and this is particularly important in a time of crisis, like the one that we are experiencing now.”  A look at the numbers (see IP/12/1177) indicates just how important tourism is to the European Union economy – in 2011, tourism amounted to foreign visitor spending of over €330 billion in 2011 and is estimated to exceed €427 billion by 2022 under the current visa regulations.  Facilitation of tourism through liberalized visa regulations could potentially boost spending by as much as €60 billion.

While this proposal probably came as welcome news to the citizens on the visa-free list, one cannot imagine that all other countries would necessarily share the enthusiasm.  Citizens of Turkey have in the past felt particularly discriminated against by the EU’s visa regulations towards them and have previously petitioned the Commission to adopt a long-term plan to liberalize the EU-Turkey visa requirements. Currently, the visa regulations between the two countries are notably lopsided, with Turkey allowing entry to EU citizens through the simple purchase of a low-cost visa at the border but the EU requiring significantly more extensive documentation, such as airline reservations, proof of insurance and proof of income, and even then, does not ensure entry.  Given the size of the Turkish economy as compared to that of any of the newly proposed island states, it is apparent that economic stimulus was not the only factor at play in the Commission’s proposal.  The EU Commission’s silence with regard to Turkey in this most recent proposal speaks louder than words ever could – that equality and economy must at times yield more immediate concerns.

Tags: , , ,
Comment

Scotland: Independence and EU Membership

Filed Under: European Union by KLJ — Leave a comment
October 31, 2012

An imminent issue is whether Scotland, if it becomes independent, would automatically keep its European Union membership after seceding from the UK. This issue is being raised because there are clear accession rules as to how a State can join and withdraw from the European Union.

Alex Salmond, the First Minister of Scotland, announced his plans to hold a referendum in the fall of 2014 about Scotland leaving the UK and gaining independence. This announcement by Salmond created conflict between Edinburgh and London. Scotland and England were joined by the Act of Union, passed in 1707, which created the UK (which also includes Wales and Northern Ireland). As of today, the head of state of Scotland is Queen Elizabeth II and Scotland has its own government, legal system, and legislature along with representatives in the UK Parliament. The British government has stated that Scotland’s powers do not include constitutional issues and, therefore, a referendum on independence would be illegal. Regardless, the referendum would push the British government to meet with the Scottish government to further discuss the issue of Scotland’s plan for independence.

“A new state, if it wants to join the European Union, has to apply to become a member of the European Union like any state,” said European Commission President, Barroso. To join the EU, the applicant country must meet membership conditions (which include a free-market economy, a stable democracy and the rule of law, and the acceptance of all EU legislation, including of the euro), and then implement all EU rules and regulations. The process is explained in Article 49 of the TFEU. All current EU States must agree that the applying State may join the EU.

In addition to the legal and political issues surrounding Scotland’s independence, Scotland will face other obstacles trying to gain EU membership. The Scottish National Party (SNP) believes that Scotland will keep its current EU membership after its breakaway from the UK. Regional entities do not retain “special status under EU law”. Scotland now has imputed EU membership because the UK is an EU member state and Scotland is a regional entity of the UK. If Scotland secedes from the UK then it will no longer have EU membership and will have to apply for membership like any other county. Obtaining EU membership may be difficult for Scotland because Scotland would need the approval of the current member states including the UK. How likely is this? One cannot predict whether the UK would block Scotland’s entrance into the EU.

 

Tags: , , , , , ,
Comment

Newly Revised EU Financial Regulation Emphasizes Fiscal Accountability in Member States

Filed Under: European Union by CJB — Leave a comment
October 30, 2012

In the midst of the ongoing reforms to the Eurozone in response to the economic crisis, the second, and newest, revision of the Financial Regulation was ushered into existence on October 27, 2012. The Financial Regulation governs core principles of the EU budget and expenditures of EU funds. It originated in 2002, but has been modified only once until now.

This most recent version was designed to simplify the process by which the EU funds European businesses, towns, individuals, students, and other recipients, as well as make the funding process more efficient and accessible by reducing the administrative burden.  Specifically, it promotes innovative measures such as EU trust funds, a greater emphasis on lump sums and flat rates in the grant program, the use of loans, equities, and guarantees to increase the impact of EU funds, and more advanced information technology.

More crucially, however, is the emphasis on fiscal and budgetary accountability. This newest revision of the Financial Regulation coincides with the unprecedented expansion of the Union’s authority over fiscal matters as a reaction to the Eurozone crisis. The destabilization of the Eurozone has led to a consolidation of power in EU institutions in an effort to resolve the crisis and prevent future recurrences, such as the European Stability Mechanism. Accordingly, an official European Commission press release published on Monday links the new Regulation with the crisis, stressing the need for more centralized oversight and accountability over the expenditure of EU funds. Thus, the new revisions correspond to a heightened sense of fiscal responsibility in the Union, such as the tentative plans to impose strict budget deficit limits on member states.  Reflecting this trend towards responsibility, the new Financial Regulation implements more thorough oversight on the budgetary management by the member states. Member states, who manage up to 80% of EU budget expenditure, must now produce annual management declarations which state that funds have been used correctly and are subject to independent audit.

The fact that the Financial Regulation has only been modified twice subsequent to its adoption indicates that changes to it do not come lightly or frivolously. As evident from the contemporaneous economic climate, as well as the content of the Regulation, the Commission deliberately crafted these changes as a reaction to the Eurozone crisis. They signify a larger shift in the EU framework to a more economic centralized authority where member states must further delegate sovereignty over economic matters to EU institutions in order to guarantee the future stability of the EU.

Tags: , , , , ,
Comment

Gender Jousting in the EU Institutions

Filed Under: European Union, Uncategorized by KBW — Leave a comment
October 30, 2012

Article 21 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, which is legally binding on all Member States under Article 6 of the TEU states that “[A]ny discrimination on the basis of sex…shall be prohibited.”  Recently, European Union institutions have had an opportunity to demonstrate their thoughts regarding the limits of Article 21 through the discussion of legislation proposed by the European Commission that would require gender quotas for all boards of publicly held companies in the European Union.  Viviane Reding, European Commission Vice President and Commissioner for Justice and Fundamental Rights initially proposed legislation that would require 40% of all publicly listed boards to be made up of women by 2020.

This goal of Reding’s proposal is to address the implied problem with regard to gender diversity in decision-making positions in the EU.  Currently in the EU, women make up only 12% of the boards of publicly traded companies even though 60% of university graduates are women. The implication that arises from these statistics is that gender discrimination is taking place in companies that promote significantly more men to top positions than women, in spite of the large body of women who are qualified.  Such gender discrimination is prohibited under Article 6 of the TEU, and under Reding’s rationale gender quotas would serve to level the playing field for women to gain access to decision- making positions.

While one may be tempted to think that support for this legislation would be divided down gender lines, there has not necessarily been such gender stratification regarding support for this bill.  For instance, Jose Manuel Barrosso, the head of the European Commission, made the decision to postpone a vote on the legislation that, if he had not postponed the vote until November, would have effectively doomed the passage of the bill.  Reding stated that she had support of the main finance commissioners themselves, including Barrosso, Joaquin Almunia, Laszlo Andor, Michel Barnier, Andris Piebalgs, Olli Rehn and Antonio Tajani, who all backed “an ambitious directive.”

On the opposing side, a number of female commissioners opposed the bill. Additionally, Luxembourg MEP Astrid Lulling explained that she was opposed because she thought candidates should be judged based on competency, not gender. She said that many countries, particularly in the Nordic region, had had problems with the quota system.  She cited instances of abuse, circumvention of national gender quota laws, and the fact that in decades past, many women did not study subjects such as economics, business administration or mathematics, which explains why there are fewer women in high-level business positions today.

An equally noteworthy debate was present in the European Parliament’s vote on the European Central Bank’s board nominee, Yves Mensch.  The European Parliament voted against Mensch’s nomination 325 to 300, on the grounds that that a woman should hold a post on what is currently an all-male board.  The European Parliament does not have the power to block Mensch from being appointed, but his rejection by the only EU institution that is elected by popular vote sends a strong message of disapproval to the European Council, the body that is ultimately in charge of filling the post.  Both the European Central Bank nomination rejection and the Commission’s gender quota bill indicate that there is a clear concern in European institutions for women to be part of decision-making bodies in Europe.  The question remains, however, as to how to best achieve this goal.

Tags: , , , , , ,
Comment

Microsoft Exploring the Limits of Antitrust

Filed Under: Uncategorized by BJL — Leave a comment
October 28, 2012

The battle of the best Internet browser continues not only in the United States, but in the European Union as well.  Microsoft’s campaign to conquer the browser industry in Europe has been halted by EU antitrust laws.  Microsoft has made it difficult for customers to choose other browsers while using their Windows operating system.  Its dominant position in the market concerned the European Commission back in 2009.  The EU “suspected Microsoft of using its dominant market position to foist its Internet Explorer browser on users.”  Microsoft and the European Commission has come to a legal settlement in which “Microsoft agreed to create a screen where users could choose among competitors’ browsers”.

The European Union’s power to govern antitrust, internationally and intranationally is derived from the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.  Under Article 101, “agreements between two or more independent market operators which restrict competition are prohibited”.  The second article governing antitrust is Article 102.  Article 102 states that, “firms holding a dominant position on a determined market to abuse that position are prohibited.”  Article 102 governs here as Microsoft’s dominant position was used to abuse that position by denying competitive browsers the opportunity to compete.

Microsoft has failed to meet the requirements of the settlement.  In the three years since the settlement many computers still did not contain the display option between different browsers.  Microsoft claimed a technical error was responsible for the failure; this excuse is an almost acceptable response due to Window’s history of poor performance.

On October 21, 2012 The EU filed a formal complaint against Microsoft for its failure to abide by the settlement.  Microsoft has given a public apology upholding its position that this failure was the result of a technical malfunction and that it will do everything in its power to abide by the settlement.  Unfortunately for Microsoft this is insufficient to the requirements of the settlement.  Microsoft now has four weeks to answer the accusation made by the EU.  If its defense is inadequate, “The company could face a fine of up to 10% of its annual revenue if found in breach of antitrust law.”

The European Union and the European Commission have shown that they are serious when dealing with antitrust laws.  A compromise was created in an effort to show leniency and fairness to Microsoft.  The elements of the settlement were almost insultingly not complied with, and now Microsoft is facing the sterner side of justice.

Tags: , , , ,
Comment

The EU, Google, and Personal Data Protections

Filed Under: European Union by BJK — 1 Comment
October 19, 2012

The European Union (EU) has expressed concerns over Google’s privacy policies. Google is a global technology company focused on online products and services, notably internet search and email services, advertising, and software technologies. On October 16, 2012, the data collection authorities for all 27 EU Member States signed a letter that was sent to Google addressing the EU’s privacy concerns. In short, the EU’s concern is that Google may be collecting too much information on users and keeping the information stored on its system for too long. The EU letter claims that Google has not “endorse[d] the key data protection principles of purpose limitation, data quality, data minimisation, proportionality and right to object.” The increased worry over Google’s policies was sparked by Google’s new privacy policy which allows the company to combine data collected from its internet-related services such as YouTube and Gmail. This data collection enables Google to improve its advertising efforts by targeting users based on specific interests and browsing history.

In order to better understand the quarrel between Google and the EU, it is important to discuss briefly EU law regarding data collection. Article 7 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights guarantees the right to respect for one’s private and family life, home, and communications. More specifically, Article 8 provides explicit protection of the right to the protection of personal data. Article 8 specifically includes the “right of access to data which has been collected concerning him or her, and the right to have it rectified.” The right to data protection is also enshrined in Article 16(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). In 1995, the EU adopted the Data Protection Directive (95/46/EC).  The Data Protection Directive’s Article 29 created the “Working party on the Protection of Individuals with regard to the Processing of Personal Data.” The Article 29 Working Party has broad powers over data protection in the EU. Data protections were reinforced by the E-Privacy Directive (2002/58/EC). In January 2012, the Commission proposed a comprehensive reform of the EU legal framework on the protection of personal data. The 2012 proposals seek to enhance users’ control of their data and account for changes in technology.  In February 2012, Viviane Reding, the EU justice commissioner, stressed that European authorities need to ensure that Google’s new privacy policy complies with EU law.

The EU’s latest row with Google raises an interesting test regarding the future of European data protection. Specifically, the EU regulators want Google to (1) clarify its privacy policies; (2) get express permission from individual users to use and collect their data; (3) make it easier for users to opt out of certain requirements; and (4) publish how it uses and processes personal data. Google has four months to comply. If Google does not sufficiently comply with the EU’s requests, the EU regulators will consider disciplinary measures such as fines. Google has not responded at this time. However, Peter Fleischer, Google’s global privacy counsel, said, “Our new privacy policy demonstrates our long-standing commitment to protecting our users’ information and creating great products. We are confident that our privacy notices respect European law.”

Google has certainly faced its fair share of privacy complaints in EU countries in the past. In 2010, EU regulators demanded that Google warn people before taking pictures for Google’s Street View service. Furthermore, the EU demanded that Google shorten the amount of time the pictures were kept on the company’s system. In 2011, Spanish data protection authorities demanded that Google remove links to online news articles which infringed on the privacy of Spanish citizens.

At the end of the day, the latest dispute between Google and the EU underscores the difficulty in harmonizing EU data protection laws and maintaining the health of the global internet-based economy. On one hand, Google wants highly targeted advertising because advertising is the chief revenue source for the company. On the other hand, European countries want to ensure that EU users’ data is protected and that Google complies with EU law. The outcome of this row will likely have long-term implications for many other companies such as Facebook which rely on Europe’s significant market of 500 million citizens.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Comment

UK Decision To Opt Out of EU Criminal Justice Provisions Has Long-Term Implications

Filed Under: European Union by CJB — Leave a comment
October 17, 2012

The United Kingdom occupies a unique place in the European Union. While a member of the EU, the UK is not a member of the Eurozone and retains its own national currency. The UK’s tenuous position in the EU came into greater focus this week, when Prime Minister David Cameron announced that the nation would be opting out numerous criminal-justice provisions and measures before they become binding on member states. These agreements include the European Arrest Warrant (EAW), Europol and Eurojust, prisoner transfers, and access to EU police databases. UK’s decision has been met with consternation and condemnation within the EU, especially as the UK is widely recognized as a leader in criminal justice and security.

When the Lisbon treaty was enacted in December 2009, these agreements were non-binding. Under Protocol 36 of the Treaty, they are enforceable by law, and thus binding, starting in 2014. The general consensus is that member states, including the UK, are suspicious and critical of arrangements such as the EAW, which some argue is costly, overly-sweeping, and subject to the caprices of member states. The UK government has additionally disapproved of a EU-wide prosecutor with sweeping powers, highlighting concerns with protecting its own citizens.

However, some speculate that the UK’s decision runs deeper than dissatisfaction with particular institutions or regulations – specifically a general unwillingness to submit to the EU’s supreme authority over criminal-justice matters if it were to opt into the system. Rather, the UK wishes to preserve autonomy over an area at which it is an undisputed leader. For instance, the Economist’s article references a sentiment that “there is growing annoyance at what many see as the subcontracting of British justice to European courts.” This resentment is a microcosm of the British reluctance to fully integrate itself in the European Union, most visibly in regard to the Eurozone.

In fact, critics of the UK’s participation in the EU, commonly known as Eurosceptics, are increasingly calling for the country to remove itself from the Union altogether. Under TEU Article 50, every member state of the European Union has the option to withdraw from its membership in the Union. Public discourse regarding the UK’s membership in the EU has become so prominent that a potential referendum on leaving the EU has become a legitimate political issue.

An editorial in the New Statesman illustrates the perils that accompany a UK renegotiation – or exit –from the EU for the Community as a whole.  If the UK were to disengage from serious EU legislation under the pretense of protecting its national interests, the flood gates for other member states to do the same could open, wreaking havoc on the internal market and undermining the efficacy and legitimacy of EU institutions, in turn irrevocably harming the framework of the EU.

Tags: , , , , ,
Comment

Swedish Peaceballs

Filed Under: Uncategorized by BJL — Leave a comment
October 17, 2012

As the member nations of the European Union join together in an effort to deter Iran’s nuclear program one member state stands against them.  The European Union governments’ sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program consisted of “new measures against Tehran’s banking sector, industry and shipping. The new sanctions mark one of the toughest pushes against Iran by Europe to date, and come amid mounting concerns over the Islamic Republic’s military intentions and the failure of diplomacy to solve the atom stand-off this year.”  The EU has emphasized diplomacy to soothe Iran into discontinuing their nuclear program but there has been a concerning lack of cooperation on Iran’s behalf. German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle said, “In the last couple of months Iran has not budged on any of the key issues and we must therefore increase the pressure through sanctions”.  Why then does Sweden oppose the majority?

According to one source, three main players in the EU, Germany, France, and Great Britain, are upset with Sweden.  One German diplomat stated that Sweden’s actions are “embarrassing, absurd and illogical foot-dragging.”  Sweden’s Foreign Minister Carl Bildt claims that their actions are to champion diplomacy over sanctions.  Are the Swedes concerned that the economic sanctions would hurt the people of Iran or the termination of lucrative contracts consisting between the two nations?  This speculation that Sweden’s economic interest is not without merit but is again only speculation.  It is not certain why Sweden is against the sanctions.  Does Sweden have the legal ability under the EU law to continue their economic ventures with Iran if the sanctions pass?

Article 11 of the Treaty on European Union defines the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), which govern sanctions.  The EU is allowed to sanction Iran according to Article 11 “to preserve peace and strengthen international security…, and to promote international cooperation.”  Sweden, as a member state, has to comply with the sanctions enacted by the EU due to the loyalty clause under Article 11(2).  This states that Sweden has to “support the CFSP actively and unreservedly; refrain from any action which is contrary to the interests of the Union or is likely to impair its effectiveness in international relations; work together to enhance and develop their mutual political solidarity.”

The Swedes are unhappy about the sanctions that the EU might enact upon Iran, but if they are enacted they’ll have to abide by them.

Tags: , , , , , ,
Comment

Fruits and Vegetables are Good For You, Pretty or Ugly

Filed Under: Uncategorized by KLJ — Leave a comment
October 15, 2012

UK grocery stores are stocking their shelves with odd-looking vegetables and produce this season following a horrible growing season.

This past growing season has been characterized as one of the driest Marches and one of the wettest Junes in almost six decades, which has reduced the fruit and vegetable harvest in UK by more than 25% compared to previous seasons. As a result, some grocery stores cannot provide attractive, blemish-free fruits and vegetables to their consumers. This growing season’s vegetables had been described by The Guardian as “Knobbly carrots, wonky spuds, bent courgettes and discoloured cauliflowers.”

UK grocery stores and fruit and vegetable distributors are governed by the European Union food regulations. The Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 details the rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect to fruits and vegetables and processed fruits and vegetables. Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 outlines the specific marketing standards for many fruits and vegetables and the General Marketing Standard that applies to other fruits and vegetables. The specific standards fall in line with the internationally agreed UNECE standards. According to the EU regulations, fruits and vegetables sold in the UK must be intact, sound, clean, free from pest, free from damage, free of abnormal external moisture, free of any foreign smell/taste, be able to withstand transport, be able to meet maturity requirements, and other factors.

Grocery stores in the UK usually increase their own standards on which fruits and vegetables that they will allow to be sold in their stores. But, Sainsbury has “relaxed its rules” of the cosmetic factors of their fruits and vegetables. Food that otherwise would have been rejected is now in the produce section. “The unpredictable weather this season, has left growers with bumper crops of ugly-looking fruit and vegetables with reported increases in blemishes and scarring, as well as shortages due to later crops. We’ve committed to make use of all fruit and veg that meets regulation and stands up on taste, and hope customers will help us all make the most of the British crop in spite of its sometimes unusual appearance,” said Judith Batchelar, director of Sainsbury’s food. Morrisons and Waitrose, other supermarkets, have also “relaxed” their standards.

Grocery stores, like Sainsbury, are being praised by groups, such as the UK Soil Association and food and poverty campaigners, because in the past good fruit and vegetables have been rejected because of its appearance. Fruits and vegetables with blemishes and discolor do not fewer nutrients than ‘pretty’ fruits and vegetables. The UK Soil Association estimated that 20-40% of produce grown in the UK are rejected, which the  food and poverty campaigners are labeling as food waste.

Even though it was environmentally forced, supermarkets in the UK are creating less food waste by not placing so much weight on the aesthetics of the fruits and vegetables that they sell in their stores.

 

 

Tags: , , , , ,
Comment