What has the Council adopted today?
The General Affairs Council has today adopted a decision, as expected, to authorise the opening of the future partnership negotiations with the United Kingdom and the associated negotiating directives.
The negotiating directives adopted today are based on the draft recommendation put forward by the Commission on 3 February 2020. They fully respect existing European Council guidelines and conclusions, as well as the Political Declaration agreed between the EU and the United Kingdom in October 2019.
What did the Commission adopt previously?
The European Commission adopted on 3 February 2020 a recommendation to the Council to authorise it to open negotiations for a new partnership with the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in accordance with Articles 218(3) and (4) TFEU and Article 101 EAEC.
This recommendation was based on existing European Council guidelines and conclusions, as well as the Political Declaration agreed between the EU and the United Kingdom in October 2019. It included a comprehensive proposal for negotiating directives, defining the scope and terms of the future partnership that the European Union envisages with the United Kingdom.
What is the scope of these negotiating directives?
In line with the European Council guidelines of 23 March 2018 and the European Council conclusions of 13 December 2019, the directives cover all areas of interest for the negotiations, including trade and economic cooperation, law enforcement and judicial cooperation in criminal matters, foreign policy, security and defence, participation in Union programmes and other thematic areas of cooperation. A dedicated chapter on governance provides an outline for an overall governance framework covering all areas of economic and security cooperation.
Have you agreed with the United Kingdom yet about practical arrangements for the negotiations, such as language regime?
Practical issues, such as language regime and negotiation structure, will be agreed jointly between the EU and UK negotiators.
When will negotiations start?
Formal negotiations with the United Kingdom are set to begin the week of 2 March 2020.
Can you really negotiate everything by the end of the year?
The Commission intends to achieve as much as possible during the transition period. We are ready to work 24/7 to make the best out of the negotiations. It is possible to extend the transition period by 1 to 2 years. This decision must be taken jointly by the EU and the UK before 1 July.
Extending the transition period: if no decision is taken by July 2020, surely there is an alternative mechanism, if needs be?
If no decision has been taken by the Joint Committee before July 2020, there is no other legal basis for extending the transition beyond 2020.
Is there still a risk of a “no-deal” scenario at the end of the year?
As in every negotiation, the risk of not reaching an agreement is there. Regardless of whether a future partnership will be in place, all businesses need to prepare now for the end of the transition period, as the UK will no longer be in the Single Market or the Customs Union.
Will all issues in the negotiating directives be negotiated in parallel?
We will work on all topics in parallel. We will be particularly vigilant to progress in areas where the risk of disruption at the end of the transition period is particularly high, in case no agreement has been reached.
Why was this legal basis chosen for the negotiations? Does that mean that the agreement does not need to be approved by national parliaments?
Given the scope of the envisaged partnership, at this stage, the choice of Article 217 of TFEU as a legal basis is the most natural since it is the widest legal basis possible. It is also suitable in order to provide for an overarching governance framework, which is one of the EU’s objectives. Obviously, the legal basis can only be final once we know the content of the final agreement. What is important is to ensure that the future agreement can enter into force on 1 January 2021.
Will there be one agreement or several agreements?
The aim is to negotiate an ambitious and comprehensive partnership with the United Kingdom that can enter into force by the end of the transition period. The Commission’s intention is to negotiate that partnership as a package that comprises three main components:
-general arrangements (including provisions on basic values, essential principles and on governance);
– economic arrangements (including provisions on trade, level playing field guarantees and fisheries); and
– security arrangements (including provisions on law enforcement and judicial cooperation in criminal matters, as well as on foreign policy, security and defence).
Will the new partnership be an ‘association agreement’ and how will such an agreement be ratified?
‘Association agreement’ is the term used in Article 217 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union for an agreement ‘establishing an association involving reciprocal rights and obligations, common action and special procedure’. Article 217 TFEU allows for the closest possible partnership with a country that is not an EU member. There are many different types of association agreement, but what they all have in common is their comprehensive nature and the fact that they establish a long-term institutional framework. An association agreement must be approved by unanimity in the Council and requires the consent of the European Parliament before it can enter into force. Whether the future partnership must be ratified by national parliaments depends on its final content and can only be determined at the end of the negotiations.
How will you ensure unity during these negotiations?
Just as with the Article 50 negotiations on the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, the Commission will conduct these negotiations in continuous coordination with the Council and its preparatory bodies. It will consult and report to the preparatory bodies of the Council in a timely manner, and will provide all the necessary information and documents relating to the negotiations. The Commission will also keep the European Parliament fully informed of the negotiations. For Common Foreign and Security Policy matters, the Commission will furthermore conduct negotiations in agreement with the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy.
Will EU negotiating positions be made public?
Yes, the Commission’s aim will be to ensure full transparency. This is also why the Commission made its recommendation public.
What is the purpose of the High-Level Conference between the EU and the UK in June 2020?
The High-Level Conference in June, as foreseen by the Withdrawal Agreement, aims to take stock of the progress in negotiations. The Commission will also use the Conference to take stock of the state of implementation of the Withdrawal Agreement, in particular when it comes to citizens’ rights and the Protocol on Ireland and Northern Ireland.
Will the future agreement supersede the Protocol on Ireland and Northern Ireland?
Unlike earlier versions, the Protocol on Ireland and Northern Ireland agreed in October 2019 and which is a part of the Withdrawal Agreement is not a “backstop”. It was conceived as a stable and lasting solution. The Protocol will apply alongside any agreement on the future relationship. Nevertheless, it is clear that the terms of the future trading relationship between the EU and the United Kingdom – in terms of the shared ambition to have zero customs duties and quotas between the EU and the United Kingdom – will have some bearing on the practical application of the Protocol.
How to ensure effective implementation of any future agreement?
For the agreement to be correctly implemented and applied, there must be effective governance arrangements with credible enforcement and compliance mechanisms, as of 1 January 2021. Where the future partnership relies on EU law, there must be a role for the European Court of Justice. Only the European Court of Justice can interpret EU law.
What would happen if the United Kingdom were to breach the future agreement?
Many international treaties have rules on how disputes between the parties must be resolved. The future agreement should also have such rules. The typical process is that the parties must first attempt to resolve their differences amicably through a process of ‘consultations’. If those attempts are unsuccessful, the dispute may be brought before an arbitration panel for a binding ruling. If a party continues to infringe the agreement, the other party can take action to safeguard its interests and to urge compliance. In certain situations, there should be a possibility for a party to act quickly to avoid irreparable harm. An important part of the negotiations with the United Kingdom will be about making sure that the rules governing disputes between the parties are clear and effective and that breaches can be remedied quickly.
What will be the role of the European Court of Justice?
The European Court of Justice is the final arbiter when it comes to the interpretation and application of rules of Union law. The future agreement must respect this by making sure that no other court, tribunal or arbitration panel set up by the parties may encroach upon the role of the Court of Justice. The precise role of the European Court of Justice under the future agreement will depend on the content of the future relationship with the United Kingdom.
Will there be sanctions if the UK does not play by the rules?
We are looking at the best possible safeguards to allow for a quick reaction and protection of the EU’s interests. The precise details and scope of the overall governance framework will depend on the content of the future relationship.
How does the European Commission envisage the future economic partnership?
The envisaged partnership should be comprehensive including a free trade agreement, as well as wider sectoral cooperation.. It will be underpinned by robust commitments ensuring a level playing field for open and fair competition, as well as by effective management and supervision, dispute settlement and enforcement arrangements, including appropriate remedies.
What kind of customs cooperation do you foresee?
Within the framework of the EU’s Customs Code, the envisaged partnership should aim at optimising customs procedures, supervision and controls and facilitating legitimate trade by making use of available facilitative arrangements and technologies, while ensuring that customs authorities can take effective measures at the border. .
Customs authorities must be able to take effective measures at the border to enforce legitimate public policies (protection of health and safety of consumers, protecting businesses, for example regarding enforcement of intellectual property rights) and protect financial interests. Therefore, the customs cooperation that we envisage achieves, as is the case with our existing free trade agreements, limited facilitation and in any event cannot be described as going in the direction of frictionless trade. Only membership of the Single Market and the Customs Union can ensure such frictionless trade.
Will a free trade agreement (FTA) allow goods to be exchanged between the UK and the EU as they are today?
Trading under FTA terms, even a so-called “best in class” FTA, will be of a very different nature compared to the free movement of goods enabled by the EU’s Customs Union and Single Market. In an FTA context, rules of origin and customs formalities will apply; all imports will need to comply with the rules of the importing party and will be subject to regulatory checks and controls for safety, health and other public policy purposes.
That being said, the proposal we are ready to table, as the Political Declaration already announced, will be a very ambitious FTA: no tariffs and no quotas across all goods, including agricultural and fisheries products.
This privileged access is conditioned on the existence of robust provisions ensuring a level-playing field, guaranteeing competition between economic operators on both sides. In addition, the access conditions that the Union grants under the free trade area will be guided by the terms on access and quota shares in the fisheries agreement to be established by 1 July 2020. .
Without an FTA in place by the end of the transition period, tariffs and quotas will apply to all trade in goods between the EU and the UK. In this scenario, we must apply what is known as “MFN tariffs” to the UK. Indeed, under the WTO Most Favoured Nation (MFN) principle, benefits given to one trading partner need to be extended to all other WTO members, unless a preferential trade arrangement, such as an FTA, allows this. Therefore, without an FTA in place as of 1 January 2021, economic operators and consumers should not expect privileged treatment when dealing with the UK.
What does “level playing-field” mean?
The EU is ready to offer a high-ambition trade deal, with zero tariffs and zero quotas on all goods entering our single market of 450 million people. However, because of our high levels of economic inter-connectedness, the volume of trade and geographical proximity, the draft negotiating directives also make clear that this offer is conditional on robust level playing field safeguards to prevent unfair competitive advantages the UK could derive from regulatory divergence (via lowering of standards or a “race to the bottom”) or subsidisation of UK operators. In the Political Declaration, the EU and the UK already agreed that they would prevent distortions of trade and unfair competitive advantages. We must now agree on effective assurances to guarantee common high standards and corresponding high standards over time on social, environmental, tax, state aid and competition matters. Union standards in these areas will serve as a point of reference to establish these guarantees. Robust level playing field commitments will entail also the establishment of adequate mechanisms to ensure effective enforcement and monitoring, dispute settlement and the possibility to adopt appropriate remedies, including autonomous measures to react quickly to disruptions of the equal conditions of competition in relevant areas..
What if the UK will not commit to any level playing field guarantees?
We agreed in the Political Declaration that the scope and depth of the future relationship will depend on the level playing field commitments that the UK is willing to undertake. The EU will not agree on an FTA without solid level playing field guarantees and an agreement on fisheries. Our geographic proximity, volume of trade and economic interconnectedness are such that it is in our mutual interest to agree on fair competition standards between us, as well as on their effective enforcement. Given the current very close integration of British companies with the Single Market and the UK’s desire for a comprehensive free trade agreement, it is only fair that the EU requires commensurately strong level playing field guarantees. This will also be in the interest of British consumers and businesses. The EU is by far the greatest export market for UK businesses and most UK imports come from the EU.
Will sanitary and phytosanitary requirements (SPS) change?
There will be no changes to the Union’s food safety standards. Union law, including systematic controls, will fully apply to imported food, animals and plants without exceptions or equivalency. High-level SPS standards will be safeguarded. As in existing FTAs, relations will be built on and will go beyond existing multilateral instruments [World Trade Organization (WTO), Codex Alimentarius, International Plant Protection Convention (IPPO) and World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE)] recommendation and requirements. Co-operation should be ensured in combating antimicrobial resistance as well as protecting animal welfare and ensuring sustainable food systems.
Will the EU allow for mutual recognition of rules and standards?
By choosing to leave the Single Market, the UK has opted to have the status of a third country regarding EU law. The EU and UK will therefore form separate markets and distinct legal orders, after the end of the transition period. The future relationship will therefore result in a lower level of integration than is the case today. The future economic partnership on goods will seek to facilitate trade as far as possible but this cannot be expected to replicate the same frictionless conditions of trade that exist between EU Member States. Such conditions are based on adherence, by Member States, to a full ‘ecosystem’ of rules, including the Treaties, and their supervision and enforcement, including the jurisdictional system under the Court of Justice of the EU. Mutual recognition can only be granted between participants to that ecosystem.
What can be achieved on services in the context of an FTA?
We can aim at a level of liberalisation of trade in services beyond the baseline provided by our existing WTO GATS commitments, similarly to the approach in our most recent FTAs. As required under GATS rules, the FTA would need to cover most services sectors, such as telecommunication services or business services to name a few. But, as in any FTA negotiated by the EU, there will be exceptions. For example, the EU proposes to exclude audiovisual services from the scope of the Agreement.. It is also important to recall that, under its FTAs, the EU maintains its right to regulate its own markets and its full regulatory autonomy. We will be particularly attentive to include provisions that preserve the EU’s public servicesThis preservation of our right to regulate will be paramount in all sectors, and a good illustration is financial services. Indeed, in that area, the key instruments the EU and the UK will use in this area are their respective unilateral equivalence frameworks, as laid down in their legislation. The FTA will cover financial services, but it will not go beyond what the EU offers in its FTAs with other third countries. It will also contain the prudential carve-out.
Finally, it should be recalled that while free trade agreements’ provisions are important in the area of services, a number of other rules impact trade in services. Some of them imply unilateral decisions such as EU regimes on data protection and financial services regulation and supervision. The EU intends to assess the UK for adequacy on data protection and equivalence on financial services. That is what we have agreed in the Political Declaration. Decisions should be reciprocal. Services are also closely linked to the free movement of people (professionals such as lawyers, consultants, accountants etc.), which the UK explicitly intends to stop post-Brexit. Those elements should be taken into account too when assessing priorities for the coming negotiations.
Will audiovisual services and public services be covered?
The EU always excludes certain services (e.g. audiovisual, public services) from its FTAs and considers carefully any commitments made in the other sectors. The EU also needs to consider the Most Favoured Nation commitment it has taken that would extend the benefits of the agreement with the UK to other FTA partners such as Canada, Japan and Korea.
What about roaming?
The provisions on roaming-like-at-home will stop applying in respect of the UK. When traveling to the UK, the situation will be similar to that of travelling to Switzerland: roaming changes may apply. Telecoms operators have obligations to be transparent as to the tariffs they charge.
What do you foresee on digital trade?
The objective is to facilitate digital trade, such as e-commerce, while respecting consumer rights and personal data protection rights. This is something that the EU has been doing in its FTAs for long time.
Will financial services be covered by the FTA?
Yes, we usually cover financial services in EU FTAs. The standard approach is to have limited market access commitments, notably on cross-border supply of financial services. In addition, even where there is market access the EU will continue to apply its host state-rules to incoming providers. Finally, like in all FTAs we will have a prudential carve-out that allows to Union to adopt any measure for prudential reasons.
The EU’s equivalence regimes are the instruments that the EU will use to regulate interactions with the UK in the financial services area. The EU’s equivalence frameworks only provide for the possibility to give market access in a few cases. They do not cover all financial services. The granting (or not granting) of equivalence is a unilateral measure by the EU. Equivalence can be withdrawn at any time. Decisions should be reciprocal.
What are you proposing on geographical indications, and how does that differ from the Withdrawal Agreement?
All EU geographical indications registered on 31.12.2020 (the “stock”) will be protected in the United Kingdom as a result of the Withdrawal Agreement. However, beyond this, the future FTA should provide a framework to ensure the protection of newly registered geographical indications at the same level as that guaranteed by the Withdrawal Agreement.
What are you proposing on public procurement?
We aim at securing procurement opportunities on top of those guaranteed by the UK’s accession to the WTO Government Procurement Agreement (the UK is in the process of acceding to that agreement).
Mobility: will EU and UK citizens still be able to move freely?
The UK has decided to end the free movement of persons and has limited ambition for specific arrangements with the EU on the mobility of persons.
This does not mean that mobility will stop. Today, citizens move from one country to another to live, work, study and carry out research. However, after the end of the transition period, mobility to and from the UK will be different and will happen under different rules than before when free movement rules applied. What exactly those rules will be depends on the outcome of the negotiations but our objective is to ensure reciprocity and no discrimination between EU nationals.
How about short-term trips by EU citizens to the UK and by UK nationals to the EU?
After the end of the transition period, the EU will not require visas for short stays (less than 90 days in 180 days) for UK nationals independently of the purpose of the trip (except in case of paid work), so short-term tourists, students, journalists, trainees, etc. from the UK will be able to come visa free.
This arrangement is dependent on the UK also granting full visa reciprocity to the nationals of all EU Member States travelling to the UK.
Will there be different entry checks on UK nationals when entering the EU?
Yes, UK nationals will be treated as third-country nationals as of the end of the transition period. There is no legal alternative under the Schengen acquis. This means that the entry conditions for third-country nationals and the procedures applicable to the crossing of the EU external borders will also apply to UK nationals, as will the relevant provisions of the Union Customs Code and directives relating to VAT.
Concretely, this means that: UK nationals will no longer be able to use the designated lanes at Border Crossing Points (EU, EEA, CH); their passports will be subject to stamping upon entry and exit from the Schengen Area; they will be subject to checks including checks against databases upon entry and exit; they will be subject to the EU’s Entry/Exit-System (EES) and the European Travel Information and Authorisation System (ETIAS) when these systems will be deployed in the future.
The entry checks on UK nationals will include verification of the possession of a valid travel document for crossing the border; the duration of the stay; the purpose (e.g. tourism or work) and the conditions of the intended stay (e.g. accommodation, internal travels); the existence of sufficient means of subsistence (i.e. having sufficient means to pay for the intended stay and return travel).
How about the possibility of EU citizens to move to the UK and UK nationals to the EU for longer terms (longer than 90 days)?
After the end of the transition period, mobility to and from the UK will be different and will happen under different rules than before when EU free movement rules applied. What exactly those rules will be depends on the outcome of the negotiations.
Nevertheless, even in the absence of specific provisions, the default rules of the EU and the UK would cover the entry and stay for different purposes. On the EU side, national rules and the EU’s legal migration acquis for long stays sets out the conditions of entry and stay in the EU for categories such as students, researchers, some types of workers, family members, long-term residents, au pairs, volunteers etc. These rules apply in the same way to citizens of all third countries, including the UK when it becomes a third country. For stays of less than 90 days in a 180-day period, the Schengen acquis applies. On the UK side, its national migration regime would apply.
What do you foresee on mobility of citizens within the FTA?
As regards mobility, FTAs only deal with the entry and temporary stay of natural persons for business purposes in defined areas. However, host State rules continue to apply as regards conditions for entry and stay, access to labour market and working conditions.
What do you foresee on social security coordination?
In order to facilitate the future mobility of persons, appropriate social security coordination will also need to be agreed. The scope of social security coordination rules in the future relations with the UK should cover the possible mobility of UK and Union citizens in a situation where there will not be free movements of persons anymore. . The social security coordination should be based on non-discrimination between EU Member States and full reciprocity.
It is noted that one of the stated objectives of Brexit was to stop the free movement of citizens. This means that in any event, the situation on citizens’ mobility after 1 January 2021 will be very different compared to today.
Will smooth transport links still be ensured?
In the future relationship, the EU will aim to ensure a continued flow of goods and persons between the UK and the EU, but the UK, as a third country, does not have the same rights as a Member State.
The situation is very different depending on the mode of transport: Ensuring connectivity for air traffic and road haulage will require an agreement, e.g. on market access. Without an agreement, there is no fall-back to allow traffic to continue.
What kind of an air transport agreement do you foresee?
In terms of air transport, UK operators currently benefit from full market access in the EU: a UK airline can offer air services within the EU without restrictions. Without an EU-UK partnership in aviation, and in absence of unilateral contingency measures, no flight would take place between the UK and the EU as the WTO does not offer any fall-back for air services.
We are aiming for an aviation relationship that allows for continued connectivity and ensures a high level of aviation safety and security standards, air traffic management, and sector specific level playing field provisions to allow for open and fair competition, including appropriate and relevant consumer protection requirements and social standards.
What do you foresee on road transport?
In the area of road transport, we are aiming for a system of open market access allowing journeys between the UK and the EU, while preserving the integrity of the internal market for road haulage services. We also need to ensure sector specific level playing field provisions, in particular as regards the rules that affect our operators, our drivers and our vehicles.
Will you need an agreement on energy?
The negotiating directives foresee cooperation in the area of energy. An important pre-condition for cooperation in this area is to ensure we have robust level playing field requirements. In particular carbon pricing (Emission Trading System – ETS) and provisions on State aid are both a pre-condition for future cooperation on energy.
In the area of electricity and gas, there is no precedent for this type of arrangement.
As regards Euratom issues, the EU has experience regarding Nuclear Cooperation Agreements with other third countries.
What about climate change?
In the introductory paragraphs of the negotiating directives, five binding political clauses underpinning the all-encompassing relationships between the EU and third countries are highlighted, namely: the respect for and safeguarding of human rights, democracy and the rule of law; support for non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; the fight against terrorism; prosecution of those accused of the most serious crimes of concern to the international community; small arms and light weapons. The fight against climate change has been added as an essential element of the envisaged partnership.
Will the UK continue to participate in the ETS system?
In line with the Political Declaration, the negotiating directives foresee the possibility of a so-called linking agreement by which the EU and the UK could link their respective emission trading systems.
Will EU fishermen continue to have access to UK waters?
Access to each other’s waters will be negotiated as part of the provisions on fisheries, which should provide for continued reciprocal access, in line with the objectives set out in the March 2018 European Council Guidelines.
Will the EU impose tariffs on UK fisheries products?
The envisaged partnership should include, in its economic part, provisions on fisheries setting out a framework for the management of shared fish stocks, as well as the conditions on access to waters and resources. The intention is to have fully liberalised market access across all goods, i.e. no tariffs and no quotas, which will be guided by the agreement on fisheries.
What happens if there is no agreement on fisheries by July 2020?
The Political Declaration includes a joint commitment on best endeavours to reach an agreement on fisheries by 1 July 2020. The time to negotiate such an agreement will be very short (four months), but it is in our mutual interest to conclude the fisheries agreement in due time, so it can be implemented as of 1 January 2021 in view of ensuring sustainable fisheries management.
Union programmes: will the UK still get grants and subsidies from the EU? Will they contribute to the EU budget?
As set out in the Withdrawal Agreement, UK beneficiaries will continue to benefit from programmes under the Multi-annual framework for 2014-2020, even where this continues after the end of the transition period.
The UK will be treated as a third country for the purposes of the next Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) 2021-2027. If the UK requests participation in some areas, the EU could consider participation in accordance with the MFF rules for third country participation.
What about Erasmus?
Activities under the current Erasmus+ (2014-2020) programme are covered by the Withdrawal Agreement, and will continue without interruption until their closure. For the future Erasmus programme, under the next Multiannual Financial Framework (2021-2027) it will depend on the possible participation of the UK in Union programmes.
Will the United Kingdom be able to continue to participate in EU regulatory agencies as a third country?
No. These agencies have been set up to support the EU and its Member States to develop and implement EU rules. A third country leaving these rules, and their supervision, can no longer participate in these agencies..
Will our data still be safe if transferred to the UK and processed there?
In view of the importance of data flows, the envisaged partnership should be underpinned by a high level of personal data protection. The adoption by the Union of adequacy decisions, if the applicable conditions are met, should be an enabling factor for cooperation and personal data flow, in particular in the area of law enforcement and judicial cooperation in criminal matters. The Commission endeavours to adopt such decisions by the end of 2020, if applicable conditions are met.
Would the UK still be able to use the European Arrest Warrant? How would criminals be extradited between the EU and the UK?
The European Arrest Warrant is an internal EU instrument, used exclusively among Member States. Therefore, it will no longer be used with the UK.
The draft negotiating directives propose new and effective arrangements between the United Kingdom and EU Member States to render criminals swiftly to justice. This would be an ambitious scheme, based on streamlined procedures and strict deadlines, subject to judicial control. It would be conditional upon robust safeguards on fundamental rights and the role of Court of Justice.
At the same time, it will offer flexibility to each Member State and to the United Kingdom to decide how far they wish to go in common relations. It will help, for example, to address constitutional constraints related to extradition of own nationals in some Member States and allow for the possibility to ask for additional guarantees in particular cases.
Why do you have reference to “UK continuous commitment” to the European Convention on Human Rights? Why would cooperation cease if the UK leaves the Convention?
The draft negotiating directives propose close relations with the UK on law enforcement and judicial cooperation in criminal matters. It would cover, amongst other things, ambitious extradition or exchange of sensitive information that may impact human lives or rights (e.g. deprivation of liberty). Such relations require a high degree of confidence that the human rights concerned will be upheld. We need a common understanding on how we protect those rights. Within the Union we have the Charter of Fundamental Rights. This is a part of our Treaties. With regard to the UK, the negotiating directives propose a strong commitment to respect the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), a common pan-European instrument applied for over 70 years by the United Kingdom and other countries across Europe. Commitment to ECHR is also set out in the Good Friday (Belfast) Agreement.
Will Passenger Name Records (PNR) continue to be exchanged to prevent, detect and investigate terrorism and other forms of serious crime?
The negotiating directives foresee that arrangements should be established for timely, effective, efficient and reciprocal exchanges of Passenger Name Records (PNR). This means that arrangements need to be made for two situations: first, for exchanges between EU27 Member States’ and UK Passenger Information Units and, second, for transfers of PNR data by air carriers to the UK authorities for flights between the United Kingdom and EU27 Member States. There are examples of cooperation with third countries on PNR transfers: the EU has PNR agreements with the USA and Australia; there is a draft negotiated text with Canada and a mandate for negotiations with Japan. An essential precondition for any such arrangements is that the UK applies data protection standards essentially equivalent to those set out in the EU’s standards, i.e. the GDPR and Law Enforcement Directives, and complies with specific additional data protection standards stemming from the CJEU opinion on EU-Canada PNR agreement (opinion 1/15).
Will DNA, fingerprints and vehicle registration data be exchanged between the UK and EU for law enforcement purposes? (Prüm)
The negotiating directives provide that arrangements should be established for timely, effective, efficient and reciprocal exchanges of data on DNA, fingerprints and vehicle registration (so- called ‘Prüm data’). However, there will be no direct access to such sensitive personal data but only through a decentralised system based on a “hit/no hit” model. After a “hit”, i.e. a confirmation that something is available, this needs to be followed up by a request to receive this data from the Member State concerned.
The EU currently has concluded Prüm-agreements with Schengen Associated Countries (Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and Liechtenstein), but the model is open to third countries outside Schengen.
Essential preconditions for any such arrangements are that the UK applies data protection standards essentially equivalent to those set out in the EU’s Law Enforcement Directive standards, and provides reciprocal access to EU Member States of data available at UK national level in the same way as EU27 Member States do.
Will the UK keep access to the Schengen Information System (SIS)?
Non-Schengen third countries do not have access to SIS. SIS is a measure that contributes to security within the EU, in which there are no internal borders. It is intrinsically linked to the free movement of persons. The Court of Justice has consistently defended the coherence of the Schengen acquis.
We need to set up new effective ways of data sharing on wanted and missing persons and objects, while taking into account the UK’s future status. This would be achieved through alternatives for simplified, efficient and effective exchanges of existing information and intelligence between the United Kingdom and Member States law enforcement authorities, in so far as is technically and legally possible, and considered necessary and in the Union’s interest..
What would the UK role in Europol be?
The negotiating directives provide for cooperation between Europol and the United Kingdom law enforcement authorities. This will be done in line with the rules for third countries established in EU legislation.
In practice, this means that the UK would be able to:
-share any relevant data, initiate new cases, use common secure communication channel – as it is the case now;
-participate in all Europol analysis projects where Europol, Member States and other partners cooperate on ongoing live-investigations, if Member States participating in such analysis projects agree; and
-take part in common operations, get analytical support from Europol, keep its Liaison Officers at Europol and be informed about relevant data concerning the UK. However, it would not get access to the Europol Information System or have any role in governance of the EU agency.
The negotiating directives propose an ambitious law enforcement and judicial cooperation in criminal matters, guaranteeing at the same time security and fundamental rights of our citizens. Cooperation will, however, be different from what we have today. This is a logical consequence of the UK’s decision to withdraw from the EU. The UK will leave the common rules-based system underpinned by shared principles, common obligations and enforcement.
Will the EU and the UK continue to cooperate on sanctions?
EU sanctions will continue to be driven solely by EU interests. However, cooperation is important to maximise the impact of our sanctions. We should cooperate with the UK the same way we cooperate with other like-minded third countries.
Will UK participation in EU missions and operations have to stop?
The UK will be invited to participate by the Union in its missions and operations on a case-by-case basis (no standing invitation), following the existing rules and preserving the independence of the Union’s decision-making process.
Will you continue to cooperate in third countries on development cooperation?
The EU will maintain its autonomy and strategic programming of development priorities. The EU and the UK will continue to cooperate on the ground to maximise the impact of development cooperation. The UK will be able to make use of existing mechanisms for third countries’ participation, including with regard to any proposals for development cooperation instruments.
70% of the EU adult population fully vaccinated
Today, the EU has reached a crucial milestone with 70% of the adult population now fully vaccinated. In total, over 256 million adults in the EU have now received a full vaccine course. Seven weeks ago already, the Commission’s delivery target was met, ahead of time: to provide Member States, by the end of July, with enough vaccine doses to fully vaccinate 70% of the adult EU population.
The President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, said: “The full vaccination of 70% of adults in the EU already in August is a great achievement. The EU’s strategy of moving forward together is paying off and putting Europe at the vanguard of the global fight against COVID-19. But the pandemic is not over. We need more. I call on everyone who can to get vaccinated. And we need to help the rest of the world vaccinate, too. Europe will continue to support its partners in this effort, in particular the low and middle income countries.”
Stella Kyriakides, Commissioner for Health and Food Safety, said: “I am very pleased that as of today we have reached our goal to vaccinate 70% of EU adults before the end of the summer. This is a collective achievement of the EU and its Member States that shows what is possible when we work together with solidarity and in coordination. Our efforts to further increase vaccinations across the EU will continue unabated. We will continue to support in particular those Member States that are continuing to face challenges. We need to close the immunity gap and the door for new variants and to do so, vaccinations must win the race over variants.”
Global cooperation and solidarity
The rapid, full vaccination of all targeted populations – in Europe and globally – is key to controlling the impact of the pandemic. The EU has been leading the multilateral response. The EU has exported about half of the vaccines produced in Europe to other countries in the world, as much as it has delivered for its citizens. Team Europe has contributed close to €3 billion for the COVAX Facility to help secure at least 1.8 billion doses for 92 low and lower middle-income countries. Currently, over 200 million doses have been delivered by COVAX to 138 countries.
In addition, Team Europe aims to share at least 200 million more doses of vaccines secured under the EU’s advance purchase agreements to low and middle-income countries until the end of 2021, in particular through COVAX, as part of the EU sharing efforts.
Preparing for new variants
Given the threat of new variants, it is important to continue ensuring the availability of sufficient vaccines, including adapted vaccines, also in the coming years. That is why the Commission signed a new contract with BioNTech-Pfizer on 20 May, which foresees the delivery of 1.8 billion doses of vaccines between the end of the year and 2023. For the same purpose, the Commission has also exercised the option of 150 million doses of the second Moderna contract. Member States have the possibility to resell or donate doses to countries in need outside the EU or through the COVAX Facility, contributing to a global and fair access to vaccines across the world. Other contracts may follow. This is the EU’s common insurance policy against any future waves of COVID-19.
A safe and effective vaccine is our best chance to beat coronavirus and return to our normal lives. The European Commission has been working tirelessly to secure doses of potential vaccines that can be shared with all.
The European Commission has secured up to 4.6 billion doses of COVID-19 vaccines so far and negotiations are underway for additional doses. The Commission is also working with industry to step up vaccine manufacturing capacity.
At the same time, the Commission has started work to tackle new variants, aiming to rapidly develop and produce effective vaccines against these variants on a large scale. The HERA Incubator helps in responding to this threat.
EU’s defence measures against unfair trade practices remained effective in 2020
The system for protecting EU businesses from dumped and subsidised imports continued to function well in 2020 thanks to the EU’s robust and innovative ways of using trade defence instruments (TDI), despite the practical challenges presented by the COVID-19 pandemic. This is part of the European Commission’s new trade strategy, whereby the EU takes a more assertive stance in defending its interests against unfair trade practices.
Executive Vice-President and Commissioner for Trade Valdis Dombrovskis said: “The EU needs effective tools to defend ourselves when we face unfair trade practices. This is a key pillar of our new strategy for an open, sustainable and assertive trade policy. We have continued to use our trade defence instruments effectively during the COVID-19 pandemic, improved their monitoring and enforcement, and tackled new ways of giving subsidies by third countries. We will not tolerate the misuse of trade defence instruments by our trading partners and we will continue to support our exporters caught up in such cases. It is crucial that our companies and their workers can continue to rely on robust trade defence instruments that protect them against unfair trade practices.”
At the end of 2020, the EU had 150 trade defence measures in force, in line with previous years’ activity levels with an increase in the number of cases lodged towards the end of 2020. In addition, for the first time, the Commission addressed a new type of subsidy given by third countries in the form of cross-border financial support that was a serious challenge for EU companies.
The following are the main trade-defence highlights of 2020:
Continued high level of EU trade defence activity
Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Commission had to swiftly introduce temporary changes to its work practices, especially concerning on-the-spot verification visits. This allowed the Commission to continue applying the instruments at the highest standards without a drop in the levels of activity. At the end of 2020, the 150 trade defence measures that the EU had in place – 10 more than at the end of 2019 – included 128 anti-dumping, 19 anti-subsidy and 3 safeguard measures.
In 2020, the Commission launched:
- 15 investigations, compared to 16 in 2019, and imposed 17 provisional and definitive measures, compared to 15 in 2019;
- 28 reviews, compared to 23 the previous year.
The highest number of EU trade defence measures concerns imports from:
- China (99 measures);
- Russia (9 measures);
- India (7 measures);
- The United States (6 measures).
Tackling new types of subsidies
In 2020, the Commission strengthened its action against subsidies granted by third countries. In particular, the Commission imposed countervailing duties on cross-border financial support given by China to Chinese-owned companies manufacturing glass fibre fabrics and continuous filament glass fibre products based in Egypt for export to the EU.
This means that, for the first time, the Commission addressed cross-border subsidies given by a country to enterprises located in another country for exports to the EU.
Support to, and defence of, EU exporters facing trade defence investigations in export markets
The importance of monitoring trade defence action taken by third countries was again evident in 2020. The number of trade defence measures in force by third countries affecting EU exporters reached its highest level since the Commission started this monitoring activity, with 178 measures in place. In addition, the number of cases initiated also increased in 2020, with 43 compared to 37 the previous year.
The report outlines the Commission’s activities to ensure that WTO rules are correctly applied and procedural errors and legal inconsistencies are addressed in order to avoid any misuse of trade defence instruments by third countries. The Commission’s interventions yielded success in some cases where measures were not ultimately imposed, affecting important EU export products such as ceramic tiles and fertilisers.
Strong focus on monitoring and enforcement
There was a renewed focus on the monitoring of measures in place in 2020, including changes to surveillance practices to ensure the ongoing effectiveness of the trade defence instruments. This also involved customs authorities, EU industry, and in certain instances, the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF). Continuing its efforts to address instances where exporters tried to avoid measures, the Commission initiated three anti-circumvention investigations in 2020 and completed five such investigations during the year, where measures were extended in four cases to also address imports from third countries where transhipment was found to have taken place.
The report also recalls the findings of the European Court of Auditors from July 2020, which confirmed the successful enforcement of the EU’s trade defence instruments by the Commission. The report made a number of recommendations to further strengthen the Commission’s response to the challenges posed by unfairly traded imports that the Commission has started to implement in 2020, such as improving monitoring to ensure the effectiveness of measures.
Fishing opportunities in the Baltic Sea for 2022: improving long-term sustainability of stocks
The Commission today adopted its proposal for fishing opportunities for 2022 for the Baltic Sea. Based on this proposal, EU countries will determine how much fish can be caught in the sea basin, for what concerns the most important commercial species.
The Commission proposes to increase fishing opportunities for herring in the Gulf of Riga, whilst maintaining the current levels for sprat, plaice and by-catches of eastern cod. The Commission proposes to decrease fishing opportunities for the remaining stocks covered by the proposal, in order to improve the sustainability of those stocks and to help other stocks such as cod and herring recovering.
Virginijus Sinkevičius, Commissioner for Environment, Oceans and Fisheries, said: “The poor environmental status of the Baltic Sea is heavily affecting our local fishermen and women, who rely on healthy fish stocks for their livelihoods. This is why the Commission is doing its utmost to restore those stocks, and today’s proposal is a reflection of that ambition. However, the state of the Baltic Sea is not only related to fishing, so everyone must do their part to build the long-term sustainability of this precious sea basin.”
Over the past decade, EU’s fishermen and women, industry and public authorities have made major efforts to rebuild fish stocks in the Baltic Sea. Where complete scientific advice was available, fishing opportunities had already been set in line with the principle of maximum sustainable yield (MSY) for seven out of eight stocks, covering 95% of fish landings in volume. However, in 2019 scientists discovered that the situation was worse than previously estimated. Decisive action is still necessary to restore all stocks and ensure that they grow to or remain at sustainable levels.
The proposed total allowable catches (TACs) are based on the best available peer-reviewed scientific advice from the International Council on the Exploration of the Seas (ICES) and follow the Baltic multiannual management plan adopted in 2016 by the European Parliament and the Council. As regards western Baltic cod, western Baltic herring and salmon, the Commission will update its proposal once the relevant scientific advice will be available (expected by mid-September).
For eastern Baltic cod, the Commission proposes to maintain the TAC level and all the accompanying measures from the 2021 fishing opportunities. Despite the measures taken since 2019, when scientists first alarmed about the very poor status of the stock, the situation has not yet improved.
For western Baltic cod the scientific advice from the International Council on the Exploration of the Seas (ICES) is postponed to mid-September, and the Commission will update its proposal accordingly. However, since it seems unlikely that the stock has developed favourably, the Commission proposes already now to maintain the spawning closure. It also proposes to maintain all accompanying measures in the eastern part of the catch area, given the predominance of eastern Baltic cod in that area.
The stock size of western Baltic herring remains below safe biological limits and scientists advise for the fourth year in a row to stop catching western herring. The Commission, therefore, proposes to close the directed fishery and set a TAC limited to unavoidable by-catches, whose level the Commission will propose at a later stage, as ICES is currently not in a position to provide sufficient scientific data.
For central Baltic herring, the Commission proposes a reduction of 54% in line with the ICES advice, because the stock size has dropped very close to the limit below which the stock is not sustainable. In line with the ICES advice, the Commission proposes to decrease the TAC level for herring in the Gulf of Bothnia by 5%, while the situation for Riga herring allows for an increase of the TAC by 21%.
While the ICES advice would allow for an increase, the Commission remains cautious, mainly to protect cod – which is an unavoidable by-catch in plaice fisheries as currently conducted. It therefore proposes to maintain the TAC level unchanged.
Similarly to plaice, the ICES advice for sprat would allow for an increase. The Commission however advises prudence and proposes to maintain the TAC level unchanged. This is because sprat and herring are caught in mixed fisheries and the TAC for central Baltic herring has to be reduced again significantly. Moreover, sprat is a prey species for cod, which is not in a good condition.
ICES has postponed its scientific advice for salmon to mid-September. The Commission will update its proposal accordingly. A special advice from ICES of April 2020 already provides information about the issues affecting these stocks, pointing to the fact that the MSY objective cannot be achieved for all salmon river stocks if the commercial and recreational mixed-stock sea fisheries are continued at current levels.
The Council will examine the Commission’s proposal in view of adopting it during a Ministerial meeting on 11-12 October.
Ukraine’s EU-integration plan is not good for Europe
Late this summer, Estonia, in the person of its president, Kersti Kaljulaid, became the first EU country to declare that...
The AUKUS Alliance and “China’s Maritime Governance Strategy” in the Indo-Pacific
1) Announcing the (French-Indian alliance) to confront the (Australian-American alliance) for establishing a (new multilateral system), and the AUKUS alliance...
Europe tells Biden “no way” to Cold War with China
Amidst the first big transatlantic tensions for the Biden Administration, a new poll shows that the majority of Europeans see a...
The Demise of a French Sub Deal: Is China a Threat?
The conflict between emerging and existing powers is almost as old as time. Labeled the Thucydides Trap, it first recounted...
Lighthouse Partnerships Gain Momentum on Social Justice
Crises in climate, health and inequality are compelling organizations to align business strategies with equity and social justice values. In...
AUKUS: Human-made disaster
AUKUS is a new military alliance that emerged recently, among Australia, UK, and The US. Under this alliance, it has...
Visit of Vietnamese President to Cuba
Following the outbreak of the Corona pandemic in Vietnam, the government has decided to procure 10 million doses of Abdala...
Middle East3 days ago
Turkey’s Destruction of Cultural Heritage in Cyprus, Turkey, Artsakh
Economy4 days ago
A New Strategy for Ukraine
Diplomacy4 days ago
International Relations Amid the Pandemic
Southeast Asia3 days ago
Indonesian G20 presidency promises to put a ‘battle for the soul of Islam’ on the front burner
Economy3 days ago
Synchronicity in Economic Policy amid the Pandemic
Defense2 days ago
American Weaponry in the Hands of the Taliban
Environment3 days ago
Act now to slow climate change and protect the planet
Environment4 days ago
‘Tipping point’ for climate action: Time’s running out to avoid catastrophic heating