Peace In Afghanistan Good For The Region: EU Envoy
The European Union High Representative Federica Mogherini, who attended the NATO defense ministers meeting in Brussels, told reporters that security and development in Afghanistan was good “for all the countries in the region”.
Frederica Mogherini said regional countries have realized that peace and security in Afghanistan is good for all the countries in the region.
Mogherini said she sees a commitment in the Afghan government’s leadership.
“Perspectives (in Afghanistan) are as always difficult, but I see a committed leadership, I see a country that is ready to turn the page and that needs all the international and regional support. And I see also regional partners that are ready to engage, to support this process, because I think everybody realizes that peace and security in Afghanistan and development in Afghanistan is something good also for all the countries in the region,” she stated.
NATO has agreed at the defense ministers meeting of the alliance to send more troops to Afghanistan in order to help train and work alongside the Afghan security forces.
Meanwhile, French Defense Minister Florence Parly said she could not yet “give a precise answer” in relation to France’s potential commitment.
“I do not have the answer to this very very precise question. We have participated and invested a lot in the French presence in Afghanistan in the recent years, now we are entering a new phase with a bilateral friendship treaty with Afghanistan, but I know that this is part of the questions we will have to examine shortly,” she added.
On Thursday night, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said that NATO and its allies have reconfirmed their commitment to Afghanistan and that they will sustain Resolute Support Mission beyond 2017.
Speaking at a press conference after Thursday’s defense ministers meeting in Brussels, he said: “Our military authorities have requested a few thousand more troops for the mission and today, I can confirm that we will increase our presence in Afghanistan.”
“We have recently seen brutal attacks in Kabul. In recent months, hundreds of innocent civilians have been killed. This is exactly why our presence is so important. So today, we reconfirmed our enduring commitment to Afghanistan. We will sustain our Resolute Support Mission beyond 2017.”
NATO currently has 13,500 troops in Afghanistan in the Resolute Support mission to “train, advise and assist” Afghan troops.
Reports indicate that an increase of up to 3,000 was under considerations, while U.S officials say it might be nearer 4,000.
The United States, which once had more than 100,000 troops in Afghanistan, is preparing a new strategy for a war which has dragged on for 16 years and which even US generals concede is a “stalemate” at best._ Tolonews
European Parliament votes to accept proposal to suspend Turkey’s EU accession talks
The European Parliament voted on July 6 to accept a proposal to suspend accession talks with Turkey if it goes ahead with the constitutional changes endorsed in the April 16 referendum.
The parliament voted in favor of the 2016 Commission Report on Turkey recommending the suspension of accession talks, with 477 voting in favor and 64 voting against. Almost 100 lawmakers abstained in the vote, which is non-binding.
Among other things, the report calls on member states to “formally suspend accession negotiations with Turkey without delay if the constitutional reform package is implemented without changes.” This is a reference to the collection of wide-ranging constitutional proposals approved by the Turkish electorate in April.
The report also calls on EU institutions to suspend pre-accession funds if the negotiations are suspended.
It is a non-binding vote in terms of EU decision making.
Foreign Ministry spokesman Huseyin Müftügolu separately said the decision was based on “false claims and allegations” and undermined the European Parliament’s reputation.
Turkey’s EU accession talks began in 2005. To gain membership, Ankara has to successfully conclude negotiations with the EU in 35 policy chapters that involve reforms and the adoption of European standards._ Hurriyet
Even as London feuds, Brexit negotiations take place in Brussels
UK had voted to pull out of the European Union in June 2016
Britain’s Brexit minister pledged to “get down to work” as he kicked off a first full round of negotiations on Monday, but a year after Britons voted narrowly to leave the EU their government seemed at war with itself over the divorce terms.
Prime Minister Theresa May, her authority diminished after losing her majority in a June election she did not need to call, has struggled to control rival cabinet ministers. That worries European Union negotiators who stress that 20 months until Brexit is very little time to negotiate an orderly departure.
“It’s time to get down to work and make this a successful negotiation,” veteran anti-EU campaigner David Davis, the Brexit secretary, said after meeting the bloc’s chief negotiator Michel Barnier before their teams began four days of talks.
In London, media were rife with reports of infighting along the lines of the Leave-Remain rifts that May’s Conservative party suffered during the referendum. Her spokesman said she would tell ministers not to reveal cabinet discussions.
Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson, in Brussels for a separate meeting, passed up a chance to deny that ministers were at odds.
His backing helped secure a four-point victory for the Leave camp in June last year. Asked if the cabinet was still “split on Brexit”, Johnson simply said he was pleased negotiations had begun and then defended the offer May has made to protect the rights of EU citizens in Britain.
DEAL AT RISK?
Finance minister Philip Hammond, who, like May, campaigned last year to keep Britain in the EU, accused unnamed colleagues of trying to undermine what is seen as his push for a “soft Brexit” that prioritises trade rather than hardliners’ demands for controls on EU immigration or an end to EU legal oversight.
Splits in London over basic issues, such as the need for a phased withdrawal lasting for some years, could raise the risk of a failure to reach any deal, EU officials say. That would cause huge uncertainty for businesses and millions of people across Europe as Britain would simply be out of the bloc on March 30, 2019 with no clear rules on what that should mean.
Former British civil service chief Gus O’Donnell said: “It appears that cabinet members haven’t yet finished negotiating with each other, never mind the EU.”
British businesses are anxious to see a coherent approach in government to indicate how a transition would work and how long it would run, to help them make investment decisions.
A weekend of media briefings from competing factions within the Conservatives did little to reassure companies, though most cabinet ministers appear now to accept that there needs to be a transition, or what May calls an “implementation phase”.
A senior City of London official, Catherine McGuinness, told Reuters that firms in Europe’s main financial centre needed clarity, ideally by the end of the year. “Decisions are already being made,” she said.
“NO NOTES” DAVIS
In Brussels, Davis acknowledged it was “incredibly important” to make progress, “that we negotiate through this and identify the differences so that we can deal with them and identify the similarities so that we can reinforce them”.
Barnier said, “We will now delve into the heart of the matter”, before the two sat down for a first meeting flanked by the officials who will lead the detailed negotiations.
Pictures showed no notes on the table in front of Davis and his two advisers, in contrast to sheaves of paperwork brought by Barnier and his team. That prompted mockery among critical British commentators who saw it as an image of the government’s failure to prepare for such a vital negotiation.
Davis later returned to London, leaving talks in the hands of the civil servants. Barnier and Davis are to brief the media on Thursday, when they should give political endorsement to whatever officials have managed to agree. Until then, little significant news may filter out from the talks.
Working groups focused on three issues: citizens’ rights; an EU demand that Britain pay billions of euros to cover ongoing EU budget commitments; and other loose ends. Officials were also at work at the World Trade Organization in Geneva to disentangle Britain from the EU’s WTO membership.
A fourth set of talks is focused on addressing problems in Northern Ireland once a new EU land border divides the island.
Dozens of officials from both sides are involved, some shuttling among meeting rooms scattered over nearly half the floors of the European Commission’s 13-storey Berlaymont headquarters, fuelled, one said, by EU coffee and biscuits._ Reuters
New EU Strategy on Afghanistan To Support Peace, Prosperity
The High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the European Commission have set a proposal for a new EU strategy on Afghanistan that is “in support of peace and prosperity” in the country, according to an EU statement.
The new EU strategy on Afghanistan will support “peace and prosperity” in the country as Afghans work to overcome a number of challenges
“Today, the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the European Commission have set out their vision for how the European Union can support Afghanistan both to address its challenges and to bring about positive change for the Afghan people,” the statement said.
It said that in recent years, Afghanistan has been confronted with a number of challenges that threaten the progress made in its economic and social development and its democratic institutions.
“The European Union recognizes that the delicate security situation and the fragile economic situation the country is facing, combined with a clear determination on the part of the Afghan authorities to implement much-needed reforms necessitates renewed attention from the international community,” according to the statement.
“The Afghan people deserve peace and prosperity. As the European Union, we have been standing by them and will continue to do so, in support of the reform process, of Afghanistan’s democratic path, of the rule of law and human rights, and of bringing peace to the country, to the benefit not only of all Afghans but also of the entire region and the international community as a whole,” Federica Mogherini, the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy/Vice-President of the European Commission, said.
“This work towards peace needs to be led by Afghans and owned by Afghans, but the active support of the region and of the international community is crucial. The Afghan people can count on the European Union to accompany this process,” she said.
“Afghanistan is not alone. We will continue the support which we have been providing since 2002 – to make sure that the development achievements of the last years are not lost. With the EU’s support, more Afghan women are actively participating in the country’s politics. Access to health care has increased, and farmers are better supported to improve agricultural production than before. Moving forward to help Afghanistan overcome its many challenges, we will renew our engagement and focus on supporting good governance and the justice sector, creating sustainable growth and jobs, and ensuring basic social services for the Afghan people,” Neven Mimica, the Commissioner for International Cooperation and Development, said.
The Joint Communication sets out ways in which the European Union can work, in close cooperation with civil society, the Afghan authorities, and all stakeholders, towards lasting peace, a consolidated democracy, equitable development and social justice in Afghanistan.
It also proposes concrete actions, focussing on five priority areas:
Peace, stability and regional security:
Supporting and promoting an inclusive, Afghan-led and Afghan-owned peace and reconciliation process leading to a negotiated peace settlement.
Building the capacity of the Afghan government to reach out to all those in sincere negotiations on peace and reconciliation.
Supporting the civilian aspects of security sector reform, including the professionalisation of the police and the fight against corruption in this area.
Working with the government of Afghanistan to support its strategic policy priorities, including peacebuilding and sustainable development.
Democracy, rule of law and human rights:
Assisting Afghanistan’s efforts to reform its electoral system and to strengthen the integrity of the electoral process, for example by supporting independent electoral bodies or assisting in drafting of electoral legislation and regulations.
Helping to fight corruption, as well as supporting the country’s justice sector, parliament and civil society.
Working with the Government of Afghanistan to address human rights concerns, including respect for minorities, child protection or the fight against impunity.
Economic and human development:
Providing technical cooperation to assist the Afghan authorities to implement the Agenda 2030 for Sustainable Development, and their own National Peace and Development Framework.
Reinforcing the role of rural economies and agriculture, an increased role of the private sector and enhancing resilience.
Supporting regional connectivity, to further improve the country’s transit, transport and energy corridors and to enable increased trade throughout the region.
Migration:
Working together to fully implement the EU-Afghanistan Joint Way Forward on migration issues and the bilateral memoranda of understanding concluded between EU Member States and Afghanistan.
Helping to address the root causes of irregular migration and forced displacement.
Helping to create an environment that offers the Afghan people an alternative to irregular migration, as well as to enable the sustainable reintegration of returnees from the EU and non-EU countries through a community-based approach.
Empowering Women:
Supporting the implementation of the national action plan for UNSC resolution 1325 on women, peace and security, and other national women’s empowerment legislation.
Supporting the incorporation of legislation and additional measures to prevent, combat and criminalise violence against women and sexual harassment.
Strengthening the role and rights of women in preventing and resolving conflicts, in democratic participation, and in sustainable development.
The Joint Communication is the latest illustration of the European Union’s strong engagement in and strong commitment to Afghanistan. Notably, it follows the Brussels Conference on Afghanistan, held in October 2016 in Brussels, the signing of a new EU-Afghanistan Cooperation Agreement on Partnership and Development in February 2017, and the appointment of a Special Envoy to Afghanistan in June.
The actions proposed in the Joint Communication will be discussed with the EU Member States and the European Parliament in the coming weeks, and will contribute to a new EU Strategy on Afghanistan, to be finalised soon afterwards._ Tolonews
‘€75,000 on one trip:’ Top EU officials under fire after info request reveals travel costs
EU Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker and EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini are in the center of a controversy for spending many thousands of euros on private charters as part of official missions, an information inquiry reveals.
The documents obtained via an information request filed by Access Info Europe, a human rights group based in Spain, shed light on the tremendous travel expenses claimed by the EU officials in the first two months of 2016.
Although Access Info filed the request three years ago, the EU commission was reluctant to disclose its financial details, at first releasing heavily redacted documents covering several months, Helen Darbishire, the group’s director, said, as cited by the Guardian.
The documents published Tuesday by Belgian magazine Knack, which supports the NGO in its years-long battle with EU bureaucrats, show that in the course of two months the EU commissioners spent almost half a million euro (€492,249) on travel-related costs. While the sum includes travel expenses by all 28 Euro commissioners, the costs incurred by two top EU officials stood out.
One of the most striking revelations is the amount of money spent by Mogherini and her entourage to fly over to Azerbaijan’s capital, Baku, for a summit late February. The overall mission costs’ that included a private charter exceeded €75,000 the documents revealed. In total, she claimed €96,091 in travel expenses during the two-month period scrutinized in the report.
Juncker also opted to lease a charter plane for himself and an accompanying delegation of eight people flying to Rome last February to meet with senior Italian officials. The visit, that lasted for only a day, cost Euro taxpayers a whopping €26,351.
Defending the extravagant way of travel by the top Eurocrats, EU Commission deputy spokesman Mina Andreeva said that in case of Juncker the expenses were justified as there was “no viable commercial plane available that would fit the president’s agenda.” Dismissing the notion that EU officials indulge in luxury travelling by private charters, Andreeva pointed that commissioners are immersed in “hard work” like “reading documents with your files and marking them” while in the air.
Worth noting, that apart from a trip to Rome, that has drawn media attention due to its out-of-the-ordinary cost, Juncker was far less spendthrift in his other five trips in those two months, having spent €31,940 in total.
Meanwhile, the report prompted the avid Brexiteer, former UKIP leader Nigel Farage, to launch an attack on the EU, while calling Juncker’s conduct “outrageous.”
“I suppose these junket expenses are all part of the make-believe ‘Brexit bill’ which these Commissioners have plucked out of thin air and are trying to extort from our government,” Farage said, as cited by the Daily Express.
Access Info said they would continue to push for more transparency from the EU Commission, predicting that the revelations could be just “the tip of the iceberg” and mulling legal action if the EU refuses to disclose its expenses in full.
Late July, Frans Timmermans, the EU Commission Vice President, told the group that it would be too heavy a burden for the European Commission to publish all the data on travel expenses proactively, saying that the costs of its processing “would be disproportionate.”_ RT
Frustrated EU fears Britain is ‘heading for the Brexit rocks’
On Wednesday afternoon, with Jean Claude Juncker’s state of the union speechcalling for swifter, deeper integration still ringing in their ears, a gaggle of political leaders in the European parliament met in a room opposite the chamber in Strasbourg.
In the appositely named Salle de Margaret Thatcher, Guy Verhofstadt, the colourful former Belgian prime minister who is coordinating MEPs’ response to Brexit, discussed with colleagues from the pro-European political parties on the parliament’s Brexit steering group how they should respond to the seeming stalemate in the Brexit negotiations. The latest draft of a parliamentary resolution was discussed, lamenting the failure of the talks to develop on the key opening issues – citizens’ rights, the Irish border and the financial settlement.
The resolution is set to advise the member states’ leaders, who will make the big decision at a summit in Brussels on 19-20 October, that the negotiations cannot move on to trade as things stand. “The talk at the meeting was mainly about when to hold a vote on it in the parliament,” an EU official said. “They want to have it on 3 October – the day before Theresa May makes her speech to Tory conference. They want the Tory delegates to hear about it.”
The public reprimand for the prime minister at a sensitive point in the political calendar isn’t just about grandstanding from the MEPs. Her government’s offers on citizens’ rights and the Irish border, along with a lack of offer on the financial settlement, has genuinely concerned senior figures within the European commission leading the negotiations and among the member states.
On citizens’ rights, the offer to give EU nationals the same rights as British citizens would leave them with fewer rights than today. The solutions proposed in Ireland, involving the suspension of the normal border checks one would expect for a country outside the EU’s customs union and single market, have been rejected almost out of hand by the commission, as an affront to the legal order. And on the financial settlement – perhaps the biggest stumbling block – the EU’s chief negotiator has questioned whether Brussels can really trust the British on anything, given Downing Street’s reluctance to admit Britain has a legal duty to live up to the spending commitments already made by the EU.
Verhofstadt: coordinating MEPs’ response to Brexit. Photograph: Stephanie Lecocq/EPA
Meanwhile, the British claim they can’t make progress on the Irish border or divorce bill unless they know what their relationship with the EU will be after 29 March 2019, when the UK leaves the bloc. That newly minted argument has particularly riled the commission, given that it was thought the British had accepted the idea of sequenced talks, with the trading relationship to be discussed once “sufficient progress” had been made on the key opening issues, as enshrined in article 50 guidelines agreed by the EU leaders in April. Just to add insult to injury, the Department for Exiting the EU has let it be known that a delay to the next round of talks, allowing the prime minister to make her major speech in Florence on Thursday, will permit EU leaders time to persuade Barnier to be more flexible in the fourth round of talks, which begin a few days later. There is a suspicion that the British also believe that once Angela Merkel is re-elected as Germany’s chancellor this month, she will have political capital to expend on making things happen.
And now there is the unwelcome reappearance on the Brexit battlefield of Boris Johnson, with his insistence that the UK will succeed “mightily” as a low-regulation economy, no longer paying into the EU budget after March 2019. Speaking to the Observer, the leader of the socialist bloc, Gianni Pittella, fumed: “Boris Johnson is embarrassing his country once again by repeating the lies of the Leave campaign. He is jeopardising the Brexit negotiations by threatening to turn the UK into a low-regulation economy. And he insults the intelligence of the British people with his tub-thumping jingoism. It is more in keeping with Trump Tower than Whitehall.”
The Italian MEP, echoing the thoughts of many in the European commission, added: “This appears to be yet another twist in the internal warfare within the Conservative party. It does the UK no credit and no service in the wider world. I fear the British government is heading towards the Brexit rocks.”
Guntram Wolff, a former adviser to the French government, and director of the Bruegel thinktank, said there were grounds for concern. “Things are being lost in translation – it’s a matter of learning to talk to each other,” he said. “I would never underestimate the importance of process and the legal framework for the negotiations to the EU,” he added. “For better or worse, that is how the EU works. Because they are a collective entity of 27 member states, the EU can’t – or it is very difficult to – go beyond [what has been agreed already].
“The idea that we will have the white knight of Angela Merkel riding in and delivering a great compromise doesn’t really work if the process isn’t being followed. And will she want to spend political capital on Brexit? I think only if she thinks a deal is realistic and the groundwork is there.”
For those within Europe who want a mutually beneficial deal to be struck, and that would include most but perhaps not all in Brussels, the brevity of the mention of Britain’s departure in Juncker’s speech last week was an additional cause for concern. In a speech designed to kickstart a new chapter for the EU, Juncker told MEPs that, as much as he would always regret the UK’s decision last June, the issue was not the “be all and end all”. Brexit was not “Europe’s future”, and the continent, now opening trade negotiations with Australia and New Zealand, would move on.
Andrius Kubilius, a former prime minister of Lithuania, who sits on his country’s Brexit committee, admitted it was not a good omen. “I am in some ways less optimistic than I was,” he said. “Several months ago getting a deal with Britain appeared to be the most important thing we needed to get done. It doesn’t feel like that any more.”
Mairead McGuinness, an Irish MEP and vice-president of the European parliament, who met Barnier last week, said she didn’t believe the talks were quite at a deadlock, but that the negotiations did require an injection of urgency.
“It is more sluggish than we would like it to be,” McGuinness said. “I think from the EU side the timeline needs to be respected. It seems at some point [the British] decided, forget what we agreed and we will talk with the member states. But that’s not possible. We would like to hear her say that she will do as agreed, and make progress on the three opening issues. And it seems there has been less movement on money than the other two.”
Indeed, it is hard to get away from the suspicion that money is the key to it all. A variety of figures for Britain’s divorce bill have been published in the press, some certainly emanating from meetings of diplomats and officials in the EU’s Berlaymont headquarters. But, in truth, the EU is no keener than Britain, at this stage, for figures to be aired, whether closer to €30bn or €100bn, given the sensitivities in European capitals, whether they be net recipients or contributors.
However, the EU27 do want greater confidence that the UK is not going to leave them with a giant hole in their finances in the immediate years after Brexit, said Vasco Cal, a former economic adviser in the commission.
“Whatever Britain fails to pay, Germany will have to pay,” said Cal. “I think the UK is looking to hold out on an offer of money until the end, when they will agree to pay for their commitments made in the past but not for access to the internal market during the transition period. The idea being that there will be so much relief among the EU that it will be accepted. It’s a gamble, of course. It could go wrong.”_ The Guardian
No renegotiating Iran nuclear deal, all parties fully compliant – EU foreign policy chief
All parties to Iran’s nuclear agreement remain in full compliance with the deal, EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini said after the Wednesday P5+1 powers’ meeting. She emphasized that the deal had potentially averted a military incursion into Iran.
“This is an agreement that prevented a nuclear program and potentially prevented a military intervention,” Mogherini said, following a meeting of ministers representing the six world powers and Iran on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly.
Calling the negotiations a “frank” discussion, Mogherini said that it boiled down to all sides agreeing that no country has breached the terms of the deal.
“We all agreed on the fact that there is no violation, that the nuclear program-related aspects, which is all the agreement, are being fulfilled,” she said.
In an apparent reference to the recent criticism of the deal by US President Donald Trump, who has labeled the landmark agreement“worst deal ever negotiated” while vowing to scrap it, Mogherini argued that “there is no need to renegotiate parts of the agreement.”
Among the issues raised at the meeting was Washington’s commitment to the deal, Mogherini confirmed.
Speaking on whether she considers the deal to be effective, Mogherini said the answer to this question should lie exclusively within the scope of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which is tasked with watching over Iran’s compliance with the scaling down of its uranium enrichment.
A potential US withdrawal from the deal was not on the agenda of the meeting, she said, noting that the parties did not discuss any scenarios resulting from Washington walking out on the agreement.
“The scope of the nuclear deal is related to the nuclear program of Iran. There are other issues that are out of the scope of the agreement, and these issues might be tackled in different formats,” she told journalists, when asked about Trump’s frustration with the deal.
Tillerson reaffirmed the US commitment to the deal but said that Trump is now weighing arguments “from both sides” to make a final decision whether the existing agreement meets US interests.
“We’ve had sufficient time to get our own kind of direct understanding of this agreement and how it functions. I think the time has come for a decision to be made,” Tillerson said. He added that President Trump had told him he had already made up his mind on the matter, but did not disclose any details at the time._ RT
Brexit war of words heats up as ‘enemy’ EU tells Britain to pay up
The row over Britain’s Brexit divorce bill descended into the rhetoric of war on Friday, as Philip Hammond described Brussels as the “enemy” and Jean-Claude Juncker said any gratitude for the UK’s military defence of the continent did not exempt it from paying its dues, insisting: “Now they have to pay.”
The chancellor made the accusation after a difficult week of talks between the UK and EU, which Michel Barnier, the EU chief negotiator, described as having reached “deadlock”.
Hammond swiftly backtracked, saying he regretted his choice of words and had meant to make the point that the UK cabinet should be united against the other side.
We will work with our friends and partners in the EU on a mutually beneficial Brexit deal #noenemieshere (2/2).
But his characterisation of the EU as an enemy risked further souring relations between Britain and Brussels at a time when both sides are now bracing for Brexitwithout a deal.
It came after Juncker, the president of the European commission, made it clear that the UK would need to put up more money to unblock the negotiations and allow them to move on to discussions about trade. The talks have stalled on several fronts but the senior EU official suggested the biggest reason was an inadequate financial offer from the UK.
Speaking to students at Luxembourg University, he turned up the pressure on Theresa May over the Brexit divorce bill by acknowledging Europe’s debt of gratitude to the country “during the war, after the war, before the war”, but adding: “Now they have to pay.”
With EU leaders meeting for a summit next week, he expressed his frustration at the British government’s failure to commit to honouring its financial obligations to the bloc on leaving it. May has so far offered to pay into the EU budget until 2020 and “our fair share of the costs” in specific policies and programmes.
But Juncker told students that the British position was untenable. “We cannot find, for the time being, a real compromise as far as the remaining financial commitments of the UK are concerned,” he said.
Jean-Claude Juncker: ‘They have to pay. They have to pay.’ Photograph: Patrick Seeger/EPA
“As we cannot do this, we will not be able to say during the European council in October that now we can move to the second phase of the negotiations, which means the shaping of the British-European future. Things have to [be] done. One has to deliver.
“If you are sitting in the bar and you are ordering 28 beers and then suddenly some of your colleagues [are leaving without] paying, that is not feasible. They have to pay. They have to pay.”
In response, Iain Duncan Smith, the former Conservative cabinet minister and leading leave supporter, rejected the call for more money and made a dig at the senior EU official’s penchant for a drink by saying: “I think Mr Juncker knows a little bit more about the bar than many of us do.”
Duncan Smith is one of many Brexit supporters in parliament putting May under pressure to withstand calls to offer the EU more money.
A number of the most hardline leave supporters, including the former chancellor Nigel Lawson, would rather see the cash spent by the UK on preparing for the possibility of leaving the EU with no deal, which has led to calls for Hammond, the chancellor, to resign for refusing to put money towards this until the last possible moment.
Amid criticism from the right of his party, the chancellor turned up his anti-Brussels language in an interview with Sky News.
“My message is this: I understand that passions are high and I understand that people have very strong views about this but we’re all going to the same place. We all have the same agenda,” he said.
“The enemy, the opponents, are out there. They’re on the other side of the negotiating table. Those are the people we have to negotiate with, negotiate hard to get the very best deal for Britain.”
He later withdrew the comments, saying: “We will work with our friends and partners in the EU on a mutually beneficial Brexit deal.”
Speaking in Washington DC at the end of a week of cabinet in-fighting, Hammond was also forced to defend his position in the cabinet and dismissed those calling for him to be removed.
He hit back at claims from within the Conservative party that he was an “Eeyore” spreading doom and gloom about the post-Brexit economy. “I think that is a bizarre observation. I am very optimistic about the future of the UK economy. It is fundamentally strong,” he said.
The chancellor said: “It is absurd to pretend that the process hasn’t created some uncertainty in the business community. Businesses crave clarity about our future relationship with the EU and the sooner we get that clarity the better.”
He added: “As soon as the uncertainty lifts, which I hope will be in the next few months, we will see the UK economy powering forward and reaching its full potential.
“I’m committed to delivering Brexit and a Brexit that works for Britain, protects jobs and protects businesses, and allows people to get on with their lives.”
Asked whether he was upset about the calls for him to be sacked, the chancellor said: “There is a group of people who have very clear views about the outcome they want to see. It is not surprising that they will seek to make sure they get the outcome the want.”
The chancellor said he had already spent more than £500m on Brexit preparations and that more resources would be provided in the budget next month and during 2018.
Peter Dowd, a shadow Treasury minister, said Hammond’s remarks about the EU being an “enemy” were both foolish and a sign that he was “clearly feeling the pressure from Tory MPs calling for him to be sacked”.
“The tone of this rhetoric will obviously not unblock negotiations or help protect our economic interests,” said Dowd. “The chancellor should be putting the country before the infighting in his own party when he is representing us overseas, and refrain from acting like Basil Fawlty on holiday.
“It is vital that these negotiations do not lead to a situation where Britain crashes out of the EU without a deal, risking jobs and living standards. This weak government has squandered the past months of the Brexit negotiations, squabbling with each other rather than trying to get the best deal for Britain. If they are not up to the job then they should step aside and let Labour take over.”
EU to discuss blacklist of tax havens after documents leaks
BRUSSELS: European Union finance ministers will on Tuesday discuss setting up a blacklist of worldwide tax havens after leaked documents from an offshore law firm revealed investments by wealthy individuals and institutions around the globe.
The subject’s inclusion on the monthly meeting’s agenda came after the weekend publication of media reports citing the so-called “Paradise Papers”, a trove of leaked financial documents mostly from Appleby, a prominent offshore law firm.
The documents were obtained by Germany’s Sueddeutsche Zeitung newspaper and shared with the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) and some media outlets.
The latest revelations “put renewed emphasis on the work the European Commission is doing to fight tax avoidance”, the vice president of the EU’s executive arm, Valdis Dombrovskis, told reporters on Monday.
EU countries had planned for months to reach an agreement on a blacklist for tax havens by the end of this year. The new revelations prompted the discussion to be brought forward, EU officials said, but no final decision was expected on Tuesday.
The EU has discussed several measures to crack down on tax avoidance in the past, including in the wake of the “Panama Papers”, a release by the ICIJ last year which chronicled a shadowy world of offshore holdings and hidden wealth.
Measures previously discussed include an EU-wide list of tax havens meant to discourage the rerouting of profits made in the EU to tax-free or low-tax countries, like Panama or Bermuda.
At the moment, each EU country has its own list of jurisdictions that are seen as less cooperative on tax matters. Criteria to define a tax haven vary greatly among EU states and some of them include no jurisdictions in their national blacklists.
One-country list?
An EU blacklist is believed to carry more weight. Jurisdictions included in the list could be subject to sanctions if they did not cooperate.
“It’s time that we agree and publish a blacklist on tax havens,” EU tax commissioner Pierre Moscovici told reporters, calling for a “credible” list and “adequate sanctions” when serious breaches are unveiled.
“This new scandal shows once again that some companies and rich individuals are ready to do anything to not pay tax,” he said.
There are no details yet of the type of sanctions to be discussed, although being on the blacklist in itself could discourage individuals and companies from putting money in those jurisdictions.
Moscovici added that the EU blacklist should be more ambitious than the existing list of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), a global group of mostly rich nations that has so far been leading the fight against tax avoidance.
The OECD list of non-cooperative jurisdictions on tax transparency includes to date only Trinidad and Tobago.
Some EU countries remain sceptical about the blacklist and are themselves under scrutiny for unfair tax competition.
Smaller EU states, like Luxembourg, Malta and Ireland, attract firms with lower corporate taxes. Some have been sanctioned for deals with multinationals that slashed their tax bills, reducing revenues in other EU states.
To win over their resistance, the proposed EU blacklist would apply only to non-EU countries. Also, states which charge no corporate taxes will not be automatically considered tax havens, under a preliminary deal reached by EU finance ministers last year.
On tax matters the EU can take decisions only with the unanimous backing of its 28 member-states, unless extraordinary procedures are launched — an option never tested so far.
To reduce the appeal of tax havens, Brussels has also proposed the setting up of public registries that would show the real owners of companies, which are often hidden by frontmen in shell firms in offshore jurisdictions.
It has also proposed compulsory reporting by large multinational firms of profits made and taxes paid in each state where they operate, in a bid to show how much of their revenues are booked in low-tax countries.
EU states have been long discussing both proposals, but no deal has been reached yet. “EU governments such as Germany have been standing against the rising tide of financial transparency,” said Carl Dolan, director of Transparency International EU.
EU competition chief Margrethe Vestager, who has cracked down on EU countries making illegal tax breaks to Apple and Amazon, lauded the journalists who made the latest revelations.
“Congratulations and thanks to ICIJ for all the work done on Paradise Papers. It enables the work against tax avoidance, for transparency,” said Vestager in a tweet.—Reuters/AFP
EU Commissioner for Budget Piles Pressure on UK Amid Deadlocked Brexit Talks
As the December deadline for settling financial matters between the UK and EU is nearing, the EU Commissioner for Budget and Human Resources stressed that the union cannot pay Britain’s bills.
MOSCOW (Sputnik) – EU Commissioner for Budget and Human Resources, Gunther Oettinger, is increasing pressure on the UK authorities amid the lack of progress in London’s talks with Brussels on the withdrawal from the European Union, according to the German Bild am Sonntag newspaper.
“Europe cannot pay the United Kingdom’s bills. We can acknowledge that the UK [authorities] cannot, or do not want to fulfill their promises,” he told the media outlet.
The European Union does not aim to harm the United Kingdom, Oettinger continued, adding that the bloc wants to prevent possible damage to its member states.
Oettinger also pointed out, that both the EU, and the UK economies needed clarity, so he expects a “clear statement” by mid-December, according to the newspaper.
The first phase of the ongoing Brexit talks between London and Brussels is dedicated to the financial settlement between the parties, as well as citizens rights, and the border between the United Kingdom’s Northern Ireland, and the Republic of Ireland.
On Friday, European Council President Donald Tusk set early December as a deadline for the United Kingdom to make progress in talks with Brussels on the issues of financial settlement, and the Irish border in order for Brexit talks to move to the second phase this year.
On October 20, the leaders of 27 EU states agreed to start internal preparations for the second phase of the Brexit talks. The heads of state and government also decided that they would reassess the existing progress in the talks at their summit in December, which is required to move to the second phase of negotiations.
The lack of progress in the talks, acknowledged by a number of EU officials, has however cast doubts that the negotiations can move to the next phase before 2018.
On Friday, EU Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker expressed hope that the parties to Brexit negotiations would reach the needed agreement before the deadline. However, work needs to be done for it, the official noted.
Since the summer of this year, negotiations have been held on the conditions for the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union, the main topics are the rights of citizens, the Irish border and the settlement of financial obligations._ Sputnik news
EU Ratcheting Up Pressure on British PM May Over Brexit Impasse
European leaders fear that Brussels and London will not be able to move forward to the next stage of Brexit negotiations next month. Brussels wants the British government to provide more clarity on the financial conditions of Brexit.
British Prime Minister Theresa May will come under pressure as she attends an EU summit in Brussels on Friday. May will have talks with European Council President Donald Tusk in a bid to break the deadlock in the Brexit talks and progress to the second phase of negotiations.
Tusk is expected to once again bring up the question of how much London is willing to pay for its withdrawal from the 28-nation bloc, according to The Herald Scotland.
Brussels has refused to move to the next stage of Brexit talks, including discussing trade and transition agreements, until progress is made on the divorce bill and the issue of EU citizens’ rights and the Irish border.
According to the report, May, however, is unlikely to mention a specific figure to Tusk but could indicate the willingness of the British government to raise its offer on the condition that trade and transition talks start next month. Last week, British media reported that May could line up an additional £20 billion ($26 billion) to the EU as part of the divorce bill due to fears that London risks missing the December deadline.
Meanwhile, a leaked internal paper from the Irish government condemned Britain’s performance on Brexit as “chaotic,” saying that British ministers are unable to work out a coherent policy on the issue, according to RTE News. The report read that there are serious concerns among European leaders that it will be difficult to overcome the impasse in the Brexit talks and still meet the December deadline.
Last week, May already faced pressure over her government’s handling of the Brexit situation when she met several EU high-ranking officials at a summit in Gothenburg, Sweden. According to media reports, European Commission chief Jean-Claude Juncker told May that “the clock is ticking” and Swedish Prime Minister Stefan Lofven stressed that the British government needs to clarify its position on the divorce bill.
The Brexit negotiations between London and Brussels, which kicked off on June 19, are expected to wrap up by the end of March 2019. In a referendum on June 23, 2016, about 51.9 percent of British voters said “yes” to their country leaving the EU._ Sputnik news
European Union blacklists 17 tax havens, another 47 nations on ‘grey list’
European Union ministers adopted on Tuesday a blacklist of 17 non-EU tax havens including Panama, South Korea and the United Arab Emirates after a year of tough negotiations.
The Paradise Papers leak last month gave a new impetus to the plan, making public some of the intricate ways the world’s rich evade tax using offshore havens.
“We have adopted at EU level a list of states which are not doing enough to fight tax evasion. This blacklist includes 17 states,” French finance minister Bruno Le Maire told reporters in Brussels.
The EU has struggled for over a year to finalise the blacklist, with smaller, low-tax EU nations such as Ireland, Malta and Luxembourg worried about scaring off multinationals.
The countries on the list are: American Samoa, Bahrain, Barbados, Grenada, Guam, Macau, the Marshall Islands, Mongolia, Namibia, Palau, Panama, Saint Lucia, Samoa, South Korea, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia and the United Arab Emirates.
A further 47 countries are on a “grey list”, sources said.
Other jurisdictions are understood to have been given leeway after suffering severe damage during hurricanes in the Caribbean earlier this year.
Britain fought particularly hard against the list, afraid that its crown dependencies, including Jersey and the Virgin Islands, would be singled out.
Senior officials from member states had whittled down an initial draft of 29 countries, with divisions still strong in recent days on who would make the final version.
EU Economic Affairs Commissioner Pierre Moscovici said ahead of the official announcement that this was fewer than the 20 countries he had hoped for but would be a “initial victory”.
Enforcement problem
Enforcement is the biggest problem, with EU countries split over whether blacklisted countries should be subjected to financial sanctions or if the list itself is shaming enough.
Several states, including France, support tough measures against the listed tax havens such as exclusion from EU and World Bank funding, though the debate is still open.
Other countries are reluctant to draw up common sanctions, believing that responsibility is better left to member states.
“To be on a blacklist is in itself bad enough and of course there will be consequences for these countries,” Luxembourg Finance Minister Pierre Gramegna said.
An existing list of tax havens compiled by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) currently includes only Trinidad and Tobago.
The EU originally screened a total of 92 jurisdictions and once the list is compiled it is expected to be continuously updated.
In a blow to activists, states that charge no corporate tax are not automatically considered at risk of breaching EU tax criteria.
However, the criteria do single out countries that facilitate the creation of shell companies and other structures that could aid tax avoidance.
Countries in the EU’s firing line have been given an opportunity to stay off the list if they provide a political commitment and a detailed plan to comply.
All countries, which initially included the US, were given until Tuesday’s meeting of the EU’s 28 finance ministers to provide feedback and possible measures to satisfy EU demands.
The list is the latest international effort to clamp down on tax avoidance — increasingly seen as a moral issue — following the OECD’s move to compile a list of “uncooperative tax havens”._ AFP
European Union tells Israel PM Benjamin Netanyahu it rejects Trump’s Jerusalem move
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu took his case to Europe to ask allies to join the United States in recognising Jerusalem as Israel’s capital but was met by a firm rebuff from EU foreign ministers who saw the move as a blow against the peace process.
Making his first ever visit to EU headquarters in Brussels, Netanyahu said President Donald Trump’s move made peace in the Middle East possible “because recognising reality is the substance of peace, the foundation of peace.” Trump announced last Wednesday that the United States would recognise Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, breaking with decades of U.S. policy and international consensus that the ancient city’s status must be decided in Israeli-Palestinian talks.
Israel, which annexed East Jerusalem after capturing it in a 1967 war, considers the entire city to be its capital. Palestinians want East Jerusalem as the capital of a future independent state. The Trump administration says it remains committed to the peace process and its decision does not affect Jerusalem’s future borders or status. It says any credible future peace deal will place the Israeli capital in Jerusalem, and ditching old policies is needed to revive a peace process frozen since 2014. But even Israel’s closest European allies have rejected that logic and say recognising Israel’s capital unilaterally risks inflaming violence and further wrecking the chance for peace.
After a breakfast meeting between Netanyahu and EU foreign ministers, Sweden’s top diplomat said no European at the closed-door meeting had voiced support for Trump’s decision, and no country was likely to follow the United States in announcing plans to move its embassy. “I have a hard time seeing that any other country would do that and I don’t think any other EU country will do it,” Margot Wallstrom told reporters. Several EU foreign ministers arriving at the meeting reiterated the bloc’s position that lands Israel has occupied since the 1967 war – including East Jerusalem as well as the West Bank and Golan Heights, are not within Israel’s borders.
Israel’s position does appear to have more support from some EU states than others. Last week, the Czech foreign ministry said it would begin considering moving the Czech Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, while Hungary blocked a planned EU statement condemning the U.S. move. But Prague later said it accepted Israel’s sovereignty only over West Jerusalem, and Budapest said its long-term position seeking a two-state solution in the Middle East had not changed. On Monday, Czech Foreign Minister Lubomir Zaoralek said of Trump’s decision: “I’m afraid it can’t help us.” “I’m convinced that it is impossible to ease tension with a unilateral solution,” Zaoralek said. “We are talking about an Israeli state but at the same time we have to speak about a Palestinian state.”
VIOLENCE SUBSIDES
Trump’s announcement triggered days of protests across the Muslim world and clashes between Palestinians and Israeli security forces in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem in which scores of Palestinians were wounded and several killed. By Monday morning, violence appeared to have subsided. Netanyahu, who has been angered by the EU’s search for closer business ties with Iran, said Europeans should emulate Trump’s move and press the Palestinians to do so too. “It’s time that the Palestinians recognise the Jewish state and also recognise the fact that it has a capital. It’s called Jerusalem,” he said.
In comments filmed later on his plane, he said he had told the Europeans to “stop pampering the Palestinians”. “I think the Palestinians need a reality check. You have to stop cutting them slack. That’s the only way to move forward towards peace.” Trump’s announcement last week has triggered a war of words between Netanyahu and Turkey’s President Tayyip Erdogan, straining ties between the two U.S. allies which were restored only last year after a six year breach that followed the Israeli storming of a Turkish aid ship bound for Gaza.
On Sunday, Erdogan called Israel a “terror state”. Netanyahu responded by saying he would accept no moral lectures from Erdogan who he accused of bombing Kurdish villages, jailing opponents and supporting terrorists. On Monday Erdogan took aim directly at Washington over Trump’s move: “The ones who made Jerusalem a dungeon for Muslims and members of other religions will never be able to clean the blood from their hands,” he said in a speech in Ankara. “With their decision to recognise Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, the United States has become a partner in this bloodshed.” The decision to recognise Jerusalem could also strain Washington’s ties with its other main Muslim ally in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia, which has sought closer relations with Washington under Trump than under his predecessor Barack Obama.
Saudi Arabia shares U.S. and Israeli concerns about the increasing regional influence of Iran, and was seen as a potential broker for a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace deal. But Saudis have suggested that unilateral decisions over Jerusalem make any such rapprochement more difficult.
Prince Turki al-Faisal, a former Saudi ambassador to the United States and veteran ex-security chief, published a strongly-worded open letter to Trump on Monday denouncing the Jerusalem move. “Bloodshed and mayhem will definitely follow your opportunistic attempt to make electoral gain,” the prince wrote in a letter published in the Saudi newspaper al-Jazeera. “Your action has emboldened the most extreme elements in the Israeli society … because they take your action as a license to evict the Palestinians from their lands and subject them to an apartheid state,” he added. “Your action has equally emboldened Iran and its terrorist minions to claim that they are the legitimate defenders of Palestinian rights.”
The Trump administration says it is working on a peace proposal being drawn up by Middle East envoy Jason Greenblatt and Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner. European leaders say the decision on Israel’s capital makes the need for a broader peace move more urgent.
“We’ve been waiting already for several months for the American initiative, and if one is not forthcoming then the European Union will have to take the initiative,” French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian said._ Reuters
EU leaders say Jerusalem stance ´unchanged´ after Trump move
BRUSSELS: European Union leaders on Thursday rejected US President Donald Trump´s recognition of Jerusalem as the Israeli capital, saying they stuck by their view that the city´s status should be settled by negotiation.
Trump´s administration invited widespread criticism earlier this month when it officially recognised Jerusalem as the Israeli capital, effectively ignoring Palestinian claims on the city.
“EU leaders reiterate firm commitment to the two-state solution and, in this context, the EU position on Jerusalem remains unchanged,” EU President Donald Tusk tweeted after the leaders of the bloc´s 28 countries discussed the matter at a summit in Brussels.
The EU has voiced alarm at the US decision, with foreign policy head Federica Mogherini warning last week that it could take the situation “backwards to even darker times”.
But Thursday´s statement by the bloc´s heads of state and government adds fresh weight to the criticism of Trump´s move, which upended seven decades of US policy on Jerusalem and triggered protests across the Islamic world.
The EU has long maintained that the only way to peace is two states — Israel and Palestine — with Jerusalem as the capital of both and the borders returned to their status before the 1967 Arab-Israeli War.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu earned a stern rebuff from Mogherini in Brussels on Monday when he suggested Europe would follow Washington´s lead on Jerusalem.
Mogherini told him in forthright terms to “keep his expectations for others”._ AFP
Crypto-crackdown: EU agrees on new rules to curb bitcoin anonymity
The EU is targeting bitcoin anonymity, saying the measure is needed to tackle tax evasion and other crimes. Anonymity of the cryptocurrency holders is a built-in feature that the EU hopes to undermine.
The new rules concerning cryptocurrency passed on Friday by the European Parliament and the European Council are part of a larger package, which also target prepaid cards and trust funds. The agreement is meant to be enshrined in legislation within 18 months by EU members.
Once they become law, the rules will require cryptocurrency exchange platforms and wallet providers to identify their clients. Identifying individuals and entities holding bitcoin and other digital currencies will presumably help to prevent tax evasion, money laundering and financing of terrorism.
A cryptocurrency operates through a network of “nodes” that track and validate individual transactions through cryptography techniques. Possession of currency units is locked thanks to secret private digital keys while exchanges are made with a public key derived from them. A wallet is basically a collection of private keys needed to authorize a transfer of the currency. The protocol was designed to make wallet owners anonymous while transactions themselves are public and traceable.
The anonymity of bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies made them a useful tool for illicit activities, from the purchase of drugs and illegal firearms to hiding wealth from the authorities. Supporters of the system say its benefits as a decentralized method of payment independent from any government will outweigh its drawbacks in the long run.
Countries throughout the world have been seeking ways to rein in cryptocurrencies, which are becoming a mainstream financial instrument. In addition to the criminal overtones, regulators are concerned that cryptocurrency exchanges are not subject to the rules applied to more traditional financial platforms and are thus prone to manipulation and volatility.
The EU financial transparency agreement came after a year of negotiations. Some members of the union opposed some of the suggested measures like those exposing trust funds, fearing they would hurt their economies. Britain, Malta, Cyprus, Luxembourg and Ireland were among those concerned about the changes, according to EU officials involved in the deal.
Europe’s Justice Commissioner Vera Jourova hailed the Friday decision as a breakthrough, saying: “Today’s agreement will bring more transparency to improve the prevention of money laundering and to cut off terrorist financing.” It was also hailed by Transparency International, although they added that the transparency rules for trust funds could have been even stricter.
EU begins process that could see Poland stripped of voting rights
The EU has triggered a process that could ultimately see Poland stripped of voting rights in Brussels in an unprecedented step designed to force the country’s rightwing government to drop reforms the bloc regards as a threat to the country’s democracy.
The country’s fellow 27 member states have been advised by the European commission that the legislative programme of Poland’s government is putting at risk fundamental values expected of a democratic state by allowing political interference in its courts.
“Within a period of two years a significant number of laws have been adopted – 13 in total – which put in serious risk the independence of the judiciary and the separation of powers”, the vice president of the commission, Frans Timmermans, told reporters in Brussels.
“Judicial reforms in Poland mean that the country’s judiciary is now under the political control of the ruling majority. In the absence of judicial independence, serious questions are raised about the effective application of EU law.”
The issuing of a formal warning to Poland has been recommended to the member states under the first clause of the, until now, unused article 7 procedure. “It is with a heavy heart that we have decided to initiate Article 7.1”, Timmermans said. “But the facts leave us with no choice”.
At least 22 of the 28 member states will now need to vote in favour of the commission’s proposal for a formal warning, but Brussels is confident it has the numbers.
The most serious sanction possible under article 7 would be to suspend the member state of its voting rights in EU institutions and suspend EU financial transfers, but that would require unanimity among the member states in a subsequent vote. Hungary’s rightwing government has insisted it would never support such a move.
Timmermans said that although there has been no dialogue with the Polish government this year on the issue, the EU was open to talks out of the current stand off.
A new prime minister took office only this month, and Warsaw was told that the commission could rescind its decision if remedies were enacted within the next three months.
Timmermans also insisted that at this stage he was not deploying the “nuclear option” and it would be up to Poland to respond to the developments.
The highly symbolic move of triggering article 7 will no doubt, however, exacerbate a growing sense of crisis over Poland’s membership of the EU.
Speaking to state television earlier on Wednesday, foreign minister Witold Waszczykowski said that any decision to initiate Article 7 proceedings would constitute “an attempt to stigmatise Poland and push us aside when key decisions are made in the EU.”
State television news, controlled by Law and Justice since the passage of a controversial media law in 2016, accompanied its coverage of the announcement with the headline ‘Frans Timmermans wants to take away Poles’ right to reform their own country.’
“Poland’s image and influence in the EU has already suffered under the policy of the PiS government, so the international consequences of the Commission’s move will be limited, but the domestic fallout will be more important,” said Piotr Buras, director of the Warsaw office of the European Council on Foreign Relations. “State propaganda is likely to portray this decision as an hostile act of foreign oppressors directed against Poland’s democracy and sovereignty. It will fuel the narrative about Poland as a besieged fortress, and about the West betraying Poland.”
The Polish government insists the judiciary retains too much of the institutional architecture that was in place during Poland’s time as a communist state, and that it needs to be purged and placed in a new legal framework.
The development will prove highly awkward for Theresa May, who will be in Warsaw for a UK-Poland summit on Thursday, at which she hopes to push forward her vision of a post-Brexit trading relationship with the rest of Europe.
The British prime minister, who will be travelling with the chancellor, Philip Hammond, and the foreign secretary, Boris Johnson, is likely to be asked which side of the argument she supports. The UK government has been ambiguous over its position, due to concerns that Brussels should not be meddling in domestic affairs.
While it is a keen advocate of independent judicial systems, the British government also wants to build alliances as it attempts to win support for May’s pursuit of a “deep and special” trade deal with the EU.
A spokesman for the prime minister said she would raise her concerns over the rule of law when in Warsaw, but that the UK hoped the issue could be swiftly resolved.
The row over the Polish government’s reforms to the country’s judiciary has been rolling on for two years but appears to have come to a head in the wake of the Polish senate’s decision last Friday to approve legislation giving the executive greater control of the supreme court and national council of the judiciary, which appoints judges.
Under the new laws, which are yet to be approved by the Polish president, the supreme court will be able to conduct “extraordinary reviews” of final judgments by lower courts, including those issued over the last 20 years.
An autonomous disciplinary chamber will also be created within the supreme court to be partly staffed by lay members elected by the upper house of parliament.
Supreme court judges will retire after reaching the age of 65, rather than the current 70, but the president will have the power to extend the retirement age in each individual case.
The judiciary council, which assesses candidates for the role of judge, would be elected in the main by the lower house of parliament. Until now this right was largely enjoyed by the judges themselves._ The Guardian
Blue passports could send UK citizens to back of queue, EU officials say
European officials have warned that Britain’s new blue passports could spell travel delays and extra paperwork rather than the enhanced freedom promised by the government.
Theresa May sought to end a difficult political year on a high note on Friday by confirming the return of navy travel documents after Brexit. She said that abandoning the EU-style burgundy design introduced in 1988 was an expression of “independence and sovereignty” that reflected “citizenship of a proud, great nation”.
But as the announcement divided domestic opinion along increasingly entrenched cultural battle lines, sources in Brussels pointed out that holders of any colour of British passport could see diminished travel rights after Brexitunless there were further negotiating concessions.
One senior official said that “depending on how negotiations go on all free movement issues after Brexit” there was a significant risk that British passport holders would lose the right to use a fast-track citizens lane when travelling on the continent and may also be obliged to use a new visa waiver scheme.
Although a chance remains for Britain to retain fast-track privileges if there is further shift in the prime minister’s red lines on immigration, British experts said this looked unlikely. “At the moment, it looks absolutely certain that we won’t be able to go through the European citizens lane because the legal code in the Schengen borders code says it is only for citizens or people with free movement rights,” said Steve Peers, a professor of law at Essex University.
Brussels sources pointed out that the tendering process for printing the new passports was likely to take place under existing EU procurement rules, something that the current British contractor, De La Rue, recently warned could mean they were produced abroad.
Despite this, the announcement was loudly cheered by Brexit supporters on Friday after a string of recent concessions from the government.
The Home Office minister Brandon Lewis told the Sun that “one of the most iconic things about being British is having a British passport”.
“You can’t be a nation unless you have this symbol,” added a jubilant Nigel Farage.
The old blue British passport and the burgundy European Union design introduced in 1988. Composite: PR
Under a system first agreed by Margaret Thatcher’s government in 1981, Britain is not legally obliged to use the same burgundy design as most other members but agreed to do so in a joint resolution of member states in the European council.
The agreement to harmonise certain design features followed a backlash over more ambitious plans for a community-wide passport, but it also included rules to put the words “European Community” in front of the name of the member state.
Council members, including Britain’s then ambassador to the EU, Michael Butler, signed a resolution aiming to “strengthen the feeling among nationals of the member states that they belong to the same community” but left an opt-out clause that is still used today by some members such as Croatia, which also has a blue passport.
May said Britain was choosing to return to its “iconic” blue design even though the shade proposed would be significantly lighter than the near-black navy used in previous, larger, UK passports. The majority of changes since this period have been mandated by other international aviation and security agreements outside the EU and will continue to dictate the size and content of UK travel documents.
Experts stressed that the balance between national sovereignty and harmonising travel rules was more complex than changing the appearance of a passport. “The reality is that the new passports will symbolise having fewer free movement rights,” said Peers. “We will also still have to go through the slow lane even if we have non-expired [burgundy] passports. It may not be vastly more difficult, but it will be somewhat more difficult.
“It does seem odd to make a big patriotic noise about something that makes it harder for you to travel.”
Fabian Zuleeg, chief executive of the European Policy Centre, agreed that it would depend on the final EU/UK settlement as to whether it would be harder for British passport holders to travel in Europe in future. If UK citizens were treated as nationals of the European Economic Area, the EU plus Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein, then there would be no problem. “Otherwise they could face longer queues”, though he stressed nothing was definite.
In Britain, opposition politicians rejected the prime minister’s claim that changing the colour was a victory for sovereignty.
“What utter nonsense – this belittles our country and your office,” said the Labour MP Chuka Umunna. “We’ve always been a great nation, proud to be British and of our standing in the world.”
The former Labour leader Ed Miliband added: “It is an expression of how mendacious, absurd and parochial we look to the world.”
David Lammy, the MP for Tottenham, said Brexit was “turning us into a laughing stock”. “We’re swapping the right to live and work in 27 countries for new passports,” he said. “But don’t worry, when we’re all stood in the airport for four hours we can stand in the queue and look at just how blue they are.”
Academic experts on Brexit urged remain supporters not to underestimate the power of symbolism for leave supporters. “It’s a sign of the times that the mirror image of it appealing to a certain segment of the British population is that it will be a total turn-off to the other,” said Anand Menon at King’s College London. “It’s a reflection of how divided our society is: some people just cannot compute and other people are celebrating.”
The former British diplomat Sir Simon Wall suggested it was a measure carefully targeted at a demographic group most in need of buoying up after recent concessions.
“It’s aimed at the Brexit generation. Anyone under the age of 50 will hardly remember any other passport than we have now,” he said. “It seems from her recent performance that Theresa May has belatedly grasped the fact that we need to make some pretty dramatic compromises and she needs a bit of smoke as well – this is part of that.”
European officials distanced themselves from the original decision to adopt burgundy passports, stressing it was voluntarily agreed to by member state governments. “This has nothing to do with the European commission, nothing at all,” said the spokesman Mark English.
Claude Moraes, the British Labour MEP, who chairs the European parliament’s civil liberties, justice and home affairs committee, warned that the new passports could become a symbol of what British nationals stand to lose from Brexit.
“What is being lost with the burgundy passport are the freedoms to move in the EU27 and other related freedoms,” he said. “There is every risk now that with the UK passport you will be subject to greater queus, greater checks and more inconvenience.”
The MEP, who is one of the lead negotiators for the parliament on Etias, said he was “deeply sceptical” that the EU27 would offer the UK a special deal. He said the UK would be on the other side of policies aimed at strengthening the EU’s external border, including Etias and a stronger border and coastguard agency.
“That is something people will have to get used to and the new passport will symbolise that.”_ The Guardian
BRUSSELS: The EU has called Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif to talks in Brussels on Thursday with his French, British and German counterparts in efforts to preserve the hard-fought deal to curb Tehran´s nuclear ambitions.
The meeting between Zarif and the three European parties to the landmark 2015 agreement comes after Iran warned the world on Monday to prepare for the withdrawal of the United States.
Thursday´s meeting comes against a backdrop of high political tension in Iran following recent protests which claimed 21 lives, though Zarif has dismissed the idea the unrest would be on the agenda.
Iran signed the accord with six world powers, agreeing to curb its nuclear programme in exchange for the lifting of many international sanctions, but US President Donald Trump has condemned the deal and threatened to pull out.
“The EU High Representative Federica Mogherini will convene a meeting with ministers of foreign affairs of E3 countries — France, Jean-Yves Le Drian, Germany, Sigmar Gabriel, and the UK Boris Johnson — and Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif on Thursday 11 January in Brussels,” the 28-member bloc said in a statement.
“The meeting will take place in the context of the ongoing work to ensure a full and continued implementation of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action,” the statement added, using the official name for the deal.
The EU, which played an important role in brokering the Iran nuclear deal, has been lobbying US lawmakers not to pull out and so far Trump has continued to waive nuclear-related sanctions at regular intervals as required under the agreement._ AFP
EU To Remove Panama, Seven Others From Tax Haven Blacklist: Source
BRUSSELS, BELGIUM: The EU will remove Panama, South Korea and six other countries from its recently unveiled EU tax blacklist at a meeting of finance ministers next week, a European Union official said on Tuesday.
“Barring a major surprise, EU finance ministers should remove eight countries from the blacklist of tax havens,” the official told AFP on condition of anonymity.
The United Arab Emirates, Tunisia, Mongolia, Macau, Grenada and Barbados are also to be struck from the list.
The reversal comes just a few weeks after the EU announced an original blacklist of 17 non-EU states, which drew furious reaction from several of the states targeted.
The official said the countries removed from the list now move to the EU’s so-called “grey list”, countries that have made unspecified commitments to the EU on reforming their tax laws.
The lists came a year on from the leak of the “Panama Papers” — a massive amount of data from a prominent Panamanian law firm showing how the world’s wealthy stash assets.
“This is a worrying trend. Just one month after adopting the list they are taking people off,” Aurore Chardonnet, an EU tax policy advisor at Oxfam, told AFP.
“They are weakening the credibility of the list… which is becoming empty,” she added.
Saint Lucia, Trinidad and Tobago, as well as Bahrain, Guam, the Marshall Islands, Palau, Samoa, American Samoa and Namibia remain on the blacklist._ AFP
As Trump gears up for ‘America First’ speech, European leaders to defend multilateralism
European leaders will be out in force at the World Economic Forum in Davos this week to defend multilateralism before US President Donald Trump arrives to deliver his “America First” message.
Politicians, business chiefs, bankers and celebrities will meet in the Swiss Alps under the banner “Creating a Shared Future in a Fractured World” for the four-day gathering against an unsettling global backdrop.
A decade after the bankruptcy of US investment bank Lehman Brothers helped trigger a global financial crisis, economic growth has returned and stock markets are hitting record highs.
Yet there is a nagging fear among many in Davos that the brighter economic outlook could turn out to be little more than a mirage if the daunting array of geopolitical threats – from protectionism and climate change to cyber attacks and outright war – gather pace in 2018.
“Not all geopolitical threats are threats to financial markets,” Axel Weber, the chairman of Swiss bank UBS and former president of the German Bundesbank told Reuters. “But I agree that there may be a disconnect, which has been going on for some time already and may well continue for some time.”
The Global Risks Report published by the WEF last week showed that many see a heightened risk of political and economic confrontations between major powers this year.
Trump, the first sitting US president to attend the forum since Bill Clinton in 2000, is a source of much of this anxiety after a volatile first year in office in which he has turned American foreign policy on its head.
The forum will open on Tuesday with a speech by India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi and end on Friday, when Trump is due to address the massive auditorium where Chinese President Xi Jinping spoke last year, offering to fill the global leadership void created by an inward-looking Washington.
White House officials said over the weekend that a government shutdown in the United States was unlikely to prevent Trump from making the trip, although the budget director Mick Mulvaney said it was now “in flux”.
In the days between Modi and Trump, the leaders of Europe’s biggest countries, absent from Davos last year and emboldened by their own economic recovery, will offer an alternative vision to Trump and Xi, who the Europeans say has failed to deliver on his promise of a year ago to open China up to foreign investment.
EUROPE’S NEW STAR
The charge will be led by French President Emmanuel Macron, the new star of European politics, who in an audacious move, has invited many of the business leaders who will be in Davos to the Palace of Versailles on Monday to press them to invest in France.
When he speaks in Davos on Wednesday, the former investment banker will offer his own “diagnosis” of globalisation and set out a vision for addressing widening inequalities, global warming and the rise of nationalism, his advisers say.
“I don’t think Macron will be able to resist being the counter-Trump,” said Robin Niblett, director of the Chatham House think tank in London.
Macron will be joined by German Chancellor Angela Merkel, returning to the world stage after months of political limbo at home, and Italian Prime Minister Paolo Gentiloni.
European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker, back in Davos after a 20-year absence, is also due to speak.
The WEF is a marathon of panel discussions, lunches and cocktail parties that delve into subjects as diverse as terrorism, artificial intelligence and wellness.
This year’s conference will include several sessions on sexual harassment, a nod to the ‘Me Too’ movement that erupted after allegations of sexual misconduct by Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein.
Criticised in past years for not representing women, the WEF appointed seven female co-chairs this year, including Christine Lagarde, the head of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and Ginni Rometty, the CEO of IBM.
Among the other leaders attending are British Prime Minister Theresa May, Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu and several African leaders, including Zimbabwe’s new president Emmerson Mnangagwa.
Last year, the sole envoy from the Trump camp in the week leading up to his inauguration was Anthony Scaramucci, the New York financier who was sacked after just 10 days as White House communications director.
This year, Trump will be joined by a large US delegation including Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and his son-in-law Jared Kushner.
For the first time in years, Iran will not be represented. WEF officials could not say whether the late cancellation by Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif had anything to do with Trump’s decision to speak._ Reuters
