“And just as Vladimir Putin thought he would destroy European unity, the exact opposite has happened. Cooperation is rock solid,” said European Council President Charles Michel.

Something remarkable in geopolitics happened last week. It’s not just that Germany has flip-flopped in its defense policy, which is quite remarkable; it is the fact that the European Union has indeed taken swift and historic decisions. When you have 27 sovereign states, getting an agreement normally takes a long time. Often a very long time.
It was Russia’s recognition of areas not controlled by the government of the Ukrainian oblasts of Donetsk and Luhansk on February 23 that got the ball rolling. In response, the EU adopted a set of sanctions targeting some politicians, businessmen, most senior commanders of the Russian armed forces and some banks. In total, asset freezes and travel bans were imposed on 23 people, 3 banks and a notorious internet “troll factory” in St. Petersburg. The immediate reaction to the EU announcement was disappointing. Some EU countries, such as Lithuania, had wanted to hit the Kremlin immediately with the harshest possible sanctions, but larger member states France, Germany and Italy argued for a more gradual approach.
They did not have long to wait since the next day, President Putin gave the order for the invasion of Ukraine. As Russian forces rained missiles down on its southern neighbor throughout the day, in the biggest state-on-state attack in Europe since World War II, EU leaders met again in emergency session and agreed on a wide range of sanctions that would freeze Russian assets en bloc and block its banks’ access to European financial markets. EU foreign policy chief Joseph Borrell described it as “the toughest package we have ever implemented”. Belgian Prime Minister De Croo asserted that “our sanctions will harm the Russian economy at its heart”.
Previously, a sense of helplessness was tangible after the West failed to stop a war their leaders saw coming. “We have not succeeded enough, not decisively enough, in preventing Russia from taking this step, which is a tragedy for Ukraine, a tragedy for Europe and a tragedy for Russia itself,” he said. Lithuanian President Gitanas Nauseda, whose country is on the front line. with Russia. Perhaps, but the EU countries that would face the greatest economic backlash were keen to keep the harshest measures in reserve, arguing that it was the most effective strategy. Nevertheless, most observers were amazed that the EU, normally a timber giant, could be so nimble in reaching a common agreement within hours, which normally would take months.
The momentum was maintained and the following day, Friday February 25, envoys from the 27 member states approved a new wave of measures, this time agreeing to freeze the assets of Putin himself, as well as his longtime top diplomat. , Sergei Lavrov. “They are responsible for the death of innocent people and the trampling of the international system. We as Europeans do not accept this,” said German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock. As she spoke, something else remarkable was happening in Berlin.
For years, the United States has pushed Germany to spend more on defense and invest more in its military. Until last week, those calls had largely fallen on deaf ears. Not because Germany considered it had to do no more as a member of NATO, or because it saw itself as a bridge between the West and Russia, or even because its economy and its business world are closely linked to Russia. It was a reason that is at the heart of how Germany sees itself as a country. German pacifism is a real thing, something that vibrates in German society. Over the years, there has never been broad public support for a more robust defense posture. Vladimir Putin changed all that. His invasion of Ukraine made Germany a reality, and there’s no denying how significant this moment is.
It was the day after Putin’s rambling speech recognizing the two breakaway regions in eastern Ukraine that Germany’s new chancellor, Olaf Scholz, announced he would block the Nord Stream 2 Baltic Sea gas pipeline project. of 10 billion euros intended to double the flow. Russian gas directly to Germany. It was quite a big decision, as Germany depends on Russia for more than a third of its gas. But an even bigger one came the following Saturday: Scholz promised to arm Ukraine with 1,000 anti-tank weapons and 500 Stinger missiles. It would also lift restrictions on German weapons sent to conflict zones by third parties. Finally, in an innovative speech to the German Bundestag, he notably committed Germany to devoting more than 2% of the country’s GDP each year to the army, thus achieving a NATO objective that Berlin had long delayed. It was nothing less than a Zeitenwende, a historic turning point in German defense policy and a massive investment in the struggling German armed forces. Putin’s invasion of Ukraine brought more clarity and change to German foreign and defense policy thinking in a matter of days than the United States and governments from Paris to Warsaw could. do in a decade.
Putin also restored something that had been broken for years: transatlantic unity. For years, Putin has been able to sit back and savor unseemly scenes of Western disunity, ranging from Britain’s Brexit exit from the EU in 2016, Hungary’s longstanding antipathy towards Brussels and , also, of the fracture created by former President Donald Trump which has far from completely healed under Joe Biden. For Putin, the timing seemed perfect for his invasion of Ukraine, as it had the potential to open the cracks of division even further, with a war on the continent forcing everyone out of their diplomatic comfort zones. Precisely the opposite has happened.
Hear what European Council President Charles Michel said in an interview with a small group of journalists last week. “And just as Vladimir Putin thought he would destroy European unity, the exact opposite has happened. The cooperation is rock solid,” he said. “That is what the circumstances of the story demand. Required by circumstances none of us could have imagined.
Last week, transatlantic relations were further strengthened by an agreed package of measures unprecedented in scope and unity, when Brussels and Washington announced financial sanctions within minutes of each other, all targeting Russia’s central bank and excluding the country from much of the SWIFT international financial system. transactional system. Another surprise came when the EU agreed to fund the purchase and delivery of arms and other equipment to a country under attack, described by European Commission President Ursula von der Layen as “a moment decisive”.
A furious Putin resorted to the old vernacular the West loved to use during the Cold War era of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact – describing Western allies as “American satellites humbly flattering him, bow down to him, copy his conduct and joyfully accept the rules he proposes to follow”. Spitting venom, he continued: “So it’s fair to say that the whole Western bloc, shaped by the United States to their liking, represents an empire of lies.” The Western powers will have taken Putin’s anger and cynicism towards their unity as a compliment. After all, he made the EU great again.

John Dobson is a former British diplomat, who also worked in the office of British Prime Minister John Major between 1995 and 1998. He is currently a visiting scholar at the University of Plymouth.

BRUSSELS, Feb 19 (Reuters) – The European Union has delivered emergency medical supplies to Ukraine following a request from Kiev amid an escalating crisis with Russia, the European Commission said on Saturday.

The request was made by Ukraine on Tuesday, amid growing fears of an imminent Russian invasion. Read more

So far, emergency aid has come from France, Romania, Slovenia, Ireland and Austria, the Commission said.

France sent a field hospital, medicines and hundreds of tents, blankets, sleeping bags. Additional aid, including medical equipment and generators, has been deployed by other EU countries. More help is expected in the coming days.

“Following a request for emergency aid from the Ukrainian government due to the threat of further escalation, the European Commission is coordinating the delivery of essential supplies to support the civilian population,” an EU statement said.

When the scale of an emergency exceeds a country’s response capabilities, it can request assistance through the EU Civil Protection Mechanism, which coordinates assistance from the EU and other countries. Europeans.

Reporting by Francesco Guarascio @fraguarascio Editing by Mark Potter

Our standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

A cross-party coalition of MEPs has co-signed a letter to the European Commission demanding EU-funded research into the potential risks and analytical detection of genetically modified organisms, stressing that this is necessary to create informed policies on the matter.

the letter sent on 8 February, stresses that the EU executive cannot just invest in European research to advance genetically modified (GM) technology and its applications, but should also “urgently invest in European research to deepen our knowledge of potential risks and enable the detection and traceability of GM products throughout the food chain”.

‘Only a comprehensive research program on genetic engineering will allow the EU to develop well-informed policies in this regard,’ MEPs said.

The appeal follows an intense debate over whether the 2018 European Court of Justice ruling – which found that genetically modified organisms fall under the EU’s stricter Genetically Modified Organisms Directive ( GMO) – can be confirmed without any means of distinguishing these crops from conventionally bred varieties.

In the absence of a robust test, EU countries have been unable to test their imports for the presence of GM crops, despite calls for stricter monitoring processes.

This issue must be addressed in the interests of public and environmental safety, letter states, emphasizing that organisms developed with genome-editing technology pose “new and different” risks compared to conventional breeding and currently commercialized genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

Gene editing is a growing issue in the EU.

Following the results of a 2021 Commission study, which concluded that the current legal framework governing GE is insufficient, the EU executive is currently reviewing EU rules on technology. The presentation of a legislative proposal is expected in the second quarter of 2023.

The signatories argue that just as it is possible to develop innovative new GM products based on breakthrough genome-editing technology, it is also “possible to develop state-of-the-art risk assessment and detection methods for them.” of technology”.

However, opinions are divided on this point.

Following the development of what activists hailed as the first open source detection method for a genetically modified cropthe industry was still not convinced of its validity.

The EU seed sector told EURACTIV at the time that there had never been any scientific doubt that these genetic changes could be detected, but rather that detection could prove whether the change was of natural origin or a consequence of genetic editing.

Challenging this position, MPs criticized the fact that, so far, there has been no concerted effort to back it up.

“We are convinced that the EU can and must overcome these challenges to maintain a high level of protection for our public health and the environment. However, this will not be possible without dedicated European research,” they say.

According to the European Commission, the EU has spent €685.5 million on research focusing on the bioeconomy related to NGT, including €271 million on plant biotechnology research, between 2007 and 2020. EU member states reported spending €356 million on NGT research over five years. year.

The EU executive explained that most of the funding has been dedicated to the development of these technologies and their applications in agriculture, health and industry.

However, only 1.6% of the 356 million euros spent by EU member states went on research on detection, risk assessment and monitoring methods. At the same time, the EU has not invested in specialized research into the specific risks posed by new GMOs or into ways to detect such GMOs, MEPs point out.

Green MEP Martin Häusling, one of the signatories of the letter, accused the Commission to pluck claims about the safety and untraceable nature of GM crops “from scratch”.

“Neither EU bodies nor national governments have invested money to actually investigate these issues. It is time for the Commission to recognize this and invest European funds in specific research on the potential risks and detection strategies of new GM crops,” he stressed.

Meanwhile, another signatory to the letter, MEP Eleonora Evi, warned that the current inadequacy of monitoring strategies could lead to a “real danger of these new GMOs ending up on our plates unchecked”.

She added that the release of genetically modified crops into the environment poses a serious risk to the EU organic sector, warning that it would “irreparably undermine the credibility of our agricultural production and our national agri-food chain”, which, according to her, has built its strength on “non-GMO” insurance.

“The Commission has a duty to ensure the correct application of European rules, which establish the same authorization, control and traceability process for new GMOs as for traditional GMOs, in order to protect public health and the environment. , as confirmed by the European Court of Human Rights. Judgment of justice,” she added.

[Edited by Alice Taylor]

European Union flags fly outside the headquarters of the European Commission in Brussels, Belgium, May 5, 2021. REUTERS/Yves Herman/File Photo

STRASBOURG, Feb 14 (Reuters) – European Union lawmakers and countries could reach an agreement by the end of June on proposed tech rules forcing online platforms to better police the internet despite their differences in approach, the lawmaker who is leading the negotiations said Monday.

The Digital Services Act (DSA) proposed by EU antitrust chief Margrethe Vestager obliges Amazon.com Inc, Apple Inc (AAPL.O), Alphabet Inc (GOOGL.O) to unit Google and the owner of Facebook Meta (FB.O) to do more to tackle illegal content on their platforms or face fines of up to 6% of global revenue.

The first of its kind in the world, Vestager’s proposal must be approved by EU countries and lawmakers before it can become law.

“I’m optimistic we can get a deal done before the end of June,” MP Christel Schaldemose said in an interview.

His comments preceded talks with French Digital Affairs Minister Cédric O and European industry chief Thierry Breton on Tuesday, their second meeting on the matter. A third is scheduled for March 15.

Schaldemose said lawmakers want to broaden the scope of what online platforms must do, ban dark schemes that entice people to provide personal data to online businesses, and continue to let companies be regulated where they are based. .

“We are getting into the business models of the platforms. The Council is not so willing to go that far,” she said, citing the divergence over dark patterns.

“The Council wants the ban only for online marketplaces. The Parliament wants a ban on all platforms.”

Schaldemose said countries like Ireland, where Apple, Facebook and Google have their European headquarters, and Luxembourg, where Amazon is based, should continue to oversee companies in accordance with the “country of origin” principle.

“We stick to the country of origin principle more than we do in the Council,” she said, adding that the European Commission could also have a say, while EU countries want a role. more important for the EU executive.

EU lawmakers also want a ban on targeted advertising for minors and also that based on sensitive data like sexual or political orientation in order to comply with the bloc’s privacy rules, while countries in the EU collectively have a less strict position.

Reporting by Foo Yun Chee; Editing by Richard Chang and Jan Harvey

Our standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

This should be a good time to rethink the EU’s maligned fiscal rules. Many things have changed in recent years. Above all, the desire for public and private investment – ​​to accelerate the decarbonisation of the economy as well as its digitalisation – is widespread, both in Brussels and in the national capitals.

The pandemic has also overhauled the old policy. The Rubicon of common borrowing for cross-border transfers has been crossed. The clear success of massive deficit spending in 2020 has reinforced the lesson that European policymakers began to reluctantly learn after previous crises: that a rigid approach to fiscal discipline hurts rather than helps fiscal sustainability. , economic growth and political cohesion.

A changing of the guard in important countries creates an opportunity to look at old issues with new eyes. The new government in Berlin seems committed to investment-intensive growth, both at home and in Europe. A similar opening can be detected in the Netherlands and elsewhere. Mario Draghi’s tenure as Prime Minister in Italy has reduced North-South mistrust. The same applies to the implementation of the jointly funded national recovery plans, widely considered (so far) to be a success, except for countries determined to undermine the EU legal order.

But no one would bet on a political deal being struck to overhaul fiscal rules, which are set to be reintroduced next year, after being relaxed at the start of the pandemic.

So we live with a double paradox. EU countries are collectively pursuing far better economic policies than they have for a long time. This is true in the short term – the effects of the pandemic on jobs, incomes and productivity have been far more minor and short-lived than we had reason to fear – and in their long-term ambitions. Yet, on both fronts, this progress would be held back by the current fiscal framework, in particular its drastic requirement to reduce the public debt burden.

Finance ministers are acutely aware of the risk of undermining the recovery by phasing out fiscal support too early – indeed, they have jointly recommended a “moderately supportive fiscal stance” for the euro area as a whole this year. And the commitment to invest in the green and digital transition, while ensuring it does not leave people behind, is strong. Yet the rules cannot simply be ignored in a union that is more a body of law than anything else.

There are three ways out of this dilemma. One is to subject economic policy to the old rules, assuming that the legal ties that underpin the European project must take priority. But the previous crisis showed that if you try that, you sacrifice both economic performance and political cohesion.

The next is to extend the rules enough to allow the desired policies. As German Chancellor Olaf Scholz likes to point out, the budgetary framework has proven its flexibility. His suspension could be extended. The European Commission has great power of interpretation and could issue more lenient guidance on how Brussels will judge whether national policies comply with the rules, rewarding growth-enhancing investment with fewer restriction requirements.

This carries its own risks. National governments find it convenient to relinquish any responsibility for EU-wide policy coordination; opposition parties would accuse them of caving in to Brussels. The finger pointing that divides other member states, which the pandemic has somewhat tamed, could easily escalate again. Something like this is, however, the most likely outcome if governments cannot agree on the third option: changing the rules altogether.

The reason this is so difficult is that there has been little clear thinking about what the rules are meant to accomplish. Traditional economic arguments seem outdated: the inflationary fallout from overspending has proven less risky than beggar-thy-neighbour austerity; the pressures on the interest rates of national borrowings are non-existent; and there are now bailout funds to deal with refinancing crises.

Likewise, current rules do little to address today’s greatest economic challenges, which, like it or not, call for more militant state policy and arguably more borrowing. public only when the rules were first developed. The best prospect for reform is for leaders to first agree on the rationale for the rules and derive new ones from an understanding of the economic policies that would achieve the broader sense of sustainability to which they are now engaged.

The proposal from France and Italy to promote certain types of investment has the merit of doing so. It is incumbent on those who oppose it to do the same.

[email protected]

The European Union and China plan to hold a summit at the end of March, EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell said on Friday, amid concerns over a Chinese blockade of Lithuanian exports.

“An EU-China summit is scheduled, at first sight, for the end of March. This will give me the opportunity to visit China to prepare for it,” Borrell announced after an informal meeting of foreign ministers from the EU. EU in Brest, France.

The last EU-China summit took place by videoconference in June 2020 between the presidents of the EU institutions and the Chinese leaders.

European Council President Charles Michel, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and Borrell then met with Chinese Premier Li Keqiang before holding an exchange of views with President Xi Jinping.

The summit “will be an important moment to see where we are in our relationship with China. Some things are going well, some things are not so good,” Borrell said.

At the meeting in Brest, foreign ministers discussed Chinese actions against Lithuania and their impact on other EU member states, he said.

Ministers expressed their full solidarity with Lithuania and talks are underway to “continue de-escalation in this crisis”, he said.

In November, China downgraded diplomatic ties with Lithuania and stopped issuing visas there in protest at Vilnius’ decision to allow Taiwan to open a representative office under its own name.

Beijing balks at any official use of the word Taiwan for fear of lending a sense of international legitimacy to the island, which China considers part of its territory.

Several Lithuanian companies and business owners complained last month that China was blocking their exports because their goods were not cleared in the country.

EU Trade Commissioner Valdis Dombrovskis told a German newspaper that Chinese customs also do not process goods from other EU countries if they contain parts from Lithuania.

The EU is discussing a draft regulation against what it sees as coercive and intimidating measures – a tool to quickly punish any country using economic sanctions to pressure the EU or any of its members.

(AFP)

Compared to the second quarter of 2021, house prices increased by 3.3%. Among European countries, the highest increases were recorded in Czechia (+7.3%), the Netherlands (+5.9%), Lithuania (+5.4%) and Ireland (+5, 1%).

According to the data, all EU countries recorded an annual increase in house prices in the third quarter, and for half of them the increase was more than 10%.

The figures come as a new report from the Society of Chartered Surveyors Ireland shows its members expect residential property prices to rise by another 5% this year.

Nine out of 10 agents expect property prices to rise over the next 12 months, 9% expect prices to stay the same while only 2% expect a decline. Last year, the respective figures were 68%, 24% and 8%. They believe property prices in Dublin, the rest of Leinster and Munster are set to see a median increase of 5%, while Connacht Ulster will see a 7% increase.