Tuesday 15 December 2015

Minority left government in Portugal after former government falls

Article published in Katoikos

The Secretary-General of the Socialist Party, António Costa, became PM in Portugal. 

As expected, the shaky Portuguese right-wing government led by a centre-right coalition fell, toppled by a left-wing alliance. Considered by many as a milestone, the collapse of the Portugal à Frente coalition paved the way for a left-led government headed by the alliance formed by the Socialist Party (PS), the Left Bloc and the Communist Party together with the Greens. 

After a motion of rejection to remove the government carried out by the left alliance, 123 MPs voted in favour of the motion and 107 MPs voted against it. The final decision was then in the taciturn president’s hands, Aníbal Cavaco Silva, who nominated the Socialist secretary-general António Costa as prime minister, after almost two weeks of political deadlock and pressure from the left. After the October 4th general elections, Portugal suffered moments of political impasse, with the country divided between factions, one apparently in favour of paying higher taxes and the other composed of the anti-austerity citizen bloc. 

Overall, the Portuguese people do not believe in utopias, however, they feel as if there is nothing more to lose. After years of social rights suffering enormous blows, a shrinking middle class and increased poverty, an opportunity presented itself to the left to jointly rescue a country slowly rising from the ruins. Some call it a coup d’état, others a remarkable moment for Portugal. “We don’t have a coup here: we have democracy. 

Whoever lacks the votes in the national assembly cannot govern,” said Catarina Martins, the leader of the Left Bloc. While the president was disregarding his political role by nominating Costa, an online petition was circulating urging the president against nominating the left-wing coalition whilst the JSD, the youth sector from the Social Democratic Party (PSD), created an online flyer featuring Lenin, circulating misinformation by implying the country would be ruled by radicals. 

Later on, president of the CDS/PP, Paulo Portas, delivered a speech upholding the same line of thought, focusing on the sinister threat of a fragile Communist Party in Portugal. In turn, Antonio Costa declared that “the nervous reaction from the right would soon be replaced by a responsible stance.” Furthermore, the PS secretary-general reassured external creditors – ECB, EC and IMF – on the viability of his social reformist programme and Portugal’s obligations to its lenders. 

What is the Left Compromise? 


The joint position among the three parties is, however, the result of a positive transition amongst the vast differences and divergences of the various factions. The three leaders – António Costa, Catarina Martins and Jerónimo de Sousa – have agreed on substantial matters rather than focusing on sensitive and disruptive questions such as the EU or NATO. Above all, the collective consciousness about the current situation in Portugal is common to all the actors; therefore, measures with a beneficial social impact as well as those focused on reducing the economic asphyxia in the country are a priority and serve as the engine which made the mutual agreement possible. 

Briefly, the PS, the major force of the leftist coalition in government, claims that its programme will reduce the deficit to below 3% by 2016, lower the VAT to 13% in the restaurant sector, ensure that a majority stake in TAP remains within the State, increase the minimum wage to €600 by 2019, cancel transport privatisation of Lisbon and Porto, cancel fees for abortions, cut down fees and restore transportation for hospital patients and ensure there are fewer students per class as well as provide free textbooks. Hence, the PS, the Left Bloc and the Communist Party/Greens are all in consensus regarding these measures and have officially declared them in their joint statement. 

 European Reactions 


At the European level, the chair of the EPP in the European Parliament, Manfred Weber, has shared depreciative comments on Twitter, saying the “future of the people and Portugal’s stability are at stake. Left-wing parties act against the will of the voters and the winners of the elections.” In return, former MEP and LIVRE/TDA leader Rui Tavares has fired back, wittily asking the MEP whether he was able to count. “Is 123 MPs less than 107? Do not confuse things further,” he accused. Ironically, one day after the government’s fall, Lisbon started the session leading the European stock market in gains. 

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, The Daily Telegraph’s international business editor, has not hidden his contentment over the upturn of politics in Portugal; moreover, Evans-Pritchard claimed Germany has lost a key ally in the southern country, the “good student” who scrupulously followed the German recipe in a somewhat dubious policy of indebtedness

By overthrowing the right-wing government and thus forming a left bloc of anti-austerity opposition, there is a possibility that it may spill over to their Spanish neighbor should PSOE (Partido Socialista Obrero Española) win the upcoming election and form a coalition with the left-wing parties. “There would then be an emerging ‘Latin bloc’ with the heft to confront Germany and push for a fundamental overhaul of EMU economic strategy. At the very least, the political chemistry of the eurozone would change beyond recognition,” analysed Evans-Pritchard.

Thursday 10 December 2015

Régionales en France : le populisme en hausse dans toute l'Europe

Article published in Cafebabel

Marine Le Pen pendant son discours © Flickr Rémi Noyon

Le paysage politique de la France contemporaine a longtemps été dominé par les Républicains et les Socialistes mais le scénario est en train de changer. La crise, le chômage et la menace terroriste ont été les meilleurs amis du Front National qui a profité du mécontentement général de la population pour monter au créneau. 

La semaine dernière, la France a voté au premier tour pour élire ses représentants régionaux pour les six prochaines années. Sans vrai surprise, le Front National (FN), le parti d’extrême-droite dirigé par Marine Le Pen, a gagné dans six des treize régions françaises lors d’un résultat historique (environ 28% de l’électorat au niveau national). Les Républicains (LR), menés par Nicolas Sarkozy ont eux rassemblé 26,7% de l'électorat et le Parti Socialiste (PS) de François Hollande 23,1%. Parmi les régions qui ont le plus voté pour l'extrême droite, on trouve le Nord-Pas-de-Calais et la Picardie, pont de passage pour plusieurs refugiés vers le Royaume-Uni, où le FN a conquis 40,64% de l'électorat contre 24 ,96% pour la droite de Xavier Bertrand et 18,12% pour le socialiste Pierre de Saintignon. Le 13 décembre prochain, tous les partis qui ont eu plus de 10% seront à nouveau dans cette course électorale. 

Qu’est-ce que ces élections représentent pour la France? 


D’un point de vue pragmatique, ces élections vont élire les futurs représentants régionaux qui vont devoir s'occuper de domaines comme le tourisme et le développement régional. À ce propos et au sujet de la région de Calais, la dirigeante du FN, Marine Le Pen a déclaré sur la radio RMC que ce n’est pas du tout « le rôle de la région que de payer des moustiquaires aux détenus au Sénégal dans le cadre de la lutte contre le paludisme ». Le Pen a déclaré aux médias que les malades graves et les enfants autistes de cette région de France sont obligés d'aller en Belgique pour se faire soigner à cause du manque de structures pour les accueillir dans leur région. 

Dans une perspective symbolique, ces élections montrent "l’effet Front National" qui pourrait se répandre "grâce" à leur propagande populiste. Le Pen victimise le peuple Français en lui faisant croire qu’il doit être sauvé par un État fort. "Je considère qu'une région doit pouvoir, dans ses marchés publics, donner un avantage aux entreprises locales, à l'emploi local", a affirmé Marine Le Pen sur France 3. Ses éclatantes prises de positions sur l’immigration ont aussi été relayées sur Twitter: "Nous avons 9 millions de pauvres en France dont 1 million dans notre région qui pensent qu'ils doivent être prioritaires" et «"Je rétablirai les frontières nationales et arrêterai de financer l'accueil des migrants". 

Selon le démographe Hervé Le Bras, le Front National a réussi à resserrer son emprise dans les régions où il avait déjà recueilli une somme considérable de votes au cours des élections européennes de mars 2014. "Ce vote confirme ce que les sondages précédents avaient annoncé, mais les observateurs officiels ne veulent pas l'admettre: le Front national est désormais sans aucune ambiguïté le premier parti de la France", a déclaré Le Pen. Cette déclaration fait craindre le pire alors que l’opinion publique en faveur du FN gagne en force. Les présidentielles de 2017 pourraient mener à la tête du pays cette extrême-droite qui a promis de changer la France, à commencer par une renégociation des traités afin de rompre avec la construction européenne et restituer la primauté du droit national sur le droit européen. 

Toutefois, rien n'indique que Le Pen gagnera les présidentielles de 2017, comme le soulignait l’analyste François Beaudonnet lors du résultat des Européennes en 2014. Par contre, le Financial Times considère que cette victoire est possible et représente une menace pour le futur de la France. Des deux côtés du spectre politique, Les Républicains de Sarkozy et le Parti socialiste d’Hollande s’accusent mutuellement d’avoir laissé l’extrême droite monter. Sarkozy a déjà assuré qu’il y aura un débat qui suivra le deuxième tour des élections: la ligne que Les Républicains suivront à l’avenir est en jeu. François Hollande et Nicolas Sarkozy devront être en mesure de montrer aux Français qu’il est possible d’avoir une société prospère qui peut résoudre les problèmes tels que la sécurité et l'emploi, sans tomber dans l'extrémisme.

 Le contexte européen 


En effet, la situation sociale actuelle en Europe et en France a permis à l’extrême-droite de parvenir au pouvoir en utilisant la crise économique, la hausse du chômage et la menace terroriste comme des instruments de persuasion de vote. Au Royaume-Uni, le premier ministre David Cameron n’a pas caché son désir (le même que celui de Le Pen) d'abandonner l’Union européenne ou en tout cas, de renégocier les traités.

Il est aujourd'hui indéniable qu’une grande partie de la population européenne est devenue eurosceptique. La victoire de Cameron lors des législatives au Royaume-Uni a montré cette tendance qui se répand à travers l’Europe, à travers le fait qu'une considérable section de la population britannique souhaite quitter l’Union européenne. 

Les élections européennes de 2014 ont, elles aussi, montré qu'une vague de populisme menaçait l’Europe, avec la hausse de l’extrême-droite. La France a enregistré 25% de votes eurosceptiques, la Grande-Bretagne 27%, le Danemark 26,5%, l’Italie 20%, l’Autriche 20% et enfin la Hongrie 15%.

Tuesday 1 December 2015

Paris Attacks and Brussels in Lockdown: An Immediate and Convenient Consequence?

Military was deployed in the city of Brussels. Dimitri Devuyst © Flicker

The hideous and deplorable attacks in Paris on November 13th have unleashed a wave of fear throughout Europe triggering the lockdown of the Belgian capital Brussels. The clocks were pointing at 1am on Friday 20th, when the Belgian government decided to raise the terror alert to its maximum, 4 out of 4, due to a “serious and imminent” threat similar to the tragic events in Paris claimed by the Islamic State, “with multiples attacks in different places,” said the Belgian prime minister Charles Michel. As a result, schools and subways were closed, the military with its armored vehicles were deployed in the main metro stations in Gare Central and Schuman, and police was reinforced all over the city center, patrolling a once quiet and peaceful city. 

 Counter Terrorism Operation in Brussels 


The weekend was long and Brussels soon became a ghost city with the major touristic sites nearly empty including terraces and traditional centers of commerce across the town. By Sunday night, something surreal for the Bruxelloises happened: a manhunt had begun following a counter-terrorism operation in the capital. The security forces have concentrated the operation in Molenbeek, where they conducted a door-to-door inspection searching for Salah Abdeslam, the fugitive from the Paris attacks. 

Other raids took place in Anderlecht, Schaerbeek, Jette, Woluwe-St-Lambert and Charleroi, where a total of 16 suspects were arrested (even though most of them were released the following day). No guns or explosives were found. However, Abdeslam is said to have crossed the country headed towards Germany; the alert was supposed to remain at its highest level and Brussels was supposed to continue living in lockdown at least until Monday, November 30th. But on Thursday the 26th, the Belgian government decided to drop the threat level to 3. 

Being myself a resident from Schaerbeek, I experienced a somewhat sinister soirée last Sunday, with security forces patrolling the street and the building where I live, followed by warnings not to go near any windows or even post pictures on social media divulging the location and activities of the security forces. As this was not natural, the feeling of unease and restlessness was palpable. On Monday, the metro and schools were closed with most people working from home. In fact, the mass media were painting a worse picture than it actually was, thus increasing the sense of fear amongst the populace. Progressively, public transportation is getting back to normal. However, Wednesday the 25th, the Belgian government announced that the counter terrorism actions that occurred last Sunday had “most likely” prevented a terror attack in Brussels. But what do we really know? 

 What’s the impact on Society? 



Should we be concerned over our civil liberties? David Blackwell © Flickr

Suddenly, out of the blue, Brussels residents are divided between fear—naturally imposed by the unsubtle security reinforcement—and apprehension— concerning the scant information provided by the government and the police. It is, however, understandable that confidential information must be kept safe in order to avoid ending up in the wrong hands. Thus, George Orwell’s prescient masterpiece 1984 has inevitably been on my mind quite a lot recently, as well as so many other wary minds. Orwell’s introduction of doublethink was ingenious and in its philosophical tone does put in perspective the days we are currently living in Europe. For Orwell, this mystifying concept meant no more than holding two contradictory ideas regarding the same subject and yet accepting both of them.  


What is happening in Europe? What is really happening in Europe? 


Beyond question, the carnage in Paris was horrific and I mourn for all the families grieving their loved ones. More than 130 human beings were killed in cold blood in a rather suspicious operation that has, now, conveniently restricted our civil liberties. All of a sudden, armed military and increased police have been deployed on the streets, France has closed its borders making the Schengen Area feebler than ever and the Commission has already announced the likely control over air passengers’ personal data flying within Europe. What is going to follow? 

With the mysterious and indestructible Syrian passport found at the crime scene, it was to be expected (not accepted) that the international community would turn against the Syrian people. The US is in uproar and in constant discord, with the majority of the Republicans against the entry of Syrian refugees in the country. Canada announced the rejection of single Syrian males, Sweden will deport around 22,000 migrants and Denmark revealed its intention to reject all refugees. Recently, French prime minister Manuel Valls declared, “Europe can’t accept more refugees”. In fact, President Hollande made himself clear regarding France’s position after declaring the repulsive attacks in Paris “an act of war”. The French have now found a legitimate argument to intensify its airstrikes in Syria not without trying to persuade other countries to follow them, such as the UK. As for the tenacious Germany, it’s been keeping its harsh and obstinate stance claiming that refugees must be accepted, as European values must prevail. 

In the midst of this political turbulence, some questions are popping up in people’s minds. Why would France’s government gag alternative media exposing weird coincidences connected to the Paris attacks, the very same media denouncing what the mainstream media doesn’t, such as claims that the French government had access to intelligence which illustrated that the attacks were going to happen? How can we accept that, finally, increasingly evidence about Turkey’s involvement with the Islamic State has been exposed and, still, the EU continues to close its eyes and cooperate financially with a country whose leader does not hide his fascist and corrupt tendencies?

Thursday 26 November 2015

Brussels manhunt, difficult evening

Police in Brussels was hunting one of the terrorists involved in the Paris attacks, in November 2015. © Marta Pacheco


An unexpected situation in a once calm city. Curfew in Brussels. © Marta Pacheco


Saturday 21 November 2015

Very cold Maastricht

Maastricht, November 2015 © Marta Pacheco


A local house in Maastricht


Sightseeing

Sightseeing

St Johns Church in Maastricht was painted in 1983 in an effort to protect its marl stone, November 2015

Tuesday 3 November 2015

Commission Work Programme 2016: What’s on the Table?



The Commission presented its second work programme under the Juncker era. 
©European Parliament/Flickr

Every year, the European Commission implements a Work Programme defining a list of priority actions to be adopted in the 12 following months. These actions include political commitments to present new initiatives, withhold pending proposals and reassessing existing EU legislation. 

The Commission has recently presented its 2016 Work Programme, the second since Juncker is in power. "The motto of our work programme this year is 'no time for business as usual’", said vice-president Timmermans. “All the actions we propose are underpinned by our Better Regulation Agenda. We will make sure that when the EU intervenes, it delivers results”, he went on. The Programme consists of 23 initiatives across 10 political priorities, though the focuses remain pretty much the same. Following normal protocol, the Commission decides which proposals to withdraw and to put forward based on priorities and future prospects. Overall, the EU executive body will give more emphasis to the Digital and Internal Market, the Energy Union, Trade, Defence and Security and finally, Migration. If we look at the current economic and political landscape in Europe – recovering from a severe crisis and dealing with the flow of thousands of migrants fleeing war and poverty – we quickly realise we are living critical times. Few policies on migration will be taken in account whilst many different priorities regarding banking union and trade are on the table. Overall, the general message sent out by the 2016 Work Programme aims to attract foreign investment and to revamp Europe’s credibility towards foreign markets. 

In the spotlight 


Trade 


Even though the controversial Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) agreement is being contested on both sides of the Atlantic, the Commission considers it a top priority for 2016. For many, the promise of jobs, investment and growth appears to be a poisoned gift, as one of the most controversial elements of the TTIP would be the creation of a new international court, the Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS), giving foreign investors the power to sue governments, or the EU, over any act or regulation that would hinder their business. Nevertheless, trade agreements with the Asia-Pacific region, through the EU-Japan Free Trade Agreement (FTA), Australia and New Zealand, African and Caribbean regions are also on the loom. To look at Europe as a fortified global actor is the ultimate goal and therefore globalisation is the primary fruit of these financial trades. 

In fact, since Adam Smith published The Wealth of Nations, in 1776, it became commonly accepted that free trade improved overall economic prosperity. The free movement of people and goods is doubtless one of the biggest achievements of the EU, however, corruption and lack of transparency often hinder what could be an equitable deal. 


Environment and Health 


Along with an increasingly connected world, comes the environmental concern. European leaders are working on green policies, such as the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by at least 40% by 2030, adapting the electricity markets to new forms of energy production, the reform of the EU Emissions Trading System and the implementation of the circular economy package. Ahead of the so-called decisive summit in Paris (COP21), where world leaders will convene to discuss the future implementation of environmental policies, the EU environmental pledge sends a clear signal of pragmatism to the world. Nevertheless, with regards to food security and GMOs, the EU, on behalf of a second rejection by the Parliament, is somehow disappointing its citizens, who have gathered in countless manifestations, requesting GMOs eradication from their national territories, in vain. This setting raises the question of how representative is our European democracy, considering most surveyed countries have declared against the use of GMOs

Migration and Security 


Following the biggest humanitarian crisis since World War II, the Commission has adopted in May the European Agenda on Migration, setting out a range of measures to deal with the migrant’s mass arrival in the EU. Now, with the adoption of the new Work Programme, this priority was reinforced. Humanitarian and economic cooperation with third countries (Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, Turkey and Egypt), remodeling the Dublin system and fortifying Frontex Joint Operations is already an ongoing process. Moreover, two emergency plans to assist 160,000 people are also operational. Plus, the emergency funding to assist the weakest Member States was doubled to 50€ million. 

On the sea level, the threat posed by the smugglers in the Mediterranean has prompted the EU naval operation EUNAVFOR (renamed “Operation Sophia”). Launched in June 2015, the mission is part of a broader EU’s extensive tactic to tackle both current symptoms and causes such as conflict, poverty, climate change and persecution. According to the Council, the EU naval operation against human smugglers in the Mediterranean will be able to “board, search, seize and divert vessels suspected of being used for human smuggling or trafficking on the high seas”, complying with international law. Later this year, the Commission will present suggestions for a European Border and Coast Guard as well as an approach on legal migration, aiming to improve the Blue Card Directive.

Monday 26 October 2015

Gas pipeline deal: Towards an Energy Union?

Article published in Cafebabel


Semi-submersible pipe-laying vessel operating in the Baltic sea © Philfaebuckie


For the first time, Poland and the Baltic states signed a historic deal to build a gas pipeline as part of an effort to halt Russia’s energetic dominance in the region. This was celebrated as a major step towards the Energy Union proclaimed by Juncker when assuming the Commission’s leadership. 

President of the Commission Jean-Claude Juncker witnessed the adoption of the grant agreement on the GIPL (Gas Interconnector Poland – Lithuania) between the leaders of Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Poland. 

“Today we have done much more than bringing the energy isolation of the Baltic States to an end. We have brought the region further together. Today we have agreed on European infrastructure that will unite us, instead of dividing us." said Juncker

As for Poland’s Prime Minister Ewa Kopacz, “I do not exaggerate when I say that this is a historic moment. Poland has achieved a strategic and very important goal. We have gas independence,” she said. 

However, the scenery does not seem so bright to Poland as it may seem. According to the South Front, the so far only supplier, Qatar, is part of the contract in which the price Poland will pay is a lot higher than the price previously paid to Russia. “The price of Qatar gas is 2.5 times higher than the one offered by Russia – 700 and 265 dollars per one thousand cubic meters correspondingly, as the analyst of “Alpari” Anna Kokoreva told us,” reported the South Front. 

Nevertheless, Moscow will see its sphere of influence significantly reduced in Eastern Europe regions, as its ability to use its natural gas as a political tool will be dismissed. 

According to the Financial Times, in practical terms, the work on the infrastructure will begin next year and its conclusion is expected by 2019. The 534km GIPL pipeline will run from Rembelszczyzna, in Poland, to Jauniunai, in Lithuania. The annual capacity of the pipeline is estimated to be 2.5bn cubic meters, possibly growing to 4bn. Its over-all cost is €558 million, which will be funded by the Baltic States and private investment along with the Commission’s contribution, under the Connecting Europe Facility


Path of the new GIPL pipeline (in red) Path of the new GIPL pipeline (in red) | ©New Europe Investor 

Political Background 


A crucial element of the EU's Energy Union plan is reducing the dependence on fossil fuels and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. However, uncoordinated national policies remain a hurdle for real market integration. Established under the 2030 Framework for Climate and Energy, the Energy Union is based on three main pillars: security of supply, sustainability and competitiveness.

The EU imports 53% of the energy it consumes, which raises concerns regarding supply security. Following Russia’s annexation of Crimea, the EU imposed sanctions on Moscow, with the latter intimidating smaller Central European countries by using its gas reserves as a trump. 

Back in May, Energy EU leaders and representatives went on the pursuit of possible new suppliers, exploring new supply regions for fuels, but until the present moment, no deal was agreed. In late September, MEP Gianluca Buonanno presented a motion for a resolution following the agreement between Ukraine and Russia on supply gas. On the official statement, Buonanno calls on the EU to withdraw Russia’s sanctions, calling it a “strategic mistake”, considering Russia’s quasi-monopoly of energy reserves. 

Moscow, in turn, has allegedly signed a gas deal with Pakistan, a 1,100 kilometer gas pipeline with an annual capacity of 12.4 billion cubic meters, to connect liquefied natural gas (LNG) stations in the Pakistani city of Karachi. "The construction of the North-South gas pipeline is bringing economic cooperation between Russia and Pakistan to a new level,” said Russia’s Energy Minister Aleksandr Novak. However, bad news for consumers is on the loom, with the IMF assuring a raise in gas tariffs

The LNG is one of the primary alternatives to Russian pipeline imports, and according to POLITICO, most of Europe’s LNG imports come from Qatar, Algeria and Nigeria. However new opportunities might be on the horizon, after ENI, the oil and gas multinational, had discovered a supergiant gas field in the Egyptian offshore, in what seems to be the largest reserve ever found in the Mediterranean. 

A bright but uncertain future? 


Former Soviet republics until the early 90s, the Baltic countries are very vulnerable to supply disruptions, therefore, diversifying energy sources away from Russia has become a vital element of each of these countries' national security plans. With the deal sealed, the EU leaders believe an integrated energy market is a step closer, hoping to lead to greater market efficiency and to producing affordable prices for consumers. Even though some reactions remain skeptical about this political and economical venture, the construction of several interconnector pipelines between Poland and the Baltic states will further advance their leverage over Russia, yet we can’t foreseen what long-term consequences of this investment will mean to Poland and the Baltic states. 

Saturday 24 October 2015

Antwerp, the city of diamonds

Grote Markt in Antwerp, October © Marta Pacheco

Across the Scheldt river the Cathedral of Our Lady, Antwerp

Antwerp by night 

Building with red door, Antwerp

Monday 19 October 2015

Parliament Rejects Commission's Proposal on GMOs: Business Before Health?

Article published in Katoikos

Protests against the use of genetically-modified organisms (GMOs). M Shields Photography © Flickr

The European Parliament’s Committee on Environment, Public Health and Food Safety has rejected a proposal by the Commission which gives Member States the power to restrict or prohibit imported genetically-modified organisms (GMOs), and asked the Commission to drop the plan altogether. For the time being, the plan already enjoys the support of several EU member states and regions which have rejected GMOs – Poland, Slovenia, Croatia, Latvia, Italy, Germany, Scotland, Wales, Lithuania, Austria, Ireland, France and Greece. A plenary vote will take place on the 28th of October, but another refusal is likely to happen, reported the EUobserver

“A clear majority in the committee does not want to jeopardise the internal market. For us, the existing legislation should remain in place, and Member States should shoulder their responsibilities and take a decision together at EU level, instead of introducing national bans” said Environment Committee EPP Chairman Giovanni La Via

EU Food Safety Commissioner Vytenis Andriukaitis claimed the proposal would “grant member states a greater say as regards the use of EU-authorized GMOs in food and feed on their respective territories.” The German Agriculture Ministry has informed the Commission that the country will not consent to the cultivation of GMO crops on its territory. “The cultivation of GM corn is incompatible with the use of arable land in Germany,” said Christian Schmidt, German Agriculture Minister, in a letter he submitted to the EU Commission, according to Die Zeit newspaper. 

 The EU’s citizens’ voice—how much is it worth? 


According to a Special Eurobarometer released by the Commission in October 2010, evidence from opinion surveys shows that the majority of the EU population opposes the cultivation of GMOs. Curiously, amongst the less-informed countries about the existence of GMOs – Malta (44%), Portugal (59%), Turkey (included in the survey despite not being member of the EU) and Austria (68%), Slovakia (69%), Romania (70%), Spain (74%)— the cultivation of GMOs is currently authorized in four of these Member States (Spain, Portugal, Romania and Slovakia—as well as in Czech Republic). 

Overall, at the EU level, 84% of Europeans have heard of GM food; only 16% have no knowledge of such practices. Norway ranks at the top of most-informed countries in regards to GMOs with 96% of the respondents aware of this practice, followed by Germany with 95% and Finland and the Netherlands both with 93%. Over half of the respondents consider GM food to be fundamentally unnatural (70%) while 61% believe GM food to give a general “uneasy feeling.” 57% consider GM food to benefit some people but to put others at risk whilst 54% believe that GM food is not good for them or their families. The citizen discontentment has been increasing since 2010, however, with many people fearing the nefarious health and environmental consequences likely provoked by GM food. 

More and more people claim GMOs can be harmful to human health. Liam Wilde © Flickr


Organic Food 


On the biological/organic food side, Green MEP Martin Haüsling is responsible for a reform measure in Parliament which guarantees EU citizens “almost 100%” safety of labeled organic food in European markets. He noted, however, that, as the market grows, fraud is likely to increase. Consequently, pressure is coming from the US, which claims that this proposal is not “constructive”, according to US Trade Representative Michael Froman. The US delegate declared that the move seems to divide the EU into 28 separate markets, a viewpoint confined strictly by commerciality, as the US is currently in negotiations with the EU over a trade deal, which will weaken EU’s rules over GMOs. Green MEP Ska Keller is a great defender of the GMOs’ ban throughout the EU and is particularly concerned about US companies challenging European environmental laws. 


Legal Framework on GMOs 


According to the Lisbon Treaty, the European Parliament has more powers than national ones, but national parliaments would gain the right to object to a proposal if they felt that a given result could be better reached at national rather than EU level. However, the GMO debate is living proof of how national sovereignty (as well as citizen’s choices) can be endangered under the Lisbon Treaty. The Parliament, in which the citizens directly elect MEPs to represent their interests, is now strongly opposing the people’s voice and placing commercial interests in the foreground. Nathalie Moll, EuropaBio secretary-general, said, “it is very concerning to see that a number of Member States continue to regularly vote against EFSA’s positive opinions on GMO approvals given that this leads to confusion in the general public as to the safety of products and the reliability of the European approval system to ensure that safety.” 

In 2010, the Commission submitted a proposal to amend the GMO legislation to extend the grounds on which Member States could restrict or ban the cultivation of EU-authorised GMOs on their territory. In the explanatory memorandum of the proposal, the Commission explained, “national, regional or local levels of decision-making are considered to be the most appropriate frameworks to address the particularities linked to GMO cultivation”. In April 2015, the EU gave the green light for the importation of 10 new types of GM crops for the first time since 2013. The crops, which include maize, soybeans, cotton and rapeseed, would be legal for human and animal food and feed over the next 10 years, the Commission announced. The opposition to GMO cultivation has increased in recent years, with many Member States opposing the authorisation of maize 1507 in the Council in February 2014. 

Conclusions 


A GMO is the result of science applied on nature, meaning that a biological organism is altered via genetic engineering practices. GMOs are often used in biological and medical research, experimental medicine and agriculture. However, several harmful consequences are associated to the use of GMOs and that is the reason why a number of protests against the use of these organisms has recently grown in the West. According to Slow Food, with the contribution of Friends of the Earth and other stakeholders, GMOs monoculture will jeopardise the biodiversity of our planet, turning our lands toxic and contributing to worldwide corporate control, such as by the controversial companies Monsanto and Syngenta, amongst others. 

Furthermore, it seems clear that the agricultural system in the EU must be reformed, as small farmers are being victims of the supersonic pace of globalisation. By introducing GMOs in the EU farming system, the continent is threatening small-scale farmers, who heavily depend on the fruit of their work. Lastly, and of ultimate importance, is the safety level of GMOs and the threat they pose to human health. Time is moving on and negotiations are being held. If the European Parliament won’t defend our interests, then who will?

Thursday 8 October 2015

Public Health in Europe: Where are We?

During the European People’s Party (EPP) public hearing at the Parliament, Director from DG RTD, Ruxandra Draghia-Akli, MEP Françoise Grossetête and Sanofi representative Stefan Oelrich debated public health in the EU. © Photo: EPP

The EU runs a number of tangible programs and policies aiming to secure health in Europe. With the fast pace of ageing population, Europe is prioritising public health concerns. Several programs have been put in place aiming to improve European’s health life standards as well as to boost Europe’s economy. 

To celebrate 50 years of EU Pharmaceutical legislation, the Commission organised a conference in Brussels, convening high representatives from the health sector. During the session, the main topic on the table was one of Juncker’s priorities following his ascension to power – better regulation. 

On May 2015, the Commission set up the REFIT Platform with the purpose of managing a dialogue with Member States (MS) and stakeholders on refining EU legislation. When it comes to the health sector, patients want a faster access to medicines and regulators want safer medicines. Also of greatest importance was the approached topic of how to better communicate science to a lay audience. 

Public health governors and delegates believe that communicating current issues is a growing priority for researchers worldwide. The final session ended with the debate about pharmaceutical developments in the 21st century focused on perspectives, challenges and innovation. Moreover, an evolutionary step from the pharma industry is the upcoming disclosure of payments from the industry to healthcare professionals. Very often with a negative connotation, the pharma industry has made a bold move by announcing this future measure. 

 EPP Public Hearing on the Pharma Sector 


In July, the EPP group organised a public hearing, EU Cohesion Policy, which helps Member States investing in health system reform, health for employability, and reducing health inequalities. Member States have allocated €5 billion to health infrastructure between 2007-13. 

Recently in September, the EPP group hearing “The Future of Medicine” convened speakers from the healthcare sector with the biggest aim to launch the pharmaceutical debate back to the public arena. Moderated by MEP Françoise Grossetêtê, the hearings embraced areas such as therapeutic innovation, patient access and competitiveness in the EU. 

Director from DG RTD Dr Ruxandra Draghia-Akli admitted, “Research and innovation, a very highly innovative pharmaceutical industry, is represented by the industry but few small enterprises,” acknowledging the need of using other new financial instruments to leverage SME. “The aim of the European Health Horizon 202O – the biggest EU Research and Innovation programme - is to contribute to better health for all, aiming to support the competitiveness of the health sector with its ageing population and increased disease burden,” added Ruxandra. 

Dr Draghia-Akli numbered a few aims to achieve in the future, ranging from innovative approaches for health ageing populations, exploiting technology and entrepreneurship and opening innovation systems where the strategic research agenda is based on the WHO report, meaning priority medicines and vaccines for the EU and the world. “We need to use money very wisely. Money would allow for some synergies,” she went on. 

EU health policy was debated between experts from the healthcare sector at the European Parliament on September 30th. © EPP


Innovative Medicines 


With the involvement of the Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI), another stakeholder that contributes to the development of medicines, drugs for anti-microbial resistance, neurodegenerative diseases and investing in personalised medicines - to be able to reduce the incidence of diabetes and cancer - are already a reality under construction in the EU. Moreover, the IMI II, based on the success of the IMI I, is working on a project, aiming to faster delivery of medicines while securing the sustainability of healthcare systems across the EU. 

According to EFPIA, innovative medicines offer a large range of value including improved outcomes for patients, health system value and broader collective value. All of these elements should be considered in pricing and reimbursement decisions, however, “each MS has its own priorities and places different emphasis on each area of value.” When it comes to medicines pricing – a current hot topic in the public health debate – prices in different countries differ according to differences in the burden of diseases, health system preferences, market structures and supply chain, amongst other factors. EFPIA believes that “MS should take reasonable measures to facilitate the introduction of effective differentiated pricing policies that reflect variations in ability to pay at national level.“ 

 Priority Medicines 


Stefan Oelrich, Sanofi’s general manager, gave some lights on a EU integrated policy approach by introducing the PRIME. The PRIME (“PRIority MEDicines”) scheme aims to support development of innovative medicines for unmet medical needs, accelerating assessment by reducing development time. Already presented at the EMA Management Board, it will soon be presented at the Commission and STAMP, still reliant on the CHMP for final review and endorsement. 

It is expected to be launched on early 2016 and will come along with a guidance package. Oelrich said “for some years the Parliament has been silent regarding the pharma sector,” and pointed out the importance of the pharma industry to EU’s economy. The Sanofi’s delegate proposed a new European strategic dialogue. “Angela Merkel has put in her government programming to start the dialogue, this dialogue will produce outcome but more than anything it helps to create trust amongst the stakeholders,” he added.