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.

Are we living a new Cold War?

Article published in Cafebabel

Relationship between West and East are getting colder again. © Talk Android

As we follow the recent worldwide developments we can’t help but ask ourselves: is History repeating itself? We witness now the biggest tensions between the West and East since the Cold War. But the similarities have become even bigger, if we look at the other side of the Atlantic, as well as to the Middle East, with the United States sending troops to Iraq. 

The relationships between Russia and the West are freezing, with the European leaders condemning Putin’s order of sending tanks to Ukraine and his motionless stance. In fact, following the G20 Leaders’ Summit last weekend (15-16 November), in Brisbane, Australia, Putin was strongly criticised and once again, he turned his back away saying that he was going back to Moscow, “we have completed our business,” said Putin justifying his departure. 

Putin threats the United States 

A few weeks ago, Russian jets were seen and immediately intercepted over European airspace, raising doubts and suspicions about what Putin is up to. Later, four Russian warships entered international Australian waters, close to the northeast coast, immediately attracting three Australians warships to ascertain. The peak of this ideological war happened when President Putin condemned the United States and its meddling position as an international actor. The Russian President has clearly left a hostile message to the United States. “Is it the exceptionalism of the US its way of leadership beneficial for everyone? And its constant interference on the world’s affairs brings welfare, progress, democracy? Should we stand still and watch? I allow myself to say that it’s not like that. Not at all,” threatened Putin, during the meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club.

If we put all the puzzle’s pieces together, we know that something very fishy is going on and that Putin’s speech was definitely a threat. The international community has been sanctioning Russia over the Ukrainian invasion led by Russian troops that began in March 2014. Putin’s desire to control the Eastern regions of Ukraine is so hefty, that is leading towards a new “iron curtain” which can have terrible repercussions for Europe and the world. 

European Reactions 

European leaders are not being mild towards Putin. In the United Kingdom, Prime Minister David Cameron tried to adopt a more diplomatic way of approaching stubborn Putin by saying "if Russia takes a positive approach towards the Ukraine's freedom and responsibility, we could see those sanctions removed.” 

France is also in this amalgam. At stake is a Mistral-class assault warship retained by Holland’s government over concerns about Putin’s involvement in the situation in Ukraine. Russia has demanded the handover of the war machine by the end of November. 

Meanwhile, Russian Ilyushin transport plane was seen, once again, flying into international airspace in Estonia and Lithuania, without an official flight plan. They were intercepted by two Dutch F16 fighter jets. As a reaction to the growing military activity in Ukraine, Britain’s defense ministers, as well as the three Baltic States and four Nordic countries, have all agreed to enlarge intelligence and air force cooperation. 

Analogy with the past? 

Cold War Map. Jeroen Elfferich © Flickr 

This is not the end of this two-sided hostile and defensive history. Similar to the alliances created during the Cold War, strategical pacts are being made today, in the XXIth century. Strategical pacts or defensive alliances, the truth is that recently the United States has reinforced its partnership with China and Iran (yes, Iran). 

With China, Obama is about to make a deal concerning a trans-Pacific trade which would eliminate tariffs on goods and services and change labour regulations, government procurement, intellectual property, as well as environmental protections. "What we are seeing is momentum building around a Trans-Pacific Partnership that can spur greater economic growth, spur greater jobs growth, set high standards for trade and investment throughout the Asia-Pacific," said the US President. Moreover, the two world’s largest economies have agreed to grant visas to each other's citizens valid for up to a decade in a deal that aims to fortify business ties with China. 

Meanwhile, Iran and the US are getting closer to a historic nuclear deal, following Vienna talks, which could determine the end of 12 years of deadlock over Iran’s nuclear programme. However, this alliance is making too many waves, as France, one of the six nations involved in the negotiation (US, UK, Germany, Russia and China) is more opposed to nuclear concessions and Iran itself has said that the deal is possible but "excessive demands" by the west could derail chances of an agreement. 

Nevertheless, the US has already secured its alliance with China and relies on the European Union for any possible cooperation as well. If the deal with Iran won't be fruitful, then the scenario will be grey. Moreover, we should pay attention, once again, to America's moves in Iraq. Was Putin right on his condemning statement towards the meddlesome US?