“There is a widespread feeling that something is wrong in Europe,” said Dr Stanzel in his opening remarks. “We’re facing many crises: the Middle-East is flooding Europe with migrants; we’re facing terrorist attacks; Russia is resurgent; China is becoming economically, politically, and militarily more powerful; and, last but not least, we have the problem of the current American President, Donald Trump.”

Dr Stanzel’s central thesis, argued at length in his book, is that the root cause of much of Europe’s current malaise is European politicians’ continued attempt to implement policies that, although highly successful in the past, are no longer suitable for addressing Europe’s contemporary difficulties.

“There’s an old German saying,” said Dr Stanzel. “‘If the pitcher goes to the well for too long, it breaks.’”

Dr Stanzel went on to list what he saw as the four key reasons why Europe’s present situation is different to what it was in the past: firstly, economic factors, in particular increasing globalisation, de-industrialisation, and the consequent downward pressure on (low-skilled) wages; secondly, social reasons, especially widespread immigration from both outside and inside the EU; thirdly, technological factors, in particular the rise of digital and social media which, according to Dr Stanzel, has “fragmented our societies”, and “made it easier for angry people to come together”; and fourthly, “bureaucratic” factors, in particular the rise of an increasingly technocratic and (seemingly) unaccountable political class.

To solve these problems, Dr Stanzel argued, Europe must make more of an effort to involve its citizens in the political decision-making process. In particular, he claimed that European politicians must try to avoid, on the one hand, a purely “paternalistic” approach to politics (whereby, e.g., politicians turn up at town hall meetings and simply inform citizens, without any prior consultation, what their government is doing on their behalf), while, on the other hand, also avoiding simply bowing to the popular will on every single political issue (e.g., with the use of referenda).

Instead, Dr Stanzel contended that Europe must both be responsive to the needs of ordinary citizens, whilst at the same time being aware of the fact that such responsiveness does not entail the automatic implementation of citizens’ desired policies. He then cited French President Emmanuel Macron’s “grand débat”, held in the wake of the recent gilets jaunes protests, as a good example of the kind of practice which Europe’s politicians should engage more in.

After Dr Stanzel’s opening remarks, two discussants presented their own views on various themes and issues relating to Dr Stanzel’s work.

The first discussant, Mr Aleš Chmelař, State Secretary for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for the Czech Republic, argued that Europe has been too obsessed with “foreign ventures” over the years. In particular, he argued, Europe needs to “look inward” for the foreseeable future in order to sort out structural problems relating to financialisation, deindustrialisation, and globalisation. “We’ve been spending far too long trying to fight the Taliban rather than trying to fight structural issues at home,” he said.

The second discussant, Dr Rosa Balfour, Senior Fellow at the German Marshall Fund of the United States, emphasised the importance of “getting the analysis right” when it comes to diagnosing Europe’s current problems. In particular, she claimed that the primary cause of Europe’s difficulties was Western governments’ implementation of neoliberal policies beginning in the 1980s – policies whose central tenets (limited government, privatisation, deregulation) have, according to Dr Balfour, since been adopted by the majority of Europe’s mainstream political parties.

Dr Balfour also noted that populism is “not the cause of Europe’s current problem; it’s a consequence”, and went on to criticise Mr Chmelař’s claim that Europe should “look inward”. “In today’s globalised world, the boundary between what’s internal and what’s external doesn’t exist any more,” she said.

Finally, Dr Balfour expressed agreement with Dr Stanzel’s central thesis that Europe needs to engage its citizens more in political decision-making, including in matters pertaining to foreign policy. “The end of foreign policy as an elite endeavour has been decreed,” she said.

A number of other issues and themes were mentioned during the the ensuing Q&A, with Dr Stanzel in particular emphasising the importance of supporting free trade, of resisting the urge to nationalise private businesses, and of maintaining, above all else, a sense of European solidarity.

The post ”If the pitcher goes to the well for too long, it breaks” – Volker Stanzel on Europe’s current political malaise appeared first on Brussels Express.

This figure is at odds with the number officially claimed by the Belgian government, which has stated that the majority of the 160,000 private sector jobs created in this period were due to its labour cost-cutting reforms.

European Commission’s strategy called into question

IRES’s analysis calls into question the economic strategy of the European Commission, which imposes a policy of ‘wage moderation’ (i.e. suppression) on its member states which, it claims, boosts competitiveness. This new study, however, suggests that the impact of such moderation on job creation is low, and moreover that such a strategy can encourage an unhealthy ‘race to the bottom’ of member states’ social security systems.

The post Belgian labour market reforms only created 30,000 private sector jobs according to UCL study appeared first on Brussels Express.

Many of us would like to travel in an environmentally-responsible way, but carbon-guzzling flights often seem both faster and cheaper than greener options. With children protesting for action on the environment, it’s time for tough questions. How can aviation possibly be this cheap, what is it really costing us and are we subsidising a climate apocalypse?

If you’re looking to book a trip, there are almost too many flight price comparison websites to choose from, all claiming to help you find the cheapest air tickets. But what about a comparison revealing the true cost of your journey? Research undertaken by the German broadcaster Deutsch Welle (DW) does just that, analysing face-value ticket prices on six direct European routes, then costing in other factors.

On half the routes they compared, the plane was cheaper than the train in sheer monetary terms. Next, they factored in time. Yes, the flights were all shorter, by two and a half to six and a half hours, but hang on, not so fast. DW then added (a perhaps slightly exaggerated) three hours to flight times, to account for travel to and from airports, going through security, plus gate and runway waiting time.

Once carbon emissions are also considered, the true cost of plane travel really begins to become clear. Using figures from the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (IFEU), DW calculated CO2 emissions for their selected journeys. Train journey emissions were then compared to this by examining how various countries produce their electricity and their mix of coal, gas, oil, and renewables.

Take-off and landing burn the most fuel, so short-haul flights use more fuel per kilometre than long-distances. After taking all that into account, it’s no surprise to discover that every single train trip on DW’s list was lower in overall ‘costs’ than the plane. Didn’t we already know that, in our hearts? Would knowing this change your behaviour? 

As we stare climate catastrophe in the face, is it right to leave individual consumers to make their own emissions choices? With our own busy lives to navigate, how are we supposed to weigh up what uses of carbon are ‘worth it’? Did you know, for example, that a single Boeing 747’s full tank of 200,000 litres of kerosene could heat 440 houses (of around 300 sq metres) continuously for two winter months. Interesting maybe, but instead of desperate analogies, we need an internationally-agreed method for calculating the social cost, or ‘shadow price’ of carbon (SCC). One way to do it, in our cash-obsessed world, is to assign a monetary value to the damage done by emitting a set amount of carbon. For example, the US Environmental Protection Agency calculates the social cost of carbon at $42 per metric tonne. Other analysts think that estimate is far too low. Much is at stake: this figure could influence how much future taxes on air travel should be.

 However, using taxes to disincentivise air travel seems very far away right now. In fact, aviation fuel is untaxed. Worse still, the USA under Trump has created a boom in private jet use, by allowing both firms and individuals to offset 100% of the cost of a new or used private jet against federal taxes. Meanwhile, in Europe, businesses and private citizens can dodge value-added tax on imported private jets by channelling purchases via the Isle of Man. This has slashed tax bills by $1bn on a minimum of 200 aircraft since 2011.

A half-full private jet is twelve times dirtier than economy air travel. Looking at this, it’s easy to become disheartened or cynical: if billionaires won’t pay the price for their environmental delinquency, why should ‘us ordinary folk’ be expected to give up our package holidays to Greece? But before you use your high horse to ride away from your environmental responsibilities, remember: it’s estimated that less than five percent of the world’s population has ever flown on a plane, so check your privilege, as the saying goes.

The shocking truth is that questionable taxation is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to our governments’ attitude to the aviation industry. A 2017 review of Subsidies in Aviation authored by Prof. Stefan Gössling, Frank Fichert, and Peter Forsyth, finds that ‘significant subsidies are extended to manufacturers, infrastructure providers and airlines.’ Why? And what form do these subsidies take?

Aviation first began receiving subsidies as an emerging industry and in the name of defence, and the practice hasn’t ceased today, even though by the 1950s air travel could hardly be described as a new phenomenon. These days the main explanation for handouts is that aviation is a source of economic growth and high-tech employment, with the Air Transport and Action Group estimating the sector supports 65.5 million jobs and $2.7 trillion in global economic activity. But doubt is cast on these claims by double counting practices, inappropriate multipliers and the complexity of assessing direct, indirect and induced employment.

What we do know is that hundreds of billions of US$ have been paid to manufacturers, infrastructure providers and airlines globally since the 1950s and annual subsidies remain substantial today, even though many are considered ‘harmful’ by the OECD.

 Examples of subsidies identified in Gössling’s study include research and development grants, export easers, loss coverage, equity infusions, loans and loan guarantees, reduced infrastructure fees, monopoly rights and zero or reduced taxes. Information about this funding is rarely in the public domain, and often only comes to light because of cases brought to dispute resolution bodies.

Never fear though, there’s a wealth of these ‘cases’ to draw from because the ethics of aviation subsidies are in constant dispute. To cite just a few, a five-year clash between Brazil and Canada took place between 1996 and 2001 over export-financing for regional aircraft, leading to three cases at the World Trade Organisation. The European Airbus programme created controversy between the USA and Europe, with tit-for-tat accusations of illegal state aid. And the industry is touted to receive yet more state aid as Russia and China seek to re-establish commercial aircraft manufacturing.

How can we justify allowing these practices to continue? Unless you’re a climate change denier, it’s hard not to see such subsidies as an unacceptable use of public funds: governments across the world are effectively financing a future climate apocalypse. A new look at aviation is urgently needed, before we really do need someone to fly us to the moon – or further.

The post Fly me to the moon: Are we subsidising a climate apocalypse? appeared first on Brussels Express.

King Philippe received on Tuesday evening, December 18, the resignation of Charles Michel. This decision came after several weeks of political tension, including the resignation of all N-VA ministers. The maintenance of a minority MR-Open Vld-CD & V coalition in the House did not last more than two weeks after new tensions over the vote on the 2019 budget.

The King will continue the consultations throughout the day and will announce in the following days whether he accepts the resignation of the Prime Minister. If the resignation is accepted, either a new government will be formed or early elections have to be held, if the majority of the House decides so.

 

View this post on Instagram

 

every building must have.. its own soul #nightphotography #nightlights #atmosphere #garden #contrasts

A post shared by Vlad Grumezescu (@vlad_grumi) on Dec 18, 2018 at 12:57am PST

The post The King starts consultations at the Royal Palace after the Prime Minister presented his resignation appeared first on Brussels Express.

Supported by a large parliamentary majority, the MR, the CD & V, and the Open Vld want to approve the Pact, which will be adopted in Marrakech on December 10th and 11th. The Prime Minister Charles Michel committed himself on 27 September to the UN platform after a classic decision making process that brought together the administrations and ministerial offices concerned.

The parliament calls on the government explicitly to approve the Migration Pact. The N-VA voted against the resolution, the same as Vlaams Belang and the Popular Party.

The N-VA is against the pact

The ministers have agreed on the very favorable Belgian position, which was decided on the 12th of September. However, a series of of European countries have announced that they would not support the Pact, including Austria’s conservative Chancellor Sebastian Kurz. The nationalists have reviewed their judgment: although the text is non-binding and asserts the sovereignty of states, they fear that its provisions will bind Belgium in the future because judges would use it to counter the government’s policy.

For two weeks, the N-VA has been hammering out its opposition. Group leader in the House, Peter De Roover, and the Secretary of State, Theo Francken, invoke the sacred value of the sovereignty, « DNA » of the nationalists, facing an international order that dispossesses the states of their powers.

On the contrary, supporters of the Pact insist on the need for a multilateral framework for effective migration policy and recall that the provisions of the Pact are in no way contrary to Belgian policy.

The post Urgent meeting on Saturday evening to address crisis within the Belgian Government appeared first on Brussels Express.

Kurdistan was unhappy at that time with the way that the region was being treated by the central government in Baghdad, particularly over budgetary issues relating to medical support and aid for the 1.5 million refugees in Kurdistan displaced by the fighting in Syria and with ISIS.

So in September 2017 they tried to force the issue on their administrative differences by calling for a referendum on the region’s future in order to bring Baghdad to the negotiating table and secure the political capital they believed they had earned from years of fighting alongside the Americans against extremist and terrorist groups.

The gambit backfired when Iranian backed militia who had been engaged in defeating ISIS handed over Kirkuk to the Iraqi army without putting up a fight. The finger of blame was pointed by Kurdistan at Washington and the former US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson.  The Kurdish people were significantly weakened economically and politically by this invasion of their territory, and the 150 000 refugees fleeing the brutal occupation caused a huge humanitarian cost to the region.

One year later, the situation has now changed dramatically. The new US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is making new efforts to support Iraq’s formation of a moderate, nationalist Iraqi government. In the May 2018 elections in Iraq, the former Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi who had previously received strong US backing, suffered a severe defeat. Abadi only won 42 seats in the Parliament, while the Kurdish parties secured around 50 seats.

This meant that the Kurdish region and its parties, came to hold the keys to forming the next government in Iraq and that the Kurdish region had become the key to forming a pro-Western government in Baghdad.

Regional elections were held in Kurdistan on 30 September, with a resounding victory for the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) and the Democratic Patriotic Alliance of Kurdistan (KDP).

The President of Iraq was then subsequently chosen as Barham Salih, as part of the new government in Baghdad. Mr. Salih is a moderate Kurd and a British-educated engineer who is an avid supporter of higher education for young people, which is essential for getting the country’s economy back on track.

All eyes are now on the negotiations to choose the next Prime Minister for Iraq.

For the USA and the EU the autonomy of Kurdistan within a strong unified and sovereign Iraq is important both for international security and to contain the strategic threat of Iran in the region as a renegade power. Kurdistan is vital to this equation because of its strategic location at the nexus of Iran, Syria, Turkey and Iraq.

Whoever is chosen as Iraq’s next Prime Minister, the central government in Baghdad will need to move quickly to rebuild trust with Erbil (the capital of Kurdistan). They will need to reassure foreign investors that they are needed to rebuild Kurdistan.

The only way for that to happen is for Erbil and Baghdad to renegotiate Kurdish oil policy and revenue sharing in terms of the Iraqi national budget. To achieve this there must be the rebuilding of trust between Erbil and Baghdad, a revenue sharing formula to manage the country’s oil assets and a pragmatic and transparent budget system to ensure that Kurdistan receives a fair distribution of the national revenues from Baghdad to rebuild the country that has not only been ripped to shreds by ISIS but which still bears the scars of the Iran-Iraq war.

The return of Kirkuk to the administration of the regional government of Kurdistan must be part of this deal.

The post Time for Baghdad to return Kirkuk to Kurdistan appeared first on Brussels Express.

After weeks and weeks of negotiations, both the 5 stars and the Lega recently formed an ‘anti-establishment government’ in Italy. The Lega, which is clearly a Euroskeptical and anti-migration political party, is determined to limit the entrance of refugees and migrants to Italy.

Last week’s example of the rescue ship Aquarius, which was refused to access the Italian coasts, definitely sent a signal to the whole Europe. And although this decision was criticised by many political stakeholders across the Old Continent, dozens of populists expressed their support to the Italian authorities.

Since Theo Francken has been part of the Belgian Federal government, he has been involved in several very controversial speeches and statements with regard to migration and refugees. Even some of the N-VA leaders and members of the Federal governments have expressed their concerns about his stances.

The recent interviews and statements Mr. Francken made in the Italian newspapers are therefore not really a surprise.

On 5 June, he firstly gave his support to the newly formed Italian government in the Italian version of Huffington Post. After he stated he was following Matteo Salvini, the Italian minister for Home affairs and leader of the Lega, “for months”, he added he wanted the Italian government to “strengthen the migration policy”. “It’s good if Italy starts refusing migrants on their coasts, and does not let them enter Sicily”, he said.

He went further last week in Il Giornale, by advocating for “refugee camps in North Africa”, with reference to the Italian decision on Aquarius. “We must start sending back the boats that cross the Mediterranean Sea”, he added, before pointing out human traffics and mafia networks with that regard.

Whether you agree or disagree with the pro-migration or anti-migration policies, such statements are quite concerning ahead of the upcoming European elections next year. Populism is rising across Europe, and the populist leaders now can collaborate on specific policies.

And even if the newly formed Spanish government finally decided to host the Aquarius last week, some of the European reactions clearly showed a support to anti-human behaviours. The French government, instead of welcoming the boat, indeed pointed out the Italian responsibility, while Charles Michel, the Belgian Prime Minister, had a controversial joke on it. “Belgium has no port in the Mediterranean Sea”, he said.

The post Theo Francken supports Italian border closure appeared first on Brussels Express.

There are, however, regional disparities. The Walloons are the least inclined with 77% against. In Brussels, against weights in at 66%. But the surprise is that in Flanders, the popularity of Charles Michel and the federal government is higher than in other regions since the formation of the government; Although, a majority of the Flemish (57%) do not want a renewal. Voters of the MR appear to be the most enthusiastic to a Michel renewal (75%), then voters of the N-VA (71%) and those of the VLD (71%). The least in favour are PTB (2%), PS (10%), Ecolo (10%) and Challenge (10%).

The maximum margin of error for a percentage of 50% and a 95% confidence rate is + -3.1 in Wallonia and Flanders and +4.3 in Brussels.

The post Majority of Belgians against renewal of Michel government appeared first on Brussels Express.

The Seventh Chamber of the responsible Belgian court, the “Conseil du contentieux des étrangers” ordered on June 6th that she should be released immediately. What is the consequence? She is still behind bars. Why? The responsible ministry ordered the detention center not to obey the decision of the court. I am speechless. In a Western-style democracy – based on rule of law – the administration, including ministries, is obliged to follow court decisions.

Where are we going?

The post Nightmare continues: Belgian Government refuses to follow decision of the court appeared first on Brussels Express.

The survey was conducted in April 2018 and had a pool of 27,601 people from 28 Member States reveals 60% of citizens believe that EU membership of their country is a good thing and over two-thirds interviewed said that they believe their country has benefited from being a member of the EU. This is the highest score measured since 1983.

With a year to go until the next European elections, a third of respondents already know the date of the next European elections, and 50% said they were interested in it. In general, the ‘recent Spitzenkandidaten’ process that gives EU citizens a say in the appointment of the President of the European Commission has been well received with almost half of respondents saying it would make them more likely to vote and three-quarters want this lead candidate process to be accompanied by further debate about European issues and the future of the EU.

The most listed issues for those pooled where: 49% cite the fight against terrorism as priority topic, followed by youth unemployment at 48%, immigration at 45% and economy and growth at 42%. 35% cite the fight against climate change and the protection of human rights and democracy, as well as the social protection of EU citizens, which is listed by 32% of respondents.

Over half of respondents were happy with how their democracy works in their country and 46% when refering to the EU. The emergence of new parties or political movements protesting against the political establishment is another concern in next year’s election, however a 56% believes that such new political parties might be a vehicle for change.

the survey points to a growing interest in, and appreciation for, despite Brexit, as well as a growing feeling that they can have a say in its future.

The post Public survey finds record support for EU despite Brexit appeared first on Brussels Express.