Месечни архиви: January 2017

2016 Enlargement package: Prospects for the Western Balkans

Written by Velina Lilyanova,

Word cloud for European integration

© intheskies / Fotolia

In November 2016, the European Commission presented its annual enlargement package, consisting of a communication that takes stock of the implementation of the 2015 multiannual strategy and a set of reports on the Western Balkan countries and on Turkey in their capacity of candidates or potential candidates for EU membership. Since 2015, the Commission has been applying a new reporting methodology aimed at enhanced transparency and comparability among the aspirant countries. In 2016, it shifted the timeframe for publishing the next enlargement package from the autumn of 2017 to the spring of 2018, to better align it with the release of the economic reform programmes and the increased focus on economic governance.

In 2016, the Commission continued prioritising complex and long-term reforms as part of its ‘fundamentals first’ approach. Its main message was that enlargement policy continued to deliver results and promote reforms, albeit slowly and unevenly. The EU’s reconfirmed commitment to the Western Balkan countries’ accession processes was duly reflected in the Slovak Presidency programme, which stressed the importance of enlargement policy for the EU’s own political and economic stability.

Amidst a host of increasing complexities and declining public support, concerns have been raised that enlargement policy might be side-lined. Thus, while the EU needs to keep up momentum, a significant part of the responsibility rests with the countries themselves. The region needs political will to keep reforms on the agenda and deliver results. In this context, regional cooperation and good neighbourly relations are once again brought to the fore as an indispensable means of re-energising common reform priorities and maximising the benefits for the region.

Read the complete briefing on ‘2016 Enlargement package: Prospects for the Western Balkans‘.

Source Article from https://epthinktank.eu/2017/01/31/2016-enlargement-package-prospects-for-the-western-balkans/

Common procedure for asylum [EU Legislation in progress]

Written by Anita Orav (1st edition),

Procedure process concept for work instruction

© vinnstock / Fotolia

As one of five key acts of the common European asylum system (CEAS), the Asylum Procedures Directive sets out common procedures for Member States for granting and withdrawing international protection in accordance with the Qualification Directive. Following the large influx of asylum-seekers to the European Union since 2014, the directive came under criticism for being too complex and leaving Member States too broad a discretion, leading to differences in length of procedures and procedural guarantees, for example through the use of accelerated procedures and safe country lists.

As part of the reform of the CEAS, on 13 July 2016, the Commission published a proposal to replace the current directive with a regulation establishing a common procedure for international protection in all Member States. The choice of a directly applicable regulation is expected to bring about full harmonisation of the procedures, ensuring same steps, timeframes and safeguards across the EU.

Versions

Timeline

Source Article from https://epthinktank.eu/2017/01/31/common-procedure-for-asylum-eu-legislation-in-progress/

European space policy; Historical perspective, specific aspects and key challenges

Written by Vincent Reillon,

Space Station

© Atlantis / Fotolia

In the 1950s, development of the space sector in Europe was limited to investments made by individual Member States (France, Italy, the United Kingdom). The failure of the first European partnerships in space activities in the 1960s led to the establishment of the European Space Agency (ESA), an intergovernmental institution, in 1975. ESA allowed Europe to develop its capacities by supporting the upstream space sector: designing and developing European launchers, developing an emerging satellite industry, and implementing programmes for space science and space exploration.

In the 1980s and 1990s, two evolutions triggered European Community involvement in the space sector. On the one hand, space capacity and infrastructure led to the development of a downstream space sector (telecommunications, satellite navigation, and earth observation services) that impacted on European societies. On the other, the Community progressively acquired competencies in additional policy areas and played a stronger role in regulation of the space sector.

At the turn of the century, the European Commission established links with ESA, developing a joint space strategy in 2000, and a space policy in 2003. The Commission also developed flagship space programmes: Galileo for satellite navigation and Copernicus for earth observation. These programmes were funded by the European Union (EU) and developed in collaboration with ESA in the framework of the 2004 agreement between the Union and the agency. European space policy was updated in 2007, dividing roles between ESA (upstream sector) and the EU (downstream sector).

In the following years, the security and defence aspects of space policy, space infrastructure security, autonomy and access to space, and the ‘non-dependence’ of the European space sector gained importance. The Commission developed an EU industrial policy for space, and set up a programme on space surveillance and tracking (SST) to protect European space infrastructures. Discussions began on the opportunity to set up a programme for governmental satellite communications (Govsatcom). These new initiatives were integrated in the European space strategy adopted by the European Commission in October 2016.

The introduction of space as a shared competence between the EU and the Member States in the European treaties in 2009 gave the Union a stronger role in the field. The asymmetry between the EU and ESA in terms of membership and voting rights, financial rules and uptake of security and defence matters implied an assessment of their roles and their relationship. Different options for ESA’s development were discussed between 2012 and 2016 to address the situation, but no decision was taken.

The governance of European space policy is shared between the EU, ESA and the member states. This situation provides the latter with a certain degree of flexibility. Nevertheless, it creates inefficiencies in areas such as support for research activities in the space sector, development of international relations, and implementation of European space programmes.

In an evolving environment where the private sector is developing strong capacities and playing a more active role, the EU, ESA and their member states face key challenges if Europe is to keep its position as a space power: maintaining independent access to space, increasing efficiencies by developing synergies between civil and defence space programmes, securing space infrastructures, ensuring uptake of space data and services, and adopting a long term vision and financial commitment to increase private investment in the sector.


Read the complete in-depth analysis on ‘European space policy; Historical perspective, specific aspects and key challenges‘.


Source Article from https://epthinktank.eu/2017/01/31/european-space-policy-historical-perspective-specific-aspects-and-key-challenges/

Adoption, Erasmus, FGM and … fish. European Parliament Plenary Session February I

Written by Clare Ferguson with Jack Meredith

European Parliament Brussels

European Union, EP – 2015

Adopting a child is a major step for anyone, involving many checks and official procedures. Under the present system, however, there is no guaranteed EU-wide recognition of domestic adoptions in other Member States (the Hague Convention only recognises adoptions where the child lived in a different state). This can often cause legal uncertainty and significant and costly issues for adoptive families who move from one country to another, interfering with freedom of movement rights as well as the rights of the child. As adoption is a national competence, Parliament’s Legal Affairs Committee proposes that cross-border recognition of adoptions would be the most effective way to improve child protection, reinforce EU citizenship rights, and reduce the social and administrative burden on families. On Tuesday, Members will debate the Committee’s report with recommendations to the Commission to make a legislative proposal, with a vote to follow on Wednesday.

Sticking with the youth theme – although the Erasmus programme is no spring chicken, having celebrated its 30th anniversary at the European Parliament last week – Members will discuss an own-initiative report by Parliament’s Culture and Education Committee on implementing the Erasmus+ programme on Wednesday evening. Wide consultation has highlighted that, although balanced in its objectives, the revised programme needs some fine-tuning, with a certain lack of funding and low success rates for applicants dampening students’ enthusiasm. The report notes that Erasmus+ has great potential to support quality improvements in vocational education and training, by attracting under-represented groups. It supports cross-border volunteering, and calls for an end to financial barriers to access, especially as studies show that participants enjoy better career prospects.

In addition to the student exchange programme, Erasmus+ supports initiatives in education, training and sport with a €14.7 billion budget. The EU was tasked with supporting the Member States on sports policy under the Lisbon Treaty, and the Culture and Education Committee’s own-initiative report on the implementation of EU sports policy and recommended routes forward will be presented to plenary on Wednesday evening, ahead of upcoming discussions on a new EU work plan for sport. The report focuses on sports integrity and good governance, as well as access to sport and its role in social inclusion. Measures to combat match-fixing, doping and third-party ownership of players all come under scrutiny, while the importance of ensuring access to sport and physical activity as a path to good health are underlined as crucial to an effective work plan.

A practice carried out for sociocultural or religious reasons on young children – girls aged from infancy to 15 years – female genital mutilation (FGM) has no health benefits, but serious health consequences for victims. Recognised as a form of child abuse and gender-based violence, FGM is a violation of the human rights of women and girls. In advance of the United Nations International Day of Zero Tolerance for Female Genital Mutilation on 6 February, the European Commission will make a statement to Parliament on Wednesday afternoon on EU efforts to combat FGM. The European Parliament estimates that at least 500 000 FGM victims currently live in the EU, with a further 180 000 at risk. These numbers swell as victims – women and girls suffering from or in fear of FGM – claim asylum in the EU, and Parliament is likely to ask that the EU do more to protect them.

Also on the agenda on Wednesday, is management of the EU external fishing fleet. The EU’s common fisheries policy seeks to protect fish stocks and the fisheries market by encouraging all fishing vessels to adhere to the same principles and standards – both non-EU vessels that have permission to fish within EU waters, and EU vessels that fish outside Union waters. Parliament’s Fisheries Committee has examined European Commission proposals to improve the management of the EU’s external fleet. The Committee concludes that the proposals would ensure the EU fulfils its responsibilities as a flag state and contribute to creating a level playing field for EU fishing activities through authorisation and traceability measures. Members will vote on the Commission’s proposal for a revised system of issuing and managing fishing authorisations on Wednesday afternoon.

 

Source Article from https://epthinktank.eu/2017/01/30/adoption-erasmus-fgm-and-fish-european-parliament-plenary-session-february-i/

Economic and budgetary outlook for the European Union 2017

Written by Alessandro D’Alfonso, Angelos Delivorias, Magdalena Sapała and Andrej Stuchlik ,

Budgetary and economic outlook 2017

© European Union, EPRS

This study presents the 2017 economic and budgetary outlook for the European Union, explores the most recent developments in EU budgetary negotiations, and focuses on the investment gap in the EU, as a major economic challenge for the Union.

In 2016, the EU and euro-area economies continued their moderate growth (less than 2 %), which was also accompanied by the creation of jobs. While these trends are projected to continue over the next two years, some positive factors which underpin them are, or may soon be, exhausted. Moreover, they may be further dampened by the broader economic, political and geopolitical challenges which the EU faces.

Amounting to €157.86 billion, the 2017 EU budget represents only some 2 % of total public spending in the European Union – approximately 1 % of gross national income (GNI). However, the budget has features that increase its impact, such as the capacity to leverage additional funding from other sources and to target areas where the pooling of resources can provide added value to the EU as a whole (e.g. research, innovation and development cooperation). Adopted by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union following intense negotiations, the 2017 budget has a structure determined by the 2014-2020 multiannual financial framework (MFF). With a view to increasing the resources devoted to major policy challenges emerging in recent years, however, resort is made to the flexibility provisions of the EU’s financial planning tool.

These policy challenges include the European financial and sovereign debt crisis and its impact on growth and employment, and the growing instability in Europe’s eastern and southern neighbourhood, which caused an important increase in migration flows and numerous security concerns. The 2017 budget accordingly focuses on stimulating growth and creating new jobs, especially for young people, as well as addressing the migration crisis and security issues.

Taking into consideration the aforementioned challenges, and in the context of the discussion on the preparation of the post-2020 programming period, many would welcome further EU budgetary streamlining, to increase capacity to respond to the concerns of EU citizens and to the unprecedented challenges the EU faces. Relevant developments include the mid-term revision of the 2014-2020 MFF currently under negotiation, the proposal for the next MFF to be tabled by the end of 2017, and possible changes in the EU financing system.

This year’s economic focus examines investment in the EU and prioritises the subdued investment level in almost all EU Member States (i.e. gross fixed capital formation in relation to the gross domestic product (GDP), following the financial crisis of 2008. This investment gap, in turn, impacts the fragile economic recovery adversely and undermines the EU’s international competitiveness.

In this context, the EU institutions have tried, both through the EU budget and by other means (European Investment Bank operations, the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI), or the Capital Markets Union), and in line with the philosophy of co-financing, to entice private investors to invest in strategic long-term sectors such as infrastructure, research or education, and to facilitate cross border investments and capital flows. While initial EFSI results are encouraging, and have led the Commission to propose an extension to 2020, concerns have been raised by the European Court of Auditors. Proposals have also been formulated by academia and other stakeholders, which involve either an additional goal, a different orientation for EFSI, or envision a complete overhaul of the fund.

Read the complete study ‘Economic and budgetary outlook for the European Union 2017‘.

Source Article from https://epthinktank.eu/2017/01/30/economic-and-budgetary-outlook-for-the-european-union-2017/

Renewal of the authorisation of the use of the herbicide substance glyphosate

Many citizens want to know what is the European Parliament’s position on the renewal of the authorisation of the use of glyphosate.

Abstract word cloud for Pesticide with related tags and terms

Copyright: Intheskies / Fotolia

On November 2015, the European Food and Safety Authority (EFSA) declared that glyphosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic hazard to humans and the evidence does not support classification with regard to its carcinogenic potential according to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008. In light of these conclusions, the European Commission has to decide about the renewal of glyphosate in the EU list of approved active substances. However, as these conclusions are not shared in previous studies published on this substance, many citizens turned to the European Parliament asking for its intervention in order for the authorisation renewal of glyphosate to be refused.

Glyphosate is a systemic herbicide which has been used since 1974 in agriculture but also in forestry, urban and garden applications. Glyphosate and/or its residues have been detected in water, soil, food and drinks and non-comestible goods, as well as in the human body, and the impact of its most common co-formulants on human health are regularly monitored.

The European Commission authorises active substances at EU level with reference to Regulation 1107/2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, through implementing regulations.

EP resolution

On 13 April 2016, the Parliament adopted a non-legislative resolution on renewing the approval of the active substance glyphosate, in which it considered that the Commission’s draft implementing regulation fails to ensure a high level of protection of both human and animal health and the environment, fails to apply the precautionary principle, and exceeds the implementing powers provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009. The Parliament also called on the Commission to submit a new draft implementing regulation in order to better address the sustainable use of herbicides containing glyphosate, and to renew the EU market approval for glyphosate for another 7 years only instead of 15 as originally proposed, and for professional uses only.

Further information is available in the EP press release of 13 April 2016, as well as in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety’s press release of 22 March 2016.

Next steps

The Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed (Phytopharmaceuticals Section), composed by national experts of all Member States and presided by a European Commission representative, should have voted subsequently to adopt or reject the Commission proposal by qualified majority.

However, as no such majority was reached, it was up to the Commission to decide on a limited extension of the approval of glyphosate. At the same time, the Commission presented to the Member States three recommendations for adoption as soon as possible. More details are available in the European Commission’s fact sheet ‘FAQ: Glyphosate’.

European Citizens’ Initiative

The European Commission has decided to register a European Citizens Initiative (ECI) inviting the Commission “to propose to Member States a ban on glyphosate, to reform the pesticide approval procedure, and to set EU-wide mandatory reduction targets for pesticide use”.

The initiative was formally registered on 25 January 2017. The registration starts a one-year process of collection of signatures in support of the proposed ECI by its organisers.  Should the ECI receive one million statements of support within one year, from at least seven different Member States, the Commission will have to react within three months. The Commission can decide either to follow the request or not follow the request and in both instances would be required to explain its reasoning.

Parliamentary questions

The use of this herbicide has been the subject of many parliamentary questions, especially with regard the possible impact on human health.

For instance, with regard to the contamination of German beer with glyphosate (question of 25 February 2016), the European Commission answered on 22 April 2016 that it ‘continues to work closely with Member States’ competent authorities to ensure that MRLs [maximum residue levels] established in the legislation are complied with, and that food products are safe for human consumption’.

Further information

Relevant background documents on the risk assessment that has been carried out by the European Food and Safety Authority (EFSA) are available on its website, as well as their press release of 12 November 2015 which conveys the conclusions of that assessment.

More details are available on the European Commission’s webpage on pesticides, where a section on the Approval of active substances may be found. The European Parliament study EU’s Pesticide Risk Assessment System: The Case of Glyphosate summarises the presentations and discussions of the workshop on subject. The article ‘Renewing authorisation for glyphosate‘, published on 7 April 2016 by the European Parliamentary Research Service might also be of interest for its background information.

Do you have any questions on this issue or another EP-related concern? Please use our web form. You write, we answer.

Source Article from https://epthinktank.eu/2017/01/26/renewal-of-the-authorisation-of-the-use-of-the-herbicide-substance-glyphosate/

Common corporate tax base (CCTB) [EU Legislation in Progress]

Written by Gustaf Gimdal (1st edition),

corporate tax, 3D rendering, text on wooden sign

© laufer / Fotolia

The European Commission has decided to re-launch the common consolidated corporate tax base (CCCTB) project in a two-step approach, with the publication of two new interconnected proposals on a common corporate tax base (CCTB) and a common consolidated corporate tax base (CCCTB). These were published on 25 October 2016, and the 2011 CCCTB proposal (COM(2011) 121) was withdrawn on the same day. The re-launch follows the lack of progress on the 2011 proposal in the Council.

The 2016 CCTB provides for the determination of a single set of rules for calculation of the corporate tax base. Companies operating across borders in the EU would no longer have to deal with 28 different sets of national rules when calculating their taxable profits. The intention is that the proposed CCTB is a step on the way towards re-establishing the link between taxation and the place where profits are made, via an apportionment formula to be introduced through the new CCCTB proposal. The proposals include a number of anti-tax avoidance measures.

The proposal only concerns the corporate tax base and is not intended to harmonise national corporate tax rates. The Member States would retain their sovereign right to set their own tax rates.

Versions

timeline-2-sur-7-council

Source Article from https://epthinktank.eu/2017/01/26/common-corporate-tax-base-cctb-eu-legislation-in-progress/

Comments on new US trade policy

Written by Jan Bäverström,

Comments on future US Foreign and Trade Policies

© mars58 / Fotolia

This is a collection of comments from think tanks and newspapers on the possible effects of a new US trade policy. There are also comments on the new US Trade Representative as well as links to the White House foreign policy pages and to the nomination hearings in the US Senate.

White House

The Inaugural Address , 20 January 2017

Issues

America First Foreign Policy

Bringing Back Jobs And Growth

Trade Deals Working For All Americans

Trade Personnel in the Trump Administration / White & Case, 2017
For several years, Mr. Lighthizer has argued publicly that US policymakers (and particularly Republicans) should reexamine their support for free trade and adopt more interventionist trade policies, particularly towards China. In this regard, Mr. Lighthizer has advocated more aggressive enforcement of existing US trade laws and agreements as well as the adoption of new trade policies to counteract the perceived negative effects of imports and the alleged unfair practices of US trading partners.

Congress hearings

U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations

Nomination of   Rex Wayne Tillerson Of Texas, To Be Secretary Of State , 11 January 2017

Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,

Nomination hearing for Wilbur Ross, President-elect Donald Trump’s Secretary of the Department of Commerce , 18 January 2017

Committee Questionnaire

Articles in the new US Trade Representative

Lighthizer nomination wins praise from opposing groups : the Hagstrom Report, 13 January 13, 2017
American Farm Bureau President Zippy Duvall said Jan. 3 he is looking forward to working with Robert Lighthizer, whom President-elect Donald Trump nominated for U.S. Trade Representative earlier in the day. But Lighthizer also won praise from Public Citizen’s Trade Watch and groups that have usually been more concerned about increased imports rather than the exports that are so important to farmers.

Trump’s Economic Brain Trust / by Michelle Jamrisko, and Jennifer Jacobs, Bloomberg, 13 January 2017
The men who are cooking up Trumponomics.

The Lighthizer Effect on Trade Policies / By DTN’s Washington Insider, 13 January 2017
As the new administration approaches inauguration, concern over what emerging trade policies might look like is unabated, generally, but the Chicago Tribune says it sees an odd development; a little relief and a tiny glimmer of optimism on both sides of the aisle.

Finance members meet with USTR pick; Hatch pledges to push for TPP / Inside U.S. Trade, 12 January 2017
As Donald Trump’s pick for U.S. trade representative, Robert Lighthizer, made the rounds on Capitol Hill this week.The Finance panel is tasked with vetting Lighthizer. Hatch on Jan. 10 said the committee will first “have to get all the paperwork done before we can schedule a hearing,” but added that he has no doubt Lighthizer will be confirmed.

US China trade war  – Trump and trade, Lighthizer as USTR, border adjustment taxes… WTO cases, MNE status and 337 / US CHina trade war, 12 January 2017
Although the past appointments of Governor Branstad of Iowa as Ambassador to China and Wilbur Ross to Commerce, two persons who know China well, indicate no potential trade war, the two latest appointments of Bob Lighthizer to USTR and Peter Nararro as Chairman of the National Economic Advisors indicate that protectionism, especially against China, is back on the menu.

Global Trade Watch on the Lighthizer Nomination / Simon Lester, Global Trade Watch blog, 5 January 2017
The nomination of Robert Lighthizer to be U.S. Trade Representative signals President-elect Donald Trump’s interest in altering the trade policy approach that has prevailed through Republican and Democratic administrations for the past two decades. Lighthizer has consistently noted that historically Republicans favored trade policies designed to obtain specific national economic goals and criticized the Republican Party’s rigid support over recent decades of “free trade” ideology. His views put him at odds with most of Trump’s other high-level appointees who represent the very perspective on trade that Lighthizer has long critiqued.

Trump taps Reagan ex-official Lighthizer as trade chief / Kyodo, 4 January 2017
Lighthizer served as U.S. deputy trade chief under President Ronald Reagan in the 1980s, playing a major role in negotiating some two dozen bilateral agreements on a variety of issues from steel to grain, the Trump transition team said in a statement.

Trump picks Robert Lighthizer as US trade representative / by Susan Crabtree, Kyle Feldscher, 3 January 2017

Trump chooses protectionist-leaning trade representative / Shawn Donnan, FT.com, 3 January 2017
‘Appointment of Robert Lighthizer signals expected shift in US trade policy.’

Think Tank and Newspaper comments on Trade Policy

Trump’s quick ‘deal’ demands could unravel NAFTA / Oxfore Analytica, 23 January 2017
‘Washington’s demands for quick concessions from Canada and Mexico clash with the realities of trade negotiations.’

Fate of free trade depends on the whims of Donald Trump / Alan Beattie, FT.com, 17 January 2017
The US president-elect has bought into the idea that the global economy is a zero-sum game

The Economic Case for Preserving PPD-28 and Privacy Shield / Cameron Kerry, Alan Charles Raul, Lawfareblog, 17 January 2017
As the new administration takes office this week, we will start to see just how literally to take Donald Trump’s pronouncements and the promised targeting of his predecessor’s executive orders for immediate destruction. Trade policy appointments signal that statements about being aggressive against barriers to trade should be taken very literally.

Border Tax Adjustments: Assessing Risks and Rewards / Gary Clyde Hufbauer (PIIE) and Zhiyao (Lucy) Lu (PIIE Policy Brief 17-3, Peterson Institute for International Economics, January 2017
‘Border tax adjustments will be hotly debated as a key feature of the cash flow tax proposed in the Ryan/Brady Blueprint. This Policy Brief examined border tax adjustments from the perspective of their compatibility with WTO rules, their possible impact on the dollar exchange rate, and the resulting effects on tax incidence brought by exchange rate movements. All aspects defy dogmatic predictions. The Trump administration and Congress will need to evaluate BTAs from different angles, realizing that decisions taken will carry the US economy into uncertain terrain.’

Trump and Trade on the Cato Daily Podcast / By Caleb O. Brown; Cato Insitute, 13 January 2017
‘Daniel J. Ikenson and Daniel J. Mitchell discusses the backgrounds and new roles for Trump’s “protectionist triumvirate” of Wilbur Ross, Peter Navarro, and Robert Lighthizer.’

Trump’s trade policy: protecting American workers at the expense of American consumers / Dany Bahar, Brookings, 6 January 6 2017

As President, Trump Can Shackle Trade. But Will He? / Gary Clyde Hufbauer, PIIE Peterson Institute for International Economics, 5 January 2017
Summary of statutes available for presidential control of foreign commerce

How might China react to Trump on trade in 2017? Here are some of Beijing’s options / James Pethokoukis, American Enterprise Institute, 23 December 2016

Trump on Trade: A Few Cautions / Gary Clyde HufbauerPIIE Peterson Institute for International Economics, 30 November 2016

Trade Policy in a Trump Administration / Chad Bown, Peterson Institute for International Economics, 12 November 2017
He talked about President-elect Donald Trump’s campaign trade proposals and potential trade policy.

PIIE Analysis of Trump and Clinton Trade Proposals Finds Substantial Divergent Effects / Peterson Institute for International Economics, 19 September 2016
Donald J. Trump’s sweeping proposals on international trade, if implemented, could unleash a trade war that would plunge the US economy into recession and cost more than 4 million private sector American jobs, according to an empirical analysis of the two candidates’ trade agendas by the Peterson Institute for International Economics

China Is No Longer Manipulating Its Currency / C. Fred Bergsten (PIIE), Peterson Institute for International Economics, 5 January 2017
‘President-elect Donald J. Trump has vowed to label China a currency manipulator on his first day in office. That pledge is outdated as well as dubious legally. China did manipulate the renminbi from 2003 through 2014 in order to boost its exports and make imports more expensive. But China is no longer doing it. In fact, it is intervening to increase the value of the renminbi—an action that actually helps make US exporters more competitive. Labeling China a manipulator also has no legal impact.’

Source Article from https://epthinktank.eu/2017/01/25/comments-on-new-us-trade-policy/

US President Donald Trump [What Think Tanks are thinking]

Written by Marcin Grajewski,

Comments on future US Foreign and Trade Policies

© mars58 / Fotolia

Donald Trump has begun his four-year term as the US President by moving to deliver on some of his campaign promises, such on Obamacare, the Trans-Pacific Partnership Trade Agreement and the North American Free Trade Agreement. Analysts and politicians agree that the Trump presidency will have wide-ranging implications for trade, international relations and security.

This note offers links to recent commentaries and reports published by major international think tanks and other research centres on Trump’s presidency. Earlier analyse can be found in a previous edition of ‘What Think Tanks are thinking.’

Relations with Europe

Donald Trump: Europe’s ultimate wake-up call
Carnegie Europe, January 2017

Trump, Merkel and the Middle East: Cooperation needed
Bertelsmann Stiftung, January 2017

Trump and Europe: Dilemmas of discontinuity
European Council on Foreign Relations, January 2017

The Trump Presidency: What consequences will this have on Europe?
Fondation Robert Schuman, January 2017

Europe is bracing for the Trump  era
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Auswärtige Politik, January 2017

Trump’s foreign policy: Key areas for transatlantic partners to watch closely
Heinrich Böll Stiftung, January 2017

President Trump, the U.S. security guarantee, and the future of European integration
German Marshall Fund, January 2017

Les européens face à l’oncle Trump : Un risque et une opportunité
Jacques Delors Insitute, January 2017

Transatlantic survey: Europeans and Americans fearful of “Trump factor”: Survey
European Council on Foreign Relations, January 2017

Du Brexit au « trumpisme »: La voie étroite d’une défense européenne
Institut Thomas More, December 2016

Can Trump save the euro?
Centre for European Policy Studies, December 2016

EU defence, Brexit and Trump: The good, the bad and the ugly
Centre for European Reform, December 2016

Has Trump reshuffled the cards for Europe?
Egmont, November 2016

Security and international relations

The Trump doctrine: America first, America first
Bertelsmann Stiftung, January 2017

Trump’s defense budget:  Place your bet!
Center for Strategic and International Studies, January 2017

Superpartner: A US strategy for a complex world
Atlantic Council, January 2017

Seven Trump foreign policy assumptions
Brookings Institution, January 2017

Trump and Asia watch
Brookings Institution, January 2017

Trump’s troubling bilateralism
Carnegie Europe, January 2017

The national security hole at the heart of the Trump transition
Council on Foreign Relations, January 2017

Trump is going to regret not having a grand strategy
Council on Foreign Relations, January 2017

America’s international role under Donald Trump
Chatham House, January 2017

Strategic choices for a turbulent world
Rand, January 2017

Foreign policy under the Trump administration: Starting point
Polish Institute of International Affairs, January 2017

A Trump-Putin summit? Bring it on
European Council on Foreign Relations, January 2017

Trump and strategic change in Asia
Australian Strategic Policy Institute, January 2017

Trumpian isolationism could help China become a leader in international law
Chatham House, January 2017

Eroding U.S. deterrence
Carnegie Europe, January 2017

Trump, Israel, and the American Jewish community
Institute for National Security Studies, January 2017

Trump in der neuen Weltunordnung
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Auswärtige Politik, January 2017

What’s next for NATO’s capabilities?
Instituto Affari Internazionali, December 2016

Lost in transition? US foreign policy from Obama to Trump
European Policy Centre, December 2016

Will Trump cut a deal with Putin?
Fundacion Real Instituto Elcano, December 2016

What will Trump’s Presidency mean for NATO?
Friends of Europe, December 2016

The Arctic and a Trump administration yet to come
Norwegian Institute of International Affairs, December 2016

President Trump and international relations
Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, November 2016

Trade and economics

Trump’s recipe for a trade war
Peterson Institute for International Economics, January 2017

President Trump fulfills Day 1 promise to abandon TPP
Center for Strategic and International Studies, January 2017

Trump’s plans create three major risks for US monetary policy
Chatham House, January 2017

Manufacturing in the US: Will Trump’s strategy repatriate highly-paid jobs?
Bruegel, January 2017

What did confirmation hearings tell us about Trump’s priorities on climate change?
World Resources Institute, January 2017

Can Trump fulfill the tax-reform promise?
Peterson Institute for International Economics, January 2017

What will happen to U.S. trade policy when Trump runs the zoo?
European Centre for International Political Economy, December 2016

The outlook for energy under a Trump Administration
Atlantic Council, January 2017

Climate policy in 2025: Following eight years of Trump in the White House
Centre for European Policy Studies, December 2016

Other reports

Unravelling the Obamacare mandate
American Enterprise Institute, January 2017

Confirming Team Trump
Brookings Institution, January 2017

Presidential transition 2017
Hudson Institute, January 2017

Preparing the next president
Center for New American Security, January 2017

Spies, lies and the US president-elect
International Institute for Strategic Studies, January 2017

Preserving international justice in the age of Donald Trump
Center for American Progress, January 2017

Hey Washington experts:  Don’t roll your eyes over Trump, roll up your sleeves
Rand, January 2017

What does the world expect of President Donald Trump?
Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, December 2016

The American dream
Bruegel, December 2016

Source Article from https://epthinktank.eu/2017/01/25/us-president-donald-trump-what-think-tanks-are-thinking/

Protection from dumped and subsidised imports [EU Legislation in Progress]

Written by Gisela Grieger (1st edition),

China Export Concept. Shipping Container with China Flag. 3d Ren

© doomu / Fotolia

On 9 November 2016, the European Commission published a proposal for targeted changes to the EU anti-dumping and anti-subsidy regulations. The proposal is a response to the expiry of parts of China’s WTO accession protocol in December 2016 and to unfair trade practices from third countries. At the core of the amendments of the anti-dumping regulation is the use for WTO members of prices derived from constructed values in situations where there are ‘substantial market distortions’ in the country of export under investigation. This approach would replace the ‘analogue country methodology’ which is currently applied to non-market economies (NMEs) under EU law and would remain in place for non-WTO members. The amendments to the anti-subsidy regulation would insert due process and transparency provisions required to capture subsidies identified only in the course of anti-subsidy probes.

Versions

Percentage of AD probes in which IT and MET were granted to at least one firm per initiation year

Percentage of AD probes in which IT and MET were granted to at least one firm per initiation year

Source Article from https://epthinktank.eu/2017/01/25/protection-from-dumped-and-subsidised-imports-eu-legislation-in-progress/