Fair, competitive and resilient: EU responds to globalisation

The blog post Reflection paper on globalisation: Opportunity or threat?, which  introduced the European Commission’s reflection paper on harnessing globalisation COM(2017) 240, left me with a desire to present the reasons of the Commission and how it wants to handle the internal and external pressures of globalisation, as part of the discussion about the future of Europe - #FutureOfEurope on Twitter.

Profound changes

We may be well or ill prepared, but profound changes await us. As the EU Commission writes about our interconnected future (page 11):

We are still in the early phase of the transformation where digitalisation, robots, artificial intelligence, the internet of things, 3D printing will revolutionise how we produce, work, move and consume.

The UK and the USA have both upset long traditions of integration, European and global. China increasingly acts like an economic and a military great power, but not based on the values of democracy, human rights and the rule of law many of us believed were becoming universal.

In the emerging tri-polar (or multipolar?) world, the relative weight of Europe in world affairs continues to decrease, to say nothing about the dwindling relative size of individual EU member states (page 12):

In 2025, 61% of the world's 8 billion-population will be in Asia, predominantly in China and India. Europe's relative share of the world population will decline, with the EU27 accounting for 5.5 %. This may bring about a multipolar world order with different political, technological, economic and military powers. But it also means large new markets for European companies.

Isolationism and protectionism - closing minds and borders, building physical and mental walls, creating obstacles to trade and investment - may entice individuals, communities, regions and countries feeling left behind, but the relief is shortlived (page 14):

Changes associated with globalisation can lead to calls for countries to isolate and insulate themselves from what is happening around them. This is particularly acute in regions that have been left behind. Some want to put up barriers and close borders.  

---

However, a majority of European citizens recognise that protectionism does not protect. It may provide short-term relief, but history shows that it never had lasting success, and has often led to disastrous outcomes.

---

Protectionism would disrupt production and increase costs and prices for consumers. European exports would become less competitive putting even more jobs at risk. An increase in trade restrictions by 10% is estimated to lead to a 4% loss of national income. We would lose access to new products, services, technologies and ideas. By hitting the poorest hardest with price increases, protectionism would have the opposite of its desired effect.

Harnessing globalisation

In a nutshell, for the sake of the citizens of Europe and the world, the Commission sketches the road to follow (page 14):

To better harness globalisation, we need more global governance and global rules. And we need to support that with domestic policies that boost our competitiveness and resilience at home.

Chapter 3 about the EU’s external response is dedicated to promoting a fairer international economic order (pages 15-18). Chapter 4 deals with the internal response of the EU: how to enhance innovation and competitiveness, as well as to bolster the resilience of those who otherwise fall behind (pages 19-23).

The thoughts about life-long learning and active labour market and social policies are closely related to the future of Europe reflection paper on the social dimension, the European pillar of social rights to be proclaimed and the Social Summit for Fair Jobs and Growth the coming week, 17 November 2017 in Gothenburg (Sweden). - For more information you can follow #SocialRights and #SocialSummit17 on Twitter.

EU level action

Individuals and firms make their own choices in a changing world, but the reflection paper is about how the political sphere should tackle globalisation. There are challenges for each political level - local, regional, member state and EU - as summarised on page 24.

Here we are interested primarily in a sketch of how the EU institutions should should invest their time and energy regarding globalisation:

• Trade agreements to open markets and enforce level-playing field
• Measures to ensure global tax justice and transparency
• Promotion of higher global regulatory standards
• Trade Defence Mechanism
• European Budget (such as EFSI, ESIF, GAF, Horizon)
• European External Investment Plan
• Development Assistance
• Product and Food Safety  

If this succeeds in inviting blog followers to read about the EU’s external and internal responses to globalisation - fair, competitive and resilient - it may be better to continue with the expert assessments I promised in a separate blog post.

Ralf Grahn

Progress on the European Commission’s ten priorities

After our customary pit stop on the European Commission’s State of the Union 2017 web page,  the Commission State of the Union 2017 brochure (108 pages) continues on page 35 with a section Progress on the European Commission’s 10 priorities.

Starting from the 2014 political guidelines for the Commission - with the ten priorities presented in detail in the booklet A New Start for Europe - the SOTEU 2017 brochure dedicates two pages or more to each priority in a readable mix for an educated  general reader (or participant at a citizens’ dialogue) about statistical fact, legislative progress, individual examples, next steps and potential benefits.

This means that on more than twenty pages in all (pages 35 to 59, to be exact), there is more context and detail (and support for arguments) than the Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker was able to highlight during his hour-long state of the union address.

Since I am not going into each Commission priority in this blog post, here is a reminder of what they are at headline level:

1. A new boost for jobs, growth and investment

2. A connected digital single market

3. A resilient energy union with a forward-looking climate change policy

4. A deeper and fairer internal market with a strengthened industrial base

5. A deeper and fairer economic and monetary union (EMU)

6. A balanced and progressive trade policy to harness globalisation [renamed and updated]

7. An area of justice and fundamental rights based on mutual trust

8. Towards a new policy on migration

9. Europe as a stronger global actor

10. A union of democratic change

Trade and investment   

Circumstances have changed for the sixth priority, leading to a new title and revised content. The headline A Reasonable and Balanced Free Trade Agreement with the U.S. reflected the expectations of a groundbreaking Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP).

Since the TTIP negotiations are on hold during the new US administration, this has liberated Commission resources to pursue and initiate (separate) free and fair trade deals and investment agreements with other important trading partners, while conducting negotiations in a more transparent manner. Besides, the Commission has moved towards a more protective (or protectionist) mould for trade policy, labeled as ‘not naïve’. The latest proposals were published the day after the SOTEU address. See IP/17/3182 and  IP/17/3183, the launch of trade negotiations with Australia and New Zealand, as well as other links in the press releases.    

Worthwhile summary

The SOTEU brochure section Progress on the European Commission’s 10 priorities is a worthwhile summary of progress in various areas for an educated public interested in EU affairs.

For professionals interested in more exact references to legislative processes, I would recommend the EPRS publication presented in the blog post European Commission priorities at mid-term. Even more detailed, if we consult the background documentation (print versions), is the European Parliament’s Legislative train schedule, last updated to the end of June 2017.

Naturally, outside perspectives and independent views are necessary in order to evaluate gaps between wishes and realities, between gloss and gaps. In a 16 September 2017 post, The State of the Union [What Think Tanks Are Thinking], the European Parliamentary Research Service Blog has compiled titles and links to more than fifty papers from research institutes and organisations since April 2017.

After the state of the union speech, we can expect more activity with a specific SOTEU focus from think tanks, organisations and individual writers. Thus, a new and hopefully thematic compilation from the EPRS soon would be welcome.

SOTEU brochure in progress  

Having come this far, we might as well remind ourselves what the remaining part of the State of the Union 2017 brochure promises to deal with:

Better Regulation

Delivering on What the EU Promised: Enforcing More Effectively Our Joint Decisions

The State of Public Opinion in the EU

Progress in the Economic Situation

Policy Implementation Report

The European Solidarity Corps: One Year on

Visits to national Parliaments

Citizens’ Dialogues

Letter on the Roadmap for a More United, Stronger and a More Democratic Union   

We continue the presentations in future blog posts.

Ralf Grahn

EU trade ministers communicating ACTA

The trade ministers met in the EU Foreign Affairs Council (FAC) 16 March 2012 (agenda). According to the background note:

Under “any other business” the Council will be briefed on the situation regarding the signature and ratification of the anti-counterfeiting trade agreement (ACTA) between the EU and Australia, Canada, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, Switzerland and the United States.

ACTA is aimed at establishing an international framework for improving the enforcement of intellectual property right laws and creating improved international standards for actions against large-scale infringements of intellectual property. Negotiations were concluded in November 2010.

We know that few issues have engaged as many EU citizens as intensely as the anti-piracy treaty ACTA, so we want to share with the public what Mr Didier REYNDERS, Mr Ivo MARINOV, Mr Martin TLAPA, Ms Pia Olsen DYHR, Ms Anne Ruth HERKES, Mr Matti MAASIKAS, Mr Rory MONTGOMERY, Mr Ioannis DRIMOUSSIS, Mr Konstantinos PAPADOPOULOS, Mr Jaime GARCÍA-LEGAZ PONCE, Mr Pierre LELLOUCHE, Mr Ferdinando NELLI FEROCI, Ms Praxoula ANTONIADOU-KYRIACOU, Mr Daniels PAVĻUTS, Mr Egidijus MEILŪNAS, Mr Christian BRAUN, Mr Péter GYÖRKÖS, Mr Tonio FENECH, Mr Henk BLEKER, Mr Walter GRAHAMMER, Mr. Andrzej DYCHA, Mr Miguel MORAIS LEITÃO, Mr Mihnea MOTOC, Mr Rado GENORIO, Mr Peter JAVORČÍK, Mr Jan STORE, Ms Ewa BJÖRLING and Mr Norman LAMB were able to come up with together with the commissioner, Mr Karel DE GUCHT, in order to enlighten the people:

The Council took stock of the situation regarding the signature and ratification of the anti-counterfeiting trade agreement (ACTA) between the EU and Australia, Canada, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, Switzerland and the United States.

ACTA establishes an international framework for improving the enforcement of intellectual property right laws and creating improved international standards for actions against large-scale infringements of intellectual property. Negotiations were concluded in November 2010 and the agreement was signed by the EU and 22 member states in Tokyo on 26 January 2012.

On 22 February, the Commission decided to refer ACTA to the Court of Justice to verify its compatibility with the EU treaties and in particular with the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Quite enlightening!



Ralf Grahn
public speaker on EU affairs

P.S. The multilingual Bloggingportal.eu already aggregates the posts from 941 Euroblogs. They represent an important part of the emerging European online public space, discussion across national and linguistic borders. One of the most promising fresh entrants is the LSE European Politics and Policy EUROPP blog, where Ronny Patz recently wrote about the EU blogosphere and called for more specialists and academics to widen the debate closer to real life.

Among the Euroblogs on Bloggingportal.eu you find my current blog trio, Grahnlaw (recently ranked fourth among political blogs in Finland), the Nordic Grahnblawg (written in Swedish) and Eurooppaoikeus (meaning European Law, in Finnish). I write and speak about democracy and openness in the European Union, but increasingly about the challenges of growth (EU2020) and the (digital) single market in the making.

EU customs enforcement of intellectual property rights

The digital agenda and the intellectual property agenda of the EU are closely related.

On 24 May 2011, the same day the European Commission published its strategy paper A Single Market for Intelletual Property Rights COM(2011) 287, it also proposed new measures to toughen the control at the borders of the customs union.

For an overview, you can read MEMO/11/327 Customs enforcement of intellectual property rights – Frequently Asked Questions.


COM(2011) 285

The detailed proposal for a new regulation in English (pdf):

Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL concerning customs enforcement of intellectual property rights; Brussels, 24.5.2011 COM(2011) 285 final (32 pages)

This legislative proposal is available in all 23 official EU languages.

The Commission offers the following reasons for tightening the rules of IPR enforcement at the customs borders (page 1):

IPR infringements and the resulting trade in infringing goods are of growing concern, particularly in a globalised economy. In addition to the economic consequences for industry, the infringing products may pose serious health and safety risks to consumers. In its Communication on a Single Market Act [COM(2011) 206], the Commission therefore recalled that customs authorities should be able to provide greater protection for intellectual-property rights through revised legislation.

One thing the ACTA debate has demonstrated, is how the external and internal aspects of IPR protection are communicating vessels. The Commission clearly spells out the relationship (page 2):

The proposal is in line with the Union’s longstanding policy and strategy on the protection of IPR. This policy has been reflected in several Communications from the Commission, such as Europe 2020 and the Communication on a Single Market Act [COM(2010) 608]. Protection of intellectual property stimulates innovation and effective enforcement has a positive impact on employment, consumers and society as a whole.

The border enforcement of IPR by customs complements enforcement on the internal market, as well trade initiatives with third countries and in international fora. The proposal is an integral part of the strategic framework outlined in the new Communication from the Commission on a Single Market for Intellectual Property Rights of [24 May 2011, COM(2011) 287].

With regard to the legal basis, the Commission reasoned (page 3):

The Regulation concerns the commercial aspects of intellectual property rights in that it deals with measures enabling customs to enforce intellectual property rights at the border on goods that are internationally traded. Article 3(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union provides exclusive competence on the European Union in the area of common commercial policy.

The new regulation is intended to repeal and replace the existing Council regulation No 1383/2003.

Among the proposed novelties meant to introduce new restrictions (page 4):

In order to strengthen enforcement, it is proposed to broaden the scope covered by Regulation (EC) No 1383/2003, by including trade names, topographies of semiconductor products and utility models. It is also proposed to widen the scope of the Regulation by including infringements resulting from parallel trade and devices to circumvent technological measures, as well as other infringements of rights already enforced by customs.

In some cases counterfeit or pirated goods could be more easily destroyed than currently. Small consignments are dealt with in this context, but with a specific light procedure.

The scope of intellectual property rights is also widened.

All in all, the directly applicable new regulation, with 37 Articles, is described as a ”more robust enforcement tool”.

***

We are going to return to the legislative procedure for the proposed regulation in later blog posts.



Ralf Grahn
speaker on EU affairs, especially digital policy and law

P.S. 1: For better or for worse, between the global issues and the national level, the European Union shapes our digital future and online freedoms. More than 900 euroblogs are aggregated by multilingual Bloggingportal.eu. Is your blog already listed among them? Are you following the debates which matter for your future?

P.S. 2: The @Avaaz petition for the European Parliament (and the national parliaments) to reject #ACTA has already been signed by 2,341,157 netizens, but more are welcome until the anti-piracy treaty has been officially buried.

De Gucht merits ACTA rejection

We learn, although not from the website of Karel De Gucht, but from La Quadrature du Net, that the EU trade commissioner has written a letter to the members of the Committee on International Trade (INTA) in the European Parliament, accusing civil society campaigners against ACTA of misinformation or misrepresentation and telling the the MEPs why ACTA is such a great achievement (plus 10 myths about ACTA and ACTA arguments 25.01.2012 to give them courage).

No bridge-building from a belligerent De Gucht. A mixture of irritation and arrogance is perhaps the best description of how the trade commissioner views the worries and resistance from the citizens he is supposed to serve.

This has been the attitude from the beginning, and it looks like the way it is going to continue.

De Gucht speaks about the netizens, but not with them. They are wrong or worse. Period. He expects the European Parliament to do its duty by giving its consent to the Anti-Counterfeiting (and much else) Trade Agreement.

Indeed, many wild assertions have been made about ACTA, but the propaganda bulldozer demonstrates an astonishing lack of sensitivity and understanding of legitimacy.

On these grounds alone, ACTA needs to fail.



Ralf Grahn

P.S. Between global issues and the national level, the European Union shapes our digital future and freedoms. Multilingual Bloggingportal.eu aggregates the new posts from more than 900 euroblogs – for you.

ACTA in European Parliament committees: International Trade and Development

Yesterday I offered some information about the state of ACTA in the institutions of the European Union: ACTA update (in part). Now for some complementary information.


INTA

The Committee on International Trade (INTA) is the responsible committee in the European Parliament.

The INTA minutes 20 December 2011 (INTA_PV(2011)1220_1) offer us this decision by the coordinators (page 2/13) about the EP timetable during the committee stage:

- To ask the INTA rapporteur for ACTA to fix the timetable so that the first exchange of views takes place in February and the vote in committee takes place in April or May 2012.

The draft agenda for the INTA meeting 25 and 26 January 2012 makes no specific additions regarding ACTA.


DEVE

According to the draft agenda (item 6), the Committee on Development (DEVE) 24 and 25 January 2012 is going to have an exchange of views Tuesday about the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement between the EU and its Member States, Australia, Canada, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, Switzerland and the USA (procedure 2011/0167(NLE), based on COM(2011)0380).

While INTA is the committee responsible (Kader Arif S&D rapporteur), the rapporteur for the DEVE opinion is Jan Zahradil (ECR).

The DEVE draft opinion PA – PE478.666v01-00, dated 6 January 2012, is strongly supportive of measures to protect intellectual property and welcomes the conclusion of ACTA, commending the Commission for ”having ensured that ACTA provisions comply with the Union acquis and that nothing in ACTA contradicts the obligations between parties under existing agreements, including the TRIPS Agreement”.

After four paragraphs of vigorous endorsement (and one other), the last two paragraphs of the DEVE draft fittingly note development concerns regarding the legitimate trade in generic medicines and access to medicines.


Update 23 January 2012: La Quadrature du Net has now blogged about ACTA in the European Parliament both in English and in French.

Update 2, 23 January 2012: European Digital Rights (EDRi) has published a critical assessment of the (DEVE committee) draft opinion regarding ACTA.


Ralf Grahn

ACTA update (in part)

In October 2011 I wrote a blog post Greens challenge ACTA legality. The two proposals from the Commission (DG Trade) had been published in June. They are:

Proposal for a COUNCIL DECISION on the signing, on behalf of the European Union of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, Australia, Canada, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the United Mexican States, the Kingdom of Morocco, New Zealand, the Republic of Singapore, the Swiss Confederation and the United States of America; Brussels, 24.6.2011 COM(2011) 379 final; procedure 2011/0166 (NLE)

Proposal for a COUNCIL DECISION on the conclusion of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, Australia, Canada, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the United Mexican States, the Kingdom of Morocco, New Zealand, the Republic of Singapore, the Swiss Confederation and the United States of America; Brussels, 24.6.2011 COM(2011) 380 final; procedure 2011/0167 (NLE)

COM(2011) 380 is available in 22 official EU languages. Thus, the text of the annexed agreement is available in most of the European languages.


Formal adoption


As an 'A item', without discussion, the Council (Agriculture and Fisheries, 15 December 2011) adopted a decision to authorise the signing of ACTA:

3137th Council meeting Agriculture and Fisheries; Brussels, 15-16 December 2011 (document 18708/11)

You find the text on page 43, under the headline TRADE POLICY:

Anti-counterfeiting trade agreement

The Council adopted a decision authorising the signing of an anti-counterfeiting trade agreement (ACTA) with Australia, Canada, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, Switzerland and the United States.

ACTA is aimed at establishing an international framework to improve the enforcement of intellectual property right laws and create improved international standards for actions against large-scale infringements of intellectual property. Negotiations were concluded in November 2010.

According to the Legislative Observatory Oeil, the issue of approval of ACTA by the European Parliament is still at a preparatory stage (although for a while the Oeil and committee pages have been impossible to access).



Ralf Grahn

European Union versus SOPA and Protect IP Act?

The European Parliament took a stand against the controversial Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) bill debated in the US House of Representatives and its sister, the Protect IP Act (Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act of 2011) discussed in the Senate.

Both bills raise serious concerns regarding the integrity of the internet as well as for service providers and businesses, not only in the United States, but globally.

How about the other EU institutions?

Here are the results of a quick search for public EU materials through the EEAS web pages.


European External Action Service EEAS

We start from the country page for the United States of America at the European External Action Service EEAS, where we find no specific item dedicated to the issue. However, there is material about the recent summit between the European Union and the United States of America.


EU-US summit

We take a closer look at the recent EU-US summit, 28 November 2011. Did the president of the European Council Herman Van Rompuy and the president of the European Commission José Manuel Barroso, the high representative Catherine Ashton or trade commissioner Karel De Gucht raise issues related to the internet in their discussions with president Barack Obama and secretary of state Hillary Clinton?

In the EU-US Summit Joint statement, Washington, 28 November 2011 (document 17805/11), paragraph 4 mentioned the work of the Transatlantic Economic Council (TEC), underlining the need to avoid unnecessary divergence in regulations and standards affecting trade, but also highlighting the the efforts to protect intellectual property rights (IPR):

4. We applaud the success of the Transatlantic Economic Council (TEC) on a wide range of issues and welcome the progress achieved in secure trade and supply chain security, electric vehicles and related infrastructure, regulatory practices, small and medium-sized enterprises, and in the Information Communications Technology (ICT) sector. We encourage the TEC’s continued leadership in helping us avoid unnecessary divergence in regulations and standards that adversely affects trade. We urge the TEC, together with our regulators and standard-setters to step up co-operation in key sectors such as nanotechnology and raw materials to develop compatible approaches to emerging technologies. We also instruct the TEC to pursue its work on strategic economic questions, not least in the field of investment, innovation policy, and the protection of intellectual property rights to level the playing field for our companies in third countries, in particular emerging economies.

The leaders did pay respect to an undivided global internet, before plunging into the security-driven concrete agenda, in paragraph 22:

22. We share a commitment to a single, global Internet, and will resist unilateral efforts to weaken the security, reliability, or independence of its operations — recognizing that respect for fundamental freedoms online, and joint efforts to strengthen security, are mutually reinforcing. We welcome the progress made by the EU-U.S. Working Group on Cyber-security and Cyber-crime, notably the successful Cyber Atlantic 2011 exercise. We endorse its ambitious goals for 2012, including combating online sexual abuse of children; enhancing the security of domain names and Internet Protocol addresses; promotion of international ratification, including by all EU Member States, of the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime ideally by year’s end; establishing appropriate information exchange mechanisms to jointly engage with the private sector; and confronting the unfair market access barriers that European and U.S. technology companies face abroad.

The mandate of the new TEC high level working group on jobs and growth includes regulatory issues affecting trade (press release MEMO/11/843). Thus, it could be a forum for the prevention of new barriers.


Transatlantic Economic Council TEC

The Commission's DG Trade provides an overview of the meeting of the Transatlantic Economic Council TEC, i.a.:

Information and Communication Technology: The EU and US reviewed the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) trade related principles which were agreed earlier this year and discussed ways of promoting the implementation of these principles within their bilateral economic relationship and in their trade negotiations with third countries. (IP/11/402)

The press release IP/11/402 notes the agreement on a set of ten fundamental principles for trade in information and communication technology (ICT) services, bilaterally and in order to open up markets for EU and US companies worldwide.

Logically, bilateral and globally propagated standards for information and communication technology (ICT) should exclude the creation of unilateral barriers, although the agreed principles come equipped with a caveat, far from clear in scope:

The EU-US Trade Principles for ICT Services have been agreed on a best endeavour basis and do not affect the rights of the EU or the US to maintain their respective policy approaches to the protection of intellectual property, privacy and personal data and the enhancement of cultural diversity.

The two-page document adds that financial services (one of the SOPA concerns) are excluded from the scope:

European Union-United States Trade Principles for Information and Communication Technology Services (4 April 2011)

The ten principles are briefly defined. Many of them could be affected by the SOPA and Protect IP bills.


Security and intellectual property or fundamental rights?

TFTP, ACTA, PNR... the list of invasive treaties problematic with regard to fundamental rights in the EU has grown.

The summit declaration and the TEC principles contain a few vague pointers, but what if the legislative powers in the USA decide to go even further than the executive, which works hard enough as it is to export its agendas on internet security and protection of intellectual property?

What have the EU institutions said and done? Where do they stand on freedoms and rights?



Ralf Grahn

Greens challenge ACTA legality

The European Commission has made two connected ACTA proposals:

Proposal for a COUNCIL DECISION on the signing, on behalf of the European Union of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, Australia, Canada, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the United Mexican States, the Kingdom of Morocco, New Zealand, the Republic of Singapore, the Swiss Confederation and the United States of America; Brussels, 24.6.2011 COM(2011) 379 final

Proposal for a COUNCIL DECISION on the conclusion of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, Australia, Canada, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the United Mexican States, the Kingdom of Morocco, New Zealand, the Republic of Singapore, the Swiss Confederation and the United States of America; Brussels, 24.6.2011 COM(2011) 380 final

The Council needs the consent of the European Parliament before the conclusion of the the agreement. See Article 218(6)(a)(v) TFEU. You can follow the procedure on Oeil, the Legislative Observatory of the EP, under the reference 2011/0167 (NLE).


Commission asserts

The European Commission knows that the less than open negotiating process leading to ACTA increased mistrust in many quarters. Some of the issues and proposals discussed during the negotiations have been criticised on Constitutional and civil rights grounds, as well as for being slanted in favour of big business interests – holders of intellectual property rights (IPR) - against the wider public (citizens, consumers, other users).

In the superficial and brief explanatory memorandum, which seems to be identical in the signing and the conslusion proposals, the Commission tries to sell the benefits of stricter IPR enforcement in international trade. It also makes assertions intended to eliminate obstacles, calm doubts and to promote the smooth passage of the proposal. Here a few picks:

* ACTA does not modify the EU acquis, because EU law is already considerably more advanced than the current international standards

* ACTA is a balanced agreement, because it fully respects the rights of citizens and the concerns of important stakeholders such as consumers, internet providers and partners in developing countries

* It has never been the intention, as regards the negotiation of ACTA to modify the EU acquis or to harmonise EU legislation as regards criminal enforcement of intellectual property rights

Fundamental Rights

The Green group in the European Parliament has constantly scrutinised supposedly illiberal proposals from the Commission or member states in relation to the digital environment and the Internet.

This time the Greens/EFA have commissioned a legal study of the compatibility of ACTA with civil rights. The press release offers the conclusions in a nutshell: New study underlines rights concerns with ACTA, strengthens calls for deal to be scrapped.

Yesterday, the Green MEP Jan Philipp Albrecht said that the ACTA agreement violates binding fundamental rights, and that the EU and its member states have a duty to scrap the ACTA agreement as it stands.

Those who are interested in the individual arguments, can read the full study, or at least the Summary and Conclusions (page 58-61):

Douwe Korff & Ian Brown: OPINION on the compatibility of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) with the European Convention on Human Rights & the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights

The experts conclude:

Our analysis shows that ACTA, as currently drafted, seriously threatens fundamental rights in the EU and in other countries, at various levels.

***

The assertions by the European Commission are not enough. The European Parliament and national parliaments need to look closely at the legal implications of ACTA, however keen they might be to promote the interests of IPR holders in international trade and the internal market.



Ralf Grahn

IPR protection: ACTA opinions USA and EU

After the signing ceremony blog post ACTA signed – EU deaf-mute and arguments by proponents in IPR protection in world trade: ACTA signed, we turn to recent and varied opinions about the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) and the quest for more stringent protection of intellectual property rights (IPR) in international trade.


Information Society Project

Margot has posted a note on the Information Society Project at Yale Law School, wondering if ACTA is unconstitutional in the United States as a Sole Executive Agreement.

The post links to four articles, among which Infojustice.org and Techdirt are the most recent ones.


Infojustice.org

Sean Flynn, on Infojustice.org, discusses the Constitutional problem in the USA. Can ACTA be implemented by the executive, or does it need approval by Congress? The post links to a number of articles arguing the need for Congressional consent and doubting if the ACTA provisions are consistent with US law.

The post also discusses potential approval or ratification problems in the European Union and Mexico, with links to detailed opinions and sources.


Techdirt

Ahead of the signing ceremony, Techdirt ran a story with links to a number of articles regarding Constitutional concerns in the United States and EU views corroborating that ACTA is an international treaty. According to the article, intellectual property is clearly a Congressional issue.


USTR

Official US views are expressed by the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR), which was diligent enough to post three news items during the weekend.

Partners Sign Groundbreaking Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, with a link to the USTR ACTA ”fact sheet”

ACTA: Meeting U.S. Objectives

Joint Press Statement of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement Negotiating Parties

Due to the lack of recent active information from EU institutions and services, the USTR serves European and other readers as well:

Representatives of the European Union, Mexico, and Switzerland attended the ceremony and confirmed their continuing strong support for and preparations to sign the Agreement as soon as practicable. All participants expressed their firm resolve to work cooperatively to achieve the Agreement’s prompt entry into force, and to support actively its goals.

Ralf Grahn

ACTA signed – EU deaf-mute

According to The Mainichi Daily News the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) was signed today, Saturday 1 October 2011, at the Iikura Guest House in Tokyo, by most of the eleven international partners.

Through the web pages of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan (MOFA) we find the text of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) (May, 2011; 24 pages)

According to MOFA, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) was opened for signature on 1 May 2011.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan had announced that it will hold the signing ceremony for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) on Saturday, 1 October 2011, at Iikura Guest House, Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Ahead of the ceremony MOFA reminded that:

The negotiation has been carried out among Australia, Canada, the European Union and its Member States, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, Switzerland, and the United States, and reached a general agreement at the negotiation meeting held in Japan in October 2010, followed by the completion of technical and translation work in April 2011.

The signing ceremony will be attended by the representatives of all the participants in the ACTA negotiations, and those that have completed relevant domestic processes will sign the agreement. The agreement is open for signature until May 1, 2013.

European Union

Even if the European Union was only to attend the signing ceremony, not yet to sign ACTA, I would have expected the European Commission's DG Trade, trade commissioner Karel De Gucht, the European External Action Service (EEAS), the Delegation of the European Union to Japan and the Council of the European Union to be sensitive enough to inform the public about the controversial agreement and the next steps ahead of the event in a visible and active manner.

Nada.



Ralf Grahn

European Parliament: Caspary and De Gucht debated new trade policy for Europe (EU2020)

You can now read the 27 September 2011 debate about the new trade policy for Europe under the Europe 2020 strategy (item 4), posted by the European Parliament in the original languages of the speakers.

We look at some of the main points made by two of the protagonists, the EP rapporteur Daniel Caspary and the trade commissioner Karel De Gucht.


Daniel Caspary, INTA rapporteur

The report from the EP Committee on International Trade INTA was highly critical of the communication COM(2010) 612. The rapporteur, Daniel Caspary, criticised the Commission for the lack of a rigorous analysis of the profound changes taking place in world trade and for failing to present a medium and long term strategy based on these developments.

The starting point for the EP own-initiative report was the trade policy communication from the Commission:

Trade, Growth and World Affairs: Trade Policy as a core component of the EU's 2020 strategy; Brussels, 9.11.2010 COM(2010) 612 final


Karel De Gucht, trade commissioner

The trade commissioner Karel De Gucht found the criticism unwarranted. In addition to the communication, he referred to the two Commission staff documents, which accompanied the communication:

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT: Report on progress achieved on the Global Europe strategy, 2006-2010; Brussels, 9.11.2010 SEC(2010) 1268 final (23 pages)

An assessment of the Global Europe Strategy adopted by the Commission in 2006, according to De Gucht.

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT: Trade as a driver of prosperity; Brussels, 9.11.2010 SEC(2010) 1269 final (71 pages)

Rigorous economic analysis as well as available long-term forecasts, according to De Gucht.

Commissioner De Gucht reminded listeners that 36 million jobs in the EU depend on our external trade. He argued that the Commission's new trade policy can generate EUR 150 billion every year, and more jobs at the same time.

De Gucht offered a brief overview of ongoing negotiations for free trade agreements (FTAs), multilateralism (WTO Doha, including the Least Developed Countries), access to public procurement markets, trade and investment barriers, access to raw materials and energy supplies and trade defence measures (anti-dumping and anti-subsidy).



Ralf Grahn

EP wants new trade strategy for Europe under EU2020

The press service of the European Parliament tells us the Result of votes Tuesday 27 September 2011.

We see that the INTA report, prepared by Daniel Caspary (EPP, DE), on a New trade policy for Europe under the Europe 2020 strategy (A7-0255/2011; procedure INI/2010/2152) was adopted by 526 votes in favour to 108 against with 9 abstentions.


EP accuses Commission of lack of trade strategy

The report from the EP Committee on International Trade INTA was highly critical of the communication COM(2010) 612:

Trade, Growth and World Affairs: Trade Policy as a core component of the EU's 2020 strategy; Brussels, 9.11.2010 COM(2010) 612 final

In the proposed resolution INTA did not mince its words, when it accused the Commission of failing to come up with an EU strategy for international trade and when it asked for a new strategy by next summer:

Parliament expected to receive a real future trade strategy, which took account of mid- and long-term developments and did not build on the false assumption of a continuing status quo on the world trade stage

1.  Welcomes in general the triple objectives of Europe 2020 of smart, inclusive and sustainable growth and the Commission’s Communication ‘Trade, Growth and World Affairs’, and urges on the Commission to present a forward-looking and innovative future strategy on trade and investment taking into account the new challenges of the EU;

2.  Regrets that many targeted goals of the Global Europe Strategy have not been reached as yet and would have expected a more critical analysis of the Strategy with a view to a better understanding of certain failures to achieve;

3.  Insists that the Union needs a coherent long-term trade strategy in order to take account of the challenges ahead and in particular of the major emerging countries; insists that such a strategy should be based on a thorough analysis of the current trends in world trade, the Union’s internal and external development as well as the diversity of European enterprises, their know-how and their technological advances; regrets that the Communication fails to deliver a profound forecast of how the ‘world of trade’ could look in a policy-planning perspective of 15 to 20 years; considers that this review should establish the Commission’s ambitions for its bilateral trading relationships over this period including a distinct geographical strategy, for example through the creation of new agreements or targets for eliminating tariffs and non-tariff barriers with its major trading partners;

4.  Asks the Commission to deliver such a forecast as a basis and to present a revised mid-and long-term trade strategy by summer 2012, as the Communication on Trade Growth and World affairs fails to do so;

Ralf Grahn

EU trade policy review

After the blog entry EU trade ministers ponder comatose WTO Doha Development Round, followed by two posts in Swedish, Vill EU bryta dödläget i WTO:s Doharunda? and EU:s nya handelspolitik i Europa 2020-strategin, we leave the European Parliament debates for a while in order to explore the the basic documents for the common commercial policy of the European Union.


EU trade policy review

In November 2010 the Commission published the communication COM(2010) 612, available in 22 official EU languages. The English version:

Trade, Growth and World Affairs: Trade Policy as a core component of the EU's 2020 strategy; Brussels, 9.11.2010 COM(2010) 612 final (22 pages)

One of the two accompanying documents was an assessment of the EU's policy of international economic relations:

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT: Report on progress achieved on the Global Europe strategy, 2006-2010; Brussels, 9.11.2010 SEC(2010) 1268 final (23 pages)


Global Europe communication

In other words, the assessment concerned the 2006 communication Global Europe and subsequent actions:

GLOBAL EUROPE: COMPETING IN THE WORLD: A Contribution to the EU's Growth and Jobs Strategy; Brussels, 4.10.2006 COM(2006) 567 final (18 pages)


2010 lessons

The progress report SEC(2010) 1268 reviewed main trade policy actions until well into 2010, beyond the adoption of the Europe 2020 strategy (EU2020). Thus, the report can be read as fairly recent history of the EU's economic relations.

The Commission evaluated that (page 21):

Notwithstanding the progress made since 2006 in accomplishing the Global Europe agenda, important experiences have been acquired and lessons learned, which will feed into the EU’s future trade strategy.

Ralf Grahn


Addition 27 September 2011: Actually this series on trade started with a post in Finnish: EU:n kauppapolitiikka valokeilassa maanantaina 26.9.2011.

EU and Switzerland: Bilateral treaties and challenges

Since Switzerland is outside the European Union (EU) as well as the European Economic Area (EEA), the relations have been developed mainly on the basis of bilateral agreements. The Treaties Office of the European Commission’s DG External Relations offers access to the existing EU-Switzerland treaties, bilateral and multilateral, 175 in all.




DG Trade presents an overview of trade with Switzerland, noting that:

Switzerland's main trading partner is the EU. On the other hand, Switzerland is currently the fourth largest trading partner of the EU. Trade figures in 2008 show €80 billion in imports and €97.6 billion in exports. In terms of imports, Switzerland was the EU's 5th most important trading partner in 2008, after the US, China, Russia and Norway. Regarding exports, Switzerland was the 3rd after the US and Russia in the same period.

The presentation contains on overview of how the agreements have developed, including the Bilateral I package (in force from June 2002) and the Bilateral II package (signed in October 2004).




Among the 130 Commission Delegations and Offices, the European Union has a Delegation in Berne, Switzerland (for Liechtenstein as well). The New Year’s greeting (available in German, French and Italian) by the Head of Delegation Michael Reiterer is refreshingly free from empty phrases. Instead Reiterer outlines the macro level challenges ahead and digs into new areas of cooperation as well as unresolved issues on the table, such as tax fraud and evasion.




More information about the history of cooperation and ongoing issues is offered on the web page (here the German version) Die EU und die Schweiz and further topical links:


Agrarfreihandel


On trade in agricultural goods:

Ein allfälliges Abkommen im Agrar- und Lebensmittelbereich (FHAL) liegt im beiderseitigen Interesse der EU und der Schweiz.


Beihilfendiskussion


State aid:

Die Europäische Kommission hat im Februar 2007 eine Beihilfenentscheidung getroffen. Die EU hat eine Beihilfenentscheidung getroffen, was nicht ausreichend zur Kenntnis genommen wird, weshalb auch von "Steuerstreit" gesprochen wird.


Elektrizität


Electricity:

Ein Elektrizitätsabkommen zur Sicherung der Energieversorgung, zur Regelung des Transits und zur Teilnahme der Schweiz am europäischen Elekrtizitätsbinnenmarkt liegt im beidseitigen Interesse der EU und der Schweiz.


Erweiterungsbeitrag


Participation in cohesion policy costs:

Die Kohäsionspolitik der Europäischen Union hat zum Ziel, die Unterschiede im wirtschaftlichen Entwicklungsstand der europäischen Regionen zu verringern. Damit soll der wirtschaftliche und soziale Zusammenhalt innerhalb der EU verstärkt werden. Die Schweiz profitiert dank ihrer bilateralen Abkommen, welche sie mit der EU abgeschlossen hat, direkt von jeder Erweiterung der Union, weshalb die EU die Schweizer Behörden einlud, einen Beitrag an die europäische Kohäsion zu leisten.


Personenfreizügigkeit


Free movement of persons:

Personenfreizügigkeit zwischen der Schweiz und der EU.


Schengen


Cooperation in the Schengen area:

Im Rahmen der Schengen Zusammenarbeit wird der Reiseverkehr erleichtert, indem die systematischen Personenkontrollen an den gemeinsamen Grenzen zwischen den Schengen-Staaten aufgehoben werden.


Zinsbesteuerung


Taxation of savings income:

Die Richtlinie regelt die Besteuerung von Zinserträgen, welche an natürliche Personen in einem EU-Mitgliedstaat ausserhalb ihres eigenen Wohnsitzstaates gezahlt werden.


Zollsicherheit


Customs security cooperation:

Aus Sicherheitsgründen sind Wirtschaftsteilnehmer verpflichtet, die Zollbehörden im voraus über Waren zu informieren, die in das Zollgebiet der EU ein- oder aus diesem ausgeführt werden. Das betrifft zu einem grossen Teil auch die Schweiz.






Ralf Grahn








P.S. A federal system is democratic and aims at resolving issues at the right level. The Federal Union Blog argues for federalist solutions in Britain, Europe and the world.

The Federal Union Blog is listed among 522 great Euroblogs (at the latest count) on growing multilingual Bloggingportal.eu, your useful one-stop-shop for fact, opinion and gossip on European affairs, i.a. politics, more than thirty policy areas, communication, economics, finance, business, civil society and law.

At the same time Euroblogs are an agreeable way to brush up one’s skills in foreign languages.

If you are interested in the EU or the euroblogosphere, you can also subscribe to the RSS feed for new blog posts appearing on Bloggingportal.eu.

By the way, I also discuss European issues, including the relations between the EU and Switzerland, in Finnish on Eurooppaoikeus and in Swedish on Grahnblawg.