–

Despite its limitations and public neglect, the Conference on the Future – an unprecedented exercise of transnational democracy entailing the participation of randomly selected citizens – is set to go down into history as a major catalyst for EU integration. Initially dismissed as yet another Brussels gimmick—a top-down, perfunctory exercise with a major pro-EU bias—, the Conference revealed a genuine, possibly one of the most consequential, attempts at upgrading the Union to the new geo-political and social realities of the continent. And for the first time it did so with some citizens’ involvement.

As the Conference just ended, let’s examine what we have learned from this unprecedented democratic exercise before predicting what its legacy might be.

A new logic: It’s the citizen, stupid!

Contrary to previous efforts at institutional reform, it’s not the EU member states nor the EU institutions but hundreds of citizens of Europe – of different geographic origin, gender, age, socioeconomic background and level of education – who this time demand for a overhaul of the bloc.

This is a game-changer insofar citizens have historically been side-lined in European integration. The new logic underpinning the Conference, as a citizen-driven, bottom-up process, may put governments and institutions in an unprecedented bind.

Following the publication of citizens’ recommendations, no political actor in the EU – not even the democratically elusive European Council gathering all heads of state and government – will be able to escape some form of accountability on how it intends to follow up on citizens’ demands. Hence the present effort by some capitals to delegitimize the process instead of taking issue with its recommendations.

A new method: deliberation works

As revealed by previous citizens’ assemblies organised at the national level, the Conference on the Future of Europe proved capable of unlocking some of the most contentious issues within the bloc, ranging from the need to have an EU-wide energy policy to a unified electoral competition.

Similarly to what happened in Ireland where citizens’ deliberations led to the liberalisation of abortion laws and legalisation of same-sex marriage, the EU citizens’ fresh look at some of the hardest topics confronting the Union paved the way to EU political reform. While this conclusion was facilitated by a sentiment of shared destiny prompted by extraordinary events such as the pandemic and the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the Conference deliberative format was conducive to – and ready to crystallise into political demand – such a realisation.

Deliberation by randomly selected citizens can work, also in a transnational setting as the EU.

A new reflex: trust the citizens

The Conference also broke another myth that had been chasing European integration since its inception.

Due its original, historical attempt at constraining popular sovereignty in the aftermath of World War II, the EU has historically been suspicious toward any expression of popular will. Put it simply, how could one still trust people who brought fascists to power? Yet today the Union’s atavistic hostility toward citizens’ input might be in the process of being overcome.

The Conference’s experience plainly revealed that the expression of popular will can be trusted, and that it may be particularly needed in a Union still lacking a common public and political sphere.

Indeed, once offered the opportunity to reflect upon their personal experience of the EU project together with their European peers in the framework of the Conference, the randomly selected citizens didn’t shy away from acknowledging the Union’s imperfect nature and ask instead for a more intelligible, responsive, and accountable Europe.

Ultimately, asking to be better informed about what and how national leaders decide in Brussels, or calling for greater, EU-wide public debates are not the exclusive prerogative of pro-European voices, but rather a pre-requisite to contribute to the Union’s democratic life, or that of any other democratic community worth of this name.

A new feedback loop between participation and representation

One of the most challenging aspects of participatory democracy has historically been how to connect the citizens’ input with the traditional mechanisms of representative democracy.

The EU is no exception: the participatory and representative components of EU democracy are like ships that pass in the night. This is because EU participatory channels – be they European citizens’ initiatives, petitions, or public consultations – are not intended to impact directly how decisions are made, but simply to legitimize existing policy approaches.

How did the Conference change that? It established the first ever plenary assembly mixing randomly-selected citizens presenting their recommendations with elected representatives deliberating jointly. Far for providing a silver bullet, the EU experimented a mechanism exposing – on an equal and mutual basis – elected citizens with citizens who had been drawn. This established and nurtured a ‘safe space’ within which the competing claims of representation – by the elected (‘I was elected’) and by the citizens (‘I was drawn’) could be reconciled. Despite the dominant corporatist bias among political representatives vis-à-vis participatory democracy, they also realize how much representation urgently need an additional source of legitimacy.

As the Conference has come to an end, the challenge is how to codify these major learnings into the constitutional, administrative and ultimately political culture of the EU.

The first (and only) tangible outcome of the Conference (thus far) has been the public acknowledgement by Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission, who declared herself ready to learn to establish a permanent EU citizens’ assembly to receive their advice before submitting important legislative initiatives. As this can be done without re-opening the Treaties and appears to receive bipartisan consensus, this might reveal the most immediate Conference’s legacy.

When it comes to other taboo-breaking citizens’ recommendations, several of them do require transferring new power to the Union – from taxation, energy to education – to be realized, and only a treaty change may do.

As a result the question urgently facing EU leaders in the aftermath of the Conference is whether to content ourselves with the patchy responses provided by the Union to the new emergencies – as twelve countries resisting treaty chance publicly demand (including the next two rotating presidencies of the Council, Sweden and Czechia) – , or rather to embark on a ‘quantum leap’ and upgrade the Union to the ‘brave new world’ in which we find ourselves in.

The answer to this question, which will be first discussed by the next European Council in June, will not only define EU’s course of history but also that of its 450 million and the many more waiting at its doors (ask the Ukrainians, Moldovans, Georgians, etc.).

Europe is, once again, on the making. And from now onwards with citizens on board.

The post What have we learned from the Conference on Future of Europe? | View first appeared on Magazin Haber Ajansı.

When Ursula von der Leyen first unveiled the proposals last Wednesday, sources from the both Commission and several EU member states were “optimistic” that the 6th – and most complicated package of Russian sanctions focusing on a permanent embargo on Russian oil – would pass within a reasonable timeframe.

“There’s been extensive dialogue with Hungary and Slovakia, and the Czech republic ahead of the announcement,” a Commission source even told Euronews after von der Leyen’s address to MEPs.

Yet within hours of the final draft landing with ambassadors of each member state, cracks appeared in the much-vaunted cohesion and unity of purpose.

Not unexpectedly, the three landlocked countries with heaviest dependence on oil immediately pushed back at the proposition that they phase out crude oil by the end of 2023, requesting a much longer timeframe until 2025.

Now, a week later, negotiations appear to be going at a snail’s pace and the Commission is scrambling behind the scene to find compromises. 

Von der Leyen flew to Budapest on Monday to meet with Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban who previously described the sanctions as an “atomic bomb” for his country’s economy and insisted that they would need an extra five years and billions of euros to completely change the infrastructure to allow alternative suppliers.

After the meeting, von der Leyen tweeted: “This evening’s discussion with PM Viktor Orban was helpful to clarify issues related to sanctions and energy security.”

“We made progress, but further work is needed. I will convene a video conference with regional players to strengthen regional cooperation on oil infrastructure.”

A follow-up video conference scheduled for Tuesday was cancelled. 

Orbán is reported to have asked for hundreds of millions of euros in funding to upgrade oil refineries as well as access to recovery funds.

The EU has withheld around €7 billion of recovery funds from Hungary over rule of law abuses and allegations of corruption. 

“To be fair Hungary said all along they didn’t want oil sanctions, every country has their own problems,” one diplomat told Euronews. 

In the daily press briefing, EU spokesperson Eric Mamer also sought to downplay the deadlock. 

“It is clear that Hungary, as a landlocked country, needs a suitable pipeline network to switch to other sources. But the issues to be resolved include oil storage and refining. This also requires infrastructure. In addition, the transformation of the energy sector has been discussed. to make the separation from Russian oil a reality.”

He denied reports that Orban was calling for Hungary to get its recovery funds restored and said “only energy” was discussed at the meeting and that the video conference would be rescheduled when progress had been made at the “technical” level. 

What is known for sure is that progress is slow. EU ambassadors meet on Wednesday but the optimism for a breakthrough is muted. 

While it’s likely that the 6th sanctions package will eventually pass, it’s unclear what it will mean for the next package – which will undoubtedly focus on Russian gas.

The post A week on, the EU appears no closer to a Russian oil embargo first appeared on Magazin Haber Ajansı.

The main point of contention remains the ambitious timeline envisioned by the Commission: a phase-out of all Russian crude in six months and all refined oil products by the end of the year.

Talks began last Wednesday and have now gone into a seventh day. 

For Hungary, a country that is physically connected to the Russian-operated Druzhba pipeline, making the switch to other providers in such a short period of time would wreak economic havoc.

“We cannot allow the Hungarian people to be made to pay the price of this war,” Hungary’s Foreign Affairs Minister Péter Szijjártó told local media after the two leaders met in Budapest.

“Hungary’s energy supply is currently on solid [ground]. However, the entry into force of the current sanctions package would destroy Hungary’s energy security: it would be impossible to obtain the crude oil needed to operate the Hungarian economy.”

Szijjártó said the talks yielded “some progress” and served to explain the country’s particular circumstances and economic concerns.

“This evening’s discussion with PM Viktor Orbán was helpful to clarify issues related to sanctions and energy security,” von der Leyen tweeted on Monday evening.

“We made progress, but further work is needed. I will convene a with regional players to strengthen regional cooperation on oil infrastructure.”

The video conference was initially scheduled to take place on Tuesday morning, with the participation of President von der Leyen, PM Orbán and President Emmanuel Macron of France, whose country currently holds the EU Council’s rotating presidency.

A Commission spokesperson said on Tuesday afternoon the call had been postponed and will take place once progress at “technical” level has been achieved.

Discussions are now focused on oil transportation infrastructure, oil refinery infrastructure and the transformation of the energy system, rather than on the differentiated timelines, the official explained. 

Reports last week suggested Hungary could be allowed to complete the phase-out by December 2024, but Orbán said his country, which is landlocked and therefore unable to import seaborne oil, needed between four to five years to revamp its energy system.

The prime minister then compared von der Leyen’s proposal to an economic “atomic bomb.”

Although Hungary has been the most vocal country in its criticism of the Commission’s proposal, it is not the only sceptical member state: Slovakia, the Czech Republic and Bulgaria are also demanding similar dispensations to accommodate national interests and prevent economic disruption.

Slovakia, which shares a connection to the Druzhba pipeline, is asking for a three-year exemption in order to update the technology of its sole refinery, Slovnaft, which today works exclusively with a heavy type of Russian crude, a Slovak spokesperson told Euronews. 

Repurposing the system to a lighter crude will require between four to six years and €250 million in investment, the government estimates.

For its part, the Czech Republic is negotiating an extension until June 2024, the date by which it expects to be connected to the Transalpine Pipeline. 

EU sanctions require the unanimous approval of all 27 member states. This means the group of four could hold up the collective decision for as long as they think necessary to secure their carve-outs.

“I think we can have an agreement within a week, we are working hard on it. It’s probably a matter of days,” French European Affairs Minister Clement Beaune said on Tuesday.

“We have to move quickly, and I say this with confidence: there will be a sixth package of European sanctions, they will be very powerful and we will gradually get out of Russian oil.”

The proposed EU-wide ban on Russian oil is considered the most radical and consequential step taken by the bloc in response to the Ukraine war.

Since the onset of the invasion on 24 February, the 27 member states have spent about €24 billion on Russian oil, according to a tracking tool set up by the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA), an independent research organisation.

This article has been updated to include new developments and reactions.

The post EU ban on Russian oil: Orban-VDL talks fail to produce a breakthrough first appeared on Magazin Haber Ajansı.

He told reporters in Strasbourg that once the war ends, Moscow and Kyiv will eventually have to sit down and negotiate with each other, so any further tensions will only serve to the detriment of the situation.

“We will have a peace to build tomorrow, let us never forget that,” Macron said on Monday. “I mentioned this earlier. We will have to do this with Ukraine and Russia around the table. The end of the discussion and the negotiation will be set by Ukraine and Russia. But it will not be done in denial, nor in exclusion of each other, nor even in humiliation.”

Macron also laid out his vision of a broader community of European democracies that would allow for deeper cooperation between non-EU countries.

Within this new political union, nations like Ukraine and even the UK could be a part of it.

“The European Union, given the level of its integration and ambition, cannot be in the short term the only means of structuring the European continent,” he said.

“It’s our historic obligation to respond to that today and to create what I would call a European political community. This new European organisation would allow European democratic nations adhering to our core values to find a new space for co-operation on politics, security, energy, transport, infrastructure investments and the movement of people, especially the young.”

The proposals were made on Europe Day at the same time as Russian President Vladimir Putin’s huge military parades in Moscow on Victory Day.

For European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, the contrast between the EU and Russia could not be starker.

“I think that today speaks volumes and it speaks for itself. On the one hand, you see an autocrat, Vladimir Putin in Moscow and he has had his military parade – this is the only thing he has to offer his people,” von der Leyen told reporters. “And then on the other hand here in the EP you see a celebration of democracy.”

Monday marked the end of the Conference on the Future of Europe, a year-long process in which European citizens gave their views on what they want for the future of the 27 member bloc.

The post Macron warns against humiliating Russia over war in Ukraine first appeared on Magazin Haber Ajansı.

Critics of the EU say the requirement to reach agreement with all 27 member states slows down decision making, notably with the Ukraine war.

Von der Leyen, speaking before the European Parliament during the closing ceremony of a conference on Europe’s future, said she was in favour of reforming the EU treaties “if need be”.

“The point is, you have told us where you want this Europe to go. And it is now up to us to take the most direct way there, either by using the full limits of what we can do within the Treaties, or, yes, by changing the Treaties if need be,” von der Leyen said.

She said Europe should play a greater role in health and defence, and improve the way its democracy works “on a permanent basis”.

“I will always be on the side of those who want to reform the European Union to make it work better,” von der Leyen said.

French President Emmanuel Macron, whose country holds the rotating EU Council Presidency, suggested that member states discuss reforming the treaties at the Council summit in June.

Stating that Europe has shown its effectiveness during the pandemic and the war in Ukraine, Macron said the new challenge is “to be just as effective in times of peace and without a crisis”.

“Being effective means we have to decide quickly in a united manner, invest massively in the right things, and not leave anyone behind. That’s what it is to be European. Faced with this, we also have to reform our texts.”

“One of the avenues of this reform would be a convention to revise the treaties,” Macron said, adding that he approved of the idea.

Von der Leyen said in her speech that she was in favour of changing the EU’s requirement for unanimous agreement among member states on certain issues.

“I have always argued that unanimity voting in some key areas simply no longer makes sense if we want to be able to move faster,” said the Commission president.

She also said the EU should “give citizen panels the time and the resources to make recommendations before we present key legislative proposals” to improve democracy in the bloc.

‘Ukraine already a member of the European family’

On Ukraine, von der Leyen said that the country’s president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, wanted to virtually hand over more than 5,000 pages of answers to a questionnaire to begin the EU accession process. She said to Ukrainians that the future of Europe was their future.

Macron said: “Ukraine, because of its struggle and because of its courage, is already a member of our Europe, our family, our union.”

But, he said, accession could take several years or even several decades “unless we decide to lower the standards for accession and rethink the unity for our Europe.”

Macron suggested a “European community” as a new space for political cooperation on the continent.

“This new European organisation would allow democratic European nations adhering to our core values to find a new space for political cooperation, cooperation in security, energy, transport, infrastructure investment and in the movement of people, and in particular our youth,” he said.

Their comments came as a conference on the bloc’s future came to an end.

European citizens, MEPs, representatives from the EU Council and Commission as well as from member states approved more than 300 proposals in a special session in Strasbourg last week. These proposals were submitted to EU leaders on 9 May.

Not all countries are in agreement on changing the treaties just yet.

In a non-paper from Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Romania, Slovenia, and Sweden, the states wrote that while they do not exclude any options, “we do not support unconsidered and premature attempts to launch a process toward Treaty change”.

“This would entail a serious risk of drawing political energy away from the important tasks of finding solutions to the questions to which our citizens expect answers and handling the urgent geopolitical challenges facing Europe.”

The post Von der Leyen backs ending unanimous voting in some areas of EU first appeared on Magazin Haber Ajansı.

coreldraw lisans satın al

The post İngiltere ve AB arasındaki görüş ayrılıkları devam ediyor first appeared on Magazin Haber Ajansı.

The post Macaristan’ın bütçeyi veto etmesi AB’de yeni bir krize neden oldu first appeared on Magazin Haber Ajansı.

Cumhurbaşkanı Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Avrupa Birliği (AB) Komisyonu’nun yeni Başkanı Ursula von der Leyen’in talebi üzerine kendisiyle bugün bir telefon görüşmesi gerçekleştirdi.

Görüşmede; AB üyelik süreci, Türkiye ve AB arasındaki 18 Mart Mutabakatı çerçevesinde Türkiye’deki Suriyelilere destek verilmesi ve Suriye’nin kuzeyinde oluşturulan güvenli bölgeye Suriyelilerin gönüllü, güvenli ve onurlu geri dönüşleri ele alındı. 

Sayfada yer alan bilgiler tavsiye niteliği taşımayıp yatırım danışmanlığı kapsamında değildir. Yatırımcı profilinize uymayabilir.

The post Erdoğan’dan AB ile kritik görüşme! first appeared on Magazin Haber Ajansı.