Documents European Policy Centre, Brussels 177 results

"In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, health has become a top priority for EU leaders. The first steps to revamp and strengthen the EU health agenda have been taken. However, to ‘build back better' and make the most out of EU action in health, Europe must now lay the foundations for more resilient national health systems while centering the recovery on people's well-being. All of this should be underpinned by a serious reflection on how the EU can bring added value.
In this Policy Brief, Simona Guagliardo proposes how this vision can turn into reality:

Despite its limited competences, the EU can support member states in making their national healthcare systems more effective, accessible, and resilient, for instance, by encouraging them to prioritise investments in health system reforms in the context of the 2021 European Semester and the Recovery and Resilience Facility.
People's health and well-being should be at the core of all policymaking. The EU must move away from only measuring progress in terms of economic growth.
A reflection on the feasibility and desirability of transferring some health competences to the EU level can no longer be ignored. The Conference on the Future of Europe should serve as a platform to engage with citizens and civil society and start the debate on levelling up the EU's role in health policy.
The COVID-19 pandemic will not be the last pandemic Europe will ever have to face. Any tangible progress that the EU27 achieves in building a robust Health Union will not only be invaluable for managing today's crisis, but also for preparing for future – and perhaps even more severe – health challenges."

"Migration trends and flows are changing, and calling countries and regions to provide new answers and policies. In this changing landscape, many European and Asian countries are characterised by ageing and shrinking populations. In order to ensure their economic growth and maintain their welfare systems, they have implemented a series of measures to reduce the demographic effects, among which opening channels to legal migration plays a key role. As these countries try to attract the same group of people, mainly highly-skilled professionals and low-skilled workers, increasing competition between the two regions might be observed in the upcoming years. In particular, high-skilled professionals are targeted by receiving societies. They are encouraged to stay for longer periods, or even enticed to settle down permanently. This is achieved by providing them with rights and benefits, facilitating their stay, and making them the target of integration policies.

As the status of the countries in Europe and Asia differs greatly in terms of whether they are considered sending, receiving or transit countries of migration, it is hardly possible to generalize both the problems and the policies to tackle them.

In order to contribute to the understanding of current challenges and implemented solutions, this publication includes papers with perspectives from Europe and Asia. What are the migration and integration policies as well as present challenges in these countries? What can they learn from each other? How do they try to facilitate migration and make it a beneficial process?"

"Growing socio-economic disparities in the EU, both within and between member states, pose a serious threat to the Union's social model, political viability, and its economic strength. In the absence of adequate levels of public investment, and with the added pressures of an ageing population and societal changes, Claire Dhéret and Marta Pilati make the case for a paradigm shift in the financing of social investment. The latter is based on the idea that investing in human and social capital enhances individuals' capabilities and enables them to successfully participate in society and the economy, resulting in a more skilled, resilient and healthy workforce.

But where will the money come from? In this Policy Brief, Dhéret and Pilati investigate the unlocked potential of EU financial instruments in fostering social investment, and the unique opportunity provided by the next Multiannual Financial Framework (2021-2027) and the InvestEU programme. Although the Commission's efforts have been commendable so far, they argue for additional EU measures to ensure the creation of a genuine market for the social economy, which will not only help re-invigorate Europe's social model but also make it a global champion for an ‘economy of well-being'.

The EU can do this by: (1) ensuring that financial regulation is not an obstacle to social investment; (2) supporting social innovation throughout the entire social policy production chain; and (3) integrating national social investment strategies into the larger European policy framework."

"The deadline for securing an extension to the ongoing Brexit transition is nearing fast. If the UK government refuses to request an extension now, what are the options?

While there is an urgent need for extending the Brexit transition period, not least due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, the UK government is adamantly refusing to either ask for or accept an extension. It is highly unlikely that the government will change its mind before 1 July, the deadline stipulated by the Withdrawal Agreement to agree to an extension of up to one or two years.

Assessing the different scenarios, which all involve huge uncertainties, this paper argues that the most legally sound option appears to be the conclusion of a mixed treaty. But even then, a lot of obstacles remain. A mixed agreement would involve a lengthy ratification process and the likely return of vested interests and political disagreements within the UK and the EU.

Without an extension of the current transition period, the question of how to secure more time might resurface later this year. At the moment, Boris Johnson believes the immense time pressure to agree on a deal by the end of the year will concentrate minds and result in last-minute concessions from the EU. Once he realises that the EU is not willing to compromise the integrity of the Single Market to grant him the deal he wants, the question of how to buy more time will be back on the agenda.

Overall, it is highly uncertain whether a late extension request can still be accommodated. By letting the deadline under the Withdrawal Agreement pass, the UK government once again increases the chances of a no-deal outcome."

"Brexit is an irreversible fact. Everyone will be worse off. But what are the exact ramifications, for the UK, the EU, and the partnership between the two?



This book examines the political, economic, social and institutional implications of the UK's departure from the EU in different policy fields, including trade, defence and security, foreign policy, judicial cooperation, migration and mobility, as well as its impact on UK politics and EU integration.

Besides thinking through the consequences of Brexit, the authors consider the ongoing negotiations and the possibility of the EU and UK failing to agree on a deal before 31 December 2020. They also look at the dramatic impact of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and conclude that, given the related health, economic and social crises, the transition period must be extended.

The publication also holds a few lessons on what the EU could and should take away from this experience. As the EU's chief Brexit negotiator, Michel Barnier, says in the book's foreword: "We must take the time to listen to our citizens, to understand them, and to provide answers for their concerns. It is too late for the British regions, but it is not too late for the rest of Europe."

The contributions in this book, all by leading experts on Brexit, draw from discussions held in the Brexit Think Tank Group, which was set up by the European Policy Centre (EPC) in the aftermath of the 2016 referendum. Through this format, the EPC facilitated a continuing exchange between the European Commission's Task Force for Relations with the United Kingdom and the policy community. The group provided analysis and insight at crucial moments in the negotiations, including on the level playing field issue."

"Strategic autonomy is about empowering Europe, not disengaging from partnerships, globalisation or multilateralism. The core of strategic autonomy is not that Europeans should act alone, but that they should have a purpose of their own, and a stronger power base to fulfil that purpose through cooperation with others whenever possible, or on their own, if needed. As such, strategic autonomy is not a condition to be achieved once and for all, but a mindset and a process, guiding initiatives across multiple areas. By advancing its strategic autonomy, Europe should acquire a stronger position to manage interdependence amidst geopolitical competition – arguably the defining challenge of our times."

"Do the macroeconomics of the German political establishment really differ from standard western macroeconomics? That question was the starting point for the seminar on ‘German macro: How it's Different and Why that Matters', which was held at Heriot-Watt University in December 2015, with financial support from the Scottish Institute for Research in Economics (SIRE) and the Money, Macro & Finance Research Group (MMF). This ebook, edited by George Bratsiotis and David Cobham, is the result of that exercise; six of the papers were presented at the seminar in earlier versions, and the editors sought some additional papers to complete the range of perspectives offered. The authors all sought out to discover whether or not there is something unique about German macroeconomics, and in what ways it differs from standard western macroeconomics; is it true that the former neglects demand management (although it may be quite interventionist in other ways), rejects debt relief and emphasises structural reform designed to improve competitiveness as the (only) key to economic growth? How much of whatever difference exists is due to a well worked out set of ideas in the form of Ordoliberalism? In what way does it relate to Germany's own experiences in different periods? And how far is this the result of political preferences and how much do the idiosyncrasies of these German views matter, for the development of the Eurozone and indeed the health of the German economy?"

"Labour mobility within the European Union continues to be a limited phenomenon. This concerns both long-term intra-EU mobility and more temporary forms of mobility such as posting of workers, i.e. workers posted to another member state in the framework of cross-border service provision. Yet, despite the limited nature of posting, this topic is far from being absent from the public and political debates. Several factors contribute to this.



Firstly, a surge in the number of posted workers has been noticed over the recent years and increased attention has therefore been paid to this issue. Quite a few economic sectors, including construction, manufacturing, and social work, are very concerned by this trend. Secondly, several types of abuses have been recorded such as letter-box companies, bogus self-employment and exploitation of the posted workers' vulnerable situation. Thirdly, questions have been raised as to whether the balance struck by the EU legislator in 1996 (when adopting the Posted Workers Directive) between the freedom to provide cross-border services and the workers' social rights is still valid today.



These elements highlight the need for a policy adjustment in order to preserve the legitimacy of the citizens' and workers' freedom to move and, to a certain extent, of the social dimension of the European project. In this context, the European Commission published a proposal to revise the 1996 Directive in order to strike a better balance between economic and social rights. But is this proposal sufficient to ensure a level playing field between economic actors and equal treatment between workers? How will this proposal affect the implementation of other EU initiatives aiming to tackle fraud and abuse? What else is needed to address the tensions between the Single Market principles and the EU's social objectives?

This discussion paper, published in the context of the Dutch Presidency and the ongoing negotiations of a revised Directive on posted workers, focuses on these questions while proposing some concrete solutions for a fairer policy framework."

"The first edition of this new multi-authored publication entitled ‘Migration Panorama' focuses on the consequences of the refugee and migration crisis on the Schengen area and the concept of a borderless union. Several external and EPC authors have contributed to building a comprehensive picture on the manifold challenges and possible consequences of maintaining and/or returning to internal border controls among Schengen countries. How does a signatory of the Schengen agreement see the current developments? What would be the impact of the reintroduction of physical borders on Europe's digital economy? In what way do the V4 countries envisage to solve the ‘Schengen crisis'? How dangerous are the empty threats to expel Greece out of the Schengen area? What is the symbolic meaning of the Belgian border controls following the French decision to dismantle parts of the Calais ‘jungle'? Is saving Schengen only a question of national sovereignty or a matter of shared European responsibility? All these questions and many others are tackled in this first issue of the ‘Migration Panorama' produced by EPC' s Migration and Diversity Programme."