During the seminar Dr Åsa Hansson (Department of Economics, Lund University, Sweden) discussed recent attempts made by international organizations such as OECD, G20 and EU and individual countries to make capital taxation possible. For instance, the number of countries that have agreed to exchange information about capital investments has increased drastically and means to shifts profits to low-tax countries have become harder. The attempts are welcome and improve the possibilities to tax capital but come at costs. Research shows that international coordination works best if all countries agree and gain from the coordination. This is unlikely to happen and small countries located far from the centre are likely to lose the most from coordination. ; N/A
On Monday 17 March 2014, the European Documentation Centre (EDC) of the Institute for European Studies hosted a debate in collaboration with the European Parliament Office, where upcoming European Parliament (EP) election candidates, all former European Studies students at the Institute, participated in a discussion panel on some salient issues related with the European elections. The candidates in attendance were Kevin Cutajar, Miriam Dalli and Cyrus Engerer. Dr. Peter Agius, head of the European Parliament Office in Malta chaired the event; Prof Arnold Cassola, an EP election candidate for Alternattiva Demokratika was present as a member of the audience and participated from the floor. ; N/A
On 28 February 2022, the High Commission of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to Malta, H.E. Katherine Ward LVO OBE visited the Institute for European Studies to give a talk entitled 'Malta-UK Relations: The Road Ahead'. The talk was divided into three parts. Firstly, the historical relationship between the UK and Malta, secondly, the relationship between the UK and the EU, and thirdly, the future relationship between the UK and Malta. During the talk, Her Excellency highlighted that due to historical affinities the UK has always had a special relationship with Malta, even when the former comprised part of the Union. This is attributed to the fact that Malta was previously under British rule and is now part of the Commonwealth. The High Commissioner noted that Malta and the UK are engaged in close cooperation given that they are numerous Maltese residing in the UK and the latter is of great importance for Malta given that it is a popular tourist destination. In addition, the High Commissioner stated that given the special relationship between Malta and the UK, the two sides are able to meet and discuss important issues. The session ended with a Q&A with students currently enrolled in their undergraduate and postgraduate degrees. ; N/A
On 29 November, The Institute for European Studies Library (EDC) hosted the first of a series of talks on topics related to the Conference of the Future of the European Union. ; The series was launched by Dr Mark Harwood, Director of the Institute for European Studies - University of Malta, and the first talk was given by Professor Roderick Pace, Jean Monnet Professor and resident academic at the Institute. ; Entitled Europe in the World: Europe's Place in Asia's Century, the talk focused on "Asian Century", referred to also as "China's Century". ; The term originates from a view of world history claiming that while the nineteenth century was the "European Century", and the twentieth was the "American Century", the current century is the "Asian Century". Almost the whole of Asia is in a state of upward change that is predicted to revolutionize the international system. However, there is no denying that China is the main political, economic and cultural motor of Asia and the rest of the world. China is now the EU's second-biggest trading partner after the USA and the EU is China's biggest trading partner. ; The talk was followed by an interesting Q&A with the audience present. ; N/A
Includes "Notes on Contributors" ; Does Europe have a collective future, or will the coming years be marked by increasingly incoherent developments within the heterogeneous EU? There is no denying that the second decade of this century has seen a strong mood shift away from the inter-dependence and concerted actions that guided Europe's national governments since the end of World War II, and then since the fall of the Berlin Wall. What connections, if any, are there between the paroxysms of Brexit in the UK and the varying shades of populism in continental Europe? The common denominator may simply be the painful economic pressures resulting from waning global competitiveness. It is clear that the high ideals of the European project no longer exert the same political pull. The EU's dreams of progressing almost seamlessly from a trading zone to a shared political economy are not being realised. Where are the convergence policies that would exert centripetal rather than centrifugal forces? Where is the appetite for reforms leading to political union, and whatever happened to the idea of Europeans speaking with one voice? If the EU continues along its present path, the verdict of history may well be that it achieved little more than the welter of regulations needed to ensure trade flows. In geopolitical terms, Europe as a major player on the world stage may have been an illusion largely created by aggregating national statistics. ; peer-reviewed
The 2010s multiple crises brought to the surface of European politics a division on the very rationale of the integration project. The latter has been challenged by nationalistic parties and governments under the banner of sovereignism. In fact, the dramatic consequences of secession (from the EU) even for a country such as the United Kingdom have led to an interpretation of nationalism as sovereignism within the EU rather than secession from the EU. To weaken the sovereignist challenge, it is necessary to free the EU from the tyranny of 'one size fits all', acknowledging the difference between the countries that need or want to move towards an 'evercloser union' and those which wish to participate only in a single market. This acknowledgement should lead to negotiations, between national and community leaders, for institutionalizing, within the single market, a distinct federal union (around the Eurozone member states), governing traditional core state power policies through a separation of power system. This would amount to a necessary differentiation for undermining the sovereignist challenge. The single market and the federal union should have different legal settings, although the member states of the latter would participate in the functioning of the former, according to rules that would prevent them acting en bloc. Decoupling is a condition for bringing federalism back again to the European integration project, although the federal model which should serve this purpose needs to be based on the experience of federations formed by aggregation and not disaggregation. ; peer-reviewed
European Union policies, towards the Arab and Mediterranean countries, since 1957, pursued the same objectives: energy, markets, and security. Other objectives such as conflict resolution, human rights and democracy promotion have often been mentioned in the official EU documents, but the discrepancy between rhetoric and deeds has been marked. The European role in the resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict has been marginal, declaratory, often hesitant and incoherent. Although all agreements between the EU and Mediterranean and Arab countries include a Human Rights clause based on the respect of democratic principles, the EU has always pursued good relations with authoritarian Arab regimes, which often paid lip service to reform and never engaged in real democratisation. The Arab Spring prompted the EU to launch new policy initiatives but there is no clear reference in published documents to the Arab World, Arab Youth or Arab Identity – and this is not a trivial omission. Instead, reference is made to "Southern neighbourhood" or "Southern Mediterranean", but Yemen and Bahrain do not form part of these. The 2016 EU Global Strategy's objectives are perhaps too ambitious, a "remarkable exercise in fantasy". Despite the objectives set out in the strategy, the EU has backtracked on Syria, the Iran Nuclear Deal and kept aloof from the troubled Gulf Cooperation Council, President Trump's decision to move the Israeli embassy to Jerusalem and the withdrawal of American funding of UNRWA as well as Israel's annexation of the Golan Heights. The only hope for the future of the EU's relations with the Arab world lies in continuing the recently revived dialogue between the Arab League and the Union. As the European Parliament has noted, "insufficient EU leadership and initiative in working towards the solution of protracted conflicts have weakened the EU's capacity to make a diplomatic impact in the region." ; peer-reviewed
Through his remarks deriding the contribution of European states towards their individual and collective defence, President Donald Trump has sown seeds of doubt into the prospects for the transatlantic relationship. Yet a wider review of this relationship, and security and defence efforts within the EU, shows less cause for alarm. The EU's development of its own security and defence identity and strategic autonomy independent of the United States is being pursued. It may be argued that developing and strengthening its political and strategic identity within a European and world order in flux may allow it to maintain a more cohesive political union, and strengthen its value as a strategic partner within the transatlantic alliance. Security has always been at the heart of European Integration. Identifying and formulating a common European strategy has been a challenge, yet considerable progress has been made in cultivating a common European strategic outlook. Moreover, the current international milieu provides the EU, and its member states, with the opportunity to focus on building its strategic autonomy and common outlook, and in the process seek to cultivate a common strategic culture that may generate greater cohesion. Furthermore, cooperation with the United States and NATO will remain at the heart of Europe's strategic activity, and ultimately, EU strategic culture for the foreseeable future. Moreover, the ability to rely on NATO's (and the U.S.) hard power will allow the EU to focus more effectively on civilian security capabilities and its soft power as a global actor. ; peer-reviewed
In the last decade, the EU's policy on cybersecurity has changed significantly, both as to its referent objects and priority level. While the 2013 Cybersecurity Strategy focused almost exclusively on the importance of cybersecurity for the proper functioning of the single market, its 2017 version also contained an analysis of malicious cyber activities that threaten the political integrity of Member States and the EU as a whole. As the field's level of complexity grows and forward-looking initiatives are constantly being proposed in order to promote cyber resilience across the EU, it is increasingly challenging the Union in the process of coordinating and implementing the planned actions. Cybersecurity has also become a national security issue entangling private and public, external and internal, civilian, and military issues making it necessary, but very challenging to widen and deepen ties among stakeholders in the EU. Yet cybersecurity governance is fragmented at the EU level, and there is an evident lack of trust that prevents effective cooperation among stakeholders on crucial aspects of the process. This contribution argues that as a result, cybersecurity policy in the EU remains unsystematic and predominantly reactive in nature, addressing the issuespecific incidents that have already occurred, although in our technology-dependent societies more emphasis should be placed on prevention. Therefore, in a natural scholarly quest for explanations, this chapter focuses on the development and main elements of the EU's cybersecurity policy, followed by mapping the attitudes of cybersecurity stakeholders and their normative objectives in the context of EU integration in this domain. ; peer-reviewed
The chapter analyses the views expressed by the EP political groups on the future of Europe, taken specifically in the context of the Juncker Commission's White Paper, as well as in the wider sense of their ideological views on the type of 'Europe' they envisage. The chapter focuses on the EP groups to be found in the 2014–19 legislature due to the fact that the principal debate on the future of Europe happened during this period. The chapter focuses on three resolutions adopted in 2017 as well as the EP's reaction to the white paper, and outlines the support for and against 'more' Europe. The chapter concludes by affirming that the largest EP groups remain largely in favour of 'more' Europe but that the EP elections of 2019 may result in a parliament less united on the call for greater integration. ; peer-reviewed
The EU has embarked on new initiatives to achieve closer union in defence policy. This was signalled by the establishment of a Permanent Structure Cooperation (PESCO) in 2018. At the same time the EU institutions are on the cusp of approving the new European Defence Fund (EDF). In the context of the 2016 EU Global Strategy (EUGS), this chapter looks at some aspects of future developments in this field and argues in favour of more parliamentary involvement and oversight by the European Parliament and the national parliaments mindful that – with the exception of a few of them – the latter have not shown a lot of activism. In the context of the EU's norms, the chapter looks at the traditional EU approaches in external relations such as 'civilian power' and 'democracy promotion', and how the parliamentary oversight could ensure that they are preserved in the EU's foreign policy repertoire. Parliaments can also contribute to the clarification of strategic autonomy and the still vague "principled pragmatism" cited in the EUGS. ; peer-reviewed
Irregular migration in the European Union (EU) dominates the current EU political agenda. It is also the top concern of European citizens, according to the latest Standard Eurobarometer (Spring 2019).38 EU member states, however, are not affected to the same degree, resulting in political friction with regard to how to deal with the challenges of this phenomenon. Furthermore, the EU's failure to provide an adequate and unitary response to the unprecedented influx of irregular migrants in 2015 exposed the strength of state sovereignty within member states and led to divisions within the EU so far as to threaten the overall functioning of the Schengen Area. As a result, the EU approach to irregular migration shows clear signs of following an intergovernmental logic of cooperation, where the supranational institutions have a lesser role leaving member states in the Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) Council in the driving seat. Nonetheless, there is an apparent paradox: EU institutions and member states are more divided than ever over a common approach to irregular migration, yet at the same time they are increasingly converging towards more restrictive migration policies. ; peer-reviewed
As part of Our European Identity Europe Day seminar, a workshop will be held following our morning debate, to explore further the implications of European integration (or disintegration). Starting at 16.30, at the Europe Direct Information Centre - EDIC - University of Malta, the discussion will centre around all the possible paths for Europe's future. Using an interactive structure including group discussions, brainstorming, informal debates, and games, we will be finding out what is the best scenario of Europe's future, especially for youths. ; N/A
Dr Liam Weeks (University College Cork, Ireland) gave a public lecture in which the focus was on the voting system used in Malta and Ireland to elect members to the houses of parliament. Why this and what is are the consequences for the two countries of this unusual voting system? Should there be reform of STV? These questions and others were discussed in this lecture. ; N/A
On 21 May Prof. Paolo Bellucci from the University of Siena gave a public lecture on Sources and Political Consequences of European Identity among Mass Publics. Paolo Bellucci is a Professor of Comparative Political Behaviour at the University of Siena, where he is Head of the Department of Political Sciences and Director of the PhD Programme in Comparative Politics. He held visiting positions in a number of universities, including Essex, Montreal, Montpellier, and Oxford. He is a member of the Steering Committee of ITANES (Italian National Election Study), and is chairman of the standing group on Parties, Public Opinion and Elections (POPE) of the Italian Political Science Association. During the lecture, which was organised and moderated by Dr. Marcello Carammia, resident academic at the Institute, Prof. Bellucci presented the findings of a large comparative research, the FP6 project Intune, which involved 30 European universities and was coordinated by the University of Siena. The issues discussed during this event, which was hosted by the EDC, included the factors which sustain or hinder the development of a European identity among the citizens of EU member states. ; N/A
