Policy Papers
Refine
Document Type
- Working Paper (35)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (35)
Keywords
- Auditing (1)
- Big 4 (1)
- Competition (1)
- EU Migration; Ukraine; Responsibility Sharing (1)
- MFF, EU budget, Rule of Law (1)
- digital future (1)
- digital sovereignty (1)
- geopolitics (1)
Energy-intensive industries in the EU are facing two main challenges: high energy prices and transitioning to decarbonised production. However, there is as yet no convincing EU-wide strategy for this sector‘s future. Given that the spectre of ‘deindustrialisation’ has triggered a readiness to act among the member states, there is a window of opportunity for designing such a strategy and putting it on the next Commission‘s agenda. This strategy must go beyond lowering energy prices, and factor in that cost pressures on industry to relocate will persist even in the long run, that the economic and resilience value of domestic production is lower than often portrayed, and that industrial decarbonisation is not just an EU but a global must. This policy brief delves into the economic, resilience and climate dimension of supporting energy-intensive industry, aiming to colour in contours of a potential strategy, and suggesting initial policy steps the EU should take.
Despite a broad consensus in the EU on the necessity of enlargement, it is far from a done deal. Especially the financial implications a Ukraine accession pose uncertainties. In our policy paper, Johannes Lindner, Thu Nguyen and Romy Hansum show that the next enlargement round would have less of an impact on the EU budget than is generally assumed. This is largely because the EU’s multiannual financial framework (MFF) has inherent adaptation mechanisms to mitigate significant fluctuations. At the same time, we stress that is impossible to predict precisely what the EU’s MFF, under which accession will happen, will look like as the rules and allocations are subject to political negotiations. Lastly, enlargement is not the only issue adding pressure on the EU budget in a Union that faces huge challenges.
The instrumentalisation of migration is back on the EU’s agenda. One year after Belarus instigated a migration crisis at its border with the EU, concerns emerge that Russia could instrumentalise a second exodus of Ukrainians to undermine the EU’s support to Kyiv. Member states’ recent failure to agree on the proposal for an Instrumentalisation Regulation should be an opportunity to revise the EU’s approach. In fact, the proposed Regulation would have done more harm than good. Two things need to happen for the EU to develop an effective response to the instrumentalisation of migration. First, the proposed Regulation should be amended to avoid the EU stepping into a “hypocrisy trap” by third countries seeking to expose the EU’s alleged double standards on fundamental rights. Second, the EU needs a revised migration diplomacy that addresses the structural factors facilitating the instrumentalisation of migration by third countries.
Following the proposal for an EU Talent Pool under the New Pact on Asylum and Migration, the Commission is currently conceptualising a skills-matching mechanism to attract qualified migrants. This presents an ideal opportunity to account for the diverse skill sets of refugees, who possess qualifications needed to fill member states’ shortage occupations in both lower and high-skilled professions. In light of the need to diversify and increase the number of safe and legal pathways for refugees, this Visions Paper proposes to incorporate a designated Refugee Track into the envisioned Talent Pool and outlines three ways of linking it with complementary pathways.
Digital sovereignty has been the buzzword of recent policy debates on digitalization, regulatory policies, and geostrategic positioning in the EU. This policy brief suggests that while the lofty concept of digital sovereignty is flawed, the debate points to a key weakness in digital policy: The EU’s current approach lacks consistency and vision. The EU needs lasting guiding principles for its regulatory, economic, and normative digital future that form the baseline for any kind of digital decision-making. The EU’s commitment to regulation needs to be backed up by heavy public investment. This should establish conditions that foster the development of digital infrastructure, innovation systems, and tools that reflect European values and human rights. Rather than trying to catch up by excluding the outside, the EU should play to its strengths and entrench its position as a normative champion on the global level.
The European audit market has been broken for far too long. After glaring audit failures in the recent past, the legislation is once more under review. Fixing the persistent shortcomings will require serious reforms in three areas. To increase competition and rein in the dominant position of the Big Four, joint audits including at least one challenger firm should become mandatory. Auditors should be prohibited from providing their audit clients with consulting services to eliminate conflicts of interest. And the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) should directly supervise the biggest audit firms to ensure effective oversight. With bold and binding tools, European decision-makers can finish the job and finally turn the EU audit market around.
Budget conditionality has become a key issue in the ongoing debate on the next multiannual financial framework. Some regard it as the EU's silver bullet against member states that refuse to implement EU values, rules and decisions. Others fear excessive interference in national competences. In this policy paper, Jörg Haas and Pola Schneemelcher examine what conditionality means in the EU context and whether it really improves the enforceability of EU rules and values.
This Policy Brief maps the EU’s immediate response to the arrival of more than three million Ukrainian refugees. While the decision to grant them immediate access to protection by activating the Temporary Protection Directive has raised the question whether current events will lead to a paradigm shift in EU asylum and migration policy, the EU’s greater test is what member states and the Commission will do next. The Policy Brief discusses why a mechanism for the fair sharing of responsibility is urgently needed and outlines what such a scheme could look. It closes by arguing that the current welcoming of Ukrainian refugees is less a paradigm shift in EU asylum and migration policy than an example of an increased politicisation of access to protection.
The bonds financing the European Union’s recovery remain short of being the much-hoped-for safe asset of EU monetary union (EMU). However, with the right reforms they could well turn out to be just that. To earn safe asset status, the volume of EU debt should increase, EU borrowing made permanent, and the ECB treat supranational EU bonds in a more favourable manner. The flaws associated with failing to be a eurozone-only instrument are offset by remarkable fiscal and democratic benefits. So, if the NextGenerationEU (NGEU) pilot project – limited in time and tailored specifically to fighting the coronavirus pandemic – turns out to be to everybody’s benefit, then member states should seize the opportunity and extend it before debt is repaid as of 2028.
European integration has been accompanied by differentiation and debates on it are not new. Differentiated integration has received wide scholarly attention and there is a rich and diverse academic literature related to the concept. At the same time, there is the growing belief among European policymakers that more flexibility is needed within the complex EU machinery. To deal with the EU’s unprecedented internal and external challenges, several European leaders have argued that differentiation could contribute to a stronger EU. With the exception of a few studies, the discussion has, however, paid little attention to public opinion. Drawing on the results of an opinion poll conducted between August and September 2020 in the 27 EU member states and four non-EU states, this policy paper addresses this gap in the current political debate. It examines the preferences on European integration among citizens in order to formulate options for differentiated integration as a policy choice. Against this background, the paper proposes a set of three policy recommendations for European policymakers: (i) foster knowledge of differentiated integration among European citizens, (ii) promote and reform the Schengen area and (iii) adopt a tailor-made approach to external differentiation.