Foreign Affairs and General Affairs Council (February 2012)
David Lidington Excerpts(12 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
The Foreign Affairs Council (FAC) and General Affairs Council (GAC) were held in Brussels on 27 and 28 February respectively. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary attended the FAC. I attended the GAC.
Foreign Affairs Council
The FAC was chaired by the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Baroness Ashton of Upholland. A provisional report of the meeting and all conclusions adopted can be found at:
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/coms_data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/128226.pdf.
The agenda items covered were as follows:
Syria
Ministers agreed conclusions (see link above) which confirmed a Council decision on additions to the EU’s sanctions against the Assad regime including freezing the assets of the Central Bank of Syria; a ban on importing gold and precious metals; a ban on cargo flights; and the listing of an additional seven Government Ministers.
The conclusions also condemned the recent bombardment of Homs, including the killing of several journalists; humanitarian issues; support to the Friends of Syria; support to the opposition; support to the Arab League and for work in the UN; and setting out the EU offer to support a post-Assad transition.
Following the meeting the Foreign Secretary said:
“I welcome today’s EU agreement to freeze the assets of the Central Bank of' Syria and restrict the Syrian regime’s access to the gold and precious metals market. Along with previous rounds of sanctions, these tough measures are tightening the economic pressure on President Assad. The EU has also imposed sanctions on an additional seven individuals for their involvement in the repression of civilians and suspended cargo flights operated by Syrian airlines.
“This 12th round of EU sanctions reinforces the clear message from the meeting of Friends of the Syrian people on 24 February, which condemned the regime’s ongoing use of widespread and indiscriminate violence against peaceful protestors and agreed to continue working closely lo resolve the situation in Syria.
“That is why we are doing all we can to bring the widest possible weight to bear on the Syrian regime and increase the stranglehold on it.
“We will continue working closely with our EU partners to support the Arab League and its plan lo end the violence in Syria and bring about a Syrian-led transition to a peaceful and more open political system”.
Egypt
On Egypt, Ministers had a brief discussion and agreed conclusions (see link above) urging continued progress on the transition to civilian rule, and registering concern about recent moves against non-Government organisations.
Serbia/Kosovo
Ministers discussed the political dimension of Serbia’s EU application ahead of the formal discussion at the General Affairs Council (see below). The Foreign Secretary welcomed the progress made in the Belgrade/Pristina dialogue. He also expressed support for the European Commission’s intention to launch a stabilisation and association agreement (SAA) feasibility study for Kosovo.
Belarus
Ministers discussed a potential sanctions package to target those responsible for ongoing human rights violations as well as those who are supporting or benefiting from the Belarusian regime. Ministers agreed to put a package of sanctions before the General Affairs Council for agreement the following day (see below) and commissioned a further list of targets to be considered at the FAC on 23 March.
South Caucasus
Ministers agreed wide-ranging conclusions (see link above) covering the EU’s relationship with Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia.
Middle East Peace Process
Ministers exchanged views on the latest events in the middle east, in particular the “Doha Declaration” on Palestinian reconciliation. Ministers agreed the EU should continue with its engagement.
Somalia
The UK Permanent Representative, Sir Jon Cunliffe, briefed on the outcomes of the London conference on Somalia.
Other business
Conclusions were also agreed on Yemen, welcoming President Hadi’s inauguration and pledging EU support for transition; and on the Union for the Mediterranean, transferring the European chairmanship from France to the EU. Baroness Ashton briefed on her recent visit to Brazil and Mexico, including for the G20 Foreign Ministers.
General Affairs Council
Serbia
The December European Council mandated the GAC to make a decision on Serbia’s candidate status. I expressed support for granting candidate status given the progress Serbia had made in meeting the conditions to improve relations with Kosovo as set by the December European Council. These were to (i) implement agreements already reached in the dialogue with Kosovo, including border management (ii) reach an agreement with Kosovo to allow their participation in regional forums, and (iii) to co-operate with the EU rule of law mission (EULEX) and NATO peace-keeping force (KFOR) in Kosovo. Ministers were agreed that Serbia had met these conditions and recommended candidate status. They looked forward to this being confirmed at the March European Council.
Ministers also noted the European Commission’s intention to launch a feasibility study for a stabilisation and association agreement (SAA) with Kosovo.
The conclusions on enlargement for the GAC can be seen at the link below.
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_Data/docs/pressdata/EN/genaff/128255.pdf.
March European Council
The conclusions for the March European Council were discussed over lunch with Herman Van Rompuy, the president of the European Council. Herman Van Rompuy announced that a discussion of the candidates for the positions of president of the European Council and president of the eurozone was planned for the margins of the March European Council. This discussion would be chaired by the Danish presidency as Mr Van Rompuy himself was standing for re-election as president of the European Council and for election as president of the eurozone. Mr Van Rompuy also informed the Council that an issues paper would be issued on the “European Semester” which assessed the performance of member states under recommendations made in the 2011 annual growth survey.
The UK specific recommendations focused on addressing the fiscal deficit, housing benefit reform, encouraging financing—particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises and measures to tackle unemployment. The March European Council will also make new recommendations for 2012.
I referred to the Letter on Growth of 20 February written by the Prime Minister and 11 other Heads of State or Government and called for this letter to inform heavily, the conclusions of the March European Council. Restoring growth should be the EU’s top priority and the measures discussed in the letter, such as agreeing to free trade agreements and reducing the burden of regulations from the EU were essential to delivering this growth and ensuring Europe’s future competitiveness.
Ministers agreed that Serbia would also feature at the March European Council following the upward referral of this issue by the GAC.
Belarus
Following on from the discussion at the FAC (see above), Ministers approved strengthened measures against those responsible for the crackdown on civil society and the opposition in Belarus, adding 21 names to the list of people targeted by a travel ban and asset-freeze. This decision caused Belarus to recall its ambassadors to Poland and the EU, and invite the Polish ambassador to Belarus and the Head of the EU delegation to return to their capitals for consultations. At Baroness Ashton’s suggestion, all EU member states agreed to recall their ambassadors from Belarus for consultations. The Foreign Secretary issued the following statement on 29 February:
“I am deeply disappointed at the decision of the Belarusian authorities to recall their ambassadors to the EU and Poland and to seek the recall of the EU and Polish ambassadors to Minsk. This is their response to the imposition of further EU sanctions on 28 February.
The UK, together with its EU partners, has consistently made clear to Belarus that the EU would continue to impose further sanctions as long as political prisoners remained in place and the repression of civil society continued. I regret that there have been no positive developments in this respect and that, instead, the repression has continued unabated and further political prisoners have been detained.
We remain committed to supporting the people of Belarus and willing to re-engage fully with Belarus once the conditions are right.
In the light of this most recent development, the UK has decided, in solidarity with all other EU member states, to recall for consultations its ambassador to Minsk and to summon the Belarusian ambassador to the UK to the Foreign Office”.
I will continue to update Parliament on future Foreign and General Affairs Councils.
Treaty on Stability, Co-ordination and Governance
David Lidington Excerpts(12 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) and all hon. Members who have taken part in the debate. I am conscious that in the limited time available I am unlikely to be able to do justice to all the various and detailed questions that have been asked. As my hon. Friend said, I gave evidence on this subject to the European Scrutiny Committee for nearly two hours last Thursday. I am not sure whether the transcript is yet available on the Committee’s website, but if Members wish to explore these matters further, I refer them to the detailed answers that I attempted to give to my hon. Friend and other members of the Committee.
I take very seriously the comments made by a large number of hon. Members about the importance of scrutiny. I completely agree with those who have said that while the European Scrutiny Committee does an excellent job within its prescribed terms of reference, which are confined to looking at documents as they come from the EU institutions, there is a powerful case for what one might term more upstream engagement by Parliament in examining the strategic direction of European policy before it takes the form of specific items of European legislation. Some, at least, of the Chairs of the departmental Select Committees are interested in pursuing that further, and I very much hope that they will feel encouraged to do so.
In response to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips) and others who asked about having debates before European Councils, I can only repeat what has been said before from this Dispatch Box: it was an explicit part of Tony Wright’s report, which led to the creation of the Backbench Business Committee, that such debates should be among those for which responsibility was transferred from the Government to the Backbench Business Committee, to be dealt with in the time that was allocated to that Committee.
Mr Lidington
I will not give way, but I take seriously the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) made about the Backbench Business Committee wanting to have predictable times at which it can schedule such debates. The Leader of the House was listening carefully when he made his remarks and, I am sure, will be attentive to that particular point. I draw my hon. Friend’s attention to the fact that a review of the procedures suggested by the Wright Committee is due in the near future.
I did not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stone when he laid strictures on individual EU countries. Greece and Italy may do things differently from how politics is done here, but everything that has happened in those countries so far has been within the bounds of their constitutions. The legislation that the Governments of those countries take through has to be enacted by the democratically elected Parliaments.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stone was right to point to what I believe to be a genuine, underlying tension in European affairs at the moment between two important pressures. The first is the economic logic, which prescribes that if we had a single currency, interest rate and monetary policy, logically we would have to move towards greater fiscal integration. That, after all, is one reason why I and most members of my party opposed the United Kingdom entering the euro. We felt that that was the inherent logic of the project. Against that, there is the political challenge, which is whether, if there is to be greater fiscal integration among countries that share a single currency, there is a sufficient sense of common political identity, not just for the Governments of those countries, but for their voters, that they can accept major decisions in economic policy being taken at, and democratic accountability being transferred to, the European institutional level, rather than being based solely at national level.
Mr Baron
My right hon. Friend is well respected in his post. Can he highlight the concrete and substantive guarantees that will exist to prevent the two-tier Europe that is being created through the establishment of the fiscal compact from acting against the best interests of this country?
Mr Lidington
There are two parts to my answer. First, the action that the Prime Minister took in December ensured that what other countries chose freely to do, through sovereign decisions, will not be binding on the UK through European law. Secondly, as a number of my hon. Friends have said, the Government are determined to work actively with other members of the European Union in pursuit of common interests. Although this might not give the assurance that can be given by a rule book, the culture that I see at work in the European Union week by week is one in which countries come to the table with interests and views of their own. Countries do not act as a predictable bloc or cohesive caucus because they happen to belong to the euro. There are eurozone countries lined up with us to support budgetary discipline. Other eurozone countries—largely net recipients—want to see a greater EU budget. There are also euro-outs that are net recipients and that want to see a bigger European budget. The way in which countries line up on particular issues does not follow logically from where they stand in relation to the fiscal compact or from whether they are members of the eurozone.
Mr Lidington
I will not give way again, because I have limited time and there are a lot of points to which I wish to respond.
I will not dwell on what happened in December because I want to get on to what hon. Members asked me this afternoon. However, I draw the House’s attention to the fact that my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have now sent detailed accounts of the approach to the December European Council meeting and the events that took place shortly afterwards to my hon. Friends the Members for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) and for Chichester (Mr Tyrie) in their capacities as Chairs respectively of the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Treasury Committee. Those letters have been copied to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone and are already available on the websites of the Foreign Affairs and Treasury Committees. I am making arrangements for them to be placed in the Library today.
The Prime Minister’s decision in December ensured that the treaty, to which 25 countries subscribed, was “outside” the European Union. As my right hon. Friend told the House in January,
“we are not part of it and it places no obligations on the UK. It does not have the force of EU law for us, nor does it for the EU institutions or for the countries that have signed it”.—[Official Report, 31 January 2012; Vol. 539, c. 678.]
I want to deal with some of the points that my hon. Friends the Members for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) and for Hertsmere (Mr Clappison) made. The treaty does not govern how the European Union shall act. It imposes certain obligations on the contracting states, which are linked to the EU. However, in so far as it refers to EU treaties, it makes it clear that they and their rules have primacy and apply in any circumstance where there might be overlap or apparent contradiction.
My hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset asked about the prospect of non-eurozone members being fined under the fiscal compact. If a non-eurozone member state has ratified the treaty, until it joins the euro, it can decide which parts of titles III and IV of the compact apply to it. Once that country joins the euro, the whole fiscal compact applies to it. The fiscal compact rule in article 3(2) and the jurisdiction of the Court under article 8 fall within title III, so pending membership of the euro, the non-euro countries can choose whether they wish to be bound by those aspects of the compact. A member state, whether in the euro or not, can be fined only once it has ratified the fiscal compact through its national means.
My hon. Friend also asked about the risk of the treaty somehow being imposed on us in the next five years by underhand means.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
I want to clarify the point that I was trying to make. The treaty might possibly come in through enhanced co-operation, so although it would not formally be imposed on us, it would reach the status of an EU treaty if the current treaty that we are in the process of ratifying is ratified.
Mr Lidington
I do not know whether we will have time to explore that this afternoon. I may write to my hon. Friend setting out the answer in greater detail, but I do not believe that his fears are justified. Treaty change can take place only under the procedures for treaty change in the treaty on European union and the treaty on the functioning of the European Union. It cannot take place under enhanced co-operation, which can, in any case, bind only those countries that choose to participate in it. That is clear in the treaties.
The role given to the European Court in the compact in relation to the balanced budget rule—and, indeed, the imposition of that rule—could not be introduced under enhanced co-operation. Although the compact declares that it has the objective of being incorporated in the EU treaties in five years, that is only an aspiration, not a given. Any changes to the EU treaties would have to be agreed by all 27 member states, using the procedures under the EU treaties themselves for treaty amendment. Change cannot be made through the EFSM treaty, which is to be signed intergovernmentally by the eurozone members only.
Mr Lidington
Forgive me, but I will not because I want to press on and try to answer more of the questions asked during the debate.
It is a fact that the compact says that it is a treaty that shall be applied in conformity with the obligations set out in the EU treaties. The declared intent of the signatories is that they shall act at all times in accordance with EU law.
It is a matter of legal fact that the primacy of EU law laid down in the EU treaties is not and cannot be affected by the drafting of an intergovernmental treaty. Article 2 of the compact explicitly states that if there is any conflict or overlap, the EU treaties will prevail. In any case, even if that phrase were absent from article 2, it would be against EU law for EU member states to enter into any kind of international agreement that contradicts the EU treaties and EU law.
However, it is also true that elements of the fiscal compact give us serious concern. Our concerns relate to certain tasks accorded to the European Commission and the European Court of Justice. I set out our concerns in greater detail in my evidence to the European Scrutiny Committee last Thursday. In fairness, it is worth alluding to the fact that others who gave evidence to the Committee—I am thinking of Professor Dougan, of Martin Howe, who is by no means a euro-enthusiast, and of the Council Legal Service written evidence to the Committee—presented a different interpretation and argued that article 273 of the EU treaties could be interpreted as justifying what was set out on the use of the institutions under the fiscal compact.
The concern of the British Government is that the example set under the compact for the EU institutions, the role and functions of which are determined by treaties agreed by all 27 member states, could be used in future either to set unwelcome precedents or to impinge on the integrity of EU law and the arrangements set out in the EU treaties. That is why we have reserved our legal position. That in turn means that we are vigilant and ready to act, including by taking legal action in the European Court of Justice, if we believe that the EU institutions are being used in a way that is contrary to the provisions of the EU treaties and that harms our national interest.
The Prime Minister made clear at the informal January European Council that the EU institutions can be used outside the EU treaties only with the consent of all member states. He also said that the treaty should not undermine the operation of the single market or otherwise infringe on areas of policy that are properly for discussion by all member states in the EU context. That position was repeated in writing by Sir Jon Cunliffe, our permanent representative to the EU, on 22 February. I deposited that letter in the Library of the House on the same day.
The actions the Government have taken in respect of the compact have been informed by advice from across Government. I will not be drawn into a detailed discussion of what the Government’s legal analysis says, not least because reserving our position means that we might at some stage wish to go down the path of legal action. I do not want to say anything that might prejudice or reveal a position that we might take in court in such circumstances.
I am sure most hon. Members realise how foolish it would be to speak in such a fashion, but I am confident that reserving our position is the best way of protecting UK interests. It enables our partners to undertake economic and political tasks that we hope will help to stabilise the eurozone while preserving our right to take legal action should that become necessary.
The problem all our economies face in Europe is a lack of growth. That growth will not come from increased Government spending, nor will it come from consumer spending funded by increased private indebtedness; it can come only from structural reform and a growth in trade, both within Europe and beyond. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood), and my hon. Friends the Members for South Swindon (Mr Buckland), for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) and for Stroud (Neil Carmichael), spoke strongly in the interests of their constituents when they urged the Government to press forward with an innovative and assertive agenda for economic reform and growth in Europe. We are working with our partners to do that, as was evidenced by the letter to which the Prime Minister added his signature to those of 11 other Heads of Government, and for which Bulgaria, Slovenia, Portugal and Lithuania have voiced support. The Government intend to be active in promoting our economic interests in Europe and the wider world, and I commend our approach to the House.
EU-Central America Association Agreement
David Lidington Excerpts(12 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
I wish to inform the House that the Government has opted in to the following measures:
(i) the Council decision relating to the proposal on the signature and provisional application of an association agreement between EU and central America.
ii) the Council decision relating to the proposal on the conclusion of the association agreement between the EU and central America.
The EU proposes to enter into an association agreement with central America. The UK supports the agreement, which covers all aspects of the bi-regional relationship. Its objectives are to strengthen political dialogue and co-operation on issues of common interest, and to boost respective trade flows and investments.
The agreement will contribute to UK security and prosperity, and to the further development of the UK’s bilateral relationships with the countries of central America and the region as a whole. Its measures are in line with the Government’s trade policy objectives on liberalisation of services and investment, as well as with the Government’s wider policy towards central America.
Following signature, those parts of the agreement in which the EU has exclusive competence will be provisionally applied. These areas are contained in part IV, the trade part. With regard to part IV, the agreement aims to eliminate high tariffs, tackle technical barriers to trade, liberalise services markets, protect EU geographical indications, open up public procurement markets, include commitments on the enforcement of labour and environmental standards and offer effective and swift dispute settlement procedures. Its measures go beyond WTO commitments and ensure a level playing field with competitors in the region. It includes robust clauses on human rights, sustainable development and international labour standards, any of which can be invoked as reason for suspension of trade preferences.
The Council decisions extend the UK’s commitments in mode 4, thus triggering the UK Justice and Home Affairs opt-in. The agreement contains obligations which fall within the scope of title V (Area of Freedom, Justice and Security) of the treaty on the functioning of the EU (TFEU), specifically those in article 49(4) on readmission. The provisions within this article, on the temporary movement of natural persons for business purposes (known as “Mode-4” trade-in services), trigger the opt-in. I believe it is in the UK’s interest to opt in to these measures, which are an integral part of our wider approach on trade and support our other commitments in services and investment liberalisation.
Foreign Affairs Council/General Affairs Council
David Lidington Excerpts(12 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
The Foreign Affairs Council will meet on 27 February and the General Affairs Council on 28 February. Both meetings will take place in Brussels. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will attend the Foreign Affairs Council. I will attend the General Affairs Council.
foreign affairs council (fac)
Syria
We hope to secure Council adoption of strong conclusions and a new package of sanctions to put pressure on the Assad regime, in the light of the UN General Assembly resolution of 16 February and the Friends of Syria group meeting in Tunis on 24 February. We also hope that the FAC will agree to press for more EU action on the humanitarian front, and highlight the need for more support for the Opposition.
Egypt
The Council will reflect on the transition in Egypt, which is at a key point following parliamentary elections. Further progress on the elections is threatened by the continued deterioration in the economy, crackdown on civil society and recent violence. We hope the Council will adopt conclusions that maintain the pressure for progress and set out EU support for Egypt, once there has been a fair and free transition to civilian rule.
Serbia/Kosovo
We expect Ministers to discuss progress in the EU-facilitated dialogue between Serbia and Kosovo. This will be followed by a more in-depth discussion at the GAC the following day, where member states will consider whether to grant Serbia EU candidate status. The Government welcome progress made by Serbia and Kosovo in the dialogue so far, and urge both sides to maintain a constructive engagement in the process. The Government urge Serbia to continue to make every effort to meet the requirements set out by the European Council in December. The Government are also a strong supporter of Kosovo’s EU future.
MEPP
Over lunch, Ministers will be updated on contact between the Israelis and Palestinians, with an assessment of the current state of Palestinian reconciliation talks. This discussion is not expected to lead to formal conclusions—which are instead expected at the subsequent FAC in March.
South Caucasus
Ministers hope to discuss developments of the EU’s engagement in the south Caucasus since the last FAC discussion in June 2010, when the Council agreed the following conclusions:
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/115147.pdf.
We expect conclusions to be adopted covering the EU’s relationship with the three countries of the south Caucasus, and covering efforts to achieve peaceful settlement of the conflicts in the region. We believe the conclusions should emphasise that forthcoming elections in the south Caucasus should meet internationally recognised democratic standards.
Somalia
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary hopes to brief the Council on developments at the 23 February London conference on Somalia. This may be followed by further, concrete EU action to be agreed at the March FAC.
Brazil/Mexico
Baroness Ashton may brief on her recent visits to Brazil and Mexico. Following this, there may be a short discussion on the current state of the EU’s relationship with each of these emerging powers.
general affairs council (gac)
March European Council
Ministers will discuss preparation for the March European Council being held the following week (1-2 March); which will focus on economic policy; preparation for international summits (G8 in May, G20 in June and the Rio plus 20 in June) and Serbia.
i) Economic Policy
Ministers will discuss economic and employment policies with an emphasis on green growth and on structural reforms to increase competitiveness and create more jobs, in line with the statement from the January informal European Council. That Council agreed to accelerate action on the digital single market and legislation that will strengthen further the single market; for instance in the services and energy sectors.
The statement of the January informal European Council can be found at:
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/enyec/127599.pdf.
In preparation for the March European Council, the Prime Minister jointly wrote a letter with 11 other EU member states to Herman Van Rompuy, President of the European Council, and Jose Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission, to outline a plan for growth in Europe. I have placed copies of this letter in the Libraries of both Houses.
There will also be a discussion on the reforms implemented under the European semester and the Commission will announce their new recommendations for 2012. The UK specific recommendations for 2011 focused on addressing the fiscal deficit, housing benefit reform, encouraging financing, particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises and measures to tackle unemployment.
The UK specific recommendations can be found at:
http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/11/st11/st11399-re01.en11.pdf.
ii) International Summits
Ministers will discuss the EU’s approach to the upcoming G8, G20 and Rio plus 20 conferences. The May G8 summit in Chicago will focus on political and global issues. The June G20 summit in Mexico will focus on economics and finance and is expected to include green growth. The June Rio plus 20 will cover green growth in the context of sustainable development and institutional reform.
iii) Serbia
The March European Council is expected to endorse the decision on Serbia reached at the General Affairs Council (please see link).
Serbia
Ministers will be expected to make a decision, in the light of the discussion at the Foreign Affairs Council, on whether to grant Serbia candidate status. The discussion was deferred to this GAC from the December European Council. The December European Council tasked the Council with examining and confirming whether Serbia has continued to show credible commitment and made further progress in the dialogue, among other issues.
The December European Council conclusions can be found at: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/126714.pdf.
Bulgaria and Romania
We expect Council conclusions in relation to Bulgaria and Romania’s progress on the co-operation and verification mechanism (CVM), a safeguard measure to monitor progress for acceding states in the areas of freedom, security and justice. The Council is expected to welcome the interim reports on the progress in Bulgaria and Romania under the CVM and acknowledge the continued efforts by Bulgaria and Romania to meet the objectives set under the mechanism. Further reports are expected in the summer of 2012 including the overall assessment of progress since accession of Bulgaria and Romania to the EU in 2007.
Lunch with Herman Van Rompuy
Following the GAC, Herman Van Rompuy will present, over lunch, the latest progress on the intergovernmental treaty. The intergovernmental treaty is expected to be signed in the margins of the March European Council on 2 March.
Central Asia
David Lidington Excerpts(12 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
Last year the countries of Central Asia celebrated the 20th anniversary of their independence from the Soviet Union. 2012 marks two decades since the UK established diplomatic relations with these countries.
The central Asian states—Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan—were in many respects dealt a difficult hand at independence. Their mixed record in responding to the challenge of independence over the past 20 years, in a resource-rich but unstable and landlocked region, reflects that. Active and constructive UK engagement with these countries remains essential. They constitute a region of growing importance for the UK’s prosperity and security interests. We have a commitment to promoting the core values of rule of law, human rights and democracy that we hold dear and that we regard as the best basis for future stability and growth in this region. With our new embassy in Bishkek opening in December 2011, we now have embassies in all five countries.
Central Asia’s scope for economic development is considerable. We must proactively pursue commercial opportunities and seek to unlock the region’s energy potential. The UK is already among the largest international investors in Kazakhstan, and we are rapidly developing our trade relations elsewhere in the region: UK bilateral trade with central Asia in 2011 was more than double that in 2010, standing at some £1.1 billion by November. We want this trend to continue. We also give priority, bilaterally and with our EU partners, to the diversification of energy supplies—including through the development of a southern corridor bringing gas from the Caspian region via Turkey to the EU. Visits such as that by the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry) to Kazakhstan in September 2011 are a key component in supporting our prosperity goals. We need more regular contacts of this kind with the region.
As another important element of the UK’s engagement, the Department for International Development continues to play an active role in the region. Their bilateral programme, set at £14 million per year, is helping to reduce poverty in the region through promoting sustainable growth and good governance, in particular in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, and through building on the positive opportunities for regional development.
Central Asia is equally important to our security interests. We have a shared interest in regional stability and in achieving a stable transition and secure future for Afghanistan, which borders three of the central Asian states. We welcome the constructive role the central Asian states are already playing in helping secure Afghanistan’s long-term stability, including through infrastructure projects. We are keen to see them co-operate ever more closely with Afghanistan on such “connectivity” projects and make their voices heard in regional dialogue. They can also play a key role in helping us support the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) and UK forces in particular as we actively look for ways to improve our supply lines into and out of Afghanistan through the Northern Line of Communication. More broadly, we and the international community must engage with the central Asian states on a range of security issues, including counter-narcotics and border security, conflict prevention and crisis management work, counter-radicalisation, and some aspects of defence reform and co-operation, if we are to promote effectively wider regional security and stability. Ministry of Defence Ministers will be visiting the region shortly in support of UK security goals.
Underpinning our prosperity and security interests is our commitment to promote the UK’s core values in all our activities in the region. The central Asian states will continue to face many challenges in this regard, and several of them have a considerable way to go before meeting their international commitments on human rights, democracy and the rule of law. We need to be clear both in recognising their deficiencies in these areas and in voicing our related concerns. But we also believe that, as in other parts of the world, the most effective way to address such concerns is through constructive engagement, both with Governments and civil society in the region. Promoting international standards, working bilaterally and multilaterally to support the region as it seeks to reform and, when necessary, robustly raising our human rights concerns with the host Governments will remain at the heart of what we do.
Turquoise Resort (UK Property Owners)
David Lidington Excerpts(12 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
May I start by thanking the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long) for bringing this subject to the House’s attention? Anyone who heard her speak will have no doubt that her constituents have a formidable champion in her. I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), who brought their constituents’ concerns to the House in their interventions. The way in which Governments around the world encourage foreign property investment in their countries and subsequently support those who invest is a subject in which everyone in the House has an interest. In the United Kingdom, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in particular has a responsibility to ensure that where necessary we are delivering high-quality consular services to our nationals as part of their overseas experience.
Before I come to the specific issues concerning Turkey and the particular site raised by the hon. Lady, I want to put this issue in the broader perspective of the Government’s consular policy with regard to overseas property issues more generally. The Institute for Public Policy Research reported in a paper that it published in 2006 that more than 5.5 million British citizens were living overseas permanently. Its most recent analysis, which was published in 2010, showed that the number had grown to 5.6 million, with another half a million of our fellow citizens living abroad for part of the year. In comparison, our overseas missions confirm that only a very small percentage of British nationals abroad contact them about property disputes in their chosen country of residence. I do not want to sound complacent, but I think that suggests that the majority of British nationals who live overseas do so with relatively few property problems. However, I acknowledge from the start that those statistics do not reflect the distress suffered by those who do come across such property problems and the potential loss of large sums of hard-earned and hard-saved money.
I want to assure the House that the British Government do everything they properly can to offer practical assistance. In those countries where a large number of British nationals buy property, our missions now provide guidance about the local housing and property market. That is achieved mainly through our embassy websites, which are the most effective way of reaching a wide audience, but also through ad hoc media opportunities. The information on our embassy websites aims to raise public awareness of the potential pitfalls of buying a property in a foreign country and also offers advice on steps to take before buying a property. Naturally, the information on websites varies from country to country and is tailored to reflect the relevant local and national circumstances. In some cases, we include contact details for organisations that might help those with property problems or recommend where specific complaints can be directed. In other cases, the websites provide contact details of relevant Ministers or information about local legal aid that is available.
We will continue to monitor local property markets; that is a duty of our mission heads in all countries where large numbers of British citizens choose to live. Our mission heads are also responsible for updating the advice hosted on their websites accordingly. Where we are aware of more systemic property issues that affect our nationals in particular, such as national property laws that exclude British property owners from benefits, our officials raise the subject with the authorities in the relevant country, and we do that at all levels of government, from Ministers to local police forces. During my most recent visit to Spain at the beginning of February, I discussed some of the problems experienced by British citizens buying property in Spain with my Spanish opposite number, Mr Mendez de Vigo. I also discussed the property issue with the Bulgarian Foreign Minister, Nikolai Mladenov, in Sofia earlier this month. About 15,000 British nationals own property in Bulgaria, and its Ministry of Justice works closely with our officials at the British embassy in Sofia. They are constructing a new website, which has been designed to take account of the kind of complaints that have been received in order to help foreign property investors better in future. I will continue to raise property issues during my meetings with Ministers and senior officials of foreign Governments.
In recent years we have also devoted more resources both in Britain and abroad to understanding the nature of property problems in the countries to which I have referred, and we now have a dedicated property issues team at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in London, as well as a large number of consular staff overseas with relevant expertise, who all work closely on the subject. We are starting to see foreign Governments respond positively to our efforts. For example, in Spain there have been significant changes to the property laws. In addition, the Andalucian regional government is preparing a decree to legalise or recognise the majority of properties, many foreign owned, which had previously been declared illegal.
Another way in which we seek to raise awareness with the British public is through an FCO presence at a variety of property road shows. For example, we host a stand twice a year at the “A Place in the Sun” property exhibition, and information on Turkey was included in that exhibition last year.
The help that we can give to individual British citizens is appropriate to the individual circumstances of each case. As the hon. Lady acknowledged, our advice to those caught up in a property dispute overseas is that they should seek independent legal counsel, who would be best placed to advise on their rights in that country and the correct methods of legal or other redress in the country where the property is located. I will be straight with the hon. Lady. Our consular policy is very clear: we cannot give formal legal advice. We do not have the expertise to judge the legal right in any dispute or the funding to pursue it. For those reasons we cannot get involved in individual cases.
Additionally, property laws are in the end the competency of individual sovereign states. The British Government have no authority to intervene in another country’s domestic legislation, in the same way as those Governments have no authority to intervene in the making of legislation or individual court cases here.
Bearing in mind those overall points, I shall now talk about the case that the hon. Lady raised. If I am unable to complete my remarks, I will write to her in further detail after the debate. I want to stress how sorry I was to hear about the experience of her constituents and their fellow property owners. Although about 34,000 British citizens have bought properties in Turkey without such difficulties, there is, we believe, a small but regrettable number of British and other foreign citizens who have faced problems.
My officials in London, our embassy in Ankara and our consulates in Turkey are aware of the case, and I received a dossier from those affected last year. We have been in contact with a number of concerned parties, including individual owners and Members of Parliament in the United Kingdom. Our proconsul in Bodrum was approached by at least one of the British nationals associated with this case, a member of the Turquoise supervisory committee—a group established by those affected.
Our proconsul offered advice in line with our consular policy, suggesting that those affected seek legal advice, contact Turkish authorities and, if necessary, consider taking legal action in Turkey. I should say in response to the hon. Lady that although we offer on our websites or from our consulates and embassies lists of English-speaking Turkish lawyers whom we know to be available, we cannot judge the competence of a particular lawyer or firm of lawyers in Turkey or any other foreign country.
Our proconsul proposed to the gentleman to whom he spoke that he—the property owner—should return if further help was needed. In that case, the British national concerned did not ask for further assistance. Following those initial approaches to our officials in Turkey, our officials have not been asked directly for follow-up assistance by any of the concerned parties since early in 2011.
None the less, our ambassador and his officials in Turkey have raised the systemic problems of property purchasing in Turkey with the Turkish authorities, at both central and local government levels. As a result, property laws are being revised—for example, on the need for foreign nationals to obtain military permission. I give the assurance that our embassy will continue to raise these issues at future meetings, but I must repeat that we can lobby only on systemic property issues. In the case we are debating tonight, the grievance concerns the individual management of the Turquoise resort complex and the alleged intimidation of apartment owners. The management of the complex is a private dispute and, as I have said, those affected should seek legal advice on how this can be addressed in Turkey.
Naomi Long
I thank the Minister for giving way; he is very generous. There is a systemic issue over who checks that the management plan is legally valid when it is lodged with the local authority. Will he raise that matter with the Turkish authorities?
Mr Lidington
I am certainly willing to consider whether that issue can be described as systemic. I will want to reflect on the points that the hon. Lady made in her speech, but if we judge it to be something that has wider application than to one individual case, in principle I see no objection to our raising it in our conversations with the Turkish authorities.
We take the safety of British citizens in Turkey seriously, as do the Turkish authorities. Any allegation of intimidation or violence against a British citizen should be reported to the gendarmes, who would be expected to take action in line with Turkish procedures. If a British citizen is concerned that the gendarmes are failing to take legitimate concerns seriously, they should contact our consular team in Turkey so that they can make the appropriate representations to the Turkish authorities. If requested, we will certainly consider making further formal representations once all due legal processes have been exhausted, and especially if there is evidence that due process has not been followed.
On the point about advertising, anyone who considers themselves to have been a victim of fraudulent advertising should present evidence to Action Fraud, the UK’s national fraud reporting centre, which provides a central point of contract for information on this subject. That service is run by the National Fraud Authority.
I know that hon. Members will have examples of overseas property disputes individual to their constituents. Where they are indicative of systemic property issues, we will raise them with the relevant Governments. I assure the hon. Lady, and the House, that the British Government will not let up in our efforts to pursue this subject in those countries where, sadly, some of our citizens continue to face the distressing difficulties that she has described.
Question put and agreed to.
Danish Presidency of the EU
David Lidington Excerpts(12 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
I am keen to keep hon. Members fully informed on developments in the European Union and their implications for the United Kingdom and our priorities. I would, therefore, like to draw hon. Members’ attention to a paper on the priorities of the Danish presidency of the European Union, which has been placed in the Library of the House.
I have also deposited a copy of the Danish presidency strategic framework, which includes a timeline of key events and information on key Danish personnel for the presidency.
European Union Act 2011 (Section 5)
David Lidington Excerpts(12 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
A parliamentary statement has been laid before the House today, 2 February. This has been made pursuant to section 5 of the European Union Act 2011 as to whether the treaty concerning the accession of the Republic of Croatia to the European Union falls within section 4 of the EU Act.
Copies of the parliamentary statement are available from the Vote Office and Printed Paper Office. Copies of the treaty have been deposited in the Library of the House.
Foreign Affairs Council
David Lidington Excerpts(12 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
The Foreign Affairs Council (FAC) was held on 23 January in Brussels. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I attended.
The FAC was chaired by the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Baroness Ashton of Upholland. A provisional report of the meeting and all conclusions adopted can be found at:
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/127480.pdf
The agenda items covered were as follows:
Iran
Ministers agreed an extensive package of sanctions and accompanying conclusions (see link above) focusing on Iran’s nuclear programme. The measures adopted include a phased embargo on Iranian oil; freezing the Central Bank of Iran’s assets; and sanctions on the petrochemical sector, gold and precious metal and dual-use goods.
Following the meeting, the Foreign Secretary said:
“Today’s action demonstrates the EU’s growing concern about Iran’s nuclear programme, and our determination to increase peaceful, legitimate pressure on Iran to return to negotiations.
It is action made necessary by Iran’s defiance of six UN Security Council resolutions and its refusal to enter negotiations over its nuclear programme. Iran’s recent decision to commence 20% enrichment at its underground site at Qom shows that it continues to choose a path of provocation. This is an enrichment programme that has no plausible civilian use, in a site that the Iranian authorities hoped to keep secret.
We call again on Iran to answer the serious questions raised by the International Atomic Energy Agency, to adhere to UN Security Council Resolutions and to suspend its enrichment programme in accordance with them. Iran has it in its power to end sanctions by changing course and addressing the concerns of the international community. We are ready to talk at any point if Iran puts aside its preconditions. Today’s sanctions show how serious EU member states are about preventing nuclear proliferation and pressing Iran to return to the negotiating table. We will urge other nations across the world to implement similar measures and to increase the impact of the measures the EU has adopted”.
The Prime Minister made a statement on the Iranian sanctions with President Sarkozy and Chancellor Merkel on 23 January—see link below
http://www.number10.gov.uk/news/iran-sanctions/
The Foreign Secretary made a response to an urgent question on Iran in Parliament on 24 January—see link below.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201212/cmhansrd/cm120124/debtext/120124-0001.htm#12012451000004
Burma
EU Ministers agreed conclusions (see link above) recognising the recent progress in Burma and suspending visa bans against the President, members of the Cabinet and speakers of the Houses of Parliament.
Drawing from his recent visit, the Foreign Secretary highlighted the changes in Burma as justifying these first steps towards enhancing the EU’s engagement with the country. He stressed that the EU should only make any further responses following progress against our benchmarks: the release of remaining political prisoners, free and fair by-elections on 1 April, and credible steps towards resolving ethnic conflict.
Syria
Ministers agreed an 11th round of restrictive measures against Syria, which listed a further 22 individuals and eight entities. Ministers also agreed conclusions (see link above) which included expressions of concern over the Syrian Government’s brutal crackdown, and a welcome for the Arab League’s initiative to seek United Nations Security Council support for a political solution.
Speaking after the meeting, the Foreign Secretary said:
“I welcome today’s EU agreement to an 11th round of EU sanctions on Syria, targeting 22 individuals and 8 entities supporting the Syrian regime’s appalling campaign of violence and repression against its own people.
The UK has been a driving force behind these EU sanctions, working closely with other EU states. The sanctions demonstrate that the international community will identify and hold to account those responsible for abuses. Anyone involved in supporting the regime’s repression should carefully consider their actions.
The UK supports the Arab League’s leadership in seeking to resolve the current crisis. We welcome its call for President Assad to leave power and allow a political transition. Assad’s brutal repression means he has lost all legitimacy and should step aside, opening the way to the freedom demanded by the Syrian people. We will continue to increase the pressure on the Syrian regime in support of this goal.”
Serbia / Kosovo
Discussion focused on a possible decision on Serbia’s candidate status at the General Affairs Council on 27 February. I argued that the award of candidate status should be based on progress against the conditions agreed by the December European Council, in particular on regional co-operation.
Middle East Peace Process
Conclusions were agreed (see link above) supporting talks in Jordan, encouraging the parties to remain engaged and pressing Israel on settlements.
I briefed on President Abbas’s visit to London of 16-17 January, where he had meetings with the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary.
Egypt
Ministers had a brief exchange on Egypt. On 22 January (the day before the FAC), the Foreign Secretary spoke about the historic change and opportunity following the opening of the Egyptian Parliament:
“2011 was a year of historic change and opportunity for Egypt. The world was inspired by the courage of the Egyptian people in the revolution which began on 25 January, as they demonstrated for their dignity, their freedom and their rights. What has followed has been a time of great hope and optimism, but also anxiety and uncertainty. Much has been achieved, but challenges remain. The historic elections for the People’s Assembly, now almost complete, are an important step in building a prosperous and stable future for the new Egypt.
Britain will continue to be a close friend and strong partner to the Egyptian people as they consolidate the country's transition to democracy.”
Belarus
Ministers agreed to broaden the criteria for subjecting persons and entities to targeted sanctions. This paves the way for the EU to impose travel bans and asset freezes on those responsible for any serious human rights violations or the repression of civil society and the democratic opposition, and on those people or entities supporting or benefiting from the current regime.
Sudan and South Sudan
Ministers agreed conclusions (see link above) expressing concern about the deteriorating and unpredictable situation between both countries.
Speaking on 22 January, the Foreign Secretary commented:
“I am gravely concerned at reports that South Sudan intends to shut down its oil production, and at Sudan’s earlier decision to seize South Sudanese oil and prevent oil tankers from leaving its ports. Unilateral actions do nothing to further the prospects of the people of either country. I remind both governments of the statesmanship they showed last year in allowing the people of South Sudan to determine their own future. I call on them to show that same statesmanship now, by refraining from dangerous and destabilising actions of this sort, and by continuing to work with President Mbeki and the AU High Level Implementation Panel to negotiate a fair settlement.”
Somalia
I updated Ministers on the forthcoming London conference on Somalia, and committed to follow up at a future FAC.
Religious Freedom
Italy initiated a short discussion about how the EU might update its approach to human rights and freedom of religion and beliefs in the context the recent bombings in Nigeria.
Common Security and Defence Policy
EU Ministers adopted without discussion conclusions on the activation of the EU Operations Centre for the horn of Africa (see link above).
I will continue to update Parliament on future Foreign and General Affairs Councils.
Foreign Affairs Council: 23 January - General Affairs Council: 27 January
David Lidington Excerpts(12 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and I will attend the Foreign Affairs Council on 23 January. I will also attend the General Affairs Council on 27 January.
foreign affairs council
The High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Baroness Ashton of Upholland, will chair the Foreign Affairs Council on 23 January.
Iran
As agreed at the December 2011 FAC, Ministers should be presented with a package to expand and strengthen EU sanctions against Iran, including an oil embargo and further restrictions on finance, petrochemicals and gold. If agreed, these measures will reflect the degree of EU concern about the continued development of the Iran’s nuclear programme. These robust measures aim to reduce Iran’s ability to fund its nuclear programme and to encourage it to resume serious and meaningful negotiations.
Syria
In response to the continuing repression, we are pushing to agree strong conclusions on Syria and a further round of EU sanctions. The UK has proposed an additional list of 21 military and security officials we believe are responsible for the violence against civilians. We are also working with partners to agree further sanctions at the February FAC.
Burma
Ministers will discuss recent developments in Burma, including the release last week of a significant number of political prisoners, and how the EU can best support the Burmese Government in continuing on their path of reform. We expect conclusions to be adopted welcoming the recent positive developments; and making it clear that the EU will respond substantively if further progress is made in key areas, including free and fair by-elections on 1 April, and further steps towards resolving the ethnic conflict.
On 13 December the Foreign Secretary said:
“I am delighted to hear that a significant number of political prisoners in Burma have today been released, including 88 Generation and ethnic leaders”.
“The release of all political prisoners is a long-standing demand of the international community and I warmly welcome these releases as a further demonstration of the Burmese Government’s commitment to reform”.
“This is exactly the kind of measure I called for in all my meetings with Burmese Government leaders last week. So is this week’s much needed ceasefire in the conflict with the Karen people. I hope these positive steps will contribute to greater democratic participation in the upcoming parliamentary by-elections”.
Speaking on 12 January, the Foreign Secretary welcomed the ceasefire between the Burmese Government and Karen National Union:
“I welcome the reports that the Burmese Government and Karen National Union have signed a ceasefire after 63 years of fighting. This is good news for the people of Burma. It has been a long-standing goal of the international community to see a ceasefire, and indeed it was one of the key issues on which I urged the Burmese Government to make progress during my visit last week when I also met with Karen representatives. There is still a long way to go fully to rebuild trust between the parties after so many years of conflict, but this is an important step in the right direction”.
MEPP
Ministers are likely to receive a report from Baroness Ashton on the talks in Amman between Israeli and Palestinian negotiators, which Quartet representatives also attended.
We also hope to agree conclusions which welcome the direct talks facilitated by the Jordanians as part of the Quartet process; encourage both parties to present comprehensive proposals on territory and security as called for in the Quartet statement; and urge both parties to refrain from actions which might damage the prospects of a two-state solution.
Egypt
We expect discussions to focus on the completion of elections to the lower House and the first sitting due on 23 January. We will urge EU partners to maintain a high-level of ambition on the EU offer, and to ensure that it is communicated effectively; and to push the Egyptians on the central role that civil society has to play in the transition process. Although there are unlikely to be conclusions at this FAC, we expect there to be some in February reporting on progress on the transition.
Sudan/South Sudan
The discussion is likely to focus on the unresolved issues and tension between the two countries following secession of South Sudan in July 2011. Additionally, Ministers may review the ongoing conflicts and lack of humanitarian access in Southern Kordofan, Blue Nile, Abyei and Darfur, and the recent violence in Jonglei, South Sudan. We expect the adoption of the first formal conclusions since South Sudan’s secession, which we believe should mark the progress that secession represents, while setting out the EU’s concern at the ongoing conflict, human rights abuses and weak governance in both countries.
Serbia/Kosovo
Baroness Ashton is expected to brief Ministers on progress in the EU-facilitated dialogue between Serbia and Kosovo. A decision on Serbia’s EU candidate status will be taken at the February GAC; so any ensuing discussion at this FAC will probably focus on Serbian progress towards meeting the necessary conditions on Kosovo as specified by the December European Council. We welcome the progress made over the Christmas period, with Serbia and Kosovo implementing the dialogue agreement on freedom of movement. But we believe there is still more for Serbia to do to meet fully the European Council’s requirements before the February GAC, particularly on Kosovan representation in regional fora.
Belarus
We expect Ministers to agree an expansion of the designation criteria for exiting EU sanctions against Belarus. Formal conclusions may also be agreed, and Ministers may discuss the political and human rights situation in Belarus.
Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP)/Horn of Africa
Although CSDP/Horn of Africa is not a formal agenda item, Ministers may be asked to agree conclusions reaffirming their commitment to launch the regional maritime capacity building (RMCB) mission to the Horn of Africa—as agreed by Ministers at the FAC on 1 December. The mission will help to strengthen the counter piracy efforts of local actors. We are keen to see the RMCB make a tangible difference on the ground, and to ensure that the EU Operations Centre best co-ordinates military support to this predominantly civilian mission and ensures coherence with existing EU missions in the region.
Religious Freedom
Although not a formal agenda item, we expect Italy to raise freedom of religion following recent violence against places of worship in Nigeria. On 25 December, the Foreign Secretary said:
“I condemn today’s bomb attacks in or near churches in Nigeria. These are cowardly attacks on families gathered in peace and prayer to celebrate a day which symbolises harmony and goodwill towards others. I offer my condolences to the bereaved and injured”.
general affairs council (gac)
The GAC will be chaired by the new Danish EU presidency.
Before the official programme of the General Affairs Council, Herman van Rompuy will present, over breakfast, the latest situation with the intergovernmental treaty. There are two main items on the GAC agenda in January. The first is the European Council: follow-up to the December Council and preparation for January’s informal Council on growth the following week (30 January).
The conclusions of the December European Council meeting can be found at:
http://www.european-council.europa.eu/council-meetings/conclusions.aspx.
The second substantive item is the multi-annual financial framework, where there will be a stock-take of progress made in technical working groups. The Danish presidency will explain how they plan to organise this negotiation under their chairmanship.
There will also be an update on recent decisions taken by the European Parliament and a presentation of the Danish presidency’s work plan.