By John Bruton, former Irish Prime Minister (Taoiseach)
This letter is important because it sets out the thinking of the new UK Government. It should be taken seriously and analysed. It contains a number of internal contradictions which should be, politely but persistently, probed by EU negotiators. I hope to explore some of these in this note.WHAT IS THE ESSENCE OF SOVEREIGNTY?
Some of the terms used in the letter need to be defined.
For example, Mr Johnson claims the Irish backstop is inconsistent with the “sovereignty” of the UK as a state.
All international agreements impinge on sovereignty. But the ultimate sovereignty of a state concerns the states monopoly on the use of force within its territory. UK sovereignty in Britain and Northern Ireland is not interfered with by the backstop, in that basic understanding of state sovereignty.
WHAT IS JOHNSON OFFERING ON THE UNIQUE CHALLENGES FACING IRELAND?
Mr Johnson’s letter says
“ Ireland is the UK’s closest neighbour, with whom we will continue to share uniquely deep ties, a land border, the Common Travel Area, and much else besides. We remain, as we have always been, committed to working with Ireland on the peace process, and to furthering Northern Ireland’s security and prosperity. We recognise the unique challenges the outcome of the referendum poses for Ireland, and want to find solutions to the border which work for all.”
It continues
“ I want to re-emphasis the commitment of this Government to peace in Northern Ireland. The Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement, as well as being an agreement between the UK and Ireland, is a historic agreement between two traditions in Northern Ireland, and we are unconditionally committed to the spirit and letter of our obligations under it in all circumstances – whether there is a deal with the EU or not.”
Boris Johnson recognises what he calls the “unique challenges” Brexit poses for Ireland.It would be useful to ask him to set out in his own words 
what he thinks these “unique challenges” are, and to ask him to set out his own words
how he believes these can be met and
how his government might contribute to this.
I have the sense that neither he, nor his fellow Brexit advocates, have ever undertaken such a mental exercise.
Again, he says he is “unconditionally” committed to the “letter and the spirit “of the UK’s obligations under the Good Friday Agreement. 
It would be useful to ask Prime Minister Johnson to put in his own words what he considers these obligations to be, particularly as regards the “spirit “of the Agreement.
DIVERGENCE IS CENTRAL TO BREXIT, CONVERGENCE IS CENTRAL TO BELFAST AGREEMENT
Later in his letter, Mr Johnson says 
“When the UK leaves the EU and after any transition period, we will leave the single market and the customs union. Although we will remain committed to world-class environment, product and labour standards, the laws and regulations to deliver them will potentially diverge from those of the EU. That is the point of our exit and our ability to enable this is central to our future democracy.”
This is the most revealing paragraph of the entire letter.The whole point of Brexit, according to Mr Johnson, is to “diverge” from EU standards on environment, product and labour standards. This means Northern Ireland’s environment, product, and labour standards diverging from those of Ireland (as a member of the EU).
FROM WHICH EU STANDARDS DOES UK WISH TO DIVERGE?
Although it has been promoting Brexit for three years now, the UK government has yet to say which EU standards it wants to diverge from, and why it wishes to do so. Divergence, for its own sake, is what the UK wants, according to Mr Johnson. Given that the Good Friday Agreement is all about convergence (not divergence) between the two parts of Ireland, and between Britain and Ireland, there is a head on contradiction between these two parts of Mr Johnson’s letter. On the detail of the backstop, he says
“By requiring continued membership of the customs union and applying many single market rules in Northern Ireland, it presents the whole of the UK with the choice of remaining in a customs union and aligned with those rules, or of seeing Northern Ireland gradually detached from the UK economy across a very broad range of areas. Both of those outcomes are unacceptable to the British Government.”
This point has some validity in its own terms. If no alternative solution is found, and the backstop comes into effect, new EU rules, in the making of which the UK will not have had a hand, with apply either to the whole of the UK or to Northern Ireland.
So far the UK has been unable to come up with a credible alternative to the backstop, that would allow Brexit to go ahead, but also to avoid progressive divergence in regulations between the two parts of Ireland. 
That is the core problem, and Mr Johnson’s letter makes clear that “divergence” is the whole point of Brexit and “central to our future democracy”. It is important the UK public understand what their government is committing itself to.
IT IS BREXIT, NOT THE BACKSTOP, THAT UPSETS THE BALANCE
MrJohnson also claims that 
“ the backstop risks weakening the delicate balance embodied in the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement. The historic compromise in Northern Ireland is based upon a carefully negotiated balance between both traditions in Northern Ireland, grounded in agreement, consent, and respect for minority rights”
He is right to say that the Belfast Agreement is a carefully negotiated balance. But Brexit, of its very nature, upsets that balance. Brexit, as Mr Johnson’s letter says, is about divergence. If there is to be divergence between jurisdictions, there must be border controls between those jurisdictions. Brexit upsets the balance by forcing a choice between
having the divergence/border between North and South in Ireland (thereby favouring the  “unionist” position) or 
having the divergence/border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK (thereby favouring the “nationalist” position).
Brexit alone is responsible for forcing such a choice. And Brexit is a UK initiative, not something forced upon it. The only way to preserve the “balance”, to which Mr Johnson says he is committed, would be to dis-aggregate the regulations into categories, and have half the controls North/ South and half on an East/ West basis within the UK. This would be clumsy and would take years to negotiate. But so also is Brexit.
MINORITY RIGHTS AND BREXIT
Mr Johnson’s letter refers to
 “respect for minority rights”.
The majority of people in Northern Ireland voted against Brexit, but their wishes are to ignored because a majority in the wider UK voted for Brexit.  Brexit, as promoted by Mr Johnson, is a radical rejection of this minority rights aspect of the Good Friday Agreement.
Mr Johnson says
“The Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement neither depends upon nor requires a particular customs or regulatory regime.“
It is true that the Agreement does not say this in terms. But, at the time the Agreement was negotiated, both the UK and Ireland were in the same customs and regulatory regime. That was taken for granted, and did not have to made explicit in the Agreement.
He goes on
“The broader commitments in the Agreement, including to parity of esteem, partnership, democracy and to peaceful means of resolving differences, can be met if we explore solutions other than the backstop.”
This is a strange sentence. It says the commitments “can” be met if we “explore” other solutions. An exploration by its nature is uncertain, and the use of this term contradicts the confident statement that solutions “can” be found. In any event, Mr Johnson ought to have come up with the solution himself by now.
DOES MR JOHNSON WANT TO BREAK UP THE EU SINGLE MARKET?
Mr Johnson goes on
“This Government will not put in place infrastructure, checks, or controls at the border between Northern Ireland and Ireland. We would be happy to accept a legally binding commitment to this effect and hope that the EU would do likewise.”
This reads to me like a straightforward attempt by a UK Prime Minister to destroy the EU Single Market. Controls on what goods and services may cross its borders are essential to the EU Single Market.  This is especially the case if the UK decides to make trade deals, with different rates of tariffs to the ones applied by EU. 
Given that “divergence” from EU rules is what Mr Johnson says Brexit is all about, inviting the EU not to enforce its own rules, raises the suspicion that, like his fan President Trump, Boris Johnson would like to dissolve the EU!
With compliments of John Bruton former Prime Minister of Ireland

The world faces an invisible crisis of water quality that is eliminating one-third of potential economic growth in heavily polluted areas and threatening human and environmental well-being, according to a World Bank report released today.

Quality Unknown: The Invisible Water Crisis shows, with new data and methods, how a combination of bacteria, sewage, chemicals, and plastics can suck oxygen from water supplies and transform water into poison for people and ecosystems. To shed light on the issue, the World Bank assembled the world’s largest database on water quality gathered from monitoring stations, remote sensing technology, and machine learning.
The report finds that a lack of clean water limits economic growth by one-third. It calls for immediate global, national, and local-level attention to these dangers which face both developed and developing countries.   
“Clean water is a key factor for economic growth. Deteriorating water quality is stalling economic growth, worsening health conditions, reducing food production, and exacerbating poverty in many countries.” said World Bank Group President David Malpass. “Their governments must take urgent actions to help tackle water pollution so that countries can grow faster in equitable and environmentally sustainable ways.”
When Biological Oxygen Demand – a measure of how much organic pollution is in water and a proxy measure of overall water quality – crosses a certain threshold, GDP growth in downstream regions drops by as much as a third because of impacts on health, agriculture, and ecosystems.
A key contributor to poor water quality is nitrogen, which, applied as fertilizer in agriculture, eventually enters rivers, lakes and oceans where it transforms into nitrates. Early exposure of children to nitrates affects their growth and brain development, impacting their health and adult earning potential. The run-off and release into water from every additional kilogram of nitrogen fertilizer per hectare can increase the level of childhood stunting by as much as 19 percent and reduce future adult earnings by as much as 2 percent, compared to those who are not exposed.
The report also finds that as salinity in water and soil increases due to more intense droughts, storm surges and rising water extraction, agricultural yields fall.  The world is losing enough food to saline water each year to feed 170 million people.
The report recommends a set of actions that countries can take to improve water quality. These include: environmental policies and standards; accurate monitoring of pollution loads; effective enforcement systems; water treatment infrastructure supported with incentives for private investment; and reliable, accurate information disclosure to households to inspire citizen engagement.
Note: The report, which was funded in part by the Global Water Security & Sanitation Partnership, a Multi-Donor Trust Fund based at the World Bank’s Water Global Practice, is available for download here: worldbank.org/qualityunknown
Compliments of the World Bank

In light of a resurgence of “advance fee fraud schemes” misusing the World Bank Group’s name, the institution is warning against investment deals and advance fee schemes that fraudulently invoke the institution’s name or claim to be affiliated with the World Bank Group.
Like many large organizations, we have seen increased use of sophisticated forms and letterhead that appear to be legitimate World Bank Group email correspondence or certificates. The World Bank’s name can be falsely invoked to give the scheme the appearance of authenticity and, in some cases, the wrongdoers may use the names of actual World Bank Group staff members to bolster the credibility of the scam.
Advanced fee fraud schemes involve solicitations that encourage potential victims to provide personal information such as signatures or bank account information, and to pay certain advance fees, often described as “processing fees” or “finder’s fees”. In return, the potential victim is promised sums of money which the scammer has no intention of paying.  Police estimate that thousands of these advance fee fraud solicitations – only a very small fraction involving the use of the World Bank Group’s name – are sent by e-mail every week and are addressed to individuals and companies around the world.
The World Bank Group has no involvement in such schemes, and we would like to caution the public to be wary of these and other similar solicitations that falsely claim to be affiliated with the World Bank Group or any member of the World Bank Group (the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the International Finance Corporation, the International Development Association, the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency, and the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes).
You can find more information about fraudulent investment schemes that misuse our name here.
Compliments of the Worldbank

Important institutional and policy changes have taken place since the 2012 FSAP. At the national level, the authorities have strengthened the macroprudential framework by establishing the High Council for Financial Stability (HCSF), enhanced monitoring of financial stability risks, prepared to manage the Brexit fall-out, introduced macroprudential measures, and taken various financial reform measures included in Loi PACTE—Action Plan for Business Growth and Transformation—and initiatives on digital finance, crypto-assets, green finance, and combating cyber risk.
At the European level, significant changes include the Banking Union (BU), Capital Requirements Regulation/Capital Requirements Directive (CRR/CRD), Solvency II, and efforts towards a Capital Markets Union (CMU). The financial system is more resilient than it was in 2012. Capital positions and asset quality have improved. Banking business is better placed to handle cross-border contagion, including from exposures to high-yield EA economies. Insurers’ solvency ratios have been stable and have been bolstered by the effective implementation of Solvency II. Household savings and balance sheets are relatively sound and house prices presently appear broadly aligned with fundamentals.
Download the report HERE
Compliments of the International Monetary Fund

By John Bruton, former Irish Prime Minister (Taoiseach)
WILL UK BE ABLE TO NEGOTIATE MORE EASILY WITH EUROPE IF IT BINS THE WITHDRAWAL TREATY?
The new UK Foreign Secretary , Dominic Raab, has claimed on Radio 4 that the UK would find it “easier” to negotiate  a good long term deal with Brussels , if it had first crashed out of the EU , than if it ratified the Withdrawal Treaty.
Doing this would mean binning the entire content the Withdrawal Treaty, not just the backstop.
Settlements painstakingly reached in the Withdrawal Treaty  on transitional matters, like the rights of existing cross border workers, the recognition of existing professional qualifications, social security, mutual financial obligations, enforcement of contracts and judicial decisions, and a transition period up to the end of 2020, would all go into the waste bin.
If , after that, the UK then decided it wanted to negotiate a new Agreement with the EU, these issues would have negotiated all over again from scratch.
That extra workload would be on top of the negotiation of the future EU/UK Agreement, which, given the range of subjects to be covered and the intricacies of arrangements being replaced, would probably be the most complex trade negotiation ever undertaken in human history.
Binning the Withdrawal Treaty now, would delay the finalisation a future Agreement by several additional years because of this extra workload.
And that is just on the legal side of things.
The psychological damage to UK/ EU relations caused by a willful choice of “no deal” by the UK would have to be repaired. A prudent Foreign Secretary would consider these matters more carefully than Mr Raab appears to have done so far.
It is, of course, true that that the backstop in the existing Withdrawal Agreement constrains the UK’s negotiating options for a future Trade Deal, because it requires the UK to take account of its obligations under the Belfast Agreement as well.
THE ORIGINS OF THE CONTRADICTION… THE RED LINES OF 2016
But that backstop is only there because Mrs May, in late 2016, drew three red lines for the  UK’s future relationship with the EU….
no customs Union,
no Single Market and
no ECJ jurisdiction….while still remaining a party to the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement.
As was pointed out at the time, these three red lines conflicted with the Belfast Agreement, into which the UK freely entered in 1998, with the approval of the Parliament.
The Belfast Agreement was the basis of which Ireland changed its constitution. No minor matter.
The three red lines, by their very nature, require the UK to “take control” of its borders. That means controls at the border, and the only land border the UK has with the EU is in Ireland .
BORDER CONTROLS WERE INHERENT IN ”TAKING BACK CONTROL”
Border controls were always the essence of Brexit.
Yet the man who led the Brexit campaign in 2016, Boris Johnson, is now saying the opposite, he is saying that the UK will not impose any border controls in Ireland, and that any controls there might be will be someone’s else’s fault.
In fact, under WTO rules, the UK itself will almost certainly have to have border controls of its own once it leaves the EU.
Meanwhile EU law, the EU customs code, requires any EU state, if has a border with any state that is not in the EU Customs Union and Single Market, has to have border controls . The UK knows this well, because its officials helped draw up the EU Customs code. They are familiar with every comma and full stop in it, and know all the customs obligations a no deal Brexit will impose on Ireland.
PRIME MINISTER JOHNSON SAYS HE RESPECTS THE BELFAST AGREEMENT……BUT HOW?
Last week in Belfast, Prime Minister Johnson said that he respects the “letter and the spirit “ of the Belfast Agreement.
The Belfast Agreement calls for close cross border cooperation on issues like the environment, health, agriculture, electricity, education and tourism. It stands to reason that this sort of cooperation will be made much more difficult, if the Northern Ireland and Ireland are no longer part of the same market for goods and services. The UK red lines will also lead to diverging professional qualifications, diverging quality standards for goods and services, and diverging standards of consumer protection, between North and South, and between the UK and Ireland.
Even without physical border controls, that divergence, by its nature, pulls the two parts of Ireland further apart from one another, and pulls Britain and Ireland apart too. It thus upsets the subtle balance between Unionist and Nationalist identities in Northern Ireland, that the Belfast agreement created.
Unfortunately Brexit, of its nature, contradicts the spirit of the Belfast Agreement, to which Boris Johnson says he is fully committed.
BACKSTOP WAS A BRIDGE BETWEEN TWO CONTRADICTORY COMMITMENTS MADE BY THE UK
The backstop was an attempt to build a bridge between these two radically contradictory British positions, Brexit and the Belfast Agreement.
It was not trap set to tie Britain to the EU, but rather an attempt to help the UK reconcile the two contradictory positions it itself had taken up, the one it took in 1998, and the one it took in 2016.
At first, the backstop was to apply to Northern Ireland alone, but it was the UK that requested that it be extended to island of Britain as well.
The fact that it was the UK that asked for this extension of the backstop to Britain, belies the idea that the backstop was some sort of Brussels conspiracy to keep Britain in the EU orbit, a theory promoted in pro Brexit circles.
The UK Parliament has now thrice rejected the Withdrawal Agreement and, with it, the Irish backstop. But the underlying conflict between Brexit and the Belfast Agreement, remains unresolved. The new UK government has no solid proposals of its own for reconciling the basic contradiction. Instead the UK wants to fix responsibility for its own dilemma on Dublin and Brussels.
Against this background, Dominic Raab is wrong to think that it would be easier for the UK to make a future Trade Agreement with Brussels, after it had walked away from the EU, without paying its bills, and without sorting out the details of the divorce it had initiated.
NO DEAL IS POOR BASIS FOR FUTURE NEGOTIATION…
A crash out Brexit is bound to create ill will and could not possibly make the negotiation of a future Agreement easier.
Indeed a moment’s reflection would tell Mr Raab that it would not be in the EU’s interest to give better terms to a country, that had willfully crashed out, than to one which had stood by commitments made by its Prime Minister. To do so would set a dangerous precedent for the EU.
Mr Raab might also remember that any future EU deal with the UK will have to be approved by every EU Parliament, including by Dail Eireann, and by the European Parliament.
A No Deal Brexit now will not finalise anything on 1 November. It will just be the start of years of painful non productive negotiation. This negotiation will be unavoidable because geographically the UK is in the continent of Europe, rather than any other continent that it might prefer to be in. The UK will have to live with the EU and vice versa, because of geography.
A no Deal Brexit on 1 November will poison and prolong what will, in any event, be an essential, but incredibly difficult, negotiation between the UK and the EU on their future relationships.
Compliments of John Bruton

The international community has agreed on a road map for resolving the tax challenges arising from the digitalisation of the economy, and committed to continue working toward a consensus-based long-term solution by the end of 2020, the OECD announced.
The 129 members of the OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) adopted a Programme of Work laying out a process for reaching a new global agreement for taxing multinational enterprises.
The document, which calls for intensifying international discussions around two main pillars, was approved during the May 28-29 plenary meeting of the Inclusive Framework, which brought together 289 delegates from 99 member countries and jurisdictions and 10 observer Organisations. It will be presented by OECD Secretary-General Angel Gurría to G20 Finance Ministers for endorsement during their 8-9 June ministerial meeting in Fukuoka, Japan.
Drawing on analysis from a Policy Note published in January 2019 and informed by a public consultation held in March 2019, the Programme of Work will explore the technical issues to be resolved through the two main pillars. The first pillar will explore potential solutions for determining where tax should be paid and on what basis (“nexus”), as well as what portion of profits could or should be taxed in the jurisdictions where clients or users are located (“profit allocation”).
The second pillar will explore the design of a system to ensure that multinational enterprises – in the digital economy and beyond – pay a minimum level of tax. This pillar would provide countries with a new tool to protect their tax base from profit shifting to low/no-tax jurisdictions, and is intended to address remaining issues identified by the OECD/G20 BEPS initiative.
In 2015 the OECD estimated revenue losses from BEPS of up to USD 240 billion, equivalent to 10% of global corporate tax revenues, and created the Inclusive Forum to co-ordinate international measures to fight BEPS and improve the international tax rules.
“Important progress has been made through the adoption of this new Programme of Work, but there is still a tremendous amount of work to do as we seek to reach, by the end of 2020, a unified long-term solution to the tax challenges posed by digitalisation of the economy,” Mr Gurría said. “Today’s broad agreement on the technical roadmap must be followed by a strong political support toward a solution that maintains, reinforces and improves the international tax system. The health of all our economies depends on it.”
The Inclusive Framework agreed that the technical work must be complemented by an impact assessment of how the proposals will affect government revenue, growth and investment. While countries have organised a series of working groups to address the technical issues, they also recognise that political agreement on a comprehensive and unified solution should be reached as soon as possible, ideally before year-end, to ensure adequate time for completion of the work during 2020.
For more information on the OECD/G20 BEPS Project, see: www.oecd.org/tax/beps/
Compliments of the OECD

By Emanuel Kopp, Daniel Leigh, and Suchanan Tambunlertchai | IMF
US business investment has been on the rise. Since the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act at the end of 2017, US businesses have bought more machinery, developed software, and created new intellectual property.
Some believe that the key to this growth in business investment has been the Act’s cut to the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 21 percent, which lowered the cost of capital. Lower capital costs could, at least theoretically, encourage business owners to increase investment.
But our recent study suggests a simpler reason: business investment has been rising because domestic demand and sales have been rising. We also find that rising market power—the ability of companies to charge prices above production costs—has dulled the impact of corporate tax cuts on business investment decisions.
Investment drivers
Growth in sales and optimism about future sales prospects are central forces influencing companies to invest more.
For example, if a business owner expects that she’ll continue to have strong sales in the next quarter, she is more likely to increase investment in her business and boost production.
According to our study—released in the lead up to our recent economic assessment of the United States—virtually all of the growth in business investment since 2017 can be explained by private sector expectations of the future demand for products.
To measure expectations of future product demand, we used private-sector forecasts of US growth in domestic consumption and net exports—that is, the non-investment part of output.
As future sales prospects played a key role in influencing business owners to invest more, what drove consumers to spend more?
The factors that boosted demand in 2018 included households’ higher disposable income due to the tax law’s cut in personal taxes, as well as higher government spending due to the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018. Other factors, such as reductions in the cost of capital from the lower business tax provisions, appear to explain little of the rise in investment.
Rising corporate market power
Then, what could explain this relatively muted response of investment to a reduction in the effective corporate tax rate?
Our analysis suggests that the sensitivity of investment to tax changes may have declined over the past 30 years because of the rise in the market power of big companies, which, other studies suggest, has occurred across the economy—from airlines to pharmaceuticals to high-tech companies.
As companies gain market power and their respective industries become more concentrated, their profits are increasingly in the form of monopoly rents—well above the normal profits that prevail when there is more competition.
In such an environment, a cut to the corporate income tax rate should increase post-tax monopoly profits but induce a smaller behavioral response in companies’ production and investment decisions.
Therefore, as the chart shows, a tax cut today could be expected to have a smaller impact than in past decades due to the changing nature of the US corporate landscape.
Investment decisions
Enterprise-level data for 2018 also support the notion that rising market power is lessening firms’ sensitivity to tax changes. For listed companies across a range of different US industries,
their increase in investment in 2018 was smaller for firms that had higher markups (the difference between prices and marginal costs) before the tax cuts.
Other factors that have further subdued investment growth since 2017 include, we find, economic policy uncertainty, which has occurred in the context of escalating trade-related tensions between the United States and other countries.
The bottom line is this: strong demand since the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act has been the principal driver behind corporate investment decisions—not the reduction in the cost of capital coming from the corporate tax cuts themselves.
Moreover, the rise in corporate market power in recent decades appears to have muted the effectiveness of corporate tax cuts as a means for boosting business investment.
Finally, policymakers can support further growth in business investment by reducing economic policy uncertainty, including by resolving trade-related tensions.
Compliments of the International Monetary Fund

European Parliament’s newly constituted Brexit Steering Group chaired by Guy Verhofstadt met with EU negotiator on 24 July following the change of Prime Minister in the UK.

It reiterates the EP’s position in the following statement:
“The Brexit Steering Group (BSG) wishes Mr Johnson, the new UK Prime Minister, well and looks forward to working closely and constructively with him and his Government. It will find the BSG, and the European Parliament, to be an open and effective partner in the Brexit process.
The BSG recalls that the entry into force of all agreements with the UK both before and after its withdrawal from the European Union will require the European Parliament’s consent.
The BSG remains very strongly of the view that, in the event that the UK decides not to revoke Article 50 and stay in the European Union, an orderly exit of the UK from the European Union is in the overwhelming interests of both parties.
An orderly exit is only possible if citizens’ rights, the financial settlement and the backstop, that in all circumstances ensures no hardening of the border on the Island of Ireland, safeguards the Good Friday Agreement and protects the integrity of the Single Market, are guaranteed.
The Withdrawal Agreement agreed between the EU and the UK Government provides these guarantees. The BSG reaffirmed its commitment to the Withdrawal Agreement. It noted that the UK Government, pursuant to European Council Decision (EU) 2019/584, has agreed that the Agreement cannot be reopened.
The BSG is open, however, to consider changes to the Political Declaration, in particular if such changes provided for much greater detail and a more ambitious future EU-UK partnership such that deployment of the Irish backstop would not be necessary.”
Regarding a no-deal Brexit
“The BSG notes that recent statements, not least those made during the Conservative Party leadership campaign, have greatly increased the risk of a disorderly exit of the UK. It points out that a no-deal exit would be economically very damaging, even if such damage would not be inflicted equally on both parties.
It commends the preparedness and contingency measures taken by the EU Institutions and 27 Member States in preparation for a no-deal exit, but stresses that such an exit will not be mitigated by any form of arrangements or mini deals between the EU and the UK. The BSG recalls that there is no transition period without a withdrawal agreement. It reiterates the European Parliament’s determination to ensure that, in a no-deal scenario, there would be no disruption for EU citizens in the UK or for UK citizens in the EU, whose rights should be fully safeguarded.”
Next steps
The BSG will continue to monitor the situation and, working in close liaison with the Parliament’s Conference of Presidents and the EU’s Chief Negotiator, is ready to meet at short notice should this be necessary.
Compliments of the European Parliament

A new Eurobarometer survey released today shows a strong increase in citizens’ positive perception of the European Union across the board – from the economy to the state of democracy. These are the best results since the June 2014 Eurobarometer survey conducted before the Juncker Commission took office.
This latest Standard Eurobarometer survey was conducted after the European elections, between 7 June and 1 July 2019 in all 28 EU countries and five candidate countries. Amongst the main findings are a record-high support for the euro and climate change turning into the second top concern at EU level, after immigration.
 
1. Trust and optimism about the future at their highest since 2014
Trust in the EU is at its highest level since 2014 and remains higher than trust in national governments or parliaments. Trust in the EU has increased in 20 Member States, with the highest scores in Lithuania (72%), Denmark (68%) and Estonia (60%). In addition, over half of the respondents “tend to trust” the EU in Luxembourg (59%), Finland (58%), Portugal (57%), Malta and Sweden (both 56%), Bulgaria and Hungary (both 55%), Ireland, Poland, the Netherlands and Cyprus (all 54%), Romania and Austria (both 52%) and Latvia and Belgium (both 51%).
Since the last Standard Eurobarometer survey in autumn 2018, the proportion of respondents who have a positive image of the EU (45%) has increased in 23 EU Member States, most strikingly in Cyprus (47%, +11), Hungary (52%, +9) Greece (33%, +8), Romania (60%, +8) and Portugal (60%, +7). A two-percentage point increase has been registered since autumn 2018 (+10 since spring 2014), reaching its highest level ever for the past 10 years. 37% (+1, compared to autumn 2018) of respondents have a neutral image of the EU, while less than a fifth have a negative image (17%, -3) –is the lowest score in 10 years.
A majority of Europeans are optimistic about the future of the EU(61%, +3 percentage points), while only 34% (-3) are pessimistic. Optimism is highest in Ireland (85%), Denmark (79%), Lithuania (76%) and Poland (74%). At the other end of the scale, optimism is less pronounced in the United Kingdom (47% vs 46%) and in France (50% vs 45%).
55% of Europeans say they are satisfied with the way democracy works in the EU, the highest score since autumn 2004 (+5 percentage points since autumn 2018; +11 since spring 2014) while the number of those “not satisfied” has decreased by five percentage points, to 36%.
A majority of Europeans agree that “their voice counts in the EU”.The EU-28 average reaches 56% (+7 percentage points since autumn 2018; +11 since spring 2018; +14 since spring 2014), with the highest scores being observed in Sweden (86%), Denmark (81%) and Netherlands (76%).
 
2. Record high support for the euro 
Support for the Economic and Monetary Union and for the euro reaches a new record high,with more than three-quarters of respondents (76%, +1 percentage point; +9 since spring 2014) in the Euro area in favour of the EU’s single currency.In the EU as a whole, support for the euro is stable at 62%.
Positive opinions on the situation of the national economies prevail (with 49% judging the situation as being good and 47% judging it as being bad). The majority of respondents in 17 Member States (16 in autumn 2018) state that the national economic situation is good. Luxembourg (94%), Denmark (91%) and the Netherlands (90%) are the countries with the highest scores. The lowest percentage of positive opinions is observed in Greece (7%), Croatia and Bulgaria (both 20%), Italy (22%), Spain (26%) and France (29%).
 
3.EU citizenship and free movement seen as main EU achievements
In all 28 Member States, more than half of respondents feel that they are citizens of the EU. Across the EU as a whole, 73% feel this way (+2 percentage points since autumn 2018), and at a national level the scores range from 93% in Luxembourg, 88% in Germany, 87% in Spain to 57% in both Greece and Italy and 52% in Bulgaria.
A large majority of EU citizens support “the free movement of EU citizens who can live, work, study and do business anywhere in the EU” (81%, -2 percentage points since autumn 2018), and in every EU Member State more than two-thirds of respondents share this view, from Lithuania (94%) to Italy and the UK (both 68%).
 
4. Top concerns at EU and national level: climate change and environment on the rise
Immigration remains the main concern at EU level, with 34% of mentions, despite a strong decrease (-6 percentage points since autumn 2018). Climate change, which was ranked fifth in autumn 2018, is now the second most important concern after a strong increase(+6 since autumn 2018). Three concerns obtain identical scores: the economic situation (18%, unchanged), the state of Member States’ public finances (18%, -1) and terrorism (18%, -2), followed by the environment – main concern for 13% of the respondents, registering a four-percentage point increase.
Unemployment, which is nowin seventh position at EU level (12%), remains the main concern at national level (21%, -2 percentage points), together with rising prices/inflation/cost of living (21%, unchanged) and health and social security (21%, +1). The environment, climate and energy issues follow very closely after a strong increase (20%, +6). Immigration, with 17% of mentions (-4 percentage points since autumn 2018, and -19 since autumn 2015), falls out of the top three concerns at national level for the first time since spring 2014. The economic situation is in sixth place (16%, +1).
Background
The “Spring 2019 – Standard Eurobarometer” (EB 91) was conducted through face-to-face interviews between7 June and 1 July 2019 across the 28 EU Member States and in the candidate countries[1]. 27,464 interviews were conducted in the EU28 Member States between 7 and 25 June 2019.
For More Information
Standard Eurobarometer 91http://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/index.cfm/survey/getsurveydetail/instruments/standard/surveyky/2253
[1] The 28 European Union (EU) Member States, five candidate countries (North Macedonia, Turkey, Montenegro, Serbia and Albania) and the Turkish Cypriot Community in the part of the country that is not controlled by the government of the Republic of Cyprus.
Compliments of the European Commission

The European Union and the United States, represented respectively by Stavros Lambrinidis, EU Ambassador to the United States and Jani Raappana, Deputy Head of Mission, for the Finnish Presidency of the Council of the EU, and Robert Lighthizer, U.S. Trade Representative, signed today in Washington D.C. an agreement reviewing the functioning of an existing quota to import hormone-free beef into the EU.
This is another deliverable of the cooperation fostered by the Joint Statement issued by Presidents Juncker and Trump in July 2018 establishing a positive EU-U.S. bilateral trade agenda.
In 2009, the EU and the U.S. concluded a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), revised in 2014, which provides a solution to a longstanding dispute in the World Trade Organization (WTO) regarding the use of certain growth-promoting hormones in beef production. Under the agreement, a 45,000 tonnes quota of non-hormone treated beef was open by the EU to qualifying suppliers, which included the United States.
The agreement signed today is fully in line with WTO rules and establishes that that 35,000 tonnes of this quota will now be allocated to the U.S., phased over a 7-year period, with the remaining amount left available for all other exporters.
The overall volume of the quota opened in 2009 remains unchanged, just like the quality and safety of beef imported into the EU, which will remain in compliance with the high European standards.
The agreement was negotiated on a basis of a mandate from EU Member States and approved by them in the Council on 15 July 2019. The Council will now recommend the agreement to the European Parliament for formal approval, so that it can enter into force in the near future.
For more information
The EU and the U.S. reach an agreement on imports of hormone-free beef
Compliments of the European Commission