Migration represents challenges and opportunities for Europe. Learn how the EU deals with refugee movements and asylum.

The unprecedented arrival of refugees and irregular migrants in the EU, which peaked in 2015, required an EU response on a number of levels. Firstly, policies to handle regular and irregular immigration, and secondly, common EU-wide rules on asylum. The migrant influx also resulted in a need for additional measures and reforms to ensure border security as well as a fairer distribution of asylum seekers among EU countries.

The migration issue
In recent years, Europe has had to respond to the most severe migratory challenge since World War II. In 2015, 1.25 million first-time asylum applicants were registered in the EU; by 2018, this figure had dropped to 581,000 applicants. In 2018, 116,647 people reached Europe by sea, compared to more than one million in 2015. In 2018, the total number of illegal border-crossings into the EU dropped to 150,114, its lowest level in five years and 92% below the peak of the migratory crisis in 2015.
While migration flows have subsided, the crisis has exposed shortcomings in the European asylum system. Parliament has sought to combat this by reforming EU asylum rules as well as strengthening EU border controls.
Read our articles about the migrant crisis in Europe and EU measures to manage migration.

 
European immigration policy
The immigration policy at European level deals both with legal and irregular immigration.  Regarding regular immigration, the EU decides on conditions for legal entry and residence. Member states keep the right to rule on admission volumes for people coming from non-EU countries to seek work.
The European Union tackles also irregular immigration, especially through a return policy that respects fundamental rights. With regards to integration, there is no harmonisation of national legislations. However, the EU can play a supporting role, especially financially.
The European Parliament is actively involved, in the adoption of new laws on irregular and regular immigration. It is a full co-legislator together with the Council representing member states on these matters since the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty in 2009.
For greater details please read the fact sheet on the EU’s immigration policy.

European Asylum policy
Since 1999, the EU has been working to create a Common European Asylum System (CEAS). For the common system to work, it must have:
consistent rules for granting refugee status across all member states
a mechanism for determining which member state is responsible for considering an asylum application
standards on reception conditions
partnerships and cooperation with non-EU countries
With the Lisbon Treaty the European Parliament decides on an equal footing with the Council of the EU on asylum-related legislation.
Check out our fact sheet on the EU asylum policy for more information.
Compliments of the European Parliament

Sabine Weyand, EU’s new Director-General for Trade, gives an update on EU-US trade and shares her insights on why the EU has been so busy striking new trade agreements in our latest EU Now podcast. 
Find the podcast HERE

Today, July 25, marks the first anniversary of the Joint Statement by President Juncker and President Trump, which launched the new phase in the relationship between the United States and the European Union.
As a first step, the Presidents set up an Executive Working Group, co-chaired by Commissioner for Trade Cecilia Malmström and her counterpart US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, to work on the different tracks for cooperation identified in the Joint Statement.
One year on, a series of concrete actions have been achieved, taking the trillion-dollar transatlantic trade relationship to the next level.A report on the implementation of the EU-U.S. Joint Statement of 25 July 2018 was published today, providing an overview of the progress made and illustrating the depth of the engagement between EU and U.S. over the past year, both at political and technical level.
On this occasion, the President of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker said: “The European Union is delivering on what President Trump and I agreed on this day last year. We want a win-win situation on trade, which is beneficial for both the European Union and the United States. Having one of the most important economic relationships in the world, we want to continue strengthening trade between us based on the positive spirit of last July.”
Since July 2018, the EU has significantly increased its imports of liquefied natural gas (LNG) from the U.S. by over 367%. So far, in 2019, one third of all U.S. LNG exports have gone to the EU. The U.S. is the EU’s third largest supplier of LNG, while the EU has emerged as the primary destination of U.S. LNG exports.
EU imports of U.S. soya beans increased by almost 100% from July 2018 to June 2019, compared to the same period the previous year. The United States is now Europe’s number one soya beans supplier and has been able to expand its market further, following the decision by the European Commission on 29 January 2019, to authorise the use of U.S. soya beans for biofuels.
Following the Council’s mandate of 15 April 2019 to open talks with the U.S. for a horizontal agreement on conformity assessment, there have already been three rounds of constructive discussions on regulatory cooperation. An EU-U.S. agreement would allow exporters from a wide range of sectors to get certification of their products in their own country (as opposed to, for example, sending samples to the export destination).
The Council gave the Commission the authorisation to open talks with the U.S. on eliminating tariffs on industrial goods. While it was not yet possible to launch negotiations in this area due to diverging objectives on the two sides, the EU remains ready to engage with the U.S. along the lines agreed between the two Presidents in July 2018.
Regarding cooperation on standards, the EU presented its ideas on a deeper cooperation in strategic sectors, in particular those related to emerging technologies, such as 3D printing, robotics and connected vehicles. Important progress has been made in the areas of pharmaceuticals, medical devices and cybersecurity. Onpharmaceuticals, the EU and U.S. reached a milestone on 11 July 2019, as all EU Member State authorities were recognised under the Mutual Recognition Agreement (MRA) on good manufacturing practices for human medicines. This has already resulted in cutting of costs for businesses and freeing up administrative resources, by avoiding the duplication of inspections.
The EU and U.S. have engaged to identify and address distortions caused by unfair market-distorting trade practices. Together with Japan, both partners have submitted a joint proposal in the World Trade Organization (WTO) to enhance Members’ compliance with transparency requirements. The trilateral EU-U.S.-Japan process is also expected to lead to proposals for new rules on industrial subsidies and State Owned Enterprises.
In addition, a recent example that illustrates the excellent cooperation fostered in the spirit of the July 2018 Joint Statement, is the agreement found on the share of a duty-free tariff rate quota for U.S.exports ofhormone-free beef to the EU market.
The EU continues to make the case for ending U.S.tariffs on steel and aluminiumcomingfromthe EU, which would also benefit the U.S., since Americanproducers would be able to source these materials more cheaply from the EU. The EU could then also remove the rebalancing tariffsonU.S.exports.
Background
The United States and the European Union have a $1 trillion bilateral trade relationship with more than €3 billion in two-way trade every single day. Together both sides count more than 830 million citizens and close to 50% of global Gross Domestic Product. This is the largest economic relationship in the world.
With their Joint Statement of 25 July 2018, President Juncker and President Trump expressed their commitment to further strengthen this trade relationship to the benefit of all American and European citizens.
More Information
EU-U.S. joint statement of July 2018
Progress Report on the implementation of the EU-U.S. Joint Statement of 25 July 2018
Compliments of the European Commission

Justin Trudeau, Prime Minister of Canada and Donald Tusk, President of the European Council, met in Montreal on 17-18 July 2019 for the 17th Canada-European Union Summit. They issued the following statement:

The partnership between Canada and the European Union (EU) is deep and lasting, with its roots in shared values, a long history of close cooperation, and strong people-to-people ties.
The Canada-EU Strategic Partnership Agreement (SPA) and the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) reflect our shared commitment to addressing global challenges in a manner that benefits our citizens, upholds our values, and strengthens the rules-based international order. 
We will further deepen our cooperation to deliver economic growth that benefits everyone, combat climate change and protect the environment, advance international peace and security, promote gender equality and women’s empowerment and foster innovation.

Full text of the 17th EU-Canada summit joint declaration 
Compliments of the European Council 

By Yuanyan Sophia Zhang |  International Monetary Fund
Wage rises have remained stubbornly low in advanced Europe in recent years, but, at the same time, newer EU members are experiencing rapid wage acceleration.
This paper investigates the drivers of this wage divergence. Econometric analysis using error correction models suggests that wage growth responds more quickly to changes in unemployment in the newer EU members than in advanced Europe, where wages are more closely related to inflation and inflation expectations in the short run, implying greater inertia in nominal wage rises in advanced Europe. In the years after the global crisis, this inertia contributed to the build up of a real wage overhang relative to sharply slowing labor productivity, which subsequently dragged on nominal wage rises even as unemployment began to decline. Spillovers of subdued wage growth between euro area countries also weighed on wage rises in advanced Europe.
Download the paper HERE
Compliments of the IMF

Governments worldwide provide more than USD 500 billion in often ineffective and trade distorting support to farmers each year, and efforts to reform these policies have largely stalled, according to a new OECD report.
Agricultural Policy Monitoring and Evaluation 2019 shows that farm policies in the 53 countries studied in the report – all OECD and EU countries, plus 12 key emerging economies – provided on average USD 528 billion (EUR 465 billion) per-year of direct support to farmers during the 2016-18 period. At the same time, countries that implicitly taxed farmers through artificially depressed prices reduced farm revenues by USD 83 billion (EUR 73 billion) per-year.
The OECD finds that little progress has been seen this decade in reforming agricultural support policies. Many agricultural policies continue to distort farm production and trade decisions and do not effectively target stated government objectives.
‌The report shows that 54% of support is provided through policies that artificially maintain domestic farm prices above international levels. This type of support harms consumers – especially poor consumers – while increasing the income gap between small and large farms and reducing the competitiveness of the food industry.
Relatively little of the current policy mix in most countries targets agricultural productivity growth and the sustainable use of land, water and biodiversity resources. The report also highlights large variations in support for different commodities, both within and across countries. This can result in significant price support for some products, while others are artificially depressed, and contributes to distortions in international markets.
“Governments can support farm households and rural communities without negative effects on global markets,” said OECD Director for Trade and Agriculture Ken Ash. “By removing the link between support and farm production decisions, and investing instead in needed public services, governments can build an enabling environment in which farmers have the freedom to make business decisions in response to evolving market opportunities at home and abroad. At the same time farm policy should be better targeted, improving access to technologies that will drive both productivity growth and sustainable resource use,” Mr Ash said.
The annual Agricultural Policy Monitoring and Evaluation report provides up-to-date estimates of government support to agriculture for all OECD and the European Union as a whole, plus key emerging economies. The 2019 edition includes Brazil, People’s Republic of China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Kazakhstan, the Philippines, the Russian Federation, South Africa, Ukraine, Viet Nam, and for the first time, both India and Argentina.
Download the report HERE.
Compliments of the OECD

The European Commission has opened a formal antitrust investigation to assess whether Amazon’s use of sensitive data from independent retailers who sell on its marketplace is in breach of EU competition rules.
Commissioner Margrethe Vestager, in charge of competition policy, said: “European consumers are increasingly shopping online. E-commerce has boosted retail competition and brought more choice and better prices. We need to ensure that large online platforms don’t eliminate these benefits through anti-competitive behaviour. I have therefore decided to take a very close look at Amazon’s business practices and its dual role as marketplace and retailer, to assess its compliance with EU competition rules.”
Amazon has a dual role as a platform: (i) it sells products on its website as a retailer; and (ii) it provides a marketplace where independent sellers can sell products directly to consumers.
When providing a marketplace for independent sellers, Amazon continuously collects data about the activity on its platform. Based on the Commission’s preliminary fact-finding, Amazon appears to use competitively sensitive information – about marketplace sellers, their products and transactions on the marketplace.
As part of its in-depth investigation the Commission will look into:
the standard agreements between Amazon and marketplace sellers, which allow Amazon’s retail business to analyse and use third party seller data. In particular, the Commission will focus on whether and how the use of accumulated marketplace seller data by Amazon as a retailer affects competition.
the role of data in the selection of the winners of the “Buy Box” andthe impact of Amazon’s potential use of competitively sensitive marketplace seller information on that selection. The “Buy Box” is displayed prominently on Amazon and allows customers to add items from a specific retailer directly into their shopping carts. Winning the “Buy Box” seems key for marketplace sellers as a vast majority of transactions are done through it.
If proven, the practices under investigation may breach EU competition rules on anticompetitive agreements between companies (Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU)) and/or on the abuse of a dominant position (Articles 102 TFEU).
The Commission will now carry out its in-depth investigation as a matter of priority. The opening of a formal investigation does not prejudge its outcome.
 
Background
Article 101 of the TFEU prohibits anticompetitive agreements and decisions of associations of undertakings that prevent, restrict or distort competition within the EU’s Single Market. Article 102 of the TFEU prohibits the abuse of a dominant position. The implementation of these provisions is defined in the Antitrust Regulation (Council Regulation No 1/2003), which can also be applied by the national competition authorities.
Article 11(6) of the Antitrust Regulation provides that the opening of proceedings by the Commission relieves the competition authorities of the Member States of their competence to apply EU competition rules to the practices concerned. Article 16(1) further provides that national courts must avoid adopting decisions that would conflict with a decision contemplated by the Commission in proceedings it has initiated.
The Commission has informed Amazon and the competition authorities of the Member States that it has opened proceedings in this case.
There is no legal deadline for bringing an antitrust investigation to an end. The duration of an antitrust investigation depends on a number of factors, including the complexity of the case, the extent to which the undertakings concerned cooperate with the Commission and the exercise of the rights of defence.
More information on the investigation will be available on the Commission’s competition website, in the public case register under case number AT.40462.
Compliments of the European Commission

By John Bruton, former Irish Prime Minister (Taoiseach)
The fact that Dail Eireann voted yesterday to reject an EU Trade and Investment deal with Mercosur, that took 20 years to negotiate, and that few members could have read,  shows that Irish politics is not immune to the Brexit disease that has infected British politics. 
This disease consists in thinking that there is no need to make concessions in international relations and that, instead, one “can have it all”, without paying any price.
This delusion has led the UK into a deeply destructive position on Brexit.
I will not go into the details of the Mercosur trade deal here. Commissioner Phil Hogan dealt with these in an interview he gave to Sean O Rourke on RTE 1.  
The Dail vote showed a poor understanding of the importance of trade agreements to the very existence of the EU.
The EU is not a military power. It is a commercial power. That commercial power is exercised through agreements through which the EU can promote its values, and can protect the commercial and strategic interests of its member states, including smaller ones like Ireland.
 In recent times, the EU has made Agreements with Canada and Ukraine, and both had great difficulty being ratified, because one or two national parliaments took a similar line on them to the one taken on Mercosur by Dail Eireann yesterday.
If the EU cannot make and ratify Trade Agreements, it will gradually wither away, and member states will be forced  to find other ways of protecting their national interests. 
That might work for big states like France and Germany. But it will not work well for smaller states. The members of Dail Eireann should keep that in mind when they next come to consider the Mercosur deal.
Compliments of John Bruton

By Antonio de Lecea
The US administration just announced a new $4 billion list of European Union (EU) products which it could apply additional tariffs on in response to the ongoing dispute between both sides of the Atlantic over government subsidies to aerospace companies Boeing and Airbus. While the United States thinks it can create better economic outcomes by forcing concessions out of Europe, this new action will only continue the lose-lose spiral of threats gripping the transatlantic trade relationship. Washington could pursue a different strategy, however, by legitimately working with Europe to reduce government subsidies, while also taking tangible steps to strengthen antitrust enforcement at home. The transatlantic trade environment, growth prospects, and public finances would greatly benefit from such a change in approach.
The World Trade Organization (WTO) has ruled that both Boeing and Airbushave over time received excessive subsidies from the US and the EU governments, respectively. In principle, the WTO rulings entitle both sides to retaliate with tariffs on a scale deemed appropriate by an arbitrator. The EU has called instead for a negotiated solution to this  fifteen-year-old argument over whose subsidies are legitimate and whose should be removed. In the words of EU Commissioner for trade Cecilia Malmström “We do not want a tit-for-tat. While we need to be ready with countermeasures in case there is no other way out, I still believe that dialogue is what should prevail between important partners such as the EU and the [United States], including in bringing an end to this long-standing dispute.”
The US administration argues that additional US tariffs are needed to bring the EU to the negotiating table, but this has already happened. There is no need for further tariffs, which would drive prices higher on European olives and cheese and US bourbon and motorbikes. The EU has clearly shown a willingness to discuss this issue, as well as a new trade agreement to eliminate current tariffs on industrial goods and reduce the compliance costs of exporting across the Atlantic. Ratcheting up the pressure may only lead the EU to conclude that there is not the minimum level of trust needed to pursue negotiations, and US-EU tariff escalation will result in significant losses for US consumers and importers.
The Boeing-Airbus case is just one example of the more general challenge of antitrust enforcement and unfair government subsidies on both sides of the Atlantic. The first antitrust rules were introduced in the United States  in the late 19th century and informed the competition rules that the EU later put in place in the 1960s. Until the 1990s, markets were more competitive in the United States than in the EU, but enforcement has become looser in the United States in the last twenty years, so that concentration and market power is now higher in the United States than in EU. Washington could achieve massive economic gain just by enforcing its own rules again.
Recent research shows that, since 2000, prices paid by US consumers has increased by 15 percent more than in the EU, while median wages rose only by 7 percent more. As a result, US profit margins have increased, but US consumers now pay 8 percent more for US products than they would under EU-like competition standards. Thus, looser competition enforcement acts like an 8 percent tax rise on US consumers and a concomitant hidden subsidy of 8 percent of gross domestic product to big US corporates. Lax antitrust enforcement is also a drag on US investment. Higher market power has not resulted in higher investment, but has actually declined in the United States, while it has remained stable in the EU.
Fairer competition enforcement would boost short term growth through three channels. First, it would have the same effect as an 8 percent income tax cut, increasing middle class purchasing power and hence consumption. Second, as seen in the US-EU comparison, stricter antitrust regulation could also result in increased private investment. Third, lower costs and enhanced innovation would improve the international competitiveness of many US firms.
A fairer domestic playing field could also give the US government more fiscal breathing room. If low- and middle-income families received up to an 8 percent “dividend” from better antitrust enforcement, US fiscal policy could then focus on the areas with the highest impact on long-term growth and on equal opportunity-enhancing programs.
US taxes and government spending currently redistribute around 8 percent of national income from the wealthiest 10 percent of the population to the remaining ninety percent (before taxes, the top 10 percent earners hold 47 percent of national income; after taxes their share falls to 39 percent). With low and middle earners gaining from lower prices, some current expenditure programs could become less necessary, and fiscal room could become available to improve infrastructure, human capital, and innovation, enhancing potential growth. It could also be possible to raise community expenditure to support adjustment and basic living standards in areas and population groups hit by the ill effects of technological change and globalization.
Rather than responding to the Airbus and Boeing subsidies fight by engaging again in a lose-lose game of tariff escalation and protectionism, the US administration could genuinely pursue negotiations with the EU to reduce subsidies on both sides, while also improving the competitive landscape at home. Providing finance and risk-sharing to companies is a legitimate government instrument to support innovation where market financing conditions are inadequate. Subsidies, tax-credits, and other government support tools, however, sometimes cause the cost of the associated distortion of competition to clearly exceed the benefits gained from increased innovation and should only be used under limited, specific circumstances.
The United States and the European Union could seize the Airbus-Boeing case as a good opportunity to agree on rules that limit government support to commercial innovation at both national and state level. Agreed rules could then be used in negotiations with China and other countries that make more pervasive use of state support to industry.
The United States doesn’t need tariffs to level the playing field. Engaging in negotiations to agree on subsidy reductions seems a much more promising avenue. It could also help de-escalate tensions on other trade issues and provide impetus to kickstart the parallel transatlantic negotiations towards the elimination of industrial tariffs. Cooperation, not conflict, can help unlock prosperity on both sides of the Atlantic.
Compliments of The Atlantic Council.  This piece originally appeared on the Atlantic Council’s New Atlanticist blog
 

“We will do it the European way”
On 16 July 2019 the European Parliament elected Ursula von der Leyen the future President of the European Commission. She is the first woman to be President-elect of the European Commission. 
A European by heart and by conviction, Ursula von der Leyen announced that she will focus on an ambitious climate agenda to make Europe the first climate-neutral continent by 2050. She also committed to working closely with the European Parliament to strengthen democracy and a fair social market economy in Europe. Ursula von der Leyen also gave a very personal insight into her idea of Europe’s path amid global challenges: “We need to do it the European way”. 
Ursula von der Leyen intends to select a team of Commissioners composed of an equal number of women and men, based on candidates suggested by the Heads of State or Government. To take office, the list of Commissioners-designate has to be agreed by the Council and the European Parliament needs to give its consent to the new European Commission (2019-2024) as a whole. 
Born in Brussels in 1958, Ursula von der Leyen is a doctor and was member of the German government from 2005 to 2019.
Political guidelines for the next Commission (2019-2024) – “A Union that strives for more: My agenda for Europe” Download it HERE
Ursula von der Leyen’s Opening Statement in the European Parliament Plenary Session. Download it HERE
Ursula von der Leyen’s declaration of interests. Download it HERE
Compliments of the European Commission