In March of 2019, the European Parliament and Council enacted Regulation (EU) 2019/452, which established a framework for the screening of foreign direct investments into the European Union. The regulation, which entered into force in April of the same year, applies to transactions taking place post-October 2020 onwards.
The FDI Regulation represents a crucial shift for the EU, as for the very first time, screening of foreign direct investments is being regulated at EU level. In fact, this development has the potential to significantly impact those investors from third countries that consider investing in the EU. More importantly, it can also be of relevance to the interests of EU investors.
As the FDI regulation does not impose a strict regime for EU-wide FDI screening, the final decision on FDI screening rests with the EU member states, which remain sovereign in this crucial area. The focus of the regulation is more on the principles of coordination and cooperation between member states.
“This is a great step in the right direction which will certainly contribute towards an increasingly harmonised and robust screening of FDI in the EU” said Mario Galea, chair of the newly-established offices for National Foreign Direct Investment Screening (NFDIS) in Malta.
Locally, the office has been set up in order to implement this regulation, with the ultimate aim being the protection of EU intelligence, knowledge and technology, as well as its security interests.
The sectors which will be subject to screening are varied and include infrastructure, energy, transport, water, health and communications, among others. A full list can be accessed on the NFDIS website (https://www.nfdismalta.com/).
All interested practitioners, including audit, legal firms, business consultants and all practitioners who are in any way involved in the promotion of foreign direct investment are, therefore, encouraged to get in touch with the NFDIS Office and get updated on the new procedures governing the registration of new investment in Malta.
Practitioners will be informed how they will be required to submit all relevant applications for such purpose with the Office, prior to relevant submission with the MBR. The applications will require determinate information, relating to the investment and ownership structure, including information on the ultimate investor and beneficial.
In case of doubt, the service provider may seek an initial opinion from the Office which will give the necessary guidance as may be required in the case in question.
The Office wishes to reassure practitioners that it is not its intention to create any unnecessary bureaucracy. In fact, in those cases where it is clear that the activities do not require screening, the Office will seek to provide its green light within 24 hours.
In the cases where screening will be required, this will be undertaken with full due diligence on the activity and on the ultimate beneficial owner. This process will take some time to conclude, although the Office will endeavour to conclude the process in the shortest time possible while not compromising, in any way, the extent and quality of the screening to be conducted.
Independent journalism costs money. Support Times of Malta for the price of a coffee.
n’);document.write(‘n nn’);} THE Murcia government faces a European Union fine if it does not do more to protect the European turtle dove.
The endangered migratory bird has lost 40% of its Spanish population over the last decade with hunting driving down numbers.
The European Commission says that Murcia has violated its Birds Directive and not replied adequately to its criticisms dating back to July 2019.
That could mean legal action and a financial penalty if the government does not satisfy demands from Brussels.
The concerns include the lack of current specific details on the Murcia turtle dove population.
n’);document.write(‘n nn’);}
The EC also wants to know why the government has not created Special Protection Zones for Birds known as ZEPAs.
There’s criticism as well over the amount of local hunting that is endangering the species.
The Murcia government’s Agriculture and Environment department has said that permitted hunting days and quotas have been substantially reduced in recent years.
The last official turtle population figures date back to 2015 when 17,014 birds were killed, amounting to 1.85% of the total species shootings in Spain that year.
The Commission’s view is that the hunting of the turtle dove in Murcia is done at ‘unsustainable levels’ and ‘very early in the season’, when breeding is still happening.
That is why they are unhappy that proper population figures are not being supplied as hunting continues in parallel with the decline of the species.
Murcia’s response to the lack of data is to suggest that there are between 41,000 and 105,00 European turtle doves, depending on which measurement systems are used.
It adds that it is difficult to get a more accurate figure due to a variety of factors.
That includes a loss of habitats and more hunting in Africa; diseases; poisonings from farm fertilisers, climate change; more Turkish turtle doves; and magpies moving onto the old turf of the European turtle dove.
The Association of Southeast Naturalists(ANSE) biologist, Jorge Sanchez said:
“We filed complaints last year against the past and present Murcia Environment ministers and their officials over the breaking of hunting order rules.”
“The views of the European Commission will be sent to the courts that are investigating the facts of our case over the inadequacy of hunting restrictions,” he added.
Tens of thousands of residents were displaced by the 6.4 magnitude earthquake in Sisak-Moslavina County, Croatia, December 29. It caused widespread damage to buildings and infrastructure in the rural area some two hours from Zagreb. Scientology Volunteer Ministers of Turin and Padua, Italy, immediately joined forces to bring humanitarian aid to victims of the disaster.
Pro.Civi.Co.S—the Civil Protection Team of the Scientology Community—are experienced Volunteer Ministers who are also trained in civil defense. The team is collecting emergency supplies and delivering them directly to families affected by the temblor and its aftershocks.
“In the confusion following a disaster like this, supplies can be misrouted or delayed,” said one of the Volunteer Ministers. “Our teams have been able to avoid delays, bypass confusion, and make sure all the aid arrives directly to those in need.”
Collection of supplies continues: the collection site is the Church of Scientology at Via Villar 2 in Turin. Needed are blankets, clothing and underwear for adults and children, diapers and baby formula, shoes, toothpaste, toothbrushes, folding cots, cutlery, gloves, face masks, flashlights with batteries, disinfectant, soap, and hygiene supplies. All material must be new.
Turin Volunteer Ministers bring the supplies to the Church of Scientology of Padua which transports them directly to families in the Sisak-Moslavina region.
The Church of Scientology Volunteer Ministers program is a religious social service created in the mid-1970s by Scientology Founder L. Ron Hubbard. It constitutes one of the world’s largest independent relief forces.
With the events of the 9/11 terrorist attacks in New York City, Scientology ecclesiastical leader Mr. David Miscavige called on Scientologists to redouble their efforts to aid their fellow man. He issued a directive entitled “The Wake-Up Call,” which inspired astonishing growth within the Volunteer Minister program.
The following year, Volunteer Ministers of Italy formed Pro.Civi.Co.S, which was entered into the registry of the National Department of Civil Defense.
A Volunteer Minister’s mandate is to be “a person who helps his fellow man on a volunteer basis by restoring purpose, truth and spiritual values to the lives of others.” Their creed: “A Volunteer Minister does not shut his eyes to the pain, evil and injustice of existence. Rather, he is trained to handle these things and help others achieve relief from them and new personal strength as well.”
Bangladesh will have to meet the European Union’s new criteria on human rights to retain its duty-free market access to the bloc as the EU looks to increase accountability and fight impunity, said a top diplomat.
The EU is scheduled to assess the trade privilege in light of the human rights situation after the bloc became more cautious about it.
“As a major beneficiary of the EBA (Everything but Arms), Bangladesh will have to comply with the new criteria on the human rights to enjoy the benefit on exports,” said Rensje Teerink, head of the EU Delegation to Bangladesh.
Some 61 per cent of Bangladesh’s exports are destined for the EU.
Garment export, which accounts for about 85 per cent of the national sales abroad, rose from $12.49 billion in fiscal 2009-10 to $27.95 billion in 2019-20, according to a recent study by the Bangladesh Garment Manufacturers and Exporters Association.
Of the total export, more than 90 per cent are apparel items and 96.4 per cent goods are covered by the GSP scheme.
On December 7, the European Council adopted a decision and a regulation establishing a global human rights sanctions regime.
This will allow the EU to target individuals, entities and bodies – including state and non-state actors – responsible for, involved in or associated with serious human rights violations and abuses worldwide, no matter where they occurred.
“The new regime enables us to impose sanctions regardless of where human rights violations and abuses occur…,” said Josep Borrell, high representative of the EU for foreign affairs and security policy and vice-president of the European Commission.
“…without having to create new, country-specific sanctions regimes as we had to do until now. This means we have new tools to increase accountability and fight impunity,” he said in a blog.
The EU can also respond to human rights violations by suspending development aid or withdrawing EBA trade preferences, Borrell said.
“So, Bangladesh needs to protect the EBA facility by complying with the new conditions of human rights,” Teerink said in an exclusive interview with The Daily Star recently.
“The Director-General Trade and DG Employment of the EU have been closely monitoring the human rights situation in Bangladesh to be assessed for the next eligibility.”
The new condition on human rights has been communicated with the ministries of commerce, labour and employment and foreign affairs, she said.
Retaining the trade privilege in the EU is important for Bangladesh because the current economic growth of the country happened significantly riding on the bloc’s generous trade benefit over the last five decades.
Once the country graduates to a developing nation from the least-developed country (LDC) grouping in 2024, Bangladesh will face a lot of competition from other countries in the EU, and there is a possibility of losing the market share due to erosion in preference, the envoy said.
“It is very difficult to say exactly how much Bangladesh would be affected due to graduation,” Teerink said, adding that the EU would remain a major market for Bangladesh even after the graduation.
After the expiry of the current EBA, obtaining the GSP Plus status to the EU by Bangladesh would also be very difficult because of a strong export base of the country to the EU.
For instance, the minimum threshold of import value by the bloc from a GSP eligible country should be less than 7.4 per cent of the total imports from all beneficiary countries during the last three consecutive years on an average. Bangladesh’s share was 24.4 per cent in 2018.
In fact, Bangladesh is the biggest beneficiary of the GSP among all LDCs and is alone utilising 67 per cent of the trade preferential treatment because of higher shipment of apparel items.
In order to qualify for the GSP Plus, a country must meet some criteria.
First, a potential country must be considered vulnerable, according to a document of the European Commission on the EU’s GSP.
A vulnerable country refers to a nation which is not classified by the World Bank as a high-income or upper-middle income country for three consecutive years.
Also, a country must have ratified 27 core international conventions in the fields of human and labour rights, the environment and good governance.
The GSP Plus is a special incentive arrangement for sustainable development and good governance. It slashes tariffs to zero for vulnerable low and lower-middle-income countries.
Bangladesh has ratified almost all major conventions except for a fundamental convention of the International Labour Organisation’s Minimum Age Convention.
In major progress, Bangladesh has amended the labour law, bringing down the threshold of the consent of workers required for the formation of trade unions to 20 per cent from 30 per cent.
“I think that is a good and commendable threshold, but it is not enough,” Teerink said, adding that the threshold would not be able to ensure the freedom of association of workers.
To retain the EBA, Bangladesh needs to follow the labour roadmap recommended by International Labour Organization (ILO).
“The EBA is a such a gift that is quota-free and duty-free access to a country, we have to be sure certain basic human rights and labour are respected while products enter the European Union markets,” Teerink said.
“That is why we have this EBA engagement to see where is Bangladesh on trade.”
If certain basic principles are not respected, there would be unfair competition, she said.
There will be an important meeting about the improvement on labour rights this year.
She said there was no doubt that Bangladesh has been progressing economically despite the fallouts of the Covid-19 fallouts.
“We are incredibly proud as Bangladesh is going forward to be graduated to be a developing country.”
She praised the government’s efforts to roll out the stimulus packages for industries.
Bangladesh’s economy needs to be diversified, and at this moment, it is very much dependent on the ready-made garment industry.
“I hope the government will address it in its Eighth Five-Year Plan,” Teerink said.
The ease of doing business is an important area to improve the business climate in the country, according to the diplomat.
Bangladesh, along with other LDCs, has been pushing for an extension of the current GSP status for 10 more years because of the fallouts of Covid-19.
However, she said she was not much aware of the EU’s position in this regard.
Many local trade experts have suggested signing a free trade agreement (FTA) with the EU.
Responding to this, Teerink said, “At this moment, this is not in the discussion of the DG Trade. Maybe in future, the FTA issue might be discussed.”
The issues of responsible business behaviour by retailers and brands of the EU and the low-price issue of garment items of Bangladesh will be discussed in the next meeting of Sustainability Compact, which was signed between Bangladesh and the bloc in 2013 after the Rana Plaza building collapse.
“Very crucial due diligence issues will be discussed in the meeting as many Bangladeshi garment suppliers have been affected by unusual deferral payments by EU retailers and brands during the pandemic,” she added.
If you have grand plans of lying back on the beach and relaxing with a copy of The Great Big Narcotics Cookbook this summer, bad news: You won’t be finding it at your local library or bookshop.
It’s one of the nearly 1300 books that are either banned or restricted by New Zealand’s Office of Film and Literature Classification.
On the list you’ll find a fair stack of books along the lines of Virgins in the Hayloft, Spanking Illustrated volume two (but interestingly not volume one), or the very subtly-named Doing It. Many bannings are vestiges of the 1960s and 70s when books were held to different moral standards.
These days books are rarely blacklisted, except if they’re considered to promote either extreme violence or certain sexual acts involving coercion, exploitation of children, bestiality, necrophilia, use of urine, or use of excrement.
Some newer books and writings on the list are the Secrets Of Methamphetamine Manufacture 8th Editionand the Christchurch terrorist’s manifesto, which New Zealand’s chief censor David Shanks described as a “quite disturbing and destructive piece of writing”.
Jason Dorday/Stuff
Ted Dawe’s book Into the River was left out in the cold in 2013 when a review panel slapped an R-14 restriction on it.
These are books which Shanks and his team of 20 at the Office of Film and Literature Classification believe can cause harm to society.
“What we do can be likened to an asbestos removal crew,” Shanks said.
“We’re dealing with inherently harmful and toxic material, and we have to take that seriously and take all due precautions.
“The reality is that with some of this material once you’re exposed to some of it, you’re never going to forget it and it will have an impact.”
Shanks has the power to classify any publication. That means anything containing text, images, audio, video – analogue or digital.
DIA
Chief Censor David Shanks says his job exacts a toll on him and his staff at the OFLC.
It’s an incredibly broad brush that has allowed predecessors to censor everything from soda cans to camper vans.
Among the publications banned in 2019 was a video game which put the player in the role of the Christchurch terrorist.
While banning books might seem antiquated to some, Shanks believes it has a place in New Zealand.
“When we look at a book we’re not just thinking about the classification of that book, we’re thinking about what it represents as a category and what it represents as a potential harm and in some cases a potential benefit and looking to balance that,” Shanks says.
Yet just because books end up on the list, doesn’t mean they’re there forever. After three years, a book can be re-submitted for review. Some pass the test, others don’t.
Books that have been removed from the list or reclassified include Jackie Collins’ best-seller The World is Full of Married Men. The ban here and in Australia even helped boost sales in the United States and the United Kingdom back in the late 1960s.
‘Into the River’ is a coming of age story set at an Auckland boarding school.
New Zealand author Ted Dawe felt the power of censorship when in 2013, his book Into the River was hit with an R-14 rating by the New Zealand Film and Literature Board of Review.
Dawe said he wasn’t too worried as Fifty Shades of Grey had made it past the censor without any redactions, and “the only places which ban books are banana republics”.
But the book – a coming of age story about a young boy who goes to boarding school and encounters intimacy, sex, drugs, racism and death – ended up being restricted to those 14 and over.
Because of that it was pulled from the shelves of libraries across the country, which Dawe said meant the book “effectively vanished”.
Prior to that it had won both the Margaret Mahy Book of the Year prize and the top gong in the Young Adult category at New Zealand Post Children’s Book Awards, and was selling well.
“It wasn’t fair, because any kid who wanted to borrow it had to bring proof of age to the library, and [the book] would be brought up from the stacks or from under the counter – presumably in a brown envelope – and that didn’t do much for the book,” Dawe said.
Supplied
The popular erotic novel ‘Fifty Shades of Grey’ was not restricted in New Zealand.
“It basically went from a very popular, very well-borrowed and well-sold book, to a book that was going nowhere.”
But the censorship didn’t sit well with librarians. Auckland Libraries appealed the decision and – after a public outcry – the age restriction was overturned.
That meant it was a crime to supply, display, or distribute the book in any way.
Individuals and organisations who knowingly supplied the book were liable to fines of up to $3000 and $10,000 respectively.
“The censorship law worked very well up to the point they convened the appeal board. Any little board of five people, if it’s got strong-minded people with a barrow to push, the decisions may be skewed.
“The censor [who made the initial decision to leave the book unrestricted] was a very well-read woman and was able to put it into context of other books in the genre and other banned books.
“But these amateurs who were drafted in to be a panel of five fair-minded people seemed as though it would be a good idea, but I don’t think it worked too well.”
Rosa Woods/Stuff
Just under 1300 books are currently banned or restricted in New Zealand. (File photo)
Delivered to your door
Surprisingly also reclassified – albeit with heavy restrictions – was 1993’s literary classic Bazooka: How to build your own.
The book is banned for all those who don’t hold a firearms or dealers licence, but it’s still easily purchased from Amazon where the description reads: “If you get a bang out of the flash and thud of an explosion and are intrigued by soft munitions, propellants and weapons, why not build your own bazooka?
“Anthony Lewis takes you through the process, from constructing the cartridge, barrel, grip and sights to mixing the propellant and igniter to assembling, loading and test-firing.”
Not to worry though, at the bottom it reassures us it’s “for information purposes only”.
It’s this internet loophole that has really thrown a spanner in the works for Shanks and his counterparts around the world.
Anyone can log on to a book delivery website located in a country where a book isn’t banned, order the offending tome, and have it delivered to their doorstep.
Screenshot
‘Bazooka: How to Build Your Own’ is available to purchase on Amazon.
When Shanks’ powers were enshrined in the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act 1993, the internet was in its infancy, not the sprawling content machine it is today.
“When you live in a world where about 500 hours of content is going up on YouTube every minute you instantly realise having a traditional classification approach of having someone sit and digest that fire hose of content is never remotely going to work,” Shanks said.
“You need to think about new ways, new models to adapt to this digital reality.”
In Sweden, the Media Council has developed modules for school children to help them identify propaganda and misinformation.
And with the internet too big to be reined in, Shanks believes education is the best way forward.
“The way I look at it, we’ve got an opportunity,” he said.
“We’ve got some deep insights into where the boundaries could and should be. And we’ve got an opportunity to engage with industry, the public and increasingly young people to conduct research.
“We’re trying to figure out where the harms are and how to mitigate them in ways other than simply banning or restriction.”
Getty-Images
Harry Potter author J K Rowling has garnered controversy for her views on transgender women.
The court of public opinion
Shanks isn’t the only one with power – there are plenty of people who are making their thoughts on certain authors clear.
In the case of Wellington bookshop Good Books, owners Catherine Robertson and Jane Arthur have chosen not to stock certain books whose authors’ views don’t align with their values.
An author in her own right, Robertson made the decision to leave books by the likes of J K Rowling – who has controversial views on transgender women – off the shelves at her store.
She said while it might cost her money in sales, it was worth it to create an inclusive space for patrons.
“As a small business one of the first things you have to do, I believe, is to figure out what your values are: how you’re going to treat your employees and your customers,” she said.
“I think the line for us is very clear. The line is where people are using their public platforms to promulgate misinformation, bigotry or hate speech.”
Supplied/Stuff
Paula Morris is an award-winning fiction writer and teaches creative writing at the University of Auckland.
<
p class=”sics-component__html-injector sics-component__story__paragraph”> Robertson said, so far, they have had far more positive feedback than negative.
While admired by some, it’s an approach that worries author Paula Morris. She said that while she “greatly respects” Robertson as an author, censoring books is a slippery slope.
“I think it’s quite bizarre,” Morris said. “I am not a fan, I have to tell you, because I think so many writers and their personal lives cannot bear much scrutiny – so many writers have done objectionable things.
She gave the example of Charles Dickens, who was notably awful to his wife – at one point trying to get her committed to an insane asylum, so he could be with a younger woman.
Excluding authors from bookshops is the small-scale version of what’s happening online, where cancel-culture has become a form of censorship, Morris said.
“It’s not really the way the world can work to just say this person is despicable for whatever reason and to be tried in the court of public opinion.”
Turkey is working to open new chapters in its relations with the EU, said Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu, Anadolu news agency reported.
“In 2020, due to our [Turkey’s] problems with some [EU] member states, there were occasional tensions in relations with the EU, which we would not want,” Cavusoglu told a joint news conference in Madrid with Arancha Gonzalez Laya the Spanish Minister of Foreign Affairs, European Union and Cooperation. “However, thanks to the approach of Spain and some other countries, dialogue was chosen instead of tension, and the last summit paved the way for that.”
Cavusoglu added that Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen will hold a videoconference on Saturday.
After seven long years of negotiations, Brussels and Beijing on Thursday last week signed a Comprehensive Agreement on Investment (CAI). The CAI would ensure EU investors achieve better access to the Chinese market and compete on a better level playing field in China, the European Commission said. On the European side, the market is already open, and the agreement would preserve sensitive areas for the EU, namely in the fields of energy, agriculture, fisheries, audio-visual and public services.
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said that Europe “is attached to reciprocity, level playing field and values,” adding that the agreement would bring more balanced trade and business opportunities. This is in line with the commission’s 2019 report EU-China — A strategic outlook, in which the EU committed to seek more balanced and reciprocal economic relations.
In the report, the EU labeled China a “systemic rival promoting alternative models of governance,” but remained committed to a comprehensive strategic bilateral partnership. Against the backdrop of a toughening stance in the EU’s approach to China, and given Beijing’s increasing assertiveness in the region (and globally), as well as the US-China geopolitical rivalry, it is obvious that the timing of such a deal with China is controversial.
It has drawn criticism from within and outside of Europe. The disappointment has been even more tangible, as it follows the praise for Europe for finally waking up to China’s mercantilist approach to the bloc, while trying to get its own house in order.
In 2019, French President Emmanuel Macron called for an end to the EU’s naive relations with China, urging a unified strategy instead of national policies. The Franco-German engine, the driving force behind European integration, has faced increasing criticism for lacking strategic depth; Macron’s visionary ambition to relaunch Europe and defend the continent’s sovereignty has not exactly found a partner in a more pragmatic German leader.
In this context, many question whether striking a deal with China is the right path for the EU to become “geopolitical” and achieve its strategic autonomy. Others are convinced Brussels committed a strategic mistake, placing interests over values. Inside the EU, member states also diverged, with Germany pushing for the deal and Poland suggesting early consultations with the incoming administration of US president-elect Joe Biden were needed.
EU member states’ divergence on China should come as no surprise. The bloc’s China policy has always been half-hearted and fragmented. Speaking with one voice with China has been the EU’s biggest challenge. Germany, China’s most important trading partner in Europe since 2016, has long been perceived as Europe’s China weak spot. Pushing the deal through under the German Council presidency has confirmed to many that Berlin remains committed to protecting its lucrative economic relationship with China at the expense of values, including human rights.
With the signing of the CAI, the EU has spoken with one voice. The question is, is this the right voice? Is the unity that the CAI rests on principled and sustainable, supporting strategic autonomy?
Headlines in the US say that the EU struck a deal with China, “despite US concerns.” In the context of transatlantic relations, many are hoping to see a return to normal following a tense relationship due to US President Donald Trump’s abrasive style. Many hoped to bring more cooperation and coordination on their China policies, seeking to address Beijing’s efforts to undermine democratic governance.
Indeed, the EU and the US share a long list of concerns on key issues related to China’s behavior: forced technology transfer, subsidies and state-owned enterprises. These are the structural issues that the agreement aims to address, if implemented effectively, which remains to be seen. However, the transatlantic allies diverge on how to balance relations with China. The trade war that Trump launched against China, without any coordination with European counterparts, has hurt the US economy without solving the underlying economic concerns that the US and Europe share.
It is now crucial that the US and Europe coordinate their China policies, prioritizing common challenges. Cooperation must remain at the core of the EU’s China policy, but Brussels must use the CAI as leverage over China and work with the US in addressing the lack of reciprocity they both face.
Whether an inch closer to strategic autonomy, or a strategic mistake, striking the agreement should serve as a strategic opportunity for Europe to protect its interests while championing openness. More importantly for Europe’s geopolitical future, the CAI should inspire discussions in Brussels on an investment deal with Taiwan, as the European Parliament has long advocated.
The EU is already the biggest investor in Taiwan, but Taiwanese investment in the EU remains shockingly low. A bilateral investment agreement would benefit both, particularly in the reconfiguration of global supply chains in a post-pandemic world.
For seven years, Beijing has used the CAI negotiations to stifle discussions on an EU-Taiwan investment agreement, or anything that would help warm up EU-Taiwan relations. Five years have passed since the European Parliament first urged the commission to start exploring a bilateral investment agreement with Taiwan.
The next step should be for the EU to initiate an official impact assessment to prepare for the launch of negotiations of an investment agreement with Taiwan. If the two sides do not build on the momentum of the EU-Taiwan Investment Forum held in September last year, it will be a missed opportunity.
The EU and its member states must see Taiwan on its own merit, and acknowledge the contribution it can bring to the world, as it proved through the successful containment of COVID-19.
Zsuzsa Anna Ferenczy is a research fellow at Academia Sinica, an affiliated scholar in Vrije Universiteit Brussel’s political science department and a former political adviser at the European Parliament.
Comments will be moderated. Keep comments relevant to the article. Remarks containing abusive and obscene language, personal attacks of any kind or promotion will be removed and the user banned. Final decision will be at the discretion of the Taipei Times.
Unfortunately, our website is currently unavailable in most European countries. We are engaged on the issue and committed to looking at options that support our full range of digital offerings to the EU market. We continue to identify technical compliance solutions that will provide all readers with our award-winning journalism.
The UK rejected an offer of visa-free tours by musicians to EU countries, despite blaming Brussels for what the industry is calling the devastating blow of them requiring permits.
“It is usually in our agreements with third countries, that [work] visas are not required for musicians. We tried to include it, but the UK said no,” an EU source close to the negotiations said.
The revelation comes after the shock threat of visas sparked protests that future tours will have to abandoned, at a time when musicians are already reeling from the impact of Covid-19.
And it sparked calls for ministers to reveal exactly what took place in the negotiations, after they insisted Brussels was responsible for the damaging new red tape.
Cabinet office minister Michael Gove on Saturday warned all kinds of businesses to brace for “significant border disruption” as more of the consequences from rule changes emerged.
The head of the Incorporated Society of Musicians (ISM) said she was “horrified” by the evidence that an offer on music was spurned, while Labour said fans would “not forgive” the government.
Inside Politics newsletter
The latest news on Brexit, politics and beyond direct to your inbox every weekday
Inside Politics newsletter
The latest news on Brexit, politics and beyond direct to your inbox every weekday
The row has sparked bitter recriminations after music bodies were repeatedly reassured that a Brexit deal would protect touring performers, as well as their support teams and equipment.
Stars including folk singer Laura Marling and Charlatans frontman Tim Burgess have signed a parliamentary petition demanding visa-free tours, backed by almost 230,000 people.
The government is arguing it “pushed for a more ambitious agreement which would have covered musicians and others, but our proposals were rejected by the EU”.
In fact, countries as contrasting as the United States and Saudi Arabia enjoy a permit-free exemption for performers in their deals with the EU, which offers the arrangement as “standard”.
“The UK refused to agree because they said they were ending freedom of movement. It is untrue to say they asked for something more ambitious,” the source said, adding “there has to be reciprocity”.
It appears the stumbling block was Priti Patel’s immigration crackdown which has introduced tough restrictions on tours by EU musicians.
From this month, they must, like non-EU artists, apply for visas – to visit for more than 30 days – as well as providing proof of savings and a sponsorship certificate from an event organiser.
The Independent understands the UK did ask for a similar 30-day exemption for its performers, but rejected 90 days – to fit with its own new rules.
Deborah Annetts, the ISM’s chief executive, said: “I’m horrified by this new development. The government must come clean about what steps it took to protect the performing arts in the negotiations.
“The music sector feels deeply let down by the government and we want to get to the bottom of what happened.
“All the way through 2020, we were given assurances that the government understood how important frictionless travel is for the performing arts.”
Alison McGovern, Labour’s shadow culture minister, said: “If Boris Johnson’s Tories have stopped musicians from touring in Europe to make a political point, then music fans will not forgive them.
“Music is a huge export for the UK and touring and performing is now one of the main ways artists make money – so why would the Tories deliberately make it harder for musicians to make the most of opportunities in Europe?”
And Jamie Njoku-Goodwin, chief executive of UK Music, said: “Who is at fault is irrelevant and a blame game helps no one.
“The important thing is that both sides appear to genuinely want this issue sorted, so it is imperative that they get around a table and urgently agree a solution.”
But, in a House of Lords debate on Friday, the Cabinet Office minister Lord True said: “The UK proposed measures that would have allowed musicians to travel and perform in the UK and the EU more easily, without needing work permits.
“Specifically, we proposed including the work done by musicians, artists and entertainers, and their accompanying staff, in the list of permitted activities for short-term visitors.
“In practice, this would have delivered an outcome closer to the UK’s approach to incoming musicians, artists and entertainers, but these proposals were, sadly, rejected by the EU.”
It is now a matter for each EU member state to decide whether to demand work visas, in the absence of a bloc-wide agreement.
