“The EU should definitively apply sanctions, and not only discuss them in the corridors, with clear Council Conclusions during the EU Summit on 10-11 December”, Papadimoulis said, adding that “it is highly likely, if there is no concrete reaction by the EU, that Turkey will continue its aggressive tactics”.

The lawmaker opined that sanctions on Turkey were long due, given that Erdogan has remained unresponsive to all previous warnings by Brussels and continued the policy of “unilateral provocations, against EU member-states, mainly Greece and Cyprus, in violation of international law and territorial rights and jeopardising regional peace and stability.”

Specifying what sort of sanctions he believes would be most efficient, Papadimoulis listed restrictions on energy, trade, specific persons, companies and banks, adding that “even an arms embargo should be on the table.”

The European Parliament vice president thinks that Erdogan has sought to divide-and-rule the EU, exploiting the differences among member states, while pursuing his own agendas with the Islamic world, the Middle East and Eastern Mediterranean.

Papadimoulis’ opinion is that sanctions would be a way for the EU to send a “crystal clear message” that it stands in unity with member states and, at the same time, that Turkey would be welcomed if it reverses to a constructive regional policy, respect for human rights and necessary reforms.

Tensions in the Eastern Mediterranean have been brewing for many months around Turkey’s exploration for gas in waters that Cyprus and Greece claim as their exclusive economic zones. The situation was exacerbated this summer, as Turkey sent the Oruc Reis ship, accompanied by a fleet of military vessels, to drill in what Greece considers its continental shelf.

The Public Prosecutor’s Office in Turkey’s capital of Ankara has opened an investigation into the interception and inspection of Turkish ship Roseline A carried out by the European Union (EU)’s Operation IRINI.

The prosecution office announced in a statement on Friday that although there was no permission to search the cargo vessel in open waters on 22 November, it was inspected in violation of international regulations.

The prosecution indicated that it had opened an investigation into the incident.

The IRINI command centre stated on Monday that its forces searched a Turkish cargo ship in the Mediterranean without Ankara’s permission.

READ: EU Parliament calls for urgent sanctions on Turkey over Cyprus

The German Ministry of Defence disclosed that the vessel did not carry prohibited cargo.

On 31 March, the EU launched Operation IRINI in the Mediterranean basin to reinforce the arms embargo imposed on Libya.

“On 27 November 2020 in Absard, Iran, an Iranian government official and several civilians were killed in a series of violent attacks. This is a criminal act and runs counter to the principle of respect for human rights the EU stands for,” Spokesperson for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy of the European Union said in a statement. 

“The High Representative expresses his condolences to the family members of the individuals who were killed while wishing a prompt recovery to any other individuals who may have been injured,” the statement read.

“In these uncertain times, it is more important than ever for all parties to remain calm and exercise maximum restraint in order to avoid escalation which cannot be in anyone’s interest,” it added.

Fakhrizadeh was targeted on Friday in a multi-pronged attack involving at least one explosion and small fire by a number of assailants in Absard city of Damavand County, Tehran province.

According to the Public Relations Office of the Ministry of Defense, the prominent physicist, who headed its Organization of Defensive Innovation and Research (SPND), was sent to hospital immediately but was martyred due to the wounds he had sustained in the terrorist assault.

During the conflict, the security team protecting Iranian scientist were also injured and transferred to hospital.

MA/IRN84126852

A post-Brexit trade deal appeared to be a way off this weekend after the UK reportedly labelled the EU’s offer on fishing rights “derisory”.

EU chief negotiator Michel Barnier is back in London today for the latest round of talks. Face-to-face negotiations had to be postponed just over a week ago when a member of Barnier’s team caught coronavirus.

Read more: Hooked: UK and EU stuck in Brexit deadlock over fisheries

Before Barnier was forced into self-isolation, things were looking up for a Brexit deal. Yet the two sides appear to be far apart again on fishing with only weeks to go until the Brexit transition period ends.

Barnier reportedly told EU ambassadors at a meeting that he had offered the UK a 15 to 18 per cent reduction in the bloc’s fishing rights in British waters.

Yet British officials said the UK has dismissed the offer. The proposals, first reported by Irish broadcaster RTE, were called “derisory”.

Yesterday, Barnier said talks remained stalled over the “same divergences” of fisheries, state aid, and how to resolve future disputes.

UK says EU must respect post-Brexit ‘sovereignty’

The UK is keen to take a much bigger share of the EU’s current fishing rights in British waters, which are worth around €650m (£580m). Chief negotiator David Frost is pushing for around 80 per cent of the rights, according to reports.

Yesterday Frost tweeted: “For a deal to be possible it must fully respect UK sovereignty.

Read more: Brexit: UK business groups ‘crying out for certainty’ as talks drag on

“That is not just a word – it has practical consequences. That includes: controlling our borders; deciding ourselves on a robust and principled subsidy control system; and controlling our fishing waters.”

City A.M. has contacted Number 10 and the European Commission for comment.

Labour mulls support for Brexit deal

Should a deal be agreed, the Labour Party is planning to back it in parliament, according to The Guardian. It comes as the party seeks to signal to voters in former Labour heartlands that it has heard them on Brexit.

Multiple sources told the paper that Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer is likely to tell his MPs that they must back the deal in a vote. Labour has been contacted for comment.

A Labour spokesperson said: “The Conservatives need to get a grip on the negotiations and deliver the trade deal they promised the British people at the last election.

<

p class=”wp-block-tpd-block-tpd-read-more-block”>Read more: Labour’s Anneliese Dodds says Brexit deal looks ‘thin as gruel’

“We have consistently said that no deal would be the worst possible scenario, especially with workers, families and businesses already under so much strain from the pandemic.

“Labour will look carefully at the detail of any deal if and when it is agreed.”

… ) — Teams from Britain and the European Union resumed face-to-face talks … the little time that remains.
EU chief negotiator Michel Barnier returned …
The U.K. left the EU early this year, but remained … it entails. The 27-nation EU accuses Britain of seeking to …

The EU’s chief negotiator Michel Barnier said ‘we are far from the take it or leave it moment’ as he resumed make-or-break Brexit talks with Lord Frost today.

Mr Barnier arrived in London last night as both sides scramble to hash out a deal on future trading arrangements before Britain leaves the transition period in January.

It is the first time Lord Frost has met face-to-face with Mr Barnier since the French diplomat went into self-isolation after a member of his team caught coronavirus.

As it stands, Britain will leave the EU’s trade and customs area in five weeks with talks on a follow-on agreement stalled over fishing rights and fair trade rules.

Both parties warned yesterday that success was not guaranteed, with Mr Barnier tweeting that the ‘same significant divergences persist’.

A failure to strike an accord would result in a chaotic divorce on January 1, with the two sides forced to trade on World Trade Organisation terms which would see tariffs imposed on goods travelling into and out of the continent.

There is now huge pressure on negotiators to conclude the talks as soon as possible because of the amount of time it will take the EU to ratify and roll out any deal. 

There are fears that if talks continue beyond next week then the bloc could struggle to complete the ratification and implementation process before January 1. 

‘We are not far from the take it or leave it moment,’ Mr Barnier later told EU ambassadors, according to a source familiar with the closed-door meeting.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s lead negotiator Lord Frost said that people were ‘asking me why we are still talking,’ he said in a tweet. 

‘It’s my job to do my utmost to see if the conditions for a deal exist. It is late but a deal is still possible, and I will continue to talk until it’s clear that it isn’t. 

‘But for a deal to be possible it must fully respect UK sovereignty. That is not just a word – it has practical consequences. 

‘That includes: controlling our borders; deciding ourselves on a robust and principled subsidy control system; and controlling our fishing waters.

‘We look to reach an agreement on this basis, allowing the new beginning to our relationship with the EU which, for our part, we have always wanted. We will continue to work hard to get it – because an agreement on any other basis is not possible.’ 

Britain has been trading on the same terms with the EU since it officially left the bloc in January as part of a transition agreement that expires at the end of the year.  

If the two parties fail to secure a post-Brexit deal, a no-deal scenario is widely expected to cause economic chaos, with customs checks required at borders.  

Concern is particularly acute on the border between EU member Ireland and the British province of Northern Ireland, where the sudden imposition of a hard border threatens the delicate peace secured by 1999’s Good Friday Agreement. 

Mr Johnson spoke with Irish premier Micheal Martin late Friday and ‘underlined his commitment to reaching a deal that respects the sovereignty of the UK’.

But he also ‘reaffirmed the need to prioritise the Good Friday Agreement and avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland,’ according to London.  

Mr Johnson earlier told reporters the ‘likelihood of a deal is very much determined by our friends and partners in the EU’, adding there were ‘substantial and important differences to be bridged.’

A key sticking point is the EU’s demand for a post-Brexit ‘level playing field’, with punishing trade penalties if either side diverges from agreed standards or state aid regulations, but Britain does not want to be bound by rules made in Brussels.

Britain’s fishing waters are also a hot topic, with sources on Friday saying that Barnier told envoys that London was asking that European access to them be cut by 80 percent, while the EU was willing to accept 15 to 18 percent.

The talks have already pushed on much longer than expected and time is running out for ratification of any deal by the European Parliament by the end of the year.

Members of the European Parliament have expressed frustration with the delays and may have to ratify a deal between Christmas and the New Year.

In Brussels, one source close to the talks said she would ‘eat my hat’ if there was a deal by Monday, echoing a chorus of complaints that Johnson was playing the clock 

Last night, Mr Barnier said he was ‘very happy to be back in London’ and vowed to ‘continue the work with patience and determination’.  

The Frenchman, who arrived at St Pancras International, had said yesterday morning that the ‘same significant divergences persist’.

Lord Frost said he believed a deal can still be achieved as he vowed to ‘continue to talk until it’s clear’ that the two sides cannot reach an agreement. 

However, he said for a deal to be done it ‘must fully respect UK sovereignty’ as he stressed that is ‘not just a word’ but something which has ‘practical consequences’.   

Members of the European Parliament on Thursday voted in favor of a resolution calling on the European Council to impose urgent sanctions against Turkey.

The measure was promoted by what the European Parliament called Turkey’s o”illegal activities in the Varosha suburb of the city of Famagusta” in Cyprus.

In 1974, the Turkish army fenced off Varosha, a beach resort immediately after the invasion of Cyprus. The Greek Cypriots who fled from Varosha were not allowed to return and with public entry prohibited, Varosha has effectively become a ghost town.

Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan angered Cyprus when he visited Verosha on November 15. Ankara backed the partial re-opening of Varosha in a move criticised by the United States, Greece and Greek Cypriots.

Erdogan’s visit this month capped months of tensions between Turkey, Greece, and Cyprus, as well as Europe, when Ankara began exploring for natural resources off the coast of Cyprus. This prompted a military buildup on the Eastern Mediterranean, alarming other states such as Egypt.

Members of the European Parliament on Thursday warned that Turkey’s decision to partially open the town of Varosha, “weakens prospects of a comprehensive solution to the Cyprus problem, exacerbating divisions and entrenching the permanent partition of the island”.

They also called on Turkey to transfer Varosha to its lawful inhabitants under the UN temporary administration in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 550 (1984) and to refrain from any actions that alter the demographic balance on the island through a “policy of illegal settlement.”

In response, Turkey’s Foreign Ministry condemned the resolution, saying: “We completely reject the non-binding resolution adopted by the MEPs on our country and the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus.”

“This decision, which is undoubtedly dictated by the Greek Cypriot administration, once again demonstrates how disconnected from reality and prejudiced the EP is on the Cyprus issue,” he continued.

Earlier this month, the European Union’s foreign policy chief, Josep Borrell, criticized Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s visit to northern Cyprus during which he called for a “two-state” solution in the island.

“These [actions] will cause greater distrust and tension in the region and should be urgently reversed,” he said.

The island of Cyprus was divided in 1974. The island’s Greek Cypriots live predominantly in the south, and Turkish Cypriots in the north since the 1974 war. Several peacemaking efforts have failed and the discovery of offshore resources has complicated the negotiations.

Interview with Yves Mersch, Member of the Executive Board of the ECB, conducted by Marie Charrel and Eric Albert

28 November 2020

How do you feel about the euro today compared with your hopes and expectations at the time of negotiating the Maastricht Treaty?

At the time, it was a leap into the unknown. The international financial markets were sceptical. And we didn’t know whether citizens would embrace the new currency. Today, I am very satisfied with the outcome. First of all, the euro has won the wholehearted approval of more than 75% of Europe’s citizens. And even the most eurosceptic of political parties have changed their opinion on this given that Europe’s citizens do not want to “undo” what has already been accomplished.

What’s more, it’s a currency valued by the corporate sector and sought after by the financial markets. Only a few years ago, there were still concerns that the euro area might fall apart. The political response to the crisis and the steps taken by the European Central Bank quelled those concerns. Today, the differences in interest rates across countries, across firms in those countries, have been reduced. And there is heightened demand on the part of international investors for euro-denominated assets, even though we do not have the same financial market depth as other countries, such as the United States.

There is still scepticism surrounding the euro. Are you at all concerned by the mistrust of Monetary Union voiced in Italy at the start of the pandemic, or in Greece during the 2012-15 crisis?

It is always easier to blame Europe for what’s not working and attribute success to national policies, and that can fan the flames of this mistrust. In spite of all that, public support for the euro is strong. In some Member States, it is even close to 90%. We shouldn’t forget about the permanent transfers that flow within the EU from its more developed to its less developed members. If the latter were not in the euro area, their debt would undoubtedly not be financed at such low interest rates. Leaving the euro area would increase their debt servicing costs through interest rate levels and devaluations, which would mean less money for investment, research and education. And by the way, we can also ponder whether or not the younger Member States would remain intact if they left the single currency and the EU.

The euro nevertheless went through a major crisis between 2010 and 2015, which led to huge social upheaval…

The initial agreement was that we would have a single currency, but that fiscal, economic and structural policies would be kept at national level. We were aware that it was a source of tension, which still exists today. But we learned lessons from the last financial crisis. The response to the pandemic has led to much closer coordination, as it happens, between monetary policy and national fiscal policies. And the Stability and Growth Pact (which caps the budget deficit at 3% of GDP) has even been temporarily put on hold.

The EU has also reached an agreement on a €750 billion recovery package. Talks to finalise the package are ongoing. Is this a “Hamiltonian moment” for the EU in terms of taking a step closer towards federalism?

It is a very important step. Europe has shown that it is still capable of employing its political capital to respond with solidarity. This has had a considerable impact on non-European investor confidence. But the European recovery package is temporary in nature, for use only in response to the pandemic. To say that it marks the beginning of the “United States of Europe” is going a bit far. The situation is very different from when Alexander Hamilton advocated for US federalism in the 18th century in the wake of the civil war. At that time, there was a very clear financial benefit to consolidating the debt of the southern states funded by their northern counterparts.

From an economic perspective, has Europe fallen behind the United States since the 2008 crisis?

We can make up the ground that we have lost. The gap has come about due to structural factors. There are strong trends such as demographic change (moving at a faster pace in the United States) behind the difference in per capita GDP. There is also the proportion of funding to the economy provided by banks in Europe. When a banking crisis occurs in an already weakened sector, it has a knock-on effect on the entire economy, and the recovery takes even longer. We have learned from this, which is why we set up the banking union and insisted on the need for a capital markets union. Moreover, European fiscal policies have been excessively procyclical. As a result, countries that built up their reserves are currently in a much better financial position to deal with the pandemic crisis, whereas those with the highest levels of debt know that there are limits to the action they can take.

There is also the issue of private debt. At the beginning, it was higher in the United States, but it has been brought down much faster there than in Europe. Last of all, Europe needs to implement structural reform at national level. Recommendations have been made, but they haven’t resulted in action being taken. The same goes for the Stability and Growth Pact: the rules are not being complied with. To me, there is a significant lack of governance which needs to be fixed. To be master of its own destiny and compete with the United States, Europe needs to solve its structural weaknesses.

Since the euro area was created, it has remained an unfinished project, edging slowly towards completion, and only during times of crisis. Do you know why?

The differences across the economic, financial and political cycles, which are never aligned in the various Member States, are holding back progress. This poses a challenge to the task of building Europe, which, as Jean Monnet pointed out, only picks up speed in times of crisis. But once you’ve been working this way for 30 years, it becomes second nature! It is difficult to avoid these delays and complexities when you embark upon a project as colossal as building the European Union in peacetime. Similar projects in other countries have often been the result of civil wars.

In the long run, will the EU Treaties need to be amended?

We can already implement significant reforms without changing any Treaty, such as creating the capital markets union a must for us or completing banking union. Reform in other areas will be more challenging. Transferring some powers that have remained at the national level up until now, such as budgetary authority, or taxation – still subject to the unanimity rule – will thus be very difficult to do without transferring a degree of national democratic representation – sovereignty – to the European level. The issuance of common European debt is a sign of significant progress, but common budgetary capacity or a European budget worthy of the name are still a long way off. Currently, the European Parliament is above all else responsible for expenditure, but very little revenue: the system is therefore flawed. During the discussions held prior to the Maastricht Treaty, we were convinced that the single currency would act as a catalyst for European integration. We were hopeful that the markets would push in that direction. But in this respect, they have at the very least…been slow to respond.

Many people today are calling for a review of the Stability and Growth Pact at the very least – the target of 3% of GDP for the budget deficit and of 60% of GDP for debt – a target with which Member States are no longer able to comply. Should the Maastricht rules be reviewed? If so, in what way?

The less we have complied with these rules, the more complex and confusing they have become for the general public, which is not very democratic. However, it is true that they are a reflection of the situation in the 1990s when inflation and growth hovered around 2%. We can simplify and revise them to take into account the effects of globalisation, demographic change, and the fall in the equilibrium interest rate. But it is also worth noting that there is currently a debate in Germany to bring the budget deficit to below the 3% mark in 2022 or 2023. At the end of the day, compliance with the rules has nothing to do with the economy. It is more a matter of political science and law. Abolishing the Maastricht rules will not improve the functioning of our economies. For that to happen, we need to improve our capacity for growth, and therefore implement structural reforms.

By aiming to comply with these fiscal rules at all costs, isn’t there a risk that we may make the same mistake we made in 2010 by reintroducing austerity policies too early?

Making public spending more efficient is not the same as austerity. The temporary budgetary support measures are not sustainable if there is no recovery in activity levels. From the outset, the Stability and Growth Pact required a balanced budget. Is that a bad thing? We need to find a common response to this issue. If it is the norm to have a budget deficit of, let’s say, 5% of GDP, this means that national as well as international investors need to be found to finance it. International investors like policies that are predictable, robust and sustainable over the long term. We have the benefit of a stable currency that has the backing of our citizens. This should not be undermined by an unsustainable fiscal policy.

Over the next few years, what changes would you like to see within the EU?

Structurally, we need to continue with our efforts in education and research which are crucial for our future. But we also need to provide a more tangible response to the issues that are of major concern to our fellow citizens. How will Europe deal with matters of internal and external security? How will it deal with healthcare? Are we convinced that the response to the pandemic should be purely domestic, as should the response to terrorism? The problem is that as the Treaties currently stand, we cannot respond at the European level.

You have attended more than 500 Governing Council meetings. Do you have any regrets or are there any particular success stories that come to mind?

Before joining the ECB, I also attended several hundred ECOFIN meetings and around a hundred EU Council meetings. Europe is part of who I am, so please forgive me. The success stories are always collective, never individual. At the ECB, a young institution, we have always favoured a more federal-style and consensus-based decision-making process. It works very well. And it also makes it possible to overcome the all-too-often intergovernmental approach to European decision-making.