16

resultat(er)

Ord
Type af publikation
Politikområde
Forfatter
Nøgleord
Dato

Det Europæiske Økonomiske Samarbejdsområde (EØS), Schweiz og Norden

01-05-2018

Det Europæiske Økonomiske Samarbejdsområde (EØS) blev etableret i 1994 med henblik på at udvide EU's bestemmelser for det indre marked til at omfatte landene i Det Europæiske Frihandelsområde (EFTA). Liechtenstein, Island og Norge er parter i EØS-aftalen. Schweiz er medlem af EFTA, men er ikke part i EØS-aftalen. EU og EØS-partnere (Norge og Island) er desuden forbundet gennem forskellige politikker og fora for Norden, som fokuserer på Europas nordligste områder, der er i hastig udvikling, og på ...

Det Europæiske Økonomiske Samarbejdsområde (EØS) blev etableret i 1994 med henblik på at udvide EU's bestemmelser for det indre marked til at omfatte landene i Det Europæiske Frihandelsområde (EFTA). Liechtenstein, Island og Norge er parter i EØS-aftalen. Schweiz er medlem af EFTA, men er ikke part i EØS-aftalen. EU og EØS-partnere (Norge og Island) er desuden forbundet gennem forskellige politikker og fora for Norden, som fokuserer på Europas nordligste områder, der er i hastig udvikling, og på den arktiske region som helhed.

Study in focus: Review of EU-third country cooperation on policies falling within the ITRE domain in relation to Brexit

15-06-2017

The study provides a critical assessment of the implications of existing models of cooperation of third countries with the European Union in each of four thematic areas for which the ITRE is responsible (energy, electronic communications, research policy, and small business policy). This briefing provides short summary of this study. Link to the original publication: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2017/602057/IPOL_STU(2017)602057_EN.pdf

The study provides a critical assessment of the implications of existing models of cooperation of third countries with the European Union in each of four thematic areas for which the ITRE is responsible (energy, electronic communications, research policy, and small business policy). This briefing provides short summary of this study. Link to the original publication: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2017/602057/IPOL_STU(2017)602057_EN.pdf

Ekstern forfatter

J. Scott MARCUS, Georgios PETROPOULOS, André SAPIR, Simone TAGLIAPIETRA, Alessio TERZI, Reinhilde VEUGELERS, Georg ZACHMANN

Foreign direct investment screening: A debate in light of China-EU FDI flows

17-05-2017

In 2016, the flow of Chinese foreign direct investment (FDI) into the EU hit record levels, in sharp contrast to the continued decline in EU FDI flows to China. Chinese FDI was mainly driven by market-seeking and strategic asset-seeking motives and focused on big EU economies, targeting cutting-edge technologies in particular. In 2016, a number of Chinese proposals for transactions in strategic sectors came under scrutiny during security reviews at EU Member-State level. Some were delayed, and some ...

In 2016, the flow of Chinese foreign direct investment (FDI) into the EU hit record levels, in sharp contrast to the continued decline in EU FDI flows to China. Chinese FDI was mainly driven by market-seeking and strategic asset-seeking motives and focused on big EU economies, targeting cutting-edge technologies in particular. In 2016, a number of Chinese proposals for transactions in strategic sectors came under scrutiny during security reviews at EU Member-State level. Some were delayed, and some were ultimately withdrawn by the Chinese investors. In this context, new challenges going beyond national security have emerged in terms of economic security. Such challenges may arise from alleged 'unfair competition' from China, which the current regulatory framework seems unable to address. This has sparked a debate about whether the patchwork of different mechanisms for screening FDI on national security grounds currently in place in nearly half of the EU Member States, coupled with the scrutiny of mergers and acquisitions under EU competition rules, are adequate regulatory tools for tackling the perceived new challenges. It also raises the question of whether the Member States' diverging approaches should be upgraded, better coordinated or even replaced by a new consistent FDI screening mechanism at EU level. Australia, Canada, Japan and the USA operate FDI screening mechanisms, which the EU could use as sources of reference but not emulate entirely. The use of these screening mechanisms for, and their deterrence effect on, Chinese investors in a growing protectionist climate is, however, likely to have an impact on the EU.

Potential Concepts for the Future EU-UK Relationship in Financial Services

15-12-2016

This study assesses the key impacts of the United Kingdom’s exit from the European Union on the financial system and its infrastructures, on financial firms and financial services under three alternative concepts for the future EU-UK relationship. In addition to the impact on the ‘passporting rights’ of financial firms, particular emphasis is given to the impact on the regulatory framework governing i.a. credit institutions under a ‘third-country status’ scenario for the UK, the impact on payment ...

This study assesses the key impacts of the United Kingdom’s exit from the European Union on the financial system and its infrastructures, on financial firms and financial services under three alternative concepts for the future EU-UK relationship. In addition to the impact on the ‘passporting rights’ of financial firms, particular emphasis is given to the impact on the regulatory framework governing i.a. credit institutions under a ‘third-country status’ scenario for the UK, the impact on payment systems and market infrastructures, as well as to certain aspects of the EU institutional framework governing the monetary and the financial system could be affected. This study was prepared by Policy Department A at the request of the ECON Committee.

Ekstern forfatter

Christos V. GORTSOS

Comparing EU and EFTA Trade Agreements: Drivers, Actors, Benefits, and Costs

30-05-2016

EFTA states have built up a network of 26 preferential trade agreements (PTAs) with 37 partners, compared to more than 120 trade agreements concluded by the EU with more than 45 partners. There are substantial differences between EU and EFTA PTAs in terms of scope and ambition. EFTA agreements still focus on traditional areas of market access, while the post-1990 EU agreements are more elaborate, values-driven, political and comprehensive. As a bloc, the EU has more leverage when it negotiates ...

EFTA states have built up a network of 26 preferential trade agreements (PTAs) with 37 partners, compared to more than 120 trade agreements concluded by the EU with more than 45 partners. There are substantial differences between EU and EFTA PTAs in terms of scope and ambition. EFTA agreements still focus on traditional areas of market access, while the post-1990 EU agreements are more elaborate, values-driven, political and comprehensive. As a bloc, the EU has more leverage when it negotiates around the world. The size of its market and its highly developed common policies mean that the EU can bring more to the negotiating table and has stronger tools to enforce its economic interests and political conditions compared to the smaller EFTA states whose political and economic cooperation is limited. Although the EFTA states do not form a customs union like the EU, they usually negotiate PTAs as a group, bringing their combined economic and political weight to bear. However, they retain the right to reach bilateral trade agreements with third countries outside the EFTA framework, such as Switzerland's PTAs with Japan and China, and Iceland's bilateral PTA with China. EFTA's small size nonetheless has some benefits. Since EFTA states are not so constrained by — often diverging — interests they can be more flexible in their negotiations. In some cases EFTA has concluded trade deals relatively quickly compared to the EU, but this has been at the expense of relatively shallow trade agreements.

Ekstern forfatter

Andreas MAURER

Research for TRAN Committee - Status Report on the Deployment of SESAR

13-05-2016

This report captures the status of deployment of SESAR through the Pilot Common Project (PCP) in terms of state of play, costs and timeliness. It is concluded that the PCP implementation is on time and underpinned by a credible management structure. The expenditure to date through the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) mechanism is EUR 325.4 million, out of EUR 3 billion planned for 2014-2020. However, as the PCP implementation is at an early stage, the benefits are still to be quantified.

This report captures the status of deployment of SESAR through the Pilot Common Project (PCP) in terms of state of play, costs and timeliness. It is concluded that the PCP implementation is on time and underpinned by a credible management structure. The expenditure to date through the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) mechanism is EUR 325.4 million, out of EUR 3 billion planned for 2014-2020. However, as the PCP implementation is at an early stage, the benefits are still to be quantified.