Nine months after its delayed inception, the Conference on the Future of Europe is entering its second, concluding phase. The first two of the randomly selected European Citizens’ Panels have produced their recommendations, now transferred to the political level.
Last Friday and Saturday, the conference plenary—which in an unprecedented manner mixes elected politicians and other institutional actors with ordinary citizens—met to discuss the first 91 citizens’ recommendations received thus far. The two remaining panels, on ‘EU in the world / migration‘, and ‘A stronger economy, social justice and jobs / Education, culture, youth and sport / Digital transformation’, are due to finalise their work by the end of February.
Read more at:
The future of Europe: who holds the baton? – Alberto Alemanno
Showing posts with label Planning. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Planning. Show all posts
4/18/21
Europe's democratic renewal needs a feminist slant - by Iratxe García Pérez
If the Covid-19 outbreak has taught us anything, it’s that preparedness for crises is crucial to save lives. To be better prepared, we need to have a discussion about the future of the European Union. And not just among politicians. This is where the Conference on the Future of Europe comes in, which had been proposed already before the pandemic because, even back then, it was necessary to update our common vision and to speed up decision-making in our union of 27 member states.
Now, the time has come to get out of the ‘Brussels bubble’, listen to people and advance towards a feminist Europe. We need a new concept of power, a new approach to representative democracy and a new mindset in the EU institutions. This transformation should also be reflected in the institutional architecture. We must ensure that the conference plenary does not just become a political theatre for EU politicians to debate among themselves. Instead, it needs to be a forum to give a voice to citizens
Read more at: Europe's democratic renewal needs a feminist slant – Iratxe García Pérez
Now, the time has come to get out of the ‘Brussels bubble’, listen to people and advance towards a feminist Europe. We need a new concept of power, a new approach to representative democracy and a new mindset in the EU institutions. This transformation should also be reflected in the institutional architecture. We must ensure that the conference plenary does not just become a political theatre for EU politicians to debate among themselves. Instead, it needs to be a forum to give a voice to citizens
Read more at: Europe's democratic renewal needs a feminist slant – Iratxe García Pérez
3/30/21
European Union & Vaccine Rollout: Disaster Unfolding
For a long time now, the creation of the euro, a dangerous experiment that placed political fantasy over economic reality, has been the most damaging example of just how far, and just how incompetently, those running the EU would go in the name of “ever-closer union.” That dismal precedent may now have been eclipsed by Brussels’s involvement in securing supplies of the COVID-19 vaccine for those who live within the EU’s borders, a lethal experiment that placed political dogma over medical need.
Supported by Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, the EU Commission (its administrative arm) took over the negotiations with vaccine manufacturers on behalf of all EU member-states last June. This was designed both as a declaration of EU “solidarity” and because of the belief that bargaining on behalf of the whole bloc could secure the vaccine at a cheaper price, a calculation that appeared to take little account of the economic costs of any delays, and delay was what — for a variety of reasons — Brussels delivered.
The U.K. came to its deal with AstraZeneca (the manufacturer of the Oxford vaccine) three months earlier than the EU, and its contract came with sharper teeth. The EU also took four months longer than the U.K. and U.S. to sign up with Pfizer.
Readmore at: European Union & Vaccine Rollout: Disaster Unfolding | National Review
Supported by Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, the EU Commission (its administrative arm) took over the negotiations with vaccine manufacturers on behalf of all EU member-states last June. This was designed both as a declaration of EU “solidarity” and because of the belief that bargaining on behalf of the whole bloc could secure the vaccine at a cheaper price, a calculation that appeared to take little account of the economic costs of any delays, and delay was what — for a variety of reasons — Brussels delivered.
The U.K. came to its deal with AstraZeneca (the manufacturer of the Oxford vaccine) three months earlier than the EU, and its contract came with sharper teeth. The EU also took four months longer than the U.K. and U.S. to sign up with Pfizer.
Readmore at: European Union & Vaccine Rollout: Disaster Unfolding | National Review
5/5/18
NATO Prepares for War With Russia With Simulated Naval and Cyberattacks - by Cristina Maza
Around 1,000 participants from 30 member countries of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) gathered in the tiny Baltic nation of Estonia late last month to prepare for war with an enemy that looks a lot like Russia, according to reports.
The exercises were dystopian and catastrophic, and included simulated cyberattacks, poisoned water supplies, a hacked drone employed to kill NATO soldiers and a faulty power grid. As tensions ratchet up between Moscow and the West, NATO countries, especially those like Estonia that border Russia, are increasingly preparing for the worst. The Locked Shields live-fire cyber exercise is a key part of that preparation.
“The exercise required participants to counter high-intensity attacks on a fictitious country’s IT systems and critical infrastructure networks. Teams had to maintain the IT systems while reporting incidents, managing crises, making strategic decisions, solving digital forensics tasks and dealing with other challenges,” according to a report on homeland preparedness. “The exercise involved a total of 4,000 virtualized systems and more than 2,500 attacks.”
Note EU-Digest: Contemplating war between Nuclear Powers is utter madness and even the idea of preparing for one is tltal madness, because their will be no victors. The only solution is complete disarmement by all nuclear Nations. Unfortunately with all these ego maniacs political leaders around the world this this is impossible.
Read more: NATO Prepares for War With Russia With Simulated Naval and Cyberattacks
The exercises were dystopian and catastrophic, and included simulated cyberattacks, poisoned water supplies, a hacked drone employed to kill NATO soldiers and a faulty power grid. As tensions ratchet up between Moscow and the West, NATO countries, especially those like Estonia that border Russia, are increasingly preparing for the worst. The Locked Shields live-fire cyber exercise is a key part of that preparation.
“The exercise required participants to counter high-intensity attacks on a fictitious country’s IT systems and critical infrastructure networks. Teams had to maintain the IT systems while reporting incidents, managing crises, making strategic decisions, solving digital forensics tasks and dealing with other challenges,” according to a report on homeland preparedness. “The exercise involved a total of 4,000 virtualized systems and more than 2,500 attacks.”
Note EU-Digest: Contemplating war between Nuclear Powers is utter madness and even the idea of preparing for one is tltal madness, because their will be no victors. The only solution is complete disarmement by all nuclear Nations. Unfortunately with all these ego maniacs political leaders around the world this this is impossible.
Read more: NATO Prepares for War With Russia With Simulated Naval and Cyberattacks
6/17/16
NATO: Bulgaria Throws Wrench In Works Of NATO Black Sea Plans
Bulgaria's prime minister has said the country will not participate in a proposed joint NATO naval fleet in the Black Sea, slowing the momentum of a project that had thus far received broad support from NATO members and partners.
The move would “turn the Black Sea into a territory of war,” Prime Minister Boyko Borissov said on Thursday, adding that he “wants to see cruising yachts, and tourists, rather than warships.”
“To send warships as a fleet against the Russian ships exceeds the limit of what I can allow,” Borissov told reporters in Sofia on Thursday, as quoted by Bloomberg. “To deploy destroyers, aircraft carriers near Bourgas or Varna during the tourist season is unacceptable.”
The Romanian-led proposal to create a sort of joint NATO Black Sea naval force has the support of Turkey, the United States, NATO headquarters, as well as non-NATO members Georgia and Ukraine.
Bulgaria's refusal could have several causes. For one, presidential elections are coming up and Borissov may be concerned that rival, more pro-Russia parties could use the move against him, said Dimitar Bechev, a Bulgarian political scientist and fellow at Harvard's Center for European Studies. "Most of all, I think he's concerned about domestic repurcussions," Bechev said in an interview with The Bug Pit. He added that Bulgaria could likely eventually join whatever NATO naval force emerges in an "under the radar" fashion
Bulgaria also has reasons to be skeptical of the merits of a NATO Black Sea force, added Michael Kofman, a military analyst at CNA Corporation and a fellow at the Wilson Center’s Kennan Institute. He noted that Bulgaria is still participating in a new multinational NATO brigade to be based in Romania, sending 400 soldiers.
And Russia maintains an overwhelming superiority in the Black Sea, including such a strong sea-denial system of land-based anti-ship weapons that they could easily destroy any enemy forces in the sea. "There's little sense in further militarizing a space in which there is no chance of coming out on top with the correlation of forces. The consequence is a net security minus for member states. A NATO fleet has little viability and is unnecessary to achieve sea denial in the Black Sea. Bulgaria simply has more common sense than some others.," Kofman said in an interview with The Bug Pit.
It remains unclear what form a joint NATO Black Sea force might take, but Bulgaria's refusal to take part is a significant blow, politically if not militarily. The plan is nevertheless on the agenda of the upcoming alliance summit in Warsaw from July 8-9.
Read more: Bulgaria Throws Wrench In Works Of NATO Black Sea Plans | EurasiaNet.org
The move would “turn the Black Sea into a territory of war,” Prime Minister Boyko Borissov said on Thursday, adding that he “wants to see cruising yachts, and tourists, rather than warships.”
“To send warships as a fleet against the Russian ships exceeds the limit of what I can allow,” Borissov told reporters in Sofia on Thursday, as quoted by Bloomberg. “To deploy destroyers, aircraft carriers near Bourgas or Varna during the tourist season is unacceptable.”
The Romanian-led proposal to create a sort of joint NATO Black Sea naval force has the support of Turkey, the United States, NATO headquarters, as well as non-NATO members Georgia and Ukraine.
Bulgaria's refusal could have several causes. For one, presidential elections are coming up and Borissov may be concerned that rival, more pro-Russia parties could use the move against him, said Dimitar Bechev, a Bulgarian political scientist and fellow at Harvard's Center for European Studies. "Most of all, I think he's concerned about domestic repurcussions," Bechev said in an interview with The Bug Pit. He added that Bulgaria could likely eventually join whatever NATO naval force emerges in an "under the radar" fashion
Bulgaria also has reasons to be skeptical of the merits of a NATO Black Sea force, added Michael Kofman, a military analyst at CNA Corporation and a fellow at the Wilson Center’s Kennan Institute. He noted that Bulgaria is still participating in a new multinational NATO brigade to be based in Romania, sending 400 soldiers.
And Russia maintains an overwhelming superiority in the Black Sea, including such a strong sea-denial system of land-based anti-ship weapons that they could easily destroy any enemy forces in the sea. "There's little sense in further militarizing a space in which there is no chance of coming out on top with the correlation of forces. The consequence is a net security minus for member states. A NATO fleet has little viability and is unnecessary to achieve sea denial in the Black Sea. Bulgaria simply has more common sense than some others.," Kofman said in an interview with The Bug Pit.
It remains unclear what form a joint NATO Black Sea force might take, but Bulgaria's refusal to take part is a significant blow, politically if not militarily. The plan is nevertheless on the agenda of the upcoming alliance summit in Warsaw from July 8-9.
Read more: Bulgaria Throws Wrench In Works Of NATO Black Sea Plans | EurasiaNet.org
5/7/14
Futurists: Helping a Nation Think About Its Futures - by Steven Cork, Kristin Alford, Nicky Grigg, John Finnegan, Beth Fulton, Michael Raupach
The term “national conversation” seems to be gaining traction as a
desirable activity where people talk with one another at a national
scale about matters of national concern—the United States talking about
the security state, for instance, or Australia calling for discussions
on population, the structure of future economies, and attitudes towards
people seeking asylum. These issues are part of the bigger question of
how nations might define and achieve progress and well-being. And behind
all of this is concern over what sort of future we, the people making
up a nation, would like to have.
But having a conversation about the future is difficult. So how might a nation go about doing it?
In her seminal advice for English society in 1912, Mary Greer Conklin distinguished conversations from other forms of communication. Conversations, she said, are dialogues, not monologues; they are partnerships, not individual activities; they involve listening as well as talking; they are ways to learn from and understand others but are not necessarily a vehicle for information; and they should be polite and respectful.
Conversations among friends are still common, but at community and societal levels we tend these days to argue our case. More often than not we try to convince others that our ideas are best. We often end up in lawsuits or battles to capture media attention. On top of this, humans tend to develop simplified mental models of how the world works; and we are very good at only letting in information that agrees with those models.
This gives rise to a range of so-called thinking flaws, including confirmation bias (only seeking information that agrees with our views) and selective recall (only remembering information that agrees with our views).
Behavioral economist Daniel Ariely describes human decision-making as “predictably irrational.
So how can we have sensible conversations about the future when we don’t manage politeness and respect and are often unaware that our view of the world might differ from the view held by our conversant? The discipline of strategic foresight tries to address these problems, and thereby help us talk about the future. It combines strategy (how and why we do things) with forecasting and insight (casting our minds into the future and seeing things from different perspectives, thinking beyond the obvious).
Read more: Helping a Nation Think About Its Futures | Solutions
But having a conversation about the future is difficult. So how might a nation go about doing it?
In her seminal advice for English society in 1912, Mary Greer Conklin distinguished conversations from other forms of communication. Conversations, she said, are dialogues, not monologues; they are partnerships, not individual activities; they involve listening as well as talking; they are ways to learn from and understand others but are not necessarily a vehicle for information; and they should be polite and respectful.
Conversations among friends are still common, but at community and societal levels we tend these days to argue our case. More often than not we try to convince others that our ideas are best. We often end up in lawsuits or battles to capture media attention. On top of this, humans tend to develop simplified mental models of how the world works; and we are very good at only letting in information that agrees with those models.
This gives rise to a range of so-called thinking flaws, including confirmation bias (only seeking information that agrees with our views) and selective recall (only remembering information that agrees with our views).
Behavioral economist Daniel Ariely describes human decision-making as “predictably irrational.
So how can we have sensible conversations about the future when we don’t manage politeness and respect and are often unaware that our view of the world might differ from the view held by our conversant? The discipline of strategic foresight tries to address these problems, and thereby help us talk about the future. It combines strategy (how and why we do things) with forecasting and insight (casting our minds into the future and seeing things from different perspectives, thinking beyond the obvious).
Read more: Helping a Nation Think About Its Futures | Solutions
8/10/12
US banks told to have collapse plans
US regulators directed five of the country's biggest banks, including Bank of America and Goldman Sachs Group, to develop plans for staving off collapse if they faced serious problems, emphasising that the banks could not count on government help.
The two-year-old program, which has been largely secret until now, is in addition to the "living wills" the banks crafted to help regulators dismantle them if they actually do fail. It shows how hard regulators are working to ensure that banks have plans for worst-case scenarios and can act rationally in times of distress.
Officials like Lehman Brothers former Chief Executive Dick Fuld have been criticised for having been too hesitant to take bold steps to solve their banks' problems during the financial crisis.
Read more: US banks told to have collapse plans | Fin24
The two-year-old program, which has been largely secret until now, is in addition to the "living wills" the banks crafted to help regulators dismantle them if they actually do fail. It shows how hard regulators are working to ensure that banks have plans for worst-case scenarios and can act rationally in times of distress.
Officials like Lehman Brothers former Chief Executive Dick Fuld have been criticised for having been too hesitant to take bold steps to solve their banks' problems during the financial crisis.
Read more: US banks told to have collapse plans | Fin24
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)