INTA 2221 Lecture Notes - Lecture 11: Juncker Commission, Federica Mogherini, President Of The European Commission

36 views6 pages

cyanmule96

10 Aug 2017

School

Georgia Tech

Department

International Affairs

Course

INTA 2221

Professor

Vince Pedicino

For unlimited access to Class Notes, a Class+ subscription is required.

Document Summary

The commission is sort of the cabinet of the european union and all legislations come from this party group. When they are chosen they have to all be agreed upon (they have to be approved by the european parliament- they cant pick one commissioner and say we want everyone, but that one). And when they are chosen they have to say that they are going to act for the interest of the eu, not their own countries. Ex: liberals put some one from their party to be the president. They are the only ones that initiate the legislations. The governing body of the eu is a big broad coalition. It is the main center right, the main center left, and the center (the liberals, the socialists, and conservative or christian democrats). It means that everyone in the commission comes from one of those 3 parties. All the members have political background in their home countries.

Related Questions

ead The Economist's articles, "Obama to raise trade talk concerns with Merkel."

Do you think the reduction or elimination of tariffs and notariff barriers between the U.S. and the EU through the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership will increase demand for U.S. goods and services in Europe and make european goods and services cheaper for Americans? In the face of a global recession is it wise for nations to begin raising tariffs and increasing subsidies to domestic producers? Why or why not?

Each student replies to instructorâs initial discussion question with a substantive post (minimum 250 words). Your initial post as well as a response to two other classmates initial discussion question should be done by 11:59 PM Central Standard Time (CST) - Sunday evening.

February 9, 2015 3:05 am

Obama to raise trade talk concerns with

Merke

Shawn Donnan, World Trade Editor

Â©AFP

US President Barack Obama is expected to raise concerns about the pace of

trans

Atlantic trade

talks with Angela Merkel when the German chancellor visits Washington on Monday with US

officials fretting that supposedly reinvigorated negotiations are instead getting off to a false start.

Following the November appointment of Cecil

ia Malmstrom, the new European trade

commissioner, both sides pledged a âfresh startâ to talks over a

Trans

Atlantic Trade and

Investment Partnership

, or TTIP, that had been crawling along since beginning in July 2013.

But a senior US official told the Financial Times that Washington was disappointed with the

progress made in last weekâs round of formal negotiations, the first since the re

launch, and had

decided to press

its case with Ms Merkel on Monday and in European capitals in the coming

weeks.

That frustration was partly in evidence in Brussels last week. âThis weekâs round was

constructive, but we do need to see more, further concrete progress ... if we are to turn

this fresh

start into a reality,â the chief US negotiator, Dan Mullaney, told reporters on Friday as the

discussions wrapped up.

The US has in recent months been pressing the European Union to agree to exchange new offers

on the number of tariff

free goods

. Many see this as the easier part of the negotiations compared

with the more complex question of easing regulatory barriers to trade across the Atlantic.

Last year the US offered to eliminate tariffs on 88 per cent of goods traded between the two

economie

s, significantly lower than the 96 per cent put forward by the EU. But since then US

officials have been trying to improve their offer while also extracting more from the EU.

Liberalisation of services is another bone of contention for Washington, which is

irked that the

EU has refused to offer a similar package to that negotiated with Canada in a recently concluded

trade agreement.

The decision to raise the issue with Ms Merkel did not reflect any conflict between the German

chancellor and Mr Obama over TT

IP, the official said. Washington remains convinced she

supports the trans

Atlantic talks, in spite of

scepticism

among many Germans.

The concerns were instead focused on EU officials and the European Commission, the senior US

official said, and whether officials in Brussels were meeting their leadersâ desire for

more rapid

progress

. David Cameron, the UKâs prime minister, last year called for ârocket boostersâ to be

placed und

er the talks.

Two senior EU trade officials on Sunday dismissed the US concerns as âspinâ and told the FT

that they hoped to exchange new tariffs and services offers by July.

The EU officials also said that there had been progress in discussions over the i

nclusion of

financial services regulation in TTIP, something the US side has resisted in part because of fears

that it might water down the strict Dodd

Franck regulations introduced in the wake of the 2008

crisis.

But the disagreement highlights how tensio

ns remain between both sides despite efforts to make

a fresh start.

European officials have also privately raised concerns that Mr Obamaâs administration is more

focused on sealing a 12

country Pacific Rim trade agreement now nearing conclusion, the Trans

Pacific Partnership, or TPP, than the trans

Atlantic one.

Speaking at a security conference in Munich on Saturday, Vice President Joe Biden sought to

placate the EU. âTTIP is not the stepchild to TPP,â the vice president

said

âWe have not taken our focus off of Europe. We have not decide

d that the future lies in the

Pacific Basin. We are a Pacific power. We will assert that power, and we will remain a Pacific

power. But we are also an Atlantic power.â

2) If you find in your wallet or pocket a suspicious Czech koruna, banknote (probably counterfeited)

a. you are a looser. You should destroy it immediately.

b. you should present it to the Czech National Bank to check, if it is genuine or not, if it is not genuine. you are a looser. If it is genuine, you will obtain a new one.

c. you should pay with it in the nearest shop, otherwise you are a looser

d. you should present it to the Ministry of Finance, where the experts of the Financial Analytical Unit determine, if it is genuine or not. If it is not genuine, you are a looser.

3) Which type of securities does not exist at all?

a. short term securities with the maturity up to one year (often issued by the state, called T-bills)

b. long-term securities with the maturity higher than 5 years

c. stocks with the maturity shorter than 1 year

d. stocks with denomination higher than equivalent of 100,000€

4) According to the Czech legislation a mortgage could not be offered by any financial institution to

a. finance of anything else than housing

b. anybody who is not married

c. anybody who is not employed

d. anybody who is not adult (18 and older)

5) Every owner of a banking or payment account in any bank in the European Union

a. has to be an owner of a life insurance contract, too.

b. has to sign a special contract with his/her bank to specify conditions under which his/her deposits are insured.

c. is insured — better to say: his/her deposits up to specified amount are insured. Recently an equivalent of 100.000 € (in certain cases up to 200.000 €).

d. is allowed to have only one account in every EU member state.

6) A cheque (or check) is a payment instrument which is:

a. legally forbidden to be used in the Czech Republic

b. possible to be used by anybody even if he/she does not have any bank account

c. known by legislation, but minimally used in the Czech Republic

d. widely supported by the Czech banking environment as a modern type of payment instrument.

7) A credit institution. which was granted a banking license in One of the EU member states

a. could not run its banking business without a local banking license in another EU member state.

b. could run its banking business without a local banking license, but it has to inform the local central bank or other supervisory body about its intention to do so.

c. could run its banking business without a local banking license for one year only; during that period it has to obtain a banking license.

d. could run its banking business without a local banking license, but it can offer its services to a limited number of clients — recently 100.000 €.

8) Any pan-European banking directive of the European Parliament and of the Council

a. should be implemented into the local legislation of the EU member states in a given period (normally 18 months).

b. is possible to be used as a recommendation only; only regulations are mandatory for all member states.

c. is not implemented or transposed into the local legislation of the EU member states at all: it comes into force either immediately when printed in the Official Journal or in stipulated terms mentioned in the given regulation.

d. should be followed by European banks only; for those active in the EU but with headquarters out of the EU and having only their branches or daughter companies in the EU these regulations could be taken as recommendations.

9) The president of the Czech Republic is given by the Constitution (Act. No 1/1993 Coil.) a power

a. to appoint members of the Board of the Czech National Bank.

b. to influence decisions of the members of the central bank Board.

c. to validate appointment of the top management of all commercial banks.

d. to appoint only a governor of the Czech National Bank: the other members of the CNB Board a appointed by the governor.

10) The Czech interbank payment system called CERTIS is:

a. solely used for the settlement of large value payments.

b. the real time gross settlement system.

c. the net settlement system.

ivoryclam973

Hello, could I get some assistance summarizing this article for a discussion:

Read the articles and discuss the problems of Economic Inequality in the U.S.economy, summarize key points and post in the Discussions area:

Competition police crossing continents

Competition authorities are increasingly reaching beyond their country's borders

Feb 22^nd, 2014

WHEN TWO AMERICAN presidents, Theodore Roosevelt and William Howard Taft, embarked on a trustbusting mission a century ago, they were taking government into a new policy area: competition. Industrialization was still relatively new, and any monopolies that had emerged, such as the British and Dutch East India companies, had been created by governments.

The robber-baron companies of the late 19th century were accused of using their industrial muscle to drive competitors out of business. Private monopolies, the argument ran, diminished the benefits of capitalism; by definition, the existence of a monopoly made it impossible for a free market to operate.

Since then, governments have generally had some kind of competition policy, though not necessarily a coherent one. Politicians have tried to juggle several different priorities, among them putting the government in control of "strategic" industries (a category that has always included defense but often also a range of other industries, from airlines to car manufacturing, power generation, and telecoms); shielding domestic businesses from foreign ownership or competition, and protecting consumers from price-gouging.

In the past two decades, a new concern has emerged: that monopolies may be restricting innovation. The technology industry seems to have been particularly prone to creating near-monopolies, from Microsoft in software to Amazon in retailing and Google in an internet search. This is due to network effects. Consumers gravitate to the dominant technology, either because it offers more products or because many of their friends are already using the network concerned. These monopolists, it is feared, will be slow to introduce new technologies that might cannibalize their existing business; and they will be so entrenched that new competitors will find it hard to get a foothold.

Microsoft bundled its Internet Explorer browser with its dominant Windows operating software on personal computers. America's Department of Justice saw this as an attempt to force Netscape, a rival browser, out of the market. In a long court case that began in 1998, Microsoft was initially ordered to break itself in two. This ruling was overturned on appeal and a less onerous settlement was arrived at.

At the time many commentators felt that the authorities had overreached themselves. Internet Explorer was provided free of charge, so it was hard to see how consumers were being harmed. But this is a tricky area. On the one hand, rapid technological change can cause once-dominant companies to lose their position very quickly if they do not adapt; look at Nokia's and BlackBerry's mobile-phone businesses. Some argue that if the market is capable of such adjustment, governments should not get involved. The fact that some consumers make the wrong decision some of the time is not the basis for intervention, as long as all consumers are not being ripped off, says Simon Bishop of RBB Economics, a consultancy. On the other hand, such rapid change makes it hard to tell whether monopoly positions are being exploited, or whether a more competitive market would have produced more innovations.

Competition authorities have also had to rethink their role in cross-border deals. If one multinational takes over another, that might not create a monopoly in the country where the two groups have their headquarters, but it could do so in another country. A proposal for a merger between General Electric and Honeywell, announced in October 2000, was cleared by America's Department of Justice but blocked by the European Commission the following year. That objection appeared to herald a new era of transatlantic takeover disputes; in fact, it remains the only deal so far to have been cleared in America but blocked on the other side of the Atlantic.

However, there have been other instances of transatlantic disputes. In 2009 the European Commission imposed a 1.06 billion ($1.4 billion) fine on Intel, a chipmaker, after a complaint brought by an American rival, AMD. The ruling seemed to suggest that multinationals faced the prospect of double jeopardy because of inconsistent international rules.

We do it our way

There are some philosophical differences between Europe and America. Europe has a long tradition of state ownership of industry; even after privatization, many such companies retain dominant positions, at least in their national markets. In America, by contrast, market leaders have got there the hard way, by having superior technology or being more efficient. In Europe competition policy tends to be rules-based, with the European Commission issuing guidance for future mergers to follow; in America merger decisions tend to be hammered out in the courts, establishing legal precedent.

But multinationals also have to deal with competition policy in emerging markets. China is a particular challenge. The Chinese use competition policy to achieve other ends to keep out foreign firms or attack existing foreign businesses says, one expert. Latin American countries have tended to adopt the American model of competition policy, whereas eastern Europe has followed the example. Merger authorities from different countries have set up the International Competition Network to share the experience. Such efforts may reduce the double-jeopardy problems in international mergers, if only because rules may be applied more consistently.

In the longer term, the question is whether national competition policies will prove adaptable enough to cope with a globalized economy. It may make economic sense for global companies to exploit economies of scale and bring down prices for consumers, but national governments may be reluctant to accept the loss of control involved. In air travel, for example, fares have been reduced under pressure from low-cost airlines, but these newcomers are still being held back by policies that favor flagship carriers. If regulators in rich countries were to prove more zealous than their counterparts in emerging markets in restricting the size of multinationals, Western firms might be put at a competitive disadvantage.

New concerns for competition authorities are emerging all the time. Chris Walters, the acting chief economist of Britain's Office of Fair Trading (OFT), cites the practice of pay-for-delay, whereby a firm that holds a drug patent pays a generic manufacturer not to launch a rival drug to preserve the patent-holders monopoly profits. And David Currie, the chairman of the Competition and Markets Authority (which will take over from the OFT in April), recently pointed to a vast new potential problem, which he described as the growing collection, processing, and use of consumer-transaction data for commercial ends. This is proving an increasingly important source of competitive advantage; we need to be alert to the possibility that it will be an increasing source of consumer detriment.

aquamarinemoose208

INTA 2221 Lecture Notes - Lecture 11: Juncker Commission, Federica Mogherini, President Of The European Commission

Document Summary

Get access

Related Documents

INTA 2221 Lecture Notes - Lecture 14: Justus Lipsius Building, Uk Independence Party, Nigel Farage

INTA 2221 Lecture Notes - Lecture 12: Treaty Of Lisbon, President Of The European Commission, Intergovernmentalism

INTA 2221 Lecture Notes - Lecture 18: Common Fisheries Policy, Angela Merkel, European Parliament

Related Questions