EU To Introduce ‘Punitive' External Funding Clause To Reduce Migration
Amid a confusing roll-out of the latest long-term budget proposal, the European Commission has signaled it will move to a more 'punitive' approach in trying to get developing countries to take back more deportations of their citizens. The change, which will affect the way money is spent from the EU's $233bn external funding instrument, would see the bloc suspend or even cancel development assistance if countries don't co-operate with the EU's ambitions to reduce migration and increase deportations of failed asylum seekers.
The Commission's proposal for the next budget period - which acts as a curtain-raiser for future negotiation and sets the likely tone for what will be the final budget - has already generated a lot of controversy and seen policy analysts scrambling to understand what's coming. The proposal reflects the dominant policy agenda of the Commission - namely defense, competitiveness and border security. To that end, various funding instruments have been grouped together to form mega-funds known as 'National and regional partnership plans.'
These mega-funds will give a lot more discretion to member states to dole out money as they see fit, rather than being constrained by spending targets set by the EU. This, in practice, has some asylum and migration researchers and advocates concerned that member states will neglect funding for programs to better support people already seeking shelter in Europe, and spend it rather on building up their borders - something many member states have made it clear they want to do.
While pointing out that a lot remains unclear when it comes to how the new budget will affect people on the move, 'what we know is that the proposal is to increase resources for funds that have sponsored violent border surveillance in the past,' says Chiara Catelli, Project Officer at the undocumented migrant charity PICUM. "The same goes for Frontex, an agency that's been accused of complicity in human rights violations at the borders multiple times.'
Buried within the budget proposal is another clause that has set a lot of migration advocates on edge. Within the proposal text around the new external funding instrument - to be known as the Global Europe Instrument - it states that development funding for poor countries outside the EU could be suspended or even cut off, if those countries don't cooperate with the EU in accepting deportations of their citizens from the bloc.
While the EU - and other major powers - have often used their economic might to convince poorer countries to follow their agenda, it is a new step to have enshrined in law such a 'punitive' approach, at least for the EU. It does, however, mirror broader policy developments in the EU and U.K., the latter of which is reportedly considering overall migration and visa policy as a lever to convince third countries to welcome back 'returns.' At the same time, the EU is believed to be exploring how it may use trade policy as a similar lever, an idea expressed by a Belgian politician in June.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
22 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
ECB pauses rate-cutting campaign, as trade disputes cloud outlook
Advertisement The central bank is now in a 'wait-and-watch' mode, she added. The central bank has cut interest rates eight times since June 2024 as inflation slowed along with the economy, which has been rocked by Trump's unpredictable trade strategy. It's in sharp contrast with the United States, where the Federal Reserve has held rates steady this year, concerned that tariffs will push prices higher. Trump has repeatedly pointed to the rate cuts by the ECB when venting his frustration at the Fed for not cutting rates. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up The ECB's decision comes as the European Union and the United States are in tense talks over trade after Trump threatened to impose a 30 percent tariff on European goods if an agreement is not reached by the end of the month. The possibility of tariffs, which were threatened to go as high as 50 percent at one point, has dampened European exports and business investment. Advertisement But the region's economy has shown some resilience: Unemployment is historically low and investors have shown an increased appetite for European assets. Inflation in the eurozone averaged 2 percent last month, the central bank's target. That has allowed policymakers to argue that they do not need to rush to support the economy further. That patience may be tested, however, if the trade relationship between the United States and Europe deteriorates further, particularly if the European Union inflicts retaliatory tariffs on US goods. Inflation is forecast to drop to 1.6 percent next year, in part because of lower energy prices and a stronger euro, which makes imports cheaper. The strong euro, Lagarde added, is also a factor making businesses hesitant to invest and could lead to inflation falling further than expected. But the question that is dividing policymakers is whether below-target inflation, alongside a slowing economy, is likely to be sustained and warrant further action. If the trade tensions were resolved 'swiftly,' Lagarde said, that would brighten the region's economic outlook. Analysts say the bank could hold interest rates for much longer if the European Union and the United States sign a trade deal. The economy would also be supported by the recent run of rate cuts and expectations for more government spending, particularly in Germany, the region's largest economy. On Thursday, European stocks rose after reports that the European Union and United States were closing in on agreement of a 15 percent tariff rate on most goods. Traders also pared back expectations for additional rate cuts this year. Advertisement A trade deal with the United States could see the eurozone economy regaining momentum at the end of the year, said Holger Schmieding, an economist at Berenberg bank. And then, the ECB would not need to cut rates again, he added. For now, the overriding concern is the uncertainty over trade. 'The inflationary shock of the past few years is now behind us,' Lagarde said. Looking ahead, there are 'a lot of elements that will pan out in the next few months,' she said, and officials will wait to 'see what impact it will have on our economy.' This article originally appeared in
Forbes
24 minutes ago
- Forbes
How President Trump's 'AI Action Plan' May Impact Corporate Boards
getty The July 23 release of President Trump's comprehensive 'Winning the AI Race: America's AI Action Plan' presents technology opportunities and challenges for corporate leadership. On the one hand, the Plan commits the Administration to the admirable goal of expediting American efforts to establish global leadership in artificial intelligence and its critical infrastructure. On the other hand, its plan to achieve this goal by limiting what it regards as burdensome government regulation may prompt corporate leaders to compensate by adding new, more comprehensive internal risk-related guardrails. The Plan encompasses over 90 Federal policy actions across three policy pillars – 'Accelerating Innovation', 'Building American AI Infrastructure', and 'Leading in International Diplomacy and Security' – that will be rolled out by the Trump Administration over time. The pillars focus on exporting American AI; promoting the rapid buildout of data centers; removing 'onerous' Federal regulations that hinder AI development and deployment and updating Federal procurement guidelines to ensure that artificial intelligence models procured by the Federal government prioritize truthfulness and ideological neutrality. The New York Times described the Action Plan as 'opening the door for companies to develop the technology unfettered from oversight and safeguards', while assuring that A.I. be free of 'partisan bias.' The perception of the Plan is that in order for America to achieve global pre-eminence in AI, its development must not be hindered by a broad regulatory scheme. This represents a change in approach by the United States and reflects a departure from the approach of other governments (e.g., the European Commission) to implement regulatory standards for AI. Simultaneously with the rollout of the Action Plan, President Trump signed three related Executive Orders: one prohibiting the federal government from purchasing AI tools it perceives as ideologically slanted; another accelerating certain AI infrastructure projects and a third relating to the exporting of American-developed AI products. Corporate boards are likely to follow two parallel paths in responding to the AI Action Plan. One path could involve thorough conversations between the board and management concerning the impact of the Plan on the company's AI strategy. These conversations will likely focus on establishing internal mechanisms to monitor the roll-out of the Plan, and on identifying opportunities under the Plan to enhance the company's approach to AI acquisition and deployment. The other, more challenging path could also involve board/management conversations, but on the opposite end of the spectrum ‒ whether the limited commitment to federal AI regulation could create increased liability and reputational exposure for the company. Any such conversation would be grounded in an honest self-evaluation of the current degree of board proficiency in artificial intelligence related matters. Is the board prepared to accelerate and monitor the company's use of AI? In such an exercise, the National Association of Corporate Directors' 2024 Blue Ribbon Commission Report, 'Technology Leadership in the Boardroom' might be an effective measuring stick. The more direct conversations about liability and risk would evaluate the need to enhance the board's AI oversight mechanisms and whether to add specific review standards in order to assure reliability, safety and trust. In addition, the board may consider whether additional oversight may be necessary in order to responsibly manage issues historically associated with 'irresponsible use' of AI (e.g. societal harms such as fraud, discrimination, bias, and disinformation; anti-competitive behavior, and the displacement and disempowerment of workers). The board will also likely consult with its advisors on whether to expand compliance programming to address possible government enforcement policies regarding the objectivity of AI systems in general, and their possible treatment of such controversial topics as diversity, equity and inclusion, climate change and misinformation. The board's pursuit of this parallel path will most certainly require an investment of time, review, evaluation, internal discussion and external consultation beyond that which it may already be contributing to AI. The ultimate governance question arising from the AI Action plan is whether boards will find it necessary to compensate for the absence of comprehensive AI regulation with increased internal oversight ‒ and whether it can do so without creating an expensive internal bureaucracy.
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
Soft power delivers big returns, but Trump is slashing it anyway
Studies in many countries show that spending on diplomacy, cultural engagement, and humanitarian relief generates a huge economic return on investment —at least six times greater than the dollars invested. Advertisement The European Union's Creative Europe program produced three to four times the amount invested in cultural diplomacy. Advertisement The United States has not measured its soft power directly, but there is no doubt that it boosts its image by providing humanitarian and disaster aid. In 2003, the United States spent $400 million to help Indonesia recover from the massive tsunami in the Indian Ocean. Public approval of the United States in Indonesia, the world's largest Muslim country, Today, the United States is turning away from such opportunities. What may look like savings through layoffs and grant rescissions will in fact cost billions in lost trade, weakened alliances, and diminished global influence. In nearly every other policy domain — whether approving a medicine, a public safety regulation, or building new infrastructure — government decisions are informed by cost-benefit analysis. No such analysis has been performed here. If cost-benefit thinking were applied to soft power, it would be clear that the benefits of soft power far outweigh the costs. Advertisement The concept is well understood in the private sector. Businesses spend heavily to acquire 'goodwill' — brand value, reputation, and customer trust. Such intangible assets drive future profits and provide protection against commercial competitors. Governments should treat soft power the same way: as a hedge that reduces economic and military conflict. When nations trust America and see us as a partner rather than a threat, they are far less likely to take hostile actions that would require costly military responses. Soft power investments provide a double dividend that pays off in both economic gains and reduced defense spending. The full value of America's global engagement may only become evident once it is withdrawn. The Trump administration is working hard to achieve this end. The Trump administration has laid off government scientists, educators, and health experts, including last week's As the United States slashes its soft power budget,China is scaling up. The Chinese Belt and Road Initiative has committed more than $1 trillion in infrastructure spending. Chinese-funded rail projects in Malaysia, Advertisement The dollar 'savings' that Thune crowed about amount to less than the cost of a single F-35 fighter jet. But a fighter jet can't help refugees, teach Afghan girls to read, or persuade African leaders to choose American over Chinese technology. As Nye pointed out, soft power is easy to squander and difficult to recover. The cuts, combined with the Trump administration's sustained assault on the nation's leading universities, represent a colossal soft power miscalculation. They will cost America global influence that no amount of military spending can replace.
