Who will monitor the spies? CEPS Commentary, 8 January 2014

A majority of national governments across the EU have long tried to cordon off their practices of mass interception of communications data and cyber-hacking of foreign companies and diplomats from supranational scrutiny by the EU institutions and courts, arguing that they remain within the remit of their ‘exclusive competence’ on grounds of national security. In light of the revelations that some EU member states (namely the UK, France, Germany and Sweden) are running their own secret interception programmes, however, the question of whether the EU can and should intervene becomes more pressing. This commentary, by a team of JHA specialists at CEPS, offers four important legal reasons why the covert surveillance programmes of member states should not be regarded as falling outside the scope of EU intervention.

Strategic Insurance: The Future of the Belgian Armed Forces. IES Policy Brief Issue 2014/04/May 2014

Summary. Belgium is on the cusp of its next defence reform. While the security landscape throughout Europe’s neighbourhood and beyond deteriorates, the armed forces face numerous challenges. Most importantly, the next defence plan needs to recalibrate the force structure in function of political ambitions and budgetary realities. This Policy Brief argues that Belgium must embrace a nimble but broad-spectrum force. Any future structure must encompass agile land forces as well as a modern combat air force, without neglecting the need to safeguard a sizeable navy and invest in cyber capabilities. European cooperation should be pursued wherever possible while recognising that this necessitates budgetary convergence. For Belgium this means the investment budget needs to grow significantly in order to acquire interoperable but self-owned assets. Such a choice can be justified on the recognition that defence is not just about expeditionary operations, but also economic stimulus, intergenerational solidarity and strategic insurance: maintaining the ability to respond to whatever the future may bring.

The Eastern Partnership Riga Summit should not be a non-event. EPC Commentary, 20 May 2015

The upcoming 21-22 May Eastern Partnership (EaP) Riga Summit will take place against the backdrop of the new geopolitical reality in the EU’s Eastern neighbourhood, in the aftermath of Russia’s annexation of Crimea and ongoing war in Eastern Ukraine. Given the extremely complex geopolitical context, the importance of the Summit and the message it delivers to the partner countries – particularly to Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova, which have made European integration their foreign policy goal – cannot be underestimated. The Summit needs to send a strong, unambiguous signal reconfirming the EU’s commitment to the EaP, and offer a clear roadmap for the future. If the Summit turns out to be a non-event, with an empty declaration, it risks being perceived as rewarding the bullying policies of Russia.

Relaunching the European Retail Finance Market: Comments on the Commission's Green Paper. ECRI Commentary No. 20, 15 December 2015

The European Commission’s Green Paper on retail financial services, published on December 10th, provides valuable insights into the possible benefits of a single market, as well as the obstacles to its development and the possible remedies. While a greater diversity of products within countries could have a positive impact on both consumers and providers, it is also important to highlight that it could contribute to more effective macroeconomic policies at European level. The development of such a single market for Europe where consumers can confidently purchase more profitable financial products abroad necessitates the establishment of a European body along the lines of the US Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), or at least the establishment of closer European supervisory cooperation and enforcement. A framework for the digitalisation of financial services should not only focus on mitigating specific types of risk, such as cyber insecurity, lack of privacy and financial exclusion, but it should also continue to maintain a “space of creation” for innovative financial firms.