nEUwsletter 09/12/2019

2050 Carbon neutrality: a very ambitious European deal

By Lise Faliu & Emmanuel Jeanny

Ursula von der Leyen, Commission president and Charles Michel, president of the EU Council. © Belga

On Thursday 12th December, the leaders of the EU Member States met at the European Council with a very special purpose. Indeed, following the Paris Agreement in 2015 and the declaration of the state of climate crisis of the Parliament, they have decided to progress on the road to ecology by committing to ‘carbon neutrality’ by 2050. A very ambitious promise that has been exposed by the President of the European Council Charles Michel : “We have reached an agreement on climate change, it is very important, it was crucial, for Europe to show strong ambition”.

This is undoubtedly a new step in the fight against climate change but concretely what does carbon neutrality stand for?

According to the definition given by the European Parliament, reaching carbon neutrality means “having a balance between emitting carbon and absorbing carbon from the atmosphere in carbon sinks. Removing carbon oxide from the atmosphere and then storing it is known as carbon sequestration. In order to achieve net zero emissions, all worldwide greenhouse gas emissions will have to be counterbalanced by carbon sequestration”

In the same vein, the UE is also committed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 40% by 2030. Needless to say that the measures and legislation adopted by the EU are numerous. But there remains the question of effective implementation, as the Commission will have to propose several legislative acts, and above all of their respect by all member States. Despite the fact that most of the European Countries agreed to the plan proposed, some countries such as France, Germany and the Netherlands asked for generous and precise promises of EU funds before they sign up to the target. Poland, on its side, has refused for the moment to take part in this new agreement.

Why Poland would refuse to take part in the 2050 carbon neutrality deal?

According to DW, “Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki announced he had secured an exemption from 2050 climate neutrality”.

In fact, as highlighted the magazine Climate Home News: “Poland will become the bloc’s second largest source of carbon after Germany when the UK leaves the EU” showing that Poland is still very dependent on coal, which is not a sustainable energy, making the transition to carbon neutrality more difficult than in the other Member States.

As said Polish Minister for Energy Krzysztof Tchorzewski reported by Euractiv, "Poland alone will need up to €900 billion to build up its renewable energy capacity, take coal plants offline and clean up its building sector".

Nicola Sturgeon pushing for a new referendum on Scottish independence

By Thomas Lezeau & Laura Samy

Credits: Getty

Thursday’s general elections gave the Scottish National Party (SNP) 48 of Scotland’s 59 constituencies, an augmentation of 13 seats compared to the previous seating’s. This huge victory of the largest party in the nation serves as proof that they have the backing of a majority of the local population. Scotland voted massively to remain in 2016 (62%) and ever since the SNP has been adamant about remaining in the European Union and cancelling Brexit. The general elections didn’t go that way with the prime minister and inflexible brexiter Boris Johnson and the conservatives winning 365 of the 650 seats in the House of Commons thus securing a solid absolute majority and ensuring that Brexit will almost certainly occur on January 31st, 2020. Those results revive the issue of the independence of Scotland. Indeed, with the political divide between Scotland and the rest of the UK growing ever so largely since the Brexit referendum of June 2016, the question of Scottish independence has been recurrent in political debates but never appeared as a likely scenario, especially after the 2014 independence referendum in which the Scottish voted at 55% to remain a part of the UK.

With the results of the 2019 general elections, the Scottish first minister and leader of the SNP Nicola Sturgeon has declared that in light of the “contemptuous way in which Scotland has been treated” should justify a new local referendum on Scottish independence. More precisely, she asserted that “there has been a strong endorsement in this election of Scotland having a choice over our future; of not having to put up with a Conservative government we didn’t vote for and not having to accept life as a nation outside the EU.” It is true that the fact that Sottish people were asked about their attachment to the UK before the result of the Brexit referendum completely changed the context and may have impeded the attachment of the Scottish people to the UK. Sturgeon further added on Friday the 13th that Mr Johnson has “no right” to disallow the holding of a second independence referendum stating that the conservatives were beaten in Scotland having only secured 6 seats. Mr Johnson quickly reacted and in a phone call to Mrs Sturgeon reiterated the fact that he remains firmly opposed to the referendum. Although it remains unclear which of the two will eventually back down, the results of the general elections are already wreaking havoc on an already divided United Kingdom.

The use of European languages within the EU at the time of Brexit

By Charles Elie-Martin

Credits: Alamy

The European Union legal framework regarding linguistic promotes multilingualism. Indeed, several texts emphasize the importance of the representation and the use of European languages. In that sense, the Treaty on the EU incorporates this goal in the respect of cultural and linguistic diversity. Likewise, both the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights prohibit any kind of discrimination based on language. However, a recent report from the Parliamentary Assembly of the Francophonie entitled ''31 recommendations for the promotion of French and multilingualism in European Institutions'' draws a disturbing observation. The use of English is predominant within the EU, which is now an issue of interest regarding Brexit. The exit of the UK from the EU begs the question of the relevance of the use of English, related to the principle of non-discrimination.

A general failure to translate official documents

The EU recognizes 24 official languages, to be used theoretically by the European institutions. First, the Parliament acts as a student model through the adoption of a ''mastered multilingualism''. Consequently, all the documents and texts voted are available in the 24 languages. Secondly, the European Court of Justice is a multilingual institution.

The European Commission, on its side, overrides the principle of multilingualism by using mostly English. In 2017, 84,4% of the texts for which a translation was required by the Commission were for English. At the opposite, this percentage falls down to 2,6% for French and 2% for German. The remaining 11% corresponds to the 21 other official languages. When reading these figures, it appears clearly that the proportion is unbalanced. Moreover, in terms of external comunication, the omnipresence of English is to be noted.

Consequences on the European democracy

According to the EU fundamental principles, European citizens should be able to have simplified access to EU actions. This access is primordial to the efficiency of EU democracy. Indeed, effective communication allows countering the persistent image of a technocratic and opaque organization. The lack of translations directly impacts this feeling shared by a large number of European citizens.

Nevertheless, it has been accepted that three official languages, namely English, French and German, were to be mostly used for practical reasons as a work language. It seems that Brexit will not have any consequence on the special place occupied by English, while only two countries, Ireland and Malta, will have English as their first official language.

This is why it has been proposed to establish a European strategy of multilingualism in order to provide as many texts as possible in all 24 official languages, despite the technical complexities that might arise from this. The objective purposed seems too important to be slowed down by a shortage of translators.