Culture, Tourism, Europe and External Affairs Committee

Meeting date: Thursday, November 8, 2018

Official Report 778KB pdf

---

Presidency of the Council of the European Union

Good morning and welcome to the 28th meeting in 2018 of the Culture, Tourism, Europe and External Affairs Committee. I remind members and the public to turn off mobile phones. Any members using electronic devices to access committee papers should please ensure that they are turned to silent.

Apologies have been received from Claire Baker MSP and Stuart McMillan MSP. Neil Findlay MSP is here as a substitute for Claire Baker. Neil, do you have any relevant interests to declare?

I have nothing to declare.

Thank you.

Our first agenda item is an evidence session with the Ambassador of the Republic of Austria to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Austria currently holds the presidency of the Council of the European Union. I welcome the ambassador, His Excellency Michael Zimmermann, and invite him to make an opening statement.

Thank you very much, convener. Distinguished members of the Scottish Parliament, ladies and gentlemen, it is a great honour and pleasure for me to be in this magnificent building for the first time. I have been to Edinburgh many times over the past decades, but it is of course a very special moment for me to be in the Scottish Parliament and to meet such a distinguished committee here.

The Austrian presidency comes at a very special moment for Austria, as 2018 is a year of anniversaries for us—good and bad anniversaries. In 1848, a revolution swept across Europe and started land reforms, legal reforms and constitutional reforms and opened Europe up to the society that we have now. At the same time, it was the beginning of defined nationalism. In 1918—100 years ago almost to the day—the Republic of Austria was founded from the German-speaking remains of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy. The interesting point to make about that here in the Scottish Parliament is that the Republic of Austria was founded by the Länder or regional states. It was not a top-down creation; the Länder came together on their own and decided to set up the Republic of Austria. That foundation based on regional identity, regional history and regional culture influences Austria to this day.

A darker moment came in 1938—80 years ago almost to the day—after Austria was annexed to the German Reich, unfortunately with the assistance of not a few Austrians. The resulting events and tragedies have been a major factor in our national consciousness to this day. We are aware of the responsibilities, and that has influenced our EU presidency.

In 1948, the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted. In 1968, there was a revolution in Czechoslovakia. In 1998, Austria had its first EU presidency; today, we have our third. Twenty years after the first one, I am very happy to be here to talk about the third Austrian EU presidency.

Had events taken their normal course, I would not be here because, going by the list of EU presidencies, the UK would have slotted in in 2017. We were quite relaxed about preparing for our presidency, which was not due until next year, but, after Brexit, it was decided that the UK should not take up its scheduled EU presidency, and the other countries moved forward by six months. That is why I am here today, not next year.

We are very aware from the UK’s referendum that, in many countries, the link to citizens has been lost over the past years or maybe even decades. It is necessary to make that link with people again, to listen to them and to put their concerns first.

The range of issues that can be decided by any EU presidency is not very wide. Most of the topics and projects have been going on for many years, and we are trying to further them and conclude them, but there is a certain leeway for bringing in our own priorities. With regard to the concerns of citizens, our first priority is to create a Europe that protects.

The migration crisis in 2015 was a watershed moment in the history of the EU. In many places, people have lost their confidence that the EU is willing and able to protect citizens, and we are trying to convince people that the EU is willing and able to do so.

Under the motto, “a Europe that protects”, we have three priority areas. One is the fight against illegal migration, the second is the protection of prosperity, standards of living and competitiveness through digitalisation, and the third, which is logical given our geographical location, is stability in the eastern part of Europe, particularly south-east Europe and the Balkans.

The European project is still unfinished. There are countries that could rightly belong to the European Union but, for a number of reasons, are not there yet. We are very interested in helping such countries join the European Union and in extending the sphere of stability and prosperity throughout south-east Europe.

As far as migration is concerned, we have been talking for a long time about the EU’s external borders. However, in 2018, we are still unable to protect or control those borders. On the one hand, the sheer scale of migration since 2015 has caused concern; on the other hand, there is the feeling that the rule of law has been lost. If a border cannot be protected and citizens see that the authorities, be they national or European ones, are unable to enforce the rule of law, the loss of confidence hurts everyone. We therefore have the issues of the fight against illegal migration, the future of the protection of the external borders and the fight against illegal activities in connection with migration. People smuggling and other organised crime activities on the fringes around illegal migration are among our main concerns.

In the future, we should see the strengthening of Frontex, the European Border and Coast Guard Agency, but it is vastly understaffed for protecting the borders, especially the sea borders in southern Europe, whose protection is a huge task. However, we have to start somewhere and we have to get somewhere.

Europe will need to keep up with the development of new technologies. The economic future of the European Union will very much depend on competitiveness, especially with Asian countries. We have to provide the basis for the efficient use of technologies, but we are also very much aware of the pitfalls of new technologies and the problems that they can create for citizens in terms of cybercrime, copyright and data protection. One of our aims is to find the right balance between advancements in technologies and the protection of citizens’ rights. There is also the question, which is much discussed in the EU, of the taxation of the internet giants.

All those topics will be very important for our citizens in the future, and we will try to keep Europe at the forefront of competitiveness. Having a level playing field in the digital economy is of great importance. Europe is characterised by small and medium-sized enterprises, so we have to find ways to preserve their competitiveness when faced with the international giants.

With regard to the stability of our neighbourhood, we must be aware that tensions are never far away. Progress has been made over the past 20 years, after the dissolution of Yugoslavia, but not enough. There are still underlying animosities and a lack of economic and civic progress because of ethnic and political differences. We will continue to work hard on that topic. It is an area where Austria has a lot of know-how and competence, which is why we focus on that part of Europe.

Given that huge number of questions, we have to ask ourselves where we can or should start. Our chancellor’s motto is that the EU should tackle the large topics and leave the smaller things where they belong, at the local, regional and national levels. The topic of subsidiarity is important for us—not least, as I mentioned before, because we live in a country where decisions are made from the bottom up. We will have a conference in Austria on 15 and 16 November, trying to further the principle of subsidiarity within the European Union.

09:15  

Austria tries to act as an honest broker in the presidency. The topics we choose are not for our national advancement—we try to work for the betterment of Europe. The broker role is, to a certain extent, what we can also bring to the Brexit debate. The structure of the negotiations and procedures does not allow a lot of activities at the national or presidency level, but our Prime Minister has been active in advancing the negotiations or convincing the parties to find solutions. At the beginning of the presidency, he was in London, and on Thursday or Monday had a telephone conversation with the UK Prime Minister. We are doing what we can, although our scope for activity is limited.

The Salzburg summit, which became an important event for Brexit, was not meant to discuss Brexit at all. Our Prime Minister opened the summit with a discussion of Brexit. Originally, the summit was planned to cover only migration and security. We tried to take the opportunity of the heads of state or Government being in Salzburg to talk about Brexit as well. Those are little things that we can bring to the Brexit debate.

So far, a number of ministerial events have taken place, mainly in a constructive atmosphere. The pace will continue. We will have a high-level forum between leaders from Europe and Africa in Vienna in December, where we will try to tackle the migration question in co-operation with the countries of transit and origin and work out solutions with them.

I want to point out that we have the presidency for the 28 members. It is not the EU against the UK. We are trying to work for Europe for all 28 members, as long as we are 28. We have pointed that out to the UK Government. I do not see us as being in different camps. We are in one camp, at least until 29 March 2019.

Thank you, your excellency. That was fascinating, but I know that a number of members have questions that they wish to ask, so if it all right with you, I will stop you there and move on to questions.

That was my final sentence, anyway.

You talked about your Prime Minister’s visit to London. I understand that Prime Minister Theresa May has visited Austria, as well as the Foreign Secretary and other ministers. That has been seen as an attempt by the UK Government to lobby Austria, both as an individual member state and as the member state that currently has the presidency, to influence the course of the Brexit negotiations. How successful has that been for the UK Government?

We do not interpret the motives of the UK Government when it visits Austria and talks to us. We are happy about the meetings. We gain a lot of important information.

The structure is very clear. Michel Barnier is negotiating and he has a clear mandate, as adapted from the European Council’s article 50. There has been no change in that and there are no bilateral tracks.

This committee met Michel Barnier about a year ago and he was very clear then—as now—that the four freedoms of the single market could not be tampered with. Do you agree with that point?

Yes—that is the Austrian Government’s position as well.

Good morning, ambassador, and thank you for your interesting opening statement. We do indeed live in interesting times. At this stage, there are so many unknowns, to coin a phrase, that it is difficult to have a rational discussion.

However, I want to pick up on a factual point. I appreciate that from your perspective as ambassador you might not know the detail of this, but something has been adopted during the Austrian presidency that I was previously not aware of: a new European travel information and authorisation system—the ETIAS. The system is to apply to visa-exempt third-country nationals, who will need to obtain travel authorisation before their trip via an online application. For each application, the applicant will be required to pay a travel authorisation fee of €7. I do not think that that information is widely known by potential travellers from the UK. Obviously, at this point in the year, they might be looking to book holidays next year and so forth. I seek clarification of whether, if Brexit takes place, that system is intended to impact on UK nationals during the Brexit transition period, whatever it might be, and beyond. It would be helpful if you could give us your thoughts on that.

The system is a major building block of European security. The regulation was signed by the Austrian presidency and the European Parliament, having been through the whole process of the European Parliament. It will allow for much better control of who enters the EU. The basic fee will not change a lot, particularly for countries whose citizens need a visa to enter the EU, because they have to pay for that anyway. The €7 fee will not make much difference in that regard.

I do not have any concrete information about the application of the system during the transition period, but I am pretty sure that it would not be used against UK citizens in relation to movement between the UK and the continent.

Okay, but obviously we would wish for some clarification because it is another important practical consideration among many. On the broader intention behind the system, you mentioned security, which is very important. I take it that implicit in the system of authorisation, albeit that it falls short of a visa system, is the possibility that in certain circumstances, authorisation will not be granted. I guess that we have to get more information about the practicalities of applying for the authorisation in terms of the lead-in time, the time taken for authorisation to come through and so forth, because for many systems that is not exactly instantaneous, for obvious reasons. This is therefore yet another area of concern for individuals in Scotland resulting from the whole Brexit boorach, as they say in certain parts of Scotland.

As far as entering data is concerned, when I fly to the UK, I have to check in with my personal data: my passport data.

Yes, absolutely, but my point is that an authorisation system, simply by the nature of the word “authorisation”, presupposes that in certain circumstances, authorisation might not be granted. I think that we need to get to the bottom of what that would look like. However, I thank you for your response, because I appreciate that that question put you on the spot a bit.

Thank you for your opening remarks. Some of us met your colleague Franz Fischler many years ago on fisheries matters. I do not know what Herr Fischler is doing these days, but he was certainly a robust character when it came to fisheries policy some years back—

He still is.

—while you are very diplomatic, if I may say so.

With Austria convening the presidency of the EU, what is your perspective on how far the transitional period will extend? What time period do you guess it will be? We are told that the current thinking is 18 months. Do you foresee circumstances in which that could be extended, given the complexity of what may have to be discussed and arranged from March 2019 onwards?

It is far beyond my level even to give a personal assessment. It will be a crucial point in the final negotiations.

That is kind of the point. Do you think that that detail will be decided in the final negotiations?

I could imagine it as one of the points that constitute the final agreement.

As you said to the convener, individual member states—and, in your case, the presidency—leave that matter to Michel Barnier in terms of the detail.

We would go a long way to support a solution to the question.

My apologies for asking an unfair question.

The governing coalition in Austria has members of the far right in powerful positions. You mentioned the fight against migration as being a priority. What impact are the far-right partners in the coalition having on Austrian politics and the presidency?

Our chancellor Sebastian Kurz was foreign minister for four years during the migration crisis. He started his work in the Government as a state secretary for integration matters. He has been involved in the topic for six or seven years. He has the experience, outlook and know-how to tackle the questions.

Sebastian Kurz is also the minister with overall responsibility. In a coalition Government, the views of all partners come in but decisions are taken anonymously by the Council of Ministers, so that there is one Government position. The question of migration does not only concern the parties in Government but all the other parties. Any decision taken by the Government reflects the result of the elections and the will of the electorate.

We can look into any concrete questions, but in general there is one Government policy.

In relation to the issues around migration, every year we see thousands of migrants, many drowning in the Mediterranean. Is it the view of the Austrian Government and the presidency that, come what may, that is just a consequence of having a secure EU border? Is there no acknowledgement that there is a failure to deal with the whole issue around migration, when we see thousands of poor people drowning in the Mediterranean?

It is clear that the measures that were taken in past years were not sufficient to prevent such tragedies.

As far as those tragedies in the Mediterranean are concerned, we are looking hard at the criminal networks and businesses that cause them. There is a criminal component to those tragedies. If we are to tackle the problem as a whole, we must also tackle that problem.

09:30  

Does the Austrian Government support freedom of movement within the EU?

Absolutely.

But not freedom of movement one inch outside the EU.

No, that is definitely not our position. There is movement and there is illegal movement. A wide range of regulations allows and extends legal movement, but there is also a point at which that movement becomes illegal movement. If illegal movement, as defined by laws, takes place, Governments have a duty to stop it.

Good morning, ambassador. Thank you for coming.

I will continue that thread of questioning. In your opening statement, you said that one of the three priorities of the Austrian presidency is migration on the European continent. I appreciate your role, and I am not asking you to comment on domestic political matters—that is for domestic politicians to do—but the issue is important, because the domestic politics of the country that holds the presidency can influence its neighbouring countries. I say that because, as you will be aware, Austria—alongside some of its neighbouring countries, including Hungary, the Czech Republic and, from what I read this week in the news, possibly Croatia and Poland—has decided not to sign up to the United Nations global compact for migration. That cluster of regional countries has a certain view on the accord, and that view seems to be a theme.

The Austrian vice-chancellor said:

“Migration is not and cannot become a human right.”

Will you elaborate on what he meant by that?

There is a regional context to the matter: the countries that you mentioned were all hit by the migration crisis. There is no bilateral consultation about that; the decisions are taken by individual Governments, and not as a group, or in an organised way. In addition, there are other countries, such as the United States of America, that will not sign the compact.

In the light of the events in recent years, our people looked very hard at every detail of the compact. We consider that, in its current form, the compact includes a number of concrete points that do not reflect our Government’s expectations of it. These are not general questions—there are 15 or 20 single areas in which we do not feel that the compact gives a satisfying answer or makes clear enough the difference between legal and illegal migration.

Has that decision been influenced by the make-up of your domestic Government? If so, has that affected your country’s stance on the accord? On the one hand, the narrative of your presidency is about tackling migration and helping migrants; on the other hand, at the sovereign state level, Austria is not signing up to some of the schemes that may do just that. There seems to be a conflict of views.

A lesson from recent years is that abstract political declarations should not float away from real life, or the opinion of the population.

In a way, it would be dangerous to enshrine something that we know might not be kept or which we might not be able to implement. The view of our Government is that, if we are not fully convinced of something, such as the compact, and if we do not fully agree with the provisions, it is probably better to wait for the right moment rather than to regret doing something a few years later.

If the convener will allow it, I will move away from migration and on to another one of your priorities: the stabilisation of eastern Europe, the Balkans and—perhaps to some extent, given their proximity to Russia—the Baltic states. What are the Austrian presidency’s views on how robust the EU should be with Russia? I ask that question because many European countries rely on Russia for large amounts of energy, particularly gas. For example, I know that Austria imports from Russia huge amounts of gas—more than 9 billion m³ in 2017, which was a 50 per cent increase—and the imports so far in 2018 have already surpassed that amount. Given that reliance on Russia, how confident are you that the Austrian presidency will be robust with Russia?

We fully support the EU sanctions and policy on Russia. As far as energy imports are concerned, the numbers that you mentioned are correct, but we are far less dependent than some of our neighbouring countries. Increases and decreases reflect changes in prices, depending on the market.

Some south-eastern and eastern European countries depend dramatically on Russian energy. That means that such countries need to be stable and prosperous enough not to be intimidated; that is why we want to take those countries into the EU. We are looking very closely at reverse-flow gas pipeline systems in order for countries, including Hungary and Serbia, to be able to decrease their dependency on Russia gas.

Energy dependence and Russian influence is only one of the problems in south-east Europe, and it is a fairly recent problem. The ethnic and religious tensions in south-east Europe go back 600 or 700 years, which is a long time, even by UK standards. We need to create civic coherence and a feeling of there being one society in such countries, in parallel with addressing practical questions on energy dependence, for example. Energy dependence is an important factor, but the real problems lie deeper. Russian politics and influence is only one aspect of the stabilisation of south-eastern Europe.

Do you think that Turkey should, or will, ever join the European Union?

As far as we judge it, the answer is no.

Very conveniently, my questions follow on from Jamie Greene’s final question. During Austria’s presidency, your relationship with Turkey has become increasingly strained. That strain did not start with Austria’s presidency; it has been happening for a number of years. Turkey jails more journalists than any other country on earth. Its Government has continuously and consistently attacked its own democratic opposition, and many MPs are in jail. There is a widely held perception that Turkey has held back effective European Union action against the country on the basis of the agreement that was reached to push back refugees who are trying to reach Europe through Turkey.

What action is your presidency taking to ensure that the European values of free and open democratic societies are being respected when it comes to our relationship with Turkey?

Over the past year, our bilateral relations with Turkey have improved—they had been worse. Our Government doubts the wisdom of Turkey joining the European Union and also its ability to do so. We see Turkey as a very important factor in European politics and for Europe’s future, but the previous concept of Turkey marching towards full EU membership does not, at the moment, seem to us to be the right way.

Turkey, through its size, geographical position and membership of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, has a lot of leverage in Europe. The 2015 migration crisis brought that to light. We have to work with Turkey, step by step, on various questions, but the development of the domestic situation in Turkey is of concern to the Austrian Government and to the Austrian presidency. A number of Austrians are jailed in Turkey. Turkey is definitely one of the big European questions.

You mentioned Turkey’s NATO membership, which is increasingly becoming the key issue in geopolitical relations around issues such as the Syrian civil war. Other than Turkey’s NATO membership and the refugee pushback deal, are there any other reasons for the EU’s considerably constrained criticism of its actions, in comparison with its response to Russia’s incredibly similar actions?

Geopolitics is a factor. Turkey is a convenient car drive away from Austria and Germany. There are big Turkish communities in Austria, Germany and Switzerland. Business and trade are important. Turkey cannot be ignored or cut off. It has to be a question of continuous dialogue, which the Turkish Government is not really facilitating. We have to work with Turkey, and we do work with Turkey. Hopefully, the situation will improve at some stage.

I have a final question on what levels of co-operation are appropriate. Should the EU respect arrest warrants from Turkey that are issued on the basis of what we would consider to be purely political motivations? There have been arrest warrants for internal democratic opposition and for Kurdish activists who are not Turkish citizens. The arrest warrants issued by Turkey for a number of Kurdish political activists from Syria who travel around Europe advocating for their cause—the democratic revolution in the north of Syria—on the whole, have not been respected by European nations. Should the EU respect Turkey’s politically motivated arrest warrants?

That is a question for the courts. This is very much a judicial decision; it does not fall within the remit of the EU presidency.

My questions are also on the issue of human rights. How concerned is Austria about the situations in Hungary and Poland, where authoritarianism seems to be growing?

That is simple to respond to. Austria supports article 7 procedures in the Treaty on European Union—no ifs or buts.

09:45  

Thank you for the clarification. It is important to have that on the record.

One of the Brexit issues is that the loss of the UK’s net financial contribution to the European Union will mean that there will be a hole in the budget. Does the Austrian Government think that nations such as Austria, which is a net contributor, should increase their contributions, or does it think that there should be a reduction in the payments that go to the seven neighbours that we have just mentioned, including those in the western Balkans? What would the impact of that latter option be on relations within the European Union between richer nations such as Austria and less prosperous ones such as Bulgaria and Croatia?

One of the big technical topics that I could not mention in my opening statement was the multiannual financial framework. Our Government is well aware of Austria being a net contributor. How the shortfall from the lack of the UK contribution will be made up will be a major topic for the European Parliament elections.

We do not yet know what the shortfall will be, or when and to what extent it will influence the EU budget. It is an open issue at the moment and is still at a technical rather than political level.

Do you feel that it might be an issue in next year’s European elections, with populist parties arguing that the budget contributions should not be increased and others arguing that, in the interests of continued EU solidarity with poorer states, they should?

That is definitely one scenario. We will see how our Governments decide to look into the issue.

On another point, you are probably aware of Sonja Puntscher-Riekmann from the University of Salzburg, who has contributed to a publication called “Negotiating Brexit: Where Now?”, which is published by the UK in a changing Europe initiative. In it, she points out that one of the issues that Austria wished to address during the presidency was a restart of the EU debate about what policies should be for the EU and what ones should be for domestic Governments. She says that, although a task force on subsidiarity was set up by Jean-Claude Juncker, it has produced few results. Is that causing some frustration for Austria? How do you feel that the issue should be addressed?

It is not yet at the level of frustration, because we have not got that far. Productive discussions are still going on. The conference in Bregenz next week will be a major step forward.

Our chancellor is aware of the importance of subsidiarity and the task force has, I think, produced a report. It is going step by step. The question is a fundamental one, and it is treated differently in each country. We are comfortable with subsidiarity, because of our history, but other countries are less so. We expect that next week’s conference will take us a step forward.

Lastly, does the Austrian Government feel that there should be greater subsidiarity or that there should be a deepening of relationships within the European Union, with more powers going to the centre? Should more be devolved, or is the balance just about right?

It depends on the task. Sebastian Kurz has said that the big tasks such as security for Europe should be at the European level and smaller tasks should be at the appropriate level

Are we at the appropriate level, or is it tilting too far one way or the other? What is the Austrian Government’s view?

It is hard to say, because there is also the question of the level playing field and the competitiveness of small and medium-sized enterprises. There are complex questions at the level of individual companies and businesses, and at the consumer level, because consumers deserve protection, regardless of where they live. That has to be looked into.

We must take a matter-by-matter approach, but our Government would rather have the EU not occupying itself too much with detailed questions that can be solved at a local level, and would prefer it to concentrate on the big questions.

Ahead of your presidency, there was a real expectation that Austria would be a major player in some of the Brexit negotiations. That has not really transpired—you have been a minor player in that process during your presidency—but what impact on your work during your presidency has the issue of the UK leaving of the EU had?

I think that it is only natural and appropriate that we have been a minor player in that regard. It is important for the presidency not to try to put itself too much into the foreground. We have respected that during our two previous presidencies.

It is still a matter of whether you wait to be called or whether you call somebody, and I think that we are ready to make those calls. Our ministers, our Prime Minister and our chancellor are ready to make those calls to try to restart things, but within the formal European framework.

During the presidency, you are discussing the renegotiation of some of the funding processes in the period from 2020 to 2027. Can you explain the impact of what is happening with regard to the common agricultural policy, horizon Europe and the structural funds?

Within the competitiveness topic, we are doing work on the single digital market. The clean energy package is important to us, and environmental questions are close to our hearts. The banking union and capital markets union initiatives will continue to position Europe as a financial player as well. There have been minor successes with such things as fishing quotas in the Baltic sea, and there is the whole question of the trade-off between ecology, agriculture and consumer protection. Those are topics on which we try to advance political topics at a detailed level.

Thank you very much, your excellency, for coming to answer our questions today and for your opening statement.

09:53 Meeting suspended.  

09:58 On resuming—