European Union

EUHealthGov held its fifth Practitioner Perspective on 13 March 2025. We were delighted to host Sebastiano Lustig, Policy Coordinator for prevention, preparedness and response planning for medical countermeasures at the European Health Emergency preparedness and Response Authority (HERA). What follows is a summary of some of the key points addressed in the presentation. A recording is also available here.  

While the EU health security architecture predates COVID-19, the lessons learned from the pandemic, especially on the importance of coordination, have led this framework to be restructured and strengthened. Successful coordination during COVID, visible notably in mechanisms like joint procurement served as good examples to build on. However, the pandemic response was generally marked by a lack of coordination, which exposed fragmentation and vulnerabilities in supply chain of medical countermeasures (MCM). The new EU Health Security Framework aims to address this and represents the first pillar of the broader project to build a European Health Union announced by Commission President von der Leyen in 2020. The health security pillar includes the new Regulation on cross border health threats (replacing the 2013 Decision of the same name), strengthened mandates of the ECDC and EMA, and the creation of HERA. HERA deals specifically with MCMs, its mission is to strengthen the EU’s capacity to respond to future pandemics of other health threats, mainly by ensuring the provision of critical medical countermeasures. 

HERA’s work takes a so-called ‘end-to-end’ approach, covering each stage of the MCM from threat assessment (in partnership with the ECDC) through to stockpiling and everything in between. This approach was illustrated using the pandemic influenza case study, also pointing out that, at the R&D stage, HERA recently established a structure for coordinating clinical trials. The coordination role of HERA was also emphasised when outlining its interaction and collaboration with other EU institutions (in particular but not limited to the ECDC and EMA), industry and civil society stakeholder, and international actors to promote global health cooperation. 

HERA operates in two phases: preparedness and crisis. The activities and mechanisms of the crisis phase are set out in a separate emergency framework regulation. In addition to emergency measures aimed at accelerating the availability of crisis-relevant MCMs, the activation of the crisis phase triggers the set-up of a Health Crisis Board, composed of Commission officials, high-level member states representatives, and is the only structure within the EU health security framework that is co-chaired by the Council. 

Finally, the audience’s attention was drawn to two next steps: first, the upcoming release of a new strategy to support MCM against public health threats. Second, the assessment of national preparedness and response plan, a task undertaken by the ECDC, with the support of HERA.

You can watch the recording of the presentation here.

The post EUHealthGov with Sebastiano Lustig: The role of HERA in the EU Health Security Framework appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

OPINION on a revamped long-term budget for the Union in a changing world
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Hilde Vautmans

Source : © European Union, 2025 - EP

DRAFT REPORT on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the European Defence Industry Programme and a framework of measures to ensure the timely availability and supply of defence products (‘EDIP’)
Committee on Industry, Research and Energy
Committee on Security and Defence
François-Xavier Bellamy, Raphaël Glucksmann

Source : © European Union, 2025 - EP

Sixty-eight years ago, on 25 March 1957, the Treaty of Rome was signed by six European countries – France, Italy, West Germany, Belgium, The Netherlands, and Luxembourg.

It marked the birth of the European Economic Community, later known as the European Union. This ambitious new community emerged from the ruins of the Second World War, driven by a singular purpose: to secure lasting peace through unity.

The eleven founders of the European Union, including Britain’s wartime leader Winston Churchill, recognised that Europe’s brutal history of conflict demanded a new approach.

Twice in the 20th century, the continent had been devastated by world wars that began within its own borders.

To prevent history from repeating itself, these visionary leaders sought to create a social and political union of European nations – not merely a trading arrangement, but a commitment to coexistence, cooperation, and peace.

As articulated in the Treaty of Rome, the goal was “ever closer union among the peoples of Europe.” The achievement of six countries that had so recently been at war with each other was nothing short of remarkable.

Just months after the Treaty’s signing, Churchill delivered his final speech about Europe at London’s Central Hall, Westminster.

His message was clear:

“My message to Europe today is the same as it was ten years ago – unite. Europe’s security and prosperity lie in unity.”

This founding vision seems increasingly misunderstood in Britain.

Many Brexiters view the EU as a mere economic pact, overlooking its deeper purpose of fostering peace and unity.

Yet, on the continent, the importance of this community of nations remains widely understood and appreciated.

By severing ties, Britain has told its European allies that the remarkable EU project – built to safeguard peace and security – is less valuable to us than it is to them.

The question remains: Can our relationship with the rest of Europe ever truly heal?

• Anniversary of the Treaty of Rome: Watch this video and weep 



• Join the discussion about this post on Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube, Instagram, BlueSky

The post The peace project that Brexit never understood appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

AMENDMENTS 1 - 235 - Draft report 2023 and 2024 Commission reports on Montenegro
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Marjan Šarec

Source : © European Union, 2025 - EP

The UK is grappling with its worst medicine shortage in four years, and the evidence points squarely at Brexit as a central cause.

In 2024 alone, drug companies reported 1,938 supply disruptions to the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) – a sharp rise from 1,634 in 2023.

The worst-hit medications include essential treatments for epilepsy and cystic fibrosis, leaving vulnerable patients at risk.

This disturbing trend has been highlighted by the Nuffield Trust health think tank, which obtained the data under freedom of information laws.

Their analysis reveals a grim reality: while medicine shortages are a global issue, the UK’s situation is deteriorating faster than that of other European nations due to Brexit.

The root of the problem is evident.

The UK’s import growth of medicines has been the lowest among G7 countries since UK’s import growth of medicines has been the lowest among G7 countries since 2010, with the total value of imports falling by almost 20% since 2015 – the year before the EU referendum.

The collapse of supply chains previously connected to the EU is undeniable. As HM Revenue and Customs data shows, this decline is sharply concentrated on imports from the EU, making Brexit-related trade barriers the most likely cause.

Furthermore, UK drug exports to the European Economic Area – the 27 EU states plus Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein – have plummeted by a third since the 2016 Brexit vote.

The EU is responding to supply challenges by strengthening its internal systems, sharing supplies, and increasing domestic production.

Meanwhile, the UK finds itself increasingly isolated.

Pharmacies are on the frontline of this crisis. A survey by the National Pharmacy Association found that all 500 of its respondents were unable to fulfil at least one prescription daily due to unavailable medications.

This leaves patients distressed and frustrated, while pharmacists struggle to provide safe alternatives despite having suitable options on hand.

The government’s response has been to claim investment of up to £520 million to bolster domestic production of medicines and diagnostics.

However, without seamless integration into European supply chains, these measures fall far short of what is needed.

The solution is simple: end the madness of Brexit.

Rejoining the EU would restore the vital medicine supply chains that have been so needlessly severed. Britain cannot afford to remain on this destructive path.

It’s time to put patients first and repair the damage by rekindling cooperation with our closest and most important trading partner.

• Join the discussion about this post on Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube, Instagram, BlueSky

The post Brexit is causing a severe medicines shortage appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

The recent plan by President Ursula von der Leyen of a €150 billion European joint debt to fund the purchase of arms under the name ReArm Europe has sent shockwaves across the continent and beyond. The press announcement, made on March 4th, followed the infamous Oval Office meeting between US President Trump and Ukrainian President Zelensky. The bullyish scene marked a further decline in the liberal international order established by the US and its allies after the Second World War.

Against this backdrop, European leaders were quick to act. Meetings in the Elysée under the aegis of President Macron, gatherings in London with the British Prime Minister Starmer, or the recent European Council meeting on security policy signal the importance of recent events. However, it was von der Leyen’s announcement that seems to have ushered in a new age of European defence and security, but is that so?

The announcement focused on economic means to achieve a security goal, not on security itself. The EU is proposing to put its market power behind an initiative that will contribute to the long-term stability of that market. This is why the proposal must be seen through the lens of geoeconomics, not just defence or security.

Europe’s geoeconomic turn is nothing new. Even during the first von der Leyen Commission the President vowed to create a more geopolitical Commission, it was actually focused on a geoeconomic one. Geoeconomics are, according to Blackwill and Harris, “the use of economic instruments to promote and defend national (or European) interests, and to produce beneficial geopolitical results; and the effects of other nations’ economic actions on a country’s (or the EU’s) geopolitical goals”. Thus, it is clear that many of the Commission’s initiatives fall under this concept. It is worth mentioning a few that may have a direct bearing on Europe’s security and defence.

The first geoeconomic tool with a defence application that comes to mind is sanctions. These have long been part of the EU’s institutional architecture and rely on the size of the single market to damage the enemy’s economy in the short and medium term. They can take the form of import and export restrictions, asset freezes, or visa bans. Although they are branded as “peaceful tools of diplomacy”, they fit perfectly into the definition of geoeconomic tools provided above.

Another geoeconomic tool that can be directly applied to European security policy is the Foreign Direct Investment Screening Mechanism (FDI SM). This mechanism was legislated after Member States saw a worrying increase in Chinese investment in Europe, especially in sensitive industries. The same FDI SM could be directly applied to foreign investment targeting the European defence industry, again relying on the EU’s market power.

A number of strategies also complement these tools by defining what the EU’s priorities should be in different areas, such as 5G, critical raw materials, or energy, to name a few. The common denominator of all these geoeconomic instruments is their reliance on the size of the EU market and its attractiveness to other global economies. The measure recently proposed by von der Leyen on joint debt to buy weapons follows the same line. It has more to do with geoeconomics than with security or defence. From the point of view of competences, it makes sense for the EU institutions to focus on the Common Commercial Policy or the proper functioning of the internal market to guide EU policy, regardless of the specific policy area. Ultimately, these are also power struggles between the EU institutions and the Member States. However, it is unlikely that purely security measures will be led by the Commission in the short term. The creation of a common European army or further decisions to relaunch security integration will have to be spearheaded by the Member States.

All in all, the von der Leyen’s announcement is to be welcomed. The borrowing limit enshrined in the neoliberal rules imposed on the Member States by Maastricht is arbitrary. Its temporary lifting and mutualisation, as was the case during the Covid19 pandemic, is now considered an emergency measure in response to the emergency situation created by the Russian invasion of Ukraine. In the medium term, however, the repeated use of the same geoeconomic tool, the common debt, could become established. The only thing preventing the EU from unleashing its full economic power is the disagreement among member states on debt orthodoxy. It seems, as Monnet put it many years ago, that Europe is still built through crises and that it is indeed the sum of their solutions.

The post An expected surprise? Geoeconomic answers to security problems appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

Length of video : 60'

Disclaimer : The interpretation of debates serves to facilitate communication and does not constitute an authentic record of proceedings. Only the original speech or the revised written translation is authentic.
Source : © European Union, 2025 - EP

Length of video : 120'

Disclaimer : The interpretation of debates serves to facilitate communication and does not constitute an authentic record of proceedings. Only the original speech or the revised written translation is authentic.
Source : © European Union, 2025 - EP

Length of video : 75'

Disclaimer : The interpretation of debates serves to facilitate communication and does not constitute an authentic record of proceedings. Only the original speech or the revised written translation is authentic.
Source : © European Union, 2025 - EP

Next AFET committee meetings will be held on:

• Wednesday 9 and Thursday 10 April 2025, Brussels

Meetings are webstreamed with the exception of agenda items held "in camera".

AFET - DROI calendar of meetings 2025
Meeting documents
Webstreaming
Commissioners-designate hearings
Source : © European Union, 2025 - EP

Length of video : 120'

Disclaimer : The interpretation of debates serves to facilitate communication and does not constitute an authentic record of proceedings. Only the original speech or the revised written translation is authentic.
Source : © European Union, 2025 - EP

Length of video : 90'

Disclaimer : The interpretation of debates serves to facilitate communication and does not constitute an authentic record of proceedings. Only the original speech or the revised written translation is authentic.
Source : © European Union, 2025 - EP

Length of video : 210'

Disclaimer : The interpretation of debates serves to facilitate communication and does not constitute an authentic record of proceedings. Only the original speech or the revised written translation is authentic.
Source : © European Union, 2025 - EP

Source : © European Union, 2025 - EP

Length of video : 90'

Disclaimer : The interpretation of debates serves to facilitate communication and does not constitute an authentic record of proceedings. Only the original speech or the revised written translation is authentic.
Source : © European Union, 2025 - EP

On 18 March, Ayman Safadi, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, who last addressed the Committee on Foreign Affairs in July 2017, will speak with Members on EU-Jordan relations following the signing of the EU-Jordan Strategic and Comprehensive Partnership in January 2025, and on the situation in the region, in particular in Syria and Gaza.
This exchange takes place the day after the ninth Brussels Syria Conference - "Standing with Syria: Meeting the Needs for a Successful Transition".
Source : © European Union, 2025 - EP

AMENDMENTS 325 - 633 - Draft report 2023 and 2024 Commission reports on Türkiye
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Nacho Sánchez Amor

Source : © European Union, 2025 - EP

AMENDMENTS 1 - 324 - Draft report 2023 and 2024 Commission reports on Türkiye
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Nacho Sánchez Amor

Source : © European Union, 2025 - EP

On 19 March, SEDE Members will exchange with Commissioner Henna Virkkunen, in charge of Tech Sovereignty, Security and Democracy. They will also discuss with Sauli Niinistö about his recent report on strengthening Europe’s civil and military preparedness and readiness. On 20 March, the SEDE Committee – in association with the Delegation for relations with the NATO PA – will welcome the NATO Deptuy Secretary General, Radmila Shekerinska, to discuss deterrence and defence, defence spending and

defence industry. Ukraine's security and defence needs remain high on the agenda - in camera - with notably a joint meeting with the Committee of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine on National Security, Defence and Intelligence and discussions about EU-Ukraine joint security commitments.

Source : © European Union, 2025 - EP