BullsEye 74

eds european democrat students

The magazine of European Democrat Students

BREXIT 4 WORLD WAR I 5 LIBYA & IMMIGRATION 6 TRUMP’S SUMMITRY 8 U.S. MIDTERMS 9 FOSSIL FUELS 10 SOLAR ENERGY 12

MANFRED WEBER 14 AUSTRIA 15 SWEDEN 16 HUNGARY 17 ROMANIA 18 ARMENIA 19 ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE 20

SEXUAL HARASSMENT 22 ECB & QE 23 FACTS 24 UNIVERSITY ADMISSIONS 26 GENDER STUDIES 28

No. 74 | December 2018 | 56th Year | ISSN 2033-7809

Dear readers, I am glad to introduce you to this issue of our magazine, the 74th since our predecessors started this adventure in 1976. I have to say I am particularly happy to address these words to you as the process that led to the present issue has been a bumpy ride. Indeed, together with the Bureau, several questions arose: When should we deliver the issue? Should we postpone it to the Winter University, set to take place in February? The proximity with the European People’s Party Congress in Helsinki on 7 and 8 November was also a long-awaited event which would have fed our own reflection, especially as several of our Editors were going to attend the event in different functions. In the end, in absence of a proper Council Meeting, we agreed that the most appropriate time to present this issue would be the month of December, as if we published it at the time of the Council Meeting.

As the congress determined, it will be Manfred Weber who will represent the EPP in the Spitzenkandidaten process and, therefore, he will be the face of the EPP campaign for the European elections. This is why Johannes Bürgin will present to us the current leader of the EPP group in the European Parliament. In addition, it appeared important to continue our survey of the current political context in the different countries of our Union and beyond, with regard to recent elections or the upcoming European. This is why Santiago de la Presilla, Johanna Gruber, Markus Konow, Benita Czirkl, Robert Kiss and Anna Mkrtchyan will present us the current situation in several countries, from the western shores of the Atlantic to the Caucasus.

CONTENTS: CURRENT AFFAIRS 04 LOSING CONTROL –

HOW BREXIT CAME TO MEAN BREXIT 05 100 YEARS AFTER –

WHAT CAN THE GREAT WAR TEACH US 06 LIBYA –

THE CRUCIAL CHALLENGE OF IMMIGRATION 08 SINGAPORE, HELSINKI, IS TRUMP’S SUMMITRY

WORKING? ACTION SPEAKING LOUDER

THAN WORDS 09 A BLUE WAVE? NOT SO MUCH –

U.S. MIDTERM ELECTIONS THEME 10 WITH FRIENDS LIKE THIS ... - LIVING WITH

INTERDEPENDENCE WITH GAS PROVIDERS 12

FROM LARGE POWER PLANTS TO DOMESTIC SOLAR PANELS – A SHIFT IN THE ENERGY PRODUCTION MODEL?

SERIES – EUROPEAN ELECTIONS 14

MANFRED WEBER – SYMBOLIZING A NEW CHANCE FOR EUROPE

Since the issue was not prepared in view of a Council Meeting and its theme, we had to devise our own theme for this issue and we came up with “Enlightening Europe – Devising Innovative Solution for Energy Supplies” as we felt Environment and Energy issues had been neglected in past issues. This is why Desislava Kemalova and I will propose you some food for thought on the topic.

15

EUROPEAN ELECTIONS IN AUSTRIA: AS FORESEEABLE AS THE LAST NATIONAL ELECTIONS?

16

SWEDEN – THERE’S NO GOVERNMENT LIKE NO GOVERNMENT.

17

THE FOLLOWING EUROPEAN ELECTIONS IN HUNGARY’S ASPECT

Finally, we covered a broad range of topics which have been in the news and are there to stay as Henrique Laitenberger will tell us about Brexit, Rodolfo Biancher discusses the prevalence of chaos in Libya, Elie-Joe Dergham studies Donald Trump’s passion for high-level meetings and Anna Mkrtchyan analyses the concept of facts. Oscar Janssens de Bisthoven shares with us some thoughts about the debate on Artificial Intelligence, Valentina Podestà comes back on the #MeToo movement and sexual harassment, and Vladimir Milic anticipates what can be expected from the European Central Bank as Mario Draghi will end his mandate.

At the same time, our Austrian duo made up of Johanna Gruber and Sabine Hanger engages in University-related controversial topics such as gender studies and the admission to higher education. Last but not least, I could not ignore the commemorations which took place in November on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of the end of the First World War.

18 ROMANIA – AN UNPREDICTABLE FUTURE?

I wish you a pleasant reading, and I take this opportunity to wish you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

19

ARMENIAN SNAP ELECTIONS – EARLY VOTE, LONG TERM PERSPECTIVES.

BE ON 20 ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE:

MORE RISKS THAN BENEFITS? 22 SEXUAL HARASSMENT: SHALL WE STOP IT? 23 IS THERE A LIFE AFTER QE –

THE UPCOMING NEW ECB POLICY. 24 FACT – THE EXISTENTIAL STRUGGLE OVER A

FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPT UNIVERSITIES 26 THE MYTH OF FREE ADMISSION TO UNIVERSITY 28 HUNGARY AND “GENDER STUDIES”

Julien Sassel BullsEye Editor-in-Chief

ISSN: Print: 2033-7809 Online: 2033-7817 EDITOR-IN-CHIEF: Julien Sassel VICE-CHAIR FOR PUBLICATIONS: Tommi Pyykkö EDITORIAL TEAM: Johannes Bürgin, Mattia Caniglia, Santiago de la Presilla, Elie-Joe Dergham, Beppe Galea, Johanna Gruber, Sabine Hanger, Desislava Kemalova, Vladimir Milic, Anna Mkrtchyan.

CONTRIBUTIONS: Henrique Laitenberger, Rodolfo Biancheri, Markus Konow, Benita Czirkl, Robert Kiss, Oscar Janssens de Bisthoven, Valentina Podestà.

30 BULLSEYE EDITORIAL TEAM 31 BUREAU

PHOTOS: Àkos Kaiser, Unsplash, Pixabay, EPP, Shutterstock.

DESIGN: Markus Konow PUBLISHER: European Democrat Students, B-1000 Brussels, Rue du Commerce 10 TEL: +(32) 228 541 50 FAX: +(32) 228 541 41 EMAIL: students@epp.org WEBSITE: www.edsnet.eu Articles and opinions published in the magazine do not necessarily reflecting the positions of EDS, the EDS Bureau or the Editorial team.

Publication supported by the Erasmus + Programme of the European Union and European Youth Foundation of the Council of Europe.

The European Commission support for the production of this publication does not constitute an endorsment of the contents which reflects the views only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.

Welcome to our second issue of BullsEye for this working year.

The printing of this new issue takes place concurrently with the end of this intense 2018.

After the Budapest Council Meeting, EDS has been intensively engaged in two historic events for our organization: the first event of European Democrat Students in Lebanon and participation in the 25th Congress of the European People’s Party in Finland.

In Beirut, our 30 delegates were able to meet an interesting insight, often difficult to interpret only by newspapers and TV newscasts. Meeting political leaders of a nation so divided politically and religiously, but in a country so eager to open up to the world was an unforgettable experience for all of us.

CHAIRMAN’S LETTER

Dear friends, and understanding human and personal dramas was one of the most moving moments of the whole event.

A few weeks later, in Helsinki, with 3000 more participants, we elected the person who will represent our entire European political family, that of the EPP, in the upcoming elections of May in the person of Manfred Weber.

And EDS will be mobilised in 2019 to win this new battle.

For now, please enjoy reading the new issue of BullsEye and keep in mind that the EDS Bureau is always interested in receiving feedback, hearing your ideas, and discovering more ways to proudly serve students across Europe.

Also looking into the eyes of the displaced, a few meters from the Syrian border, talking with them Virgilio Falco Chairman of European Democrat Students

The official magazine of European Democrat Students

3

When the definitive history of Brexit is written, many will bear their share of the responsibility - from David Cameron and Boris Johnson to Nigel Farage and Jeremy Corbyn. However, two people are generally underappreciated in this tale so far: Prime Minister Theresa May and her formerly closest adviser, Nick Timothy.

Mere months separate the United Kingdom from exiting the European Union without a deal – despite widespread agreement that this would be disastrous. To understand how it is truly possible that “no deal” is still on the cards, one must return to the fateful autumn of 2016 when the British Brexit strategy was decided.

Back then, almost total ignorance reigned within the UK Government about what withdrawing from the EU would entail. Just how expansive this information gap was has been chronicled by Sunday Times reporter Tim Shipman. In his book “Fall Out”, he quotes a civil servant verbatim: “It is not possible to underestimate the level of knowledge in the cabinet [in autumn 2016]”.1 As the initial turmoil after the vote subsided, ministers were only gradually waking up to the harsh realities of Brexit.

The confusion prevailing in Whitehall left the grand question facing the country open: what would Brexit look like? Civil servants, barred from preparing potential exit scenarios under David Cameron, had no blueprints to offer to ministers. The Leave campaigners had no plan either: they had deliberately avoided any concrete policy commitments, instead suggesting that Britain could leave the EU at no cost whatsoever. This was both danger and opportunity: in the wake of a narrow result, there was no definition of Brexit cast into stone. The meaning of 24 June 2016 was still up for grabs. At this crucial moment of uncertainty, two people stepped forward to fill this interpretational void: Theresa May and her trusted adviser Nick Timothy.

Together, they decided to centre Brexit around two cast-iron principles: first, ending free movement of people. Secondly, becoming independent of EU law. On paper, this made sense: immigration was the dominant issue of the referen-

dum, as Brexiters stirred and capitalised on fears that the country was creaking under the burden posed by 3 million EU citizens and even more to come. Opposition to the European Court of Justice had in turn long been a key doctrine of British Eurosceptics.

To them, nothing embodied the UK’s loss of sovereignty more than European judges and laws having the final say in the British legal system. To appease Eurosceptics was also politically shrewd: a Remain voter herself, May needed the credibility bestowed upon her by the Brexiter Timothy and their joint hard line.

The prime opportunity to gain hegemony over a directionless Brexit discourse came during the Conservative Party Conference in October 2016, May’s first as Prime Minister. At the convention in Birmingham, she proclaimed in a special address – written jointly with Timothy – that Britain would “no longer [be] part of a political union with supranational institutions that can override national parliaments and courts.”

In saying so, May was certain that she had succeeded in forging a winning strategy that honoured the referendum result and the sentiments behind it.

And yet this very pledge would undo the PM’s Brexit strategy before it took off. For May and Timothy by no means intended to sever the UK completely from its biggest trading partner. They believed British business ought to be able to trade as freely with the EU as before. That their rejection of free movement and ECJ jurisdiction made this impossible was not evident to them.

To them, Brexit could be achieved without compromise. May said so in her speech: “I know some people ask about the ‘tradeoff’ between controlling immigration and trading with Europe. But that is the wrong way of looking at things.” To top all this, May and Timothy made a second strategic mistake by casting their plan as the only authoritative one: to them, there was no “hard” or “soft” Brexit – just Brexit. There

was no room for a Plan B. As the rest of the Cabinet, both the Prime Minister and her aide had simply not fully grasped the magnitude and complexity of the task ahead of them - woefully misjudging both Britain’s political leverage vis-à-vis the EU and what was practically possible.

The ramifications of their miscalculation only dawned on May much later. As round after round of negotiations confirmed that the EU would not sacrifice the integrity of the Four Freedoms. As her red line on ECJ jurisdiction came close to scuppering cooperation arrangements the UK wanted to maintain. As the Irish border question - an issue the UK Government had been totally oblivious of in October 2016 - made clear that the UK needed a closely aligned customs regime to avoid a hard border. However, by then, the damage was done. To salvage the unsalvageable, the Prime Minister and her new adviser Olly Robbins concocted the highly complex Chequers plan in the hope of averting disaster whilst avoiding charges that May had broken her word.

By that time, Nick Timothy was no longer in Downing Street. As one of the main architects of the woeful 2017 General Election campaign, he became a persona non grata in the Conservative Party. His dismissal was the precondition for May staying on as Prime Minister. Unlike her, Timothy has not seen the error of his ways: in regular columns for right-of-centre publications, he insists that the Brexit strategy he co-authored with May remains the only viable path ahead.

There are many reasons for the present impasse in the Brexit negotiations. Yet the most fatal strategic mistake was made in London shortly after the 2016 referendum.

A mistake insufficiently discussed because its reverberations are still insufficiently understood even within the UK: that Theresa May and Nick Timothy decided what Brexit meant before knowing what it could mean.

Henrique Laitenberger

4

BullsEye

Like every year, the month of November sees the flowering of Remembrance Poppies in the United Kingdom and many parts of the Commonwealth, and Bleuets in France, to commemorate those who fought and fell during the First World War. However, this year marked the 100th anniversary prompting a series of commemorations, peaking in Paris on 11 November with a ceremony that gathered more than 70 heads of State and government. This conflict, by its characteristics and its outcome, had a significant impact on contemporary Europe. As it has become frequent in today’s public debate to make analogies between ongoing trends and the past century first half, it may be wise to recall some elements of the conflict.

WAR IS ALWAYS AN OPTION

In 1914, there was a widespread belief that war was not possible. Following a trend of globalisation, most observers estimated that the major global economies (most of them being European) were too interlocked and therefore, a generalised conflict between the main European powers was not only unlikely but also irrational. However, a series of tension and crisis had already erupted, potentially disrupting the balance in international affairs that had prevailed since the Vienna Congress of 1815.

Among these crisis, one can consider the increasing competition between powers over colonial affairs: the scramble for Africa had led to the Moroccan crises between France and Germany, and the British and French expansion were on a collision course and the conflict was narrowly avoided in Fashoda. The rivalry between Germany and the United Kingdom took the form of a naval race, with both sides building an increasing number of more advanced battleships. Finally, in Europe, nationalisms called for border revisions: France wished to take back Alsace and Lorraine, Italy considered its unification uncomplete as long as Austria would not surrender part of its territories, and all eyes were on the coming demise of the Ottoman Empire.

Of course, one should not consider an automatic link between such elements and the advent of a war. Nevertheless, many of the abovementioned elements persists in many parts of the world, and we are witnessing an increasing competition between several powers in various policy domains.

THE BUTTERFLY EFFECT

While no available source can confirm it, if there is any, it is reasonable to think that

in 1914, most Western Europeans could not place Sarajevo on a map, and the same people did not consider that an assassination in this city could trigger a global war and lead them to fight in trenches for four years.

Yet a complex clockwork of alliances and counter-alliances complemented by secret protocols made of Archduke Franz Ferdinand’s assassination the casus belli of the First World War. As such, it would be illusory to believe that our most direct security cannot be threatened by conflicts and disputes taking place on the other side of our planet, especially when they involve great powers. Examples such as the increasing Chinese assertiveness in the contested South China Sea, the Iranian-Saudi rivalry over the Middle East or the Russian annexation of Crimea remind us that different forms of conflicts are taking place around the world. Ignoring them will not safeguard us from their wider effects and their possible repercussions on our countries and daily lives. Instead, one should maintain a constant awareness and, where possible, try to defuse tensions and seek the application of agreements. This is why an actor such as the European Union should get involved and encourage de-escalation in many countries: not as a direct stakeholder but rather as an important international actor that may be affected by the worsening of a conflictual situation.

MANAGING FRUSTRATIONS

In 1914, crowds cheerfully welcomed the declaration of war, looking forward to finally defeating their neighbours. Four years later, they were welcoming the armistice, literally an end to the armed confrontation (as indicates the German word of Waffenstilstand), not

a surrender, conditional or unconditional, as it would be in 1945. Indeed, there was no clear tactical winner on the Western front, even if there was one on the Italian, Balkan and Middle eastern fronts. Nonetheless, the Treaty of Versailles designated Germany and its allies as sole responsible of the war and enforced reparations that put the country on its knees, creating frustration against the Versailles Diktat. The Treaty of Trianon amputated the former Kingdom of Hungary from a large number of territories, leaving many ethnic Hungarians outside of Hungary and feeding a narrative which still prevails in such region. In the same way, many Italians considered that their efforts had not been rewarded, creating the concept of mutilated victory (vittoria mutilata) that would be widely used by Fascists to put forth their agenda.

As Niccolo Macchiavelli indicated in The Prince, one can assert its authority by fear or by love. The peace treaties ending the First World War created resentment among the vanquished without making them fear the victors, paving way for revenge. In 1945, the allies would not repeat the mistake, putting Germany down, but also helping it to reconstruct itself thanks to the Marshall Plan. As we see in Syria and Iraq the military end of Daesh, it would be dangerous to helplessly leave the populations which previously supported the establishment of Daesh. An inclusive reconstruction is needed, tackling part of the roots causes among the local population. In this, the EU, as the largest donor in development and humanitarian aid, must affirm its role.

Julien Sassel

The official magazine of European Democrat Students

5

The word immigration is not a new word in our vocabulary of experiences. All of us, in the eyes of our neighbours, are considered immigrants in power. Above all immigration is a cyclical historical and sociological fact, which in recent years has assumed much higher levels than in the recent past.

Why is there immigration?

Referring to facts that are merely structural, the economies of European countries have developed so vastly that they represent a tempting attraction for those who look at us from abroad; on the other hand, we can configure the typical profile of the migrant: an individual coming from places where the necessary amount of resources for personal or family subsistence is lacking.

Although historically there have existed migratory flows consisting of almost all the continents of the globe, today for us

6

Europeans it represents a key challenge for our future, not only humanitarian but also geopolitically.

The majority of these flows come not only from the Middle East, but above all from Africa.

Libya is a crucial cornerstone in the chessboard.

We all remember what happened on 20 October 2011: Rais Muammar Gaddafi was deposed tragically and since then, a dark period started, which has lasted for more than seven years and that has included a number of events: the civil war, terrorist attacks until ISIS arrived, which until 2016 controlled the city of Sirte and its surrounding areas, with some terrorist cells also present in the cities of Benghazi and Derna.

Following the expulsion of the troops of the Islamic State, another serious

problem emerged: they still live in a non-peaceful manner with two governmental entities, who seek to contend for the right to govern the land. I refer to Al Sarraj , whose Government of National Accord, based in Tripoli, claims the power of imperial, as opposed to the political reality of General Haftar, perched in his post of Tobruk.

The political situation of this country is still very far from reaching a long-term solution and, in all this, the disoriented population is huddling on the coasts waiting to leave for a better beach, the European one. Not only are there are people from Libya, but also from other nations, including Niger, Nigeria, Chad and Mali. These countries in the Saharan and sub-Saharan areas have seen the birth of migratory routes by land organised and managed by mercenaries, which, by gaining in desperation and finding favourable policies, have made it

BullsEye

a very profitable business.

Being shown this very alarming situation, what was the consequential role of the European Union and in the management of migration flows? From the beginning, the first country to move in this direction was Italy with the operation Mare Nostrum of 2013, which was followed by the Frontex Operation Triton. Both had the primary purpose of patrolling the maritime mirror of the Mediterranean Sea, of saving and bringing to earth those who had travelled with the boats that the press has defined without too many ambitions “boats of hope”. Today the maritime patrol regime of the borders of the European Union is managed by Operation Themis, which has taken full effect from 1 February 2018. That being said, despite the good results that have been achieved, the immigration problem still remains of significant importance, not only because in the North African area the flows continue to thicken, but also because the arrival of immigrants towards the European coasts is creating a social problem within the countries of the Union.

I refer to populism, of which we have political representation in all European countries, it seems an unstoppable ideological tide that is overwhelming the parties that have founded and contributed to the prosperity of our communion of people.

You see, everything that happens in the political sphere is never an isolated phenomenon and an end in itself, indeed it is all extremely linked and consequential. The survival of our reality as a European Union (or, it would be better to say that we do not find ourselves unprepared for all those dangers that could most likely upset all those political structures that guarantee peace and balance) passes through the resolution of this unprecedented migratory phenomenon. Unfortunately, the declarations of intent are no longer enough to reassure public opinion, indeed, it is precisely from the need to recover that consensus that the population is minute by minute moving towards those demiurges who want everything except the stability of our community institutions to resonate that alarm bell that cannot be more eluded by the elites.

“So, what do we do?” A typical question that any individual would face in a problem that seems insurmountable. A first approach may be the greater cohesion of European countries on this issue. I say this as an Italian, and I usually see my fellow citizens first take one aspect, then another, as factual reality, but one thing I’m sure; the population continues to see distant European institutions about the immigration phenomenon, the same people who has given confidence to this super-national structure, and that for a strange competition of events, it seems not to reciprocate.

I don’t mean to be controversial with this article, but as a young European I realise that if there is a lack of spirit of brotherhood on a matter of such importance which affects all of us, I can say that in the very near future, on this particular theme, the most important game of the European Union will be played, with the hope that it can take a better direction by taking away the chance to play a resolutive Match Point from those who, this Europe, wants to destroy it.

Rodolfo Biancheri

The official magazine of European Democrat Students

7

According to the Cambridge Dictionary, a summit is a meeting of government leaders from two or more countries. Historically summits between heads of states of leading countries are usually important historic milestones during their time. Prime examples of important summits are the summit of Tehran. During that summit, the allies made up of United States, USSR, and the United Kingdom discussed the plan of action after the Second World War. Another important summit during the twentieth century was the Vienna summit between US president John Kennedy and the USSR Premier Nikita Khrushchev in 1961. During the Vienna summit, the two leaders discussed numerous subjects including the Berlin Crisis. Another important summit occurred in 1972. Richard Nixon’s visit to China in 1972 marked a turning point in US-China relationship. The Nixon and Mao meeting is still considered today as an important historical event that changed US foreign policy towards China. Furthermore, the Permanent 5 members of the security council (China, UK, US, France, Russia, and China), Germany, and Iran held a summit in Vienna in order to discuss and decide the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Nowadays, G8 summits are important annual summit that groups world leader to discuss important issue of their time like climate change, economic issues, international crises, and much more. Historically summits have been considered as important milestones. These summits have been considered important turning points in history because they reached landmark agreement between the parties of the summit.

During Donald Trump’s presi-

dency, the president has held or participated in several high-level summits. One of the most important summits that Donald Trump held was this one-on-one summit with North Korean Supreme Commander Kim Jong Un. The summit was held in Singapore on 12 June 2018. At the beginning of the year, tensions between the United States and North Korea reached an all-time high.

The two leaders exchanged fierce words against each other. However, as months passed, the tone changed between the two leaders and the announcement of the summit surprised the world. As the proposed summit loomed, experts started to analyse the possible outcomes of the summit. With all the possible outcomes discussed on national television, the world watched the summit unfold in Singapore between Donald Trump and Kim Jong Un. Both leaders declared the summit as a great success and a huge step forward.1 Furthermore, they signed a historic agreement. However, after the summit many experts said the US president had failed in the summit. Former Treasury official and former CIA deputy director David Cohen explained that the president had jumped prematurely into the summit. Cohen pointed out the President’s action had weakened international resolve to apply pressure on North Korea2. In many experts ‘view, Donald Trump had given the North Korean leader big concession. The US president promised to continue talks with North Korea. This gave the North Korean regime greater legitimacy. Furthermore, the US promised to halt all military exercises with South Korea. On the other hand, North Korea only promised to dismantle a missile factory and continue talks with the US. Additionally, the summit had improved Kim Jung Un’s image. Experts say

the US had conceded greatly to the rogue regime.

Another important summit the US president held was with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Helsinki on 16 July 2018.

The buildup to the summit was intense. 12 Russian intelligence officers were indicted for hacking Democratic National Committee’s email server3. The US President was under great pressure to hold Russia accountable for its alleged involvement in the 2016 US election. The leaders discussed several topics such as Crimea, Syria, and the countries economic relations. However, as the summit ended, the US president gave the world more cause for concern. During a joint press conference, Trump refused to criticise or even question Putin’s response regarding their involvement in US election4. He even went further that he criticised the FBI and praised Russia.5 All the US press including news outlets such as Fox News labeled the summit as a US failure.

Summits are important foreign policy tools for any head of state, especially coming from a US president. However, President Trump does not quite understand the ramifications of his ill-fated summits. By holding summits with autocratic strongmen like Vladimir Putin or a Dictator like Kim Jung Un, he is providing these men with more legitimacy.

Both Putin and Kim were portrayed as the stronger and more composed leader compared to Donald Trump. Furthermore, US gave concessions to both Russia and North Korea. This weaken the international community belief in US power. The summits show the importance of this foreign policy tool. However, questions are raised whether leaders in Washington understand the magnitude of their actions.

Elie-Joe Dergham

8

BullsEye

Note: this article was written before Election Day. Politicians of all stripes love telling voters how the upcoming election is always the most important one in their lifetime. This time, there’s some truth to it.

Midterms in the United States, although not as high profile and doomed with an even lower voter turnout, have always been considered a referendum on the sitting president. 6 November 2018 is the first time Americans get to the ballot box since the upset election of Donald Trump in 2016. What’s at stake? Nothing less than all 435 seats of the House of Representatives and 35 of the 100 seats in the Senate. Add to that 36 gubernatorial races. By all means, this election carries as much weight as 2016.

A string of pipe bombs sent to Democratic officials by an avid Trump supporter, an anti-Semitic terrorist attack at a synagogue in Pittsburg that left 11 dead, dog whistling on a migrant caravan headed towards the U.S. border, this year’s election is overshadowed by events that constitute a deeper malaise in the republic.

“If we lose the House, he’s [Trump] gonna get impeached. This a referendum on him,” argues former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon. He’s right. Where are Trump voters? They are complacent, happy about the fact he has delivered on many of his campaign promises. But most importantly, his base is happy he has changed the office of the president, not the other way around.

Most Democratic strategists believe taking back the House is possible, increasing

the chances of impeachment - the Senate seems to be a lost cause.

A LAME DUCK? ASK OBAMA.

For Democrats, who have lost over 1,000 state legislature seats since Obama’s election in 2008, winning states like West Virginia, Indiana, North Dakota, Montana, and Missouri, states Trump carried by double-digits, seem a fool’s errand. A state like Texas, for example, hasn’t had a Democratic senator for over three decades. The House is another story. Democrats believe more House seats are up for grabs due to the record number of Republican incumbents choosing not to run for office. Facing tough primaries in their home states against staunchly pro-Trump contenders, 44 Republican incumbents have opted for early retirement by not throwing their hats in the ring.

To Bannon’s relief, impeachment remains unlikely, and if it ever were to happen, Trump would endure the nasty process.

What does remain more probable is apresidency unable to pass any meaningful piece of legislation, even after Trump’s reelection in 2020. The result? A de facto lame duck Trump presidency.

Whilst over the last three decades the office of president has only gained more and more power at the expense of the legislative branch, U.S. presidents average one major, signature law in which they spend most, if not all, of their political capital.

For Obama, it was the Affordable Care Act. Better known as ObamaCare, the controversial law that was passed along partisan lines in 2010. Even though its relative success is being undermined by the current

administration, it remains Obama’s legacy.

For George W. Bush, it was the unpopular Iraq troop surge in 2006. For Clinton, it was signing NAFTA… You get the point.

For Trump? His 2017 tax cuts. The cuts have resulted in an economic boom that most political opponents thought was impossible. GDP growth of 3%, which some called a ‘Republican fantasy’, is now a reality. The catch? Deficits hitting $981 billion in 2019 and exceeding $1 trillion “every year after that,” according to the Congressional Budget Office.

IT’S THE COURTS, STUPID

With much talk of the ‘Kavanaugh effect’, undecided voters siding with Republicans over the politicization of now Associate Justice of the Supreme Court Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation amid rape allegations, it is no secret wounded presidents often go through the courts for meaningful change. The legalization of gay marriage in 2015 is a great example. With a new conservative majority in the Supreme Court, thanks to two justices appointed by Trump, the country’s courts are experiencing a transformation that will last for a generation.

Even though Trump has been slow when it comes to political appointments, in 2017 the Senate confirmed 12 of his appeal courts picks, a record for a president’s first year in office. Regardless of the midterms, change can and will be brought upon the country through the judicial system long after Trump vacates the White House.

Santiago de la Presilla

The official magazine of European Democrat Students

9

As a continent, Europe has few resources, especially when it comes to fossil fuels. While the golden days of coal have come to an end in most of the Member States of the EU, oil and gas fields are mostly located outside of the EU. Since it is likely that the EU will continue to rely on fossil fuels, next to renewables and nuclear energy, to ensure the production of energy, it is vital to maintain pragmatic relations with Europe’s neighbourhood.

Together with trade relations, energy supplies are the policy field where it has become difficult to strike a balance between interests and values, leading to the question of what constitutes the basis of the EU External Action.

THE QUEST FOR THE SECURITY OF ENERGY SUPPLY

In 2011, Günther Oettinger, then EU Commissioner for Energy, stated that “Energy is the life-blood of our societies.

The wellbeing of our people, industry and economy depends on safe, secure, sustainable and affordable energy.” If one had to continue in blood-related analogies, it could be said that the EU is having a permanent blood transfusion and any disruption would lead to the death of the patient. Indeed, the energy dependence has grown over the years, with imports counting for around 40% in the 1990s to over 50% in the 2010s. Most of these imports are made of crude oil and natural gas. On an individual scale, the situation appears much more alarming, with many Member States having import dependencies for over 75% of their supplies.

The reliance on crude oil is not something which can be expected to drop sharply in the coming years as part of the electricity is produced in oil plants, and oil and

10

its derivatives have entered most aspects of our daily life. As such it cannot be expected to lower this dependency as long as Europeans will make a wide use of oil, especially in the field of transports. A first step will be the incentivisation of hybrid, electric and, in a longer term, hydrogen engines. At the same time, due to economic and geopolitical factors, crude oil prices remain volatile even though the diversity of suppliers ensures the provisions.

For instance, the recent reinstallation of the American sanctions regime against Iran, aiming at e.g. lower the Iranian production of crude oil, has an influence on oil prices. Nevertheless, a disruption of the supply by other Middle Eastern producers is unlikely as the chances of a conflict, possibly involving the closure of the Hormuz straight or attacks in the Bab-elMandeb, remain low.

With regard to natural gas, the high costs required for the installation of infrastructures force the stability of supplies, with

both the buyer and the seller having interest in writing off the costs. At the same time, such heavy infrastructures disincentivise the prospects of finding other customers, should the supplier have conflicts with the original buyer. This partly explains why Russia cannot divert its gas sales from Europe to potential customers such as China in a short-term perspective.

MANY SUPPLIERS, MANY PROBLEMS

In the last decades, Europe has already experienced the sensitivity of being too dependent on a limited set of suppliers. This happened when, in the wake of the Yom Kippur War in 1973, the successive oil embargo installed by the Arab countries of the OPEC prompted the first oil crisis.

Since then, Europeans have been wary of crisis in the Middle East and North Africa area and the possible consequences on fuel supplies. However, the region remains a focal point for conflicts, and relations with the different actors have to be bal-

BullsEye

anced. This partially explains the support to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action on the Iranian nuclear programme and the reluctance to take a side in the regional rivalry between Iran, and the Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

Moving up north, the increasingly complex relation with Turkey has an influence on both the transit of fuel and the exploration of gas and oil fields in the Eastern Mediterranean. Indeed, due to its position, Turkey is an inescapable choke point if one wants to deliver fuel from the Caspian and Central Asia while avoiding Russia. It recently appeared after the heated political debate in Italy on the Trans Adriatic Pipeline which will carry gas from Azerbaijan to Italy through Georgia, Turkey, Greece and Albania. At the same time, Turkey has to be managed with regard to the Cypriot gas fields. As Ankara claims that those fields belong to all Cypriots altogether (including the unrecognised and Turkish-occupied Northern Cyprus), the Turkish authorities have tried to prevent foreign companies to start drilling in the Cypriot Exclusive Economic Zone.

As for Russia, the increasingly confrontational stance of Russia, which peaked in the annexation of Crimea and the conflict in the Donbass has not threatened the gas supplies. Quite the opposite of what happened in a series of disputes in the 2000s between Russia and Ukraine, there are no substantial fears of seeing the deliveries interrupted. Still, there will be consequences in the longer term: The South Stream pipeline which had been agreed in 2009 by Austria, Bulgaria, Hungary, Italy, and Russia was shelved by the Kremlin

in 2014 and the North Stream 2, which aims at delivering Russian gas to Germany through the Baltic sea, has come under the fire of several EU Member States and the Vice-President of the European Commission, Maroŝ Ŝefĉoviĉ, stating that “North Stream 2 does not contribute to the Energy Union’s objectives”.

THE WORLD OF ENERGY, ACCORDING TO THE EU

After discussing energy in the world, it is necessary to delve into the EU position on the matter and what the EU stands for when it comes to energy supplies.

The founding policy document in this regard is the 2015 Communication from the European Commission on a Strategy for an Energy Union. The Communication outlines several aspects which need a change: an integrated energy system enabling the flow of energy between the Member States and facilitating competition within the European market but also a paradigm shift from a fossil fuel model and supply-side approach towards a model that makes use of the best available technologies and empowers consumers, re-establishing a balance between supply and demand.

Yet, such expectations of an ideal future are tempered by the acknowledgment that the EU depends on the outside for half of its energy supply and the alarming fact that six Member States rely on a single supplier. It is therefore unsurprising that, for the time being, it is essential to ensure the supplies of traditional fuels. In

this matter, diversification is the word: the document puts an emphasis on strengthening energy relations with Central Asia, Northern Europe and the Mediterranean countries. Proceeding by elimination, it appears that the document may suggest that diversification implies decreasing the dependence on Russia. Indeed, Moscow seems to be the document’s elephant in the room, being mentioned only once while it is the EU’s main gas supplier. As such, it is expectable that this single mention of Russia is made to highlight the EU willingness to reconsider the framework of its energy relations with Moscow.

In addition to the Communication, one must also consider the 2016 Global Strategy determined energy security as an element of the whole European security and, therefore, an integrated aspect of the European External Action and must be considered in the relations with external partners. As a conclusion, one can consider the founding principle of Principled Pragmatism that underpins the Global Strategy and can be applied to the question of energy supplies. As the document reads, Principled Pragmatism merges a realistic assessment of the world with an idealistic aspiration. For this reason, when engaging suppliers, the EU should put forth its values and principles while bearing in mind that such supplies are vital.

Julien Sassel

The official magazine of European Democrat Students

11

From large power plants to domestic solar panels – A shift in the energy production model?

Until not that many years ago the idea of converting sunlight to electricity in our homes for the purposes of our day-to-day needs may have seemed like a notion taken out of the pages of a futuristic novel.

Yet, since then we have witnessed and are continuing to witness, an exponential development of technologies. One of the greatest technological niches appears to be the research and development of renewable energy sources. The five main types of renewable energy sources include biomass, hydropower, geothermal, wind and solar.

The latter two types were less widely used until around the late 1990s – early 2000s but since then the consumption of energy obtained from wind and sun has significantly increased in percentage throughout Europe and the US. According to Eurostat1the quantity of electricity generated in 2016 in the European Union from solar power was 44.4 times higher than in 2006 – a dramatic growth indeed. Over the span of these ten years the contribution of solar power to the overall renewable source generated electricity in the EU has risen from 0.3% to 11.6%. Of course these statistics reflect the average results of the twenty eight member states; naturally the numbers vary from one country to another and while some excel, others still have some catching up to do, but even so, it’s

12

probably safe to say that we have a game changer in the face of solar power use.

One of the greatest advantages of photovoltaic systems (a system that uses solar panels to absorb sunlight and convert it into electricity via the so called photovoltaic effect, to put it in more simple terms) is that they already have a relatively favourable ratio of produced electricity to occupied space and there is still room for improvement on that account.

The efficiency of a single solar panel will grow with the advancement of the technology used in the construction since it is contingent on the properties of the semiconductor material used to build it, among other obvious objective factors such as the geographical position of the building and the time of day and the year. Presently, on average one megawatt hours’ worth of energy is produced by approximately ten thousand square metres of solar panels and there is huge potential for increasing the efficiency.

This makes photovoltaic systems one of the best options for domestic use since usually a house has enough rooftop space to place a solar PV module large enough to provide for a significant percent of the electricity consumption of the household.

Furthermore, the roofs aren’t the only areas which can be used for this purpose. A very recent technological

achievement is the production of windows with photovoltaic properties, which are essentially transparent solar panels. These are particularly useful for tall office buildings with large window area.

Another significant argument in favour of the installation of domestic PV systems is that they have proven to be a good investment.

The pay-back time of a photovoltaic system depends on many factors, including the initial price of the system, possibly the financing costs (if for instance a bank credit has been drawn, and depending on the interest rates), the maintenance costs, and of course the price of the grid electricity on which the household is saving. Typically a PV system pays off in less than ten years.

Considering that they usually come with a warranty of twenty years, this means that their actual lifespan is much more than that and it is argued that they can last well over thirty years. Of course, the venture does require an initial capital expenditure which might turn out to be prohibitive for some households if they don’t have the funds and financing is not available. On the other hand, the option could be made feasible for more consumers if the governments decide to introduce some sort of incentives such as tax credits, feed-in tariffs or direct funding through programmes for improving energy efficiency.

BullsEye

The one obvious drawback of PV modules is that they have a limited working period on a 24-hour basis and on a yearly basis as well, especially in the northernmost European countries where they are almost or completely inapplicable during polar nights. Whereas this issue is not technically insurmountable, it does pose a challenge. Energy storing technologies (that is to say, batteries) are an apparent solution to this problem. However they have a few debatable aspects of their own.

One of them is the additional price of the investment they would entail, but other possibly more concerning ones, are the fact that some people are not quite convinced that their production does not have a damaging environmental impact, and that their recycling may be too expensive for them to serve the purpose of efficiency. Another possible way to alleviate the problem are the digital smart grids – systems in which the consumers of energy and the generators of energy are interconnected and ‘communicate’ bilaterally via special devices such as smart meters, and which control the distribution and consumption of energy inside the system. This is pretty advanced technology and naturally quite expensive, and

doesn’t provide a solution for the limited access to sunlight during certain parts of the year.

It is probably safer to say that for the time being completely energy independent homes will remain a rarity rather than a common practice due the exorbitant cost of such a project. It would not be justifiable to claim that the introduction of domestic photovoltaic systems to the mass consumers will eliminate the need for other energy sources whatsoever. It seems that the best and most viable option is for the building to remain connected to the grid but obtain as much energy from solar power as possible. One could however legitimately argue that there is a steady trend towards a shift in the energy production model. The number of households with PV installation goes up every year. Moreover, some surveys find that solar power has the highest level of public support among citizens of the European Union.

The Sun is undeniably the most abundant energy source on our planet. Scientists argue that the Sun has the capacity to provide for all of humanity’s estimated energy consumption more than a

thousandfold. All we have to do is learn how to harness that seemingly inexhaustible energy. We have already come a long way down the path. More and more people have realised the enormous potential of solar energy and all the benefits it involves. Whereas we may not be witnessing a complete shift to domestically produced energy in the next couple of years, the consumption of energy supplied from big power plants might very well decrease significantly in favour of one obtained from residential PV systems. They are installed not only in homes, but also in schools, hospitals, and office buildings, and thus alleviate a large financial burden for the consumers while at the same time contributing to the global fight against pollution. The modern man is environmentally conscious, readily embraces new technologies, and has an acute necessity for independence. All of these factors spell out the inevitable change of the paradigm of energy production.

Desislava Kemalova

The official magazine of European Democrat Students

13

Manfred Weber – Symbolizing a new chance for Europe Helsinki 8 November: The EPP has elected, at its annual congress, the “Spitzenkandidat” for the upcoming European elections.

Manfred Weber, who has been the leader of the European People's Party in the European Parliament since 2014, was elected on November 8 as the new leading candidate for the European elections in 2019. His political opponent Alexander Stubb, former Prime Minister of Finland, and could celebrate a clear victory. Out of the 619 valid votes cast, 492 accounted for Weber.

Born in a small village in the rural area of Lower Bavaria in Germany in 1972, Manfred Weber has been active in local politics from an early age. Joining the centre-right party CSU marked the beginning of his political career.

Especially his roots and the personal background can be seen as a strategic advantage for Manfred Weber as a candidate for the European Commission. Being close to the people, getting confronted with regional topics and issues in Bavaria, but also his strong belief in values and ideals, are necessary qualities for this job.

“Bringing Europe back to the people” – a statement that is often used by Weber, shows how he wants to shape the European Union.

People should see how Europe is affecting them in their daily life and how useful a European collaboration can be. The new #DiscoverEU interrail

tickets for young adults, is just one example of how he is going to approach this statement. Weber also wants to fight Cancer by investing in research and starting preventative measures, as well as providing digital infrastructure throughout all of Europe.

On top of this, Erasmus and Erasmus+ programs for students should be extended.

Moreover, he is also focusing on strengthening the external borders of the EU to guarantee the safety of all EU citizens.

Reinforcing the “Frontex” agency by creating 10,000 new jobs, focusing on higher deportation quotes but also ensuring that only immigrants with legal passports can enter the EU, are only three proposals Weber has said he wants to implement.

In addition, Weber has a clear opinion in terms of the accession of Turkey to the European Union. Europe needs to stop negotiations and to communicate that under the current situation with regards to human and civil rights, an entry into the EU is almost impossible.

Manfred Weber is also stressing the common values we share within the European Union.

The rule of law, a system of running democracies, human rights, common traditions and customs and the economic interrelations are just a few examples of unifying aspects. The only way to fight against EU scepticism and populistic tendencies is by emphasizing the positive sides and not only talking about the negative and dividing issues.

In the end Weber´s campaign can be seen as a chance for the EPP family and the whole of the European Union. With his moral values and the strong connection to the people, Manfred Weber is the best candidate to connect the different political cultures within the EU. He knows that he has to concentrate on reducing bureaucracy and on implementing policies which are useful for every citizen.

As he is just 46, Manfred Weber symbolizes renewal within the EPP. It is a sign that Europe is about the future. Meaning that politics should also be for the younger generation.

And last but not least Webers candidacy is a symbol of stabilization. As he is the leading man in the EPP parliamentary group, Weber accurately knows how European politics is working. In these times of Brexit, economic tensions with the US and a rising threat from the East, Europe needs to stand together. The fact that he is German and is representing one of the most powerful countries in the EU, also helps to project stability and order.

But in the end, the European people decides who is going to lead the commission. EPP is well prepared but the decisive months are yet to come. It is important now to positively look into the future and have an unambiguous path to fight against EU sceptic movements. Weber has a good starting point, but he needs the support of all the members to be successful.

Johannes Bürgin

14

BullsEye

European Elections in Austria: As foreseeable as the last National Elections?

This summer on 1 July 2018, Austria took over the Presidency of the Council of the European Union for the third time, after 1998 and 2006, for six months. The Presidency's motto is "A Europe that protects".

With the Presidency of the Council of the EU, the Austrian government had the chance to arouse the interest in international politics within the country right before the European Elections.

After the last European Elections in 2014, the Conservative Party (ÖVP) managed to get five seats within the European parliament, same as the Social Democrats (SPÖ).

The Austrian Freedom Party (FPÖ) surprised the country by managing to get four seats. The result was a reflection of the distribution of votes at the National elections in 2013. However, the political situation in the country has changed a lot over the past year. After the overwhelming victory of the Conservatives in the National Council election in 2017, the mood in Austria is divided.

Through the coalition with the EU critical Austrian Freedom Party, many people like to see the Conservative Party unbeaten in the first place in the country itself, but not as suitable in the EU Parliament to represent Austria. The latest surveys show that the trust in the government has grown within the past 12 months. Certainly, on an EU level, both parties, which are currently in power, did not gain as much trust from the citizen. Left parties, even though they currently do not form the government, scored quite well in the surveys. As a result, the Social Democrats and other (far) left parties see the chance of organizing huge election campaigns, because people seem to be open minded about alternatives to their National government on an EU level.

WHAT WILL THE STRATEGY BE?

“Security and Safety” were an essential part of the campaig program of most parties during the National elections in 2017.

The reduction of illegal migration has become an everyday claim. Consequently, it was convenient for the government when

they managed to let the Presidency’s motto focus on protection of the borders and the reduction of conflicts between countries to guarantee freedom and peace. Within Austria, the government now has the chance to outline their impulses they give not only nationally, but internationally, on illegal migration, safety and relations between European countries. As long as the achievements are pleasing for the Austrian population, both governing parties may use the Presidency of the Council of the European Union to promote their own contents and receivables. Therefore, the Conservatives will have a huge tool of topics they can choose from to focus on during the elections. Moreover, within this tool they can pick any successful input they gave since July 2018. Consequently, we can expect a campaign from the conservatives that outlines their positive achievements rather than new ideas about the future of the European Union.

On the other hand, certain actions from the government, such as withdrawing from the UN migration pact may harm their campaign. Even more, it is a chance for the Social Democrats and the Liberal Party (Neos) to demonstrate potential disputes that the Conservatives or the Austrian Freedom Party may bring up within the European Parliament. Experts claim, that actions like that will help left and liberal orientated parties to localise votes. Therefore, it would be a safe strategy for the Social Democrats to wait for debatable actions of both governing parties to heat up discussions and outshine the others by being constructive for the European Union.

WHAT ABOUT THE GREENS?

After being in the parliament for the past 30 years, last October the greens collapsed to only 3,8 percent, which means that the greens (Die Grünen) did not reach the 4 percent hurdle that is required to enter the Austrian parliament. Not being part of the parliament sounded like the end of the party for many people. Still, in the latest surveys, their pro European spirit and their programs against populism and right-wing parties helped them gain the sympathy of almost 7 percent of Austrians. A critical and ambitious campaign used to be expected, but due to their weak performance during last years’ elections most of their sponsorship (public and private) was gone, which makes an expensive campaign almost impossible.

THE SAME OLD STORY

The parties might try to avoid critical debates on refugees and illegal migration because the last elections within Austria, starting with Federal State Elections up to National Elections, had been a never-ending discussions about border control and illegal migration.

Starting to discuss topics such as that on an EU level leaves Austrians unimpressed, since this issue has been focused on for years now in the country itself. At the end, the European Elections may not be that life changing for Austrians. Due to the lived solidarity with the European Union and hardly any tough or rough criticism, it can be expected that campaigns and discussions will outline ideas to make the EU better rather than criticizing the institution dramatically.

Johanna Gruber

The official magazine of European Democrat Students

15

Sweden – There’s no government like no government.

On the 9 September, Sweden held elections on the national, regional and local levels. In most parts of Sweden, new local and regional governments have been formed, with somewhat of a win for the centre-right, with large municipalities and county councils now being run by some kind of centre-right constellation.

In the Swedish Parliament and the Swedish government however, the situation is a bit more troublesome.

There is no government. Kind of. And what does this mean in a European context?

GOVERNMENT-IN-WAITING AND GOVERNMENT-IN-TRANSITION

When the new parliament assembled in the end of September, it elected a new Speaker of the Parliament, Andreas Norlén, from the Moderate Party, and then held the mandatory vote of confidence on whether or not the prime minister would be allowed to continue. The incumbent prime minister, Stefan Löfven got voted down in the parliament with a quite clear majority. The centre-right in Sweden rejoiced at the fact that four years of social democratic rule was over. All these months later, there isn’t that much rejoicing.

The centre-right in Sweden consists of four parties – The Moderate Party (EPP), the Christian Democrats (EPP), the Centre Party (ALDE) and the Liberal Party (ALDE), which co-operate in the form of a constellation aptly named Alliansen (The Alliance).

The Alliance was in government between 2006 and 2014 and lowered taxes, sold government owned companies (such as Vin & Sprit, a company mostly known for manufacturing Absolut Vodka!) and introduced several reforms to minimize government control over the lives of regular people.

During the first term, from 2006 to 2010, The Alliance held a majority in the parliament, but lost that majority in the election in 2010, when the populistic party the Sweden Democrats got elected to the parliament and with their member of parliament made it so that neither the left-wing or the rightwing parties in the parliament had a clear majority. The Sweden Democrats however supported the right-wing parties in all of the votes on the budget during the term, which resulted in the right-wing government being able to continue for another term.

The Sweden Democrats however grew during the 2014 elections and the right-wing alliance wasn’t able to stay in

government and a government consisting of social democrats and greens went into power.

Even though the 2018 elections resulted in a clear majority that doesn’t want the social democrats in power, there is still no new government, with a vote on electing the party leader of the Moderate party Ulf Kristersson as prime minister, being voted down in the parliament with the help of both the Centre Party and the Liberals. Why? The Centre Party and the Liberals did not want to elect a government supported by the Sweden Democrats, which in the current situation would be needed as the centre-right doesn’t hold a majority in the parliament.

WHY WOULDN’T YOU WANT THE SUPPORT OF THE SWEDEN DEMOCRATS?

There are several reasons. One of the largest reasons is their history. The party has its roots in neo-nazism and actually had to ban members from wearing nazi-inspired uniforms during their events, in the late 1990s.

Their elected politicians and members have a history and a tendency of opinions and rhetoric that is flamingly populistic, anti-immigrant, homophobic and anti-Semitic. Apart from that, they are both anti-EU and Putin-friendly. Their whole youth wing was expelled from the party and later formed the party Alternativ för Sverige, which is a Swedish clone of Alternative für Deutschland. They used to belong to the EFDD group in the European Parliament, but changed to the ECR group in July 2018.

They have managed to get quite a large support in Sweden based on the migration issue and the fact that Sweden can’t afford accepting the same level of immigrants searching asylum without it costing too much. Their solution is to close the borders and make migrants move back to the countries that they fled from. They are trying to market themselves as a right-wing party, but in many policy areas they support the Social Democrats,

they want a larger welfare state and they as aforementioned oppose EU-membership and also oppose a future possibility of a Swedish membership in NATO. Not really what you could call a right-wing party.

It’s easy to understand why the Centre Party and the Liberals doesn’t want a party such as that to gain influence in the Swedish parliament and in Swedish parliaments – even though the best thing for both Sweden and Europe would be a centre-right government in Sweden.

WHAT HAPPENS NOW?

The Speaker of the Parliament has three more chances to put forward a proposition to the parliament on electing a prime minister. For that to happen, the Centre Party and the Liberals either need to accept the passive support of the Sweden Democrats or actively support a left-wing candidate to the position of prime minister. If no new prime minister would be elected at the fourth attempt, a new election would be held, possibly with the same results and a similar stalemate in the parliament.

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR THE EU?

The development seen in Sweden can be seen in the rest of Europe as well. Populist, anti-establishment, anti-EU parties are on the rise, and if we don’t handle the issue in the right way, the same thing will happen during the elections to the European Parliament. It is clear that we in the EPP Family need to be able to meet the voters with a clear message of our political vision for the EU and our answers to the challenges that Europe is facing. This would result in the populist parties not being able to use these challenges as a way to spread this populist agenda. If we are focused on the right issues and make clear what our goal is, the elections in May will surely be fruitful.

Markus Konow

16

BullsEye

The Following European Elections in Hungary’s Aspect In the history of Hungary there were several battles between the opposite value systems.

People say; history rewrites itself. Now, in the interim of the European Parliamentary elections we have to fight for our values and rights again, but this time we are not alone in the struggle. Now we have to make sure that the people around Europe see our political family correct and that our values are clear in their heads. The European People’s Party’s position and role could be critical next year, but the only prognosis what can be surely said is that we have a great chance to form the biggest party of the European Parliament again, but unfortunately it looks that we are not even able to keep our seats in the Parliament, not to say gain more.

Therefore, member states are having to rely on each other more than ever.

THE WEIGHT OF THE ELECTIONS

Between 23 and 26 May 2019, people have to choose. During this election they are not choosing only the representatives for the 705 seats in the Parliament, they have to decide about the future of Europe. The Union just got through on its most hectic 5 years in its history, which is encompassed by the Euroand the migration crisis and these occurrences made a big influence in Europe’s aspect. Following the actions from the recent past the European political picture is starting to swing to the right as an answer for the international migration crisis. Hereupon as a boarder state of the European Union, Hungary’s role has started to increase and it can be said that Hungary coped with the expectations: the borders are controlled, and the legislative rules were established to be able to defend the country legally. Not just the citizens of the EU, but also the Hungarian voters will reward these efforts.

As Europe is slowly approaching the elections the performances and outputs of the last 5 years, or even of the last 1 year, could be embraced with a glance, and the voters will reward the real performances. The stake is enormous: what will be the leading line within the European Union among the following topics: migration, enlargement, Brexit process, sustainable economic growth, two-speed Europe and last but not least; the theoretical vision of the future EU with the new leading roles, and where Hungary's Prime Minister, Viktor Orbán could be one of the future leaders. Because of this, for Europe and for Hungary, the European Parliamentary elections are more important than ever, especially after the voting on 12 October 2018 on the Sargentini report and the initialisation of the procedure related to Article 7 (1) of the Treaty on the European Union. The whole Report can be argued, not to say that the text is abound with several delusions. Unfortunately, the state brought this on itself with actively trying to protect the Union and its member states. Still, the protection of the people and our common values have to be shown to the voters instead of the offsets between not even the member states but between the member parties in the European People’s Party.

From a slightly different angle, here is the question on what the expectations are regarding the elections in Hungary. In the past few years our government, who shares similar fundamental merits with the European People’s Party, had a rough time with the opposition. Hungary and the Hungrian Government’s values; family, faith and democracy were abused by them.

After the National elections in April, where the government had to preserve the country and itself, this election is also about to protect our shared values with the European People’s

Party. In the interim of the elections we are full of hope and we are ready to fight.

PUBLIC OPINION ON THE EUROPEAN UNION

A lot of different opinions can be heard among citizens of the European Union, and this question needs to be clarified. People in Hungary are not against the European Union itself at all.

Among the different social groups, we can recognise several aspects and opinions about the system, its advantages and disadvantages. But it is important to mention that the answer for the question "Is the European Union favourable for Hungary?" in overwhelming majority is "Yes!".

After the case of the Sargentini Report, people started to recognise the main problems and unsubstantiated criticism Hungary has to face.

Brussels and the opposition parties in the European Parliament are trying to prove their right on cases they are not familiar with. These unfortunate events and cases are greatly affecting the public opinion among Hungarian people.

CONCLUSION

In Hungary the European Parliamentary elections are a protest vote like in most of the member states. The main cause is that it is always dated almost right after the National elections and therefore the people are feeling the need to show off their counter-arguments against the actual governmental forces. Hopefully voters will understand - not just in Hungary - the importance of this election: the next 5 years of our common future with or without migrants, common values, growing economy and the possibility of increasing the standard of living for every person within the EU.

Benita Czirkl

The official magazine of European Democrat Students

17

Romania – An Unpredictable Future?

The past few months in Romanian politics were very intense and also disturbing. Many things happened starting with mass protests and finishing with a resolution in the European Parliament. Let’s take things one by one.

The 10 August incidents were also followed with concern by Romania’s external partners and the European Parliament announced it would discuss the situation in Romania in a plenary session at the beginning of October.

A protest organized by Romanians abroad in Bucharest on 10 August ended after a brutal intervention of the riot police and gendarmes were filmed spraying tear gas at the crowd and assaulting peaceful protesters and journalists. Liviu Dragnea and interior minister Carmen Dan claimed that the gendarmes’ intervention was legal and the Gendarmerie even notified the prosecutors that the 10 August protests were actually an attempted coup. However, other state institutions denied this hypothesis.

According to the draft resolution, the EP is urging Romania’s Parliament and Government to fully enforce all the European Commission’s recommendations, as well as the ones of GRECO and the Venice Commission and to refrain from any reform that would jeopardise the observance of the rule of law, including the independence of the judiciary system.

The leader of the Social Democratic Party (PSD), Liviu Dragnea, was heard as a witness in a case related to the violent incidents during the 10 August protest in Bucharest’s Victoriei Square.

The General Prosecutor’s Office called Dragnea to hearings, after the PSD leader claimed on several occasions that the August 10 protest was an attempted coup. Mr. Dragnea also said that the anti-government protest on August 10 was financed by external forces, without presenting any proof to back his statement.

Hours before Liviu Dragnea went to talk to the prosecutors, the Judicial Inspection apparently went to control the military prosecutors investigating the 10 August incidents, according to sources within the institution.

The resolution is recording the European Parliament’s concern over the criminal and legal legislation in Romania that could undermine the independence of the judiciary system and anti-corruption fight.

The non-legislative resolution is summarising the Parliament’s views following the debate with Romanian Prime Minister Viorica Dăncilă on 3 October on the revamp of the judicial system, which sparked mass protests in Romania earlier this year.

Reactions towards the resolution came immediately. First Romanian prime minister Viorica Dancila, seen as a puppet acting on behalf of Social Democratic Party (PSD) leader Liviu Dragnea, called two key positions of the European Parliament and the European Commission on Romania as "deeply unjust" and "eminently political".

In an interview PM Dancila called an EP resolution on rule of law in Romania as "eminently political and baseless". And she defended the Romanian riot police, which was criticised in the EP resolution for its violent actions against protesters during demonstra-

tions in Bucharest on 10 August.

She also called a report on judicial reform in Romania, presented by the European Commission and highly critical of the actions of the governing coalition, to be "deeply unjust". She said it was "unacceptable to be requested to suspend certain procedures. I find it outrageous. I demand equal treatment and respect for Romanians".

She also rejected a proposal made by Finland that they take over the presidency of the EU Council earlier, in case Romania demands so.

Finland made the offer after Romanian President Klaus Iohannis raised doubts about the readiness of PM Dancila's cabinet for the EU job starting on 1 January.

The PM of Romania was "fully ready" for the EU Council presidency, with a "well prepared government" and "an army of professionals" who have "concluded the scheduling for the whole set of actions".

She accused President Iohannis of "willing to overthrow a legitimate government at any price, as he wants anarchy".​ So, as a conclusion, it is very difficult to predict to political future of the country. President Klaus Iohannis and the Opposition is calling for the Dancila Cabinet to step down, the ruling party PSD is governing for its own benefit and not listening to anyone. It is a challenge to predict how the EP elections result will turn out due to the current political situation; the Government is revoking ministers; the Opposition will make steps for a non-confidence vote against PM Dancila and its Cabinet. 1 January is right around the corner and it will be interesting to see how Romania will take over the EU Presidency.

Robert Kiss

18

BullsEye

The current prime minister of Armenia, elected in a result of mass pressure on members of Armenian parliament, initiates early elections. The newly elected prime minister decided to ensure the long-term power for him, and again forces the parliament to act according to his will. After his resignation all political parties that have representation in the Armenian parliament were forced not to nominate any candidate for PM. As a result, Armenian parliament was dissolve by law. The early elections of the National Assembly will be held on 9 December.

Regular life in a country is based on different components that are merged into one unit. One of those numerous components is the stable political life. The credibility of the decisions that will lead the country in the nearest future may provide stability in political life. Political stability is the credibility of processes. The main activity of political life is the necessity of forming political arena.

And for future development of democracy, the legislation stated the provisions of electoral terms. The terms should be assertive, without any connection to subjective and evaluating factors. It is very important to be able to face many challenges and risks of authoritarian transformation to maintain democratic values. The main risks that Armenian political life is now facing is the possibility of paving the way of elections. From the first sight, it only affects the political parties and is about political decisions. But deepening into the facts, it is clear that it also reflects the rule of law, the independence of the judiciary, the protection of human rights, the freedom of media. The timing is also important in the fact of providing an equal and legal basis for elections.

Steps that the PM is regularly taking are the attempts of adopting monopoly power. One of the evidence is an atmosphere of unprecedented pressure on Members of Parliament and local government leaders that were formed in the country. The wave of political pressure gained its logical development during the Yerevan city council election campaign (2018 October), when the Prime Minister’s bloc openly spoke to the public about dividing as theirs and foreigners.

The latest development in the political life of Armenia is a matter of concern. Lawyers, politicians, ordinary citizens, experts in the field of Constitutional regulations and foreign experts are strongly interested in these processes.

•

Full violation of political dialogue appears in various approaches during eight months of PM’s governing.

The time flows, and the circumstances are changing. To keep himself in power current prime minister decided to hold early elections which will guarantee him more comfortable environment not only in the government office but also in the parliament.

Decreasing the mechanisms of checks and balances he is planning to minimize the possible resignation process. The opinions that differ from this viewpoint is discursively eliminating with following mechanisms.

In order to frighten the political opponents at the PM level, law enforcement officials were given public orders for the use of rough force, ignoring the legitimate requirement of the necessity and

proportionality of the use of force.

•

An attempt is made to take full control of the media field. Self-censorship was imposed on the mass media through unclear threats.

•

Among other public statements, the PM went as far as announcing that “Some TV companies and press offices enjoy unrestricted freedom of speech, decided to carry out anti-propaganda…”.

Political developments must have solid ground and will lead to a stronger democracy. The importance of equality of candidates for all political forces engaged in the competition needed to be emphasised. Armenian authorities viewed early elections as a tool for keeping the power in their hands.

The negative effect of this perception will be noticeable in the nearest future.

Armenia needs a stable political arena, by forming a strong political system, which includes both strong opposition and strong ruling bodies. Without investing artificial mechanisms, free and fair elections, are the key to the successful development of a democratic society.

Anna Mkrtchyan

The official magazine of European Democrat Students

19

Artificial intelligence: more risks than benefits?

Artificial intelligence is about predicting the future. Algorithms are used to detect patterns within vast amounts of data, measuring the outcomes of a given action. This technique is becoming less expensive and infiltrating more and more aspects of life, with many yet to come. There is no way to be certain about the exact risks and benefits of AI due to it being in its developmental stages. Yet, there is little doubt that AI will dramatically impact individuals, industries, and entire societies. It has been compared to the discovery of fire, the printing press, electricity, oil and even been deemed ‘a new deity’. The various opinions on AI put forward by scientists, entrepreneurs, philosophers-- from the utopian to the dystopian-- reflect ways in which AI can be used. Pretty much any forecast could turn out true. But as of 2018, the race for AI carries more risks than benefits.

The very term artificial ‘intelligence’ is problematic. Aristotle distinguished between five types of intelligence, which include not just knowledge and practical reasoning but also other intellectual virtues such as wisdom and common sense. Yet AI represents just one facet of intelligence. Today, the technology is mostly used as an instrument to enhance control and productivity. It allows supervisors to collect information on how employees spend their time on the computer, how fast they move about, to whom they talk and check whether they are following proper safety protocols. If the constant surveillance on an individual’s productivity ultimately violates their privacy, is it still worth it?

The risk is that AI development moves for-

20

ward simply because the term ‘intelligence’ sounds good, but does so at the detriment of emotional intelligence, or common sense.

AI, after all, generates information, which is distinct from knowledge, wisdom or culture.

Applying AI’s reductive approach of ‘intelligence’ to the judiciary system, for example, is risky because it is based on a logic that negates the presumption of innocence. AI might help in the understanding of patterns in who commits crimes and the reasons for them. Yet by making predictions, this logic pushes us into a Minority Report scenario, whereby potential criminals are arrested before they commit the crime.

Further, AI is potentially opposed to the logic underpinning capitalism. Capitalism is based on the assumption that individuals have free will, allowing them to make the best economic decisions. Yet as the historian Yuval Harari argues, computers already ‘know’ their users better than they know themselves. Today, Amazon uses algorithms to bombard buyers with advertisements for products they ‘think’ they need, while Facebook tailors its content to keep people hooked. Is the individual still free to make his or her own choices?

In two ways, AI also carries risks for democracy. This first involves Facebook and how it targets users by presenting them with advertisements aimed at changing their political views.

The second is that AI impoverishes the role of the citizen. As it is based on algorithms, AI presents itself as infallible, but calculations cannot explain the complexity of human societies. Numbers can potentially

dictate the most efficient policies and predict their outcomes. Yet governance in a democratic society emanates from debate and contradiction, not solely from crunching numbers. AI promises to eliminate all imperfections and inefficiencies, ultimately solving all problems. This objective is misleading, because it discounts human solutions through values and morals. In such a technocracy, people lose all agency, unable to understand how the machine got to its conclusion and powerless to act upon it. If numbers are the highest source of authority, what will be left of human togetherness, and moral values, in all their irrationality and contradictions?

A combination of all these risks is already visible in China, where the full potential of AI is harnessed to enhance social control. China rates its citizens, giving them points based on data collected from them. This allows the government to predict and influence the behavior of Chinese citizens. Those who are thought to – even slightly – misbehave, lose points, making it more difficult to access higher education, to purchase cheap plane tickets, etc. As more services become accessible only through the web, it becomes impossible to escape this control mechanism. One core problem of communist centralised planning was that the industry was inefficient and another that dissidents found cracks in the system to express and inform themselves. AI solves these problems, bringing surveillance to a whole new level.

The risk of a slide into a sophisticated totalitarianism is also present in the West. For

BullsEye

example Google’s explicit ambition is to ‘improve the human being’. Indubitably, search engines make our lives easier; all information is one click away and communication has never been more efficient. Yet, this ambition is dangerous because it is a commentary on what it is to be ‘a good human being’. It is a paradigm of efficiency, speed and logic, but not everything can be framed in these terms, specifically human relationships or civic engagement. Quantity and productivity do not apply to most aspects of human intelligence.

A look at the trailblazers who are developing AI does nothing to assuage concerns. Many, like Ray Kurzweil, Peter Thiel or Anthony Levandowsky, religiously believe that machines will soon surpass humans in intelligence, by triggering exponential technological growth that could radically modify our civilisation. The view that humanity will soon be obsolete, and the fact that many brilliant minds are siding with robots is deeply disturbing.

Paradoxically, Silicon Valley executives often place their kids in cell phone-free schools, as if admitting the hazards brought by their industry. Throughout 2017, several ex-cadres of tech companies publicly criticised their former employers, recognising that social media fosters shallow relationships and leads users, especially teenagers, to constantly seek validation from others leaving them psychologically vulnerable. Many regret having helped build

such machines. This begs the question: how are we to trust AI if we cannot trust those who develop it?

As Harari also argues, history is full of examples in which small, organized groups of determined experts with specific views of how the future should look brought tremendous change into the world, for better or worse. If the public does not realise the magnitude of the changes to come, it is at risk of losing the power to shape how the technology is used.

AI is at the heart of the new arms race.

Recently, Russian President Vladimir Putin discussed the importance of AI, he said “[a]rtificial Intelligence is the future not only of Russia but of all mankind…

Whoever becomes the leader in this sphere will become the ruler of the world”. Elon Musk believes AI is likely to be the cause for WWIII. The destructive potential of AI has been compared to that of nuclear weapons, a main difference being that AI permeates through society. Peter W. Singer, an expert on modern warfare at Brookings, believes that ‘transition periods’, when the technology is first developed, are the most dangerous times because pioneers want to exploit their comparative advantage.

Compared to these risks, the potential benefits of AI are meagre, but they exist. It can help

us understand our increasingly complex world and tackle the immense challenges of pollution, global warming, rising inequality, and an unstable international arena. Information is crucial when trying to understand these problems and attempting to prevent them. AI has a role assisting lean companies to limit waste, redundancies and fight pollution. It could also empower the individual, helping to track one’s own behaviour or to get personalised advice. Technology is full of promises if it is put at the service of the individual, handing him control over how data is used. In the hands of creative, ecological-minded and humanist people, AI can help to make the world fairer and cleaner.

Yet as it stands today, AI is a pioneering technology with a backward-looking mentality. At a time when our societies are heading towards ecological disaster, AI is mainly seen as a tool to enhance productivity, extracting more value out of nature, people and time. AI offers to calculate without limits, to expand control while, faced with more modest lifestyles, we need restraint and humility. Contemporary challenges require more than the calculating type of intelligence. The same goes for its application to social control and armament in times of rising inequality and international instability. AI by itself tells us nothing, but the conditions of its birth do.

Oscar Janssens de Bisthoven

The official magazine of European Democrat Students

21

Sexual harassment: shall we stop it?

Sexual scandals have always been one of the most powerful ways of discrediting someone’s reputation, especially in politics. People have always found it dutiful to judge what happens in the private life of others, especially if with “others” one means famous people. The issue, however, becomes particularly delicate when it comes to deciding if what a politician does with his/her private life should matter for what he/she does in politics. As a matter of fact, if a politician is unfaithful with his wife it should not concern us, rather we should focus on what he is doing in politics, if he is respecting his promises, representing our country and our interests appropriately. Therefore, when talking about individuals such as the former UK Secretary of State, Boris Johnson, one should not deal with his unfaithfulness to his wife, but rather look at his political opinions and actions.

However, with sexual harassment and – more in general – the sexual misconduct it is a different matter. To this regard, Weinstein’s case is of particular relevance. It is so, not only because it represented a “breaking the silence” precedent about an issue that has always been of common knowledge in the Hollywood industry, but also because it became paradigmatic of a mechanism that has existed for a very long time, so long that scholars and researchers find it difficult to frame it into a speci-

fied period in the history of humankind: The paradigm of how a powerful man abuses his position for a purpose of the lowest form. Weinstein’s case represents a historical precedent, it opened up the door for women to have the courage to tell the truth (hopefully) without fearing retaliation, even in the powerful and untouchable world of politics.

Another important precedent on this matter was set by the case of Anita Hill, who denounced, back in 1991, the candidate to the US Court of Justice, Clarence Thomas. Even though Thomas was nominated, the case opened up a debate about sexual harassment, and more specifically about sexual misconduct in the workplace. Later on, another candidate to the Court of Justice, Brett Kavanaugh is facing similar allegations while Westminster too is facing accusation of sexual harassment, as suggested by a report published at the beginning of the year.

The recent scandals are, however, confirming that a new era has begun, where the attitude towards sexual harassment allegations is changing. It states that sexual harassment is a serious issue, and the time has come for public institutions, and especially Europe, to address it adequately.

However, reality is that when it comes to preventing and dealing with sexual misconducts in public bodies, most of the good practices for tackling these issue are

promoted by US or Canadian bodies.

Europe could do more and find the way to address the issue in a more effective way. It is not only about promoting targeted campaigns - which already would be a great thing - but it is about reinforcing national and European legislations on this topic. The starting point could be to agree on two principle: People who have been condemned for sexual harassment should not cover public offices; and an independent commission dealing with such grievances is highly required and should be established, both at the European and national level.

In conclusion, Europe should send out a clear message: you cannot touch a woman or a man without her/his permission, and the law must guarantee this principle effectively.

Fortunately, the tide is already turning somewhere in Europe. In France, for instance, a new law against street harassment has been introduced, which includes a fine between 300 and 750 euros, and it has already been applied. Other European countries are following this example.

However, political and social prevention and awareness are key in making the change real, and this is why the European Union should lead the way on this matter more decisively.

Valentina Podestà

22

BullsEye

Is there a life after QE – The upcoming new ECB policy At the end of October 2018, at a press conference, following a meeting of the Governing Council of the ECB, Mario Draghi assured all participants that the risks were balanced and that there is no reason to abandon the original plan that foresees the abolition of existing stimulus for the European economy in the form of quantitative easing (QE).

In 2012, Draghi vowed to do “whatever it takes� to safeguard the euro after bond spreads surge and in June 2014, the ECB become the first major central bank to cut interest rates below zero. As a result, banks were offered targeted long-term loans to boost credit. The new management of the ECB started implementing the policy well know in the U.S. as QE. The assumption of such policy is that it will bring economic growth by making it easier for businesses to borrow money.

In 2015, the European Central Bank started asset purchases followed by negative interest rates and cheap loans. The main goal of such a policy was to stimulate the economy and increase liquidity.

By the end of 2018, the program will be valued at more than 250 billion euros.

At the beginning of the implementation of such a policy, numerous commentators started discussing whether that quantitative easing should be applied in the first

place. One them is American economist John Taylor who believes that quantitative easing creates unpredictability. Many investors feared that QE would cause runaway prices, but inflation has remained stubbornly low both in the U.S. and in the Eurozone.

Besides keeping inflation below two percent, the main goal of the ECB Members of the Governing Council is to follow indicators of the economy such as consumption and investments. Both of those two are looking pretty strong. On the consumption side, there is an expanding of the labor market and rising wages, as well as investments. In response to a question at a press conference, Mr. Draghi once again underlined that the main job of ECB is to maintain stability of inflation and that the European Commission and national states should take care of fiscal policy, job, and economic growth. He also stressed that members of the Council take into account all potential risks that are present on the market. The ECB is convinced that indicators are good and the risks to economic growth are broadly balanced so the plan to stop the expanded asset purchase programme (APP) is justified. They are confident that inflation in the Eurozone is on track to reach its goal and the ECB would keep the main refinancing rate unchanged at zero percent during 2019.

The main risks to the eurozone economy are the unpredictable effects of the Italian national budget, Brexit and trade wars.

Italy is breaching EU budget rules, but Mr. Draghi is confident in reaching an agreement on Italy and those spillovers from Italy are limited so far. Brexit and trade wars, especially between the U.S. and China are closely monitored but that is not reason enough for the ECB not to stick to plans to end stimulus.

Political influence on both sides of the Atlantic is on the rise. More and more, governments in the eurozone are fans of the stimulants and want to keep up with it.

ECB independence is very important so they can implement responsible measures.

Answers to the question of how to have higher inclusive growth in the EU, as some states and regions are less developed than others, can be found primarily in national policies. A mandate of the central bank is price stability, not financing the budget deficit. The Union will remain fragile if it's not completed. The Eurozone needs the banking union, capital market union and euro area fiscal capacity to be completed but it would require enormous political will. Until then, we should protect its independence.

Vladimir Milic

The official magazine of European Democrat Students

23

Facts – the Existential Struggle Over a Fundamental Concept The first reaction to the word fact is very homogeneous.

Facts are the things that are considered to be proven or to be true. It is always difficult to define, what is a fact and what is not. How do opinions and facts interrelate?

The information we offer is not always concrete, proved or verified with evidence. It is subjective and may differ according to different people. Very often opinion is used instead of facts. Sometimes it is on purpose, sometimes not. But the influence of the facts and opinions are very much close to each other. The issue is to minimize the evaluative part of it.

Facts. The things that need to be taken into consideration. We live in an era where facts are not always presented as they are. On the contrary; they are very often manipulated by different groups. The content of manipulation is very varied depending on the narrow ambitions and goals of the current group. To consider the existing reality as normal will be difficult enough, anyhow, ignoring the reality is not a solution we are looking for.

So, why are facts so important.

If we generally make a conclusion, we will claim that the facts are the means of evidence that always lead to an answer. The answer or opinion is formulated due to the facts.

This is unquestionable. The quality of facts is always a matter of concern. It depends on how the facts are presented, those can have the desirable conclusions.

The question is – Is this answer always being correct, objective, or it was guided.

24

In this digital era, sharing facts become much easier and faster. The minimum time is necessary to get acknowledgement to the facts you need. But the decision is still yours to make if the facts you found are reliable. You have to realise: do they have meaning, value, purpose, etc.

The research of facts are questionable and may give little understanding of the main process or phenomena. Using facts as an art for various purposes is not new. In different fields of activities, from medicine to migration, from immaterial values to economics, from relations to politics. But one thing is still the same: the notion that the goal is justifying the efforts. In many cases when someone needs to misuse the facts to overcome the existing obstacles, I believe he/she will do it.

Very often the state provides authority facts. Unfortunately sometimes it is also questionable. We cannot surely rely on it and accept it as an absolute truth.

In modern days reality is multilevel. In the age of communicative abundance, facts are multiple and mutable. What counts as “facts” or “evidence” are less and less understood by the general public. An example may be Tweets that Donald Trump made on 2nd of July 2017.

It states that the use of social media is not presidential. It’s MODERN PRESIDENTIAL. Is it a fact, opinion, reality or lie? The answer may differ based on consequences but the only thing we could claim is that the President very often uses his social media accounts for political messages etc.

We highlighted two sources of the way facts are being manipulated.

One is the way of covering it with nice lace or illusions. To hope that people will not get the main idea, but you provided with the fact. The ways of reaching these goals are different. For example, to make a good impression, to make the presents feel comfortable and in the center of attention and the process. It means

BullsEye

to use every possible trick to deflect the attention from the main points.

Desirable effect might be reached with the help of using understandable phrases and words on the first sight. The more confident you look and sound, the more you succeed.

President Trump is one who uses the above-mentioned technique very successfully. Students from different universities of the United States mathematically analysed the speeches that President delivered in different time periods. The study showed that he uses very short sentences and simple words and that fact had its effect on the way citizens had voted for him. Another vivid example of this style on behalf of the 45th President of the United States is that his speeches are always based on generating good feelings for the target group.

There are still people who don’t undergo this influence and remain unaffected. In this case this group faces some portion of artificial aggression remaining alienated.

The second way of manipulating facts are less democratic but still, time shows that it works. The facts are still misused by you, but you are revealed. So, the only means that might help is to use the power and to veer the notion. One of the ways may be hate speech. Throwing in the necessary facts and the imaginary causes at once. This option has two sides. On the one hand a large group is satisfied with the imaginary causes, on the other hand, another group wonders and learns other opinions and other approaches to the relevant issue.

People tend to concentrate on the imaginary cause, because it is

packed and served interestingly and attracts more. The other part of the society who still are interested in facts have to be given the necessary amount of hate speech to make their voices not heard at all.

The interpretation of facts may be far from being true and may not even exist at all.

There is plenty of rough speech.

People face both sweet words and smiles. Be conscious because it is the only visible way to make the right conclusion.

Nevertheless, everybody has to remember that the clear definition of what is right what is wrong does not exist at all.

Anna Mkrtchyan

The official magazine of European Democrat Students

25

The Myth of Free Admission and Access to University

Limited numbers of places, combined with admission procedures and University fees are the reality in most European countries. While some of them decided to get rid of the fees, the restrictions are still undisputed. Although the restrictions are not centrally regulated, it is mostly the University’s own decision on how many students they let enroll their courses.

The discussion about free admission to universities can be an intense and often ideological one. Fighters in favor of it claim that every restriction, whether it is money or a restrictive test, is something that will undoubtedly end in social selection. Whereas the ones in favour mostly see the inferior quality of lecture content and the overcrowded lecture halls.

OVERVIEW IN EUROPE

Restrictive exams, numerus clausus, study interviews: The admission regulations to universities in Europe are very different from country to country. Here is a quick overview on the various methods to become a student at a certain university.

GERMANY

Germany is known for its system called „Numerus Clausus“ in which students need the right grades on their „Abitur“ to get into university.

There are restrictions in the most popular studies such as Biology, Medicine, Psychology, etc. Furthermore, universities are able to find regional solutions to implement the system. The grades are not the only assessment criteria. The “Numerus Clausus” is often enlarged by various other admission restrictions such as motivational letters, personal interviews or restrictions tests.

FRANCE

A new law in France aimed to make public universities more competitive and therefore gives them the autonomy to select - and reject - applicants for the first time

26

in about 200 years. Like in Austria, essentially any French student looking to attend public university in France could sign up for admission, as long as they passed their high school baccalaureate exam. It is a process that has been in place since the time of Napoleon. Yet France’s publicly accessible higher education has come at a high price for the government, as for years it has dealt with overcrowded lectures and high dropout rates. Only 40 percent of public University students make it past the first year.

AUSTRIA

Austria is still holding on to the very socialist influence on the concept of free University access just like France, although more and more studies implement a restrictions exam.

One of the evaluation criteria whether a university should implement restrictions is supervisory relationship. How the restriction should look like is the Universities decision, but they need to secure that the supervisory relationship does not exceed one professor per 40 students.

GREAT BRITAIN

In Great Britain a student needs to decide even before taking their A-levels, what they want to study and which five universities they would like to attend. It is then again the job of the University to decide on what the restriction exam should look like. Great Britain has, compared to other European countries, a very strict system. To enroll into the different studies you want to is not that easy. With respect to University rankings, Great Britain is ever since leading in Europe, which is attributable to their aforementioned rather strict system.

THE ONGOING DISCUSSION ON THIS TOPIC

The argument is very often against restriction in any way, so either a test or fee. Involved people claim that mostly students with parents who have an academic background or earn more money than average are able to study. Numbers actually do underline their point - if your parents were lucky and got an academic education, you are more likely to study whatever you want as well.

BullsEye

WHY ARE WE TALKING ABOUT RESTRICTIONS THEN?

MONEY MAKES THE UNIVERSITY GO AROUND

Behind the idea of free admission nowadays, there often lies a hidden paradox. If you argue that it is socially selective to pay fees or take a test to get into a University, then take a closer look on the results without any restrictions. In very common studies such as law, economics or medicine, the number of people who want to study it is tremendous. The results, if there is no restriction at the beginning, is most of the time bad quality of lectures, knock-out exams or simply no space. Especially knock-out exams and the lack of study places makes it impossible to study within minimum duration of study. The numbers of students are constantly growing although the numbers of graduates remain static.

Another thing that is often missed out is the scholarship system in which someone who is not as financially secured as others, is able to study through the help of a scholarship.

The problem is that this is often connected to a good performance.

This often results in a case, where students cannot really rely on financial aid, since they do not even know if they can get into the lecture which they need in order to get it.

Do you see the paradox here? The discussion is held on two different problems basically: One sees the problem within the system and wants a solution by implementing exams at the beginning in order to guarantee those who got accepted the best education possible. The others are not really talking about the consequences of not having overcrowded studies instead of simply judging restrictions for students without letting them try out, and claiming that restrictions in any way leads to an academic elite.

Which means that in order to get financial aid you have to perform well which is not really secured if you are in an overcrowded university which is selecting students namely through exams.

If a restriction exam therefore secures you a student friendly environment with a well-financed scholarship-system, then how is it more social selective than the other one?

Well, one would argue, that the state simply needs to put more money into the tertiary education in order to handle the amount of students without a significant loss of quality.

The state responded in some countries in the EU with study fees, which mostly result in less students willing to study, because they simply could not afford it. 500 € per semester might not shock everyone; but one must always have in mind, that living as a student, which means you do not have an income, is not cheap in general.

Living in European cities, where most of our Universities are located, it is getting more and more expensive. Having on top of that a fee to pay is really something that ends in social selection.

Especially because paying fees in a small amount would be crumbs compared to the problems a University is facing with overcrowded studies.

WHY AREN’T WE THINKING OUTSIDE THE BOX?

There is no easy answer to these problems the tertiary education sector is facing and will be facing in the future. Especially since there are so many discussions going on which are not discussed pragmatically rather than ideologically.

An increasing number of young citizens feel the pressure to get an academic degree in order to be successful, which leads to the question; what do our Universities actually stand for?

Maybe in order to solve the student overflow and resulting discussions about admission restrictions, we need to think outside the box.

Is it the University’s mission to build an academic scientific elite or shall it be the new way of professional training?

Because maybe, we would not need to discuss all these things if a Bachelor’s degree would not be held as the new High School Certificate.

As important as education is, maybe we should redefine the actual meaning our universities have economically and socially speaking.

Sabine Hanger

The official magazine of European Democrat Students

27

Should a university link its studies to economical needs?

The plan of the Hungarian government to ban gender studies has caused a stir all over Europe. Outlawing universities to offer a certain degree does not only sound irritating for many young people, but Hungary would be the first EU member state ever who did this. However, aren’t regulations and limitations of students within studies requested and a day-to-day procedure? Economic reasons for governments to intervene in higher education and differences between the regulation and the discrimination of degrees need to be discussed.

As mentioned above, Hungary would be the first EU country to have barred their universities from issuing degrees in a specific subject if the law passes the Hungarian Parliament. The cut of academic independence does not please the Central European University (CEU) and the Eötvös Loránd University (ELTE), which happen to be the only two universities in Hungary that have been offering a masters degree in gender studies. Especially ELTE feels like the government tries to nip their academic program in the bud, this because the university has started their gender study program only last year and therefore have not had the chance to instruct any graduates yet. However, CEU has educated over 120 young graduates in the past few years. This is not enough, according to Bence Rétvári, the state secretary of Hungary. He claims that there are not enough people interested in the degree itself and furthermore, there is no demand for employees who graduated in gender studies.

HOW DOES THE ECONOMY BENEFIT FROM REGULATIONS?

While disregarding if Hungary’s decision was linked with their cultural policy; a first view on cutting resources on specific studies in general shall be made. Thinking economically while deciding whether to cut resources or trying to offer a certain degree to as many students as possible is rather intelligent and important. On the one hand, there are business sectors which constantly need many highly educated graduates. On the other hand, of course, there are sectors which do not appreciate a high demand on experts. To guarantee that not too many young people start a degree which will lead them to not finding a job afterwards, governments regulate the

28

number of seats offered within a study, as well as the financial support for a certain degree.

To avoid capacity constrains during the studies, states try to regulate the number of students with diverse admission procedures before the degree starts. This process is common in many countries and may guarantee that only qualified people, who are most likely to finish their degrees successfully, get a seat. Even more, due to a lack of further trainee positions, many studies such as psychology or medicine have been regulated all over Europe for years. Whenever the economic situation changes, regulations will be adjusted and more places might be offered. Universities have the right to be performance-based and selective because it would not be economically efficient to hand a degree to as many people who desire a career within a certain business sector as possible. The lack of jobs offered after studies might cause an enormous amount of youth unemployment, which would not be influencing the economy positively at all. Still, if a student wanted to start a specific study, he or she would get a chance to. Cutting resources does not mean you ban a degree at all. This is the huge difference between the worldwide procedure of study entrance restrictions and an elimination of a degree at public universities.

BullsEye

THE DEMAND OF CERTAIN GRADUATES IS A RELEVANT FACTOR

The government tried to explain their reasons for stopping the state’s financial support, by excusing the ban of gender studies with a lack of demand for people with a “gender study” degree. However, there was one thing they had not reckoned with and it is called basic economics. They are what makes the Hungarian government’s decision questionable. The balance of demand and supply is the reason for many regulations and access restrictions for studies. Nevertheless, they are not permanent and change year by year. Basic economics show us that the economy of a country can be understood as a dynamic system, not a static fact. This means that the demand for specific professionals required may be dynamic as well. A general ban of a degree would therefore mean that there would never be a demand for professionals within this field again. Moreover, who has the knowledge to decide which kind of worldwide-admitted science will be requested or not?

WHAT IS THE REAL DEAL BEHIND THE BAN OF A STUDY? A CAUSE FOR THOUGHT.

If we took a step back to look at studies in general, the decision to bar universities from issuing degrees in specific subjects seems rather more socio-political than economical. Whenever students decide to start a certain study, they get themselves into a topic. A process of critical thinking about a subject starts and students get to experience, learn, understand and question all facets of it. A degree which does not please the government at all seems not worth thinking about. Even more, it may be dangerous for political stability, if a subject taught young people to get deeper into a topic which had been successfully avoided so far. Before it could even be possible for a student to question political decisions due to their contradictions with the input gained within their studies, it is safer to ban the degree, before the process of questioning starts, and before the knowledge would be profound enough to

ask these questions. Moreover, just before people could even notice that there was a different point of view. Interdicting a study, therefore, may be seen as a preemptive action to keep young people from seeing alternatives from a certain norm.

THE DANGEROUS RESTRICTION OF THOUGHTS

A government has the opportunity to influence the framework setting of science.

Of course, research results cannot be influenced, but if researchers such as genderologists are not even trained questionable studies can be avoided. A study that primarily qualifies researchers and scientists influences economics less than science.

By considering this fact, intensions to ban a degree, which aspires young people to find a career within science, may seem like a constraint of independence in science.

Decisions like that are likely to be interpreted as a wider campaign against those who are opposed to the government’s socially conservative policies. Politicizing scientific research can damage cross-border projects and might end in a loss of European educational funds. A closure with science will cause sustainable damage to a country's development, which should not be desirable for a country which is part of the European Union.

To sum up, it can be said that the decision of banning a field of study may be interpreted as symbolic move to expose a government’s opinion on scientific circumstances. Due to the fact that only around 10 to 20 students graduate in gender studies every year, only few actual students are involved. The arbitrary decision to stop offering a certain study because there barely was any demand for graduates on the job market seems ridiculous, if we faced the fact that barley any students decide to get a degree anyway. However, an announcement like this grabs the attention of people all over the country and shows them the power of the government.

It is now the European Union’s part to upbraid countries which use their socio-political program to endanger independence in science and studies.

Johanna Gruber

The official magazine of European Democrat Students

29

EDITORIAL TEAM 2018/19

Julien Sassel (28) is a Belgian and Italian dual citizen and has been an active member in EDS since 2012.

He has a Master in International Relations from the Université Catholique de Louvain and a MA in EU International Relations and Diplomacy Studies at the College of Europe, in Bruges.

Johannes Bürgin (21) is a German student from the city of Nuremberg.

He is member of the committee for international relations of the country’s biggest political student organization, RCDS. He is currently studying International Business Studies B.A at Friedrich-Alexander University.

Mattia Caniglia (30) has a Master in Strategic Studies and years of experience in international organisations that gave him knowledge of global geopolitics and economics. He is currently collaborating as a political and economic analyst with media like Foreign Policy, Fortune China and The Guardian.

Santiago de la Presilla (23) is a journalist and communications adviser with a focus on Russia, European affairs and finance. He previously worked for the American Chamber of Commerce and is now the Warsaw correspondent for Visegrad Insight.

Elie Joe Dergham (27) is a Lebanese and Canadian dual citizen and has been an active member in EDS since 2015. He has a Bachelor Degree in Banking and Finance from the Notre Dame University - Lebanon and is a certified anti money laundering specialist (CAMS).

Beppe Galea (22) lives in Gozo, Malta and is a European Studies graduate from the University of Malta. He served as Vice Chairman of European Democrat Students during the working year 2017/2018.

He is currently the Deputy News Manager of the church media organisation Newsbook.com.mt.

Johanna-Barbara Gruber (21) was born in Austria and is currently finishing her studies in business economics at the University of Economics in Vienna. She has been writing for student’s newspapers since her first semester. Her academic interest lies in gender studies and diversity management.

Sabine Hanger (22) studies Law in Vienna. Becoming member of the Aktionsgemeinschaft in 2016, she got elected 2017 to be the Chairwoman of AG Jus, offering a situation in which she is confronted with responsibility and political sensitiveness, but also opportunities to work with various people.

Desislava Kemalova (26) is from Bulgaria. She is currently doing a PhD in Law in Sofia University where she also teaches the discipline. She has work experience as a government official, and currently legal consulting. She has been active in EDS since 2015 and served as a co-chair of EU’19 WG.

30

Vladimir Milic (28) has a BA in International Economics and Finance. He is currently working for a cultural centre in Belgrade, Serbia. He considers EDS as a platform on which to discuss issues on Europe's future. He is a supporter of EU integration interested in the future of EU – China relations.

Anna Mkrtchyan (24) is Armenian, and is an member in YRPA. She has a Master in Law and is in the first year of a Ph.D. course. She has been a member of Yerevan city council for a year. She is a legal adviser of the legal department of the National Assembly of Ar menia.

BullsEye

EXECUTIVE BUREAU 2018/19

Virgilio Falco (28) is EDS Chairman.

Graduated in Law and as a president of the Italian association StudiCentro, he worked on writing the reform of the school system in Italy. He has working experiences at the Italian Parliament and in private universities. He writes for the newspaper Il Foglio.

Sara Juriks (23) is from Oslo, Norway. She has a BA in Music, an MA in Politics and is currently studying Anthropology.

She has been active in politics since 2011, both nationally in Høyres Studenter and then in EDS since 2014. Currently she is the Secretary General of EDS.

Hubert Tadych (24) pursued a Master of Laws degree in Poland. He used to work not only as a paralegal, but also as an assistant to an MP and as a communication manager to the party.

A former Co-Chair and now with-in the bureau he is responsible for the communications and the EU Elections.

He also serves the EPP Group.

Tommi Pyykkö (29) lives in Helsinki, Finland. Newly graduated from the University of Helsinki, where he studied French, Europe-an Studies and Political Science. Currently in the bureau he is the Vice-Chairman responsible for pub-lications (BullsEye and the Annual Report) and he also runs the website.

Pantelis A. Poetis (24), from Cyprus is a Vice Chairman of EDS. He studied Law and International Relations - Global Political Economy at Middlesex University London. Pantelis holds the portfolios of Statutory Amendments, Member-Organisations and Website. He works at Dr Andreas P. Poetis LLC Legal Firm.

Gergely Losonci (26) is a Hungarian MBA student at Corvinus University of Budapest. He holds Bachelor degrees in Business & Management and Finance. Gergely worked in the European Parlia-ment and currently works as a business consultant in Budapest. As EDS VC he is responsible for the EU 2019 Elections and the 2018 EPP Congress.

Carlo Giacomo Angrisano Girau-ta (21) is an ESADE Law and Global Governance student. He is currently the International Secretary of NNGG (Spain). As EDS Vice Chairman his responsibilities consists of writing event reports and newsletters, as well as being responsible for Latin American relations.

Robert Kiss (29) lives and works in Sfan-tu Gheorghe, Romania. He holds a BA in Business & Management from Corvinus University of Budapest, and a Msc in Economy & Tourism. Currently he is doing his PhD in Economics. He is active in EDS since 2014. As Vice-Chairman he is responsible for the Permanent Working Groups and the Conference Resolutions.

Boyana Taneva (25) MGERB Bulgaria. She served as a Co-Chair of the Policies for Europe Working Group during 2017/2018 year.

Boyana was elected as Vice-Chairwoman of EDS in 2018. Currently, within the Executive Bureau she is responsible for communication, social media and event reports.

Zeger Saerens (23) is specialized inEuropean and Corporate Law. He holds academic degrees from the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven (KUL) and Univer-sité Saint-Louis (Brussels). Zeger gained his work experiences in several law firms and public institutions. As a ViceChair he is entrusted in the Bureau with Fund-ing and the Statutory Amendments.

The official magazine of European Democrat Students

Libertas Ezako (26) lives in Namur, Belgium. She holds a Bachelor degree in Political-Sciences and pursues her Master’s degree in International Relations at the Université Catholique de Louvain. She has been a member of Jeunes cdH since 2015 andcurrently she works as Deputy Secretary General for EDS.

31

european democrat students

epp european people’s party

FIND OUT HOW TO CONTACT US! Visit us at Rue du Commerce 10, BE-1000 Brussels, Belgium Visit our homepage at edsnet.eu

Follow us on Instagram at @edsnet.eu

Like us on Facebook at facebook.com/edsnet.eu

Read previous issues at bullseye-magazine.eu

Follow us on Twitter at @edsnet

Contact us at students@epp.org

EUROPEAN DEMOCRAT STUDENTS IS THE OFFICIAL STUDENT ORGANISATION OF THE EUROPEAN PEOPLE’S PARTY

eds