Bullseye No.56 ''Youth versus Extremism''

BullsEye Apr’14 / 52nd year / No. 56 / ISSN 2033-7809

The newsmagazine of European Democrat Students

EDS

Youth vs Extremism

EDITORIAL

CONTENT 04 No hate speech movement

Hello readers,

Henry Hill, Editor-in-chief

I hope this finds you well, and those of you who are delegates are enjoying the lovely city of Split in our Union’s newest member state. The 28th State is a sign of the appeal that the European idea still holds for many.

Beyond the Union, however, that idea is being challenged as never before. Snubbed for decades by people who couldn’t imagine it joining the club, Erdogan’s Turkey is turning away from the European path – a timely reminder of how vital meaningful engagement is to expanding European influence abroad. Smashing a country’s dreams of membership or locking their goods out of our markets are both sure-fire ways to hobble European global influence.

Yet the path to membership is not always easy, as Ukraine is discovering. Putin’s Russia has stepped outside the norms of non-violence and international law that were supposed to define the post-Cold War world. First Georgia, now Ukraine – which ex-communist country will be next? And more importantly does the EU have the strength, or the will, to stop Russia?

These issues of economic prosperity and global strength are examined in this issue. We look at the challenges facing the new Secretary General of Nato, and I urge Europe to commit to a regime of small government, free trade, democratic governance and military strength we have too long looked down on as somehow ‘un-European’. We also examine the role of higher education and small businesses in the future of the European economy.

This is also the last issue before the European elections, and we have an interview with the EPP candidate as well as an insight into a very important set of elections in Belgium.

As ever I will finish by urging any young European who wants to have their say on the issues facing the EU to get in touch and get involved – we’re always looking for new writers.

Please, enjoy the issue.

05 Youth Extremism –

A challenge for Europe

Council of Europe 06 Council of Europe has withdrawn Russia’s

voting rights after Crimea crisisw

Current Affairs 08 Let’s Freshen Up and Focus!

10 Interview with EPP Candidate for

President of the European Commission Jean-Claude Juncker 12 Belgium: More than European Elections 14 New Secretary-General for NATO 15 Europe must grow up

Events

Dear readers, dear friends,

Andrey Novakov, EDS Vice Chairman

Time has flown again and here we are at fourth Council Meeting and Seminar of the EDS working year in sunny town of Split, Croatia!

Now we are facing a serious challenge - European Parliament elections are just a month later, and we are the people we rely on to convey the message of the European People’s Party to youth and students. This is a task that requires our joint efforts. European Democrat Students has always been an organisation that delivers modern messages and creative ideas. Now the time has come to show our significant potential and readiness for decisive action in these difficult times for all of Europe.

In this issue you will find many interesting articles, commentaries and analyses both for the political situation and the issues associated with education and civil initiatives. Thanks to the excellent contributions, provided by the entire editorial team and by our colleagues outside the team, this issue of BullsEye gives you a unique opportunity to look at the world through the eyes of young people occupied with the difficult task of making policy. In your hands are the emotions, feelings and thoughts of many young people from across Europe, determined to change the world for the better.

I wish you a pleasant reading.

16 Students Forum, “Our Europe, Our Choice 18 26th Session of the Congress of Local and

Regional authorities of the CoE

Reports 19 Sustainability? Teach them how!

20 Innovations and New Technologies

in Higher Education 22 The European Union - from the

beginning until now

Bureau 24 Bureau

BULLSEYE

ISSN: Print: 2033-7809, Online: 2033-7817 Editor-in-chief: Henry Hill, Editorial team: Silvie Rohr, Stefanie Mayrhofer, Elisabeta Ungureanu, Henry Hill, David Vaculik, Annette Thoresen, Contributions: Henry Hill, Teele Holmberg, Anna Masna, Stefanie Mayerhofer, Andrey Novakov, Silvie Rohr, Julien Sassel, Anette Thoresen, Florian Weinberger, Kalin Zahariev, Eva Majewski, Photos: Balázs Szecsődi, European Commission archives, KAS archives, private archives, Shutterstock, Design: Creacion.si, Publisher: European Democrat Students, B-1000 Brussels, Rue du Commerce 10, Tel: +32 2 2854-150, Fax: +32 2 2854-141, Email: eds@epp.eu, Website: edsnet.eu Articles and opinions published in this magazine are not nessessarily reflecting the position of EDS, EDS Bureau or the Editorial team.

The newsmagazine of European Democrat Students

2

Publication supported by: European Youth Foundation of the Council of Europe

CHAIRMAN’S LETTER

Dear friends of EDS, Welcome to Split! While others still indulge in their Easter holidays, EDS is preparing the final weeks before the European elections! It will depend on us to show and make happen what we truly believe in: young people can and should make a difference in politics and citizens’ everyday lives! Aware of that, it will be important that we, the young people of Europe, cast our votes in the elections so that the valid concerns and demands of the student generation will be reflected. This way, we can demand these policies to be implemented in the next five years!

At the same time, we will use the Council Meeting and Seminar to focus on a pressing issue: extremism, which can be found to be on the rise throughout Europe and particularly in our age group. Both in old democracies, and in countries that have just joined the European Union, we can observe this phenomenon. It is often arising from the exact feeling that young people are not being used in their societies, that they cannot influence even simple things. This feeling of not being needed results in frustration which then turns into extremism if youngsters are approached and are being attracted to join extremist groups.

The truth is: we need every young person to contribute to our future. We need everyone on board - not just for the idea of the European project but moreover to sustain our values and our political union. And most importantly, we need to bear in mind that only through active participation in society and the labour force, we can ensure to keep the high standards we live in.

This is what we strive for with our efforts in EDS when we make our voice, our views, and our solutions heard.

The young generation, with its openness to innovation and the possibility to adapt to a world that is changing faster than ever before, bears all the potential in it to overcome the crisis we currently face in Europe. It is not a crisis of the financial markets as in the US, it is not a crisis of state finances as in some European countries. It is a crisis about the state of the European Union. How does the future we want to live in look like?

We in EDS believe that the future of Europe can be bright. We choose to shape the future – which is our future. We reach out to others so that extremism is revealed as what it truly is: the false promise to solve concerns in a destructive way.

EDS promises to remain the platform it is: a platform for centre-right students to raise any concerns related to youth and students, education and labour, our future and our Europe!

For now: enjoy the read of our new issue of BullsEye to stay tuned about the policies we discuss!

BULLSEYE

With best regards from the entire Bureau,

Eva Majewski, Chairwoman

3

Andrey Novakov

No hate speech movement outstretched hand of the Council of Europe In times of crisis and continuing conflicts, Europe is facing the challenge to find a solution for the causes of these phenomena, and to quell the consequences of it. Often the causes of conflicts and the “plagues” in society is precisely the hatred and lack of understanding of different cultures and believes.

And after all, everything begins with hate speech and the language of evil. The impact of words, comments and behavior online is sometimes so strong that leads to permanent discomfort in the victims, and sometimes they even commit suicides. That’s why this behavior is completely unacceptable and in many countries such behavior is strictly condemn

4

and could be treated as a crime. Therefore all types of campaigns and initiatives worldwide which aims to increase awareness about it are more than welcome. Undoubtedly one of the campaigns, which could be shown as an example for fight against hate speech and bulling is “No hate speech movement” established by Council of Europe. And if ask what is special about that movement the answer is – the fuel are youngsters. The whole project is a tribute to youth participation and co-management. It was born from a proposal of the youth representatives of the Advisory Council on Youth and was endorsed by the Joint Council on Youth. The campaign is not

run to limit freedom of expression online. Neither is it against hatred online and nor about being nice to each other online.

The campaign is against the expressions of hate speech online in all its forms, including those that most affect young people, such as forms of cyber-bullying and cyber-hate. The campaign is based upon human rights education, youth participation and media literacy. It aims at reducing hate speech and at combating racism and discrimination in their online expression.

As many other successful campaigns and initiatives this one began with some simple goals as well. Some of them are reducing the levels of acceptance of online hate speech, raise awareness of hate speech online and the risks it poses for democracy and young people, involve young people in learning, living and acting for human rights, online and offline, promote media and Internet literacy, mobilize a network of online youth activists to defend human rights, support and show solidarity to people and groups targeted by hate speech online, advocate the development of and consensus on European policy instruments combating hate speech, develop online youth participation and citizenship, including in Internet governance processes.

Can you imagine what will be outcome if enough people participate in this or similar campaign? Yes, with this kind of simple action the world actually could be a better place.

Many of the cases of hate speeches are in schools. Often bullying takes place in the presence of a large group or classes of relatively uninvolved bystanders. In many cases, it is the bully’s ability to create the illusion that he or she has the support of the majority present that instills the fear of “speaking out” in protestation of the bullying activities being observed by the group. Unless the “bully mentality” is effectively challenged in any given group in its early stages, it often becomes an accepted, or supported, norm within the group. And the effect is shown by many researches - there is evidence that bullying increases the risk of suicide. It is estimated that between 15 and 25 children commit suicide every year in the UK alone, because they are being bullied. Grim picture, isn’t it?

Therefore anyone can become an ambassador of good and make an effort to stop hate speech. It’s enough to be active and protect victims of hate speech online and not remain indifferent if become witness of such reprehensible behavior. There are a lot of people already, who are dedicated to this idea. Be one of them and join “No hate speech movement”.

Silvie Rohr

Youth Extremism – A challenge for Europe The list of serious attacks that have been committed radicalised offenders in the EU is growing. The horrific attacks by Norwegian Anders Behring Breivik on the island of Utoeya and in Oslo, and the Toulouse and Montauban shootings initiated by the 23-year-old French-Algerian Islamist Mohamed Merah in France, are tragic examples. In Germany the NSU process around principal defendant Beate Zschäpe sparked an outcry.

The populist title, “Kebab murder”, where reported in all newsletters. That extremism is a growing youth issue can be shown on the cases above: all perpetrators were between 23-37 years old.

brought us to an unprecedented level of youth unemployment. Eurostat estimates that almost 26 million men and women in the EU-28, of whom nearly 19 million were in the euro area, were unemployed in February 2014. This fact will only worsen this tendency because political forces demanding a radical change like in Spain or Greece can be very appealing to people in desperation. This has to be prevented.

Europe needs critical and sceptical ideas to create a future discourse. What it doesn’t need is blind radical nationalism, populism and extremism. Parties like Jobbik or the Greek Golden Dawn are among those political forces whose views directly endanger many of the pillars upon which the unity of Europe what built: peace, solidarity and social cooperation. The only means of countering views thesis is to establish viable alternative against extremism on a national and a European level.

To improve the early detection and combating the risks of violent extremists, the European Commission presented an action plan. Member States should be supporting preventive initiatives within education, social media and exit programmes against extremist tendencies.

In January 2014 the European Commission has published a 10 bullet point paper

called “Strengthening the EU’s response to radicalisation and violent extremism”. Thus, the Commission will support the efforts of Member States to combat radicalization.

Among other things, the promotion of a critical awareness in schools, vocational training and youth work are important areas where young people are supported in developing their critical thinking skills, and can learn so to challenge extremist ideologies and statements critically and to recognise the logical breaks in such propaganda.

The Commission will support social and local groups who work with former violent extremists and victims of extremist violence. The ten recommendations are the result of the Radicalisation Awareness Network (RAN) in which 700 experts and professionals from all over Europe come together.

In addition to prevention, the exit opportunities for extremists should be more focussed and such projects should be promoted. This includes the development of specific approaches for inmates as well. Dropouts must have a quick and easy ways to connect to counselling centres. This also applies to safe places in case of problems of security, for example if attacks or threat of persecution from the extremist scene can be expected especially when no qualified state protection can be offered. Beside that the rehabilitation process must be promoted to help the dropouts in the redesign of personal relationships and the reorientation in everyday life.

The youth is the power of a nation. The real need of the society today is to value the youth and empower them to lead the future Europe. This is very important because Europe can only exist on a cosmopolitan, tolerant and nonviolent basis.

Extremists especially lure teenagers. The typical starting age is nowadays between 12 to 15 years. Music is the considered the number one gateway drug.

However, factors such as camaraderie and adventurism, the need for admiration and protest play a major role in the young target group. The causes and motives are complex.

There are psychological, social and political patterns of interpretation. External factors play a major role as well, including sociopolitical conditions, such as politics or socioeconomic situation of the population. Also, the level of unemployment, poverty, political discontent and infrastructure are significant.

Michael Noonan, the Irish Minister for Finance, said: “Youth unemployment puts the wind beneath the wings of every extremist in Europe”. He is right. The economic crisis

BULLSEYE

5

COUNCIL OF EUROPE Andrey Novakov

Council of Europe has withdrawn Russia’s voting rights after Crimea crisis “Right decision and a clear signal to Russia”. This is how the decision of Council of Europe to withdrawn Russia’s voting rights was described by most analysts and journalists. The reaction of the the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council was induced by the annexation of Crimea peninsula by the Russian Federation last month.

Besides losing voting rights, Russia was ejected from all management positions that it had in the Council. 45 members of the Assembly voted “in favour”, 21 opposed the decision and 22 delegates even abstained. The Russian delegation was not present during the debate on possible sanctions. The proposal was made by the chairman of the Monitoring Committee Stefan Chennai. PACE still decided not to freeze the country’s membership in the Assembly.

Alexey Pushkov, President of the Foreign Affairs Committee in the Russian Parliament,

6

said that his country’s delegation has left the Assembly following the decision. He added that Russia will decide at a later stage what measures to take in relation to the restriction of its voting rights.

The Vice President of the Parliamentary Commissions responded: “For one, there was a discussion over how strongly one condemned Russia’s behavior. The Russians emphasised the issue of self-determination and brought repeated examples of where this issue had played an important role in other countries.

There was a robust debate over the issue of Ukrainian territorial integrity. In the end, there were only three options: either we do nothing, or we withdraw Russia’s vote for the next session until January, or we withdraw Russia’s accreditation to the Parliamentary Assembly.

There were some who wanted to do nothing.

And there were some who wanted to withdraw the accreditation now”.

The resolution of the Assembly was passed after a heated three-hour debate in Strasbourg.

Russian members stormed out of the cham-

COUNCIL OF EUROPE ber before the vote took place. The assembly condemned Russia’s annexation of Crimea, its military occupation of Ukrainian territory, and Moscow’s “illegal so-called referendum” on the peninsula. This – and Moscow’s ongoing threat of “military force” – constituted “beyond any doubt, a grave violation of international law”, the assembly declared.

Objective journalism requires considering of all perspectives and points of view before write a certain opinion. But for every young person (and not only), it is clear that such an aggressive military policy is inadmissible against sovereign states, and the decision of the Council of Europe is indeed a clear signal that such behavior will not be tolerated now and for the future. To be completely objective, we must say that the Council of Europe is one of the institutions that take the most clear and unequivocal position on the conflict between Russia and Ukraine.

Of course, the response from Russia came soon. President Vladimir Putin threatened the

BULLSEYE

“extreme measure” of cutting off Russian gas for Ukraine unless the country pays in advance for all its supplies (this currently looks very unlikely). In a stark letter to 18 world leaders, Mr. Putin acknowledged that, in such a “critical situation”, gas deliveries to the European Union would also be jeopardized. The EU buys a third of its gas from Russia, about half of which arrives through pipelines running across Ukraine.

But President Putin accused the EU of causing the current crisis, leaving Russia with “no alternative” but to toughen its approach.

Europe already suffered such “measures”, and unfortunately this is the trump card that Russia often use. However, there remains hope that common sense will prevail and millions of Europeans will continue to use gas in their daily lives.

Although all feedbacks and responses, despite the risks, the position of the Council of Europe should be welcomed. It is indeed a clear stand for the preservation of rule of low and respect of democratic principles and human rights.

7

CURRENT AFFAIRS

Let’s Freshen Up and Focus!

As European Democrat Students we always have tried to be the forefront for student concerns.

The crisis - still persisting in some European countries - has led to a heightened attention on educational and youth issues across Europe. These are the policy fields EDS is particularly prone on. In order to offer solutions we have decided with the Council and Executive Bureau, to focus on three thematic pillars this working year.

E-LEARNING

OR: Creating a future based on knowledge and not on debts!

BROADENING ACCESS TO EDUCATION Knowledge can be delivered at lowest costs to re- mote areas and social groups that otherwise would not have the opportunity to participate in Life Long Learning and Higher Education.

Supporting Life Long Learning everywhere in the Union. We have to draw our attention to the fact that knowledge gained during formal education is outdated faster than ever before. We in the European Union can keep a frontrunner position in knowledge-based and innovative sectors if we guarantee possibilities for further education – also in remote areas.

A DIGITAL EUROPEAN HIGHER EDUCATION AREA The aim of the European Digital University ‘EDU’ is to establish a digital network of learning resources that allows for learning at any time and place via internet. We aspire the launch of a digital European Higher Education Area to integrate the multifaced e-learning opportunities into a common system and to promote the development of digital long-life learning programs. Achieved grades should be recognized by participating universities.

MAKING HIGHER EDUCATION MORE EUROPEAN The European Digital University supplements and extends the face-to-face teaching programmes by going beyond the existing digital learning materials. It allows for a fast and easy overview of the digital learning content that is offered within the European Higher Education Area.

WHY TACKLE IT ON A EUROPEAN LEVEL? Some Universities have already started developing their own systems, meaning high rates of unneeded duplicity. Also up to now the recognition of diplomas gained is not clarified, making them in most cases de facto worthless for participants when it comes to job advantages.

8

CURRENT AFFAIRS

ENTREPRENEURSHIP IN HIGHER EDUCATION OR: Using knowledge to create future!

PROGRAMMES FOR YOUNG ENTREPRENEURS We call for the establishment of more programmes such as “Erasmus for Young Entrepreneurs”. Young entrepreneurs need to be given the chance to learn from experienced entrepreneurs who are doing business in other countries. Students will be able to get a realistic idea of the positive and negative parts of a particular job and thus they will be assisted in making more informed choices. Students should be informed better about already existing programmes.

Implementation of entrepreneurial courses - Adoption of policies which support and encourage the implementation of educational programmes offering entrepreneurial courses.

We acknowledge that the development of an entrepreneurial mindset through higher education is one of the best ways to establish a knowledge-based economy which will encourage youth employment and professional development. We call upon the

European Commission to encourage member states to adopt policies which support the implementation of such programmes.

ONLINE ENTREPRENEURIAL AND START-UP COMPETITIONS We encourage the establishment of online entrepreneurial and start-up competitions through which young entrepreneurs will present their ideas and compete with other aspiring young entrepreneurs. The brightest ideas should receive the necessary amount of money in order to turn their ideas into successful business.

Entrepreneurship must become the catalyst for innovation and sustainable growth in all European countries. The development of entrepreneurial thinking amongst students is one of the most significant factors for the creation of an entrepreneurial environment and for that reason EDS has always emphasised the role of higher education institutions in achieving that.

STUDENT MOBILITY ERASMUS AND CO

ERASMUS PLUS Erasmus is more flexible than before! Now, it is possible to get an Erasmus grant for each your bachelor, master, and doctoral degree! A huge success for us!

MASTER LOAN SCHEME GUARANTEE Studies can be financed in different ways: state aid, scholarships, and loans - if available at low interest rates. By providing different funding options each student can choose the best mix!

The master loan scheme guarantee provides an additional funding option for master degrees: Students can now spent the entirety of their master’s degree abroad. This way every student can study at the university that suits his purposes best and gain international experience!

language courses, subsequent examination and – upon successful completion – issuing of a language certificate.

ERASMUS IN EUROPE More than 2.5 million students have experienced what it means to take part in the ERASMUS scheme at one of the more than 4 000 Higher Education Institutions in 33 participating countries. These include all the EU Member States as well as Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, and Turkey. Until 2020, now 2 more million students shall live the Erasmus experience!

WHAT WE STAND FOR Call on Higher Education Institutions (HEIs: universities, colleges, universities for applied sciences) to set transparent criteria to choose students who wish to go on an ex- change. The student should also have the right to feedback regarding his or her application. Calls for increased exchange of examined material between universities in order to give a better view on the gained knowledge and competences of the student for the hosting exchange university. Call on national governments and responsible ministers to focus on the issue of recognition of qualifications. It is of highest importance for student mobility that a qualification is recognised regardless of where the qualification was recieved. Encourage universities to facilitate and provide

BULLSEYE

9

INTERVEW

10

INTERVEW MR. JUNCKER, WHAT ARE YOUR TOP PRIORITIES FOR THE COMMISSION PRESIDENCY? As Commission President I will focus all my energy, day and night, on creating growth and jobs. The unemployment rate, particularly amongst Europe’s youth, remains unacceptably high and bringing it down must be our top priority.

I will make sure that each and every one of the Commission’s proposals is thoroughly vetted based on how they can contribute to this overarching goal.

MR.

JEAN-CLAUDE JUNCKER:

EPP Candidate for President of the European Commission

BULLSEYE

YOU HAVE POSTED ON TWITTER, THAT COUNTRIES WHICH BLOCK SOCIAL NETWORKS ARE NOT READY TO JOIN THE EUROPEAN UNION. WHAT IS YOUR POSITION TOWARDS ACCESSION TALKS WITH TURKEY REGARDING THE EUROPEAN UNION? I believe Europe needs to put a brake on enlargement for now. The European Union added 13 new members in the space of just 10 years.

This needs to be digested. We must first concentrate on getting our own house in order before inviting the neighbours to come.

Negotiations are possible, in an open-ended way, but accepting new members is a matter for the sovereign decision of all the existing 28 Member States.

WHICH PLACE DO YOUNG POLITICIANS TAKE ON THE POLITICAL STAGE IN EUROPE – AND IN PARTICULAR IN WINNING THESE EUROPEAN ELECTIONS? Given that the youth of today have been so severely hit by the crisis, young politicians can play a crucial role in conveying the concerns and priorities of their peers, because they know them best.

I appreciate the fact that many talented young men and women across Europe are eager to assume political responsibilities and are competing in the European elections, including the EDS’s own President Eva Majewski. They are the best equipped to communicate the advantages and the benefits of Europe for young people.

As President of the Commission, I look forward to working with these young politicians and to listening to their proposals for building a better Europe.

The European people’s party is also the only party that has a youth manifesto, developed with our youth party, making sure that our policies address issues that really matter to today’s youth, such as unemployment, strong data protection rules and the abolition of roaming charges. Together we will create a world fit for the next generation.

11

CURRENT AFFAIRS

Julien Sassel

Belgium: More than European Elections

On May 25, as in the rest of the European Union, Belgians will vote. But this year the elections promise to be a milestone in Belgian politics, as all of the legislative assemblies will be renewed at all the levels of the Kingdom.

These different elections will produce completely different balances of power in the different parts of the country, and Belgian political leaders will have the responsibility to find an equilibrium between all the components - often opposed on several issues - of the Belgian population. Here are some guidelines to understand why Belgium is often called the home of Surrealism.

THE PATH TO FEDERALISM Having been a unitary state since its independence in 1830, the Kingdom of Belgium has seen in the decades following the Second World War growing concern about the relations between its two biggest components, the Flemish-speaking and the French-speaking community, and how they should organise distinct policies, particularly on socioeconomic and language issues.

Flanders and Wallonia have both experienced periods of growth and wealth but these never coincided: during the Fourteenth Century Belgium became the first continental European country to go through the Industrial Revolution

12

thanks to the coal and steel industries in Wallonia, when Flanders saw its textile industry weakening and suffered famine. The phenomenon reversed after the Second World War, as Flanders industrialized and Walloon coal and steel progressively became uncompetitive. These situations led the inhabitants of the richer region to complain on how they had to support the whole country by themselves.

Concerning the use of languages, French became the official language of the new-born country. For most of the Fourteenth Century, this situation created frustration among Flemings who perceived French as the language of the political power (the government) and the eco-

nomical power (the bourgeoisie). An important movement of Flemish intellectuals struggled for obtaining equality between French and Flemish, which happened in 1898. Another step was made in 1921, with the decision to bind a language to a territory, Flemish would be used in Flanders as French was to be used in Wallonia.

Different moments contributed to rise the tension between the communities, especially the so-called Royal Question in 1950 (a controversial referendum was held in order to know if King Leopold III, suspected of collaboration with the Nazis by a part of the population, could come back in Belgium, leading to the King’s abdication in 1952) and the Leuven Cri-

CURRENT AFFAIRS

sis in 1968 (the bilingual Catholic University of Leuven, under pressure of Flemish students, split in two universities). The Leuven Crisis led to the split of the Social-Christian Party (CVPPSC) in two parties, a Flemish-speaking one and a French-Speaking one, a trend followed by the Liberals and the Socialists. From that moment, political leaders would campaign only in their own region and sit in the Parliamant as French or Flemish-speaking member.

BELGIAN FEDERALISM: A “WORK IN PROGRESS”?

In order to meet these claims, a political consensus rose for launching the first state

BULLSEYE

reform in 1970 leading to a still ongoing process. The current situation is the result of six state reforms (1970, 1980, 1988-1989, 1993, 2001 and 2011). Belgium has two types of subdivisions: Regions and Communities.

• The Regions (Flanders, Wallonia and Brussels) are in charge of the territorial matters such as municipalities and provinces, local public transportation, tourism, public works, urban and spatial planning.

• The Communities (Flemish, French and German Communities) are responsible for personal matters including education, broadcasting, culture, youth and family policies.

Each Region and Community has its own government and parliament The Federal state is responsible for defense, immigration, police, foreign affairs, rail transport, interior, internal security, and pensions.

An important number of matters are shared by the Federal State and the Federate Entities: agriculture, justice, employment, finance, research, healthcare, economy, road safety, energy and the environment.

This list cannot be seen as definitive, as the six state reforms brought more matters to the Regions and Communities but gave flexibility to the different components of the state: Regions and Communities can negotiate the transfer of some matters (the German Community received a part of the regional matters from Wallonia) or simply decide to merge (the Flemish Community merged with Flanders). Some political leaders such as Wilfried Martens and Guy Verhofstadt, noting the failure to efficiently organize some policies at the regional or community level, advocated for the return of these policies to the Federal State.

The last decades have shown a failure to have a definitive balance of powers between the Federal State and the Federated Entities, leading some analysts to say that the process might put an end to Belgium, while others consider Belgium as a work in progress, currently experiencing a centrifugal dynamic, but it might experience the opposite in the future.

THE SIXTH STATE REFORM AND THE UPCOMING ELECTIONS The 2007 federal elections saw the victory of the Flemish Christian-Democrats (CD&V) who campaigned for a state reform. On the other side, French speaking Socialists (PS) and Liberals (MR) were unwilling to do the reform, for two main reasons: a lack of interest and the impossibility to implement their programme, considering the fact that

a reform would need a broad parliamentary support (2/3 of the presents and 2/3 of the votes).

The incapacity of reaching an agreement has led to political instability for six years during which Belgium have had five governments.

The 2010 federal elections worsened the situation as the Flemish Christian Democrats lost against their former cartel partner, the New Flemish Alliance (NVA), led by Bart De Wever. The NVA had campaigned on making the reform Yves Leterme failed to negotiate.

On the French-speaking side, the Socialists had won and were reluctant to negotiate with Bart De Wever. The negotiations started but it soon appeared clear that they would be very long. After 541 days of negotiations, an agreement was finally reached without the NVA: the government would be led by Elio Di Rupo and composed of 6 parties (both Flemish and French-speaking Socialists, Liberals and Christian-Democrats) while the two Green parties would give an external support for voting the state reform.

The reform extend the term of Federal legislature to five years, leveling with the Regional, Community and European legislatures. Also, the Senate will become a non-elective assembly. On the 25th of May, Belgians will cast three different ballots, for the Federal Parliament, the Regional level (the Communities parliament are composed of people elected in their region) and the European Parliament.

Even though the NVA, credited with 32% of the Flemish votes in the last opinion polls, is campaigning on a seventh state reform, it seems that the others parties are unwilling to follow them. The sixth reform is described as an element of stability, coming after a 6-years long turmoil and needing time to be implemented. Moreover, Belgians are more concerned by the crisis. The ongoing campaign is mainly focused on how put an end to it and it is now sure that next government’s task will be the stimulation of employment and economic growth.

Although people are increasingly tired by the crisis and have the feeling that a lot of time was wasted during the state reform negotiation, the phenomenon of protest vote is far lower than in other European countries (probably due to the compulsory voting) and euroscepticism is irrelevant (critics are addressed against austerity, not the European project). The elections will produce a balance of powers between Centre-Right (stronger in Flanders) and Centre-Left (stronger in Wallonia) that will have to be taken account when the government will elaborate its policies.

13

CURRENT AFFAIRS

Anette Thoresen

New Secretary-General for

NATO

2014 is the year of changes and challenges for Europe and her allies. The European Union is replacing many of its prominent leaders towards the end of 2014 after the upcoming elections. NATO is due for a new Secretary-General and is determined to clear the issue of a new Secretary-General before the summer comes around and the competition or comprise involves the EU.

The major powers in NATO has been planning this for months and the common notion was that NATO needed a secretary more than a general, a politician who knows the international environment and is known by the international environment in turn, and is familiar with the political processes of a large international organization. The challenges in Ukraine and Russia have spurred the need for a quick decision and a concise direction of where NATO is headed.

Italy was eager for the position and presented the minister of foreign affairs as their candidate.

With the expansion of NATO towards the east, time has shown that maybe the obvious choice would be a leader from one of the eastern European countries. Poland is a nation that has contributed heavily to the NATO operations and continuously said yes to every inquiry from NATO and the USA. The discussions did involve Poland as well as others, but in the end the decision fell upon the political veteran and previous Prime Minister of Norway, Jens Stoltenberg.

14

The real discussion, however, is if this is the correct direction for NATO. The past two Secretary-Generals have been from Denmark and the Netherlands. Jens Stoltenberg is the third consecutive Secretary-General from northern Europe and the second in a row from Scandinavia.

Jens Stoltenberg has a long career from Norwegian politics and is well known as a reliable and trustworthy politician due to almost ten years as Prime Minister of Norway and leader of the Labour Party. Jens Stoltenberg showed strength by swiftly joining the operations in Libya and standing firm in Afghanistan with the other allies despite disagreements among his political coalition at home.

One major issue Stoltenberg will endure is the future encounters with Russia and Putin. Norway has balanced on a knife’s edge with Russia on one hand and NATO on the other. The settlement of the northern border between the two countries, as well as the distribution and sales of natural resources, has been solved under

peaceful circumstances, but the recent events in Ukraine has put the relationship under a test as Norway stands united with the EU and enforces the current sanctions against Russia.

Under Stoltenberg’s rule, Norway managed to stay out of the European and American issues with Russia, but as the Secretary-General he will be forced to present tough rhetoric against Putin, maybe a hitch harsher then he would prefer from a Norwegian’s point of view but necessary from a NATO point of view.

Stoltenberg will be thrown into chaotic situation in the east whilst at the same time he must prove that he is the right man for the job.

He must stand firm against Putin’s expansionist Russia, ease Ukraine into a possible NATO membership, and keep the West calm and prevent rash actions, whilst overseeing the retraction from Afghanistan.

With the presence of international troops in Afghanistan during the last decade of involvement, Stoltenberg will have his hands full with negotiating the “new Afghanistan”, as well as the upcoming election the country is holding in April. NATO and Stoltenberg will not be able to close the Afghan chapter of NATO just yet, despite the retraction of the international forces.

One major issue for NATO is the political unwillingness to commit. The majority of her members keep cutting their military budgets, while only a few increase the numbers. Smaller budgets means less manoeuvre military and removes the ability to act quickly if needed, which is what happened in Libya. It also leaves the heavy majority of NATO’s capacity on the USA. Stoltenberg must do what he can to encourage the Europeans to enlarge their share of the input.

Syria and the Central African Republic are two of the military challenges Stoltenberg will most likely be forced to take a stand on and make a decision – the time when the world can pretend like this is not our crisis are slowly coming to an end. Syria is a wormhole of groups and soldiers, each representing their case and fighting for power, whilst the entire population is suffering. France has sent troops to the Central African Republic, but sources say this is a genocide waiting to happen and soon rather than later, France will need international help.

Stoltenberg is an experienced politician and is familiar with every nook and cranny of the international political scene. He’s friendly with the majority of the political big shots and is a master of compromise, learnt steadily from his father, the former Minister of Foreign Affairs of Norway. Stoltenberg will use his convincing rhetoric to rebuild NATO and take guide her steadily through the current crisis and future crises yet to come.

CURRENT AFFAIRS Henry Hill

Europe must grow up

The Ukraine crisis has held a mirror to the European dream. In the belle epoch that began with the fall of the Berlin Wall and the peaceful disintegration of the Warsaw Pact and the USSR it looked as if, in the ill-fated words of Jacques Poos, the hour of Europe had dawned.

On the world stage, we were going to build a new international order. The Cold War, with its chilly certainties and relentless, grinding insistence on the realities of international power politics, could be gladly set aside. In its place we could build an order based on international law and European values.

Tomorrow’s monsters would be dealt with, not

by Special Forces troopers or assassins, but by courts whose jurisdictions presumed to supersede sovereign nations. World conflicts could be arbitrated by well-meaning graduates from Europe’s elite academies. Abhorring the idea of a world dominated by the gauche, gung-ho Americans, Europe set out to forge foreign affairs in its own image instead.

Nor was this rejection of America confined to international matters. At ‘home’ the European Union also eschewed the fundamental hallmarks of the American model: military strength, free markets, and pervasively democratic institutions.

With the Soviet Union gone military spending was slashed with abandon, vital but oldfashioned defence funding diverted into more acceptable channels like welfare and public services. Only the United Kingdom and France maintained anything that might be called a martial culture – properly funded, globally-effective armed forces and the will to use them – and even there, spending lagged well behind the United States.

A whole revolution in military technology pioneered by US defence contractors passed Europe by, and when we did end up putting troops on the ground under the European aegis they distinguished themselves by walking away from Srebrenica and abandoning it to the mercy of nationalist militias. They were peacekeepers, not soldiers – actually fighting would be very un-European indeed.

Rather than using the ‘peace dividend’ to empower ordinary Europeans through tax cuts, we spent most of it on ever more extensive (and expensive) welfare and public service systems.

At the same time we continued to blur the lines

BULLSEYE

between the private market and the state, a mentality which is increasingly in evidence in today’s European Union.

The idea, termed the ‘social market’, is essentially that the market should be subordinate to the wishes of the political class both in its form and conduct and in its outcomes. The totemic example of this is the Common Agricultural Policy, which channels vast sums of normal citizens’ money into a pork-barrel regime for Europe’s tiny agricultural sector, but it is not at all the only example. ‘Brussels’ has become a byword for regulation and control of the market for political ends, whether it is aiming to slowly proscribe disapproved products like tobacco and meat or prescribe how private businesses should organise their boardrooms.

The result of this is that the European Union, despite being amongst the world’s largest markets, is the only one not actually growing. Our insistence on complex quota arrangements for international trade means that many smaller, independent countries have managed to broker more ‘free trade’ agreements with the world’s major powers than the EU has.

This lack of competitiveness continues to strike major blows against European influence abroad.

China expands into Africa whilst we lock African goods out of our markets. Merkel’s pandering to green sentiment in the aftermath of Fukushima saw her scrapping Germany’s nuclear power programme and making her country, Europe’s leader in many ways, increasingly dependent on Russian gas. No wonder Putin’s renascent Russia feels so confident taking bites out of its former subjects.

Perhaps most fatally of all, the Union’s chronically undemocratic state structure is eroding public support for the project, and fatally choking off public engagement. In the good years between the fall of the wall in 1989 and the great crash in 2007, European unionists had sufficient space to really drive buy-in to the Union. Increased democratisation and other measures to help improve public awareness of European politics (including having European elections contested directly by Europarties) could have helped to cement the idea of being ‘European’.

Instead the European Parliament remains almost a rubber-stamp assembly, whose representatives are elected in contests viewed by most electorates as judgements on their national governments and who sit in party blocs few people outside the bubble could name, let alone understand. With the crisis now requiring large transfers of funds across national borders and the imposition of economic policy from the continental centre, it was vital that the institutions overseeing these processes had public legitimacy. As it is, both better-off donor countries and

poorer countries following ‘foreign’ fiscal policies are growing to deeply resent the system.

All of this helps to explain the apparent twilight of the European ideal. The period of easy prosperity when social democracy looked like a choice with no downsides has gone, as has the American security umbrella that gave European countries the breathing space to look down their noses at American militarism.

Our borders are rife with illustrations of our failures. Our near-complete lack of ‘martial spirit’ sees its grim testament in the fractured polities and mass graves of the Balkans, a crisis it took the US to solve. Our economic woes, combined with a narrowness of vision that somehow failed to see a ‘post-national’ Europe including Turkey, does much to explain why Erdogan is turning his country away from us. Meanwhile Ukraine faces a hostile territorial annexation, the spectre of anschluss looming large over Crimea. That is exactly the sort of conflict the European project was supposed to make unthinkable. Instead, we just stopped thinking about them.

For too long, Europe has lived in a dream world.

We tried to design an international order based on rules without preparing to deal with those who ignored them. We regulated the market according to our political whims without recognising the impact this would have on our global competitiveness or, in the case of energy, on security. And successive architects of ‘ever closer union’ concentrated more and more power in the hands of unelected judges and officials, without regard for the consequences for the Union’s legitimacy.

As the primary force of the democratic right, the EPP has a duty to lead the charge in EU reform.

We must fight for a Union that trusts the people, both to make their own decisions in a private market and to elect those in charge of the Union.

We must wake up to the realities of a dangerous world and place a vigorous defence programme at the centre of the project.

We must accept that, for all our differences, the best guarantors of strength abroad and liberty at home are the same for Europe as America: democratic institutions, a free market, and a strong army.

15

WIENER SCHNITZEL

EVENTS

Florian Weinberger Teele Holmberg

Student Forum, “Our Europe, Our Choice”

The Danube passes through four capitals and one of them is a historical city Vienna where 30 EDS delegates gathered at the end of March for the EDS Student Forum. The study forum focused on EP election campaign and education system in Europe.

16

The event kicked off on Friday with meeting the chair of the ÖVP parliamentary delegation, Reinhold Lopatka. 30 EDS delegates used the chance to discuss with him the state of current affairs in Austrian and European politics, especially the aspect of rising populism ahead of the upcoming elections. As Mr. Lopatka also is an alumnus in higher education and student politics, they also talked about advantages and challenges of the education system in Austria.

There was many interesting facts he opened – as an example, 51 per cent of children who start to school in Vienna do not have German as their mother tongue. The day was rounded up with a guided tour through the Austrian Parliament.

On Saturday morning, the discussion on political extremism was continued in deep during a workshop on “Confronting extremism on the political left and right” by Roland Freudenstein from the Wilfried Martes Centre for European Studies.

EVENTS During the afternoon, the delegates had a preparatory workshop for upcoming EDS activities on the Balkans with former EDS chair Günther Fehlinger, who has lived in the region for several years. Given the title “Challenges of Higher Education in South East Europe” the participants also used the opportunity to get an insight into those specific problems in the area.

From the evening onward, the Student Forum focused on the second pillar of the event – the training of student activists for their work in student representation and student civil society.

At a social media workshop, the EDS delegates analysed social media campaigns from parties as well as the private sector identifying strengths and weaknesses. At the end of session there were shared social media experiences from different countries.

A campaign management training for student activists on Sunday completed the working agenda and also laid the cornerstone for the successful implementation of the knowledge gained during the weekend in the future activities of EDS and the delegates when representing student interests.

Between discussions delegates enjoyed the beauty of Vienna, the city that was designated a UNESCO World Heritage Site, and also got to know the traditions of Austrian food and drinks like Wiener schnitzel and weissbier.

Thank you to our friends from AktionsGemeinschaft Austria who took the responsibility for the event.

BULLSEYE

17

EVENTS

26th Session of the Congress of Local and Regional authorities of the Council of Europe held from 25-27 March 2014 in Strasbourg.

The title of event was “Empowering youth: a shared responsibility for cities and regions.

Anna Masna, the ViceChairwoman of EDS was representing EDS at the Congress.

This event was quite important for EDS because touched the youth topic. The main outcomes for EDS from the event are: • Youth is still not enough represented in local and regional authorities in European countries. Here are some reasons of this: 1) Many of young people are not interested in politics, they are not want to run for elections; 2) the majority of voters used to vote for semi age or older candidates.

• Small representation of youth in authorities can not answer to realization of young people’s interests • Young people have to be take more seriously in politics.

• We as EDS have to promote youth involvement in politics of all levels and especially local and regional. Because local and regional authorities are playing very important role in democracy building and sustainability.

• As well on of special topics was discussed during the event: Resolution on Ukrainian Crisis. Main points: Violation of human rights from the side of former government during Euromaidan events; non-recognition of Crimea referendum; statement about support from the Council of Europe to new Ukrainian government especially in legislative and election questions; assistance from the Council of Europe will be provided for President Elections; Security in Ukraine also mean Security in Europe; Ukraine is sovereign country and Russia has to respect that.

18

Sustainability, however, isn’t about things. It all comes down to individual behaviour that ‘meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’ (the Brundtland Commission, 1980s). Currently, unsustainability is a lifestyle. The environment and resources serve us here and now without a long-run perspective. The unsustainable economic model collapsed and burdened future generations with the consequences. And societal challenges such as demography, employment, education and skills are undermining the stability of our communities.

The big question is how to establish the sustainable mind-set and encourage sustainable behaviour in order to turn away from unsustainability. A very good answer is through the process of education. Higher education has a major role in shaping individuals because it is a transition period to real life. Higher education institutions (HEIs) facilitate personal development and change. Universities form micro communities where institutional environment could foster creativity, productivity, social responsibility and environmental awareness. On the one hand, university campuses have the potential to become a model for environmental, social and economic sustainability. On the other hand, students bring along high motivation, energy and fresh thinking. Thus, higher education is a stable platform for ideas that belong to younger generations.

THE CHALLENGES: The idea of sustainability relates to HEIs in a simple twofold way. One vector is the concept of a sustainable university. The second vector covers the idea of integrating sustainability in the actual curricula. However, there is a catch

REPORTS Kalin Zahariev

Sustainability?

Teach them how!

A random Google search for ‘sustainable development’ scores over 220 million search results. The world is talking about sustainability. From financial and economic policies to baby diapers – it could all be branded as sustainable (and it is). This has almost turned sustainability to a cliché.

– a list of pending obstacles to sustainability is to be ticked off: • The risk of running sustainability as a marketing technique. Words and phrases that have to do with sustainable have become taglines. Simply put, painting a building green does not make it sustainable.

• Limiting the perception to an environmental concept only, excluding the two other pillars - society and economy.

• Introducing sustainability in higher education curricula requires plenty of efforts for HEIs and a small number of them are willing to invest time and money in it.

• Sustainability principles are not compulsory for HEIs and their curricula. Thus, some HEIs are true pioneers in the field while a large group of the organisations lag behind.

• 40 years after Stockholm Earth Summit in 1972 no sustainability strategy is being implemented in the field of higher education. Thus, there is no path to follow and no strategic approach in setting goals and measuring their implementation and impact.

• UN’s Decade of Education for Sustainable Development 2005 has not influenced significantly policy making at EU level due to the fact that higher education is still heavily dependent on strictly national policies and 28 different policies are implemented.

CONCLUSIONS: • Despite the fact that the Europe 2020 strategy has set a target to achieve sustainability, a limited range of tools is available when it comes to higher education. The variety of crises (financial, economic and debt crises) that clouded over the EU made the process of introducing sustainability to higher education even slower.

BULLSEYE

•

•

The idea of sustainable development is a horizontal process that involves different governmental agencies and levels of governance - local, national, and European. Sustainability is a bottom-up process and it requires commitment and leadership. This is why all stakeholders should equally contribute to achieving the goal.

The long-term outcome from integrating sustainability in the higher education is the establishment of a mind-set and values that will be embedded in all fields of our lives. Through education, our social, economic and environmental behaviour could become sustainable by default.

RECOMMENDATIONS: • To higher education institutions: • Include the three pillars of sustainability in the organisations’ mission statements and strategic goals.

• The sustainable development education requires multidiscipline approach.

Instead of being a separate isolated subject (where it exists), it has to be an integrated part of large number of subjects such as economics, finance, strategic management, human resources management, engineering, medicine, etc.

• Introduce sustainability policies based on standard frameworks such as the Environmental Management Systems and ISO 14000 / ISO 14001. The framework should focus on several aspects - facilities, waste, transportation, energy, administration, etc.

• Develop sustainable campuses because they create a micro environment capable of shifting students’ mind-sets.

More HEIs should establish sustainability information desks/centres at their campuses in order to generate further interest among students.

• Form partnerships on sustainability with

•

• •

•

•

•

local governments, businesses, NGOs and foundations. This will provide access to additional research capacity and funding.

Aim at project-based learning and practical involvement in sustainability initiatives. Universities could recruit volunteers among the students who have good knowledge on sustainability. They could form groups for generating sustainability ideas, activities and cause a snowball effect for many other students.

To the EU member states: Focus on translating sustainability to HEIs and students so they could “buy” the idea. Currently there is no big demand for sustainability, since most of the HEIs and students do not appreciate the benefits of it. Universities consider it a burdensome budget item.

The EU Member States should be encouraged to bind accreditation and evaluation of higher education institutions to sustainable development. A special set of criteria could be established that would influence the accreditation and ranking of HEIs. The 2014-2020 programming period should play a vital role in funding schemes for sustainable development in higher education through operational programmes at national level.

Funding for public HEIs should include sustainability research grants, awarded for sustainability projects. Budgeting should shift to performance based, taking into consideration sustainability criteria.

TO THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION: • The next European Commission should work even closer with the member states to achieve a harmonised approach in integrating sustainability in higher education across the EU.

19

REPORTS

Innovations and New Technologies in Higher Education Andrey Novakov

The use of computer-mediated communication is becoming increasingly common in higher education. Many higher education institutions are looking to new technologies, particularly computer conferencing, as a versatile medium for the delivery of educational programs ``anytime, anywhere’’. While those who are leading the development of this new medium are convinced of its potential, its effects on the quality of the learning process and its outcomes have not been well studied.

20

REPORTS

Traditionally, educational interactions have been based upon oral communications between and among teachers and learners. Oral communication tends to be fast-paced spontaneous, fleeting, and less structured than text-based communication, notwithstanding what might be found in well-moderated small seminar groups. Moreover, oral communication is considered less-than-ideal characteristics for disciplined and rigorous thinking, yet experience has shown that oral critical discourse can facilitate critical thinking and a face-to-face context provides multiple non-verbal or paralinguistic cues such as facial expression and tone of voice.

Socially and emotionally, face-to-face oral communication is a rich medium.

In contrast, written communication might be termed a lean medium, in that much of the information that creates and sustains the group dynamic of face-to-face groups is simply not transmitted. When a writing or text-based medium, such as computer conferencing, is used for educational purposes, questions may arise as to whether this leaning down of the communication channel through the screening out of much non-verbal and paralinguistic communication detracts from the quality of learning. On the other hand, the effects are not necessarily all negative. Compared to traditional,

BULLSEYE

oral classroom interaction, computer conferencing would appear to offer not only potential deficiencies, but also some advantages.

Generally, new technologies and innovations are coming in every public sphere and their benefits become more tangible.

Therefore, their widespread use should be encouraged by them to give new dimensions to education and its benefits. Thus, teachers and students will have a much more efficient learning process.

Moreover, the introduction of new technologies in education creates significant added value. Higher education is becoming a global, Internet-based process. But few universities are equipped to fully embrace the potential that this offers. Few faculties were even aware of these seismic shifts until the recent media coverage around the Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) which provide access to free online courses by a wide range of universities and opened to students with any academic background. They are attracting millions of students from across the globe.

To what extent though is the MOOC really revolutionary and disruptive, or is it being used cynically by the most institutions to

further increase their brand power and assert their superiority, whilst the middle tier of institutions lose student numbers and academic credibility? Here is the role of the state and the European Union. The innovations in higher educations should not be a privilege. If in reforming higher education innovations are recognised as a priority and access to them is equal for all universities, the value of all diplomas will be much higher.

One thing is certain - the future belongs to such innovations and the sooner they are implemented successfully in higher education, the sooner will education adapt to the demands of today and the challenges of the 21st Century. And that leads behind mostly positives - more educated people create more added value.

Thus by reforming the education system will create a significant multiplier effect on the economy and social sphere in general, and this is one of the keys to raising living standards and tackles unemployment.

This is one of the keys to raising living standards and tackle unemployment. That is why education takes a key place in each country and is a priority for all managers.

Or at least it should.

21

REPORTS Stefanie Mayrhofer

The European Union - from the beginning until now After the Second World War leaders like Konrad Adenauer, Robert Schuman, Winston Churchhill, Alcide de Gasperi and many others had the vision of a peaceful, united and prosperous Europe without frequent and bloody wars between neighbors.

The first step to this vision was the funding of the European Coal and Steel Community in 1950, which began to unite European countries economically and politically in order to ensure peace. The six founders were France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands.

The next milestone was the Treaty of Rome in 1957, which created the European Economic Community (EEC) or ‘Common Market’, with the result of abolition of custom duties for the member states and a joint control over food production.

The first enlargement took place in January 1973 when Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom joined the EEC. After this European regional policy starts to transfer huge sums to create jobs and infrastructure in poorer areas, as it does nowadays. EU influence in affairs increased and in 1979 all citizens could directly vote for the first time the members of the European Parliament.

During the Eighties Greece and a little bit later Spain and Portugal became the next member states.

In 1986 the Single European Act (SEA) was signed, a treaty with the goal to solve the problems with the free-flow of trade across EU borders and to create the ‘Single Market’. The SEA was the first major revision of the Treaty of Rome and codified European Political Cooperation, the forerunner of the European Union’s Common Foreign and Security Policy, because more and more leaders from business and politics wanted to harmonise laws among countries and resolve policy discrepancies.

The project “Single Market” was fulfilled with the ‘four freedoms’ - still one of the legal and also uniting pillars of the EU - movement of

22

goods, services, people and money, which are now so self-evident for us.

In the 1990s people were concerned about how to protect the environment and how Europeans, now with the three new member states Austria, Finland and Sweden, can act together when it comes to security and defence matters. To consider these public opinions the ‘Maastricht’ Treaty in 1993 and the Treaty of Amsterdam in 1999 were signed.

The ‘Maastricht’ Treaty led to the creation of the Euro and the fiscal policies - „Maastricht“ criteria - with debts limited to 60 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP) and annual deficits no greater than 3 per cent of GDP. Furthermore the main structure of the European Union was created with this treaty: 1. European Community (EC) pillar as the continuation of the European Economic Community where the • Commission • European Parliament and the • European Court of Justice—had the most power and influence.

2. Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) pillar - the former European Political Cooperation (EPC) as part of the Single European Act 3. Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) pillar an extended cooperation in law enforcement, criminal justice, asylum, and immigration and judicial cooperation in civil matters, some of these areas had already been subject to the ‘Schengen’ agreements which are known by most of us because this agreement allows people to travel without having their passports checked at the borders.

The goal of the Treaty of ‘Amsterdam’ was to

REPORTS

1

http://europa.eu/eu-law/decision-making/treaties/index_en.htm

BULLSEYE

reform the EU institutions in preparation for the arrival of future member countries. The main changes were amendment, renumbering and consolidation of EU and EEC treaties and the more transparent decision-making (increased use of the co-decision voting procedure).

Since the beginning of 2002 the euro is the new currency for many Europeans. As a reaction to nine eleven 11 the EU countries started to work much more closely together to fight crime and 2004 ten new countries joined the EU, followed by two more in 2007.

As a preparation for enlargement 2004, the Treaty of ‘Nice’ was signed 2001, to reform the institutions so that the EU could function efficiently after reaching 25 member countries.

The milestones were changing the composition of the Commission and redefining the voting system in the Council.

The Treaty of ‘Nice’ was not enough, to handle the enlargement and to fight together against the financial crisis, as result the Treaty of ‘Lisbon’ was ratified by all EU countries before entering into force on 1 December 2009. This treaty provides the EU with modern institutions and more efficient working methods.

The Treaty of Lisbon amends the current EU and EC treaties, without replacing them. It provides the Union with the legal framework and tools necessary to meet future challenges and to respond to citizens’ demands, for example more power for the European Parliament, changes of voting procedures in the Council, citizens’ initiatives, a permanent president of the European Council, a new High Representative for Foreign Affairs and a new EU diplomatic service.

In my opinion the Treaty of ‘Lisbon’ is not enough in our globalized world, if Europe wants to be able to keep up with the emerging markets and wants to secure the social systems as we have it now, further changes are necessary. The next step should be a real united foreign policy where Europe really speaks with one voice and not with many as we could see it at the present conflicts in Ukraine and Syria.

If we look to Crimea it should be clear that the European Union need a common European defence policy, maybe its own army.

I know that there are many eurosceptic people, and also eurosceptic countries like the United Kingdom, but I believe that Europe will be more successful with a more consolidated tax and fiscal system. The United States had the same problems as we, caused by the worldwide financial crisis which started 2008, but they handled the crisis much faster.

I hope that further changes and future treaties which consider new circumstances will bring lasting growth and welfare to Europe.

23

BUREAU

EDS Bureau 2013/14

24

Eva Majewski (28) is Chairwoman of EDS. She oversees and manages the work of the Bureau and represents EDS externally towards the EPP, all Brussels-based institutions and other third parties.

She is responsible for the strategic agenda setting, policy development, and liasing with member organizations.

Ingrid Hopp (25) is EDS Secretary General. She runs the EDS Office in Brussels, and take care of all day-to-day work. She is also dealing with the EDS communication daily, through the EDS website and Social Media channels. SecGen Hopp also represents EDS externally, both in Brussels and in Europe.

Ivan Burazin (24) ViceChairmen lives in Split, Croatia where he studies National Security at the Faculty of Forensic Sciences, and he holds a bachelor’s degree in administrative law. In the bureau he holds responsible for the entrepreneurship project together with ViceChair Chatzigeorgiou.

Teele Holmberg (31) lives in Tallinn, Estonia. Teele has graduated at the University of Tallinn with an BA in recreation and is graduating as MA at University of Tartu in Social Sciences and European Studies. She is in charge of social media and also in charge for events, a responsibility she shares together with Vice-Chair Masna.

Florian Weinberger (26) lives in Vienna, Austria where he studies the graduate programme agricultural economies. Within the bureau he is responsible for educational policies and he helps Chairman Majewski with the representation of EDS towards the EPP and its working groups.

Anna Masna (31) was born in Ternopil (Ukraine). She studied at the Institute of Economics and Entrepreneurship. She is in charge of the Ad-hoc working group on Eastern Partnership

Andrey Novakov (25) was born in Pazardjik, Bulgaria.

He studied at South-West University in Blagoevgrad where he received his Bachelor’s degree in Public administration. He is a constant contributor to BullsEye and he signs responsible for policy input.

Vassilis Sakellaris (21) studies in Athens. He is in charge of coordinating the campaign activities together with Chairman Majewski and the secreteriat and furthermore supports the team in external repre-

Georgios Chatzigeorgiou (23) was born in Larnaca, Cyprus. He studied Law at Lancaster University in the UK is currently accomplishing his Barristers’ course. Within the Bureau he holds responsible for fundraising together with Vice-Chair Burazin and he is in charge of any statutory questions.