Eurovisie October 2018

eurovisie a publication of the study association for european studies

POLAND SCRAPPING DEMOCRACY FOR THE NATION

www.ses-uva.nl /// october 2018 /// eurovisie@ses-uva.nl

Volume 14, Issue 1 - October 2018

Imprint

Editorial office: Kloveniersburgwal 48, room E2.04/2.05, 1012 CX Amsterdam Editors-in-chief: Nikolai Markov, Anna Boyce Editors: George Bandy, Hanna Blom, Jorens Jakovlevs, Cara Räker, Marthe de Roos Design: Daniël Adam With contributions by: Joep Leerssen, Elmar Krack & Piotr Wimmers

Editorial

Nikolai Markov

W

ell, here we find ourselves again and to those, who are finding themselves here with us for the first time – welcome! Welcome to this city, to this university, to this study, to this madness. Whilst spots in the library and patience for studying are running lower and lower as stress increases significantly, we at Eurovisie are trying to keep it up and provide you with new takes on known issues.

A lot has changed for Eurovisie with the beginning of this academic year. Not only has the editorial board been almost completely exchanged, we are also trying to find new

IN THIS EDITION...

Always remember that you are unique.

Just like everybody else! ways to keep this magazine fresh and in Zeitgeist. You will get to see more of that as the new board warms up. However I have a feeling that without wanting to, all of us had the motivation to give a fresh perspective on issues that surround(ed) us and the theme of Europe for the last couple of years up until now. See for yourselves as you read through a re-evaluation of the populist surge in Poland, a recap on ‘Wir schaffen das’, good old Brexit, populists and further alt-rightists but also new initiatives to rethink Europe. Enjoy this fresh take on Europe’s newest crises that feel so old and witness this new beginning for Eurovisie with the new board!

3) JORENS JAKOVLEVS Scrapping democracy for the nation

18) PIOTR WIMMERS A review of Puigdemont’s visit

6) GEORGE BANDY A word of welcome from the Chair

20) NIKOLAI MARKOV Battle cries for Europe

8) HANNA BLOM No Room for Dissent

23) ANNA BOYCE Brexit and the voice of the people

12) MARTHE DE ROOS The Bedouins in Palestine

25) JOEP LEERSSEN Column

16) CARA RÄKER A personal recap on “Wir schaffen das”

26) ELMAR KRACK Asking our alumni

2

SCRAPPING DEMOCRACY FOR THE NATION THE AMBIGUITY OF POLISH POPULISM

By now, even the most disinterested spectator ought to have noticed that European political discourse has undergone enormous changes in recent years. Right wing populist parties that were on the fringe have entered the scene with a bang, and signs indicate that they are here to stay. Except, perhaps, for its Hungarian partner in crime, nowhere

O

n November 13, 2017 tens of thousands of people gathered in the streets of Warsaw in commemoration of the 99th anniversary of the Polish Independence day. Following the decline and the eventual disappearance of the great Polish kingdom in the course of the 17th and 18th century, the suppressed national revolts in the 19th century, and the horrors of subsequent Nazi and Soviet occupations during the Second World War, the very fulfillment of national sovereignty feels like an achievement in and of itself. “Independence Day can be celebrated with a smile on our faces and with joy in our hearts because there really is much to celebrate and much to be proud of” – declared Donald Tusk, the liberal Polish president of the European Council, who, as Prime Minister, had overseen his country becoming a major player in the European Union and NATO while recording uninterrupted economic growth throughout the financial crisis. Poland has not yet perished! White and red flags were waved as Poles across the country celebrated their nation, which was

is the nativist upsurge more obvious than in Poland where the ruling Law and Justice party has managed to turn the country on its head. To make sense of the radical changes in the former poster-boy of European integration, JORENS JAKOVĻEVS explores the genealogical development of Polish identity.

finally able to stand firmly on its two feet.

Except, if you are to look closer, the celebration was far more sinister. The day will no doubt live in infamy as one of the largest white nationalist gatherings in Europe since the 1930s. Underneath the burning flares, xenophobic rhetoric and far right symbols intertwined as people marched the streets of one of the most homogenous and fastest growing countries in Europe to demand the preservation of ethnically pure and white Europe. Even more alarming was the reaction of the government. The march was referred to as “a beautiful sight” by the interior minister Maiusz Błaszczak and no alarm whatsoever was raised. The Polish government, lead by the right wing Law and Justice party (PiS) since 2015, has been accused for undermining the independence of the judiciary and politicizing the state media, all while legislating historical narratives and passing some of the strictest abortion laws in Europe. The embrace of authoritarian tendencies and the decline of liberal democracy have come to

3

define contemporary Poland.

then president Lech Kaczyński representing PiS, has routinely been blamed on the politiThe question that logically arises is why cal opposition and foreign forces, facilitating would all these phenomena be present in a an atmosphere of paranoia and division. The country which has gained so much from ope- institutionalized misinformation and erosion ning itself to the outside world. Why, despite of democratic checks which is apparent in the apparent improvements in the standard almost every level of society threatens civil of living and life expectancy are Poles angry liberties of the Polish people, and is severely with the established order? Why, after the undermining Poland’s future in united Europe. long and staunch fight for civil liberties and freedom of speech under socialism, are they The temptations of vesting the populist willing to risk it all? How come nativist senti- government with such tremendous abilities of ments and narratives that seemingly belong manipulating public opinion are powerful ones to a bygone era are resonating in a region and appear to be helpful in explaining the that has been spared from unrest, bloodshed anti-European discourse that has emerged. and immigration?

Instead of echoing the universal diagnosis about the bleak state of the misinformed While it does seem that searching for an Polish homo-orientem, I propose that the objective logic behind it would be a fruitless appeal toward PiS’s vision of Poland primarily exercise, bound to cause cognitive dissonan- has its roots in the unique Polish historical ce in anyone, plenty of prominent voices have consciousness that developed during and attempted to make sense of these contradic- after the collapse of the Soviet Union and in tions. It has all been said before – ‘the end of an enduring self perception that emphasizes history thesis’ belongs to the past; polariza- the goodness of the Polish nation. tion and fragmentation of the public sphere, Who are you? accelerated by the shifting media landscapes Little Pole is changing the established social norms and What’s your emblem? relations; emphasis of identity politics in the Eagle White current ‘post-fact’ era has become the norm. Where do you live?

However, it appears that the Eastern EuroAmongst my kind pean populist leaders rather than following a In which country? path marked elsewhere are trailing it on their The Polish land own terms, all while attaining widespread What’s this land? support from their citizens. These capable It’s my homeland demagogues are preaching to the worst How was it won? instincts of their voters. The resonance of By blood and scar PiS’s anti-liberal sentiment has exceeded the Do you love it? worst expectations of foreign policy experts With my heart and soul and civil society observers. The picture pain- What do you trust in? ted by Western analysts is indeed a grave Poland – my home one and suggests a deliberate abduction of What are you? democratic values and institutions. GovernHer grateful child ment has a say in the appointment of judges; What do you owe her? the state owned news media has become a My whole life mouthpiece for the PiS ideologues and high ranking government officials are spreading – KINDERGARTEN RHYMING SONG unfounded conspiracy theories about the tragic plane crash in Smolensk. The 2010 crash, The fact of the matter is that many Eastern which killed many elite statesmen including European nations have never shared many of

4

the values that, albeit loosing their appeal in the current times, continue to form one of the sturdiest pillars of classical European identity. Freedom of speech, independence of the press, the judiciary and citizenship based on civic rather than ethnic identity have all been intrinsic ideals of the liberal democratic system, which the West seemingly had managed to export eastwards with great enthusiasm after the collapse of socialism in Europe. To understand the Polish revolt against the hegemonic regime of institutions, thought and expression, one has to abandon short term thinking on the subject and investigate the very basis of Polish and eastern European identity and the importance of democracy vis-à-vis nationalism in country’s historical consciousness and institutions of cultural memory.

Unlike the wealthy Western European states, which have consolidated their hegemonic position in the larger world system by developing confident images of self, Polish self-positioning has been characterized by a continuous liminal process of becoming. As of late, this has been the process of becoming European; in the post World War Two era it was the process of becoming a friendly member of the Soviet-lead second world. But above all, throughout Polish history, it has been the process of establishing itself, of being in charge of own affairs and destiny. Along with Catholicism, the Polish struggle, which manifests itself prominently in the national mythology, has been the defining feature of the very specific set of beliefs that compiled together form the basis of the righteous collective identity of Poles. And collective it is indeed. Unlike the Western tradition of Enlightenment, which emphasises the rights and utility of the individual, defining watershed moments of Polish history – the January insurrection, the Warsaw Uprising or the Solidarity movement – have put the aspirations of the collective at the forefront.

Despite the seemingly significant strides made by liberalism in Poland, it’s becoming

more and more apparent that the foundations of its building blocks are no more stable than those of Amsterdam’s canal houses.

Not only have liberal policies aggravated various existing inequalities, but to a large number of Poles, the anti-thesis to despotism has never been liberal democracy as envisioned by Western observers. Emancipation is not thought of in terms of the individual but rather the nation. Likewise – freedom does not equal the right of the individual to do what he pleases but rather denotes the agency of Poland as a whole. The current phenomena can thus be traced back to an era of dependence and foreign hegemony and should be viewed as manifestations of the almost dialectic interaction between the two sides of Poland – one, who’s identity and self identification is invested in the tradition of the Enlightenment and liberalism; and another, which holds on to the premise of Poland’s special path and destiny, which it has to take into it’s own hands and not bow in front of any external forces that dictate or disrupt their vision. By analyzing Poland from this perspective, the appeal of the right wing demagogues does not seem surprising. Even more so, when faced with the harsh social realities exacerbated by the structural setup of the EU – mass emigration, brain drain, declining birth rates and the increasingly obvious development of a two speed economy – the appeal of populists who emphasize the importance of family, traditional morality and homogenous community seems rational.

Two versions of Poland have coexisted since the collapse of the Soviet Union and the recent populist wave that has engulfed the country has unearthed the contrariety of the two sides. In the light of growing social polarization and hostilities, one has to understand the deeply rooted desire for recognition and sense of belonging, which has evaporated as a result of increasing globalization.

To destroy the seeds of toxic nationalism that have already been sown in the Polish soil and beyond, an alternative to the declining liberal order must be devised.

5

The new Chair of the Board, GEORGE BANDY, introduces the SES and discusses the latest events

W

elcome to the new year! Everything’s in full swing, the autumn colours, the classic unpredictable weather, and somehow the first exams have just passed. There is a lot of energy about.

Bushuis is alive with students tearing through lecture notes whilst seeing how many ADE parties they can manage.

As with every new year we get to welcome many new faces. Starting back in September, fresh students were thrown head-first into Amsterdam by the gentle touch of the Intreeweek. Yellow bags once again stormed the city, as parks were filled with beer crates and circles of people introducing themselves.

A week of parties and getting to know each other ensued. Friday night came around quickly as the new European Studies generation hit up Paradiso for one final sesh. At the end of the night, as the Paradiso lights went out, the Intreeweek families had to say goodbye to their elderly Intree parents and head home to nurse their heads and prepare for what was to come. The weekend brought a refreshing breath of rest and period for detox just in time for day zero. Monday morning soon arrived and Bushuis came out of its summer hibernation. Talks of National Thought and Turning Points were reintroduced into common vocabulary, as Leerssen and Lok go about their yearly challenge of moulding a new group into budding academics.

After 8 weeks the introduction period has now come to a close and hopefully everyone has settled into their new university lives and

6

made some nice friends. It was a busy block with many great events. Starting off in the first weeks the SES took to the seas for a boat trip through Amsterdam. After was the first conference of the year where we partnered with PAX to hold a night on the situation in Eastern Ukraine. The fifth week saw our competitive sides emerge as teams lined up their red cups for a fierce night of beer pong.

Also not to be forgotten, our weekend retreat to the sunny countryside resort of Dwingeloo where 80 new students competed it out, in a journey of beer and bucket-lists, to see which was the best continent. To bring the introduction period to a memorable close, SES teamed up with its friends Kleio and Kanvas for a big fest in the ClubUp. At this point it is probably good to introduce myself. I’m George, this year’s Chair of the association and a member of the Eurovisie team. I’m very happy to have this chance to give a nice introduction to both the year and the association. Given that you’re reading this you probably already have a good idea of what the SES is and does, but for those who are not so familiar here’s a quick run through.

The SES is the Study Association for European Studies at UvA. We are a large community of students brought together by our interest in Europe, drive for studying, and having a drink together. The goal of the association is to add to the course and to the studentlife to fill the year with many educational, social and career-oriented events. We’re now at just over 40 events per year! The role

The SES Board 2018/2019. From left to right: Job Knobbout, Lieke van Dijk, George Bandy, Jesse Schipperijn & Julia Gieseck of organising all these events is that of the SES Committees. It is not just events that the committees do, the Eurovisie magazine you have now is also one of the many other projects the association runs every year.

Whether it is Conference or Event, Travel or Eurovisie, working in a committee is a great opportunity to develop your own skills whilst getting to know many other students. On that note, the new SES committees for 20182019 have now been formed! There were many great applications and it was exciting to see so much enthusiasm for all the events to come. Congratulations to all the new committees and we look forward to everything you are going to put together. If you did not join a committee this time round, remember the applications for Hitchhike and Introduction are in January! The Eurovisie is another great venture that you can get involved in throughout the year. Students can submit their own articles to the editorial board or apply to be on the editorial board itself.

Now time for some of the SES back story.

Founded in 1987, we are now entering our mid-thirties. Whilst for individuals this age can be a time of crisis and life-reflection, for our association it is quite smooth running.

Every year has seen some changes and developments; sometimes there are new committees being formed, new events created, and the occasional overhaul of structure. One of the main focuses of this year is on inclusiveness, this means ensuring many different events and projects that reach out to the many different interests of the students in the study. Whether you would like to develop your professional skills, discover different cultures, or make some great friends, the association strives to be a platform for every European Studies student to build on their own interests and develop themselves.

In part to this, another focus for this year is to continue expanding the career-related events available to European Studies

7

students. There are many different valuable career skills that are not taught in the class room. Whether that is learning more about professional presentation or building up a network, the association aims at providing opportunities and projects that help prepare students for what’s to come later. Whilst sometimes it can feel far away, at the end of our study we need to head out into that career world so it is important to get prepared for it now! Speaking of the career world - with many new students coming in, it also marks the end of the BA days for many others. October 10th saw many proud faces filling the Singelkerk, as one by one the elders in our ranks went up to collect their well-earned diplomas. Big congratulations to our new Alumni!

I have spoken a lot now about what we do and what we aim for. There is a lot going on during the study year and it definitely keeps us busy. Is it worth it? Definitely. University is not just about what goes on in the class rooms or the weekly readings. There is so much you can do and so many things to get involved in. It is one of the beautiful things about these student years. There is definitely some stressful times, as we all know with exams around the corner, but there are many unforgettable moments as well. There are so many great opportunities to develop yourself both personally and academically, to learn something new and to go outside your comfort zone. Sometimes that is heading off on a trip to a different culture, organising a career day, or just taking a drink with a new group of people. The world is your oyster - Eat it up.

8

NO ROOM FOR DISSENT The announcement of Jordan Peterson’s arrival is followed by conservative students roaming the collegiate halls with a definite spring in their step, while progressive students are left gobsmacked and assemble across the city with other concerned parties to concoct a plan of action.

HANNA BLOM tries to answer the age-old question which is now ever present among 20-something activists; do you confront the problematic other with logic or do you try to prevent them from ever making their point?

“W

e are happy to announce that Prof. Jordan Peterson has accepted our invitation to come for a session at Room for Discussion.” A collective shudder was felt through good-willing UvA students when the arrival of YouTube-based champ of the alt-right, ‘defender of the patriarchy’, Jordan Peterson was advertised on Facebook. Was the modern university not supposed to be a cesspool of left indoctrination? Was the UvA not supposed to be the

unholy institution where you pay 2000 euros a year to be made to feel guilty about being white and/or male? Would Peterson not just hit a protective, magnetic dome set of by the energy of potluck dinners and solidarity marches as he tries to enter Amsterdam?

Why, why, why would Room for Discussion ask Peterson to come?

Room for Discussion (RfD) is the major debate platform of the University of Amsterdam (UvA), and was set up by economics and business students during the crash of 2008, to bridge the gap between the theory and the practice of economics. RfD therefore has her roots in economic issues, but as they are now celebrating their ‘decade of debate’, the invitees have ranged from economists to writers, journalists, politicians, CEO’s and philosophers. Similar to their diversity in professions, guests also represent the full political spectrum. Terrified of facing the same fate as the UvA, being accused of being a left, Marxist organization, the discussion platform often takes on the heavy duty of offering a stage to controversial opinions. The critique they face for these choices are based on the idea that when the RfD invites racist, sexist, xenophobic, Islamophobic people - they as people, and their accompanying views, are legitimized by an institution which represents many students and teachers to whom those views are extremely dangerous.

In 2016, when politicians in parliament still addressed each other in Dutch and not broken Latin, Thierry Baudet was invited to Roeterseiland. He was invited based on being one of the initiators of the Ukraine referendum of 2016. Around the same time he had started Forum voor Democratie, which started out as a think-tank at the UvA. By the time of his either anticipated or dreaded interview, it had transformed into the Netherlands’ hottest right-wing political party. Before people realized he was just a smoother and more relatable copy of Geert Wilders, Dutch newspapers had celebrated him for being an intellectual wunderkind, playing

piano and writing books all while keeping his hair-gel from dripping down his Italian suits.

On top of this, he too at one point roamed the halls of Oudemanhuispoort, ergo his return to UvA should have been a victory lap.

Unfortunately, a page from Baudet’s mildly appreciated novel Conditional Love had been getting the wrong kind of attention online.

The book tells the gripping tale of intelligent and handsome Gregor, who becomes a professional compagnon for wealthy ladies, exploring the new sexual dynamics of today where women are in control, somehow.

Channelling sexually traumatized Gregor, Baudet wrote that dating, courtship and showing interest in a lady, is not the way to go.

Women respond to rough, unsophisticated, cavemen-like characteristics - ask any rapist.

Combined with a nice brand of racism, xenophobia, and general sexism, UvA students were not thrilled about the return of Baudet.

Right off the bat, one of the RfD hosts asked Baudet to respond to the students who had showed up to protest his appearance. He assured her and the crowd that he, of course, is a firm opposer of rape. And that was that.

The conversation moved on, and when students continued to disrupt the conversation not letting go of the whole ‘you excused rape in your book’ thing - Baudet told the students off like a disappointed father his children.

They have had their fun and made their point and it was time to move on. The two RfD interviewers nodded along.

At the moment, activist circles in Amsterdam are assembling and discussing their options on- and offline. Opposing a speaker, invited by a large institution can come in many forms, but opinions differ which is appropriate to the cause. While all present agree on the simple premise that Jordan Peterson should not speak at the UvA, decisions have to be made on how to make this happen.

Groups can protest the sole fact that controversial entity X was invited, holding protests, rallies or petitions to make the institution withdraw their invitation. This approach takes away the platform from X completely. The

9

consideration has to be made if more damage is done by either angered supporters who feel even more neglected by society because they cannot even get their people to come and speak, or by fired up supporters who had access for an hour of uncensored propaganda. De-platforming treats symptoms, as the ideology remains accessible online but it still prevents spreading of the message to a certain extent and sends out a strong message of what is and what is not allowed to exist in the public space.

A main reason for an invite withdrawal would not necessarily be because the institution momentarily forgot their values, are now reminded of them and correct the situation; it would be because of pending danger. As it seems now, activists are not willing to get violent for Peterson - and besides, when the RfD interview with radical left politician Sylvana Simons was deemed unsafe, they just moved the discussion to CREA. Moving to the day of the debate itself, the activists can spread across the audience and ask critical questions, picking up the responsibility as it has been dropped by the interviewers but this automatically means the interviewee is someone to engage with.

Full on disrupting the interview is another form of de-platforming, as the guest will be unable to get their point across. The chaos which activists create can be creative and symbolic, like the impromptu funeral held for all victims of fossil fuel during the RfD event with Marjan van Loon, head of Shell.

Former Breitbart contributor and decadent alt-righter Milo Yiannopoulos is a sort of success story for the former branch of activism. Yiannopoulos used to tour all over to talk about his hardships and inspirations as an alt-right troll, and was often met with resistance. The most notorious occurrence was when he was invited by the local conservative Republican chapter at the University of Berkeley. His appearence sparked a massive riot-like protest and the ordeal ended in Yiannopoulos’ invitation being cancelled.

While he did not face this kind of reaction

10

each time he was scheduled to speak, the trend of his invitations being cancelled did continue, which resulted in him missing out on opportunities to both spread his message and capitalize on it. His case could be seen as an argument in favour of de-platforming hate-mongering internet celebrities. It reduces the influence pernicious trolls like Yiannopoulos can have on discourse, and makes their speech, though still hateful and free, do less harm.

Jordan Peterson is a professor of psychology who looks at existing hierarchies, which the ‘radical left is trying to eliminate, as the natural order of the world’. He strongly believes in upholding patriarchy, because femininity brings chaos to otherwise masculine order.

White privilege is, obviously, non-existent, and anyone who disagrees is merely indoctrinated. His anti-progressive opinions are disguised as folksy, common-sense advice.

He invents enemies and offers young men a solution to various straw men. His past as a clinical psychologist is visible in his self-help style tailored to the individual, which makes it so compelling. Peterson’s YouTube videos are wildly popular, but how does his internet persona translate into real life?

When invited to speak, Peterson presents his ideology to his audience as common knowledge, which has perhaps been pushed down by political correctness and liberal media but resurfaces the minute he reminds you of it.

Not only his beliefs, but the natural manner in which he presents them, create a moment of serenity for people who otherwise feel like spies within their left-wing institute. People like Baudet, like Yiannopoulos, like Peterson, create momentary safe-spaces in academia for the young right wing. Especially for those imprisoned in the godless and red faculty of Humanities, when they are invited to universities. These men allow and encourage their followers to believe that they are good enough, opportunities are just passing them by because they are being unfairly punished for being privileged. Offending people is

successfully presented as a character trait, or even a whole placeholder for a personality, and for that hour and a half, life is good.

Being invited by Room for Discussion does not equal being endorsed by Room for Discussion. RfD stands by this explanation when their taste in invited guests and topics are being questioned. “Regardless of what you think of him, he has recently been a very influential figure in many different spaces.

His ideas resonate with a fraction of the population.� When inviting a controversial personality such as Peterson disappoints or angers fellow students, does this mean that there is no room for diverging opinions? Or is it telling of a complete distrust in the RfD staff to offer the appropriate resistance to a notoriously manipulative interviewee?

Inviting someone with opposite views, just to put them in their place for having these views, in front of an audience who shares

your views, sounds way too left indoctrinating, Amsterdam, I-just-switched-fromalmond-milk-to-oat-milk-because-I-am-anethical-consumer, for the RfD to ever let this happen. While RfD often seeks out contact with activists who will likely disrupt their event, they do not seem to be part of the de-platforming/challenging discussion, and this is a real pity.

As long as RfD sticks to their ideology of bland open debate, the E-hall of Roeterseiland will be stuck in a loop. Every couple of months the then prevailing hotshot of the alt-right will make his way to the East campus. Button-up shirt clad econ students will ask them extremely open questions as they nervously make eye contact with people alongside the stage. Students will demonstrate outside, do mic-checks, throw or even inflate objects and people on all sides will shake their head because it is just such a shame that we cannot have a real debate on the university anymore.

11

THE BEDOUINS IN THE OCCUPIED PALESTINIAN TERRITORIES ARE FACING ETHNIC CLEANSING

O

n Wednesday the 5th of September 2018, the Israeli High Court ruled that the Palestinian Bedouin village Khan al-Ahmar will be demolished. On the 23rd of September, the residents of Khan al-Ahmar received notice that they have until the 1st of October to destroy their own village and leave. If they will not obey, the Israeli army will use force to complete the deportation of the 180 residents, half of them children. All this to make room for new Jewish settlers.

The demolition and deportation are planned for the beginning of October. Since the EU strongly supports the two-state solution, how did it react to this ruling?

This summer the Israeli parliament passed the law that will characterize the Israeli state as a Jewish state. Hebrew will be the official language and the ‘development of Jewish settlements’ will be an important value and goal of this Jewish state. In September the colonial project of building and expanding Israeli settlements targeted the Palestinian Bedouin village of Khan al-Ahmar. This village is located in the district of East-Jerusalem and falls within area C. The Oslo II Accord divided the West Bank into three different areas. Area A is under full civil and security control by the Palestinian Authority. Area B is under Palestinian civil control and joint

12

MARTHE DE ROOS Israeli-Palestinian security control and Area C is under full Israeli civil and security control.

Around 63 percent of the occupied West Bank falls under Area C. The residents of Khan al-Ahmar belong to the Bedouin Jahalin tribe. The Palestinian Bedouins are traditionally nomadic and live mostly in tents and huts. The tribe was driven out the Negev desert by the Israeli army in the 1950s. They thought they had found a safe haven in Khan al-Ahmar but again they face forced deportation. What will happen to the 180 residents? They will be deported to a site 12 kilometers away, located next to a large landfill. The Israeli settlers try everything to make, what might be their last days, as dreadful as possible. Many reports already have been filed about Israeli settlers harassing the villagers. In June of this year, the Israeli army already destroyed the tents in which the inhabitants lived. In the first week of October, the settlers flooded the area with wastewater.

So what is in it for the Israeli government?

Khan al-Ahmar is of strategic value to Israel.

It is located in the so-called East One-Area (E1) and next to two large illegal Israeli settlements Maale Adumim and Kfar Adumim. E1 is the corridor between East-Jerusalem and

the West Bank. With the ruling of the Israeli High Court on the fate of Khan al-Ahmar, the other 45 Bedouin villages in this central part of the West Bank are also in danger. By deporting the Bedouins of Khan al-Ahmar and expanding settlements, Israel aims to cut the West Bank in two. Consequently, East-Jerusalem will be separated from the West Bank.

The Israeli High Court defends its ruling by stating that Khan al-Ahmar was built without permission from the Israeli government. The Israeli Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman called the decision of the High Court ‘brave’.

Meanwhile, it is in practice impossible for a Palestinian to obtain a permit to build. UN research shows that only 1.5 percent of the

al-Ahmar case to the International Criminal Court of the Hague. The village spokesman Eid Abu Khamis said: ‘No one will leave. We will have to be expelled by force.’

Multiple EU-member states condemn the acts of Israel. However, over the years the criticism never led to real sanctions. It is only since September of this year that the EU seemed to have chosen a different path. On the 12th of September the European Parliament adopted a resolution in which the EU warns Israel that ‘forcible transfer of residents of an occupied territory is a violation of international humanitarian law under the Fourth Geneva Convention.’ The EU also has its own interests when it comes to the High Court ruling: 10 EU-member states are supporting

“[...] the EU warns Israel that ‘forcible transfer of residents of an occupied territory is a violation of international humanitarian law under the Fourth Geneva Convention.’ ”

applications for permits of Palestinians are approved.

Many political groups and activist groups such as the Palestinian Liberal Organization, the Israeli human rights group B’Tselem, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have urged the international community to undertake action against the ruling of the Israeli High Court. Activists claim the Israeli government is committing ethnic cleansing in deporting the residents of Khan al-Ahmar.

Different activist groups still gather in Khan al-Ahmar and organize sit-ins and demonstrations. The Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas stated plans to take the Khan

different humanitarian programs in Khan al-Ahmar. These programs are estimated to be worth 315 000 euros. The demolition of the village will also mean the demolition of EU funded-structures. The resolution therefore states: ‘Should the demolition and eviction of Khan al-Ahmar take place, the EU’s response must be commensurate with the seriousness of this development and consistent with its long-standing support to the community of Khan al-Ahmar.’

Furthermore, in the joint motion it is stressed that the Israeli authorities carry full responsibility for all the people living under its occupation. The EU wants to put an end to

13

Israel’s settlement policy. It states that it keeps faith in the two-state solution as the most durable solution: ‘Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace within secure and recognized borders, on the basis of the 1967 border and with Jerusalem as the capital of both states.’ But is this two-state solution still on the table? The Israeli colonial project makes the possibility of a Palestinian state less and less feasible. Israel has already built 200 illegal Jewish-only settlements in the occupied West Bank. With the US stance being enunciated through Trump’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, how will the EU fight this?

Two days after the deadline for the residents to demolish the village on their own passed, the German Chancellor Angela Merkel visited Israel. She also planned to discuss the situation in Khan al-Ahmar with the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

The Israeli authorities decided not to start the demolition while the German Chancellor was in the country. During her visit, children from Khan al-Ahmar organized a demonstration and carried photos of Merkel, calling for her help. During her visit Merkel urged Netanyahu not to demolish the village.

What is going to happen once she leaves is another question.

25 years ago, the Oslo Accords were signed.

For more than half a century the Palestinians have lived under military occupation and face many restrictions in day to day life.

Critics even speak of an apartheid regime.

There are millions of Palestinian refugees living in diaspora and within Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories. They are still waiting for their right to return. With Trump’s decision to stop all the funding to the UNRWA, they need the international support more than ever. And what about the 1.9 million Palestinians living under a 10-year blockade in the Gaza strip, known as the ‘biggest open-air prison in the world’? Since the beginning of the Great Return March protests, over 200 Palestinians have been

14

killed in Gaza. Amongst the victims are children, journalists and medical staff.

This summer, I spent 6 weeks in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories, where I witnessed the daily suffering of the Palestinians in the occupied Westbank. I helped as a volunteer at the annual summer camp of the Al Mostaqbal school in the village al-Khader.

One morning, the Israeli soldiers stormed in and forced the children at gun point to show them their hands. The soldiers thought they were throwing rocks at them. A four-year-old

girl grabbed my hand while crying. Later that day, I saw children kicking an empty teargas grenade, as if it were a football.

One weekend, I was invited to a Palestinian engagement party, and the next day I took part in a funeral march in Dheisheh refugee camp. There had been a night raid and a 15-year-old boy named Arkan was shot in his chest at close range by an Israeli soldier. Ambulances were prohibited by the Israeli forces to enter the area and the boy died. These are just a few of the many stories of the lives of

the Palestinians under the military occupation that need to be told.

If the demolition and expulsion of Khan al-Ahmar take place, it will have devasting consequences for all Palestinians and prospects of any possible peace agreement. The future of Khan al-Ahmar is in the hands of the international community. With Spain, Portugal and Ireland ready to recognize Palestine as a state, when will the EU finally act against the war crimes committed by the Israeli government?

15

A PERSONAL RECAP ON “WIR SCHAFFEN DAS” WHY I’LL KEEP MY REFUGEES-WELCOME-BUTTON FOR NOW

I

t’s 21:47 on a Friday night and I’m watching a YouTube documentary titled CALAIS CHAOS- documentary film- shocking footage! It’s my third documentary on the topic and my head is filled with all kinds of images not unlike those you see in Zombie-Apocalypse Movies: A shaky camera running after men running after trucks. Dozens of men.

Hundreds. Kicking Fences, screaming at police guards, storming motorways, lighting fires.

Cut. Now it’s a young black man thanking the English population for all the food they bring, holding up a chocolate bar in blue plastic wrapping to the camera. Cut. Volunteers handing out food. Cut. Truck drivers telling the camera man that it is only a matter of time until the first one of them will be killed by refugees. Cut. A young woman with a hijab, saying she only leaves her tent twice a day because she is afraid that she’ll get raped.

Cut. Opened in 2002 the refugee camp in Calais reached a peak population of almost 10,000 people in 2017. Calais is a small town in northern France that just so happens to be the main ferry crossing point to England.

The camp has been nicknamed ‘The Jungle” and I got to know about it after meeting Jaz O’Hara, a stunning young British woman with a husky voice, hair as long as her hip and a nose piercing. She came to my high school a couple of years ago to give a talk about the power of social media as a tool for social activism. After having visited the refugee camp for the first time, she wrote an emotional Facebook post, added her address in case anyone would have had any clothes or food they would want to donate and went to bed. The next morning over 64,000 people

16

CARA RÄKER

had shared her story and the day after that the first amazon deliveries started arriving.

Long story short: The World Wide Tribe was born, a charity organization using social media to share stories of refugee camps all over Europe and The Middle East for the sake of raising awareness and collecting donations.

And yet, even though I had not thought about the refugee crisis in a long time, it was the first subject to come to my mind when thinking of what to write for Eurovisie. In 2015 when the first big wave of refugees hit Europe, or rather when the first big wave of news about the refugee crisis swamped the media, I didn’t actually think too much about it. At the time I lived in The Hague which seemed worlds away from the small German town I grew up in. It was only when Angela Merkel spoke her infamous “Wir schaffen das” and metaphorically opened German borders to millions of refugees that the whole refugee crisis became something of a subject matter to me.

Suddenly 890,000 wasn’t just a statistic anymore. Suddenly 890,000 refugees who entered Germany in 2015 were a woman in a drugstore, two children tugging at her dress, trying to ask the frowning shop assistant for Baby-Milk by pointing at her pram and repeating “MilchMilchMilch?”. 890,000 refugees became two old Ladies on the bus talking about this one girl which was raped or that one shop that was broken into while looking suspiciously at a gaunt young man, slumped down in his window seat, playing with his smartphone. 890,000 became a political discussion at family dinners, it became a “Refugees Welcome”-button on my backpack

and lastly the reason I started to become interested in politics in the first place.

In 2015 587 refugees were assigned to my small German hometown and I saw “Wir schaffen das” in live in action. The city-administration rented 538 rooms and bought an additional 16 houses while simultaneously founding an association for the construction of further housing facilities. An article from 2017 published by our local newspaper hesitantly stated that the city was 93,6 million Euros in debt and yet 16 million Euros were invested into the integration of refugees in 2015 alone. Trucks full of donations kindly given to the local collection point had to be sent back or re-distributed to other cities in Germany because they exceeded the demand. Admittedly, my look-how-well-Germany-dealt-with-the-refugee-crisis-narrative is a little bit too simplistic. My positive outlook on the subject matter is based on my personal experience and on stories such as the one of Jaz O’Hara. But there are always two sides of the coin and in the case of the refugee crisis it is probably more along the lines of six sides to one rubrics cube: It’s complex.

The fear of the refugee as an ‘economic parasite’ that would exhaust Germany’s welfare system and general economic capacities led to the AfD (‘Alternative for Germany’) becoming the country’s third strongest political party in the 2017 elections. This is the furthest leap German politics has taken towards the right of the political spectrum since 1945- something that could be observed in several countries all over Europe. It is true that a large number of migrants are driven by the prospect of economic prosperity and sometimes the expectations are too high to be met. There is a video on YouTube titled ‘What refugees expect from Germany’ in which a number of interviews with migrants reflect a general sense of frustration and disappointment. A young man, Erwis, asks the camera where the 2000 Euros are that have supposedly been promised to every single refugee by the EU. He’s been in Germany for a month,

he says, and he hasn’t been given any money at all. He turns his pockets inside out to prove that he is indeed penniless. Another woman from Syria, Sherin, has heard that as soon as she would arrive in Germany, she would be given her own house and 5000 Euros for her family but instead she had to move into a refugee camp. The video wasn’t very well received and I do understand why.

It plays into the whole image of Germany as the generous care-giver whose selfless efforts are met with nothing but disregard and ungratefulness. Even to someone like me who has neither donated to refugee camps nor committed any time to significant voluntary work, someone who has watched with interest but passivity from the sidelines, comments like “We don’t want eat, we just want money” sound a little bit out of place.

It’s 2018 now. The Jungle of Calais doesn’t exist anymore but the World Wide Tribe further demonstrates the positive impact of social media on global politics. Germany’s agreements with Turkey has led to a drop in immigration from the infamous 890,000 refugees in 2015 to only 78,000 who applied for a residence permit in Germany in the first five months of 2018. The large temporary housing units for refugees in my small German town are empty now- everyone has been successfully relocated. There are eight German language courses given to children in our local schools and my younger sister herself tells me about a Syrian girl in her class that doesn’t really talk but seems to be very nice.

The AfD has just recently been noted to be the second strongest party after the grand coalition between Germany’s SPD and CDU in September. Somewhere in the Mediterranean there are ships filled with people unable to reach the European mainland because the Italian government has decided to close its southern ports. So, what is the end of the story? Haben wir es geschafft? I guess we are still in the middle of it all so it s important to think about the issue from time to time.

Yes, it’s gotten quieter but my Refugees-Welcome-Button will stay for now. Just in case.

17

CARLES PUIGDEMONT I CASAMAJÓ

FAILS TO IMPRESS

A critical view on Puigdemont’s dream of an independent Catalonia

by PIOTR WIMMERS

1

p.m., the location is the Roeterseiland campus of the University of Amsterdam, in the buzzing eastern city district. The lobby of the campus boasts impressively big pictures of Puigdemont and the obligatory advertisement for purchasing his book. We all know Puigdemont, the leader of the Catalan independence movement, currently granted asylum in Belgium for the reason that Madrid would love to take a chance and try him.

At Room for Disucssion, he was invited to speak about his dreams, his motivations and argumentations, in trying to achieve the seemingly impossible feat of creating an independent Catalan state. The room was buzzing, people were expecting sharp rhetoric and I myself at first warmed up to the idea of an independent Catalonia; the self-determination of a people is a fundamental right after all. However, rhetorically Puigdemont turned out to be the biggest disappointment of a populist leader ever since Nigel Farage steered Britain away from the European haven.

Puigdemont started out by explaining his life story and how repressed he felt by the Francoist government, which effectively treated the Catalonians as second-class citizens until Franco’s death in 1975. The two people interviewing Puigdemont posed a number of questions, most of them however easy to answer and not critical at all. When facing questions posed by the crowd, Puigdemont simply failed to give a coherent answer.

When asked about an independent Catalonia that will probably be excluded from joining the European Union, Puigdemont simply said: ‘no, we will be in the EU’. This is where his

18

rhetoric is flawed, simplistic, and plainly false.

He must realize that Spain will veto any entry bid Catalonia would present to the EU. He must also realize that in times of populism, Brussels will not support any separatist movement, let alone admitting Catalonia to the EU should it successfully secede from Spain.

Additionally, we encounter another problem when we look at this from a more historico-judicial point of view. The fact is that no country which had seceded from another EU-country was subsequently admitted to the EU, simply because this has never occurred before. Therefore, we can readily conclude that there is no form of jurisprudence on this matter. Catalonia could by some miracle be accepted to the EU but what Puigdemont claims is, in reality, far from guaranteed. And exactly that is the problem; Puigdemont is popular amongst Catalonians and has been elected as the Catalan president for, among other things, guaranteeing his people that Catalonia will become an EU member state immediately after becoming independent. He is by no means in any position to make such definite promises.

Right now, all the signs point to a very different direction; that Catalonia will not be an EU-member state. That could potentially create massive problems for the Catalan economy, which primarily revolves around the industry, tourism and an extensively developed banking sector. Arguably all three sectors will suffer following a Catalan secession. The industry will most definitely suffer from not being in the EU; export numbers will drop since Catalonia will find itself outside of the common market. The Catalan government could try to squeeze out deals with

Brussels but I have a feeling that the Spanish government would be very happy to make an independent Catalonia’s life miserable by just vetoing everything. The banking sector will also suffer since most banks will just leave Barcelona, a trend we were able to observe with banks in London relocating to various cities on the European mainland following Brexit. Economically, seceding from Spain could very well become a major problem for the Catalan people.

straight back to Madrid, where he can spend time dreaming his old-fashioned dreams in some fancy surveilled resort.

I went to Puigdemont’s interview sympathising with the idea of Catalonia’s successful secession; I left hinging to the idea that Catalonia should actually remain in Spain.

Something tells me he did not do his job very well...

Instead of taking questions posed by some very sharp individuals in the crowd to a deeper, more political level, Puigdemont proudly spoke of banal stories. Like the time he was chased by a helicopter, or how he and his movement successfully acquired ballot boxes from China needed to hold their referendum. Going deeper into the material, and critically analyzing the current political dilemma he himself and the Catalans find themselves in, was sadly and disappointingly avoided; a shame really because that is exactly what the audience was interested in. If we were interested in helicopter-related action, we would just watch any Arnold Schwarzenegger movie.

Lastly, are we, as Europeans, or as the world at large, willing to go back to the age of nationalism and create even more nation-states for every single socio-cultural entity? Is not that idea a bit old-fashioned, irrelevant and simply dangerous? We all know what nationalist rhetoric had brought us in the 19th century and the first half of the 20th, or even in the 1990s in Yugoslavia. If Catalonia secedes, Puigdemont is not the leader to look up to. He showed himself to be unwilling to critically assess his actions or views, or even try to explain his point of view so that we could understand exactly where he is coming from.

The message he gave was therefore clear: He presented no articulate, well thought of argument at all. Puigdemont is rather than a savior, an actual danger to the Catalonian people and the EU at large, and he needs to be stopped, preferably arrested and sent

19

BATTLE CRIES FOR EUROPE BROKEN ECHOES IN TIMES OF CRISES NIKOLAI MARKOV

T

his could easily be another article dealing with the usual suspects in the European political sphere – Brexit, migration, the “undemocratic East”, populism, financial crisis, what have you. Even though there is no discussing Europe without them, in this article you will get to know about two citizens’ initiatives that deal with Europe’s (current) state and shape: The Congress of Europe, based in our very own city of Amsterdam and the Bulgarian political party “GERB” (acronym translates into ‘Citizens for a European development of Bulgaria’).

Starting off with the CoE, this initiative has been started just this year by Victor Broers, who is an independent speaker, thinker and writer. Having written many books on the economic dimension of Europe but being also a well-known speaker across conferences and strategy sessions on European policy, he has made it his task to create a network across various (academic) fields, disciplines, career paths etc. in order to develop a new path to European politics. Various team members, ranging from students to artists, founders of think-tanks and researchers, reflect the variety that is being looked for in the initiative. In order to physically bring the variety of disciplines, views and experiences together,

20

this initiative specifically aims at creating a large, pan-European network in co-operation with other citizens’ initiatives as well, hosting congresses and organising further events across the continent.

The CoE presents itself as an initiative that searches for answers to the turbulent and uncertain times we live in. The feeding of demagogues on this uncertainty managed to reward us with a new uprising of populism and scepticism towards the European project; an attempt to yet again have the world shrink down to the size of the nation-state.

Instead of looking for the back-door in times of difficulty, CoE is rallying up to charge forward into building a future that will answer our current uncertainties.

Okay, so what is the big deal? Is this not a repetition of what proud Europeans in the institutions and elsewhere have been saying since the onset of these crises? As much as this might be true, there is more to the CoE. On the one hand it is true that especially the European institutions themselves have been fighting to maintain a picture of a progressive institutional framework that is supposed to be there for all European citizens and take into account all kinds of expertise and

experience to enrich the European project.

However the general feeling prevailing in Europe currently is that Europe is in decline. Referring back to the usual suspects, many have said that these crises will make or break the EU. However the EU itself, apart from being quite challenged by these issues, seems to be a bit outworn in its approach to the crises and its citizens.

One of the key issues that the European project has always had and will presumably always have is that it is very difficult for the

political happenings of the continent. However this stance of ‘you do not like Europe because you would not understand it’ only amplifies and exacerbates the EU’s existing problem. Such a stance cannot be representative of how European politics are going to be perceived and communicated. The old days of economic achievement have created a basis, which calls for furthering a common political voice, the move from an economic towards a political union. That cannot be achieved if the idea of a united Europe continues to find bearing only for the few.

“One of the key issues that the European project has always had ... is that it is very difficult for the EU to communicate itself to the citizens it is trying to represent” EU to communicate itself to the citizens it is trying to represent. Many have labelled the EU a conglomerate of lobbyists, stakeholders and elitists, who altogether are trying to generate a pull of European integration towards private interests and increases in profit. It can be argued that this results from a general lack of understanding for the EU itself, a true gap between those who made it their central task to think Europe and those who are not as connected to the

It does seem like the institutions and governments reached a stalemate when it comes to dealing with these issues in a way that is graspable, understandable and defensible for the European population as a whole.

Maybe the Congress of Europe in a way can actually contribute to bring about new ways and insights into what is going on in the political sphere of Europe against the usual aphasia and shrug of shoulders that have increasingly become the response to it.

21

Turning to the Other Europe, the fairly new party GERB, established in March 2006, had managed to make thinking Europe its strong point, which even won the party elections and a leading role in government since it first ran. A citizens’ initiative concerned with a European development of a country that is situated in a rather ambiguous in-between, on the crossroads to Europe: Bulgaria. From a Western perspective it will make very little sense to rally for a European development because thinking Europe has already been an intrinsic part to the Western political sphere since the early days of European integration.

Yet, after more than 40 years of socialist rule and continuous government of the Bulgarian Socialist Party (BSP) from 1997 until 2009, Bulgarians had to seriously ask themselves the question of where they want to head in terms of orientation. Of course many internal affairs had made for GERB to take over, as for example proven cases of corruption and the BSP’s failure to react to the world economic crisis, leaving behind great budget deficits at the end of their term.

Apart from these internal affairs it is interesting to see what Europe means when looked at from the other side of the now long gone Iron Curtain. GERB seems representative of an answer to the most critical of political questions to a small country, which is so far on the verge of Europe that it finds itself under the cultural, historical and political influence of at least three great players, namely Turkey, Russia and the West. This question concerned which road to take, which way to face, which development will be most beneficial for the Bulgarian people; and the answer was Europe.

If we put this excitement about becoming a part of Europe against the critical phase the founding states of the European project

22

seem to face, one central factor becomes evident that distinguishes the West from the East: The West can very much take it for granted that the European project exists and that they are part of it. This is clear from the long history European integration has back into the beginnings of the Cold War. Critical phases have been what the European project has constantly thrived on and it would be very short sighted to presume that this would find an end just because of new crises.

In that sense, the CoE is a brave initiative that instead of listening to voices that want to take the European project back to places it has long surpassed, charges forward to see which new ways we can find to include the European population more into a European political sphere and think Europe according to the challenges it faces today. The question to GERB was a much more fundamental question to the Bulgarian population: will we firmly stand behind the development that we had desired before or will we now draw in our horns and fall back into a case of ambiguity? An ambiguity, which has historically proven to be of detriment to Bulgaria as a whole. In both cases, for the Congress of Europe and GERB the answer was Europe now, more than ever.

Two initiatives, two sides of Europe, both rallying for propelling Europe into greater dimensions even though the underlying questions are so different. Europe can be a widely inclusive answer to the pressing questions of our time. It is essential for us to participate in that process though and deal with it beyond the signs of complication and aphasia. This article was just intended to be a short peak into what people from both sides of Europe have thought of in order to materialize such a way forward.

IS THIS THE END? BREXIT AND THE VOICE OF THE PEOPLE

I

n the past two years the word Brexit has become unavoidable. Open any newspaper, enter any news site and guaranteed within two page turns or scrolls there it will be. The headlines soon begin to sound the same, ‘One EU official says this’, ‘Theresa May proposes such and such a plan’, ‘British citizens shocked at the prospect of having to pay visa charges for their summer holiday to Mallorca’. However, look again in a week’s time and most likely half the statements you read and the plans that were proposed have been overturned or replaced. Brexit and the way the media presents it have become a web of illusions and misconceptions that is almost impossible to escape from. The most recent of which being the possibility of a second referendum, a concept which has polarised British politics.

Is this idea actually so ridiculous? Or is it a rational answer to this chaos that Britain has found itself in? Theresa May recently stated that it would be ‘my deal or no deal’ with regard to her Chequers plan. This has not only split the conservative party in half, with David Davis and Boris Johnson quitting the cabinet in reaction but additionally did not sit well with the EU. They believe the plan to be something of a pick a mix of certain elements, in particular continued access to the EU market, which Donald Tusk referred

ANNA BOYCE

to as undermining the concept of the single market. However, the alternative to this plan, in the words of May is “no deal”. This would metaphorically see the UK thrown from the EU with no parachute. Supporters of the possibility of a second referendum argue that its potential would provide an alternative to this no deal scenario; a final chance for Britain to save itself.

Whilst the concept of a second referendum has been ridiculed by politicians and the media, it wouldn’t be the first time that an EU state gave its citizens a second chance.

In 2009 Ireland held a second referendum after the Treaty of Lisbon was defeated in a referendum, a similar course of events took place in Denmark with regard to the Maastricht Treaty of 1993. Whilst the significance of these referendums and the circumstances in which they took place may differ from a second Brexit referendum, it goes to show that the idea isn’t as unheard of as people may claim.

Undoubtedly the situation in Britain has changed since the announcement of the first referendum. Firstly, thanks to a set of notorious search statistics from google, we can be sure that more people in Britain now know what the EU is. Secondly, with regard to the leave campaign the swift and painless

23

the People’s Vote who are rallying for a public vote on the final Brexit deal. They argue under the belief that it would in fact be undemocratic for the government to come to a decision on the terms of Brexit, without including the British people in said decision. Another such If you were to put an offer in on a new house movement, this one specifically aimed at only to discover that the roof was collapstudents, provocatively named FFS (For our sing and the walls were infested with mould, Futures Sake), encourages the young people should you not then be given the chance to of Britain to not ‘get mad, get organised’. They re-negotiate the terms of the contract, or are also campaigning for a similar vote on the even to pull out completely? Is it not fair that final deal, their argument cleverly encompasdue to a significant change of circumstances sed in a 2013 quote from David Davis, himself you be able to reassess your situation and claiming that ‘if a democracy cannot change change your decision? its mind, it ceases to be a democracy’.

Brexit promised has still yet to materialise and the £350 million the UK gives to the EU each week, if even representative of the real amount, will almost certainly not be going to the NHS (National Health Service).

Is this not what has happened for a significant number of people since they voted in the first referendum? People are now better informed as to the ramifications of their vote.

Whilst the first referendum was riddled with misinformation and fallacy, a second would be addressed to a Britain, which having experienced the chaos and confusion of the past two years, is much better prepared to make an informed decision as to the best future for their country.

“Is it not fair that due to a significant change in circumstances you be able to reassess your situation a change your decision?”

Theresa May proclaimed that a second referendum would be undemocratic. However, many definitions of democracy present it to be a system centred around the ability of citizens to mobilise and organise in order to promote the wants and needs of a nation. In Britain today, you can see that this definition is being put into practice by a number of groups and organisations. One such group is

24

There seems to be a degree of disillusion as to what the people really want. During Prime Ministers Questions Time earlier this week, May claimed that during the Brexit vote ‘everybody acted on the nations’ best interests’, and that she must deliver ‘the will of the people’. However the will of the people that she views as so important has somewhat changed. Whilst not dramatically, the most recent public opinion polls have consistently shown that if the 2016 referendum were to happen again now, it is most likely that Britain would have voted to remain a member of the EU. Thus much of the chaos of the past two years would have been avoided.

As a Brit living in Europe I am by no means unbiased, I am however hopeful. And whilst a people’s vote on the final deal is not a second referendum, the rejection of the Chequers plan by the British people would be a first step toward the proposal of a second referendum making it through parliament. I’m not going to hold my breath, but equally will not be joining the hundreds of Brits allegedly stockpiling food for the long dark winter of Britain’s withdrawal from the EU. A second referendum in reality is still a far-fetched dream. All I ask is that its possibility not be ridiculed to the extent of Theresa May entering a Conservative party conference dancing to ABBA’s dancing queen.

JOEP LEERSSEN

O

ne of the first alumnae of European Studies was Letje Lips. I still see her almost daily, because she now has a job looking after the Faculty’s international contacts. But back in the day, when Menno Spiering started the (still-going) Yearbook of European Studies, Letje was invited, as a fresh graduate, to contribute to our first volume, which was on the theme of “Britain in Europe”. Note the “in”: this was 1988. She had written a very fine MA thesis on the way in which EU membership had consistently, from the 1960s on, been made subject to the UK’s internal party politics. What a given party felt and said about membership depended not so much on its ideological outlook, but very much on whether that party happened to be in opposition or in government. The thesis was reworked into an article, entitled “Twists and turns”.

When Letje and I meet in the Bushuis corridors we sometimes reflect on those heroic early days and how very prophetic that piece was, and how topical it still is. I write this in what is yet another twist and turn in the ongoing clusterfeckorama of Brexit. It is still a most remarkable thing how a country’s foreign policy, which traditionally is dictated by its long-term, large-scale interests, and which usually remains relatively unaffected by the party-political colour of the government of the day, has in this case been subjected to all the volatile incidents, shifts and vacillations that usually are the preserve of party politics. Worse than that: EU membership, one of the key parameters establishing the UK’s place in the world, is now subject to internal faction-fights within a party.

Is that how international politics have developed in the last 30 years? From cautious, pinstripe-suit diplomacy to opinionated mood swings, from government communiqués to

foghorn editorials in vulgar newspapers and six-o’clock-in-the-morning tweets? Perhaps.

The tectonic shift in how media form our public opinion, following the rise of the red-top press and of social media, is a revolution we are still trying to come to terms with.

Partly, I feel it is also due to the tendency to see all aspects of public life as entrepreneurial business. One of the most telling book titles in recent decades has been Donald Trump’s The Art of the Deal. And ‘deal’ is also what the Brexit commentators talk about when they envisage the UK’s future relationship with the EU and with other countries.

A deal is a four-letter word, and to me it conjures up something between a mafia drugs transaction and buying a second-hand car.

A deal is a brief negotiation game between strangers who both want to take advantage of the other. It does not establish a responsibility, or a relationship, any more than that a visit to a brothel establishes a love affair. To conduct politics as a series of ‘deals’ strikes me as being a very, very pernicious thing indeed…

The litmus test for a politician’s reliability used to be that : ”Would you buy a second-hand car from this man”? Well – the merchandise of shifty-eyed smooth-talkers like David Davis, Johnson and Rees-Mogg I wouldn’t touch with a bargepole. And Mrs. May? Heck, I’d try to sell a car to her. But Barnier? Decent chap, looks clean, boring, reliable… What’s not to like?

The fundamental asymmetry now is that the EU is trying to establish a new treaty and a new relationship. The UK wants to cut a deal – as if it were some arrangement within a political party with quarrels and in-fights.

Letje’s thesis is still topical.

25

NG

MA ACK KR

ASKI

LUMNI - EL

R

O

A UR

D

uring the summer I had the opportunity to venture into the HQ of VodafoneZiggo to interview one of our Alumni. Located by the Ij, the place had all the features you would think for a leading telecom company. The lobby centre-piece was a floating globe, with projectors shooting cinematic displays onto it from all sides, as surrounding flat-screens showed the new big developments in the company. Following ideas of open working spaces, each floor was not carved into departments and allocated desks but rather a blank map where you could work where you wanted. For this interview we took to the top floor, to a roof terrace that would make many businesses envious. With a view over the whole of Amsterdam and the perfect coffee to complement it, we started the interview.

I had met Mr. Krack during an evening in Bushuis as part of a second year course. He had been invited to speak about his work in the Public Affairs sector. Meeting Alumni sparked off many thoughts for those in the class as to where they plan to be in the next years. It also brought about the inspiration for this interview series. Here we will share the stories of our Alumni, what decisions they made, careers they followed, and hopefully the occasional tips & tricks.

study at a different faculty first. Elmar started with German which was then taught at the Bungehuis. One notable German class - Translating philosophical and cultural critical texts, such Karl Marx’s. The three years after would be more recognisable of today’s programme National Thought for example, already a mainstay, was in the second year. Aside from the language classes, Elmar was very interested in economics and business.

At the beginning of the fourth year Elmar did an internship at the European Information Centre in the Netherlands. The centre is geared towards SMEs - informing them about EU rules and regulations. The experience highlighted more practical sides of the study.

He concluded the European Studies masters in ’04 with a thesis on the Enlargement of the EU with Turkey.

After his first masters, Elmar followed the newly introduced European Policy research master. (After the split of bachelor and masters, many new programmes, including the honours programme, were introduced). The focus of his masters was on economics with courses in business administration and business strategy at the Roeterseiland campus. Alongside this he took electives from the law faculty.

During his second masters Elmar did an internship at Vodafone for a semester. At the time they did not have the ‘discovery’ programme to provide internships. Internships were more influenced by the proposal of the student. Elmar worked on the new roaming regulations that were being developed in Brussels. He developed three different future scenarios to see what impact the new regulations would have on Vodafone’s business. At Starting in 2000, the programme Elmar took times there was a team of 15 people working looked a little different to our own. It was two on the new roaming developments for Vodayears before the bachelor/master structure fone. During this he interviewed lobbyists at was introduced. Before that the course was Vodafone in Brussels to see what they were four years and at the end you obtained a working on and how they were influencing the masters degree. The first year comprised ge- decisions. His scenarios concluded that Vodaneral academic skills with some more specific fone must work to establish a better commuelements of the subject you were following. nication with Brussels over the new legislation ES itself didn’t have a first year. You had to as otherwise they should expect the scenario

26

with most stringent legislation that would have the biggest impact on business.

At the end of his 5th year, Elmar graduated with his second masters. He then travelled the world for half a year.

He had always thought about working for a large international organisation, such as the United Nations or the European Commission, but realised that he was more interested in the business side. He had considered working in the financial sector but the financial crisis was a big deterrent. He had visited various EU institutions during his years which gave him a wider picture of how the Union was run. During his last year he went on the Brussels trip and went to a talk at the Commission from the Environmental department.

Whilst he liked the atmosphere of the organisation, he felt it wasn’t the field for him at the time.

After the world trip, Elmar worked for a company called PNO as a European Grant Adviser. Here he advised large ICT and telecommunication companies on how to go about applying for European development grants (FB7 and Horizon 2002). He worked with companies such as Philips, Cap Gemini, Yamaha, LM Wind Turbines, and various banks.

He was there for three years then went on another trip of a few months. He wanted to work in a big impact, international, large company. Telecoms became something he was very interested in with the fast pace of work and the technical side to it all. On his return, he went to work for Limited Global (the parent company of Ziggo) then to Ziggo itself, and now for the merged VodafoneZiggo.

The two companies merged in January 2017, which made the team get bigger. At Ziggo there was only a regulatory team, but after the merger a specific Public Affairs team was made, where Elmar works now.

about the history of the legislation and why/ how it has developed. It’s import to work together. There are 1-3 interruptions with the network everyday, most of it is sorted without the customer noticing any problem.

Many of the interruptions are from construction work. Everything is documented in the Netherlands. Every spade that is stuck in the ground is written down somewhere. So everything can work in harmony, it is best that everyone understands each other.” —— How did the programme help?

“European Studies makes you become a good generalist, you can look at things in a whole variety of ways. There’s a lot of choice during the programme so you can really explore what you’re interested in. Taking courses from other faculties was very interesting and broadens your horizons.”

What do you recommend students?

“Internships - they’re a great experience during your study. Try and do them as early as possible. They’re helpful to adapt to business life, which is a huge step, and to network into the market. It’s also an opportunity to focus your mind on what you want to do (or not do) after your programme. The variety within the programme can make this diffi-cult, so doing extra things like internships helps to narrow it down. You learn something about yourself as well. How you work in this new environment presents a mirror of yourself; it shows you what you can bring to the table.“

The KES is the Alumni circle for European Studies.

It aims to promote and maintain contacts between alumni. The circle regularly organizes meetings where alumni meet and network. This makes it the perfect place to follow developments in European studies, to know what is going on, to exchange -— “At lot of the work is about sharing infor- ideas and to keep up and mation such as educating new MPs. We show expand your network.

You can contact the KES how the network is run and all the external through mail: kes-auv@uva.nl factors that can influence it. We also talk

27

SES Calendar CITY TRIP - DÜSSELDORF - 2ND-4TH NOVEMBER

At the start of November the SES is hopping the border to the lively city of Düsseldorf. To sign up: www.ses-uva.nl/city-trip-dusseldorf/

GENERAL COMMITTEE ASSEMBLY - 6TH NOVEMBER

The new committees have been formed!

Time to hear their plans for the year and all the events to come.

PUB LECTURE - 22ND NOVEMBER

When the lecture hall isn’t quite cutting it, we head to the bar!

Join to both learn and drink. Perfect.

HAPPY BORREL - 27TH NOVEMBER

As the nights get colder, there is a shining light to guide you to warmth.

It’s the first Happy Borrel! Free beer and an exciting announcement from the travel committee. What could it be..?

PUB QUIZ - 4TH DECEMBER

Time to test that brain - It’s the Pub Quiz! Whether you know everything or nothing at all, get the team together and bring in the pints.

CHRISTMAS GALA - 21ST DECEMBER

Exams may be over but It’s not home time yet. To end the year well there’s time for one more celebration. More details to be announced soon.

WANT TO WRITE FOR EUROVISIE? SEND YOUR ARTICLE TO EUROVISIE@SES-UVA.NL

(c) studievereniging europese studies 2018 28