Vantaa 2014 – Preparation Kit for Delegates

Vantaa 2014 20th National Session of EYP Finland Preparation Kit for Delegates

European Youth Parliament Finland – EYP-Finland ry Uudenmaankatu 15 A 5, 00120 Helsinki http://www.eypfinland.org – eyp@eypfinland.org

Welcome words Dear delegates, This preparation kit is designed to support you in your research of all of the topics that you will be debating in Vantaa.

Read each and every one thoroughly as understanding these overviews will dramatically aid you in understanding the resolutions put forward by the committees in General Assembly. For each topic the overview should act as a ‘jumping-off point’, an article to drive you to researching other areas you are interested in. These overviews are designed to portray the opinions and issues behind the topics in as balanced a way as possible and provide you with both sides of the debate.

It may be that you already know where your opinion lies on a topic, however I would strongly encourage you to read these overviews with an open mind and consider them the building blocks for what you will debate during the National Session.

James Benge President Vantaa 2014 ---

European Youth Parliament (EYP) The European Youth Parliament represents a non-partisan and independent educational project which is tailored specifically to the needs of the young European citizen. European Youth Parliament Finland, established in 2011, is the National Committee of the EYP in Finland.

The EYP encourages independent thinking and initiative in young people and facilitates the learning of crucial social and professional skills. Since its inauguration, many tens of thousands of young people have taken part in Regional, National and International Sessions, formed friendships and made international contacts across and beyond borders. The EYP has thus made a vital contribution towards uniting Europe.

Today the EYP is one of the largest European platforms for political debate, intercultural encounters, political educational work and the exchange of ideas among young people in Europe. The EYP consists of a network of 36 European associations in which thousands of young people are active in a voluntary capacity.

The EYP is a programme of the Schwarzkopf Foundation.

European Youth Parliament Finland – EYP-Finland ry Uudenmaankatu 15 A 5, 00120 Helsinki http://www.eypfinland.org – eyp@eypfinland.org

European Union (EU) The European Union is an economic and political union of 28 Member States. The EU was established by the Treaty of Maastricht in 1993 upon the foundations of the European Communities. With over 500 million inhabitants, the EU generated an estimated 21% of the PPP gross world product in 2009.

The EU has developed a single market through a standardised system of laws which apply in all Member States, and ensures the free movement of people, goods, services, and capital, including the abolition of passport controls within the Schengen area. It enacts legislation in justice and home affairs, and maintains common policies on trade, agriculture, fisheries and regional development. Seventeen Member States have adopted a common currency, the euro.

With a view to its relations with the wider world, the EU has developed a limited role in foreign and defence policy through the Common Foreign and Security Policy. Permanent diplomatic missions have been established around the world and the EU is represented at the United Nations, the WTO, the G8 and the G-20.

The EU operates through a hybrid system of supranationalism and intergovernmentalism. In certain areas, decisions are taken by independent institutions, while in others, they are made through negotiation between Member States.

The EU traces its origins from the European Coal and Steel Community and the European Economic Community formed by six countries in the 1950s. Since then, it has grown in size through enlargement, and in power through the addition of policy areas to its remit. The last amendment to the constitutional basis of the EU came into force in 2009 and was the Lisbon Treaty.

Institutions of the European Union The European Council is responsible for defining the general political direction and priorities of the EU. It comprises the heads of state or government of EU Member States, along with its President (currently Herman Van Rompuy from Belgium) and the President of the Commission.

The Council of the European Union (commonly referred to as the Council of Ministers) is the institution in the legislature of the EU representing the governments of member states, the other legislative body being the European Parliament. The exact membership depends upon the topic: for example, when discussing agricultural policy the Council is formed by the 28 national ministers whose portfolio includes this policy area.

The European Parliament is the directly elected parliamentary institution of the EU. Together with the Council, it forms the bicameral legislative branch of the EU. The Parliament is composed of 766 MEPs. The current president is Martin Schulz from Germany.

The European Commission is the executive body of the EU. It is responsible for proposing legislation, implementing decisions, upholding the Union’s treaties and the general day-to-day running of the Union. The Commission operates as a cabinet government, with 28 Commissioners. The current President is José Manuel Durão Barroso from Portugal.

Other important institutions of the EU include the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Central Bank.

The EU also has several agencies and other institutions.

European Youth Parliament Finland – EYP-Finland ry Uudenmaankatu 15 A 5, 00120 Helsinki http://www.eypfinland.org – eyp@eypfinland.org

Committee topics 1. Committee on Constitutional Affairs – AFCO Chairperson: Hauke Sommer (DE) Committee expert: Researcher Kristi Raik (The Finnish Institute of International Affairs) United States of Europe vs. Europe à la carte: how could the European integration process accommodate the national needs and preferences of Member States while ensuring the benefits of economic and political integration?

2. Committee on Foreign Affairs – AFET Chairperson: Anna Pusa (FI) Committee expert: Academy Research Fellow Mikko Jalas (Aalto University) Responsible production and conscious sourcing: which measures should European countries adopt to ensure that any of the materials from foreign countries used in the production processes are extracted in a sustainable and conflict free manner?

3. Committee on Culture and Education – CULT Chairperson: Juan Estheiman Amaya Camposeco (ES) Committee expert: Senior Researcher Pasi Saukkonen (Foundation for Cultural Policy Research – Cupore) From Swedish to Somali: through the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, most EU Member States are committed to promoting and protecting the historical minority languages spoken in their areas. Lately, immigration has introduced Europe with a number of new and growing language minorities not covered by the Charter. What policies should Member States have for their minority languages, both historical and new?

4. Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs I – ECON I Chairpersons: Oscar Stenbom (SE) & Tom Wagenhammer (DE) Committee expert: Researcher Matti Ylönen (Finnwatch) Offshore tax havens within and outside Europe: how can Europe jointly address the criminal avoidance of taxes while respecting the citizens’ right to privacy and foreign states’ sovereignty?

5. Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs II – ECON II Chairperson: Carl Richter (SE) Committee expert: Research Director Markku Kotilainen (the Research Institute of the Finnish Economy, ETLA) The end of austerity? In light of growing concerns about the effects of austerity policies on economic growth, how should European governments balance their budgets while maintaining economic growth and social stability?

European Youth Parliament Finland – EYP-Finland ry Uudenmaankatu 15 A 5, 00120 Helsinki http://www.eypfinland.org – eyp@eypfinland.org

6. Committee on Employment and Social Affairs – EMPL Chairpersons: Sophie Duffield (UK) & Sabrina Mellerowic (DE) Committee expert: Research Director Jari Handelberg (Aalto University, Small Business Center) The startup economy: with high youth unemployment and stagnant economies, how should European governments promote entrepreneurship in order to create a generation of young entrepreneurs?

7. Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality I – FEMM I Chairperson: Mike Rozhkov (UA) Committee expert: Academy Research Fellow Johanna Kantola (University of Helsinki) ‘Glass ceiling’ effect vs. low public pan-European support for gender quotas: learning from the early lessons of the Commission’s strategy for equality between men and women 2010-2015 and the Council of Europe’s (CoE) Gender Equality Programme of 2012, how should European stakeholders seek to achieve gender parity across the continent?

8. Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality II – FEMM II Chairperson: Bernet Meijer (NL) Committee expert: Jussi Aaltonen (Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, Equality Unit) Prostitution and its impact on gender equality: in light of the varied legal practices across Europe, how best should the European governments review their prostitution legislation in order to minimise the negative consequences of prostitution for European societies?

9. Committee on Industry, Research and Energy – ITRE Chairperson: Martin Ellingsen (NO) Committee expert: Tero Kuusi (Aalto University) A new industrial revolution: which measures should the EU adopt in the long run to increase its industrial competitiveness and maximise the output potential of its production factors, in particular by exploitation of technology and knowledge?

10. Committee on Transport and Tourism – TRAN Chairperson: Saga Eriksson (FI) Committee expert: Development Coordinator Ilmari Halme (Vantaa Innovation Institute) Hub airports such as Helsinki Airport bring substantial economic benefits to their countries by increased connectivity to the rest of the world. Still nearly 50 % of European airports are loss-making and airports face strict state-aid restrictions.

At the same time the rail industry receives roughly 100 times more state aid than the aviation industry. In a time of economic instability, should aviation be subsidized by the European governments to keep flights at the loss-making airports?

European Youth Parliament Finland – EYP-Finland ry Uudenmaankatu 15 A 5, 00120 Helsinki http://www.eypfinland.org – eyp@eypfinland.org

1. Committee on Constitutional Affairs – AFCO Chairperson: Hauke Sommer (DE) United States of Europe vs. Europe à la carte: how could the European integration process accommodate the national needs and preferences of Member States while ensuring the benefits of economic and political integration?

Overview Since its inception some 60 years ago the European Union has steadily developed from a purely economic trade union into a political construct that now connects a whole continent. The continent has through treaty-making, always based on consensus, allowed for duty-free trade across borders, granted freedom of movement across EU Member States to all its inhabitants and even abandoned well-established currencies.

The European Union as we know it today was formed by four main treaties, last of which, the Lisbon Treaty only entered into force in 2009. While these treaties generally established the law of the European Union throughout the Union, an opt-out from certain legislation has traditionally allowed a majority of Member States to move ahead without certain states. Worth mentioning is the Schengen Agreement that led to the abolition of border controls. Norway, Iceland and Switzerland as signed non-Member States while states such as the United Kingdom did not. Similarly 15 out of the now 28 Member States (including Croatia) switched to a common currency, the Euro. The remaining states deferred the adoption of the Euro for an indeterminate time. Generally the EU strives for complete consensus and treaties are signed by a majority of EU Member States, where a few external countries may be allowed to join, but the principle of opt-outs are nonetheless legally enshrined through their inclusion in past treaties.

The Fiscal Compact - a treaty aimed at enforcing balanced budgets - was signed by a group of 25 Member States, whereas the Czech Republic, United Kingdom and the youngest member, Croatia, did not sign. It marked the most recent turning point in European Politics, as it revealed the failure to reach a consensus among all states on the topic of surrendering some budgetary competence to the European level in light of an enduring economic crisis. This development again fired fears of a „Europe à la carte“, where EU countries only form increasingly loose coalitions and thus put the ability to tackle problems in the future at stake. It is important to distinguish between a multi-speed Union and Europe with variable geometry. Multi-speed implies that whilst some states may co-operate together initially the aim is to achieve equal integration in the long run. Variable geometry refers to a permanent division in the adoption of European legislation by Member States. The Fiscal Compact yet again exposed how difficult it has become to reach consensus on equipping the European Union with more competencies and thus surrendering national sovereignty, touching on areas that are considered nationally essential such as budgetary power.

During a speech at Passau University, Vice-President of the European Commission, Viviane Reding, laid out an alternative to a loose, à la carte conglomerate of nations, the United States of Europe: “A United States of Europe – a powerful, ambitious, and probably controversial vision of the future of our continent. […] Yes, I believe a United States of Europe is the right vision to surmount the current crisis, and above all to overcome the failings of the Maastricht.”

The vision she presents is a federal union of individual states – according to the motto of the EU: United in diversity – that may be organised similar to the United States of America. Only in the form of a stronger Union she believes the economic hardship and suffering especially in Europe’s south may be ended. The on-going crisis and large regional and national disparities have brought about outrageously high unemployment rates, which Europe has not yet managed to holistically mitigate. Such questions force the EU to ask itself where it is really heading in the future. It is confronted with a question that it keenly postpones to answering, a question of its identity, its overall aim: What exactly is it that European coun-

European Youth Parliament Finland – EYP-Finland ry Uudenmaankatu 15 A 5, 00120 Helsinki http://www.eypfinland.org – eyp@eypfinland.org

tries are gradually moving towards? Are we aiming to move to the same level of integration? Does European integration require all countries to move ahead at equal pace? Is an ambitious stride towards a United States of Europe the right way to shape the future of this continent?

Keywords ‘Two- or Multiple-speed Europe’; The concept aims at the introduction of a federal political union in several steps, whereby some states co-operate closer at an earlier point in time while others follow suit later (Grabitz 1984).

Variable geometry; refers to the establishment of a permanent division between one set of member states and another based upon member states’ abilities to implement EU policies. À la carte membership, member states select the aspects of European integration in which they wish to participate based solely upon their willingness, rather than their ability, to implement policy.

EU Treaty: The Treaties of the European Union are a set of international treaties between the EU member states which sets out the EU’s constitutional basis. EU can only act within the competences granted to it through these treaties, meaning questions of integration often depend on the area in question. Amendment to the treaties requires the agreement and ratification (according to their national procedures) of every single signatory.

An ‘opt-out’ is a technique used exceptionally where a majority of Member States wish to commit themselves to cooperate in a particular policy area within a Community framework, but one or more Member States refuse to join in the cooperation. To allow for progress in Community cooperation by those who wish to proceed, the reluctant Member States may ‘opt out’. The best-known example in the area of employment and industrial relations was when the United Kingdom obtained an ‘opt-out’ from the Agreement on Social Policy negotiated as part of the Maastricht Treaty in December 1991.

Links for further research “The report identifies three major challenges the euro area will have to solve in the coming decade” Questions and comments on the idea of a referendum in the UK on whether to remain Member State or not, certainly the most extreme case of a variable geometry in Europe

European Youth Parliament Finland – EYP-Finland ry Uudenmaankatu 15 A 5, 00120 Helsinki http://www.eypfinland.org – eyp@eypfinland.org

2. Committee on Foreign Affairs – AFET Chairperson: Anna Pusa (FI) Responsible production and conscious sourcing: which measures should European countries adopt to ensure that any of the materials from foreign countries used in the production processes are extracted in a sustainable and conflict free manner?

Overview In today’s globalised economy, the transparency and traceability of materials throughout the supply chain is increasingly difficult to maintain. How can European countries and the EU ensure that all the materials that end up within Europe and on the EU internal market have a conflict-free supply chain?

There are countless examples of humanitarian and environmental issues within supply chains; from child labour and generally poor working conditions in the Bangladesh and Pakistan garment industry and the deforestation in rainforests caused by the Amazon timber industry, to the violent rebel groups controlling the mines in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), where the minerals used in our cell phones are mined in the midst of a lethal conflict. These examples remind us that many of the materials (from textiles and timber to minerals) imported to the EU do originate from conditions where labour rights and environmental abuses occur, or where the extraction is linked to conflicts over land and resources.

This issue needs to be tackled with a focus on imports of materials from high risk sectors, namely the mining and logging industries. The EU lacks raw materials and minerals to ensure its industry’s competitiveness and depends therefore on the import of metallic minerals. The global mineral supply chains of EU companies often originate in conflict areas such as the DRC and thus EU companies may be responsible for the funding of armed groups and the enhancing of violence and instability.

The European Commission has identified the main problems and possible solutions to the situation in its roadmap for the responsible sourcing of minerals originating in conflict-affected and high-risk areas (April 2013). The key objectives of the roadmap include supporting responsible sourcing by promoting transparent supply chains of minerals originating from conflict areas. A requirement to exercise due diligence when placing minerals on the EU market can be found among the policy options.

The concept of supply chain checks known as due diligence is crucial in ensuring a responsible supply chain, as it involves risk management. Risk assessment can only be made through detailed information about the supply chain, allowing the risks of irresponsible business and unsustainable production to be mitigated.

Unlike the United States, the EU currently lacks regulations ensuring a responsible trade in minerals. Under the so called Dodd-Frank Act, the United States requires all U.S.-listed companies to disclose information about the use of the “conflict minerals” tin, tungsten, tantalum and gold (section 1502 of the Dodd-Frank Act).

The relevance of the topic is demonstrated through the fact that the EU lacks a comprehensive strategy for ensuring sustainable and conflict free imports of materials. Guided by its basic principles on sustainability, the EU has adopted some measures concerning the issue. As companies play a decisive role in making sure that the supply chains of their products are responsible and conflict free, the EU has urged companies to take action to ensure responsible production and sourcing.

The European Commission’s policy on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), for instance, calls on companies to take into account social, environmental and ethical human rights aspects in their business strategies. As part of the policy’s

European Youth Parliament Finland – EYP-Finland ry Uudenmaankatu 15 A 5, 00120 Helsinki http://www.eypfinland.org – eyp@eypfinland.org

action agenda for the period 2011-2014, the Commission highlights, for example, the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, the 10 principles of the UN Global Compact and the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.

These are instruments that are vital in the battle for more responsible business globally. Initiatives have been focused to the extractive industry sector through the OECD Due Diligence Guidance for responsible supply chains of minerals from conflict areas.

Several challenges remain to ensure that conscious and responsible sourcing occurs within Europe. In what ways can different stakeholders, from European countries and companies to individual consumers, influence efforts to increase the sustainability of the extraction of materials imported to the EU? Keywords Responsible supply chain, conflict minerals, due diligence, OECD Due Diligence Guidance, sustainable business, Corporate Social Responsibility Links for further research European Commission roadmap for the responsible sourcing of minerals from conflict areas Paper on conflict due diligence by European companies Study on responsible supply chain management Corporate Social Responsibility – guidelines and principles Article on need for EU regulations concerning conflict minerals Article on general supply chain transparency

European Youth Parliament Finland – EYP-Finland ry Uudenmaankatu 15 A 5, 00120 Helsinki http://www.eypfinland.org – eyp@eypfinland.org

3. Committee on Culture and Education – CULT Chairperson: Juan Estheiman Amaya Camposeco (ES) From Swedish to Somali: through the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, most EU Member States are committed to promoting and protecting the historical minority languages spoken in their areas. Lately, immigration has introduced Europe with a number of new and growing language minorities not covered by the Charter. What policies should Member States have for their minority languages, both historical and new?

Overview From the early beginning of the European Union, the effective implementation of human rights within European borders has been a topic of deep discussion. Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights establishes the right to the use of one’s own language both in private and in public, and the right to maintain and develop one’s own culture.

Language plays a major role in personal identity, as an expression of one’s culture. We now see that the great linguistic richness in Europe has further been expanded by the recent external migration flows that have taken place in the last 15 years. Due to this, Europe’s current cultural mosaic is now also composed by a new wave of cultural heritage. In this sense, we can see that the efforts made within the European Union throughout initiatives such as the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages (1992) or the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (1995) no longer correspond with today’s multiculturalism.

The EU recognises 24 official languages inside its current 28 Member States. This recognition excludes what would be a total of 63 official languages spoken by native Europeans and their minorities. If we then also take into account the languages of settled immigrants, the estimates say that over 125 different languages that are spoken on a regular basis throughout Europe. By the inexistence of official international criteria that establish when a language can be fully considered as such, this problem has the added difficulty of being difficult to define. For now, it is mostly political factors that establish these criteria. Eastern Europe is a clear example of a puzzle where lines are drawn arbitrarily between dialects and languages, based on political decisions.

The intra-European immigration flows that took place throughout the 20th century are also of vital importance. Despite a language being official in a Member State, and therefore possessing the entire framework to protect it in the individual country where it is identified as such, it is common to find minorities of these speakers in another country. This is the case of the Hungarian speakers inside of Slovakia, Romania, Serbia or Croatia. Political discrimination and arbitrariness are more evident in these situations. In June of 2009, Slovakia passed an amendment to the Slovak Language Law which restricts the use of any language but Slovak in public communications. Noncompliance is penalised with fines of up to 5,000 euros for any “incorrect” language use. The vagueness in articles 21 and 22 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union has left this measure unpunished and legally valid. It is cases such as these which make the need for a unified language policy extremely urgent.

Linguistic substitution and loss is becoming common within immigrant, indigenous and rural populations. This is due to the concept of language prestige. The combination of three factors (socioeconomic status, demographic, and institutional support) directly affect language maintenance and shift, thus establishing its prestige. The uneven statuses of minorities also add to the complexity of the problem. In regions such as Catalonia, the Catalan language is legally protected and implemented in the public sphere because of its high socioeconomic status and predominantly urban demography. On the other hand, the Saami language is at great risk of extinction, despite being spoken in Norway, Sweden, Finland and Russia. According to the “Euromosaic” study published in 1996 by the European Commission, of the 48 minority languages in the EU territory, 23 had “limited” or “no” capability of survival. Twelve other minority languages were tagged as endangered.

Inevitably, the demographic changes in Europe in the last 15 years have also had a huge impact. Fully settled immi-

European Youth Parliament Finland – EYP-Finland ry Uudenmaankatu 15 A 5, 00120 Helsinki http://www.eypfinland.org – eyp@eypfinland.org

grant communities now allow certain languages to be classed within the category of semi-legitimate. This is the case, for example, of Turkish in Germany. In some cases, these semi-legitimate languages are given institutional support, therefore providing both immigrants and autochthons with the ability of solidifying or expanding their linguistic abilities.

This is a very positive focus, since all the community can potentially benefit from this mutual enrichment. Unfortunately, this vision is currently only implemented and shared by a very limited number of Member States. This requires national educational policies that are more open-minded and aiming towards the objective of a multilinguistic Europe.

Taking all of this into account, we can conclude that the problem is more complex than it might initially seem. How should the European Union be more effective at implementing the principles of linguistic identity and freedom? How could we adapt our education systems to a multilinguistic population and vice versa? Are the native and immigrant minorities sufficiently protected within all Member States? And finally, is the EU making a good use of the cultural and linguistic patrimony acquired in recent years?

Keywords Multilinguism, European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, regional or minority language, immigrant languages, language prestige, semi-legitimate languages Links for further research 1. Introductory material Lost in Translation: Linguistic Minorities in the European Union Hamburg University: Linguistic Diversity and New Minorities in Europe Minority Language Laws in the EU: Process and Problem of Policy Implementation Respecting Linguistic Diversity in the European Union 2. Official sources A New Framework Strategy for Multilingualism Regional and minority languages Speaking for Europe 3. Newspaper articles and other materials EU Observer: The Slovak language law is discriminatory and restrictive New Internationalist: Criminalizing undocumented migrants has got to stop

European Youth Parliament Finland – EYP-Finland ry Uudenmaankatu 15 A 5, 00120 Helsinki http://www.eypfinland.org – eyp@eypfinland.org

4. Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs I – ECON I Chairpersons: Oscar Stenbom (SE) & Tom Wagenhammer (DE) Off-shore tax havens within and outside Europe: how can Europe jointly address the criminal avoidance of taxes while respecting the citizens’ right to privacy and foreign states’ sovereignty?

Overview Recent high profile cases of tax evasion and avoidance by citizens and corporations alike have pushed the topic of tax havens to the top of the international agenda. There are over 50 places in the world that offer foreign citizens lower rates of taxes; some can be found not only on obscure Caribbean Islands but also within the EU. With up to $20 trillion hidden away in tax havens the EU clearly has reason to act as tax avoidance restricts EU Member States from meeting their social and economic responsibilities. This lost revenue through tax receipts amounts to about 1 trillion Euros every year.

High earners are often referred to as the major group of perpetrators with deferred wealth worth 9.5 trillion Euros in the EU alone. Tax havens are also home to more than 2 million companies, thousands of banks, funds and insurers and at least half of all registered ships above 100 tonnes. The purpose of tax havens differs with some being renowned corporate secrecy and others for zero income tax. In the EU Ireland is famed for allowing dual-registration of companies whilst the Netherlands and the UK offer low income and corporate tax rates respectively.

Distinguishing legal from illegal tax avoidance complicates things. Tax avoidance refers to legal but improper practices to reduce or avoid tax liabilities. Tax avoidance requires a different but related set of solutions than tax evasion, defined as using illegal means such as transferring money to a foreign account in a tax haven without notifying the relevant national authorities.

In assessing these issues, however, one has to be aware of a few very important factors: (1)EU Member States are lawfully sovereign in their fiscal affairs which makes it exceptionally hard to create a common EU legislation when it comes to tax crimes. (2) The lack of a general tax code makes it tough to discern legal and illegal methods of tax minimization as states will always have the right to offer competitive rates of income and corporate taxation. (3) The right of depositors to privacy in their financial affairs and bank secrecy laws, the violation of which can lead to prosecution in some EU Member States, can obstruct prevention and investigation.

Most regulatory efforts revolve around creating a legal disclosure framework through information exchange. Exchange between states happens mainly through automatic exchange which transfers systematic information bulks between states and are ultimately decided on by relevant authorities in contracting states. The “Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters“ set the foundation for this, enabling international co-operation when it comes to tax information exchange. It is multilateral and set to ensure full coverage of national taxation laws while respecting individual rights of tax payers. Conventions through mediums such as the OECD have produced a variety of model codes which characterizes the fragmented nature of patchwork international legal agreements.

The most current OECD Agreement, whilst non-binding, attempts to provide a basis for an integrated bundle of bilateral treaties, raising the question if a uniform EU agreement can be integrated into the status quo. However with Member States such as Austria listed as ‘non-compliant’ there is plenty of room for a common stance as well as EU-wide methods of exchange; be they on request, automatic or spontaneous. Such an agreement could be similar to the US’ FACTA which holds US nationals to stringent reporting standards and forces foreign financial institutions and governments to collect data on US citizens and transmit it at their own expense. Whilst controversial the US government has offered reciprocity in information gathering to countries that sign intergovernmental agreements to which some EU countries have already consented.

The EU currently aims to halve its tax gap by 2020 by means of ‘Aggressive Tax Planning’. The Commission has so far

European Youth Parliament Finland – EYP-Finland ry Uudenmaankatu 15 A 5, 00120 Helsinki http://www.eypfinland.org – eyp@eypfinland.org

proposed to achieve this through; allowing it to negotiate on behalf of Member States in tax agreements, forcing companies to ‘book’ activity where it actually takes place, introducing an European Blacklist, publishing reports on cross-border disclosure requirements on a state-by-state basis, taxing e-commerce, improving identification of taxpayers and drafting new codes of conduct for auditors and advisors. Algirdas Šemeta, EU Commissioner for Taxation and Customs Union, recently proposed the automatic exchange of tax information across the EU, an idea which, nevertheless, poses risking privacy of depositors.

Questions remain of the relevance of corporate taxes in the first place as economic theory recognises that such taxes raise little money as corporations pass the burden onto others. It would therefore be more effective to tax the stakeholders of a corporation individually through taxes on consumers, shareholders and workers. America, with one of the highest corporate tax rates also has the most energetic tax-avoiders. Similarly the coherence of measures such as America’s with other nation’s privacy laws remains questionable.

Where can we draw a line in order to secure banking secrecy, the normal tax payer‘s privacy and national fiscal sovereignty while making sure that no taxes are lost and perpetrators are prosecuted? How can we distinguish legal from illegal tax evasion and how does aggressive tax planning play into all of this? And what to do about the non-EU tax havens that cannot be influenced by EU regulations?

Keywords Tax havens, tax evasion, loopholes, aggressive tax planning, bank secrecy, third countries, fiscal sovereignty, information sharing, privacy right, tax information exchange.

Links for further research 1. Introductory material Tax Havens 101: the High Cost of Going Offshore MEPs square up to stopping the haemorrhage of hundreds of billions of euros to tax fraud and evasion Interview about tax havens with MEPs 2. Official sources Information on combating tax frauds and central management thereof OECD report: Countering offshore tax evasion Official webpage on battling EU-related tax evasion Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs’ Report on Tax Fraud, Tax Evasion and Tax Havens 3. Newspaper articles and other materials “Europe pushes to shed stigma of tax haven with end to bank secrecy“ - The New York Times “G8 deal on tax havens a long way off“ - The Guardian

European Youth Parliament Finland – EYP-Finland ry Uudenmaankatu 15 A 5, 00120 Helsinki http://www.eypfinland.org – eyp@eypfinland.org

5. Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs II – ECON II Chairperson: Carl Richter (SE) The end of austerity? In light of growing concerns about the effects of austerity policies on economic growth, how should European governments balance their budgets while maintaining economic growth and social stability?

Overview “If Europe stands only for negative news, for austerity, then we’ll see more of these movements against Europe. We need to work on Europe as a generator of good news, of growth” -- Enrico Letta (Prime Minister of Italy) As Europe seeks to leave its recent economic upheaval, public finances have been at the centre of attention. Multiple European countries, most notably Greece, have been monitored by the media as they struggle with crippling budget deficits, political tension, and international pressure.

To avert insolvency, default (failing to pay “bills”), and immediate economic meltdown, countries in crisis have been loaned emergency funds (bailed out) by economically strong European countries as well as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) on the condition that they take tangible steps to reduce budget deficits and debt. In order to receive funds, austerity measures have had to be implemented.

Austerity is defined by one dictionary as ‘difficult economic conditions created by government measures to reduce a budget deficit, especially by reducing public expenditure.’ In essence it is a matter of cutting costs - a straightforward reaction to budget difficulties - and manifests itself in practice as a watering down of public services and benefits as well as a public sector salary cuts and layoffs, amongst other things. These measures negatively affects a lot of people and are unpopular for that reason.

Bailouts were conditional on austerity for a few reasons. Firstly, without restructuring public finances borrowing countries are unable to repay loans. Thus to garner the political support needed for countries like Germany to offer bailouts, creditors needed to be satisfied that borrowing countries would be able to repay them. Equally the IMF wants to be sure its funds are returned. Secondly, without restructuring, debtor countries are still en route to insolvency. Lastly, and at this time perhaps most significantly, austerity is from the European perspective a reassuring signal that action is being taken.

An important concept in economics is confidence, that is how confident firms and households are that they will enjoy stability and prosperity. When several countries are at risk of default, with the prospect of monumental secondary effects throughout Europe, confidence is low. Firms and households save their money in anticipation of hard times instead of spending or investing it; this reduces economic activity and negatively affects growth, compounding economic problems.

The implementation of austerity measures maintains confidence that countries will not default. While the effect of austerity on confidence is debated, reducing fear in Europe may be instrumental in creating prosperity going forward.

As Europe considers its next move in economic policy, the question has been raised whether austerity has come to do more harm than good; might austerity be in fact hurting both the economies and public finances of concerned states?

Some argue that the loss of government spending is harmful at a time when a bigger flow of money in the economy might be desirable in order to create employment and restore living standards. Indeed some economists, notably Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman, argue that austerity measures have unnecessarily kept southern European economies on their knees for too long.

In addition, some argue that the loss of growth, employment, and spending in the economy leads to reduced tax revenue.

European Youth Parliament Finland – EYP-Finland ry Uudenmaankatu 15 A 5, 00120 Helsinki http://www.eypfinland.org – eyp@eypfinland.org

If austerity leads to fewer citizens working and spending then less taxes are paid on income and consumption. If one looks at income then austerity might weaken public finances and can be taken to offset the gains from cutting costs.

This brings us to our committee topic. Is it time to end austerity? Southern European countries have not seen the growth that was desired, and unemployment and underemployment continue to plague them. Is it time to stop fetishizing public finance in favour of stimulating growth? Is it too daring to stimulate the economy using borrowed money? Should austerity be maintained to shore up confidence? This answer will play a crucial role in the pace of Europe’s recovery in the aftermath of the economic crisis.

Keywords Austerity in Europe, counter-cyclical policy, expansionary fiscal policy Links for further research http://www.ceps.be/book/has-austerity-failed-europe http://www.ceps.be/book/can-austerity-be-self-defeating http://www.cer.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/attachments/pdf/2012/ditchley_event_rpt14dec12-6728.pdf http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2012/06/14-austere-growth-dervis Paul Krugman’s blog (suggested search: “austerity europe”) Tbilisi IS Preparation kit (see pages 42-47)

European Youth Parliament Finland – EYP-Finland ry Uudenmaankatu 15 A 5, 00120 Helsinki http://www.eypfinland.org – eyp@eypfinland.org

6. Committee on Employment and Social Affairs – EMPL Chairpersons: Sabrina Ariana Mellerowic (DE) & Sophie Duffield (UK) The startup economy: with high youth unemployment and stagnant economies, how should European governments promote entrepreneurship in order to create a generation of young entrepreneurs?

Overview The financial crisis of 2008 fractured national economies around the globe. Although the European economy is now on its way to a full recovery, the issue of youth unemployment still lingers over member states. Numerous 15 to 24 year -olds are struggling to find a job or expand their education, while drifting deeper and deeper into the so called “lost generation”. In comparison to the United States, where youth unemployment hovers around 16%1, Europe is much worse off with an average of 22.6%. The European Commission has thus ranked youth employment as one of the top priorities on its agenda and recently decided to invest 6 billion euros to tackle the issue.

Youth entrepreneurship is a potential solution to youth unemployment. Startups are responsible for many new jobs within the economy. Furthermore, 40% of those aged 15-24 see self-employment as a potential option2. Companies founded by young people that survive the first three years often demonstrate stronger growth than ones founded by adults. These points indicate that youth entrepreneurship can be considered essential for boosting the economy and ensuring Europe’s global competitiveness.

However, there are numerous burdens young entrepreneurs are currently facing. Firstly, young people often lack the skills and experience needed to start a new business, hindering the translation of new ideas into an actual business plan.

Secondly, it is rather difficult for young entrepreneurs to gain financial support for their ideas. In many member states, the necessary support for start-ups such as business incubators3, advisory platforms or special courses on entrepreneurship are not at hand. Thirdly, the administrative burden is time consuming, expensive and complicated for start-ups.

Costs concerning the registration of a new business may be as large as 2000 euros in some countries, and even higher in others.4 Finally, there is a lack of ‘freedom to fail’ within the EU. In the US, for instance, bankruptcy is considered a valuable experience on the way to a more successful enterprise; it therefore takes less than a year to recover from it. In Europe it takes much longer, depending on the country; this may be up to nine years (France).

The most recent agreement on a European level is the Youth Guarantee. This includes, in addition to education and apprenticeships, a measure designed to support youth entrepreneurship. The Commission has also proposed two further major policy plans: the Small Business Act and the Entrepreneurship 2020 action plan. The Small Business Act focuses on small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs)5 which make up over 98% of European businesses. It aims to reduce the administrative burden faced by SMEs and safeguard their competitiveness within the internal market. The Entrepreneurship 2020 action plan consists of three pillars: (1) entrepreneurial education and train¬ing, (2) creation of an environment where entrepreneurs can flourish and grow and (3) reaching out to specific groups who are not reached by traditional outreach for business support. This action plan strives to speed up the process of the Small Business Act and furthermore revolutionise the culture of entrepreneurship in Europe.

The EU has a shared competency regarding employment and social protection. This means that the responsibility for 1 The Guardian, November 2013, “Youth unemployment could wreck Europe’s economic recovery” 2 European Commission, December 2012, EU Skills Panorama Analytical Highlight: Entrepreneurial Activity 3 A special program offered mostly at top business universities which facilitates an entrepreneurial friendly environment. These programs offer workspaces, technological facilities, legal advice, business advice, mentorship and access to finance. An example of successful business incubators would be Stanford University located in the heart of Silicon Valley.

4 Concrete examples of this administrative burden include different registration procedures for a start-up (1.5 days in Belgium /28–29 days in Spain) as well as the costs (0 euros in Denmark/2,673 euros in Italy).

5 SMEs are companies that engage less than 250 employees.

European Youth Parliament Finland – EYP-Finland ry Uudenmaankatu 15 A 5, 00120 Helsinki http://www.eypfinland.org – eyp@eypfinland.org

legislation is shared between member states and the EU; member states are allowed to create their own legislation, as long as it does not cover any legislation already set out by the EU. It is the European Commission (EC) that is responsible for producing legislation and reports; the role of the European Parliament is more reactive and may include, for example, reviewing EC proposals.

There are several key issues which the need to be addressed by the committee on employment and social affairs. Can the differing administrative and legal environments for start-ups within the different Member states be standardized? How can the needs of both young entrepreneurs and potential investors be met simultaneously? What action is required on a European level and what action is more appropriate at a national or regional level?

Keywords Entrepreneurship, small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs), Erasmus for entrepreneurs, European Social Fund, Youth Employment Initiative, Entrepreneurship 2020 action plan, business incubator, Small Business Act, business angels Links for further research 1. Introductory material Insight into youth unemployment in Europe in general Comparing entrepreneurship in Europe and in the US Concrete problems, examples and solutions concerning European innovation Policy Brief on young entrepreneurship 2. Official sources Unemployment statistics Entrepreneurship 2020 Action Plan Youth Opportunity Initiative 3. Newspaper articles and other materials The Guardian: Youth unemployment could wreck Europe’s economic recovery The Telegraph: Lessons to be learnt from American start-ups The New Yorker: Stanford and its start-ups The Economist: Les misérables - Europe not only has a euro crisis, it also has a growth crisis. That is because of its chronic failure to encourage ambitious entrepreneurs.

European Youth Parliament Finland – EYP-Finland ry Uudenmaankatu 15 A 5, 00120 Helsinki http://www.eypfinland.org – eyp@eypfinland.org

7. Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality I – FEMM I Chairperson: Mike Rozhkov (UA) ‘Glass ceiling’ effect vs. low public pan-European support for gender quotas: learning from the early lessons of the Commission’s strategy for equality between men and women 2010-2015 and the Council of Europe’s (CoE) Gender Equality Programme of 2012, how should European stakeholders seek to achieve gender parity across the continent?

Overview Even in 2013, gender equality still needs to be high on the agenda of the EU. According to the Article 23 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, gender equality is both a basic human right and a democratic principle. The EU and European institutions have emphasised the importance of achieving gender equality, describing their own role as achieving gender equality both legally and in practice.

The dispute over how to tackle inequality has been visible since the quota debate was started up in 2012, when the European Commission proposed a gender quota of 40% for nonexecutive directors of companies that are listed in the stock markets in the 27 Member States.1 However, quotas are widely criticised. Practically, they only address the symptoms of endemic inequality; ideologically, they discriminate against men and overregulate the private sector. Whilst there is large public support for increasing the number of women on boards, quotas remain deeply unpopular as a measure.2 The issue is under Supporting Competence of EU, which means that the EU can only intervene to support, coordinate or complement the action of Member States within the issue.

There are three approaches to the implementation of gender equality. An active approach to achieving equality is through positive action which recognises the existing differences between men and women’s treatment and role in society and aims for specific measures to combat problems for women. Some argue that completely equal treatment in all policies is the only fair way to gender equality – and one which reflects current public opinion towards positive action. A final approach is that of gender mainstreaming, which considers how existing systems can cause indirect discrimination or disadvantage.

Beyond the legal equality provisions in the treaties of the EU, both the European Commission and the Council of Europe have their own strategies to improve gender equality in the EU and the continent, respectively. The European Commission Strategy for equality between men and women 2010-2015 aims to increase gender equality within Member States through focusing on the economic independence of women, equal pay, greater equality in decision-making and an end to gender-based violence.3 The Council of Europe launched a new gender equality programme in 2012 aimed at increasing the impact and visibility of the legal standards which exist throughout most of Europe. Through the establishment of a new Gender Equality Commission the programme focuses on the elimination of violence against women, combating gender stereotypes in media and improving women’s access to justice.

Member States have been bound by EU directives to take certain steps for gender equality. These include the equal treatment of women regarding statutory social security, improved conditions for pregnant workers, increased flexibility of working time and equal pay. EU Directives 2002/73/EC, 2004/113/EC, 2006/54/EC and 76/207/EEC, as well as the Initiative Europe 2020, are examples of policies that have been adopted by the European Union to reach these aims.

The Committee on Women`s Rights and Gender Equality will tackle several issues: Given the comprehensive legal provisions for gender equality in Europe, why have some Member States not yet succeeded in this? Which steps should the Council of Europe, the European Parliament and the European Commission, according to their competence, take in order 1 EurActiv.com, November 2012, “Reding pushes 40% female quota on corporate boards” 2 Eurobarometer 376, “Women in decision-making positions”, pp 70-71 3 European Commission, “Strategy for equality between men and women 2010-2015“

European Youth Parliament Finland – EYP-Finland ry Uudenmaankatu 15 A 5, 00120 Helsinki http://www.eypfinland.org – eyp@eypfinland.org

to combat gender inequality? Are quotas necessary to break inequality or will incremental change be enough? What if gender equality would provoke positive discrimination?

Keywords Gender equality, gender parity, gender mainstreaming, gender quotas, glass ceiling effect , positive discrimination Links for further research 1. Introductory material Fact sheet from the Council of Europe on its role in promoting Gender Equality Quota system and Gender equality Al Jazeera on the proposed EU quota 2. Official sources Summary of the Strategy for equality between women and men 2010-2015 EIGE’s Gender Equality Index Report Report from the Commission on what kinds of EU rules there are on gender equality and how they are transposed into national law, pp 1-8 The European Institute for Gender Equality at a glance

European Youth Parliament Finland – EYP-Finland ry Uudenmaankatu 15 A 5, 00120 Helsinki http://www.eypfinland.org – eyp@eypfinland.org

8. Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality II – FEMM II Chairperson: Bernet Meijer (NL) Prostitution and its impact on gender equality: in light of the varied legal practices across Europe, how best should the European governments review their prostitution legislation in order to minimise the negative consequences of prostitution for European societies?

Overview ‘The slavery of our times’ is what the European Commission calls human trafficking. In light of the EU 2012-2016 Strategy towards the Eradication of Trafficking in Human Beings, the EU is examining the sources and causes of human trafficking across the continent. Furthermore, as 79% of the identified victims are subject to sexual exploitation1, the sex industry seems like one of the right sources to look at.

According to Mary Honeyball, member of the European Parliament’s Women’s Rights and Gender equality Committee, 89% of prostitutes in the EU sex industry say they would escape the industry if they could. Along with the sexual exploitation from which these women, children and men (male victims account for approximately 20% of the victims of human trafficking) suffer, there is often violence and the deprivation of the victims’ basic human rights. Additionally, with the vast majority of prostituted persons being women and girls, and with almost all buyers being men, prostitution is intrinsically linked to gender inequality, both as a cause and a consequence. This leads to not only gender stereotypes, but also domestic violence against women2.

However, the view that prostitution in itself is an ‘outrage’ (as declared by Honeyball) is not shared by everyone. Some have the view that gender inequality, human trafficking and violence in the sex industry will not and should not be solved by banning prostitution as this could lead to an unregulated black market, further endangering the women involved. This is exactly what is reflected in the great variety in Member States’ (MS) policies on prostitution. Although all MS differ slightly in the exact implementation, legislation on prostitution can be divided into several models. Abolitionism models do not criminalise prostitution, but prohibit procurement (e.g. Poland and Spain). New abolitionism prohibits procurement and brothels (e.g. Belgium and France). Prohibitionism criminalises all activities relating to prostitution (e.g Sweden). Regulationism (e.g. The Netherlands) legalises and regulates all forms of prostitution.

As human trafficking and, for example, sex tourism involve cross-border policies, the EU should consider whether a panEuropean approach for the sex industry could be effective in tackling sexual exploitation and violence against sex workers. Moreover, especially in light of the UN Palermo Protocol on Trafficking in Persons and the Council of Europe Convention on Actions against Trafficking in Human Beings, the EU should look for global action and see how these instruments could make the work against human trafficking more coordinated and coherent.

Aside from focusing on which model of legislation could be most effective in eradicating human trafficking and promoting gender equality, other factors also play a significant role, including the feminisation of poverty, the rate of unemployment and the facilities for victims of sexual exploitation. The latter was covered in Directive 2011/36/EU of the European Parliament and the Council, on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims. In this Directive, much emphasis was laid on protection of victims’, especially children’s, rights and penalties for those guilty of human trafficking. However, there is still great variety in the assistance offered to victims of trafficking which influences the reliability of data collected on victims. This makes it harder for the EU to have a clear view on the causal factors of human trafficking.

Prostitution seems intrinsically linked to gender inequality, and the question is to what extent prostitution is also related 1 EU 2012-2016 Strategy towards the Eradication of Trafficking in Human Beings 2 European Women’s Lobby, July 2011, “Working With Men: Research and Studies on Prostitute Users”

European Youth Parliament Finland – EYP-Finland ry Uudenmaankatu 15 A 5, 00120 Helsinki http://www.eypfinland.org – eyp@eypfinland.org

to human trafficking and violence against women. If the EU has an answer to this question, what should be its stance on prostitution, taking into account the global dividedness in views on prostitution? What role can prostitution policies play in restoring gender equality in homes?

Keywords Prostitution, gender inequality, human trafficking, abolitionism, regulationism, prohibitionism, sexual exploitation Links for further research 1. Introductory material Study on National Legislation on Prostitution and the Trafficking in Women and Children (NB: this study is from 2005, but it still accurately describes the relevant factors of prostitution legislation), p. 7-13 Website of European Women’s Lobby (NB: a clearly non-neutral source), plus the two articles at the bottom of the page 2. Official sources EU 2012-2016 Strategy towards the Eradication of Trafficking in Human Beings, p. 1-5: Draft Report on sexual exploitation and prostitution and its impact on gender equality by the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality, p. 9-11 3. Newspaper articles and other materials Mary Honeyball, ‘Tackling prostitution and sex trafficking through EU policies’ Fair Observer, Prostitution and Sex Trafficking: Inescapably Linked

European Youth Parliament Finland – EYP-Finland ry Uudenmaankatu 15 A 5, 00120 Helsinki http://www.eypfinland.org – eyp@eypfinland.org

9. Committee on Industry, Research and Energy – ITRE Chairperson: Martin Ellingsen (NO) A new industrial revolution: which measures should the EU adopt in the long run to increase its industrial competitiveness and maximise the output potential of its production factors, in particular by exploitation of technology and knowledge?

Overview “There is a crisis of European competitiveness, as other nations across the world soar ahead” were the words of British PM David Cameron in the speech where he defended a referendum for UKs future membership in the EU. “The west against the rest” has long been a ruling mantra in the academic field of international politics. The west’s hegemony of international power, technology and production has faced problems in our globalised new era. European manufacturing is decreasing, while countries such as China are steadily rising. Cheaper workforce gives Asia a large advantage in being able to produce more for less, significantly affecting Europe’s manufacturing base.

However, it is not only cheap workforce in the rest of the world that proves to be a challenge for Europe. From the newly published Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) research, a study measuring the academic level of 16 year old students all over the world, Asian countries top the ranks, claiming the best students in science, reading and maths. Whilst it is important to keep in mind that schools teach youngsters more than just maths, reading and science, it still shows a picture of several Asian countries “out-smarting” Europe. In the struggle for a more competitive Europe, some would claim that it is also a struggle for having the best minds.

Europe has experienced a continual proportional increase in services rather than manufacturing as wealth creation has predominantly come from the tertiary sector, and this is still the trend. However the production of goods is still seen as essential within the EU and thus manufacturing is viewed as a pivotal sector. Manufacturing has shown to have strong spill over effects, meaning that a great demand in manufacturing leads to strong economical gains in other sectors.

When facing other challenges such as extreme youth unemployment; competitiveness breeds jobs, and lack of it reduces jobs, thus reminding us of the prevailing importance of this topic.

Technology is a crucial aspect of industrial competitiveness. The EU has been criticised for being overly bureaucratic, and being difficult for businesses to work with. This might not be a big problem for large enterprises, however, small and medium enterprises (SMEs) might more suffer under the burden of red tape; often having to report to different institutions.

How could the EU use the potential of making bureaucracy a supportive partner, rather than a challenge for businesses?

To reinstate Europe as a global leader of service and production the EU decided on a set of objectives in the “Europe 2020 Goals for Smart, Sustainable and Inclusive Growth”, in order to reap the benefits of production maximization and cross-functional synergies. Control of public finances and structural reforms are priorities that are addressed by the EU and Member States’ governments, and could be some of the tools in order to reach a more competitive Europe. The “2012 - Industrial Performance Scorecard”, an annual industrial report by the European Commission points to 5 fields for improvement in European industrial development (1) productivity and skills, (2) export performance, (3) innovation and sustainability, (4) business environment and infrastructure and (5) targeted investment.

To face the challenge of lacking competitiveness the EU has proposed a plan, “Europe 2020” which is the EUs growth strategy for the coming decades. Among other things the European Commissions aims to reverse the declining role of industrial contribution; from 16% to 20% of overall GDP by the year of 2020. Priorities in the strategy include innovation, the digital economy, employment, youth, industrial policy, poverty, and resource efficiency.

European Youth Parliament Finland – EYP-Finland ry Uudenmaankatu 15 A 5, 00120 Helsinki http://www.eypfinland.org – eyp@eypfinland.org

The question remains how to adopt but also shape the future of European industry and competitiveness. And how can the EU not merely adapt to the changing market, but to a greater extent participate in defining how the changes should be?

What regulations and policies should be implemented both by the EU and the member states? And how could one implement further regulations without minimizing sorely needed innovation space for European companies? Lastly, how could one use and make knowledge and technology to give Europe the industrial edge it’s seeking?

Keywords Innovation, competitiveness, regulations, Asia, knowledge, skills development, economical growth, Bureaucracy, funding Links for further research 1. Official sources Press release on Competitiveness report 2013 The Europe 2020 strategy summary The Europe 2020 strategy, full plan European Competitiveness Report 2012: Reaping the Benefits of Globalization. Directorate General on Enterprise and Industry, European Commission, pp.18-35 & pp. 67-69 2. Newspaper articles and other materials EU plans to boost industry to 20% of Europe’s economy (BBC)

European Youth Parliament Finland – EYP-Finland ry Uudenmaankatu 15 A 5, 00120 Helsinki http://www.eypfinland.org – eyp@eypfinland.org

10. Committee on Transport and Tourism – TRAN Chairperson: Saga Eriksson (FI) Hub airports such as Helsinki Airport bring substantial economic benefits to their countries by increased connectivity to the rest of the world. Still nearly 50 % of European airports are loss-making and airports face strict state-aid restrictions. At the same time the rail industry receives roughly 100 times more state aid than the aviation industry. In a time of economic instability, should aviation be subsidized by the European governments to keep flights at the lossmaking airports?

Overview The aviation sector constitutes a huge part of the European transport sector, contributing 5.1 million jobs and 365 billion euros, which is 2.4% of the European GDP, to the European economy per year.1 Furthermore despite the current economic crisis the sector is expected to further grow by 5 % annually until 2030. With approximately 800 million passengers travelling each year within the European Union, constituting a third of the world market, the European aviation sector is a world leading industry. The aviation sector had been liberalized into a single European market enabling cross-border investment by European airlines.

However at the start of 2014 the sector is faced with several challenges. Even though half of European airports are loss-making, they are also facing a capacity crisis as they are not able to accommodate for the rise in passengers. There are frequent delays, mostly caused by problems on the ground that could mean delays for half of all flights across the European network if issues are not resolved. Therefore there is an immediate need for more infrastructure and efficiency in order to tackle the challenges of both congestion and unprofitability.

To tackle congestion the Single European Sky (SES) and SESAR initiatives were launched to tackle the issues of environmental friendliness in the industry as well as cost effectiveness. Where SES and its two phases set out the goals of improvements in the industry, SESAR was created to tackle the technological reforms needed to make these goals a reality. SESAR is an air traffic management research program, which aims to modernise infrastructure and raise efficiency through optimizing capacity.

To try to tackle other problems in the sector the European Commission has recently come out with a proposal to revise rules for state aid to regional airports. The aim of this is to streamline rules on airline subsidies in order to limit distortions of competition within the EU. There are currently 61 cases pending with the EU’s antitrust services regarding illegal public support for or by regional airports for low-cost carriers (LCC’s). In short a large problem with the current system of subsidies is that it allows airlines to shop around and target regional airports receiving subsidies so that they can get additional profit out of by making a deal with that smaller airport, all of this at the taxpayer’s expense. The main purpose of the new regulation is to make sure that the costs of airport services are being paid by those who use the service, not the taxpayers.

According to the new guidelines airports that handle more than 5 million passengers a year cannot receive public aid to support infrastructure investments. For smaller airports, state aid cannot exceed 75 % of eligible costs for airports with less than 1 million passengers and 25 % for airports with 3-5 million passengers annually.

Operating aid to airports will be phased out during an up to 10-year transitional period, so that airports can adjust their business model accordingly. Operating aid during this transitional period is only allowed at airports where annual traffic does not exceed 3 million passengers. Furthermore, according to the proposal only airports with less than 3 million passengers a year will be allowed to give start-up aid for the launching of new route or increased frequency of an existing one. Additionally this support can only last for a period of 2 years and can only cover 50 % of the costs. However, this 1 Figures from http://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/air/index_en.htm

European Youth Parliament Finland – EYP-Finland ry Uudenmaankatu 15 A 5, 00120 Helsinki http://www.eypfinland.org – eyp@eypfinland.org

support can only be given if the cities in question is not already is served by a high-speed rail service or another airport in the same catchment area.

However while emerging economies and Asia and the Persian Gulf are heavily funding airport infrastructure and through that improving their economic growth, it is worth considering if Europe is in fact “cutting its wings” making one of its most profitable industries less competitive. Is the aviation sector being discriminated against and put at an unfair advantage as the rail sector is still receiving subsidies for improvement of infrastructure? And lastly is the sudden dip in subsidies for the aviation sector perhaps motivated by environmental concerns as air traffic continues to be one of the biggest polluters yet pays no additional taxes for it?

Keywords State-aid, subsidies, Single European Sky, SESAR, capacity crunch, congestion, operating costs, loss-making airports, low-cost carriers, European Commission, regulation Links for further research 1. Introductory material European Commission Mobility and Transport: http://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/air/airports/index_en.htm http://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/air/index_en.htm 2013: the aviation year in Europe 2. Official sources Public consultation on a Proposal for improved protection against subsidisation and unfair pricing practices causing injury to EU air carriers in the supply of air services from non-EU countries Report on the EU’s External Aviation Policy – Addressing Future Challenges Guidelines of State aid for developing regional airports 3. Newspaper articles and other materials Come fly with me: recent developments in EU airport regulation Europe limits subsidising of Airports European Union seeks reduction in airport subsidies to limit market distortion EU takes aim at airport subsidies - and Ryanair Commission defends annual subsidies of 3 billion euros for low-cost airlines

Vantaa 2014 – the 20th National Session of European Youth Parliament Finland is supported by

European Youth Parliament Finland has received funding from the Ministry of Education and Culture and the Ministry for Foreign Affairs in 2013.

European Youth Parliament Finland – EYP-Finland ry Uudenmaankatu 15 A 5, 00120 Helsinki http://www.eypfinland.org eyp@eypfinland.org