oose.
10
Editorial The press is dying. We do not use paper the way we used to. Some might say that it is good for the environment while others might even think that it will help us save the earth. By burying the original newspaper, we are burying our access to freedom. Social Medias take over the internet, and with the NSA scandal, how can we even trust our local newspaper? Thomas Jefferson once said: “Where the press is free and every man able to read, all is safe.” Keep reading the newspaper, and keep fighting for freedom. Olivier Rostang
This issue was brought to you by : Clarisse Delaville (FR) Linda Lammensalo (FI) Asterios Arampatzis (GR) Ira Leiviskä (FI) Emma Cauwelaers (BE) Rita Häkkinen (FI) Anthony Fedorov (FI) Seraina Petersen (CH) Olivier Rostang (FR/SE) 2
Contents
Funding for Fun ?
4
Maahanmutto
5
Eyes Everywhere
6
You can make a difference
8
Fund of Europe
9
Split cores, divided Europe?
10
Future of the Lost Generation
11
Regions on the verge of Independence
12
3
Funding for Fun ?
By Rita Häkkinen
A famous Bulgarian folk pop music producing company, the biggest label of its genre, received a one-million-euro funding from the European Union (EU) in the beginning of this year. The company is specialized in Chalga music, which has been very popular in Bulgaria since the 1990s, but which is however very controversial because of its inappropriate nature and the sexual allusions it contains. The money was given under a EU Operational Program in order to improve the company’s competitiveness. On one hand, the reason for the funding seems acceptable: by receiving money, the company can improve its business e.g. by investing in new equipment or by expanding its focus area. This creates more jobs and eventually leads to economic growth in the region where the company is based. On the other hand, however, a few concerns appear: is music - of which lyrics and music videos include more or less explicit sexual content - really increasing wealth in Bulgaria? And if so, what if the Chalga music goes out of fashion? Isn’t EU investing a significant amount of money in a risky business? In addition, the fact that the money was directed to a relatively big company makes me worry about the widening gap between the rich and the poor. Isn’t the EU funding systems about building equality, after all? Yes, that is what they are for. The EU Structural Funds (SF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) are intended to narrow the gap in regional development, infrastructure and employment between the peripheral and the metropolitan areas. The Structural Funds are divided in two: the European Social Fund (ESF) and the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), which is currently the largest. Under the ERDF, the EU is sharing funds mainly to businesses, such as in the example above. The allocating of the funds itself creates problems. This is due to the fact that the funds are actually given to the governments of the countries, not to the businesses or the regions that are the actual targets. Governments are free to decide what happens to these funds even though they should follow the original rules set by the EU. In some cases they ignore these rules and invest
that money in other domains. For example, the purpose behind the Bulgarian folk music company funding is suspected to have been an attempt to persuade voters to vote for the president of the company in the 2013 parliamentary election, not so much to boost the economy or balance the inequality within the country. There has also been much news about brand new, shockingly costly airports in Spain, which have been shut down unused. At the moment, some of the funds are certainly going down the drain. The Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund altogether take approximately one third of the EU budget (ca. €350 billion in the period 2007-2013). As the times are economically strict, for we have just recently been to the rock bottom of the Euro crisis, should EU, as well as any other economic system, make sure that their money is going precisely where it is intended to go to. The efficient use of the Structural and the Cohesion Funds requires better research and supervision in the member states.
4
Maahanmuutto
Since the creation of the European Union (EU) people from poorer countries have been migrating to Europe, many of these people seeking asylum and new life possibilities. Although many asylum seekers migrate without any major problems, Europe also faces many immigrants who try and enter Europe illegally and this has been a rising issue for many decades. The question is how can the EU better control its external borders whilst respecting human rights? In 2012 the EU experienced an increase in immigration, which was triggered by the Arab
Spring. Countries that were affected by this rise of immigrants were primarily Malta, Italy and Spain. The prime minister of Malta, Lawrence Gonzi, spoke out about this issue saying that the only way we can solve immigration problems is if all European States work together as one. The European Union’s Internal Security Strategy in action (ISS) consists of 41 actions, which target the urgent security threats the EU faces. In these actions are shared agendas for disrupting criminal and terrorist networks, for protecting citizens, businesses and societies against cyber-
5
By Anthony Fedorov
crime, for strengthening of the common external borders and for improving the EU’s readiness and response to crises. From the period of 200713 the general program «solidarity and management of migration flows» allocated around 4 billion euros between EU countries for the financial burden that arises when dealing with the external borders and new asylum and immigration policies. This program has four main instruments with which it deals with migration, asylum and border policies. These instruments are: the External Border Fund (EBF), the European Return
Fund (RF), the European Refugee Fund (ERF) and the European Fund for the integration of thirdcountry nationals (EIF). All of these instruments are aimed at strengthening the EU’s response to high amounts of immigration. This is a hard topic to handle and it will never be resolved at 100%, but the EU is on its way to creating a system, which would make immigration easier and safer whilst having a low percentage of illegal immigrants, and human trafficking alongside with good border control and respect of human rights.
Eyes Everywhere
By Seraina Petersen
Even though the passing of bills at the European level does not always correlate to public attention, a certain shift of legislation clusters can be attributed to scandals sweeping through the headlines. Thus, data protection has been a constant matter of debates in parliament, but their frequency has increased in 2012, after the discussion about WikiLeaks had been reignited by Julian Assange’s flight to the Ecuadorian embassy in London. What is more, this discussion was taken to a whole new level when the belief in security of information was fundamentally shaken by the US National Security Agency (NSA), which turned out to be a modern-day stalker on individuals as well as institutions. But the scapegoat USA remained not the only ones to be blamed. On the contrary, the “Five Eyes” (agreement between US, UK, Canada,
Australia and New Zealand on cooperation in secret global surveillance) have been shown to be very watchful indeed: countries spread over all five continents found themselves targets of secret surveillance. The outburst of indignation was – and still is, though slightly subsided - widespread in terms of geography as well as levels. While anxious citizens worried as much about their posts on Facebook as about the content of their e-mails, furious politicians demanded the interruption of certain diplomatic negotiations (at that time, the 39th G8 summit was due to take place in Ireland). At the European level, the president of the European Commission, Manuel Barroso, called the issue “very disturbing”, saying that is was raising serious concerns. The European Commissioner for Justice and Fundamental Rights,
10
Viviane Reding, submitted a list of questions on PRISM and other surveillance programs to the US attorney general Eric Holder. But while political and diplomatic sections were still spitting of indignation, gradually, their very own governments were revealed to be equally part of the international spying cycle. The difficult part of the whole issue is how to regulate surveillance activities in a sensible manner. For one, while spying is perceived as justified in cases of suspected criminals (or terrorists), how can suspicious activities be found in the first place? Then again, how can illegal surveillance be detected, in an age of virtually endless technological possibilities? And how exactly can and should infractions by non-EU member states on members of the EU space be sanctioned? And, on the institutional level, how secret can diplomacy be kept, how secret should it be in the first place and what exactly is the definition of “illegal”, speaking in terms of in-
ternational intelligence gathering? In essence: who has the right to spy on whom, to what extent, and through which measures? Our committee on Security and Defence SEDE has to deal with all these questions and many more, including the regulations the EU should take. We have every right to be curious about their solution. Meanwhile, it remains to be seen how soon the “eyes” concerned will know about the decision taken by the European Government on this matter – whether it will be when new regulations are officially released and announced or much earlier through invisible ears, when these rules are still being finalised in a “confidential” frame. It also remains to be seen how soon the counter-agents in the blame-game will know about eventual infractions on said confidential process. Because, in the world of technologized anonymity we live in, it is hard to say who is actually spying on whom.
7
You can make a difference By Clarisse Delaville Are you going to vote in the next European elections? You have got seven months to decide (or to turn eighteen) before the European Parliaments (EP) elections take place in May 2014. Unfortunately, a large part of us will not express their opinion. Indeed, looking back at the past European elections over the last three decades, it appears that the turnout decreased by almost 19 %. Taking into account the whole population, abstention increased dangerously. When we focus on the youth, the numbers are alarming: 70% of the youth (18-24 years old) did not go to the polls in 2009. Is that just laziness or is there a meaning behind this type of act? We live in a complex world of constant change, where we have to face new challenges every day. How can people have their say on the topics they are concerned about ? By voting you will answer right away. But maybe abstention is for some a political action to show to the European Union (EU) institutions that the solutions they adopt do not suit them. Unfortunately, abstention is one of the biggest risks for democracy since just a limited part of a population get to decide the fate of an entire community. Although abstention can be a way to express disagreement towards politics, a large part of the youth did not have
their say on other motives. A survey carried on by the European Union after the elections of 2009 showed that young people who did not vote took this decision for a myriad of reasons: they might not be interested in politics, perhaps they were too busy or maybe they just never vote. But as Thucydides said in Peloponnesian War: « we do not say that a man who shows no interest in politics is a man who minds his own business; we say that he has no business here at all ». Voting is our duty as European citizens. Voting is also about showing respect for people who fought for this precious right. So how can the EU encourage young people to take part into the political life of their community? How could the EU promote political involvement amongst abstentions? Have voting become compulsory? Is the link between citizens and institutions broken? These are all issues the European Parliament has to deal with. Attempting to convince citizens to go to the polls, the EP is being creative launching its new voting advertising campaign with the slogan: « Coming together is a beginning; keeping together is progress; working together is success ».
8
Fund of Europe
By Emma Cauwelaers
Almost half of all the funds developing countries get come from the European Union (EU). The development policy is not only about roads, food and water but the funds are also to increase the export rate in the developing countries. This is one of many ways the EU tries to give a hand to the economies of these countries. We may ask: is this help used the way it is supposed to be used? The EU has already tried to reach international goals with for example the Paris Declaration (2005), the Accra Agenda for Action (2008), and the Busan Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation (2011). In 2005 the presidents of these commissions, the parliament and the council singed: “The European Consensus�. The first part of this consensus is based on the millennium development goals of the UN. Their stand against poverty and hunger plays a vital part in their
human rights development. Since the developing countries are the primary source for their own development the EU only grants the necessary aid. Even though the EU is an important partner, they need to see positive effects of their aid before they will consider taking this next step. The EU needs to cooperate with other nations in order to help the developing countries, which can only be done by allowing discussions in the areas that need it. Points such as democracy, children rights and gender equality are crucial ones that should not be taken for granted. It is now up to these other nations to decide whether they agree with the EUs methods or not. The results have not been noteworthy yet, but we will not let our hopes down and we will continue fighting to make the world a better place.
9
Split cores, divided Europe? By Asterios Arampatzis
In a world desperately seeking a way out from an imminent energy crisis, a pan-European turn to nuclear energy may hold the key towards an energy independent Europe. However, almost 2 years ago, the Fukushima accident, serving as a fearful reminder to the entire mankind, brought the real dilemma back to the spotlights; Does a “golden mean” exist between the non-use of the nuclear benefits in order to prevent a future disaster and having nuclear power in the ‘’frontlines’’, trying to achieve environmental sustainability and safety? And most importantly, how can the EU ensure, that the key parts of this fragile balance won’t break while the whole energy future of the European countries is at stake? At the moment, nuclear power plants generate about 30% of the electricity in the EU. More interesting is that the EU nuclear policy is mainly in the competence of member states.
Having each country independently deciding whether it wants nuclear in its energy mix, automatically creates a variety of policies concerning the construction of nuclear reactors. The disaster in Japan had a profound effect in many EU countries triggering decisions like revisions of the safety policies or even a nuclear phaseout, clearly indicating the lack of a common effective EU nuclear strategy. According to expert talks, this is where the contradiction and the “core” of the problem lies. The nuclear issue cannot be divided according to geographical and political borders, when in case of an emergency, harmful radiation knows no limits. While the European Commission looks at nuclear activities from three angles: Safety, Safeguards and Security. The legislative measures taken, first established by the Euratom Treaty fail to be implemented because of obstacles caused
10
from each member state’s legal framework. The impact is not felt in only one way: on one hand the perils of this energy are increasing analogically with the strengthening of nuclear operations inside some countries, on the other hand a dichotomous Europe, non-nuclear and nuclear simultaneously, is “struggling” to define a plan regarding all the member states. So, can the EU or not, follow the reverse process of a nuclear fusion, uniting all European nations under the same energy umbrella?
Future of the Lost Generation By Linda Lammensalo Especially on us, the European youth, the economic downturn has had a huge impact. Many young people across the Europe are in desperate situation where they can’t find a job for themselves and making their ends meet has become an everyday challenge. According to Eurostatt’s, the percentage of NEETs (Not in Employment, Education or Training) of young people in Europe has reached 9.7, meaning that over 8 million youngsters are jobless. A lot of youth from 20 to 30 years old are still living at home with their parents and are financially dependent of them. There have already been talks about Europe’s «lost generation». This refers to the highly educated generation that isn’t able to use its skills in working life and is getting excluded from the society. One of the main problems youth unemployment faces is that it threatens the structure of our societies. Young unemployed might soon become permanently unemployed and they won’t be able to get the needed experience to seek for jobs later on. Their employability gets worse and worse the longer they are. Young people are facing problems not only to find decent jobs but also jobs to fit their education. Especially around southern Europe, many graduates aren’t able to get employed on their own field. The jobs that still are available are often temporary works or the wages are low. A lot of young people who have been unable to find a job in their home country have moved to areas where work is easier to find, causing some coun-
tries to suffer from brain drain. The increasing number of unemployed young people is a global challenge. It has very negative effects on our societies and both social and economical costs. The unemployed risk social exclusion, which mean they can easily get excluded from the rest of the world because they feel that there is no future for them. Increased number of unemployed youth has also lead to radicalism and people defusing their frustration of the government and economic situation on the streets in riots. In already ageing Europe the falling of birth rates caused by the youth unemployment is also becoming a serious problem. The EU has started projects to help the youth in labour markets such as Youth Employment Initiative and Youth Guarantee. However a lot more should still be done in regional, national and international level to find a solution to the youth unemployment problems in Europe. Governments on national level should take more responsibility and labour markets and employers co-operate more with each other as well as encouraging employers to invest and generate new job opportunities for young people Member states should support people in the areas that the economical crisis have affected the most. But the answer to the problem lies also in the youth’s hands. To meet the demands of the labour markets young people should be more innovative and flexible.
10
Regions on the Verge of Independence By Ira Leiviskä
Shared language, culture and community are things that drive people to want independence. These, along with the economic points of view, are the main reasons why Catalonia, Flanders and Scotland want their regions to be separated from the rest of the country. To pursue this
wish they will face many legal and political obstacles even as crucial as their EU status. In the light of the depression still affecting the economy and the increasing debt of some countries, it is likely that the separation of these regions would affect the mainland’s si-
tuation. A rich region like Flanders putting money into Belgium’s assets is essential to the well being of the country. Still, it’s understandable that such a region would want to be independent to enjoy this significant economic independence. On the other hand, would a region like
Scotland be able to rise from the economic downturn if it didn’t have the rest of the UK supporting it? Another obstacle would be the EU’s stance on the matter. With the notion that a region that gains independence not being a part of the EU - although the mother country is - could make things difficult for the new independent country. There would be no EU support as well as restricted access to other countries
for both people and goods, which may also affect taxation. This would have a huge effect on places such as Catalonia where the benefit of tourism to their economy is immeasurable. If no special measures can be taken for dealing with the membership applications of these regions, it could take a long time for them to become part of the EU again. So do you think that it is necessary for these regions
to be independent? Is it worth it to go through all the bureaucracy? Is it only the vocal minority that wish to be independent or do the movements have more popular backing? Should the EU’s prerogative be to deal with these matters of secession before they could get put into action or bid their time and wait to see what happens? These are the questions we should be thinking about.
12