RESOLUTION BOOKLET First National Selection Conference European Youth Parliament Luxembourg Schengen 1st-4th of April 2014
Timetable
9:00 Opening Ceremony (Speech by Mr. Schrรถder, Head of the Information office of the EP in Luxembourg) 9:15
1 st Debate (CULT)
10:00
Coffee break
10:15
2 nd Debate (TRAN)
11:00
3 rd Debate (AFCO)
11:45
Break
12:00
4 th Debate (LIBE)
12:45
5 th Debate (ENVI)
13:30
Lunch
14:50
Committee Pictures
15:05
6 th Debate (EMPL)
15:50
Break
15:55
Closing Ceremony
17:00
Departures
Procedure for the General Assembly
General rules The wish to speak is indicated by raising the Committee placard. The authority of the Board is absolute.
Procedure and time settings 1. Presentation of the Motion for a Resolution (the Board reads out the topic and introduces any Friendly Amendments); 2. Defence Speech (maximum 3 minutes); 3. Attack Speech (2 times 2 minutes); 4. Response to the Attack Speech (2 minutes); 5. Open Debate on the Motion for a Resolution: 6. Summation Speech (maximum 3 minutes); 7. Voting procedure; 8. Announcement of the voting results by the Board.
Friendly amendments Put forward by the Proposing Committee, these are last-minute modifications aiming at improving the Resolution. Amendments are to be handed to the Board two Resolutions in advance – or as early as possible for the first Debates of the day.
Points of Personal Privilege These are requests for a Delegate to repeat a point that was inaudible. Failure to understand the language being spoken does not make for a Point of Personal Privilege.
3
Direct Responses Once per Debate, each Committee may use the ‘Direct Response’ sign once. Should a Committee member raise the Committee Placard and the ‘Direct Response’ sign during the Open Debate, he/she will immediately be recognised by the Board and given the floor as soon as the point being made is concluded. A Direct Response can only be used to refer to and discuss the point made directly beforehand. If two or more Direct Responses are requested at once, the Board will decide which Committee to recognise. In this case, the second Direct Response shall only be held if it can be referred to the first Direct Response, so on and so forth.
Points of Order These can be raised by the Chairperson if a Delegate feels the Board have not properly followed Parliamentary procedure. Ultimately, the authority of the Board is absolute. Defence Speech One member of the Proposing Committee delivers the Defence Speech from the podium. It is used to explain the rationale of the overall lines of the Resolution and to convince the Plenary that the Resolution is worthy of being adopted. This speech can last a maximum of three minutes.
Attack Speeches Two individual Delegates from two Committees other than that proposing the Resolution at hand deliver an Attack Speech from the podium. It reflects an individual opinion and is used to point out the flaws of the approach taken by the Proposing Committee and should propose alternative solutions. Both Delegates will have the opportunity to speak for two minutes. Oftentimes, an Attack Speech is concluded with an appeal to the Plenary not to adopt the Resolution in their present form.
Response to the Attack Speeches The Proposing Committee responds to the points raised by the Attack Speeches. They may do so for 2 minutes.
4
Summation Speech One or two members of the Proposing Committee deliver the Summation Speech from the podium; the microphone can only be passed once. It is used to summarise the Debate, respond to main, selected criticism and to once more explain why the chosen approach is the most sensible. It typically concludes with an appeal to vote in favour of the Resolution. This speech can last a maximum of three minutes.
5
M OTION FOR A R ESOLUTION BY THE C OMMITTEE ON C ULTURE AND E DUCATION
Considering the importance of international vehicular languages in a globalized world as well as the commitments made in the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages: How can Member States facilitate linguistic mobility while honouring the aforementioned treaty?
Submitted by:
Heleen Dekoninck (BE), Daria Dorpeko (FI), Sandrine Georg (LU), Mathis Godefroid (LU), Vincent Haller (DE), Lukas Jablonskas (LT), Jade Ritz (LU), Lynn Schüssler (LU), Paulien Thyssen (BE), Alice Zhang (NL), Juan Estheiman Amaya Camposeco (Chairperson, ES), Astrid Vikström (Chairperson, SE)
The European Youth Parliament, A. Disturbed by the insufficient protection of the linguistic rights stated in the: i)
European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages (ECRML),
ii)
Universal Declaration of Fundamental Human Rights,
iii) Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, B. Expresses its concern about the conflicting perceptions of minority languages present within the European Union, thus establishing differences in the degree to which they are officially recognised and supported throughout Member States, C. Observing how the existence of language prestige1 establishes a language hierarchy, consequently affecting the amount of practice each language receives, D. Aware of the fact that language proficiency varies within Member States, E. Keeping in mind the value of the English language as the most used lingua franca2 within the EU, F. Bearing in mind that linguistic diversity inside a territory is influenced by demographic changes, G. Deeply concerned that EU citizens are not aware of the cultural significance that language diversity represents, H. Noting with regret that Member States which share the same minority languages often fail to engage in co-‐‑operative practices, I.
Deeply disturbed by the fact that information about minority languages within the EU is outdated, with the most recent investigation being the Euromosaic3 study carried out in 1996,
1 Language prestige is established by the combination of three factors; socioeconomic status, demography, and institutional support. These directly affect the way a language is seen in comparison to others. 2 A lingua franca is a common language used by different individuals to communicate between each other, when they do not share a mother tongue. They are also known as vehicular languages.
J.
Fully aware of the lack of representation and use of minority languages in; i)
Member States’ education systems,
ii)
Mass media,
iii) New communication technologies, K. Bearing in mind that current EU funding is not sufficient to sustain NGOs and institutions which promote and safeguard the usage of minority or regional languages; Policies and Educational Development 1. Calls upon the European Commission to place sanctions upon Member States which fail to comply with the commitments made by the ratification of the ECMRL; 2. Congratulates the efforts made by the Finnish and Swedish governments to protect regional and ethnic minorities through their effective linguistic policies; 3. Recommends Member States to protect the existence of minority languages in their public education systems by: a)
Establishing optional classes which allow for minority language speakers to receive tuition in their mother or ethnic tongue,
b)
Providing optional teaching hours for minority and vehicular languages;
4. Further invites a wider establishment of exchange programmes targeted to all sectors of society; Supervision of the Implementation of the ECMRL 5. Calls for mandatory regular reports to be compiled by Member States and submitted to the European Commission in order to monitor the progress of the implementation of the ECMRL at a national level; 6. Calls upon the European Council to recognise the importance of linguistic minorities and implement the issue into their agenda; 7. Endorses additional institutional support for development programmes such as the Mercator Network4; 8. Calls upon the European Commission and academic institutions to update official information sources such as the Euromosaic Study, so as to provide a current depiction of the linguistic reality of Europe;
3 The study identified the social and institutional variables which create the conditions for expanding the use of a language. The last pan-‐‑European update took place in 1996, despite information about new Member States being compiled in 2004 and 2008. 4 The Mercator European Network of Language Diversity Centers is an EU funded project connecting multilingual communities across Europe. Focus lies on multilingual regions dealing with regional or minority languages, but also immigrant languages and smaller state languages.
Visibility and Funding 9. Expresses its will to incentivise projects and initiatives carried out with the objective of providing increased visibility of minority languages in mass media and new communication technologies; 10. Calls upon European Development Funds5 to be used in order to facilitate the aforementioned measures.
5
Regional funds such as the European Regional Development Fund and the European Social Fund.
M OTION FOR A R ESOLUTION BY THE C OMMITTEE ON T RANSPORT AND T OURISM
Connecting East and West: Keeping in mind the Trans-‐‑European Transport Networks (TEN-‐‑T) policy, what position should the EU take in order to establish a fair transport network for all Member States and modes of transport whilst respecting its climate change objectives? Submitted by:
Ioanna Bagia (LU), Anne Crochet (LU), Caro Dullemond (NL), Niklas Höpner (DE), Cécile Van Roeyen (BE), Boris Verloop (NL), Jean Wivenes (LU), Nastja Cindy Zupančič (SI), Tim Backhaus (Chairperson, FI), Bérengère Gouraud (Chairperson, FR)
The European Youth Parliament, A. Recognising the potential for private sector companies to invest in the Trans-‐‑European Transport Networks (TEN-‐‑T)6, B. Realising that the transportation means between Member States’ are not interoperable7, C. Aware of the lack of transportation links between European Union (EU) member states, D. Emphasising the need for improvement of transport means in both developed and less developed European areas, E. Expresses its appreciation towards RailEurope8 for their innovative webpage which improves accessibility of transport for EU citizens, F. Noting with concern the lacking knowledge of the English language among certain European regions resulting in the misunderstanding of transport information provided whilst travelling abroad, G. Noting with deep concern the increase in CO2 emissions from 1990 -‐‑ 20119 caused by the transportation sector; Financing the TEN-‐‑T 1. Expresses its belief in the LGTT10 to increase the efficiency of TEN-‐‑T projects through public-‐‑ private partnerships; Innovations in Transportation
Trans-European Transport Networks (TEN-T) are the infrastructure and transport networks in Europe. Interoperability focuses on making the different technical systems on the EU railways work together. RailEurope is a company of which French National Railroads (SNCF) and Swiss Federal Railroads (SBB) are majority shareholders. Their aim is to make booking train travels easy in Europe. Greenhouse gas emissions have risen from 778 million tonnes of CO in 1990 to 926 million tonnes in 2011 (Eurostat, 2013). LGTT is the “Loan Guarantee Instrument for Trans-European Transport Network Projects“. LGTT is a part of the TEN-T programme and is looking to facilitate greater participation of the private sector in the financing of PanEuropean transport infrastructure. 6 7 8
9
10
2
2. Calls upon the relevant EU institutions to take responsibility for the incompatibility between the means of transport in Member States11; 3. Calls upon the European Commission to amend the Copenhagen Criteria by establishing a minimum quality requirement of transport and infrastructure; Sustainable Development in Transportation 4. Urges TEN-‐‑T to focus more on researching green energy, specifically on the storage of this particular type of energy; 5. Encourages the EU citizens to increase their use of eco-‐‑friendly transportation methods such as: a) b) c) d)
Magnet trains, E-‐‑buses, Inland shipping, Electric cars in car rentals;
6. Requests that EU member states re-‐‑evaluate their means of traffic jam reduction.
11
For example the modification of trains in Spain.
M OTION FOR A R ESOLUTION BY THE C OMMITTEE ON C ONSTITUTIONAL A FFAIRS
Reversing the Schengen Agreement? With the recent amendment of the Schengen Borders Code by the European Parliament and an increase in calls for stricter regulations on free movement, what stance should the EU take regarding the implementation of the Schengen Agreement whilst safeguarding the four freedoms?
Submitted by:
Joël Back (LU), Faye Bovenlander (NL), Nicole Cherniavsky (LU), Laura Cornette (LU), Maren De Wit (NL), Ioannis Doukidis (GR), Fabia Feykens (DE), Tessa Länsipuro (FI), Vilius Paskevicius (LT), Merel Vereecken (BE), Khalid El Ghoul (Chairperson, NL), Hugo Dürr (Vice-‐‑President, SE)
The European Youth Parliament, A. Fully alarmed by the fact that Schengen States with external borders are facing higher levels of illegal immigration12, B. Further noting that these states are not capable of facing the high concentration of immigrants due to a lack of physical and economic capacity13, C. Conscious that the aforementioned states cannot always cater for illegal immigrants resulting in their travel to other Schengen States, D. Deeply regretting existing mistrust between Schengen States with only internal borders and those with external borders14, E. Concerned by the fact that the free movement of goods causes a constant flow of unregistered trading15, F. Noting with regret that the perceived exploitation of social tourism causes strains on the Schengen Agreement, G. Acknowledging that social tourism contributes to promoting European integration, H. Deeply disturbed by the increasingly negative attitudes shown towards the Schengen Agreement, I.
Alarmed by the flow of migration from East to West within the Schengen Area, directly affecting the level of unemployment in western states,
12 More than 55,000 illegal immigrants were detected on Greece’s external border region in 2011, which is a 17% increase since 2010 (BBC, 2013). 13 In 2011, France reintroduced the Franco-‐‑Italian border, after Italy’s lack of capacity to control the level of immigration at external borders (The Guardian, 2011). 14 Such as France’s distrust in Italy’s will to maintain the border, considering its inability during the Arab Spring to prevent mass immigration (The Guardian, 2011). 15 UNODC World Drug Report 2010.
J.
Viewing with appreciation the successful work of the Schengen Information System (SIS) concerning the free movement of criminals across the Schengen States;
Social Affairs 1. Expresses its hope for an enlargement of the Schengen Area in order to decrease the negative attitudes expressed towards the Schengen Agreement by raising awareness of its benefits; 2. Calls upon the European Commission to stimulate the creation of new jobs by requiring the European Investment Bank to provide European businesses with financial incentives to establish themselves in Eastern Europe; 3. Requests that Eurostat conducts research concerning the effectiveness of the SIS II16; Geo-‐‑Political situation 4. Recommends the European Commission to increase the availability of resources for FRONTEX17 to cope with greater levels of illegal immigration in Schengen states with external borders; 5. Encourages Schengen States with external borders to make use of the FRONTEX services; 6. Supports a greater allocation of financial aid to Schengen States with external borders to increase their ability of accommodating illegal migrants; 7. Invites Schengen States to host frequent meetings in order to create stronger ties by discussing a common migration policy; Trade 8. Encourages the FRONTEX agency to increase border control services at external borders concerning the free movement of goods; 9. Calls for closer collaboration between Europol and Schengen States in regards to restricting the trading of unregistered goods.
16 Established in April 2013, SIS II allows competent national authorities to issue and consult alerts on persons who may have been involved in a serious crime or may not have the right to enter or stay in the EU, as well as alerts on missing persons and information on certain property, such as banknotes, cars, etc. 17 The European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders
M OTION FOR A R ESOLUTION BY THE C OMMITTEE ON C IVIL L IBERTIES ,
J USTICE AND H OME A FFAIRS
With the recent tragedy near the island of Lampedusa, EU migration and asylum policies have been questioned widely. To what extent should the EU review its asylum policy and the Dublin regulation in order to avoid such tragic situations in the future? Submitted by:
Amela Bahtijari (LU), Joost Berkhout (NL), Glenn Bourkel (LU), Leonard Brümmer (DE), Kenisha van Keulen (LU), Alina Khan (LU), Miro Penttinen (FI), Sandra Trienekens (LU), Georgia Tsekou (GR), Christian Browne (Chairperson, UK), Kristýna Stejskalová (Vice-‐‑President, CZ)
The European Youth Parliament, A. Aware of increasing immigration18 into European Union member states triggered by: i)
Political and economic instability in migrant’s origin countries, notably the current situation in Syria,
ii)
Worsening of cultural differences such as religious conflicts and gender inequality, demonstrated by the recent uprisings in Egypt,
B. Noting with regret that the Schengen Agreement and the Dublin Regulation III19 lead to tensions between Member States due to the conflicting responsibilities of nations regarding the regulation of mobility, effects of which were seen during the clash between France and Italy in 201120, C. Alarmed by the inhumane conditions asylum seekers are subjected to during and after their journey to the EU, notably: i)
Detention camps that have filled to the point of overcrowding, such as in Lampedusa where refugee camps have exceeded their 850-‐‑person capacity,
ii)
Long and further increasing waiting times for asylum applications to be considered,
iii) Lack of financial support, most notably in countries such as Italy where camps need development, D. Realising that unequal allocation of migrants throughout Member States has caused tension between nations and inhibits a potential rise in immigration21,
From 2006 to 2012, immigration into the EU has increased by 162% (Eurostat, 2012) As of 2013, asylum seekers can now appeal over home office affairs in regard to decisions made about visas or permits. Change also aims to help asylum seekers under the age of 18 by allowing them to travel unaccompanied (by family) if it is in the child’s best interest. 20 Going against the Schengen agreement, France closed its borders for trains carrying migrants coming from Italy, even though the Dublin II Regulation allowed this. 21 Germany, France and Sweden are granting refuge to 55% of the total amount of asylum seekers in the EU. 18 19
E. Deeply concerned by the increasing number of citizens siding with anti-‐‑immigration parties which aim to block the freedom of immigrants, advocated by the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) and the Partij voor de Vrijheid (PVV), F. Regretting that the granting of visas for asylum seekers differ between EU member states, particularly in relation to the seekers education, employment history and subsequent employability, G. Deeply concerned that visas in some Member States do not last long enough for conflicts to end subsequently putting migrants in danger once more, specifically noting that the conflict in Syria has exceeded the maximum temporary-‐‑visa period of 18 months; Increasing Funding of Asylum Policy 1. Calls for the creation of the European Fund for Asylum Seekers (EFAS) funded by all Member States, in proportion to their GDP, in order to improve results of asylum policy within the EU; 2. Invites the European Asylum Support Office (EASO) to use the EFAS in order to: a)
Expand refugee camps to reduce overcrowding,
b)
Enhance living conditions in refugee camps,
c)
Fund the creation of new jobs for asylum seekers whose applications have been accepted in order to help integrate them into society,
d)
Increase the number of administrative positions at EASO within the EU in order to reduce waiting time for asylum seekers;
Reducing Tensions and Over-‐‑Allocation of Asylum Seekers and Immigrants 3. Calls for the creation of the Dublin IV Regulation which will transfer responsibility of migrant allocation to the EASO, helping to tackle current tensions caused by Dublin III Regulation; 4. Aims to compensate Member States who continually take in asylum seekers when able, subsidised by the EFAS; Improving Asylum Seeker Visas and Applications 5. Strongly recommends improvement of current asylum policy by: a)
Introducing a minimum visa length of two years for all asylum seekers entering the EU,
b)
Enabling asylum seekers to prolong expired visas if the danger they fled from is still apparent;
6. Calls upon the EASO to exclude questions regarding education and employment history on visa application forms to ensure the fairness of visa applications for asylum seekers.
M OTION FOR A R ESOLUTION BY
THE C OMMITTEE ON E NVIRONMENT ,
P UBLIC H EALTH AND F OOD S AFETY
With improved mobility in the Schengen Area comes a higher movement of germs, bacteria and viruses across borders. In light of the recent EU ‘Decision on Serious Cross-‐‑border Threats to Health’, what further actions should the EU and its Member States take to prevent an increase in communicable diseases and safeguard health security?
Submitted by:
Laura Cloostermans (LU), Mariane Dos Santos (LU), Ans van Gasse (BE), Yannick Mertens (LU), Liza Rajic (SI), Carolyn Riera (LU), Alexandre Siebenaller (LU), Gabriele Simakauskaite (LT), Jessie Thill (LU), Paulius Dovidavicius (Chairperson, LT), Anna Lefering (Chairperson, DE)
The European Youth Parliament, A. Aware of the fact that accessibility to health care is insufficient in several Member States due to: i)
Citizens in less developed Member States or rural areas not having adequate access to medical services,
ii)
Alarming amount of citizens not having available means to pay medical bills,
B. Deeply disturbed by the misuse of medication resulting in viruses and bacteria becoming resistant, C. Is concerned with the lack of hygiene in public services, such as public toilets and hospitals, D. Noting with concern the lack of education and awareness of disease prevention among the general public, E. Noting with deep concern that not all areas within the European Union (EU) have access to drinking water, F. Alarmed by the lack of regulations concerning the travel of diseased people within the Schengen Area by different vehicles with high concentration of people, such as airplanes, cruise ships, busses and trains, G. Fully aware that immigration from developing countries to the Schengen Area poses the risk of spreading of pathogens alien to the European environment, H. Concerned by the impact of produce being exposed to an increased risk of contamination during importation and exportation;
Medical care 1. Urges for the establishment of a European Healthcare Fund (EHF) that will, upon application, financially support disadvantaged EU citizens otherwise unable to afford medical care; 2. Calls for a restriction of the amount of antibiotics prescribed by doctors (per month), depending on the average number of patients, requesting doctors justify any decision to increase the set amount to the National Health Ministry to avoid over-‐‑prescription; 3. Encourages the Member States to exchange any research conducted on a topic of healthcare in order to develop new medication as well as preventing repetitive research; 4. Recommends biennial medical examinations at educational institutions in order to ensure young people are still vaccinated for bacteria and viruses; Prevention of diseases 5. Requests for increased hygiene in public places at the National government’s account by: a)
Mandatory cleaning of public restrooms at least twice a day,
b)
Ensuring sufficient supply of products of personal hygiene;
6. Further requests the education of EU citizens on hygiene, medicine and diseases by: a)
Introducing the practices of hygiene in biology and chemistry classes in primary and secondary schools,
b)
Raising awareness of personal hygiene through media campaigns and trainings;
7. Encourages WHO22 to invest into less expensive and more efficient water-‐‑cleaning systems research in order to provide drinkable water in rural areas; 8. Calls upon random medical checks for immigrants as well as tourists and commuters arriving in the Schengen area; 9. Draws attention to the need for stricter controls of edible goods in the production process as well as during transport, carried out by an independent inspector designated by the EFSA23.
22 World Health Organization (WHO) is a directing and coordinating authority for health within the United Nations system. It is responsible for providing leadership on global health matters, shaping the health research agenda. 23 European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) is responsible for risk assessment regarding food and feed safety within the EU. EFSA provides independent scientific advice and clear communication on existing and emerging risks.
M OTION FOR A R ESOLUTION BY THE C OMMITTEE ON E MPLOYMENT AND S OCIAL A FFAIRS
Opportunity or obligation: With regards to freedom of mobility and labour, how should the EU reshape its active labour market policies (ALMPs) in the fight against youth unemployment?
Submitted by:
Irem Akmese (BE), Ken Valerio De Sousa (LU), Georgia Fanaroupoulou (GR), Sara Freixo (LU), Hui Yi Hang (LU), Tarmo Hyytiäinen (FI), Sarah Kennedy (LU), Marja-‐‑Lisa Kitacheva (FI), Christophe Klares (LU), Joo Hyung Lee (LU), Michelle Maenhout (BE), Ira Mesicek (SI), Martin Ellingsen (Chairperson, NO), Tetiana Korniichuk (Chairperson, UA)
The European Youth Parliament, A. Concerned by insufficient opportunities for students to gain practical working experience during studies, B. Noting that common European active labour market policies (ALMPs) targeting the European labour market do not consider the individual needs and entering conditions of the Member State, C. Fully aware of the unequal levels of skills possessed by young people caused by differing education systems of European Union (EU) member states effecting their opportunities to enter the labour market, D. Noting the lack of transparent communication among the key actors in the labour market, E. Alarmed by the fact that employers’ high expectations towards job-‐‑seekers are excluding a large amount of young people in Europe from entering employment as well as the fact that competition for work is increasing, F. Deeply concerned by the skills mismatch leading to high amount of unfilled vacancies in certain economic sectors, G. Alarmed by unemployed young people not utilising the freedom of mobility in the labour market to its full extent, H. Observing the gap between the extent of ALMPs development and its implementation in Member States, I.
Alarmed by the lack of motivation for many young people to actively search for jobs after long term unemployment;
Education 1. Calls upon the establishment of a common European educational initiative aimed at further incorporating entrepreneurship and internships in schools, whilst leaving the details of its enforcement up to the individual Member States; 2. Recommends the meetings of Education, Youth and Culture (EYC) Council24 as well as university officials to be held more frequently with the aim of facilitating the transition of education to a common labour market; Employers 3. Urges the European Commission to input information about existing vacancies, from both public and private sectors within the EU, into the EU Skills Panorama25 website; 4. Encourages employers to use alternative ways of evaluating job applicants by giving them the opportunity to demonstrate their skills within the company; Member States 5. Suggests Member States introduce each other’s ALMPs via officials’ exchange programmes, modifying them according to their individual needs; 6. Calls for the adjustment of the level of social welfare to be adapted in relation to the activeness of the job seekers; 7. Encourages Member States to initiate a program encouraging young people to cross borders in search of work by helping them with: a) Finding accommodation, b) Language training.
24 This Council bring together education, culture, youth and communication ministers of all EU member states around three or four times a year. 25 Central access point for data, information and intelligence on trends for skills and jobs across Europe with regularly updated information.