Topic Summaries
Contents
Sean Mahon - LIBE
•
LIBE –
Sean Mahon
•
AFCO 1 –
Dylan McDermot
•
AFCO2 –
Eileen De Sousa
•
CULT –
Leah Maloney
•
ECON –
Katie Bailey
•
AFET-
Adam Stanford
• FEMM-
Naomi Foale
•
EMPL 1-
Jade Jimenez
•
EMPL 2
Eileen De Sousa
-• ENVI-
James Bradfield
•
Shirley Carr
DEVE-
The Free Movment of people is one of the fundamental principles of the EU yet immigration, particularly illegal immigration and the seeking of refugee status, remains a highly controversial issue in many European states and the immigration policies vary considerably from member state to member state. How can the EU effectively co-ordinate immigration across its member states? Freedom of movement is one of the most important values of the European Union, yet it is increasingly becoming the source of intense debate. Immigration has always been a target of far-right and eurosceptic groups such as the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) and Greece’s Golden Dawn. Despite many people considering these parties’ views to be xenophobic or racist, these groups have been consistently gaining support over the last number of years. This comes at a time where both legal and illegal immigration into the E.U. is also on the rise, putting considerable strain on the Europe’s resources and systems for insuring that this immigration takes place in a controlled, fair and organised manner. Indeed, there are even several incidences of immigrants attempting to gain entry to the E.U. through measures that put their own safety at risk. Reports suggest one third of illegal immigrants trying to make the sea crossing from Africa to Greece end up having to be rescued. Many of them have even died in this process. This emphasises the need for the E.U. to consider the interests of those entering Europe as well as the member states they are going to. A major issue regarding the movement of people into the E.U. is the colossal number of refugees, fleeing conflicts in areas such as Syria, trying to gain access to the E.U. In the three years since political unrest began in Syria, almost three million refugees fled the country. While the vast majority would agree that the E.U. has a moral obligation to assist these people, doing so presents several problems, for example cost and other practical dilemmas associated with such a large movement of people in such a short time.
Perhaps the most important and most debated aspect of this issue is the distribution of these refugees. It is estimated that just nine out of twenty eight E.U. member states receive 90% of asylum applications. This obviously puts a much greater logistical and financial burden on these countries, as well as raising concerns of welfare tourism. While it is vital that a solution is reached to reduce the stress these countries are under, this must be balanced with the idea of free movement, as well as the individual interests of the refugees. It must also be decided which country is responsible for these migrants. Existing legislation delegates this responsibility to the country where the migrant first enters the E.U., but there are numerous calls to change this given the tendency of migrants to use countries such as Greece and Italy as gateways to other destinations. Like in most political issues, money has a significant role to play. Despite migrants’ potential to make a positive contribution to an economy, the logistics of immigration present a significant cost. Concerns have been raised that too much money is being devoted to border control, and not enough to aiding refugees. As well as this, some of the countries with largest numbers of inbound migrants and refugees, for example Spain and Greece, are among the worst hit by the economic downturn. It is evident that a common E.U. approach is needed to solve this crisis, given its international nature. However, this must be balanced with the interests of individual member states, some of which have huge differences in their immigration policies. If any solution is to be sustainable, it will need to take into account the needs of all parties involved, including both governments and members of the public, both European and international.
Dylan Macdermot - AFCO Dylan McDermot AFCO1 Voter Turnout in the 2014 European Parliamentary elections was only 42.5%, an all time low, while support surged for political parties questioning European unity. How can the EU revitalise confidence in its institutions and better engage its citizens in its decision making processes? This low turnout rate is not entirely unexpected, as every preceding European parliamentary election since 1979 - the first European elections ever held - has had a lower turnout than the last, and therefore been “an all-time low”. Nor is this drop in turnout very dramatic compared to previous years - 43% in 2009 and 42.5% in 2014 is sure to have a measurable impact on the results, to be sure, but the drop from 1994 to 1999 was far more stark - 56.67 to 49.51, with a further drop down to 45.47 in 2004. That’s a drop of greater than 10% in the span of 10 years! Meanwhile, in Britain, France, and Denmark, Eurosceptic rightist groups opposed to the EU won unprecedented victories - to the point where they took at least a quarter of all seats. In the aftermath of the election, many prominent politicians in the EU such as British PM David Cameron shared the sentiment that the EU was seen as being overreaching, and that they should focus on economic growth and jobs, and “not try to do so much”. While I may personally disagree with this, it seems that a large portion of the voting public share those same ideals, and this is something that simply cannot be ignored. Personally, I would see an overarching conflict in any discussion to be taken regarding these right wing groups to be one of the roles of the EU in the affairs of Member States and the “size” of the EU.
Several questions can be raised by this. What can the EU do to tackle the voter turnout problem? Are the lower turnout rates and the rise of far-right euro scepticism linked? Why has confidence in the EU fallen, what can the EU do to remedy this, and how it be prevented in the future? While these kinds of questions are for the committee to address, so too must they gain a perspective on the wider issue and determine what position they have each taken before they can get into the fine detail of it. It’s this degree of nuance that makes this topic very interesting, and it can be used as a vehicle to raise wider questions about the EU as a whole, and I look forward to seeing the committees take on it.
Eileen De Sousa AFCO 2 Given the prevalence of separatist and secessionist movements in Europe, and the ever evolving nature of the EU; What can the EU do, in light of recent developments to best redefine the terms outlined in the Copenhagen Agreement? The issue of secession and accession into the EU is a ticking time bomb. Recent developments in Scotland, Catalonia and Ukraine only serve to heighten the tension around the issue, making it a legislative minefield. Every European country currently has separatist movements on-going, bubbling away under the surface of mainstream politics. Given the rise of euro-scepticism over the past few years, should we sit back and watch these movements boil over and erupt all over the European canvas or ought we to take these calls for greater autonomy in the most serious fashion possible? more complicated. The Copenhagen Agreement and Maastrict Treaty seriously limit the number of eligible candidate countries and successful applicants. Of course there is always the question of ‘what’s European enough to be in the European Union?’ Subtly encompassed in the Copenhagen Agreement is the idea that no country outside of Europe can be part of the EU. Given that Europe does not have any real geographical boundaries, where does Europe stop being all-inclusive? Will the changing ethnic and religious make up of Europe mean that the traditional ‘Europe’ as we know it will cease to exist with the inclusion of ‘non-European’ states into the EU? What will all the current existing legislation mean for acceding states, and how could we deal with the secession of current EU member states, who will fall out of the Eurozone and the Schengen Agreement?
However, regardless of the nuances involved, the economic and political criteria entailed in the Copenhagen Agreement is still the only solid framework by which all candidate states must adhere. The implications of this are massive, especially since currently all member states must also accept the terms of the community acquis. There are fears that any forms of secession for an EU member state will trigger a ‘domino effect’, sparking multiple secessionist movements across the continent. This was clearly illustrated after the Scottish Independence referendum, when the Catalans took to the streets shortly after to declare a referendum of their own. However, this was quickly shot down by the Spanish government. The EU itself is like a delicate soufflé. Even the slightest change in temperature can provoke unrest and instability. One cannot ignore the fact that the EU is ever changing. The demographics of the EU today are drastically different to what they were during the times of the EEC in 1951. This change of demographics means that the baby boomers of the 90’s are going to be in direct conflict with the generally more conservative, aging population. This, again, was witnessed during the Scottish referendum where the vast majority of under 30’s voted in favour, a stark opposition to 60% of the over 50’s who voted against it. In terms of accession, things became even
Leah Maloney CULT The 2012 Pisa Report revealed a worrying disparity between educational performance across Europe: How can the EU support its member states in providing the highest possible standard of education in its schools? If you’re reading this, you are more than likely currently receiving education of the highest standard. In the European Union today, there exist young people like us who do not have access to adequate education. Their potential is never reached as a result. Who knows what ideas, opinions and beliefs they may having floating about in their minds that may never make it out? This is because they do not have access to sufficient facilities and support.
In many situations, a lack of hope is palpable among young European Citizens. How can we ensure that this is eradicated? Often, students do not see the aim of education. They are oppressed and unaware of what they could do with their lives. They need to leave education early to provide for their families; situations such as this should not exist in the first place. We need to inspire and provide the catalyst for ambition, to open up the world to them.
Education lays the foundations of the economy. It plants the seed that determines a country’s future, and the quality of life its citizens will have. It is vital that every child is given equal opportunities to flourish in their own unique manner. Why should any child feel the need to leave school at the age of fifteen? Why should any EU Citizen lack the chance to acquire vital skills and knowledge? The key to a balanced world of opportunity, equality and high standards of living is a well-implemented education system of premium quality.
As students going through top-class education systems, I believe that this topic is one close to our hearts. We need to do our utmost to eliminate disparity among educational performance in EU Member States. It is crucial not only to nurture our youth with knowledge and skills, but to make sure that we pave the pathway to a brighter, better, more unified Europe where each country is given the chance to develop economically, socially and politically.
The question that lies with us is how do we ensure that teaching standards of schools in EU Member States reach sufficient levels- moreover, what exactly is considered to be ‘sufficient’? Should a Pan-European qualification be awarded to teachers so that they can be recognised as capable of providing students with an appropriate level of education? How should we assess educational performance, are our current systems out-dated? Do they suit the needs of modern Europe today? If not, what changes should we administer? How can EU Member States succeeding in providing satisfactory levels of education aid those who are struggling to meet requirements?
Katie Bailey ECON Europe may be emerging from economic crisis but great economic disparity remains between European Union member states. How should the European Union balance these disparities while encouraging Economic Growth and fostering solidarity between member states? Despite forecasts of Economic recovery in Europe in the coming year, economic equality within the European Union still seems to be in the distant future. The issue of economic inequality can implicate notions of equity, equality of outcome and equality of opportunity. These economic imbalances, by some studies, have shown to be worrying social problems. New methods are urgently needed to lesson this disparity between member states, so that the equality that the European Union promotes is a reality. These methods must be effective and also must satisfy both the wealthier and poorer member states of the European Union.
As this problem fails to be resolved, relations between member states are challenged and confidence in the European Union’s methods is weakened. The ‘European Solidarity Manifesto’ is an indication of the doubt that is overshadowing the Union’s actions. Is there a way that we can reassure those who doubt that segmentation of Europe is not the only answer? Are there other ways to aid the indebted economies of some western European countries without sacrificing the stability and promise of wealthier economies of the west and north?
We must also consider the extent of the power of the European Union in attempts to balance economic disparities. For example the Broad Economic Policy Guidelines are the central link in coordination of the Member States’ economic policies. However they are adopted by the Council in the form of a non-legally binding recommendation, thus there are clear limitations in Europe-wide policies.The EU’s inability to impose guidelines to lessen inequalities prevents the ability of finding a simple solution to this problem. It does however, protect individual member states and enables them to recover from economic difficulties at their own pace, though with the help of other member states. Now that we are closer to economic stability, will cooperation and co-ordination become easier, or must member states work more independently to achieve economic equality?
There is no doubt that relation between member states have become strained due to the economic crisis. Is there a way for us to solidify Europe socially and economically, without harming inter-member relations?
Adam Stanford AFET
Naomi Foale FEMM
Conflicts in Ukraine, Libya and Mali have brought the European Union’s ability to project its power internationally into question. How should the Union’s Common Foreign and Security Policy define Europe’s international role and establish the Union as a significant international actor? Conflicts outside of Europe are set to highlight the ability of the European Union to have an impact on the world stage. The variety of foreign policy standpoints across member states makes the international role of the Union a difficult task to manage. Every European country has their own standpoint on foreign affairs, from those seeking intervention to member states focused on reticence. Should the Common Foreign and Security Policy of the EU take these clashes of interest into account, or ignore them in pursuing a collective line to follow? Situations such as the crisis in Ukraine are indicative of the need for decisive action. EU condemnation of decisions affecting Kiev has had little effect on proceedings, for example. Equally, the potential for conflict outside the EU is an ever present threat, with revolutions and territorial disputes igniting disagreement across the world. The Crimean crisis erupted less than a week after the resolution of the Ukrainian revolution. With current conflicts rife and the potential for further conflicts in the future, should the EU focus on conflict resolution over outright intervention? In regards to foreign policy, the EU must interact with great powers who also have an investment in global disputes, most notably the US, Russia and China. Can a Common Foreign policy achieve the goals of the Union without undermining relations with these undeniably significant international actors? Moreover, does the EU have a role to play in conflicts that occur outside its borders?
The Lisbon Treaty of 2009 has attempted to quell some of the issues abound in EU foreign policy. While allowing for more unitary decision making in regards to relations beyond the EU, the EEAS a particularly useful body for this focus, many have argued that it does not achieve enough. Creating a framework through which common approaches can be made is a significant step that Lisbon accomplishes. But it is questionable whether there is enough power allocated in this regard. The concern of many - are these opportunities simply being utilised poorly? Or are they not the opportunities needed? Along a similar vein, if tweaks to Common Policy need to be made, the effectiveness of Lisbon must be questioned. Can changes be made within the current set-up to improve the foreign policy approach of the EU, or is an overhaul required? Clearly there are structures in place that help legitimise the EU as an international actor. But there is key work to be done in this field. Managing internal conflicts will be undeniably significant if the goal of achieving an efficient and effective Common Policy is ever to be achieved.
With the appalling results of the EU’s agency for fundamental rights study into the violence against women, how can the EU work with its member states to combat physical, mental and sexual abuse perpetrated upon its female citizens? Emma Watson’s recent speech at the HeForShe Event at the UN Headquarters in New York highlighted that ending gender inequality is everyone’s responsibility. Men and women. The same can be said for violence against women, which is both a cause and consequence of gender inequality. Gender violence is a problem which exists in every European country. The sheer scale makes tackling it extremely difficult. Not only this, but ‘violence against women’ encompasses everything from rape to FGM to domestic violence. There is physical and mental abuse; there is abuse in the workplace, within families and within intimate relationships; there is long-term and short-term abuse; there is abuse of women and girls of all ages. Every situation is very different, and women must feel able to have some choice in how she is supported. Feeling forced down one path that does not suit her circumstances can only worsen the situation. Careful consideration of each type of violence is necessary to ensure that the resolution can significantly reduce the prevalence of violence against women. Encouraging women to come forward is also a serious difficulty. Sometimes circumstance traps the woman, she may have children with the perpetrator or be economically dependent on him. Sometimes it is fear that traps her, she may worry that she will be blamed by her community or the perpetrator will seek her out. Sometimes she may not even realise that what is happening is abuse, it may be cultural. Even if she wants to come forward, she may not trust law enforcement agencies to take her claim seriously or to protect her sufficiently.
In many countries, there are poor records of dealing with violence towards women and the authorities do not take reports seriously enough. 838,000 incidents of domestic abuse were reported in England and Wales between 2012 and 2013, but only 52,500 resulted in a conviction. In England and Wales reported incidents have actually increased by 11% from 2010-11, convictions have in the same period reduced by 11%. Changing the way we deal with gender-based violence provides a certain amount of support for women, but preventing it in the first place is perhaps a much greater obstacle to overcome. Ultimately, the root of violence against women lies in society’s perception and attitude towards women. A law is a stepping stone that sets out right from wrong, but a shift in attitude is needed in order to ensure that violence against women is seen as unacceptable. The way women are portrayed in the media has a massive impact on the how women are perceived. Education is perhaps the most powerful tool in preventing gender stereotypes from defining the way women are viewed by society. Whatever measures FEMM considers; they must be preventative, supportive and effective. The fact that it is 2014 and nearly 8 in 10 women in the EU think that violence against women is very common or fairly common in their country, with 1 in 3 women in the EU having experienced physical or sexual abuse since the age of 15 shows that change is needed.
Eileen De Sousa - EMPL 2
Jade Jimenez EMPL1 The Confederation of Family Organisations in the EU named 2014 the year for reconciling work and family life, what can be done to strengthen single parents’ position in the labour market and to ensure that neither gender is financially punished for having children? “Everything changes, nothing remains the same” This is a true fact that applies for a plenty of different elements from which society is one of them. Families are the basic component of a society, and the way in which nowadays these are structured differs enormously from what it used to be a decade ago. Now, it is nothing out of the ordinary to find families being led by single parents. However, it seems that the way of thinking from people and entire societies has not followed the same rhythm of change; the European society is not exempted. The European Union faces a great problematic since the working opportunities for single parents have been limited in many ways. The aid received and the governments’ action has been proved to be insufficient to deal with this situation. To get an idea about the seriousness of this situation, the following fact can be considered: from 1.8 million single parent households in Britain, 650 000 are lacking a working place. It is essential to bear in mind the being who happen to be the most affected due to this problematic: the children. The economic situation of single parents is something that directly affects the children they are raising. The way in which children are affected due to the economic situation of single parents may differ from member state to member state. For instance, in Finland the education is free. This means that Finnish single parents would not have to worry about any school costs as other single parents living in different member states would
Different organizations, such as the Confederation of Family Organizations (COFACE), recognize this problematic and tackle it through various methods. For instance, COFACE designated 2014 to be the year for reconciliation between work and family life. The importance of tackling this problematic is appreciated when all possible longterm consequences are considered. Single parents, which form part of our society, are being affected due to this situation. Additionally, the children of these single parents may also be affected in different ways. These children represent the future of our Europe, the future of our Union and thus, it is essential to find a solution that effectively tackles this problem and prevents it of growing. It begs the question; what can the EU do to help tackle this issue in our society?
What can the EU do to tackle structural unemployment and youth unemployment, without creating a false economy? The current youth unemployment rate in the EU is 22.4%. However, this percentage does a lot to mask the underlying problems and economic difference between member states. For example, the youth unemployment rate in Greece is currently at 57.7%, as opposed to Norway, which is at 7.9%. A percentage can tell many lies and hide many sins. A simple reduction in the percentage of unemployed is not a guarantee of real change. While the Irish rate of youth unemployment may seem like a happy median at 23.7%, compared to Greece, this does not account for the worrying intersection of Irish youth who are unskilled, unemployed and out of education, who will be hit the hardest should another recession come along. Youth unemployment has always been a pressing issue. The gap between education and the needs of the labour market is constantly widening, creating an unmaneuverable abyss for graduates who have been told their whole lives to focus on academics. Our education system has not yet caught up with the changing market. It remains a rigid system that insists on putting square blocks into round holes. If you think of the education system as a machine, a machine is only as good as the quality of goods it outputs. How good is the education system if it fails to prepare us for life after school?
If according to a 2013 McKinsey survey; 43% of employers said they were unable to find young applicants with the correct skill set, can educators honestly say that students are well equipped for life after school? This reveals a great disparity, highlighting that there might be a difference between what we think we need and what we actually need. Do we need more internships and training or a complete overhaul of our archaic education system? The Youth Guarantee, based on a similar Finnish scheme is essentially a plan to give all youth a job/apprenticeship/ traineeship within 4 months of completing formal education or becoming unemployed. This scheme saw 85.3% of applicants provided with an offer, ultimately reducing the number of unemployed, or so it might seem on paper. The Youth Guarantee is estimated to cost €21bn to implement, but it remains to be seen whether it will have any real, long lasting effect on the economy. Will the Youth Guarantee actually live up to its name or is it just a bad investment on behalf of the EU? Are there more sensible and cost-effective measures to be found that will not result in the creation of a false economy?
James Bradfield ENVI Considering that the European Union’s 2030 and 2050 environmental goals face growing criticism due to perceived lack of ambition, what should the EU’s priorities for combating climate change be? On January 22nd 2014, many Europeans were feeling positive about the announcement of new goals to combat climate change. The “2030 framework for climate and energy policies” was met with mixed reviews. At face value, the proposal looked great. It aimed to: • Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 40% on 1990 levels, a way of ensuring it would meet the 2050 levels of an 80% cut. How could this possibly be criticised? • Put in place structures to allow 27% of our energy usage by 2030 to be through the use of renewable energies. Again, a noble idea. • Lastly it set out measures to increase energy efficiency by 30%. Despite this, many people seemed unconvinced. The European Union was sure that this was going to send a strong message to the masses. Connie Hedegaard, EU Commissioner for Climate Action, proudly proclaimed that “if all other big economies in the world do a relatively ambitious effort equal to what we are proposing, the world will be in a better state.” Unfortunately for the EU, not everyone agreed. Monica Frassoni, president of the European Alliance to Save Energy called it “a depressing day for Europe”. One of the biggest criticisms of the goals is the manner in which they are being enforced. similar to the 2020 goals.
Rather than being nationally binding, thegoals are a European-wide effort, This allows the EU to skew results of the measures by including countries such as Sweden and Norway, who are well ahead of the game when it comes to renewable energies, to hide the fact that 13 other Member States (including Ireland and the UK) will not meet their targets. So it begs the question, how responsible is each individual country? And what repercussions will there be if the aims are not met? These are the questions being asked by various environmental agencies and support groups and they don’t seem to be getting many answers from Brussels. Thomas Becker, CEO of the European Wind Energy Association claims that the lack of ambition will cost European jobs. In this time of global economic troubles, surely the EU should be doing everything possible to get Europe back working. Why not kill two birds with one stone and get the masses working by reducing greenhouse gases? It’s clear that the issue of climate change and global warming is not going away. In keeping with this sessions theme, President of the European Commission Jose-Manuel Barroso said: “We want this package to be owned by all Europeans. We believe this package is ambitious but realistic.” The committee on ENVI must decide whether this package is one which we are content to own, or if further measures must be taken.
Shirley Carr DEVE European single market policies, such as the Common Agricultural Policy, have received criticism for their ill effects on developing economies. How should the European Union balance the need for developing its internal market with its commitments to international development? Since its establishment, the aim of the European Union has been to create a single free market for the mutual benefit of all member states. As a member state of the EU, we have benefited immensely from this single free market, which opens up new markets and trade opportunities. The benefits of the free movement of people, goods, services and capital are enjoyed by citizens of every member state. Both individuals and businesses benefit in numerous ways, from freedom of travel, a wider choice of consumer goods to opportunities for business expansion, without border restrictions or custom duties. For example, the Common Agricultural Policy is a common policy for all members of the European Union and is the “link between an increasingly urbanised world and an increasingly strategic farming sector”. The CAP has had a number of positive effects on the European agricultural sector, consumers and European economies overall. The first aim of the CAP is to guarantee food security for EU citizens, so that all citizens have a constant and reliable source of food, and to ensure high quality food for consumers. The CAP also aims to develop rural communities, through the provision of grants. Another aspect of the CAP is the protection of the environment, by encouraging environmentally sustainable farming, with the provision of subsidies to farmers to help them in improving farming practices.
There is a significant downside to the success of these policies though, and that is the disadvantage posed to developing countries. With the provision of subsidies to farmers through the CAP, the subsequent price of agricultural products is unrelated to the production costs, and produce of developing countries is unable to compete with these lowered prices. Such consequences as this have serious implications for developing countries, rendering small farmers unable to sell their produce, without a livelihood and thus hindering economic growth of these developing countries. This absolutely contradicts the international development objectives of the EU, as set out in the ‘European Consensus for Development’. The question facing the Committee on Development is this; how to balance EU interests with it commitments to international development? While the EU have a responsibility under its international development policies towards improving the economy of developing countries, it has to consider its own economic future at the same time. When one considers the CAP, how is it possible to ensure both EU farmers and farmers of developing countries can earn a fair profit and maintain their livelihoods?