BullsEye No.51 "Transborder Cooperation and Youth Opportunities"

BullsEye March’13 / 52nd year / No. 51 / ISSN 2033-7809

The newsmagazine of European Democrat Students

Why the European Right must fight The Holodomor in Ukraine

Transborder Cooperation and Youth Opportunities

editorial

Henry Hill, Editor-in-chief

Content

Hello again readers, and welcome to the third BullsEye of the 2012/13 EDS Bureaux.

Sadly I will not be able to join you in person as I had hoped – it turns out that flying from Dublin to Lvov takes almost as long as flying to Beijing!

These continue to be interesting times for the European Union, and I think we have successfully captured some of that spirit in these pages. We’ve got plenty of articles aimed at policy discussion, from the euro to childcare policy. We’ve also got a bumper-sized Reports section, whose articles examine the role of think-tanks and the Schengen zone in the European project.

One of my missions as editor of BullsEye has been to encourage those who write for it to be free to challenge the status quo and the orthodoxies of European politics. In my three issues I’ve seen writers do this from across the Union, but in this issue the mantle of troublemakers-in-chief falls squarely on the shoulders of the British. Really, who else could it have been?

I take part in the BEOn debate on the Common Agricultural Policy and, spurred on by Britain’s apparent moves towards a referendum in which I will be forced to actively campaign for Europe, make the case that the European ‘right’ is doing very little to challenge an increasingly social-democratic European direction. Meanwhile, that redoubtable EDS veteran Matt Lewis tackles the continent’s continued problem with racism, even in the well-heeled West.

But good as this is, there still isn’t enough. What I really want to see are articles that face up to the realities of European federalism, to which the EPP is committed.

I want to know what you want a United States of Europe to look like, how strong its armies will be, how it will work. If you’ve an article on those topics you’d like to write, please get in touch.

Good reading, and enjoy Ukraine.

Garrick Club 04 David Teilett

Freedom Fighters 04

Lech Walesa

Current Affairs 06 Operation in Mali

07 hould the EU abolish visas for Russians?

08 Right loses out in Czech Presidential election 09 Why the European right needs to fight 10 Childcare key to economic recovery

Bullseye on

12 The importance of the CAP 13 The case against the CAP

Reports

14 The Schengen Agreement 15 Europe’s democratic deficit 16 Our money, our future

Amélie Pommier, EDS Vice Chairman

Dear readers, I will start with a short story. This happened during our last EDS event in Trnava, Slovakia. I came with my car and had the aim to bring home as many BullsEye last issues as possible. I was very glad for once not having to think about the weight of my luggage for a flight. However something unexpected happened! There was no BullsEye left. Not even a single previous issue, even stained by coffee or tea.

Faced to the surprise I thought it was a trick planned by some silly colleagues but, after some investigations, I found out that it was not. All BEs were gone. If I told you about this story it was not to complain about not getting a BullsEye issue but to thank you for your interest in this EDS publication and for spreading it all over Europe.

This issue will be delivered during the EDS Winter university in Lviv, Ukraine. I think this event will be a great opportunity to discuss youth opportunities in today’s Europe. Young Europeans have never experienced Europe as much as we do nowadays: We travel, study and work more and more in other European countries and especially in neighborhood countries. This is understood by our politicians who try to facilitate it on a European level with EU policies.

Let’s be very optimistic about future of this process, whilst never forgetting Europe’s darker history, of which Ukraine’s Holodomor is an illustration.

I wish you to enjoy this issue, and to always spread it further.

19 The harm of wage indexation mechanisms 20 Young politicians fuel think-tanks 21 Europe is a racist continent

Theme

22 Visegrad 4 Eastern Partnership 24 Interview with Jacob Schrot 25 Cross-border cooperation and

youth opportunities

26 Interview with Miroslav Hajnoš

Events:

27 EDS meets in Slovakia

Universities:

28 The University of Bergundy

Council of Europe

30 The Council trusts young peoplea

Bureau

31 EDS Bureau 2012-13

Bullseye

ISSN: Print: 2033-7809, Online: 2033-7817 Editor-in-chief: Henry Hill, Editorial team: Aija Koniševska, Alexandra Gazashvili, Algirdas Kazlauskas, Amélie Pommier, Ana Janelidze, Anna Tamasi, Andrey Novakov, Emilis Kazlauskas, Henry Hill, Jakov Devčić, Luke Springthorpe, Matt Lewis, Miroslav Jurčišin, Petros Demetriou, Contributions: Guillaume Dos Santos, Elina Foinska, Dimitar Keranov, Eva Majewski, Anaïs Mattez, Vivika Melts, AnnSofie Pauwelyn, Vit Voseček, Photos: Balázs Szecsődi, European Commission archives, KAS archives, private archives, Shutterstock, Design: Creacion.si, Publisher: European Democrat Students, B-1000 Brussels, Rue du Commerce 10, Tel: +32 2 2854-150, Fax: +32 2 2854-141, Email: eds@epp.eu, Website: edsnet.eu

The newsmagazine of European Democrat Students

Articles and opinions published in this magazine are not nessessarily reflecting the position of EDS, EDS Bureau or the Editorial team.

2

Publication supported by: European Youth Foundation of the Council of Europe

Chairman’s letter

Dear readers and supporters of EDS! This year’s unusually early Easter has brought an unusually early ball season, Fat Tuesday and a very early start of Lent. Thus having a tuxedo picture would be unwise at best at the beginning of March.

More seriously, we are meeting for our XXIII Winter University, entitled “Transborder Cooperation and Youth Opportunities”. We meet in the city of Lvov, in the large and deeply historical Republic of Ukraine, which bears clearly the marks of history. It is a country that has a distinct heritage and culture, especially in the west, and a more pro-Russian pull in the mineral-rich east. For years, Ukraine has been torn between its western aspiration and the close grip of its ‘elder brother’, which remains from older times.

We also meet in a country where the powerful have decided to cancel out opposition leaders and imprison the former Prime Minister. Abraham Lincoln once said: “Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character, give him power”. This holds true in the Ukraine, and those in power must realise that just because they can do a thing does not mean they should! I call for the immediate release of former EPP Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko from prison, and her full reintegration into Ukrainian society.

The abuse of power, and the other tests of the character of politicians, spills over to other areas of life in Ukraine. This is very much true of our discussion topic. Where and how do young people find places in the future of their societies? Where and how does the Ukrainian youth get involved in Erasmus, in Leonardo da Vinci? How is the visa duty impeding their opportunities to apply for Masters programmes within the European Union? Will they become a brain drain generation, as it has been in so many Eastern and Central European countries?

We will find answers for this topic not only on the pages of this issue of BullsEye, but also in our meetings and the Conference Resolution that follows.

It is my firm belief that societal change will be brought about by the people themselves. The young people who travel, and see the unification of Europe of which EDS is but a part, will bring about the change we want. I have high hopes for the youth of today; an increasingly sophisticated youth that does not listen to the propaganda so easily spread by the media, and conduct their debates on the internet, and who will see that politics needs to be done differently. We shall strive to create a youth who realise that the true and best motivation for politics is public service. We will educate them and free their minds, so they do not lose sight of their dreams as they pursue their careers.

Transborder Cooperation is a tool to that end. It ameliorates people’s fears and suspicions about their neighbours, and helps them better judge their own society and political system.

In a country with an internationally-aware citizenry it will not be possible that a former PM goes to prison on the basis of fabricated pretexts, and is sentenced using part of a criminal code left over from communist tyranny.

I do have high hopes for our young students. I also hope that the cross-border cooperation of EU member states with their closest neighbours will allow them to know us better, and will create bonds in early adulthood that will persist in later life, and are not forgotten once today’s youth are in tomorrow’s positions of power.

Eastern and Southern Partnership states need our support, and EDS wishes to express its readiness to assist our neighbours in building the bridges of knowledge and progress. I wish you a pleasant read of our articles and we hope we provoke new thoughts or patterns of thinking in you.

Sincerely,

Juraj Antal, Chairman

Bullseye

3

Garrick Club

David Teillet

Let’s meet with an EDS former Vice-chairman and former delegate for UNI-MET France. was not part of the government: I was Chief of staff of French Foreign Affairs Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy (C).

In 2011, I left politics for the private sector and French chef, Alain Ducasse and became Delegate Director for Alain Ducasse Enterprise, a group of 27 restaurants with 21 stars and a global workforce of about 1,400 employees. A few months back, I became the Chairman and General Manager of an Investment Fund’s European branch.

How do you think we can act in politics?

Admittedly, there is a difference in the scope of what grassroots members can achieve compared to political leaders, but day in and day out, promoting the values one believes in can be achieved at any and all levels. There are multiple ways one can act in politics. For example, I am and will most likely always remain an activist.

Could you give us an overview of your career especially after you left EDS? I left EDS in 2002 to participate to the presidential campaign of the incumbent. Jacques Chirac was reelected for a second term in May 2002, and I joined the Cabinet of Xavier Darcos (C), who was then the French School Education Minister, as a Junior Cabinet member. In 2004, I followed Xavier Darcos to the Ministry of Development, Cooperation and Francophony, first as his Deputy-Chief of staff, and then as Chief of staff. In May 2007, I was once again his Chief of staff at the National Education Ministry, and in 2009, at the Ministry of Labor, Social Affairs, Family, and Solidarity. There was an interruption between 2005 and 2006 as Xavier Darcos

4

What do you think EDS has brought you during your time as a delegate and as a Vice-chairman?

Looking back on my time as Delegate and ViceChairman, between the years 1997 and 2002, i.e. prior to the enlargement of the E.U., I can say I have gained two essential benefits from EDS: First, I have had the rare opportunity to meet with delegates and political figures from all over Europe. Some of them were already prominent, others were budding politicians, and I have the privilege of having remained friends with a great number of them.

The second benefit EDS has brought me is that I have gained valuable experience from participating in the life of an international organization, and contributing to helping it achieve greater visibility. Launching the “Free Belarus Campaign,” and submitting resolutions to the European People’s Party during its Congress remain vivid memories, and many years later, I still keep up with EDS and its present-day campaigns.

Once a member of EDS, always a member of EDS! What did EDS represent to you when you took part of its activities?

It may sound obvious, but the reason I decided to join EDS after UNI, was that I saw it as a

way to take my activism to a truly European level. I was interested in joining a wider forum to share information, viewpoints, and visions for the future, with the common goal of advancing European youth, and Unity through Diversity. As the largest political youth organisation in Europe, EDS brings together a great variety of students, it fosters political debate, and has grown to be a major policy-shaper.

What do you think of the recent changes in Higher Education and Research in Europe? In which way do you think the changes should be established?

Over the past 20 years, essential reforms have been implemented throughout Europe, making student mobility a long-awaited reality. Graduates are now free to receive their training from different European countries, to experience different cultures, and grow from them. The fact that European degrees are now recognized the world over, means that European youths can fully partake in the global economy. In turn, so can Europe.

What are for you the main issues nowadays for students in Europe?

To my mind, mobility is the main issue students now face in Europe. In order to better adapt to the modern world and to its economy, I believe students ought to accept and welcome mobility throughout the course of their training, all the more so since there is a high likelihood they will end up working and/or living in another country than the one where they were born. As a result, mobility is not just a challenge, it is also an opportunity.

What would your words to a student who is taking part of EDS activities at the moment?

Enjoy your student years, of course. Do not be afraid to think different: speak up your mind, and stand up for what you believe in. Remember that socialism is not the only choice, and make the most out of your EDS experience, so you can be a European activist!

Which goals would you give to EDS nowadays?

EDS is, and ought to remain, the largest political youth organization in Europe. As it brings together, and represents literally millions of centreright European students, EDS has a duty to be a source of proposals and an advocate of our values in European institutions. It also provides an outstanding learning experience for the political leaders of today and tomorrow.

freedom fighters Ana Janelidze

Lech Walesa

Although he said of himself “I am no politician”, Lech Walesa is a former president of Poland.

A charismatic leader, he was the co-founder of Solidarity, the Soviet bloc’s first independent trades union, and was appointed its first chairman. The main objective of the organisation was to secure worker’s rights, including the right to strike and to organise their own independent unions. With this aim Lech Walesa, alongside his colleagues and co-workers, organised the free unions. In 1983 he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his distinguished service.

Trades Unionism An electrician by trade, Walesa became a dissident trade union activist after beginning work at the Gdansk (then “Lenin”) shipyards. In December 1970, food shortages and drastic increases in food prices invoked violent protest strikes in shipyards, and Walesa was elected chairman of the Strike Committee. He was amongst those who negotiated workers’ demands with First Secretary of the Communist Party Edward Gierek.

On April 29 1978, alongside union activists, Walesa drew up a Charter of Workers’ Rights and formed the unofficial Baltic Committee of Independent Trade Unions in order to protect the workers’ economic, legal, and human rights. Due to his activities, he was persecuted by the communist authorities, and was both fired and arrested several times.

Solidarity 1980 was an important year for Walesa.

Having been in charge of the shipyard strike he inspired similar strikes elsewhere, first in the Gdansk area and then across Poland. In August 1980 he was involved in political negotiations that led to the Gdansk Agreement between striking workers and the government.

According to the agreement the Lenin shipyard workers were granted not only the right to strike, but also were permitted to form their own independent trade union. The National Coordinating Committee of the Solidarity Free Trade Union was legalised and Walesa was chosen to serve as chairman.

Solidarity claimed over ten million members and Walesa gained international fame.

Bullseye

After the declaration of martial law in 1981, Walesa like many other Solidarity activists was arrested and Solidarity was outlawed. He was incarcerated for 11 months at several eastern towns. He was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1983. Unable to accept it himself for fear that Poland’s government would not allow him to return to the country, his wife Danuta accepted it on his behalf. In his speech, which she delivered, Walesa declared: “We crave for justice, and that is why we are so persistent in the struggle for our rights.”

During the mid-1980s, Walesa continued underground Solidarity-related activities.

In late summer he instigated strikes at the Gdansk shipyard. After months of strikes and political deliberations, the government agreed to enter into round table negotiations, which resulted in an agreement to re-establish Solidarity.

It also led to an agreement to organise a “semi-free” election to the Polish parliament – 65% of the seats in the Sejm remained reserved for the Communist Party and its allies. The Solidarity Citizen’s Committee, established in December 1988, won the parliamentary election in June 1989, taking all the seats in the Sejm that were subject to free voting and all but one seat in the newly re-established Seante.

as a transformation from a communist to a post-communist state, marked by privatisation, the transition to a free market economy, the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Poland, reduction in Poland’s external debt and realigning Poland’s foreign relations. Walesa supported a course towards membership of both NATO and the European Union; both goals were realised after his presidency, in 1999 and 2004.

Due to Walesa’s confrontational character annual changes of government occurred, while former Solidarity allies clashed with one another. He was strongly criticised by his allied parties for this style of presidency, and as a result he lost more and more political allies. He performed poorly in the 1993 parliamentary elections and narrowly lost the 1995 presidential election, gathering 48.72% of the vote against Aleksander Kwasiniewski, a representative of the Polish post-communists.

After the election, he entered “political retirement” – although this didn’t stop him running again for the presidency in 2000.

However, he is still famous internationally.

Walesa continues to lecture in Poland and abroad on history and politics and various universities and he remains active today, having been awarded various honourable titles and medals.

The motto of a humanitarian trade union activist’s life is perfectly reflected in his own words: “The defence of our rights and our dignity, as well as never to let ourselves be overcome by the feeling of hatred – this is the road we have chosen.”

Presidency Disappointed with some of his former comrades, who seemed to be satisfied to govern alongside former communists, in 1990 Walesa ran for the re-established Presidency of Poland under the slogan “I don’t want to, but I have got no choice”, and won. His presidency is characterised

5

Current Affairs the EU Battlegroup at this time is battling not with the Union’s enemies but its own irrelevance.

Emilis Kazlauskas

Operation in Mali just another sign of Western confusion

In recent weeks the Western media, tired of the seemingly never-ending massacre in Syria, could turn their attention to a relatively fresh military conflict. By the time this article is published, French troops will likely have already regained all major cities that were under control of Islamist rebels. But that is not as important as the surrounding circumstances of this, on first glance successful, military operation.

Nation states versus EU CSDP The military operation was undertaken almost exclusively by the French military. Such events appeared fairly natural because Mali is Francophone: a former French colony where France is the official language. As France has crucial knowledge of the cultural peculiarities of the country, she was the obvious option for restoring normal life to the failing Mali state.

Yet is it really so natural? We live in a world, replete with international political institutions such as the UN or EU, where multilateralism is held as good and unilateralism frowned upon. The answer seems to be yes.

The UN appears to have given the operation a form of silent approval, whilst during the opening stages of the intervention the EU, for all its claims of being a unified political entity (or even superpower), was nowhere to be found. The slow response of High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Police Baroness

6

Ashton and the newly-established European External Action Service to rapidly changing circumstances demonstrated that the implementers of EU common foreign and security policy either lack competence or the leverage to involve themselves in hot spots like Mali.

Moreover, other member states clearly showed reluctance to help France, and only the United Kingdom after some little time provided several hundred soldiers to pursue non-combat tasks such as training the Malian army and their allies from other African countries. European solidarity, which is crumbling on economic and financial matters, is almost nowhere to be found on defence issues. The EU Battlegroup – a rapid reaction force consisting of 19 multinational battalions – should be the crown of the EU’s Common Security and Defence Policy yet remains beneath a layer of dust despite this perfect opportunity for its first deployment. To use the words of defence analyst Myrto Hatzigeorgopolous,

Unwillingness and incapability However, the most striking observation is not that Western nation states are laying down ever more rules to constrict decisions about deploying soldiers, but that Western countries are becoming more and more interested only in themselves.

For example, France is so active and concerned about the situation in Mali not just because of a desire to free the Malian people from Islamist oppression, but because it was the perfect opportunity for president Francois Hollande to strengthen his indecisive image. Furthermore, as political analyst Alexander Pannett argues, Mali’s neighbour Niger provides 18 per cent of the raw materials consumed by French nuclear power plants. France for obvious reasons does not want Niger’s uranium mines to be disrupted or even captured by Islamists spilling over from Mali, not least because it might allow insurgent manufacture of dirty radiation bombs.

Finally, fighting in Mali against a poorlyprepared Islamist paramilitary army is an achievable mission for the shrinking military forces of France. The same was true of Libya, whose relatively weak armed forces almost proved too much for the several European countries that took part in ousting Gaddafi – until the US rode in to save the day, as per usual.

This poorly disguised self-interest, combined with shrinking defence budgets, is a combination that may well mark the beginning of the end to the modern Western commitment to policing the world. The Syrian massacre remains unchallenged, whilst in the media and in local government the voices that speak loud about the national interest, in chorus with the voices of the pacifist left, drown out those voices in favour of risky military deployments in far-flung foreign lands.

As political analyst Gregor Peter Schmitz recently argued in Der Spiegel, uncertainty continues to grow because, despite the worsening security situation around the world, Obama in his inaugural address declared that “a decade of war is ending”.

Schmitz wrote that, when it came to policing the world, “Europe is incapable, America unwilling”. One might add that prolongued unwillingness often leads to incapability as military might, like any muscle, must be kept exercised lest it wither away.

Current Affairs Dimitar Keranov

Should the EU abolish visas to Russia?

Relations between the European Union as a supranational entity and the Russian Federation have experienced their ups and downs in recent years. Nevertheless, the European Union has had a welldefined foreign policy towards Russia since the early 1990s.

Recently, bilateral relations have been put to the test as the issue of so-called ‘via liberalisation’, and even the abolition of the visa regime (although this has no time frame yet) have been raised in several summits.

Some Russian politicians have gone as far as saying they want to see visas abolished by the start of the Winter Olympics in Sochi in 2014. It seems as if they are declaring some sort of ultimatum.

Visa liberalisation sounds fairly reasonable, but total abolition now or even two decades hence will be a bitterly regretted own goal for the Union. Why? First, this would disproportionately benefit Russian citizens (who would get free access to the EU), since I do not see queues of EU citizens wanting to go to Russia. This would most likely result in one-sided inward migration to the European Union. This would not profit the Union, as it would certainly burden the social and financial support systems of the member states. Germany and France are opposed to visa abolition precisely because they see a huge risk of unwanted immigration.

Second, it is totally unnecessary. Some will say it would make travelling easier, ease international study, and so on. But this isn’t

Bullseye

too difficult at the moment. If you need to go to Germany, for example, you go to the embassy and the chance is high that there will be no obstacles to getting a visa unless you’re wanted by Interpol. Even Barroso has said that the EU gave 5.26 million visas to Russians in 2011 and that visitor numbers were up some 60 per cent. Judging by these numbers, the system seems to be working flawlessly and the visa regime is not a problem.

Why then is Putin’s government so persistent, bringing this up on every occasion? In Putin’s own words: “The lack of a visa-free regime constrains the future development of economic ties”. This sentence is a cipher, since visas have little to do with trade and business. There are visas between the United States and China, but this doesn’t seem to hinder the economic cooperation between these two countries.

Putin further said that Russian tourists were an important contributor to the EU’s income.

No doubt, but if this is so with the visa regime in place what compelling reason is there to abolish it? As the American saying goes, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”.

The visa regime is the Union’s only tool for controlling the masses of people trying to

get in. With the financial crisis and other things the EU has enough problems to deal with already and no reason to make life even harder.

Interestingly, the Russian government recently announced that it was severely tightening up the visa regime for German citizens.

This move is widely seen as retaliation from Moscow for the pause in the visa liberalisation talks, which stems largely from German opposition. The Kremlin muscle-flexing is obvious, bearing in mind that Russia was pushing these discussions and campaigning for the visa-free regime in the first place. As Francesco Bigazzi, a retired Italian diplomat, was quoted as saying: “The Kremlin has achieved nothing and has come up with this aggressive response. Now Russia is much further that it was from its goal.”

There is one more important thing to consider. The European Union and her citizens must think in broad strategic terms. This is not simply about making travelling easier. It would be a lot less complicated if it was, but it isn’t. There are a lot of steps being taken right now in Moscow in order to create a Eurasian Union.

This is neither joke nor rumour, but official Kremlin policy. Something like a capitalist version of the Soviet Union, or what the Commonwealth of Independent States was envisioned as. Not that Russia is very capitalist or democratic at present, so it looks more like an attempt to directly resurrect the Soviet empire.

Over one thousand people currently work at the Eurasian Customs Union, and the Court of the Eurasian Economic Community was just established recently. Some even call it a challenge to the EU Eastern Partnership project, as the Union’s eastern neighbours will be forced to choose between two different paths.

Constanze Stelzenmueller, a representative of the German Marshal Fund, said: “The thing is we no longer live in the Cold War. Russia’s soft power is pretty limited even in its neighbourhood. Russia can still threaten a little bit, bully a little bit, but it doesn’t really have a lot of power in positive persuasion, for the simple reason – Russia itself is not a good model to follow.”

So does the European Union really want to have a visa-free regime with a country that is making some very shady moves towards redrawing the map in Russia’s favour, utilising KGB-style bullying, all to punish someone for being unwilling to open their borders to waves of illegal immigrants? I would think twice about that.

7

Current affairs Vit Voseček

The Czech Presidential Election Since the last presidential election of the Czech Republic in 2008, in which the right-wing president Václav Klaus was elected, there was debate about the direct election of the presidency. The main topics in the recent parliamentary election were corruption, cuts and direct democracy, and as promised Parliament enacted direct elections to the presidency in 2012.

At the beginning of the campaign there were 12 candidates. To be eligible as a candidate one had to collect 50,000 signatures or have the support of ten senators. Two candidates failed to meet this condition, namely Tomio Okamura and Vladimir Dlouhy. An absolute majority two-round system was used.

In the polls for the first round Jan Fischer, former prime minister, was being indicated as the winner. Right behind him was another former prime minister, Milos Zeman, followed by the socialist candidate Jiri Dienstblier. Then came the “blue” candidate, Vladimir Franz.

Behind him there were very small gaps be-

8

tween the candidates, which included our own from the Civic Democratic Party Premysl Sobotka and the candidate from TOP 09, Foreign Affairs minister Karel Schwanzenberg.

There were a lot of debates with the candidates on television, and Milos Zeman emerged the winner from these. A big part of the campaign was the unpopular government and its programme of tax increases and reforms to the social system. This offered some candidates unaffiliated to the government an advantage.

Many citizens wanted an “apolitical” present, such as Vladimir Franz, because they were

thinking that association with a political party was automatically a bad thing. However, the best result that “apolitical” Franz achieved was 10 per cent.

Famous people and celebrities also got extensively involved in the campaign, particularly in the very successful campaign of Karel Schwanzerberg. Many of them openly expressed their support for him and no other candidate could match his mobilisation of the social elite.

Another big theme of the election was our relationship with the European Union. Former president Vaclav Klaus is a well-established Eurosceptic. However, there was a big shift at this election because there were only two euro-sceptic candidates: Jana Bobosikova and Civic Democratic candidate Premysl Sobotka.

The last major theme of the election was “who was a member of the Communist Party and why”. There were two former communists amongst the candidates: Jan Fischer and Milos Zeman. Yet there was a big difference between them. Zeman was a member for two years and was expelled after writing several brave articles which were critical of the regime. Fischer on the other hand was a member for a full decade, right up until the Velvet Revolution. There was a huge campaign against him as a result of this.

The results of the first round saw Jan Fischer eliminated from the race and in his place Karel Schwarzenberg made it into the second round. This was the biggest surprise of the first round. Milos Zeman was in first place as expected and Civic Democrat Premysl Sobotka got 2.5 per cent of the vote and did not make it into the second round.

At the beginning of the second round there were two relatively strong candidates. On the one side was right-wing candidate Karel Schwanzenberg, whilst on the other was typically left candidate Milos Zeman.

There were about ten television debates, where Schwanzenberg was clearly losing to Zeman, who is a brilliant speaker and made good use of his gift. His attacks on Schwanzenberg were aimed mainly at his role in the current government, and focused on the unpopular reforms it is undertaking. On the other side, Schwanzenberg had the support of abnormal numbers of famous and successful people, and his attacks focused on the role of Miroslav Slouf, an unpopular advisor of Zeman, and an opposition agreement signed with Vaclav Klaus.

Milos Zeman won the election with 55 per cent of the vote, against 45 for Schanzenberg.

Is this bad for the Czech Republic? I don’t know, but what is certain is that the rightwing parties completely lost this election.

Current affairs

Henry Hill

The British Prime Minister, David Cameron, has announced that if the Conservative party wins the next general election, the UK will have a referendum on her EU membership. Since I am in the unusual position of being a right-wing pro-European Brit, this will – or ought to – place me in the position of campaigning against much of my own party during the referendum.

Why the European Right Needs to Fight But at the prospect of actually having to defend the EU, to argue that the UK was better within it and that it will develop in a manner I find appealing, the whole prospect came to seem increasingly sour. Being pro-EU as a sort of default state is all very well. But for a rightist like me, it is not unproblematic.

The EU needs reform, and quite urgently. At present it consists in the main of an unaccountable bureaucracy with a well-developed taste for imposing regulations on all aspects of commercial life. One can think of a slew of depressing examples.

Most recently was the ghastly proposition from Sweden of a ‘meat tax’, designed to artificially inflate the price of meat products and thus decrease consumption, chiefly by pricing it out of the diets of the poor. Naturally, the architects of this notion believe it should be rolled out across the EU. Just prior to that, we have the enthusiastic reception by European Commission Vice-President Neelie Kroes of the UK’s ‘Leveson Report’, which purports to produce a ‘responsible’ press by subjecting it to the judgement of a small, elite class of people who read the country’s least popular newspapers. According to Kroes, each EU member state should have a powerful press regulator which makes the press uphold ‘European values’.

Before that, we had the disgraceful decision that the EU is apparently going to enforce gender quotas for the executives of companies within it. This grotesque piece of discriminatory legislation fits the pattern of subjugating economic liberty and competitiveness to the whims of its unelected political class – a ten-

Bullseye

dency which, tragically, truly deserves the moniker ‘European’. And don’t get me started on the CAP (well, not until BEOn, anyway).

And all that’s just the tip of the iceberg, the latest breakers in the tide of petty regulation that pours out of the EU year on year on year, without the democratic consent of the European electorate.

I know that the UK, at least the UK right, has a poor reputation in Europe. We’re not the best team players, we don’t hold the ‘European project’ in as high esteem as most others, and we’re less willing than most to politely put up with the squandering of a vast portion of the EU budget on the tiny agricultural portion of the Union economy. But the European right, even the federalist EPP we walked away from, should fear us leaving. Because the UK – and this truly is depressing – is, in European terms, an economically and militarily right-wing country.

Germany sees in Britain an ally on the issue of free trade and economic liberalisation over protectionism. France sees in Britain the only other martial culture and military power on the continent, excluding Turkey. If we left, the balance of power inside the continent would be tipped even farther towards a highly-regulated, tariff-insulated, producer-interest economy and a cringing, pacifistic, minimalist approach to military matters.

This stuff isn’t just idle speculation, either. Apparently the EU is still on the road to federation, the path of ‘ever closer union’ undiminished – to the spluttered horror of Eurosceptic naysayers.

But where is the great debate about the sort of country Europe is going to be? The European Project is apparently going to end in the unit-

ing of a battle-scarred continent into one of the largest states on earth, yet everyone seems to be drifting towards it unthinkingly.

The pan-European right, of which EDS is a part, needs to start doing something about this before it’s too late. For all that the British are poor Europeans – and for all that we will probably vote to remain in the Union, at least for now – we’ve got a point. The Union has become an unaccountable, bureaucratic entity that manufactures left-of-centre legislation without having to get it past the electorate. Legal restrictions on the number of hours in the working week?

No self-respecting party of the right should have let that slide.

So what can we do? To my mind, the very first thing we should do is content the next European elections under the names of our Europarties, rather than using domestic memberparties as proxies. It should be the EPP on ballot papers from Bulgaria to Portugal. This would remind voters that Europe has politics, rather than simply being a way to register discontent with domestic parties. It would also pull the teeth of the separatists, who would have to appear on the ballot as independents or non-inscrits.

Second, we should start noisily and publicly criticising the EU’s regulation machine. We should have senior European politicians pushing for reform, making the European Parliament more powerful, and criticising the injustice of unelected members of a pan-continental civil service drawing up authoritarian legislation to govern hundreds of millions of people.

Thirdly, we should open up an honest debate about what a federal Europe will look like. It cannot be right for leaders across Europe to continually stress their commitment to integration without any serious public debate about what we’re supposed to be integrating into.

The United States is making it increasingly clear that they’re not going to pick up the bill for European defence in a post-Cold War age. This means that a Europe that has grown over-fond of slashing its military budgets to pay for social spending has a lot of growing up to do. Unless we take an active stance on the issue, we risk allowing a Europe to be built around us that is militarily weak, economically uncompetitive and enormously over-regulated – the sort of Europe the PSE want, in other words.

Currently, we on the European right look too much like insiders, attending impenetrable European conferences where safe and bureaucratically-worded motions are debated and passed, rather than clearly and courageously taking on the EU where it’s wrong. We can’t leave the important task of holding the EU to account for its many, many flaws to the separatists. Why should the devil have all the best tunes?.

9

Current Affairs

It is acknowledged that most the worst hit states during the present economic malaise are also those that are suffering from a common problem: low birth rates, leading to economies being slowly suffocated by a shrinking corset that is population decline.

First of all, let us consider why low birth rates are a problem. Economically, it can necessitate government borrowing to fund welfare liabilities that promised to the elderly. This borrowing is, in turn, re-paid at a later date by the younger generations by way of higher taxes and/or reduced entitlements for themselves. It can lead to perpetually declining property prices as a result diminished demand, which in turn makes banks have to constantly write down the value of their property lending (thus requiring state funded bailouts) and builders reluctant to build.

Luke Springthorpe

Childcare provision is key to recovery By now, there have been a wide range of different solutions to the Eurozone crisis. One that is rarely mentioned, however, is adequate provision of childcare and early-years education.

10

It can also lead to a slump in consumption, as those who are in young either defer spending in expectation of higher taxation or save more in anticipation of reduced entitlements. When the tax rise does come, it will always come with a sting in the tail for demand.

At present, there exists a varying patchwork of welfare provision across Europe. For much of the continent, the trade off over assistance with raising children is often categorised as family provision (often the mother or grandparents) versus state provision. The “Anglo Saxon”, or means tested, model sits somewhere in the middle, offering some state support for those at the bottom and expecting those above a threshold to meet the cost.

The impact that the type of model employed can have on birth rates is striking. The nations that have predominantly taxpayer funded, universally available early childcare (such as Sweden and Denmark) have higher birth rights than European states where this is not the case. This keeps economic growth ticking over, and helps ensure those leaving the workforce can have their elderly welfare reliably covered by a stable working age tax base.

This can only be contrasted with the states that place the responsibility for child care at the foot of the family- be it parents or grandparents. The primary example is Italy, although there is a significant degree of regional variation. Here, we often see that women are faced with a choice if they wish to have children. They can either meet the cost of child care whilst working, drop out the labour force temporarily or completely, or attempt delegate to grandparents. Whilst the lat-

ter avenue was often exercised, it is fast being extinguished with increasing retirement ages.

What we see in Italy is that this unappealing mix of choices often results in women dropping out of the labour force in the event of choosing to give birth. The result is some of the worst female labour participation in the OECD at a paltry 49%. For many women in Italy, aspiration comes at the expense of ever having children and vice versa. The result is, unsurprisingly, an appallingly low fertility rate of 1.4 children per woman, compared to 1.98 and 1.87 for Sweden and Denmark respectively. As Italy is now finding out, the cost of a birth rate below the rate of replacement is high.

So, why not means test the benefits one may ask? Whilst this does succeed in partially addressing the birth rate problem, it is lopsided in that middle income family’s will- where they are not eligible for support- either reduce the number of children they have, or not have children at all. It also places an unduly high burden on many families, with the average cost of raising a child costing a UK family 19% of their household income compared to 8% in the case of Sweden.

At the crux of the question for many European states is how care should be funded. Yet perhaps a more poignant question is whether the welfare state can exist without a universally applicable childcare infrastructure. In the cases of Denmark and Sweden, where the state funds 80% and 66% of childcare costs respectively, the reward is a consistently high birth rate and high female labour rate participation. Equally importantly, however, child poverty is also demonstrably lower than those countries where government does not intervene in ensuring the availability of childcare.

Added to all this is ample evidence that ensuring a high level of childcare provision exists between the age of one and three years that is accessible to all is a significant factor in improving a child’s educational attainment in later life. Ultimately, the reward will be a smarter workforce that can enable European economies to maintain an edge in a competitive, globalised knowledge economy.

But perhaps the most important issue at stake is one of justice. Can it be right that a child’s life chances are affected by the absence of a level playing field in childcare provision? Is there any way of justifying the continued necessity of many European women having to sacrifice either their careers or a family life?

Fundamentally, it is question of acknowledging the realities of the modern economy that now requires dual incomes. The electoral success of European centre-right parties may very well hinge on their ability to address this very issue.

Bullseye on Vivika Melts

The importance of the CAP and equality of subsidy amongst member states Acknowledging the need for effective and strong agricultural policies at the global and European levels, the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) will remain one of the most important policies of the EU, as it has been since the establishment of the European Economic Community in 1958. The initial objectives of the CAP were to develop a post-war agricultural sector that could provide consumers with food at reasonable prices and to encourage farmers to expand production and maintain food prices at a level that would guarantee their income.

Bullseye

Since the 1990s increasing attention has been paid to the additional demands of society: food safety and quality assurance; environmental and rural development concerns; and the challenges of climate change. Constant changes in the world, as in the agricultural sector, have raised the necessity for restructuring the CAP and its spending. There is no doubt that the CAP requires effective reforms and updates in order to be able to fulfil its multifunctional tasks in future – and there are many different opinions and forthcoming debates on agriculture and its budget.

I believe financing the CAP of the EU budget to a certain extent makes sense, as it is the most effective policy instrument to achieve the objectives and challenges of ensuring equal conditions of competition throughout the internal market.

However, let us stop thinking about the CAP’s future prospects for a minute and focus on how it currently works.

Farm subsidies account for the largest proportion of agricultural spending in the EU budget at 38 per cent (despite a significant reduction from around 80% in the 1960s), which is why everybody has their say. Direct payments have been one of the main support instruments to the agricultural sector of the Union from the early 199s and they still take the largest share of the current CAP budget. The average levels of the direct payments for many new Member States are lower, and may differ up to five times compared to the older Member States. These differences in support are disadvantageous and cannot be justified.

The economic reality is that many small farms and young farmers all around Europe are the vulnerable to market changes, and are for that reason more reliant on the maintenance of a certain level of subsidies to ensure their competitiveness. Looking to the future, one cannot deny the importance of making the agricultural sector sufficiently attractive to young people to prevent urbanisation, particularly in peripheral areas. But the current functioning of the CAP does not grant equal support to farmers in all Union countries and is thereby damaging EU unity and the principles of solidarity and fair treatment. It is also fostering Euroscepticism by favouring certain Member States.

11

Bullseye on The common struggle for equal opportunities amongst politicians, officials, diplomats, and other agricultural negotiators in many newer Member States, farmers and the European Parliament’s agriculture committee, as well as from the EDS resolution on agricultural subsidies from the Council Meeting in Trnava on the 8 December 2012, has paid off. EU leaders have reached an agreement on agricultural and rural support for the next budgetary period in which inequality resulting from direct payments is significantly reduced.

For example, if so far some Baltic states have got direct payments that are 33 per cent of the EU average then the European Parliament will confirm that these rates will rise to 75 per cent of the EU average by the year 2020. Although it is unable to definitely eliminate inequality in the new budgetary period, the problem has been identified and EU farmers have taken a major step closer to fair treatment. Until the CAP is based on subsidising, all Member States of the EU should have the right to expect and demand the application of the principles of solidarity to ensure all farmers equal opportunities in the common EU market.

In a rapidly urbanising world let us not lose sight of the countryside. Due to this alternative use of the land for cities, the use of agricultural land as a resource is reduced, and less farmland must maintain a growing number of people. The agricultural industry now faces many new global challenges.

The CAP is not just about food security and employment but also increasingly about consumer protection, high-quality products, securing biodiversity, animal welfare, environmental protection, climate change, research and development investment and cultural and regional policy.

These are inter-linked, a complex network that cannot be overlooked, and in which the decisions made must be careful to ensure we have competitive, efficient and sustainable rural development across Europe. In conclusion, I say that quite literally we should not bite the hand that feeds us.

12

The Case a Henry Hill

For me, one of the worst aspects of the EU is that it is dominated by an ethos that what the continental bureaucrats who run it would like to happen can – and should – trump the economic facts on the ground. Thus a Union built on breaking down cross-border trade barriers has become a veritable manufactory for regulation and red tape.

Bullseye on

e against the CAP We’ve seen proposals for pan-European meat taxes to discourage meat consumption.

We’ve seen pan-EU gender quotas for board rooms. We’ve seen the Social Chapter and the Working Time Directive. But at the very top of this mountain of directives that make our socialdemocratic leaders feel good whilst making us a deeply uncompetitive continent is the CAP. The CAP is an industrial-scale state subsidy aimed at preserving the semblance of pre-industrial Europe. It is intended to prop up agricultural business – and even the sweetest family farm or peasant smallholdings are businesses – and shield them from the rigours of competition. Like most long-term bids to prop up unsustainable enterprises, it is a bad idea.

First, one of the aims of the CAP is to maintain agricultural employment and stop more young people leaving to the cities. There doesn’t seem to be much justification for this beyond an ideological antipathy to urbanisation (one opponent of mine in the aforementioned debate suggested that “maintaining the rural landscape” justified the CAP). But even setting that aside, it is both illogical and harmful.

It is illogical because a modernising, efficiencyseeking agricultural sector will inevitably come to employ less people over time, as mechanisation and other forms of best-practise take hold.

Unless the CAP aims to stall the move towards agricultural efficiency – which shielding it from competition might certainly achieve, I grant – it will continue to offer fewer and fewer employment opportunities.

It is harmful because, like all means of artificially keeping people in work, it locks up some of the vital manpower needed to fuel tomorrow’s economy. Using state money to keep people gainlessly employed, whether in the public or private sectors, slows economic development.

New businesses which might be attracted to a large pool of low-cost labour produced by unemployment will not see the manpower to hand, whilst the taxpayer-backed wages will drive up the cost of labour in the area.

In fact, it seems that slowing the development of the agricultural sector is precisely what the CAP is meant to do. European policy makers apparently want to “promote” – i.e. subsidise with your money – “family-run” farms and smallscale production, and one criticism of the CAP is that the funds end up benefiting large, efficient

Bullseye

farms more than small ones.

So what we have is a policy specifically designed to waste both manpower and money in a fight against efficiency and agricultural modernisation. We should thank the Lord the EU wasn’t around in the 19th Century, or we’d have poured our wealth into subsidising “family-run, small-scale” manufacturing and the Industrial Revolution would never have happened.

But even if the CAP were truly wondrous for farmers, agriculture forms only 1.6 per cent of European GDP employing 5.4 per cent of the European population. But the CAP also claims to be beneficial for the European consumer, despite the fact that instances when producer and consumer interests are the same is vanishingly small. This is nonsense.

The CAP, combined with levies on imports (estimated at 18-24 per cent), is intended to protect European farmers from global competition.

Competition has the effect of depressing prices, which whilst bad for the farmer is good for the consumer. Competition from across the world means not only lower prices but more choice, and if they didn’t get taxed to pay for the CAP your European shopper would have more money to spend in the shops.

Instead, money is taken from their pockets and given to the farmers. The farmers then produce food for a protected market which is more expensive than if it were priced at internationally competitive levels. Thus your poor European has to fork over more unnecessary money for the same bag of shopping. This means that the European has less money to spend on other things.

This isn’t just sad for the poor citizen, but for all the businesses who might have received that money.

All the businesses that cater to the varied tastes of the Union’s hundreds of millions of citizens lose out whenever a euro that might have been spent on them has to be spent on tax or necessary shopping instead. It may only be a small amount per citizen (although it may not) but added together that is big money. This process, which is called opportunity cost (meaning all the potential things you have to give up when you spend money on one thing), adds a whole new understanding of the cost of the CAP and associated protectionist policies.

In short: Europeans are taxed in order to support policies which raise food prices, shrink their

disposable income and lower their standard of living whilst taking money away from productive consumer businesses.

To add a final absurd layer to this, we then dedicate another section of the European budget to aid. This is essentially wasted money, since we’d do a lot more good to the third world if instead of building protective walls around our farms and sending them high-minded charity funds, we bought their crops instead.

Trading with third-world farmers and agricultural producers wouldn’t only increase choice and lower prices for Europeans, but it could transform the lives of the farmers. The money would amount to far more than our aid budget, and instead of being side-tracked and skimmed off like aid money it would be handed directly to private farmers and businesspeople, empowering them and not the corrupt elites who so often benefit from aid spending.

Sure, some people make the case that the CAP allows for things like consumer protection (horsemeat scandal aside!), but it would be relatively easy to set up a quality-assurance system for inward trade. FairTrade manage it, and their policy involves all kinds of regressive leftist ideology like enforcing collective farming and banning traditional employment models. We ought to be able to design a system that’s simpler and much more helpful to developing economies.

Let’s summarise: if we stopped spending vast amounts of money subsidising a truly tiny percentage of the European economy, we would see some farmers become unemployed and possibly be unable to feed ourselves in the event of the European Union ending up locked in total war with another hyperpower – a war we couldn’t even fight, since Europe hates defence spending almost as much as it loves all other spending.

On the upside: the EU budget would save tons of money by scrapping most foreign aid and nearly all the current agricultural subsidies; the tax burden on Europeans would decrease; competition would see lower food prices and more choice in the shops; Europeans could spend the money saved buying things they actually want; the companies that make those things could expand and hire more people in a sustainable fashion; and third-world producers would be empowered, enriched and brought closer to Europe. That seems a good deal to me.

13

reports Andrey Novakov

The Schengen Agreement and European unity

this old proverb is that whenever people have managed to stay together and find strength and faith in a common cause and goal, they have been much more successful in achieving their aims.

This is exactly what the European Union, and in particular the Schengen Zone, has done.

They have achieved the unthinkable in turning many different peoples, nations, cultures, countries and governments, into a single entity with a single goal: the welfare of the people.

Today, it consists of 26 European countries.

The area includes most EU members and several non-member European countries. Soon we will see yet another enlargement of the Union with Croatia’s accession as the 28th member state in 2013. I’m sure this will make the European community even stronger, and more united in diversity.

On 1 January 2007 the EU saw the accession of two new member states – Bulgaria and Romania. They were approved to become members of the Schengen zone by the European Parliament in June 2011 and the negotiations are continuing even now.

Bulgaria has secured her borders, which are also the external borders of the Union. She has invested in coastal boats, helicopters, video monitoring and many other items of border equipment with the aim of protecting common borders from unauthorised intrusion.

In late January 2013 Franco Frattini, the former foreign minister of Italy, suggested that sooner or later expansion of the area will take place and this will contribute added value to the new member and to those who are longterm members of the Schengen area. We young politicians should all know the principles of equality, transparency and fairness on which the European community is built, and apply them equally to all. Only that way will we continue the work of those who built the Union we see today.

In conclusion I want to go back to the story at the beginning, and remind you that in those dark days, when there was no financial or economic crisis but brutal battles fought for the very land itself, people found the will to stay together. Even then they realised that unity is the basis of prosperity. That is what we need now: more Europe!

Whenever people have started to unite into unions and federations, they have tried to negotiate the means to trade and travel freely whilst preserving their mutual liberty. In the older order of things before 1914, it was possible to travel from Paris to Saint Petersburg without passport, visa or any form of official permission.

More recently there are several more limited examples: the common travel area between the United Kingdom, Republic of Ireland, and the various Crown Dependencies that was established upon Irish secession in 1922; or the Nordic passport union between Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden which was established in 1952.

Today the Schengen Agreement, signed no 14 June 1985 on a river ship in the middle of the Moselle river, covers 400 million people and a territory of more than 4.3 million square kilometres. But beyond the numbers stand millions of lives, millions of families and untold successful businesses and ideas.

Before we start talking about the benefits of free travel and the elimination of borders, I want to tell you a story that dates back over 1300 years, to Eastern Europe in the year 668 AD. The founder of Old Great Bulgaria, Khan Kubrat, was deathly ill and summoned his five sons. He ordered them to bring him two sheaves of wooden sticks. He asked one of his sons to begin to break the sticks of the first sheaf one by one, which the young man easily managed. The Khan then asked the strongest son to break the entire second bundle without separating the rods. No matter how hard he tried, the strongest son could not break them.

The Khan told his sons to stick together, for that way they would be invincible, whilst in separation lay inevitable defeat.

Why am I retelling this story? It is not to give you a lesson in ancient history. The moral of

14

reports

Ann-Sofie Pauwelyn

The Democratic Deficit in Europe

In 2014, Europe’s citizens will elect the members of the European Parliament for the eighth time in history.

When the European Parliament was created it had only an advisory competence, but with every new treaty that was signed it gained more power. Now some people say that it is the mightiest parliament in the world.

But if this is so, how come that the turnout at European parliamentary elections is getting lower every time? Is this another sign of the so-called democratic deficit at the heart of the European Union?

This question has been on the mind of many scholars. Some say that there is a problem with the democratic input into the Union. In this opinion, MEPs are not paying enough attention to what European citizens think is important. There is a gap between the interests of the citizenry and those of the MEPs. There is also a reverse problem: scholars say that European citizens elect MEPs on the basis of national or even local issues, rather than European issues. European elections are seen as second-order elections and this could be the reason that it is impossible to make the composition of the European Parliament reflect the interests of European citizens.

There is not only a gap between the citizens and the parliament, but scholars also argue that there exists a gap between the parliament and political parties. National parties feel that European issues are not hot topics for their voters and therefore they do not start public debates on these issues. As a result citizens do not get educated about what is happening in the Union.

Furthermore, some studies showed that MEPs and other national politicians who are working

Bullseye

with European issues can make choices for the party in a very autonomous way. These politicians do not often explain to their party what is happening on the EU level and the national party does not explain anything to their citizens. This method of European decision making is not at all transparent, and citizens do not hear about interesting European issues that are also important for them and therefore they do not care.

These are all classic arguments that want us to believe that there actually is a democratic deficit. But there are also other scholars who believe the opposite, and in my opinion this is very interesting.

Andrei Moravcsik, an American political scientist and professor at Harvard, does not believe in the democratic deficit. Instead of focussing on the input side of democracy, Moravcsik has a focus on the output side. In brief his opinion would be: as long as the EU makes good decisions that is in the interest of all, the EU will be legitimate regardless of how (un)democratic the input happens. Moravcsik says that although there are some problems, as those mentioned above regarding how the European Parliament functions today, these problems do not create the democratic deficit. They just give citizens the impression that the EU is not democratic.

It is true that citizens do not get much infor-

mation about what is happening at the EU level. But Moravcsik thinks they do not need to know: the few policy fields in which the European Union has a lot of power are very technical and do not interest the average citizen.

More political issues, such as social security, taxes and pensions are still decided by national governments. This means that the issues which are really important to people stay at the national level, where people can be more involved if they so wish.

Furthermore, if the European Union wants to realise something, the voting system makes sure that a lot of member states have to agree with a proposal. When implementation starts, the member states are again the most important actors. To Moravcsik, this means that a lot of power is still in the hands of the member states.

Another reason for Moravcsik to disbelieve in a democratic deficit is the fact that there are a lot of ‘checks and balances’ designed in the Europaen system: different kinds of majority voting; different procedures; a low European budget; the increasing power of the European Parliament; the different actors of European decision making… all prevent the European Union becoming a despotic superstate.

To solve the democratic deficit, a lot of scholars think that getting the citizens more involved in the decision-making system would be a good solution. Moravscik does not agree with this.

As he does not believe in a democratic deficit, he argues that there is no need to change anything. If citizens are not interested in getting involved then they should not be involved. The quality of decision making will be much higher if only experts work on European issues without having to listen to 500 million citizens. But not involving citizens does not mean that citizens should be unable to inform decision makers when they dissent. Moravcsik is not that positive about democratic input but he stresses that the system should stay transparent.

The question about the democratic deficit in Europe is one with many different answers.

We have to wait until 2014 to see if the turnout of the eighth European parliamentary elections will confirm the trend of the past elections or not. In my opinion, the quality of democratic output is more important than the quality of democratic input. On that point, I agree with Moravcsik.

But I do not agree when he says that there is no need to change the present situation. Getting people involved is also necessary. This is something that the European Democrat Students can help to do. And when I see how many new faces come to our meetings every time, and how many of them stay around, I’m sure we are doing good!

15

reports Eva Majewski

Our Money, Our Future

Over the past two years most news on the European Union were focused on the euro crisis and one European summit seemed to chase another. But where are we now, as we dive into 2013 and the build-up to the European Parliament elections? What are the benefits of a common currency – and what will the future of the Euro look like?

Some of the benefits are visible at first glance. The Euro contributes towards shaping a European identity more effectively than anything else. This has been seen by the spill-over effects of uncertainties related to sovereign debt caused by the instability of the Euro. A common currency allows us to compare price levels more easily, and lets us travel across the Union without the need to change currency, and trade and investment are facilitated. There is no longer the need for currency swaps, eradicating many uncertainties.

However, the Euro group is not immune to error, both on the national and the collective levels. The Maastricht criteria were broken many times without any severe consequences for the nations which did not obey the rules under this admittedly rather loose framework. Yet in the beginning lower interest rates when issuing sovereign bonds were realised, and between the commencement of the Eurozone and the end of 2007 it was possible to press down the debt as of GDP for the Eurozone from an overall 72.8 per cent to only 66.3 per cent. This success was achieved despite the fact that the biggest Eurozone economy, Germany, grew its debt significantly.

16

Since Lehman Brothers declared bankruptcy in 2008 and the economic (later financial) crisis was triggered, this debt soared again to as much as 87.3 per cent at the end of 2011.

However, the Euro group has moved forward a lot since 2008. With the Fiscal Pact and the European Stabilisation Mechanism (ESM) in force we have effective tools to face up to the mistakes that have been made in the past and also to support economies that are experiencing difficulties.

Of course, adjusting entire economies as is required under some programmes is not easy to do. However, it will result in a Europe that is able to face globalisation and the competition that results from it. While Europe is adjusting, the only idea of the Obama administration seems to be a strongly-monitored inflation whilst debt is soaring. This will certainly help to ease the burden that the US is facing by its debt being held by foreigners, especially china.

However, it is not a route to US success in the long run. Whilst Chinese growth has been relying on an undervalued Renminbi and made use of excessive exports to the United States, the balance of trade will have

to be levelled out at some point in the future.

Whilst currently the excitement seems to be concentrated on what is happening in Europe, in the future the USA will face a reckoning with its trade imbalances.

In fact, it is interesting to compare what happened to national finances globally after the onset of the economic crisis. It turns out that inflation in the Eurozone has been comparably low between 1998 and 2012: it had an annual rate of 2.06 per cent, against 2.16 per cent in the UK and 2.5 per cent in the United States.

Whilst these numbers seem all to be rather small, they have a significant cumulative impact over the years.

More interesting though is to compare debt and its development. Between 1998 and 2011, debt as of GDP grew by 14.5 per cent within the Eurozone. This is quite a lot, but is not even close to the almost 40 per cent as experienced by the USA and UK, let alone Japan where it grew by almost 100 per cent!

The observation is incomplete without an analysis of the recent state deficits and the public expenditure quota. The latter describes the expenditures of the authorities, comprising expenditures for statutory benefits, mea-

reports sured again as a percentage of GDP. Being at an already high level, it at least only grew by an average of one per cent in the Eurozone, whilst the public expenditure quota in the US grew by as much as 7.1 per cent and in the UK it rose by 9.6 per cent between 1998 and 2011.

So, one may conclude, that the Eurozone and its currency is in fact not as bad as it could be when compared against its peers. This is true especially if considering the more recent data, for example the state deficit data for 2011. Again, the deficit within the Eurozone is, at 4.1 per cent of GDP, not even half as big as that of the UK (8.3 per cent), Japan (8.2 per cent), or the United States (9.6 per cent). This holds true even if Germany, quite often referred to as the anchor of stability, is excluded from this calculation. Without Germany the deficit in the Eurozone for 2011 amounts to 5.3 per cent.

Having stated all that, there is still a lot of work left for the Member States of the Eurozone, and reforms will take time. Nevertheless, the OECD presented a ranking of countries by their willingness to undertake reforms within one year. Whilst the list was considering factual reforms that have been realised and not just intended, Greece is still on top of this ranking, followed by Spain, Ireland, and Portugal – in short, all the countries which receive support from the other members of the Eurozone. On the other hand, the United States only takes ninth place, whilst Japan is 17. As painful as future reforms might be, they are worth it.

Focusing one last time on trade balances, it has to be stated that all the countries under a European programme have been tackling the issues of trade imbalance successfully.

In Portugal, Ireland, and Spain, the trade balance – i.e. the difference between imports and exports – improved by as much as ten per cent of their economic performance. Even Greece, which has received a lot of criticism from the outside, was able to increase their exports in 2011 by an astonishing 37 per cent. Partly this is because of a fall in the domestic consumption which fuels imports, but it still shows that adjustments are possible within the framework of a common currency.

As long as politicians and supervisory bodies such as the European Central Bank will keep firm their commitment to the European Union, we can certainly weather the challenges ahead. Proud of the history of Europe in recent decades, we may look into the future with hope. The Euro will be a big chapter in the success story of the European Union. It is our money, and our future!

Bullseye

Elina Foinska

The Holodomor in Ukraine

Ukraine is known worldwide as the breadbasket of Europe and has one of the most fruitful soils in the world.

It is known as a country of great history and traditions, hospitality and picturesque landscapes which has always welcomed people from all over the world. Once you have travelled to Ukraine it stays forever in your good memories.

But how much is actually known about history of Ukraine? Especially about its history in the 20th Century: part of the Russian Empire; a short period of civil war; an unsuccessful attempt to establish its statehood; then the Soviet Union… right? But how many of us know the price by which Ukraine became a part of the great USSR? And how many of us know why the Soviet past is so painful and insulting for Ukrainians?

Let’s take one page of Ukraine’s past in the Soviet Union – the 1930s, when the country experienced massive industrialisation, development, and the Holodomor, or “extermination by hunger”. How could it be that this country, in the midst of “peacetime” and the Soviet Union’s industrial growth, faced starvation?

The terrible, genocidal famine of 1932-33,

when millions of Ukrainians died, is one of the greatest tragedies in Ukrainian history. It was engineered by the Soviet Union in an effort to destroy the Ukrainian nation. Even today it is impossible to accurately estimate the death toll, but known facts and recently uncovered documents show than seven to ten million people starved to death during this artificially created famine.

The historical facts From the beginning of the Soviet era, the Ukraine was a problematic territory for the young Soviet Union and its governors. Too much of a national idea lived in this nation; too strong a desire to be a unified and independent country; too much history and tradition and intelligence. Taking into account a favourable geographic position and the very rich soils

17

reports and natural resources of Ukraine, such a nation was not supportive of the new communist regime with its forced industrialisation, massive collectivisation and the erosion of national and ethnic differences. Those who contributed nothing got an equal share, in theory – but was this the case for the average Ukranian?

Stalin stated that: “the national question in Ukraine is in essence a rural question”, and that “after such resistance to collectivisation it is ultimately necessary to deal a crushing blow to the backbone of Ukraine – its rural population”.

The bloody terror unleashed by the Soviet Union in Ukraine started in 1929 with the massive waves of deportations of those with Ukrainian ethnicity, especially prosperous peasant farmers. Ukraine’s cultural, religious and academic leaders faced execution or exile to Siberia, often without food and shelter. The rest of the peasantry were herded into collective farms, and all their property was also “collectivised” for the sake of the Soviet Union. The aim of such measures was to destroy national self-identity and to stop any national aspirations on the part of a people of whom 80 per cent were farmers.

The USSR’s First Five-Year Plan (1928-1932), approved by Stalin, changed the output expected from Ukrainian farmers to unfamiliar crops like sugar beets and cotton, as well as enormous amounts of grain (production quotas were increased by 44 per cent). The situation was exacerbated by poor administration of the plan and the lack of relevant general management, as well as a lack of motivation to work amongst the peasants. Significant amounts of

18

gain remained unharvested, and even when harvested a significant percentage was lost during processing, transportation and storage.

To fulfil the plan and protect the collectivised property of kolkhozes a very strict “Law of Three Spikelets” was adopted in August 1932, and punishment for its violation was execution by shooting or ten years in the gulag (which was, essentially, a slower execution).

So Ukrainian peasants were in need: on the one hand they had to give everything they owned to kolkhoz and to work unpaid there, whilst on the other the kolkhoz did not provide any food supply back to the peasants. Collective farms fed industrial workers in the cities and also provided a substantial amount of gain to be sold abroad, the money used to finance Stalin’s further industrialisation plans.

Another decree of Stalin saw the implementation of a discretionary voucher system – military blockades were erected around villages, preventing the supply of food to that village and the hungry inhabitants from searching for food. Peasants did not have passports and were not permitted to leave the territory where they lived. Brigades of young activists from different regions of the USSR were brought into Ukraine to confiscate hidden gain and all foodstuffs from peasant homes – all for the sake of the “common great country” and its economic plan.

In the winter of 1932-33 people were left without any hope for food. As a result the rural population of the Ukraine was dying of hunger at a rate of 25,000 people a day. By the end a full 25 per cent of the Ukrainian population had perished, half of them children. All that without a single shot being fired. Hundreds of corpses on village streets, people driven across the line into acts of cannibalism… that was a typical picture of Ukraine in early spring 1933. Whilst millions of men, women and children were dying, the Soviet Union was exporting enough grain from Ukraine to feed the entire population.

Although many countries were well informed about the developing Ukrainian catastrophe, Stalin denied to the world that there was any humanitarian crisis in the Ukraine and prevented international aid from entering the country.

Consequences As well as annihilating the peasants, the famine effectively exterminated the Ukraine’s cultural, religious and intellectual elites, who were all considered “enemies of socialism”. In addition to direct losses from awful and unnatural deaths, significant indirect losses accrued from the decrease in the birth rate.

Yet the consequences are much wider than that: the Holodomor has influenced all spheres

of Ukrainian traditional culture and spiritual life. Traditions which existed for centuries, and the natural connexions between generations, were violently severed. This tragedy has deformed the way of life for the rural population, and demoralised the nation still scarred by the repressions engineered by the Soviet government. The Soviets have ruined the very heart of the Ukrainian nation which, as Stalin correctly identified, is its rural population. They provoked ruinous changes to the culture, food habits, familial, religious and artistic traditions, and established in their place new Soviet holidays and ways of raising the next generation which were foreign and not accepted by the population.

Lessons for the world All these facts were kept out of official history until 1991, when the country with a population of 47 million finally won its independence.

There was a strict ban on talking about the Holodomor in the Soviet Union, and fear kept people far from the topic. Only the Ukrainian diasporas across the world started to commemorate this tragedy and talk openly about the genocide of the Ukrainian nation.

Several countries across the world officially consider the Holodomor a genocide. Amongst these are Australia, Andorra, Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Georgia, Ecuador, Estonia, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Slovakia, Spain, the Vatican and the USA. In fact Rafael Lemkin, who coined the word genocide in 1953, defines the Holodomor as “a classical example of genocide, the longest and the widest experiment of russification and destruction of the nation”.

On 23 October 2008 the European Parliament approved a resolution condemning the Holodomor as a “terrible crime against the Ukrainian people and against humanity”. The UNO General Assembly and the PACE also condemned this crime of the communist regime against the Ukrainian nation. Ukraine herself finally acknowledged the Holodomor on the highest level and condemned this crime only in 2006, and special attention was paid to unveiling the archives containing documents and other evidence of the former KGB. Every year on the fourth Saturday of November Ukraine and the whole world commemorate the innocent victims of Holodomor and those who tried to help by sharing their food with peasants. To “light the candle of memory” is the common aim of all commemorative action across the world on that day – for only by understanding and recognising the tragedies of the past can we hope to prevent the genocides of the future.

reports Anaïs Mattez and Guillaume Dos Santos

The harm of automatic wage indexation

In the past few months Belgium has been the intellectual centre of a thrilling discussion about the “automatic wage indexation mechanism”. This issue encompasses more than Belgian specificity, as apparently wage indexation is a big topic that often arises in discussions. But what does this concept refer to?

The scope of the concept is simply defined: the common price level is almost permanently increasing – you only need to think about what you could do with €5 a decade ago and what the same money will buy today. This is due to a well-known phenomenon called inflation. As a consequence of this, under a wage indexation mechanism the government forces companies to adjust the wages of their employees to match the rising cost of living. People’s salaries thus follow the market value of goods, especially for families with revenues close to the base income.

By such measures the government aims to preserve the consumer’s purchase power.

The general idea seems to make sense and partly follows certain logic of social justice.

But, like many concepts in economics the matter is not as simple as it appears. We mean to show by the following arguments that the wage indexation mechanism causes more problems than it provides solutions.

First of all, this mechanism is generally presented as a solution to the inflation problem, as it offsets it by preserving purchasing power. In reality we must be more cautious, for in fact the indexation mechanism actually

Bullseye

accelerates the inflation. A normal firm in a decentralised economy thinks in terms of cost and benefit and always seeks to maximise profits. If salaries are increasing then the firm is allowed to – indeed must – pass on this increase to its customers in order to maintain its profit level. Thus wage-indexation will always see a further rise in the cost of living to offset the increased wage costs in the economy, and we are back to square one.

Worse still, a country could slide into a vicious circle and an inflationary spiral, where inflation is constantly followed by wage indexation which drives prices even higher.

So it appears that wage indexation cannot constitute an adequate cure for inflation.

Second, we may mention the loss of competitiveness induced for firms in countries with wage-indexation. If we think as a firm facing a wage increase, we immediately have two options: either we see reduced profits, or we raise prices. In, as usual, we reject the first option because it represents a clear contradiction of a business’s objectives – not to mention possibly placing the firm in jeopardy during difficult economic times – then the second option is taken.

But prices are not the same in all countries in the single market and across the world.

Due to globalisation we face competition from the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa), where labour costs are lower. All things being equal, we will observe a fall in our sales in proportion with demand elasticity in prices. This induces a fall in production from the country that leads in turn to job losses.

Our third argument concerns the idea behind the indexation paradigm: the desire to preserve consumer’s purchase power. Such a goal seems laudable. However, we can wonder what underpins the supposed right to preserve our purchasing power through law in the face of changing economic circumstances. Increasing state debt, adverse

demographics, and the rise of the BRICS should all serve as a warning that we may well not be able to preserve through law our wage purchasing power indefinitely. In future we will have to restore our competitiveness against our commercial partners and decrease our state debt. In order to face the European problems of the new century it is now obvious that henceforward we shall have to make concessions in terms of purchasing power. The case for wage indexation thus collapses.

However, there is also a consensus in the world of economics about the fact that a certain level of wage indexation needs to be maintained to support consumer demand.

Indeed, an entirely non-compensated inflation could create a negative demand shock, indirectly affect production and then induce job losses. But the amplitude of this indexation must be decided each year and needs to be evaluated as one origin of inflation.

Often the economists estimate that an exogenous cause of inflation must be reflected in wage indexation, although this is subject to debate.

This strengthens the conclusion that the negative effect is not the indexation principle itself, but its automatic nature. We think that an ad hoc indexation mechanism should be promoted in our economic context. At the end of the day, European leaders might like to keep in mind that the most suitable solution is to prevent inflation, thus averting the need for indexation altogether.

This topic is quite sensitive in Europe at the moment, especially in Belgium, where innovation in the design of the indexation system is considered taboo by the labour unions.

However, we should be keen on understanding that our own economic and social model of the state will need to be remodelled in order to face the challenges of globalisation.

We need to use our imaginations and sense of competitiveness to create a new and sustainable model for European economies.

19

reports Andrey Novakov

Young Politicians – The fuel for think-tanks If you check some dictionaries about the meaning of ‘think-tank’ organisations, you’ll most likely see the following description: “A group or institution for intensive research and solving problems, especially in the areas of technology, social or political strategy”. This is true. Sort of.

In real life, think-tanks are something beyond frames and traditions. Actually, they are absolutely opposite. However, they are not new. Many managers in the early Eighties understood that the creation of such brainstorming groups is a very effective approach to solving problems of an economic, political, military or other nature.

According to the “Go to Global Think Tank Rankings” report, produced by the University of Pennsylvania, in today’s world there are exactly 6545 active think-tanks. Most of them are situated in the USA, UK and Western Europe. In recent years there has been a considerable increase in the establishment of such non-governmental entities in Eastern Europe.

In many countries there also exist government think-tanks. They have a degree of independence in the course of their work and often are the main policy maker in a given political sphere. Actually, one of the first think-tanks was the Institute for Defence and Security Studies, established in London in 1831. But there is something that cannot be found in dictionaries and statistics. Even then, a hundred years ago, people who were involved in these organisations were very young.

Bear with me. The youth section of a political party is the major “bank of ideas”, and in the same time they are the people who will implement those ideas after a given period of time. It is not only political parties that op-

20

erate on this basis. Many huge international corporations such as Apple, Google and Shell have groups with the same function and aim: creating tomorrow’s ideas, today.

Many of you are probably asking why all that matters. It matters because people like you, who are reading this magazine and participating in youth organisations such as EDS, are the world’s think-tank fuel. We are too young to remember the World Wars and old enough to be shaped by 9/11, and very soon the time will come when our generation must step up to face mankind’s challenges.

Therefore, youth political organisations and non-government organisations are nothing but a part of the world’s think-tank, mainly because their projects and ideas will one day be implemented by tomorrow’s leaders. The reason for this is because those having the ideas will in years hence be part of the next generation of national and European politicians.

However, think-tanks remain concentrated in the private sector and used by well-developed companies. This indicates that different states and governments (especially in Asia, Africa and Latin America) should encourage the establishment of such structures.

According to recent studies, public administrations often significantly improve their efficiency and cost-optimisation as a result of the work of think-tanks.

But successful and competitive economies

need more creative projects, entrepreneurs and high-growth small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Besides proper policy for encouraging the development and implementation of ideas, a much more entrepreneurial mind set is needed in countries which want to compete successfully on the global economic and political scene. At the same time, most of the government think-tanks in the US are concentrated in the fields of national security and defence. This includes the Institute for National Strategic Studies, the Institute for Homeland Security Studies and the Center for Technology and National Security Policy.

It is important to say that there is an unbreakable link between knowledge-based economies, innovation and think-tanks.

They are interrelated and complementary areas that will determine the future development of nations.

In conclusion, we can say that the challenge of creating a modern social order is taking shape already. The pieces of the puzzle are innovation, knowledge-based economy, business incubators and, last but not least, thinktanks. Traditional technologies and policy approaches increasingly seem to have run their course. Policymakers need new ways of making decision and generating ideas, because if one thing is certain it is that in a rapidly-changing world those who fail to adapt are doomed to fall behind.

reports I’m not just talking about Russia, Ukraine, Serbia, and other places that have a well-known – and well-deserved – reputation for being hotbeds of racism and discrimination. In these countries people of ethnic minorities face daily prejudice and regular violence. Some even lose their lives.

But for this piece, I’m talking about states within the EU; countries we would like to think of as being – dare I say it – ‘civilised’, modern and open-minded. Well guess what? In these countries, people from ethnic minorities face daily prejudice and regular violence. Some even lose their lives.

In many EU member states, particularly those that once lay east of the Iron Curtain, it is still relatively rare to see non-whites, particularly outside the major cities. In most of these countries, racism is still overt and unsubtle, and can also tip over into violence. Poland (alongside Ukraine) was flagged up as major concern ahead of the European Football Championships last summer, with many fan groups warning their non-white supporters to stay home out of fear for their safety.

Think about that: an EU member state in 21st Century Europe. Yet ethnic minorities are afraid to attend football matches for fear of being murdered.

However, the situation in the old west is also troubling. Italy and Greece seem to be relishing

ally a little behind their allies and neighbours.

Fine then, let’s take Germany; in April 2006 a 37-year-old Ethiopian engineer was beaten into a coma in Potsdam.

This is not a one-off: such attacks are increasingly common in the country. Police are making increasing numbers of arrests in connexion with such brutal attacks on Africans and other darkskinned people in Berlin, Wisner and other cities. It is known, particularly to immigrants from Africa, that certain areas in the eastern part of Berlin, such as Marzahn and Hellersdorf, are “no-go” areas where they are certain to be attacked or even killed.

Police statistics show a 19 per cent increase in racist violence by people described as members of the far right. In 2009 there were 958 such acts, up from 776 in 2004.

Even more troubling than the prevalence of racism in 21st Century Europe is the fact that both the authorities and the public seem unwilling to accept the depth of racism in our society. As a result, those who should speak frankly about it are not very eager to do so. The situation is so bad that many Africans who spoke to the press about racism in Germany refused to give their full names for fear of reprisals.

Even in the United Kingdom, probably Europe’s most multi-cultural country, racism rears its ugly head. Notable incidents at football matches involving players and fans abusing other players have received large amounts of publicity reMatt Lewis cently. Former England national team captain John Terry was found guilty by the Football Association of racially abusing Anton Ferdinand, an English mixed-race players, for which he later lost As a disclaimer, I should inform you that this the national captaincy, whilst Liverpool FC’s Luis opinion piece contains some strongly held views; but then this is an issue where such an Saurez received an unprecedented eight match approach is warranted. ban for his racial insult directed at Manchester a return to their rivalry of antiquity, but these United’s black player Patrice Evra. days in place of a desire to dominate the world Saurez’s defence was that the term he used is they compete to bring shame upon themselves. commonplace in his native Uruguay. Well here’s Witness in Greece the dramatic increases in the a newsflash, chum: you’re in Merseyside, not number of racist incidents and the electoral rise Montevideo. of the far right, most obviously in the form of It is heartening to see action taken against Golden Dawn. See how in Italy racist chants are these transgressors, and fans in general rose commonplace at football games, while the fines up in revulsion, but still the fact remains that meted out to rich clubs amount to less than half there was a need for punishment. Over in Spain meanwhile, football is also the backdrop to a footballer’s weekly wage.

But, I hear you say, Italy and Greece have al- racist incident. From national team coaches to ways been a little bit backward; ‘western’ in fans on the terraces, everybody is as it. Monkey Cold War terms but economically and cultur- chants aimed at black players are joined in with

Europe is a racist continent

Bullseye

laughingly by most supporters. These are normal men, women and children, with respectable lives and jobs, out supporting their team and enjoying a bit of casual racism.

Remember when Denmark striker Nicklas Bendtner celebrated a goal by showing off underpants emblazoned with a sponsor’s name? He was fined Đ100,000 for that. Recent fans handed out for fans’ racist chanting include Spain in 2004 (£45,000), Serbia in 2007 (£16,500) and Croatia in 2008 (£10,000).

What do you say to that? Is it appalling, sickening? Does it make you angry, or are you just sat there shrugging your shoulders?

I understand. It’s just the yobs at football matches. The narrow-minded and uneducated. It’s not those like you. It’s not your society. Well, it is. And worse, it’s probably your government as well.

There is not yet any Hungarian legislation that expressly enables the racist or other biased motives of the offender to be taken into account by the courts as an aggravating circumstance when sentencing. Some of their laws are even downright discriminatory. Jobbik, a thoroughly repulsive political party, is the country’s third largest.

In 2009, France forcibly deported 10,000 Roma.

These deportations were widely supported by the populace and political classes alike. I have had conversations with French delegates at EDS who tell me these people are dirty, uneducated criminals who leach from society, contribute nothing and care only for themselves.

I’ll be honest with you; hearing those words from people I considered to be bright, young individuals embodying everything I love about Europe made me shudder.

Racism is not only brutal beatings, offensive chants and mass deportations. Racism can be subtle, disguised; it can come from the mouths of the respectable and the educated. For instance, we often talk about Judaeo-Christian values being the bedrock of EDS. These values are seen by many member organisations as giving a legitimate mandate to suppress certain other member and potential member organisations.

On several occasions in my final year as an EDS delegate, discussion in council meetings left be shell-shocked. Was this the youth of the EPP, or the AENM? Racism in Europe is alive and well. It is nourished and fanned by the indifference of our politicians, by the anonymity of numbers, and the inaction of you and I. We are all to blame, not just those club-wielding thugs or politicians of the extreme fringe. Perhaps you feel I have insulted your country? Your political organisation?

Even you yourself? Good, I meant to.

The scourge of racism on our continent will remain until each and every one of us is too offended to allow it to continue.

21

theme

VISEGRAD 4 EASTERN PARTNERSHIP PROGRAMME Ana Tamási

The Prime Ministers of Visegrad 4 at their summit in Bratislava on June 16 2011 decided to strengthen Visegrad cooperation in the Eastern Partnership (EaP) framework through joint activities and projects within the EaP multilateral dimension. It was agreed to support the establishment of a new programme “Visegrad 4 Eastern Partnership” within the International Visegrad Fund aiming to support one of the EU’s main long-term priority foreign policy, the Eastern Partnership project.

he programme was established in order to support political and socio-economic reforms in the partner countries, facilitating comprehensive approximation towards the European Union, strengthening the regional cooperation among between the Visegrad region and the countries of the Eastern Partnership - Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine – and enhancing institutional capacity and civil society. The aim is to strengthen Visegrad cooperation in the Eastern Partnership framework through joint activities and projects within the EaP multilateral dimension, including by reviewing the objectives and resources of the International Visegrad Fund.

The main aims are facilitating the unique know-how of the Visegrad countries with social and economic transformation, democratization and regional cooperation particularly through the development of civil society and support of cooperation among local governments, universities and individual citizens. The

22

V4EaP programme aims at further strengthening of co-operation among civic societies in both regions, generating synergies with the Eastern Partnership programme, providing support to successful transformation of the countries. The V4 countries share the strong commitment to strengthen the political association and further economic integration of Eastern European partners with the EU as well as to accelerate the process leading to a visa free regime.

Since its launch two years ago the Eastern Partnership has provided an ambitious and forward-looking vehicle to achieve these common goals. Lessons from building civil society in the V4 countries and their inclusion in governance processes are also crucial for the Eastern partners. The partners committed to deep democratic reforms will benefit the most from the Eastern Partnership. In addition, the cooperation with and among neighbours allows those involved to tackle mutual regional challenges in the most effective way, save resourc-

es and enhance mutual trust, with the aim of strengthening the role and activities of the V4 countries within the EaP and individual Eastern partners. It also serves to foster further International Visegrad Found programmemes in the EaP framework. The new V4 EaP programme is starting with flagship projects in the following areas of: Democratisation and Transformation process; Regional co-operation; and Support for civil society.

Providing access to the V4 countries’ experience this new programme with four pillars of the Flagship Projects, Standard Grants, Visegrad University Studies Grants and Scholarship Programme should also contribute to acceleration of political association and further economic integration between the Eastern European partners and European Union.

FLAGSHiP PRoJECTS The aim of the Flagship Projects within the Visegrad 4 Eastern Partnership programme is to support long-term projects of strategic

theme character that significantly contribute to providing access to the unique experience and know-how of the Visegrad Group countries with the processes of democra-tic transformation and integration and with regional cooperation. Flagship Projects support reform processes, political association and economic integration with the EU, strengthen the institutional capacity, contribute to the development of civil society and the overall transformation of the Eastern Partnership countries.

Projects submitted to the Fund must involve grantees and project partners from all four V4 countries, as well as with at least two EaP countries. Annual budget for Flagship Projects is €600,000.

P

STANDARD GRANTS FoR EASTERN PARTNERSHiP (EAP) Similar to the original Standard Grant programme, this programme is suitable for shorter-term (max. 1 year) grant projects of smaller scope (average supported sum is ca. €10,000) that involve the cooperation of at least 2 grantees in the V4 region and 1 in the EaP region. Standard Grants—EaP are similar to the existing Standard Grants programme.

Projects must involve grantees or project part-ners from at least two Visegrad Group countries and at least one country of the Eastern Partnership.

Projects submitted within Standard Grants should aim at supporting the reform processes, political association and economic integration with the EU, strengthening institutional capacity, the development of civil society and transformation of the EaP countries. Projects submit-ted by non-profit and non-governmental organizations, public educational, cultural and research institutions and municipalities or local governments are preferred.

ViSEGRAD UNiVERSiTy STUDiES GRANTS FoR EAP This programme is specifically targeting colleges and universities in the EaP region. The grant is intended as a support for the development, accreditation and launching of university courses or whole degree programmes that deal with specific phenomena related to the V4 countries experience with transformation, democratization, human rights, EU accession, etc. The Visegrad University Studies Grants (VUSG) programme targeting the countries of the Eastern Partnership offers grant funding to projects developing university courses of degree programmes that will be launched at colleges and universities accredited in the EaP countries.

Bullseye

The programme enables these colleges, universities or their legal units (schools, faculties) to apply with proposals for courses or programmes of various academic fields that focus on sharing specific V4 experience with democratization and transformation process, regional cooperation, the EU accession process, etc. The programme or course is expected to secure for each semester of its enrolment at least two or three relevant guest lecturers from two V4 countries.

ViSEGRAD SCHoLARSHiPS FoR EAP The Grant is to promote and support the development and launching of outstanding University courses or degree programmes.

The course shall be a series of lessons or lectures (seminars, etc.) on a particular subject focused on sharing of the Visegrad Group countries’ experience.

EASTERN PARTNERSHiP wiTHiN THE V4 PRESiDENCy PRoGRAMMES Both the current Polish Presidency (20122013) and the upcoming Hungarian Presidency (2013-2014) handling the V4 EaP Programme as a priority policy of Visegrad 4. One of the top priorities of Poland’s V4 Presidency is to further promote and enhance V4 cooperation to cover tasks and projects which support the development and implementation of the Eastern Partnership. The Presidency is planning to broaden the V4+EaP cooperation formats to include sectoral meetings on selected issues and to enlarge, in line with accepted practices, the number of participants by inviting other EU countries which have an interest in EaP development. The Hungarian Presidency also will give top priority to the new EaP Programme, namely to maintain the political dialogue in order to encourage the democracy building process and the structural reforms in order to help the EaP countries to come closer to the European practice.

The most important elements of the EaP V4 dialogue are the followings: • democratic governance and stability, legislative reform • mobility and visa liberalization • cross border cooperation, regional development • economic integration, financial cooperation • relations building between civil society and citizens The next meeting concerning the Visegrad 4 Eastern Partnership Programme will be held 17. 05. 2013 in Cracow, Wieliczka where the Ministers of Foreign Affairs in the V4 + EaP format will discuss the future initiatives and measures of the Programme.

23

theme Dimitar Keranov

INTERVIEW

Jacob Schrot

Jacob Schrot is the founder of the Initiative of Young Trans-Atlantics (Initiative junger Transatlantiker), who aim to foster a stronger level of cooperation between Germany and the U.S. tell us a little bit about yourself.

I was born in 1990 in the German Democratic Republic, which was neither democratic nor a republic. I always had a special relationship to America: Without the United States, my grandparents would not have been freed from the terror of National Socialism, nor would they have survived the period of economic depression after World War II. When my parents were celebrating the German Day of Unity, after having lived in the GDR under both political and personal oppression, they knew that without the support of George H.W. Bush and his administration they would not have been able to clasp their beloved family members from West Germany in their arms once more. Transatlantic relations is nothing abstract, it is a partnership that affects people‘s everyday life.

How did you come to tHe idea of creating tHis organiZation?

There was a lack for an organization which focuses on the future of the transatlantic partnership. In Germany, we usually talk about the “good old times” and are afraid of the so called “U.S.-Pivot to Asia”. We need to show that this partnership is not an exclusive matter of the Cold War period. It is about the future. The Initiative of Young Trans-Atlantics promotes a closer and more intensified cooperation between the United States of America and Germany – on the societal, cultural, and political level. Members of the initiative vehemently oppose all kind of anti-American views and strongly support the common values of the transatlantic relation. Young people encourage other young people to work for a closer transatlantic partnership – this is the DNA of our initiative. wHat is iyt all about? wHat

24

public actiVities do you organiZe? Or initiative comes out of the heart of society – young people who campaign for a better American-German understanding in our generation. With projects as for example our essay competition about Obama´s time in office, a panel discussion with Minister of Defense, Thomas de Maizière, on the topic “Does Germany need a Veterans Day like the U.S.? ” and an event commemorating the victims of 9/11 in front of the Brandenburger Tor, we show solidarity of our two countries.

Recently, we launched our essay competition “Transatlantic Heroes” which deals with the influence of Germans in America and Americans in Germany. We want to remember those who have fostered the transatlantic relations in an extraordinary way. At the same time, we focus our efforts on the future of this unique partnership. The German Chancellor Willy Brandt once said: “Let the memory of the past become our mission for the future” - and that‘s it.

How would you assess tHe german-american relations? wHat is tHe neXt step? wHat could be done in order to strengtHen our cooperation witH tHe usa?

All in all, the discussion about the future of the transatlantic partnership lacks a sense of proportion. The “Rise of China” and the relative gain of regional power of the BRIC’s have become a thought-terminating cliché, which obscures the potential for a deepened and expanded transatlantic partnership. Reorganizing NATO according to the 2012 Chicago Summit, creating a transatlantic free trade zone, remembering the historical connections which have lasted for centuries and overcoming national egoism are the right answers to the global shift towards multipolarity. Transatlantic relations are not important despite of new powers on the world stage, but important because of new powers on the world stage.

Nevertheless, strengthening transatlantic cooperation requires a clear definition of priorities, focal points and the term itself.

Sharing values alone will not guarantee an enduring partnership - a common approach to a policy agenda that secures peace, prosperity and security, will. We will participate in the great effort to move the people on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean closer together. In the end, the people define what the partnership should look like.

For more information, visit the organization’s website: http://junge-transatlantiker.de/

theme this Treaty, there would be no European unity”, he said, in French.

What does the Treaty have to do with us, young people of today? In our eyes the Treaty is of remarkable importance, considering that it was the first time that the youth was taken into account as builder of the two nations’ future. The European Economic Community already existed since 1957, but that union crucially lacked both vision and humanity. We were eager for friendship, the subtle but vital ingredient that would make the concept of the Union come true. Moreover, these elder statemen knew how they had to trust Anaïs Mattez in youth. That faith gave Europe the confidence to move forward in better comprehension and integration.

We kept on walking on their path: crossing Turning enemies into friends and turning the youth into the future. This was the purpose of the Elysée Treaty borders and growing signed fifty years ago. True European friendship, across borders and wartime memories, came from two together in a stronger great statesmen: Konrad Adenauer and Charles de Gaulle. When France and Germany got together to sign Union. Indeed, we have the Treaty the 22nd January 1963, they could have had no idea its concept would work so well and survive seen the emergence of through many generations to be the Erasmus program, which is one perfect example of a European success story: close ny’s economy was barely recovering from to 3 million students have participated financing two of the deadliest wars in the since it was initiated in 1987. Now, the history and from the scandalous and pu- annual budget exceeds 450 million euro nitive damages the Allies had demanded and more than 4,000 higher education inas reparation. The two men seemed to stitutions in 33 countries participate, and have nothing in common at first. But more are willing to join.

Konrad Adenauer was the uncontested The enthusiasm also contaminated the master in Germany. He managed to bring Lisbon Treaty. Since 1993, the Treaty democracy in the new Federal Republic, establishing the European Community which witnesses an amazing economic includes a provision on youth that established the basis for youth policy. The new growth.

He had also been the enemy of Nazism and extended article 165 TFUE declares since its very beginning and is the man that the EU action shall be aimed at who had never lost his faith in Christian “encouraging the development of youth democracy. This remarkability forced the exchanges and of exchanges of sociorespect of Charles de Gaulle. He called educational instructors, and encouraghim a Homme d’État, which was the best ing the participation of young people qualifying name he could ever match to a in democratic life in Europe”. This legal structure is the key proof that multilinpolitician he esteemed.

The Treaty marked the renunciation of gualism, culture exchange and young several attempts to réciproque domina- public investment are the milestones of tion. Frenchmen and Germans trusted European prosperity. each other to move on from old rancour. While politicians were acting, they had no The Treaty was later called the “Friend- idea they were making history. De Gaulle ship Treaty”, an undeniable sign that the and Adenauer’s dream transcended their work at the Elysée was a franc success. lifetime and became one they share with Adenauer would later express these very us: our generation of dynamic youngsters hopes at a press conference: “Without and hopefully, many to come.

“I congratulate you, young people of Germany, you are the children of a great people”, said Charles de Gaulle to a public of thousands of young Germans in Berlin in 1962. The general had the most inspiring speech, one that marked the beginning of an extraordinary reconciliation.

It was quite revolutionary at the time for the great General to admit the eastern side of the Rhine as equal to the West in culture and language.

Nor is the date random or inconsequential. Remember that in the 1950s Germa-

Cross-border cooperation and youth opportunities

Bullseye

25

theme Miroslav Jurčišin

INTERVIEW

Miroslav Hajnoš Mr. Miroslav Hajnoš has become a symbol of an active proEuropean approach to education and the student worlds that overlap in many European countries. For a long time he has served as president of Erasmus Student Network in Slovakia.

He was also a member of the Student Council for Higher Education Slovak Republic, part of the European Student Union and Member of the Council for Erasmus Programme in Slovak Academic Association for International Cooperation. Right now he is working as a volunteer in Las Palmas de Gran Canaria. On his website (www.hajnos.eu) he brings daily news related to the lives of young Europeans, their attitudes, opinions on current European issues.

How did you come to do wHat you do now?

When I started my university I also joined a university senate, because I wanted to improve student rights at my university; and I still think that it is obligatory for students to fight for their rights. After my Erasmus exchange programme I have levelled up and established an ESN section at my university, to care about international students, organize events, seminars, projects and to start representing my university in National Union Of course, when I was more active I saw more problems that I wanted to change and improve. This is the reason why I candidated [sic] for the position of president at ESN Slovakia in 2011. During more than 2 years of my presidency I have attended many conferences, seminars and participated in many projects. It was nice time, I had to work hard, but I also enjoyed it, because I did something important not only for me but also for the student society. Now, after my studies, I still continue with active work, I have established a new project European Dialogue of Perspective Attitude.

How many countries HaVe you Visited during your actiVe work?

Many countries, I remember that for example during April 2012 I had almost 10 flights and each week I was in different country.

I t was really interesting, but also amazing time. it Has been written about proposal erasmus for all. can you tell us sometHing about it?

At the moment, a budget for years 2007-2013 is finishing. The European

26

Commission is preparing new proposal for years 2014 – 2020. One of proposals which has been discussed for last couple of months is called “Erasmus for all”. The European Commission focused on entire re-formation of all current educational programmes structure, without reference to specific group of people. It should unite all educational programmes such as Erasmus, Leonardo, Grundtvig; together with non-formal education such as Youth in Action and European Voluntary Service.

However, the Committee for Education in the European Parliament has different opinion on the new proposal. One of them is inadequate name of the new proposal. For them, it would be more appropriate to name the proposal “YES Europe”, by means of “Youth, Education and Sport Europe.” There is also disagreement about integration of formal and non-formal education.

some people tHink tHat studying abroad is all about HaVing fun. wHat do you tHink?

I disagree with this statement, because everything depends on a student. If one really wants to learn something new during exchange studies or not.

How do you motivate people who hesitate to study abroad?

Why is it important to go abroad? Firstly, it will open your mind! It has language, cultural and educational benefits for you from the European area also called “best practises”. What is important here is that you gain specific skills as well as good qualification during your studies. During your study abroad you will study on various interesting fields, you will meet people from different side of Europe and you will gain experiences for your future career. Therefore, if you are interested in acquiring all of these experiences, do not hesitate, go for it! introduce to us your proJect european dialogue, wHicH led you to it.

During my studies I have attended a range variety of educational exchanges, conferences, seminars, I know a great many people, I have learned a lot from them and I have found that every single person gives me a motivation and energy for life. And I would like the motivation to be moved on, I would like my friends, students, and citizens to be active, so that together we can built a European company, which will be built on the pillars of solidarity, democracy and understanding. European Dialogue prospective attitude is an informal forum for the purpose of developing and promoting a European identity in the present, when the European Union is going through a difficult time.

eVents Anna Tamási

EDS meets in Slovakia “Living Together in Diverse Societies - A Youth Approach to the Intercultural Dialogue with the Roma Minority.”

Between the 4 and 9 of December EDS gathered in Trnava, Slovakia for a seminar organized by its full member, Občianskodemokratická mládež (ODM) and supported by the Council of Europe under the title “Living Together in Diverse Societies - A Youth Approach to the Intercultural Dialogue with the Roma Minority”. The second event of EDS’ working year was dedicated to one of todays’ Europe’s most important and relevant issues, namely Roma integration. The aim of the event was to learn

Bullseye

more about Roma people, their living conditions, traditions, history and situation in Europe thus helping mutual understanding and also fostering the integration process of the Roma minority.

In order to create a proper base for the work during the week the participants started the event with an opening session on the history of Roma people, since the understanding of the situation of Roma people can’t be complete without fully understanding their background. Another important component for the successful work of the delegates was the discussion of the meaning of the three key terms of stereotype, prejudice and discrimination. These introductory parts were followed by a group sessions which was aiming to answer the questions:“What do we know of the Roma minority – prejudices vs. facts?”Finding out about the prejudices living in us and facing them served asa good start on which next activities could build upon.

Before looking at the wider picture the participants first learned about the Roma situation in Slovakia. The speaker of the panel was MU Dr. PéterHunčik, a psychiatric professional in national cohabitation and former advisor of President Havel. Dr Hunčik has been involved for a long time in training people to overcome ethnic tension. In his opinion ethnic tension is caused by a lack of information about the other ethnical group on both sides. Therefore training was cre-

ated in which he trained certain ethnic groups to create self-knowledge, to learn to communicate thus they can integrate better to the mainstream society. Mr Hunčik’s speech raised many questions and many EDS delegates talked about their experience with Roma minority in their countries, presented the current policies and proposed some possible solutions.

The delegates had the opportunity to see a success story which was presented as a short video presentation. The short film showed how Roma teenagers were involved in the project Youth in Action, but after several years of participation they were left without a possibility to participate again. This was done in order to help them to find their potential inside and understand that they are capable enough to make their own projects. Those young people managed to start initiatives of their first exchange project. The stories of Romani who are advanced in the process of integration were instrumental by understanding that these policies of European institutions and organisations are working. The story was also useful by understanding the situation and potential of Roma people in European society.

At the end of the week a joint session of all participants was held where they shared their new experiences and ideas gained during the event and with their amendments they formed the conference resolution under the title “United in Diversity – A Youth Contribution to the Policy of Integration of the Roma Minority”. The conference resolution underlined the relevance of the topic in today’s Europe, and the importance of Roma integration and as a student EDS also highlighted the value of education within the integration process. The conference resolution was presented at the formal session of the Council of EDS, where the Council unanimously adopted the resolution.

The event was closed with the meeting with Mr Euduard Kukan MEP, former Minister of Foreign Affairs of Slovakia, who shared his thoughts and experiences about the Roma integration.

Mr Kukan underlined how European institutions and EU countries have a joint responsibility to improve the social inclusion and integration of Roma by using all the respective instruments and policies for which they are responsible. In many Member States, Roma represent a significant and growing proportion of the school age population and future workers, thus Mr Kukan underlined the importance of education within the integration process: “It is therefore of crucial importance to invest in the education of Roma children to allow them to successfully enter the labour market.” Access to education is one of the four crucial areas for Roma integration in the context of the Europe 2020 strategy..

27

uniVersities

The University of Burgundy AmĂŠlie Pommier

Burgundy is internationally known for its gastronomy and wine. This climate attracts many tourists but also many students from across France and abroad. The University of Burgundy, founded in 1722, is startnig to establish itself in France and in Europe.

The recent reforms made under Sarkozy by minister of higher education and research ValĂŠrie PĂŠcresse showed results in this French university. The reforms provided the power to build a new future, especially regarding the effectiveness of the university budget.

28

The University of Burgundy counts 27,000 students across all the different branches in Dijon and five other cities in Burgundy, including 3100 international students. The university is divided into 10 faculties, 3 engineering schools, 3 technical institutes and 10 schools and institutes.

uniVersities

AN AMERiCAN-STyLE CAMPUS The main site of the university is the capital of Burgundy, Dijon. The university complex there is often compared to an American campus on a French model, which might mean smaller.

Indeed the campus is not in the city centre itself and lies on a vast area further out. This provides a very good quality of life to students. Courses are delivered in the same area with a very large library and different specialised libraries and many student halls stand in this very green campus. The university main campus offers everything needed by students and can easily be reached by public transportation or car.

EXCELLENCE FoR ANyoNE The University of Burgundy developed new branches for vocational studies in order to offer more to those students who do not pursue academic studies. This is how a Training Centre in Higher Education was opened. These centres did not propose any programme after baccalaureate. Noting the need for such programmes for students who want to transfer to vocational studies, the CFA du Supérieur de Bourgogne was created, and has been a real success. From 2008k, when it was opened, to today the number of students has been multiplied by three. It also shows that for many students it is important to study and practice at the same time.

Every year more vocational degrees – mostly Bachelor degrees – are created to train students to new fields and skills. The demand for part-time degrees with training continues to increase. Students trust these degrees more as they afford the chance to practice and have better chances to get a job afterwards.

The University of Burgundy is also involved in lifelong learning programmes, and offers many academic classes for anyone who which to attend into the so-called “University for all”.

Bullseye

AN iNTERNATioNAL ViSioN In order to attract more international students and to provide more opportunities to its own students the University of Burgundy has developed different European and international programmes. The university cares for students to have opportunities to go abroad for studying, doing research or doing an internship. Of course Erasmus is an important tool but the University of Burgundy developed very interesting programmes. This is how a Research Master’s degree in Computer Vision and Robotics was launched with the Herriot Watt University (Edinburgh, United Kingdom) and the University of Girona (Spain).

Of course one of the institutes in the university which attracts international students a lot is the one specialised in grape cultivation and wine production. The university institute which delivers courses on this field is internationally recognised.

The University of Burgundy has developed a special curriculum with the University of Mainz (Germany). Students from both universities have the opportunity to study at both universities in most taught programmes. The important aspect of this programme is that when they complete their diploma they get both German and French university diplomas. This successful programme was even extended to a third diploma possibility with the University of Bologna (Italy) or a university in Quebec (Canada). So in a three years Bachelor’s degree a student has the possibility to study in three different countries and to get his bachelor’s degree in these three universities. This can also be applied to some master’s degrees.

The University of Burgundy offers also many French classes for international students to learn or improve their skills in French. Tutoring is provided as well as long as needed. iNCREASiNG THE iMPoRTANCE oF RESEARCH

For competing on a higher level and increasing the quality of researches and the needs or researchers the University of Burgundy merged with the University of Franche Comté (neighbouring region to the east) into a PRES (Poles of Research and Higher Education). The creation of PRES was also due to Pécresse’s policies and gave the opportunity to universities to merge some activities and means.

PRES were created to make French universities more important on a European and global level, to provide them with more means for success and make them more recognized.

The laboratories get more funds that way and increase the quantity and the quality of their research. Indeed as research material is more and more expensive such organization is more efficient for researchers and research in general. Research on cancer and inflammatory diseases treatments, as well as on microand nanotechnologies make the University of Burgundy’s research well recognised on the European and international levels.

EXCELLENCE iN SPoRTS The University of Burgundy has been distinguished for the environment it provides to professional, semi-professional and future professional sportsmen. Each Olympic Games show university students or former students in the race. The sports activities for handicapped people are also highly developed.

NEw DiPLoMAS To BECoME A TEACHER Learning how to become a teacher in France was not done by the universities but by special schools called IUFM. These IUFM were highly criticized for their costly organisation and a lack of results for the future teachers and the IUFM students. the training was provided after any bachelor degree and was two years long.

For secondary school teachers no training or course was offered after the bachelor degree.

It was decided under Sarkozy presidency that these schools would be closed and these courses become master degrees delivered by universities for both primary and secondary schools teachers. This was also to adapt the system to most European countries. Professors have not really changed but courses and practice have improved. The level of the courses provided to students is higher than the one given by the former IUFM. This is still a new challenge for French universities to provide good education to future teachers and especially adapt the courses to the reality of teaching in 21st century France.

The University of Burgundy exploit the benefits of its geographical position in Europe for its future development.

29

CounCil of europe Amélie Pommier

The Council of Europe trust young Europeans The Council of Europe is one of the organisations which have involved young people the most, and have done so for a long time now. Indeed the Council of Europe founded the European Youth Centre in Strasbourg and the European Youth Foundation in 1972. They celebrated last year the 40th anniversary of this achievement. In between another Youth Centre was opened in Budapest. The Council of Europe is one of the organisations which have involved young people the most, and have done so for a long time now. Indeed the Council of Europe founded the European Youth Centre in Strasbourg and the European Youth Foundation in 1972. They celebrated last year the 40th anniversary of this achievement. In between another Youth Centre was opened in Budapest.

An important aspect of the Council of Europe’s policies towards young people is that they are mainly made and decided by young people themselves. That is why the Council of Europe can appear as a pioneer in the question of youth involvement. It is the only organisation in the world which gives as much importance to young people as governments representatives in the decision making process.

Young Europeans are heard through different youth organisations (all NGOs) and constitute the Advisory Council of Youth. Ministries in charge of youth questions formed the European Steering Committee for Youth. Both the Council

and the Committee meet in the Joint Council on Youth to discuss youth issues in Europe and take decisions.

One of the main objectives for the Council of Europe is that young Europeans know about human rights, democracy, and freedom and integrate these European values. The Council of Europe has also a role in promoting the importance of education and make sure that young people can have access to it.

The Council of Europe clearly maintain a list of priorities towards young European. The first group concerns human rights and democracy.

This is important to educate young people about human rights, to make them participating to the society especially by using their right to vote. Gender equality is also an important point to be told in order to prevent any kind

of discrimination and violence. Environment became an important point as well towards sustainable development. Young people need to have access to any information and advice they would need.

To integrate young people into the European community it is important to promote the cultural diversity which has always been shaping Europe and to make it understandable. Of course fighting against racism or discrimination is crucial but building respect, peace and solidarity is the proper goal for the Council of Europe. Integration also needs a good social cohesion. That is why it is important to promote education and help young people to access to the world of work believing that this is crucial for youth well-being, autonomy and integration.

These are all the priorities the Council of Europe listed for his actions towards young people.

Over the past forty years the Council of Europe launched different campaigns like one against racism, xenophobia and intolerance and one towards young Roma for them to act against their issues.

To make these priorities become true the Council of Europe provides books on education to human rights and gender issue and different events. The most important activity towards young people is to support youth European organisations events when they come to talk and educate their public about the Council of Europe fixed priorities for youth. For that the Council of Europe allows a large budget for these discussions and provides specialists to talk about these topics. EDS often has events organised together with the Council of Europe and focussed on these issues. The last event was the second Council Meeting of the year 2012-2013 hold in Trnava, Slovakia. This event was on the issue cultural diversity and was named “Living together in diverse societies: a youth approach to the intercultural dialogue with the Roma minority”. European Youth Foundation was founded in 1972 to finance activities such as these.

EDUCATioN iS A KEy Education is of course seen as a key to European integration and to Europeans internalising European values. The Council of Europe, together with young people, recognised the importance of recognising non-formal education and to promote the importance of quality in education and non-formal education. To achieve its goals the Council of Europe provides trainings to those who want to act in these directions.

To have more detailed information about this long process towards European youth you can read the following Council of Europe publication : The Council of Europe and Youth: Thirty Years’ Experience (2002).

30

Bureau

Amélie Pommier

EDS Bureau 2012-2013

EDS has elected a new bureau for this year during the last Summer University held in Sopron, Hungary. Avram CRISAN has been elected during the first EDS Council Meeting of the year on the 19th of October in Bucharest, Romania.

Juraj ANTAL (ODM Slovakia) achieves a second mandate as EDS Chairman. He leads the whole team and represents EDS in most events EDS is invited. His activities are mainly to make EDS more known on the European level and to keep connections with organisations and decision makers. He also looks for more support to EDS in order to push forwards EDS adopted policies.

Ann-Sofie PAUWELYN (CDS Belgium) is EDS SecretaryGeneral. She assists the Chairman and the whole Bureau in the day-to-day work. She is the main contact to all EDS organisations and assure the good process of EDS activities. She also represents EDS in many meetings held in Brussels.

Stelios GEORGIOU (FPK Protoporia Cyprus) is in charge of statutory questions and fundraising. Besides he is responsible for helping the three different working groups in their activities, providing them with training and support when needed.

Ingrid HOPP (HSF Norway) was already Vice-chairman last year and is responsible for communications and external relations. She communicates daily on EDS actions and views, in particular through the social medias. She develops new ways to communicate EDS actions and policies.

Moreover she leads the Higher Education and Research year project for the 2014 European elections.

Eva MAJEWSKI (RCDS Germany) is responsible for membership questions and external representation. She has been represented EDS in many events.

Moreover she takes part of the EDS policy work together with Andrey NOVAKOV to write notes on higher education and research questions.

Amélie POMMIER (UNIMET France) works on the campaigns and promotion of EDS. Besides she is in charge of EDS publications, which comprise mostly of BullsEye magazine and EDS monthly newsletter.

She will also develop other sort of publication for EDS and participate to the elaboration of the 2014 Higher Education and Research programme together with Ingrid HOPP and Andrey NOVAKOV.

Gintarė NARKEVICIUTE (JKL Lithuania) is another experienced bureau member. This year she is building the programme of EDS work and is responsible to set down EDS long term strategies.

Andrey NOVAKOV (MGERB Bulgaria) is in charge of output and input strategies. He makes the policy work stronger through increased research activity.

For that matter he organises EDS research activity with EDS Research officer Balint BALOGH. He is also responsible for all EDS Conference resolutions and take part of the 2014 Higher Education and Research project.

Anna TAMASI (Fidesz Hungary) supervises all EDS events this year. She helps the local organisers and is responsible for raising the standards of events. She also has the responsibility for EDS alumni in order to maintain good links with part members who will always be our representatives.

Avram CRISAN (OTPD-L Romania) is EDS Vice-chairman.

He was assisting the policy team as Policy Director and will carry on that way. He is now also responsible for designing EDS newsletter.

Anna MASNA (USA Ukraine) is EDS Director in charge of European integration and helps EDS to get in touch with other organisations.

Dace SPELMANE is Deputy Secretary General for her second year. She is EDS’ only employee, based in Brussels. She assists the Bureau in its day-to-day management.

Bullseye

31

BullsEye