BullsEye No. 71 Europe and young leaders of local communities by EDS European Democrat Students

The magazine of European Democrat Students

EUROPE AND YOUNG LEADERS OF LOCAL COMMUNITIES. POLAND & ARTICLE 7 ITALIAN ELECTIONS JUSTICE IN ROMANIA FRANCE & MACRON TWITTER PREFERENTIAL VOTING

4 6 7 8 10 11

LOCAL LEADERS BRAIN DRAIN AUSTRALIA EU & OCEANIA ERHARD BUSEK ROLE OF CITIES

12 14 16 18 20 22

SEXISM MILITARY SCHENGEN RÓŻA THUN EU AFRICAN STRATEGY ELVES VS TROLLS ACADEMIA & BREXIT

23 24 25 26 28 29

No. 71 | February 2018 | 56th Year | ISSN 2033-7809

Dear readers, I am pleased to introduce you to Issue No. 71 of BullsEye, to be published at the Winter University of our organisation, which will take place from 21 to 25 February in Krakow, Poland. As it is the first issue of 2018, let me wish you, on behalf of the whole Editorial Team, a Happy New Year, full of joy, success and luck. « C’était un temps déraisonnable », That was an unreasonable time, wrote Louis Aragon in his poem « Est-ce ainsi que les hommes vivent », based on his experience as a stretcher-bearer during the First World War. While we will commemorate the centenary of the end of the conflict this year, we can still use Aragon’s expression to describe many aspects of the politics of our Continent. Indeed, our political regimes, institutions and ways of life are continuously being challenged from inside and outside the European Union. We tried to cover some of those aspects in the present issue. With regard to internal challenges, our Secretary General, Tomasz Kaniecki will comment on the activation of the infamous EU “nuclear option”, also known as the Article 7 of the Treaty on the European Union, against Poland. Moreover, as we will be welcomed in Krakow, we are delighted to host an interview of Róża Thun, MEP. At the same time, Vice-Chairman Robert Kiss will present us the latest developments on the much-decried judicial reform in Romania. Shifting on the western side of the EU, we will have news from France and Italy. If the former, led by Emmanuel Macron, appears to be back in the arena, the latter is entering a period of uncertainty as voters are called to the polls and no single party looks able to secure a majority. The same uncertainty continues to prevail on Brexit and the impact it will have on students, as Kristina Olausson will tell us. We will try to remain optimist by having a look to the latest developments in the field of the Common Security and Defence Policy. On the external side, we are delighted to host an interview with the former Austrian Vice-Chancellor, Erhard Busek, made by Pavlina Pavlova. He will share with us some thoughts on Russia, complemented by an article by Teodoras Žukas on Russian fake news. Looking South, Mattia Caniglia will come back on the EU-Africa Summit. Leaving our closest neighbours, we will conclude our Series Europe and the World in the Antipodes. This region may look very remote but it is still important for the EU to maintain good relations and cooperate with like-minded countries such as Australia and New Zealand. We still do need to take into account the objective differences between the European and Oceanian contexts, especially when it comes to managing migration flows. Last but not least, we have provided some food for thought on the Winter University theme, “Europe & Young Leaders of Local Communities”, thanks to Sabine Hanger, Sarah Wolpers, Maciej Kmita and Neil Smart Costantino. As young leaders should build the future on past and present experiences, we are happy to welcome Mr. Jan Vapaavuori, Mayor of Helsinki in our pages. We hope that these inputs will help our members present in Krakow in preparing and developing EDS’ positions on the topic.

Julien Sassel BullsEye Editor-in-Chief

EDITOR-IN-CHIEF: Julien Sassel EDITORIAL TEAM: Mattia Caniglia, Sabine Hanger, Ramy Jabbour, Vladimir Kljajić, Maciej Kmita, Kristina Olausson, Neil Smart Costantino, Sarah Wolpers, Teodoras Žukas CONTRIBUTIONS: Tomasz Kaniecki, Francesco Sismondini, Robert Kiss, Olivier Roisin, James Carey, Pavlina Pavlova, Jan Vapaavuori, Sara Juriks, Miriam Peters.

CURRENT AFFAIRS 4

NUCLEAR OPTION FOR POLAND – THE ACTIVATION OF ARTICLE 7 TEU

THE CALM BEFORE THE STORM – THE ITALIAN ELECTIONS

THE REFORM OF JUSTICE IN ROMANIA

ONE YEAR AFTER – FRANCE AND MACRON THEME

THEME 10

TWITTER AND THE MARKETPLACE – WHERE TO ENGAGE LOCAL ELECTORS IN 2018?

11 HOW THE PREFERENTIAL VOTE SYSTEM BENEFITS YOUNG LEADERS IN LOCAL COMMUNITIES 12

LOCAL LEADERS BEFORE LOCAL POLITICIANS – SERVING THE COMMUNITY IN NON-POLITICAL WAYS

THE BRAIN DRAIN – URBANISED STUDENTS AND THEIR HOMETOWNS

SERIES - EUROPE AND THE WORLD 16

AUSTRALIAN OFFSHORE POLICIES: ANYTHING BUT CLEAR SAILING FOR EU ADOPTION

BRINGING TOGETHER THE ANTIPODES – WHAT PARTNERSHIP FOR THE EU WITH OCEANIAN COUNTRIES?

BE ON 20 INTERVIEW WITH ERHARD BUSEK 22 THE ROLE OF CITIES IN TODAY’S WORLD 23 “HELL HATH NO FURY LIKE A WOMAN WITH A TWITTER ACCOUNT” AND OTHER REFLECTIONS ON SEXISM 24 NATO, EUROPEAN DEFENCE AND THE ‘MILITARY SCHENGEN’ 25 INTERVIEW WITH RÓŻA THUN 26 10 YEARS EU AFRICAN STRATEGY & THE EU-AFRICAN SUMMIT 28 ELVES VERSUS TROLLS: LITHUANIA’S STRUGGLE FOR TRUTH IN PUTIN’S HYBRID WARFARE UNIVERSITIES 29 “BRITAIN HAS HAD ENOUGH OF EXPERTS” – ACADEMIA AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF BREXIT

I wish you a pleasant reading,

ISSN: Print: 2033-7809 Online: 2033-7817

CONTENTS:

30 BULLSEYE EDITORIAL TEAM 31 BUREAU

PHOTOS: Àkos Kaiser, Łukasz Kobus, private archive of Erhard Busek, Unsplash, Pixabay DESIGN: Markus Konow PUBLISHER: European Democrat Students, B-1000 Brussels, Rue du Commerce 10 TEL: +(32) 228 541 50 FAX: +(32) 228 541 41 EMAIL: students@epp.org WEBSITE: www.edsnet.eu Articles and opinions published in the magazine do not necessarily reflecting the positions of EDS, the EDS Bureau or the Editorial team.

Publication supported by the Erasmus + Programme of the European Union and European Youth Foundation of the Council of Europe. The European Commission support for the production of this publication does not constitute an endorsment of the contents which reflects the views only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.

Welcome to the third edition of BullsEye, the official debating magazine of the European Democrat Students, the largest student organisation of the centre-right for the working year 2017/2018. The newsmagazine originates from the Taurus magazine of the seventies and in the mid-nineties changes its name in BullsEye, since when it has been regularly published. BullsEye aims is to provide news and reflections on European and global politics, giving a voice to those who fight to defend the values of freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law. As a student organisation news magazine, BullsEye always had a particular focus on the topic of education and universities, as well as international organisations in which EDS takes part, such as the European People’s Party, the Council of Europe, the European Youth Forum, the Robert Schuman Institute. After our Council Meeting in Skopje of last December, EDS has been engaged on many fronts in defense of our values, carrying forward our policies, raising the flag of EDS that this year accomplishes its “first” sixty-seven years.

CHAIRMAN’S LETTER

Dear friends, principle of the rule of law, then with the European Commissioner for education Tibor Navracsics talking about the future of young people in Europe. Up to Strasbourg, wherein the Council of Europe EDS supports the democratic process of our continent together with the almost 300 NGOs that sit at the same table, our presence is strong and strengthens more and more.

This beginning of 2018 also meant for us two things: Firstly, welcoming two new Vice-Chairmen, Mihaela Radu and Gergely Losonci, who in Vienna attended their first Bureau Meeting. Secondly, having our Honorary Chairman Giorgos Chatzigeorgiou, composing the Advisory Council on Youth of the Council of Europe. For now, please enjoy reading the new issue of BullsEye and keep in mind that the EDS Bureau is always interested in receiving feedback, hearing your ideas, and discovering more ways to serve students across Europe, proudly. With my best regards,

From the elections in Catalonia affirming the

Virgilio Falco Chairman of European Democrat Students

The official magazine of European Democrat Students

GERMAN ELECTIONS

Nuclear Option for Poland –The Activation of Article 7 TEU Without concessions over the judiciary, it will be difficult for the new government to improve Poland’s relations with the EU and its image abroad. Surprisingly, Poland is not the only country in the region that has problems with the rule of law in the EU, but it is the only one that has allowed the conflict to get to a stage where EC launched the sanctions procedure. On 20 December 2017, the European Commission opened the treaty sanctions procedure and requested the EU Council to look into the rule of law in Poland. It is worth reminding, that it was Victor Orbán’s (EPP) government, who prompted EC to establish the rule of law procedure (but Hungary has not been subject to it so far). The decision was made after over two years of monitoring the rule of law in Poland and trying to influence the decisions taken by Warsaw about the Constitutional Tribunal and the judiciary. The Commission’s decision was motivated by the law on the Supreme Court (SN) and the National Ju-

diciary Council (KRS) adopted in December, which subjugated the judiciary to the executive power. The legislation on SN also calls up a separate disciplinary chamber within the Court and unconstitutionally retires up to a half its judges, including the Court’s first president. Poland is the first country against which the sanctions procedure has been launched. The decision was made in PM Mateusz Morawiecki’s second week in office and several days after his first visit in Brussels, where he met Jean-Claude Juncker and Frans Timmermans. The new PM has already ruled out that Poland would abandon the judiciary laws. Nonetheless, he will definitely sooth the moods and change rhetoric to defend the changes. Morawiecki has already changed the method of communication with the EU partners. Unlike Beata Szydło, he does not cut short conversations about the rule of law, and instead of making stern declarations on sovereignty and every country’s right to inter-

nal reforms, he explains why PiS views the changes to the judiciary as “necessary”. That is being helped by his personal qualities, relative knowledge of foreign languages and experience in dealing with foreign partners. His hands, however, remain tied by the governing party. Despite the change of the PM and following dismissal of the ministers responsible for the harsh statements (the Minister of Defence, who had conflicts with France and Germany; the Minister of Environment, who had conflicts with Brussels over tree logging in Białowieża forest; the Minister of Health, who had conflicts with doctors and the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who had conflicts with Brussels, Germany, Ukraine and so on) the real centre of power remained in the hands of the party leader and average MP, Jarosław Kaczyński. Morawiecki is his trusted choice. Mateusz Morawiecki’s appointment as PM turns out to be the start of a more extensive political

BullsEye

game by Jarosław Kaczyński, as he decided to close down fronts which were risky for PiS. The moderate PM, the reconstruction towards a government of professionals, the softening of political rhetoric and concessions on issues of secondary interest from PiS’s point of view, are coordinated and have a common interim goal – the disorientation of opposition groups and demobilisation of their electorate. At the same time, the long-term plan of the ruling party has not changed – it is still the taking of control over as large a part of the state apparatus as possible, from Constitutional Tribunal, through public media to the courts. The decision on reshuffle also helped PiS to improve its ratings home. As the support for the government was falling in November and early January, after the reshuffle, PiS gained in all the polls. This shows that in the short-term, Morawiecki’s new Cabinet managed to attract new supporters to the party (PiS aim to get centrist and undecided voters), without discouraging the hard-core electorate. At the end of the month, PiS had gained (on average 2 points to 40 percent); the ratings for the opposition were unchanged – their activities were eclipsed by the reshuffle, weakness of the leadership and lack of its political initiative. Also, the opposition does not have any

practical idea how to react to PiS allegations that its actions in the EU should be viewed as informing on one’s own country and “treason”. Triggering the procedure has stigmatised Poland as a country which has problems with the rule of law. It has strengthened arguments used by those who support tightening the course by the EU against countries that show disregard towards common European values. In a discussion about the future budget, they will demand that accessing EU funds should be linked with respecting the rule of law (France, Italy). Warsaw’s problems will discourage EU capitals from making concessions towards Poland about the future rules of the cohesion policy – western politicians will find it difficult to convince their electorate that they should support the EU budget with large payments, which mostly benefits Warsaw. Poland, on the other hand, will find it harder to unite other member states in the region to support its interests. It is worth mentioning that Warsaw’s problems are convenient for other capitals in Central Eastern Europe. Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania and the Czech Republic have similar problems with the rule of law and corruption. They all benefit from the penal procedure against Poland. In this way,

the EU’s negative attention is focused solely on Poland, which allows them to limit their reputational losses. The European Commission has given Poland three months to reverse the controversial changes to the judiciary and, should that happen, withdraw the motion for the sanctions procedure from the Council. The new government led by Mateusz Morawiecki will use this time to limit the damage to Poland’s image abroad and explain the PiS government’s policy but, unless real concessions are made, it will not be able to stop the motion. The Commission’s conditions are clearly stated and Frans Timmermans, who is responsible for the rule of law, has strong support from Juncker. Morawiecki could, however, change the arithmetic of the Council and influence the result of the vote on EC’s motion —for it to be considered justified, it has to be backed by at least 22 states. The capitals (despite Hungary) have not as yet taken a stance on the sanction procedure, but they have so far unanimously supported Timmermans’ actions, which means that Morawiecki would have to persuade at least five countries to change their position.

Tomasz Kaniecki

The official magazine of European Democrat Students

The calm before the storm – The Italian elections On March 4, Italian citizens will be called to the polls to decide the members of the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate of the Republic, which in turn will be called to create a stable majority to support the Prime Minister appointed by the President of the Republic Sergio Mattarella. After Sebastian Kurz in Austria, and Angela Merkel in Germany, who will be the tailor who will have to untangle the difficult and skein post-election politics with the Italian parties? Above all, will he succeed in creating a sweater that is strong enough for Europe, comfortable and warm for the citizens, and coloured for the parliament? NO CLEAR WINNER IN SIGHT

The coalitions that today have deposited symbol and candidates give the Italian scene a united and compact centre-right of which, Berlusconi presents himself as a leader. Making up the nose to the charismatic Matteo Salvini of the populist Lega Nord, who chooses to insert in the electoral symbol, next to its name, the word “Premier”. The other two members of the coalition represent the newly founded Christian Democrats Union UDC (Noi Con l’Italia, inspired by the ideals of the EPP), and the national right (Brothers of Italy). The Democratic Party of Matteo Renzi and the current Premier Paolo Gentiloni underwent a split a few days ago that will bring the party’s “post-communist” and “anti-Renzi” phalanx to vote for the new political subject founded by the actual President of the Senate Pietro Grasso, “Free and equal”. Fragmentation is on the day-by-day agenda for the Italian left, which seems increasingly to project its policies and its choices not on the proposals but on the desire for the elimination of this or that leader. Finally, we arrive at what is today the first Italian party, even if it will not define itself as a party: the 5 Star Movement (M5S) of Beppe Grillo. Given at 30% by all the polls, it will present as Prime Minister Luigi di Maio, famous in the peninsula for his lack of familiarity with the Italian language and his only previous work experience: Steward in stadiums during football matches.

EUROPE AT THE CENTRE OF THE DEBATE

In this period, the beginning of the electoral campaign, the citizens loyal to the European Union begin to wonder what the position of their candidate will be towards Brussels, and the candidates start to respond. After months of statements that bordered on populism and anti-Europeanism, Silvio Berlusconi began to re-conceive himself and his party, which belongs to the European People’s Party, as the only true Europeanist in the Italian scene. After a series of official meetings with the President of EU Parliament Antonio Tajani, his great friend and loyal comrade, Jean Claude Juncker, Joseph Daul and Antonio Lopez who officially declared “The EPP is Silvio Berlusconi’s home. Our party will support the centre-right coalition which, thanks to him, will make Italy strong “. The Democratic Party, for its part, strong of its current presence in the government, appeals to Europe following a double strategy: that of “fists on the table” used by the party secretary Matteo Renzi, and the peaceful and constructive way of Paolo Gentiloni. The latter seems to follow in European perspective the possible Franco-German axis that Lady Merkel, fresh of government, and fizzy Emmanuel Macron are rebuilding at the base. The presence of Federica Mogherini at the top of the EU Common Security and Foreign Policy, and her well-judged job in the supranational environment, also gives the Democrats legitimacy and ‘push’ to fight. The only party that has always fervently supported its anti-Europeanism is the M5S, which in

the wake of European populism has made bureaucracies and banks the first enemies. This move scares the markets and the moderates, and consequently those who, like Berlusconi, have an interest in keeping the Italian economic situation stable and secure. LET US RECAP

A compact right centre which, however, may be more or less pro-European depending on the percentages achieved by the internal coalition parties, but inspired by Forza Italia values, a left-wing centre that has now been 100% Renzi-addicted, the 5-Star Movement and Pietro Grasso’s left Liberi e Uguali. All the coalitions will be fighting on a new field: in fact, a new electoral law “Rosatellum Bis” was voted in 2017. Unlike the previous “Porcellum”, so called because it was considered, at the end of a series of changes, by its creator as “filthy”, “Rosatellum Bis” is a semi-majority. This is thanks to the 37% of seats allocated from the results of first-past-the-post uninominal colleges and a semi-proportional system 61% of seats allocated depending on the success of the party nationwide, with a threshold of 3% for single lists, and 10% for coalitions. This system will give the opportunity to parties “strong” territorially to conquer the single-member seats even at the expense of possible failure at the national level, and great parties to “navigate” in the system proportional to blocked lists. As I demonstrate in my analysis, I would like to “reassure” BullsEye’s friends: the only real danger for the role of Italy in Europe is the 5 Star Movement which, by itself, will not succeed in any hypothesis to conquer a substantial majority.

Franscesco Sismondini

BullsEye

THEME

The Reform of Justice in Romania Changes to the Romanian Judicial system: an overview Justice Minister Tudorel Toader proposed a series of changes to the country’s judicial system. All of these proposals are very controversial and would have an adverse impact on the system. Massive protests were held all around the country. Some of the proposed changes include move to ban public statements about investigations and trials, and another to limit the use of video and audio recordings. A further proposal would allow suspects to be present when witnesses are giving testimony. This could mean the victim of a paedophile being obliged to testify in front of their perpetrator. One agency charged with prosecuting organised crime and terrorism said that if these amendments become law, 1200 drug trafficking cases will be halted. Parliament approved another amendment which limits the president’s role in the appointment of top prosecutors. Under the revision, the president will only be able to block the appointment of a prosecutor once. Justice Minister Toader recommended having the president no longer appoint the general prosecutor and the chief anti-corruption prosecutor, a main function of Romania’s presidency. He also suggested a process to punish prosecutors and judges for erroneous rulings and prosecutions. Romanian President Klaus Iohannis has criticised the proposal, but sadly in vain because no action was taken to remove this amendment. The top brass of Romania’s judiciary, including the head of the Anticorruption Directorate (DNA),

Laura Kovesi, has warned that the amendments risk derailing Romania’s campaign against corruption of high ranking political officials. DNA has done a fantastic job over the past few years regarding the fight against corruption, with 72 deputies and senators sent to trial since 2006 alongside cabinet ministers, a sitting Prime Minister and hundreds of mayors and other public officials. The speakers of parliament’s lower house and senate are both currently on trial in separate cases. Both of them are president of their own parties, Social Democratic Party and the Alliance of Democrats and Liberals which is the coalition leading the country. In an unprecedented attempt hundreds of Romanian judges and prosecutors took part in protests around the country to show their opposition to legal changes they say would hamper prosecutions. The first demonstrations were held outside courts in Bucharest, and other major cities that included Cluj, Timisoara, Galati, Brasov and Constanta. The unusual judicial display continued in the evening with a silent protest outside the Bucharest Court of Appeal and outside a court in the central city of Brasov. In Cluj people offered flowers to prosecutors as a sign of respect. Prosecutors were holding up sign which stated the oath they took when taking office, in which they vowed to respect the laws and Constitution of the country. In a joint statement, prosecutors in Constanta said the proposals “don’t just hamper the anti-corruption fight, but (also) the fight against all crime.” On 20 January, 40000 people gathered

outside the Government building in Bucharest to protest and called the Social Democratic Party “the red plague” and shouted “A government of thieves”. Demonstrations were held in other major cities as well. People are angry because the Parliament swiftly voted these changes to the justice laws, despite receiving numerous warnings from the European institutions. Earlier this month, the Social Democratic Party used its substantial majority to approve a judicial overhaul in the lower house that threatens to put the justice system under political control. The Senate as expected approved the bills as well. The bills were submitted to president Klaus Iohannis for approval. EU leaders have suggested that the president should ask the Venice Commission to review the changes before making any decision. The protests come on the back of an ongoing political crisis marked by the resignation of PM Mihai Tudose. The Social Democratic Party decided to withdraw support for Mr. Tudose, who was accused by PSD’s leadership for starting conflicts with ministers and high-ranking party officials. President Iohannis nominated MEP Viorica Dancila as the new PM. A vote of confidence is expected by the end of January. If approved, this will be the third Government in the past one year, a fact which clearly shows the incompetence of the ruling Social Democratic Party and its leadership.

Robert Kiss

The official magazine of European Democrat Students

One year after: France and Macron The result of the 2017 French presidential election was a surprise. Emmanuel Macron did not belong to one of the two main parties. Moreover, he campaigned for the end of the left-right division. However, when he arrived at the Élysée, he sent out a strong signal in appointing as Prime Minister Édouard Philippe, member of the right-wing party Les Républicains. Then, is there still a room for a right-wing opposition in France? During the electoral campaign, Emmanuel Macron was criticised by his political rivals for his ambiguity. He used to claim he was neither left-wing, nor right-wing, but rather both left-wing and rightwing. According to his detractors, he used to tell everyone what they want to hear. He has been regularly mocked for his now famous formula “et en même temps”, which is seen as a double talk: restriction of the immigration and in the same time hospitality for migrants, keeping of the nuclear energy and in the same time development of renewable energy. To these critics, Macron replied that he wants his speech reflects the complexity of all these matters. WHERE IS EMMANUEL MACRON?

Then where is Emmanuel Macron on the political chessboard? As a summary, we could say he is a centrist. His slogan “free and protect” shows that he wants to reassure everybody. However, some points must be stressed: Emmanuel Macron pointed out “liberty” as the main value during the campaign and he is economically mainly a liberal: he plans reforms for the

flexibilization of work conditions, partially suppressed the ISF (solidarity tax on wealth). He appointed as Prime Minister and as Minister for the Economy and Finance two personalities from the right-wing party Les Républicains. The policy of his National Education Ministry is broadly called conservative and applauded by right-wing voters. Essentially, recent polls show that Emmanuel Macron as better opinions among the right-wing voters than among the left-wing. During the first months of Macron’s mandate, Jean-Luc Mélenchon, the Left Front’s leader, was broadly considered as the main opponent to the new President, while the right-wing opposition was completely inconsistent. Some right-wing personalities even recognised that Macron was making the politic that they promoted and never applied when they were in government. However, Macron was also criticised by the right-wing for his alleged lack of patriotism (especially after he declared “there is no French culture, there is a culture in France, which is diverse and multiple”), and for some taxes increases.

“THE RIGHT-WING IS BACK.”

After the significant defeat of the right-wing candidate François Fillon, involved in a case of fictitious employment, the French right-wing was puzzled. Some entered in Emmanuel Macron’s government, other created a self-appointed “Les Constructifs” (The Constructive) group in the National Assembly to support Macron’s action from the outside. Some argued that the reconstruction of the main rightwing party Les Républicains was mainly a matter of ideas before a matter of personalities and advocated a debate within the party. However, historically, the French Gaullist party has always been organised around a leader who set the pace and brings it together. The reconstruction of the movement had to be a matter of person. Elections took place last December and Laurent Wauquiez, 42 years old, was elected president of the party. His motto: “La Droite est de retour” – “the right-wing is back”. As we have seen, Macron’s policy is in some aspects considered as a right-wing policy. Then, what place

BullsEye

remains for a right-wing opposition in French political debate? Wauquiez said he could not leave the monopoly of the critics on social matters to the left, nor the monopoly of the immigration matters to the far-right. He considers that Macron social and fiscal policy is completely unfair to the middle class, of whom he aims to be the defender. He argues that Macron completely forgets the French citizens who live in small cities and in the countryside. He also accuses Macron’s policy of being too lenient on issues such as immigration, integration and security. A DIFFERENT EUROPE

As far as Europe is concerned, Emmanuel Macron claims to be a federalist. In his Sorbonne speech on the 26 September 2017, he supported the idea of a reform of the European with more fiscal and social convergence among the Member States and a European budget. He also assumes a multi-speed Europe: “It is already the case, let us not be afraid of admitting that”. He also pushed for a European Defence and real European borders with a common program of formation and integration for the refugees. He also supported the view of a further enlargement of the European Union to the Balkans. Laurent Wauquiez, younger, he was close to Jacques Barrot, a centrist, European federalist and vice-president of the European Commission between 2004 and 2009. Some peo-

ple blame him for having changed his mind on the subject, and he is often accused of being a eurosceptic. In 2014, he wrote a book called: Europe: il faut tout changer (Europe: everything must change). As the title indicates, he is very critical of the European Union of today. Minister in charge of the European Affairs between 2010 and 2011, he wrote about his short experience at this place. His book is “euro critic”, but not anti-European. His vision of future Europe differs with Emmanuel Macron on some important points. He wants more places for the Member States in the decisions making process, which is a classic revindication for the French right-wing party. Like Macron, he wants a multi-speed Europe. The core of this Europe would encompass 12 Member States with the same social and fiscal rules. In contrast to Macron, he is completely opposed to a further enlargement at the moment, considering that the European Union has already grown too much and too fast. He also pushes for a real industrial policy at the scale of the European Union. According to him, more needs to be done to support European company. He is very critical of the competition policy, which does not benefit a European company and European employment. Another flagship proposition of Wauquiez is the idea of Community preference. Finally, he wants a Europe which takes pride in its cultural

heritage, in particular, Greek, Latin and Christian roots. These propositions show that is not the Eurosceptic that some people want to see in him and which is contested on his side. In closing, can Laurent Wauquiez be a credible alternative to Emmanuel Macron? It is probably too early now because of the divisions which continues to exist in his party. However, a clarification is probably a good thing in the medium-term. As we have said, Macron is a liberal and places the individual at the centre of his policy. He is usually considered as the President of the rich and of the metropolis. He wants to gather around himself a large coalition of the centre-left and the centre-right and has as only oppositions remaining the farleft and the far-right. This would be dangerous for the pluralism and so the democracy. The last presidential elections have shown that there is a place and a demand for rightwing conservative party in France (Fillon made a score of 20% at the first round of the election, despite the “affairs”). So, les Républicains must succeed in incarnating a real alternative to Macron, opposing to his individualism values and belongings such as family, French and European identity, and defending the middle class and the peripheries.

Olivier Roisin

The official magazine of European Democrat Students

Twitter and the Marketplace – Where to engage local electors in 2018? It comes as no secret that the general trend across Europe shows a decline in Electoral turnout. A lot of things have played a role in this, and the implications it may have on the electoral result may be devastating. Far-right parties have shot to prominence mainly for this reason – as the voter turnout goes down, the number of people voting for these parties has become more and more apparent. Local elections are a more significant problem. The real trick is the way that voters are engaged, but the question is how and where. The rise of Far-right parties does not come as a coincidence. These are the consequential winners from the saying “there is never an empty seat in politics”. This arises from the fact that whenever people do not go out to vote, this results in the ‘better’ candidates not getting the necessary votes to get them where they should be. Also, there is the case of not having faith in the political system. Over the years we have seen an increase in the idea, especially amongst youths, that politics is dirty. Similarly, this belief will push off individuals who may have the necessary ability to serve their position well. Thus, those smaller parties which may have ideologies that put the country at risk may end up getting elected at the expense of someone who has the capabilities to do a good job. A solution needs to be found, and fast. Engaging local electors is getting harder, especially when one considers how rapidly our lifestyles are changing. The power of social media today has trumped, no pun intended, any other form of engagement or marketing. The rate at which portals such as Facebook and Twitter, now even Instagram, have been growing is almost absurd. The idea behind them, in reality, is to bring people closer together from all corners of the world, which at face value is a very genuine idea. However, politics can be said to have ‘lost’ as much as it has ‘gained’ from this rapid

growth. The reality is that few understand the power of influence that they possess when tweeting or writing a post on Facebook. It is much easier to have a negative impact on a post, rather than a positive one, subjectively speaking. Nonetheless, we have to start looking beyond Social Media to engage people in local elections. If one had to take a closer look at the trends of voting in elections – it has significantly gone down after the developments made recently in Social Media. In my opinion, this is no coincidence. Politicians are right to invest heavily in their social media strategies to attract their constituencies, especially but not only, the younger voters. However, it is very wrong of them to base their whole campaign around social media. As our lives become more and more digitalised, and the Internet contributing to the world becoming a Global Village, we have seen a sharp decrease in human contact. When it comes to politics, this is one of the most critical factors that can make or break a politician. Establishing a relationship with your voters and understanding them personally will work wonders towards the future of any politician. This is almost more important when it comes to local elections. These elections are relatively different to national elections in the sense that when you are dealing with a country or locality, there is more of a sense of passion and dedication towards the hometown. Consequently, a different approach needs to be taken. There is no better

way to engage with local electors than, physically meeting them up and visiting their homes. Understandably there needs to be a sense of proportionality according to the size of the locality. However, speaking to people directly and individually will make them feel more valued than any other Tweet or Facebook Post could ever make them feel as such. This does not mean that Social Media is not invested in or neglected, but the focus must change in truth. When people are approached personally by the people who will be running to represent them, they are more likely to feel a sense of responsibility to vote for them. Thus, if any politicians are reading this article, I am firmly of the belief that personal contact is much more likely to be rewarding than any investment in social media. Especially at a local level, building strong foundations with your electorate is paramount. This will help the politician even in cases whereby he goes onto greater scales of representation such as national elections. The relationships he would have built back home end up being a catalyst for his or her election. Ultimately, while Social Media is growing at a rapid rate, and so is the number of people using it, one has to keep in mind that there is no place like home. There is no place better to meet a person, discuss ideas and give the necessary assurances, then at his/her home. The idea that Social Media is the only significant marketplace for an election has to be redesigned.

Neil Smart Costantino

BullsEye

How the preferential vote system benefits young leaders in local communities

Whenever you vote for the National Council in Austria you have one vote for a particular party, but three votes for specific candidates. One for the regional province you live in, one from the federal province (for example lower Austria) and the last one for a candidate on the national level. Especially the People’s Party (ÖVP) builds on that structure and in conjunction to that encourages young people to participate in politics. HOW THE PREFERENTIAL VOTING SYSTEM WORKS

As mentioned in the introduction, in Austria you vote on three different levels. On the national level, you either vote for a party or a candidate who represents that party explicitly. Voting for a specific candidate on that level does not have a particular impact since there is a fixed list of people in dependency. On the federal province level, it works quite similar. Although on that scale again the candidates are ranked, it is possible to overtake someone’s position on the list by having more votes. However, voting on the provincial level works differently. There are no candidates ranked in given order, with the result that for them to become a member of the parliament, they need a certain number of votes. After that system, it is self-explanatory that on a provincial level, the political campaign is focused on candidates rather than parties themselves. Imagine living in a province with about 50.000 inhabitants, where you have a regional leader who does a great job improving other people’s lives. Not by changing the health or education system, but by building new jobs or just by implementing simple projects. Motivated strongly not by an ideology or a particular party, but by the fact that you want to bring progress into your community. With the main election for the Nation-

al Council coming up, you have a chance to bring that leader into the parliament through the preferential voting system. Using exact calculations based on the votes, the ÖVP now has roughly 30 out of their 62 seats in the parliament, occupied by politicians from local communities, voted in not because they were top of the list, - but because they succeeded by getting the most votes. The People Party, ÖVP, in Austria always does an extraordinary job by using this system to its fullest and gains its strength especially from the federal organisation within the party. Although it now might seem a bit different with Sebastian Kurz, the ÖVP politicians are mostly known for their work they do in local communities rather than their excellent political strategies. With not focusing too much on their positions rather than their candidates in different communities they managed to be in the coalition almost every time since the end of the second world war. Although this is compelling, it must be pinpointed that it works exceptionally well because being politically involved, even interested in political discussions is not everyone’s cup of tea. By having the chance to vote for your not-so-much-political local leader you can give someone your support because you appreciate the work he or she does without necessarily sharing the same view, for example, on immigration policy.

HOW THE PREFERENTIAL VOTING SYSTEM BENEFITS YOUNG LEADERS IN LOCAL COMMUNITIES

Initially, it should be underlined that the preferential voting system benefits young politicians mainly in the more rural areas. There, campaigning is different, because one does not necessarily start working for the party led by political career dreams rather than, as mentioned before, his or her genuine passion for the people. The reason why the preferential voting system benefits young leaders in rural areas lies within the higher possibility of their hard work paying off, even if they are engaged in a rather small community. As a matter of fact, out of those 62 members of parliament as mentioned above, that belong to the ÖVP, ten are under the age of 35, the youngest being only 22 years old. Having a higher number of seats in the parliament taken by young people does not only ensure a new point of view and even a fresh approach in political discussions but also helps to promote politics amongst the younger generation by having their voices not only heard but actually, represented.

Sabine Hanger

The official magazine of European Democrat Students

Young leaders. Polish perspective. Young leaders. Start in politics can be difficult, because all too often young people instead of hard work choose a shortcut - persistent media happenings or excessive focus on social media. On the other hand, political parties offer them a very poor resource for development opportunities. This usually results in poorly qualified political staff. In fact, the youth is a generation of the future, and they will sooner or later be at the controls of our cities, governments and Europe. How do young people start their political activities? The natural environment is party youth organisations. What is the problem of such groups in Poland? First of all, a misunderstanding of their function. They should be a kind of academy, competence training before entering into politics. The parties should invest in their youth, equip them with a thorough knowledge of the functioning of the state, legislation, the principles of law, economics and social policy. By the way, of course, their best features have to be developed - such as charisma, teamwork skills, leadership skills. What is the image of youth party organisations in Poland? Unfor-

tunately, their reputation is not the best. To a large extent, this is explained by financial problems. Political parties have spared expenditures in their younger ranks, so they cannot organize large-scale educational projects. Young politicians focus on easy and mundane issues such as organising media events that have become their symbol. Just like the famous actions of Polish youths who enclosed themselves in cages in Warsaw to protest against the statements of the politics of the opposite faction, who wished to see his opponent in similar captivity. This caused a lot of laughter and pity and public questions about the sense of the existence of youth groups in Polish political parties. Members of another youth in the comments for national television showed their stress and were not able to answer why they support their party. What else is the reason for this perception of political youth? The fact that topics proposed by them in the public discussion are unreal and in no small extent deviate from everyday problems of Polish youth. Of course, the issues of defending the rule of

law and preaching elaborates on the Constitutional Tribunal are the utmost importance, but this is what â&#x20AC;&#x153;adult politiciansâ&#x20AC;? discuss during day and night. Meanwhile, ordinary young people see everyday problems elsewhere. In the ubiquitous smog, in difficulties with investing in your own business, in living problems related to starting a family. Unfortunately, happenings of young politicians do not focus on these issues. That is why young Poles do not feel that party youths represent their interests. Young people may be lacking in creativity and strength in the relations with the management of big parties. And perhaps the parties neglect the young and focus on the current political struggle, without thinking about investments in the young generation. Probably the truth lies in the middle. There is one more aspect of moving away from reality. Social media. If some trainings are organised in youth groups, these are lectures on new media. Indeed, it is vital that young people respond to the challenges of modern times. In time, however, they move so much into the virtual world that they think that reality only exists on Twitter or

BullsEye

“At every step, his political adversaries used the argument that he was too young to know anything” Facebook. This is a prevalent phenomenon among young representatives of all sides of the political scene. They devote all their energy to conducting Facebook discussions and selecting the best photos on Instagram, while neglecting work among voters, real people in real local environments. And here we come to the bottom: work in the community. We, young people, often forget that voters need to get to know us at work. That is why the activity is so important. Where? Above all, in non-governmental organisations. It is there that we acquire experience, learn diligence and, most importantly, humility. Humility towards other people and to real problems, as well as listening and drawing skills. There we can take small successes that later pay off and allow us to gain people’s trust. The author of this article is a councilman in a small town in the south of Poland. In the past, he was an activist of several public benefit organisations, and he decided to run in elections. He could do it only thanks to the single-mandate electoral districts.

In the majority or mixed law, he would probably get such a distant place on the list that he would not have much chance for election. He decided to visit all the apartments in his district, although it was risky because in small towns the “door to door” campaign is associated with intrusive solicitors or members of religious sects. It paid off. He won with three voices with a respected director of the town laboratory, and as a twenty-year-old youth, he became the second youngest councillor in Poland. What problems did he have to face? Above all, with a lack of respect. At every step, his political adversaries used the argument that he was too young to know anything and speak honestly about various matters. “When I dealt with this matter, you were not born yet” - this sentence he heard hundreds of times. At every step, he had to prove that he had specific and informed views. But it was worth it. Today, after three years in the Town Council, he can think about more cadences and a slow way to expand his competences at the next levels of political career. One of his political mentors, a professor of economics and a very deserving

Polish MEP, once told him that the political path is like a ladder. If this has been built rung by the level, from gaining the trust of your neighbours to an important role in creating a comprehensive debate, then if at some level your leg will falter, you will always be able to go lower. If you have not built your position step by step, with the slightest mistake, you fall right away. In the age of finesse of youth organisations and the lack of ideas for their functioning in the spirit of development of knowledge and competencies of young leaders, we should appreciate EDS all the more. This organisation puts forward a debate, a clever discussion on important issues and, above all, it is a training platform for leaders. Only when we have these competencies can we talk about important matters for Europe and propose bold and wise solutions, and then we can return to our local communities and work hard for the success of the village, town and city, and only then - on our own.

Maciej Kmita

The official magazine of European Democrat Students

The Brain Drain – Urbanised Students and their Hometowns For most freshmen, it is a goal to move to a big city, especially if they spend their lives in the countryside. Far away from home, parents and their “childhood”, to gain experience in living on their own, enjoying the student’s life, exploring the life in the metropolis. Nevertheless, the continuing trend of urbanisation is questioning the survival of smaller rural places, as an increasing number of youngsters are leaving rural areas, without returning. Is this a modern time problem? What effects does this have on these areas? What can be done, to be attractive for urbanised students to return to their hometowns? The moving of people is not a modern-day phenomenon. Cross-border migration means moving of people inside a country and occur for example in the beginnings of the 1890s in Germany. At that time inhabitants of Prussia moved to Berlin or North Rhine-Westphalia for better job opportunities in the industrial sector. This example clearly presents that the internal mobility exists since the industrialisation and the upcoming urbanisation. However, the latest cross-border migration has affected rural areas badly. Current studies show that young people, who are single, more educated, work in creative, professional knowledge-based fields prefer to stay in the big cities. The rural regions are facing a lot of problem because of this “Brain Drain”. Former lively towns slowly transform into ghost towns. Furthermore, the big city life is especially for young people more attractive because

of a broader offering of activities and modernity. For that reason, young people are leaving their hometowns in rural areas for another lifestyle and better job perspectives. This trend has stronger adverse effects on those communities. Local industries and businesses suffer as their pool of educated workers shrinks. This makes recruitment difficult and as a result standards are getting lower because the high-educated persons are staying in the big cities. Furthermore, taxpayers in the rural area have paid for the education of the youngers. They are investing in the quality of future workers, but the hometowns do not see any return on taxes. For example, the National Agency for Education and Statics Sweden worked out, that Northern Sweden is losing more than 30% of their recent qualified students because they left rural areas and moved to Stockholm, Gothenburg or Malmö.

A similar case can be found in Austria. Most youngsters are moving for their studies to Vienna. But at the same time in the rural areas, like Vorarlberg or Burgenland, more than one-third of potential students. Even Germany is facing this problem. In particular states in the Eastern part of the republic are struggling. At the same time areas as, Bavaria, Berlin or Hamburg, benefit from this ongoing trend. The former examples show the dilemma inside a country. Nevertheless, there is also a trend inside the European Union. During the economic- and euro-crisis young Greek and Spanish people left their home countries due to a lack of job opportunities home. In the long run, it will hurt the economy, because the best and brightest are making money and paying taxes elsewhere instead of home.

BullsEye

At the same time, the metropolitan areas are facing another dilemma, which arises from a large number of recent settlers. In big cities in Asia and Africa, they have to deal with the problem of the existence of slums. But there are already significant challenges in the European metropolis like air pollution and chaos on the roads. Also, housing shortages go hand in glove with rising rental and purchase price for real estate. This also affects students. For example, the current monthly rent for a 30qm Apartment is on average to 665 Euro in Munich. Nevertheless, youngest want to stay in those big cities. Concurrently, the rents in more rural areas getting lower and lower. For that it can be asked, is there any opportunity to be attractive as a rural place for graduates to come back home? Of course, in the first moment, the country life seems unattractive for young, passionate people. Nevertheless, it has also advantages. The closeness to nature, security and a stronger cohesion of the population can be named as benefits. The study mentioned above also confirm that married young couples who want to have a family move back to the countryside. For promoting the country life, the rural cities should raise awareness of what working in the rural part of the state is really like. This could be done by a campaign which shows the benefits but the disadvantages. Nobody wants to buy a pig in a poke. The small Bavarian village

Bad Kissingen initiated a location marketing campaign last June. For instance, they rent video screens in the Munichâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s and Frankfurtâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Metro stations for promoting the country life in Bad Kissingen. However, it remains to be seen whether the image campaign proves the expected success. Also, the rural towns can cut unnecessary barriers to entry for promising talents. Especially today where most of the work can be done visually, it is important to have good broadband access in the rural places. For example, the United Kingdom established an investment fund to get 95 percent of the UK connected with superfast broadband, especially the rural areas. As well as the expansion of roads and high-speed railway transportation can be positive factors, also by moving companies in the rural area. That can help kick-start efforts to rebuild regional economies. In Sweden, some call for moving state jobs to the countryside, because that would generate more job opportunities. Besides, rural places can also become an Incubator for start-up businesses. For that reason, it is urgent that the European Union continues to finance the fund which financing Rural Development Programs. Those programs should support agriculture, but the primary focus should shift more towards investing in rural areas to secure their survival.

Currently, there arises a big problem with the primary health care in the rural areas. As a solution, the German federal state of Bavaria is planning to offer 5 percent of the available place to study medicine for students who commit to working after college for at least eight years as a country doctor. This can also be one measure for other provinces, which are struggling with over-ageing. As eonomic activity becomes increasingly concept rated everywhere, rural areas across the advanced world are likely to find themselves facing the same dilemma. Villages and towns in the countryside losing one generation after the other. The rural population are oveageing. The main reason for urbanised students not to return home can be found in the lack of job opportunities at home. Therefore, it is inevitable to invest in the infrastructure to increase the business conditions for companies. As a result, the regional economy can be rebuilt, and more jobs are getting available. This should be accompanied by a location marketing campaign to raise awareness about the new opportunities which are provided in the countryside. Nevertheless, no one can be committed to going back home after graduating from college.

Because of the moving of young people, there is an increase in the percentage of older people in the countryside.

Sarah Wolpers

The official magazine of European Democrat Students

Australian Offshore Policies: Anything But Clear Sailing For EU Adoption Australia’s closure of its ‘Regional Processing Centre’ on Manus Island – a Papua New Guinean landmass off its northern coast – has renewed debate about Australia’s asylum policies, which outsource responsibility for refugee assessment and resettlement to other states. Australia’s policies towards asylum seekers and refugees have long drawn indignation from both domestic and international commentators, including Human Rights Watch, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), and the United Nations Human Rights Committee, which has repeatedly expressed concern over Australia’s asylum policies. In the weeks following the closure of the ‘Regional Processing Centre’ on October 31, 2017, criticisms have intensified.

AUSTRALIA’S INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATIONS

Upon closure of the facility due to the Papua New Guinean high court ruling it unconstitutional, some asylum seekers kept in the facility chose to remain, expressing fear for their safety in the Manus community. Following tense confrontations, including reports of Manus Island’s police allegedly destroying shelters and water stores used by 600 men refusing to leave, Rupert Colville – a spokesman for UN High Commissioner Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein – voiced “serious concerns about the welfare, safety and wellbeing” of the remaining asylum seekers.

In recent decades, critics have identified Australia’s contravention of a number of Articles within the document, and subsequently levelled severe criticism at Australia. Article 31 of the Convention states that signatories can neither discriminate nor punish persons seeking asylum whether they enter the states’ territory lawfully or otherwise, and must be offered equal treatment. It has been amended to include the provision that states cannot expel refugees unless they pose a security risk. Article 33 introduced the prohibition of “refoulment” – the returning of refugees to territories that could endanger their lives due to discrimination or war. The Convention also guarantees refugees the same rights as citizens, including access to courts and legal representation, education and labour rights. Australia’s current asylum policies are in contravention of the Convention, given it prevents asylum seekers equal access to asylum procedures.

This recent international condemnation prompts consideration of whether Australia is avoiding international obligations, and whether other states can – or even should – emulate Australia’s approach. Through an interrogation of the origins of Australia’s current offshore policy, and an assessment of its policy goals as compared with Australia’s international obligations, it is clear that regardless of legality, the potential reputational damage to the European Union (EU) means mimicking Australia’s asylum policies would be ill-advised.

Australia is a signatory to the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. Adopted in 1951, and binding in 1954, the Convention is based on the principle that persons can seek asylum from persecution. The convention is the main document for the protection of refugees and asylum seekers’ rights and outlines states’ legal obligations in ensuring their protection. Australia was one of the first states to sign the Convention and has upheld its commitment to the document and its enshrined responsibilities in subsequent amendments, signing the 1967 Protocol that removed restrictions relating to when or where asylum seekers and refugees could have come from.

COMPLEX ORIGINS OF AUSTRALIAN ASYLUM POLICY

Australia’s current policies of offshore de-

tention and monitoring of sovereign waters, which have been described in a submission to the International Criminal Court by the Global Legal Action Network (GLAN) as possibly being a “crime against humanity”, have a complex history. Through different iterations of national legislation enacted under different governments, the current policies have been described as “one of the most punitive asylum systems in the developed world.” Perhaps the most contentious element of Australia’s current asylum seeker policy is the rule that those entering Australian sovereign territory without a valid visa seeking asylum be subject to mandatory detention. The lawfulness of detaining all non-citizens in Australian territory without a valid visa was first introduced under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). This legislation made no distinction between adults and children, nor did it impose a time limit on detentions. Thus, when the Migration Legislation Amendment Act 1989 was introduced to allow administrative detention to process the increasing number of people seeking asylum by boat, detention – although discretionary in nature – could have been indefinite under Australian domestic law if the person seeking asylum did not voluntarily return to their country of citizenship. This is often complicated by the fact that some seeking asylum no longer carry a valid citizenship. This detention was often enforced, and by June 1992 there were 478 people in Australian immigration detention. So, although widespread international condemnation of Australian asylum policy is recent, Australia has been detaining asylum seekers for over 25 years. Following an increase in people using boats to reach Australian territorial waters from 200 in 1998 to 5,516 in 2001, and a diplomatic dispute with Norway over responsibil-

BullsEye

ity for 433 refugees rescued by Norwegian freighter Tampa in August 2001, the Australian government introduced legislation commonly collectively referred to as the ‘Pacific Solution’. Described by then-Prime Minister John Howard as giving the government the ability to “determine who will enter and reside in Australia”, the legislation introduced a policy of transporting asylum seekers to offshore detention centres to have their claims assessed. It was the package of legislation that first opened the ‘Regional Processing Centre’ on Manus Island, as well as a similar facility on Nauru, an island state in Micronesia. The ‘Pacific Solution’ sought to reduce the number of people who arrived in Australia by unauthorised boat and decreased attempts to seek asylum in Australia. The ‘Pacific Solution’ is the foundation upon which Australia’s current contentious policy is erected, not just in aim and execution, but also in diverting focus from Australia’s international obligations to protecting domestic borders.

OPERATION SOVEREIGN BORDERS

Implemented by then-Prime Minister Tony Abbott in 2013, ‘Operation Sovereign Borders’ is the current Australian policy aimed at preventing unauthorised boats carrying asylum seekers from landing in Australia. Featuring many of the same elements as John Howard’s ‘Pacific Solution’, the operation is designed to intercept suspected boatloads of asylum seekers, and either push the boat away from Australian territorial waters or transfer the people on board to a facility, whence they would be transferred to offshore detention centres. By denying vessels access to Australian territorial waters under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the Australian government argues that no violation of its international obligations has occurred, as it has not yet become the state responsible for any potential asylum seekers. By using overseas detention centres partly funded by Australian financial aid, Australian governments have exported – or outsourced – responsibilities to other states. The intention of the current Australian asylum policy is designed, legally or illegally, to abrogate international responsibilities, and shift conceptualisation of asylum seekers from peoples needing humanitarian assistance, to a national security issue. IMPLICATIONS: IMPACTING AUSTRALIA’S INTERNATIONAL REPUTATION

The implications of Australia’s punitive asylum policies are extensive, and have harmed Australia’s international reputation, as well as bilateral relationships with close neighbours including Indonesia. Numerous states have expressed condemnation of Australia’s asylum policies, and have often utilised Australia’s offshore policy as a way to deflect criticisms aimed at their own human rights abuses. During Australia’s 2015 Universal Periodic Review (UPR) at the UN Human Rights Council, Australia was asked questions by representatives of over 100 countries. In the past, asylum policies – as a politically delicate topic – have typically been avoided. The questioning of Australia’s asylum policies, then, is indicative of how unacceptable the policies are.

recent years. These deals, combined with certain EU member states advocating a move towards an Australian approach, calls into question the EU’s international goal of promoting human rights. For example, the EU seeks to exert its influence by shaping underlying international structures – especially in international norms – through the construction of free trade agreements. States and other regions may feel aggrieved if forced to sign free trade agreements that include commitments to human rights if the EU itself implements questionable asylum policies. If states saw the EU as hypocritical in its treatment of states not respecting international responsibilities, its legitimacy in advancing global norms would be harmed.

Despite the criticism, Australia was elected unopposed to a 2018-2020 position on the United Nations Human Rights Council. Its current asylum policies will only undermine its ability to challenge the human rights records of other states and restrict its ability to achieve its goals of forwarding rights of women and girls; promoting good governance; promoting freedom of expression; advancing human rights for indigenous populations; and, promoting human rights institutions. By disregarding international condemnation of its asylum policies, Australia risks being less able to achieve other stated goals, which may impact its national interest, and adversely affect peoples it wants to help.

The Danish Refugee Council released a policy brief that contemplated the implications of the EU’s outsourcing of responsibilities, concluding that there was a need for “critical reflection on the… humanitarian implications of the trend towards externalisation”, and that several features of the EU’s asylum externalisation policies now set a worrying precedent. The brief highlights instances of arbitrary detention, asylum seeker and refugee abuse, turn-backs, increased risk of human smuggling, and the increased likelihood of refoulment that outsourcing asylum protection represents. The brief emphasises areas of EU asylum policy that represent similar concerns that the international community has admonished Australia for.

AUSTRALIA-EU COMPARISON

CONCLUSION

In light of the extensive critiques of Australia’s asylum policies, it is alarming that EU member states have sought to emulate aspects of the Australian approach to asylum seekers. Sebastian Kurz, then-Austrian Foreign Minister and now Chancellor, is a prominent member state politician who promotes this. He suggested, in an interview with Die Presse, that the EU should follow the “Australian example”. The EU has already pursued deals with neighbouring countries in order to outsource some of its asylum processing and border control responsibilities. The much-publicised EU-Turkey and EU-Libya deals, along with other agreements, have delegated the EU’s responsibilities to states with inconsistent human rights records. Both have also experienced significant political turmoil in

In light of the effect that prolonged punitive policies have had on Australia’s international reputation, the European Union must reconsider policies that outsource asylum seeker and refugee responsibility. Regardless of legality, the consequences for the EU if it goes down the same path will be greater costs to its international goals. The EU is staking its international reputation on its asylum policies, and right now, the implications of not reconsidering its policies could be great.

James Carey Melbourne Postgraduate International Relations Organisation

The official magazine of European Democrat Students

Bringing together the Antipodes – What partnership for the EU with Oceanian countries? The EU and Oceania antipodes have found common ground on some issues, from security and trade to education and the environment, illustrating that distance plays no role in the European Union’s ability to cooperate with others to achieve mutual benefits. This has been a natural progression stemming from the long-standing relations between the two regions. The European Union and the Oceanic Region have developed strong political, economic and cultural ties, which have matured over the years. Although they are antipodes in a geographic sense, their viewpoints and interests are often aligned. Australia and New Zealand are the largest and most economically advanced countries in the Oceanic region. Their colonial past and heritage are interlinked with European history, while their outlook on pressing global challenges, industrial development and trade have been formalised with the EU through various partnership agreements. With a population of just over 25 million people, vast resources and its geopolitical importance, the EU has recognised Australia as a key partner. Relations be-

tween the two were initiated in 1952, and Australia has since established personal diplomatic ties with all 28 current member states of the bloc. The EU Delegation in Australia was opened in 1981. Since then, the two have signed a number of agreements, including the 1982 agreement concerning transfers of nuclear material from Australia to the European Atomic Energy Community, the 1994 agreement relating to scientific and technical cooperation, the 2009 agreement between the European Community and Australia on trade in wine, as well as the 2008 EU-Australia partnership framework, which places an emphasis on security and counter terrorism cooperation, cooperation in the Asian and Pacific regions, education, science and technology, as well as coopera-

tion in the field of environment, climate change and energy. The next phase in EU-Australia relations will be formalised with the conclusion of a Free Trade Agreement (FTA). The EU is Australia’s third-largest trading partner, while Australia is the bloc’s eighteenth largest. Total trade in commercial services between the two in 2015 amounted to 29.3 billion euros. Notably, despite the ongoing Brexit talks, Australia has reaffirmed its commitment to the EU and is seeking to conclude an FTA before entering talks with the United Kingdom. This is a significant gesture and further illustrates the strong ties, interests and understanding between the two, keeping in mind Australia’s special relationship with the UK and the common bond they

BullsEye

share through the Commonwealth of Nations. Australia’s position as the dominant power in Oceania and Asia-Pacific gives the EU greater access to the entire region, which is one of the reasons it is fostering and evolving its strong relations with the country. The bloc is better able to exude its influence in the region if it stands on common ground with the Australian government. “Australia is a key player in the Asia-Pacific region and a key partner for the European Union on issues like the world economic system, climate change and energy security as well as international and regional security. We have seen an intensification of our relations over the last couple of years”, the EU has noted. Although much smaller in size, the EU has also recognised New Zealand as an essential partner in the Oceania region. In many cases, New Zealand represents the interests of some smaller nations in the Pacific, such as Fiji, Tonga, Samoa, the Cook Islands, Solomon Islands and Nauru. Harbouring relations with New Zealand has given the EU greater access to these distant markets in the broader Oceania region. For example, the two have joint energy projects in Sa-

moa, Kiribati, Cook Islands and Tuvalu. However, it is trade that plays a central role in EU and New Zealand relations, particularly the exchange of live animals and animal products. The EU-New Zealand Joint Declaration on Relations and Cooperation, adopted in 2007, has shaped their relationship. This is a political agreement which governs and directs the activity between the two partners. It is an action program in areas such as global and regional security, counter-terrorism and human rights, visas, development and economic cooperation, trade, climate change as well as science and technology. The Joint Declaration also highlights the importance of close cooperation to cater for people-to-people exchange and encourage interaction in education. Negotiations to replace the Joint Declaration with a new agreement, entitled the Partnership Agreement on Relations and Cooperation (PARC), began in 2012 and were concluded in 2014. PARC is currently being verified by both sides and will enter into force once signed and ratified.

tions due to the significant cultural links between their people. Some 70% of Australians have European ancestry. As a result, progress has been made on visa reciprocity for all EU citizens, and the imminent start of negotiations on a comprehensive air services agreement, which should result in more direct services from the EU to Australia. Similarly, New Zealand has particularly strong relations with the UK, Germany and France due to immigration. As the old saying goes, “opposites attract”. The EU and Oceania antipodes have found common ground on a number of issues which has been fuelled by trade and historical ties. The EU and Oceania’s two leading nations - Australia and New Zealand - have time and again illustrated how like-minded they are on issues such as the world economic system, climate change and energy security, as well as international and regional security.

In addition to being important regional powers, Australia and New Zealand, together with the EU, have advanced their rela-

Vladimir Kljajić

The official magazine of European Democrat Students

Interview with Erhard Busek Erhard Busek (ÖVP – EPP) was the ÖVP Party Chairman and Vice-Chancellor of Austria in the coalition of the Social Democratic Party of Austria with the People’s Party between 1991–1995 when he acted as an important reformer of the Austrian universities. From January 2002 until June 2008 Mr Busek served as Special Co-ordinator of the Stability Pact for South Eastern Europe. He is currently Coordinator of the South-Eastern Cooperative Initiative (SECI) and Chairman of the Institute for Danube Region and Central Europe. MR BUSEK, THE MAIDAN REVOLUTION TOOK PLACE FOUR YEARS AGO, BUT THE TENSIONS BETWEEN RUSSIA AND UKRAINE ARE NOT RECEDING. IS PUTIN TRYING TO CREATE A FROZEN CONFLICT IN UKRAINE?

I think it is typical of Putin’s strategy – having a frozen conflict, which can be switched on and off at his behest, whenever there is a need to impress or to create pressure in another direction. It is a clear, comparatively very simple, but very effective strategy. Speaking about the sensitive time before elections, his main concern is to keep everything in balance. We could see the withdrawal of troops from Syria, which is a real sign he is preparing for a strong re-election campaign. I think Putin was quite clear in his press conference that he tries to depict himself as the guarantor of stability. Therefore, there will be no conflicts before the votes are cast in March.

WHAT SHOULD BE THE EU’S STRATEGY FOR UKRAINE? CAN WE TALK ABOUT ANY PROSPECT OF EU MEMBERSHIP?

Membership for Ukraine would be a step too far at his moment. What is necessary is to offer a clear strategy concerning Ukraine’s arrangements to go forward. However, Ukraine’s current status is not even the one

before the membership. The problem is that any strategy for Ukraine is a strategy on Putin. I think we have some members of the EU, for instance the Dutch, saying ‘do not touch Putin and do not create difficulties with him’. Thus, in my opinion any strategy toward Ukraine needs to primarily answer what the strategy toward Putin is. Many things will depend on the developments in Germany, especially if no government is formed for a longer period; the main player is for the moment not existing.

AND WHERE DOES IT LEAVE UKRAINE?

Ukraine needs to move further with reforms. Nothing is improving right now, which is a real pity. The usual European language to Ukraine is to solve its grave corruption issues, but this is not enough. The country needs to move forward.

CAN UKRAINE OVERCOME ITS SOVIET SHADOW?

I think it is extremely difficult. Looking for examples in countries like Poland or Hungary, they thought they could overcome the past from one day to another, but it is a long lasting process. The other issue is that the rest of Europe does not really understand these processes. There is a very primitive judgement happening ‘you are now a democracy and these are

the criteria you need to fulfil, this is how you should behave’, but history is a burden. And I think to cope with the history in the right way needs sufficient amount of time.

IS IT THEN RATHER A QUESTION OF CHANGING GENERATIONS RATHER THAN WILLINGNESS TO REFORM THE COUNTRY?

This would be a subject for education. One of the main mistakes of the EU, drawing the point from my personal experience in the Balkans, is that the EU is not in charge of education. We have had some initiatives, such as Erasmus, but the EU needs to create even more exchange. Student exchanges are in themselves not enough, we need an added input in the training of lecturers and a more substantive contribution in teaching. I can offer one example of an effective high-level academic research and exchange - the Centre for Advanced Studies - South East Europe in Rijeka. But a further exchange, both on the educational and cultural level, is necessary and it is not happening on the EU level nor through the UN. The EU should also encourage greater cooperation on curricula, through on comparative studies and their evaluation. On the level, education often works on a day-to-day basis, and lacks the international perspective.

BullsEye

WHAT IS THE ROLE OF INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONS IN FINDING SOLUTIONS FOR TODAY’S CHALLENGES?

You can raise the question of how effective indeed international organisations, where members have extensive veto powers, are. The power of many is in the decline. But this is not solely the responsibility of Putin. It is that of Trump and others. No one is looking to the international organisations for solutions any longer.

WHAT IS THE FUTURE OF EU-RUSSIA RELATIONS? CAN THEY IMPROVE EVEN BEFORE THE ISSUE OF UKRAINE IS SOLVED?

EU-Russia relations depend on many different partners, but in my opinion, they mostly depend on Russia.

WHAT IS PUTIN’S VISION OF RUSSIA CONCERNING THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY?

The vision of Russia is to be a dominating power deciding what others should do. Russia needs to develop the notion of partnership, which is not the case in the current situation. Not only Russia, but global players in general have developed national egotisms – they want to dominate. Without mutual understanding however, you will never get peace or cooperation. THE SANCTIONS AGAINST

RUSSIA HAVE BEEN EXTENDED. WHAT IS YOUR OPINION ON USING SANCTIONS AS A LEVERAGE IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS?

We witnessed how the sanctions against Yugoslavia in the past turned out to be a mistake. The result of the present sanctions against Russia have been the development of tensions, the expansion of oligarchical powers, as well as the extension of kleptocracy and corruption. Sanctions are nonsense. They only serve for the internal consumption, to tell the public that we are doing something against the intruders, we are penalising them. But it does not work in practice. Products just find another way to Russia through Belarus and Serbia. The Ukraine conflict is having serious consequences not only for Russia and Ukraine, but also threatens to damage the still fragile economic recovery in Europe.

HOW SHOULD THE EU PROCEED?

A decision needs to be made. Do we want to talk or not? Having sanctions in place means that we do not want to talk. If you want to talk, it does not mean you want to surrender, but you are trying to develop mutual understanding and to find solutions. This is not happening at this moment.

IF WE WANT TO TALK WITH RUSSIA, WHAT ARE THE TOPICS OF MUTUAL INTEREST?

of Russians toward Europe, but also weapon of European against Russians. European consumption is a very important leverage. Another important topic can be the exchange of technology.

CAN WE FIND COMMON GROUND ON FIGHTING TERRORISM?

The importance of fighting terrorism is overrated. We are talking so much about fighting terrorism, everybody is fighting terrorism nowadays, and we need more police, more protections, and the result of which will be more weapons, more conflicts and more war. You have to look into the reasons for terrorism. Terrorism is created by economic deficits, poverty, and regional discrepancies. To fight terrorism successfully means to fight the causes, to overcome misunderstandings between religions. Religion is now used by politicians as a weapon.

RUSSIA IS PREPARING FOR PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS IN MARCH. WHAT CAN WE EXPECT FROM PUTIN IF HE WINS THE ELECTIONS AS PREDICTED?

Any predictions, especially on the international scene, depend on many factors and are extremely difficult to make. Putin will seek balance, and he is not interested in creating more conflicts, they cost too much money and he is not sufficiently powerful.

We can start talks on energy as Russians very much depended on it. Energy is not only weapon

Pavlina Pavlova

The official magazine of European Democrat Students

The role of cities Jan Vapaavuori is the mayor of Helsinki, the capital city of Finland. He has held the seat since 2017 when we won the election with a landslide of personal votes. Before being elected mayor, Mr Vapaavuori served as Vice President of the European Investment Bank and has had an extensive career in Finnish politics, serving, ie. as Minister of Economic Affairs and Minister of Housing as well as having served as a member of parliament. Cities are the new nation states. Now, I’m a mayor, so that means I would say that, wouldn’t I? But I’m not alone. Urbanisation is a major, global megatrend. People are moving to cities at an accelerating pace, and nothing points to this being a trend that will reverse. Half of the humanity currently lives in cities, and by 2030 we will be up to 60% of the world’s population. The role of cities globally is obviously therefore significantly increasing. It’s an interesting combination, as cities are also the closest administrative unit to a citizen. Cities are the most local actors, and now also very international actors. That describes Helsinki to the T: Helsinki’s goal is to be the most functioning city in the world. Helsinki wants to create the most advanced everyday life in the world but also to focus on finding solutions to global challenges; to be a city full of people, actions and encounters that make an impact. One of the reasons why cities are relied on more and more to solve big problems, is that cities, in general, have a pragmatic approach to problems. Legendary former mayor of New York, Fiorello La Guardia has been quoted saying:” There is no Democratic or Republican way of cleaning the streets”. That’s a great sentiment that in a lot of ways captures the essence of how politics, and possibly the attitude, in cities, is different from the one on a national level. Cities have to be reliable and predictable. Children must be taught, the sick cared for and buses driven, but at the same

time there needs to be constant development and envisioning going on, as well as ambitious goal setting and international networking. Just last December US mayors stepped up to save the world when the head of state is incapable of doing so. I’m talking of course about the Paris Climate Agreement. Two years ago, former President Barack Obama signed the agreement that pushes member nations to curb greenhouse gas emissions and to keep the global temperature from rising. When his successor Donald Trump later announced that he would be pulling the US out of the agreement – and thus making the United States the only country in the world not signed on – mayors of all major cities in the US were quick to announce that they would step up. Cities and states would still do all they could to reach the goal of the agreement, they said. So in December, on the two-year anniversary of the Paris climate agreement, over 50 mayors from the US and Canada came together to sign the Chicago Climate Charter, in which they formally pledge to meet the emission-reduction goals set out by the Paris agreement. As you see, mayors being the ones aggressively going to battle against climate change actually makes perfect sense. Most cities, especially in the Nordic countries, already have ambitious climate goals of their own. And the goals, naturally, are accompanied by detailed climate strategies and plans. Helsinki’s goal, for instance, is to reduce emissions by 60% by the year 2030 and to be carbon neutral by 2035

(a goal we recently decided to attempt reaching 15 years earlier than the originally planned 2050). Our neighbours have goals in the same vein: The Danish capital Copenhagen strives to be the first carbon-neutral capital by 2025, and Swedish Stockholm will attempt to be fossil fuel free by 2040. Cities are in the position, where they can act and implement new innovations much quicker and much more directly than nation states. Energy efficiency in building and construction, making public transportation an attractive option and environmentally sustainable through emission reduction as well as being the testbed for new clean technologies are some things that Helsinki does every day. All these actions have a direct effect on the climate. In fact, climate questions are a good example of specific global issues that need to be solved on a local level. This was recognised over a decade ago, when the former mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, invited representatives of 18 major cities in the world to forge an agreement to reduce pollution. The network was dubbed C20 and has since expanded into what it is now: C40 – a network of 90 major cities in the world. The C40 – officially called C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group – member cities represent more than 650 million people in the world and one-quarter of the global economy. Cities and municipalities have great autonomy and therefore great responsibility to act as forerunners. Cities are the places where we will solve, or not solve, the most central challenges of sustainability.

Jan Vapaavuori Mayor of Helsinki

BullsEye

“Hell Hath No Fury Like a Woman With a Twitter Account” and Other Reflections on Sexism Both the #MeToo campaign and sexism have been in the media for months now, and it continues to shake up ever industry and every part of society. Many have gone out and claimed that due to this campaign “great men have fallen”, but were they truly that great if they fell under the wrath of the angry feminists armed with a Twitter account, as many participants of the #MeToo campaign are referred to. Many of the critics of the #MeToo campaign have said that it takes down the innocent men as well. And many have also asked themselves how can one distinguish between the actual perpetrators that need to be stopped and honest men who are clumsy in their way of flirting. The distinction is easy, and the fact that this conversation is even necessary proves yet again why campaigns like this one are essential. Men and women will always flirt, and although some ways of flirting are more socially acceptable and proper than others, what happens in a bar between two equals is still vastly different from what this campaign is really about. #MeToo is there to stop the abuse of power in the workplace and organisations. It is there to prevent people from continuing to abuse their power in the workplace and organisations. It is there to prevent people from abusing a position, towards other younger and more vulnerable members or employees. It is about the promises of promotions in exchange for sexual favours or the threat of being fired or let go if one does not agree to be sexually harassed. It is also about grown men taking advantage of young girls. It is about power and abuse. This is also not some new trend. It is naïve to think that any part of business life, politics, arts or society in general, is not affected by this. The campaign has already evoked more change than any online twitter campaign so far, and it has

stirred up conversations no one wanted to have and created an environment where standing up for yourself, and your rights is empowering, not embarrassing. Sexism and sexual harassment have been around forever. What is new is that we have already moved mountains when it comes to equality. Women’s rights, although we still have a long way to go, has come far, and women’s voices are no longer silenced in the way they were before. And with their new strong voices and their new stage, they are choosing to end this era of sexual harassment, sexual assault and sexual abuse that has been going on for way too long. #MeToo is equality at its best. What started as an exposé on Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein has grown into a worldwide plea for equality, justice and the end of sexism. An overwhelming majority of women who experience sexism and sexual harassment in the workplace do not report the incidents. Also, while some are lucky and live in countries where if they were to report such an incident there would be laws against it, more than a third of the countries in the world do not have any laws against sexual harassment. The facts are horrifying, and the stories millions of brave people have shared are heartbreaking.

in politics and policies and a change for humanity. And with the power of social media, open communication channels and the power this brings with it, one should not underestimate the impact of the #MeToo movement. It will continue to shut down sexism and sexual abuse, to create better working environments for all, not just women, and have a significant impact on equality. The conversation is not over; it will take down the ones who have done wrong and bring justice to the ones who have been hurt. It will force the young politicians of today, worldwide, to build their future policies for their countries around equality and justice. It will take away the power that was never meant to be given to anyone; the control over young women and their bodies, and it will again be about creating political change and building better and stronger societies. These campaigns and these movements are a gift to the next generations, and whoever appreciates this and takes it with them as they grow will be the ones that become the leaders of our tomorrow. These words have been said by millions before and will continue to be heard on all platforms; #MeToo, and now finally #TimesUp.

We are in a new era, where embarrassment is being swapped out for empowerment, and it is a beautiful process to see. It is a change in society, a change Sara Juriks

The official magazine of European Democrat Students

Military Schengen – Legal constraints vs military effectiveness Between the Crimea conflict, the tensions with the middle-East and the constant flow of refugees towards Europe, the military threats are constantly growing. Now is the moment for the EU to anticipate a potential major crisis by reforming the CSDP framework anticipatory. The Crimea crisis did not only highlight Europe’s lack of common politico-military will, but also put its lacking common infrastructure in the spotlight. In many European countries, it takes several days or even weeks to get the permission to move through with troops or military equipment, in Germany even every Land requires a new authorisation. NATO General Ben Hodges deplores this regulatory gap in the framework of the EU. In an interview for the ‘Deutsche Welle’ on 12 September 2019, he explains that this administrative barrier might render the new “very high readiness task force” of the NATO inefficient, as no effective response to a threat in Europe’s periphery would be possible. This consideration can also be extended to the EU’s Battlegroups who already suffer from legal constraints that are too high. And the limitations to cross Europe are not only legal; the technical differences should not be underestimated. To face this important hurdle the idea of a “military Schengen” emerged. Of course, this project does not endeavour to allow troops or military equipment to cross the internal frontiers freely. Nevertheless, simplification and harmonisation of national requirements became an essential goal of the EU. In a report from October 2016, the European Parliament also called for this type of ‘military Schengen’ to facilitate military

mobility. Additionally, to the concerns highlighted by the NATO, the report also considers a possible invocation by Member States of the internal solidarity clause foreseen at Article 222 TFEU. Indeed, this article states that the Member States shall support each other in case one of them is a victim of a terrorist attack or a natural, or man-made, disaster. This support notably includes also military means, which, however, will be rendered inefficient by the current technical, legal and regulatory limits of the inter-community cooperation. Concretely, from 2014 on, the European Defence Agency started to build the EU Multimodal Transport Hub (M2TH) system project. This agreement involving 13 Member States is not only aiming at a regulatory harmonisation but also tries to identify and promote dual-use transport networks and efficient exploitation of the current infrastructure. The primary asset of this project will, however, only be a discussion platform which shall allow the Member States to coordinate better. Consequently, yet, still a lot has to be achieved, and a standard harmonisation still seems rather far, but the next action plan is scheduled for March 2018, so particular attention should be paid to the developments to come in the near future. However, an effective ‘military Schengen’ would require more fundamental reforms. Indeed, the existing barriers are not easy to be overcome as no specific legal basis for such cooperation within the EU framework exists in the treaties. Harmonisation will, therefore, have to rely on the willingness of Member States only. Not to mention also all the

practical shortcomings which still hold back the evolution, as the language barrier within Europe or the incompatibility of military capabilities. Indeed, if for instance only a small part of the military equipment, such as ammunition, could be compatible all over the continent, already less mobility would be required. In general, these critics are also reflected in the field of Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) as such. Even though that during the last year a high number of achievements can be noted, such as the launch of the PESCO or the creation of a single command centre, the current legal bases for evolution towards a common defence union are still insufficient and subject to critical procedural requirements. The only path towards this European defence Union goes through the use of Article 42(2) TEU. Only the European Council can unanimously decide upon the future of common defence and then recommend its adoption to the Member States. Of course, this way still represents a shortcut compared to a treaty amendment; however, it reflects the difficulty of development in the field of CSDP. The project of a military Schengen has to be considered in this broader context of the CSDP, which is certainly a fast-evolving field of EU policy nowadays, but, by its very nature, it also creates important administrative, legal, technical and political obstacles. To conclude, the existence of such a project demonstrates the common willingness of evolution and harmonisation, but the achievement of free movement of military troops and equipment will probably still require a certain time lapse.

Miriam Peters European Security and Defense Network – College of Europe

BullsEye

Interview with Róża Thun Róża Maria Gräfin von Thun und Hohenstein, usually shortened to Róża Thun, is a European Parliament Member from Poland, Kraków. A member of the Civic Platform, she started her term in 2009. Róża Thun was involved in two anti-communist organizations in the People’s Republic of Poland. After the fall of Communism, she was the chairwoman of the Polish Robert Schuman Foundation, a non-governmental organization promoting European integration. Shortly before EDS Winter University in Krakow, BullsEye editorial team talked to Róża Thun, Member of the European Parliament, about the current situation in Poland, EU and her work on abolishing roaming charges. ALTHOUGH IT ONCE SEEMED UNREALISTIC, TODAY ROAMING CHARGES IN THE EUROPEAN UNION ARE PRACTICALLY NON-EXISTENT. YOUR MERITS IN THIS FIELD ARE REAL ONES; YOU RECEIVED THE BEST MEP AWARD FOR IT. WHAT WAS THE MOST DIFFICULT ASPECT OF THIS FIGHT? WAS IT DISCUSSIONS AT THE POLITICAL LEVEL OR NEGOTIATIONS WITH LARGE TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPANIES?

The whole process was very long-standing, and I’ve learnt a lot during these negotiations. Because of the tedious character of the job, the most crucial issue was to remain consistent in achieving our aims; we were reducing the pay rates step by step. At the beginning the attitude of telecoms was of “don’t even start this process, it’s not worth it, you can’t beat us”. However, in the course of time, we’ve proved that it was achievable and have encouraged telecommunications companies that first: Europeans can’t pay for roaming if we want them to feel as EU citizens, and secondly: the changes will be implemented in a manner that enables companies to adjust for new regulations in an appropriate manner.

CURRENTLY, YOU HAVE BEEN STRUGGLING WITH ANOTHER PHENOMENON, THE DIFFERENCES IN THE QUALITY OF THE SAME FOOD PRODUCTS IN VARIOUS EU COUNTRIES. WHAT DOES THIS MEAN AND WHAT ARE THE CHANCES FOR SOME KIND OF STANDARDIZATION?

I’m not sure if standardisation is an appropriate term. It is a matter of ceasing to deceive consumers on product quality. End of story. In this negative phenomenon the biggest issue is the selling of a product to different markets under the same name, the same label’s composition and the fact the

product remains identical in each market. I succeeded in preserving €800.000 from the EU budget for the forthcoming year, which will facilitate determining the extend to which fraud is happening. The European Commission has also allocated the same amount money for these tests before, now we are starting with food inspections. This subject is especially important for our part of Europe, where consumers often receive lower quality products.

WHAT CHALLENGES DO YOU SEE FOR THE SINGLE MARKET IN THE COMING YEARS?

I am terminating the issue of geographical blockades, not of all aspects have been introduced. There are many unsolved problems because of the complicated matter of copyright. That is a big challenge. Apart from the fact that roaming was abolished; still, international calls from one EU country to another cost a fortune – even 10 times more than domestic calls. These are challenges I’m currently dealing with. It is important to understand, that without breaking specific barriers of the common market, we cannot even think about reforming the EU. Like Robert Schuman wrote, the EU “will be built through concrete achievements.”

RECENTLY, AN IDEA HAS EMERGED AMONG EUROPEAN UNION AUTHORITIES THAT THE GRANTING OF EUROPEAN FUNDS SHOULD BE CONDITIONAL ON THE MEMBER STATES RESPECT OF THE RULE OF LAW. WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THIS POSTULATE AND WHAT TOOLS DO YOU THINK WOULD MAKE IT WORK?

Unfortunately, this discussion is taking a particular shape. It is terrible that the PiS government, without hiding the fact that it relates to my country, is the reason

The official magazine of European Democrat Students

why talks have begun on this matter. I hope, though my hopes are small, that the Polish government will come to their senses and once again reconsider their actions.

VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, RYSZARD CZARNECKI, COMPARED YOU TO PEOPLE WHO REVEALED JEWS FOR MONEY DURING WORLD WAR II AFTER YOUR WORDS ON GERMAN TELEVISION THAT THE POLISH GOVERNMENT IS MOVING TOWARDS A DICTATORSHIP. WHAT, AS A POLE, DID YOU FEEL HEARING THIS COMPARISON?

In Poland, I am going to file a lawsuit after this comparison. It is unimaginable that a politician representing the EP as its vice-chairman can use such language for couple minutes of media fame and looking for applause from his voters. A large number of people in Poland and not only, also other MEPs, were giving me signals that it cannot go unpunished. It’s not about my case, but about citizen’s rights to defend their personal dignity, the right to historical memory. MORE AND MORE OFTEN HISTORICAL, MAINLY ANTI-SEMITIC AND XENOPHOBIC ISSUES ARE ENTERING THE EUROPEAN PUBLIC DEBATE. DO WE HAVE ANY INSTRUMENTS TO PREVENT THIS?

Growing acceptance for using symbols, fascist contents, racist comments… Is a problem that extends beyond the borders of EU Member States. The EU was created to be an antidote for fascist experiences. That is the reason why I recently appealed to introduce a pan-European prohibition of promoting Nazis, fascist symbols and slogans as well as delegalisation of neo-fascist organisations in the territory of the EU.

The African Union – European Union partnership: Time to set a new path The 5th African Union-European Union (AU-EU) Summit took place in Abidjan, Côte D’Ivoire, on 29-30 November 2017 under the overarching theme “Investing in Youth for a Sustainable Future”. The summit, held in the year of the 10th anniversary of the adoption the Joint Africa-EU Strategic Partnership (JAES), was expected to represent a turning point in the relations between the two continents. In a rapidly changing global landscape, Africa is experiencing profound economic, political and societal changes, and its importance to the internal and external dimensions of Europe’s security and prosperity has become paramount. EU and AU had much to gain from increasing political and economic ties in Abidjan, but the summit failed to deliver on several fronts leaving important questions about the future of the relation unanswered. A MISSED CHANCE?

The 5th since 2000, the Abidjan summit was the first to be organised in a Sub-Saharan country and the first where the African Union officially appeared as the EU’s partner. The African youth was supposed to be the central topic of the gathering, but the attention quickly turned to the migration crisis and allegations of slavery in Libya. Although the new €44 billion EU external investment plan for young African people was presented to leaders, civil society and youth organisations found themselves marginalised at the summit with their speaking slots cancelled or substantially cut. However, the youth topic allowed to touch on a series of associated issues such as inclusive growth, governance and sustainable development. In the final political declaration, African and European leaders committed to focus on four strategic priorities: Mobilizing investments for African structural and sustainable transformation; investing in people through education, science, technology and skills development; strengthening resilience, peace, security and governance; managing mobility and migration. The summit revealed a striking divergence in political agendas that prevented leaders from agreeing on more ambitious objectives. The final declaration – approved without a clear consensus and released only weeks af-

ter the summit – reflects perfectly the divided opinions which shaped the dynamics of negotiations in Abidjan, with the text stripped down to a bland agreement to improve extensive cooperation. In fact, the only concrete decision – taken at the margins of the summit among France, Germany, Morocco, Niger, Chad, African Union, European Union and the UN - was to improve the efforts against the abuses of migrants in Libya. At a moment when relations between Africa and Europe are at a crossroad it seems that the potential of such a summit has not been used to its full: as the history of the cooperation between the two continents suggests, a re-evaluation of their cooperation is timely.

Africa and the EU today, but although created as an instrument for moving beyond donor-recipient relations towards a genuine partnership with Africa, it has failed to link adequate means to the strategy. This has hampered any real impact. Instead, the major resources from the European Development Fund (EDF), such as the Africa Peace Facility (APF), remained linked to the Cotonou Agreement. The Cotonou Partnership Agreement (CPA), signed between the 28 EU Member States and 78 African, Caribbean and Pacific countries (ACP), provides ACP countries with multiannual resources from the EDF but will expire on February 2020. The negotiations of a new agreement will shape the relationship between EU and AU and are set to start by mid-2018.

A TEN-YEARS-OLD STORY OF COOPERATION

Since its inception in 1957, the EU (then European Economic Community) has had a close association with Africa, which over time has developed from a narrow focus on trade and development to encompass security, governance and the rule of law. First formalised in Cairo in 2000, the relationships between EU and AU were then cemented in 2007 with the development of the Joint Africa-EU Strategy (JAES) which sets out the shared interest, values and strategic objectives of the two institutions. JAES provides the framework for much of the political and security dialogue between

A NEW PATHWAY AHEAD

The summit represented a great opportunity for Europe and Africa to arrive at a more coherent partnership, addressing the political, institutional and financial limitations of the framework which historically regulate their cooperation. However, what happened in Abidjan proved that true cooperation and equal partnership between the two continents is not yet a reality. The economic disparity alone provides clues to the gravity of the situation: the EU’s 28 states boast a GDP of $17 trillion, seven times the $2.39 trillion gen-

BullsEye

erated annually by the 55 AU members. Furthermore, not only the two blocks are internally divided, but also there is an obvious imbalance of economic and political power that is deeply rooted in post-colonial frustration. Similarly, no deal was struck to redefine cooperation on the African Peace and Security Architecture, which, considering the worsening situation in the Sahel and the Horn, will need to be re-boosted. The problems caused by the overlap of JAES and CPA were not addressed either. The negotiations for a post-Cotonou agreement will start soon impacting profoundly on the relationship between EU and AU, especially if we consider that, with the Brexit, the EDF will lose one of its most significant financial contributors. The European Commission proposals for the negotiations, released after the summit, suggests constructing the post-Cotonou around three regional Compacts for the three ACP regions. The African one would be built on the JAES and would seek to “treat Africa as one” addressing one of the oldest problems in the relations with the AU. It still to be seen what this will mean for the EU’s Association Agreements with North African countries, which now contribute in jeopardising the frame-

work for the relations with the African continent. The re-negotiation of the ACP agreement and pressing of the European Parliament to improve the JAES will not be the only elements affecting the AU-EU relationship in the near future. Both unions find themselves at an institutional crossroad that will reshape their future cooperation. The AU, with the Rwandan President Paul Kagame’s reform agenda, is embarking on a potentially transformational process and by welcoming Morocco back among its members, is now for the very first time a truly continental body. The EU, on the other hand, is still managing its existential crisis over migration and now faces the prospect of the UK’s exit. These transitions come at a time of rapidly changing international politics. The geopolitical context for multilateral diplomacy is deteriorating; there is uncertainty surrounding the Trump administration’s broader Africa policies, China’s weight on the continent continues to grow both economically and politically, while the commercial, diplomatic and military presence of the Gulf States and Turkey in Africa is increasing.

How the two institutions will adjust to these external and internal challenges will have serious ramifications for their economic, political and security partnership. To deepen relations, they will need to tackle deepen-seated frustrations that breed mistrust and resentment, resolve the dysfunctionalities bound-up in colonial history and instead build partnerships based on shared interests. Collectively, the EU’s 28 members still represent Africa’s principal trading partner, main foreign investors, the chief source of remittances and largest provider of development and humanitarian assistance. The relationship between Europe and Africa is unique, but must be improved and nurtured, as with China and other actors stepping up their political and financial presence on the continent, African leaders may find it easier to make new friends than to keep old ones. If Europe wants to be a credible global actor, one of the most important steps to take will be to continue to be a leading force towards a stronger partnership with Africa. Not only for the sake of Europe, its economic interest and security needs, but also for the sake of Africa, its sustainable development and the contribution that the Old Continent can give in achieving it.

A Voice from the 5th AU-EU Summit

This is a short interview with Ms Héla Slim, Peace & Security Fellow for the African Union-European Union Youth Plug-In Initiative. WHAT IS THE OVERALL PURPOSE OF THE AU-EU YOUTH PLUG-IN INITIATIVE (AUEU YPII)?

The YPII is an unprecedented initiative created by both institutions and aimed at meaningfully including youth in the 5th AU-EU summit. As the theme was; “Investing in Youth for a Sustainable Future”, it was essential for the 36 youth ambassadors to make their voice heard and advocate for youth inclusion in different sectors such as; business, education, environment & climate change, governance & political inclusion, peace & security. Africa and Europe face common challenges in these interrelated sectors, and this is the reason why more cooperation is needed between the two continents, notably to address the migration issue. I deeply regret that the migration topic took all

the stage at the summit, especially because of the simple short-term vision reflected in the talks regarding the situation in Libya. The majority of migrants detained are young. However, no mention was made of youth as a way to tackle the roots of forced migration. There is still a long way to go to trigger a change of mindset and convince decision-makers that investing in youth is the right, long-term investment Africa needs. WHAT ARE THE RESULTS ACHIEVED? WHAT ROLE YOUNG GENERATIONS HAVE IN EU-AU RELATIONS?

The main outcome of the initiative is the Youth Agenda. Policy recommendations in each of the cluster have been put forward not only at the summit but also at the different meetings we had previously with NGOs, civil society and government officials. However, we could feel a

gap between the political intention and the reality: a significant number of politicians and decision makers are not ready to assimilate youth demands and still, too many policies do not consider young people’s interests. Nonetheless, we could witness a growing interest in youth challenges. By attending meetings that are usually closed to youth representatives, we succeeded in generating an intergenerational dialogue. We do not intend on creating a cleavage between youth and the older generation. On the contrary, our goal was to be inclusive at all levels and make young people aware of the role they can play in policy making. The voice of young people is essential, especially in the current demographic situation.

Mattia Caniglia

The official magazine of European Democrat Students

Elves vs Trolls: Lithuania’s Struggle For Truth in Putin’s Hybrid Warfare “Well, that’s just your opinion man” - said the Big Lebowski, a great icon of postmodern relativism. Living in these “post-truth” times it is frequently quite difficult to find out where does the real truth lies, and some countries like Russia are trying to exploit that to its political aims. Today the small nation from the Baltics is standing up for facts against Russia’s propaganda. At the beginning of 2017, 1,000 German soldiers were stationed in Lithuania as part of NATO’s Atlantic Resolve mission. A couple of days after the Bundeswehr was deployed in the Lithuanian town of Rukla, anonymous e-mails had been sent to Lithuanian politicians and news outlets, alleging that German soldiers had raped a girl in the town of Jonava. Lithuanian authorities investigated the allegations and found no evidence that any of the claims made in the emails were true. Later, the IP-address from which the e-mails were sent, led to Russia. This ordeal illustrates the new reality of the drastically changing security environment in Eastern Europe. Since the annexation of Crimea, Russia is actively employing fake news, propaganda, and disinformation to destabilise Lithuania and other Central and Eastern European countries, that were once part of Moscow’s sphere of influence. As of today, these countries, Lithuania including, are fast-growing economies and members of both EU and NATO. In the meantime, Russia seeks various tools and narratives to question Lithuania’s statehood and Western orientation. The primary attacks come in the form of spreading disinformation about Lithuania’s national history. Grand Duchy of Lithuania was a major power in the region from the 14th to the 16th century. In 1579 Grand Duchy of Lithuania coalesced with the Kingdom of Poland, to withstand Moscow’s influence. In 1795 the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was divided between Russia and other major European monarchies, and the lion’s share of the Commonwealth was incorporated in the Russian empire. Then, in 1918, Lithuania emerged as an inde-

pendent nation. It was later annexed in 1940 by the Soviet Union, in 1941 by Nazi Germany and in 1994 by Stalin. One of the principles of Russia’s propaganda narrative tries to argue that Lithuania voluntarily joined the Soviet Union and that the partisan war, which was taking place in Lithuania between 1944 and 1953, was a fascist-led uprising, not a movement to seek independence which was a real aim of the partisan war. Furthermore, Moscow understands the sensitivities of Polish and Russian minorities in Lithuania; therefore, it tries to aggravate the issues related to them. Last year Russian embassy in Vilnius distributed leaflets containing a table that aimed to demonstrate a considerable disparity in living standards between Lithuania and Russia, thus agitating Russian minority in Lithuania to seek a better life in Russia. Leading Lithuanian economists immediately refuted these profoundly absurd and utterly unsubstantiated arguments. However, the ultimate share of Russian fake news is pointed at current Lithuania’s geopolitical environment. Almost a classic example of this is a myth that by joining the EU Lithuania lost its sovereignty. This kind of message usually contains falsehoods about the collapse of the EU, the financial failure of Euro and a lot more. Besides that, Russian propaganda tries to form a narrative that NATO is an inoperative political body, aimed to spread American imperialism and that NATO countries, in case of danger, would never defend Lithuania. In the recent years, Lithuania recognised the growing frequency of such information attacks from Russia. Therefore, it reacted promptly and strategically. Lithuanian authorities have already taken four Russian led, or Russian sponsored television stations to court for their fake content, and had them temporarily suspended.

Another key tactic is trying to educate citizens what Russian fake news is about, what it is aimed at, what tools it is using to question Lithuania’s statehood. In other words, Lithuanians are being taught to identify propaganda for themselves and withstand overt disinformation campaigns. As Lithuania’s government takes all these measures, the civic activity is no less critical. Russia spreads a vast number of fake messages on Facebook and other social networks. A vast number of fake Facebook profiles shares anti-EU and anti-NATO political messages. These are allegedly managed by a state-backed “troll factory” in St Petersburg; the same “troll factory” which spread thousands of pro-Brexit messages in the spring of 2016. As it is almost impossible for Facebook to monitor all these fake accounts, active Lithuanian citizens gathered in a Facebook group called “Elves”, to resist Moscow led propaganda. When the ordinary member of the group identifies suspicious Facebook account, he posts it in the “Elves” group. Then the other “Elves” reports the account for Facebook administration to check its verity. The vast majority of these Facebook profiles turns out to be fake. Consequently, Facebook deletes such accounts. These are perfect examples when the synergy between state and civic levels appears to be the most fruitful way to counter disinformation and propaganda. It is crucial that the West understands, that this new struggle is not a matter of point of view — this is about what we stand for; whether we are determined enough to defend the old Western virtue of freedom in this extremely fraught posttruth times. Lithuania is a fine example of how to be prepared to protect what is worth protecting.

Teodoras Žukas

BullsEye

“Britain has had enough of Experts” – Academia and the consequences of Brexit The Erasmus programme has existed since the late 1980s. It is one of the most successful programmes of the European Union. In total, it has brought up to half a million Brits overseas to gain experience from studying in other European countries. However, with the first round completed of negotiations about the United Kingdom’s termination of its membership in the European Union, future participation in the programme is uncertain. This would have significant impacts on the young generation of Brits who are currently considering what their future will look like after Brexit. The United Kingdom has participated since the start in 1987 and was one of the original eleven countries who participated in the scheme (together with Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Spain, France, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands and Portugal). They have since been an active participant in the Erasmus programme. In 2013-2014, the UK was among the top five sending-countries as well as receiving countries for both traineeships and student mobility (studies abroad). While the British Prime Minister has stated that the country will stay in the programme until 2020, the more prolonged future is uncertain. Also, while most young people voted to remain (73% of people aged 18-24 and 62% of people aged 25-32), the decision will have huge implications for thousands of students in the UK as well as other European countries. For many Europeans, the Erasmus programme is a more affordable way to access British universities which often have considerably higher tuition fees than most of the EU. Vice-versa it provides a way for British students to enhance their

curricula and language skills. For now, the UK’s future engagement in the programme will be discussed at the next stage of the Brexit-negotiations. It is foremost a question about contribution and access to the funds, which for Erasmus+ (the new programme combining different EU educational funding) is €14.7 Billion for use between 2014 and 2020. If no further negotiations are made, the country will be removed from the programme. Thus, a” no-deal” scenario would be catastrophically to many students. Without any financial contribution, there will be no participation. In a recent publication by the London School of Economics on the youth perspective on Brexit, it was shown that young people want a more equal and globally inclusive United Kingdom. The study also showed that many of the respondents are concerned about economic pressures and the political, social and economic direction that Brexit will create. It also found that the most frequently mentioned specific policy priority that young people want to be addressed in the Brexit negotiations is the

preservation of EU membership benefits. These were both more broadly the freedom of movement within the EU and specific benefits such as the Erasmus programme. The fact that few young people supported Brexit is also a reason why such interests might be left aside in the negotiations. Cutting budgetary support for the EU was often used as an argument by those who wanted to leave. With the current uncertainty of what a future deal will look like, it is not unlikely that more vocal groups in the Brexit negotiations will demand their interests (such as financial support for farmers) before keeping those linked to young people. However, ensuring the UK’s participation in Erasmus+ will be important to provide a future outlook for current and future students of the UK. Not at least as a way to pay back something to the young generation of Brits who never supported Brexit in the first place.

Kristina Olausson

The official magazine of European Democrat Students

EDITORIAL TEAM 2017/18

Julien Sassel (27) is a Belgian and Italian dual citizen and has been an active member in EDS since 2012. He has a Master in International Relations from the Université Catholique de Louvain and is currently pursuing the MA in EU International Relations and Diplomacy Studies at the College of Europe, in Bruges.

Mattia Caniglia (30). A Master in Strategic Studies and several years of professional experience in international organisations gave him extensive knowledge of global geopolitical and economic dynamics. He is currently collaborating as a political and economic analyst with media like Foreign Policy, Fortune China and The Guardian for the production of country reports.

Sabine Hanger (22) studies Law in Vienna, Austria. Since 2016 she has been member of the Aktionsgemeinschaft and in June 2017, she got elected to be the Chairwoman of AG Jus, bringing her in a situation in which she is confronted with great responsibility and political sensitiveness, but also in which she has the chance to work with a lot of various people.

Ramy Jabbour (24) was born in Beirut, Lebanon. He received a degree in International Affairs and Diplomacy and currently pursuing a Master’s degree in Political Science at Notre Dame De Louaize. Ramy is currently the media and communication officer in the Lebanese Forces Youth Association (LFYA) and editor in the BullsEye magazine since 2015.

Vladimir Kljajic (26) has a BA in International Relations. He is currently the Director of a small local cultural centre in Belgrade, Serbia. He is a supporter of EU integration, and interested in the impact of development aid. He likes to read books about politics and history.

Maciej Kmita (22) is alumnus of international relations study, 2nd year student of master’s degree in public administration. Councillor of polish town Pińczów. Assistant of the Polish MP. Vocalist and poet. His main interests are social policy, education and problems in Central and Eastern Europe.

Kristina Olausson (27) has completed a double-degree in European Governance and is working in the EU bubble, as she is being engaged in the debate on digital policy. She considers EDS as a creative platform on which to discuss issues on Europe’s future with likeminded, politically engaged and clever young people.

Neil Smart Costantino (22) is a Maltese Student, reading for a degree in European Studies with Contemporary Mediterranean Studies at the University of Malta. His main areas of interests lie in the fields of Human Rights, National and Foreign Security and Political Strategies.

Sarah Katharina Wolpers (23) is studying towards her Master of Arts in Governance and Public Policy at the University of Passau. Since 2015 she is an active member of RCDS Germany. Her focus of interest is political campaigning, higher education, digitization and European integration.

Teodoras Žukas (22) is a 4th year student at Vilnius University, Institute of International Relations and Political science; he is in his second year as Editor in BullsEye magazine. He’s academic interest lies in History of International Relations, Russia’s foreign policy and the Middle East.

BullsEye

EXECUTIVE BUREAU 2017/18

Virgilio Falco (27) is EDS Chairman. He is an Italian law student and is writing his thesis on institutional communication in the age of social networks. As president of the Italian association StudiCentro, he worked on writing the reform of the school system in Italy and he was coordinator of the Education Committee of the National Youth Council of Italy. He has working experiences at the Italian Parliament and in private universities. He writes for the newspaper Il Foglio and for the webmagazine Formiche.net.

Tomasz Kaniecki (23) is a Polish law student and a Secretary General of EDS. Tomasz’s introduction to politics came through service as a field organiser for the former Polish Minister of Foreign Affairs Radosław Sikorski in 2011 general election. He has previously served at the European Parliament as currently works on both political and business researches. In 2015 he was honourably awarded by the British and Swedish Embassies for the best student paper on the TTIP. He writes for various think tanks.

Sara Juriks (22) is from Oslo, Norway. She has a BA in Music, and is finishing her Masters Degree in Democracy and Comparative Politics at UCL in London. She has been active in youth politics since 2011, and was elected to the national board of HS in 2016 where she is still an international secretary and board member. Sara has been active in EDS since 2014. This year in the Bureau her main responsibilities are the conference resolution and fundraising.

Tommi Pyykkö (28) lives in Helsinki, Finland, where he has studied French, European Studies and Political Science at the University of Helsinki. He is the international secretary of TK Finland now for the second term. His first EDS event was in 2015 and during the last working year he was part of the Social Media Team. Currently he is the Vice-Chairman responsible for publications. He has acquired experience also in the EPP Group in the Parliament and would want to create an EU-related career.

Beppe Galea (21) is a University of Malta student and is currently reading a Bachelor (Hons.) in European Studies. In 2013 and 2014, he served as a Youth Ambassador in his region and he is an active member of Studenti Demokristjani Maltin and The Malta Scout Association. He has been working in an MEP office for the past 2 years in both Brussels and Malta. Europe is his passion and he likes to travel and share his European experience.

Pantelis A. Poetis (23), is a Greek-Cypriot and he is Vice Chairman of EDS. He studied Law and International Relations - Global Political Economy in Middlesex University London. Pantelis is involved both in national and international youth politics for many years now. In EDS, he currently runs the portfolios of Fund Raising, Statutory Amendments and Member-Organisations. Moreover, he works as Associate of International Affairs in Dr Andreas P. Poetis Law Firm based in Larnaca - Cyprus.

Carlo Giacomo Angrisano Girauta (20) is a law and global governance student at ESADE, and is active in the Partido Popular since 2012. He is the current Vice Secretary General of International Relations at NNGG in Spain, and has been active in the European politics for the last three years. As Vice Chair of EDS he has assumed responsabilities in the fundrasaing of the organization, in the social media team as well as representative in the working groups of the EPP.

Robert Kiss (28) lives and works in Sfantu Gheorghe, Romania. He holds a Bachelor degree in Business & Management from Corvinus University of Budapest and a Masters degree in Economy & Tourism and Political Campaign Analysis from Transilvania University Brasov. Currently he is doing his PhD in Economics at Bucharest University of Economics. Robert has been active in youth politics since 2011. Currently he is Vice-Chairman of RMKDM. He is active in EDS since 2014. As Vice-Chairman he is responsible for the Permanent Working Groups.

Mihaela Radu (26) is from Chisinau, Moldova. She holds a Master’s degree in Public Relations and Advertising from the Academy of Economics Studies and is a honorary graduate of promotion. Currently, she is the executive director of Dreamups, where she is developing the Moldovan start-up community. Mihaela is also a member of the PLDM National Political Council and TLDM.

The official magazine of European Democrat Students

Gergely Losonci (25) is a Hungarian MBA student at Corvinus University of Budapest. He holds Bachelor degrees in Business & Management, Finance and is also a Chartered Accountant. Gergely worked in the European Parliament, currently works as a business consultant in Budapest. He isVice-Chairman of EDS and Deputy International Secretary of Fidelitas. Within EDS he is responsible for the EU 2019 Survey Project and Relations with the EPP for the 2019 EU campaign.

european people’s party

FIND OUT HOW TO CONTACT US! Visit us at Rue du Commerce 10, BE-1000 Brussels, Belgium Visit our homepage at edsnet.eu

Like us on Facebook at facebook.com/edsnet.eu

Read previous issues at bullseye-magazine.eu

EUROPEAN DEMOCRAT STUDENTS IS THE OFFICIAL STUDENT ORGANISATION OF THE EUROPEAN PEOPLE’S PARTY

epp