The Aurora - Issue Zero by EYP Finland

THE AURORA ISSUE ZERO

EDITORIAL. I am Christina, I am 20 years old, split nationalities (Danish and Irish), and most importantly right now, I am the Editor of Vantaa 2014, the 20th National Selection Conference of the European Youth Parliament Finland. It is 1 am right now, and I am sitting on the couch at my dads’ place, watching Irish comedy. I just started layouting ISSUE ZERO, which is always an exciting process. It is me who gets to decide what the newspapers that you will be reading is going to look like, it is me who determines if the Journalists pictures are good enough, if their articles live up to the high standarts I set for them and lastly, if I am satisfied with the paper as a whole. I get to make the first decisions and the final decisions. Or well, at least technically. It is true that I do all the things I just mentioned, but there is no way I can do it all by myself, so I have Cat Noonan from Ireland as my assistant. ISSUE ZERO is a little teaser we - the Media Team “The Auroras” - have put together for you Delegates. It only consists of Topic Articles, which are articles that will help you understand and take a stand on your Topic even before the Session starts. For now, this is it. I am very excited about seeing you all in Vantaa, and may you have a happy new year! Christina Daubjerg Newman  Editor of Vantaa 2014

THE AURORA IS BROUGHT TO YOU BY Editorial Assistant:

Jenni Röynä (FI)

Catherine Noonan (IE)

Katariina Suorsa (FI) Kristin Verpe (NO)

Video Editor:

Lira Loloci (AL)

Anu Pekkarinen (FI)

Natalie Dyvesether (NO) Saara Rissanen (FI)

Journalists:

Zephyr Brüggen (NL)

Christopher Nölte (DE) Emily Smith (UK) Iina Lappalainen (FI) 2

ECON I OFFSHORE TAX HAVENS WITHIN AND OUTSIDE EUROPE: HOW CAN EUROPE JOINTLY ADDRESS THE CRIMINAL AVOIDANCE OF TAXES WHILE RESPECTING THE CITIZENS’ RIGHT TO PRIVACY AND FOREIGN STATES’ SOVEREIGNTY? BY CHRISTOPHER NÖLTE When you consider, and go to inform yourself on, the topic of offshore tax havens, you generally have, one way or another, the impression that it is already a criminal act. All search outcomes are, in general, negative and oppose the idea of tax exiles, giving you the impression that all tax havens are illegal, even if they are not. This is as a result of its many opposing arguments. The main criticism of offshore financial centres is that, in combination with their rigid bank secrecy, they tend to favour tax evasion in other countries. Another main issue is the lack of transparency, which is seen in connection with the money laundering activities that it often funds - 2-5% of GNP is laundered yearly, according to an estimate by the IMF world. In addition, the financial centres are under criticism due to their poor financial supervision. According to many experts, they have threatened the stability of the financial market. Well-known examples of 3

this are the failures of the Meridian International Bank in 1995, or the collapse of Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI). Also, offshore tax havens are ascribed an important role in the emergence of various currency crises of the 90s. Moreover, tax fraud and tax evasion are limiting the capacity of Member States to raise revenues and to carry out their economic policy. Estimates show that tens of billions of euros remain offshore, often unreported and untaxed, reducing national tax revenues and development. Tax fraud and tax evasion are also a challenge for fairness and equity, not just between companies, but basically between every citizen. However, proponents of offshore tax shelters emphasize their important role in the international monetary system in which they are able to develop unique strategies. One example would be risk management, which is allowed by the liberal laws in the tax exiles but would not normally be possible. Also, they claim that they are important as regulators of the market and prevent governments from raising their taxes too far.

effectively if they work together through a framework agreed at EU level. Unilateral solutions alone will not work. But as long as the EU’s attitude to respecting the citizens’ right to privacy and foreign states’ sovereignty remain the same, there will be no process. Illegal actives turn “legal”, since there is nobody to prove the converse. Tax havens are a controversial topic, and because of that it is not easy to conclude whether they play an important role in our society, or are just illegal avoidances of privileged people and companies which want to gain more net for their gross. While the EU needs to secure bank secrecy, the normal tax payer‘s privacy and national fiscal sovereignty, they need to make sure that no taxes are lost, culprits are prosecuted, and solutions for non-EU tax shelters are found. Otherwise, the risk they run is that of seriously harming development and competition across the EU.

Therefore, combating tax fraud and tax evasion requires action at national, EU and global level. The European integration process has led to closer integration of the economies of all Member States. This process has generated huge benefits for European citizens and businesses but it has, in turn, created additional challenges for national tax administrations in terms of co-operation and exchange of information. Experience has shown that Member States can only address these challenges

TRAN HUB AIRPORTS SUCH AS HELSINKI AIRPORT BRING SUBSTANTIAL ECONOMIC BENEFITS TO THEIR COUNTRIES BY INCREASED CONNECTIVITY TO THE REST OF THE WORLD. STILL NEARLY 50 % OF EUROPEAN AIRPORTS ARE LOSS-MAKING AND AIRPORTS FACE STRICT STATE-AID RESTRICTIONS. AT THE SAME TIME THE RAIL INDUSTRY RECEIVES ROUGHLY 100 TIMES MORE STATE AID THAN THE AVIATION INDUSTRY. IN A TIME OF ECONOMIC INSTABILITY, SHOULD AVIATION BE SUBSIDIZED BY THE EUROPEAN GOVERNMENTS TO KEEP FLIGHTS AT THE LOSSMAKING AIRPORTS? BY JENNI RÖYNÄ When it comes to long-term solutions for the transport subsidies, three main issues must be taken into consideration; environment, economics and sustainability. Aviation is one of the most common, and safest, ways for cross-country travel. However, enormous amounts of greenhouse gases, air pollution and loud noise are just some of its biggest flaws. Nevertheless it maintains its popularity. When it comes to state subsidies, the rail industry has kept its place as a receiver due to lack of competitiveness in the business and its greenes. It is arguable whether funding small airports would directly promote aviation in general, but it is pretty safe to assume that it wouldn’t decrease it. Bearing in mind the EU’s emission targets and the future of our globe, is the aviation business justified? Should the money be invested in the research of more environmental friendly transport 5

methods instead? Arguments in favour of planes compared to trains are usually concerning time. It is true that current high-speed trains have a lower maximum speed than aircrafts, but they still are able to provide a shorter overall travelling time. This due to external factors, such as the fact the train stations are located in the city center whereas travelling to airports requires extra time commitment - as well as time spent in tight security checks at the airports. High-speed trains like the ones rolling in Japan are a potential investment in Europe as well, as journeys within the continent can be made in the smallest, and the most environmentally friendly way possible. It has become somewhat a trend to mock the current rail industry, due to lack of effectiveness, flaws and delays. Yet, the rail industry is still less sensitive to changes in the

weather, and therefore doesnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t have to modify schedules nearly as much as aircrafts. Due to globalisation and cheap-carrier companies, the amount of cross-continent journeys has grown drastically. Does this make aviation an irreplaceable method of transportation? Bearing in mind the environmental and economic aspects, would the most efficient option at the moment be the development of greener planes? Underwater tunnels such as the one from France to England are possible to build for rails, but transatlantic tunnels are only a vague concept within current building technologies. Funding small airports does not directly lead into the development of greener planes, but as it may decrease the expenses of the carriers, perhaps the companies would invest the leftover money in the low emission aircrafts to attract more passengers. 6

AFET RESPONSIBLE PRODUCTION AND CONSCIOUS SOURCING: WHICH MEASURES SHOULD EUROPEAN COUNTRIES ADOPT TO ENSURE THAT ANY OF THE MATERIALS FROM FOREIGN COUNTRIES USED IN THE PRODUCTION PROCESSES ARE EXTRACTED IN A SUSTAINABLE AND CONFLICT FREE MANNER? BY KRISTIN GRAF VERPE

Having sustainability as one of its core values, the EU has implemented a sustainable policy into the production and extraction of raw materials within the union. However, with a big industry and scarcity of some resources, many raw materials are being imported from developing countries. For various reasons, these materials are not always conflict free and environment-friendly, and, as of today, the EU is lacking a comprehensive strategy to deal with this problem. First of all, in order to solve the problem, you have to bear in mind that it has many aspects and any solution will influence a great number of people. There are always reasons as to why resources are extracted in a non-sustainable manner - for example, in developing countries, economic growth is often more important than being environment-friendly. Furthermore, you can raise the question, why it is that poor countries are resorting to export the resources, while the highly developed countries are consuming them? It is also important to remember that the European economy has been through a large crisis, and that many companies are still struggling from this. Limiting their choice of resource suppliers will influence their competitiveness in the global market. An example of non-sustainable imports is the timber trade, with Brazil as one of the main exporters and European countries as some of the biggest importers. Up to 15 million hectares of forest are lost every year due to deforestation. If you are now thinking that 15 million hectares sounds like a lot, you are absolutely right; it is, in fact, the equivalent to 36 football fields every minute. We know that the effects of deforestation

are many, some examples being reduced biodiversity and disrupted livelihoods. It is not only the environment that is suffering as a result of the extraction of raw materials. We have seen that “the resource curse” is a phrase that, unfortunately, seems to make perfect sense, as natural resources have played a key role in many international conflicts. There are many pitfalls that come with having wealth in raw materials - the most serious being that such resources provide funding for armed conflicts, at a huge human cost. A well-known example from the past is the “blood diamonds” in the Kivu region of The Democratic Republic of Congo. However, despite all the pitfalls, trade in natural resources also represents an opportunity, maybe the only opportunity, for the developing countries to bring money into their economy and better their standard of living. Therefore, prohibiting raw materials extracted from conflict regions could have big consequences for the countries and people involved. To sum up, trade in raw materials has brought development to Europe, as well as increased living conditions to many other parts of the world. At the same time, unsustainable extraction of raw materials is damaging the environment and putting our needs in front of future generations, while extraction of materials from conflict regions is causing major suffering to the people living in the affected areas. As a big consumer of raw materials, European countries have great potential to influence the situation. The urgency of this topic is increasing, and it is now time for the Committee on Foreign Affairs to take action.

CULT

FROM SWEDISH TO SOMALI: THROUGH THE EUROPEAN CHARTER FOR REGIONAL OR MINORITY LANGUAGES, MOST EU MEMBER STATES ARE COMMITTED TO PROMOTING AND PROTECTING THE HISTORICAL MINORITY LANGUAGES SPOKEN IN THEIR AREAS. LATELY, IMMIGRATION HAS INTRODUCED EUROPE WITH A NUMBER OF NEW AND GROWING LANGUAGE MINORITIES NOT COVERED BY THE CHARTER. WHAT POLICIES SHOULD MEMBER STATES HAVE FOR THEIR MINORITY LANGUAGES, BOTH HISTORICAL AND NEW? BY KATARIINA SOURSA

At the moment there are 24 official languages in The European Union, but they are only a small part of our rich set of languages. Besides them, The European Union has more than 60 historical regional or minority language communities, which have approximately 40 million speakers. Regional and minority languages are languages traditionally used by part of the population in a state, but are usually either dialects, migrant languages or not official state languages.   The regional or minority languages can be roughly divided to the historical, and the new migrant languages. It is essential to note that the reasons for promoting these languages are different for both groups. Some of the indigenous minority languages are majority languages in some other country, and are therefore entirely secured in at least one country in the world. A good example of a strong and historical minority language is Swedish, which is an official language in both Sweden and Finland, mainly because of Finland’s long and close-knit history with Sweden. One reason for 9

Swedish being such a strong minority language is the compulsory syllabus of Swedish in the elementary school. Also, for example, Catalan has the same position as Swedish in Europe, being a minority language in Spain but an official language in Andorra.   On the other hand, there are historical minority languages that are endangered, and are being protected to forestall their extinction. Basque language in Spain is considered vulnerable, and Sami languages in northern Finland, Sweden, Norway and Russia are classified critically endangered, and have only few native speakers left. Protecting these languages is possible only by carrying out some important acts, making it possible for native speakers to use their own language in everyday acts.

languages, it is not about conservation but about making the lives of the people easier in new areas. The European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages was adopted in 1992 to promote and protect them, to ensure they stay vital and to prevent them from perishing. The article 22 of the European charter for Fundamental Rights declares that the Union respects linguistic diversity, as it surely does. However, immigration into EU countries has grown during the last years, and so has the number of languages spoken. Linguistic diversity is respected, yet not much has been done to enhance the status of new minority languages inside the EU. Should these new minority languages be treated equally with the old, indigenous ones?

It is a crucial fact that, for example, Sami people in Finland need to receive education and culture in their own languages in order to keep them alive. The promotion, thus far, has been successful, as necessary services and media are being offered in these languages. On the contrary, the new minority languages in EU, which have derived from immigration, do not need conservation since they are not in danger of extinction in their country of origin.

New minority languages have a poor status in respect of the number of their speakers. In Finland, for instance, Sami languages have a better status than Somali, even though there is a much greater amount of Somali speaking people compared to the amount of people speaking Sami languages. When it comes to new minority

FEMM II

PROSTITUTION AND ITS IMPACT ON GENDER EQUALITY: IN LIGHT OF THE VARIED LEGAL PRACTICES ACROSS EUROPE, HOW BEST SHOULD THE EUROPEAN GOVERNMENTS REVIEW THEIR PROSTITUTION LEGISLATION IN ORDER TO MINIMISE THE NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES OF PROSTITUTION FOR EUROPEAN SOCIETIES? BY SAARA RISSANEN The Netherlands is one of the few countries that permits and regulates prostitution, alongside Germany and Austria. In the United Kingdom and Finland, it is legal, but not regulated, whereas in countries such as Ukraine and Croatia, prostitution is strictly illegal. Anti-prostitution laws vary by country, by region, and even by city. The topic is very controversial, dividing people strongly in its discussion. There are multiple arguments for both of these sides, the main causes of friction being the questions of victimless crime, legitimate business and human trafficking. Prostitution is often said to be a victimless crime, meaning that it is not harmful for society and that no one is committing an inherently harmful action. It is argued that it is the criminalization of prostitution that creates victims and causes corruption, hypocrisy, morally dubious law enforcement tactics, as well as abuse and violence. Can the one who is willing to practice such a business be an actual victim?

“Can the one who is willing to practice such a business be an actual victim?”

On the other hand, prostitution can be a terrible violation of human rights. The International Labour Organisation claims that women are forced into prostitution by their economic situation or desperate will to help their family, and that the prostitutes are the real victims vulnerable women, forced into a life of dependency and abuse. Instead of legalising prostitution, and simultaneously increasing the sex industry, people against its decriminalisation believe that the key method to solve these problems is the abolition of prostitution entirely. Another similar issue that divides people is whether prostitution is a legitimate business or not. Wendy McElroy, a Research Fellow at the Independent Institute, believes that prostitution itself is an “exchange of sexual favours” and therefore, there is a financial exchange going on. She asks an eye-opening question: “Prostitution is a combination of sex and the free market. Which one are you against?” The decriminalisation of prostitution would grant prostitutes the same protection as in any other industry. However, many people believe that the legalisation of prostitution would not solve the problems associated with crime, corruption, mass sexual exploitation and human trafficking some of the key issues that arise from prostitution.

nor illegal, leading to more people coming from abroad to practice it. Decriminalising prostitution, therefore granting prostitutes the same labour and human rights as other businesses, is hoped to potentially solve the problem of human trafficking. It would not only give prostitutes legal rights, but it would also aid in solving the question of human trafficking. However, can this question be solved without abolishing prostitution completely? It is often seen that even prostitutes working in a country where prostitution is legal are the victims of human trafficking. Prostitution itself is very controversial topic that divides opinions. People often see it immoral and harmful for society. However, would universally illegalising prostitution actually eliminate it? These are questions that the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Balance II tackles with.

In this situation, human trafficking means the trade in humans, especially women and children, for the purpose of sexual slavery - often called the modern day slavery. It has been claimed that abolition of the general ban of brothels has resulted in increased human trafficking. This topic is a serious issue, especially in the Southern European countries, Catalonia being a good example. There, prostitution is neither legal 12

EMPL THE STARTUP ECONOMY: WITH HIGH YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT AND STAGNANT ECONOMIES, HOW SHOULD EUROPEAN GOVERNMENTS PROMOTE ENTREPRENEURSHIP IN ORDER TO CREATE A GENERATION OF YOUNG ENTREPRENEURS? BY IINA ERIKA LAPPALAINEN

The European Union countries are facing some serious problems in relation to their employment structure. The older generations are retiring and there are already many jobs going unfilled. How is it still possible that EU Member States have such high youth unemployment rates? To highlight some examples; Finland has a youth unemployment rate of 19.9%, whereas Germany goes steady with 7.80%. But these percentages do not compare with the ones in the southern Member States. Spain has ended up in headlines with its youth unemployment rate of 56.1%, as measured in October 2013. But what does unemployed youth have to do with entrepreneurship? The idea of ‘startup company’ was born during the dot-com bubble in the beginning of this millennium. The interest in technology companies increased and many startup companies were established. A startup company is a young entrepreneurship that is looking for a suitable business model, potential markets and capital. The first investments for a startup company can be remarkably small compared to possible returns after a while - this is why startup companies interest so called “angel investors”. The nature of startup company is indeed quite risky; it can lead to huge success or to total failure. Unemployed youth is not a synonym for a lack of potential. More often it is about lack of enthusiasm or the wrong ways of doing things. According to The Guardian, most of the unemployed youth have dropped out of school and do not have the required English or Maths skills to have any proper or stable jobs. The EU has taken various actions in order to reduce the high percentages of unemployed youth. The Youth Guarantee states that all young people under 25 years will get a concrete job offer within the four months after they have dropped out of school, or lost their job. To ensure the economic growth, new companies and innovations are needed. Statuo companies are about intellectual property. But the question is; how can we collect all the potential ideas from the young brains with the courage to step up with their own business idea? Entrepreneurship might have a frightening sound among young people. Maybe this is because of the lack of knowledge - What is entrepreneurship about? What are the next steps with this potential vision? The EU has created an Erasmus Exchange Programme for young entrepreneurs. It follows a similar idea to the Erasmus Programme for university students, but now young entrepreneurs have the chance to go and learn from a more experienced entrepreneur. It is about sharing knowledge, learning useful information and also getting some vital advices. The best thing to learn from a more experienced entrepreneur is, as Winston Churchill said; “Success is walking from failure to failure with no loss of enthusiasm.” 13

ITRE AS THE EASTERN COMPETITORS’ RISE THREATENS THE COMPETITIVENESS OF THE EUROPEAN INDUSTRY, THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION (EC) LAUNCHES THE GROWTH STRATEGY “EUROPE 2020”. THE EC URGES THE EU MEMBER STATES TO ENHANCE THE COST EFFICIENCY BY PRIORITIZING TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT. BY NATALIE M. DYVESETHER

The world has witnessed the industrial rise of China, which is one of the EU’s most significant competitors. Over the past decade, China has had an annual growth rate in gross domestic product (GDP) between 8 and 14 percent. In contrast, the EU experienced a decrease in 2012 with a percentage rate of –0,4, and the forecast for 2013 was not much brighter. The unprecedented boom of China and the Asian Tigers (Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan) has awed Europe. Meanwhile the EU’s manufacturing constitutes a declining share of total GDP. In a press release in September 2013, the European Commission (EC) expressed its concern: “Even more worrisome are the data on the share of the EU manufacturing output on a global scale, which show that the share of manufacturing in Europe has been consistently decreasing, while manufacturing in China has been on the rise.” Consequently, the EC proposed a ten-year growth plan called “Europe 2020”. Conditions for “a different type of growth that is smarter, more sustainable and more inclusive” is facilitated within a framework of seven “flagship initiatives”. Among these are industrial policy, innovation and resource efficiency. In Europe, labour is relatively more expensive compared to countries with labour intensive production, such as China. Thus, the EU’s competitiveness relies on the most efficient utilization of the production factors possible. Maximization of potential output for the capital intensive production in the EU Member States, presupposes continuous improvement of technology. Innovation and knowledge are essential keywords for the enhancement of the exploitation of the scarce resources. This is also reflected in the strategy, which aims to steer “the economic policy debate toward the instruments for improving the knowledge and productivity performance of EU manufacturing.”

Economic glossary for dummies: -Production factors: inputs like labour, capital, energy, resources.  Technology: broader term than its common usage. Expresses the productivity as the level of output by exploitation of production factors given the available technology.  Production maximization: Maximal output given the production factors, which means that the actual GDP is equal to the potential GDP.  Capital intensity: Production primarily based on exploitation of capital (machines etc.) has high capital intensity. Production primarily based on cheap labour is labour intensive.  Long-run: A perspective long enough for the capital to be a variable input factor. This varies from industry to industry. 14

ECON II

THE END OF AUSTERITY? IN LIGHT OF GROWING CONCERNS ABOUT THE EFFECTS OF AUSTERITY POLICIES ON ECONOMIC GROWTH, HOW SHOULD EUROPEAN GOVERNMENTS BALANCE THEIR BUDGETS WHILE MAINTAINING ECONOMIC GROWTH AND SOCIAL STABILITY? BY ZEPHYR BRÜGGEN

When was the last time you compared the price of two products in the supermarket? When did you last hear about someone you knew losing his job? When was the last time the bus fares went up? How much money does your grandmother get as a pension? Maybe the effects of austerity haven’t struck Finland as heavily as they have other parts of Europe. Yet, I think that all of you will recognize yourselves in these, to some extent, omnipresent situations. In the midst of a grim government debt crisis in Europe, the ratio of government debts to the overall euro area’s GDP rose from 92.2% to 93.4% in the second quarter of 2013, making up for 86.8% of the GDP. Just to make clear how much that is; at the start of the crisis it went from 2.0% in 2008 to 6.3% in 2009. The IMF works as a bailout-fund for countries in the worst situations, but lending money only seems to drag them into deeper misery. There are, however, justifications and advantages of austerity. Based on neo-liberal principles, (like open markets and deregulation), the cycle of booms and busts is an inherent characteristic of capitalism. According to this theory, the economy needs bumps to create the next booms of investment and innovation, allowing the market to correct itself and adapt to new circumstances. It all makes sense, right? When governments run big deficits, tightening their belts seems the obvious way to restore public confidence and wealth. But this often leads to declining employment rates and living standards. Royal Mail’s recent privatization in the United Kingdom is an example of a government no longer supporting non-profitable institutions. Why? Because sending letters is so pre-crisis! It is about the profit, not the people and, as a result, jobs are lost. Alcoholism has gone up as a result of higher unemployment rates, and the amount of people depending on Red Cross food distributions increased by 75% between 2009 and 2012. Austerity simply seems to cause unhappiness,

raising the question: does the government work for us, or do we work for the government? Another concern is the widening gap between the wealthy and the poor, due to austerity. Here, the single currency is a problem; the euro zone consists of wildly different countries - the Spanish market just doesn’t work the same way as the German does. This makes it very hard for Spain to compete when it has to meet the requirements of the euro, a currency more adapted to German markets. Should Germany look after Spain? Paul Krugman’s economic theory offers another alternative: inflation. “The continent needs more expansionary monetary policies, […] a willingness on the part of the European Central Bank to accept somewhat higher inflation. More inflation would help uncompetitive countries like Spain ring down their costs more quickly, and it would potentially spur more spending and growth.” Economist Joseph Stiglitz’s view is that wealthier countries should invest in technology and infrastructure, from which all of Europe can profit. “I hope the debate will be ‘what are the things we can do to promote growth’ rather than ‘how do we strangle each other together’.” Keep in mind that the economy that matters now is the economy of the euro zone as a whole. National austerity measures? European integration? It is up to you.

“To quote a very wise man, and the greatest inspiration to the Occupy Movement, Stephane Hessel: Engagezvous!”

FEMM I

‘GLASS CEILING’ EFFECT VS. LOW PUBLIC PAN-EUROPEAN SUPPORT FOR GENDER QUOTAS: LEARNING FROM THE EARLY LESSONS OF THE COMMISSION’S STRATEGY FOR EQUALITY BETWEEN MEN AND WOMEN 2010-2015 AND THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE’S (COE) GENDER EQUALITY PROGRAMME OF 2012, HOW SHOULD EUROPEAN STAKEHOLDERS SEEK TO ACHIEVE GENDER PARITY ACROSS THE CONTINENT? BY EMILY FRANCES SMITH

‘The Best Feminist Moments of 2013’. As we approach the end of 2013, there has been a considerable focus along these lines. Every year discussions on gender equality are more prevalent than in the previous one. Gender equality means equal visibility, empowerment and participation of both sexes in all spheres of life. It is clear that it is an important problem, but it is not just a women’s issue, and it requires everyone to take action. Both the Commission and the Council have shown their commitment to the cause by taking steps to achieving parity amongst the genders. While it is unclear whether the ‘glass ceiling’ effect, (an intangible barrier preventing women from rising as high as men in the corporate world), or low public support is to blame for the lack of balance, more has to be done. The Commission’s equality strategy focuses on a 5 pronged approach: levels of economic independence, equal pay, access to decision-making, eradicating gender-based violence and promoting gender equality externally, (outside the EU). Although the time limit is not yet expired, the Commission’s Mid-term Review has recently been published. The strategy has been an ambitious one for the Commission, however the policies outlined in the document are being addressed. There have been significant developments in the areas of decision-making, pay and violence. In the next two years, there will be further concentration and continued action on economic independence, violence and external actions. The Council’s Gender Equality Programme aims for the acceptance and appreciation of both the sexes and their diverse roles in society. Its priority areas include; combating stereotypes and sexism through the media and images of women, equal access of women to justice, and gender 17

mainstreaming - a public policy concept which requires assessing the different implications for men and women of any planned policy action. The Council initially planned for significant results by the end of 2013. Whilst visible change is undeniable, is this progress enough? There has been much legislative action - as well as the aforementioned policies, the Commission has adopted a Women’s Charter in 2010 and The Council also has the European Pact for Gender Equality, to name just a few. Apart from legislation, what other ways are there to arouse public support for this deep societal shift? A change in people’s attitudes and social and cultural norms are needed to remove the unconscious bias that permeates the population. This could be done through education schemes, aimed both at women from childhood to encourage them to engage in the labour market and all children when they are young, to remove discrimination and stereotypes of men being the main breadwinners and women being stay-at-home mothers. Additionally, it must be recognised that the countries in Europe are at different stages when it comes to gender equality. Europe may not be able to be targeted uniformly and some areas may need to be tackled distinctly, for example, the more rural areas of Lithuania, Romania and Cyprus. In these places, aiming to deliver workshops to inform women on sexual education and family planning may be deemed necessary. There are many avenues still untouched, but the question must be asked; will it only ever simply be progress and the end goal never reached? FEMM I  ‘Glass ceiling’ effect vs. low public pan-European support for gender quotas: learning from the early lessons of the

Commission’s strategy for equality between men and women 2010-2015 and the Council of Europe’s (CoE) Gender Equality Programme of 2012, how should European stakeholders seek to achieve gender parity across the continent? ‘Glass ceiling’ effect vs. low public pan-European support for gender quotas: learning from the early lessons of the Commission’s strategy for equality between men and women 2010-2015 and the Council of Europe’s (CoE) Gender Equality Programme of 2012, how should European stakeholders seek to achieve gender parity across the continent? ‘Glass ceiling’ effect vs. low public pan-European support for gender quotas: learning from the early lessons of the Commission’s strategy for equality between men and women 2010-2015 and the Council of Europe’s (CoE) Gender Equality Programme of 2012, how should European stakeholders seek to achieve gender parity across the continent? ‘Glass ceiling’ effect vs. low public pan-European support for gender quotas: learning from the early lessons of the Commission’s strategy for equality between men and women 2010-2015 and the Council of Europe’s (CoE) Gender Equality Programme of 2012, how should European stakeholders seek to achieve gender parity across the continent? ‘Glass ceiling’ effect vs. low public pan-European support for gender quotas: learning from the early lessons of the Commission’s strategy for equality between men and women 2010-2015 and the Council of Europe’s (CoE) Gender Equality Programme of 2012, how should European stakeholders seek to achieve gender parity across the continent?

AFCO UNITED STATES OF EUROPE VS. EUROPE À LA CARTE: HOW COULD THE EUROPEAN INTEGRATION PROCESS ACCOMMODATE THE NATIONAL NEEDS AND PREFERENCES OF MEMBER STATES WHILE ENSURING THE BENEFITS OF ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL INTEGRATION? BY LIRA LOLOÇI

The EU is a union of 28 countries, with a population of over 495 million - bigger than the US and Japan put together. During its 60 years of existence, the European Union has come a long way. The remarkable expansion of tasks, competences and membership is, however, only part of the story of European integration. The US has often been referred to as a ‘melting pot’, whereas Europe is considered a mixture of people and culture that has developed over the course of its long history. An approach of the “United States of Europe” has led many people to believe that there will be a loss of local identity, a common language and a single nationality will dominate. However, this is not necessarily the case. Banking regulations, competition policies and taxation are all topical areas 19

where deeper European integration and the creation of a single political system will offer practical advantages. The danger of following such direction lies in the fact that, while collective decision-making bodies may provide services that are useful to everybody, they may also abuse their power to redistribute resources among the participating countries. The main dilemma is whether Member States should come together under one central government, or whether to allow a Europe where Member States may pick and choose the extent of their participation. Europe ‘à la Carte’ refers to this idea of a non-uniform method of integration, which allows Member States to select policies as if from a menu - still allowing minimum number of common objectives. However, it is uncertain if the EU, as it is currently structured, could bring prosperity to the Member States. David Cameron has preferred the ‘pick and mix approach’, where UK has profited from EU’s single market, but refuses to be part of the Euro or the Schengen passport-free zone. The German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle has said; "Cherry picking was not an option". There was a similar

reaction from the French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius. "We can't have Europe à la Carte," he said. "Imagine the EU was a football club; once you have joined up and you are in this club you can't then say you want to play rugby." From its beginnings, European integration has varied between policies that were strongly integrated and policies with only a few competences of the Community, also known as ‘vertical differentiation’. Moreover, in the past 20 years, many of the new steps taken towards integration have not applied uniformly to all member states, while non-member states have participated increasingly in EU policies or ‘horizontal differentiation’. A differentiated integration in the EU can therefore be found across both policies and countries. The declaration that the Eurozone could be transformed into a United States of Europe is no longer realistic. This joint responsibility raises a critical question of what would happen with the countries that choose to stay out. A deep rift might occur between the ins and outs, therefore abandoning the initial objective of unity.