The Source: The European Issue (1)

#1 The European Issue

72nd International Session of the European Youth Parliament — Munich 2013

The Source #1

Editorial Gentle reader, you hold in your hands the first newspaper from The Source, media team of Munich 2013, 72nd International Session of the EYP. Only the most unobservant of you could have missed the session theme: Down to Earth. Resourcing Europe. In short: Resources. Financial, human, natural, intellectual, political – it’s simply vast. At the session, the focus will be on five different facets of resources. To mirror that, The Source will be offering you five printed publications, one for each of the facets. You’re now reading the European Issue and in the course of the session will have the Environmental, Economic, Socio-cultural and Global Issues to amuse you. In this issue and the next the committee journalists have also contributed a piece on their Committee’s topic.

resource which isn’t listed and which there is no themed issue of the newspaper for because it is so crucial that without it we would not be here.

Human resources. For all the other bells and whistles, the one thing which will make this session is the people here. How open you are, how willing to engage and experiment and learn and teach – and read our newspapers – will fundamentally define what you get out of this session. Just as with any other area, it’s about distribution decisions. You have decided to spend ten days of your lift here in Munich. So have we. If we pool our resources we can make this session all it can be.

Here is your paper. May it be The Source of great amusement.

■ Sophie

Today 300 participants have gathered, members of an organisation of a further 20 000, to talk about politics. To learn, to laugh, to develop. If you take a look at our feature “Down to Munich, Resourcing the Session”, you’ll see a huge number of – well, of numbers to provide you with a glimpse of the resources involved in making this session happen. But there is a further

2

72nd International Session

The European Issue

Contents European issue Foreword to the European issue

4

Four ways of defining Europe: In search of a European identity

6

European institutions for dummies

7

Pandas and bees: Should the EU protect endangered languages?

8

A banking union in Europe: Money makes the world go round

10

Any space left for Europe? Promoting peace in the world

12

Stairway to industrial heaven: Europe’s path to the stars

14

The evolution of privacy: With the development of online business, online security may need revision

16

Addressing the EU’s democratic deficit: Creating the EU of the people

18

Gas dependency: Where should Europe’s gas come from?

20

Down to Munich: Resourcing the session

22

Munich 2013

3

The Source #1

Foreword

The European issue

W

elcome to Europe, welcome to EYP! is the title of one of the most watched videos about the European Youth Parliament. Six simple words that have probably been said countless times: the European issue of The Source helps you understand what exactly we mean by them.

In the exciting and full programme of Munich 2013, you can easily get lost in the complex names and tasks of the different European institutions. With that in mind, we have compiled all the information in one convenient newspaper that you can easily carry with you throughout the whole session and quickly look into in times of confusion.

4

Yet being clear about definitions is not enough. In debates at EYP sessions there are many words we often use without taking time to think about what they truly mean. The word ‘European’ and many other terms can mean something different to everyone who uses it: even more the reason to understand what exactly it means to you.

You will discuss and use such words a great deal in Munich. We therefore hope that you will spare five minutes to think about them yourself and give your own meaning to them. Take this issue and make it yours.

■ DG

72nd International Session

The European Issue

A

Your Europe

s all the countries represented in the session are from Europe, so by definition are you. Does it make you European, though? Are you a part of Europe? What do these six letters stand for? What does Europe mean to you?

Below you can find a blank geographical image of Europe. It is blank, impersonal, empty. Make it your Europe.

Fill it with your thoughts, feelings, beliefs. Share your vision. Share your Europe. â– DG

Munich 2013

5

The Source #1

Four ways of defining Europe

In search of a European identity

In 1946, at the University of Zürich, Winston Churchill said that he dreamt of a United States of Europe. 67 years later, the EU is a far from it. However, besides the visionary ideas Churchill had, a more relevant question today is: what is Europe?

For example, Churchill would most likely not have called Turkey European, due to religious differences. Today, Turkey is applying for membership into the EU – a new way of defining the European community.

This is just one example of how the idea of Europe and the idea of being European are changing constantly. Since the foundation of the EU, large parts of Europe are more united than ever. A European identity is largely linked with the EU. As European integration is deepening, it is natural to start wondering whether Europe is more than a collection of different nations. Does such a thing as a common European identity exist?

Defining Europe is highly debatable question, let alone the European identity. Experts have put down the following four main ways of defining Europe and European identity.

Europe as a trade union

This first definition considers Europe as an economic union with open borders and free trade. This view is especially a common in Scandinavia and in the United Kingdom. The idea of Europe as a union, based on no more than on practical benefits, does not offer much of a foundation for a common identity stronger than national identities.

Europe as union of values

Another idea of an European identity, which has been identified in countries such as France and Ger-

6

many, is that of a values-based union. Under this definition, a union founded not only on the principle of open borders, but also on shared values and solidarity, provides the basis for an European identity.

Europe as a philosophical afterthought

The third idea of Europe is more abstract. Philosophers like Jürgen Habermas, Ulrich Beck and Edgar Grande have brought it forward. It defines Europe and the EU as a unit constantly developing beyond the idea of a traditional nation state. Today’s Europe is believed to be deriving from the combination of a rights-based society together with open borders, creating a sense of ‘us’ instead of ‘them’. Habermas goes further by arguing that there is potential for a stronger European identity through a common European constitution that would establish European values.

Europe as a multilateral product

The last definition is a union as a product of multilateral agreements. Considering that the European countries are facing difficult but similar challenges, it is natural that they work together to overcome them.

The European nations are united in solving pressing issues like poverty, terrorism, climate change and economic crisis. Therefore, the European identity is defined within those agreements.

These various ways of defining Europe are all relevant and they show that Europe and the EU are nowadays viewed from fundamentally different perspectives. But in the minds of Europeans, Europe is still not the nation state that Winston Churchill once envisioned.

■ FH

72nd International Session

The European Issue

European institutions for dummies If you are standing next to your committee colleagues, please skip this page. It is to be read late at night, under the covers and without anyone noticing. Entirely embarrassing, yet crucial if you want to be part of the debating group, this page will serve to freshen up your memories, or even answer all those questions you have never dared to ask.

Regard this as your cheat sheet.

T

he European Union was founded as the European Steel and Oil Company in 1949, its six founding fathers being Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands.

Eight years later, it was renamed and the European Economic Community came into existence through the Treaty of Rome. On 1 January 1973, Ireland, Denmark and the United Kingdom joined what had to a great extent already become the European Union we know today. Further enlargements during the 1980s added Greece, Spain and Portugal to the Union, while the Soviet Union was slowly collapsing and international power balances were shifting. Austria, Finland and Sweden joined in 1995, before the greatest group of countries merged with the Union in 2004. 2007 saw the addition of Bulgaria and Romania, as the European Union continued to expand eastwards. Finally, in July 2013 Croatia will have finished its process of candidacy and become the 28th member state.

European Parliament

This body is directly elected by citizens of the European Union every five years. Representing the people, they debate and pass laws and budget plans and supervise the Commission.

Council of the EU

Also referred to as EU Council, this institution assembles national ministers from each member state in order to pass laws, approve the budget or develop foreign policies.

European Council

Four times a year, the political leaders of member states meet in this council to decide on their more extensive and wide-reaching initiatives and campaigns.

Council of Europe

Attention, this institution is not an EU body! It is an international organisation that reaches beyond the political borders of the EU, and we use the list of countries it encompasses in order to decide, which countries are to participate in our EYP sessions.

European Central Bank

Situated in Frankfurt, this entity manages the European Union’s common currency and regulates its economic and financial policy.

■ JF

European Commission

Currently, the Commission holds 27 commissioners from all the member countries, who are each responsible for one specific subject area. Since 2010, it has been presided by José Manuel Barroso.

Munich 2013

7

The Source #1

Should the EU protect endangered languages?

Pandas and bees

An analogy between threatened wildlife and dying languages shows why the EU should prioritise English as a lingua franca over protecting regional tongues.

P

andas are the epitome of the endangered animal. They are the logo of the WWF, they are very cute, and they are seriously dysfunctional. Pandas are actually carnivores, but at some point they decided to eat only bamboo. As a result of their weird diet, they need to spend the whole day chewing on bamboo, about the least nutritious thing on the planet. They do not get important nutrients that their carnivore metabolism needs. As a result, their libido is too weak to survive as a species.

Lots of money is given to the WWF and other organisations to protect the few pandas that are left. But what is the use? The panda is not vital to its ecosystem and would naturally go extinct in the current ecological situation. Do we protect them only because they are cute?

Bees are threatened, too: a far bigger problem than pandas. Bees are vital for the reproduction of plants and if they went extinct, the global ecosystem would collapse.

8

Just like pandas, the EU strives to protect and preserve Europe’s languages. Frisian is a threatened language in the Netherlands, spoken by less than half a million people in a small part of the country. When the Dutch government was making budget cuts and wanted to stop subsidising the Frisian theatre troupe Tryater, the EU protested. As part of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, it is EU policy to protect regional dialects. The Dutch government was forced to continue subsidising Tryater instead of another, possibly better or more relevant, company who perform in Dutch.

The EU’s motto is ‘united in diversity’. This sounds nice, but in practice it is often difficult to combine the strengths of a strong union with the benefits of culturally diverse member states. The problem is related to the topic of the Committee on Culture and Education: we want everybody in the EU to be able to communicate in a shared language, but also to preserve the diversity of the many official languages (23) and re-

72nd International Session

The European Issue

Committee on Culture and Education Linguistic diversity as a resource for the EU: what measures should the EU adopt to protect its multilingual heritage while balancing it with the efficiencies of a lingua franca at the institutional level?

gional minority languages (over 60) that are spoken in the EU. But especially in the current economic situation, trade-offs are needed. The question to ask is whether these languages and dialects are vital to the functioning of the cultural ecosystem of the EU. In other words: is Frisian a panda or a bee?

The Dutch government justifies protecting Frisian by calling it an ‘irreplacable culture resource’. It is true that if nobody speaks Frisian anymore, it would be impossible to make Frisian theatre – even though existing plays would still be there. Pandas are irreplaceable too, but are they indispensable?

The EU should prioritise every citizen’s ability to speaking English over protecting minority languages. In the long term, stimulating English in every country will pay

Munich 2013

off on the institutional level. Today’s youth are tomorrow’s leaders and, if we do it right, they will all speak English. We need to stop worrying about pandas and start creating a European ecosystem in which one shared language provides the unity we desperately need.

Some of you who speak a minority language will probably be offended, but this shows a crucial difference between people and pandas. We can take care of our own interests. It is important to remember, especially in the European Youth Parliament, that sometimes the right thing to do for the EU is to take a step back.

■ DM

9

The Source #1

A banking union in Europe

Money makes my head go round The idea of a European Banking Union was introduced in 2012 and regarded as a solution to the Euro zone crisis ever since. But what makes the implementation of a banking union such a tough task to fulfil? Why is it problematic to implement a single framework for banking supervision?

I

nstability and fragmentation of financial markets from the Eurozone were inevitable consequences of a structural inconsistency in the European monetary and financial union. Having a supranational currency and central bank on one hand, and a system of national banking regulation and supervision on the other turned out to be incoherent and a major threat to financial stability. Yves Mersch, Member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank (ECB), argues that national supervision was a be a major obstacle to efficient management of the crisis, leading to serious setbacks in the process of financial integration.

The pre-crisis safety mechanisms of EU Member States proved incompatible with the single currency and monetary policy. As a consequence, it is widely assumed that the planned European Single Supervisory Mechanism (SSM) and a Single Resolution Mechanism (SRM), will make a key contribution towards

restoring financial stability in the Euro zone.

In order to be able to grasp the Economic Affairs topic in its context, it is crucial to have a common understanding of the European Banking Union and the hopes it entails. Using the words of Vítor Constâncio, Vice-President of the ECB, the “banking union aims at building an integrated financial framework to safeguard financial stability and minimise the cost of bank failures”. It consists of three supplementary pillars of which the SSM plays a substantial part.

The SSM is the first pillar, a single framework for banking supervision through the ECB, supported by a single rulebook for banks issued by the European Commission. Moreover, the SSM’s implementation will be monitored by the European Banking Authority (EBA), which is a regulatory agency supervising the European financial market.

The second pillar is the Single Resolution Mechanism (SRM), a single mechanism for resolving banks

Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs

10

72nd International Session

The European Issue

funded by levies. Single ‘Resolution’ does not only mean closing non-viable banks but also includes the restructuring of a bank in order to ensure the continuity of its essential functions, preserve financial stability and restore the viability of that institution.

Lastly, a common system for deposit protection will be implemented. The aim is that Deposit Guarantee Schemes will reimburse a limited amount of deposits to bank account holders whose bank has failed. From a bank account holders’ point of view, this partly safeguards their wealth from bank failures and from a financial stability perspective, this assurance prevents depositors from making panic withdrawals from their bank, which averts severe economic consequences.

As promising as the idea of a European Banking Union sounds, there is always the other side of the coin. First and foremost, the idea of a banking union unleashes a lot of fear among national authorities.

They reason that banks should not be able to easily receive money from euro rescue funds as this transaction was decided past the state’s authority. Hence the banking union will enable much easier access to funds and national parliaments will no longer have a say about which banks are going to receive funding.

Concerns about “moral hazard” are also increasing which means that easy access to euro rescue funds would provide additional appeal to make risky investment decisions.

Another difficulty of the SSM is that in the near future the ECB will be responsible for supervision of about 6000 European banks. Current estimations

show that the ECB would need to employ around 2000 extra staff members to adjust to their new task. However, ECB President Draghi also admitted last August that their current 1600-strong staff were already overloaded with work – with more than 75 percent working regularly overtime. The employment of 2000 new staff members and the transfer of the necessary know-how displays yet another obstacle to a banking union. Finally, existing treaties lack the required

judicial regulations to transfer the right of supervision from national authorities to one supranational one. New regulations still need to be defined and will furthermore delay the implementation process of the banking union.

Building up a financial framework for common European monetary affairs is a step in the right direction, but the idea of an integrated banking union lacks sufficient planning – at least for now.

■ LLd

Towards the European Banking Union: following a political agreement to create a Single Supervisory Mechanism for the EU banking system, what steps, if any, should the EU take to stabilise the European banking system and its alignment with the real economy?

Munich 2013

11

The Source #1

Committee on Security and Defence From a continent to a world of peace: in the light of the recently awarded Nobel Peace Prize, how can the EU best contribute to fostering peace outside its borders and to what extent should this be achieved through the use of military means?

M

aybe it is just me, but I have come to realise that reading the news is probably the worst thing to do in the morning.

The World section of newspapers is a running death tally of wars and conflicts – quite difficult to digest with your morning coffee. Have you ever had your scrambled eggs while thinking about who can solve all these conflicts? They taste like powerlessness and disappointment.

Sure, ‘World Peace’ may have become a bit of a beauty pageant cliché, but the Nobel Peace Prize is awarded every year to individuals or institutions for their contribution to this ideal. In the midst of a crisis of confidence in markets and politics the European Union was congratulated on sixty peaceful years, perhaps as a not-so-subtle way to remind its citizens of its ultimate purpose: establishing peace. While the EU’s success is undeniable, the criticism of the award

12

is equally unsurprising. In the messy aftermath of the Arab Spring, and especially during the escalating Syrian civil war, it is reasonable to ask where the democracy and peace loving Europeans are. What have they done – recently – to promote global peace and earn this award?

Another look at the Syrian civil war could give an answer. Why has the biggest economy in the word, with the second largest joint defence expenditure, not been able to prevent the loss of over 70,000 lives and the displacement of over one million refugees?

Direct military intervention has never been on the table – neither in Brussels nor in New York. Instead, diplomatic calls for President Bashar al-Assad’s resignation, an arms embargo and sanctions on the oil industry (European countries accounted for 90% of Syria’s oil exports) are among the (soft) tools used to put pressure on the regime. Two years and 70,000

72nd International Session

The European Issue

To what extent can the EU promote peace in the world?

Any space left for Europe?

Maybe it is just me, but I have come to realise that reading the news is probably the worst thing to do in the morning. The World section of newspapers is a running death tally of wars and conflicts – quite difficult to digest with your morning coffee. Have you ever had your scrambled eggs while thinking about who can solve all these conflicts?

They taste like powerlessness and disappointment.

deaths later, they do not seem to have been that successful. In fact, economic sanctions are generally slow to work; they impoverish the sanctioned country, hurt its middle class and provide for textbook dictator dissent management conditions. In Syria, these sanctions increased cooking oil prices hurting civilians and left the opposition unarmed, while Russia kept its arms trade with the regime. So, why have Europeans not opted for more direct involvement in the conflict?

Why not join the US in establishing a Libya-type nofly zone, or even go for a unilateral intervention like in Mali?

There is a variety of possible answers. Sovereignty is a familiar one: neither the EU nor anyone else can directly interfere with the internal matters of any sovereign nation in order to ‘promote peace and democracy’. The Assad regime, unlike the Malian government, asked the world to keep out of its borders

Munich 2013

and we can only comply. The economic crisis is another (slightly more cynical) answer. With the Eurozone constantly on the verge of another recession, all member states are cutting back on their defence budgets and do not seem willing to risk an intervention. On top of that, Germany, largely pacifist, remains at the forefront of European policymaking. A third answer is geopolitics. The Syrian conflict involves more actors than just its population and maybe, just maybe, the EU cannot do anything. Syria is Iran’s closest ally in the Middle East, both supported by Russia and China.

In turn, by backing the regime, they put pressure on the US, which is worried about Israel’s security in the region and the relationship with China.

So where does this leave the European Union?

Considering the internal crisis and - more importantly - the global balance of powers, can it really promote peace to justify its Nobel Prize?

■ AM

13

The Source #1

Stairway to industrial heaven Europe’s path back to the stars

I

ndustrial activity is one of Europe’s greatest strengths. It amounts to approximately 80% of EU exports, making the EU one of the biggest industrial exporters in the world and offering a great deal of goods, services and employment throughout Europe. However, Europe’s industrial branch has weakened over the years: a cause for concern among the Member States and other European countries. What could be done to regenerate the industrial potential of Europe and at the same time increase productivity, boost exports and do so sustainably? In other words, how could industrial activity be reinstated as an integral part of the European economy? There are three components Europe should definitely play with: exploitation of technology, utilization of research and

the quality of industrial elements.

The industrial world has always been challenged by the rapid growth of population and wealth as they lead to higher demand for industrial goods. The more people there are, the harder it is for industry to respond to their demands. It sounds like a simple formula, but in the end that is not the case. However, the demand for many goods has decreased.

Europe is a leading actor in the world in several industrial areas; amongst others automotive, engineering and pharmaceuticals. Despite the current challenges, the EU is still taking the pressure and keeping up with the competition – though only barely. To regenerate its industry, the EU should market and highlight industrial output, knowledge and technology.

Committee on Industry, Research and Energy II A new industrial revolution: which measures should the EU adopt in the long run to increase its industrial competitiveness and maximise the output potential of its production factors, in particular by exploitation of technology and knowledge?

14

72nd International Session

The European Issue

Resulting from Europe’s industrial situation, productivity, export and sustainability has decreased. Furthermore, this has a big influence on the employment issues in Europe. By going deep into these problems EU would provide tools to make a change into the current industrial situation and climb back on top of the industrial world.

The problem here is short-sightedness. The focus should be on the development and use of research which would result in more efficiency and a development in the current situation of the industrial sector.

Another central question is the exploitation of technology: the EU has the know-how and technology to produce successful and efficient elements of industry, but not enough to create a full industrial system.

The key word here is development. Europe isn’t able to provide a similar labor market or the speed of economic development which other industrial powers can. Competition from emerging markets like China and India is increasing now that they have the resources to export elements to international markets with a cheap labor force. Europe lacks this cheap work

Munich 2013

force, but has better quality in its industrial products.

This still has negative effect in the production, turning it into a vicious circle with the lack of workforce leading to fewer goods and services and decreasing the speed of industrial process and the amount of products made. This is why Europe has difficulty in trying to keep up with the competition. Competitiveness plays a crucial role. Current industries are challenged and compared to other industrial powers across the world, Europe is not answering strongly enough. We need a system that works, a plan with which Europe can get back on its feet on industrial field and show the other powers what it is made of. â– AKs

15

The Source #1

The evolution of privacy

With the development of online business, online security may need revision Recently, online privacy has become a delicate, even testy area of public discourse. Arguably, the reason for this lies in the inherent intimacy of the issues involved with online privacy. Anything challenging an individual’s security online will be a direct threat to them – virtually, at least, if not physically.

A

s such, discussion concerning online privaof individual Internet users could potentially be satiscy tends to polarise. On the one hand, the fied by increasing the regulation and control of online public feel that their privacy needs to be as activity. well-protected as possible. The feeling behind this is However, this touches on two fundamental charone of helplessness, of a lack of control. On the othacteristics unique to the internet in the modern age. er hand, it is clear that businesses who expand into The first of these is the anarchy of the online world; the virtual world – such as the constantly besieged the Internet essentially exists organically and evolves Facebook – don’t just hope to profit from it but also constantly through the input of its users worldwide. require protection of their own. This protection is This makes it inherently unpredictable and that atnecessary due to the abuse of virtual businesses’ intempting to regulate it in an extensive and effective tellectual property rights – and in the contemporary manner would be not only very expensive, but nigh world, even of those not integrally involved. on impossible. Furthermore, one could argue that With this in mind, the protection of intellectudoing so would deprive the internet of that which al property rights and online privacy would seem to makes it so extraordinary, its anarchy and constant, contradict one another. The first is the champion of automatic development. Similar arguments have been corporate interests, the other of individuals’. However used extensively to hinder the protection of corpowhether this is in fact the case is questionable. After rate intellectual property rights. It is said that since all, both are examples of restrictions on online activity the internet provides the possibility of sharing this with the ultimate goal of information easily with easing the safe use of the others, it should be alinternet. Thus, both the Regulating the internet would deprive lowed to do so – with the profit-driven interests of consequence being not it of that which makes it extraordinary: corporations and the libnecessarily a loss of profits anarchy and constant development. erty-based requirements it for corporations, but a

16

72nd International Session

The European Issue

change in the fundamental workings of their industry.

The other fundamental characteristic of the Internet is its constant self-renewal. Despite having been in widespread use for over 20 years, the constant development of the internet means that it continues to be a largely unexplored form of communication. As such, the possibilities and consequences of online business are largely unknown at the moment. This is particularly true in the area of online privacy since the business opportunities within it – for example the use of personal information for business and marketing – have previously been a marginal area of corporate

activity. These developments in intellectual property rights violations have coincided with the rise of social networks that encourage people to share personal information online. Using this information has become a viable, even necessary aspect of the modern corporate world. The effect is comparable to the effect of the advent of the television on direct marketing. This means that it is worth asking whether it is reasonable to prevent businesses from using this information, particularly since this goes hand in hand with the losses other areas.

■ EH

Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs I Personal vs. marketable data: how can European countries guarantee the protection of citizens’ privacy and the individual ownership of European internet users’ personal data while allowing for the development of business projects in a new era of social media and communication?

Munich 2013

17

The Source #1

Committee on Legal Affairs Citizens – the resource for legitimacy: how can the EU further involve its citizens in the legislative process and in a way that increases the democratic legitimacy of its institutions?

Addressing the EU’s democratic deficit

Creating the EU of the people While economic deficits are the focal point of political debates, it is easy to forget that there is another problem causing havoc in the EU: the democratic deficit. It might as well be called a trust deficit between the people and the government, this relationship defined by Abraham Lincoln in a following way: “any government should be by, of and for the people”. Sadly, the EU does not fully live up to that ideal, since bureaucrats and politicians, far away from the ordinary citizens, are often the ones taking decisions in the EU. The lingering question is: what can be done to address this problem of democratic deficit successfully?

E

lectoral participation is often seen as a fundamental part of democratic systems: however, when being significantly low it is merely considered as a symptom of democratic deficit. A greater trust in the EU would likely boost the participation.

It is necessary to understand that the agendas discussed in the EU do not always include issues closest to the voters, so a lower level of electoral participation is perhaps inevitable. Additionally, awareness campaigns to improve participation cannot give the

18

EU more democratic legitimacy as they rarely, if ever, serve the purpose of significantly boosting the participation. EU policies must become more reflective of what people want, and more receptive to their opinions: these criteria cannot be measured only in terms of participation and awareness.

There are many ways of approaching this issue, but something that should definitely be considered is the division of power within the EU, simply because it causes problems with democratic legitimacy. The

72nd International Session

The European Issue

European Commission initiates the legal process, after which it is up to the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union make a joint decision.

There are some inherent problems in that process.

Since the Commission is indirectly elected through national governments it can hardly be claimed to be elected by the people: nevertheless, it is still the only body that can propose laws. The only directly elected body, the Parliament, should at least be given some sort of legislative initiative, albeit not necessarily at the expense of the Council. Consequently, the directly elected Members of European Parliament (MEPs) would have greater influence on legislation, guaranteeing more input from voters in law making process, which should furthermore increase the legitimacy of the process as a whole.

The Treaty of Lisbon of 2009 was a step in the right direction. It imposed stricter rules on transparency as well as transferring more power to the Parliament.

Alas, the power relations between the main institutions remain unequal and therefore it is hardly surprising that democratic deficit still exists. In order to change this balance, more powers should be given to

Munich 2013

the Parliament. Another possible remedy for this would be direct elections to bodies other than the Parliament, such as the European Council.

However, this would also risk alienating voters further as a result of more elections than they cannot keep the track of.

Henceforth, there is no simple approach to increasing the democratic legitimacy of the EU. Although there are issues concerning a lack of awareness and a lack of interest in the politics of the European Union, those are secondary to the much more fundamental structural issues. The key to democratic legitimacy does not lie in raising awareness or in more elections. It lies in finding more efficient and direct ways of allowing citizens to let their values have an impact on EU policy through the existing institutions. â– FH

19

The Source #1

Gas dependency Where should Europe’s gas come from?

The events of January 2009, though not unprecedented, were an eye-opening experience: those made it obvious how unprepared Europe was to cope with a crisis of that scale. Europe was faced with a hard truth, having to completely rethink its energy policies: it is strongly dependent on gas, mainly from Russia, and not flexible with its energy distribution.

Though the EU successfully mediated the dispute between the parties involved, it was not the leading force in the negotiations. Russia with its vast gas resources is still a force to be taken under consideration.

Since the gas crisis of 2009, European institutions are paying more attention on securing energy supply and reducing Europe’s dependency on non-renewable energy resources. Several action plans, such as Energy 2020 and Roadmap 2050, have been issued in order to reach the ultimate goal- to reduce carbon emissions by 80%, compared to the level of 1990, this to be carried out by 2050. However, the success of these plans depends on developments in technology as much as on finding new suppliers from the existing resources.

This crisis might have been exactly the wake-up call that Europe needed, and it seems that certain lessons have been learned. Since then different policies and action plans have been aimed at becoming independent both from Russian gas and the non-re-

20

newable energy resources in general. Diversifying the energy supply by switching to alternative suppliers, distributors and routes are among the immediate actions to be taken. White Stream, North Stream, South Stream, Nabucco, TAP, AGRI – just a few new pipeline projects aimed at achieving that goal. North Stream has already been finished, construction of the rest being scheduled to take place between 2015 and 2016. Seemingly, Europe is moving in the right direction. But are all the alternatives equally advisable?

Whilst most of the projects, with the exception of North and South Streams, are not directly influenced

by Gazprom, many of them share a same source Azerbaijan. Having promised 10 trillion cubic meters of gas per year to Europe, it seems like a viable solution. However, Azeri gas is not a long-term solution.

When looking at countries with the largest gas resources, Azerbaijan does not have one percent of what Russia can offer. What more, the State Oil Company

72nd International Session

The European Issue

Committee on Industry, Research and Energy I Switching to a new era of energy management: how can Europe best respond to an ever increasing energy demand both by securing sustainable supply and smart energy usage?

of Azerbaijan has recently signed a memorandum of understanding with Gazprom, making it a rather unreliable trading partner. This shows how the need to look for other suppliers with larger gas reserves has become increasingly important.

There are not many options, especially if we dismiss countries that are too far away for the importing to be financially profitable. The country with third biggest gas reserves is Turkmenistan. Although a promising option, it is run by an authoritarian regime, which would make it difficult to do business with it.

Next up Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan: all of them have enough resources to be considered in this context. The question here however is whether they have the necessary infrastructure in place; are they ready to take part in any of the existing pipeline projects or to start new ones? The question remains unanswered. Finally, there is Norway – the second biggest gas supplier to Europe at the moment. It en-

Munich 2013

sures a more secure gas supply but not the diversity needed.

Gas may not be the best option, but it is far from the worst either. We have the infrastructure and technology needed, but it must be made significantly more efficient, safer and reliable, not to mention potentially turning to Liquid Natural Gas, shell gas and other options. Europe’s independency of energy may be achieved in different ways, but it undoubtedly requires immediate action. Are we ready for a smarter, greener and above all stronger Europe? The session will provide the committee on Industry, Research and Energy to have their say about that. ■DG

21

The Source #1

The numbers behind Munich 2013

Down to Munich: Resourcing the session Behind the 72nd International Session of EYP there are some jaw-dropping numbers and figures. Perhaps viewing the session through this numerical lens will provide you with a better understanding of the magnitude of an International Session and the resources which went into making it happen. â– AY

1 fully booked hostel 1 session flag

2 years of organising Munich 2013

5 newspapers

15 sponsors

19 chairs 19 journalists

25

30 30

staplers

tennis balls organisers

35 delegations

225 delegates

500 flip charts

550 markers

10,000 post-its

19,000 staples 22

72nd International Session

The European Issue

Sophie Hall (CH) Oona Kiiskinen (FI) Harm van Leeuwen (NL) Timm Br체njes (DE) Lara Lindlahr (DE) Lidiia Zhgyr (UA) Erasmus H채ggblom (FI) Fredrik Hultman (SE) Daniels Grinevics (LV) Munich 2013

Annmarie Kiiskinen (FI) Antonia Kerridge (UK) Stan van Wingerden (NL) Arriana Yiallourides (CY) Johanna F체rst (AT) Mike Whyard (UK) Amantia Muhedini (AL) David Meijers (NL) Christine-Bianca Hanganu (RO) Love Lyssarides (SE) 23

Bayerische Staatskanzlei

This project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.

The activities of the European Youth Parliament are under the patronage of the Secretary General of the Council of Europe.

The European Youth Parliament is a programme of the Schwarzkopf Foundation.