Academic Preparation Kit - Lisboa 2015 - 32nd National Selection Conference of EYP Portugal by Henrique Vieira Mendes

Lisboa 2015 Comprehension: The Key to Improvement

Academic Preparation Kit

ACADEMIC PREPARATION KIT LISBOA 2015 – 32ND NATIONAL SELECTION CONFERENCE EUROPEAN YOUTH PARLIAMENT PORTUGAL

APPEJ – Associação Portuguesa do Parlamento Europeu dos Jovens/European Youth Parliament Portugal Rua Dona Antónia Augusta de Sousa, 63, 4460-665, Custóias, Matosinhos, Portugal www.pejportugal.com · geral@pejportugal.com

DISCLAIMER

TABLE OF CONTENTS

This Academic Preparation Kit was compiled for the 32nd National Selection Conference of the European Youth Parliament Portugal, which will take place in the city of Lisbon, from the 16th to the 19th of April, 2015.

to facilitate the search for information, may that be documents, news items or articles, through different types of search engines, news websites or encyclopaedias.

TOPIC OVERVIEWS

As regards the suggestions of research links, the list is by no means exhaustive. Also, several of the websites may contain relevant information other than the one cited herewith. Several links have been made available through footnotes – all underlined references are hyperlinked to their sources. Please note that the EYP PT is not responsible for the contents of the various websites; the texts, images and/or audio or video clips reflect the opinions of their authors, only.

The Topic Overviews are written by the Committee Chairpersons and serve as background material. They aim to identify the importance of the issue at hand, as well as the principal matters within it, the interconnections amongst the main actors in those matters and the actions already taken by them, while offering a short look at their possible future development. They are written with the intention of providing stimulating, yet neutral, introductions. It must be noted that the content of the Overviews does not reflect the positions of the Associação Portuguesa do Parlamento Europeu dos Jovens (APPEJ)/ European Youth Parliament Portugal (EYP PT), who strongly encourages independent thinking, and are the sole responsibility of their authors. Likewise, while the National Selection Conference will be held under the patronage of various public entities, no claim is made that their views are in any way represented by the contents of this preparation kit. KEYWORDS The non-exhaustive list of keywords intends

LINKS

We recommend that you print this preparation kit, together with all the research you will conduct on your own and bring all those materials with you to the conference. Wishing you a good read and successful preparation,

Arnolds Eizenšmits President, Lisboa 2015

André Oliveira and Carolina Macedo dos Santos Head-organisers, Lisboa 2015

Ana Nunes

President, EYP PT

4 5 9 10 14 18 22 26 30 34 38 42

Foreword The EU Explained Committee Topics Committee on Culture and Education – CULT Committee on Human Rights – DROI Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs – ECON Committee on Employment and Social Affairs I – EMPL I Committee on Employment and Social Affairs II – EMPL II Committee on Industry, Research and Energy – ITRE Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs – LIBE Committee on Security and Defence – SEDE Contacts

FOREWORD Dear Delegates of Lisboa 2015, I am delighted to present you the Academic Preparation Kit of the 32nd National Selection Conference of EYP Portugal. In this document, you can find Topic Overviews for each of the Committee Topics you will be discussing at the session. Me, the Vice Presidents, the Head-organisers and the Board of EYP Portugal, have carefully selected these topics and hope that you will find them challenging, yet engaging and interesting to discuss. The theme of the session, “Comprehension – The Key to Improvement”, aims at emphasising the need for a strategic way of solving problems. Through these topics, we

are inviting you to break down relevant problems and examine concepts, such as poverty, tax evasion and homophobia, and truly comprehend their different aspects, so that you can eventually suggest how to effectively improve the situation. In order to help you, we have decided to structure all Overviews in sections – going through all of those should give you basic, yet clear insight into the topics and their main aspects. However, please bear in mind that they should merely serve as the starting point. The keywords and links provided are to help guide your further research.

As you read through the Topic Overviews, you will notice a section ‘Preparation Task’. Apart from researching about your topic in general, you are also expected to fulfil this task designed by your Chairperson, in order to better prepare for successful discussions in Lisbon. Your Chairperson will contact you with more information via e-mail, so please check it regularly! Finally, it is time to demystify the European Union! Make sure to read the section ‘The EU explained’ which presents essential information that will facilitate your work.

Wishing you successful preparations and much looking forward to meeting you all soon, On behalf of Anamaria, Anna-Helena, Anna-Lena, Delia, Fabrizio, José, Lourenço, Matthieu, Robin and Teodora – the Chairs’ Team of Lisboa 2015,

Arnolds Eizenšmits President of Lisboa 2015

THE EU EXPLAINED 1. WHAT IS THE EU? The European Union (EU) is a unique economic and political partnership between 28 European countries which, together, cover much of the continent. The EU was created in the aftermath of the Second World War. The first steps were to foster economic cooperation: the idea being that countries who trade with one another become economically interdependent and so more likely to avoid conflict. The result was the European Economic Community (EEC), created in 1958, and initially increasing economic cooperation between six countries: Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands. Since then, a large single market has been created and continues to develop toward its full potential. From economic to political union What began as a purely economic union has evolved into an organisation spanning policy areas, from development aid to environment. A name change from the EEC to the European Union (EU) in 1993 reflected this. The EU is based on the rule of law: everything that it does is founded on treaties, voluntarily and democratically agreed by all the Member States. These binding agreements set out the EU’s goals in its many areas of activity.

Mobility, growth, stability, single currency

Transparent and democratic institutions

The EU has delivered half a century of peace, stability and prosperity, helped raise living standards and launched a single European currency, the euro. Thanks to the abolition of border controls between EU countries, people can travel freely throughout most of the continent. And it is become much easier to live and work abroad in Europe. The single or ‘internal’ market is the EU’s main economic engine, enabling most goods, services, money and people to move freely. Another key objective is to develop this huge resource to ensure that Europeans can draw the maximum benefit from it.

As it continues to grow, the EU remains focused on making its governing institutions more transparent and democratic. More powers are being given to the directly elected European Parliament, while national parliaments are being given a greater role, working alongside the European institutions. In turn, European citizens have an ever-increasing number of channels for taking part in the political process.

Human rights and equality One of the EU’s main goals is to promote human rights both internally and around the world. Human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights: these are the core values of the EU. Since the 2009 signing of the Treaty of Lisbon, the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights brings all these rights together in a single document. The EU’s institutions are legally bound to uphold them, as are EU governments whenever they apply EU law.

2. HOW DOES THE EU WORK? The institutional structure of the EU cannot be compared to that of any other international organisation (e.g., the North Atlantic Treaty Organization or the United Nations). It is neither a centralised unity like a nation state, nor does it imitate a relatively loose structure, such as the Commonwealth of Nations or a confederation like the United States of America – it is an organisation sui generis. The structure is unique and continuously developed. The Treaty of Lisbon marks the last big step in this process.

A. MAIN INSTITUTIONS 1. Within the institutional triangle European Commission The European Commission (EC) is the ‘ex-

ecutive’ power of the EU. One Commissioner is appointed by each Member State (with one, currently Jean Claude Juncker, being the President of the EC). The Commissioners are appointed by their respective Member States, approved by the European Parliament and put in charge of specific issues (e.g., Carlos Moedas, the Portuguese Commissioner, is responsible for Research, Innovation and Science). The EC monitors the Member State’s and the Union’s adherence to the acquis communautaire (the ensemble of all EU legislation), represents the Union in its foreign relations (especially through one of its Vice-presidents, Federica Mogherini, who is also the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy) and has the exclusive Right of Initiative1. Additionally, the term ‘Commission’ is also used to refer to the full administrative body about 23,000 staff members working in various Directorates-General (DGs) or services, each responsible for a particular policy area and headed by a Director-General, who reports directly to the President. The DGs draft laws, but their proposals become official only once the 1. The Right of Initiative is the right to propose laws. In the EU, the EC has the right to propose Regulations and Directives to the European Parliament and to the Council of the European Union). 5

THE EU EXPLAINED College of Commissioners adopts them during its weekly meeting. European Parliament The European Parliament (EP) is the first part of the EU’s legislative branch and consists of 751 Members of Parliament (commonly, MEPs), who are elected for five-year mandates by all EU citizens (over 18 years old, in Austria over 16). The first direct EP election was held in 1979; the latest in May 2014. The EP is divided into seven large fractions plus several independent MEPs. The biggest three fractions are the European People‘s Party pooling Christian Democrats (EPP), followed by the Party of European Socialists (PES) and by the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats Party (ALDE). It works either in a big plenary or in its 20 different Committees, each responsible for specific issue areas. The EP shares its legislative competences with the Council of the European Union. Council of the European Union (Council of Ministers) Also known as ‘the Council’, the Council of the EU is structured in issue-specific groups (councils), comprising the respective Ministers of the Member States (e.g., the Council for Justice and Home Affairs, with all Ministers of the Interior/Home Affairs). The presidency of the Council changes every six months and the ‘presi6

dent’ in office supplies the different councils with a Chairperson, with the exception of the council on Foreign Affairs, which is presided to by the High Representative. The issue areas are mirrored in those of the EP (e.g., environment, education, economy, budget), with whom the Council shares its legislative competences. Additionally, the Council also has executive powers. The current presidency (January– June 2015) is held by Latvia; the following one (July–December 2015) will be held by Luxembourg.

2. Outside the institutional triangle European Council The European Council (no standard abbreviation is used) is an EU institution comprising the heads of state or heads of government of the Member States, along with the council’s own President (Donald Tusk) and the President of the European Commission (Jean Claude Juncker). The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy takes part in its meetings. The European Council was established as an informal body in 1975; it became an official EU institution in 2009, when the Treaty of Lisbon entered into force. While the European Council has no formal legislative power, it is charged under the Treaty of Lisbon with defining “the general political directions and priorities” of the Union. It is thus the Union’s strategic

(and crisis-solving) body, acting as the collective presidency of the EU. European Central Bank The European Central Bank (ECB) is the central bank for the euro and administers the monetary policy of the euro area, which consists of 19 EU member states and is one of the largest currency areas in the world. It is one of the world’s most important central banks. The bank was established by the Treaty of Amsterdam in 1998, and is headquartered in Frankfurt, Germany. Since 2011 (and until 2019) the President of the ECB has been Mario Draghi, former governor of the Bank of Italy. The owners and shareholders of the European Central Bank are the central banks of the 28 Member States of the EU. Court of Justice of the European Union The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) is an EU institution that encompasses the whole judiciary. Seated in Luxembourg, it consists of two major courts and a number of specialised courts. The institution was originally established in 1952 as the Court of Justice of the European Coal and Steel Communities (as of 1958 the Court of Justice of the European Communities (CJEC)). In 2009, with the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, the court changed to its current name. Its mission is to ensure that “the law is observed (…) in the interpretation and application” of the Treaties. The Court re-

views the legality of the acts of any EU institution, ensures that the Member States comply with obligations under the Treaties and interprets EU law at the request of the national courts. It consists of two major courts: i) the European Court of Justice (created in 1952), the highest court in the EU legal system; ii) the General Court (created in 1988; formerly the Court of First Instance). European Court of Auditors The European Court of Auditors (ECA) was created in 1975 and formally established in 1977 in Luxembourg to audit the accounts of EU institutions. The Court is composed of one member from each Member State and its current president is Vítor Manuel da Silva Caldeira. Despite its name, the Court has no judicial functions. It is, rather, a professional external investigatory audit agency, whose primary role is to check if the budget of the EU has been implemented correctly, in that EU funds have been spent legally and with sound management.

3. Not an EU body! Council of Europe The Council of Europe (CoE) is an international organisation promoting cooperation amongst all countries of Europe in the areas of legal standards, human rights, democratic development, the rule of law and cultural cooperation. It was founded

THE EU EXPLAINED in 1949, has 47 Member States with over 800 million citizens, and is an entirely separate body from the EU. The CoE cannot make binding laws. Its best known bodies are the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), which enforces the European Convention on Human Rights, and the European Pharmacopoeia Commission, which sets the quality standards for pharmaceutical products in Europe. The Council of Europe’s work has resulted in standards, charters and conventions to facilitate cooperation between European countries. Its statutory institutions are the Committee of Ministers (comprising the foreign ministers of each of its 47 Member States), the Parliamentary Assembly (composed of MPs from the parliament of each Member State) and the Secretary General.

euro, overseen by the European Central Bank and with certain precepts formulated in the Stability and Growth Pact (Art. 129 (3) and (4), Arts. 132, 138, 219 TFEU). • Competition rules controlling state aid from national governments and the actions of companies necessary for the functioning of the internal market. • A common international trade policy, e.g., a common position in international trade negotiations (Art. 207 TFEU). • The conclusion of certain international agreements (Art. 3 (2) TFEU). • Common commercial policy. • The conservation of marine biological resources (part of the Common Fisheries Policy, Art. 38 (1) TFEU).

B. WHAT CAN THE EU DO?

These are policy areas on which the Member States have agreed to act individually if the EU has not exercised (or planned to exercise) its competence. If a policy area is neither exclusive nor falls under supportive actions, it is a shared competence. Some examples are:

1. Exclusive competences – as per Article 2 (1) and Article 3 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) In these areas, only the EU may legislate and adopt legally binding acts. Exceptions are possible if the EU empowers Member States to act or with regard to the implementation of Union acts. • The customs union, including an internal free trade area with common customs tariffs (Art. 31 TFEU). • The monetary policy of the EU for the Member States whose currency is the

2. Shared EU competences – as per Art. 2 (2) and Art. 4 TFEU

• Internal market; • Economic, social and territorial cohesion; • Agriculture and fishing (except the conservation of marine biological resources); • Social policy; • Transport; • Environment, pollution and energy;

• Consumer protection; • Area of Freedom, Security and Justice. 3. Supporting, coordinating or complementary competences – as per Art. 2 (5), Art. 6 TFEU The EU can financially support the actions of the Member states that have agreed to coordinate their domestic policies through the EU. However, it does not entail harmonisation of regulations. These areas include: • Education, vocational training, youth and sport; • Tourism; • Administrative cooperation; • Civil protection; • Protection and improvement of human health; • Industry; • Culture.

C. LEGAL ACTS OF THE EU While the EU can issue several types of legal acts, not all are fully binding for its Member States. These acts are named according to their legal strength and are divided into: • Regulations – have to be strictly adhered to in all Member States and leave no room for adjustments during the implementation process; • Directives – provide a framework and give a certain policy direction, leaving the

states with more flexibility and room for adjustments; • Decisions – always address certain recipients and are only valid for those specific countries/people/institutions; • Recommendations – without legal force, but negotiated and voted on according to the appropriate procedure, they are not binding for the Member States; • Opinions – similar to recommendations in that they have no legal force, but not voted on, simply emitted. The European legislative procedure runs considerably longer than those of most Member States. In brief: the EC (which has the exclusive Right to Initiative), the Council and the EP decide if the proposal becomes a legal act after having discussed relevant details. General policy guidelines and statements, especially from the EP, are formulated in Resolutions. They can entail instructions for future procedures, as well as regulations, which are formally valid in the Member States. Legal acts passed by the EP and the Council enter into force once the national governments have transposed them into national law. The combined legal heritage of the EU, including all legal acts, contracts and treaties is known as the acquis communautaire. 2. To learn more about the legislative procedure, please refer to this European Parliament flowchart. 7

THE EU EXPLAINED 3. FURTHER RESEARCH A. GENERAL LINKS To learn more about the EU, its institutions and instruments, please visit their respective websites, below. 1. European Union http://europa.eu/index_en.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book:European_Union 2. EU-Institutions http://eu2012.dk/en/EU-and-the-Presidency/About-EU/ EU-Background/EU-Institutions 3. European Neighbourhood Policy http://ec.europa.eu/world/enp/index_en.htm 4. Enlargement http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/index_en.htm 5. Common Foreign and Security Policy http://europa.eu/pol/cfsp/index_en.htm http://europa.eu/agencies/regulatory_agencies_bodies/ security_agencies/index_en.htm 6. Lisbon Treaty http://europa.eu/lisbon_treaty/index_en.htm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6901353.stm http://www.robert-schuman.eu/doc/divers/lisbonne/en/ 10fiches.pdf 7. Treaty on European Union (TEU) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriSer v/LexUriSer v. do?uri=OJ:C:2008:115:0013:0045:EN:PDF 8. Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriSer v/LexUriSer v. do?uri=OJ:C:2008:115:0047:0199:en:PDF 8

9. TFEU with explanations http://en.euabc.com/upload/books/lisbon-treaty-3edition.pdf 10. Europe 2020 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriSer v/LexUriSer v. do?uri=COM:2010:2020:FIN:EN:PDF 11. Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union http://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/pdf/text_en.pdf

B. QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER After you have read the Topic Overviews, it is recommended that you take the time to consider the questions therein, as well as the ones below. This will be an important phase in preparation and will greatly aid you clarify your own stance on the matters at hand (which, in turn, is crucial for you to have decided by the time you start writing your Position Paper). 1. What is the legal basis for the Committee Topic? 2. What are the relevant EU competences? 3. What are the relevant EU institutions? 4. Who decides on policies? 5. Is an EU-level solution desirable? 6. What are the short-term and long-term implications? 7. What type of further legislation is needed?

COMMITTEE TOPICS

Committee on Culture and Education – CULT

Committee on Employment and Social Affairs II – EMPL II

Active citizenship: In light of the European Commission’s report ‘European Youth: Participation in Democratic Life’ which found that 44% of its youth had not taken part in the activities of any organisation within the past year, how can the European Union further encourage youth involvement in civil society and democratic processes?

Internships: Opportunity or exploitation? As initiatives such as the ‘Council Recommendation on a Quality Framework for Traineeships’ have come under strong criticism, how else can the European Union act to ensure fair, good-quality internships for its youth?

Chaired by: Delia Berner (CH)

Committee on Human Rights – DROI Chaired by: José Eduardo Feio (PT)

Chaired by: Anamaria Olaru (RO)

Committee on Industry, Research and Energy – ITRE Chaired by: Fabrizio Zamparelli (IT)

Homophobia: With the whole spectrum of rainbow persisting in Europe with regard to LGBT rights, what should the European Union strive to achieve in this field by 2025?

Fracking: Taking into account the European Union’s high dependence on foreign energy, worsening relations with Russia, and its environmental goals, to what extent and how should shale gas become part of its energy mix?

Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs – ECON

Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs – LIBE

Tax evasion: In light of the existence of tax havens within its borders, how should the European Union address the criminal avoidance of taxes, while respecting the citizens’ right to privacy and national sovereignty?

Nationalism: A core value to be cherished or an obstacle to inclusiveness and peaceful coexistence? Taking into account the rise of xenophobia and far-right movements across Europe, how best should the European Union proceed?

Committee on Employment and Social Affairs I – EMPL I

Committee on Security and Defence – SEDE

Poverty: Not merely a problem in the developing countries. With 25.6% of children being at risk of poverty in Portugal in 2013, what measures should the European Union take to tackle this problem in its Member States?

Sovereignty: With post-Cold War borders in Europe challenged by events in Ukraine, how should the Member States respond to guarantee Europe’s territorial integrity and address growing security concerns in the European Union?

Chaired by: Matthieu Loup (CH)

Chaired by: Robin Rönneke Belfrage (SE)

Chaired by: Anna-Lena Szumowski (AT)

Chaired by: Lourenço Cruz (PT)

Committee on Culture and Education

CULT

Chaired by:

Delia Berner (CH)

organised by individuals in pursuit of their own ends. Civil society, therefore, refers to a realm of autonomous groups and associations: businesses, interest groups, clubs and so on.3 Being involved in civil society means engaging with participatory structures (youth organisations, issue-based NGOs), in debates (on community or youth issues), and seeking information and learning about democracy (simulations and trainings).4

1. CONCEPT

2. WHAT IS THE PROBLEM AND WHY DOES THIS MATTER?

Democratic states are characterised by pluralism and interest representation of its groups, which grants them ‘legitimacy’.1 Therefore, democracies need their young people to be ‘active citizens’, who “take responsibility and initiative in areas of public concern”2 to bring about positive change in the society. ‘Democracy’, literally ‘rule by the people’, is a core value of the European Union (EU), hence the concern of the European Commission (EC) about low youth involvement, both at Member State and EU levels.

A democracy aims at including everyone in the decision-making processes. Taking part in organisations, sports clubs or associations is often seen as a school of democracy that might increase interest and trust in politics, and, ultimately, also raise political participation. Furthermore, involving as many young people as possible in an organisation is also a way to social inclusion.

It is also important to note that ‘involvement’ can have different forms, such as participation in democratic processes (membership of political parties, participating or voting in elections) and participation in civil society. The term ‘civil society’ is used to describe institutions that are ‘private’, in that they are independent from the government and 10

1. Legitimacy broadly means a “willingness to comply with a system of rule”; it “gives the grounds on which governments may demand obedience from citizens”. p. 81, Heywood, A. (2013), Politics, Fourth edition, Palgrave Macmillan 2. Definition of an ‘active citizen’ by the Oxford Dictionaries: Here 3. p. 6, Heywood, A. (2013) 4. Youth Participation in Democratic Life’, January 2013: Here

In 2013, the EC published a Report about youth participation in democratic processes, within the Member States.5 Amongst other findings, it showed that 44% of the youth (aged 15-30) had not participated in the activities of any organisation in the past year – be it sports clubs, cultural, political or any other association. This number varies from country to country, with the lowest levels of abstention from involvement being registered in the Netherlands (22%) and the highest in Cyprus (67%).6 Why nearly half of 15- to 30-year-olds in the EU do not take part in any activities of organisations? Geographic and socio-economic factors have relevance in the explanation. With the exception of Slovakia, EU-157 Member States have a higher participation rate than the EU’s average, whereas the Member States who joined from 2004 onwards have scored below the average (except for Italy, Greece and Portugal, where participation rate is under average as well).8 Furthermore, gender and education level mark a difference, as girls are less likely to be involved in an organisation than boys, just as people who ended their education at 15 or 16-19 years, compared to those ending education being 20 years or older. 9 In the interest of improving the quality of democracy10 in the EU and encouraging its youth to participate more, it is logical to ask what can be done on the European level to raise youth involvement in civil society and democratic processes. While thinking about solutions, we need to keep in mind that the EU only has supporting competence in the field of youth policies.11 This means the EU cannot decide on any binding rules in this

field, as it falls within the competence of each Member State. However, the EU is allowed to foster transnational cooperation, consult Member States and adopt incentive measures.12

3. KEY ACTORS

Member States As legislation on youth affairs is an exclusive competence of the Member States, they are the most important political actors for this topic. It is up to them to decide what policies are implemented to raise youth involvement in their territory. Directorate-General for Education and Culture within the European Commission (EC) The EC has a supporting role in this policy field. Representing the general interest of the EU, it can promote cooperation among the Member States to reach common results on the European level. Education, Culture and Audiovisual Executive Agency (EACEA)13 The EACEA is mandated by the EC to implement programmes in education, youth, training, sport, audiovisual, culture and volunteering. It manages Erasmus+, Europe for Citizens and other programmes, but has no decision-making power in the EU.

Council of the European Union (the Council) It brings together the Ministers of Member States in a certain policy field, thus constituting the most important forum to discuss cooperation between Member States.

Organisations across Europe Sports clubs, leisure time associations, cultural and political groups are just some examples of organisations that need to involve the youth better. As such, they are very relevant when discussing how to promote active citizenship amongst youngsters.

European Youth For the aforementioned report, 15- to 30-year-old citizens of all Member States were interviewed. It is a group of society whose needs and concerns lie at the heart of the topic. Council of Europe (CoE), Youth Department The Council of Europe is an international organisation promoting cooperation between European countries and through its Youth Department (previously through the Directorate of Youth and Sport) has engaged in increasing youth participation. It has provided both political and practical support to young people, youth organisations, policy makers and institutions.

European Youth Forum The European Youth Forum is the platform of youth organisations in Europe, representing 99 youth organisations, both National Youth Councils and International Non-Governmental Youth Organisations. The Youth Forum brings together tens of millions of young people from all over Europe and represents their common interests.

5. European Commission: ‘European Youth: Participation in Democratic Life’, May 2013: here 6. p.8, Ibid. 7. Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom. 8. p.8, European Commission 2013. 9. p.9-10 , European Commission 2013. 10. Participation is one way to improve the quality of a democracy. See ‘The Quality of Democracy: An Overview’, L. Diamond and L. Morlino, in Journal of Democracy 15 (4), 2004: Here 11. Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (2012), Articles 6(e) and 165: Here 12. Committee on Culture and Education, European Parliament: Here 13. Website of the EACEA: Here 11

4. MEASURES ALREADY IN PLACE

The EC’s ‘EU Youth Strategy’14 from 2009 set “an increased participation of the youth as active citizens” as its second goal. Consequently, it proposed to the Council “a renewed framework of European cooperation in the youth field” for the period of 2010–2018.15 This entailed a reviewed form of the Open Method of Coordination (OMC)16 that was applied in this field since 2002. The OMC is an instrument of the Lisbon strategy, providing the Member States with a framework for cooperation to set common objectives, share good practices and report regularly about their progress on the national level.17 Their objectives are grouped in eight fields of action, including youth participation and voluntary activities. The revised framework refers not only to providing the right to participate, but also the means (training, learning new skills or improving skills), space (creating conditions conducive to participation), opportunities (participation organised in such a way as to ensure young people’s input can be taken on board) and support (financial resources required to engage). A joint implementation Report of the Council and the EC, for the period between 2010 and 2012, states first successes in civic participation and, more generally, in the adoption of national youth policies.18 Furthermore, there are EU programmes that provide financial support for certain activities through national and regional associations. For example, Erasmus+ awards grants to organisations fostering transnational partnership and/or organising innovative practice sharing.19 In addition, the programme Europe for Citizens 12

supports civic participation at the EU level, encouraging young people to take part in European debates and politics.20

5. VISUAL REPRESENTATION

The CoE is funding youth activities that have a European character and are in accordance with the CoE’s values, such as human rights, democracy, tolerance and solidarity, through the European Youth Fund.21 Other than that, the EU’s Structured Dialogue with young people “serves as a forum for continuous joint reflection on the priorities, implementation, and follow-up of European cooperation in the youth field”.22 It consists of regular consultations between young people and youth organisations at all levels in the Member States. Furthermore, the platform encourages dialogue between youth representative and policy makers at EU Youth Conferences organised by the Member States holding the EU presidency and during the European Youth Week. However, the EU Youth Strategy, as well as the other aforementioned programmes, are focusing on only a part of the topic, as their aim is mostly to involve young people politically on a European level and to reduce the distance between young people and the European institutions, rather than youth involvement in organisations on all levels and of any kind.

15. A renewed framework of European cooperation in the youth field’, Council Resolution, November 27th, 2009: Here 16. European cooperation: the Open Method of Coordination: Here 17. Here you can read about national youth policy in

Source: “What is youth involvement at mindyourmind?”, Christine G., mindyourmind, 2014: Here

Albania: ‘Youth Policy in Albania’, Council of Europe, 2010, excerpts: Here

December 20th, 2012: Here

18. 2012 Joint Report of the Council and the Commission on the implementation of the renewed framework for European cooperation in the youth field (2010-18)’, Council and European Commission,

20. Europe for Citizens: Here

19. Erasmus+ Website: Here 21. European Youth Fund: Here 22. EU’s Structured Dialogue: Here

8. LINKS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

6. KEY QUESTIONS

• Why is youth involvement important in the EU? • Why would a young European want to take part in activities of an organisation? Why not? • What factors determine the level of youth involvement and can help to explain differences across the EU, e.g., between the Netherlands and Portugal? • What can the EU do to further promote youth involvement, while respecting the Member States' competences in youth policy? 7. KEYWORDS

Active citizenship, civil society, EU Youth Strategy, Open Method of Coordination, political participation, Structured Dialogue, youth involvement.

Official documents: • 'European Youth: Participation in Democratic Life. Flash Eurobarometer 375', European Commission, May 2013: Here • 'An EU Strategy for Youth – Investing and Empowering. A renewed open method of coordination to address youth challenges and opportunities', European Commission, April 27th, 2009: Here • 'Keys to Youth Participation in Eastern Europe', Kovacheva S., Council of Europe, June 2000, see particularly p.17/18: Here • '"Have your Say!" Manual on the revised European Charter on the Participation of Young People in Local and Regional Life', Council of Europe, February 2008: Here • The Council of Europe and Young People, ‘Youth Participation’, 2012: Here • EACEA 2010/03: Youth Participation in Democratic Life, February 2013: Here

9. PREPARATION TASK

Publications by stakeholders, researchers and press: • 'National Youth Policy Overview. A list of all countries & the current status of their national youth policy, as far as known.', a website by Youth Policy PRESS, 2014: Here • 'Youth Participation in Europe: Less is more', Lang B., Uwineza A. and Seger S., in the new federalist, May 12th, 2012: Here

Taking into account the significant amount of measures already in place, the Delegates of CULT will need to come up with creative solutions. In order to stimulate your creativity, please write a Document with 50 reasons on why you would join the activities of an organisation (of your choice) and with 50 reasons why you would not. You will receive an e-mail from you Chairperson with more information on this task before the session.

• 'Position Paper in Youth Participation in Democratic Processes', European Students' Forum / AEGEE-Europe, November 18th, 2014: Here • 'Ambassador aims to give UK youths a bigger say in politics' in Grimsby Telegraph, October 27th, 2014: Here • 'Learning to be active citizens', Hiscock D., in BBC News, February 23rd, 2004: Here

Committee on Culture and Education | CULT 13

Committee on Human Rights

DROI

Chaired by:

José Eduardo Feio (PT)

Homophobia: With the whole spectrum of rainbow persisting in Europe with regard to LGBT rights, what should the European Union strive to achieve in this field by 2025? 1. CONCEPT

A ‘phobia’ is an exaggerated or irrational fear of something or someone, due to a specific characteristic. Consequently, ‘homophobia’ is a mix of negative feelings and attitudes directed towards the LGBT community (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people). It is conflicting with values of the European Union (EU), especially the fundamental principle of equal treatment, and is considered by the EU as an “unacceptable violation of human dignity”.1 LGBT people still suffer from discrimination and stigma in numerous environments, and are a target of hate crimes and hate speech. ‘Hate speech’ is the public expression which incites, spreads, promotes and justifies hatred, discrimination or hostility towards the actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity and/or gender expression.2 In the context of LGBT rights and homophobia, ‘hate crimes’ refer to physical or verbal violence towards an individual, motivated by bias against a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity.3 14

2. WHAT IS THE PROBLEM AND WHY DOES THIS MATTER?

The EU, in general, and especially some of its Member States (e.g., Belgium, Spain and the Netherlands) have been at the forefront of progress in promoting respect and protection for LGBT people globally. However, even the EU still faces many obstacles in fighting discrimination of its citizens based on their sexual orientation.4 A study from 2013 by the EU’s Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA)5 found that nearly half of the respondents (93.000 gay, lesbians, bisexual and transgender from all 28 Member States) had experienced discrimination based on their sexual orientation in the past year. The results show that homophobia is still widely spread across all Member States, be it in the in schools, workplaces or daily life situations. The same report also found that more than a quarter of the respondents stated they had been attacked or threatened because of being part of the LGBT community in the past 5 years. 1. European Commission, Fundamental Rights, Homophobia, July 16th 2013: Here 2. ILGA Europe, ‘Hate speech and hate crime’: Here 3. European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, ‘Hate crime’: Here 4. ‘LGBT’, in European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights: Here 5. Beaten, Bullied, Badgered: EU Study Finds Widespread Homophobia in Europe’, in Spiegel Online International, May 17th, 2013: Here 6. EU survey reveals widespread LGBT hate crime and discrimination’, in Euronews, May 17th, 2013: Here

Nevertheless, 80% of the most serious incidents were never reported to the police, as “they did not believe the police would do anything to help”.6 One must also reflect on the way members of civil society, and especially people who impact large audiences, refer to LGBT related issues. Hate speech is an important issue , and has consequences ranging from changes in politics to the increase in the number of violent crimes committed against LGBT citizens. With this in mind, Amnesty International has urged the EU to combat homophobic violence and stated that legislative gaps still exist in numerous Member States, because crimes based on sexual orientation and gender identity are not recognised as hate crimes in, e.g., Italy, Bulgaria, Latvia and Germany.9 The lack of adequate legislation makes it unlikely that homophobic or transphobic motives would be taken into consideration in an investigation, prosecution or sentencing of a hate crime. When it comes to marriage equality, many differences persist across the EU. Some Members States recognise samesex marriage (e.g., Belgium, Denmark, Portugal, Spain and Sweden), others – only civil unions (e.g., Austria, Germany and Ireland), whereas some constitutionally define marriage as a union between a man and a women, thus banning samesex marriage (e.g., Bulgaria, Hungary, Lithuania and Poland).

In 2010, the European Parliament (EP) voted in favour of a Report that called for Member States to mutually recognise and legally uphold the effects of civil status documents of other Member States.10 This would have meant that a couple living in a Member State which did not recognise same-sex marriage could get married in one which did, then come back to their Member State and have legal rights recognised. While some considered the Report to be a step forward, it was criticised due to the risk of practices such as marriage tourism market,11 as well as the disregard for the exclusive competence of Member States to legislate on this issue. In any case, this Report was never implemented and same-sex couples face many problems when they migrate12 to Member States that do not recognise their partnerships. Otherwise, adoption by same-sex couples remains a controversial topic. While several studies have found no difference in the behaviour between children growing up in same-sex and heterosexual households,13 more conservative groups in society are still very reluctant in accepting it as scientifically proven. In a legal perspective, disparities between Member States remain great. Same-sex couples have full rights of adoption in nine Member States, co-adoption or step-child adoption is allowed in some, whilst being completely forbidden in 13 Member States.

While some ask for common EU measures on this issue, others, such as Ulrike Lunacek, MEP and Vice President of the European Parliament, state that one shall let things take their course and that Member States should retain the right to decide on this issue.14

3. KEY ACTORS

Member States Member States play a crucial role, as legislation on marriage and adoption, as well as actions to prevent homophobia-related violence and discrimination, remain their competence. European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) The FRA provides expert advice and conducts research that aims at providing EU institutions and Member States trustworthy information and factual based opinions on the fundamental rights of people living in the EU. The European Parliament’s Intergroup on LGBT Rights The Intergroup on LGBT Rights is an informal forum for Members of the European Parliament who wish to put forward actions to defend the rights of LGBT people. It is the largest of the European Parliament’s intergroups, consisting of over 100 members.

Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) NGOs, such as Amnesty International, the European Commission on Sexual Orientation Law and ILGA-Europe, work in coordination with national and European partners to advocate for LGBT rights, raising awareness on violations of human rights and discrimination of individuals. LGBT community Despite significant improvements in many Member States over the last decade, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people still suffer from discrimination, hate speech and hate crimes. 7. Homophobia and Transphobia: Hate Crime’, in Free to Express: Here 8. EU urged to combat homophobic violence’, in Amnesty International, September 18th, 2013: Here 9. Amnesty International, ‘Because of who I am: homophobia, transophobia and hate crimes in Europe’, 2013: Here 10. EU aims at recognising same-sex “marriage” in all 27 Member States’, in European Dignity Watch, November 12th, 2010: Here 11. Should all EU states recognise gay marriage?’ in Debating Europe, April 24th, 2013: Here 12. Not equal everywhere: legal problems for gay couples who emigrate’, in The Telegraph, July 30th, 2013: Here 13. Children in gay adoptions at no disadvantage’, Owen, J, in The Independent, March 3rd, 2013: Here 14. Ulrike Lunacek responds to a question from Tamas on gay adoption’, in Debating Europe, February 2015: Here 15

Conservative groups in society These groups have strongly negative views on LGBT rights and actively protest against any advances in the matter. It includes socially conservative political parties, such as United Kingdom Independence Party, and religious groups which advocate for the protection of “traditional family values”. 4. MEASURES ALREADY IN PLACE

The EU has embedded some protection of LGBT citizens into its legislation and treaties. For example, Article 10 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union states that “In defining and implementing its policies and activities, the Union shall aim to combat discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation”.15 Homosexuality is legal in all Member States and discrimination in employment has been banned since 2000. However, differences between Member States persist when it comes to some rights, especially same sex-marriage and adoption. The EU also does not have common rules on how to deal with hate speech and hate crimes; therefore, Member States are free to adopt different approaches. Hate speech is currently criminalised in 12 Member States, criminalised in relation to

specific groups, but not LGBT people, in 4 Member States, and in the others hate speech is not specifically defined as a criminal offence, but the law is phrased in a general way which offers protection to LGBT citizens. All the Member States criminalise physical attacks, and in most Member States penalties can be higher if an ‘aggravating factor’16 is involved. However, EU legislation does not require Member States to include homophobia or transphobia as an ‘aggravating factor’. 17 In 2008, the EC issued a Communication named ‘Non-discrimination and equal opportunities: A renewed commitment’18 that aimed to establish a framework of action through which the EC shall fight against discrimination on different grounds, including sexual orientation. The communication is part of the DG Justice and Consumers action to tackle discrimination based towards LGBT community. 19Actions also include the collection of data in collaboration with the FRA, as well as an information campaign under the name ‘For Diversity. Against Discrimination’. The campaign aims to raise awareness on the current anti-discrimination legislation and on the benefits of diversity.20 Projects such as ‘It Gets Better’ and events around the world on the International Day Against Homophobia, Biphobia and Transphobia (celebrated on the 17th of May), also aim to increase public awareness of LGBT-related issues.

Committee on Human Rights | DROI 16

Furthermore, the EC also supports programmes, such as the ‘It Takes All Kinds’, that take a more direct approach targeting a specific group of citizens – the European youth. The programme focuses on issues such as homophobia in schools.21 In 2013, the Council of the EU adopted a new set of guidelines to promote and protect the respect of human rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI)22 persons, expressing concern for violations of LGBTI rights outside the EU’s borders and the need to actively promote respect for them.23 Basic respect for LGBT rights is also one of the accession criteria for EU membership. 24

Nevertheless, LGBT people face various difficulties on a daily basis in European countries such as Turkey and Russia. Overall, while many measures have already been put into place, homophobia, discrimination, LGBT-related violence and hate speech still take place in Europe every day. The Committee must, therefore, set goals and propose creative, effective measures to achieve them by 2025.

15. Treaty on the Functioning of the EU: Here 16. Motivated by prejudice against the person’s race or religion. 17. EU FRA, ‘Hate speech and hate crimes against LGBT persons’: Here 18. ‘Non-discrimination and equal opportunities: A renewed commitment’ in Commission of the European Communities, February 2nd, 2008: Here 19. Sexual orientation – LGBT’, in Directorate General on Justice and Consumers -Tackling Discrimination: Here 20. Information campaign’, in Directorate General on Justice and Consumers - Tackling Discrimination - Raising Awareness: Here 21. Fighting Homophobia in Schools’, Kementieva, E. & Schimidt-Hansen, M., The Danish Institute for Human Rights, February, 2013: Here 22. EU adopts new human rights Guidelines on freedom of religion or belief and on the human rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) persons (24/06/2013)’, in Permanent Delegation of the European Union to the UN Office and other international organizations in Geneva: Here 23. Protecting and promoting the rights of LGBTI persons’, in European Union External Action: Here 24. Gay rights is EU entry criterion, Brussels says’, RETTMAN, A., in EU Observer, July 13th, 2012: Here

5. VISUAL REPRESENTATION

7. KEYWORDS

9. PREPARATION TASK

Adoption by same-sex couples, civil union, discrimination, hate crimes, homophobia, LGBT rights, same-sex marriage.

There will be two stages of preparation For the Delegates of DROI. First of all, the Delegates will need to write a Position Paper outlining their personal views on the topic. This document should be about 600 words long. Secondly, the Delegates will need to write a Fact Sheet. This document is supposed to consist of 10 facts that you believe are essential for the topic. Out of these facts, three should be specifically about legislation that either Member States or the EU have put in place regarding the issue. For each fact, provide a brief explanation and the source. You will receive an e-mail from you Chairperson with more information on this task before the session.

8. LINKS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

• ‘Hate Crime & Hate speech’, in ILGA-Europe: Here • ‘Pope says Catholic Church should not dismiss gay marriage’, Squires, N., in The Telegraph, March 10th, 2014: Here • ‘Promoting LGBT rights at home and abroad: the role of the EU’, Mole, R., in UCL European Institute, December 2013: Here • ‘Tell the European Commission: no forced EU-wide recognition of same-sex marriage!’, in European Dignity Watch, April 6th, 2011: Here

Source: ‘Rainbow Europe’, in ILGA-Europe, 2014: here

6. KEY QUESTIONS

• What shapes attitudes towards LGBT people? • To what extent should legislation on LGBT rights reflect public opinion? • What can the EU do to ensure the respect for fundamental LGBT rights in its Member States?

• Should the EU have the competence to legislate on same-sex marriage and adoption? • Should the EU take a more active role in promoting the respect for LGBT rights outside its borders and, if so, how can that be achieved effectively?

• ‘Homophobia’, in Directorate General on Justice and Consumers: Here • ‘The European Union and rights of LGBT people’, in European Parliamentary Research Service, November 27th, 2013: Here • ‘Should all EU states recognise gay adoption?’, in Debating Europe, February 26th, 2015: Here

Committee on Human Rights | DROI 17

Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs

ECON

Chaired by:

Matthieu Loup (CH)

limited tax framework and offer a stable environment. Tax havens also provide limited information regarding deposit accounts and do not require depositors to be nationals of the respective country in order to benefit from its limited tax regulations.

2. WHAT IS THE PROBLEM AND WHY DOES THIS MATTER? 1. CONCEPT

The OECD defines ‘taxes’ as compulsory unrequited payments to the government. They are fundamental resources for states to finance their expenditure on, e.g., health care, infrastructure and education, thus serving the welfare of society as a whole. 1

In general, taxpayers tend to use opportunities to diminish the amount of money they pay in taxes. There are several ways to reach this goal. ‘Tax avoidance’2 is a term which is generally used to describe the arrangement of a taxpayer’s affairs that is intended to reduce one’s tax liability and that, although the arrangement could be strictly legal, it is usually in contradiction with the intent of the law it purports to follow. ‘Tax evasion’3, on the other hand, generally comprises illegal arrangements where tax liability is hidden or ignored, i.e., the taxpayer pays less tax than he/she is supposed to pay under the law by hiding income or information from the tax authorities. These two concepts are linked to ‘tax havens’,4 countries that provide individuals and organisations with a 18

Within the European Union (EU), Member States are free to choose the tax system they wish to implement, provided they respect the rest of EU legislation, especially, the non-discrimination principle and the freedom of movement in the internal market.5 It is self-evident that variations in taxation systems in the EU lead to some Member States being more attractive than others with regard to the amount of money

1. Glossary of tax terms, Centre for tax policy and administration, OECD: Here 2. Ibid. 3. ‘The missing part’, European Commission: Here 4. For further information, see p. 1, ‘Identifying Tax Havens and Offshore Finance Centres, Tax Justice Network, Features of Tax Havens’ , Briefing Paper: Here 5. p. 3–4, The European Union explained: Taxation, European Commission: Here

companies and individuals are requested to pay to the government, following the taxation procedure.6 This explains why, in times of globalisation, a purely national approach to taxation is probably outdated, as decisions taken in one country can have strong impact abroad. In addition, companies and individuals often extend their business practices across borders, being then subjected to different rules, authorities and procedures. In order to safeguard the proper functioning of the internal market, it is clear that a minimum level of cooperation among Member States is required. In reality, however, progress has been slow and various factors can explain the reluctance shown when it comes to modifying the current rules. The most evident is the interest of governments in countries with attractive tax rates. As a lower tax rate allows them to attract companies and individuals, they end up benefitting, even if individual amounts collected are smaller. Another aspect to keep in mind is the lobbying power of multinational corporations benefitting from this fiscal competition between Member States. Such competition among Member States leads to losses estimated at €1 trillion a year.7 This has been highlighted by recent scandals, such as the McDonald’s case, the Luxleaks and the Swiss Leaks, which

have shown that the amount of taxes potentially avoided is very big.8 It is no mystery that tax avoidance and tax evasion are major threats for the financial balance of a state, as they deprive it from essential resources needed to pursue its various functions.9 These forms of ‘optimisation’ are made possible by disparities in Member States’ legislations. Some Member States, as well as several countries outside the EU, known as tax havens, provide depositors with very favourable legislation. Even if the law does not strictly prohibit some of these operations, a moral question arises, as gaps in regulations are clearly used to avoid taxes in the country of residence, thus avoiding contributing to the general functioning of the respective country.

eral pressure from the public to do more in fighting tax criminals.10 A comprehensive solution to fiscal competition and the loss of resources it produces needs to take into account various tensions arising in the field:

Even if great amounts of money are at stake, there also seems to be insufficient public awareness on the issue of tax evasion. While protests have erupted in various countries against austerity measures and cuts in, e.g., education spending, the relation between these cuts in expenditure and the lack of resources resulting from tax evasion has hardly been made. Civil society is slowly getting organised to bring this reality to the public debate, but it remains to be seen if that results in gen-

- Ends vs. means, or is it acceptable to offer individuals and companies guilty of tax evasion an opportunity to declare their avoided taxes without being sanctioned (fiscal amnesties)?

6. E.g., the maximal taxation rate in Hungary on personal income is 16%, while it goes up to 52% in the Netherlands. These examples and more can be found here 7. ‘A Huge Problem’, European Commission: Here

- Right to privacy of the individuals vs. public interest in having enough information to collect taxes; - The need for a fair, just solution on the EU level vs. national sovereignty of Member States in tax matters; - Tax avoidance vs. tax evasion, or the distinction between what is made possible by more favourable legislation abroad and what is per se illegal;

3. KEY ACTORS

Tax criminals Individuals or corporations infringing the established rules on taxation in order to diminish the amount of taxes they have to pay to the government of the country they live in, work in or have their economic activities subjected to taxation in. The sanction system may differ greatly from one country to the other. Member States With respect to their national sovereignty and the lack of a delegated competence to the EU in that matter, Member States are responsible for collecting taxes and for determining all the related legal framework. They are the first affected by the lack of financial resources resulting from tax avoidance or evasion. European Union While the primary responsibility of collecting taxes and fighting against fraud remains on the national level, the EU has a fundamental role to play in order to solve issues with consequences going beyond national boundaries. It is a platform for co-operation and mutual guarantees among Member States.

8. See, e.g., the ‘McDonald’s’ case (here), for the Luxleaks (here) and for the Swiss Leaks (here & here)

10. See, e.g., the Swiss NGO ‘Berne Declaration’: Here

9. A total estimated loss of 160 billion USD for developing countries was reported by some NGOs in 2012: here 19

G2011 The G20 is an international forum dealing with economic cooperation and decision-making, composed by 19 major economies, plus the EU. During their regular meetings, finance ministers of the participating countries issue recommendations, plans for action and agree on measures needed to support economic growth worldwide. Consequently, this forum has significant influence on economic practices worldwide. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)12 The OECD aims at promoting policies that will contribute to improve the economic and social well-being of the world’s population. It functions as a forum and is a potential platform for joint actions in the economic field.

11. Official website: Here 12. Official website: Here 13. Conclusion of the ECOFIN Council meeting concerning taxation policy (C(1997)2/01): Here 14. Under this system, Member States collect data on income earned in their territory by non-resident individuals. They then automatically transmit this data to the authorities where the individual resides, so that it can be taxed in

4. MEASURES ALREADY IN PLACE

Already in 1997, the Council of the EU adopted a Code of Conduct for business taxation.13 The aim was to get rid of national legislation generating harmful tax competition among Member States and to prevent them from adopting new measures with the same effect. More recently, the European Commission (EC) communicated an Action plan to strengthen the fight against tax fraud and tax evasion.14 This action plan contains immediate and long-term measures on the national level to enhance the tools Member States have at their disposal to properly address the threat of tax evasion. Still on the EU level, action is being taken by the EC against practices in Belgium that distort competition.15 This is a good example to show that rules on taxation have a significant impact on the whole internal market in the EU.

line with the Member State of residence’s rules. (Memo, European Commission, October 15th, 2014, here ) See also: Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and Council on An Action Plan to strengthen the fight against tax fraud and tax evasion (COM(2012)722): Here 15. Commission opens in-depth investigation into the Belgian excess profit ruling system,

Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs | ECON 20

Apart from measures within the EU, the OECD and the G20 are working in close cooperation to achieve automatic exchange of information16 among fiscal authorities. At the G20 Summit in Brisbane in November 2014, it was decided to implement the automatic exchange of information by 2018 the latest.17 The EU contributed to that achievement by sharing its experience in the field.18

and individual recommendations. This, however, also reveals the weakest point of fighting tax evasion – as the EU has no direct competence in the field of taxation on the national level, all its initiatives and recommendations have to rely on the political will of Member States for their implementation.

In December 2013, the EC published a first evaluation ‘Fighting Tax Evasion and Avoidance: A year of progress’ of the Action plan it launched in 2012.19 It shows some important progress in the fight against tax evasion and tax avoidance and Member States will now have to implement various pieces of legislation

European Commission – Press release February 3rd, 2015: Here 16. For a detailed presentation of the mechanisms of automatic exchange of information, see Automatic Exchange of Information: What It Is, How It Works, Benefits, What Remains To Be Done, OECD, July 23rd, 2012: Here 17. G20 progress on tax evasion ‘modest’, EurActiv, November 18th, 2014: Here

18. ‘Automatic exchange of information: frequently asked questions’, European Commission, October 15th, 2014: Here 19. ‘Fighting Tax Evasion and Avoidance: A year of progress’, European Commission, December 5th, 2003: Here

5. VISUAL REPRESENTATION

• Recovering unpaid taxes: how far can the EU go in encouraging mutual cooperation among Member States?

• ‘The missing part’, a short clip designed by the Commission’s Directorate-General taxation and customs Union: Here

• Are fiscal amnesties a morally acceptable way to recover unpaid taxes?

• ‘Crack on tax evasion’, a short explanatory clip, OECD, October 29th, 2014: Here

7. KEYWORDS

• ‘Tax havens explained: How the rich hide money’, CBC News, October 1st, 2013: Here

Automatic exchange of information, national sovereignty in tax matters, tax avoidance, tax evasion, tax havens.

• ‘Fighting Tax Evasion and Avoidance: A year of progress’, European Commission, December 5th, 2013: Here

8. LINKS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

9. PREPARATION TASK

• Jean-Claude Juncker: I will lead EU campaign against tax avoidance, Traynor I. in The Guardian, November 12th, 2014: Here

The Delegates of ECON will need to write a Research Paper of about 600 words, consisting of two parts. In the first part, it will be necessary to describe three disadvantages of the current system of fiscal competition among Member States in the EU. In the second part, the Delegates will suggest one innovative action the EU could take to prevent the criminal avoidance of taxes. You will receive an e-mail from you Chairperson with more information on this task before the session.

• Website of the Commission’s Directorate-General taxation and customs Union: Here Source: ‘Amazon Probed by EU, Following Charges Over Apple's "Double Irish" Tax Evasion’, in DailyTech, October 7th, 2014: here

6. KEY QUESTIONS

• Why should every citizen pay taxes? • Is tax evasion a cross-border issue, or should every Member State be able to regulate on taxes the way it desires to? • Tax avoidance, tax evasion, fraud… Where is the current limit between a le-

gal optimisation of one’s fiscal situation and a criminal offense? Should these distinctions be maintained or do we need to draw new lines? • What is the right way to go: fighting against tax havens, penalising individuals benefiting from this system, or both?

Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs | ECON 21

Committee on Employment and Social Affairs I

EMPL I

Chaired by:

Robin Rönneke Belfrage (SE)

Poverty: Not merely a problem in the developing countries. With 2. WHAT IS THE PROBLEM AND WHY DOES THIS MATTER? 25.6% of children being at risk of poverty in Portugal in 2013, what that 25% or 122 million Euromeasures should the European Union take to tackle this problem in In November 2014, Eurostat released statistics showing peans were at risk of poverty or social exclusion.4 It is remarkable that the poor in the its Member States? 1. CONCEPT

There are two widely used definitions of poverty. ‘Absolute poverty’ is almost exclusively linked to the developing world. Those living in such a state lack access to even the most basic necessities, such as food, clean water, sanitation facilities, health care, shelter and education.1 This type of poverty is rare in Europe, though, not eradicated, especially amongst members of socially marginalised groups, such as the Roma and Sinti. ‘Relative poverty’, on the other hand, means that a person is poor in comparison to the rest of a certain society.2 According to the European Commission’s statistics bureau Eurostat, a person having 60% lower income than the national median is at risk of poverty or social exclusion.3 By this definition, a person can be poor even when not lacking in means to provide for basic human needs that characterises absolute poverty.

EU are spread throughout all the Member States and their number is increasing, even in competitive economies like Germany, where about 20.2% were at risk of poverty or social exclusion, and 8.2% lived in ‘working poverty’, i.e., being at risk of poverty even when employed.5 In some states, the situation is even worse, e.g., in Romania, where 40.4 % were at risk of poverty or social exclusion, and 17.7% were working poor.6 Furthermore, the 122 million of poor EU citizens risk isolation and stigmatisation in society, as they cannot afford to acquire the skills or education to improve their situation, and because of feelings of shame when unable to find employment or make 1. ‘Relative Versus Absolute Poverty Headcount Ratios: The Full Breakdown’, Feng, Juan and Nguyen, Minh Cong, in The World Bank Data Blog, 24th of November, 2014: Here 2. Ibid. 3. Glossary: At Risk of Poverty Rate, Eurostat: Here 4. ‘One out of four EU citizens at risk of poverty’ in Euractiv, November 5th, 2014: Here 5. pp. 49, 209, ‘Annual Report of the Social Protection Committee on the social situation in the European Union (2014)’, European Commission, 2014: Here 6. pp. 49, 401, Ibid.

ends meet. Furthermore, economic hardship may lead to poor health, due to a lack of heating, proper food and a constant worry about one’s situation, causing both physical and mental problems.7 In order to tackle the problem, Member States have established social security systems of various extents. These systems are designed to guarantee the basic needs of the citizens and often include social transfers, e.g., unemployment benefits or food stamps, for the most vulnerable. For those afflicted by poverty, social programmes may be an important step to improve their situation and, in the end, regain self-sufficiency. One of the issues regarding poverty relief is that it may be difficult to reach out to those most in need of it, as they lead lives in which they cannot afford the time to deal with lengthy bureaucratic procedures, nor have the knowledge to do so.8 Furthermore, it must be guaranteed that those who benefit from such services are not abusing the system. This issue has taken on a European aspect, with attempts to take action against the perceived threat of ‘welfare tourists’, citizens of poorer Member States travelling to those with higher living standards to benefit from their social security systems.9 In relation to this, it must be remembered that it is a thin line between stopping those who benefit unjustly from the system and marginalising the poor further.

Poverty is related to another phenomenon that worsens its effects, namely income inequality, implying there is a significant difference in the wages earned by the inhabitants of a country. One of the most common ways to measure income inequality is known as the Gini Coefficient, expressed as a number ranging from 0 to 1. The former is perfect income equality, whereas the latter – perfect income inequality. According to the research paper ‘The Relationship between Income Inequality, Poverty and Globalisation’, increasing income inequality strikes harder against those who are already poor, but does not necessitate an increase in poverty.10 Findings by OECD have extended this relationship to the four lower income deciles in society.11 This means that the question of income inequality is in many ways interlinked with the question of poverty. What makes this connection particularly worrying is that most Member States have seen an increase in income inequality since 1979.12 Together with other adverse effects, such as a tendency to slow down economic growth by decreasing opportunities to education and skills development, especially among the economically vulnerable, income inequality and poverty remain significant challenges to policy makers.13

3. KEY ACTORS

Council of the European Union (the Council) As the representation of national governments in the EU, it consists of ten formations in which Ministers meet. The formation most relevant for combatting poverty is the Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council. The European Commission The EC sets national targets and observes the progress of Member States in achieving these, using progress reports to name and shame laggards.14 As the EU institution that has the initiative to draft legislation, it can also launch some programmers on its own, though its competences in the field are limited. The Member States They are crucial actors, as each of them is in control of its own social security system and also has to implement targets on how to reach the 2020 poverty reduction goals. It is important to note that the situation varies greatly between the Member States due to their different social and economic situations.

7. ‘Poverty Social Inequality and Mental Health’, 2004, Advances in Psychiatric Treatment, Vol. 10, pp. 216–217: Here ‘Poverty and Health: What About the Relationship between Poverty and Health Status’: Here ‘Poverty and Inequality in the European Union’, European Anti-Poverty Network: Here 8. European Anti-Poverty Network, Poverty and Inequality in the European Union: Here 9. EU Judges Rule Against “welfare tourists” in Nod to Cameron’, EurActiv, November 14th, 2014, Link: Here vs EurActiv, ‘“Benefits Tourism” in the EU a Myth, Reports Says’, October 17th, 2013 Link: Here 10. p. 20, ‘The Relationship between Income Inequality, Poverty and Globalisation’, Heshmati Almas, Institut Zukunft der Arbeit Discussion Paper Series No. 1277, 2004: Here 11. p. 2, ‘Focus on: Growth and Inequality’, OECD Directorate for Employment Labour and Social Affairs, 2014: Here 12. p. 23, ‘Why Socio Economic Inequalities Increase: Facts and Policy Responses in Europe’, Directorate General for Research, European Commission, 2010: Here 13. pp. 3–4, ‘Focus on: Growth and Inequality’, OECD Directorate for Employment Labour and Social Affairs, 2014: Here 14. pp. 122–123, 127–128, ‘The Government and Politics of the European Union’, 7th edition, Nugent N., Palgrave MacMillan, 2010

The poor It is necessary to involve this group in discussions on how to tackle poverty, because that allows to better tailor policies to the needs of those who are being helped. The European Anti-Poverty Network (EAPN) Established in 1990, it is the largest European network of national, regional and local networks, involving anti-poverty NGOs and grassroot groups, as well as European organisations, active in the fight against poverty and social exclusion. This organisation can serve as a platform for the poor to voice their problems and advocate for them to be addressed. It can also reach out to many socially excluded groups in society, as it has a wide network of volunteers. 15 4. MEASURES ALREADY IN PLACE

Poverty reduction is one of the EU’s five 2020 goals is, the aim being to lift 20 million Europeans out of poverty until 2020.16 This is translated into national targets of lifting a certain number of people out of poverty per country, which are up to each Member State to achieve. The capacity of the EU to act is determined by the fact that social policy is, according to Article 4 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU), an area of shared competence with the Member States. This means that the Member States have agreed to act individually if the EU has not exercised (or planned to exercise) its competence. Fighting poverty is resource intensive and, as made clear by Article 114 of the TFEU, the EU does not have the right to, e.g., set taxes. This limits the ability 24

to take action via, e.g., means of redistribution. Many of the EU’s measures in the area reflect this and, consequently, social policy remains a mostly national matter. The flagship initiative of the EU to aid the Member States in reaching their national goals for the 2020 target is known as the European Platform Against Poverty and Social Exclusion. This initiative tries to reduce poverty and social exclusion in three ways. Firstly, it strives to combine policy initiatives across the board with more efficient allocation of resources from the European Social Fund – an instrument aimed at decreasing exclusion and marginalisation on the labour market.17 Secondly, the Platform also works by gathering stakeholders and policy makers for discussions. Thirdly, it organises national efforts via the policy process known as the Open Method of Coordination, through which Member States establish common goals and indicators for their social policies, then evaluated in three year cycles.18 Other measures taken by the EU are the Social Investment Package (SIP)19 and the Agenda for new skills and jobs.20 The SIP strives to modernise and improve national welfare systems, while the Agenda works on increasing the level of education and vocational skills of the European labour force. Explicit redistribution or augmentation and coordination of European welfare systems is lacking, though. It is interesting to consider whether this is due to legislative limitations of the EU when it comes to taxation, or if there might be an ideological consensus focusing on individualism in social policy of the EU, and what consequences that has? Finally, it is disturbing to note that, though there is an abundance of plans

and initiatives on a European level, as well as national policies, the EU is making little progress towards its goal to lift 20 million people out of poverty by 2020. According to the Social Protection

Committee, in 2014 poverty in the EU was still higher than before the financial crisis of 2008. This poses questions concerning the effectiveness of initiatives to combat poverty across the EU.

5. VISUAL REPRESENTATION

Source: ‘Social Dimension of the Economic and Monetary Union: What Lessons to draw from the European Elections?’, European Commission, June 13th, 2014: here 15. ‘Who We Are?’, EAPN Link: Here 16. Europe 2020 Targets, European Commission, Link: Here 17. European Social Fund, European Commission Link: Here 18. European Platform Against Poverty and Social Exclusion, European Commission Link: Here 19. Social Investment Package, European Commission: Here 20. Agenda for new skills and jobs, European Commission: Here

6. KEY QUESTIONS

8. LINKS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

• Why are so many citizens poor, despite the EU’s very high living standards, in general?

• Poverty and Inequality in the European Union, European Network Against Poverty Link: Here

• How can adverse effects associated with poverty, such as isolation, discrimination, disadvantage in education and poor health be tackled?

• ‘Despite Low Unemployment Large Sections of German Society Remain at Risk from Poverty’, Selke Stefan, LSE EUROPP blog, 27th of February, 2015: Here

• How can it be ensured that money allocated to fight poverty reaches those in need of it?

• For Richer, For Poorer’, The Economist, October 13th, 2012: Here

• What should the EU do to reach its goals on poverty reduction by 2020? • What should be the responsibilities of Member States in comparison with the EU, as a whole, when fighting poverty and income inequality?

• ‘Are Inequalities Ever Just?’, Van Parijs Philippe, Inequality Watch, 1995: Here • ‘Focus on: Growth and Inequality’, OECD Directorate for Employment Labour and Social Affairs, 2014: Here

• ‘Why Socio Economic Inequalities Increase: Facts and Policy Responses in Europe’, Directorate General for Research, European Commission, 2010. Here • ‘The European Platform against Poverty and Social Exclusion: A European framework for social and territorial cohesion’, European Union Publications Office, European Commission, 2011: Here • ‘A Citizen’s Summary: An Agenda For New Skills and Jobs’, European Commission: Here

9. PREPARATION TASK

The topic introduces a key issue, giving space for daring solutions and possibly readjusting the socio-economic balance in the EU. Therefore, it is crucial to not only know the facts, but also to have a clear stance on how to deal with the task at hand. To facilitate this, the Delegates of EMPL I will write a 600 words long Position Paper explaining their views on the topic, its core problems and what solutions they would put forward. In addition, please present four links (other than those mentioned in this Topic Overview) that you found useful in your preparation. You will receive an e-mail from you Chairperson with more information on this task before the session.

7. KEY WORDS 7. KEYWORDS

European Social Fund, income inequality, poverty, redistribution, social exclusion, social security, working poverty.

Committee on Employment and Social Affairs I | EMPL I 25

Committee on Employment and Social Affairs II

EMPL II Internships: Opportunity or exploitation? As initiatives such as the ‘Council Recommendation on a Quality Framework for Traineeships’ have come under strong criticism, how else can the European Union act to ensure fair, good-quality internships for its youth? 1. CONCEPT

A ‘Traineeship’ is understood as a limited period of work practice, whether paid or not, which includes a learning and training component, undertaken to gain practical and professional experience with a view to improving employability and facilitating transition to regular employment.1 ‘Apprenticeships’,2 on the other hand, refer to the position of an apprentice – a person who is learning a trade from a skilled employer, having agreed to work for a fixed period at low wages. For example, carpentry and shoe repairing are professions learned through apprenticeships. While there are several similarities between traineeships and apprenticeships, the latter are usually longer, better paid and have the highest guarantee of hiring upon completion, because the employer has invested more time and money in the development of the apprentice.3 26

Chaired by:

Anamaria Olaru (RO)

Whilst similar in content, the fundamental difference between traineeships/apprenticeships and ‘internships’, is that an internship does not guarantee hiring upon its completion. Internships give people a chance to explore different career options, to gain experience and improve their CV. They can last anything from a few weeks during the summer holidays to a year, depending on the sector and employer. Generally, student internships tend to be shorter in length than graduate internships. It is also to be noted that there is a lot of controversy surrounding whether/how those carrying out work experience should be paid.4 2. WHAT IS THE PROBLEM AND WHY DOES THIS MATTER?

“Traineeships are crucial to facilitate the transition from school to the labour market. With the current high levels of youth unemployment in the EU, it is vital to ensure that trainees receive the best training and experience to get a future job and that they are not exploited,” said László Andor, the Former European Commissioner responsible for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion.5 1. ‘Council Recommendation on a Quality Framework for Traineeships’, EUR-Lex, March 10th, 2014: Here 2. Definition of ‘Apprenticeship’, Oxford Dictionaries: Here 3. Apprenticeship vs Traineeship, TESS Group: Here 4. ‘Work experience and internships’, Prospects, January 2014: Here 5. ‘Traineeships: survey reveals shortcomings in working conditions and learning content’, Press Release, European Commission, November 26th, 2013: Here

Indeed, competition in the labour market and youth unemployment have dramatically increased over the last years, thus becoming one of the main concerns of the youth across the European Union (EU). To have better chances of finding a job, many youngsters opt for an internship or traineeship, aimed at facilitating their transition into the workplace. However, according to a survey conducted by Eurobarometer in November 2013,6 one in three traineeships is substandard with regard to working conditions or learning content. As a consequence, while some consider traineeships to be beneficial for the EU youth, others fear that unpaid internships and traineeships represent nothing more than a modern form of slavery in the labour market.7 One of the main issues identified is the lack of payment for interns. According to comprehensive Eurobarometer data from November 2013, nearly six out of ten trainees (59% of the young people between the ages of 18 and 35) say they have not received any monetary compensation during their last internship period. Yet, even those who received payment for their work, complained that it was insufficient to cover the living costs for the period in which the internship took place. Many young people who would be interested in available internship positions are unable to afford to work for free and, therefore, the sector becomes limited to those who are not necessarily the most qualified to undertake such a position. Moreover, four out of ten trainees did not have a written traineeship agreement or contract with the host organisation or company. One in four people also complained that the working conditions

were visibly different than the ones of the other employees.8 Another issue quite often is the rather low quality and lack of purpose of internships available. The working conditions might be unsatisfactory and the tasks of interns can have no educational value, i.e., instead of developing skills in the field, some interns spend their days making coffee and copying materials. Nevertheless, many youngsters are still willing to accept such positions, because the majority of them believe that having internship experience on their CVs would give them an advantage in the highly competitive labour market. Otherwise, concerns about the workload and health of interns have also emerged. A notorious example is the death of a German intern at the Bank of America in London, who had allegedly worked for 72 hours without sleep to excel at his workplace and potentially secure a job there after the internship. As Chris Roebuck, a visiting professor at Cass business school put it, “For reasons related to an individual’s ambition or the current employment market, people are pretty desperate to get jobs. Some employers are exploiting that fact, pushing people past the point where it makes sense for their health or from a business perspective.” Nevertheless, it is difficult to fight such practices because, amongst other reasons, people are scared to speak up as they rely on their internship references for future jobs.9 The ‘Council Recommendation on a Quality Framework for Traineeships’ (QFT)10 has been the most prominent response from

the EU on the matter. Adopted on March 10th, 2014, the QFT strives to enable trainees to acquire high-quality work experience under safe and fair conditions and to increase their chances of finding a good quality job.11 The principal aim of the QFT is to improve the quality of traineeships and to increase transparency regarding their conditions by, for example, requiring that traineeships be based on a written traineeship agreement. The agreement should cover learning content (educational objectives, supervision) and working conditions (limited duration, working time, clear indication whether trainees will be paid or otherwise compensated and whether they will qualify for social security).12 The Recommendations made by the Council were, however, condemned by trade unions and, especially, youth groups, as many believe that they fail to improve the current system.13 In response, the ‘Joint letter condemning Council Recommendation on Quality Framework for Traineeships’ was issued by the European Youth Forum on behalf of 14 European youth organisations. The letter points out the lack of concrete measures in the QFT, e.g., condemning that the Recommendation does not ensure quality work experience, as well as safe and fair working conditions. Moreover, the letter emphasises that “there are no proposals in the Recommendation that require internship providers to pay their interns or offer them access to social protection.”14 Overall, seems that the current situation still fails to assure a fair and enriching platform for the youth willing to take up an internship position as a part of the

transition between education and employment. Therefore, it seems that more effective measures might be necessary to help the next generations better integrate into the labour market and in order to address the concerns of youth organisations and millions of individuals across the EU.

6. Ibid. 7. ‘Unpaid internships set to continue to shame Europe’, Porcaro G. in EurActiv.com, March 5th, 2013: Here 8. ‘Bank of America intern’s death puts banks’ working culture in spotlight’, Malik S. and Quinn B., The Guardian, 21st August, 2013: Here 9. ‘Internships: pressure mounts on employers to pay young workers’, Page L., The Guardian, July 25th, 2014: Here 10. ‘Council Recommendation on a Quality Framework for Traineeships’, EUR-Lex, March 10th, 2014: Here 11. ‘Youth employment: Commission welcomes adoption of Quality Framework to improve quality of traineeships’, Press release, European Commission, March 10th, 2014: Here 12. ‘Youth employment: Commission welcomes adoption of the ‘Quality Framework to improve quality of traineeships’, Press release, European Commission, March 10th, 2014: Here 13. ’Europe’s debate over internships continues’, Jacobsen H. In EurActiv.com, April 29th, 2014: Here 14. ’Joint letter condemning Council Recommendation on Quality Framework for Traineeships’, European Youth Forum, March 11th, 2014: Here

3. KEY ACTORS

Member States Member States are key actors regarding the issue, as policies regarding employment and social affairs are currently their competence. The EU’s role in these areas, on the other hand, is to support and complement the activities of national authorities.15 Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council (EPSCO) The EPSCO Council, one of the formations of the Council of the European Union, works to increase employment levels and improve living and working conditions. 16 The EPSCO Council was the one to approve the ‘Council Recommendation on Quality Framework for Traineeships’. Youth Organisations Youth Organisations represent and protect the interests of the youth in the EU, including when it comes to conditions of traineeships. For example, the European Youth Forum, an independent and democratic organisation led by the youth, represents 99 National Youth Councils and International Youth Organisations from across the continent, and has strongly condemned the QTF.17 Employers Companies and other institutions offering traineeships are also directly influenced by regulations introduced on traineeship agreements and conditions. Recently, they have come under increasing pressure to raise the standards of traineeships of28

fered. On the other hand, however, taking on trainees can be time-consuming and resource-demanding. The European Commission (EC) The EC has taken measures, such as the ‘Youth on the Move’ initiative, to help young people find employment, while also aiming to combat relevant challenges, e.g., youth unemployment.

4. MEASURES ALREADY IN PLACE

communication between employers and job seekers, such as EURES,22 and increase the opportunities for cross-border traineeships in Europe, e.g., Erasmus+.23 The ‘Council Recommendation on Quality Framework for Traineeships’ was supposed to effectively address the existent issues, but several stakeholders call for more concrete actions, and, despite all the aforementioned measures, many would argue that young people remain exploited under the currently prevailing practices.

15. ‘The European Union Explained: Employment and social affairs’, 2013: ISBN 978-92-79-24020-1 16. ‘Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council configuration (EPSCO)’: Here 17. ’Joint letter condemning Council Recommendation on Quality Framework for Traineeships’, European Youth Forum, March 11th, 2014: Here 18. ‘Council Recommendation of 22nd April 2013 on establishing a Youth Guarantee’, Council: Here 19. ‘Youth Guarantee’, European Commission: Here 20. ‘Youth on the Move’, European Commission: Here 21. ‘Youth Opportunities Initiative’, European Commission: Here 22. EURES: Here 23. Erasmus+: Here

5. VISUAL REPRESENTATION

A key initiative endorsed by the Member States in the Council has been the ‘Youth Guarantee’19 scheme, which aims to assure that young people aged 25 or less will either receive a quality job offer, continued education, an apprenticeship or a traineeship within 4 months of leaving formal education or becoming unemployed. Nevertheless, it is not binding for the Member States. In addition, the ‘Youth on the Move’20 initiative aims to make training more relevant to young people’s needs by offering them the possibility to take up EU grants to train in a different country. The project also encourages Member States to facilitate the transition from education or higher education to employment. Alarmed by the high rate of youth unemployment registered in the beginning of 2012 (it had reached 22.4%), the EU launched another set of measures aimed at increasing the employment rate among youth – the ‘Youth opportunities initiative’.21 Additionally, several other platforms have been established to enhance

Source: European Commission, Eurostat, European Youth Forum: here

6. KEY QUESTIONS

8. LINKS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

• What makes a good internship?

Official Sources

Visual Support

• What are the difficulties young people looking for internships face? And, on the other hand, what is problematic for employers offering internships?

• ‘Council recommendation on a Quality Framework for Traineeships’, Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council meeting, March 10th, 2014: Here

• ‘Youth on the move’, European Commission, YouTube, October 10th, 2011: Here

• Is the ‘Council recommendation on a Quality Framework for Traineeships’ sufficient to ensure the rights of interns and trainees? Which ideas should be endorsed as they were formulated and which – improved?

• ‘Commission to propose a Quality Framework for Traineeships’, Andor L., press conference, December 4th, 2013: Here

• ‘Employers warn against curbs on unpaid interns’, O’Connor S., Rigby E. in UK Economy, December 15th, 2014: Here

•Is there a need for common EU legislation on internships and traineeships, or should this matter remain a national competence? 7. KEY WORDS

Apprenticeships, Council recommendation on a Quality Framework for Traineeships, internships, labour market, traineeships, youth unemployment.

• Youth Guarantee, European Commission: Here • ’Joint letter condemning Council Recommendation on Quality Framework for Traineeships’, European Youth Forum, March 11th, 2014: Here

Articles

• ‘The Economist Explains: Are unpaid internships illegal?’, The Economist, September 9th, 2014: Here

9. PREPARATION TASK

Apart from the stance of the youth and of the EU institutions on the matter, employers play a key role regarding this topic. In order to comprehend the real-life situation regarding internships, the Delegates of EMPL II will need to find at least two employers of your choice and write a Document of approximately 600 words about the internships they offer. You will receive an e-mail from you Chairperson with more information on this task before the session.

• ‘Internships: A mixed blessing for young Europeans’, Teffer P. in EUObserver, March 13th, 2015: Here

• Youth employment: Commission welcomes adoption of Quality Framework to improve quality of traineeships’, Press release, European Commission, March 10th, 2014: Here

Committee on Employment and Social Affairs II | EMPL II 29

Committee on Industry Research and Energy

ITRE

Chaired by:

Fabrizio Zamparelli (IT)

There are many factors that make the subject difficult to debate on. Among the most important ones are the complexity of the method, as well as the lack of unbiased research and information about the topic. When discussing the use of hydraulic fracturing, one should take into account environmental issues, public health, economic and geopolitical factors.

1. CONCEPT

2. WHAT IS THE PROBLEM AND WHY DOES THIS MATTER?

Hydraulic fracturing, commonly known as ‘fracking’ is a controversial method of extracting shale gas, which was first used in the United States of America (USA) already in 1947. Nevertheless, it is only in the last decade that it has emerged as a method of energy production in various countries across the globe.

At the moment, fossil fuels and gas are crucial in ensuring our daily energy consumption. According to Eurostat, the Directorate-General of the European Commission (EC) responsible for providing statistical information to the institutions of the EU, many European countries in 2013 were still dependent on Russian energy supplies and 17.5% of all gas imports in the EU came from Russia2. Energy dependency on foreign supplies, especially those coming from Russia, has always been an underlying concern for the EU. The recent conflit in Ukraine has highlighted the urgent need to diversify energy imports and consider alternative methods of producing energy, in order to make energy supply in the EU less vulnerable to interruptions.

The process consists of a perforation of the ground with a pressurised injection of a jet of water in large amounts, sand and several chemical additives. The fracking fluid is pumped into the ground and the mixture of the substance subsequently penetrates into the rock layers and produces cracks. Sand prevents the cracks from closing again. Afterwards, the mixture is pumped back up to the surface, where the substance previously trapped in the shale is collected in a well. A continuous process begins during which the rock cracks and the fracture fluid goes deeper and deeper into the rock, extending the crack still further.1 30

1. ‘What is fracking and why is it controversial?’, Shukman D. in BBC News, June 27th, 2013: here 2. EU-28 imports of natural gas, Eurostat: here

Recently, fracking has been actively discussed in Europe as an alternative for energy production. Certain Member States, such as France, believe that fracking is extremely harmful and are convinced of the need to ban it completely, while others, e.g., Poland, see little risk in this practice and consider it as an excellent alternative to dependency on foreign energy supply. Despite the effectiveness of the method, numerous studies, such as those done by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), have argued that fracking has a negative environmental impact.3 Fracking is often associated with several considerable risks, the primary being contamination of underground sources of drinking water. As a matter of fact, fracking not only consumes huge quantities of fresh water – it has been estimated that an amount of 9 to 29 thousand cubic meters of water is required for each well per year4 – but also contaminates water with highly toxic additives used in fracking fluids. In the USA, these harmful substances are exempt from federal regulation and related information is protected as trade secrets.5 At least 260 chemical additives are known to be present in the mixture of substances used for fracking, and some of these are known to be carcinogenic and mutagenic.6 Another risk of fracking is the release of greenhouse gases. The natural gas recovered by fracking mostly consists of methane, a super-potent and toxic gas that leaks from wells, and could possibly lead to explosions or earthquakes. In addition, an amount between 15% and 80% of the injected fluids for hydraulic fractur-

ing return to the surface as water reflux,8 while the rest remains in the subsoil. These fluids contain additives used in fracturing and their transformation products. Dissolved substances from the fracturing of shale rocks are heavy metals, hydrocarbons and natural radioactive elements. In addition to the aforementioned consequences, some fear that the use of fracking would seriously damage the development of renewable energy, as the existing energy infrastructure is engineered mostly for the use of fossil fuels. Replacing existing energy resources with fracking instead of renewables would cause less additional costs.9 However, one must not forget the Europe 2020 growth strategy, which sets the goal of extracting 20% of energy in the EU from renewables by 2020.10 Despite the fact that shale gas resources in Europe are estimated to be significant, only a few countries are actively exploiting them. In contrast, fracking has become a widely used method in the USA over the last decade, thus changing its energy mix in a revolutionary way. As the USA shale revolution continues to transform the country’s energy supply, the question whether Europe can follow in North America’s footsteps remains.11 The supporters of fracking use economic considerations to advocate the use of hydraulic fracturing.12 For instance, according to the head of the UK’s Fuel Poverty Advisory Group, it has the potential to drive down energy bills and save low income families from cripplingly high electricity charges.13 However, most of the experts agree that the speed and the

magnitude of the growth of production across the Atlantic may not be repeated in Europe. This is because the exceptional conditions existing in the United States are not met here.14 One of the main reasons that differentiate the EU is the lack of abundant space, both on the surface and underground. Furthermore, the population density in the EU is far greater than that of the USA, geological peculiarities pose additional obstacles and the legal context in Europe is also less favourable.15 Another aspect to consider is the growing sense of disbelief among citizens in almost every Member State where fracking has been proposed or is being used. Several governments responded to public concerns with moratoria, bans or strict environmental regulations. Although some explorations have started in the UK, Poland and Romania, others introduced bans. Therefore, it would be very challenging to adopt a united EU stance on fracking and common regulation, given the different attitudes of the Member States towards the use of the method.

3. p. 16, ‘Evaluation of Impacts to Underground Sources of Drinking Water by Hydraulic Fracturing of Coalbed Methane Reservoirs’, June 2004: here 4. Briefing ‘Unconventional, unnecessary and unwanted’, Friends of the Earth, May 2013: here 5. Fracking Secrets: The Limitations of Trade Secret Protection in Hydraulic Fracturing’, Craven J. in JETLaw, 2014: here 6. Fracking: a revolution in energy provision or an environmental disaster waiting to happen?’, Ahmed S. in The Weather Channel: here 7. Methane burned vs. methane leaked: Fracking’s impact on climate change’, Johnson S. K. in ArsTechnika, February 13th, 2014: here 8. Hydraulic Fracturing Research Study’, EPA, June 2010: here 9. Fracking vs the Renewables’, Moran G., The European Energy Centre: here 10. Europe 2020: here 11. Hostility limits growth of fracking in Europe’, Kavanagh M. in the Financial Times, October 22nd ,2014: here 12. “Companies looking for unconventional gas pay professionals a fortune, employ lots of people and invest heavily in the equipment” in ‘Shale gas, fuelling jobs‘, Dziennik Gazeta Prawna, October 25th, 2011: here 13. ‘Fracking will cut energy bills, says poverty chief‘, Webb T. in The Times, August 21st, 2013: here 14. ‘Shale Gas: There will be no revolution in Europe’, Feitz A. in Les Echos, October 11th, 2013: here 15. U.K. Fracking May Fail to Cut Local Gas Prices, Report Shows’, Bloomberg Business, April 26th, 2013: here

3. KEY ACTORS

European Commission (EC) The EC has worked on formulating the pros and cons of fracking and recently published the Recommendation ‘On minimum principles for the exploration and production of hydrocarbons (such as shale gas) using high-volume hydraulic fracturing’ on the issue. Member States Currently, establishing legal restrictions on fracking remains a national competence. Despite being urged by the EC to follow the aforementioned Recommendation, Member States show little interest in tackling the issue together.17 Consequently, differences persist and, while in countries such as Hungary, Austria and Denmark, restrictions on fracking are almost non-existent,18 others, such as France and Bulgaria, have banned the practice. Environmental campaigners They would like to completely ban fracking, as it poses harmful risks to the environment, and would also hinder the development of renewable energy.19 In general, public opposition to fracking is spreading across the continent, as citizens become more aware of the fact that fracking has several risks to their health and environment. Energy companies Companies providing energy for the EU, especially Russia’s Gazprom, see that fracking could seriously undermine their 32

business. Therefore, they are lobbying against shale gas, as the firm clearly “sees Polish shale as a threat” to its monopoly of gas on the continent. Its strategy focuses on potential environmental hazards linked to shale exploration.20 4. MEASURES ALREADY IN PLACE

The EU does not have any common and legally binding rules regarding fracking yet. On January 22nd, 2015, the European Commission published a long-awaited Recommendation,21 which invites Member States to follow minimum principles when applying or adapting their legislation regarding hydrocarbons exploration or production using high volume hydraulic fracturing. It has also invited Member States to inform on measures they put in place in response to this Recommendation by the end of 2014. These answers will be taken into account by the EC as a part of the review of the effectiveness of the Recommendation scheduled for 2015. First results, however, show a reluctant and dismissive response from the Member States regarding the implementation of the Recommendation. For example, asked to provide information about shale-gas activities, many Member States submitted responses that were incomplete, evasive, and, in some instances, appear to be misleading.22 Furthermore, the EC is currently reviewing the existing reference document on extractive waste,23 so as to cover the management of waste from hydrocarbon exploration and production. Beyond waste management, it is also initiating steps to develop an overall reference document on hydrocarbon exploration and production. These processes will involve repre-

sentatives from Member States, industries concerned and non-governmental organisations promoting environmental protection. Other than that, the EC will propose to the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) to

make certain changes in the existing database of registered chemicals, in order to improve and facilitate the search of information on registered substances used for hydraulic fracturing purposes. This will be subject to a consultation with various stakeholders.24

5. VISUAL REPRESENTATION

Source: ‘Fracking in Europe’, Bakhsh N. in Bloomberg QuickTake, October 30th, 2014: here 16. Environment: European Commission recommends minimum principles for shale gas’, European Commission Press release, January 22nd, 2014: here 17. EU member states evasive on shale-gas activities’, Keating D. in EuropeanVoice, March 2nd, 2015: here 18. Toothless EU fracking regulations threaten citizens and environment’, Friends of The Earth Europe, March 2nd, 2015: here 19. Campaigners urge Cameron to reconsider his stance on fracking’, the Guardian, January 21st, 2015: here 20. ‘Shale Gas: There will be no revolution in Europe’, Feitz A. in Les Echos, October 11th, 2013: here 21. Commission Recommendation of 22 January 2014 on minimum principles for the exploration and production of hydrocarbons (such as shale gas) using high-volume hydraulic fracturing’, European Commission, January 22nd, 2014: here 22. ‘EU member states evasive on shale-gas activities’, Keating D. in EuropeanVoice, March 2nd, 2015: here 23. ‘Waste and recycling’, SUSPROC: here 24. ‘Environmental Aspects on Unconventional Fossil Fuels’, European Commission, March 2015: here

6. KEY QUESTIONS

• What would be the advantages and disadvantages of using fracking in the EU, taking into account economic, environmental and political aspects? • Given the lack of reliable long-term studies on the impact of fracking, should the EU wait for thorough studies to be published, or rather take the risk of adopting the method, in order to boost its economy and reduce its energy dependence? • Should each Member State decide on the regulation of fracking, or is a common EU stance a better way forward? • Is the Recommendation ‘On minimum principles for the exploration and production of hydrocarbons (such as shale gas) using high-volume hydraulic fracturing’ a satisfactory response by the EU on the matter?

8. LINKS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

Articles and web-sites • ‘A fracking good story’, Lomborg B. in Project Syndicate, September 13th, 2012: here • ‘Hostility limits growth of fracking in Europe’, Kavanagh M. in The Financial Times, October 22nd, 2014: here

• ‘Berlin fracking bill criticised ahead of UN climate talks’, Sagener N. in EurActiv, March 24th, 2015: here Official sources

• ‘EU invites member states to apply set of minimum principles to hydraulic fracturing, Komnenic A., Mining, January 22nd, 2014: here

•‘Environment: European Commission recommends minimum principles for shale gas’, Press release, European Commission, January 22nd, 2014: here

• ‘What is fracking and why is it controversial?’, Shukman D. in BBC News, June 27th, 2013: here

Videos

• ‘Fracking in Europe’, Bakhsh N. in Bloomberg QuickTake, October 30th, 2014: here

• To what extent should the EU take into consideration public opinion when deciding upon the future of fracking?

• ‘Unchecked Fracking, Threatens Health, Water Supplies’, Natural Resources Defence Council: here

7. KEYWORDS

• ‘No fracking way: how the EU-US trade agree risks expanding fracking, March 2014: here

Energy dependence, energy mix, environmental impact, Europe 2020 goals, hydraulic fracturing (fracking), shale gas.

•‘Shale Gas: There will be no revolution in Europe’, Feitz A. in Les Echos, October 11th, 2013: here

9. PREPARATION TASK

The Delegates of ITRE will need to accomplish two tasks. First of all, they will need to prepare a Fact Sheet with at least 10 facts relevant for the topic. For each fact, provide a brief explanation and the source. Secondly, you are expected to write a Statement of about 200 words in which you explain your views on fracking. You will receive an e-mail from you Chairperson with more information on this task before the session.

•‘Fracking explained: opportunity or danger?’, YouTube, September 3rd, 2013: here • ‘Gasland Trailer 2010’, YouTube, May 5th, 2010: here • ‘FrackNation’, YouTube, March 1st, 2014: here

Committee on Industry, Research and Energy | ITRE 33

Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs

LIBE

Chaired by:

Anna-Lena Szumowski (AT)

‘Nations’ are complex phenomena that are shaped by a collection of factors. Culturally, a nation is a group of people bound together by a common language, religion, history and traditions, although nations exhibit various levels of cultural heterogeneity. Politically, a nation is a group of people who regard themselves as a natural political community, classically expressed through the quest for sovereign statehood. Psychologically, a nation is a group of people distinguished by a shared loyalty or affection in the form of patriotism.1 ‘Nationalism’ is an ideology that emerged in the nineteenth century, as the decline of monarchical power and authority led people to seek new ties and identities to organise their lives. It is a principle that political organisation ought to be based on national identity, but the bases of this identity have varied. Two clearly different models are civic nationalism and ethnic nationalism. The latter refers to loyalty to a shared inheritance 34

based on culture, language, or religion, and has been the model of, e.g., Germany and Poland. It is exclusive, in the sense that membership is inherited and not the product of a rational choice. Civic nationalism, on the other hand, refers to loyalty to the institutions and values of a particular political community, and has been the model of, e.g., France and the United States of America.2 Nationalism, at least in the more extreme right-wing versions, may also seek the exclusion of ‘alien’ elements from an existing state to safeguard the ‘authenticity’ of its national character. This is related to the concept of ‘xenophobia’, a fear or hatred of foreigners.3 2. WHAT IS THE PROBLEM AND WHY DOES THIS MATTER?

Across Europe, strongly nationalist parties and extreme-right populist4 movements are gaining support at unprecedented levels in recent history. The more extreme 1. p. 109, Heywood, A. (2013), Politics, Fourth edition, Palgrave Macmillan 2. p. 123, Garner R., Ferdinand P. and Lawson S. (2012), Introduction to Politics, Second edition, Oxford University Press 3. p. 116, Heywood, A.

forms of nationalism these days can fuel fears of the masses, with political agendas revolving around ideas such as euroscepticism, anti-Islam attitudes, anti-immigration and contra-EU enlargement pledges. National governments and mainstream party leaders, however, have been ignoring and trivialising the spread of EU-sceptic and xenophobic attitudes, only realising the severity of the situation when being confronted with shocking electoral results. Today’s increase in nationalist attitudes has been a result of the numerous challenges faced by the EU. Three issues can be identified as the roots of 21st century nationalism in Europe: the effects of the recent economic crisis, continuous EU enlargements and decades of immigration, especially from Northern Africa and the Greater Middle East, into Member States. As a consequence, the inhabitants of what used to be predominantly mono-ethnic European nations have been confronted with multiculturalism. Nevertheless, the main stimulus for the change in attitudes and the rise of xenophobia has been the poor economic performance of the EU in the last seven years, causing a massive rise in unemployment and austerity measures. Unlike European mainstream leaders and political parties, the nationalists, from democratically elected parties in the European Parliament (EP) to radical underground movements and extremist terror cells, have adapted their agendas and are attracting supporters by openly demanding locals to be prioritised over immigrants, and to halt immigration altogether.

The anxiety, anger and disillusion of millions of Europeans have proven to be a fertile environment for nationalist ideas. Far-right movements all over Europe have been recording a spectacular increase in followers and are becoming demarginalised quickly. The sudden appearance of far-right movements and the quick radicalisation of many voters shows that nationalist ideologies are, above all, valves for relieving general discontent. This is exemplified by movements such as the ‘Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamisation of the West’ (Pegida) in Germany. What Pegida stands for is hard to ascertain, certain ambiguity being one of the characteristics of extremist populist movements. Some members mentioned a desire for tighter immigration controls, for keeping war refugees in their homelands, for forcing foreigners in Germany to speak German at home and for the swifter deportation of criminal asylum seekers.5 While the German Justice Minister Heiko Maas called Pegida’s protests, which managed to gather up to 25.000 people in January 2015, “a disgrace”, the Eurosceptic party Alternativ für Deutschland (AfD) is sympathetic. “Most of their demands are legitimate,” said Bernd Lucke, leader of AfD, which has campaigned for a tougher policy on immigration, as well as rejection of the euro.6 By now, ethno- and xenophobic views have become largely common and are widespread among all social strata, regions and age groups in Europe. Recent surveys are confirming this trend, indicating that 37%7 of the United Kingdom’s voters ‘would be more likely to support a party that promised to reduce the number of Muslims in the country’. In Hungary,

findings reveal that ‘over 80%8 of young people would not sit next to a Roma child in the classroom’. Extremist political parties are gaining ground in most of the EU. For example, France, one of the biggest Member States and a founding member of the EU, experienced the victory of Front National, a vigorously anti-EU party at the European Parliament elections in May 2014. Marine Le Pen, the leader of the conservative anti-immigration and anti-Islam party, was able to convince 25% of the total French electorate. Following the terrorist attack on the Charlie Hebdo newspaper in Paris this January, which triggered the continuously sensitive issue of islamophobia in France once again, it is now claimed that Front National has the support of over 30% of the electorate.9 Another example is Hungary, where the radical right-wing party Jobbik is the third largest party in the national parliament. Jobbik focuses on putting an end to the integration of Hungary’s Roma population, the largest minority group in the country with about 800.000 members, the majority of whom live in severe poverty.10 Moreover, the party openly spreads anti-semitic and racist ideas. Nevertheless, it must be noted that it is sometimes difficult to draw the line and clearly distinguish between nationalist and extreme-right wing movements. Last year’s EP elections have revealed that the project of the EU is at risk due to the rapid rise of Eurosceptic parties. Several Member States, including the United Kingdom, Austria, Denmark and Hungary, recorded victories or enormous increases in support of such parties. Although the

majority of seats in the EP is still held by moderate parties supporting the EU, the number of seats held by the alliances of anti-EU parties is unprecedentedly high. Consequently, the legitimacy11 of the EU has been questioned. The parties’ and movements’ ethno- and xenophobic stances also contradict the EU’s core values: human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, rule of law and respect for human rights.12 Social cohesion within the EU, the development of a pluralistic, multicultural and divisive European community and the social recovery after the economic crisis are being challenged. 4. Movements or parties described as populist have been characterised by their claim to support the common people in the face of ‘corrupt’ economic or political elites. As a political tradition, populism reflects the belief that the instincts and wishes of the people provide the principal legitimate guide to political action. Populist politicians therefore make a direct appeal to the people, and claim to give expression to their deepest hopes and fears. 5. ‘Pegida: what does the German far-right movement actually stand for?’, Connolly K. in The Guardian, January 6th, 2015: Here 6. ‘Anti-Islam ‘Pegida’ march in German city of Dresden’ in BBC News, December 16th, 2014: Here 7. ‘Europe at the extremes? Public concerns and the generational divide’, Goodwin M. in Extremis Project, September 18th, 2012: Here 8. ‘Old threat new approach: tackling the far-right across Europe’, Ramalingam V., Institute for Strategic Dialogue, 2014: Here 9. ‘Anti-immigrant Le Pen finds rising Jewish support in France’, Fouquer H. in Bloomberg Business, February 24th, 2015: Here 10. ‘Hungary nationalists whip up anti-Roma feelings’, Cain P. in BBC News, September 1st 2012: Here

What remains questionable is whether more guarantees for national sovereignty are necessary to appease tensions between eurosceptic movements and pro-EU actors, or if more national self-determination would lead to further distance and less cooperation between European countries, the very opposites of what the initial project of a united Europe intended. 3. KEY ACTORS

EU institutions In the light of growing euroscepticism and xenophobic attitudes amongst its citizens and manifested via political parties, the EU institutions, especially the European Commission and the Council of the European Union, should prioritise an adequate, effective response to these alarming tendencies. Citizens who support extremist and populist movements These citizens are increasingly discontent with various issues, such as high unemployment, immigration and the elitist nature of governance in the EU. As such, they seek ways to express their frustration, often through abstention or by supporting extreme, anti-establishement movements.

restrained them from having more influence. Instead, they are split up between the European Alliance for Freedom and the Alliance of European National Movements, where more radical parties, such as Jobbik, are united. Far-right movements across Member States Apart from political parties, other far-right movements are also becoming increasingly popular. For example, the movement Pegida in Germany has called for restrictive measures to counter the “Islamisation of the Occident”, and managed to attract 25.000 supporters at its largest demonstration.13 European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) The FRA is an independent body of the EU established in 2007. Its areas of expertise are the collection and analysis of data about Member States’ adherence to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, as well as data about the discrimination of minorities. Ultimately, the agency assists Member States in tackling discrimination on a national level.

4. MEASURES ALREADY IN PLACE

Right-wing political alliances in the European Parliament (EP) Since the EP elections in 2014, 79 MEPs associated with various European nationalist political parties constitute 10% of the EP’s seats. Nevertheless, their respective parties have failed to form a parliamentary group within the EP, which has, therefore, 36

So far, the responses of the EU towards the rise and deep-rootedness of populist ideas have been rather limited, partly because of the limits of existing EU mechanisms, and partly because of a lack of political will from Member States. Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union, which allows for the suspension of mem-

bership rights for states persistently violating basic European values, is one of the strongest instruments at the disposal of the EU. But it is considered as “nuclear option” and can be applied after the Council acts by a four-fifths majority of its members in case of a clear risk of a serious democratic breach, and by unanimity in case of the existence of a serious and persistent democratic breach by a Member State. For example, the Greek case of the extreme right-wing party Golden Dawn is very delicate to deal with at a European level, since it was democratically elected and any EU’s reaction would be interpreted as “interference into national affairs”. In relation to that, it must be added that human rights laws and democratic principles are, indeed, the exclusive competence of Member States. Existing instruments at the disposal of the European institutions are, therefore, not entirely satisfactory to protect the EU as a community of democratic values. 14 As for now, two significant initiatives have been aimed at combatting the rise of nationalism on the EU’s political scene. The European Network Against Racism (ENAR) consists of over 600 NGOs from every Member State of the EU. ENAR serves as the interface between NGOs and EU institutions. In light of rising nationalism in the EU’s political scene, ENAR provides advocacy against nationalist parties in the EP. It has been establishing an Intergroup of anti-nationalist MEPs of different parties, which serves as their tool to guarantee that the EU’s legislation is anti-racist by screening EP amendments, reports and resolutions, and proposing corrective measures if necessary. In addi-

tion, it cooperates with the EC and FRA to improve EU’s equality policies and laws.15 The organisation United for Intercultural Action (UNITED) is similar to ENAR, but operates in the Council of Europe (CoE) instead of the EP. Cooperating with 550 NGOs, it has participatory status in the CoE, where it lobbies against nationalism. UNITED focuses on coordinating pan-European campaigns informing on the dangers of xenophobia and on maintaining an information and network system against far-right extremism in Europe.16

11. Legitimacy broadly means a “willingness to comply with a system of rule”; it “gives the grounds on which governments may demand obedience from citizens”. p. 81, Heywood, A. (2013), Politics, Fourth edition, Palgrave Macmillan 12. The Treaty of Lisbon, December 17th, 2007: Here 13. ‘Pegida movement’s marches attract thousands as hatred of Islam and immigrants sweeps across Germany in the wake of Paris attacks’, Paterson T. in The Independent, January 4th 2015 : Here 14. ‘The European Union and the Challenge of Extremism and Populism’, European Humanist Federation, October 2013: Here 15. ‘Joint statement; Strengthening the European Parliament’s capacity to act against racism: MEPs must coordinate their efforts’, ENAR: Here 16. ‘United for Intercultural Action (UNITED)’ in European Youth Portal, July 8th, 2013: Here

8. LINKS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

5. VISUAL REPRESENTATION

Concerns about nationalism in the EU: • ‘Europe could be torn apart by the wrong sort of Eurosceptics’, Heath A. in The Telegraph, February 5th, 2015: Here •‘Right-wing in Europe could bring turmoil’, Ellyatt H. in CNBC, January 2nd, 2015: Here • ‘European democracy must keep rightwing populism at bay’, Barber T. in The Financial Times, September 16th, 2014: Here • ‘Continent of Fear: The Rise of Europe’s Right-Wing Populists’ in Der Spiegel, September 28th, 2010: Here Criticism on how the issue is currently being tackled: Source: ‘Far-Rights leads Eurosceptic Earthquake’, Mccarthy N. in Statista, May 26th, 2014: here

6. KEY QUESTIONS

• What are the positive and negatives sides of nationalism as an ideology? • What shapes people’s views on foreigners? •What motivates people to support extremist political movements?

counter these, while ensuring that basic democratic principles and freedom of speech, fundamental values of the EU, are not violated? • Should the EU focus on strengthening national identities in the Member States to prevent people from radicalisation, instead of promoting multiculturalism?

•Should the EU be concerned about the rise of strong nationalism in its Member States?

7. KEYWORDS

•Is taking a common EU stance against the rise of extremist, xenophobic and Eurosceptic movements necessary? If so, what joint measures should be taken to

Anti-islam ideology, euroscepticism, EP elections 2014, nationalism, right-wing parties, right-wing populism, radicalisation, xenophobia.

•‘Desperate times call for desperate measures? The ‘Politics of anxiety’ and the rise of European ‘far-right’ parties’, Rossi N. in Open Democracy, June 2nd, 2014: Here

• ’The Free Initiative’, a project of the Institute for Strategic Dialogue: Here • General Policy Recommendations by the Council of Europe on Racism and Intolerance, October 4th, 1996: Here Policy Paper: • ‘The European Union and the Challenge of Extremism and Populism’, European Humanist Federation, October 2013: Here 9. PREPARATION TASK

The Delegates of LIBE will need to write a Position Paper of about 600 words on the issue. When expressing your ideas about the problem, please consider the aforementioned Key Questions. You will receive an e-mail from you Chairperson with more information on this task before the session.

•‘2014 is not 1914, but Europe is getting increasingly angry and nationalist’, Ash Garton T. in The Guardian, November 18th, 2013: Here Official statements: • ‘Joint statement; Strengthening the European Parliament’s capacity to act against racism: MEPs must coordinate their efforts’, ENAR: Here

Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs | LIBE 37

Committee on Security and Defense

SEDE

Chaired by:

Lourenço Cruz (PT)

‘Sovereignty’ can be understood in different ways. Legal sovereignty refers to supreme legal authority, defined in terms of the ‘right’ to command compliance, while political sovereignty refers to absolute political power, defined in terms of the ‘ability’ to command compliance. Internal sovereignty is the notion of supreme power/authority within the state. External sovereignty relates to a state’s place in the international order and its capacity to act as an independent and autonomous entity.1 Since the end of the World War II, the international political system has been structured around three central ideas: the notion of sovereignty, competence on domestic jurisdiction and the ‘territorial preservation’ of existing borders. State sovereignty provides a measure of protection within those pre-established borders. ‘Territorial integrity’ means both territorial preservation and territorial sovereignty, and political independence requires both exclusive internal and equal external sovereignty. 38

Consequently, a state is sovereign if it can claim that it has a monopoly of force over the people and institutions in a given territorial area, and maintaining territorial control is essential to rule effectively. As a principle of international law,2 nation states should not attempt to force border changes in other nation states. Any acts disrespecting the aforementioned principle are considered as acts of aggression.3 2. WHAT IS THE PROBLEM AND WHY DOES THIS MATTER?

Since the adoption of the Charter of the United Nations4 (UN) in 1945 and the development of the Petersberg Tasks5 in 1992, great controversy has been surrounding the idea of humanitarian missions and the possible violation of state sovereignty,6 thus 1. p. 58, Heywood, A. (2013), Politics, Fourth edition, Palgrave Macmillan 2. With additional legislation on Chapter XI of the Charter of the United Nations: Here and the 1(a)(1) segment of the Helsinki Final Act: Here 3. “The use of armed force by a state against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another state” as defined in United Nations’, A/RES/29/3314: Here 4. The Charter of the UN includes considerations on sovereignty, territorial integrity and aggression. Full document: Here 5. Revised in the Treaty of Lisbon, the Petersberg Tasks specify which actions the EU can undertake regarding external action in the security and peacekeeping sectors: Here 6. Very thorough examination of the precarious relationship between humanitarian aid and sovereignty can be found here, Publication of the International Institute of Humanitarian Law: Here

constituting acts of aggression. A key example of this controversy was the humanitarian convoy Russia sent to Ukraine in 2014. Even though the Ukrainian government condemned the initiative (believing the convoy carried military equipment), Russia still carried out the operation which openly challenged the sovereignty of Ukraine.7 The conflict in Ukraine began as a protest against a decision of the former President, Viktor Yanukovich, to drop plans of forging closer trade ties with the European Union (EU) in November 2013. The trade agreement had been one of the EU’s tools to foster modernisation and democratisation in its Eastern neighbourhood, also including, e.g., Georgia and Moldava. When a new pro-European government, headed by president Poroshenko, was elected in February 2014, Russia annexed the Crimean peninsula and deployed tens of thousands of forces near the border of Eastern Ukraine, where conflict erupted between pro-Russian separatists and the new government in Kiev. Russia repeatedly justified its actions on the grounds of defending Russian-speaking minorities. In the light of the ongoing conflict in Ukraine and alarmingly deteriorating relations between Russia and the EU, there are also various security concerns within the Member States. Amongst the most concerned about possible Russian aggression, and keenest on implementing tough sanctions against Russia, are Poland and the Baltic States. Estonia and Latvia, in particular, have significant Russian-speaking minorities8 and fear that Russia might use military force to ‘protect’ Russian speakers, in a similar way to the annexation of Crimea in March 2014.

When it comes to conflict resolution, various factors contribute to the increased difficulty in decision-making regarding sovereignty and territorial integrity. Firstly, one must consider the influence and power of major actors in security affairs, such as Russia, China, the United States of America and the EU. Political decisions involving them, even if only indirectly, must be carefully considered before being put into practice, to avoid creating conflicts and intensifying international tensions. Secondly, the EU’s capacity to ensure its territorial integrity is part of the current debates. Ever since the establishment of the Common Security and Defence Policy9 (CSDP), which dictates the EU’s line of action towards the fulfilment of the Petersberg Tasks, the EU has been criticised for having no common military power,10 which plays a significant role in territorial protection. Despite the fact that some Member States, especially France and the United Kingdom (UK), have welltrained and equipped military forces, the EU as a whole depends on the military capabilities11 of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which the EU can use to undertake missions under the Petersberg Tasks, as outlined in the Berlin Plus Agreement.12 Finally, although the CSDP aims at unifying the Member States’ approach towards security affairs, many countries are still reluctant about delegating their sovereignty to the EU, which results in fragmented action and the adoption of small-scope measures. Nevertheless, no matter how difficult the process, adapting existing structures and embracing new solutions seems necessary to efficiently tackle territorial integrity issues in Europe, both within the EU, as well as in its neighbourhood.

3. KEY ACTORS

European (EEAS)

External

Action

Service

The EEAS, although structurally and financially independent from the European Commission (EC), coordinates with the EC and the European Parliament (EP) to ensure the consistency and effectiveness of EU actions abroad.13 The Service is also responsible for the CSDP. Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE)14 Composed of 57 Member States, OSCE addresses security issues15 within the EU. Although its consensual decisions are not legally binding, the Organization is now one of the most relevant actors regarding EU security and encompasses several other institutions.16 United Nations (UN)17 Of great influence in the fields of security, conflict prevention and social progress, the UN and its 193 Member States maintain several operations aimed at solving security problems and promoting cooperation between nations. The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy18

7. ‘Humanitarian Aid as an Act of Aggression’, McCambridge R. in Nonprofit Quarterly, August 25th, 2014: Here 8. 24% and 27.6% of the population, respectively. 9. Under the umbrella of the European External Action Service (EEAS), the CSDP enables the EU to take a leading role in crisis management and conflict prevention throughout the globe via multiple initiatives aimed at strengthening international security. More can be found: Here 10. With a tendency to decrease, since most Member States reduced their military budgets. Extensive data can be found: Here 11. Defined by the Australian Defence Force as “the ability to achieve a desired effect in a specific operating environment”. It is defined by three interdependent factors: combat readiness, sustainable capability and force structure. 12. Package of agreements which grants the EU access to NATO military assets for EU-led crisis management operations, signed in 1999. For additional information: Here 13. For additional information on the functioning of the EEAS and the CSDP check Articles 21-46 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU): Here 14. Official website of OSCE: Here 15. Dividing security concerns in three major sectors: politico-military, economic and environmental, and human aspects. 16. Such as the Joint Consultative Group and the Open Skies Consultative Commission: Here 17. Official website of the UN: Here 18. Official page of Mrs. Mogherini: Here 19. From which Angela Merkel (Chancellor of Germany) and François Hollande (President of France) deserve special attention due to their influence, one example being the frequent meetings they hold with Vladimir Putin (President of Russia): Here

The High Representative is chairing the EC’s Group on External Action and represents the EU in international fora, such as the UN. Responsible for the EEAS and the CSDP, the current High Representative Federica Mogherini has, nonetheless, lately adopted a less prominent role regarding the conflict in Ukraine, thus allowing 39

other ministers and representatives to take more prominent roles.19 Considering her central position and legitimacy, the High Representative is among the most privileged actors to represent a common EU stance on security and foreign policy matters. European Defence Agency (EDA)20 The EDA aims at improving European defence capabilities and sustaining the development of the CSDP. With 27 members21 (all of the Member States excluding Denmark) on board, the EDA is now the primary source of data on security and defence in its members, and is also responsible for the development of four Capability Programmes:22 Air-to-Air Refuelling, Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems, Governmental Satellite Communication and Cyber Defence. NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) Sharing strategic interests, NATO and the EU cooperate on issues of common interest and are working side by side in crisis management, capability development and political consultations. The two organisations share a majority of members (22), and certain common values.

20. Established under a Joint Action of the Council of Ministers on July 12th, 2004, the EDA is an intergovernmental Agency of the European Council. Official website: Here 21. And additional partnership protocols signed with Norway (2006), Switzerland (2012) and the Republic of Serbia (2013).

4. MEASURES ALREADY IN PLACE

When looking at the EU’s approach towards security issues, the development of the EEAS and the CSDP highlight the attempts to unify, regulate and accelerate the decision-making process and ensure cohesion of all EU external actions. Moreover, other important steps have been taken regarding the institutional side of the problem, such as the creation of the EDA, which guarantees that other EU bodies have quality information on which to base decisions. The Treaty of Lisbon strengthened the solidarity of the Member States in dealing with external threats by introducing a mutual defence clause: article 42(7) of the Treaty on European Union. This clause introduced collective defence in the European Union. It provides that if a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power. Nevertheless, this has not been tested in practice. As for the military aspects, various agreements and policies have been adopted over the years. In 1999, the Berlin Plus agreement lent the EU access to NATO

22. Extensive information on the Capacity Programmes can be found: Here 23. This concept, taken from 2010’s ‘Ghent Initiative’, leads to specialisation, management and sharing of military assets between Member States to decrease maintenance costs and improve the overall military readiness of the EU. More can be found: Here

military assets that are fundamental to the CSDP. To increase military cooperation within the EU, an international Pooling and Sharing23 system has been developed. Additionally, the Helsinki Headline Goal 2003 recognised the need for Member States to be capable of triggering fast response military actions, which lead to the development of the Battlegroup24 concept. The current conflict in Ukraine has alarmed many countries and, therefore, e.g., Poland, the Baltic States and countries in the Balkans, are urging for better defence capacities from international organisations, fearing possible Russian aggression. With regards to that, the HELBROC Balkans’ battlegroup,25 is currently operational and ready for deployment, if necessary.

market economy principles and sustainable development. The ENP is a jointly owned initiative and its implementation requires approval from both sides. 26 Even though the aforementioned actions have been taken by the EU and its allies to ensure better cohesion and the protection of its Member States, more seems necessary to counterbalance the perceived threat from states with expansionist policies, especially Russia. Furthermore, the EU’s relationship with NATO, as well as its neighbourhood, must be re-evaluated to address current issues with higher efficiency.

Through its European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP), the EU works with its Southern and Eastern neighbours to achieve “the closest possible political association and the greatest possible degree of economic integration”. An international treaty is set up between the EU and one or more neighbouring countries outlining their mutual commitment to democracy, human rights, rule of law, good governance,

24. A Battlegroup is the minimum militarily effective a credible and coherent, rapidly deployable force package capable of stand-alone operations or for the initial phase of larger operations. More on EU battlegroups: Here 25. Consisting of military units from Romania, Bulgaria, Greece and Cyprus, under Greek leadership.

26. European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP), Official Website: here

5. VISUAL REPRESENTATION

8. LINKS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

Official Sources: • European External Action Service Website: Here • ‘European Security and Defence, #CSDPbasics’, The European Union Institute for Security Studies, 2014: Here • NATO-EU: a strategic partnership, North Atlantic Treaty Organization Website: Here Articles: • ‘Merkel hits diplomatic dead-end with Putin’, EurActiv, November 28th, 2014: Here • ‘The Role of EU Battlegroups in European defence’, Hatzigeorgopoulos M., ISIS Europe, European Security Review, June 2012: Here

Source: ‘Fighting Words: Schäuble Says Putin’s Crimea Plans Reminiscent of Hitler’, Der Spiegel, March 31st, 2014: here

6. KEY QUESTIONS

• To what extent and why does sovereignty and territorial integrity matter in Europe? • How should the EU act to defend its Member States? • How effective are the current structures of the EU regarding security and defence? • Should the EU have a common security and defence policy? If so, what steps should be taken to ensure efficient decision-making regarding these maters?

• Would increasing military expenditure be the best possible solution to the current security threats? Or are other measures more adequate to tackle the problem? 7. KEYWORDS

Common Security and Defence Policy, European Defence Agency, European External Action Service, EU-NATO relationship, military assets, Pooling and Sharing, Russia’s aggression, sovereignty, territorial integrity.

9. PREPARATION TASK

The Delegates of SEDE will have to accomplish two tasks. The main task is to, after thoroughly researching on the institutions, organisations and other actors relevant for the topic, create an Institutional Chart, which indicates relations between the actors and their competences/ areas of influence. Here (https://bubbl. us/) is a good tool for doing it, but feel free to adopt any platform you find suitable (e.g., diagram, Venn diagrams, map, etc.), either handmade or digital. The other task is to compile a Fact Sheet with at least 10 facts you find most relevant for the topic, all gathered during your extra research. Remember to briefly explain why each fact is relevant and mention its source. You will receive an e-mail from you Chairperson with more information on this task before the session.

• ‘Lithuania prepares for a feared Russian invasion’, Cichowlas O. in Reuters, March 16th, 2015: Here • ‘The new generation of Baltic Russian speakers’, Grigas A. in EurActiv, November 28th, 2014: Here •‘Would these 10 ideas help keep Europe safe in a dangerous world?’ in Debating Europe: Here • ‘Western Balkans are losers in Russia-EU battle’, Calu M. in The Moscow Times, December 16th, 2014: Here

Committee on Security and Defence | SEDE 41

CONTACTS

PARTNERS

This Academic Preparation Kit is the responsibility of the Board of the session and of the team of Chairpersons. General queries should be addressed to the President. Otherwise, the Chairpersons will contact their Committees regarding all pre-session academic preparation tasks.

Under the patronage of the Municipality of Lisboa and Instituto Português do Desporto e da Juventude, I. P.

APPEJ – Associação Portuguesa do Parlamento Europeu dos Jovens/European Youth Parliament Portugal E-mail address: eypejportugal@gmail.com Website: www.pejportugal.com Lisboa 2015 - 32nd National Selection Conference of EYP Portugal Email address: organizacao@pejportugal.com Official Facebook page: www.facebook.com/Lisboa2015

With the support of Assemleia Municipal de Lisboa, Pelouro dos Direitos Sociais da Câmara Municipal de Lisboa and the Embassy of the Republic of Latvia in the Republic of Portugal.

Head-organisers E-mail address: organizacao@pejportugal.com (reaches both) Telephone numbers: André Oliveira – (+351) 915295165 Carolina Macedo dos Santos – (+351) 917080666 Session President Arnolds Eizenšmits E-mail address: arnolds.eizensmits@tellus.lv

Lisboa 2015

Comprehension: The Key to Improvement 32nd National Selection Conference of the European Youth Parliament Portugal | April 16th–19th, 2015