Spectrum 04 General Assembly issue by Luca

spectrum

MAGAZINE OF THE 73RD INTERNATIONAL SESSION OF EYP IN ZURICH, switzerland

GeneraL Assembly ISSUE

LEAD ARTICLE

European Young Philosophers

Resolutions Critiques

General Assembly How To, Speeches and attire

EDITORIAL H

ow much can you actually accomplish in 45 minutes? Probably run a quick errand, fix a bicycle, get from Basel to Zurich (if your train is fast), write 300 words for an article or simply have a power nap. It seems like not that much can be done with this limited amount of time. When you think about it, ¾ of an hour is not that much. 45 minutes. 2700 seconds. That is it. At an EYP session, this time can be put into much more productive use. It is no hassle to use 45 minutes to phrase the operative clauses or write an attack speech for another committee. The magical 45 minutes really make a distinctive difference during the General Assembly, where 2700 seconds are dedicated to each committee to present their resolution. That time really is of crucial importance for you to make sure that your hard work pays off during the GA. Having worked passionately on your topic for days, it is more than understandable how fighting for your resolution on Friday and Saturday is absolutely inevitable. Even though 45 minutes is seemingly not a lot, much can be done during that time with regards to your committee’s debate. Knowing the meaning of the phrase ‘hard work’, we encourage you to make sure that your work gets the appreciation it deserves. Therefore, you must make sure to be active and engage yourself in a discussion among other participants. Challenge everyone else like you will be challenged when given an opportunity to explain your thoughts and ideas. Be passionate and be willing. Most importantly, make sure that after you will be able to reply to the question of ‘how much can you actually accomplish in an hour’ with an answer: “a lot.”

LUCA OLUMETS FRANZISKA MAIER MARIE DROMEY MAIRI SÕELSEPP

Lett Voc

interview on politics and philosophy

ters on Paper and cal Performance resolution critiques

tie-rarchy

CONTENTS

GA How-To

Interview

with

Michel Bourban

Rebecca Smith sits down with Michel Bourban, a doctoral student in philosophy, to talk about climate change justice, how philosophy can be used in politics, and how EYPers can take into account the philosophical implications of their discussions and resolutions.

here is a lively debate on the philosophy behind climate change negotiations. However, there is little discussion on how it can concretely be applied into politics. “The current philosophical debate in intergenerational climate justice is focused on two main problems, from past to present generations, and from present to future generations”, explains Michel Bourban, a doctoral student in philosophy at the University of Lausanne, whose dissertation is titled “Climate change and political philosophy: Foundation and application of the principles of climate justice”. The first problem has been thoroughly addressed in different theories of who should be accountable for the costs. The Polluter Pays Principle (PPP), the most

intuitive and hotly debated one, is based on the ‘no harm’-principle, according to which one must clean up one’s own mess. However, there are two main objections to this principle: the polluters are dead, and the polluters were ignorant. Why then should current generations be responsible for them? Bourban suggests to only take emissions after 1990 into account, the date at which the IPCC came out with a report clearly explaining the ills of climate change and linking it to human activity: the PPP cannot be applied to pre-1990 emissions. The second principle, the Ability to Pay Principle (APP), is difficult to justify because there is no direct causal relation between those who pay and what they pay for. It states that those most able should pay for the costs of cli-

mate change, even though it does not explicit the relation between the two. The Beneficiary Pays Principle remedies this last point, using the justification that once people benefit from past injustices, they have to pay to remedy the harm of those injustices. These two last principles explain why developed countries are also responsible for post1990 emissions: because they are able to pay for their consequences, and because this ability is the result of past emissions. Bourban’s opinion of this theoretical debate is that despite being an important one, there is too much writing and the same ideas are being repeated. “Although it is interesting in philosophy, it is not as useful in a political negotiations: politicians do not always see the point of this debate” says Bourban. He

European Young Philosophers suggests making the debate more practical, setting aside a lot of philosophically difficult questions, keeping in mind how politicians understand these debates and principles. In the second problem of the present’s responsibility to the future, the approach is to use human rights as today’s basic moral standard. In particular, Bourban explains: “within human rights, there are three that are fundamental: the right to life, the right to health, and the right to subsistence. Climate change violates these basic rights in many ways”. Some examples are the effect on agriculture, or increased coastal floods due to sea level rise putting lives in danger. Drawing from the example of climate change, Bourban describes how we can incorporate ethics in politics, and more specifically, how to balance rationality and morality in politics. “Today, rationality is mostly represented by rational choice theory. It is a particular interpretation of utilitarian-

ism, and very influential today, according to which we improve the collectivity by making a cost-benefit analysis”. Economists working on climate change often use this theory. The critique of this approach is that it is incomplete because it focuses on the short term. It should be made more complex by taking into account middle and long-term interests of affluent people and funda-

“ Morality has a crucial role in politics: to examine the assumptions underlying political positions. “ mental interests of poor and future people. Morality has a crucial role in politics: to examine the assumptions underlying political positions. “We have to start with notions used in political and economic debates, look at it from a moral perspective, and make a conceptual contribution” explains Bourban. Political debate, in most cases, relies on something that is not clear, distinctions that are used without being made

explicit, such as the notions of “responsibility”, “capacity” and “interest”. The goal of philosophy in this case is to remedy this problem by bringing clarity. This is an efficient way to change people’s minds, by showing that the base of their arguments is flawed. In the case of rationality, we should take the model used and wonder what the moral basis of the argument is, examine why it is good and why it is bad. Each EYPer should thus keep in mind, during debates in committee work and general assembly, how philosophy can help to have a strong outcome. Since Socrates, philosophy addresses what is assumed and questions it. A philosophical approach is to ask people what they think, and why they think that. Climate change is a good illustration of what philosophers can do and how they can contribute to the political debate, by clearing out confusions and undoing a tight knot of ideologies and interests.

SPECTRUMdeve

Committee on Constitutional Affairs I Hugo Dürr

he Single Supervisory Mechanism (SSM) is a mechanism which will be responsible for the supervision of all Eurozone banks, ensuring the stability of the Eurozone banking sector. The issue discussed by the committee was how to ensure that the SSM will be an effective, fair, transparent and democratically accountable player in the European banking sector. The undertaking becomes more complex with the fact that the SSM is not in place yet, thus there is no solid evidence to base discussions on, only the suggested legislation. After initially reading through the entire resolution, and acquiring a general understanding of the SSM and what it entails, one finds no fundamental additions to what the Single Supervisory Mechanism is already said to impose. The resolution mentions the differentiation between significant and smaller banks, briefly touches upon the opt-in optout option for non-Eurozone mem-

bers, as well as the division of direct supervision between the SSM and the national supervisory authorities. But all these aspects are already stated in the Treaty Functioning of EU, Article 127/ §6, mentioned in the committee article in Issue 1. (1) One of the main values the committee focused on was making the aforementioned mechanism as transparent as possible. This is set to be achieved through traceability of decision-making as well as annual reports of the SSM’s work. This is proposed with good intentions, and a valid point, but it cannot stand alone. This desired level of transparency cannot be maintained in such large organisations as the European Central Bank (ECB) and the European Parliament (EP), one needs more than simply follow the decisions made and read a report every year. Transparency needs to come from lessening the hierarchy of such an organisation, something which is unfortunately terribly bureaucratic and rather improbable in

1: Spectrum, Issue 1, A New Hall Monitor in the EU Corridors 6

The creation of a powerful institution with monetary and supervisory powers at the heart of Europe: which role should the European Central Bank (ECB) best play in the Single Supervisory Mechanism (SSM) and how can effective, fair, transparent and democratically accountable supervision of the European banking sector be guaranteed? the EU. Additionally, the resolution also authorises the SSM to overrule the decisions of national supervisors. This restriction in fiscal sovereignty is yet another step the EU is taking into the kitchen, closer to the pie it is already eating. This may all sound bleak, but the committee’s labour have not been fruitless. The resolution also urges the SSM to prioritise its members from the Eurozone above nonmembers, and this is a clear-cut step in the right direction. Also, the SSM will delegate supervisory powers to local committees, thus spreading command and focusing on not too many banks directly. The topic of banking and the implementation of this Single Supervisory Mechanism is a broad and complex issue, having spent four years in planning with the ECB. That being said, the Committee on Constitutional Affairs I has shown grit and fortitude in completing this challenging question.

SPECTRUMeconI

The faulty set-up of the Eurozone? Should the EU compensate for its Member States‘ lost ability to shape monetary policy and how can the issue of macroeconomic imbalances within the Union best be addressed?

n their resolution, ECON I has found short-term solutions to the issue at hand and there is no doubt that the debate was of exceedingly high quality. Sadly, I do not believe the resolution to be the best possible solution to the problems that the Eurozone is facing. My first concern with the resolution is the clause regarding the European Council to formulate a long-term policy discouraging a fiscal union. One of the main problems of why the Eurozone failed in the first place, was the fact that the central power was inable to form a suitable common fiscal policy. This meant that the heterogenous fiscal policies left the euro extremely vulnerable to assymetric shocks and with very little ability to react appropriately in dire situations. At least

Theodor Hall

from this resolution onwards, the Eurozone‘s set-up remains faulty and vulnerable for the future. With varying inflation rates developing as well as too little fiscal and political integration the euro remains weak. Whilst the committee has touched upon the Optimal Currency Areas in the introductory clauses they seem to not have found concrete solutions to the problem. Labour mobility and the lack of a fiscal transfer mechanism are two issues that have been neglected. Those are two issues of crucial importance for many different facets of this topic. ECON I’s resolution brings out excellent points, for example supporting countries in need with structural and cohesion funds. However, that is a dearly needed amount of extra funding for those affected and they seem to have recognised the

Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs I

problem but sadly not have solved it. The euro has two potential roads to pick from, and ECON I seem to have picked neither. Over lengthy debates with contrasting opinions they have managed to take a stance, but not one substantial enough to make the difference on a long-term level. As a bigger picture, a strong position is necessary, specifically a decision between a break-up of the Eurozone or a federalisation with full fiscal integration. A middle way cannot end well, as the economies stay vulnerable. This means that in the long-term it can only inevitably lead to the euro‘s break-up, in which case - why wait?

SPECTRUMeconII

he main premise of the resolution by this committee rests upon the stimulation of a more sustainable banking culture throughout the European Union (EU). For this, amongst others, the committee aims to promote ethical banking and a further cap on bonuses. Furthermore they wish to implement a stronger division between commercial and investment banking as well as a more continuous and centralised banking supervision culture. However ethical banking certainly puts forward a viable alternative for classic banking activities, the committee might have overdone the effort with their proposal for an ethical banking rating. The danger with an initiative like this is that the level playing field, a fundamental EU principle, gets distorted. Existing ethical banks that receive the certificate might thus experience an unfair advantage over more classic corporations that will have a much harder time conforming towards

these guidelines. The capital split put forward by the committee appears to be a quite radical measure. This measure demands banks to completely overhaul their corporate structure by implementing a strict top-down dichotomy between commercial and investment banking. The aforementioned severely restricts the freedom of bankers to move around capital. Furthermore, this measure might encourage banks to succumb to pressure, resulting in banks moving out of one of the Member States in order to further continue its activities in a financially more attractive area of the world. Lastly, the committee has resolved into a reform of the bonus system in the investment banking sector. The proposal contains a zero per cent start-off bonus accompanied by a bonus-malus system, with a cap on 200% of the basic salary. This way it will be possible to also actively decrease the bonus an employee receives if the performances

Culture change within the banking industry: how can the EU support a sector that works better for the general public without driving investment and bankers out of Europe?

of this person are unsatisfactory. The criticism on this proposal is twofold. First of all, the question remains if it is desirable that the EU as a governmental institution interferes in the internal remuneration system of a business. Next to that it is apparent that this measure could deliver too hard a blow to bank employees, and in turn create an environment that is overly austere. The efforts undertaken by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs II are most certainly commendable from a client perspective. The proposed measures tackle the most pressing concerns for those who found distrust in the banking sector in the aftermath of the biggest crisis known to this generation. For the banking sector in the EU however, these proposals are potentially very harmful as they might drive investment banks out of the Union leaving us with a weakened banking landscape.

Committee on Economic and monetary Affairs II Jonathan Piepers

SPECTRUMeconIII

ax havens, being the economic destination for profits of companies trying to avoid tax, are also a big debate in the political agenda of international stakeholders such as the G8, G20, OECD and the EU. ECON III started out well by agreeing on a common decision for the term ‘tax haven’ to prevent any misunderstandings on a global level. The committee also jointly explained the following terms: tax evasion, criminal activity, and tax avoidance, a merely sneaky way of paying less tax. The idea of a public blacklist aiming to involve public interest into the topic and facilitate legal prosecution in case of a criminal happening, is seen twice in this resolution. One regarding the jurisdictions and the other concerning companies who do aggressive tax planning. Informing the public about tax haven

Committee on Economic and monetary Affairs III Berkok Yüksel

countries and tax avoiding companies is the same as proving that McDonalds’ is bad for your health. It is true; it concerns the public directly, but it does not make a difference. Instead of hoping for public support, blacklists should only be used as a collection of data for assisting the process of taking action. On a more European level, the committee has agreed on respecting the fiscal sovereignty of Member States and endorsing previous efforts on country-specific solutions. As we say, ‘go big or go home on your own expense’. Why not deal with a big part of the issue with one solution: a fiscal union. The concept is very debatable, but making Europe a stable, self-protecting and attractive economy by unifying monetary systems and putting reasonable tax rates for companies is an idea to consider. A fiscal union would eliminate the mismatches among tax governance policies and decrease the amount of profits shifted to offshore jurisdictions, not to mention the nullification of Member State tax havens. Instead ECON III decided to take the other road and improve information exchange between countries and harmonise tax governance policies to a certain extent. Rather than reducıng tax havens’ attractiveness through excessıve fiscal control, why not try to make your country and in this case a whole continent, a tax haven? Having a stable economy, a privacy-respecting financial environment and a good economic service structure is an idea that would not hurt.

Off-shore tax havens within and outside Europe: how can Europe jointly address the criminal avoidance of taxes while respecting the citizens’ right to privacy and foreign states’ sovereignty?

Committee on Employment Juan Estheiman Amaya

n a situation such as the one that Europe’s struggling with, it is of vital necessity to ensure that its younger generations have a future regarding labour opportunities. A sustainable educational structure and the development of both shortand long-term solutions to the problem of unemployment need to be developed. Although the committee has prioritised the development of a broader strategy regarding state and enterprise intervention, it has not taken a concrete stance on who should individually take the initiative towards recovery. While its focus includes measures regarding both public and private sectors, a final conclusion on the interrelation between one and the other is not concrete. To what extent will the measures regarding education and subsidies be adaptable on the long

Mitigating skills and qualification mismatch with Europe‘s labour market requirements: how can Europe best satisfy the demands of its employers and future employees in order to improve the employability and prospects of younger generations?

term to a changing labour market’s personal and academic skill requirements? Regarding the role that young citizens should play when tackling youth unemployment, the committee has been debating in quite an abstract way about the facilities that the EU can provide to those individuals with the skills required to engage in entrepreneurial activity. Even though it calls upon a framework that facilitates entrepreneurial start-ups, it completely disregards a true financial support system for it to be initiated. We have to acknowledge that without economic means, skills and talent will eventually still find a way to accomplish their intentions, even if outside our borders. Another problem that I personally believe has been insufficiently considered is the endorsement of a youth working culture in Europe. While in many countries through-

out the world, it is youngsters who start looking for a job at an early age because of economic necessities, this is clearly not the case in Europe. Could further social incentives for the young working population or stricter requirements for those benefiting from the EU Youth Guarantee be a sufficient motivation for young people to enter the labour market? As broad as the topic of youth unemployment is, without an established goal it is impossible to have an effective long- or short-term outcome. Despite that, the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs has decided upon a series of measures that widely promote social inclusion, the assessment of our current labour market’s requirements and a balanced focus from both the private and public sector’s perspectives on the short-term.

ros The Committee on Constitutional Affairs II definitely takes a clear stance on legislative transparency by introducing a legislative footprint. By including an annex to each legislation explaining who influenced what clauses it will be easier to balance different stakeholder interests. In addition to benefiting the democratic process, the footprint will also serve as positive publicity for lobbyists, whose job will be more recognized and appreciated. In other words, having this sort of expertâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s bibliography for pieces of legislation may boost both the positions of the lobbyist and MEPs, as it shows to the general public that both have done their job. Furthermore, the committee takes a very firm step by making the transparency register mandatory for the Commission, Parliament and Council. Especially with the introduction of regulation for the Council, an institution that up to now has received enormous uncontrolled pressure from stakeholders at the national level, increased democratic transparency will be an evident consequence.

Committee on Constitutional Affairs II Manfredi Danielis

SPECTRUMafcoII

ons Regulation and prohibition can have a downside and in this way, one can argue that the position adopted by AFCO II may negatively hinder the lobbying phenomenon. It is possible that small interest groups, usually the weaker stakeholders, may be intimidated by the mandatory registration and the strong penalties for false information which may prevent them from getting involved. Even the Bundestag, the German Parliament, which currently has the strongest lobbying regulation in Europe, leaves more room for exceptions and flexibility in its registry than what AFCO II proposes. Ultimately, the representation of interest may suffer as a consequence of the proposed resolution. There is an attempt to control the phenomenon of lobbying; deciding the time, place and means where the interactions can take place, while simultaneously ignoring some important and established procedures. For example there is already a rule that inhibits non-registered lobbyists from accessing the parliamentary building unescorted, leading to the question of what is the reason behind this more extreme attempt to restrict contact is? In addition to overregulating the lobbying industry, there might also be an overregulation of the actions of Members of European Parliament (MEPâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s). A cool-off period of two years restricting MEPs from working in companies signed up in the registry is definitely a breach of freedom and an excessive step, especially if the other steps by the committee are so focused on increasing the members of the transparency register. The problem of conflict of interests ought to be regulated solely by the code of conduct. One might therefore very well conclude that the resolution of AFCO II could infringe upon civil liberties and participative democracy.

Lobbying the European Parliament (EP) for the common welfare? In the light of discussions about the introduction of a legislative footprint and increased civic participation, what strategy should the EP adopt towards interest representation and Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) as legitimate partners in policy- making? 11

SPECTRUMcult

Working with the watchdogs: responding to recent concerns about media regulation in the United Kingdom and Hungary, how should European decision-makers in tandem with the â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;fourth estateâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; achieve free and pluralistic media that sustain European democracy?

he Committee on Culture and Education put the emphasis on guaranteeing a free and pluralistic media in all Member States by a Pan-European press regulation whilst sustaining European democracy. They agreed that the role of the media in a democracy is not only to provide the public with information and diverse ideas, but also to serve as investigator and ensure the accountability of public representatives, thus to act as a fourth estate. Also, transparency and a critical approach are crucial to ensure a fitting outcome for the solution. In order to ensure an independent and pluralistic media in all Member States, the committee calls for the European Commission to establish the Pan European Regulatory Body (PERB). While establishing a new body is probably one

Committee on Culture and Education Lia Pachler

of the mainstream solutions and nothing revolutionary in EYP, it is rather rare that the respective committee elaborates on that like CULT does. Starting with the necessary legislative procedure to establish the PERB, to delivering warnings and fines should a Member State fail to respect and maintain the EU media freedom guidelines, the PERB is well thought through. However, the resolution has sufficiently failed to address the issue of increasing European identity. The proposed online social media campaign is nothing innovative either, which does not deter from it is overall quality, aiming mainly at the younger generation and is thus inaccessible for the older generation. Additionally, the resolution is undoubtedly missing a long-term solution to the problem. Furthermore, this resolution

lacks in the field of cultural sensitivity. Having solely two representatives of each Member State in the PERB will never manage to address the full array of cultural particularities incumbent in these countries. If one wants to create an all-encompassing strategy to impose minimum standards in the media sector, surely a wider reach is vital. Moreover, the resolution contains a few clauses which do not contribute to the solution as a whole and give the impression of just filling the resolution, like congratulating the EuroParlTV for providing a source of information on European matters. Taking it all into account, the question remains if this resolution suggests too much press regulation, hence, hindering the freedom of press or should another alternative be found?

SPECTRUMfemm

he Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality have spent the past three days discussing an issue, which is one that has always caused very heated and ideological debates. For FEMM this has been no different. However, these lively discussions have not stimulated the committee enough to come with up creative, effective and necessary solutions. The focus that FEMM set from the very beginning was one concentrating on the cultural position of women in society. Stereotypes and misconceptions concerning women were noted as one of the primary problems concerning women achieving gender parity in Europe. Stereotypes and misconceptions are

harmful for job-seeking women and the committee on FEMM have taken an ambitious approach that tries to solve these socio-cultural issues, which lacks feasibility. Culture change is definitely the key issue concerning this topic. This is also exactly what FEMM has tried to achieve however the approach taken lacks the tackling of structural problems. Through structural reforms on the labour market, such as the implementation of gender quotas, FEMM could have changed culture through politics. This process would have been more realistic because a more structural strategy will be able to change the culture in a relatively short time. FEMM has clearly chosen to tackle the relevant socio-cultural

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

problems with a bottom up approach by, for example, trying to help women during their education by increasing women’s knowledge on their possibilities for their future careers through having certain career days in school. The problem with an approach like this one is that it is less practical than taking a top down approach to this issue, such as labour market reforms. FEMM are clearly trying to nip their problems in the bud. The problem that arises with this though, is that it will be extremely difficult to achieve results in society in the short term. And with regards to the decreasing workforce in Europe, FEMM will not be able to be successful in solving this major issue that is heavily entwined with their topic.

Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality Karim Ben Hamda

SPECTRUMimco

ublic procurement, the process by which a state, regional or local authority governed by public law purchases works, goods and services from the private sector, falls under the category of exclusive competences of the EU. Current European-wide procurement procedures provide transparency and objectivity in public procurement which results in considerable savings which benefits Member States’ taxpayers. Thus the Committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO), in comparison to other committees, begun with a substantial advantage of having a broad scope of competences. However, the resolution does suffer from major gaps, mainly due to the lack of attention paid to the last Directive proposal on public procurement. While the directive proposal successfully tackles the

majority of twenty-first century related topics such as ecological and social, or the usage of internet, this resolution takes a step back. The committee suggests that Member States should have the ultimate right to choose the option that best fits their needs. Although the Member states are still sovereign entities on the global scale, when handling an issue falling under the internal market of the EU we should be certainly considering our common interests and needs. Otherwise we might easily become diversified in diversity. Considering the aim of the committee, which was guaranteeing the best value for 18% of public funds (the amount of GDP within the EU member states spend on public procurement) through setting criteria and instruments of public procurement, the resolution could have gone more into depth. Especially in the era of economic crisis it is nec-

Linking the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy to public procurement policy: building on current reform proposals modernising tendering in the EU to guarantee ‘best value for money’, which criteria and instruments should the EU and its Member States use in order to ensure transparent, efficient and competitive use of public funds? 14

essary to face the reality and fight corruption. On the one hand the committee admits corruption leads to losses of funds but on the other hand it does not offer any solutions. An option that was not considered is e-procurement, which has previously been introduced in several Member States. Certainly, there are several strong points of the resolution such as consortia as a solution for small and medium enterprises and the support for research. However, the resolution lacks a clear stance on the topic. My expectation to see the committee’s understanding of the best value for money was not fulfilled as simply balancing quality and price cannot be considered sufficient. For the next time, I would suggest leave the empty phrases for public speaking and concentrate on concrete measures in committee work.

Committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection Zuzana Holakóvska

SPECTRUMlibe

hen assessing the work of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE), it is evident that the significant effort of both its members and chairperson should be applauded. Their resolution however does contain several aspects with which one can easily and fundamentally disagree. Perhaps the most important conclusion that can be drawn from LIBE’s work is that there is the fine line between upholding the EU’s core values and ensuring economic stability. Having closely observed LIBE at work, it must be said that their understanding of the topic is impressive. The committee felt very strongly that intra-EU migration is beneficial to the economic welfare of the entire Union. They did, however, omit a significant consequence of large-scale migration. LIBE is right when they argue that large amounts of immi-

Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs

Dirk Hofland

The fear of rising ‘benefit tourism’: anticipating the removal of the restrictions to free movement for Bulgarian and Romanian citizens in 2014 and bearing in mind complaints of unequal access to social benefits within the Union, how should basic EU liberties be safeguarded whilst considering the socio-economic pressures placed upon the welfare systems of Member States?

grants suddenly entering a Member States’ labour market will result in increased competition for jobs; driving down wages and increasing the competitiveness of the nation as a whole. However, this increased competition will also force many native workers out of the labour market, subsequently putting pressure on governmental social assistance schemes. I wonder if by omitting this notion, LIBE has fully considered all consequences of their proposed measures. Of the measures proposed by LIBE, their concept of a ‘blacklist’ can be considered the most prudent and effective, although only time will tell whether it is actually feasible. Furthermore, although LIBE felt strongly that the freedom of movement should not be impugned, they do exactly that when banning an individual from a country after abusing its welfare system. For the sake of consistency, it might be better to consider not only banning such an individual from a single Member State, but rather to contain him in his country of origin instead. The significant effort LIBE invested into associated issues occurring from benefit tourism and large-scale immigration should also be praised. Providing support for sending countries in order to reduce the economic imbalances that can prompt individuals to emigrate is an effective, albeit very long-term solution. Furthermore, financially supporting receiving Member States is an integral aspect of their resolution. Unfortunately however, these last two are fundamentally contradicting. This support to the receiving countries must be financed by the sending countries themselves, leading to a bizarre situation where nations are obliged to sustain their own citizens living off the social assistance scheme’s of other Member States. To call LIBE’s efforts ‘solid’ would be a serious understatement. There are, however, significant aspects of their solution that are debatable or inconsistent. The resolution might very well pass in GA, but LIBE should expect, and welcome, an interesting and lively debate!

SPECTRUMdeve

Committee on Development Rebecca Smith

he Committee on Development was charged with the arduous task to distribute the costs of climate change. The topic deals with several controversial points, such as the historically loaded relationship between developed and developing countries, and whether historical emissions should be taken into account in further climate legislation. Although the resolution makes some interesting points and concrete contributions, it does not take a strong ideological stance, which is a pity considering the topic. The greatest piece missing from the resolution is a legislative answer to climate change. There is a significant debate on whether the most effective solution is to improve the Kyoto protocol, or to create a new treaty from scratch. The committee did not address this issue in the resolution. Instead, it focused solely on the EU’s responsibility to shoulder

A framework for ‘common but differentiated global responsibilities’: how should Europe contribute to a fair distribution of the costs for climate mitigation and adaptation between the developed and the developing world?

the costs of climate change mitigation and adaptation, rather than its responsibility to lead a global unified action against climate change. A greatly innovative point the committee agreed upon is the creation of an index to categorise countries according to their emissions. This would replace the separation of “developed” and “developing” countries made in the Kyoto Protocol which are no longer relevant. This index would be based on the Human Development Index and emissions per capita, and thus consider both the economic capacity of the country to take on the cost of climate change, and its contribution to the problem. This is a concrete manifestation of the concept of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities, where each country is held accountable for its emissions, but only to the extent of its capacities. The committee had to take a po-

sition on the heavily debated topic of whether the present generation is responsible for the previous generation’s emissions. It decided to completely ignore previous emissions, and start the index in the present. Although it would solve the debate and make an agreement more palatable for some countries, for example the US, climate negotiations have been going on for two decades and it seems a little odd to completely disregard this time period, its targets and tragic short fallings. The index would allow categorisation, but what would this be useful for if there is no progress in legislation? Overall, the committee offers some realistic solutions to the problem, but they could have been far more ambitious in their aim concerning what the EU could achieve in the fight against climate change, and reflect a clear opinion on the topic.

SPECTRUMenviI

Beyond Gross Domestic Product (GDP): in the light of the ‘Trio Programme’ priority for Europe to look beyond growth in capital, how should Europe consider environmental progress, well-being and other indicators alongside more traditional measures of development?

ow to improve the current measurement of development was the topic of ENVI I’s vivid discussions during these past days of committee work. Their topic being rather technical demanded both concrete yet innovative answers. The approach ENVI I has taken to answer this question is an interesting one. They acknowledged that GDP is not always functional when it comes to measuring development. However instead of dealing with these failures the committee decided to improve the already existing measurement of Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI). GPI does improve what GDP lacks in the field of social and environmental factors. The problem is that GPI is still in its early stages of development and it lacks certain characteristics. As GPI is an

Waltter Suominen

improved version of GDP it also includes some of its weak points, for instance the fact that GDP increases after a natural disaster giving the economy a false impression of growth. Two other problems GPI faces the definition of the cost of crime and the operationalisation of things which are difficult to define objectively. Is crime defined as the pure loss of money or does sentimentality have an impact to some extent? In order for the indicator to be functional the monetary value of similar goods should always remain the same, which is rather difficult to achieve. GPI has also been criticised for being overly ideological; as it defines well-being according to a specific ideal. It is said to be unable to measure common goals of a diverse and plural society, as is the Europe-

Committee on Environment, Public Health And Food Safety I

an Union. Environmental and social sustainability are both tackled well within the discussions. Both were partly solved by the introduction of the GPI and the updated criteria for the EU funds given to countries falling under the specified cap of GPI, however one crucial factor is left unattended. As GPI only takes into account pollution as a reducing factor, the actual environmental sustainability of production is left unattended. Apart from the criticism, ENVI I does provide a feasible and realistic solution to the question at hand. There is no such thing as a perfect indicator as there are too many elements in the equation, which makes it impossible to reflect reality with 100% accuracy.

Committee on Environment, Public Health And Food Safety II Conall Oâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;Rourke

he Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety spent two days of committee work tirelessly working to develop an acceptable Europe-wide stance on Genetically Modified Crops. To fully understand the complexity of this task we need only look at their discussion. Economics, foreign trade, social impact, political implications, and agricultural sustainability were a few of the areas extending from this topic and as a result it is important to remember that the goal of the committee was to simply form a stance on the issue. Overall, the core focus of the committee was on preserving health and safety standards and ensuring constant development without compensating on safety. As such, the common opinion was that current EU legislation, restrictions, and complex procedures, whilst creating disincentives for farmers and greatly slowing the uptake of new technologies, were necessary for environmental and public health secu-

Bearing the risks and reaping the benefits of genetically modified crops: what stance should Europe take considering both their potential to boost agricultural production and efficiency worldwide as well as the environmental, public health and socio-economic impact of their application?

rity. However, a clear distinction was drawn between commercial GMO introduction, and GMO research and development. The committee was largely of the opinion that to compensate for the stringent legislation, greater flexibility and incentive should be placed on research on and development of new GM technologies. The ultimate hope here was to minimise all potential risks both to citizens and the environment. Misinformation was attributed to much of the scepticism and negative attitudes towards GMOs and highlighted as a problem on both consumer and governmental level. To tackle this, focus was placed on both traceability, and labelling requirements, so that consumers can be better informed and governments will have the data to allow for more effective decision making. Overall, the committee played a very conservative game with few risky or controversial approaches pursued beyond a short discussion. It was apparent that much of the committee approached the topic

with common ideologies and beliefs that channelled the discussion in quite a linear direction. This meant that there was little thought put into the fact that maybe the risk to public health is not significant enough to justify such strict and, as aforementioned, economically restricting policies. In terms of the misconceptions and labelling, again the linear thought process overlooked the fact that perhaps more information i.e. percentage of GM contents and traceability to source, fails to provide consumers with useful information on what effect, if any, that .9% GM content actually will have on their bodies. Information needs to be focused on the misconceptions about the threat of GM, rather than simply information on the productsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; origins. Perhaps if more time was available, or the topic was more specific the committee could have taken the debate to more interesting and creative areas.

SPECTRUMinta

NTA is clearly looking into the future. The goals they have set out to achieve include reducing dependence on rare earth elements (REEs), re-opening mines in the EU and decreasing demand for REEs by emphasising recycling, alternative product design and finding substitutes for REEs. China has stated two major reasons for reducing its export quotas – negative impact on the environment and ensuring of domestic supply. Although environmental damage resonates in China’s GDP by making up 6% of it, the first reason seems a bogus excuse, as China’s methods are known for their neglect towards nature and sustainability. INTA cleverly suggests sharing experts and eco-friendly technologies with the Chinese in order to reduce damage to the nature to the minimum so that China would not be able to use this excuse anymore. Although this could be a good solution in the environmental regard, it does not exactly address the real issue – production of technology is ever increasing in China, meaning

Committee on International Trade Kaarle Olav Varkki

that they need more REEs. Also, the implementation of these new and better technologies would take a long time, still leaving the rest of the world without the desperately needed metals. Trying to offer a short term solution, INTA encourages agreements with other REE-producing countries, therefore creating a more varied network of imports in the future. However, as China produces nearly 100% of the global supply, these agreements would be of little help in relieving the shortage now. Achieving a sufficient level of production in other countries would take a too long a time. For long term solutions, INTA emphasises subsidising research to find alternatives to REEs and the importance of sustainable design while keeping in mind future recycling when creating new technologies, making it easier to extract the REEs and other important materials from the waste. Furthermore, INTA brings out the importance of a reliable infrastructure, making it easy for people to properly dispose of their waste. According to INTA, urban mining is an important concept, ensuring the necessary sustainability and flow of resources. Finally, future reopening of mines in the EU would grant us independence from China. Furthermore, INTA endorses the EU’s support for China in combating illegal mining, and believes in the importance of introducing a tax penalty for companies that buy their materials from mining companies which do not ensure environmental sustainability. This tax would be applied only after a balance has been achieved between demand and supply. Although INTA has offered sufficient answers for the problem in the long term, the actions proposed for short term relief do not seem to be enough to ensure our necessary supply now. Luckily, long term sustainability seems guaranteed with this resolution, ideally granting a bright

China’s monopoly on rare earth elements (REEs): how should Europe help to guarantee sustainable supply of REEs, whilst ensuring the viability of reserves and reducing the environmental impact of their mining worldwide?

SPECTRUMitre

ackling climate change is one of the most heated discussions of our times. It presents one of the rare cases in which many do not limit themselves to passionate discussions, but also take serious action to prevent the scary scenarios of global warming. People use annoying but energy-efficient light bulbs, public transport is favoured over private cars, and those more passionate even become vegetarian to tackle this issue in their very own way. ITRE however did not go for risky solutions. The vast majority of the committee members were in favour of keeping the existing Emission Trading Scheme (ETS) from the beginning. The main reason for this was the already existing legal and structural basis. The committee judged that the ETS, despite its numerous problems, is a scheme that if implemented appropriately can actually meet the 2020 goals. The

advantages of a carbon tax were acknowledged, but after a quick compromise it was not considered as an option since the impacts, particularly the economic ones, can be unpredictable. No risk means that one does not lose much, but it also means that one does not gain much. The committee identified the main flaws of the existing system and tried to find adequate solutions to regulate the market. One of the central proposals is to implement a minimum price of carbon, which will increase gradually from 6â&#x201A;Ź up to 25â&#x201A;Ź a tonne in 2020. The aim is to make polluting more expensive and thus to encourage investment in eco-friendly technologies. Choosing a gradual increase of the price instead of fixing it from the start might not have the same wished environmental impacts, but this is necessary to strike a balance with regards to the economic impacts. Another concrete proposal is the incentive to increase the percentage

Emission trading vs. carbon tax in the absence of an international agreement: working towards a decarbonised European economy whilst trying to maintain global competitiveness, which reforms and policies should the EU pursue at home in order to further reduce greenhouse gas emissions?

of the reductions of each year from 1,74% to at least 2,6% a year. However, some of the proposals are relatively vague and general. The call for structural reforms without any specific possible measures or the ways in which the allocation should be run by the national governments lack necessary details of their implementation. The same goes for the idea to increase the proportion of auctioned allowances and the integration of several international emission trading schemes. The issue of the maintenance of global competitiveness of the EU could have been addressed in a more detailed way. This resolution does not bring a revolution in the already disturbed market of the ETS. It does not radically reform it or take a turning point. And yet, as many bold political experiments of the past years in the EU are struggling, maybe it is better to go the safe way.

Committee on Industry, Research and Energy Aida Grishaj

SPECTRUMadvice

Letters on Paper Vocal Performance and

Speeches in EYP; sometimes dreaded, but more often a misconceived concept: Waltter Suominen and Jonathan Piepers take a look into this often overlooked yet vital part of the General Assembly.

peech writing is a familiar practice within EYP. The actual process of speech writing differs between individuals, with the resulting conclusion that there are many ways to write a â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;good speechâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;. However, there are certain principles that should be kept in mind. Structure is the most important factor in any speech. Every speech must have a clearly defined beginning, middle and ending. Furthermore, the argument must follow a logical progression. Regarding content, do not be afraid to show this passion. The more personal the speech is, the easier it will be for the writer to present it in an engaging way. However, it is important to remember that while passion is recommended, one needs to always harbour a critical mind. As subjectivity tends to make one blind to the obvious answers, an objective mind might discover flaws in their own argument and remedy them sufficiently. Considering EYP speeches, it is vital to remember the time constraints. Thus, be as straightforward as possible, without unnecessary metaphors. Use the words you are comfortable with and write from the heart. A big part of speech writing is remembering that it is essentially, a performance. Make sure that you do more than just read what you have written down, because a written text does not always correspond to the needs of a public performance. If you are generally not as confident with public speaking then start with observing other speakers and learn from them; TED talks are a great source of inspiration.

Then again, make sure to adapt to your own personal style in order to convey a genuine message. A good tool for this is to concentrate on the message and not the medium. This will help you move away from your own anxieties and move outwardly towards your audience, because in the end they are your main focus. Next to these motivational tips, there are some practicalities you want to take into account. Try to give yourself stage hints when writing down your speech, use big fonts and only write on one side of the pages you use and number them. So if there would be one tagline for the perfect speech it would be: take all of the guesswork out of the equation and prepare, but do not forget to be passionate.

SPECTRUMtierarchy Above all, I must admit that I totally agree with the fact that this topic must be looked at from two completely different angle.It is quite obvious that in order to boost their efficiency and in the meantime minimise their risks, GMOs have to be strictly debated about. However, we might argue that the risks outweigh the benefits, while some see it as the other way around. Science and technology are moving forward faster day by day and it is probably the humans who cannot really keep up with that speed. This might as well be a cause of a negative attitude towards GM engineerings. On the other hand, it is vital that for people to have enough information as to be able to make a correct and argumented decision.

Andrea Pop Suri on ‘GMO?! more like GMOh-No!’

I truly enjoyed reading this article, as it applied one of the best known models on organisational behaviour to EYP and analysed the activities we undertake through this filter. The dimensions Hofstede introduced are definitely applicable to our organisation and can help us understand the EYP sessions a lot better. What EYP has taught me though is that generalisations are dangerous: two delegates from the same country can possess the two opposing traits of the same dimension, having different perspectives on how they perceive e.g. power distance, individualism or uncertainty. Nevertheless this does not substract from the validity of Hofstede’s study and its applicability to the EYP structure, and I believe it is important to understand what role group dynamics and individual traits play in EYP.

Kinga Darida on ‘EYP: The culture behind the name’

Tierarchy

In this article our very own fashionistas and experts on EYP haute couture, Dirk Hofland, Theodor Hall and Karim Ben Hamda, take a look at fashion culture in EYP.

eflecting on our article on recommendations (Spectrum Issue 3), in which we discussed the competitive side of EYP, we thought of one of the more obvious competitions, who has the most dapper suit? In this edition of EYP analysis, we will try and shed some light on the formal fashion competition amongst certain male EYPers. As we are completely oblivious to female fashion – except that we know that many women consider any skirt or dress “GA appropriate”– we have decided that for the purpose of this article we will limit ourselves solely to tendencies in male fashion in EYP. The General Assembly is the highlight of every EYP session. The participants of the session gather together to engage in the core activity of EYP, debating. The raging style war has unfortunately been overshadowing what we hold so highly in our organisation, these debates. Naturally, fashion can be an inte22

gral part of many people’s lives and people wish to express their individuality by dressing in a certain manner. However, when one observes the effort put in to having the most stylish suit and the growing competitive edge to this occurrence, one could conclude that argumentation and rhetoric seem to have been replaced by cufflinks and bow ties. In the end though, what does a suit symbolise? Suits, represent an upper-class culture that is undeniably part of a wealthier side of society. An interesting thought is how this ties in (pun intended) to EYP. Without a shadow of a doubt EYPers mostly come from an educated and rich upper echelon, one of the reasons for what on could call EYPelitarianism. We often forget, in our organisation, just how exclusionary we as an organisation can be. Considering we are an organisation that is tailored (pun intended) to ‘dialogue and social inclusion’ we still persistently neglect to involve people that maybe couldn‘t afford a Saville Row tie.

SPECTRUMeconII

Readers’ Letters

Thank you to everyone who has taken the chance to send in their comments on the articles in Spectrum. If you have further comments, criticism, corrections or anything else to say concerning our products, you still have the chance to do so for all Issues until Sunday, July 28. Submit your contribution to zurichmediateam@gmail.com or to a journalist. All letters will be published online after the session.

4 Dont‘s for the GA

Hugo Dürr, Aida Grishaj and Lia Pachler ellaborate on the unwritten rules of the General Assembly.

Don‘t speak for the mere sake of it.

As the time for the debates in GA is limited, del- Don’t be personal. Points starting with “In the country where I come egates are required to plan their comments accordingly. Following the discussion closely and making sure to not from…” are preferably to be left out of the discussion. make any points that have already been mentioned is Even though one could argue that they bring a unique crucial. Also, it is very much appreciated to rather make perspective to the debates, the resolution will be affectconstructive points than asking questions as this con- ing the EU as a whole. We are here not only as citizens tributes to a more fruitful debate. It is important to be of our countries, but also as citizens of Europe. Thereboth clear and concise in order contribute to the effi- fore, if one is concerned that the interests of the own country are infringed, elaborate objectively. ciency of the debate.

Do not make an attack speech if you are not attacking the resolution. Far too often we hear an Attack Speech beginning with, “I think this is a good resolution, but...” This is not an attack speech. An attack speech should only be made when you fundamentally disagree with the resolution. If you fundamentally disagree with the resolution, you do not find it a “good”. You can appreciate the time and efforts put into the resolution and still respectfully disagree with it.

Don’t be disrespectful. Committee work was not tiring for your committee exclusively. The process of writing a resolution can be frustrating at times and both mentally and physically exhausting. A resolution represents the preparation and the work of an entire committee. Mind your language and your tone. Some debates can be heated indeed, but that does not justify losing your temper at any point. Again, objectivity is key. 23