Behind the scenes of the European Parliament by Jerzy Lamprecht

Lidia Geringer de Oedenberg

Behind the scenes

of the European Parliament

Lidia Geringer de Oedenberg Member of the European Parliament

presents

Publication of the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament Edition: Lidia Geringer de Oedenberg, Karolina Przybylińska Translation: Karolina Zielińska, Carmen Godeanu, Anna Czerwoniec

Behind the scenes of the European Parliament

Proofreading: Anna Hysbergue, Richard Tagart, Anna Czerwoniec, Bartosz Lasota, Jakub Grek Publishing: Lidia Geringer de Oedenberg – Member of the European Parliament Constituency office: ul. Inowrocławska 17/14, 53-653 Wrocław (Poland), tel./fax +48 71 323 08 21 Published in Wrocław Polish edition 2014 English edition 2015 Revised English edition 2016 Photographs: The European Parliament, Lidia Geringer de Oedenberg, Zofia Ulatowska-Rybaj, Carmen Godeanu, EPO Printed and bound by PALMApress s.c., 53-657 Wrocław, Długa 11/13, tel. +48 71 338 14 11, www.palmapress.pl

To desire is to succeed. The only condition is to know what you desire and to want it badly enough. Knowing that, you are on the path to your success. You need to be in the driving seat.

Contents I. A word of introduction ......................................................................................... 9 Time goes on . .......................................................................................................................11 II. The only such parliament ...................................................................................13 The only such parliament ...................................................................................................15 What can the European Parliament do? ..........................................................................17 How many Members sit in the Parliament? . ...................................................................19 Early elections, fewer MEPs ...............................................................................................21 Lisbon’s whist ...................................................................................................................... 23 EU cash without myths . .................................................................................................... 25 Theatre of misers for show? ................................................................................................27 Valuable multilingualism .................................................................................................. 29 The army of translators .......................................................................................................33 Typical working week of an MEP . ....................................................................................37 A visit to the Parliament .....................................................................................................39 The Single Seat . ....................................................................................................................41 Parliament Lux version ...................................................................................................... 43 Cracking Parliament ...........................................................................................................47 Finding a seat in the European Parliament .................................................................... 49 Eurotrampoline of power ...................................................................................................53 EU immunities .....................................................................................................................55 A teacher, a sheet of paper and a pencil can change the world .....................................59 Nationalists worshipping the Union? .............................................................................. 63 III. Straight talk about the European Union ........................................................ 65 An official EU joke . ............................................................................................................ 67 BRUSSELS is still guilty ......................................................................................................71 We swim together or sink alone ........................................................................................73 Black tax hole . ......................................................................................................................75 The European Capital of Culture...................................................................................... 77 Over 30 years of negotiations . ...........................................................................................81 Action for 80 million Europeans . .................................................................................... 87 A million eurosignatures for April Fool’s Day ............................................................... 89 Eurocharger and other “cookies”...................................................................................... 93 Europeana – the Alexandrian library of today .............................................................. 95 Big Brother in your pocket, car, refrigerator .................................................................. 99 SWIFT – the eye of Big Brother? .....................................................................................105 eCall saves lives ..................................................................................................................107

EU on automatic pilot ...................................................................................................... 109 Wrocław’s View on Europe ..............................................................................................113 The forgotten society in Europe ......................................................................................117 Queuing up for the European Community ...................................................................121 Turkey in the Union? Getting Closer . ........................................................................... 125 The EU’s menu for Christmas ......................................................................................... 127 IV. Celebrities and VIPs in the European Parliament . .......................................131 History written in the European Parliament ................................................................133 Eurocelebs ...........................................................................................................................135 The Dalai Lama, gallbladder and women ......................................................................137 Green Prince against eating of our planet .................................................................... 139 Mr Formula One and modern technology ....................................................................141 Meatless McCartney . ........................................................................................................145 V. European women in the spotlight ....................................................................147 Paté on the hundredth birthday.......................................................................................149 Sad future of “handicapped” female Members of the Polish Parliament?.................153 Fine for a victory without fulfilling quotas . ..................................................................155 Women – the fastest growing economy in the world ...................................................157 Ladies to the boards! .........................................................................................................161 VI. Europaradoxes for the uninitiated . ...............................................................165 The EU’s curve carrot jam ................................................................................................167 Poland does not recognize the EU flag ...........................................................................169 Poland contributes to the British EU rebate ..................................................................173 EU assistance for British aristocrats............................................................................... 177 Czech EU Presidency movie ............................................................................................181 The Church – a state in Europe .......................................................................................183 A very slow movement of workers ..................................................................................187 Recruiting a million workers off the shelf . ....................................................................191 Fish unite nations . .............................................................................................................193 VII. Parliamentary thrillers .................................................................................195 Brussels – city without stereotypes ................................................................................ 197 Robberies are the most profitable in Brussels . ............................................................. 199 Shoot the MEP . ................................................................................................................. 203 €3,000 for the floor cloth ................................................................................................. 205 Four years for the Austrian MEP ................................................................................... 207

Controversial legislation increases attention of lobbyists ...........................................211 Millions for “doing nothing”............................................................................................215 VIII. Legal wrangling ...........................................................................................217 When the law is broken ....................................................................................................219 Poland under scrutiny in the European Parliament ................................................... 221 ACTA – a topic for Dan Brown ...................................................................................... 227 Democracy and marijuana .............................................................................................. 233 Tobacco guillotine ............................................................................................................ 237 Cigarette blizzard in the European Parliament ........................................................... 241 IX. Lacy legal works ............................................................................................. 243 Suspects in the network ................................................................................................... 245 Non-commercial file sharing is legal ............................................................................. 247 Pirates promote culture ....................................................................................................251 Music spy just around the corner ................................................................................... 253 How to get out of the copyright “prison”? .................................................................... 255 113% present ...................................................................................................................... 259 Absurdities of copyright laws ......................................................................................... 263 Copyrights for resale ........................................................................................................ 267 Private copying levies . ..................................................................................................... 269 Cloud computing .............................................................................................................. 273 X. Belgium, the weirdest country in the world ................................................... 277 Belgium, the weirdest country in the world ................................................................. 279 French-fried revolution .................................................................................................... 283 Belgian “careful” driver ................................................................................................... 285 Campaigning without ads on TV and billboards ........................................................ 287 Monarch above the law .....................................................................................................291 The world capital of demonstrations ............................................................................. 293 Manneken-Pis dressed in St. Nicholas’ robes . ............................................................. 295 The Belgian-Polish complex relations . .......................................................................... 299 XI. At the End? ..................................................................................................... 303 “The Commission of the Last Chance” ......................................................................... 305 Summary of Lidia Geringer de Oedeneberg’s achievements in the EP .................... 309 Acknowledgements . ..........................................................................................................313

A word of introduction... For the past decade I have been a Polish Member of the European Parliament (EP). From Monday to Friday I work in Brussels or Strasbourg. Trying to come to Poland almost every weekend, I have the opportunity to participate in meetings, conferences and training courses, which include information about the opportunities offered by the EU, the way the EU operates and other behind-the-scenes matters of key importance for citizens. It’s noticeable that in most cases, these matters are completely unknown to people I meet. Hence the idea of sharing information, to which I have access, with a wider range of readers – the blog*. After a few years of blogging, I decided to gather the most important, most interesting events that occurred over the past few years in the European Union – and turn this collection of essays into a book. You will find a little bit of Brussels, Strasbourg, and my home town Wrocław from a perspective of time and from a distance. Poland will get to see the view from abroad and find out about interesting places in Europe, to which only the “insiders” have access. Greetings from the European Parliament,

Brussels, 2014

* My blogs in Polish are available on portals: www.lgeringer.natemat.pl, www.lidiageringer.bblog.pl, www.lidiageringer.blog.onet.pl, www.tokfm.pl/blogs/lidia-Geringer. * I also run a blog in English: www.lidiageringer.wordpress.com.

Time goes by... Do you remember how, before the referendum on the accession of Poland to the European Union in 2003, the parties of Self-defence of the Republic of Poland (Samoobrona), The League of Polish Families (LPR) and Law and Justice (PiS) warned Polish citizens against the EU and of the loss of independence? Their prophecies have not come true. The past ten years have clearly shown how many benefits the EU has brought us. Municipalities, entrepreneurs and farmers benefited from the EU funds; Polish companies have been successfully integrated into the common European market. Polish citizens have benefited from the free movement throughout the Union, from the freedom to study abroad to legal employment in other member states. However, we are still facing further challenges. Poland has to take its time to wisely adopt the reforms associated with the socalled “2020 climate and energy package”, changes in the Common Agricultural Policy and structural adjustment policies, which amount to 80% of the EU’s budget. In addition, Polish economy needs to be well prepared for the adoption of the Euro currency, to which we agreed in the pre-accession referendum. In order to gain from these changes, we need to be ready for them. Achieving the goals requires experts and professional negotiators, as well as strong and efficient representation in the European Parliament.

The head office of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

II. The only such parliament

The only such parliament It represents half a billion citizens. Officially operates in three places: Brussels, Strasbourg and Luxembourg. It has 10,789 offices and 159 meeting rooms with the largest, the plenary (Hemicyle), providing approximately 1000 seats. In total 1,091,934 m2. It employs nearly 10 thousand personnel. The Parliamentary system supports 15 thousand computer workstations and 1,200 laptops. Daily more than 1 million emails pass through the 1,389 parliamentary servers. It provides 20 million documents per year 1. It works in 24 languages (more than 500 translation combinations). It employs 1,240 translators and interpreters who, in addition to live interpretation, translate more than 100,000 pages per month. Multilingualism in the EP costs about €250 million per year. In addition to employees and official visitors, around 500 thousand people annually come to the EP. More than 400,000 cups of coffee are served yearly in meeting rooms; now multiply it by a 5 year term. That is a sea of coffee. Although, for some reason, it is not a very tasty coffee. About 4,500 meetings are held annually. The sculpture “Europe à Cœur” by Ludmilla Tchérina in front of the European Parliament building in Strasbourg.

Slowly moved to a system of “paperless” committee, where in the future MPs will work mainly on electronic documents available on tablets, installed in the meeting halls. Investments in the e-parliament in 2011 amounted to almost 90 million.

Dozens of elevators in the buildings go up and down about 2,000 times daily. Needless to say, these elevators break down quite often, contributing to MEP’s being late to meetings. The EP has its own TV studios web EuroparlTV, radio and special communications department. Broadcasts of the meetings of the EP can be followed online. Plenary sessions begin at 8:30 am and end around midnight lasting approximately 460 hours per year. The European Parliament also has external information offices, located in the capitals of the Member States. Two information offices can be found in larger Member States. Poland is one of them. One office is in Warszawa, and in July 2011 a regional office opened in Wrocław, capital of Lower Silesia.

What can the European Parliament do? In its early days, more than half a century ago, the EP did not have many competencies. MEPs used to meet once a month in Strasbourg to issue non-binding opinions to the Council (Heads of States and Governments of the Member States). They had no offices or assistants, during the meetings some smoked cigars, drank cognac, and the sessions ended with a good dinner. They were delegates from national parliaments until 1979, after that time MEPs were elected directly. Today, the Parliament is on equal footing with the Council; it has budgetary authority and completes legislative work every day throughout the year. During the meetings, Members drink water, coffee or tea. Dinner is usually missed since MEPs do not have enough time, and smoking is not allowed, even in cafeterias. The European Parliament is a co-legislature, on the EU’s annual budget, among other portfolios; it holds hearings for those nominated to be Commissioners, and approves the European Commission as a whole. It ratifies or vetoes international agreements.

Lidia Geringer de Oedenberg is giving an interview in the European Parliament.

Bird’s eye view of the European Parliament building complex in Brussels.

How many Members sit in the Parliament1? 766 instead of 751. Why? The Treaty of Lisbon entered into force on the 1st of December 2009, about half a year too late. The treaty was intended to enter into force around the time of the European elections in June 2009; however, that did not happen because the ratification was blocked by the presidents of Poland, Lech Kaczyński, and Czech Republic, Vaclav Klaus. As a result, the EU elections were held under the “old” Treaty of Nice. Only half a year later, when the Lisbon Treaty was finally ratified in all EU countries, could we adapt the Parliament to the requirements of the “new” Treaty. The first step was adjusting the number of MEPs. According to the Lisbon Treaty, Poland should have had 51 MEPs, but in 2009 we elected only 50. The same pattern reoccurred in other EU countries, as 739 MEPs were elected in the 2009 European elections. According to the current Treaty this number should be adjusted to 751. New rules were created to distribute the “missing” 15 Members between the national delegations2. France, for example, made no provision for “patching up” the composition of its delegation and faced the dilemma of organizing national elections for two (!) MEPs. In the end, they made a decision to send members from their national parliament. The situation in the 7th Legislature 2009-2014. Additional MEPs were distributed as following: Austria + 2 Sweden + 2 Bulgaria + 1 Netherlands + 1 Latvia + 1 Malta + 1 Slovenia + 1 Italy + 1 United Kingdom + 1 1 2

The Hemicycle in the European Parliament in Brussels.

The highly impatient Spaniards, who “gained” four seats, selected Members from their waiting list. But while some countries gained additional seats in Parliament, others lost some of their seats. The German delegation, for example, would send three MEPs back to their home country. But they never went back because Member States found ways of delaying the procedures. Finally, by the mid-term, in January 2012, the European Parliament fulfilled the Lisbon Treaty by welcoming 15 new members, including the fifty-first Polish MEP. No one was sent home, because it was much harder to decide who was to leave than to find new people to join the EP. Hence, there was a surplus of three German Members until the 2014 parliamentary elections. The D’Hondt Method was used to allocate the seat to the new Polish member. The last mandate was given to a Member from the Polish People’s Party (PSL). The first person on the list to join the EP was Edward Wojtas who died tragically in the presidential plane crush in Smolensk. Therefore, the seat was given to the next person on the party list – Arkadiusz Bratkowski3. We finally arrived at 754 Members. This number grew again with the accession of Croatia to the EU, when another 12 Members joined the Parliament. This large number was also temporary, considering that according to the Lisbon Treaty the number of Members should not exceed 751. Consequently, in the future, some delegations will have to be slightly less numerous.

Early elections, fewer MEPs Elections of Members of the European Parliament’s eighth term were scheduled to take place throughout the Union from the 22nd to 25th of May 20141, about three weeks earlier than the previous elections in 2009. The idea of bringing the elections forward from the usual mid-June to the end of May led to several problems. Specific dates in June interfered with religious holidays and traditional long weekends, which could have affected the turnout. So the date had to be moved to May. The composition of the Parliament elected in 2014 also changed, namely number of MEP’s decreased from 766 to 7512. About fifteen Members less! After long debates and struggles, it has been agreed that twelve Member States (Romania, Greece, Belgium, Portugal, Czech Republic, Hungary, Austria, Bulgaria, Ireland, Croatia, Lithuania and Latvia) will lose one MEP and Germany will lose three. Sounds a bit unfair, but Germany, as the largest country in the EU, with 99 Members, accepted the decision. In the case of Poland, no changes applied.

Article 144 of the Polish electoral law governing elections to the European Parliament states: ‘In the event that a Member of the European Parliament, [...] or the loss of the mandate of Marshal of the Sejm [...] notify (...) next priority for the next entitled candidate, pursuant to Art. 130, is from the same constituency list”.

EU elections in Poland took place on 25 May, 2014. According to the Lisbon Treaty (which entered into force six months after the previous election in 2009) the number of MEPs was reduced to 750 + chairman. Each country must have a maximum number of 96 Members and a minimum number of 6.

1 2

Lisbon’s whist The first test for the new Treaty was the budget for 20111. Dividing the cake between the 27 EU Members, with different priorities and economic indicators, has not been an easy task (which I had the opportunity to observe closely as a member of the Committee on Budgets), and it became even more difficult when the new treaty put the Parliament on an equal footing in the budget negotiations. The Budget report 2011 rested in the hands of the Polish MEP, Sidonia Jędrzejewska, who, along with other Members of the Committee on Budgets boldly pushed the Council during negotiations. That there was some “fuss”, interrupted talks, threats of vetoing the budget, means that Parliament tested its new powers. The negotiations concluded in an agreement between the Council, Commission and the EP literally at the last minute. It was the first time when the new powers of the Parliament under the Lisbon Treaty were applied. The next show of powers took place during the negotiations of the seven-year budgetary financial framework MFF 2014-2020.

Meeting of the Committee on Budgets in 2011.

Since the new Treaty entered into force on 1 December, 2009, it was already too late to present the EU budget for 2010 according to the new procedure.

EU cash without myths The EU budget is exactly €0.67 per day per citizen, or the cost of one coffee... It is 44 times less than the sum of all the budgets of Member States. It is based on the contribution of less than 1% of the GDP of each of the 28 EU countries. This is purely an investment budget, where 94 % of the funds return to the Member States or are allocated to common external actions. Only 6% is spent on administrative costs. The budget offers no margin for deficit or debt. The unspent funds return to the Member States1. The EU budget brings more added value than each euro spent from the national budgets. At less than €150 billion per year, the EU budget is a strong instrument for stimulating and increasing investment, generating growth and creating new jobs. If the contribution of Member States is constantly reduced, as usually suggested by the richer part of Europe, the EU budget could shrink by about 20% over the next 20 years. However, national budgets are always on a growing trend. In 2011, 23 out of 27 EU countries increased their spending. Public funds from the EU thus shift to the national level. Does this mean renationalization of EU policies? Currently, the Council is planning more and more ambitious and costly strategies for the Union (e.g. CO2 reduction). But the political and economic goals that are negotiated for months, even voted and published as a beautiful booklet will not be achieved by reducing investment at EU level. The crown of “L’Europe” statue in front of the European Parliament in Brussels.

Due to the rules applicable until 2014.

Is the Union on the right path? According to the Polish Ministry of Regional Development, each euro invested in the “new” EU countries brings the “old” countries an average of 61 cents of profit in the form of additional exports. For Germany alone, this even means a return of €1.25. The European Commission shows that investments in the field of cohesion policy in the period 2000-2006 brought an additional 0.7% GDP growth in 2009 throughout the Union, and by 2025 this figure may reach as much as 4% of the Union’s GDP. The outcome of satisfying the “new” and “old” Members can be that the Union creates for example its own resources, such as for example the financial transaction tax, which may contribute to increasing the EU budget, making it more autonomous and stable. The own resources system could also reduce national contributions of individual Members States to the EU budget. Negotiations on this file are still on-going.

Theatre of misers for show? The battle for the 2014-2020 budget was full of spectacular theatrical performances. Walking down memory lane... The first part involved talks about current problems related to the budget deficit in 2012. That was interesting, considering the fact that under EU law, a budgetary deficit is not legal. Now, how to explain the €9 million deficit in payments in 2012? The trouble began in 2011, when the Council and the Parliament approved a budget which was insufficient for previously approved plans. The missing funds were taken out of the 2012 budget. Consequently, shortage of payments and bills were accumulated in the last quarter of 2012, whereas the Commission bank account was empty. Among the projects affected was the Erasmus programme for students’ mobility. This financial discrepancy came from the sudden decision of the Council to lower the figures related to expenses proposed in the preliminary draft budget in order to please the public. This affected concrete programmes that benefited students, researchers, cities, regions, etc. The gap was partly patched up in 2012, when Member States agreed to €6 billion in additional funds for 2012, and an extra €3 billion were to be found in 2013. However, the gap in payments continued increasing.

Expenses of the EU (by country) according to Eurostat.

In addition, both the Council and the European Commission have forgotten that the negotiations for the EU’s next multiannual financial framework are governed by the new rules imposed by the Lisbon Treaty. Accordingly, the Parliament should be a party to the negotiations, which was neglected by the Council. So MEPs, armed with new powers, were ready to fight with the Council and even make use of their veto.

One must remember that the EU budget is not money for “Brussels”; 94% of the budget goes back to the Member States in the form of, either, direct payments, or the purchase of goods or services. The British Prime Minister, David Cameron, who advised us to “slim down” the Brussels administration, should be reminded that the budget priorities are determined by the Member States, and not by the eurocrats in Brussels. Administration costs are only 6% of the EU budget. According to data from Eurostat 2011, there were 55,000 EU public servants. Is that a lot? How does it compare to elsewhere? For example: - Latvia, with a population of 2,200,000 has 184,000 public servants; - the city of Birmingham, with a population of 1,036,900 inhabitants employs 60,000 public servants; - the city of Paris, with 2,257,981 inhabitants has 50,000 public servants; - Helsinki, a city with 601,035 citizens employs 40,000 public servants. How many officials should therefore serve 500 million European citizens?

Valuable multilingualism The Community has come a long way since the late 50s, when its institutions were operating in only four languages: French, German, Italian and Dutch. With the enlargement of the EU, new languages were introduced. Until 2004, there were 11 official languages. Today1 we have in the EP 24 official languages (and 3 alphabets), but in the long term, who knows – maybe we can add more – for example – Turkish? Despite the fact that all languages are equally important, English has an unspoken superiority, French also, because it is spoken by officials and residents of Brussels and Strasbourg, where the Parliament is based. Maintaining the wide linguistic scope is a real challenge from the logistical and financial perspectives. Every month about 100,000 pages are translated. Together with live interpretation that costs €3 million per day! Linguistic diversity is a democratic and cultural foundation of the European Union2; it’s there to ensure that every citizen has the opportunity to write to each of the EU institutions and receive an answer in the same language in which the question was sent. But not all languages were accepted easily. In case of Ireland, the most widely-spoken language is English, but 30 years after it joined the EU finally Irish Gaelic became also an official language. Never mind the fact that majority of Irish MEPs do not speak it... Maltese – even though they are all fluent in English, insisted on having Maltese as an official EU language.

The Council of Quaestors in the years 2009-2014. The Quaestors for the 7th Parliamentary term. Left-to-right: Bill Newton Dunn (2009-2011), Bogusław Liberadzki (2012-2014) and Astrid Lulling, Lidia Geringer de Oedenberg, Jiri Mastalka, Jim Higgins (2009-2014).

In 2014. Based on Article 22 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and Article 24 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU.

1 2

We often listen to accusations made by the Catalans, who feel humiliated when having to listen to a Spanish translation (Castilian). They are joined by Luxembourgers who are fluent in French and German, but after all, would have also liked to use their Luxembourgish language... Let’s imagine, that the money spent currently on translation were to be invested in future in learning English in all European countries, starting from kindergarten. That would allow us to preserve our native language and to communicate in a common euro-administrative language.

Why these? –E nglish, because the patent documentation is usually prepared in that language; – German, because most patents are from Germany; – French, because it is the next most “patented” country. Result? Immediately after the proposal, the Italians and Spaniards protested and refused to take part in the project. Other countries blocked the initiative for a while, but finally understood that this “sacrifice” was for the good of their economies. In the end, even the Italians agreed. The Spaniards, on the other hand, offered to join the Unitary Patent on a condition that German and French were given up so that everyone was punished equally, having to use English only. As one might expect the proposal did not pass. Moreover, in the end of 2011, the Polish Presidency responsible for negotiations – at first announced as a success Unitary Patent agreement among the 25 Member States (without Spain and Italy), then withdrew Poland from the project citing... language issues. How do MEPs cope with foreign languages? In my opinion, the Greeks are the best; Cypriots, Luxembourgers, Maltese, Hungarians, Czechs, Slovaks, Romanians and Bulgarians – are very familiar with at least two EU languages. Germans, Austrians, Dutch and Spaniards communicate very well in English, and they cope with another foreign language. The weakest in the EU are, in my view, Italians, French and British MEPs, who use mainly their mother tongues. I once asked my British colleague during an unofficial event, whether or not he took any foreign languages at school, he replied: “Of course”. When I asked which ones, he said: “I don’t remember”...

Every seat in the European Parliament plenary chamber is equipped with a headset for translation into the official EU languages.

How are Poles doing at other languages? Better and better...

Is it possible? Probably not. We’ve already had an attempt to reduce translation costs in a Unitary Patent project, which proposed to apply translation services only in English, German and French on documents related to patent. 30

The army of translators Although the world’s population use English more and more as a lingua franca of today, the EU still employs thousands of translators. An in-depth look into the costs of this linguistic luxury reveals that more than €1 billion per year is spent on translation. But on the other hand, this comfort costs “only” €2.20 per year per capita. The European Parliament employs 1,240 translators and 1,150 interpreters. If we add up these numbers, we find that more than one-third of Parliament’s staff is employed in the language services. Still, this is not enough. 35% of all translated documents are outsourced. Each of the 28 countries has the right to ask for documents in its own language and to speak in their native language at official meetings and events. Every year MEPs sent about 1,600 parliamentary questions to the Commission or the Council, and table about 20,000 amendments, this requires translation of over 1.2 million pages in a whole. At meetings I often see interpreters translating for languages whose speakers are absent from the meeting. Linguistic correctness also means that for example in the case of a parliamentary delegation to Brazil, three interpreters will accompany a member who is unfamiliar with English. This standard is always provided, resulting in enormous costs. Documents for meetings and reports that are being translated also often go straight into the bin. Arriving at the Parliament early in the morning, I pass by the cleaning workers and see how much waste paper they are dealing with. There are 24 official languages in the European Parliament.

In the popular Belgian English language magazine “The Brussels Tribune” philosopher and economist Philippe Van Parijs emphasises the universality

of English – also in Brussels. However, not all of his compatriots share this opinion because the domination of one language can cause a “linguistic injustice”. Recently, some even appeared to argue that the lack of linguistic flexibility creates “inequality of opportunity”, which explains the fact that Englishspeaking job seekers have an advantage in the Belgian job market over native applicants. Well, well, even international Brussels fears an unauthorized anglo preference.

The interpreter in the cabin above the plenary chamber.

English is usually spoken at international conferences. But, as it turns out, this practice contributes to the “inequality of nations”, which is interpreted as raising the profile of one Member’s language, culture, mentality and historical experience above others... Language discrimination? Rather a necessity in an international melting pot. Philippe Van Parijs claims that English language is a priority for many persons in Belgium. Brussels is worried that people who work in the EU institutions will show less motivation to learn the national languages, such as French or Flemish, because they can get by with English alone. According to Van Parijs this is natural and Belgians have to accept the changing reality and adapt to it by promoting English as a third language in their country. For me, the supremacy of the English language is not surprising. From a linguistic standpoint it is the easiest European language to learn. Whenever I negotiate something in French, I immediately write it in English so there should be no doubts about the compromise reached in very diplomatic French. English in the European Union is like the meter measurement adopted in Sevres, a benchmark from which we translate into other EU languages. However, if we could spend the money, currently used on translating tons of documents, on English language courses in all member states, the next generations could benefit from an excellent tool for official and private communication and save large sums of public money. Read more on: www.brusselsmetropolitan.eu/EN/news/news_2012_02_29.php

The view from the interpreters’ cabin above the plenary chamber.

Typical working week of an MEP We work from Monday to Friday, each week, except for the one-month summer breaks and public holidays. Three weeks per month we work in Brussels and one week a month we are in Strasbourg for the plenary session. Since there are no direct flights from Wrocław to Brussels or Strasbourg my journey to work includes two flights in each direction. If I need to be in Poland in the middle of the week, the number of trips doubles. Overall, annually, I get on a plane about 300 times. My route to work is the most complicated when travelling to Strasbourg and looks as follows: a plane from Wrocław to Munich (Germany), then plane to Basel (Switzerland), followed by another 140 km drive to Strasbourg (France). That is, in total, approximately 8 hours of travel. Not so bad, especially in comparison with the Finns who need to leave a day before in order to make it to Strasbourg on time. In Brussels, formal meetings are scheduled from 9:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. Strasbourg plenary sessions start at 8:30 a.m. lasting until midnight. Of course, the next day we often start as early as 7:30 a.m. with working breakfasts. Most MEPs rent an apartment in Brussels. In Strasbourg everyone stays in hotels. Because of the high demand for beds, a large number of MEP’s stays within a radius of 20 km from Strasbourg, in nearby German towns. During the Strasbourg sessions, the high demand substantially increases prices in hotels and restaurants. Once I arrived on the Sunday before the session and I was surprised to find out that the room price was half of what I paid for the same room the following day. Lidia Geringer de Oedenberg in her office in the European Parliament in Brussels.

A visit to the Parliament Annually, about 500,000 citizens visit the European Parliament in Brussels and Strasbourg. These people come to attend conferences and public hearings. Guests can also be invited individually by MEPs. Every year we can organize study visits for 110 people from our regions, with a financial contribution from the Parliament. Nearly 3,500 people attended the study trips to the European Parliament organized by my office1. The 60th parliamentary visit at the invitation of the MEP Lidia Geringer de Oedenberg, Brussels, August 2011. The group in front of “L’Europe” statue.

Although this number might seem unrealistically high: two terms in office multiplied by 110 people gives us 1,100 visitors, but by acquiring additional funds I was able to triple the number of visitors. The visiting groups had the opportunity to see not only the Parliament buildings, but also the Council of Europe and the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg or the European Commission and the Committee of the Regions in Brussels, as well as other tourist attractions in both cities. The aim of these visits is to awaken interest in the European Union and show participants how the European Parliament, which is comprised of representatives from 28 countries, and represents the united Europe, works in practice. Moreover, participants learn a lot about the opportunities offered to them by the EU. In the study visits organized by me during 2004-2013 took part: winners of competitions on “Knowledge of the EU”, pupils and students honoured for academic performance and social activity, representatives of the Third Age Universities, representatives of trade unions, members of non-governmental organizations and local government, social workers, charity auction winners, activists from friendly political parties: the Democratic Left Alliance and the Labour Union and representatives of the media. Such an “educational tour” is not be offered in travel agencies. You have to earn it. How to get invited to the next visit? Details on www.lgeringer.pl/konkursy2.htm.

The 70th parliamentary visit at the invitation of the MEP Lidia Geringer de Oedenberg, Strasbourg, August 2012. The group in front of the European Parliament.

Until April 2014.

The Single Seat Currently the Parliament has three locations: Brussels, Strasbourg and Luxembourg.

Lidia Geringer de Oedenberg supports establishing a “Single seat” for the European Parliament.

This multiple seat arrangement costs approximately €1.5 billion in the budget 2014-2020, making the idea of “the Single Seat” a cause worth fighting for, especially in the time of crisis. Mission costs for officials located mainly in Luxembourg and travelling all the time to the other two locations were almost €30 million in 2013. Another questionable expense is the construction of a giant office building Konrad Adenauer (KAD) in Luxembourg (for 6,000 parliamentary officials), the costs of which were so difficult to estimate that no construction company wanted to take the contract. The Parliament then decided to play the role of a developer. Finally according to various estimates, the cost of the building could be as high as €804 million. MEPs have long tried to resist the continuous, meaningless monthly removals. Unfortunately, without revising the Treaties, these pilgrimiges will continue1. Nevertheless, a cross-party alliance of MEPs, an informal group called the “Single Seat” steering group, has decided to fight for the idea of one location for the Parliament. Five members of this group, myself included, were members of the EP Bureau. Our initiative has received the support of more than 80% of the MEPs, calling for more efficiency in running our institution. The majority of us favour Brussels, which is easier to reach and where our work is better organized.

During the Single Seat seminar on 24 October, 2012.

In December 1992, in Edinburgh, during the UK Presidency, the Council decided on the “location of the institution and on the certain bodies and departments of the European Communities (OJ C 341 23.12.1992). These decisions were included in the Amsterdam Treaty. The document states that the European Parliament headquarter is in Strasbourg for twelve monthly plenary sessions a year; committees meetings are held in Brussels and the Parliament’s General Secretariat is located in Luxembourg. This text can be found out in Protocol 6 of the Treaty of Lisbon.

However, according to the Treaties, the final decision on the seat of Parliament does not belong to us but to the national governments, in other words the Council. We have long been complaining about a waste of money and time, but the Council has so far not listened to us, holding on tightly to incomprehensible (for us and citizens) political commitments. There is a difference between trying to satisfy countries’ needs to have prestigious EU institutions and the reality. We have tried to influence the Council’s position through a report that received a Parliamentary majority at the end of 2013. The document written by colleagues Ashley Fox and Gerald Hefner asks for a treaty change that will give the Parliament the right to decide on its working place. French and Luxembourgish Members from all political groups were united in defending the profitable status quo – they fought (and still fight) against the initiative, and they received the support of what is currently the largest parliamentary political group – the Christian Democrats. Nevertheless we, the “reformers”2 still have a majority. Our report will force the Council to address the problem and – hopefully – take appropriate and reasonable decisions.

Members of the Single Seat Group: www.singleseat.eu/9.htm

Parliament Lux version As mentioned earlier extension of the Konrad Adenauer building in Luxembourg, serving 6,000 officials of the European Parliament is estimated to cost €804 million. The ongoing renovation of five office buildings that the EP occupies now in Luxembourg, their rent, in addition to the costs already incurred by the KAD project and possible penalties for breaking contracts (in case of withdrawal from the construction) could cost more than constructing a new building. So it is cheaper to build than not to build. Sounds paradoxical?

On the KAD building site in Luxembourg.

The cost of abandoning the construction is calculated at over €1.1 billion (calculated over the next 20 years), it turns out that to spend €804 million on the construction means savings.

Luxembourg and Brussels or Strasbourg. Therefore, they must have three fully equipped offices. If the KAD building goes ahead, I think it will be even harder for officials to be close to the Parliament.

It was also found that the EP will be an investor and developer, which has never been the case before, as the EP only bought the buildings or rented them.

The facts are as follows: currently, the European Parliament has three sites located in three different EU countries. Parliamentary officials are divided between Brussels and Luxembourg. A handful of employees have permanent work in Strasbourg, taking care of the building, which we use four days a month...

The first tender was not accepted, as no offer of funding from commercial banks was received. None of the construction companies was able to give an estimate for the work and, meanwhile, the expected costs were between 10 and 70% higher than the initial budget... I personally, had serious concerns about the construction, which also meant taking responsibility for any accidents on the construction sites, or structural defects, which can be illustrated by the 10,000 structural defects detected in the EP building in Strasbourg, in use only since 1999. Not to mention our plenary chamber in Strasbourg, where the ceiling collapsed in 2008, and in 2009 another part in the hall leading into the room collapsed, we should be happy that the investor, not the EP holds the responsibility for these defects. As a result of this the EP has already filed 50 lawsuits. In the case of the construction of the KAD building, as investor, our institution would be held liable for any possible consequences. Therefore there is a need for further employment... of an army of lawyers. KAD area is estimated at 160.000 m2 and it should be operational in 2016. Currently, our officials are working in 6 different buildings in Luxembourg; the new building is set to unite all of them. The fact is that they are very scattered, because their institution works in Brussels, sometimes in Strasbourg, while they are very far from us in Luxembourg. In 2010 there were 33,200 delegations of officials travelling between the three work-places. The Parliament provides allowances to cover the costs of travel and accommodation. The total of associated costs amounted to approximately €29 million in 2010.

Luxembourg – despite the lack of official parliamentary business – received the right to host the General Secretariat of Parliament. In time, it was found that some officials simply must permanently work in Brussels and we tried to put them up there. In 2000 there was a special agreement between the Government of Luxembourg and the Parliament which allowed the EP to transfer some employees to Brussels in exchange for committing to maintain at least 50% of EP staff in Luxembourg (which is about 2,060 people!). These officials are a good source of income to the country. By the way, Luxembourg also hosts the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Auditors; therefore the state does not stand to lose too much if the rest of the EP Secretariat goes to Brussels. In March 2012, I submitted an amendment to the Budget 2013 report, where I pointed out the expenses of the EP seat in Luxembourg. To my surprise the amendment was adopted by a large majority. Following this success the KAD building was reduced by 7,500 m2. Just as I am a supporter of EU integration, I cannot understand the stubbornness of governments, paying lip service to savings and cuts, and forcing thousands of officials (including those of the European Commission and the Council) to make a costly and pointless migration to a “cracked” Parliament.

Originally, Luxembourg was to be a base for workers related to the translation and the administration, which are not required to be close to our institution. However, in practice many of these civil servants travel all the time between 44

Cracking Parliament In Strasbourg, a large part of the ceiling over the plenary hall collapsed on 7 August, 2008. Luckily, no one was hurt because it was the middle of the summer holiday, the building was empty, anyway it sits empty most of the year, because the Parliament uses its space for only 48 days a year; 4 days a week during the twelve monthly plenary sessions.

The collapsed ceiling in the plenary chamber in Strasbourg.

As I write these words, five years have passed since the construction disaster in 2008, until now safety nets still hang over the plenary room to protect our heads against subsequent fragments of the steadily falling ceiling. Also in the building, the beautiful, fancy, double-laced marble staircase should be considered as a decoration, because it is covered everywhere with cracks. I have my heart in my mouth every time I use it. The entrance to the huge observation deck in the Louise Weiss building has been closed for several years, while plaster falls off the smaller terraces. Everywhere you go you can see deep fissures. There have been a dozen cases in court in connection with construction defects of the EP in Strasbourg... Nevertheless, only time will tell whether these flaws will eventually harm us. After the summer break in 2012, we received “breaking” news. Collapse of the ceiling, this time in Brussels. As a result a large part of the Paul- Henri Spaak (PHS) building was sealed off – forcing about 200 officials to be relocated to another part of the building. We also could not hold mini plenary sessions in Brussels.

“No Access” in front of the plenary chamber in Brussels.

It turned out that during routine inspections (during the vacation) cracks were revealed in 3 out of the 21 structural beams over the Hemicyle in the building Paul-Henri Spaak which is only 18 years old, so it had to undergo general renovation. This provided a perfect excuse for closing the plenary chamber in Brussels.

Finding a seat in the European Parliament At the beginning of each plenary session 7661 Members of the European Parliament are frantically looking for their seats in the Chamber. This might seem absurd to citizens or Members in the national parliaments who are usually assigned a permanent seat.

The “cracking” head office in Strasbourg.

This incident didn’t serve the efforts of the “Single Seat” group. If one is to believe in conspiracy theory, we would look for those benefiting from the ceiling colapse in Brussels – the suspects would of course be the French, who do not accept the idea of the “Single Seat” at the expense of Strasbourg. Well, our work, took place continuously without major changes in spite of the lack of access to the hemicycle in Brussels. More than seven hundred members and approximately 9 thousand officials and assistants, each month go on the pilgrimage to Strasbourg where cracks can be found at every step, and it does not bother anyone.

The seating principles in the European Parliament are as follows: Members of various political groups of the European Parliament sit in groups on the basis of political affiliation, not national. In the first row are the leaders of the political groups and their deputies, then Members of the Bureau of the European Parliament (Vice-President and Quaestors), behind them – the heads of parliamentary committees, and then all other Members in alphabetical order. The whole system collapses, when an MEP is replaced, which happens quite frequently (i.e. an MEP becomes a minister, prime minister, president), an MEP can change political group due to a split in the national party or changes of political views. There are also tragic circumstances. Before entering the plenary hall you always need to check the number of the place you should go to because differences in rows and neighbours can be quite large. From the “right” you can suddenly land on the “left” within your own political group, even if you do not change views. Our names are displayed on small screens with arrows to vote. Counting on our neighbours when we rush to the plenary hall for votes at the last minute could be tricky, especially when we realize our neighbours might have changed...

The situation up to July 2014.

In the 6th term (2004-2009) in general 81 Members changed, including 5 Poles who chose a career at home and 2 who left under tragic circumstances, but 20 Polish MEPs altered their political groups, some did so several times. The most active in this regard were MEPs from the League of Polish Families (LPR), Self-Defence of the Republic of Poland and the Polish Peoples Party (PSL). In the 7th parliamentary term (2009-2014)2 84 Members have changed, among them 3 Polish MEPs, but several colleagues moved from their parties and political groups.

During the vote in the plenary session in the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

During the â&#x20AC;&#x153;Single Seatâ&#x20AC;? meeting.

As of 31 December, 2013

Eurotrampoline of power What do the President of France – François Hollande, Prime Minister of Belgium – Elio Di Rupo, Prime Minister of Denmark – Helle Thorning-Schmidt, Prime Minister of Latvia – Valdis Dombrovskis, Prime Minister of Greece – Antonis Samaras, President of Estonia – Toomas Hendrik Ilves, President of Hungary – Pál Schmitt and President of Slovenia – Borut Pahor have in common? They all are former MEPs, which refutes the myth of the European Parliament as a place for political pensioners. Contrary to what is often heard, for many MEPs, our Chamber is a waiting room for the national government, not a nursing home. At the beginning of December our corridors became extremely crowded with former colleagues who attended the annual meeting of the Association of Former Members. Recently, I came across yet another ex-colleague, former Vice-President of the European Parliament Stavros Lambrinidis, who left the EP to take the position of Minister of Foreign Affairs of Greece, as it turned out, only for five months. Stavros is known for his sense of humour, after the fall of his government he gave us a word of advice: “If suddenly you receive a call from your friend – the Prime Minister – who proposes a ministerial armchair, do not yield to temptation, say NO”. I will mention also one of my parliamentary colleagues, who was our guest of honour on 11 June, 2013, President of Slovenia Borut Pahor.

The President of Slovenia Borut Pahor with the President of the European Parliament Martin Schulz.

He is an interesting character. In the beginning of the first term of the “new” EP in 2004, I remember him, how ambitiously he was fighting for the leadership of our group, the European Socialists (PES) which was the second strongest in the European Parliament. I say ambitiously because, he came from a

“new” country and a small delegation so in fact, he had no chance in competition with strong and experienced German MEP Martin Schulz, who... after some years received the Slovenian President Pahor as a President of the European Parliament. Go back to the year 2007, when he was Head of Slovenian delegation in PES group. I remember him as a rather unusual politician. Slovenia was the first of all the new EU countries to exercise the role of the Presidency of the Council of the European Union. It had been preparing for this occasion for over two years, and when it came to take over the torch of the EU leadership the rightwing government began to crumble. I was in Slovenia in December 2007 on an official visit with the Committee on Legal Affairs, for several days before the symbolic transfer of EU flags along with the duties of the Presidency. Then I met with my colleague MEP Borut Pahor – the head of the opposition party who filled me in on the political situation, behind the scenes. The government was facing a vote of confidence and Pahor had the possibility of the next “premiership” in his pocket. He, however, decided that for half a year – the time of the Slovenian EU Presidency – he would give his support to the right-wing government in the larger interests of a successful Slovenian Presidency of the EU. The presidency was a success, and at the end of it Borut Pahor became Prime Minister. After the end of his term of office, citizens elected him again as a President. An old proverb says: “Wise decisions pay off”.

EU immunities The Committee on Legal Affairs of the European Parliament considers immunities at almost every meeting. Each case is then discussed during 2-4 sessions, depending on the complexity of the case. The deliberations of the committee go on behind closed doors and in secret. Yet the details of each case appear on the record during the debate held before the final vote in plenary session. Then virtually anyone can learn the details of each case and these are usually issues of very great interest – especially to the media. What is EU immunity? Parliamentary immunity is primarily for the purpose of defending the European Parliament, protecting it from outside influence, guaranteeing members the freedom of expression and action in the performance of their parliamentary duties. The immunity does not protect criminals and does not guarantee impunity. This involves only the function exercised by Members, providing conditions required for its smooth conduct. According to the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities 1965: “Members of Parliament cannot be sued, or subject to judicial proceedings, or detentions linked to their opinions or positions made during the performance of their duties”. In addition, “immunities are given from any measure of detention and from legal proceedings. Immunity also protects Members during their travel to and from the meeting place of Parliament”. Euroimmunity is not the same as the immunity of the national parliament, the scope of which is different in each of the 28 EU countries. In some coun-

tries, the immunity is limited to ensuring freedom in statements during parliamentary debates; in other states – Members are protected against certain forms of judicial proceedings – for example, from arrest. However, immunity is not designed to protect a Member who broke the law. The Parliament decides on the removal of immunity from one of its Members to enable him to explain himself before the court. According to the law, a Member cannot claim immunity when he’s caught red-handed! How MEPs lose their immunity? First, the competent authority of the Member State presents the President of the European Parliament with a request for waiver of the immunity of a Member. The proposal is announced in plenary then transferred to the Committee on Legal Affairs for discussion. At the end, after hearing all the positions, the appointed rapporteur gives his opinion on the adoption or rejection of the request for withdrawal of immunity. Then the report is put to the vote. The Committee does not assess the Member, it merely states whether the actions in the case were directly related to the exercise of the Member’s mandate or not. If not, the immunity is withdrawn, allowing the national authorities to immediately initiate proceedings against the Member, bearing in mind that the loss of immunity does not mean the expiry of their mandate. It is worth mentioning that the issue of immunities of MEP’s is not considered a political issue, as it is in the case of the Sejm (the lower house of the Polish Parliament) for example. The only simple criterion is related to the exercise of MEP’s mandate. EU immunity can never protect the private sins of the Member. Statistics show that from 1979, when direct elections were first held, until the end of 2007, there were 145 requests for waiver of parliamentary immunity. So far, Parliament has waived the immunity of only 38 Members. Other cases were purely elements of political struggle, the intensity of which increased before the elections.

The vote in the Committee on Legal Affairs. The Coordinator for S&D Bernhard Rapkay shows the party line for “FOR” and “AGAINST”.

A teacher, a sheet of paper and a pencil can change the world ...how the Parliament rewards human rights defenders.

The publications honoring 25 years of the Sakharov Prize awarded by the European Parliament.

Since its establishment in 19881, the EU Parliament has been awarding the Sakharov Prize for freedom of thought to people with exceptional achievements in the fight against intolerance, bigotry and persecution. Like its patron – Andrei Sakharov2, the winners demonstrate exceptional courage in defending human rights and freedom of speech. Every year since 2004, I have taken part in the ceremony awarding the prize. This has always been an extraordinary, uplifting event, even if the laureate is often absent due to political barriers or jailed. Somewhere in a remote corner of the world. Usually in that situation a family member or friends come to collect the Prize on the person’s behalf. The winner of the 2013 Prize was 16-year old Pakistani girl Malala Yousafzai. She is a remarkable person, modest and strong. Armed with a pencil, she’s been fighting with the Taliban for the right of girls to education.

Lidia Geringer de Oedenberg with Belarusian activists of the “For Freedom” social movement: Andżelika Borys and Aleksandr Milinkevich – 2006 Sakharov Prize laureats.

The European Parliament acknowledges with the award human rights defenders around the world. The award gives €50,000 to the winners. A political group or at least 40 Members can nominate candidates for the Sakharov award. A vote to choose three finalists takes place in the committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Development. The winner is selected by the Conference of Presidents. 2 The prize is named after the Russian physicist Andrei Dmitrievich Sakharov (1921-1989), winner of the Nobel Peace Prize in 1975. As the inventor of the hydrogen bomb he was concerned about the impact of his work on the fate of humanity; therefore he made efforts to publicize the dangers of the nuclear arms race. A partial outcome of his efforts was the signing of the 1963 Treaty on the Nuclear Test Ban.

Despite the poverty, lack of freedom, pervasive fear and terrorism, hope still exists because we are here together, united to act on their behalf and to take concrete action. ( ... ) 57 million children cannot attend school. School buildings are destroyed, the girls forced into arranged marriages, victims of sexual violence. (...) The power of the country should not be measured by its military capacity, but by the number of educated citizens. By the degree women can practice their rights and equal status. That shows the strength of the nation”. The chamber gave the young woman a standing ovation. The ceremony coincided with the 25th anniversary of the establishment of the Sakharov Prize. On this occasion, 22 previous winners3 of the Prize attended the commemorative ceremony.

2013 Sakharov Prize winner – Malala Yousafzai with Lidia Geringer de Oedenberg.

At the age of 11 years Malala was interviewed by the BBC about her life under the Taliban, who closed down the schools shortly after taking control of the area. Malala’s views and advocacy for the right of girls to education led to an attempt to assassinate her. She was shot in the head and neck by Taliban militants while returning from the forbidden school, and was saved through the efforts of Pakistani and British doctors. On 20 November, 2013, at the plenary session in Strasbourg, the President of the Parliament Martin Schulz, who handed Malala the Prize said: ”Ms Malala is only 16 years old. This is just the beginning of her extraordinary life, and we already have so much to learn from her”. With this statement he expressed the belief of the whole European Parliament that access of all children to education is the key to a better society. Malala, thanking him for the award, said: “The award is an encouragement to continue the struggle and I really feel honoured to be in the company of such distinguished laureates. I accept the award on behalf of the quiet heroes of Pakistan and others around the world who are fighting for their basic rights (...). 60

List of winners of the Sakharov Prize: 2013 – Malala Yousafzai; 2012 – Nasrin Sotoudeh and Jafar Panahi; 2011 – Activists associated with the revolutions in the Arab world; 2010 – Guillermo Fariñas; 2009 – Memorial; 2008 – Hu Jia; 2007 – Salih Mahmoud Osman; 2006 – Aleksandr Milinkevich; 2005 – Women in White, Hauwa Ibrahim and Reporters Without Borders; 2004 – Żanna Litwina, president of the Belarusian Association of Journalists; 2003 – UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, the UN and all the staff; 2002 – Oswaldo José Pay Sardias; 2001 – Izzat Ghazzawi, Nurit Peled-Elhanan and Dom Zacarias Kamwenho; 2000 – ¡Basta Ya!; 1999 – José Alejandro ‘Xanana’ Gusmão; 1998 – Ibrahim Rugova; 1997 – Salima Ghezali; 1996 – Wei Jingsheng; 1995 – Leyla Zana; 1994 – Taslima Nasreen; 1993 – Oslobodjenje; 1992 – Las Madres de la Plaza de Mayo; 1991 – Adem Demaçi; 1990 – Aung San Suu Kyi; 1989 – Alexander Dubček; 1988 – Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela and Anatoli Martsjenko (posthumously).

Nationalists worshipping the Union? A Scot, Corsican and Gaul entered the room... – this is not the beginning of a joke, but the meeting of three MEPs (out of seven) at the informal meeting of the European Free Alliance (EFA) – an alliance of stateless nations of Europe. I recommend an interesting article from my favourite magazine for expats in Belgium: ”TheBulletin” www.xpats.com/sites/default/files/magazine/pdf/ BULL017_sampler.pdf EFA is home to a large variety of parties, from nationalist parties like the Flemish NVA, the Scottish National Party, the Catalan Esquerra Republicana de Catalunya and other nationalist parties from Brittany, Moravia, Veneto and the Aland Islands. These nationalists are quite atypical because of their declared “love” for the European Union. They realize that with the EU membership even the smallest country, such as Malta (368 thousand inhabitants), can gain political influence. Such as, for example, having a Commissioner, Judge at the European Court of Justice, at least 6 MEPs (the smallest national delegation), officials from their country, development funds, and recognition of its mother tongue in the EU. For example, Croatia, which joined the European Union in 2013, gained immediate privileges, which are not the same as those of the Basque or Welsh people. In this context, a united Europe could be another reason for members of the nationalist parties to strive for independence.

The website of EFA (European Free Alliance) – the alliance of stateless nations www.e-f-a.org/home.

In the eyes of nationalists from Edinburgh, Bilbao, Cardiff or Barcelona, it is the gate to recognition, with a nice bonus in the form of financial support from the EU. They like the idea of building a Europe made out of regions, even

as critics of the EU they can recognize that integration has successfully managed numerous problems, which cannot be easily and effectively dealt with at the level of countries acting alone. The single market promotes trade interests globally and guarantees security within its own borders. Nationalists associated with the European Union also hope to create, for example the Scottish army, Flemish embassies, etc.

III. Straight talk about the European Union

The flag of Scotland presented in the European Parliament.

Herman Van Rompuy, the highest official in the European Union, the head of the European Council (and former Prime Minister of Belgium) argues that “he does not know of any pro-European – nationalist party in Europe”. In his eyes nationalism originates in selfishness and can lead to war. Like Van Rompuy, anyone who has observed the behaviour of MEPs who are part of the EFA group, can see that they don’t desire real integration in the EU, but rather show hostility to the country they represent in Parliament.

An official EU joke Letâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s suppose, that there is a need to create an official EU joke designed to strengthen ties between the nations, promoting European culture and selfirony... A special working group prepared a project. Here it is: What is a European PARADISE like? You are welcomed at the gate by an English gentleman, eat delicious dishes prepared by the French master-chef, the fancy Italians entertain the audience, while the Germans organize the whole event. What is a European HELL like? The Frenchman stands at the gate, the Englishman is cooking, the Germans entertain and the Italians organize the event. Imagine a debate on an official European joke at the level of the Heads of State and Government. That can be very funny. An extremely serious Englishman finds the joke very funny. The outraged Frenchman says his country is shown in a bad light, so it canâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t be funny. Poland threatens to block all other negotiations and leaves because it was not included in the joke. The poster announcing the first direct elections to the European Parliament in 1979.

The embarrassed representatives of Sweden generally do not understand what’s going on.

Lithuania and Latvia are outraged that again their translators were mixed. A similar problem is reported by Slovenia and Slovakia.

Luxembourg asks how much you have to pay the owner of the copyright to the piece.

Estonia asks if this is a joke about ducks and plumbers, because some difficulties occured in its translation...

Denmark and Finland look for the sexual aspect of the joke...

The British note the joke about ducks and plumbers could also be funny.

The Netherlands is willing to support such a subtext, otherwise the joke won’t be funny.

Austria asks: but why do we even need jokes?

Spain and Portugal state that although the joke is pretty funny, they don’t fully understand it. They don’t know whether this food is prepared for lunch or dinner, because if it is for lunch at 1 p.m., for them it should be a breakfest menu. Greece protests because it was not informed as usual about the free food.

The Hungarians are protesting because they are forced to debate while they have not yet finished reading the 120 pages of their translation. The representative of Belgium investigates whether the proposed wit is more Flemish or Walloon, because it will be forced to reject / accept – regardless of a humorous perspective. Romania and Bulgaria state that you should not make fun of eating, when citizens have nothing to add to the pot, and besides on the invitation there is no date or adress for the restaurant. The representative of Malta has not arrived at the meeting, because the plane from Brussels again landed in Sicily, not finding his country. The German wakes up an Italian, so that the latter does not arrive late for the plane and a press conference, during which he is supposed to announce a decision on the official EU joke. What decision? Asks a representative of Ireland distracted by his iPad? Croatians do not report any comments, wondering if they have done the right thing in joining the European Union. In the end, the participants of the European Council, unanimously, after fruitful discussions agree, that it is about time to go for a coffee.

The announcement of the European Union motto “United in Diversity” (3 May, 2000) at the plenary session in Brussels, chaired by Nicole Fontaine – one of two female EP Presidents in all its history.

It’s just a joke circulating on the Internet, but it contains a lot of truth about the difficulties in communicating...

BRUSSELS is still guilty Practically every day the European press accuses BRUSSELS of evil deeds, taking the form of complicated procedures that tie up normal citizens. Every day BRUSSELS is coming up with new restrictions (on cow’s milk, fishing) or more requirements (carrot becomes a fruit, your currency changes into euro). In the eyes of the ordinary citizen, Brussels is a maze of bureaucracy and incomprehensible rules – at least that’s how the media portrays it. What is BRUSSELS really? What or who is behind it? In everyday language BRUSSELS is, first and foremost the European Commission, which acts as a European super-government, forcing regulations upon countries. The Governments of the Member States do little to put this opinion straight; in fact they like to play the role of the “poor victim”. However, the truth is that, while the Commission is the EU’s executive body, it cannot do anything alone, without having the consent of the Council and the European Parliament. Thus, when the media criticises a directive, we have to understand that it was our national government that agreed to the particular piece of legislation. The Commission is also criticised by the European Parliament, because as a “guardian” of the Treaty it should make sure that everything is correct in the legislation but MEPs always have doubts about it. Sometimes, very rarely we recognize the Commission for a good idea, eg. a reduction in roaming tariffs.

The head office of the European Commission in Brussels.

The hardest for the EP are negotiations with the Council (Heads of States or Governments), because there is usually a disagreement on our “avant-garde” – proposals in its eyes. Most of our amendments are rejected.

The Council negotiates as if we were the enemy. While we should be on the same page, in practice our interests differ. The Council (especially representatives of the richest countries) usually wants to cut the budget, arguing that it’s too high, because we do not use it in its entirety and, besides, everyone would prefer to pay as little as possible. The Parliament cannot imagine getting “more Europe for less money”. For example the budget in 2008 was based on a net contribution of 0.99% of the GDP of each country’s national budget. In 2004 the net contribution was 1.27% of GDP. The difference can be seen with the naked eye. Budget negotiations are the most difficult and ultimately their final phases (in December of each year) continue into the early hours of the morning and are usually turbulent. But always end with a compromise that is treated as a win on all sides. It is not easy as the Union as an organization is very complex.

We swim together or sink alone More and more often we hear in the EU of the concept of the “United States of Europe”. Even some standard names of debates get changed such as the extraordinary “speech” of the Commission President, José Manuel Barroso, at the opening of the political season in autumn 2010 which was called a State of the Union speech. Referring to the political culture of the United States, the head of the European Commission wanted to draw the attention of MEPs (having problems showing up for debates organized early in the morning1) and at the same time to emphasize his own position on the EU, which was more and more boldly under “attack” from Herman Van Rompuy – President of the European Council. According to unofficial information, the latter wanted to deliver a speech, but lost in the internal rivalry with the Portuguese Commission chairman, he did not even turn up at the meeting ... Let’s get back to the debate of 2010. What did Barosso say in his 30-minute speech? Many wise and surprisingly frank comments about the condition of the EU along with a coherent vision of its development. Today, in retrospect, we can better assess his determination, as plans that he presented, were mostly pursued. Based on the plans of the Conference of Presidents (EP President Jerzy Buzek and chairmen of the political groups) one way to increase the presence of MEPs in the Chamber during priority debates, was to deprive an MEP half of his/her daily allowance of approximately €300. The decision – after a number of critical voices from MEPs was repealed almost at the last minute, but the threat worked – at 9 a.m. (7 September, 2010) you would have seen a full house.

And then he spoke about: – Combating the economic crisis: better monitoring of markets, consistent implementation of the Stability and Growth Pact, financial discipline governance, the fight against tax havens, – Stimulating economic growth: a strong financial sector, banks’ transparency, – Creating new jobs in Europe with the aid of EURES (European Job Mobility Portal), – Elaboration of coherent positions on the international level in place of 27 different national policies. Moreover, Barroso pledged to maintain the cohesion policy as a priority of the new EU budget for 2014-2020 – which pleased MEP’s and the Polish authorities. The Commission is usually accused of being passive, concentrating more on declarations than real actions and being submissive to Paris and Berlin. This time, Barroso, outlining a vision of possible changes seriously warned us. “Instead of dwelling on the shortcomings of the European construction, we should rather think about the coherence of actions. (...) The moment of truth has come for the EU. We will swim together or drown alone.”

Black tax hole Fraud and evasion of taxes in the EU Member States is estimated at 1,000 billion a year1. That’s more than the new EU budget for 2014-2020! If this money was added to national budgets in accordance with the law – the overall cumulative public debt of all EU countries would be repaid in less than nine years. €2,000 per year per capita is lost in the grey zone or goes to tax havens. Is there a chance of changing this? There is, but... This requires a coordination of tax systems and close cooperation of all Member States in this regard. The European Parliament presented, on 21 May, 2013 a package of measures to fight tax evasion. The proposal is based on the automatic exchange of information between national fiscal administrations and closing loopholes in the European tax system. The system requires the abolition of banking secrecy, and not all member states agree with that. Austria and Luxembourg insist firmly on keeping it. Howewer, the fight against tax havens is possible. We can have a direct impact on these existing in the EU and indirectly on those remaining outside the Community, but equally effectively. Where shall we start? Firstly, with the creation of a European public blacklist of tax havens and by determining appropriate sanctions for banks cooperating with them. Tax havens (called in our proposal “legal systems located on a blacklist”) could be effectively combated with the following:

José Manuel Barroso – the President of the European Commission delivers the message concerning the EU’s condition at the plenary session in Strasbourg, September 2010.

Data is based on calculations of the Heritage Foundation and the World Bank.

– s uspension or termination of existing contracts concluded with them for the avoidance of double taxation; –p rohibiting participation in public tenders for the procurement of goods and services throughout the Union, such as access to both Union and state assistance to all companies having their headquarters there; – t he introduction of an obligation of separate accounting and auditing gains and losses of each holding company of the legal entity of the EU, acting in a tax haven; –p rohibit all financial institutions and EU financial advisors from establishing and maintaining any branches operating in the tax havens; –w ithdrawal of licenses from European financial institutions and financial advisers, persisting in operating subsidiaries or continuing operations in tax havens; – i ntroduction of a special levy on all transactions carried out via the territories on the black list; – t he abolition of withholding tax in the case of taxpayers who do not reside in a tax haven; – t he non-recognition of the EU legal status of companies established in tax havens; – t he application of tariff barriers to trade. The biggest grey zone is in countries such as: –B ulgaria, Romania, Lithuania (30-36% of tax revenue losses compared to general tax revenue); –L atvia, Cyprus, Greece, Poland, Malta, Italy, Slovenia, Hungary (20-30% losses). The grey zone is rare in Luxembourg and Austria (below 10%) and perhaps this is the reason why these countries are not going to change anything at home? But their example shows that the tax rate is not the only reason for escaping to tax havens. In countries with the highest taxes in the EU: Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Austria, Germany, Luxembourg – the grey zone is relatively small (from 9-17% losses). It turns out that “the opportunity makes the thief ”, i.e. the ease of getting away with tax fraud and evasion is its main driving force.

The European Capital of Culture The title: “European Capital of Culture” is today the most recognizable initiative of the European Union in the field of culture. The idea was born over a quarter of a century ago. The Greek Minister of Culture Melina Mercouri and Jack Lang, her French counterpart, were waiting for their delayed planes at the airport in Athens. Talking about their common cultural passions, Mercouri (outstanding actress) and Lang (known for his avant-garde decisions such as the glass pyramid in the Louvre) came up with a project that – through a series of year-round cultural events – would draw attention to the selected “City of Culture of the European Union”. Thanks to an interesting program and additional promotion, “The City” could enhance its visibility in the international arena, gaining significant benefits, not only cultural, but also economic and social. Twenty five years later, we can see that the idea has taken off and the title of European Capital of Culture (ECOC) attracts a lot of additional, cultural tourists. The average increase in the number of visits by lovers of culture (overnight stays) in the ECOC is 12% compared with the period before obtaining the title. Liverpool, in 2008, achieved a record breaking result (25% increase in the number of tourists). The success of the European Capitals of Culture, as the driving force for creativity, job creation, social inclusion, revitalisation and tourism made the project one of the most recognized cultural events in Europe. The ECOC project proves that investments in culture produce concrete gains.

The fight against evasion of tax and financial havens should therefore be accompanied by states’ mending their own tax systems.

In 1985 the first “European City of Culture” was Athens, while the Acropolis fireworks launched a series of ambitious cultural programs already implemented – so far – in 48 cities.

The source of funding for the projects is the Culture programme and a grant known as the “ Melina Mercouri Prize”. Initially set at €500,000, it currently stands at 1.5 million. By investing in infrastructure related to culture, Member States use the EU Structural Funds as well as their own national funds at a level of 10 to €220 million.

Finally Wrocław won, having a large cultural offer, highlighted by the slogan “Wrocław – because it is obvious”. As it turned out, this “evidence” also convinced international decision-makers.

The most successful are those who try to incorporate the events of the program ECOC into their long-term cultural strategy - understood as an important factor for regional development. In the case of Lille in 2004, each euro invested in the ECOC brought another 10 euro profit for the local economy. Culture can thus play an important role in sustainable growth.

The candidate-city prepares a proposal for the programme of “European Capital of Culture”. The programme must comply with two categories: “The European Dimension” and “City and Citizens”.

With the establishment of the Culture 2000 Program, “European City of Culture” transformed into a European Capital of Culture, giving additional impetus for the further development of the cultural cooperation of cities and regions. The year 2000 had as many as nine “Capitals”, including Polish “preaccession” Kraków.

What is the selection procedure for the ECOC title?

Candidate cities are evaluated by a 13-person panel of experts selected from: the European Commission, the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union, the Committee of the Regions, the Ministry of Culture of the country concerned and six national experts. The selected city’s name is made known four years before the event.

The logo of the European Capital of Culture 2016.

European Capitals of Culture: 1985: Athens (Greece); 1986: Florence (Italy); 1987: Amsterdam (The Netherlands); 1988: Berlin (Germany); 1989: Paris (France); 1990: Glasgow (United Kingdom); 1991: Dublin (Ireland); 1992: Madrid (Spain); 1993: Antwerp (Belgium); 1994: Lisbon (Portugal); 1995: Luxembourg (Luxembourg); 1996: Copenhagen (Denmark); 1997: Thessalonika (Greece); 1998: Stockholm (Sweden); 1999: Weimar (Germany); 2000: Bergen (Norway), Bologna (Italy), Brussels (Belgium), Helsinki (Finland), Kraków (Poland), Prague (Czech Republic), Reykjavik (Iceland), Santiago de Compostela (Spain), Avignon (France); 2001: Rotterdam (The Netherlands), Porto (Portugal); 2002: Bruges (Belgium), Salamanca (Spain); 2003: Graz (Austria); 2004: Genoa (Italy), Lille (France); 2005: Cork (Ireland);

Currently, the project envisages that each year one “new” and one “old” EU Member State will share the title. In 2013, Marseille (France) and Košice (Slovakia). In 2014, Riga (Latvia) and Umeå (Sweden). Next capitals for 2015 are Pilsen (Czech Republic) and Mons (Belgium); in 2016 are planned DonostiaSan Sebastián (Spain) and my home town Wrocław (Poland). 9 Polish cities were competing for nomination to the European Capital of Culture 2016 (Białystok, Gdańsk, Lublin, Łódź, Poznań, Szczecin, Toruń, Warszawa and Wrocław).

2006: Patras (Greece); 2007: Sibiu (Romania), Luxembourg (Luxembourg); 2008: Liverpool (United Kingdom), Stavanger (Norway); 2009: Vilnius (Lithuania), Linz (Austria); 2010: Istanbul (Turkey), Essen an der Ruhr (Germany), Pécs (Hungary); 2011: Turku (Finland), Tallinn (Estonia); 2012: Guimarães (Portugal), Maribor (Slovenia); 2013: Marseille (France), Kosice (Slovakia); 2014: Umeå (Sweden), Riga (Latvia); 2015: Mons (Belgium), Plzeň (Czech Republic); 2016: Wrocław (Poland), Donostia-San Sebastian (Spain); 2017: Aarhus (Denmark), Paphos (Cyprus); 2018: Leeuwarden (The Netherlands), Valetta (Malta); 2019: Matera (Italy), Plovdiv (Bulgaria). Read more: http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/creative-europe/actions/capitals-culture_en.htm

Over 30 years of negotiations ...or how europatent was born. The Single European Patent was a revolutionary project for an industrial property protection system which was to allow the patenting of inventions through one notification with coverage across the whole EU: cheap, easy and fast. This community protection was to effectively stimulate economic growth in the EU through innovation and new technologies free from complex procedures. Designed for all Member States, it was ultimately adopted as a Unitary Patent for 25 countries. On 11 December, 2012 we voted on its final shape in the plenary session in Strasbourg (due to come into force in 2014)1. And yet it still stirs some controversy... Reflections on its “conception” began in the early years of the European community. After more than three decades of intensive talks on a common patent system, in December 2011 the Parliament adopted a compromise proposal for a Unitary Patent, which was also recognized as a success for the Polish presidency. From a common compromise, the Council then suddenly took out three important articles. This unprecedented act resulted in losing the original meaning of the relevant text2. The deadlock lasted one year, until a way was found to reinsert the deleted part by the “back door”. In its place, a new provision was introduced specify-

The logo of the European Capital of Culture 2016 (Spanish version).

Agreement establishing the Patent Court shall enter into force on 1 January, 2014 or after it has been ratified by at least 13 states parties to the agreement, provided that among them will be the United Kingdom, France and Germany. Other patent draft legislation will come into force based on international agreements. 2 It was about the provisions establishing the right to prevent direct and indirect use of inventions and certain restrictions.

ing competences of the Member States in the form of an international agreement, and not a community act due to the fact that Spain and Italy did not agree to cooperate. The legal validity of the provisions was the same as in the previous proposal. What benefits will the Unitary Patent bring? It will greatly simplify today’s complex systems and reduce costs of patenting by 80 %. This will enable the protection of inventions through one patent application with coverage in 25 EU countries3. Currently, the costs of obtaining patents in the EU are ten times higher than in the USA. With the unitary patent, they can be reduced fivefold. Until now many European inventors could not afford such protection for their intellectual property, so they were selling their technical ideas to the USA. Now the “cheap” patent has a chance of increasing European competitiveness in comparison with American and Japanese patents. How was it before? The archives of the European Patent Office.

Legal protection of innovation in Europe could only be afforded by large multinational companies. It looked like this: the interested parties would first apply to the European Patent Office (EPO) in Munich and then additionally register patents in every state in which they applied for legal protection, of course, paying the applicable fees every time. In case a dispute arose about patent-rights, the proceedings would have to be organized in each country separately, which of course incurred costs. The result of these complex and costly procedures is weak competitiveness of the EU and a small number of registered patents, e.g. in Poland. Previous patent rules were, in practice, a high “tax” imposed on innovation. How is it now? Each inventor will be able to submit an application to the European Patent Office for the protection of his invention simultaneously in the 25 countries, belonging to the system. Applications must be prepared in one of three lan-

Lidia Geringer de Oedenberg during the debate on the Community Trade Marks.

The proposed system provides single patent inventors with the opportunity to choose between the available types of patent protection tailored to their needs. Operators will be able to decide for themselves the best solution and choose between a national patent or a Unitary Patent, applicable in the countries which are parties to the convention on the Unitary Patent.

guages: English, French or German. This language restriction directly affects the cheapening of the cost of the patent. According to the European Commission’s estimates, today the cost of obtaining a European patent validation for the 13 States is approximately €20,000, of which around €14,000 are translation costs (for comparison – the cost of obtaining a patent in the U.S. is approximately $1,850). After the introduction of a Unitary Patent covering 25 participating Member States, the fees could amount to €5,000, including 10% translation costs.

Translation costs incurred by small and medium-sized businesses, non-profit organizations, universities and public research establishments will be fully reimbursed. Also, the fees relating to renewal of patent protection will be calculated according to the potential of small businesses. Why is there a patent for 25 and not the whole EU? The idea of the European patent was years being born and the party blocking it was always the Spanish, demanding translation of the complete documentation into their language also, then they were followed by the Italians and others... National linguistic demands could not be overcome for 30 years while the vast majority of patent applications were filed in English. Since most patents originated from Germany and France, the use of these three languages was proposed in this respect. To finally get out of the deadlock, 12 countries proposed that only those interested should start to work in this field. Finally, 25 countries liked the idea and understood that if the patent was to be cheaper, the whole documentation could not be translated into all official EU languages. In the absence of unanimous approval, the procedure of enhanced cooperation got applied, enabling us to go ahead with the initiative in a smaller eurogroup. This policy proved to be successful before, for example in the creation of the Schengen area and the eurozone involving only some EU countries. At the end of the negotiations, even Spain was willing to accede to the package, proposing that it would be only one language – English, trying to “punish” in this way the French and the Germans for the lack of Spanish... Ultimately, even Italy joined the initiative, but Poland, (which negotiated the package and found it even the biggest success of our Presidency), unexpectedly withdrew from the project. What risks were discovered?

The head office of the European Patent Office in Munich.

The Polish media calculated the losses which would be borne by our economy. As we register very few inventions, the whole initiative was supposedly unprofitable. The truth is that most patent applications came from Germany, France, U.S. and Japan, the only question is whether the obstacle to Polish inventors is lack of ideas or money for the registration of patents?

Moreover, in today’s globalized world, legal protection applied only to a domestic market is not enough, extending it to the European market seems an absolute minimum, sought by the owners of advanced technologies. We should also realize that the common EU patent is closely associated with the access to technologies that Poland cares about so much. It is easy to imagine that holders of technologies will choose as the destination for their investment the state which will guarantee the European standards of patent protection, and not one outside this exclusive club. If we take seriously the discussion on the innovativeness of the Polish economy, we need to think long term and we cannot exclude ourselves from the possibility, which a common EU – wide patent system offers. An economy deprived of boosting, innovative companies will run slower, the lack of interesting employers will discourage young, creative graduates, (who will seek employment in other parts of the EU), while the market will be dominated by Western giants who will have no difficulty in competing with “stagnant” Polish companies. Read more: www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/pl/texts-adopted.html, www.europarl.europa.eu/ep-live/pl/plenary/search-by-date.

Action for 80 million Europeans In the twenty-first century, everyone should have equal opportunities in access to education, information, culture and entertainment. YES. In theory. In practice, in Poland the problem of exclusion of deaf and hearing impaired persons has been long neglected especially by the public television service, in fact financed by citizens’ taxes. Subtitles for the deaf and hearing-impaired is a standard facility provided by the BBC, in Poland – still an exception present in 8-10% of the programmes on public television. Analyzing the problem at EU level, I decided to initiate the idea of introducing “subtitles” to all public television channels throughout the Community. It took me three months to convince MEPs from different political groups of this idea and in the end my proposal, Written Declaration No. 99/2007 on introduction of subtitles to all public television programmes in the European Union, was supported by 427 MEPs. This matter was then referred, by the EP’s decision of 19 April, 2008, for consideration by the European Commission and all EU governments, including the Polish one. Having the document in hand, I decided to work in Poland, preparing the corresponding project of an amended Law on Broadcasting, which was submitted on 16 May, 2008 by MP Janusz Krasoń. Since then... silence. Even though this bill has been redrafted all over, it finally ended up in the famous “freezer” of the then Marshal Bronisław Komorowski (President of Poland 2010-2015). I never received a single reply to any of my four letters sent to the Polish Parliament between October 2008 and April 2010. I repeatedly commented about that on my blog but the Marshal Komorowski remained deaf not only to my appeals, but also to those of the Polish Association of the Deaf People.

At that time, the Polish Public TV systematically limited the number of programs with subtitles because of the need to make savings. I would add that the introduction of subtitles to the “current television production” in practice costs almost nothing. The question of subtitling live programs and archived ones has already been described in detail on my blog. There are good, cheap and reliable solutions, for example, those applied by the BBC. My initiative received very positive feedback from the Internal Market Commissioner Michel Barnier, who incorporated its provisions into the key document elaborated at that time by his cabinet, the “Single Market Act“. In the meantime, I have been in contact with some private television stations which were willing – even without legislative coercion – to introduce subtitles to their programmes, recognizing the needs of a significant audience, the hearing impaired, including new potential in the advertising market. The viewers have to be fought for. Subtitles also facilitate language learning, encourage reading, help fighting secondary literacy, increasingly present in Europe. If so far the Polish Parliament and TVP SA did not recognize those benefits by themselves, they will have no choice but to implement them in future, following the EU law. This is good news for the 80 million deaf and hard-of-hearing people in Europe, including some three million Polish citizens.

A million eurosignatures for April Fool’s Day... Although the date of 1 April, 2012 would normally be associated with jokes, the European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI)1, which was started then, has to be taken seriously. A new community civic legislative tool, established by the Treaty of Lisbon, works! Proposals submitted via the ECI may relate to areas in which the European Commission (EC) has the right to propose new regulations such as internal market, environment, agriculture or transport. If the initiators gather one million signatures in support, the EC will have to deal with the problem and prepare an appropriate legislative proposal. Using the ECI is not especially complicated. What is needed is a group of at least seven people from seven different EU countries, who must register their initiative on a special EC website. The Commission has two months to assess whether the respective proposal meets the applicable requirements, which will save citizens time and trouble in collecting signatures if the idea goes beyond the powers laid down for this tool. It must be noted that the EIO cannot change the provisions of the Treaties or intervene in exclusive competences of Member States e.g. euthanasia or abortion. Once the registration of the initiative has been confirmed, the committee can begin collecting signatures in support – at least a million within a year. People supporting the project must be drawn from at least seven different countries, signatures can also be collected via the Internet. The European Commission The Lisbon Treaty introduced a new form of public participation in EU policy-making - the European Citizens’ Initiative. Under its provisions, at the request of the European Commission, European Parliament and the Council, the regulation specifies the rules for the use of this new instrument and procedures associated with it (EU Regulation No. 211/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February, 2011 on the citizens’ initiative).

even provided special software for this purpose. If the idea manages to receive the required support, the EC has three months to analyze it and take the appropriate steps, i.e. provide an adequate draft of a legal act or begin examining the problem. Whatever decision has been taken by the Commission, its justification has to be made public. Proposals for legislative changes arising from the EIO are then referred to the Council and the European Parliament. Once approved by the two bodies – they will become mandatory. Who mainly will benefit from ECI?

The sitting of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs in Brussels. The debate on the European Citizens’ Initiative, 30 October, 2010.

The socially active. In my opinion, the initiative will be primarily a tool for citizens working in NGOs. Judging by the number of Poles active in this field, I do not foresee too much interest. For example, in June 2009, almost 80 % of our society had better things to do than participate in elections to the European Parliament. It is therefore hard to expect, that they would suddenly be eager to participate in creating rights for Europeans. However, I would like to inform this handful of active Poles how this new instrument should be understood and applied in practice. Is it easy to collect one million signatures? Considering that the European Union has 500 million people and... the power of Internet (signatures can be collected online), 1 million is nothing. Is seven countries a lot? Not many, but enough to protect the EU from initiatives dominated only by the largest EU countries or common geographical interests. The idea must relate to citizens from different countries, making life easier for Europeans. The application, followed by millions of signatures, will impose a formal obligation on the Commission to conduct a feasibility study and fix a date for proposing new, or modifying existing, legislation.

The public hearing of the European Citizens’ Initiative “Right to Water”, 17 February, 2014.

To prevent possible fraud, each person signing the proposal has to indicate a home address, date of birth, nationality, ID or passport number. The organizers of the campaign will be obliged to disclose who financed a specific action. 91

Will the Lisbon novelty attract wide interest? We’ll see. The public consultation preceding its introduction was attended by only 323 respondents across the EU, including 159 individuals, 133 organizations and 31 public institutions. The result has shown that the new instrument requires first of all ... promotion. However, in the first few months after ECI entry into force, 24 proposals were submitted, of which 14 were deemed admissible, 10 were rejected as they either exceeded EU competences, did not receive sufficient support or did not meet other requirements. Guide to initiatives: www.ec.europa.eu/citizens-initiative/public/guide www.ec.europa.eu/dgs/secretariat_general/citizens_initiative/index_pl.htm www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/pressroom/content/20101209BKG08308/html/ Q-A-on-the-citizen

Eurocharger and other “cookies” We Poles have been in the EU for only a decade and we cannot imagine our lives: –w ithout a smooth border crossing (over the years, queuing for hours was a common phenomenon); –w ithout the possibility of legal work “in the west” (previously, illegal work without social security was a common practice); –w ithout the possibility of studying at any European university (in the past we could only dream about the Sorbonne, Cambridge or Oxford); –w ithout multi-million subsidies for construction of roads, bridges, regional development (Poland never had enough money while highways and bypasses “faded” along the paper on which they were drawn). Time flies. We’re already eating these “cakes”. You will find below a few examples of other cookies – useful for making life easier for Europeans... One of them could be a universal charger for mobile phones. The European Commission called on the leading phone manufacturers to adopt voluntary commitments in this regard. And it turned out that the 14 largest phone companies1 signed a Memorandum on this matter. The document commits the industry to ensure compatibility of chargers based on the Micro-USB connector. From now on, changing your phone no longer requires a new charger. The one universal model is a huge help in everyday life, and also contributes to reducing the amount of electronic waste. Another example of EU action on behalf of citizens is enlarging the rights of passengers. So far, only those travelling by plane have been adequately protected by law. Now the time has come for those travelling by train or ship.

The website of the European Citizens’ Initiative: www.ec.europa.eu/citizens-initiative/public/welcome.

The signatories to the Protocol: Apple, Emblaze Mobile, Huawei Technologies, LG, Motorola, NEC, Nokia, Qualcomm, Research In Motion (RIM), Samsung, Sony Ericsson, TCT Mobile (mobile phones ALCATEL), Texas Instruments and Atmel.

Across the EU, all passengers are now guaranteed the right to information in case of delays, guaranteed care for people with reduced mobility, compensation for delays, accidents or lost luggage. It is worth knowing about our rights to travel in comfort2! An extremely important issue raised by the EU was increasing the protection of children, mainly on the Internet. An example is the EU programmes “Safe Internet”3, which should contribute to the fight against cyber violence, protect children against harmful content and other threats that can be seen online. According to EU statistics, 10-20 % of European children are victims of sexual exploitation, which is why the European Commission proposed stiffer penalties for sexual offences4 against children and the spread of child pornography along with more effective methods of detecting criminals. These are only some of the selected initiatives taken by the Union, aimed at making the lives of citizens better. I encourage you to make yourself familiar with other initiatives!

Your rights as a rail traffic passenger: http://ec.europa.eu/transport/passenger-rights/en/13-rail.html Recommended links: www.ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/sip/policy/programme/index_en.htm www.ec.europa.eu/transport/passenger-rights/en/13-rail.html www.ec.europa.eu/news/justice/110217_en.htm 4 Worth a look: www.ec.europa.eu/news/justice/100329_en.htm

Europeana – the Alexandrian library of today Immediately after the inauguration of the most lavish virtual library in the EU, Europeana, on 20 November, 2008, the servers failed and access was denied. Failure? Not really. As many as 15 million users tried to access the website in the first hours of operation, causing an overload. The consequences of this stampede to get a hold of excellent culture took almost a month to be resolved and allow citizens access to the content they desired.

2 3

Lidia Geringer de Oedenberg with Androulla Vassiliou – the Commissioner for Education, Culture, Multilingualism and Youth.

the files and prepare them with appropriate markings (tags), making the files easier to be located on the site. For example, scans of manuscripts of Chopin preludes are tagged: “Chopin”, “Prelude”, etc. The Europeana team acts as a coordinator and organiser, as they are solely responsible for what will be posted on the site. Unlike the Google Books, Europeana is not a commercial project – it’s completely free. It is also characterized by more ambitious models, on the site, you can encounter real “gems” such as medieval manuscripts, “Don Quixote” (published in 1605), the manuscripts of Beethoven’s symphonies - which Google doesn’t have. In addition, each entry in the Europeana database takes place with the consent of the author or copyright holder. Nothing is scanned or posted without proper permission (which in the case of Google Books is different). But digitisation of our cultural goods does not run as smoothly as often assumed. The problem lies in the fact that each country pays for digitization, which covers costs for staff, museums and libraries involved in scanning and sending files. Part of the costs can be covered through the EU Structural Funds.

The digitization of cultural goods didn’t go as well as planned.

Launched in 2005 Europeana is part of the EU project “digital libraries”, the aim of which was to promote and share Europe’s culture on the Internet. Europeana enables direct access to collections belonging to different institutions (libraries, archives etc), in addition to scans of books, journals, manuscripts, photographs and maps, also containing audio and video recordings. Currently, the library contains almost 20 million files. Most comes from France and from the UK, contributions from other countries depends on their “affordability”. Digitization of culture heritage costs a lot. Each Member State, (through its cultural institutions, i.e. National Library of Poland), decides on the range of its own contribution to Europeana. The digitized materials are then sent to the base, where Europeana employees check 96

A very positive example is ambitious Slovakia, which created a special “digitization centre”, where robots (quickly and cheaply) flip pages in scanned books, creating a systematic, fast growing Slovak collection of Europeana. Other countries provide only what they have readily available - so to speak – supplying it to the European digital library. Participation in the project is voluntary, which, in many cases translates, into passive participation of the Member States. It allows discretion in selecting the documents or works lying in the hands of cultural institutions, leading to inconsistencies in resources, giving access to what was scanned and not necessarily to what is really important. For example, initially there was no database for Goethe in the original German, but it could be found in... Polish. See the Library: www.europeana.eu

Big Brother in your pocket, car, refrigerator... Imagine your refrigerator sending you an email saying you no longer have milk and vanilla yogurt. Other home devices will communicate with you via the Internet and will also exchange information with each other without any human intervention. Sounds like science fiction? Itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s not! In some areas it already works this way. The European Parliament has prepared a special report on the prospects for network development, connecting cars, household appliances and products on store shelves. Communication between devices called M2M (machine-tomachine) is becoming more common due to the applications available. Connected network appliances have new functions, which are made reality by our giving consent to transmitting our data. As this technology continues to drive further interest from the consumer market, the European Commission presented an action plan, in order to allow the EU to prepare for the new communication era in internet devices. The application of internet technologies has a variety of forms. In the next ten to fifteen years it will become common for the washing machine and dishwasher to communicate with each other by featuring RFID (radio frequency identification) technology to receive and impart information and wirelessly send us information about water hardness, which will conclude that the water requires softening. A few integrated circuits, having the ability to store a plurality of information and to transmit this by radio over short distances, will be in any new device in our homes, our lives. For example, in the agriculture sector RFID will quickly and efficiently keep track of products and obtain information about their place of storage, chemical composition, the level of gluten, etc. Facebook knows everything about its users habits or preferences.

The transmission of our data is virtually everywhere. If you synchronize your smartphone with a car radio to listen to during a journey – it is not just transferring your favourite songs. Unawares you share all the data from your smartphone (henceforth saved in the memory of the radio) with the car mechanics, who, if they choose to do so, could play music with your receiver while repairing the car. Sensors installed in our apartments, designed to optimize the power consumption, transmit detailed data that indicates whether a person is at home or not, and if you have activated your burglaralarm. A spy called SIM SIM cards are not only in our mobile phones and smart phones. They are placed in our tablets, cameras, cars, etc., providing a variety of data via the mobile network. Also, drink dispensers have a SIM card, sending suppliers information on the rate of consumption of products. Terminals with the SIM card payments system, allow you to pay by credit card. Transport companies have long been “spying” this way on their trucks; reporting on the vehicle’s real-time movements, place, at a given time, route, tyre pressure, or the number of stops along the way. These devices are legal if employees know about them. For example, Trancis, a Belgian transport company has used this system for years, managing in this way its truck fleet in Europe. Another example – smart cars themselves can call for help in case of an accident, and they are also able to deactivate in the event of theft. In Belgium, several thousand cars already have such a system. Another device that is reporting our data directly from the car is the widespread GPS navigation system, which is also based on the M2M technology. This is available as standard in 50% of the new Renault Clio cars and 90% of the new Scenic. The SIM card also collects information on other parameters of the car, and everything that is contained in the on-board computer can be passed on: mileage, oil-level, petrol, and many others. This data will allow the manufacturer to make diagnostics at a distance and suggest ad hoc solutions to the driver. Renault has already developed a commercial offer for their customers of a service after a certain number of kilometres. With the prior approval of the customer of course. Amazon in the family of Big Brother The popular Amazon doesn’t only sell books as you might think, but a collection of information as well. Just like many other virtual platforms like 100

Facebook or Google, Amazon collects an unimaginably large amount of valuable data related to the habits and preferences of customers. Amazon keeps track of visitors, who did not even buy anything. The company is a leader in monitoring. It has also received assistance from Kindle. The general terms and conditions of licenses for Kindle, which the customer must accept, indicate that the software provides various data to Amazon, which can include even the speed with which one reads a book or content archives. Like eBooks from Kobo and Barnes & Noble, Amazon knows all about the habits and preferences of the Kindle app users. Real-time electronic readers are equipped with a specific control system with SIM card (which many users do not know about because there is no extra payment to the operator) Kindle collects customers’ valuable data. 1.6 billion spies in the world... Official estimates give an indication of a variety of equipment included in the network that can act as spies. In little Belgium – where I live – according to “Le Soir” approximately 7 million devices of this kind operate. Communicating devices are the best customers for telephone operators and although it is not their flagship service, it turns out to be the most profitable one. Each call generates about 15% profits for the operator. For every €10 generated by the connected device, the operator will receive €1.5. Spy in coffee To increase income, operators prefer domains requiring a large flow of data, like automobile and electronics sectors; however it’s not restricted to that. Orange company signed an agreement with Nespresso. The company equips its coffee machines with a SIM card connected to Orange to transmit information on the state of the filters, pumps, etc. In the case of failure being detected, Nespresso establishes direct contact with the customer. Sensors will also control per hour, the quantity and type of coffee consumed... Spy in the vacuum cleaner Samsung launched a smart vacuum cleaner that can order online filters and other accessories. Similar innovations also apply to our health. Sorin Group has developed pulse readers in partnership with Orange that can send data about cardiac patients directly to the doctor. Other applications are based on the idea of well-being. For example, the Fitbit Company measures the kilometres we walk, steps we climb, calories burned, even the quality of our sleep.

101

Smart city Mobile operators are dreaming of creating “connected cities” where all items in the public space are linked: public transport, lighting, cameras, garbage disposal, traffic lights, etc. which could contribute to the improvement of energy efficient transport and reduce pollution. For example, the new technology would avoid traffic jams by synchronising the traffic lights to change together. The combination of all the data collected by “smart” cities would allow real-time management of the whole urban area. These ideas sound promising, even though we do not yet know the impact of the radio waves (used by all this equipment to communicate) on human health.

Working in the Legal Affairs Committee, which issued a number of opinions on these documents, I see the main threats mostly in the definitions used in these documents. The right to the protection of our data is a fundamental right that only in exceptional circumstances can be abrogated by other regulations, e.g. in order to fight terrorism and maintain national security.

Internet applications for the pure convenience of European consumers? Technology gives endless possible applications for our comfort and business, but not without impact on the fundamental rights of citizens. Companies and individuals that use these solutions have access to information about our private lives. An open and key question remains the problem of the management of all these data. The way in which it is collected and used, not only from the point of view of enterprises, but also by the third parties who buy access to this data.

The European Commission’s proposal includes a new term “the right to be forgotten”, which as many as three quarters of Europeans have requested.

Some of the major points in the proposed text are: the definition of “consent to processing our data”, which must be qualified by certain security considerations, and the definition of “legitimate interest of the data controller” - today often over-inflated by corporations.

How to protect your privacy on the Internet? A spying fridge can scare us a little. However I think it’s scary that private information we share with loved ones and friends on the Internet (pictures, comments, private address or phone number) may be accessible to others. The latest Eurobarometer data show that 74% of Europeans consider disclosure of information about themselves on the Internet as part of present-day life. As many as 67% of respondents did not know that there was an office in the EU responsible for data protection. Do we need to protect ourselves from ourselves...? Article 16 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU guarantees all citizens the right to protection of their personal data. The current Directive on Data Protection was adopted in 1995 in the “pre-Internet era”, and it urgently needs to be updated to ensure privacy protection, primarily of internet users. Currently negotiations are in place on two proposals for new regulations on data protection. According to the Polish Inspector General for Personal Data Protection Wojciech Rafał Wiewiórowski everything that is proposed by the Directive on the function of control over the data collected and processed by the authorities, (e.g. the police), is a better solution than what exists today in Poland, where external independent control is not exercised. Hm ... 102

103

SWIFT – the eye of Big Brother? The SWIFT-bomb “exploded” on 23 October, 2013. After the terrorist attacks 11 September, 2011 in New York, Madrid in 2004 and London in 2005, the EU and the U.S. signed the Terrorist Finance Tracking Programme (TFTP), an agreement requiring the EU authorities to transfer some data to the U.S. treasury from the Brussels-based system Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT), which holds the data of some 8,000 banks and operates in 200 countries. Given the large amount of personal data stored in SWIFT, we Parliamentarians, never felt too comfortable with the agreement. In fact, in 2010 the Parliament rejected the first draft of the agreement substituting it with a new version that has a stronger emphasis on data protection. On 23 October, 2013, the Parliament decided to reject the agreement despite the strong lobbying from the United States and the presence of the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in the EP. We accepted only the second project, which put a greater emphasis on the protection of personal data. In recent months, SWIFT returned to the parliamentary agenda, following reports of several newspapers, implying that the NSA1 could have had access to the SWIFT banking data outside of the agreed framework of the TFTP agreement. The EP Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs – initiated an investigation into the mass surveillance of EU citizens (something which none of the EU Member States has yet done), in order to verify the charges and conduct a full technical investigation as to whether and how the U.S. obtained unauthorized access or created a “back door” into the SWIFT servers. The protest in the European Parliament against the SWIFT agreement.

104

NSA – the US National Security Agency

105

If proven true, the breaching of the agreement has wider implications for EU – US relations and it will require firm action from our side. Although there is no hard evidence that the conditions of the TFTP agreement have been violated, members from the Socialist group, the Liberals and Greens, won a majority on the EP resolution, thereby forcing the European Commission to initiate the process of suspending the TFTP agreement, until proper and independent investigation has been carried out in this case. While the European Parliament has no formal powers to cancel agreements of this type acting alone, as co-legislator, its consent is necessary for the adoption of future international agreements (i.e. a free trade deal with the US). We can therefore withdraw our support for a particular agreement – forcing the Commission to act. After the outbreak of the PRISM2 scandal, it turned out that no one was safe from the NSA snooping, not even political friends of the U.S., such as Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President François Hollande, whose mobile phones were tapped...

eCall saves lives By 2015, an ecall service will be deployed throughout the EU. This service is an in-vehicle system triggered either automatically or manually in the case of a car crash. It establishes a link to the emergency call centre and can speed up emergency response time by 40% in urban areas to 50% of cases in rural areas. According to estimates, it could save up to 2,500 lives a year, and reduce the scale of injury and trauma in tens of thousands of cases.

The visit of the American Secretary of State – Hilary Clinton in the European Parliament. PRISM, launched in 2007 by the NSA, is a clandestine anti-terrorism mass electronic surveillance data mining program that gathers stored Internet communications based on requests made to companies such as Firefox or Google and uses them to target encoded information. Its existence was leaked six years since its launch by Edward Snowden, a NSA contractor. He notified the public that the extent to which the NSA invigilates the data was far greater than expected and included recording of telephone conversations of millions of Americans and European officials.

The European Emergency Number – 112.

106

107

The eCall system should be deployed by 2015 in all European Union countries as well as Norway, Switzerland and Iceland. The European Commission issued on 8 September, 2011 a recommendation calling on all Member States to ensure that mobile operators modify and improve the operation of the network to the extent that the eCall system is able to operate effectively across the EU. Installing the eCall in your car will mean an additional cost of approximately €100. To protect your privacy, system idle time will not make calls that would allow tracking of the position of the car – it is activated only at the time of the accident. The eCall project enjoys the wide support of Europeans: the 2006 Eurobarometer survey shows that more than 70% of EU citizens want to install eCall service in their cars. From 2015 onwards, all new cars must be equipped with the new service. In Poland, the concept of the “112 number” was adopted by the Council of Ministers on 16 October, 2007. Integrating the national “112” number with the eCall and automatic response, the national emergency notification system will use the 112 system to provide quicker response. For example, the Office of Electronic Communications will perform free calls, provide information on the location of the emergency, and appropriately redirect the call to the right service. Our Polish system also provides for the establishment of the Centre for Technical Supervision and Monitoring (CNiMT) and Training Centre (JCC).

EU on automatic pilot Jacques Delors, creator of the euro and twice head of the European Commission, stated that the Union is like a bicycle; the wheels need to keep on turning – or it will fall over. Hungary, which held the Presidency of the EU Council in 2011, apparently did not master this EU-rule. Without a reaction in time, it gave room for manoeuvre to others. Before the Hungarian Presidency it was unthinkable, that the French President during the Presidency of another country convened a summit in Paris and the Danish Prime Minister without any discussion at the EU level “suspended” the Schengen Agreement, which was concluded in 1995. Currently, the Schengen area is a total of 25 countries. 22 EU countries: Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Greece, Spain, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Latvia, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Hungary, Italy and the three associated countries: Iceland, Norway and Switzerland. In the waiting room area still are impatient Romania, Bulgaria with Cyprus, outside Schengen are: the United Kingdom and Ireland. Confusion over the “borders” was first caused by France and Italy, which proposed the introduction of “certain” amendments to the Schengen Agreement on 26 April, 2011. Both countries were in favour of the possibility of temporarily closing the borders to the free movement of citizens of other EU countries. Currently, this issue is governed by Article 23 of the Schengen Agreement Code, which allows EU members to close their borders for up to 30 days for inspections in case public order is threatened or for public safety. This option has benefited Germany, during the World Cup Football tournament in 2006. Adding fuel to the fire, tensions between Paris and Rome increased after France blocked Italian trains for 6 hours, to prevent the entry of 20 thousand

108

109

After the announcement of the reintroduction of checks at the borders of Denmark, EU interior ministers met in extraordinary session the next day in Brussels. The crisis was quickly averted and most countries did not finally see a need to make changes to the Schengen area. Even France’s President Nicolas Sarkozy changed the tone of earlier statements and underlined that “he wanted more Europe, not less”. In addition, strengthening the EU’s internal border controls will not work if the external borders are not properly protected. This service is under the control of the Frontex Agency, the headquarters of which are in Warsaw. Nevertheless, a definition of the scope of what “exceptional circumstances” would allow the temporary closure of borders is still unclear. The European Commission (EC) is preparing its own proposals to tackle the migration crisis associated mainly with the wave of illegal immigrants from North Africa (affecting mostly Italy, Malta and Spain), and Denmark’s problems (with unwanted citizens of the EU). On the passports issued by European Union Member States, along with the national citizenship, there is the European one.

Tunisian immigrants to its territory. The Italian authorities (wanting to get rid of the problem) issued the immigrants with a “transit” document, allowing for a temporary stay in the Schengen area and travel to France, where (because of the legacy of colonial-ties and language), they were heading. In self-defence against the “Italian gift” the French government significantly tightened controls on the border areas. The Italian “policy” towards immigrants angers other Member States and it seriously frightened Germany and Austria, who have also considered the use of “French” methods. On 11 May, 2011 Denmark officially announced that it would restore permanent customs inspections to its borders with Germany and Sweden intended to make random checks. It really shook the Schengen area. The Commissioner for Home Affairs Cecilia Malmstroem (Sweden) stated that the decision of the Danish government was incompatible with EU law.

Any changes in Schengen would have to receive the authorisation of the European Parliament, which is very reluctant to take any measures to restrict the freedom of movement within the Schengen area. In our opinion, restoring control would have a negative impact on the freedom of settlement, either in the form of studying or working in the EU, including the effectiveness of the monetary union. That could seriously undermine and threaten the economy of individual countries, and the stability of the European Union as whole. The “Delors bicycle” was clearly showing signs of slowing down. Then in 2011 the Hungarians let go of the reins of the Union, and turned on the automatic pilot. This “No hands on the controls” attitude, somehow extended into the Polish Presidency.

By the way, the controversial proposals of opposition parties and governments on the issue of immigration played well with the voters. The electoral success of the True Finns Party or the significant increase in support for the National Front in France is sufficient evidence to support this claim. 110

111

Wrocław’s View on Europe In 2009, shortly after my election as Quaestor of the Parliament and member of the Bureau, I started working on establishing a second European Parliament’s Information Office European (EPIO)1 in Poland. Currently in large EU countries there is one information office in the capital, and one regional. Germany has a second EPIO in Munich, Italy has one in Turin, the UK in Edinburgh, France in Marseilles and Spain in Barcelona. So I decided that Poland should benefit from such a useful facility as well. The official opening of the European Parliament and Commission Information Office, 1 July, 2011. Cutting the ribbon: Viviane Reding – the Vice-President of the EC and Jerzy Buzek – the President of the EP.

As a candidate, I proposed the capital of Lower Silesia, Wrocław, which had previously been chosen, by various Polish governments as a candidate: twice for EXPO, then for EIT2. Although Wrocław didn’t receive these titles, the “weight” gained by being a candidate in the previous campaigns helped me as an author of this idea in the race to EIPO. Eventually, the capital of Lower Silesia defeated 10 other rivals to the title. Let me recall how this rivalry looked. The proposal I submitted to the EP Bureau to create a new EPIO in Poland was quickly adopted, and it was decided that the office should be up and running already during the Polish Presidency of the EU Council. When I proposed the candidacy of Wrocław almost every Polish MEP thought the capital of his constituency would be the best candidate. The proposed 11

The President of the European Parliament Jerzy Buzek gives a commemorative speech.

The Information Offices of the European Parliament and the European Commission, are also called “Houses of Europe”. These are prestigious representatives of the EU institutions in the Member States. Their main tasks include: providing assistance in the organization of official summits, conferences, seminars, and various social initiatives. Informing press agencies on the activities of MEPs in the EP, maintaining close cooperation with the media and local journalists who may be delegated to plenary session in Strasbourg. 2 European Institute of Innovation and Technology, based in Budapest: ww.eit.europa.eu.

112

113

cities were then evaluated by a special committee, taking into account criteria such as size, population density of the region, the presence of opinion leaders, universities, roads, airfields and the possibility of efficient organization of international summits, congresses and trade fairs. Among the 11 candidates were: Kraków, Wrocław, Gdańsk, Katowice, Łódź and Poznań. These cities were ranked based on how they matched the criteria. The final duel was between Kraków and Wrocław. Ultimately Wrocław won, supported not only by its qualities, but also by the city of Warsaw. Well, most Members live in Warszawa, which didn’t participate in the competition as it already has such an office.

During the opening ceremony. Left-to-right: Viviane Reding – Vice-President of the EC, Jerzy Buzek – President of the EP, Lidia Geringer de Oedenberg – Quaestor in the EP Bureau, Krzysztof Kwiatkowski – Minister of Justice.

Carefully worked out support of colleagues from the Polish capital – gave the expected result. At the end of December 2010, the Bureau of the European Parliament approved the location for the Office of the Parliament and the European Commission in Wrocław, after the visit of representatives of both institutions to the capital of Lower Silesia. Finally they chose the “VIEW” building – at the WIDOK (VIEW) street (between Kazimierz Wielki and Teatralna street) in the “heart of Wrocław”, to ensure good visibility and recognition of the office. But as it turned out, it has also created a problem of parking for visitors and employees. Let’s move on 1 July, 2011 marked a historic first day of the first Polish Presidency of the Council of the EU. The Presidency was officially opened in the Wrocław House of Europe (i.e. common Information Offices of EP and EC), where I had great personal satisfaction in participating in the opening ceremony, together with Jerzy Buzek - the then President of the EP and Commissioner Vivane Reding. Particularly pleasing was the fact that the ceremony coincided with the handing over of the European Union Citizen’s Prize to Elżbieta Lech-Gotthard from Zgorzelec for her work in rescuing the cultural heritage of Luzyce. Ms Lech-Gotthardt was nominated to the award at my request. Today, the new House of Europe is teeming with life and turns out to be very active in various social initiatives.

Award Ceremony of the European Citizen’s Prize. Left-to-right: Viviane Reding – Vice-President of the EC, Lidia Geringer de Oedenberg – Quaestor in the EP Bureau, Elżbieta Lech-Gothardt – winner of the Prize, Jerzy Buzek – President of the EP.

114

I am glad that one of my first Quaestor dreams was realized and is actively working. 115

The forgotten society in Europe The EU has about 10 million Roma. That’s more than the total number of citizens of Slovenia, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Malta and Luxembourg. If the Roma were to live in their own country, it would be the 10th most populous country in the EU – with a population greater than Belgium, Greece, Hungary, Sweden, Finland, Denmark and Bulgaria. It would be also the poorest. The poster for the “One of Many” campaign the goal of which was to change the attitude of Poles towards the Roma community.

As an EU country it would be entitled to a choice of over 20 MEPs and the ability to manage billions of euro in EU funds for its social and economic development. It would also have the right of veto on issues such as the EU budget, have its own Commissioner, a representative of the Court of Auditors and the Court of Justice. They could shape legislation on social security or the fight against discrimination. But the Roma do not have their own state, their communities are scattered throughout many countries of the Community. Officially, they are EU citizens like all others, but in practice they face a humiliating experience of segregation, while they are often perceived as unwanted citizens or the “other” people. They are the least represented community in a democratic Europe. They have virtually no representation in national parliaments or in governments. They have only one MEP in the European Parliament.

The poster announcing the “romarising V4” exhibition in the European Parliament organized by Lidia Geringer de Oedenberg.

For centuries they experienced persecution. Here are a few facts: –R oma reached the Balkans around the 12th century, migrating from the Indian subcontinent. In each country, where they arrived, they faced harassment. – I n the 17th century in Spain “los gitanos” did not have the right to marry, women and men were placed in separate ghettos, and their children were taken to orphanages.

116

117

–U nder the Habsburgs, Maria Theresa (1740-1780) attempted to force the Roma to permanently settle, depriving them of the right to own horses and carts. Marriages between Roma were banned. The next imperial ruler Joseph II forbade the wearing of traditional Roma clothing and the use of the Roma language, under penalty of flogging. – I n the 19th century the Roma were banned from travelling outside Europe. The United States closed its territory to them in 1885, acting like many South American countries. –P ersecution of the Roma reached its zenith during World War II, when the Nazis carried out the extermination of 1.5 million adults and children. How does the situation of the Roma look today, in a democratic Europe? According to the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), infant mortality rate in the Roma population living in the EU is twice as high as among non-Roma. Many governments fail to carry out effective actions for the inclusion of Roma children in the public education system, so that they can exercise their right to free and equal level of education. The opening of the “romarising” exhibition in Wroclaw, 21 September, 2012.

According to a recent report by the EU Fundamental Rights Agency, only 15% of Roma children who have received an education, graduate from high school. Roma children are often separated from other pupils in special schools. In some countries, Roma students account for 85 % of all children attending the so-called special classes. 25% of European Roma live in shacks, 55% of their homes have no drains. 90% of Roma live below the national poverty line and 45% live in a place that lacks at least one of the basic amenities: kitchen, toilet, bathroom or electricity. In 2011, the average salary for Roma men was between 45% and 80% lower compared to the average wage for non-Roma men. For women the difference is between 20% and 59%. The unemployment rate for Roma depending on the country is higher, in the range of 30% to 250% compared to non-Roma. Can someone who does not have education, work, home, and is marginalized by others, live a “normal” life? They should be able to count on the EU for effective help and support.

Lidia Geringer de Oedenberg inaugurates „Romarising V4” exhibition in the European Parliament together with its author – Chad Wyatt, Brussels 4 March, 2014.

The 2014-2020 multiannual financial framework must find a remedy for this “forgotten” society. There are a lot of programmes and good practice in countries that were able to overcome the stereotypes and exploit the potential of citizens.

118

119

If we practice the formula “treat others as you would want to be treated yourself”, we would start respecting the Roma tradition, culture and language. Also we would see positive examples of successful Roma community representatives, that is perhaps the most effective way to fight stereotypes and prejudices. “Unity in diversity”, the motto of the Union, should be taken seriously. The EU funds can be used to create a comprehensive programme to deal with all aspects of poverty, striving to improve conditions in housing, training and support for adults of Roma origin in search of work, and provide access to early education for Roma children. In addition, mediators need to develop a system for the representation and support of the Roma community.

Queuing up for the European Community In the vestibule to the Community there is quite a long queue. Some fairly impatient countries have been waiting there for more than 30 years. Recently only one of them received the ticket with the entrance date. It was Croatia. On the background to the enlargement process, the European Parliament presents its position in a yearly special report, where it evaluates the progress in the preparations of candidate countries for EU membership: FYROM, Iceland, Montenegro, Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo and Turkey.

The “romarising V4” exhibition in the European Parliament, 4 March, 2014.

The European Parliament session on the accession of Turkey to the EU, 6 December, 2012.

120

121

The EU as a Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, despite the economic crisis, still supports the enlargement in the name of promoting peace, security and prosperity on the continent and increasing its position on the international arena. In the report on the enlargement strategy beyond the assessment of progress of countries towards the EU, there is a clear indication about the next reforms they must carry out in order to join the Community. EU membership is subject to the conditions set out for “full democratization” including among others: a real public participation in political life, independent and efficient judiciary, effective public administration, forceful tools to fight corruption, guarantees of freedom of expression, assembly and equal opportunities for all citiziens, including respecting the rights of minorities. Moreover, economic stabilization is required. What is the current situation? The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia – (FYROM) A country with historically a very complicated name, has a fairly stable economy and successfully carried out economic reforms. However, it is still embroiled with corruption and the judicial independence is questionable. Despite the fact that FYROM already has the official status of candidate for EU since December 2005, the country has yet to begin negotiations due to a Greek veto. The name “Macedonia”, which FYROM wants to use officially, is considered by Greece to be the historical name of one of its provinces. Therefore Greece does not agree to its appropriation by FYROM. Iceland Iceland was granted the official status of EU candidate in June 2010. It is already a member of the European Economic Area (EEA), which allows access to the Community market and membership in the Schengen area. In July 2009, the Parliament of Iceland voted for a further tightening of cooperation with the Community, giving the accession negotiations a positive momentum. However the change of government in 2013 put the brakes on this process. Iceland is no longer in a hurry to join the EU and want to wait until the recent problems of Iceland’s banks are resolved. Montenegro Obtained official EU candidate status in December 2010. In 2011, after a positive assessment of the progress of this country, the European Commission suggested officially opening accession negotiations, but this proposal was postponed by the EU Council in December 2011. Weak economy, high crime 122

rates, corruption, discrimination, lack of full freedom of the press - are still obstacles that country of 680 thousand residents must overcome to join the EU. However Montenegro is slightly ahead in the race compared with other countries in the region. It even uses the Euro currency. Serbia Since March 2012 it holds the status of a candidate country. While membership negotiations are set to open, the exact date has yet to be determined. Some of the obstacles it’s facing: unstable economy and bad relations with countries who recognized the independence of its former province, Kosovo, (announced in February 2008). Bosnia and Herzegovina Despite the fact that the negotiations started in 2005 and in 2008 the Stabilization and Association Agreement was signed with the country, has no candidate status. Bosnia and Herzegovina made only limited progress towards meeting the initial requirements of joining the EU. The obstacles: political instability that threatens the unity of the country (Serbian separatism), deep ethnic divisions, high crime rate, strong mafia structures, weak economy, and its ranking 121 in the index of business freedom. Ensuring an independent, impartial and effective judicial system – especially in connection with the settlement of war crimes, administrative reform and fighting corruption linked to political parties are also measures that have yet to be implemented. Kosovo Currently without an official EU status. This is one of the poorest regions of the world with 40% unemployment level, a particularly weak economy and strong mafia structures, as well as numerous unanswered accusations of war crimes. As a result of the war in 1999, almost 2 thousand people are still declared missing, whose fate remains unclear. The EU deployed technical assistance to Kosovo for the creation of a structured administration, the judiciary and the police – EULEX. Created in 2008, Kosovo is not a member of the United Nations, the Council of Europe, the OSCE, WTO; moreover, five EU Member States still do not recognize its independence (Cyprus, Greece, Spain, Romania and Slovakia). The road to the EU will be very long. And finally, queuing veteran Turkey. Turkey’s involvement with European integration dates back to 1959 and includes the Ankara Association Agreement in 1963 for the progressive estab123

lishment of a Customs Union (ultimately set up in 1995). In 1987, Turkey applied to join what was then the European Economic Community, and in 1997 it was declared eligible to join the EU. Turkish accession negotiations started on 3 October, 2005. Since then, the country has made significant progress. It has good economic conditions with a huge export market. A significant number of Turkish origin citizens who already live and work in the EU. Turkey implements the policy of renewable energy sources, it ratified the Optional Protocol to the UN Convention against Torture (27 September, 2011) and the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence. Nevertheless, remaining issues to tackle are respect for fundamental rights and a solution to regulating relations with the Republic of Cyprus, the northern part of which Turkey has occupied since 1974. Also causing resistance are the dispute with Armenia, bad relations with Greece, and lack of recognition of the genocide of the Kurds. Boycotting the Cypriot presidency of the EU Council in the second half of 2012 didn’t help Turkey’s EU aspirations either...

Turkey in the Union? Getting Closer... Turkey is the longest waiting candidate for a key to the “European door” – since 1963. After 36 years, in 1999 Turkey finally obtained the status of an official candidate, and even though the country has been since then receiving the preaccession funds – it shows less and less enthusiasm and patience. Active negotiations concerning next steps for accession of Turkey to the European Union began only in 2005. After nearly 7 years of systematic work, in the special report the Parliament decided that the “relations between EU and Turkey need a new momentum”. During the plenary session on 29 March, 2012 we voted on the report about the Turkish progress on the road to European Union, in which we stated that Turkey should show more commitment

The bridge over Bosphorus strait connecting the European and Asian parts of Istanbul.

124

125

in reforming its system of justice, protection of civil rights and freedom of the media. These conditions are necessary if Turkey wants to open another chapter in the negotiations. The reform in the sector of freedom and equal treatment should ensure equality of rights between men and women, combat the violence against women and children, provide the widest access to education for all Turkish citizens and treat all religious communities equally. The issue of Northern Cyprus still weighs down the dynamics of the relations between the EU and Turkey. The problem has been growing for nearly 40 years, and even though the negotiations under the auspices of the UN, the union of two divided countries is still nowhere, as Turkey refuses to withdraw its army. The situation is very strange as one of the member states of the EU is being occupied by the candidate state. There are also other controversial issues concerning the fractious candidate1. The Union, leaving the issue of resolving the conflict to the UN, continues the negotiations due to the strategic role of Turkey in the region as well as the profits resulting from enhanced cooperation on common foreign policy, neighbourhood policy as well as in the area of energy policy. However Turkey is slowly losing patience with the European Union. For the past several years Turkey has gained strength, and became the leader in the Muslim world. Europe weakens, and prefers to have an ally in Turkey rather than enemy; therefore the EU is beginning to wonder about the next step in fulfilling the promise given years ago. We can only speculate that, in the near future there will be perhaps visa facilitation, which is a standard for official candidates to the EU. Nevertheless, the accession of Turkey to the EU is still uncertain.

Cited by some politicians as arguments for saying “NO” to Turkey: - it is not in Europe, only 3% of the area has something to do with our continent; - is a large and poor country, the EU cannot afford such a big development package; - Turkish migration wave will flood the Union, which will result in an increase in unemployment; - the largest group of MEPs would be the Turkish delegation (now, it’s Germany); - has difficult neighbours: Iran, Iraq and Syria. The EU frontier would be impossible to control (the terrorists); - is a country in the Islamic cultural circle, too different from Christian Europe. 1

126

The EU’s menu for Christmas 28 different states “united in diversity”. Large and small countries, rich and poor, with different cultures, traditions, religions. This diversity is particularly interesting regarding the individual countries’ Christmas traditions. Spaniards join the Christmas Eve Supper only after Midnight Mass; the Swedes, instead of singing carols, dance around the Christmas tree; a Danish delicacy on Christmas Eve is sweet rice with cinnamon and roasted goose with apples. The French eat goose liver and sip champagne, while in Latvia the main course on the table is a huge pig’s head cooked with barley, peas and beans. Hellenic tradition puts in pride of place a festive model sailing ship to replace the Christmas tree. In Estonia a visit to the sauna and a swim in the icy water, which is supposedly good for the “purification of the soul”, is obligatory before going to Midnight Mass. Belgians are a pragmatic nation. Either they buy turkey with cranberries in a nearby supermarket or book a table in a restaurant on Christmas Eve. In the Czech Republic, on the other hand, people celebrate Christmas Eve with fortune telling, using their shoes. Household members turn their back towards the front door and throw shoes over their shoulders. If the shoe is pointing towards the exit of the house – a single lady will soon be married, if it faces the inside of the house – she will have to wait another year. In turn, cautious Scandinavians on Christmas Eve hide all brooms. In ancient times it was believed that witches and other “powers” were going around looking at the surrounding houses’ comfortable “means of transport”, taking them in order to join the Devil’s Eve. The Christmas witch, but without the broom, also plays a part in the Italian Christmas. It is believed that a good witch, named Bofana, enters the house 127

through the chimney and leaves toys for the children. Every year, between Christmas and New Year there is a market in honour of the indigenous witch in the centre of Rome, where you can buy toys and sweets. German Christmas markets, a tradition dating back to the fourteenth century, have completely conquered the whole of Europe. In almost every city, also in Poland, Christmas Markets are built at the end of November, where you can buy hand-made Christmas decorations, regional products, or enjoy a special mulled wine with spices. But the biggest Christmas market is in France, located in Strasbourg. It is even advertised as the “capital” of Christmas. Tourists book hotels for the occasion two years in advance!

In Rovaniemi (Finland), in the official residence of Santa Claus.

The kindly Santa Claus gives presents to all polite children in Europe, but as to the origin of this custom, there are various theories. For example, Dutch Santa Claus arrives from distant Spain. Every year at the end of November in the streets of Amsterdam a solemn march is held in his honour, where – in the company of children and their parents – lovable bearded Saint parades on a horse, heralding the coming Christmas. The centre of Amsterdam is full of “Black Peters” – Santa Claus’s helpers, who are running around the streets, doing pranks and distributing traditional Christmas gingerbread cookies to passers-by. The official residence of Santa Claus, in the opinion of Finns, is Rovaniemi, just within the Arctic Circle in their country. I had the opportunity of visiting the city one summer and I found “the boss” extremely busy preparing for next Christmas. Letters to Santa from over the world are non-stop, and the logistics required to answer them for this one night of the year, takes a staff of helpers, (which I had the opportunity of seeing for myself), one year to prepare. It is customary in united Europe to meet around the Christmas table, greet each other and wish all the best, and hopefully it lastes longer than that only one magic night.

The President of the EP Jerzy Buzek and the Christmas tree given to the European Parliament by the forest management in Bolesławów (commune Stronie Śląskie), Brussels 6 December, 2011.

128

129

IV. Celebrities and VIPs in the European Parliament

Hugh Grant in the European Parliament in 2012 during the panel discussion on the surveillance conducted by the British media.

130

131

History written in the European Parliament It was summer, 2008. In Georgia – war, in Beijing – Olympics, the European press focused on the internal scandals, the reader on vacation expects entertainment, so channels show real war. In this context, the reaction of foreign media to the death of Prof. Bronisław Geremek and Alexander Solzhenitsyn was surprisingly serious and adequate. Complex, well prepared documentaries and massive airtime devoted to the two great figures of our time, demonstrated the importance and impact of these outstanding intellectuals on our lives. The history of Europe could have been different, if they were never a part of it. On this sad occasion there were also a lot of articles on other, still active politicians, who once held the reins in their own countries, and today, as MEPs, describe and publish their experience of the past years, thoughts or advice for their successors.

Bronisław Geremek – Member of the European Parliament (in the years 2004-2008).

Several former Prime Ministers, who sat in the European Parliament over the years, have written such books. Among them are Ivo Peterle (Prime Minister of Slovenia 1990-1992), Jean-Luc Dehaene (Belgian Head of Government 1992-1999). Socialist colleague Michel Rocard (Prime Minister of France 1988-1991). The first President of independent Lithuania, Vytautas Landsbergis (1990-1992) shared in his autobiography his thoughts from the time of his country’s struggle with the dictates of Moscow. He also gave expression to his life passion – playing the piano. Former Prime Minister of Latvia, Guntars Krasts (1997-1998), despite the fact that he sat on the parliamentary eurosceptic benches, titled his book on Europe optimistically: “The future belongs to us.” MEP Jana Hybášková, Ambassador of the Czech Republic in Kuwait, followed diplomatic preparations for the invasion of Iraq in 2003; her record is published under the title “Waiting for war”.

132

133

Estonia’s road to independence was recorded in photographs by a Member, who worked in the Committee on Regional Development – Tunne Kelam, who, (along with his wife), released an album documenting the struggle of the Estonian political opponents of the Soviet regime. Slovenian MEP Mihael Brejc devoted his book to writing a detailed account of the activities of the Yugoslav special services during the battle for the independence of Slovenia. A German MEP of Turkish origin, Cem Özdemir, caused a great debate with his publication “Currywurst und Döner – integration in Germany,” on the situation of the Turkish minority in Germany. Professor Bronisław Geremek, as a historian, gained great appreciation thanks to his many historical publications describing the fate of medieval society. Before his death, he worked on the Polish and English release of the book: “The future of Europe”. He also worked actively on the creation of a prestigious European University in Strasbourg, which could have been established in the existing buildings of the European Parliament. This way Strasbourg would not have lost its importance, and the Parliament would have meetings only in Brussels. That would have saved about €200 million a year, which could be spent on other needs. Professor Geremek even managed to successfully convince many French of the virtues of this idea! The proposal collapsed with his death. Former Polish Prime Minister (1997-2001), Jerzy Buzek has great scientific achievements, among others, in the field of environment and energy, and above all was the EP President. However, he has yet to share his experiences with readers.

Eurocelebs In the seventh term of the EP 2009–2014 there were many prominent politicians and celebrities. For example: Former Commissioners1: – Franco Frattini (Italy), – Louis Michel (Belgium), – Sandra Kalniete (Latvia), – Danuta Hübner (Poland). Former Presidents: – Vytautas Landsbergis (Lithuania) – MEP (2004-2014) in his second term. Former Prime Ministers: – Ciriaco De Mita (Italy, the oldest MEP – 86 years), – Jean–Luc Dehaene (Belgium), – Ivars Godmanis (Latvia), – Anneli Jäätteenmäki (Finland), – Alojz Peterle (Slovenia), – Theodor Stolojan (Romania), – Guy Verhofstadt (Belgium), – Jerzy Buzek (Poland, EP President 2009-2011). The list of former ministers would include dozens of names...

“Satisfied” with the MEP’s salary, four times lower than the one of the Commissioner.

134

135

Celebrities from show business, sport and the media, popular in their respective countries: – Barbara Matera (Italy) – actress and television presenter, protégé of Prime Minister Berlusconi; – Indrek Tarand (Estonia) – TV presenter, son of former MEP; – José Bové (France) – famous antiglobalist and militant opponent of GMOs; – Eva Joly (France) – environmental activist; – Alfrēds Rubiks (Latvia) – former mayor of Riga, supporter of staying in the USSR; – Magdi Cristiano Allam (Italy) – journalist of Islamic origin and at the same time critic of Islamic extremism; – Sari Essayah (Finland) – world champion in the 10 km walk (1993); – Pál Schmitt (Hungary) – swordsman, Olympian in 2010, left the EP because he was elected President of Hungary; – Louis Grech (Malta) – athlete, Olympian, Maltese Minister2. There are also family members of prominent politicians: –E lena Băsescu (Romania) – model and daughter of the President of Romania; –F rédéric Daerden (Belgium) – son of Michel Daerden, a popular politician; –M arine Le Pen (France) – daughter of Jean –Marie Le Pen, MEP and former head of the National Front – who took over the party; – J arosław Wałęsa (Poland) – Polish President Lech Wałęsa’s son; –A nna Maria Corazza Bildt (Sweden) – wife of Carl Bildt, Swedish Foreign Minister.

The Dalai Lama, gallbladder and women The Dalai Lama does not consider himself to be a political figure, thus he asks for the meetings he attends – not to be politicized. On 9 December, 2008 the European Parliament in Brussels welcomed the Dalai Lama. On that occasion I had the opportunity to listen live to his speech, which was nothing like the stiff, official speeches, which I hear every day. Starting in Tibetan continuing in English, his Holiness said that he feels just like any one of several billion people who just want to be happy. Although officially he carries the title “His Holiness” the Dalai Lama highlighted the fact that he doesn’t consider himself someone special. Moreover, since our last meeting – as he stressed – he was a little bit “less” and here he told the story of having to be operated on his gallbladder. Although the operation was difficult, he recovered quickly. The doctors considered it a miracle, proof of the extraordinary healing power of the Dalai Lama. His Holiness said to them: if I had the power to heal – I wouldn’t get sick and the doctors wouldn’t have to remove my gallbladder, which, by the way, I am missing very much! After a moment’s thought, the Dalai Lama looked around the plenary, smiled and said: “I am happy when I see a lot of women in the Parliament (in fact we were only 30%). Women are beautiful, sensitive, have a lot of warmth and goodness – are a huge driving force of humanity and source of physical strength. Men often tend towards violence, to dominance. “As a Tibetan monk the Dalai Lama encourages women to achieve power, which in his opinion they will obtain sooner or later, because today education, thinking and anticipation count more, than physical strength”. The Dalai Lama is moreover opposed to any violence.

As of December 2013.

136

137

Yet many interesting “themes of life” were raised by the Dalai Lama and only at the end did he refer to the case of Tibet. He said that he believes in the wisdom of the Chinese people, which for him was evident while he was meeting with Chinese writers and thinkers around the world. He treats the Chinese nation as his friends, and he added that only a close friend can point out flaws and not do it out of malice. Saying goodbye he shook my hand “passing” positive energy and the world, even in rainy Brussels, started to be colourful!

Green Prince against eating of our planet The Prince of Wales, known for his passion for bio life-style, tried to convince us in 2011 about the harmful activities of groups that are questioning the existence of global warming. “How can they look into the eyes of their grandchildren?” He warned against excessive “consuming of our planet” – “I do not see how to sustain GDP growth in the long term, if we continue to eat our planet at such a pace”. He called for bolder reduction of CO2 emissions. The latter is indeed, one of the main objectives of the “Europe 2020 strategy” in which EU countries

Dalai Lama during the plenary session in the European Parliament in Brussels.

In the meeting with the Tibet Intergroup in the European Parliament.

Prince Charles in the European Parliament.

138

139

committed themselves to reducing emissions by 20% (compared to 1990) by 2020. Prince Charles courageously offered an even higher objective – 30% reduction. The heir to the British throne was very well prepared and warmly welcomed by listeners. He demonstrated extensive knowledge and ambitious plans. One must admit that “in person” he is definitely more “energetic” and convincing than in the media. Even cuter. He has a lot of personal charm and a unique sense of humour, even about himself, that perfectly appeals to the audience.

Mr Formula One and modern technology Formula 1 race driver Michael Schumacher visited the EP in May 2011 to take part in a conference on road e-safety. I had the pleasure of meeting the legendary driver in Strasbourg, where he inaugurated a campaign to reduce automotive accidents. The fastest driver in the world explained how new technologies could improve our road safety. Statistics show that intelligent control systems are able to save the lives of several thousand people in Europe annually and to protect another 100 thousand from severe injuries. What are the latest figures? Each year in Europe, nearly 40 thousand citizens are killed in car accidents and over one million are injured! Schumacher said that a good driver was one who drove safely and did not show off on the road. When asked – somewhat mischievously – about the “ordinary” speed limits he applied (300 km/h) and the number of accidents he had (a lot) – he cleverly said: “I have a lot of experience and I can give good advice”. He was right. It is true that our cars are now much safer than those produced 10-15 years ago. They have mandatory seat belts, air bags, various optional warning systems to notify the driver of slippery road surfaces, road obstacles, etc. But, more improvements are required for making our roads safer. Smart cars would have to be fitted for example with: - s pecial sensors that detect the driver’s alcohol levels. If that is too high the car will not start; - e-call – a sensor that automatically sends a signal for help in case of an accident1;

Prince Charles with Herman van Rompuy, the President of the European Council in the European Parliament, 9 February, 2011.

140

More: www.ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/eCall-time-saved-lives-saved.

141

- intelligent transport signals interacting with Galileo (the European Navigation System) – informing us on road conditions (traffic jams, accidents etc), expected during the selected journey; - i ntelligent speed measurement – monitoring the car in the road sections with a speed limit, so the signal will automatically slow down the vehicle; - s ensors to detect the driver’s level of concentration – based on his behaviour the system could analyse this and inform the driver of the need for rest; - s ystems that identify roads obstacles and support night vision. Before these innovations become as standard as safety belts some time must pass. The smart car project stirs much controversy and questions: who gets to decide, us or the car? What is stronger – safety considerations or a company’s particular interest?

Michael Schumacher visiting the European Parliament.

The thousands of people killed on roads every year and the cost of medical treatment of millions of road accident victims is not only a personal tragedy, but also an economic loss for the entire Union. As someone who tricked death many times2, Schumacher knows that. Perhaps restrictive laws controling reckless drivers could save the lives of thousands of road users. We’ll see. At the moment there is an on-going discussion. Read more: www.eSafetyChallenge.eu www.eSafetyOnBoard.eu

Lidia Geringer de Oedenberg backed the project to improve safety on the European roads.

Michael Schumacher was injured in a skiing accident in 2013. I’m keeping my fingers crossed for his recovery.

142

143

Meatless McCartney Less politics, more Beatles.

Sir Paul McCartney in the European Parliament, December 2009.

From time to time, the European Parliament invites to Brussels or Strasbourg “politicians” in the less conventional sense of the word. For what purpose? To attract media interest with “big names” in the EP, because for them our normal work is not attractive enough. These unconventional meetings fit into a new communication strategy prepared by the Parliament. In December 2009, the ex-Beatle Paul McCartney came to Brussels to talk about the impacts of climate change. The 2.5h long panel Sir Paul took part in, guaranteed the media’s attention. The discussion was initially scheduled in a standard meeting room for a few dozen people, but the interest was so great that it was necessary to move the debate to the plenary chamber, where almost 1,000 stakeholders could be seated. There were no empty seats. Sir Paul McCartney, together with the President of the European Parliament Jerzy Buzek (2009-2012) and Rajendra Pachauri, the Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, discussed ways of preventing changes in climate – from the perspective of the individual citizen. The main message was: “Less Meat, Less Heat” (less CO2). The former Beatle, who is well known for his passion for vegetarianism, tried to convince us that eating meat contributes to increasing CO2 emissions. Cows, pigs, chickens bred by humans emit a lot of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Vegetarianism could be the answer to fighting excessive greenhouse gas emissions. “All we need is McCartney...” could it be a parody title of the famous Beatles hit?

Sir Paul McCartney speaks on the limiting of meat production as a way to fight global warming.

144

145

V. European women in the spotlight

The female MEPs from the Group of European Socialists in the European Parliament in 2004-2009.

The “ female summit” meeting. Left-to-right: Mary Robinson (President of Ireland 1990-1997), Isabelle Durant (Vice-President of the EP 2009-2014), Eva-Britt Svensson (Chair of the European Parliament’s Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality 2009-2011), Silvana Koch-Mehrin (Vice-President of the EP 2009-2010), Nicole Fontaine (President of the EP 1999-2001) and Lidia Geringer de Oedenberg (Quaestor in the EP Bureau 2009-2014).

146

147

Paté on the hundredth birthday ...or Women’s Day in the Parliament. 8 March, 2011, on the 100th anniversary of the “International Women’s Day”, we debated gender equality and equal opportunities for both sexes in the European Parliament. There was also time for reflection. How did women’s rights look in 1911? The most feminized row in the plenary chamber. Left-to-right: Lidia Geringer de Oedenberg – Quaestor in the EP Bureau, Zita Gurmai – Vice-Chair of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, Maria Badia i Cutchet and Britta Thomsen in the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

Australian women were granted voting rights already in 1902, Finnish women in 1906. For another wave of political emancipation we had to wait until 1918 when Poland, Russia, Germany and Austria granted these rights to their fair sex. French and Italian women had to wait much longer (till 1944 and 1946). The “record” was broken by Switzerland and Portugal who recognized equal opportunities, by introducing universal suffrage for women only in 1971 and 1976 respectively. Interestingly, in the Second Polish Republic, giving political rights to women did not come as easily as is believed today. The Head of State, Marshal Józef Piłsudski behaved distantly towards the demands made by women’s organizations, often treating them fairly brusquely (i.e. women who wanted to meet him, had to wait in front of Belvedere in the cold). The resistance of the Marshal broke only after demonstrations organized in the capital. To this day, female residents of Brunei, Lebanon and Saudi Arabia are still deprived of electoral rights.

Meeting of the College of Quaestors with the President of the EP Jerzy Buzek. Left-to-right: Jiri Mastalka, Maciej Popowski – Head of Cabinet of the President of the EP, Klaus Welle – Secretary General of the EP, Bill Newton Dunn, Astrid Lulling, Lidia Geringer de Oedenberg, Jim Higgins.

One hundred years ago, women were virtually absent in politics, not to mention senior positions. Only “yesterday” Europe was ruled by the “Iron Lady” – Margaret Thatcher and today is governed by “Iron Chancellor” Angela Merkel, while the lead is taken by the emerging powers, headed by the President

148

149

of Brazil – Dilma Rousseff. Hillary Clinton, secretary of state and the second most important personality in American politics, is preparing now for presidential elections. The European Commission’s most influential Vice-Presidents are Neelie Kroes (Commissioner responsible for the Digital Agenda) and Viviane Reding (Commissioner for Justice). They both showed outstanding skills and charisma, when compared to the rest of José Manuel Barroso’s team of 27 Commissioners, who were assessed as performing moderately by the Brussels public. It is difficult to identify a large enterprise of the early twentieth century, which would have been headed by a woman. Today, although the increase in the number of women on company boards of EU-27 is small (about 0.5% per year) and represents 10% of all members of boards of the EU companies, we can more and more often find women at the head of successful companies. Reputable consulting firms (e.g. McKinsey) publish analyses showing that the profit of the company is higher by several percent, if the board is not dominated by men. The 100th anniversary of the International Women’s Day in the European Parliament. Left-to-right: Jerzy Buzek – President of the EP, Roberta Angelilli – Vice-President of the EP and Lidia Geringer de Oedenberg – Quaestor in the EP Bureau.

The pay gap between women and men is slowly diminishing, yet in 2000 American women earned 76% of their male counterparts. The so-called “pay gap” was thus 24%. Today it is 18% in the U.S. and about 17% in the EU. The Polish example looks quite optimistic with only a 10% gender pay gap. Although the achievements of women in the past century are enormous, equal rights still do not mean equal opportunities. In the vote on the report of MEP Nedelcheva on “Equality between women and men – 2010“, I observed with dismay Polish Members (of the PO, PiS and PSL) who voted clearly “against”! The majority of members (including my political group) was however, “for”. The report passed with 366 votes in favour, 200 against and 32 abstentions. The reason for this strange reaction of almost all Polish MEPs (except for SLD) was art. 66 of the report for the European Parliament, as follows:

The 100th anniversary of the International Women’s Day in the European Parliament. The President Jerzy Buzek is speaking. At the presidential table – exept him, only female Vice-Presidents and Questors.

“Advocates access for women and men to adequate information and support on reproductive health, and stresses that women should have the same rights and opportunities as men to avail themselves of services in this area; stresses that women must have control over their sexual and reproductive rights, par-

150

151

ticularly through easy access to contraception and the possibility of an abortion; calls on the Member States and the Commission to adopt measures and actions raising awareness among men about their responsibilities in sexual and reproductive matters” You can see that the coalition of Polish centre-right parties PO-PiS-PSL is still far from the majority opinion in Europe. The full text of the report NEDELCHEVA is available at: www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+REPORT+A72011-0029+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN.

Sad future of “handicapped” female Members of the Polish Parliament? It was May 2010. When observing the political discourse in the Polish Parliament, I could not resist the temptation of using irony and sarcasm in this chapter. Doomed to “vegetation without satisfaction”, sympathetic looks of wiser colleagues, who knew their place, future female Members of Parliament will be faced with political marginalization, depression and tears – as it was reported by the Polish media as parity went hand in hand with discrimination! Dear Ladies, in our country there are however some competent gentlemen, carefully spotting this threat and willing to defend us, who believe that only a woman elected without a quota can be a fully-fledged MP, MEP or Councillor, having a sense of self-esteem, resulting from mental and not sexual qualities. Meanwhile, the French or Spanish women “marked” by quotas are forced to enter the Parliaments only for statistical reasons. According to Polish journalists – foreign female MP’s, burdened by the “hump”, suffer terribly, knowing that their selection was dominated by sex and not by qualifications.

Joanna Senyszyn – Polish MEP (in the middle) with other female MEPs protests against the violence against women, the European Parliament, Brussels 2013.

Parliamentarians in France, Spain, Belgium and Portugal dared a few years ago to “expose” their ladies to “electoral discrimination” by introducing gender quotas of 40 to 60%. The results of these revolutionary decisions can be seen today in the European Parliament, where the number of women in Spanish, Belgian and Portuguese delegations amounted to 36%, in the French delegation to 44%. Although I observe my parity colleagues carefully, I still have not seen any signs of depression caused by “the electoral discrimination”.

152

153

Gentlemen, occupying 80% of the seats in the Polish Parliament and 92% in the Senate, also noticed “this quota fashion” in others. Not wanting to pass for a total political backwater, they yet practice a declination of the word “quota” in all cases. They are still not ready for a change similar to the Spanish one. Indeed, a lot of courage is needed to face the electoral rolls with the ladies as equal with equal. Polish society not only notes insufficient representation of women in public life, but according to the public opinion surveys, 60% of respondents already support the introduction of 50:50 quota on electoral lists. I think it’s time to follow the voice of the people and apply the European standards also in Poland. I express this view as the only female Pole in the Bureau of the European Parliament.

Fine for a victory without fulfilling quotas In France, the law states that the electoral lists must include an equal number of men and women. However, 50:50 parity is not respected. Parties prefer to pay a penalty rather than to fill all the places on the list reserved for ladies. In the French elections of 2012, the relevant fine was paid by the centre right UMP (the party of Nicolas Sarkozy) – €4 million per year, corresponding to only 27% of women on the lists. Interestingly, the Socialist Party, which won the elections, also did not ensure full parity and paid €0.95 million penalty a year. The Party of President François Hollande has achieved the best result among Socialists in modern French history. The President, the Government, the National Assembly, Senate, the power in the regions, the mayors’ offices in large cities were all in the hands of the Socialists and thus the left occupied in France the “hegemonic position” – according to the opinion of the French media. The Socialist Party and its leftist allies won a total of 314 seats out of 577 – in the National Assembly, which gave it subventions amounting to €30 million per year. The centre-right UMP and its allies gained 229 seats, losing in comparison with the previous term, about 100 seats, which, however, gave it a subsidy of – €22.1 million per year. Greens with 17 seats received €3.55 million.

Gender equality is a vividly discussed topic on the European Parliament’s agenda.

The radical left – 10 seats, €4.25 million, and the far-right National Front returning to Parliament after 25 years with only two seats, received as much as €6 million.

154

155

The basis for calculating the subsidy is the number of votes in support of a list based on the results of the first round of elections. It is €1.68 for each vote received. Parties which entered the National Assembly receive €42,200 per annum for each deputy or senator. In the case of the UMP and the Socialists, they can afford to pay penalties for not respecting full equality...

Women – the fastest growing economy in the world According to the report by Ernst & Young, the weaker sex turns out to be the strongest in the world of business. Total income of women in 2012 was $13 trillion, according to the predictions of economists, it should have amounted in 2017 to $18 trillion, which would outweigh the projected double overall GDP of India and China. No longer just wealthy residents of the West, but women in developing countries (along with a billion consumers from China or India) currently have the greatest impact on the global economy. The increased role of emerging businesswomen in economic decision-making is not proportional to the increase of their income, this problem concerns both the developed and developing countries. Women occupy the position of executive directors in 18 companies in the group of 500 largest global firms. 11% are heads of the boards, in developing countries this proportion is 7.2%. In the European Union, women occupy the position of president in 17 out of 588 companies, in 82 – they sit on the board of directors. In Poland, heads of 19 surveyed companies are men while 6% of members of boards are women.

The official visit of the President of France – François Hollande in the European Parliament in Strasbourg, 2 May, 2013.

156

A recent study conducted by the Polish Stock Exchange confirmed this picture. The 700 Polish companies examined, which are listed on an exchange prove to have only 6% of women in managerial positions. On the boards of companies – only 2% of women exercised the highest functions. “Blame” for this situation is attributed to social stereotypes which perceive the role of a wife and a mother as incompatible with the role of a successful woman. 157

Justice Commissioner Viviane Reding (living refutation of this theory, mother and an active politician) has developed a proposal for a new regulation that will oblige listed companies to allocate a minimum of 40% of posts on boards to women. The relevant legal act will refer to companies employing more than 250 workers with sufficiently high turnover. Such companies will in future have to present annual reports on compliance with gender parity. Ignoring the law would result in financial penalties, for example the prohibition of execution of government contracts. Reding wants to have at least 30% of women across the EU on boards in 2015 and even 40% in 2020. Her proposal came a long way in Parliament and was adopted! In Europe, the legal regulation of the participation of women in business is not new. Such quotas exist already in France, Sweden and Norway (now they are being introduced in Belgium and Italy). 20-40% participation of women on corporate boards of directors is legally guaranteed there. The study also confirms the economic sense of this sex balance: on average, three women on the board of the company “generate” a profit increase of 10%. However, the Swedish example shows that the parity in itself does not facili-

tate promotion of a large group of ladies. Often, the same woman sits on several corporate boards, which means that only a narrow group of female representatives have a chance to succeed. The very quotas won’t cause an extensive professional activation of women; we need also a friendly environment for female entrepreneurship along with the elimination of all kinds of barriers, changing the social model of the role of women, presentation of good examples and practices. Although female participation in high level business in Poland is still moderate, they represent more than 36% of all small and medium entrepreneurs in our country. This is a very good result in comparison with other countries such as Germany or Sweden where the share of women entrepreneurs is 28% and 26%. Polish women, according to studies, are better educated, more efficient and industrious than the “stronger sex”, (though, the overall employment rate of women in Poland still remains low). Most problems are faced by young mothers. Lack of sufficient institutional childcare means that only 33% of children are provided with nursery care, with pre-school care – only 50% of those living in cities and 14% in rural areas, while the European average is over 80%. In 2011 the Polish Agency for Enterprise Development published an interesting report on Women’s Entrepreneurship in Poland. The Agency compared dozens of statistics, questioned hundreds of business owners. The conclusion was that business had no gender. Women and men found companies for the same reasons (needing independence or not being able to find suitable employment), had the same difficulties in conducting business (mainly troubles with financing activities and high operating costs) as well as the same benefits (professional stabilization and higher income). But the analysis also creates a different image of a Polish woman – mainly micro businesswoman. Most of them are self-employed. Enterprises run by women have an average of 5 employees, with male owners – 9. It is extremely rare for women to be the owners of large companies with over 250 people.

Lidia Geringer de Oedenberg with the female MEPs of S&D in the European Parliament.

It is worth pointing out another aspect of women’s work, very often overlooked, and perhaps even neglected – the work of women-babysitters taking care of their sick elderly parents. Few politicians are aware that these persons replace public social provision. What’s more, in popular opinion – they do not work...

158

159

Taking care of the relatives is obviously a burden to many women, hampering their return to the job market. How are they going to earn a living? In many European countries one considers the “evaluation” of this work, by covering health care contributions and charging years to retirement. For many women working at home, the only chance for earnings can be flexible forms of employment or self-employment. A large degree of autonomy, mostly in fixing working hours, would offer the ladies family friendly working conditions. I think that the promotion of this type of employment with the help of EU funds for start-up of their own economic activity, could bring tangible benefits not only to women but first of all to our economy.

Ladies to the boards! The Resolution on this issue was adopted by the EP on 20 November, 2013. The listed companies in the EU will have to comprise at least 40% of non-executive directors represented by women. Public companies will have to achieve this goal already in 2018, those who fail will face penalties. In the years 2003-2011 after many social actions aimed at breaking the male decision-making “monopoly”, women’s participation in the decision-making bodies of European companies increased from 8.5% to 13.7%. In 2011 the European Commission, seeing these poor results, presented the project “Women on the board pledge for Europe” – as an incentive for the leading listed companies to increase representation of women on their boards to 30% in 2015 and 40% in 2020. Now it’s time for the enforcement phase. What will the changes consist of? With a clear recruitment procedure, based on the principles of gender equality, in which qualifications and skills will be the primary criteria in the situation when candidates have the same appraisal, priority should be granted to the person whose sex is underrepresented. The quotas do not apply to small and medium-sized enterprises, employing less than 250 people. The proposed penalties (a fine or exclusion from public tenders) will be applied only in the case of non-transparent recruitment procedure, and not in the case of failure to achieve the required target.

The opening of the “Women Entrepreneurs” exhibition organized in the European Parliament in February 2013 by MEPs: Lidia Geringer de Oedenberg and Małgorzata Handzlik (on the right) attended by the Commissioners (from left) Michel Barnier and Viviane Reding.

Parliament approved the proposal with 459 votes “for”, 148 votes “against” and 81 abstentions. The rules will become effective after approval by the Council of the European Union.

160

161

Of course, the quotas on electoral lists or on corporate boards won’t suffice; the key issue is the possibility of reconciling work and family life. This problem has been addressed by the European Commission which named the year 2014 – European Year for Reconciling Work and Family Life. Without a place in a nursery school for their child, women cannot effectively reconcile work with family life. Professional babysitters, who can be trusted, are quite expensive, while there is still a shortage of places in public nurseries and kindergartens. It is necessary to provide parents with a well-functioning caring infrastructure, subsidized by the state or local governments, including all dependents, (not only children, but also elderly people requiring constant care). Without public aid on this matter, women will never have truly equal opportunities.

The S&D seminar on the fight against violence toward women. Left-to-right: MEP Corina Creţu, Quaestor Lidia Geringer de Oedenberg and Rovana Plumb, former MEP, Romanian Minister of Environment and Climate Change.

This is an important step towards better compliance with the principle of equality in the EU law (Article 157 paragraph 3 TFEU), aimed at practical implementation of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in employment and occupation. Women are enterprising, creative, have strong nerves but they mostly preside over companies they establish by themselves. Women do not take risky decisions, are responsible and exercise good financial management... It is advisable to put economic decisions in the hands of women, especially in times of crisis. I think that if the bank which stirred global economic crisis had been called Lehman Sisters and not Lehman Brothers, this crisis would have never taken place. In its numerous resolutions, the European Parliament drew attention to the barriers that women had to overcome entering the world of business and politics dominated mostly by men.

The “Women in development” conference in Brussels, 7 February, 2012.

162

163

VI. Europaradoxes for the uninitiated

Leopold Park with the view of the European Parliament in Brussels in the background.

164

165

The EU’s curve carrot jam The European Union is often criticized for working at a snail’s pace, for lacking concrete or effective legislation. New regulations on key policy areas are slowly formed and often become the butt of jokes. The factors which form these “absurd regulations”, are primarily linked to the will of lawmakers to harmonize, protect and strengthen the single market, while taking consideration of the rights and health of consumers. Some famous examples of notorious regulations: one declaring that a carrot is in fact a fruit, another evaluating the curvature of a cucumber or the bendiness of a banana. Justification of these provisions is easier than you might think. The carrot was declared a fruit by EU legislation (Directive 2001/113) – as a result of the Franco-Portuguese compromise to determine the definition of jam. While carrots are used for jam making in the Portuguese tradition, the French were only willing to recognize jam as a product made of fruit. It was similar to the definition of wine - the consumer knows that the product consumed is made of grapes, not from any fermented rubbish. That is true for the definition of vodka (Regulation 110/2008), which can’t be produced from... offal. Populist PR has also given the “rules on cucumbers” a bad image. The rationale behind this regulation concerns weight gain. If cucumbers are saturated with water, they’ll be significantly bent at the ends. This regulation is to ensure the consumer does not pay for the additional water (Regulation 1677/88). The over-bent cucumbers are classified as second class.

Eurosceptic MEP Francisco Sosa Wagner during the “cucumber” debate, 7 June, 2011.

Finally, the famous example of the bent bananas. The ideally distorted banana (according to Regulation 2257/94) actually only grows in the Union, more specifically in the Canary Islands or the departments of the French overseas

166

167

Poland does not recognize the EU flag CFR does not protect... Poles.

The favourite topic of eurosceptics’ discussion – the carrot jam. The MEP Ashley Fox during the debate in the plenary session, 15 April, 2014.

territories. Other bananas from outside the Community count as “deformed”, therefore encountering “difficulties” in being admitted to the EU shops which means – taxes. The regulation classifies the bananas into categories – each complies with established regulations that determine the sale of bananas in EU shops. This seemingly “strange” rule is only created at the margin of Community legislation. Over the last two decades not only the EU’s image has changed but also the expectations of it. Even in the early 90s there was no concept of “European citizenship” or the euro. The Union did not even have a legal personality. There was no definition of the European community, it wasn’t an international organization, neither federation nor confederation. In the old textbooks, issued before the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, it was determined as an organization “sui generis”. Today the European Union for the average citizen is linked primarily to the freedom to travel and study and work in other member states. More and more Poles appreciate the participation of our country in the European family. As many as 77% of our compatriots say that joining the EU was good for us. It is worth remembering the fable of the tortoise and the hare before accusing the Union of having a snail’s pace of changes. Personally, I’m glad that the “European tortoise” is wise and prudent; hopefully it will also be long-lived... 168

The EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights (CFR) is a 14-page document, an integral part of the Lisbon Treaty1, that summarizes the fundamental rights of EU citizens. CFR was not approved in only two EU Member States: the United Kingdom and Poland. The case of Great Britain is quite clear – its government wants to use the European common market but is opposed to any actions that could deepen integration. The reasons for the Polish President and Prime Minister Kaczynskis’ rejecting the CFR, are hard to understand even today. The Civic Platform party, which was then in opposition, was in favour of the Charter until... it came to power. Indeed, Prime Minister Donald Tusk and Minister of Foreign Affairs Radosław Sikorski signed the Lisbon Treaty on 13 December, 2007 (in the presence of President Lech Kaczynski); however the document included the so-called “opt out”2 clause, i.e. exclusion of the CFR. By doing that Prime Minister Tusk has supported his recent “friends” from Law and Justice. What were the arguments “against”, presented by our negotiators? Poles were threatened primarily by non-existing provisions of the CFR, for example, claims of the insidious threat of German claims for restitution of property, dramatic increase in abortion, euthanasia and gay marriages. As you may know, ever since the remaining 25 Member States have signed the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, such actions flooded Europe... 1 Charter of Fundamental Rights: www.eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2010:083:0389:0403:EN:PDF. 2 Protocol on the application of the CFR in relation to Poland: www.eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2007:306:0156:0157:EN:PDF.

169

I would recommend at least a short reading of the document, in which we find many expressions that are almost identical to our Constitution. Today we can see in black and white, that in 2007 the Law and Justice objections to the CFR were not about its content, but were aimed at the eurosceptic sentiments of its voters. It is difficult to assess how many of them continue to be afraid of the Charter, but I think that now the time is coming to demystify this archaic thinking and adopt the CFR, like the other 25 EU countries. In addition, another interesting issue is the paradox of non-recognition of the Union flag and anthem, which is expressed in Declaration No 52 of the Treaty of Lisbon3. Meanwhile, I think each of us can observe that state ceremonies and other major events put the Polish flag side-by-side with the EU’s flag, and the Ode to Joy resounds along with the Polish anthem. What therefore did these parties want? I think it would be worthwhile for Poland to return to the club of “normal” countries in the EU on these issues. In my opinion – which was checked by lawyers – it will not be too complicated. We can accept the CFR in one of two variants: a) by a unilateral declaration of the Polish authorities that acknowledges the compliance of the Charter with the Polish Constitution; b) by a revision of the Treaty of Lisbon, which anyway will take place soon, in connection with entering into the Treaty of the European permanent Stabilization Mechanism. In the case of EU symbols, it will be even easier. Here you only need the unilateral declaration from the Polish side, but – so far – there is lack of political will.

The flags of the Member States and the European Union in front of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

170

3 Declarations to the Treaty of Lisbon refers to the symbols of the Union: www.eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2010: 083:0335:0360: EN: PDF.

171

Poland contributes to the British EU rebate In 2010 the Polish Commissioner on Budgets, Janusz Lewandowski, said in an interview with the German newspaper “Handelsblatt” that the “British rebate lost its raison d’être”. While he said what others were thinking for a long time, the reaction was fast coming. The British government responded immediately in all media communication channels from “The Financial Times” to “The New York Times”. It claimed that the rebate is justified and without it, the UK would be paying a net contribution that is twice as much as France – thundered George Osborne, the Chancellor of the Exchequer – adding before the first round of the 2014-2020 budget negotiations that: “People better know that at the beginning of the process because they’ll certainly discover it at the end”. It’s obviously about the money. This famous “discount” is the legacy of the Iron Lady, Margaret Thatcher. In 1984 it was decided that the UK would, for a period of 20 years, contribute less to the EU budget, than normal contribution based on the country’s GDP. Reason? The UK didn’t benefit from the Common Agricultural Policy (which in the mid-80s “devoured” approx. 70% of the EU budget) unlike the other countries. Calculating the exact amount of the British discount in a given year is quite a reckless venture. In the last years the British rebate equalled on average €4-6 billion per year. In 2011 it amounted approximately to €3 billion. Why the difference? Generally speaking, the rebate is defined by VAT revenues in every country, and these vary each year (the Polish VAT increase in 2011, certainly pleased the islanders). The Iron Lady – Margaret Thatcher gives a speech in the European Parliament in 1986.

The British have a discount, but the “missing” part of their premium is paid by... other countries. In 1984, it was agreed that EU members would jointly

172

173

fund two thirds of the British contribution, in proportion to the wealth of each country. Poland also participates in the financing of the UK rebate. In 2004, it cost us approximately €105 million, in 2005 – €230 million, in 2006 – €244 million, in 2007 – €280 million, in 2008 – €301 million, in 2009 – about €220 million. The value of Polish contributions to the British rebate increased in line with the rise in contributions paid by the largest Members States after the 2004 enlargement. The amount attributable to our country is calculated on the basis of Polish participation in the EU’s GDP (the higher our GDP is the more we pay for the rebate). In 2010, Poland had paid “only” €155,5 million1. Why the reduction? There are two factors: first, the reduction of the maximum ceiling of own resources in the EU – funded from the contribution scheme – from 1.23% of the total national income of all the EU countries to 0.99% (therefore, the payment decreased and so did the associated discount). Second, at the European Council summit in December 2005 Prime Minister Tony Blair agreed to a reduction of the rebate by £7 billion (in the period 2007-2013).

rebate is well captured by the term “totem of eurosceptic faith” from an article in “The Financial Times”2. It suffices to recall the excruciating “excommunication” of Tony Blair by the Conservative opposition, when the Prime Minister returned from the European Council in 2005, which also went into Polish history thanks to the memorable “yes, yes, yes!” of the Prime Minister Kazimierz Marcinkiewicz applauding the 2007-2013 budget in Brussels salons. Commissioner Lewandowski dropped a hint in order to test budget moods. The President of France – Nicolas Sarkozy – picked up on that, then changed the tune to talking about the need to maintain funding to the Common Agricultural Policy at the current level. In turn, the European Commission, (which was planning a new multi-annual budget and the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy), distanced itself from statements made by Lewandowski, which gave the Commissioners much to think about. www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1a26c73a-b9f5-11df-8804-00144feabdc0.html.

During the economic crisis and the search for savings, Commissioner Lewandowski, in that interview for “Handelsblatt”, made his pitch on the British rebate. Not without reason. Since 1984 the EU has changed a lot; the United Kingdom is one of the EU’s richest members, and the spending on the Common Agricultural Policy has significantly decreased to about 40% of the EU budget (previously 70%). The resources saved could be used for other purposes, such as funding EU policies – the recently created European External Action Service can serve as one example. However, this scenario is highly unlikely, not only because of the old dilemma – further integration of the community vs. intergovernmentalism, in which the British have a pretty clear position – even if they would agree to give some concessions, they would not allow them to finance the supranational EU diplomacy. The state of mind of the British political class and its approach to the 1 The table with the data for all Member States can be found at: http://ec.europa.eu/budget/figures/2010/2010_en.cfm.

174

The Union Jack placed with other 27 flags in the plenary chamber is not enough for the British Eurosceptics; they prefer to be “flagged” individually.

175

EU assistance for British aristocrats With the famous rebate being due to the limited use of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), the British treated the EU direct payments as an “aid program for their aristocrats”. According to the “New Statesman”1, the average British household pays £245 towards the CAP annually, most of which goes into the pockets of the richest British landowners. The CAP program, (which was originally created to support small farms and reduce Europe’s dependence on food imports), represents more than 40% (€55 billion per year) of the total EU budget has became an “allowance” for the eurosceptic British aristocracy. EU subsidies are determined by the surface area, not the financial situation of the landholdings applying for the grant. This creates a paradoxical instrument operating on the principle – the more you have, the more you get. The European definition of farmers did not require they engage in food production, only for the land one has or leases, even if nothing is grown on it. “The New Statesman” obtained, in accordance with EU transparency regulations, data for 2011 from the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs the grants for “estates”, which were valued at millions of pounds. The biggest individual British beneficiary in 2011 was Sir Richard Sutton, who was paid £1.7 million for 6,500 acres of property. Next ranks the Duke of Westminster, multi-billionaire, who received £748,716, followed by: Earl of Plymouth at £675,085, Duke of Buccleuch at £260,273 each, Duke of Devonshire at £251,729 and the Duke Atholl at £231,188. Queen Elizabeth II in the European Parliament in 1992.

176

www.newstatesman.com/politics/politics/2012/aid-aristocrats.

177

2011 was also lucrative for the ruling family of the Windsors. The Queen received £730,628 from the EU and Prince Charles recorded a payment of £127,868. A grant from the Union to the amount of £273,905 was also received by the Prince of Saudi Arabia Bandar bin Sultan – holding 2,000 hectares in Glympton in the County of Oxfordshire. Given the current crisis cuts in many EU Member States, these grants are perceived by society as socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor. In a period of austerity and savings, such a corporate welfare state cannot continue, the European Parliament decided, thus, on the CAP reform, on limiting the Member States direct payment to €300,000 earmarked exclusively for active farmers. Amendments shall enter into force in 2014. However, the EU will continue to provide assistance to landowners who draw up to 5% of their annual income from agricultural activities (especially those who did not exploit valuable ground), allowing the biggest landowners to continue receiving the subsidy.

“block” development by preserving their land and therefore not having to pay any tax on it and moreover receiving subsidies from European Union. The United Kingdom has 60 million acres, of which 42 million are agricultural lands, 12 million is natural environment (forests, rivers, mountains) which is held by national institutions, and only 6 million acres of this parcel is urban, densely populated areas, on which houses, factories and offices stand. 69% of UK land is owned by less than 1% of the population. 90% of the population lives on only 5% of the territory. This concentration is one of the basic causes of the crisis in the UK housing market. Lacking land under construction in turn pushes up property prices. As a result, British housing is the most expensive in the EU and houses are the smallest2 in developed countries.

The current situation also outraged ordinary Britons. Only 6% of the country’s territory is available to citizens. The rest belongs to the landowners, who

An average area of a newly bulit single-family house: USA – 214 m2 Australia – 206 m 2 Denmark – 134 m 2 France – 113 m 2 Spain – 97 m 2 Ireland – 88 m2 Great Britain – 76 m 2

The meeting of British Prime Minister David Cameron and the President of the EP Martin Schulz, 19 October, 2012.

178

179

Czech EU Presidency paradoxes For a period of six months each Member State becomes a guide of the Union. Some of the “old” Member States have considerable experience because they have held the EU presidency several times. There are also absolute beginners. After the 2004 enlargement, Slovenia was the first to wield the Presidency of the Council in 2008. Then in 2009 the Czech Republic stood at the head of the Union. I must admit that after the earlier French Presidency and the brilliant “political pirouettes” of President Nicolas Sarkozy, it was expected that the Czech Presidency would go unnoticed. Nothing could be more wrong. This presidency could go down in history as being very original! Already its very memorable start in January 2009 took place with the great “gas” bang. The conflict in Gaza and the gas line cut off from Russia to Ukraine, made a truly explosive mix. Czechs themselves underlined their „uniqueness” with the political confrontation with the official delegation of MEPs at Prague Castle, which President Vaclav Klaus (who doesn’t recognize the EU flag and other symbols) refused to meet. The temperature was raised again with the release of the film promoting the Czech Presidency – “We will kick Europe’s ass” and later with a controversial exhibition, presented at the Union’s Council, mocking stereotypes in Union countries (e.g. Bulgaria as a Turkish toilet, Poland as a potato field of gay clergy), which added fuel to the fire already burning. Then came the climax – the “performance” of the Czech President Vaclav Klaus in the European Parliament on February 2009. Unique in every way.

The President of the Czech Republic Vaclav Klaus in the European Parliament, February 2009.

We could observe the first ever case where the President of the country holding the Presidency distributed anti integration materials and called for the rejection of the Lisbon Treaty. And this was not the end of the Czech surprises.

180

181

On 24 March, 2009, the local Parliament passed a vote of no confidence in the centre-right government of Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek. At this time, when the Czech government was overthrown – oblivious to this – Premier Topolanek was just debating the crisis with us in Strasbourg without expecting the heat from home. Previously, the whole of Europe had met Prime Minister Topolanek (in his birthday suit) in photos taken at the villa of Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlousconi – on the occasion of the bunga-bunga party...

The Church – a state in Europe

It was funny and scary. Europe, through the Czech Republic, was in real trouble. We even discussed whether or not another country should take over the presidency. The French were willing to take over, their President Sarkozy, even without asking for a mandate, travelled the world, representing the Union.

The problem with secularism is present in public debate not only in Poland, but also in many countries of Western Europe. As an example of the state in the EU, in which the principle of secularism is respected the most, is France.

Even Joseph Daul (French), the group leader of the Christian Democrats (EPP), the same party as Mr Topolanek, stated that Europe, especially now in times of crisis, needed strong leadership and the government, which holds the EU presidency without confidence of its national parliament could not guarantee this. Both, surprised by this course of accidents, the European Commission and the Parliament, (making the best of a bad job), expressed the hope that the Czech Republic would manage to pull through.

Already in 1905 the French adopted a law providing for strict separation between Church and State. The provisions of this document today ensure full freedom of conscience and the free exercise of faith. They state that the Republic neither favours nor subsidizes any religion. Regulations introduced also abolished all grants relating to religions; church buildings are designated to serve the public exercise of worship, the same is true for the housing of the clergy (and seminaries); and movable assets were transferred to specially appointed religious societies, whose activities are subject to the general law. Article 44 of the above mentioned documents talks about deletion of the provisions relating to religious issues, which meant, among others, rupture of the Concordat, although the French authorities claimed at the time that some of the Vatican’s actions did not comply with the Concordat and therefore made the document void. It is also worth noting that, because of complex historical factors, the legal status of the Church in France today is not identical throughout the national territory. Separate cases can be found in Alsace and Lorraine, which did not belong to the Third Republic at the time of adoption of the 1905 Act, and were included within the French state only after 1918. This meant that the Concordat’s dispositions were maintained on their territory, without the need for going back to the State-Church separation. This, in effect, means that the separation between the Church and the State in France has more than a political value; it is supported by the vast majority of

182

183

the public and parties, regardless of their position on the political spectrum. “Laïcité” joined the revolutionary “Liberté - Fraternité - Egalité“. An expression of this was passed on 1 June, 2011 by the French Senate with the establishment of the National Day of Secularism (284 senators “for”, 26 - “against”, and 6 abstentions). Another example of the place of faith in society is seen in Malta, which, in accordance with its 1964 Constitution, is a confessional state (Article 2 § 1, “the religion of Malta is the Roman Catholic Apostolic Religion”). The authorities of the Church have the right and responsibility to teach what values are good and which are bad. Teaching the Roman Catholic faith is a compulsory part of the school curriculum. It is also interesting that Malta, until recently, was the only State in the European Union, where there was no civil divorce! Under the 1993 “Concordat of marriages” the Catholic Church decides on the rules governing marriages, this changed with the 2011 Maltese referendum. Countries where religion has determined the status of the “state” are not rare. In Greece, 95% of the population are professed followers of the Orthodox Church, which is also designated the “dominant religion” in the Greek Constitution. In practice this translates into a number of privileges in public life: the breach of confidentiality of the confessional is punished by law. The clergy are entitled to remuneration and the same is true for other people employed by the Church. Teachers of religion also receive salaries from the state.

Pope John Paul II as Head of Vatican State gives a speech in the European Parliament in 1988.

An intermediate example between the French and Maltese can be found in Germany. The Weimar Constitution of 1919 states that “State Religion does not exist”. The same document, however, guarantees freedom of religion and the right to create religious associations. The provisions of the constitution allow for the organization of religious services for example, in hospitals, in the military, and when the need arises. All the solutions adopted in 1919 were transferred to the Law of the Federal Republic of Germany in 1949. Provisions relating to the education system also made religion an ordinary school subject, the child’s participation in these classes requires parental approval (until the conclusion of another Concordat, this provision was not in force in Brandenburg). Despite the fact that Germany is a secular state, the government helps in collecting a special “church tax”, that has to be paid by all members of the community. For example, if someone does not want to pay this tax, he must become an apostate, which is officially leave the Church. The State financially supports both the Protestant and Catholic Churches, passing around €400 million to them annually for “religious purposes.” Interestingly in Germany the Concordat concluded with

184

185

the Vatican in 1933 by the Third Reich is still enforced. Some provinces also have their own union Concordats; Saxony – since 1996, and Brandenburg since 2003. Questions about the power of religious organizations trying to influence the actions of elected representatives were asked a few years ago in Spain, after the Catholic Church organized demonstrations to protest against certain actions of the left-wing government led by Prime Minister José Zapatero. The government then proposed several acts to facilitate the procedure for divorce, ease abortion law, grant marriage rights to same-sex persons, and a decision to change the status of religious instruction in schools from compulsory to optional. These acts passed. The opposite status, (where the state is not separated from religion), can be found today in other EU countries. For example, Denmark and the United Kingdom. The Danish Constitution clearly states that the Lutheran Church is the National Church and as such is supported by the State. “Knowledge about Christianity” is compulsory in schools, clergy enjoy the status of civil servants, and church business is financed from the state budget. The funds for this purpose come, as in Germany, from a special church tax. 84% of citizens declare themselves to be members of the Lutheran Church. In Sweden and Finland, until the recent past, Lutheranism was the state religion, the principle of separation of Church and State was introduced relatively recently: in Finland in 1999 and Sweden in 2000. In England, since the time of Henry VIII, and specifically from 1534 – the Anglican Church is the official religion in the country. Its supreme head now is Queen Elizabeth II, which obviously has an impact on all appointments to higher positions of the Church. Many bishops sit in the House of Lords. Religious education is compulsory in schools and it’s funded by the government, but unlike other “religious states” the Church of England is not formally maintained by the State. In Poland, before World War II separation between the Church and the State was not clear. In the 1990s, the Polish authorities decided to conclude a concordat. Guaranteeing the independence of the state and freedom of religion were anchored in the Constitution of the Polish Republic of 1997. However the practice of public life today indicates that these provisions of the Constitution are not observed. 186

A very slow movement of workers After the enlargement of 2004, almost all of the “old” Member States put in place the so-called “transition period” (with the exception of the UK, Sweden and Ireland), to protect their internal labour markets from a possible flood of workers from the new, poorer parts of the EU. Until the end of the “protective” period, Poland was blocked only by Austria and Germany, but all the transitional restrictions set for Polish citizens were lifted after 30 April, 2011. After the 2007 enlargement that included Bulgaria and Romania, transitional periods were applied in almost all “old” Members of the EU (except Sweden and Finland) and two states from the “new” EU: Hungary and Malta. In 2009, restrictions were lifted in Denmark, Greece, Spain and Portugal, in all other countries 31 December, 2013. Even if the state has in place a transitional period in its labour market, according to Directive 2004/38 EU citizens have the right to stay in that country for a period of three months without any obligation to formalize their stay. If, however, they want to extend the stay, they need only to prove they have adequate financial resources and medical insurance. That directive also provides for the possibility of expelling people who could pose a threat to public safety or burden the welfare system, but such removal may only have an individual nature (rather than, as in the infamous case of the Roma in France, a collective nature). With the gradual disappearance of barriers (transition periods), the relevant legal provisions should be modified and harmonized to represent the current status. This is part of my work in the Legal Affairs Committee.

187

Although the principle of free movement of persons (including: students, pensioners, family members, etc.) is one of the fundamental principles of the common market, many EU countries hinder the labour “flow”, creating difficulties, making it almost impossible.

essential competencies). On taxes, the Court of Justice came up with a very intelligent formula, saying that “taxes remain in the competence of the Member States, unless the latter exercise that competence in a way that would impede the use of the right to freedom of movement” (Case C-385/00 de Goot).

The Parliament and other institutions receive many complaints about inappropriate implementation of Directive 2004/38. How, then, to force countries to enforce the law? Offering carrot or the stick...

As you can see the legal regime is quite complicated, although the basics are clear: in addition to art. 45 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, Regulation 1612/68 and Directive 2004/38, play a key role in “extending” the rights granted to employees to those in other categories: students, pensioners, family members.

An example of the carrot can be SOLVIT1, which diplomatically points to gaps in the knowledge of EU law.

As is clear from the number of petitions flowing into the EP, citizens are becoming better able to assert their rights.

Behind lies the stick – the competence of the Commission to bring an action before the Court of Justice against the country. It must be remembered that the Commission is much more likely to use the carrot than the stick. On the one hand, because there are no resources (including human) for any matter submitted to the court, and secondly, the Commission often prefers not to upset countries, as currently many countries see the free movement of workers as a threat or competition. Limiting international immigrants often stems from concerns that new employees may increase budgetary expenditures, such as social security. That is why sometimes countries are even looking for a way to add additional taxation on foreigners. Example of use of SOLVIT: a Polish occupational therapist wanted to take work in Ireland and applied for recognition of her professional qualifications. However, the Irish authorities have refused to recognize the Polish diploma, on the grounds that it was not recognized by the World Federation of Occupational Therapists (WFOT). This is incompatible with EU law. Thanks to the establishment of the Irish SOLVIT, Ireland has adopted the relevant institutional administration and announced that from now on all applications, including those that are not approved by WFOT, will be considered. The deliberate discrimination against workers from other countries may have its final word at the European Court of Justice. Most often these are matters concerning social security, taxation (in these areas, Member States retain the SOLVIT is an EU service provided by the national administration in each EU country also in Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway. In Poland it’s co-ordinated by the Ministry of Economy www.mg.gov.pl/ Entrepreneurs/Solvit.

The Court of Justice of the European Union in Luxembourg.

188

189

Recruiting a million workers off the shelf The average level of unemployment in the European Union in 2010 was – 9.6%1, meanwhile, various Member States had to fill 4 million vacancies according to the head of the European Commission, José Manuel Barroso! Inadequate exchange of information on the labour market is not new and applies virtually to every economy. The EU has decided to take up this problem by creating in 1994 a European Employment Service (EURES), whose central element is to be a web portal (www.ec.europa.eu/eures). According to the objectives of the European Commission, the EURES, is acting as a panEuropean information exchange system on jobs in order to increase labour mobility in the EU. EURES can, not only help the users in finding employment, but also to give them some advice. The portal is divided into two classic departments – for “job seekers” and for “employers”. Here a job seeker can upload his/her CV – for the inspection of employers. Employers can add vacancies and search the CVs of those seeking a job. EURES database is close to half a million CVs and approximately 980 thousand jobs are posted by more than 20 thousand registered employers. These offers are updated on a regular basis, making it much easier for applicants to find a job abroad. People who are looking for work in a specific industry (search for listings by category) should be happy with this service. Advantages of EURES are also extended, in part, to the instructions, information about job fairs organized in the Member States, or a network of around 700 vocational counsellors. The latter provide professional advice in the selection of offers according to the person’s profile; editorial help with CV and preparation for an interview. For The institutions of the European Union present a wide range of internships and job opportunities for young and ambitious people.

190

1 Unemployment in the EU, the exact details: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Unemployment_statistics.

191

example, in my region – Lower Silesia, counsellors speak Polish, English and German. In Poland there are about 50 people who you can contact either by phone or email. Unfortunately, as is always the case with complicated projects, there is some room for improvement. The first drawback is the language mess. Although the most important sections of the site are translated into 24 languages, search listings such as in Belgium, will make little sense to Polish seekers, as the results are displayed either in French or Dutch, and without knowledge of one of the two languages (preferably both) these jobs cannot be accessed by a Pole. Translation of some parts of the instructions is not always consistent, for example you cannot read in Polish about the conditions of social insurance in Great Britain, or about the French labour market. The portal displayed proposals loosely associated with the typed key words (e.g. for IT-specialists – by typing “press” and “communication”), and the results obtained were not transparent enough. Even if we find an interesting offer, EURES did not offer the possibility of applying for a position directly, as it didn’t include the contact details of the employer. Seeing these shortcomings, the European Commission – managing the project, tried to launch EURES 2.0, (i.e. a refreshed version of the portal). Currently it works much better.

Fish unite nations or a historic vote in the European Parliament. 658 – “for”, 0 – “against” 0 – abstention. Wonderful unanimity. Seeing the results on the screen, immediately after the vote, all Members as I did – rewarded this unique consensus with thunderous applause. It is therefore possible that the entire community of deputies agree 100% on a European regulation. I’ve never seen such a result. Even not one eurosceptic objected...

I wish you a fruitful dream job “around the corner” or at the end of the rainbow...

Fishing in EU is governed by the Common Fisheries Policy.

192

193

What is involved in a unique, unanimous vote held in the spring of 2013? – Fish. More specifically, the Hudghton report (A7-0314/2012) on the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 on conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries’ resources under the Common Fisheries Policy. To put it more clearly, the proposal wanted to extend the validity of the current principle of ‘access to fish stocks “within 12 miles of the coast of each Member State”, first used in Regulation (EEC) No 2141/70 establishing a common structural policy for the fishing industry. The extension of the period to 31 December, 2014 was supported by everyone, even sworn opponents of the EU. The derogation therefore has been granted.

VII. Parliamentary thrillers

According to the general opinion, fisheries management of 12-mile zones is a successful example of the ability of the EU and Member States to effectively manage fisheries. Unfortunately, that cannot be said about the management of fisheries’ resources beyond the 12-mile zone... More: www.eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1433250738917& uri=CELEX:52012AP0391.

The vote in the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

194

195

Brussels – city without stereotypes I have been working and living in Brussels for a decade, and with complete honesty, I can say with full responsibility that it is a unique city. My so-called “European” district is inhabited by a population of 80 thousand people coming from 171 different countries! Belgians are only half of the group, the others are: French, Italians, Portuguese, Spaniards, British, Germans, Moroccans and Poles (about 2 thousand). Names displayed on our home mailboxes clearly show that the inhabitants of our building come from all possible parts of the world. Ads for the residents are posted in... English. And yet we live in Belgium, and in the Flemish speaking Flanders. In the “European district” the international society imposed using English as a universal language in a store, a post office, a bank, doctor or hairdresser. I heard also that thieves “operating” in Leopold Park of the “European district” also adapted to these standards. I would not though advise anyone to personally check if this is true – especially after dark. In Brussels, each district has not only its mayor, laying down his or her own rules, but also the police who, before they go anywhere, check first if the relevant notification concerns their own district, which usually takes from one to three hours.

The Head Office of the European Parliament in Brussels.

And they have a lot of work. The capital of Belgium is one of the most dangerous cities in Europe. Thefts, burglaries and robberies happen every day, and not just in neighbourhoods generally considered dangerous, like Anderlecht or Saint-Josse, but also in chic ones like Etterbeek (where the EP is situated), Uccle and Ixelles where crime yields the most profit.

196

197

Robberies are the most profitable in Brussels Right next to the European Parliament in Brussels is the Leopold Park. At first glance, a nice place with old trees, the Solvay Library situated among them (named after its founder – a Belgian millionaire and philanthropist), benches, lake and well-kept lawns. During the unusual times when it doesn’t rain, at lunchtime, people who work at the European Commission, the Council and the Parliament enjoy spending time in the park. But even when it rains, many Eurocrats take a shortcut through it. Precisely because of all these pedestrians, the park and the whole area called (due to the multitude of the EU institutions) the “European Quarter”, has become a very attractive place of “work” for all sort of robbers. A wallet or a bag snatched in the Park Leopold guarantee more than the average profit in another district. And it would seem that the place of meetings of the Heads of States of EU Members, should be the safest possible. These are surface appearances only. Police usually turn up to close some surrounding streets linked to the presence of a VIP column, but there are very few patrols on a daily basis. The victims of attacks are MEPs, assistants, officials and ordinary residents confused with eurocrats. Belgian police are not really on fire to patrol the park and the Parliament. They know what is lurking in the bushes and do not feel safe in the city. What’s more, they threaten to strike, due to the lack of security of their work. The work of the Belgian policeman has apparently become too dangerous.

The Leopold Park near the European Parliament.

European Commission, Council and Parliament seriously considered the creation of a special security zone around our institutions, including a police station within the EP – of course for a fee. The project did not pass.

198

199

Brussels clearly benefits financially from the presence of the EU institutions or collaborating international organizations. It makes money out of European officials and their families (a total of over 70 thousand people), while the “goose which lays the golden eggs” walks through an unguarded chicken coop. Yet inside the premises of the EP it is also not safe, despite herds of guards and more than a thousand cameras. Over the past few years, there have been three robberies within the Parliament: a bank, canteen and post-office. The list of places worth robbing is coming to an end – we still have a hairdresser, laundry facilities and a kiosk.

Earlier, in 2009, someone organized the attack on one of the three bank branches in Parliament. An armed man in a wig and make-up took €30,000 in cash, which looks quite modest, unless the risk was negligible.

Interestingly, the attack on the post office showed that it could possibly not be about money... If two people go to the trouble of learning the complex infrastructure of the EP in Brussels (with 10 thousand employees) in order to rob a tiny post office with two employees, where the cash usually is up to a maximum of several hundred euro – one may have doubts as to the purpose of this robbery?

As EP Quaestor, I received also many complaints regarding thefts in MEP’s offices. Stationery, staplers, clocks, cosmetics and even coffee disappeared in an astonishing “wholesale” manner. As if someone was treating our offices as a kind of free supermarket. In addition, various small items have vanished from my office. But, when right before Christmas, all gifts for my family disappeared – I reacted very strongly, still without much result. To this day, I’m never sure what I will find or NOT in my office.

It was Friday, 4 February, 2011, the European Parliament in Brussels, early afternoon hours. Members are already on planes and officials at lunch. Two men enter the building through the press entrance. They pass easily through security control similar to the one at the airport. They have entrance passes, so the guard does not intervene. A few minutes later, the men arrive at the post office situated on the ASP building ground floor, far away from the entrance for the press. They move in a confident way, and the EP is a labyrinth for the uninitiated. Heading for to the post office, these mysterious “guests”, registered by numerous EP cameras, apparently know very well how to reach the place without having their faces captured. The attack lasts for a minute or two, but it is not registered, due to a momentary failure of the post-office camera. They take €700 and leave the same way. Once they leave, the alarm sounded (with the exactly-calculated delay). The security service closes all the ways out of the building, which does not allow them to trap the perpetrators, but effectively imprisons my assistants for a few hours in their office on the 15th floor of the EP building, not allowing them to go quietly home after work.

A cash register in the cafeteria fell prey as well! It was probably the most profitable place, visited every day by around 15.000 hungry people, and where the cheapest meal costs €5. No perpetrators were found. But the administration introduced stricter rules regarding entrance to the EP building which till today makes our lives more difficult.

There were many internal investigations over larger or less valuable “disappearances” – but no one was ever accused. At least intervention with the cleaning services gave some results. Staplers are now on the spot and coffee evaporates at a much slower rate. The inner part of the Parliament building is an exterritorial place like the embassy – which means that the police are not allowed inside unless they have special permission. Yet by then there is no one left to chase.

Wondering how the attackers must have been desperate to take a risk for such a small sum of money, I concluded that they knew there was no risk and decided to play cat and mouse. However, nobody posted a video of the robbery on the Internet... 200

201

Shoot the MEP It’s the beginning of 2009. As usual, I go back home late after work. It is already dark. I turn on the light; I walk into the living room. The big windows overlook the park, no neighbours opposite. I do not shut the curtains; I have the feeling of being closer to nature. I turn on my favorite news channel France 2 and I sit on the sofa in front of the TV. I hear the shot, the first shatter-proof glass breaks. Immediately I turn off the light, I do not want to be seen inside the apartment. The second layer of glass breaks but resists. I call the police. They arrive... after an hour. Their headquarters is about 5 minutes walk from my apartment. They speak poor French, they are Flemish. With the help of a small flashlight, they try to find the bullets coming from the shots on my terrace, without success. They suggest that maybe someone threw a stone, but the glass is shatterproof... However, there is neither stone nor bullets. They write a report, without any sequel. A colleague from Parliament, upon learning of the incident, immediately asked me about topics I was working on at that time. I never thought it could relate to my work. Did I step on the toes of the lobbyists? Those involved in intellectual property rights? This was the most sensitive dossier, which I was working on at the time. Was it the reason for someone shooting at me? Maybe just to scare, not kill me. In the end, the Belgian police completed their investigation, without finding the perpetrators. But I pay more than 1 thousand euro as my own contribution to the insurance payment, because I was unable to find the perpetrator of the damage to the building facade, specifically the window of my apartment. “Who shot at Lidia Geringer de Oedenberg” Gazeta Wrocławska issue 68/2009.

202

203

€3,000 for the floor cloth MEP Nigel Farage, a British eurosceptic who has been in the Parliament for more than 15 years, is one of the more colourful characters in the EP, if you measure “colors” by the temperature of speeches and offensive vocabulary. Speaking in the debate on the results of the summit in February 2010 dedicated to “EU-2020 strategy”, that is the Union’s objectives for the next 10 years, instead of addressing the real issue, he brutally attacked a special invitee of the Parliament, Head of the European Council, Herman Van Rompuy with these words: “You have the charisma comparable to a floor cloth and the appearance of a low-ranking bank official”. He also offended Belgium, where Van Rompuy came from (and was Prime Minister until 1 December, 2009), which in the opinion of the British MEP, was only a “quasi-country”... Freedom of expression does not mean that you can insult and humiliate others, without respect for the seriousness of the office – Van Rompuy chairs the Council, where Heads of State and Government of all Member States sit, and respect for the place - the highest democratically elected Assembly, the European Parliament, representing more than 500 million citizens. MEP Farage was asked by the President of the Parliament Jerzy Buzek to apologize for the incident but he refused. Consequently, in accordance with Art. 153 (3) of the Rules of Parliament, he imposed a penalty, depriving him of 10 daily allowances (about €3,000).

The leading British eurosceptic Nigel Farage during the plenary session in Strasbourg.

From the point of view of MEP Farage, then looking for publicity in view of the elections in the United Kingdom, the situation paid off. Only €3,000 for Europe-wide advertising – it’s like it’s for free. On the other hand, in the opinion of many politicians, Farage, went too far this time even in the eyes of some eurosceptics. Although they agreed to sharp criticism of the EU

204

205

institutions, comparing a recognized politician to a floor cloth was going too far. I will only add that at the beginning of my first term (2004-2009) in the EP this type of “performance” would not have been penalized. In that time Nigel Farage sat together with Polish MEPs from LPR whose very active and conspicuous “performances” resulted in the need to amend EP Rules of Procedure. Then, the highest penalty was removing the offender from the room which did not work in the Polish case. So it was decided to introduce financial penalties, up to the exclusion of the MEP from the Parliament. As you can imagine, these fees discouraged EP “actors” and for a long time we did not have such “performances”. So, in a sense, MEP Farage has his former colleagues to thank that this time he had to pay for “the floor cloth”. Anyway, the leading eurosceptic does all he can to achieve the status of euro-martyr and take his place in the front ranks of national policy.

Four years for the Austrian MEP The former Austrian interior minister and MEP Ernst Strasser was sentenced on 14 January, 2013 to four years in prison for corruption. Two years earlier, a fictional company called Taylor Jones Public Affairs – invented by British tabloid journalists from “The Sunday Times” was trying to bribe more than 60 MEPs, – via their fictional “lobbyists” – mainly of the strongest political groups: the Christian Democrats (EPP) and Socialist (S&D), having a real impact on EU legislation. The vast majority of “tempted” Members expressed no desire for the proposed meeting, but a few were interested. Members were proposed a salary as member of the advisory board of the fictional company amounting to €100,000 per year, while their “consultation” aimed at introducing changes to legislative documents discussed by the European Parliament on certain financial regulations, so that the rules were beneficial to the payer. Although none of the four accused MEPs publicly pleaded guilty, the “media judgment” was univocal. As a result, the two MEPs resigned from their parliamentary seats under political pressure from their own party: Austrian Ernst Strasser and Slovenian Zoran Thaler.

Herman van Rompuy – first full-time President of the European Council.

Romanian MEP Adrian Severin kept his mandate, but was forced to leave the S&D Group. He did it reluctantly because he believed that he did nothing wrong – agreed to standard consulting services, which did not stand in conflict with the MEP’s statute (that’s right, such activity should only be indicated in MEP’s financial declaration), what’s more, wanting to act in accordance with the law, he personally consulted the EP legal service concerning the relevant contract, who had no objections as to the content.

206

207

fence on the claim that he was aware of this journalistic trick, and decided to play the “game” wanting to disclose the false lobbyists, which he considered... U.S. agents of special services. Judge Georg Olschak not only did not believe in his story, but considered it the most bizarre one he ever had heard during his 20 years of professional practice. Strasser accepted the verdict with a straight face. It is interesting that during the hearings Strasser did not hide that earlier he had already acted openly as a lobbyist. His usual rate was €70,000 per year. In November 2010, he raised his rate to €100,000. He had six permanent contractors before the appearance of the lobbyists – journalists. Judge Olschak, announcing the judgment, pointed out that “in the history of the Second Republic of Austria there were only a few people who have violated the dignity of the Republic like Strasser”- referring to a politician with a specific moustache... Former Austrian Minister of Internal Affairs and the MEP Ernst Strasser in Brussels.

More: www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/austria-corruption.lr2

The Spaniard MEP Pablo Zalba Bidegain, also did not resign, but... sued the newspaper and remained in his political group, the EPP. Strasser, Thaler, as well as Severin and Zalba Bidegain used to be high ranking politicians in their own countries. Ernst Strasser was an Austrian Minister of Internal Affairs, Zoran Thaler became the Head of Slovenian diplomacy, Adrian Severin was a Deputy Prime Minister and a Minister of Foreign Affairs of Romania, and Pablo Zalba Bidegain was a high-ranking manager at Arcelor Mittal. They all had a strong a political position and good prospects in front of them. €100,000 in their case was not a fortune, for which it was worth taking the risk. What then prompted them to work with the “fake-lobbyists” from the British tabloid? These cases are being investigated by Slovenian, Romanian and Spanish state agencies. The Austrians have already completed this process. Ernst Strasser, a conservative politician has already heard the sentence: four years in prison, without the possibility of parole – for consenting to boost legislative changes in the European Parliament in exchange for €100,000. Strasser based his de208

209

Controversial legislation increases insistence of lobbyists Proposed by Viviane Reding, (Commissioner for Justice, rights and citizenship), the Regulation on data protection policy, was one of the most controversial acts dealt with in the European Parliament during its seventh term. Not surprising that the proposed changes triggered an unprecedented wave of intense lobbying. “This is the biggest lobbying action that Brussels has ever seen” – said Joe McNamee, Director of the European Digital Rights1 to the “European Voice” weekly magazine. The new regulation was to standardize the often divergent national interpretations of EU rules on privacy policy. At stake, of course, big money. On the one hand, there is valuable data, processing which can generate a fortune. On the other hand – the users’ consent is required for a specific type of tracking them on the Internet, and the lack of which can result in a fine – counted in millions of euro. The issue was worth fighting for, so all those dealing with data processing, ranging from Google or Facebook to consumer organizations, were insistently knocking at the doors of MEPs. Most pressure was related to aspects of regulation, making legislation friendlier to small and medium-sized enterprises, for example through the proposed exemption from heavy verification procedures of “obtaining user’s consent”. Thousands of meetings resulted in hundreds of changes to proposals, some Social media gather users’ personal data, creating a database that users do not have access to.

1 Read more: www.wiadomosci.gazeta.pl/wiadomosci/1,114873,13391898,Polscy_europoslowie_robia__kopiuj_ wklej__z_materialow.html

210

211

remarkably similar to each other, as pointed out by the initiator of “Europe vs. Facebook”, action by publishing interesting juxtaposition of texts of parliamentary amendments literally copied from the lobbyists’ materials2. As for the S&D Group, joint amendments amounted to more than a hundred. It’s true that the proposed wording is often very complex and hardly intelligible for non-lawyers. The new regulation will replace the 1995 Directive which is no longer able to meet the challenges of today’s digital world. The change was prompted by numerous scandals regarding trade with users’ personal data. Europeans should have the right to “be forgotten” in the network, based on the requirement that our data could be removed from the Internet. It’s a new legal challenge created by virtual reality. This proposal, (very popular among citizens), is contrary to the interest of big companies like Facebook or Google. Recent changes to Google’s privacy policy- sharply criticized by the 30 Inspectors General for Personal Data Protection lead to uncontrolled processing of personal data without explicit consent of the user, especially in respect of the use of YouTube and Gmail. Google was storing, without the consent of users, their personal data contained in cookies, relating to pages visited by them, even dating back two years. Lobbyists representing the internet giants are the most dissatisfied with the fact that the new EU law would categorically forbid all data processing concerning those who did not express their consent, which would in their opinion hamper the development of the so-called “personalized advertising” – a method of selecting emerging ads on websites based on individual preferences or interests of a particular user, created thanks to the data collected about us. What’s the problem? Every time we use a mobile phone or when we send e-mail, part of our data is captured and stored for a period of 6-24 months. It is true that since 2006 the EU directive on data retention obliges Member States to keep only data on the transmission and not the content of the message, but in practice the national

governments oblige service providers to identify the message source, purpose and location of the media. In Poland the proposed new EU legislation will replace the Personal Data Protection Act of 29 August, 1997 and standardize systems of data protection in the whole European Union. In its origins, the idea was to be a solution introducing the right balance between the protection of individuals and the free flow of data. If the EC plan enters into force, countries throughout the Community will apply the same law. The Commission wants a regulation and not a legally “weaker” directive to prevent changes to the project at the national level. The regulation clearly identifies the scope of the types of data that can be stored, minimum standards for access and use, security of their storage and a coherent approach to cost recovery for operators storing the data. According to Commissioner Reding, the harmonization of the law will benefit not only consumers, but also companies that will have clear and equitable rules of competition. American web giants argue the contrary. Barely had the project seen the light of day, when Peter Fleisher, Google representative, wrote on his blog that the “right to be forgotten” was a tool to introduce censorship into the network. The fact is that this new users’ right – contained in Article 17 of the proposed Regulation - to remove any personal information ever shared in the network – is a good idea, the real problem lies in its enforcement. How to reach all data sought on the Internet and how to effectively remove it from everywhere? If you created a profile on FB and want to remove it now – try. The fiasco. In Norway, there is a portal www.servisslettmeg.no, which provides guidance concrete help and contacts for those responsible for processing data, also giving tips on how to delete the data yourself or whom to ask for help. In Poland, in the office of the Inspector General for Personal Data Protection, you can get similar information. According to the Inspector, Wojciech Rafał Wiewiórowski, in the first four months of business the service received 1,478 inquiries.

2 Recommended articles: www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/oct/16/google-privacy-policies-eu-data-protection, www.spiegel.de/international/business/us-government-and-internet-giants-battle-eu-over-data-privacyproposal-a-861773.html.

There is a risk that the new “right to be forgotten” could create a sort of institution like a “ministry of truth” where each user could require removal

212

213

of real, but, for the user inconvenient, data. In some countries, such a law already exists and citizens try to defend/exert their rights. An example from Germany: two murderers, after serving a sentence, demanded that Wikipedia delete information on their conviction (the case was very widely commented on as it concerned the murder of a local celebrity). After their release from prison - with this “disastrous PR”, they could not find work. At their request, the German court ordered the removal of their notes from the German Wikipedia, in other linguistic versions; their “notes” are still there...

Millions for “doing nothing” In the run-up to filling the top-positions in the post 2014 elections, the media increased the temperature by drawing interesting and shocking attention to several factors. An example from the UK: Baroness Ashton, the EU’s High Representative will get £400,000 for “doing nothing”. After their five-year term – Commissioners receive further remuneration for the next three years. Yes, with taxpayers’ money. Therefore when Lady Catherine Ashton completes her term in October 2014 (just like the rest of the European Commission, including the Polish Commissioner Janusz Lewandowski) – she will be paid 65% of her salary, or, according to calculations by British journalists, around £133,500 per annum until the end of 2017. On top of that, this amount is taxed by the EU, which is a lower rate than in national taxation. This caused an upheaval on all British media forums, which was slightly surprising, considering that all previous British Commissioners have received the same compensation (UK has been in the EU since 1973). Therefore, the “islanders” should have been well aware of this. However, it was a bigger surprise for Poland, where media sources took a more balanced approach. They did not cover much of the Baroness’s case nor linked it to a similar situation of Commissioner Janusz Lewandowski and our first female Commissioner – Danuta Hübner, who received €100,000 per year for “doing nothing” from the European Commission.

Meeting of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, 9 January, 2014.

Moreover, independent research institutes such as Open Europe “tracked” various other components of senior officials “earnings” from the European

214

215

Commission. According to their calculations, Danuta Hübner, the European Commissioner for Regional Policy, earned a total of €1.5 million during her five-year term in the EC. The Commissioner’s salary per year consists of: – basic pay €238,919; – representation fund €7,284; – housing allowance €35,838. After the end of the term in office of the highest officials of the EU, they will receive the already mentioned 3-year compensation, in addition to a one-time reimbursement of relocation expenses to the amount of €19,909, and a lifetime pension of €51,068 per year.

VIII. Legal wrangling

These amounts are in place to guarantee that, the departing Commissioners (like senior managers in major corporations) will not start working too early to avoid conflict of interests. In addition, a quite convincing argument, (at least according to the spokesman of the Commission) is that the “Commissioners do not start looking for a new job in the last months of their mandate, but only after leaving office”. All this must sound very appealing for candidates for the posts of Commissioners, who are politically appointed by our governments, and finally approved by the European Parliament. One of the European Commission’s various jokes is: – Do you know how many people work in the European Commission? – At least one-third... The truth is that the Commission is composed of the 28 Commissioners and each of them is supported by at least 1,000 officials. Representatives of the European Commission are present at all meetings of Parliament and respond on every subject or question put forward by an MEP. For us, the Commission is a proverbial whipping boy, perhaps a little in revenge for the fact that the Parliament “envies” the Commission’s legislative initiative. No one, however, even the most eurosceptic MEPs will say that the Commissioners do nothing. Constantly we see them at meetings of the Parliament at midnight, in negotiations at 3 a.m. and in the breakfest conferences. Personally, I wonder (apart from a nice salary) whether being a Commissioner is a punishment... 216

217

When the law is broken The European Parliament gets an average of four petitions daily. People complain about everything – from unwanted waste incinerators to violations of human rights. For example, in 2007, the Parliament registered more than 1,500 petitions, 50% more than in the previous year. Contrary to appearances, this was seen as a good sign, indicating the raising awareness of citizens of their rights at the European level. In particular, this concerned citizens from the new Member States. During the meetings of the Committee on Petitions, on which I sit as a member, an average 600 petitions were discussed annually. We consider only applications within the competence of the European Union, which means that about one third of the petitions are considered “unacceptable”. The concerns of EU citizens expressed in the petitions focused primarily on issues such as the environment and its protection, property rights, freedom of movement, workers’ rights, the recognition of professional qualifications and discrimination. The petitioners complain about the institutions in their own countries, which in their view, violate Community law. Parliament carefully examines each report. When the case concerns a large number of citizens, the Committee organizes a public hearing, and MEPs can make a point of reference to a certain petition at a debate in plenary.

The meeting of the Petitions Committee, 1 April, 2014.

The result of the petition is a recommendation to the European Commission, on the preparation of a recovery plan or draft legislation to solve the problem. In this context, the submission of a petition to Parliament helps not only to draw the attention of the authorities, but it also makes a positive contribu-

218

219

tion to the better regulation of EU law. Petitions are an excellent “litmus test” to expose loopholes, identify areas where EU law is still weak or ineffective. Complaints from citizens are treated extremely seriously by the EP. Bearing in mind that Member States or regional authorities do not always demonstrate the political will to find practical solutions to problems raised in the petitions, the European Parliament seeks to increase the effectiveness of its work to better serve citizens and meet their expectations. Therefore the composition of the Petitions Committee was enlarged in 2007 from 25 to 40 MEPs. However much the Committee on Petitions is respected by citizens, petitioners, unfortunately, have to be patient. It can sometimes take a few years to examine the relevant petition! Profound clarification on the line: the Parliamen – the European Commission – the Member State, requires time before the case finally goes to the European Court of Justice. In addition, we still don’t have an efficient system of communicating to the competent national authorities petitions recognized by the European Parliament as “unacceptable”. Complaints of competence for individual countries must get to the right place. You cannot simply refer to the addressee with a note – saying it’s not up to us.

Poland under scrutiny in the European Parliament As a member of the Committee on Petitions, I was involved in the controversial proposal to build Europe’s largest lignite mine in Lower Silesia. The Polish authorities decided to build it on areas which are covered, among others, by the program Natura 2000. Citizens held a valid, legally binding referendum in which they said NO to the mining project. The European Parliament reacted. A delegation of five Members from the Committee on Petitions, including myself, went on a fact-finding mission to Lower Silesia on 29 May, 2013. This was a response to the petition sent to the European Parliament from the local councils of six Polish municipalities: Lubin, Kunice, Ruja, Ścinawa, Miłkowice

Yet, this system will become more efficient in the future. Read more: www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/en/peti/home.html

The interview with Lidia Geringer de Oedenberg during the “Development YES, open-cast mine NO” conference.

220

221

and Prochowice. The plans for the location of the open-cast mine – the area of protected forests and densely populated municipalities – met with great resistance, both from residents of these areas as well as many non-governmental organizations. It began with protests, in 2009, and continued with a referendum on the matter, which left little doubt as to the social mood: out of 17.6 thousand citizens entitled to vote, 95% were against the plans to build the mine. Local authorities created a National Coalition “Development YES – opencast mining NO”. Mayor of Lubin, Ms Irena Rogowska, as an author of the Petition No. 0046/20101, became President, Mr Radosław Gawlik the President of the Association EKO-UNIA from Wrocław became a Vice-President of the Coalition. However, despite the final results of the referendum and unequivocal opposition to the construction project, the government decided to carry on with the plans. It adopted a plan at the end of 2011, dedicated to the future of coal mining, while freezing effectively any investments that were not related to carbon-based energy. I followed the petition from the beginning: After three hearings held in the Committee on Petitions (PETI), which included the participation of applicants, experts and representatives of the European Commission, we decided to send a Parliamentary fact-finding mission to the site. It should be noted that such missions are organized only in exceptional cases, from thousands of incoming petitions; only two to three times a year will the EP follow up with a fact-finding mission. Initially it was very difficult to find a suitable date for all Members, finally it was agreed that the visit would take place in the last days of October 2012; however, due to different circumstances, the mission was postponed. Whereupon it was found that there were no more available dates! Therefore we needed a special derogation for the mission. After such derogation was granted, it was possible to form the delegation, which included the participation of five MEPs and other stakeholders with a new date of 29-31 May, 2013. But just as everything seemed to be in place, unexpectedly on 13 May, 2013, at a EP Bureau meeting of which I was a Member, Jacek Protasiewicz, Vice-President of the EP, raised a proposal for another postponement of the mission

The press conference on the open-cast mine in Lidia Geringer de Oedenberg’s office on 17 January, 2011.

due to a clash with the Corpus Christi holiday. In the Parliament’s calendar Thursday, 30 May, 2013, counted as a normal working day and the Silesian authorities confirmed their willingness to meet the Members of the delegation; nevertheless the request of the Vice-President caused the suspension of the mission a week before its scheduled departure. After seven days of political consultations, two days before the scheduled departure, the EP President, Martin Schulz, gave his consent to the delegation. Local authorities were relieved. Nevertheless, they still live in fear every day of their lives, as reported by both foreign and national media sources... Why? Energy sources from fossil fuels are considered by the Polish government as extremely important for our energy security. Therefore, people who are against our “energy status quo” are considered a threat to national security. Consequently, the Internal Security Agency likes to pay unexpected visits to all the people who are against government plans. Local authorities, mayors and their co-workers were all being questioned about the topic. Governmental projects are not properly discussed with the local communities – as required by the EU law. Particularly stigmatized are the authors of the local anti-coal actions, as experienced by the co-signers of the above mentioned petition.

www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/peti/cm/829/829307/829307en.pdf

222

223

The NGO Client Earth believes that Poland is criminalizing ecological movements. Unofficially, behind the scenes, there are opinions that those environmental organizations are creating social unrest, so that the European Commission may ask them to develop well-paid environmental assessments. Native environmentalists admit, however, that apart from unexpected visits of security agents the “climate of fear” is perpetuated by ministerial speeches alleging that deliberate actions of eco-activists are against the public interest.

of the Committee on Petitions. Boștinaru welcomed the fact that, thanks to our mission, the representatives of the Polish government listened to what the 100 authors of the above mentioned petition had to say, for the first time.

Something was up.

Furthermore, the accusations of the petitioners that Polish security forces tried to “inhibit” in various ways the activity of protesters must be examined. Lastly, we were also worried by the Act prepared by Polish Government, which aimed at prohibiting non-governmental organizations and all ad hoc groups that exist for less than one year, from participation in the public consultations...

While working for 9 years in the Committee on Petitions, I have never observed such a high level of resistance from a country, when the Parliament proposed to send a fact-finding mission. Following our visit, a special report was drafted by the Committee on Petitions. Victor Boștinaru, as the Chairman of the delegation, was the rapporteur. The document was presented on 17 September, 2013 during the meeting

The “Stop open-cast mine” conference organized by the local government of the commune of Lubin, 26 September, 2012.

224

However, I see this as probably the only positive outcome of the visit, since many of the issues remain to be explained, in particular the full implementation of EU guidelines on environmental protection and the lack of transparent dialogue with civil society in Poland.

This case has been neglected for too long. Our government must respond to the recommendations of the European Parliament, as well as the European Commission’s impact assessment2.

Up to 4 February, 2014, as I write these words, nothing yet has been done.

225

ACTA – a topic for Dan Brown1 The history of the negotiations and debates on ACTA (Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement) was so full of mystery, that it made the news in some sensational publications. Who knows, perhaps in the future ACTA can be the theme of a blockbuster movie. Being a Member in the European Parliament for the last 10 years, I encountered many “strange” events, however ACTA takes the biscuit. Let’s go back to October 2010 when ACTA negotiations officially ended. The last round of the secret talks took place in September and October 2010 in Japan. The parties to the agreement were: Australia, Canada, Japan, S. Korea, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, Switzerland, the USA and the EU. In a communication published by the European Commission, “ACTA was described as an instrument to introduce effective methods to combat counterfeiting and piracy”, as well as “effective measures to comply with the law and sanctions in civil and criminal law; further to border measures and mutual assistance to respect the law”. One problem was related to the fact that EU regulation did not define internet piracy; therefore the interpretation of the offences was wider. For example, the level of penalties for illegal copying of files could be the same as faking medicines, or spare parts of a car – at least this is what MEP Marielle Gallo suggested in her report, which unfortunately was adopted by the Parliament (thanks to among others the voices of Polish MEPs from the PO and PiS). In our opinion (“enemies” of ACTA) it seemed as if this agreement wanted to introduce stricter penalties for violating intellectual property rights than The vote on the ACTA agreement in the Parliament.

226

Author of best-selling thrillers the “Da Vinci Code” and “Angels & Demons”.

227

those already provided by the Directive on sanctions. The fact is that the illegal market of counterfeit goods is at its peak. According to data, from 24 November to 9 December, 2009 EU customs officers stopped: – 241 kg of smuggled cigarettes; – 6,400 litres of alcohol; – 20 tons of counterfeit perfume; – 53,418 “branded” bags and other leather goods, and by the way... 1,515.75 kilograms of marijuana.

The agreement clearly was formulated under the “influence” of corporations representing the “rights holders” who believe that IPR protection is based mainly on penalties, rather than appropriate safeguards. What worried us was the possibility of the agreement becoming a tool in the hands of corporations to block access to products such as cheap generic drugs, which are now often disputed because of the patent law. We also didn’t like the liability clause for “property metrics” of goods offered for sale on internet platforms. I wonder how such a platform can check the authenticity of the goods?

It is clear that sanctions for selling counterfeit goods must be more than a fine; as it is today, however these sanctions must be proportionate to the severity of the offence. ACTA would have allowed Member States, who want to take advantage of this situation to tighten sanctions for undefined “Internet piracy”.

Since the negotiations were conducted in secret, the only information the Parliament could have reacted to was that based on leaks. Our concerns were only confirmed after the publication of the agreement. As the European Parliament could not change the terms of this agreement, it could however, accept or reject the agreement as whole.

An example emerged from the U.S., where Internet users faced penalties of millions of dollars, for downloading for example 24 songs. Seems unbelievable? Here’s the proof: www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,527284,00.html Returning to our continent, many times during debates on ACTA the EU’s Trade Commissioner Karel de Gucht assured us that the Treaty would not change the EU’s law, but would only serve for the prevalence of “EU standards” in the field of intellectual property rights (IPR). It seemed to us that such “lessons” should be primarily given in China, which is the biggest lawbreaker in this field although not a party to ACTA. A lot of doubts were aroused by some provisions of the ACTA which were irreconcilable with the Union law. For example: –R eferring to Art. 2.18 in the agreement, which provided that each party is required to ensure the availability of law enforcement procedures, using “civil and criminal remedies”. However, we do not have Community criminal sanctions for IPR violations. Therefore we cannot permit effective action against acts of infringement of intellectual property rights, which takes place in the digital environment. –W ho is the subject of the proposed penalties? Does the agreement apply only to smugglers of counterfeit goods, or also to individuals? ACTA’s definitions of the “commercial scale” seemed so vague that it could give wide room for interpretation. I will quote Art. 2.14 “to acts committed on a commercial scale including those carried out as commercial activities focused on direct or indirect commercial advantage”. 228

Opponents of ACTA (S&D, ALDE, GUE and the Greens) stressed that ACTA could have a negative impact on the acquis communautaire, because the agreement was so vague that anyone could interpret it in its own way. Supporters of ACTA (EPP and Conservatives among them the Polish MEPs from PO and PiS) gave arguments in favour of the creation of a more restrictive law. In the first round of votes on ACTA resolutions those against the agreement were on the losing side. For example, at the plenary session on 24 November, 2010 the house adopted a resolution that approved ACTA, which was proposed by the EPP (331 votes “for”, 294 “against” and 11 abstentions). Our project in total was lost by 15 votes2. ACTA agreement was accompanied by a series of add cases, these are some expamles: – Petitions on ACTA were an official topic for discussion after being stuck for six-months in the drawer; –A scheduled debate on ACTA, organized at the Committee on Petitions3 (PETI) on 8 May, 2012, was cancelled without justification, and the point was postponed to the next meeting a month and a half later; – Th e main rapporteur on ACTA from the Committee on International Trade, Kader Arif, for unknown reasons (reportedly under the influence of lobby Report on voting is available on pages 105 and 106 in the following document: www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+PV+20101124+RES-RCV+DOC+PDF+V0// EN&language=EN. 3 The first petition received from Latvia in 2011 (1221/2011), then there were two more from Poland (No.116/2012, No. 142/2012) and another from Germany (no. 203/2012). At the end even from the UK there was a petition supported by 2.5 million signatures (no. 223/2012). 2

229

ing), resigned from the preparation of the report. Coordinators of the Committee focused on a real problem, for the first time in the EP there were no takers to replace Mr. Arif, regardless of the prestige of authoring a report on such an important topic. MEPs usually fight for reports – because thanks to them they gain prestige and higher status in the Parliament. I have not heard about anyone giving up on SUCH a report. The document is named after the author and there is no better promotion for a politician. In addition, reports are distributed to MEPs according to the d’Hondt method and points related to the number of members in political groups. Small fractions almost never have enough points to get a significant report. Large ones collect points in order to get the most significant documents, and then they fight like dogs for them. Politicians compete with each other on why he/she should receive this particular report. Just a clarification – this is not associated with any additional remuneration, only with more work and prestige. – Report on ACTA finally stayed within my political group; – David Martin – the “enemy” of the agreement was appointed for the task; – On 22 February, 2012, the European Commission, who faced much pressure from MEPs and mass protests in the streets, announced that it was ready to send ACTA to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) to check the compliance of provisions of the agreement with Community law; – A legal request to the ECJ was ready on 4 April, 2012. The European Commission took one and a half months to formulate it! Finally the question was as follows: “Is the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) compatible with the Treaties, in particular with the Charter on Fundamental Rights of the European Union?”; – Only on 11 May, 2012 did a statement appear on the web page of the EC: “We can confirm that the European Commission officially sent a request for an opinion on ACTA”.

diately postponed by a month. The vote on legal opinion in (my) JURI Committee was postponed as well as other committees opinions. Behind these “strange” delays were always Christian Democrats and Conservatives... After 2 years of actions, step by step in the end we were able to build a majority opposition to ACTA. Without waiting for the official opinion of the ECJ, ultimately the ACTA agreement was rejected by the EP on 4 July, 2012. Being forced by public opinion other Members understood that they had to be on the side of their voters... The European Commission, having noted the decision of the Parliament, withdrew its motion sent a request to the ECJ.

Judging by the time needed for sending the question to ECJ for me as a opponent to ACTA it was clear that the ECJ wanted to block for at least 9 months the parliamentary procedure, because that is how long consideration by the ECJ takes of urgent cases. This can even take two years, when the matter is treated as a normal case. It was clear that the ECJ hoped to influence parliamentary procedure by gaining more time. As rapporteur for ACTA, David Martin declared in April 2012, that his report would recommend rejecting the contract, the planned vote on it was imme230

231

Democracy and marijuana With the world beginning to change its approach to the fight against drugs, an evident shift is taking place, moving from restrictive policy to talking about damage reduction, rational drug policy, or a “liberal approach”. Many of our European neighbours are in favour of decriminalization of the so-called “soft” drugs. Similarly, more and more politicians, activists and economists, including Nobel Prize winners, are adopting the same thinking. It seems, that maintaining the status quo is only beneficial for... the drug mafia. In early July 2011, the District Court for Wroclaw (Poland) began the trial of Tomasz Obara, lobbyist and activist for the legalization of marijuana in Poland, for hemp farming in the “Cannabis House”. Mr Obara claimed that he grew cannabis as a social experiment (Act on Counteracting Drug Addiction allows for the cultivation of cannabis for research purposes), however it quickly emerged that the case was an obvious provocation; activists wanted to keep the matter going in court. They wanted to win, and by that, to show the futility of the current drug policy in our country, where the possession of even the smallest amount of marijuana is punishable by law. Is this the most effective way to fight against drug addiction? Police praised the statistics showing that adding “tenants” to overcrowded prisons is extremely effective. Punishment for the possession of small amounts of “soft” drugs in the name of fighting addiction raises many objections, especially when looking at alcohol and cigarettes, which are far more dangerous, but add to the government’s tax collection via tariffs1. Thanks to these The punishments for possession of small amounts of “soft” drugs raise many objections.

I would recommend World Health Organization report: www.abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/06/marijuana-legalizers-turn-to-colorado-washington-in-2012.

232

233

ultra-restrictive laws, thousands of young people become criminals because of spontaneous experimentation with cannabis, which for many of them is merely an expression of youthful rebellion. Instead, the criminal record labels them for many years and the road to “normality” is often cut off forever. In 2009 in Poland there were about 70 thousand violations of laws prohibiting possession of drugs, of which 67% were for marijuana. The problem does not disappear, it rather increases. Prohibition of alcohol in the United States not only did not work, but greatly increased the strength of the American mafia. Now, on the legal alcohol states earn, not organized crime. Time to draw some conclusions. What is the situation in Europe and in the world? EU Member States are rather diverse in their approach to this topic. Countries such as Finland and Sweden, like Poland, completely prohibit the possession of any amount of drugs, even those belonging to the group of so-called “soft” drugs as marijuana. But for example, our southern neighbour – the Czech Republic – allows citizens to possess up to 15 g of dried cannabis. Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico already announced a change in the very restrictive drug laws (where the possession of any amount can be jail up to five years). In Denmark, even though marijuana formally remains illegal (possession is fined), there is a very high social tolerance. Police finding a burning joint in a public place will ask the smoker to go to a more secluded place. Germany, where cannabis is illegal, does not punish for possession of small amounts (from 6 to 30 g). In Portugal, you can have up to 10 doses (according to Portuguese law one dose is 2.5 g). Analysis of the data made available by the European Centre for Drug Monitoring and Drug Addiction does not show a clear link between criminalization and a decrease in the consumption of marijuana. In the liberal Netherlands cocaine use among the 15-34 age group is even 0.3% lower than in Finland, where the possession of any quantity is punished. Easier access should theoretically change these proportions. As shown by the data, decriminalization of marijuana does not lead to more frequent consumption of heavy drugs (e.g. cocaine), thus refuting the so-called “transition theory”.

authorities did not agree, however, to the idea, stressing that hemp farming on a large scale is to remain illegal (while cultivation for so-called own use is permitted). And outside of Europe? The situation has also moved towards more liberal solutions. During the last summit of the countries of North and South America, the President of Colombia - Juan Manuel Santos proposed to fight the mafia through decriminalization of soft drugs, combined with law enforcement on production and distribution on a large scale. He stressed that “there is no need to choose one of the two extreme solutions for the drug users: full legalization or putting all of them in prison. In his opinion, the compromise would be the best. A similar view is also held by more than 300 economists in the U.S. (including three Nobel laureates) who signed an open letter to the President, Congress and Governors, to undertake an honest and fair debate on the legalization of marijuana. The signatories of the letter refer to the recently published report by Professor Jeffrey A. Miron of Harvard University, who argues that legalization of marijuana would save $7.7 billion that is spent on enforcement, and could generate tax profits of $6.2 billion a year, if tax on marijuana is collected the same way as on alcohol and tobacco. Professor Miron acknowledges, however, that the legalization of marijuana depends on many factors, not just on the economic aspects. He points out the fact that in rational discussion, this aspect should also be taken into account. A plan to “nationalize” the cannabis industry has already begun to be formalized in Uruguay. The bill proposes that the state will grow cannabis and marijuana users will be able to register and legally buy it. First of all, it has to cut off users from contacts with dealers who trade, in addition to “weed”, also in hard drugs like heroin or cocaine. This way, authorities reduce the profits of the drug cartels, and at the same time increasing tax revenues.

Marijuana appears recently as a “tool” to combat the crisis. The small Spanish village of Rasquera wanted to lease land owned to the municipality, to the Barcelona Association of Cannabis smokers. The plan was to use this land for the creation of dozens of jobs and income for the municipality. The central

Different countries have different solutions. Which is the best? I do not know. It is known, however, that the current Polish law is ineffective. The last change made on 8 December, 2013 was also inefficient. It was to solve the problem by allowing the prosecutor to decide whether or not a case of drug possession is admissible. Cases concerning small quantities were to be dismissed. However, the judges did not know how to interpret “a small amount”, as this way never defined. There are still thousands of cases sent to the courts, but the law has come to a standstill.

234

235

The essence of democracy is the ability of the citizens to decide about changes in the law. Solving difficult, extremely contentious issues should be done through referendum. This has already taken place in some states in the U.S., for example: state of Colorado organized a referendum in November 2012 on legalizing marijuana, Washington has done the same. It should also be borne in mind that in both states, marijuana was already legal for medical and depenalized for recreational use. According to Ethan Nadelmana from the Foundation of the Drug Policy Alliance, these referendums would encourage other states to change their drug policy. Supporters of legalizing “pot” also hoped that the planned referendums taking place on the same day as the Presidential elections would increase voter turnout. As it happened, most residents of Washington state and Colorado opted for equalization of the status of marijuana and alcohol. According to authoritative studies during the first year of the new law, selling “weed” was to increase from $1.4 billion to $2.3 billion. Moreover, economists have observed a quite interesting phenomenon – from the beginning of 2014 beer sales recorded decrease of 4.9% in the U.S.; however, in Colorado the decline was by 9.2%. Could it be that “grass” is taking over from the beer? Anyway, it turned out that the market for marijuana is currently the fastest growing industry in the United States.

Tobacco guillotine First it eliminated a Maltese Commissioner, then sparked unhealthy emotions and a real tsunami of lobbyists... Hailing from Malta, the EU Health Commissioner John Dalli heard about his “resignation” from his boss, Jose Manuel Barroso, on 16 October, 2012, shortly after OLAF (European Anti-Fraud Office) presented its report on investigating corruption allegations against him, made by the Swedish Match Company scandal erupted immediately. John Dalli – working on a draft of tobacco directive – reportedly agreed to change the legislation in exchange for “gratitude” worth €60 million, offered to him by Gayle Kimberly from the Swedish Match (leading manufacturer of smokeless tobacco products – snus). But shortly after the resignation of Dalli, French MEP José Bové said that on 20 March, 2013, he met with two lobbyists from the same company in his EP office in Brussels and during the conversation one of them, Johann Gabriellson, confessed that Dalli was never offered a bribe, and the “corruption” meeting never took place! The key witness to the “scandal” just made this meeting up. Even though, the lie was detected, OLAF (apparently), advised Kimberly to stick to his “original” version of events... At the end of March 2013, the weekly “New Europe”1 described these unconventional corruption detection methods used by OLAF. Later, Herbert Bösch, former Austrian MEP, currently a Member of Supervisory Committee 1 Read more: www.scribd.com/doc/132117712/New-Europe-Print-Edition-Issue-1023.

236

237

The battle began with statistics. Every year in Europe, a city the size of Frankfurt dies from tobacco use, in addition to 61 thousand passive smokers who pass away from breathing the smoke exhaled by others. On the cost side we treat nicotine patients (either active smokers or passive) for the astronomical sum of €25 billion a year on the EU level, and an additional €7 billion a year caused by the loss of staff performance (smoking breaks). All this constitutes a “distressing” image loss caused by fatal nicotine addiction. In addition each year, about 80 million young people start smoking...

The Maltese Commissioner for Health and Consumer Policy – John Dalli.

of OLAF, confessed in a meeting of the Parliamentary Committee Budgetary Control – that the Anti-Corruption Office used illegal wiretaps in the course of the investigation... On the background of these revelations, the European Council and the Parliament decided to review the Regulation governing the status of OLAF, which meanwhile, denied all allegations of irregularities in connection with Dalligate2, rejecting accusations of manipulation of the testimony of witnesses, or the establishment of illegal wiretaps. The problem was that the MEPs did not have access to the official records from the investigation. One month after the widely commented-on resignation, a new candidate, Tonio Borg, was appointed by the Government of Malta. What was the controversial regulation? Opponents of the tobacco directive threatened mass unemployment caused by... nicotine abstinence. Supporters of the changes in the regulation pointed to the financial benefits of a healthy society, free from tobacco adiction. Read more: www.eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2012:0788:FIN:EN:PDF.

238

According to the rapporteur of the “tobacco” directive, Linda McAvan, a UK MEP from my group the S&D – all measures need to be taken to stop a company from selling cigarettes, by using targeted marketing tricks aimed at youth. It is time to get rid of all products that do not look like “real” cigarettes but (for example), perfumes, lipstick, etc. In order to achieve this objective (according to the new regulation), tobacco products should look and taste as originally intended. They cannot be “masked” by designs or garnished with flavours like menthol or nice smells. Labels on packaging are supposed to discourage smoking and thus prevent addiction. Any possible loss of jobs in the tobacco industry is to be compensated by the newly created work places in the sectors where people freed from addiction will spend the money saved by not buying cigarettes. It is intended to stimulate economic growth in Europe, which is now sluggish because of tobacco smoke. Borg, the new Maltese Commissioner, wanted to complete the work on this Directive as soon as possible, but given the fact that the proposals in the regulation sounded quite drastic to smokers and the tobacco industry – one can imagine the vigorous response from lobbyists, backed by an industry worth €350 billion a year! This is as much as the annual profit of Coca-Cola, McDonald’s and Microsoft together. For the battle an army of full-time tobacco lobbyists was launched, acting officially in Brussels – with a budget of about €5.5 million per year... Even though, as an MEP, I enthusiastically support all European harmonisations and simplifications of legal regulation, as well as having a personal inclination to fight, (sometimes brutally), against smoking in my close environment – I do not believe that tightening prohibitions and making ugly packaging or stinking cigarettes will act as effective deterrents for smokers. I hope I am wrong for the sake of a healthy European Community. 239

Cigarette blizzard in the European Parliament had its continuation... In October 2013, the Parliament decided that 65% of the cigarette cartons had to include scary images and warnings. It also asked to ban menthol and other flavours (in the future). The cigarette must look like cigarette and “smell” naturally. E-cigarettes will not be treated as medicine, unless decided so by the national authorities. “Slim” cigarettes stay, for the time being. I agree with the general objectives of the directive on tobacco, to reduce smoking, raise the awareness of its negative effects or prevent the initiation of tobacco use among young people, but I think that we can’t make laws that overstep to the powers conferred by the Treaties. Well, my doubts are based on the legal basis chosen for the tobacco directive by the European Commission, e.g. Art. 114 (1) TFEU, which has the task of adapting and improving conditions for the better functioning of the single market. Puzzling how the withdrawal of menthol cigarette production helps achieve that? Rather, this may lead to discrimination against certain businesses and favouring others, which certainly interferes with the competition in the EU market and will lead to “capture” of the goods by the black market. The Commission emphasizes that the protection of public health is the ultimate goal, but issues concerning our health are within the competence of the Member States pursuant to Art. 168 (5) TFEU, which expressly disclaims any harmonization in this regard. Each country can have its own solutions, but if all Member States agree on the same requirement, the clear legal basis could be by-passed. Every year, nearly 80 million young people start smoking.

240

241

IX. Lacy legal works

John Dalli’s successor as the Commissioner for Health and Consumer Policy – Tonio Borg.

The “old” tobacco directive worked for nearly 12 years and I must admit that it introduced some positive measures that decreased the number of smokers in the EU – from 40% of the population in 2002 (in 15 countries – the then Union) to 28% in 2012 (EU-27). Unfortunately, smoking still kills. Voted by the European Parliament on 8 October, 2013, the draft Directive (to be negotiated with the Council) was adopted by 560 votes “for”, with 92 votes “against” and 32 abstentions. After completing the negotiations, Member States will have 18 months to implement the Directive, 36 months to implement its provisions on “extras”, and the next five years to ban menthol. Meanwhile the resentful, “framed” former commissioner Dalli filed a lawsuit in the European Court of Justice. He has something to fight for: exoneration from career-paralyzing allegations and compensation for the loss of lucrative positions that could have earned him millions. 242

243

Suspects in the network The United Kingdom, France and Germany call for EU sanctions on Internet pirates, even to cut of their access to the network. When I wrote this text in 2008, it was estimated that the revenues lost by the music industry and cinema to pirates reached 40%. How it was calculated, remains a mystery. Looking at more convincing statistics shows that about 80% of the illegal content is being downloaded from the Internet by young people who have no sense of the fact their actions are illegal. No warnings stop them copying something that is generally available. In the past people borrowed books, copied tapes and cassettes. Today all these could be downloaded. Formerly any exchange with a close group of friends was considered a norm, but in this regard the world has changed, we have many more contacts. So far, the European Parliament objects to punitive measures for people who do not make profits out of piracy. In order to see what people have on their hard drives, you need to access the content but this would be a clear violation of civil liberties – an attack on privacy and treating everyone as a potential thief. As long as we don’t benefit financially from copying, any such actions should be considered to be a “promotion”. Many artists agree with this, seeing that this positively affects their popularity. Radiohead are one example. But most “Big Stars” are not so forgiving and they would prefer the money from your account. Of course, appropriate sanctions should apply if someone is profiting from illegal copying. However, in order to find an offender, you do not need to access their information on a personal hard drive. How to fight online piracy? Certainly not by using the old methods. Nearly 80% of those downloading various content from the Internet are very young people.

244

245

Copyright law was created before the Internet appeared. We need innovative solutions. There are many proposals. In my opinion, we could reduce VAT rates for cultural products – cheaper products will encourage buyers. The more sales, the more artists, producers and tax collectors will receive. Because the Internet is an excellent source of profit for companies, why not earn from advertisements of products made available free of charge. Then, why steal? When you can get something legally and for free but, for example accompanied by a “load” of advertising. All Internet payment would be then for the cost of Internet access which, in time would be minimal. These are at least the plans for the not so distant future of the European Union.

Non-commercial file sharing is legal At least in Portugal1. According to the local justice department, file sharing is part of the universal right to education; it promotes participation in culture and freedom of expression. After a campaign that raised awareness of the harmful effects of illegal file sharing on the Internet, the Portuguese Prosecutor’s Office received 2,000 applications from members of the anti-piracy organization ACAPOR. These ap www.torrentfreak.com/file-sharing-for-personal-use-declared-legal-in-portugal-120927

File-sharing is a part of the right to education.

246

247

plicants asked the office to initiate proceedings against users providing P2P music or movie. These applications didn’t contain the personal data of Internet users but only the IP addresses from which the files were sent. The General Portuguese prosecutor stated that the matter could not go to court, because the IP number was not sufficient for an formal accusation. He also pointed out that file sharing not for commercial use is legal and should be treated as a universal right of citizens to have access to education, participation in culture and freedom of expresion. What then is allowed after reading the “all rights reserved, copying, duplication, or use without permission prohibited”? The Polish Chamber of Books has recently proposed to print information on the first pages of each publication, in order to explain to readers exactly what is permitted by the law of copyright. For example: “You can lend me to a friend and family. You can scan me, you can photocopy me, but I’m not meant for mass distribution. I was written, illustrated and edited by a lot of people, so they also need to make a living”.

However recently, we have witnessed quite a paradoxical history, whose main character was the German blogger of the Pirate Party – Julia Schramm3. Her book “Click Me: Confessions of an Internet exhibitionist”, published by Random House, belonging to the huge publishing company – Verlagsgruppe, was “pirated”. Schramm received an advance on the book of €100,000; in return she had to give up the rights to the publisher for a few years. When pirated copies of the published author, herself a Pirate, appeared on the Internet, Random House quickly took steps to remove them from the network... Even those who speak the loudest on freedom of the Internet and access to information, abandon their principles once they receive a tidy sum and support “disgusting” publishers, compared earlier to “mafia”. In times when copyright was created, sharing copies with family or friends, was different than today. Without a clear definition of who counts as a friend today, it could be everyone who clicks “like” on FB or maybe the whole community on the Internet?

The idea appealed to the Polish lawyers who deal daily with the issue of copy rights. “For many years, not only in Poland, but also in foreign markets, there has been a tendency to deal with different types of objections and warnings regarding the possible use of books or recordings by the person who acquired them. They are used, in a sense, as a preventive tool to foil violations of rights. On the other hand, such a “prohibition-policy” can be misleading when it comes to understanding what making works available means. It is not true that a person, who buys a book, CD or DVD is the only one who is allowed to use it and then to put it aside on a shelf and amire it. The Polish law allows for copying books or copying discs, it even allows sharing the copied content with family and friends in a non-profit way. However, now publishers to prevent piracy, don’t tell the users the whole truth about their rights regarding the possibility of using books or CDs. The proposal by the Polish Chamber of Books could dissolve many of the existing myths about piracy. While copyright owners defend very restrictive rules, there is a group of people fighting for the liberalization of the law, which according to them is no longer congruent with the present reality2. The latter belong to more and more popular Pirate Parties in many countries in the EU. http://europeanpirateparty.eu/

www.torrentfreak.com/fail-prominent-pirate-party-politician-polices-book-pirates-120918.

248

249

Pirates promote culture Fighting the copyright holders – mainly the large corporations – with the pirates, is in full swing, and yet it turns out that the pirates actually contribute to the corporations’ well-being. The Polish Ministry of Culture, released a report “Secret culture” describing the activities of Polish Internet pirates, for example providing: subtitles, games servers or “sharing” platforms. Surprisingly, the document also acknowledged the role of pirates in promoting culture. The authors of the report stated that: cultural studies, media experts and sociologists – obviously do not approve outright piracy, but pay attention to the many aspects that are often overlooked in the discussion of copyright. Now, in their opinion – the pirates can be regarded as a kind of cultural phenomenon, sort of “parainstitutions” thanks to which a poorer part of the population have access to wider culture and arts. Furthermore, Pirates take upon themselves the role of critics or arbiters of art – because they select those works they think are worthy of attention. One of the authors of the report, Marek Krajewski from the Adam Mickiewicz University (Poznań, Poland), takes his argument further, comparing Internet pirates to medieval copyists and scribes: “Mechanical reproduction made culture more democratic and egalitarian, promoting diversity which fits our needs strenghthening better our society (...). The copyist not only reproduces, makes accessible, frames and contextualizes the work, but also certifies that by his/her often valuable unpaid work”.

The “Pirates” demonstrations in the European Parliament have been taking place since the 1990s.

According to the report, thanks to the pirates, there is a growing interest in niche cinema, and discussions about ambitious productions attract more public. In addition, most interestingly, the researchers argue that the labels’ big

250

251

fight with the pirates does not make any sense, since in their opinion, they should be eternally grateful to the pirates for the free promotion of their products... This view is shared by many MEPs, preparing in small steps the great revolution in online copyrights. Read more: www.gadzetomania.pl/2013/02/08/piraci-zlodzieje-czy-bohaterowie-bezktorych-not-would be-in-poland-nothing

Music spy just around the corner Authors! They’re playing your song! Are you sure someone will pay you for it? The good news: yes, in the future. The software for tracking your works was just created. If you’re a musician, composer, author and you want to know where your creation is going and who plays your “pieces”, but you do not have confidence in those who now settle your royalties – read this text. The software was developed by Dominique Derwa, a Belgian businessman who came up with a web service “Kollector” – a real revolution in the music industry. Derwa is not a typical IT entrepreneur, rather a disillusioned artist who decided to fight the copyright-collecting societies. After meeting with the Commissioner for the Digital Agenda, Neelie Kroes, Derwa has become a wellknown figure and his idea found the right time and already prepared ground for a new legislation in the field of intellectual property rights – so I believe it almost guarantees him support from the European Commission (for the time being he is a member of the working group on copyrights). His vision of global cooperation between collecting rights managements, through which artists and copyright owners gain profits, has already found many supporters.

Lidia Geringer de Oedenberg with the Swedish MEP from the Pirate Party – Christian Engström in the European Parliament.

What is the idea? “Kollector” keeps track of music broadcast in a growing number of TV and radio stations around the world, giving owners rights information necessary for the collection of the revenue from copyrighted material. The program currently monitors about 1,500 stations, but in the future it intends to cover the entire globe (the plan includes 10,000 radio and 3,000 TV stations).

252

253

The idea for “Kollector” was born when a friend of Derwa, a Belgian composer, complained that he never received any remuneration from SABAM (the Belgian association of authors, composers and publishers), although he had heard his own songs on the radio and television many times. This condition changed only after his lawyer visited SABAM and “banged on the table”. Derwa then thought about all the young artists who cannot afford a lawyer and who are not earning the royalties they deserve. They are just forgotten “small players”, who are not taken into account while estimated about €4 billion profit (collected worldwide from copyrights) is shared by 225 collecting societies, SABAM in Belgium being one of them. “Kollector” aspires to revolutionize the music industry, giving artists, publishers, composers and all those involved in the production of music, a powerful tool tracking their works all over the world. The main goal is to eliminate nontransparent systems for redistributing payments due to authors. Derwa is a former DJ with some “pirate” experiences, who used his knowledge to create software. He jokes that now he even has plans as a musician and composer to finally start to monetize music he himself has created. With a subscription to Kollector, authors can know in real time when and where their music is being played. Read more: www.radioworld.com/article/kollector-monitors-airplay-worldwide/24097

How to get out of the copyright “prison”? A huge number of works in European archives and libraries cannot be used because their authors are unknown, or cannot be tracked down to give consent to use of their works. Such “frozen” works often constitute as much as a half of the collections of these institutions. Cultural heritage should serve a society, rather than be stuck in a “prison” of copyright, which deprives us of access to thousands of books, newspapers, photographs and recordings for radio and television – “orphaned” by the authors. As a person working in the world of culture for years, I wanted to solve this issue at the legislative level across the EU and restore the circulation of forgotten (because of existing regulation) works by their digitization. I am pleased that the Committee on Legal Affairs adopted in March 2012 the report I prepared on the so-called “orphan works”. This term has come to describe works, whose author or rights holder is unknown, that’s how they become orphans. The immediate result is that these works are locked away from the public in order to prevent a possible infringement of property rights. In my report I proposed a track that can be taken to ensure the work is really an orphan so-called diligent search after which a work, considered to be an orphan in one country, will be treated in other countries as an orphan – automatically. This means that it will be possible to make it available to the public, preserve or restore it thanks to digitization. If the rights holder is identified later, he/she will be able to apply for adequate compensation if there is evidence that the author suffered a real loss from the work being used in this way. I think it’s a great example which demonstrates how easing the copyright requirements can be beneficial for all parties. I led the negotiations on this file with the European Commission and the Council, on behalf of the European Parliament. The first round of negotiations was held in 2011 under the Polish

254

255

Presidency, then the Danish and finally on 13 September, 2012 – the report was put to a vote at the plenary session and approved by the vast majority of MEPs, becoming one of the most successful priorities of the Cypriot Presidency.

share their hidden treasures, and would allow them to protect “orphans” from being forgotten and physically damaged. Digitization, which by this Directive will be fully possible – solves these problems.

Creating an exception to the intellectual property rights in order to allow public access to works (only those identified in the directive) for purposes related to education and the promotion of culture, opened a new chapter in intellectual property law. This is an extremely important adjustment, because it sets out the legal basis for future harmonization of copyrights. Thanks to this Directive, beneficiaries (e.g. archives, libraries), who have so far avoided the digitization of their collections due to concerns about possible lawsuits amounting to millions of dollars in the event of the author being identified (as in the U.S.) – can now breathe a sigh of relief.

Most importantly, however, (and this I consider the greatest success in terms of our negotiations), these institutions will have a real chance to generate income from the use of orphan works that will support often modest budgets earmarked for digitization. The directive specifies that commercial use of the work is related to the issue of possible compensation of the author, if found. I believe that this solution also strikes a balanced compromise between the protection of copyright and the possibility of the use of orphan works.

Works having multiple authors, one of whom cannot be identified or found, will be treated as so-called “half-orphans”. They can also be digitized and become available to a wide range of recipients, in this case known rights holders will receive usual remuneration. Archives, libraries, museums, radio and television stations have long been waiting for clear rules that will allow them to

Moreover, we have included a review clause, asking the European Commission to make an ex-post impact assessement of the Directive two years after its entry into force, and propose any necessary changes or improvements – such as an expanded circle of beneficiaries, also covering private institutions. The negotiations took more than a year and they were difficult, sometimes it seemed that no agreement would be possible. Today, I am pleased with the final text and compromise and I am convinced that this directive will be a useful and effective tool for sharing culture which has been set aside until now, with a large number of recipients. Because of its uniqueness it can also become a “fast track” for full harmonization of copyright low in the EU, and solve the legal chaos in on-line access to culture.

Half of the libraries, museums and archives collections are so called “orphan works” which cannot be made available to public.

256

257

113% presence or the strange vote on copyright exception. I spent more than a year working on a legislative report on the Directive concerning the fair use of copyrighted works whose authors are unknown or cannot be reached. But before the happy ending of this legislation, some strange events took place. On the 1 March, 2012, the Committee on Legal Affairs voted on my report. To my surprise, a well negotiated and accepted compromise was overruled. Only then did I realise that the number of Members who took part in the vote did not match the total number of those eligible to vote... First, some facts. As the main rapporteur, I previously analysed all voting lists and position of each of the political groups, to be sure about supporting majority for compromises I negotiated, therefore imagine my surprise when an amendment of crucial importance to me, on the commercial use of orphan works, suddenly fell.

The public hearing in the Committee on Legal Affairs in the European Parliament on the application of the European law, 28 November, 2013.

The result of the vote, announced by the Chairman of the JURI, Klaus-Heiner Lehne was 12 MEPs “for” and 14 “against”, so the amendment was rejected. The problem was that only 23 MEPs were eligible to vote! If 12 were “for” the amendment should have passed, but the Chair announced that the amendment fell, despite the fact that the vote included Members who weren’t eligible to vote, so called substitute Members, (who can only replace absent colleagues, which wasn’t the case), all of them from the political group of the Chair, invited especially to reject a proposal which was uncomfortable to them. Unfortunately for me, the mere announcement of the result by the Chair turned out to be binding.

258

259

cept such blatant fraud taking place in the Committee on Legal Affairs1... Returning to the Directive, after the vote in JURI, I received a mandate to negotiate the final text with the governments of the Member States. The “lost” amendment I managed to enter via a “back door” through the European Commission, so the wolf and the sheep remained intact, with some distaste for fair play. The new rules allow the use of formerly-blocked resources according with a legal protection of institutions by setting a framework of compensation for possible future claims of copyright infringement. The Directive will help to avoid conflicts in court, like the case of Google in the U.S. which began mass digitization of books, including orphan works, which was, in effect, blocked. The U.S. court found that issues related to the “purification” of rights for orphan works should be resolved by future legislation and not with bilateral agreements between Google and libraries or archives.

The Committee on Legal Affairs consists of 34 members and 24 substitutes.

1 Read more: www.falkvinge.net/2012/03/14/european-parliament-blocks-copyright-reform-with-113-voter-turnout, www.slashdot.org/story/12/03/16/0155217/european-parliament-blocks-copyright-reform-with-113voter-turnout, www.techdirt.com/articles/20120315/08382118115/strange-vote-against-freeing-up-orphan-worksachieves-113-turnout-eu-committee.shtml.

I filed a complaint on this matter with the Chairman of JURI, adding all members of the committee in copy, being convinced, that if it were not for a “mistake” in the vote, I would have had a majority for my proposal. I’ve suggested a re-vote using our electronic voting cards (which would identify any unauthorized MEP). However, I received a negative reply from which I learned that a re-vote is not possible and a “mistake” in the announcement of the result did not matter because the count included only the “proportions” of the eligible Members in each group, so the result of the voting was... correct. In all my years working in the EP I’ve never seen such a situation. To make matters worse, the Chairperson’s answer, unfortunately, angered only a few. On 21 March, 2012, I sent another letter to the Chairman of the JURI Committee, asking for a re-examination of irregularities in the vote, citing a reaction of the citizens tracking the case on the Internet. In the meantime I received an answer from the Parliament’s legal service, informing me that a re-vote on procedural grounds is impossible. Until today I cannot simply acThe parliamentary committees meetings are also attended by MEPs’ assistants and advisors.

260

261

My proposal for future regulatory action was based on simple mechanisms to facilitate the digitization of their resources and to avoid “orphan” problems in the future. The first principle of my report was that “diligent” search for the author/rights holder will be made in good faith. The Directive specifically indicates examples and criteria to carry out such a search. The works, which had “orphan” status, will finally be made public. The Directive covers all audiovisual or printed works, including photographs or illustrations contained in the book, published or broadcast for the public benefit in any EU country. To sum up, now (after a year and a half of work) I remembered a funny quid pro quo associated with translations. From the beginning, the proposal was prepared by the European Commission in English, and that was the language in which many months of discussions and negotiations took place. Amendments and all the final compromises were agreed only in English. “Orphan work” – is a legal term, but – as it turned out that was not known to all translators. During the debate before the final vote in the plenary session, with indignant astonishment I listened to the voice of a Hungarian MEP (who wasn’t involved directly in our negotiations) and who believed that the Directive was specifically for child orphans, directing them to work in libraries and archives, and that was for him a real abuse. “Why do you force orphans to do the work of archivists, what’s the idea?”

Absurdities of copyright laws Have you removed a label with the logo of some company? You are a criminal – you removed the trade mark.

For many printed works, digitization is the only and last chance to “survive”. Nothing lasts forever and the most vulnerable to irreversible destruction is paper! Digitization of orphan works will thus enrich our European culture and will provide new sources for scientists and researchers. Lovers of literature and art will “open sesame” to yet unknown cultural treasures. Who knows what hidden orphan gems libraries and archives contain? Maybe some stories will have to be rewritten?

Removing labels with the company logo is a violation of the trademark law. Currently, the copyright law protects primarily the interests of the corporations and not the artists.

262

263

I do it routinely. If a stripe is sticking on the suit sleeve or on the back, I remove it, because I don’t feel like being an advertising column. But it is not allowed. This following example demonstrates the absurd in copyright laws. A craftsman making bags lives in a small Polish village. He buys damaged designer handbags, then repairs them: broken zippers, worn out buckles or handles. He replaces them with new ones, but these don’t have any emblems of the manufacturers, just fit because of their size and style. Then he sells repaired products. He advertises his work in the local press and on the Internet. He is a capable craftsman, conducts business, pays taxes, social security etc. This craftsman doesn’t earn much, just enough to live on. However, he violates the industrial property rights (Law of 30 June, 2000). Even if you feel sorry for this craftsman, the current law makes him a criminal. Have we not gone a little too far? Better to throw away the bag instead of illegally repairing it? Here’s the dilemma... About restricting clauses in Copyright law, Internet users know best. The scandal surrounding the ACTA proposal has shown, however, that it is possible to effectively express consumer views. The European Comission took up the Copyright project hoping to make it compatible with the digitalised reality. The European Commissioner for the Digital Agenda, Neelie Kroes like me doesn’t accept the “copyright monopolists”. Ms Kroes takes the view that copyright law should protect artists, not corporations, and new technologies should not restrict access to culture by increasing protection. Current legislation is mainly focused on using sanctions to protect copyright, instead of helping to recognize and reward true value. I had the opportunity to work with Commissioner Kroes personally in the negotiations on the Orphan Works Directive and I really appreciate her determination on this matter.

Neelie Kroes – the Commissioner responsible for the Digital Agenda during the plenary session in Strasbourg.

Citizens, Internet users, are beginning to hate copyright and what it entails. They see it as a protection of companies’ interests rather than the artists’. Kroes is paying attention to the current system of remuneration for authors and she understands that most artists cannot live by the wages of their creativity.

264

265

According to the Torrent Freak Service, 97.5% of German musicians earn less than €1000 a month. Their gains go to the publishers who earn millions and insist on fighting against piracy in all possible ways, but this doesn’t help the creators and the artists. Kroes proposes a bold change. She considers it necessary to return to the fundamental assumptions that put artists at the centre not only of copyright but also in the core of cultural development policy. For this purpose it is necessary to develop new, creative business models for securing the financial benefits of the arts.

Copyrights for resale

We need a flexible model and not a “straitjacket”, highlights Kroes. Platforms, channels and business models should be diverse and just as innovative as the work is. Therefore, a technology that enables easy access to these kinds of goods around the world is definitely helpful and should be used.

You are not the 100% owner of the painting, manuscript, musical composition, purchased or inherited, selling this item will oblige you to share part of your income... with the author. At least according to Directive 2001/84/EC of 27 September, 2001. What does it mean?

Thanks to technology, artists can reach directly their customers, no matter how specific their tastes or interests are.

The so-called “droit de suite”1 gives the creator and his heirs at each resale a share of the income from the sale of the original copy. Resale is an action that follows the first sale of the work by its author. Therefore according to “droit de suite”, the author and his heirs are entitled to receive a certain amount (defined as a percentage) for each subsequent sale of the work by art galleries, auction houses, etc.

I am glad that Neelie Kroes recognizes the issues relating to repressive copyright. The Commissioner’s request to major publishers to reflect on these issues and ensure their business model is harmonized with today’s reality is important. I get worried when the Comissioner urges the big publishing houses to review whether or not their business model is compatible with today’s reality. I’m afraid that these companies are quite short-sighted. When the cash floods in, for them this signifies perfect “harmony”, even though the measures are debiliating for artists and customers and the copyrights are regarded as purely negative. The most important thing is to ensure that the creators will be appreciated and rewarded adequately, and they will not necessarily be dependant on copyright monopolists. Read more: www.ec.europa.eu/information_society/newsroom/cf/pillar.cfm?pillar_id= 43&pillar=Digital%20Single%20Market.

In accordance with the provisions of the Act, creator and his heirs, are entitled to remuneration, which is the sum of the following rates: – 5% up to €50,000; – 3% ranging from €50,000 and €200,000; – 1% ranging from €200,000 to €350,000; – 0.5% from €350,000 to €500,000; – 0.25% exceeding €500,000, but that sum is capped at the limit of €12,500. In the case of manuscripts of literary and music creators, they and their heirs are also entitled to remuneration to the amount of 5% of the “professional” resale, which describes any act of resale made in the course of business by sellers, buyers, brokers and other professional traders in art or manuscripts, literary and musical works. Droit de suite, the artist’s right to resale; namely the right for continuity, commonly called the law of resale.

266

267

The professional salesman is obliged to pay remuneration to the copyright holder. The creator of a work and his heirs may demand information and access to documents that could determine the payable remuneration, for a period of three years from the date of making the appropriate application. In Poland, the right of the creator and his heirs to profits of the resale of original works of art has been in force since 1994. The Directive “droit de suite” has been implemented within the amendment of the Law on Copyright and Related Rights in 2006: www.eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=DD:17:01:32001L0084:PL:PDF If you are the creator, who in his youth sold a picture or a poem “for the price of a dinner”, you can now unexpectedly get €12,500...

Private copying levies ...charges on a blank CD, USB drive and printer. Even if you copy your photos and your own movies you still have to pay. Fees for copies of files for personal use are included in the price of the equipment used in recording, copying, and “blank media”. You pay it buying phone, tablet, scanner, etc. According to data, approximately €600 million is collected though this type of charge in the European Union. Who gets this money? How to find the author of a work copied on the photocopy machine in your office, or on your phone, in order to pay him? The adopted allocation algorithm is of a “secret and confidential” type. ZAIKS (Polish Society of Authors and Composers) for example, charges fees and doesn’t explain where the money goes... What is private copying? This is an exception to the reproduction right, (which was accepted by the Copyrights Directive: EU 2001/29), in a condition that the rights holders should receive fair compensation1. In some EU countries approximately 0.06% of the income of producers and importers goes to the authors whose works are copied. No wonder that the “payers” mentioned above attempt to escape this situation. The issue of fees for private copying (and in particular the determination of 1

268

F ees for private copying are closely linked to Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 22 May, 2001 on the harmonization of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (“the Directive Infosoc” Art. 5 paragraphs. 2 point. b), which provide that Member States may provide for exceptions or limitations to the rights of reproduction on any medium by a natural person for private use under the condition that the rights-holders receive fair compensation.

269

the amount and method of their collection in cross-border transactions), is difficult, and in recent years has led to a number of cases before the European Court of Justice. So far there is no harmonization at EU level of the “compensation” required, so Member States may apply their own systems among others introducing royalties from all sorts of copies, which could be made. The Parliament’s Committee on Legal Affairs is working on a highly controversial report, which aims to harmonize this type of “tax”. At a time when virtually everyone has several different several kinds of electronic storage, the levies from private copying are extremly tempting for legislators and can reach millions of euro.

The copyright fees are included in the price of data storage media like blank CDs and DVDs or USB flash drives.

A fee for private copying for personal use is included in the price of all the copying devices, eg. photocopier.

Users are exposed to more and more tracks, songs, movies and games for free or for a small fee, but in accordance with the applicable law, even paying for legally downloaded files from the web requires a fee for the storage and playback in a particular device, it is necessary to pay a separate fee for each device, and this is valid only in the territory of the State in which it was downloaded.

270

271

Complicated? Very. In addition, as suggested by the authors’ organizations, the “amount of compensation levied on private copying should be linked to the creative value of what is copied, rather than the price of the devices, which may depend on the trading strategy of corporations”. I wonder how this can be determined? Together with a group of MEPs – copyright reformers, I am opposed to this incomprehensible system. Why should we pay for copies of pictures taken by us, or even a copy of the CD or book we have purchased, after we have already paid for the product? With fees for private copies abandoned in Spain, Great Britain, Luxembourg and Ireland, the whole of Europe should go this way. In an era of increased mobility of Europeans, travelling with tablet, phone, laptop etc. containing files copied in a different country is not legal and could result in absurd costs. The law should be clear and easy to apply – that’s my motto. The French MEP from my group S&D Francoise Castex – author of the report, had a more conservative approach to copyrights and prefered to be more protective of the salaries of unknown authors, than of free access to the content once purchased. It’s difficult to predict which direction a parliamentary majority will lean. The final proposal will be presented only in the seventh term of the EP (2014-2019).

Cloud computing ... a trampoline for growth or an insight for Intelligence and cybermafia? Until recently, the clouds only brought rain. Today they transmit data. The emergence of cloud computing outstripped any other, related regulation. In 2013, in the Committee on Legal Affairs we tried to cover these legislative gaps1 and I was appointed as a draft-person for an opinion on the potential of cloud computing in Europe (2013/2063 (INI)). According to forecasts by the International Data Corporation (IDC), cloud computing services on a global and regional level for 2011-2015 could increase sharply from $21.5 billion in 2010 to $73 billion in 2015. It further estimated that, by the end of 2014, it will rise further and help create 11.3 million jobs worldwide. Thanks to the cloud, we have access to our data at all times and in any place, using different devices. The potential is huge; however the PRISM2 affair cast doubts on the safety of the resources stored there. According to studies by the Cloud Security Alliance (a global non-profit organizations), many companies working in conjunction with the cloud were considering termination of contracts with cloud computing providers across the Atlantic after the PRISM scandal. 85% of the global cloud computing market is in the hands of American giants: Google, Amazon and Microsoft. The loss, which they may therefore suffer is estimated at $26 billion in 2016. Is it time for a European cloud? Neelie Kroes, the European Commissioner for the Digital Agenda believes that it is possible, if the legal barriers in different Member States can be overcome. More: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=b8a76245-3d1e-4993-90ed-8050578adbfa. More: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants-nsa-data.

1 2

272

273

The European Commission says that the expansion of the cloud in the EU could create 2.5 million jobs and increase the GDP in the five largest European economies in the EU by 1-2%, which translates to €160 billion.

Consumers wishing to use cloud computing receive often unclear and nonnegotiable contracts that describe only the storage of data but not who has responsibility for their security.

Cloud computing can clearly benefit businesses and citizens, as well as the public sector, but as a new way of storing data, this technology also poses a real threat. As it appears from the recent survey conducted by the European Commission on cloud computing, 90% of respondents said the technology is not clear to them. 48% of respondents holding senior management positions in both the private and the public sectors were aware of the benefits of cloud computing to their work, but more than half of them did not apply any security measures for minimizing risks such as identity theft.

Users of clouds should also be able to assess the cloud computing services on the basis of standardized procedures for safe resources and guarantees provided by the service. It would help to include, for example, a European voluntary system of certification that will allow users to easily compare the level of the security services provided, taking into account differences in the level of these services concerning:

The main problem, for both service providers and users in the EU, is the lack of harmonization of law (including copyright, data protection, consumer protection and commercial law), which is necessary for the operation of a digital single market in Europe. There is general confusion on the cross-border use of cloud computing services, in particular on issues relating to liability and jurisdiction.

– Infrastructure as a Service – IaaS; – Platform as a Service – PaaS; – Software as a Service – SaaS. The first level assesses the safety of equipment, power lines, data, etc. On the second level – responsibility for safety rests to a large extent on the clients, who should adequately protect their data. On the third level – responsibility lies with the supplier. The most serious threat to cloud computing comes from the so-called insiders – that is, people who work in companies providing cloud computing services, who have access to consumers’ data. Another risk is damage to software isolating data, which may result in uncontrolled leakage. Currently, the liability of suppliers of services in the cloud is a legal vacuum. Therefore, it is necessary to provide users appropriate remedies for example possibility of appeal in respect of the providers of cloud computing services, which is now also impossible. Presently we should speed up the implementation of alternatives, such as “online” dispute resolution and other forms of collective redress, in order to facilitate the solving of conflicts faced by users in this area. Perhaps we can avoid in this way additional overloading in almost every EU Member State of already inefficient national courts.

Thanks to cloud computing we can have access to our data at all times and in all places.

274

275

X. Belgium, the weirdest country in the world

The participants of the 72nd parliamentary visit in Brussels on 3-6 March, 2014 in front of The Atomium constructed for the EXPO exhibition in 1958.

276

277

Belgium, the weirdest country in the world

The triumphal arch in the Cinquantenaire Park (Park of the Fiftieth Anniversary) in Brussels.

For 10 years I’ve been trying to understand the country in which I work and live. Just when you think you’ve achieved this goal, suddenly another surprise pops up. As Member of the Parliament’s Bureau, I am able to inform you that the European Parliament has a permanently-open dossier on the desk associated with the administration of Brussels. The latest example being the lack of parking spaces for buses carrying guests invited to the Parliament. Apparently there are places available, but they are occupied by cars. The police will not take charge of that because it is not in their competence. Each service is subject to another government (of which there are four in Brussels) and even the pavement management requires a multilateral agreement. I wish I could say it is a joke, but I personally participated in the inauguration ceremony of the use of the passage in front of the Parliament building, which was negotiated for about 2 years with the Belgian authorities. The case seemed to be simple: we wanted the Parliament to have an impact on what will happen directly in front of our building. But the promenade, which was named in 2011 – Esplanade Solidarność 1980, is not the property of Parliament. The space requires the consent of the commune for various commercial events, which are not related to the Parliament. It was therefore necessary to regulate the “management of the sidewalk”. After two years the case led to a happy ending.

The participants of the 69th parliamentary visit near the Chinese Pavilion in the park in Laeken district in Brussels, 25-28 August, 2013.

The agreement was signed by: – The Chairman of the Parliament, together with the responsible Vice-President; – The Mayor of Ixelles district, which includes our buildings; – Th e Mayor of Brussels; – Th e Minister, Head of Government of the Brussels regional government; – Th e Minister of public works in Brussels.

278

279

Belgium is truly a unique country. I recommend this YouTube clip, which is popular among expats: www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ceg6NQKHd70. Here are a few interesting examples. In Belgium, the national dish is French fries with mayonnaise. The Belgians take pride in the fact they produce the world’s best Swiss chocolate. Only in Belgium could the Prime Minister, when asked to sing the national anthem, by mistake sing the “Marseillaise”. The most famous monument is the 60 centimetre-tall pissing boy – Manneken Pis. The Belgians have a complicated life, governed by one central government (with the previous being formed only after a record-setting 541 days) and three regional governments, which have the same powers as the national government. That of course does not help with co-governing. They have three official languages: French, Flemish (Dutch) and German, but they are far from being tri-lingual. Most Walloons do not speak Dutch while Flemings do not understand French. Only the central region of Brussels is bilingual. Flanders is strictly monolingual, Dutch only. Wallonia is Frenchspeaking, with the exception of the German minority. In order to facilitate the lives of the different linguistic communities (Frenchspeaking in Flanders and German-speaking in Wallonia) the Belgian authorities decided that the division of three regions is not efficient and has created yet another three culture communities: Dutch, German and French, which, like the central government, have their own governments and parliaments... For example the French speaking community supports cultural and social initiatives in the French speaking parts of Belgium and in the Brussels region, but not to the 300.000 French-speaking population living in monolingual Flanders. A French-speaking family from the Brussels region has its life governed by four different authorities. For example, the Belgian Government will pay the pensions, the French community will finance the studies, the Flemish community will organize school for their children, and the Region of Brussels will take care of refuse collection and recycling. The participants in the 72nd parliamentary visit on the Grand Place in Brussels on 3-6 March, 2014.

280

281

French fries revolution It seems that the dispute between Flemings and Walloons is even deeper than the religious and ethnic division in Iraq. On 17 February, 2011 Belgium beat the world record for the number of days without a sworn-in government. The previous record of 296 days was held by Iraq. What makes it even more interesting is the fact that it did not affect either the economy or the work of the EU. Belgians have a lot of patience and even more sense of humour. On the day in which the record was to be beaten they planned the French fries revolution (French-fries being their national treat). Major daily Belgian newspaper – “Le Soir” – created a separate column, titled “Political Crisis”, where you could read about it, like the “Sport” or “World” section, checking its content. Surprisingly, even the Belgian “governmentless” presidency of the EU in the second half of 2010, was rated as one of the best in recent years (in fact the government was still run by the dismissed-from-office Yves Leterme). The French fries revolution was organized by tens of students’ organizations, the programme included – not surprisingly – French-fries, beer, music and flash mobs, in all the biggest Belgian cities. In the end, Belgians functioned without the government for 541 days and this record might not be beaten for a very long time.

French fries have become extremely popular also in the European Parliament restaurant.

282

283

Belgian “careful” driver Although Belgium is not exactly a big country, its drivers are among the EU’s most reckless. The picture becomes even grimmer when looking further into the attitudes of Belgian drivers towards driving under the influence of alcohol. The Social Attitudes to Road Traffic Risk in Europe’s (SARTRE) latest study, carried out in 2010 in 19 European countries, shows that Belgium has one of the highest rates of drivers (17.5%) who believe they can drink and drive if they are careful. One apéritif (eg. Campari) plus a glass of wine with dinner and a little digestif (Cognac) afterwards is actually a norm. Hundreds of kinds of world famous Belgian beer are not event treated as alcohol. Moreover, while 77% of Belgian drivers understand they should not drink any alcohol at all when driving, 26% of drivers surveyed admit to having gone over the legal alcohol limit at least once a month. These findings put in proportion Polish drivers, (who have obtained a dubious reputation when it comes to drinking-and-driving). Results from SARTRE demonstrate that, 98% of drivers report not to have gone over the legal alcohol limit. Furthermore, Poland has one of the highest rates of drivers (92%) who object to drinking-and-driving. Only 5.4% of Polish drivers believe they can drive under the influence if they are careful.

Daily traffic jam in Brussels.

Belgians explain the bad reputation of their drivers by blaming the habits which came from the old days. Well, many of them learned how to drive on their own. Over the years, it was enough to buy a car in order to drive it. There was no particular formal or theoretical preparation, before joining the traffic. And this was not only related to regular cars, but also buses and trucks! Not until the 60’s did the Belgian authorities introduce a written test driving li-

284

285

cense, whereas the practical exam was included much later. How this tradition has shaped the “culture” of the Belgians driving is highlighted in the other studies carried out in 2011 by the Belgian Institute for Security on the Roads (IBSR), according to which: –o nly one in ten Belgian drivers respects speed limits; – 9 3% of drivers regularly break the limit of 30km/h zones near schools; – 4 0% admit to driving above the maximum permitted speed of 120km/h on motorways. In addition, at intersections Belgians only look to the right – believing in the rule priority from the right, which makes them not notice cars coming from other directions. Overall, Belgium ranks 20th among EU member states in terms of road deaths. Poles, unfortunately, exceed this ranking together with the Germans and the French. Making Belgians appear after all much more “careful”... Read more: http://ibsr.be/fr/presse/etudes-et-statistiques/th%C3%A8mes-principaux/vitesse http://ibsr.be/frontend/files/userfiles/files/Sartre-4-report.pdf

Campaigning without ads on TV and billboards Belgian law prohibits paid electoral advertising on radio, television and billboards. Election materials cannot be placed on any commercial or airtime advertising. Election posters can be posted on specially installed billboards during the campaign period, but only if approved by the local Council. The sizes of posters are regulated by the law governing regional urban planning. All posters greater than 1m2 require a special permit. Political candidates may not transfer any cash grants during the official campaign period of 3 months. To avoid illegal bill-posting (e.g. at night), you can hang posters only during certain hours. On makeshift billboards, posters are usually protected by nets, which protects them from scuffing by competitors (but not against paint spraying). Party financing and election campaign spending is regulated in Belgium by the Act of 4 July, 1989. Its adoption was preceded by a spectacular series of political scandals involving corporate donations. Based on the new law, the state budget is used for financing political parties, based on the results obtained in the previous elections. Additional funding of parties is possible at the regional level, according to the decision of regional parliaments; however, the law strictly prohibits corporate donations and limits donations from individuals. Moreover, a party’s budget can be derived only from membership fees. The Act of 1989 also sets limits on election campaign spending, both for political parties and individual candidates. Accordingly, each party can receive up to €1 million, while individual candidates receive an amount that is dependent on their position on the party list or the constituency population (according to the type of election). Donations from individuals can be up to €500 per year for one particular party, and a total of €2,000 – for different parties per year. Political parties and candidates must submit a statement of all expenses

286

287

incurred for the purposes of the election campaign during the official period of its duration. In spite of the clear laws, the presence of election posters is still controversial, as well as their size and location. In many municipalities, the fight over the posters overtakes the fight between the candidates. In 2012 some municipali-

ties refused to install the official billboards for election posters (Namur, Braine l’Alleud, Antwerp). After taking the matter to the Council of State, they had to change their decision. The posters returned, but their locations still were a reason for political warfere. The real campaign takes place primarily during regular meetings for election, debates on television and the Internet, especially on websites of political parties or blogs. Voting in Belgium is mandatory. According to Article 62 of the Constitution, failure to vote will lead to a penalty of €25 to €50 for the first time. The penalty might rise to €125 for a second infraction. If a voter does not vote four times in 15 years – he is removed from the list and is not entitled to vote for 10 years. In addition, during this time he will not have a right to promotion, if an employee of a public institution. The result? More than 90% of Belgians vote. Because EU citizens can take residence in a country other than their own, they are able to take an active, or passive part in local elections and those for the European Parliament. Among the candidates in local elections to the Belgian municipal Councils in 2012 were also Poles, interestingly – only ladies: 1. Magdalena Sikorowska, Saint-Gilles (List of the Mayor); 2. Danuta Żędzian, Saint-Gilles (The Reformist Movement); 3. Beata Kocon, Ixelles (Christian Social Party); 4. Eve Chrypankowska, Ganshoren (List of the Mayor); 5. Dorothy Dobrzyńska, Bruxelles (The Reformist Movement); 6. Renata Cooper, Saint-Gilles (The Reformist Movement); 7. Jolanta Bogdanska, Ixelles (List of the Mayor). Unfortunately, none of them then won, apparently there was too much combat... with each other.

The poster campaign in Belgium.

288

289

Monarch above the law ... or the consequences of the royal one-night stand.

Lidia Geringer de Oedenberg in the Royal Palace in Brussels at the traditional New Year’s meeting of the members of the EP Bureau and the highest representatives of the other EU institutions. Left-toright: Princess Mathilde with the heir to the throne Prince Philippe (the King of Belgians since 21 July, 2013), Queen Paola with King Albert II – officially welcome all invited, 12 January, 2011.

His Majesty, Belgian King Albert II, on 21 July, 2013, (the Belgian national holiday), abdicated the throne in favour of his son and successor Philippe1. While the real reasons are unknown, one may speculate that the King had had enough of politics. He certainly had enough of permanent rumours about his private life that in the final period of his reign became a national matter. The rumours swirling around concerned an alleged illegitimate daughter of the King – Delphine Boël, trying to have the King’s DNA tested and force His Majesty, to recognize her as his natural daughter. The world first learned of the King’s daughter outside the marriage bed in 1999, in the biography of Albert II’s wife – Queen Paola. Today the media takes almost for granted the fact that 45-year-old Delphine is the daughter of the monarch, although Albert II has never openly admitted it. Delphine’s mother – Baroness Sybille de Selys-Longchamps had a love-affair with the King during the 60s and 70s, which was common knowledge in aristocratic circles. Delphine’s legal father, Jacques Boël, divorced Sybille in the 70’s, and, in a book of published revelations, disowned “his” daughter – confirming the rumours about his own “paternity”. No wonder that, deprived of fortune and father, Delphine requested an investigation of the royal DNA. Filing a request to the court in Brussels sparked the beginning of a mediastorm in 2013. A dispute arose over whether a monarch can be called before the court to testify. According to some – under Belgian law that was not pos-

In the Royal Palace during the informal part of the meeting. Left-to-right: Olivier Chastel – Belgian Minister of European Affairs, Jerzy Buzek – President of the EP, Lidia Geringer de Oedenberg – Quaestor in the EP Bureau, Queen of Belgians – Paola.

290

Matilda, wife of the new king Philip, made a name for herself in the local tabloids. She is a distant cousin of Polish President Bronislaw Komorowski, through his mother Anne d’Udekem d’Acoz, of the house of Komorowska.

291

sible, others say it could happen after the abdication of the King. The problem is that the status of “former King” is not defined. The lawyers of Jacques Boël believe that the provisions of the Belgian Constitution should give way to those of international law, including the Council of Europe Convention on the Rights of Children, which allows persons to demand a DNA test from the alleged father. Children recognized or not have the same rights. If that wouldn’t be possible because of the King’s legal privilege, the fatherhood of Albert II could be proved on the basis of the alleged Boël half-siblings DNA (eg. current King Philip). To start the procedure for recognition of paternity, the former father must give up his legal status, because a child cannot have two dads. Thus, Delphine must first prove that Jacques Boël is not her father. And according to the “wellinformed sources”, he is under strong royal influence and will not deny his fatherhood. Delphine’s mother – Sybille de Selys – also confirmed in an interview with the Flemish television, that Albert was the father. But the King’s lawyers claimed that the interview and letters or photos of Albert with little Delphine prove nothing. The question is whether Sybille has still other “materials” that can be used as proof of paternity by court.

The World capital of demonstrations A PhD student at the University of Antwerp, Ruud Wouters, reported that during the years 2003-2010 there were 4,582 protests in Brussels. That’s an average of two protests per day! Brussels is clearly the world capital of demonstrations. Interestingly, the demonstration itself has already become such a common sight that the media only bothers to report 11% of them. Brussels is the most popular place for protesters because of the presence of the EU institutions. Plus, the Ixelles district provides easy permits for

The former King may refuse testing, and then it’s for the court to decide on the ruling, which might lead to a national embarrassment. It must be remembered that in conflicted Belgium, the King acts as a symbolic link between the Walloon and Flemish part of the country. What happens to the King’s authority, should it collapse, is difficult to predict. Belgians would probably prefer the “broadening” of the ruling family, to the collapse of their kingdom.

A demonstration on the Luxembourg Place in front of the European Parliament.

292

293

demonstrators, although it generates additional costs (such as those related to security). Protesters must, however, respect some limitations. For example, it is forbidden to cover the face in a public space (without a permit), or wear masks. In some places you cannot demonstrate at all, for example, the Grand Place and its vicinity, in the neutral zone: Royal Palace, the European Parliament and in... parks. Organizing demonstrations in every “green area” requires a special permit issued by the office of the IBGE (Institut Bruxellois pour la gestion de l’environnement), responsible for the environment in the city.

Manneken-Pis dressed in St. Nicholas’ robes In the city of chocolate, lace and Art Nouveau architecture, one of the most popular symbols of Brussels is the Manneken-Pis. The boy pissing looks very impressive in pictures in his changing outfits, however seeing him in real life can lead to some disappointment regarding his size. The statue loves to dress up. Reportedly it has close to a thousand of suits, although he is often seen... naked, and urinates in the heart of old Brussels! It is Julien – the Pissing Boy, the most famous fountain in the whole of Belgium. Manneken means a small man. Pis – it’s pee, urine. You can easily guess that the fountain gushes from a particular place and goes straight to the baptismal font located... below.

A demonstration in the streets of Brussels.

The famous Brussels Manneken-Pis.

294

295

The Manneken is placed near the town hall, on the Rue de l’Etuve. Every day he attracts crowds – not just tourists but also local people who visit the famous Manneken with pleasure, as from time to time he pees pure beer and each time he looks different. In December, he pees as St. Nicholas. He even peed in the uniform of a Polish hussar and Krakow’s folk costume.

It is about 61 inches tall, 400 years old but is still a baby! The peeing boy can be seen not only on the Rue de l’Etuve. Souvenirs of the statue are a common sight in Belgium. Where did the Manneken Pis come from? One of the legends1 tells of a little boy named Juliaanske (Julien), who, while spying on enemies, found the place where the invader placed the bomb that was meant to destroy besieged Brussels in the fourteenth century. Seeing what was going to happen, the brave boy urinated on the burning fuse, which saved the city. Grateful Brussels, in the fifteenth century, commemorated the little hero as a stone figure. Manneken Pis always aroused great international interest, but that did not work out well for him. The English first stole him, but the infant was able to be recovered, and then he disappeared for good after the “kidnapping” by the French. In 1619, the figure was made again, this time in bronze. Changing the material did not help, still the idol became the subject of attacks and theft. The current Manneken Pis was made in 1817. Since 1987, the Manneken Pis has competition (or companion) in the form of Jeanneke Pis – a urinating girl. The much younger version stands in “opposition” to the men, on the opposite side of the Old Town. The female equivalent of the Manneken was erected in the capital of Europe as an expression of gender and political correctness. Jeanneke pees on streets near Rue des Bouchers – fenced off from the public by a grid, without proper promotion, or souvenirs, tailored clothes or beer – she is still fighting for equal rights and popularity. Tourists can face considerable difficulty in finding her, as Jeanneke squats amid the largest population of restaurants in Brussels, where mountains of lobsters, crayfish and clams might well distract the passers-by. While talking about urinating in Brussels, there is also a dog ... Zinneke, on Rue de Chartreux 31. All visitors to Brussels should aim at seeing all the peeing statues, as evidence of the particular sense of humour of those living in this rather depressing “rainy land” named Belgium.

JEANNEKE PIS – sill “fighting” for attention.

Another (less popular) legend says that this boy was a pissing Prince who lost his way back home while hunting in the woods once located around Brussels. After several days of fruitless search, the rangers heard murmuring noises resembling a water source. To their astonishment, when they came close to the presumed source of the water, they saw the naked, peeing Prince.

296

297

Belgian-Polish complex compounds In the Congress of Vienna in 1815 representatives of the winning European countries gathered to create a neutral buffer state between France and Germany – the Central Government of the Netherlands, Belgium. The governor was the king of the Dutch – William of Orange. Unfortunately the rooted hatred of the Belgians for the Dutch dating back to the religious wars of the sixteenth century, when Catholic Belgium was regularly plundered and destroyed by the Dutch Calvinists, did not give a chance for a lasting solution. Following the uprising 24 September, 1830 the Dutch king decided to nullify Catholic education in Belgium: Jesuit schools for boys and for girls, Ursuline. When insurgents began to gain ground, the King began to fear the loss of the rich province of the Central Netherlands, William asked his brother in low Tsar Nicholas I (the wife of William of Orange was the Tsar’s sister, Anna Pavlovna), for military assistance. His request was granted and the Tsarist army headed in the direction of Belgium. Just at this time in the Congress Kingdom of Poland1 a rebellion, known as the November Uprising, stopped the Tsarist troops “on the road”. The Polish uprising was suppressed, but it did produce the Kingdom of Belgium. King Leopold of newly independent Belgium was from the house of SaxeCoburg-Gotha, a German prince, who changed his name to Leopold I after his coronation. King Leopold I invited the Polish insurgents and ordered the transfer of Polish troops to Belgium, which marked the beginning of... the Royal Belgian Army. The soldiers took an oath of allegiance to Leopold

The dog Zinneke-Pis at 36 Rue de Chartreux in Brussels.

Congress Kingdom of Poland – a country established by the decision of the Congress of Vienna in 1815, tied to the Russian Empire by the Real Union. The Head of a State was the Tsar as king. The Kingdom of Poland was deprived of the possibility to have a the separate foreign policy. It became an official part of the Russian Empire in 1867 after the failure of the January Uprising.

298

299

I and today it is estimated that at least dozens of Polish officers served in the ranks of the Belgian army. In the Brussels Royal Military Museum there is a special table of honour. Swearing allegiance to Leopold I, the Polish soldiers retained their ranks from the Polish Army. In the Belgian Army the were approximately several dozens of officers and NCOs in all branches of military. In total there were 20 thousand soldiers. This situation caused international repercussions, in particular concerning Belgium’s relations with Russia, Austria and Prussia. Diplomatic relations were also suspended after General Jan Skrzynecki was appointed as Belgian commander-in-chief in 1839. To prevent conflict, the General didn’t take up the position, but preferred to remain “at the disposal of the government.” Belgian-Russian relations were normalized only in 1853, after the Poles had completed their service in the Belgian army. From 1911 Belgium began receiving the next wave of Polish immigrants, mainly miners. About 30 thousand arrived that time. Before the outbreak of World War II, the Polish community in Belgium already comprised about 62 thousand citizens. During the war, Belgians and Poles took an active part in the resistance movement. The Polish 1st Armoured Division played a very important role in the struggle for the liberation of Belgium. Immediately after the war, about 10 thousand Poles settled in Belgium, another 10 thousand followed between then and 1976. During this period, about 9,000 Polish countrymen re-emigrated. In 1988 Belgium had a total population of about 50 thousand people of Polish origin living mainly from mining in industrial districts in Limburg, Liège and Antwerp. Currently, it is estimated that the number of Poles and people of Polish origin is approaching 90 thousand. This is called economic migration.

The history of Belgian and Polish relations in the Royal Military Museum in Brussels.

300

301

XI. At the End?

302

303

“The Commission of the Last Chance” In May 2014 I was, once again elected Member of the European Parliament. As an MEP, at the beginning of my third term. I am tempted to analyze the future of the European Union. The last European elections, for the first time since 1979, brought a rise in turnout of 0.11%, which gave an average share of the euro-citizens from 28 countries at the level of 43.11%. However, for the first time more than one quarter of the MEPs are members who clearly undermine the value and meaning of the existence of the European Union. These members of eurosceptic parties who, although previously had a small number of representatives, now came back stronger than ever. For example the French National Front in 2009 gained 6.3% of the support and only 3 seats in EP, during the 2014 elections, it gained 24.86%, which gave them 23 seats. For the first time since 1910 the success in United Kingdom was not shared by any of the two main Parties, Tories or Labor Party, the victory and 24 seats in the EP ware given to the Europhobic United Kingdom Independence Party, UKIP, which in the previous elections got only 13 seats. Germans contesting the meaning of the EU – Alternative for Germany – reached 7 seats, 4 more than pro-European Free Democratic Party. Neo-Nazis from the NDP also have their member in the EP. Greek far-right and nationalist Golden Dawn now has two representatives. In the rows of the EP we can also see populists or fascists from Italy, Holland, Denmark, Hungary, Austria, Finland and Lithuania. Participation in Elections and Voting is our civic duty.

304

305

What are the consequences? Very serious. Established 22 October, 2014 the College of Commissioners faces a challenge. If at the end of the next five years the EU has not left the economic stagnation, it may run out of energy and potential for the maintenance of the Community. Without achieving any economic effects, as the “added value” of the common market, the next EP elected in 2019 could be dominated by those disappointed by the EU. And that might be the end of it. “I have a 5 year contract with the EP and I am going to use it”, declared JeanClaude Juncker – President of the European Commision. He wants to give €300 billion for investment, which could be the cure for the crisis and unemployment. The draconian criteria of the Stability and Growth Pact (for the deficit and debt in national budgets) will remain unchanged but “will be introduced with a certain degree of flexibility”, which will also give a breathing space for example to the economies of Greece, Portugal or France. I have participated in the hearings of Commissioners, in the last two terms of the Barroso Commission. Although the last two teams did a good job, I believe the Juncker Commission will perform even better. Unfortunately, support for this Commission in the EP is very low. To compare, the first Barosso Commission, accepted in November 2004, achieved 449 votes of support to 149 against, with 82 abstained. The second Commission elected in February 2010 obtained 488 votes, with 137 against and 82 abstentions. The Head of Commission Jean-Claude Juncker with his, more experienced, team has to face challenges not only economic but also geopolitical and is aware of this situation. In his exposé he named his team – the Commission of the Last Chance. Fingers Crossed.

306

307

Summary of Lidia Geringer de Oedeneberg’s achievements in the EP Member of the European Parliament of 6th and 7th legislature (2004-2009, 2009-2014), elected for an 8th parliamentary term (2014-2019); Quaestor of the European Parliament for two terms (2009-2014); Vice-Chair of the Legal Affairs Commitee (2005-2009, 2014-until today); Member of the Socialist Group (2004-2009; 2009-2014; 2014-until today); Currently Member of the Committees: on Legal Affairs, Petitions and Budget. Selected achievements in the Bureau of the EP: – i nitiating and leading the establishment of the Regional Office of the European Parliament and the European Commission in Wroclaw. The Office plays a crucial role in promoting Poland and informing citizens about various possibilities offered by the EU; – c reating a virtual gallery of works of art held by the EP, promoting contemporary European artists and rotating exhibitions presenting works of art from countries holding the Presidency of the Council; – initiating a series of exhibitions promoting Polish regions, culture and science in the EP during the first Polish presidency of the EU Council. Selected achievements in the Committee of Legal Affairs: –m ain rapporteur and negotiator of the directive regarding the fair use of orphan works, which opened access to “frozen” cultural resources (blocked previously by copyrights), in cases where the owners of these rights cannot be identified or located. The implementation of this directive triggered the following process: works recognized by one of the EU countries as “orphan” may be used free of charge in all EU countries, in case of finding or identifying the author, he or she will receive compensation; 308

309

– author of legal opinion on safety of storing data in Cloud Computing which increased the transparency of contracts as well as protection of personal data; – promoter of work on the Parliament’s position regarding ACTA agreement, which after 2 years led to rejection of the controversial document; – working actively on the regulation on the protection of personal data, especially on improving the definition of the “right to be forgotten” – regulation on the control over profiling and protection of our privacy. A new right for internet users, allowing them to request deletion of their data, or links, from various administrators of sites and forums; – actively cooperating on a report on the harmonization of copyright management, introducing greater transparency into the system of grants and payments to artists. Selected achievements in the Committee on Budgets: – taking active part in the negotiations of the 2007-2013 and 2014-2020 Multiannual Financial Frameworks and the beneficial compromise for effective regional development; – working in the “Single Seat Group” supporting the establishment of just one location for the EP, as we currently have 3 main workplaces (Strasbourg, Brussels and Luxembourg). Today, following our efforts, nearly 80% of MEPs support the establishment of a “Single Seat” and voted on a resolution to oblige the European Council to change the Treaty allowing the Parliament to decide where it wants to operate. One instead of three places of work will generate savings reaching €200 million each year.

The last meeting of the Bureau of the European Parliament chaired by Jerzy Buzek, 23 January, 2012.

Selected achievements in the Petition Committee: – working on a petition regarding the plans to create open-cast mine in Lower Silesia, following a refusal of the Polish authorities to acknowledge the outcome of a legally-binding referendum, in which the citizens objected to the investments. MEPs’ efforts led to a fact-finding mission of the Petition Committee to the region and the first talks (nearly 3 years after the referendum) between both sides of the conflict; – initiating the idea of putting “subtitles” on all public television programmes in the EU, granting people with hearing difficulties full access to information, culture, education and entertainment provided by TV. Subtitles can also support language learning as well as reading ability, which is vital taking into consideration current levels of illiteracy in Europe. Lidia Geringer de Oedenberg with Martin Schulz – President of the European Parliament (in the years 2012-2014).

310

311

Acknowledgements With all my heart, I would like to thank my assistants for their help with finding all materials and documents, without which I would have not been able to complete this publication. Special thanks go to: Karolina Przybylińska, Karolina Zielińska, Carmen Godeanu, Anna Czerwoniec, Agnieszka Jędrusyna, Katarzyna Mironiak and Jakub Grek.

312

313

Lidia Geringer de Oedenberg graduated with distinction from the University of Economics in Wrocław (Poland), majoring in Management and IT. She also completed a post graduate degree at the Warsaw School of Economics, as well as other complementary studies at the French Institute of Management in Warszawa and in universities in Spain and Holland. For several years she worked as a journalist in the Polish Public Television TVP S.A. in Warszawa and Wrocław. In 2001 she became Programming Director at the Wrocław department of TVP S.A. In the years 1996-2005 she successfully worked as the CEO of the International Wratislavia Cantans Festival, at the same time working as CEO of the Wrocław Philharmonic. In 2004 she gained a seat in the European Parliament, in 2009 she successfully ran for re-election. In 2014 she gained the seat for the third time. In 2009 she was elected for a 2.5 year term to the College of Quaestors and member of the Bureau of the European Parliament. Following the next internal elections in 2012, she became a Quaestor again. Currently, she holds the position of first Vice-Chair of the Legal Affairs Committee.

316