ABRANTES 2014 “ZEROING IN ON EUROPE’S DIVERSITY – REGIONAL ANSWERS TO GLOBAL CHALLENGES”
30TH NATIONAL SELECTION CONFERENCE OF THE EUROPEAN YOUTH PARLIAMENT PORTUGAL April 24 th–27 th, 2014
Committee Topics and Introductory Paragraphs (Final phrasing, March 16 th, 2014)
1. AFET – Committee on Foreign Affairs | chaired by Ms Franziska Hülß (DE) “I think we need to change the perception that one region’s gain is another region’s pain. We in the European Union are against the mentality of bloc against bloc. We believe the European Union and Russia have all to gain from a cooperative attitude. We should work on how to move our partnership from a partnership of need into a partnership of choice through a New Agreement.” ―José Manuel Durão Barroso, President of the European Commission, in Moving into a Partnership of Choice, European Commission SPEECH/13/249 , ‘Russia–European Union – Potential for Partnership’ Conference, Moscow, Russia, March 21st, 2013 vs.
“In the absence of such results, the European Union will decide on additional measures, such as travel bans, asset freezes and the cancellation of the EU–Russia summit. The Commission and the EEAS will take forward preparatory work on these measures. Any further steps by the Russian Federation to destabilise the situation in Ukraine would lead to additional and far reaching consequences for relations in a broad range of economic areas between the European Union and its Member States, on the one hand, and the Russian Federation, on the other hand.” ―Herman van Rompuy, President of the European Council, in Statement of the Heads of State or Government on Ukraine, European Council, Brussels, Belgium, March 6th, 2014
Cooling relations between the European Union and Russia? In the light of the protests in Ukraine, Russia’s disrespect of Georgia’s and Ukraine’s sovereignties and territorial integrities, and an unusually short EU– Russia summit in January, how should the European Union position itself with regard to its relations with Russia? Being the European Union’s (EU) largest bordering state, third-largest trading partner and playing a significant role in its energy sector as the main source of oil and natural gas, relations with Russia are of particular importance for stability and common security. The current basis for cooperation lies in a Partnership and Cooperation Agreement, which, signed in 1994 and in force since 1997, provides a political, economic and cultural framework for relations between Russia and the EU. Additionally, the two blocs cooperate in a number of challenges of bilateral and international scope, including climate change, drug and human trafficking, organised crime and the peace process in the Middle East. While there is enormous potential in EU–Russia cooperation, Russia is likely to remain a difficult partner for the foreseeable future. Following the collapse of the pro-Russian regime in Ukraine, Russia deployed a military intervention in the country, building up its forces in Crimea and along other regions bordering Ukraine. In a way, the military support for secession in Crimea rings similar to Russia’s actions in Georgia, where the former has pushed its borders by 11 kilometres into the region of Abkhazia – a manoeuvre enacted as an alleged precautionary measure during the XXII Olympic Winter Games in Sochi. From the onset, these actions have been condemned as illegal and invasive by international and EU leaders alike, with rising tensions between Brussels and Moscow having already led to an unusually short European Union–Russia Summit, earlier this year, and promises of many more sanctions to be implemented in the future. Ultimately, both blocs are fundamental players on the world stage and, as such, cooperation in the fields of economy, diplomacy and energy are not just necessary, but pretty much inevitable, if we wish to maintain any stability in the region. It will be the task of the Committee on Foreign Affairs to set the tone and the style of approach the EU will pursue from now on. 1/6
2. ECON – Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs | chaired by Mr Tiago Pereira (PT) “I expect that the future and governance of the Troika will become part of the wider institutional discussions in the process of deepening EMU. Realistically, a deeper fiscal union will not be achieved overnight: for the Commission, the guiding principle is that stronger solidarity can only be pursued in return for stronger responsibility – and it can only emerge in a profoundly democratic process. The European Parliament is at the core of this debate.” ―Olli Rehn, Vice-president of the European Commission and European Commissioner for Economic and Monetary Affairs and the Euro, in Mr Olli Rehn at the ECON Committee Hearing on the Troika Report, European Commission SPEECH/14/14, Strasbourg, France, January 13th, 2014
Per aspera ad astra? Nearly four years since the beginning of the Troika interventions and with feeble signs of recovery on the horizon, it is now time for an assessment. Whereas radically different interpretations of the impact of these austerity measures have been voiced by national parliaments, the media, financial institutions and the civil society, how best can the European Union pave the way to a full-fledged recovery of its Member States’ economies? Since the financial crisis harshly hit European countries back in 2008, austerity measures have been implemented across most Member States of the European Union (EU) with different consequences. With similar procedures and Troika interventions, we have seen dissimilar effects: Ireland and Greece, for instance, show that even if the problems are similar, standardised solutions will not work. Is, thus, austerity an effective solution to general problems or should different countries and their respective economies be approached differently? What are the limits to these different approaches? What is fair and, most importantly, what would be effective? As it is, financial consolidation has been relatively quick to happen in the Member States where austerity has been enforced. Yet, unemployment rates keep rising, reaching almost 30 % in Greece. Youth unemployment rates, especially, keep breaking record-highs, even four years after the first interventions took place. In other words, austerity has proven to work as a short-term solution for many economies, but what about its long-term social and industrial implications? On the one hand, civil society actors and the media often portray austerity as being part of the problem, rather than its solution. On the other hand, national parliaments – frequently with the support of financial institutions – have tended to hold fast to the belief that, though hard, austerity is indeed the only answer. Ultimately, the question remains as to whether the European economies are on their way to a speedy recovery or whether austerity is leading us into even greater hardship, unnecessarily stretching our path back to stability and real growth. It will be the task of the Committee on Economic Affairs to reflect on what we have learnt during these four years, develop new ideas and set the course for the future.
3. EMPL – Committee on Employment and Social Affairs | chaired by Mr Tamer Özgen (TR) “The European Union provides the closest thing to a ‘laboratory’ on open borders, allowing us to examine how reducing barriers to mobility might play out under conditions of economic stability (between, as well as within, countries), large opportunity differentials between countries, and economic strife. Yet many of the results remain to be seen.” ―Meghan Benton and Milica Petrovic in How free is free movement? Dynamics and drivers of mobility within the European Union, Migration Policy Institute Europe, Brussels, Belgium, March 2013
Labour migration in Europe – a two-way culture of “something for nothing”? With the recent federal popular initiative “Against mass migration” in Switzerland, the Immigration Bill currently being debated in the United Kingdom, a pan-European rise of the extreme right and the theme of xenophobia recurrently whipped up by the press, how can the European Union invert the trend in anti-migration feelings and ensure that a more harmonised set of labour migration rules are adopted by all Member States in the period leading up to 2020? Since the financial crisis, the need to lower the influx of migrants to the wealthier Western Member States of the European Union (EU) has been made a flagship issue by a growing number of extreme right-wing political parties. In the United Kingdom, France, the Netherlands and Greece, to cite just a few examples, many of these parties have been keen to exploit the fragility of Directive 2004/38/EC, proposing and, in some cases, adopting laws that severely restrict migration. More recently, the February 2014 referendum in Switzerland (which, although a member of neither the EU nor the European
2/6
Economic Area, has a series of bilateral agreements with the former that virtually replicate the conditions of the common market) has, so far, been the bluntest action against mass-migration in the continent. As for labour migration into the EU, there already exists the Blue Card system, aiming to provide qualified workers from the developing countries with EU working permits. Still, the system has received wide criticism from countries fearing potential ‘brain drain’ effects. Additionally, the United Kingdom, Denmark and Ireland are not subject to the Blue Card area, while most Member States have been slow to transpose the Directive into national law, all of which keep the system from functioning efficiently. As of this day, several Member States remain determined to end what they call a culture of “something for nothing”, namely by requiring that immigrants make greater integration efforts, both in their societies and labour forces. Paradoxically, they incur in the same contradiction when they refuse to provide social security to those immigrants and their families. Ultimately, it is the EU’s goal to improve the situation for all and ensure that the freedom of movement and social security of people are respected equally by all Member States. How can regulation harmonising national legislations be implemented? That and other questions will have to be answered by the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs.
4. ENVI – Committee on Environment, Public Health and Food Safety | chaired by Ms Mónica Leal (PT) “Climate action is central for the future of our planet, while a truly European energy policy is key for our competitiveness. Today’s package proves that tackling the two issues simultaneously is not contradictory, but mutually reinforcing. It is in the EU’s interest to build a job-rich economy that is less dependent on imported energy through increased efficiency and greater reliance on domestically produced clean energy. An ambitious 40 % greenhouse reduction target for 2030 is the most cost-effective milestone in our path towards a low-carbon economy. And the renewables target of at least 27 % is an important signal: to give stability to investors, boost green jobs and support our security of supply.” ―José Manuel Durão Barroso, President of the European Commission, in 2030 climate and energy goals for a competitive, secure and low-carbon EU economy, European Commission IP/15/54, Brussels, Belgium, January 22nd, 2014 vs.
“This result is not satisfactory. We are promising ourselves, Europeans and the European industry, that this new climate policy will be realistic, flexible and cost-efficient. These are very good assumptions. However, if we double the reduction target after 2020, it is not realistic. It is a road to reduce the competitiveness of European industry. (…) Adopting these objectives before the 2015 Paris talks is a mistake. We should not show all our cards today, before our partners say what they mean. Binding objectives on renewables and energy efficiency are not a flexible arrangement. We know well that Member States and individual sectors have different capacities.” ―Konrad Szymański, member of the European Conservatives and Reformists Group and co-rapporteur of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, during a European Parliament Plenary Session, Strasbourg, France, February 5th, 2014
An ever-greener Union – but at what cost? Following the European Commission’s policy framework communication of January 22nd, 2014 and the European Parliament’s resolution of February 5 th, 2014 on a ‘2030 framework for climate and energy policies’, how should the European Union proceed to ensure the 2030 targets it sets are sufficiently ambitious in environmental terms, yet realistic and safe in industrial and social terms? For 2020, the European Commission, in its ‘EU climate and energy package’, established a 20 % reduction in the European Union’s (EU) greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 levels, simultaneously increasing the share of energy consumption produced from renewable resources to 20 % and, finally, a 20 % improvement in energy efficiency. The commitment to lower the dependence on carbon-based energy sources and promote ‘green’ growth and jobs are two main bulwarks to achieve these quotas. More recently, new and more ambitious goals were set on the ‘2030 framework for climate and energy policies’ – a 40 % reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, raising the share of renewable energy usage to at least 27 % across the EU, as well as continuing the improvements in energy efficiency. Taking it even further than the ‘20-20-20’ policy programme, there is also a reform of the EU Emissions Trading System, the development of competitive, affordable and secure energy, a new governance system and the creation of a report on energy prices and costs in order to compare these data with those of the EU’s main trading partners.
3/6
Yet, criticism abounds. On the one hand, industry stakeholders complain that the proposed goals are too strict and will cost us dearly in terms of production. Even Günther Oettinger, who, as European Commissioner for Energy, helped shape and launch the 2030 climate and energy package, has called it “arrogant or stupid”, dismissing its chances without global commitment. On the other hand, various Members of the European Parliament, the Committee of the Regions and other interest groups have deemed the proposal weak and short-sighted, calling for more ambitious targets to be made binding. In this triangle of Industries (trying to become more competitive in the global economy), Societies (striving for greater welfare and better living conditions) and the Environment (which we must fight to preserve), it will be the task of the Committee on Environment, Public Health and Food Safety to find a balance that, more than simply acceptable, is advantageous for all.
5. IMCO – Committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection | chaired by Ms Victoria Savvidou (GR) “Cryptocurrencies were created by and for people who have simply had enough. They’ve seen the way the world is going and rather than grumble or pretend it’s not happening, they’ve decided instead to make a new one, in their own libertyloving image. It’s a world where, by and large, Big Brother has no place — which is why, for example, it’s so popular on the black market. But you don’t need to be a crim [sic] to see why cryptocurrencies make sense. Have you noticed how increasingly difficult it is, for example, to conduct the most basic transactions from your bank account? You want to pay for some item, perhaps by bank transfer, and the security’s so tight (thanks to onion layers of EU regulation, probably) you sometimes find yourself being shut out of your own account. Well, with bitcoin you’re your own bank: you transfer your money electronically from your wallet to the payee’s wallet, and that’s it.” ―‘Those bitcoin weirdos might just be right’, James Delingpole in The Spectator, January 4th, 2014 vs.
“To completely dispel the myth that anonymous financial transactions are a tool of the little guy, our rigorous economic research – led by a former senior IMF economist – conclusively demonstrates that unrecorded financial transactions significantly exacerbate income inequality: making the rich richer and the poor poorer. They are a tool of both political and economic oppression, with serious socioeconomic consequences. The thing about financial opacity is that it is impossible to limit its criminal uses. If you can use an untraceable payment system to buy small amounts of LSD from Silk Road, someone else can use it to buy a sex slave or move a $ 10 million kickback to an offshore bank account. And they will use it because they have hundreds of billions of dollars to move, and – under the status quo – they sometimes get caught (although not often enough).” ―‘Why Bitcoin (and other cryptocurrencies) will inevitably become tools of the rich, powerful, and criminal’, E. J. Fagan, Deputy Communications Director at Global Financial Integrity, in Business Insider, December 13th, 2013
From bitcoin to litecoin to… dogecoin? As cryptocurrencies seem poised to become the ‘gold rush’ of the digital era, the lack of unified legislation leaves the door open to excessive speculation, money laundering and the financing of criminal activities, as well as consumers unprotected in cases of theft and without access to refund rights. With different Member States taking different stances on the matter, what measures should the European Union adopt to ensure the security of its Internal Market and the protection of its consumers? With its 193 Member States, the United Nations lists 180 official or de facto currencies. Traditionally, each of these currencies is tied to a specific country or union of countries; their issuing and circulation are defined by governmental monetary policies and, with few exceptions, for each currency, one central bank has the monopoly of printing banknotes and minting coins. Over the past years, our understanding of currency has, however, changed considerably. The first digital currency based on cryptography – bitcoin – began trading in 2009. Since then, many others have followed, making ‘cryptocurrency’ the word on everyone’s lips. As of March 14th, 2014, at least 388 different cryptocurrencies are known to have existed, of which at least 266 remain actively traded. Being neither backed by any banks nor having had their validity ratified by any governments, cryptocurrencies work because a community of users agree that they have a certain value. As the number of users grows, so does the number of transactions. Many are believed to correspond to users buying and selling, in an attempt to make a profit out of these currencies’ highly volatile exchange rates; still, the number of actual payments and purchases (several of which allegedly illegal) has also been growing steadily, making this everyone’s concern. 4/6
At present, there is no single approach toward cryptocurrencies amongst the Member States of the European Union (EU); instead, despite a warning issued by the European Banking Authority in December 2013, most Member States have not taken a stance at all and only some have applied – or will soon apply – their own sets of rules. Bearing in mind the goals of ensuring market stability and the protection of its consumers, it will be up to the Committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection to decide how the EU should proceed.
6. INTA – Committee on International Trade | chaired by Ms Bérengère Gouraud (FR) “Europe’s 23 million SMEs account for two thirds of jobs in the private sector and 59 % of total value added in the nonfinancial business economy in 2010. Around 80 % of new jobs over the past five years have been created by SMEs. (…) While 25 % of EU-based SMEs were involved in exports to the Internal Market and beyond in the last three years, only 13 % of EU SMEs are internationally active outside the EU through trade, investment or other forms of cooperation with foreign partners.” ―Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions ‘Small Business, Big World – a new partnership to help SMEs seize global opportunities’, COM(2011) 702 final, Brussels, Belgium, November 9th, 2011
David vs. Goliath: In an age when the majority of economic growth takes place outside the Internal Market, micro-, small- and medium-sized enterprises are faced with one of their hardest battles – internationalisation. Building on the ‘Entrepreneurship 2020 Action Plan’ and the ‘Small Business, Big World’ partnership, and bearing in mind the ongoing negotiations for a Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, how can the European Union guarantee the best conditions for smaller businesses to thrive beyond its borders? The European Union’s (EU) financial crisis has, to some extent, also become an economic, social and political one. Internally, this is reflected in high unemployment rates and little to no economic growth in various Member States. On a broader perspective, the EU is facing ever-fiercer international competition for market shares, growth and innovation. These evolutions are closely intertwined with further ones in western societies, namely the increasing role of technologies and the need to ensure models of sustainable development. Being the greatest source of job creation and innovation fostering in Europe, micro-, small- and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs) can provide powerful ways of addressing those challenges. Developing MSMEs, however, means overcoming various obstacles. The complex intermingling of national and European legislations, decision-making processes and economic interactions is one of them. Additionally, the boom of developing countries and the expansion of the digital sphere have to be tackled, if we are to ensure that EU MSMEs have all the conditions to prosper in a globalised economy. The EU has already developed a framework to ensure that MSMEs cope with economic and social challenges, namely by adopting the ‘Entrepreneurship 2020 Action Plan’ and the ‘Small Business, Big World’ partnership, but those may not be enough – especially in the light of the upcoming Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership with the United States. It will be the job of the Committee on International Trade to find ways of turning these complex interactions into further opportunities for MSMEs to thrive and go on strengthening and empowering the EU in the global markets.
7. LIBE – Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs | chaired by Ms Rita Ferreira (PT) “Corruption seriously harms the economy and society as a whole. Many countries around the world suffer from deeprooted corruption that hampers economic development, undermines democracy, and damages social justice and the rule of law. The Member States of the EU are not immune to this reality.” ―Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament ‘EU Anti-Corruption Report’, COM(2014) 38 final, Brussels, Belgium, February 3rd, 2014
Corruption in our backyards: While most legal instruments and institutions aimed at tackling corruption in the Member States already exist, results remain unsatisfactory. Building on the ‘Fighting Corruption in the EU’ communication and on the findings of the ‘EU Anti-Corruption Report’, and taking into account disparities amongst the Member States, what further measures can the European Union implement to help eradicate corruption within its borders by 2020?
5/6
Over the past decade, several anti-corruption legal instruments have been negotiated by international authorities; most notably, the ‘United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime’ (UNTOC 2003) and the ‘United Nations Convention against Corruption’ (UNCAC 2005). Their implementation, however, has been insufficient and corruption remains a problem within the European Union (EU), being felt at local, regional and international levels. While the nature and scope of corruption differ amongst Member States, these crimes affect the EU as a whole, reducing investment levels, interfering with the Internal Market and affecting public finances. According to the European Commission, corruption costs the EU an astounding € 120 bn per year – this is nearly 1 % of the Member States’ combined Gross National Incomes, the same they contribute to the annual budget of the EU! Alarmed by these numbers, the European Commission recently published the first ‘EU Anti-Corruption Report’. At the unveiling press conference, Cecilia Malmström, European Commissioner for Home Affairs, said that “corruption undermines [the] citizens’ confidence in democratic institutions and the rule of law, it hurts the European economy and deprives States from much-needed tax revenue”, adding that the “Member States have done a lot in recent years to fight corruption, but today’s report shows that it is far from enough.” A Eurobarometer survey published the same day shows that three quarters (76 %) of Europeans think corruption is widespread and one out of twelve (8 %) say they have experienced or witnessed a case of corruption in the past year. And what about you? What is your stance on this matter and, most importantly, what do you believe the EU can do to eradicate corruption by 2020? These and other questions will have to be answered by the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs.
8. REGI – Committee on Regional Development | chaired by Mr Henrique Vieira Mendes (PT) “There are many things that are uncertain about the future. But it is clear to me that the future lies online. For so many areas of life. Do we want European leadership? European competitiveness? A bright European future? If we do – in any area –, we need a continent prepared for the digital age.” ―Neelie Kroes,Vice-president of the European Commission and European Commissioner for Digital Agenda in A vision for Europe, European Commission SPEECH/14/49 , World Economic Forum, Davos, Switzerland, January 22nd, 2014
No continent for digital illiterates: While high-speed internet access is now available in all Member States, digital literacy levels vary greatly amongst and within regions and most goals of the Digital Agenda for Europe are yet to be implemented. With this in mind, how can the European Union act to promote the uptake of Information and Communications Technologies throughout its least developed regions, aiming to eradicate the digital divide amongst them and, ultimately, bolster their economies and development? “The future lies online…” and yet, intra- and interregional disparities in levels of digital access and literacy remain a pressing issue in Europe. Information and Communication Technologies are a powerful means to greater social inclusion, connecting and empowering those who access and master them; obversely, they can also aggravate exclusion, shutting off those who can neither access nor handle them. As the need for e-inclusion becomes more relevant, the European Union (EU) is focusing on improving its citizens’ skills to use digital media and operate in a growingly digital world. Naturally, different regions face different obstacles, be those slow connections, insufficient offer within the market of Internet Service Providers or a lack of widespread knowledge amongst their populations. Furthermore – even within the same region –, gender, age, socioeconomic and education backgrounds all contribute to different skill and access levels. With this in mind, it will be up to the Committee on Regional Development to think of how the EU can effectively implement policies that, while not holding back the development of more advanced technologies and the deployment of a fully functional Digital Single Market, will also ensure higher levels of digital uptake and literacy, i.e. the necessary knowledge to benefit from said technologies. Analogously, and as a growing number of tasks are carried out online, how can the EU act to, taking into account its regions’ different needs, promote synergies amongst them that will help democratise this new right to e-be?
6/6