EDITORIAL Dear delegates, Only days left until the 35th National Selection Conference of EYP France in Grenoble. This session will be the first experience for most of you, and therefore a very special one. You will have three very full days of fun, intense debates and getting to know people who might accompany you in your EYP journey for the years to come. So get excited! You must be already preparing for the session and for your committee topics, and so are the journalists. The media team decided to adopt the name “Infinitum” to represent the boundless ideas that are brought to and emerge from sessions. You can already find a sample in here: the ideas of your journalists on the topics of the session, from morally controversial topics such as stem cell research, to sensitive humanitarian issues like immigration policy. Please keep in mind that they are very personal articles, where the journalists take a stance on each topic. These articles do not provide you with an overview of the problem, but present the journalists’ point of view. We hope this will give you a grasp of the topic, see a different point of view and think from a broader angle, whether you completely agree, disagree, or stand anywhere in between. You will be able to discuss your reactions and opinions on the topic in committee work during the session. Until then, read up on your topic, stock up on Eurovillage food, and rest well! Nous avons hâte de vous voir à Grenoble! Yours, Tuna Dökmeci and Rebecca Smith
CONTENTS ITRE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 JURI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 AFCO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8 LIBE II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 CULT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 LIBE I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 EMPL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 TRAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18
ITRE - Committee on Industry and Research
Reaching for the Stars Nina Thomic presents the fascinating development of space technologies within the European Union and its impacts on modern European society.
4 1
In the beginning it was Russia and the United States of America that drew upon the territory outside our beloved planet. While space was used as a battlefield for political interests during the Cold War, Europe abstained and started profound research and working procedures not before the millennium turn. In 2002 the European Union succeeded in taking the first step by founding the European Space Agency in order to further develop space technologies to thereby push European industry and research onto a completely new level. Furthermore, there were a lot of changes within the European Union itself, such as the accession of new states, making the enlargement of the sector on Research and Development (R&D) inevitable. In addition, space has become an element of increasing vital importance in an enlarged European territory with its new position in worldwide politics, and thereby aligned day-to-day threats in security. We are all using space technology in its various dimensions every day and are already taking them for granted. Without satellites being located all around the earth we would not be able to forecast the upcoming weather situation and we would have to find our way without the use of navigation systems, such as the very popular Global Positioning System (GPS). The European Union is recognising all of these positive impacts on Europe’s citizens. The EU has designed committees with the task of creating a EU space strategy and is aiming for further improvement within this young economic sector. Both the increase of investment on space technology R&D and the enlargement of the coordination effort are necessary steps to improve the competitiveness of the European industry vis-à-vis the major world players and the emerging space powers, with which cooperation should be considered when appropriate. In addition, the production of space components fosters the expansion of many economic subsectors, namely the conveyance of raw materials, manufacturing of technical equipment or space tourism. Moreover, the coordination and increase of the efforts in space-related activities is a prerequisite to improve the strategic place 5 2
of Europe in the world and to reduce dependency from the current leader in the space technology sector, the United States. Europe needs a solid space technological base aimed at deploying competitive and independent future generation of space systems. However, this cannot become reality without a stronger commitment to technology R&D, innovation, in-flight demonstration and coordination of resources to answer these challenges. Gladly the European Union is supporting these aims with articles 4.3 and 189 of the Treaty on Functioning of the European Union (TFTEU) by outlining the benefits of a further development in this sector. On the other hand, negative impacts of many of these new technologies also need to be taken into account. The atmosphere is highly affected by litter pollution, which may lead to environmental impacts, as well as problems for future spacecrafts. They will not be able to go around uninhibited objects that are usually in transit in a very high pace. Although there are critical voices scrutinising whether the enormous amounts of money that are invested in further research and emissions resulting from rocket launches are justifiable or not, the EU is definitely heading for the right direction. It is vital to facilitate the R&D sector in order to ensure sustainable economic growth and stability. Another constantly mentioned and negative aspect is constituted by the currently running project “Galileo”, which was introduced as a new version of the GPS. Parts of the public expressed their concerns when it comes to the security of data. In fact, the information about people’s current location will certainly not be published and should serve the executive authorities. To conclude, the further development of space technologies is indispensable in order to keep its economic position not only worldwide, but also beyond our planet earth. Neil Armstrong once said that the conquest of outer space was “one small step for a man, but one giant leap for mankind”, which should remind us of the upcoming challenges. There is still a lot of space for improvement and the EU should take a step now.
JURI - Committee on Legal Affairs
Reality versus Potentiality: Should we value a potential life more than an actual one?
Patients suffer while stem cells remain frozen or destroyed all for the protection of a potential life. Triantafyllos Kouloufakos explains why refusing someone treatment for his disease to save a potential being is wrong.
6 3
A new moral debate has been added to the long list of already existing ones, the one about the use of embryonic stem cells. Embryonic stem cells are the first cells that are created when a human being is formed, in the first stages of pregnancy. The special thing about these cells is that they can be used for the development of many kinds of treatment for, until now, incurable diseases. The debate going on around them is whether such cells should be used, because during their extraction, most of the times the embryo is destroyed. As most of the times the discussion is about spare embryos taken from in vitro fertilisation (IVF), I do not see any reason why patient suffering should continue. A decisive factor in this debate is the moral status of the embryo. A wide range of opinions have been expressed, varying from just a ball of cells to same status as a born baby. From my point of view, the correct opinion is the one that regards the embryo as a person after the first 14 days. During this period the central nervous system has not yet appeared, so the embryo is not conscious and cannot feel anything. After the 14th day the embryo cannot split to produce twins so we know that it is an individual person. Judging from these two reasons, the embryo in the first 14 days is just a group of cells with no actual status as a person. Why is it so wrong to use these cells in this interval for the development of almost miraculous therapies? The argument that with doing that we stop a human life from beginning is unjustified. Most of the embryos used in this research are spare embryos created from the spare genetic material from the process of IVF. The majority of those are destroyed, and those that do not are kept in freezing for storage and if they are not used for IVF they are left to perish. Cells that can be used for the treatment of diseases such as diabetes or Alzheimer are 4 7
thrown away because we want to protect a life that is statistically proven that is never going to exist. Something else that must be taken into account when this debate is raging, is the source of the embryos from which the stem cells are taken. As it is already stated the majority of them are spare embryos from the process of IVF. Many voices have been raised that with this process human life could be undermined. It is supported that if stem cell therapies became routine treatments, human embryos would become a source of therapeutic materials, and using them as merely a means to achieve the ends may decrease the respect for human life. However, there is no reason to believe that destruction of embryos will undermine the respect for human life in society. The destruction of embryos in connection with in vitro fertilization treatment as well as abortion have been practiced for some time, and no special change in the way we view the value of human life has been observed. In addition the philosophical argument that there is a difference between actively killing someone and omitting to prevent their destruction is almost egoistical. Because some people want to have their consciences clean, useful stem cells for curing serious diseases are left to perish, and patients are left to suffer. We always hear that the ends do not satisfy the means. In this discussion, this should not be considered. Living people, patients, are dying or suffering for years. The reason of that is that some scientists are afraid to use embryos because of morals and ethics. I cannot see how it is morally correct to let people die and suffer, to save someone that we are not even sure is going to live. Can you?
AFCO - Committee on Constitutional Affairs
Struggle for Power: the Downfall of the EU
Low voter turnouts, mistrust in EU institutions, lack of interest towards European politics‌ Claire Defossez explores the reasons behind it and asks what has to be done.
5 8
In 2009, European Parliament elections were held for the seventh time since its first direct elections in 1979. As the EP is the only directly elected EU institution, this was a great opportunity for EU citizens to let their voice be heard. Unfortunately, the voter turnout was only a meagre 43%. How did it happen that there is such a weak link between voters and the EP, or more broadly, the EU as a whole? To give an answer to this question, we should start by looking at the structure of the EU and the role of the EP in it. The EU adheres to Montesqieu’s well-known trias politica: separation of the powers. The executive power lies mainly within the European Commission, which is responsible for policy initiation in certain areas and budgetary functions, and the 28 member states. The judicial power lies within the European Court of Justice and the European Parliament together with the Council of Ministers carry out the legislative power. We can therefore see that the EP doesn’t exercise much power in the area that citizens see and appreciate the most: the executive branch. The Commission decides on the budget and initiates policies without citizens being involved in that process in any way. For a politically engaged citizen with a fair understanding of EU institutions, it might seem as if his vote wouldn’t have an influence on the day-to-day decision-making process. So why vote anyway then? For a larger group of citizens, namely the people that aren’t so well informed about the different functions and competences of the EU, its institutions might appear as a collection of vaguely defined names; which naturally doesn’t create any incentive at all to go voting. It is easy to blame the EU for its complex structure and its non-transparency but we should remember who created the Union in the first place: the Member States. Member States are called states and the European Union is called a union for a reason. A union can only acquire the amount of power its 9 6
member states give it. Thus, if Member States do not delegate competences to the Commission – the executive branch – the Commission cannot properly communicate its activities to it citizens. Consequently, many EU citizens perceive the European Union as a vague supranational institution that dictates what Member States should do. Of course, there is a reason for everything. Heads of national governments are careerists; meaning that the accumulation of as much as power as possible is their motive and the pursuit of national interest is their way to conduct it. The fact is, that 80% of the day-to-day decisions affecting the individual states is made in Brussels. Would this be communicated to citizens, heads of governments would not only lose their public credibility but they would also lose all control of how their country is being portrayed. As a consequence, citizens are informed about the EU at a minimum level, feeling no association with the Union and no stimulus to rush to the cubicle. Thus we can see that to create a link between voters and the EP, citizens should be much more informed about the EU and its activities. The best way to achieve this is Member States giving up some of their power and delegating more competences to the EU. This is where the real debate starts: do we really want to give the Commission that decisive extra amount of power since it is already able to make 80 percent of our daily national decisions? I would say yes without hesitation. It is time to step out of the archaic era of self-interest and the nationalist pursuit of power. Let’s think again in the spheres of Wilsonian universalism, let’s truly commit ourselves to the EU and give it all the competences it needs to work effectively. Most importantly, let’s tell its citizens what it really is about.
LIBE II – Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs II
Time for a Change
Elodie Metral explores how it is possible that Europe, which claims itself as a protector of human rights, still has a long way to go concerning the condition of immigrants.
10 7
On November 27th came out the movie « The Immigrant » with Marion Cotillard. Taking place on Ellis Island during the 20s, the story is about the hope people had in a better life. They were leaving Europe for the pursuit of the American Dream. The expectation didn’t become the reality; as immigrants, they were treated like animals on Ellis Island. This movie is coming out 90 years later in a society where nothing much has changed about the condition of immigrants. Instead of Europeans hoping for an American way of life, it is now Africans who hope for a European way of life now. First of all, we should recognise that not all immigrants move for the same reason. There are four different kinds of explanations, namely familial reasons, political refuge, labour migration and studies. In this article, we will focus on political refugees. Hardly matters why they have to leave their country, asylum seekers do it in precarious conditions. With the Arab Spring, we experienced an increasing number of immigrants and 85% increase in applications for asylum in Europe in just one year. The main problem for these cases is still the way these immigrants are treated. How Europe can tolerate that, while it extols human rights? According to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, six main rights have to be respected: Dignity, Freedom, Equality, Solidarity, Citizen’s Rights and Justice. Let’s begin with « Dignity »: Can the EU really claim that the dignity of immigrants is respected? They are not treated in humane
11 8
conditions, rejecting to their country without any help because European countries do not really care of their purpose, they only look at their own problems. These immigrants are not free. For most of them, moving is not a choice but a vital need. They don’t have the opportunity to have freedom in their country, and Europe excludes them. « Out of sight, out of mind » as we say. It’s so easier to be blind, instead of looking at the truth. Are immigrants really treated equally? I wouldn’t be so sure. We are all human and we all should be equal no matter what. Do European countries help them? Europe doesn’t really take care of this issue. What is solidarity for if it’s not about helping people in need? Finally « Justice »: Justice is all about discerning what’s right and what’s wrong. Such treatment is not fair, and yet no judicial organ tackles that problem. Now we can either complain about European politics saying that nothing has changed in 10 years or we can raise our voice so they can hear us. We are not dreamers; we know Europe can’t welcome everyone. Countries should just stop being so hypocritical and start caring more about the immigrants’ conditions. It may seem as if this article is too critical, anarchic or unrealistic. I love my country, I love Europe, and that’s why I care so much about their politics and how they treat people, because I want that populations see Europe as gorgeous as I see it.
CULT - Committee on Culture and Education
Social inclusion: is Sports a Solution?
Marko Kazic explores how sports can contribute to social inclusion by presenting you an interview with a Serbian EYPer blind from birth. 12 9
“All sports for all people” Pierre de Coubertin, founder of the International Olympic Committee. Talking about social inclusion: Is sport a solution? Certainly! I played many sports and I’d say that through sport I’ve become more confident and gained many friends whom I see regularly. I feel so happy and proud at the same time. What have you taken part in so far? Well, I played football and I’m regularly going to gym. When we play football the other people are blindfolded and the ball is making sound while we are hitting it. It is so interesting. We spend hours and hours playing it. However, I’d say that one of the main problems is that people don’t see the importance of those events and whatsoever most of these activities only blind people are included in. Of course if those activities even exist. But then what should be done in order to change that? I’d like to have trainings with other people. In Germany they do it in that way. While I was going to my elementary school we were competing with other schools in athletics and it was such a pleasant experience not only for us but also for all of the participants. That is what lowers the barriers. Since you mentioned a lot of examples of how to solve the issue, what would you say for the role of the EU? The EU might suggest that the organisations for blind people should have more influence and legislative power in the sport clubs and by sport clubs I mean the governing body on the top of them. Many projects may be initialised. Many ideas may be brought forward.
10 13
Sport brings together millions of people, regardless of their sex, colour, gender, age, nationality or religion, and thus has the potential to play an important role in creating an inclusive society. Sports activities ranging from the local to the national and international level, embracing leisure as well as competitive sport, can support the integration of migrants and minorities to the society. In other words, sport events could be an ideal platform to foster inclusion, acceptance of diversity and mutual respect while combating racism, discrimination and exclusion. The European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) has carried out a research on racism, discrimination and exclusion in sport, focusing on different sports and levels of practice. The findings show that despite significant progress having been made in past years, sport continues to face a number of challenges related to racism and ethnic discrimination. Moreover, few Member States have established effective monitoring systems to record racism and racial discrimination in sport. What we see is that the social inclusion through sport is recognised as one of the ways to fight against racism that is happening either in sport clubs or sport events. I think that as individuals, we could do a lot in order to integrate all the marginalised groups into sport. If you see something you disagree with, you should act. I don’t agree with the separation of boys from girls during trainings, rejecting somebody simply because his nationality is different or not giving the possibility to disabled people because it’s way too complicated. Aside from the individual level, they should have a system support that the EU might ensure. The influence, which the organisations for blind people have in sport clubs or sport activities, is non-existent in most of the Member States. So, the recognition is fine but we lack action and encounter with those people. After all, we won’t know whether the water is cold unless we jump into it.
LIBE I – Commission des Libertés civiles, de la justice et des affaires intérieures I
Le Big Data devient Big Brother
Gabriel Plathey nous explique le Big Data, et les enjeux qu’il représente pour la protection des droits de L’Homme.
14 11
“ Mais c’est quoi ce Big Data ? “ Des données émises par les citoyens et les administrations à partir des divers appareils connectés constituent ce que l’on appelle le Big Data. Cette masse importante d’informations est l’enjeu majeur des années à venir, tant au niveau économique et technique, qu’à celui de la protection des droits de l’Homme. Principalement collectées par des entreprises privées américaines, ces données sont stockées sur d’innombrables serveurs réunis dans de gigantesques Data Centers, essentiellement localisés sur le sol des États-Unis. La plupart de ces informations sont personnelles et collectées pour alimenter les publicités ciblées ; premières sources de revenus pour les grandes entreprises comme Google, Microsoft, Facebook ou Apple. Cette concentration pose un certain nombre de problèmes. Avec la démocratisation des réseaux sociaux commerciaux “gratuits” comme Facebook, nombre d’éléments concernant les utilisateurs sont aspiré sur des machines distantes et opaques. Les données ainsi assimilées sont revendues aux annonceurs et autres publicitaires, donnant lieu à un pistage généralisé permettant l’entière supervision des envies, des lectures et des activités aussi variées de chacun et chacune. Une forme de fichage complet qui touche toujours plus de citoyens, qu’ils soient du monde en général ou européens.
“ Si c’est gratuit, c’est que vous êtes le produit.” - Adage des internets Le problème est récurent avec la plupart des moteurs de recherche comme Google, les 15 12
systèmes de cloud computing et les logiciels commerciaux comme Microsoft et Apple. Vos informations et communications sont non seulement épiées presque à chaque instant, mais elles ne vous appartiennent plus et font l’objet d’un véritable trafic. Bien entendu, une telle mine d’information attise la convoitise des gouvernements qui voient là une manne providentielle pour l’espionnage et la surveillance des citoyens. La récente affaire PRISM révélée par Edward Snowden a exposé au grand jour l’espionnage généralisé des États-Unis via la National Security Agency (NSA) de l’ensemble des communications transitant par internet, également les données chiffrées. La mise sur écoute de toute la population mondiale, à commencer par les dirigeants des divers gouvernements à travers le monde. La France n’est pas en reste et exporte de la technologie de “Deep Packet Inspection”, ou DPI, qui consiste à analyser l’ensemble des données passant par certains nœuds d’un réseau télécom/internet. Le système c’est notamment retrouvé utilisé sous la Libye de Kadhafi et d’autre pays peu regardant en ce qui concerne les droits de l’Homme. Bien entendu, tout ceci a servi et sert encore à torturer des opposants politiques ou des journalistes. Pis, ces accords visent les nœuds du réseau mondial (les liaisons sous-marines intercontinentales), ce qui permettraient là aussi une écoute généralisée et précise des communications. Aujourd’hui, l’Europe à encore tout à faire pour garantir les libertés de ses citoyens en matière de vie privée. Considérer l’internet comme un simple outil économique pour les entreprises est une grave erreur, car cet outil est avant tout social et révolutionne la structure de la société. La numérisation de nos vies qui forme ce Big Data ne doit pas nous conduire au Big Brother de 1984.
EMPL – Committee on Employment and Social Affairs
The Importance of Social Enterprises
It is always challenging to keep the balance between reality and idealism. Anna Morokhovska shows us the clash of those in the case of social entrepreneurship.
16 13
14 17
Whenever it comes to discussions about companies, common words you hear in that context are rationalisation, profit maximisation and cost cutting. Although the existence of businesses has a big impact on our society such as the creation of jobs, influence on working conditions, demand and offer, the main focus of most entrepreneurs seems to be the numbers rather than the people. Social entrepreneurs are aware of their responsibility. Their main goal is to create and sustain social values by tackling social problems through innovative solutions. They try to combine both the business, which means
thinking about profits, with non-profit organisations, which take into consideration social problems and contribute to the society through their products. An example for such social entrepreneurship is the project “Teach first“; a social enterprise, which aims to address educational disadvantages. Trainees participate in a twoyear training programme at schools where more than half of the pupils come from the poorest 30% of families according to the Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index. The graduates help these disadvantaged pupils to develop themselves and preparing them for exams, finding a job and their
further life. Founded in England, the successful project expanded to other European countries. Nowadays, there are more than 2.000 people participating in that programme. Although this may sound eligible and nice, social entrepreneurs also face the challenge of staying liquid while operating their business. In order to have full-time employees, they have to receive something additional to the honour of doing something great for the society. None of us can live on love and air. Building up and sustaining a company require investments and have its costs like
salaries, marketing and means of production. After having taken into consideration all of these aspects, it seems clear that social enterprises have a great value to society and the effort of these people working there is indeed making a difference. That’s why the European Union should subsidise these projects and help them growing with every mean required. Maybe a single person cannot change the world. But if we work together, we can achieve more than we ever imagined. Our limit is the sky.
TRAN – Commission des Transports et du tourisme
TRANsformation
La création d’une zone européenne sans frontières, suffit-elle de parachever la mobilité des citoyens en Europe ? Zabeth Wagemann dit que non.
15 18
Siim Kallas, le Vice-Président a la Commission européenne en charge du transport:: « If we can link countries, regions, east and west, then this can only give competitiveness for everyone in Europe to the benefit of citizens and buisnesses. » Il y a 18 ans les accords de l’espace Schengen furent adoptés par les pays de l’Union européenne. En tant que ressortissants d’un pays de l’U.E., il nous est désormais possible de circuler librement dans les pays ayant signé ces accords. Ainsi, il est permit de voyager de Lisbonne à Tallinn sans visas ni contrôles frontaliers. De même, les échanges commerciaux au sein de l’Union européenne ne subissent aucune réglementation autre que les inspections douanières depuis 1995. Mais l’absence d’un réseau majeur entre les grandes villes européennes à pour effet la non optimisation de l’espace de Schengen. Par conséquent, il faut six changements de trains pour effectuer le voyage Lisbonne-Helsinki. L’Union européenne aurait donc besoin d’un meilleur système de transports afin de permettre une cohérence européenne plus forte à travers le tourisme et de dynamiser l’économie européenne par des échanges plus nombreux.
19 16
En vue de faire face à ce problème de transport européen, la Commission européenne a créé le projet Trans-European Tranport Network (TEN-T). Ce qu’elle défini comme étant un « transport patchwork », devrait devenir un « transport network » donc une plus forte connexion entre les réseau nationaux. Un « transport network » améliorerait en effet les correspondances entre différents pays. Elle prévoit aussi une optimisation du réseau de transport européen en dynamisant les liens allant d’est en ouest de l’U.E.. Adopté en 2006, la fin de ce projet est prévue pour 2020. Ainsi, en 2050, la Commission européenne prévoit un réseau de transport européen d’une densité telle que chaque citoyen habite à moins de 30 minutes de celui ci. Mais avec ce projet se posent les questions du respect de l’environnement, de la difficulté de créer des connexions au sein des régions transfrontalières, et de la difficulté de relier les régions isolées. Pour ces raisons, il faut trouver des solutions afin de permettre meilleure optimisation de l’espace Schengen qui mènerait à une plus forte cohésion entre européens et à une dynamisation des échanges économiques européens en tenant compte des contraintes écologiques, géopolitiques et géographiques. En effet, d’après Sim Kallas, « Transport doesn’t and shouldn’t stop at borders and that is what european transport policy is all about. »