The Euros

So you want to be a journalist?

Marta CASTELLANI — 2013-05-06T18:49:48Z

If, like me, you are still desperately looking for an internship, spring break doesn't mean holidays. As a journalist and MA International Journalism student trying to make it outside Italy, I thought it would be interesting to attend a panel discussion with the (rather lengthy) title of: “Skills for the future, what do we need to know and what skills do you need to be a journalist in the digital age?”

On the panel, expert senior journalists and communication professionals, mostly from the BBC, talked about the skill set a journalist needs to survive in this ever-changing communication and social landscape. Obviously, a good knowledge of social media was mentioned. But what about young people who are trying to start a career in journalism? Needless to say, being a Twitter addict or a Facebook expert, having a Reddit account or a profile on Flicker won't quite cut it. In response to the question “what do trainee journalists need to have in order to get an internship, for example?” the first thing Jonathan Baker, of the BBC College of Journalism, said was “experience.” “Here we go again,” I thought. Experience. If you are expected to have some experience in order to apply even for a ‘work experience' placement, how are you meant to get that experience in the first place?

I am an international student who happily spent all her savings on an MA that was supposed to be the ace up my sleeve for a career in journalism. But as my tutors said at the beginning of my course, they are very happy to teach to us, and to wish us good luck in finding a job in our home countries. As if to say: we have enough English journalists in England, what made you think there was enough space for you too? Moreover, as many people remarked yesterday, having a Masters doesn't give you extra value and certainly doesn't increase your chances of finding a job in this field. Again, the most important thing is experience. So you'd better find an internship.

And if living in another country, studying at a masters level in a language that is not your own, preparing for exams and meeting assignment deadlines wasn't enough, applying for internships is a stressful process. It's anything but easy: time is against you and each negative response is not only a failure, but can represent days, sometimes weeks, wasted waiting for an answer. This is how you end up sending emails to almost anyone you can think of saying things along the lines of: “Hi, it would be amazing to work for you. Your newspaper/production company/radio station/magazine/anything is exactly what I am looking for,” like the typical high school loser desperate for a prom date. It becomes difficult when you then start to ask yourself: “what do I really like?” and “why am I doing this?” and you don't seem to know the answers anymore. You know it can't get any worse when you even send the wrong email to the wrong person: “Dear Director of BBC, it would be a pleasure to work for ITV....."

Journalism is a competitive field and I believe the truth is that no one really knows what the right recipe is for success. Many of the people I met yesterday came to journalism by chance, having studied other subjects for their undergraduate degree. Some of them, on the other hand, were in journalism and later moved to PR, to “finally make some money.” At the end of the day, if there are so many aspiring journalists out there, even intelligent people that well know the state of the profession and still want to try to make it, that means something. And I think that ‘something' is a passion for what for me is the best vocation in the world.

The EU will not forget the “forgotten crises”

Manuel MALIGNO — 2013-04-21T18:07:18Z

The “worldwide decision on humanitarian aid” was adopted on 10th January and will be the financial backbone of the Commission's humanitarian aid operational strategy for 2013.

The European Commission has made its decision concerning the amount to be distributed in humanitarian aid funds for the year 2013: 661 million Euros. This is a considerable amount that will benefit countries that have been in a state of deep crisis for many years.

For this operation, around 200 organisations will assist the Commission in its aim to alleviate the suffering of approximately 80 countries as much as possible. More than half of these funds will be distributed to African states or regions. This money allocation is done in accordance with the Global Needs Assessment project which assesses the annual progress of developing countries. The EU does not forget the “forgotten crises” nor countries that receive little or no particular media attention.

Kristalina Georgieva, the European Commissioner for International Cooperation, Humanitarian Aid and Crisis Response, said, “The scope and size of the Commission's worldwide humanitarian aid decision is a sober reminder of the extent of humanitarian needs around the world. For hundreds of millions of people crises are not rare events but recurrent, seemingly unavoidable hardships. Humanitarian aid is a vital expression of our humanity towards those who suffer. As well as the basic physical needs it fulfils, I have seen how it also serves as a source of hope for people who have lost nearly everything else”. From these words it is evident that the European Union has been focusing its attention on crisis situations for some time now, with Georgieva on the front line.

The 5 largest operations

The five largest humanitarian operations will focus on the Sahel region and West Africa, in particular Sudan and South Sudan which will receive €80 million, Mali (€82 million), the Democratic Republic of Congo (€54 million) and Somalia (€40 million). However, the largest portion of aid will go to Sub-Saharan Africa, which will benefit from approximately €344 million (representing 52% of the total amount made available from the Commission for humanitarian aid). As previously stated, attention will also be focused in 2013 on “forgotten crises” in the Central African Republic, India, Colombia, Algeria, Myanmar, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Yemen and Sri Lanka.

In particular, the Commission wants to find a solution to issues relating to the situation of displaced persons in Pakistan generated by a ongoing civil conflict, that of the Sahrawi refugees in Algeria, the war victims in Colombia and lastly of victims of the Lord's Resistance army in the Central African Republic. All these situations are somewhat complex.

The “forgotten crises”

In addition to the 661 million Euros allocated, the Commission has stated that it keeps a reserve fund for use in case of natural catastrophes or unforeseen crises. For example, last year this fund was used to provide aid to the crises faced in Sahel, for the civil wars in Sudan and the Democratic Republic of Congo and for the Syrian conflict. A seemingly secondary priority, this additional fund brings the total amount of humanitarian funding given by the Commission to nearly €1.3 billion in 2012, compared to an initial funding estimation of €640 million. In other words, double was in fact donated. From this point of view, the preventive fund seems more pertinent than ever. The EU has not forgotten the four principles that this kind of aid stands for: humanity, impartiality, neutralism and independence. Aid should be made available for everyone irrespective of their religion, gender, nationality, political affiliation or ethnic origin.

“Independence goes hand-in-hand with interdependence”: Scotland's European dream

Alex JOHNSON — 2013-03-09T19:28:05Z

At a recent speech in Brussels, Deputy First Minister of Scotland Nicola Sturgeon outlined the Scottish government's vision for a future independent Scotland within the European Union. Given Scotland's size and position, ‘continuous membership' of the EU is a core question at the heart of next year's independence referendum and is likely to affect the outcome.

While British Prime Minister David Cameron and his Conservative party prepare to renegotiate the UK's membership of the EU and Britain's obligation to adhere to key European standards, such as the European Convention on Human Rights, the Scottish government is busy campaigning for its own independence and place within Europe. The Scottish National Party, the SNP, has promised a referendum on independence for Scotland from the UK in 2014, with a proposed date for secession in March 2016. The growing question for Scottish voters is ‘what will be Scotland's position in the EU after 2016?' The answer so far is unclear. Several European politicians have stated that an independent Scotland would have to reapply for membership of the bloc, with the UK government sharing this view.

Nicola Sturgeon, the Deputy First Minister of Scotland and Deputy Leader of the SNP, at a recent policy dialogue at the European Policy Centre in Brussels, set out her party's and governments' vision for independence. She began by stressing the differences between the Scottish and the rest of the UK on backing for EU membership, highlighting that support for EU membership in Scotland stands at around 60%, in the event of independence. “Scotland, unlike the UK government, is fully committed to remaining an active member of the EU. The current situation offers no certainty.” She and her party aim to capitalise on current fears of a British withdrawal from Europe: “Instead of leading the EU, the UK is in danger of sleepwalking towards the exit.” The Deputy Leader claimed that “people and politicians in Scotland recognise that EU membership is overwhelmingly in our national interest.” She further backed this notion by demonstrating that at the previous UK general election, the eurosceptic United Kingdom Independence Party received less than 1% of the vote in Scotland.

Scottish Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, pictured here with First Minister Alex Salmond, says that an independent Scotland would be committed to an engaging and approachable relationship with the EU, in contrast to the “antagonistic and hostile” attitude of the current UK government.

Image credit: by theSNP on flickr, licensed under CC-BY-ND

In the busy, yet bland Brussels hotel conference room, she explained to the audience the SNP's vision of “continuous membership” of the EU, which they aim to achieve through a “seamless transition” by immediately opening up membership negotiations with Brussels in the event of a yes vote in the independence referendum. Citing the example of Sweden, whose membership talks lasted just over a year, Sturgeon seems confident that the negotiating chapters could be opened and closed before March 2016 as, aside from existing UK opt-outs, Scotland already applies the EU's acquis communitaire as part an of EU Member State.

Yet the question of whether Scotland would be entitled to the same opt-outs, on the Schengen border-free travel area and the Euro for example, were of contention for some members of the audience. George Lyon, Liberal Democrat MEP for Scotland, questioned whether the existing UK opt-outs would be ‘red lines' in future membership talks, and whether the Scottish government would seek the same semi-detached relationship that the UK currently enjoys with the continent. The Deputy First Minister responded by claiming that Scotland would remain in a free-travel area with the UK and Ireland, stating that “nobody in the EU is arguing to create a border within the EU that doesn't already exist,” and that the Scottish government is committed to remain with the Sterling currency after independence. However, the questions of opt-outs will certainly necessitate some greater legal clarity in the future, given that prospective Member States are required to sign up to the Euro and Schengen in their accession agreements.

She went on to comment that the UK government currently has an “antagonistic and hostile” relationship with Brussels, whereas Edinburgh would instead seek an engaging and approachable relationship in its dealings and membership of the EU. She claimed that if Scotland were to be denied or be delayed in its membership of the EU, then the “very founding principles of the EU would be traduced.” An argument which perhaps carries some weight; after all, to deny or even strip existing EU citizens of their rights and privileges through administrative process would give flame to the notion of Brussels being both undemocratic and overly bureaucratic.

 Sturgeon ended her speech by setting out that “after independence, we intend to remain part of the European family. And it is why Scottish membership of the European Union will be good for us, good for your individual nations, and good for Europe as a whole.” So it seems that ultimately, it will be up to the Scottish electorate, EU legal experts and the will of other European states to decide how close a member of the European family Scotland will be.

Nicola Sturgeon's full speech can be read here

A New Era For Regionalism

Antoine Bargas — 2013-03-02T23:43:26Z

At the beginning of October, more than a million people took to the streets of Catalonia calling for their region to become independent and to stop paying for things on behalf of Madrid. On 14 October, Bart De Wever, the controversial leader of the regionalist (and separatist) New Flemish Alliance party, or N-VA, won the Antwerp municipal elections, taking the first step towards his party's conquest of Belgium's second largest city. On 16 October, British Prime Minister David Cameron announced plans for a referendum on Scottish independence. And on 21 October, the Basque Nationalist Party (PNV) won the Basque regional elections and took control of their region, which had hitherto been governed by a conservative and socialist coalition. All of this shows that, instead of being stifled, the fight for regional identity remains well and truly alive in Europe and has in fact been fuelled by the current social and economic crisis.

New setbacks, new loyalties

Indeed, the economic crisis has led many regions to broadly review their social and economic policies, and in some cases their relationship with the State. In Spain, in the face of massive regional debts, the notion of transferring regional powers to central government has provoked widespread outrage amongst those living in the autonomous regions. Similarly, the Belgian government has been forced to resolve its own economic and social crisis by making large cuts to budgets and financial transfers, which have proved less than satisfactory for the Flemish community, who are becoming increasingly detached from their French-speaking neighbours. With growth stalling, competitiveness decreasing and social and political tensions rising, it is understandable that a number of regions seeking independence should fall back on to their own regional identities. Budgetary cuts are being implemented not just centrally but also in the regions, leading to new loyalties and new tensions – regionalists are no longer simply fighting against their central governments, whom they see as taking all their money, but also against the other regions in the state, which are poorer and more in need of financial support.

Belgium's Flemish population are becoming increasingly detached from their French-speaking neighbours.

Image credit: Betoging Staatsvorming 6 mei 2007 Wapperende vlaggen by _Skender_ on flickr, licensed under CC-BY

In this way, Flemish separatists have raked in the votes by highlighting the many flaws in the administration of the French-speaking region. Similarly, in Spain, the Catalans and Basques have decided they no longer want to pay out for Andalusia. Still, not all of these regional movements are motivated by selfishness; many are simply going back to historic identities and, without criticising any other regions, are keen to point out their own individualities and their desire to be independent – as is the case with Scotland. In these movements, loyalties are still present: Flemish, Scottish and Catalan separatists have all shown that they have genuine schemes in place for social or inter-generational loyalty, but on a regional scale.

Regional stalemate for the major parties

These schemes and claims over identity have always been something of a stumbling-block for the major political groups (the EPP's conservatives and Christian democrats and the PES's socialists). Having long been accustomed to dealing peacefully with national and regional governments, the two principal political groups in Europe have been caught unprepared by regionalist claims: the conservatives remain attached to the sovereignty of Member States and the social democrats aim to defend national unity. Regionalist movements are facing conflicting ideologies as tradition meets progress and populism meets pragmatism – the focus is on progress when seeking to move along the process of decentralisation but on tradition when insisting on retaining regions' historical heritage; populism is the central theme when there is talk of retreating and when the finger is pointed at central governments, but pragmatism is brought to the fore in the context of regional councils. That situation is occurring with Lega Nord, the party that governs two of Italy's wealthiest regions (Piedmont and Veneto), the N-VA in Flanders and even the SNP in Scotland. In reality, regionalist parties' ideas are not entirely rigid and cannot be precisely delimited, since the sole issue at stake is independence, whether in the short term or slightly further off. This new independence stems from a sort of 'quiet strength', a practical approach which causes no alarm to voters.

: A referendum on Scottish independence is scheduled for 2014. Image credit: Scottish flags by Rev Stan on flickr, licensed under CC-BY

When it comes to the question of regional independence, the major parties have as yet been unable to find a satisfactory solution – so long as they are in charge of national governments, they cannot allow regions to become independent. Nonetheless, it is not in their interests to refuse to negotiate, since the people are clearly in agreement with the regionalists, and this indecisiveness is manifested in the major parties' electoral strategies. By working with regionalists, the big parties of each nation have helped them to move forward and given them credibility, such as in Flanders and Italy. Yet joining forces against them with other national parties has also strengthened the fight for independence, as we have seen at the federal level in Belgium and in the Basque country. And the tactic of tackling regionalist demonstrations by force, as attempted by one right-wing supporter in Spain, serves only to provoke sympathy for regionalists, seen as victims of centralist repression.

Perhaps a new strategy is required?

The referendum on Scottish independence in 2014 may just be that new strategy – by conceding to have a referendum (and campaigning for 'No' votes), the British Conservatives, the principal party in Parliament, have given a clear response to the question of independence. One may wonder whether this approach will be copied by Spain, Belgium, Italy or France; on this we must await the result of the referendum.

Women in Europe: Viviane Reding's challenge

Rossana QUARATO — 2013-02-22T20:20:29Z

The Commission launches the 40% challenge

The objective is to establish equal presence of the sexes at high levels within Europe's biggest companies. The proposal made by the law is to push the presence of women in executive positions up to 40%. This objective is to be reached by 2020 or, in the case of public enterprises, by 2018. All countries will have to respect the law, reporting their achievements annually. However, qualification and merit will remain a key criteria.

The presence of women in European companies

According to the report published by the Commission in March 2012, the percentage of top positions within European companies held by women amounted to 13.7% in the first trimester of that year. Although this is a higher percentage compared to that of 2010 (11.8%), this is evidently still too far from the desired 40%.

“I believe it is high time that Europe breaks the glass ceiling that continues to bar female talent from getting to the top in Europe's listed companies.” With these words the Commissioner for Justice, Viviane Reding, underlined the necessity of getting women into management positions in European companies, in such a way that would render Europe more competitive. She has also expressed regret for the continued lack of women in such positions after having put forward a similar request some time ago. “One year ago, I asked companies to voluntarily increase women's presence on corporate boards. My call was supported by the European Parliament and forwarded to business organisations by Ministers of Employment, Social Affairs and Gender Equality in many EU Member States. However, I regret to see that despite our calls, self-regulation so far has not brought about satisfactory results”.

Furthermore, a huge disparity between different countries is evident. To be specific, female representation in management positions in Italy amounts to 6.1%, making it just less than half the European average. However, the country which has the highest female presence in company boardrooms is Norway, where females hold an admirable 40% of management positions, very different to countries such as Germany, Japan and Holland where the figure is lower than 5%. This is important data, when we consider that the presence of women has a notable effect on the profits of companies.

Viviane Reding wants to break the glass ceiling that prevents women from getting to the top.

Image credit: © European Union, 2013

The proposal put forward by the Commission

Vice-president Viviane Reding (Commissioner for Justice, Fundamental Rights and Citizenship), Antonio Tajani (Commissioner for Industry and Entrepreneurship), Joaquín Almunia (Commissioner for Competition), Olli Rehn (Commissioner for Economic and Monetary Affairs and the Euro) as well as Commissioners Michel Barnier (responsible for internal market and services) and Lázsló Andor (responsible for employment, social affairs and inclusion), have presented the European Commission with a legislative act with which they intend to achieve better equality between men and women on the boards of European companies.

The proposed law aims to reach a target of 40% female representation in the management of listed companies. The data reported perfectly reflect the current situation. Men represent 85% of non-executive board members in Europe and 91.9% of executive board members, whilst for women the figures are just 15% and 8.9% respectively. These percentages are growing extremely slowly: in fact, since 2003 they have grown by merely 0.6% every year, a number that makes that auspicious 40% seem too high a target to reach.

This objective will have to be reached for non-executive board members by 2020, whilst public companies will have less time available to them, having to reach the target of 40% by no later than 2018. The proposal also provides a ‘flexibility quota': every company must set its own targets regarding the presence of men and women amongst executive board members, again to be reached by 2020 or 2018 for public enterprises.

The results reached must then be published annually. The same law also adds other measures which are to be followed. For example, qualifications granted purely on merit will be guaranteed, preventing unconditional promotion. Sanctions will be established for those who don't respect this law.

José Manuel Barroso, the president of the European Commission, has expressed his opinion on this new law: “Today, with this proposal, the European Commission is answering the strong call of the European Parliament for EU action to bring about gender equality in corporate boardrooms. Today, we are asking large listed companies across Europe to show that they are serious when it comes to gender equality in economic decision-making. At my initiative, the Commission has significantly strengthened the presence of female Commissioners among its members, with one third of Commissioners being women.”

We are dealing with an absolutely fundamental objective: the power to guarantee better equality and substantial profits. Women, no less than men, possess the competences necessary to be able to carry out a role of primary importance in the management of a country. The launch of the “Global Board Ready Women” database, at the instigation of Viviane Reding, is a confirmation of the task that the EU is undertaking in favour of women. The database contains a list of 8,000 women who are highly qualified in the field of economics and business management, in order to combat the still widely held prejudice that, “there are not enough women qualified to occupy posts in corporate boards.”

The IF campaign: why are 1 billion people dying from starvation when there is enough food for everyone in the world?

Marta CASTELLANI — 2013-02-13T18:01:00Z

By the time you finish reading this article, somewhere in the world, 36 people will have died from starvation or malnutrition.

In fact, almost 1 billion people each year die from starvation or malnutrition, as shown in a report produced by a group of over a hundred organisations including Unicef, Save the Children, Oxfam and The Global Poverty Project. In response to this, the group launched the “Enough Food For Everyone, IF” campaign, at Somerset House in London on Wednesday, 23rd January.

Prominent figures show their support

The hour-long event, presented by DJ and presenter Lauren Laverne, saw the participation of prominent celebrities such as actor Bill Nighy, actress Bonny Wright, Olympic athlete Colin Jackson, actress Keeley Hawes, England rugby legend Matt Dawson and musician Baaba Maal. During the evening, other celebrities also showed their support to the IF campaign, sending video messages that were projected onto the walls of Somerset House: One Direction, Orlando Bloom, Natasha Kaplinsky, Bill Gates, David Harewood, David Gyasi, Anjelique Kidjo, Nina Wadia and Myleene Klass.

Bill Gates said in his message: ‘The world faces a clear choice. The right one will help millions of poor farmers to feed their families. Business as usual will see one in seven people around the world continue to live needlessly on the edge of starvation worrying whether their family will have enough food to eat. Fifty years ago more than one in three of the global population faced these problems. So we're making huge progress. Choices made since then have saved countless lives and helped nations develop. We have the ability to accelerate this progress. Hunger not only causes very real human tragedy, it also costs economies billions of dollars. This doesn't make sense. Stopping hunger and malnutrition is not just the right thing to do. It's also in our self-interest. This year world leaders will meet in the UK. They can change the future for millions of people who live with the day-to-day struggle of hunger. But only IF we work together. This is why I'm part of the IF Campaign: to make sure everyone has enough food to live. Please join me.'

Microsoft's Bill Gates has lent his support to the campaign.

Image Credit: Microsoft Bill Gates by Masaru Kamikura on flickr, licensed under CC-BY

The IF campaign was presented in the UK and in 2013 because the UK will host the next G8 conference later this year. Leaders from the USA, the UK, Canada, Italy, Germany, France, Russia and Japan have been called on to prioritise issues related to global poverty and hunger.

In the evening, after the event at Somerset House ended, the campaign made its way to No. 10 Downing Street, where Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband confirmed the willingness of the UK Government to spend 0.7% of the national income on aid. On Twitter, Ed Miliband said: ‘900m people worldwide don't have enough to eat. Great launch to brilliant EnoughFoodIF campaign tonight.'

What are the causes of starvation?

There are many causes of starvation, and poverty is only one of those. The campaign focuses on four other main elements too:

Aid:Campaign supporters want governments to take action to fill a $100 billion gap by 2020 to help the developing countries in their fight against climate change, and to invest part of their gross national income on nutritional aid.

Land: This is one of the most pressing issues. According to the IF report, there is enough food for everyone in the world. The problem is not the lack of resources, but the way in which those resources are shared and invested. In countries like Africa, farmers have all the land they need to make sure they have enough food to sustain themselves and their families. But, too often, that land is taken by companies which invest in growing crops for fuel, leaving people with no means to feed themselves.

Tax: If every company paid taxes in countries like India, then the money could be used to invest in aid.

Transparency: “We need stronger laws that force governments and corporations to be open and honest in all their actions relating to the food system, and ensure that resources are used to help poor people”, the IF Campaign says on their website.

This campaign is part of the wider, more ambitious “Make Poverty History” project that fights contributing factors to poverty. An example is the campaign, “The End of Polio” that wants to finally eradicate polio from those countries in which it is still widespread, such as Pakistan, Nigeria and Afghanistan.

What is the European Parliament doing about Human Rights?

Natacha Bonnal — 2013-02-07T22:40:13Z

In 2004, the European Parliament appointed a subcommittee designed exclusively to address the issue of Human Rights. However, although this subcommittee on Human Rights has accomplished much in terms of parliamentary achievements, its role up until now has remained limited, in much the same way that the Parliament's own role on the international stage is limited.

At just a stone's throw away from the European Parliament, the European Court of Human Rights and the Council of Europe are located in Strasbourg. Separate from the European Union, these institutions are tasked with ensuring that the respect, observance and promotion of Human Rights is upheld within 47 European countries.

On an EU level the European Parliament, which has far greater political powers at its disposal, can be likewise seen as a defender of fundamental rights; these have, after all, been the “foundation of the Union”, ever since they were first acknowledged in 1969 by the European Court of Justice as fundamental principles of Community law. However, what means and courses of action are actually at the Parliament's disposal?

The symbol as a burden

Being the only European institution of direct and democratic legitimacy, the European Parliament monitors the respect, observance and promotion of rights and freedoms, not just within the EU but also extending beyond its borders. Issues relating to Human Rights are among its highest concerns.

The most visible demonstration of the Parliament's effort in the field of Human Rights remains the annually awarded “Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought.” Since 1988, this prize has been awarded to organisations and individuals like Andrei Sakharov, that have advocated for the defence of Human Rights and fundamental freedoms, and who have supported the fight against oppression and injustice.

: Costa Gavras gives an interview as he accepts the 2012 Andrei Sakharov Prize on behalf on Iranian activist Jafar Panahi. The European Parliament has awarded the prize to Human Rights campaigners annually since 1988. Image Credit: © European Union - European Parliament

The meagre prize money of 50,000 Euros is compensated for by media coverage, which certain countries will generally attempt to invalidate or refute. In 2008, Beijing raised harsh rhetorical opposition in the hope of deterring MEPs from awarding the prize to the Chinese dissident Hu Jia. And more recently, the Sakharov Prize was awarded to a vacant seat that was to be taken by laureate Guillermo Fariñas, who had been barred by Cuban officials from travelling out of Cuba to receive the award.

But the awarding of the Sakharov Prize is only one way in which the Parliament remains active in this area. The European Parliament routinely passes resolutions that call upon EU institutions and governments to take immediate measures, so that violations of fundamental rights can be brought to a swift end.

Ruffling government feathers

In addition, the Parliament publishes an annual report that gives an account of the current global state of Human Rights; this exhortation ensures that serious abuses in the EU and around the world aren't forgotten or overlooked. And the reactions of some governments would suggest that they are not indifferent to the criticisms and recommendations.

It's thanks to these reports that “the voice of the European Union has increasingly been taken into consideration,” affirms Hélène Flautre, green party MEP and former chairman of the Human Rights subcommittee. “The European Parliament often receives foreign delegations who plead with us to change our statements regarding their country's violation of Human Rights.”

After all, the European Parliament never passes up an opportunity to reaffirm its commitment to the protection of Human Rights; among many other things, resolutions have been passed on Tibet, war crimes in the Congo have been condemned, asylum seeker centres, such as in Poland or Denmark, have been visited....all of course lending to the risk of ruffling the feathers of national governments. However, on a legal basis, the Parliament doesn't actually have any real authority in this area. It merely gets informed about the strategic decisions that the Council makes on foreign affairs and is consulted by the European Commission about new policies.

Direct influence

Although the Parliament received more responsibilities thanks to the Lisbon Treaty, it has, in reality, no direct leverage in this area, particularly when it comes to legislation. Nevertheless, it decides in collaboration with the Council on the community budget and could thus directly influence EU policies in order to advocate increased awareness of Human Rights on an international level.

In contrast, the Parliament's judgement is more critical and instrumental when it comes to the admittance of a new State to the EU or in the agreement processes with third countries. In fact, since the early nineties it has been able to refuse the establishment of an agreement with a third country, if it can be proven that Human Rights or basic democratic rights have been violated. The strict adherence to the “Human Rights clauses” is required and systematically included in such agreements, and in the case that there are violations of either democracy or Human Rights, then the Parliament reserves the ability to rescind such agreements.

: The European Parliament can and does reject agreements with third countries if they have violated Human Rights.
Image credit: © European Union - European Parliament

And it's through these frequently used powers that the Parliament have sanctioned third countries that have violated Human Rights. For example, it declined to agree to Financial Protocols with Syria and Morocco in 1992 on the basis of Human Rights and democracy violations.

The Parliament was also unwaveringly insistent that European funds be invested for the promotion of Human Rights in third countries. And as a result, the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR) was established, which has since received a budget of more than one billion Euros for the 2007-2013 period to help finance projects in third countries.

The fact that the Parliament had the kind of influence on European policies that it did in the '90s was because the Member States and the Commission were more open to such developments. Increasingly, however, there has been a decline of interest in EU policies concerning the promotion of Human Rights around the world. Regardless, the European Parliament remains committed to advancing the issue; that's why the subcommittee on Human Rights was created.

Why a subcommittee on Human Rights?

It was in 2004 that the European Parliament Foreign Affairs Committee decided to set up a subcommittee on Human Rights. This subcommittee, which was implemented at the start of the 6th legislative period, is tasked with confronting issues relating to “Human Rights, the protection of minorities and the promotion of democratic values in third countries.” It's thereby perpetually and closely linked to the foreign relations operations of its parent committee.

The subcommittee handles thematic files such as the Sakharov Prize or the annual report on the current state of Human Rights. It additionally plays an important role in the development of tools relating to these issues (such as instructions for delegates on trips, or financial policies for civil society...).

The subcommittee on Human Rights is particularly responsible for providing a forum for discussion for exchange of views and public hearings that are attended by numerous NGOs, Human Rights defenders, the Commission and the Council. It is a place where the Parliament's positions on such matters can be determined. But fundamentally it serves as a laboratory for analysis that raises awareness amongst MEPs and advocates advances in Human Rights and democracy on a more international level.

Since it is unable to prepare legislative proposals, adopt initiative reports or draft resolutions— in contrast to traditional parliamentary committees— the subcommittee mainly focuses on analyses. Such a subcommittee can neither support the work of other committees, nor that of other delegations. The subcommittee on Human Rights therefore has no real authority or power, and remains a simple organ of its parent committee, the Committee on Foreign Affairs, to whom it is subordinate.

The role of the subcommittee on Human Rights is by no means insignificant, especially as a discussion forum and for the development of new ideas. However, the necessity to expand its responsibilities so that it can be a driving force in the area of Human Rights is clear. A basic policy response to such handicaps would be to grant it the full status of parliamentary committee, which the Parliament itself has suggested in its Resolution from April 25, 2002, and which has already been called for by numerous MEPs on many occasions.

More than just activism

The activities of the European Parliament in the field of Humans Rights have clearly had a positive impact; its prizes, resolutions and reports serve to bring the issues to light. Hauwa Ibrahim, Nigerian lawyer and recipient of the Sakharov Prize in 2005, said, “The Sakharov Prize has served to change paradigms and perception in my country.” Jean-Francois Julliard, spokesman for the organisation “Reporters without Borders,” and also a recipient, commented that this award “has heightened credibility and the level of awareness.”

But beyond such declarations of intent and principle, does the European Parliament really make a difference? This European institution could have a noticeably larger impact on the international level in terms of Human Rights, promote them and EU policies, if they actually exerted political pressure or protected victims of abuse. To give the subcommittee on Human Rights more authority would be a major first step in the right direction. Because up until now, all that the subcommittee, and even the European Parliament as a whole, has been able to do is make a lot of noise.

EU wins the 2012 Nobel Peace Prize

Hannah Mundell , Rossana QUARATO — 2013-01-29T22:27:34Z

“Awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to the European Union is a sign of encouragement and an incentive to be one with our values in a difficult moment for Europe” says Massimo D'Alema, member of the Democratic Party.

The possibility of lending financial assistance to third countries, reinforcing the role of the European citizen and the recognition of our rights through the establishment of a Charter wholly dedicated thereto, the start of the Europe 2020 project to promote Union-wide development, the fight against terrorism, guaranteeing assistance in case of natural disasters and the strengthening of Parliament power: these are some of the reasons that have led to the European Union receiving the 2012 Nobel Peace Prize.

The Merits of the European Union

On 12th October, the European Union was awarded the 2012 Nobel Peace Prize. It is a fundamental recognition for all European citizens, a prize for which we can all be justifiably very proud. Europe is currently living in a period of real crisis, but what drives it forward is the awareness that what has been done up until now has been taken into consideration and, more than anything else, has been rewarded. The Norwegian Committee seems to have had no hesitation in assigning the Nobel to the EU. President Thorbjorn Jagland has, in fact, justified their decision convincingly. “The EU has contributed to the advancement of peace and reconciliation, democracy and human rights in Europe”. With these words he explained the enormous contribution that our Union has made over time.

Despite the period of severe crisis in recent years, the Norwegian Committee has awarded the European Union the 2012 Nobel Peace Prize.

Image copyright: © European Union, 2013

Reasons that led to the EU being considered deserving of the Nobel Prize include the establishment of certain regulations to guarantee equality between men and women in different sectors and the establishment of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Europe has always tried to meet the needs of its citizens; it is enough to think of the possibility offered to many young people to study in a different country to their own, the single currency or of the decision to make it unnecessary to use a passport when travelling to many European countries. Without a shadow of a doubt, the main peace effort seems to have been the Lisbon Treaty, which acknowledges the right of European citizens to directly intervene in European matters.

The EU's reaction to victory

Even on this occasion there has been no lack of debate. The majority of this seems to stem from scrutiny of the enormous difficulty that the EU has found in tackling the economic crisis. Others have, instead, considered Europe unworthy of this award from mistakes made over time, like for example, that of having exposed citizens to great economic difficulty as a result of the establishment of a single currency.

Ex-Polish President and 1983 Nobel Peace Prize winner

Lech Walesa declared himself “disappointed and surprised” at the allocating of the award to the EU.

Image copyright: © European Union 2013

Among those who opposed the awarding of the prize to the EU is Lech Walesa, ex –leader of Solidarnosc (Solidarity), according to whom giving the award to Europe rewards a system which “is trying to change Europe and the world in a peaceful way, but we are paying for this”. The same aversion is shown in Norway where there have been vocal calls for Jagland's resignation. Despite strong opposition, the Nobel Peace Prize has been given to the EU which, now more than at any another moment, should demonstrate that it possess the necessary strength to permanently overcome the crisis.

This articles is a translation of the blog L'Ue vince il Premio Nobel per la pace 2012 by Rossana Quarato, from the Eurosblog L'Europa @ Torvergata. Translated from the Italian by Hannah Mundell.

Have the tables of migration turned?

Kirsty Walter — 2012-12-15T18:38:32Z

The 16th century: the Spanish conquest provides 250 000 Spaniards with the chance to migrate to Latin America in search of the promises of the ‘New World'. The 21st century: the opposite occurs, with thousands of Latin Americans seeking a better life in Europe. Yet once again the trend seems to be reversing, as the economic crisis worsens.

In the ten years before 2008, Spain saw its population grow by nearly a fifth. Yet recent figures show a decrease in immigrants and loss of foreign residents (228,890 within the first 6 months of 2012). Moreover, the departure of Spain's own younger generation has become increasingly worrying. They head anywhere the prospects are more attractive, meaning significant numbers (60%) of the departing Spaniards leave the EU; many head for the emerging markets of South America. In 2011, 63 000 Spaniards left their homeland and, in the first half of this year, the number of emigrants has increased by 44%. Such figures have not been seen since the 1960s.

The INE (Instituto Nacional de Estadística) predicts a loss of almost a million Spaniards within the next decade, a phenomenon the president of the non-profit Migration Policy Institute in Washington, Demetrios Papademetriou, described as, ‘a haemorrhaging of highly educated people'. With the youth unemployment rate passing 50% this year, it is therefore hardly a surprise that Spain has become a net exporter of people.

Yet worrying levels of ‘exportation' of a young and auspicious generation are not confined to Spain; in fact, much of Europe is facing a similar dilemma. Portugal, Ireland, Slovenia and Cyprus have also all become ‘net exporters' and in Italy and Greece there are worries that a similar trend is beginning to show. In 2011, 2500 Greeks moved to Australia whilst an enormous and significant 40,000 ‘expressed interest in going South', according to The Guardian; the Portuguese population in Angola has doubled since 2005; in the year up to April 2012, Ireland faced a loss of 87,000 – 2% of the entire population.

In the UK immigration has long been a ‘problem' which the government has been seeking to ‘solve' by cutting numbers. However, the apparent drop of 36,000 immigrants in the last year and an increase in emigrants both affect net migration. In Manchester alone there have been nearly 3500 enquiries concerning emigration, a number topped in Belfast and followed shortly by Liverpool. This suggests the change in pattern has a lot to do with the economy in crisis, rather than government efforts and, as such, does not always positively affect the country. For example, the number of student visas issued has dropped 21%, showing the damaging effect these changes will have on British universities and therefore Britain as a whole.

Even Germany is witnessing changes. Spiegel Online discovered that Nordhalben, a rural Bavarian town, is losing its residents: 85 out of 820 houses are empty; its previous count of 3000 inhabitants has fallen to just 1900; its elderly citizens pass away and there is no one left to replace them. This is in the wealthiest region of Germany. These migrants may be moving within Germany, transferring from the country to the cities, but a country may begin to struggle to support itself without an agricultural workforce to supply its ever-swelling cities.

In the past, for a European to hear of people leaving their own underdeveloped countries was anything but unheard of. But in the past, it was a distant threat, something that happened to countries outside the continent. The influx of Latin Americans which Spain witnessed in the build-up to 2008, mostly came with the intention of finding work and saving their earnings so, ultimately, they would be able to return. It seems in this sense the tables really have turned: many European migrants say their ultimate intention is to save a large amount of their earnings, in order to later return.

However,The Wall Street Journal's example of Andrés Velarde and María Palencia, two young Spanish architects, could be a worrying snapshot of a longer-lasting effect of the economic crisis in Europe. Their prospects in Brazil are so promising that they have ceased to set deadlines. It seems increasingly likely that the loss of the young generation to prosperity elsewhere could be more permanent.

Why does Europe need a Federal Reserve?

Tomás BERNARDO SOLANA — 2012-11-06T20:42:19Z

A few weeks ago, the President of the European Central Bank (ECB) declared that the ECB does not exist to resolve the financial problems of the EU Member States. Many of us were left wondering: if that is the case, then what is the purpose of the ECB?

The ECB serves solely to maintain price stability in the Eurozone – in other words, it limits the rate of inflation. This is different to the purpose of other similar organisations, like the Federal Reserve of the United States, which are able to directly intervene in their countries' economies by buying financial instruments, allowing them to put more money into circulation in the country.

The ECB uses a method whereby around 1500 private banks can bid for short-term contracts which last from two weeks to three months. This is different to the system used in the United States, in which liquidity is furnished to the economy through the purchase of Treasury bonds by the Federal Reserve Bank. This means that with the ECB, the banks have to borrow money in cash and return it. This is not the case with the Federal Reserve of the United States. In addition, the Federal Reserve system gives the banking sector rights to large-scale intervention in all of the Member States, without having to pay interest charges in exchange.

If this were not enough, the majority of the central national banks in the European Union have taken to moving weak assets off the balance sheets, organising some sort of agreement as to how the debt will continue to be paid off. This nationalist tendency of European central banks has led to the weaker Member States being obliged to allocate part of their taxes to servicing their debts, as well as to reduce the high national expenditure, which has an impact on all its citizens, in order to meet the outstanding payments. In addition to this, although it is governed by the laws of the European Union, the ECB is not subject to the regulations of any European institution.

It is clear that, looking at the example of North America, converting the ECB into a European Federal Reserve would solve the economic problems in a better, more transparent way, and to a fuller extent. It would create a stronger economy in Europe, which would make it possible to reduce the current austerity cuts and thus, at long last, to implement a Europe-wide policy of social aid and job creation. That way, all European citizens would be able to emerge from the crisis together.

The following measures should be implemented in all EU member states: job creation schemes; increasing capital gains tax and taxation of the wealthy; policies of social integration; merging of banks and companies of different nations under the protection of the EU (so as to safeguard the interests of the poorer social classes); the solvency-testing of all banks in the Union by the ECB, and the closure of those which do not pass; anyone owning a significant quantity of gold should be obliged by European law to change it into Euros; renegotiation of mortgages of those likely to lose their homes; and large-scale public works projects, like motorways and high-speed trans-European railways.

All of these arguments are intended to demonstrate that, in my opinion, and that of many, the austerity cuts made by the EU have been a serious mistake, because, as the great economist John Maynard Keynes maintained, the total income in a society is defined by the sum of consumption and investment; and in a state of unemployment and unused production capacity, employment and total income can only be enhanced by first increasing expenditures for either consumption or investment.

That means, then, that the path the European Union needs to take to emerge from the economic crisis is the opposite to the one currently being taken – for example, of cuts in public investments and employment. If Europeans do not have money and employment, how can we act as consumers? How can we get our economy moving? How can we generate wealth?

The model I have described is no utopia – these measures were successfully implemented in the United States in the era following the crisis of ‘29, during the time of the so-called “New Deal”. I believe that it is now Europe's time to create our own “New Deal” – a “European New Deal”, to rescue us from the economic crisis. In order to do this, we clearly need to create a European Federal Reserve which will strengthen the economy, to enable us to implement these schemes which, logically, would bring us out of the crisis and create more employment. But of course, in order for there to be a Federal Reserve, Europe must become a federal state. If this does not happen, then this solution, which offers more than a mere possibility of resolving our crisis, will become simply a beautiful dream, unattainable because of a few absurd nationalist prejudices.

Barroso's State of the Union address: “Europe must remain united”

Elisa MIGLIORELLI , Kirsty Walter — 2012-11-04T23:37:05Z

During his speech, Barroso wanted to focus principally on the effects of the economic crisis and on democracy. He wanted to express the necessity of “a more united Europe” for overcoming the crisis and to preserve sovereignty in an ever more globalised world. “Globalisation demands more integration, and more integration demands more democracy” he said. He underlined the irreversibility of the single currency, reminding the most vulnerable States of their responsibility, inviting them to remember their obligation to reform and urging the stronger States to follow the path of solidarity and cohesion.

Barroso reiterated that the current crisis is not only economic and financial but also social. Politics itself is in crisis, because of the citizens' lack of trust in institutions. Citizens already feel abandoned, threatened, forced to change their lifestyles and habits, which leads to general dissatisfaction in the family unit. The situation, as Barroso has said, has therefore changed, confirming that it is the right moment for European countries to recognise the impossibility of dealing separately with the problems of today and to have the courage to take a huge step, to abandon the old guidelines and to set up new projects. It is necessary to be united, to show solidarity, undivided. In a particular situation such as this it is no longer possible to think of the singular; we need to think instead of the best situation that aims to benefit all nations, rather than just some – usually the strongest. It is necessary to start a new process of unity and integration in the Community to avoid being crushed by the United States and China. This union will be political and will take the form of a “Federation of Nation States”.

The Federation of Nation States will be able to take life only through the stabilisation of the Eurozone with a cohesive response from the Member States and the use of innovative tools. For this reason, the European Commission proposes the creation of a single, vigilant mechanism for the banks of the Eurozone, the first step towards the creation of a solid banking union.

: The words of the President of the European Commission assert with force the necessity for greater cohesion between the States.
Image credit © European Union 2012

By autumn the Commission will present its project (blueprint) for a genuine economic and monetary union, including the relative political tools. Barroso continued by saying that, in the light of the necessity for the Union to prepare itself for future challenges, the specific proposals for reforming the treaties will be presented before the European elections of 2014. He also reiterated the importance of completing the single market and strengthening European industrial politics.

Barroso concluded by repeating the absolutely concrete possibility that Greece could remain in the Eurozone and underlined the necessity of increasing the role the European Parliament plays in decision making, including decisions which concern each individual state; it is therefore necessary to increase communication with national parliaments to promote better collaboration and cooperation.

This article is a translation of "Discorso di Barroso sullo stato dell'Unione: l'Europe deve rimanere unita” by Elisa Migliorelli, from the L'Europa @ torvergata blog. Translated from the Italian by Kirsty Walter.

Full text of Barroso's State of the Union address can be found here.

So what became of Iceland?

Sara PAZ GARCIA — 2012-10-28T19:34:48Z

As summer fades into autumn, between their daily siestas and with a lump in their throat after flicking through the newspaper and finding yet more company and risk premiums, the Spanish should take the time to consider what has become of Iceland, that country to the north which, a few years ago, was itself facing a catastrophic downfall.

The story was quite simple. At some stage around June 2008, the first signs of a banking crisis set alarm bells ringing for the Icelandic government, who tried, and failed, to implement extraordinary measures which included the nationalisation of its three main banks. In a bid to avoid the pending crisis, then Prime Minister Geir Haarde authorised the country's Financial Supervisory Authority to take control of several main institutions, but the situation continued to worsen, much to the dismay of various European leaders – especially the Dutch and the British – who feared for the future of their citizens' savings.

In 2010, after various attempts to resolve the situation, which had been closely monitored by the EU, the Icelandic Central Bank released details of an accumulation of assets over ten times greater than its GDP, the majority of which was in foreign currencies and notably pounds sterling. Due to this lack of cash flow, any bank that could not guarantee its services went into debt. The International Monetary Fund gave Iceland a 1.6 million euro loan on the condition that tough cutback measures would be taken. The forced resignation of the government, combined with citizen protests, heightened the country's instability, a situation that was continuing to cause concern for the rest of Europe, and which ultimately resulted in certain members of the cabinet being brought before the courts.

Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir, Prime Minister of Iceland

Image copyright Örlygur Hnefill on flickr

The elections that followed brought a leftist coalition government to power, which in turn brought about a constitutional amendment and an open, and well attended, public trial of the country's bankers. Despite the fact that this trial did not result in any prison sentences, it did nonetheless expose those responsible for the disaster.

One year later, with unemployment falling and the economy growing at almost the same rate as in the US, the signs of recovery spurred on European citizens to take charge of solving the crisis. Icelandic inflation and debt – both public and private – remain high, but the ‘Big Three' credit rating agencies decided to upgrade the country, thus stabilising the situation. The OECD's forecast for 2012/2013 predicts a 2.4% economy growth, and despite a few remaining issues that require attention, it appears that Iceland's economy is rising from the ashes.

It goes without saying that the relative simplicity of this process has been favoured by the fact that we are talking about a country whose total population of 318,452 is less than that of the city of Bilbao. Even so, given the similarities between the Icelandic and Spanish banking catastrophes, it is not unreasonable to expect, as in Iceland, that some of those responsible in Spain should face up to their culpability. After all, even though things appear to be getting worse rather than better, an apology goes a long way in helping to smooth ruffled feathers.

European Day of Languages

Jane RAWLINSON — 2012-10-14T21:23:03Z

26th September marked the 11th European Day of Languages. The EDL, organised by the Council of Europe and the EU, was launched in 2001 and has the following objectives:

1. Alerting the public to the importance of language learning and diversifying the range of languages learnt in order to increase plurilingualism and intercultural understanding; 2. Promoting the rich linguistic and cultural diversity of Europe, which must be preserved and fostered; 3. Encouraging lifelong language learning in and out of school, whether for study purposes, for professional needs, for purposes of mobility or for pleasure and exchanges.

Linguists everywhere celebrated as events were held across Europe to mark the occasion. These included school children writing “Happy EDL!!” postcards to each other in their native languages, a Danish language workshop in Latvia, an ebook of German proverbs translated into English, and a concert of songs in foreign languages in Russia, to name but a few of the nearly 700 events listed on the EDL website.

Image copyright Karen Roe on flickr

There isn't any

Jane RAWLINSON — 2012-10-14T20:58:05Z

When compiling The Month, the Bad News category is always the easiest to fill. There are always five or six stories that would fit. Greece is going to leave the Euro. Spain needs a bailout. President Hollande has been in office for all of six months and his popularity has already nosedived. Britain is leaving the EU.

So this month, we're taking a break. There are a lot of articles on this site about politics and the economy, but ultimately Europe is a state of mind. It is about feeling European, rather than merely French, British, Italian etc. And that, ultimately, is what we strive to promote. A connection between the peoples of different European nations, a connection that exists in spite of differences in languages and culture. A connection that exists maybe in spite of, rather than because of, the political and economic situations. So take a Bad News break, smile, and remember that whatever the future holds, we will continue to aspire to a European State of Mind. It's where dreams are made of.

Image copyright Jane Rawlinson

The Olympics and the Paralympics -jolly good show!

Jane RAWLINSON — 2012-10-14T20:29:22Z

At the end of July, all eyes turned to London as the British capital hosted the Olympic games for the third time. Athletes and spectators arrived from all over the world, and the city was abuzz with volunteers in their bright outfits, giving directions and advice. There wasn't long to wait for the first feat of sporting daring, which took place in the opening ceremony when the Queen parachuted out of a helicopter with 007 himself (well.....kind of).

There were a few hitches early on - the sight of empty seats at venues drew angry reactions from those who had failed to procure tickets - but problems were resolved fairly quickly and the general consensus was that the Games were a great success. The British got well and truly into the spirit of things, and Team GB athletes responded magnificently to the support of the home crowd, winning an incredible tally of 65 medals, including 29 golds. The gloom that had been hanging over the UK, as a result of the recession and a lack of faith in the government to resolve it, lifted palpably.

There was also a few firsts at this, the thirtieth Olympiad. For the first time, female athletes competed for Saudi Arabia, Brunei and Qatar [1], meaning that all eligible participating countries have now sent female athletes to at least one games. Women's boxing was also introduced, meaning that for the first time, every sport had male and female participants.

The Paralympics followed two weeks later, and also made history, attracting a record number of 2.7 million spectators [2]. Paralympic champions graced the front pages of newspapers as their able-bodied counterparts had the previous month, and certainly in the UK, awareness and interest in disability sport increased astronomically.

But what now that it is all over? The motto of London's Games was “inspire a generation”, and the athletes certainly did their part with their incredible, impressive and brave performances. Surely there are children (and indeed adults) who having watched the 2012 games will feel inspired to go out for a bike ride, to go for a swim, or maybe to take up a new sport altogether, instead of sitting inside and watching television. Sport is not only beneficial to the health, but is also a great way to make new friends and learn important skills, such as teamwork and respect for others. It is to be hoped that the true legacy of the London's games will be the numerous people it inspired to take up a sport of some kind, either competitively or just for fun.

Image copyright Ben Sutherland on flickr

[1] Olympic.org, Saudi Arabia joins Brunei Darussalam and Qatar in sending female athletes to London 2012 http://www.olympic.org/news/saudi-a...

[2] Paralympic.org, Paralympic Games, http://www.paralympic.org/TheIPC/WW...