Resolution Booklet - Braga 2015

GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING

PROGRAMMESUNDAY, NOVEMBER 22 ND

08.45 - 09.10 Settling in at Parque de Exposições de Braga09.10 - 10.00 Committee on Culture and Education10.00 - 10.50 Committee on Regional Development10.50 - 11.05 Coffee-break11.05 - 11.55 Committee on Employment and Social Affairs11.55 - 12.45 Committee on International Trade12.45 - 13.35 Lunch13.35 - 13.45 Settling in13.45 - 14.35 Agriculture and Rural Development14.35 - 15.25 Committee on Internal Markets and Consumer Protection15.25 - 15.40 Break15.40 - 16.30 Committee on Internal Markets and Consumer Protection16.30 - 17.20 Committee on Human Rights17.20 - 17.30 Break17.30 - 17.35 Settling in17.35 - 19.00 Closing Ceremony19.00 - 19.30 Farewells19.30 - ... Delegations’ Departures

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Programme

General Assembly Procedure

Committee on Culture and Education

Committee on Regional Development

Committee on Employment and Social Affairs

Committee on International Trade

Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development

Committee on Internal Markets and Consumer Protection

Committee on Transport and Tourism

Committee on Human Rights

GENERAL ASSEMBLY PROCEDURE

1. Each debate begins with a member of the board announcing the name of the proposing committee and the topic of the motion for the resolution.

2. The board then reads out any friendly amendments that have been submitted by the proposing committee. The motion is debated and voted upon including these amendments.

3. One speaker reads out the operative clauses of the resolution on behalf of the proposing committee from the speaking platform.4. Points of Information: if a specific term is not understood (e.g.: “What does NGO stand for?”)5. One speaker delivers the defence speech on behalf of the proposing committee from the speaking platform. The speech may last

no longer than three minutes.6. The opportunity for two attack speeches may be given by the board in case the first speech lasts for less than one and a half

minutes. The board assigns each speaker to deliver a speech from the speaking platform. 7. The proposing committee has the possibility to respond to these attack speeches. One speaker can use 60 seconds to speak on

behalf of the proposing committee.8. The board opens up the discussion on the motion for the resolution to the entire assembly. Any delegate can voice their opinion

on the motion for the resolution.a) Only one point at a time may be voiced. b) The board moderates the discussion.c) Delegates express their personal opinion on the subject.d) Every committee has the right to appoint a direct response to a delegate twice per debate. The appointed delegate will be

recognised by the board immediately as the next speaker. The speaker has to directly address the last point made by the preceding speaker. If the speaker breaks this rule, the board will immediately derecognise the speaker and the committee loses their right to use the direct response for the remainder of the debate.

9. The discussion on the motion is concluded with a summation speech which may last a maximum of three minutes. a One or two speakers may speak on behalf of the proposing committee. Only one person may speak at a time and the

microphone can be passed only once.10. The motion for a resolution is submitted to a vote by the assembly.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION BY THE COMMITTEE ON CULTURE AND EDUCATION

“We really need a rethinking of education and a redesigning of our system, so it prepares our children for the future with the skills that are needed for today and tomorrow.” – KYLLONEN, Marjo, Helsinki’s Education

Manager Finland revolutionising its Educational System, teaching by topic rather than subject is just the last example of the different approaches to Education in Europe. Building on the Education & Training 2020

framework, what should the EU’s role be in supporting its Member States’ educational reforms?

Submitted by: Ana Margarida Machado (PT), Diogo Bilé (PT), Francisca Oliveira (PT), Inês Barbosa (PT), Jana Zápotocká (CZ), Maria Sofia Beco (PT), Nadine Pinto (PT), Sara Vara (PT), Wiebe Vangansbeke (BE), Alice Munnelly (Chairperson, IE)

The European Youth Parliament,

A. Approving Article 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - Everyone has the right to education,B. Bearing in mind the supporting competence of the European Union (EU) in the field of education as per

Article 6 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU),C. Noting with regret the post-economic crisis cuts in Member State spending on education,D. Taking into consideration the differences in the educational systems of the Member States,E. Recognising the Open Method of Communication as an instrument for cooperation among Member States

for the policy areas wherein the scope for EU action is limited,F. Reaffirming the distinction between formal, non-formal and informal education as outlined in Education &

Training 2020 (ET 2020),1 G. Disappointed by the insufficient importance given to teacher training in certain Member States,H. Alarmed by the skills and jobs mismatch in the labour market,I. Keeping in mind the ET 2020 objective to reduce the rate of early school leavers to a maximum of 10%,J. Fully aware of the role of mathematic and science competence in enabling citizens to participate in the

knowledge economy and the relative lack of student motivation in such fields,K. Emphasising the role of mobility in enabling cross-border and cultural knowledge sharing between

students and teachers alike, L. Taking into account the contributions of the Copenhagen process to vocational training development;

1 ET 2020 is a framework which establishes strategic objectives for education and training such as making lifelong learning and mobility a reality;

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

1. Requests Eurydice2 to provide information to the Council of the EU and the European Parliament on the importance of non-formal and informal education;

2. Requests the European Commission to authorise the Joint Research Centre – CRELL Lifelong Learning Programme to develop online workshops aimed at updating the teaching methods and knowledge base of teachers in accordance with societal and technological advancement;

3. Further invites Eurydice to provide information to the Directorate General for Education and Culture (DG EAC) so as to enable it to supervise investments Member States make with their designated funds;

4. Calls for the DG EAC to establish a system of grants for students on undersubscribed courses in each Member State;

5. Encourages interaction between technology companies and students by establishing benchmarks for, and facilitating graduate recruitment;

6. Calls upon Eurydice to provide a 5-year prediction for each profession in the different job markets of Member States so as to use mobility to remedy the mismatch of skills and jobs;

7. Recommends the integration of the Common European Framework of Reference for languages in examining linguistic ability by making it free for all Member States;

8. Endorses the use of the Open Method of Communication to share the best practices of Member States for promoting the value and availability of vocational training.

2 Eurydice is a network which provides information on educational systems of 34 countries and produces studies on issues com-mon to the Member State education systems.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION BY THE COMMITTEE ON REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Although COM(2015)0365 was recently approved to strengthen the EU’s approach towards regional development, much can be done to further improve regional protection tools. In light of the recent

failure of support in Greece, what other steps should the EU pursuit to ensure adequate regional protection is in place?

Submitted by: Ana Pereira (PT), Donell Novela (PT), Gonçalo Gameiro (PT), Jason Scofferi (BE), João Ferreira (PT), Johanna Davidsson (SE), Luana Maia (PT), Inês Pinto (PT), Carolina Macedo dos Santos (Chairperson, PT)


A. Noting with satisfaction that 41,86% of the Multiannual Financial Framework is allocated to the European Structural and Investment Funds,

B. Having examined that multilevel governance has proved to have effective outcomes in fighting corruption, increasing transparency and coordinating regional actions,

C. Noting with regret that the lack of cooperation between regional, national and multinational bodies leads to miscommunication that undermines the success of regional protection programmes,

D. Believing the funds allocated to the programmes could be managed in a more efficient way,E. Recognising that the current functioning of managing authorities1 is not allowing for the correct monitoring

of the implementation of the programmes,F. Deeply concerned about the insufficient supervision regarding the implementation of the Partnership

Agreements,G. Noting with deep concern the ineffectiveness of current attempts at fighting corruption,H. Distrusting the adequateness of long-term funding strategies due to incorrect usage and unavailability, I. Alarmed by the negative consequences that periods of economic crisis can have on financial markets,

leading to struggling national economies and the lowering of investors’ confidence;

1 Designated by Member States, these authorities are responsible for providing information, selecting programmes and moni-toring the implementation of the funds.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

1. Aims at strengthening the regional protection tools of the European Union (EU) such as the European Structural and Investment funds;

2. Requests the Committee of the Regions to ensure a customised evaluation of all cross-regional cooperation;3. Calls upon a legal and political framework developed in cooperation with the European Commission, the

Council of the EU and the Committee of the Regions that outlines the actions that should be taken in order to ensure transparency and constant collaboration between the multitude of involved actors;

4. Invites the managing authorities to create customised mechanisms designed to raise awareness about the functioning of the European Structural and Investments Funds, such as:a) media educational programmes,b) a framework that includes clear guidelines for the process of partnership agreements;

5. Expresses its hope for the managing authorities to assign a team of experts to follow Partnership Agreements and provide advice and guidance regarding the management of funds;

6. Calls upon the European Commission to remodel the financing system that manages the funds allocation, by providing:a) a first share of 30% of the allocated fund when 0% of the programme is implemented,b) a second share of 10% when 20% of the programme is implemented,c) a third share of 15% when 40% of the programme is implemented,d) a fourth share of 20% when 60% of the programme is implemented,e) a fifth share of 20% when 80% of the programme is implemented,f) a final share of 5% when 100% of the programme is implemented.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION BY THE COMMITTEE ON EMPLOYMENT AND SOCIAL AFFAIRS

Battle for employment: The social and economic costs of youth unemployment are threatening long-term damage to Member States. With over 20% of under-25 Europeans being unemployed, how should

the EU address youth unemployment whilst avoiding pushing the problem to other age groups?

Submitted by: Babette Defoort (BE), Catarina Encarnacão (PT), Dominik Lipovsky (CZ), Francisco Godinho (PT), Gonçalo Choça (PT), Miriam Santana (PT), Paulo Sousa (PT), María Granero (Chairperson, ES)


A. Alarmed by the current EU-wide youth unemployment rate1 of 21,4%,2 which is twice as high as the unemployment rate for other age groups,

B. Recognising the mismatch of skills and jobs in the labour market as a main cause for the unsuccessful integration of youth into the labour market,

C. Noting with deep concern the risk of increased youth unemployment leading to civil unrest,D. Recognising youth unemployment as an economic burden for tax-payers and, consequently, for society,E. Alarmed by the rising emigration figures of youth in Eastern and Southern European countries seeking

employment in countries such as Germany and the UK,F. Noting with regret the EU’s insufficient investment in vocational programs,G. Viewing with appreciation the contributions of EU programs such as COSME, Erasmus for Entrepreneurship,

and YES in reigniting an entrepreneurial culture in Europe;

1 The youth unemployment rate is the percentage of 15-24 years old that are seeking to obtain a job but are unable to find one.2 Statistics from Eurostat at the end of 2014.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

1. Emphasises the need for Member States to financially support existing vocational programs;2. Supports the creation of a EU-wide campaign to raise awareness of existing entrepreneurship programs

through mass media channels;3. Calls upon the need for a shift in mentality so as to understand the benefits of vocational training;4. Further recommends Member States governments to introduce mandatory internships in all university

degrees;5. Encourages Member States affected by the brain drain to improve working conditions in order to encourage

potential emigrants to remain in their home countries;6. Calls upon Member States to work in collaboration with the European Social Fund to provide tax incentives

for:a) enterprises providing part-time jobs,b) young Europeans starting up businesses;

7. Calls for the creation of a EU-wide Employment Guidance Council that would:a) provide information on the different practical skills required by the labour market,b) inform employment seekers about training and labour market opportunities;

8. Encourages the creation of an online platform with the aim of improving the job searching system by enhancing the relation between universities and enterprises within all Member States.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION BY THE COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL TRADE

With large scale opposition and protests in Member States, how should the EU stand in the debate between consumer protection, transparency and the advantages of a liberalisation of trade between

the world’s two biggest trading blocks?

Submitted by: Benedita Correia (PT), Cheyenne Alves (PT), Guilherme Lameirinhas (PT), João Isidoro (PT), Louise Devos (BE), Martin Štefka (CZ), Pedro Andrade (PT), Ricardo Francisco, (PT), Chairperson: João Gonçalves (PT)


A. Convinced by the advantages of boosting trade between the United States of America (USA) and the European Union (EU),

B. Fully aware of the different standards between these two trading block regarding food security, the environment, health and safety,

C. Expressing its appreciation towards the recent creation of the Investment Court System (ICS),D. Fully aware that in the present system, the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS), legal conflicts

between states and companies can be settled by private arbitrators,E. Taking into account that a study by the Ifo Institute for Economic Research predicted potential adverse

consequences for countries outside the partnership, especially in terms of their GDP and labour market,F. Alarmed by the possible negative impact the TTIP may also have on the labour market of the EU and the

USA,G. Bearing in mind the difficulties that small and medium enterprises may face in a more competitive market

created by the TTIP due to the decrease in protectionist legislation,H. Deeply disturbed by the fact that current information regarding the TTIP discussions is unavailable for both

citizens and Members of the European Parliament,I. Taking into consideration the USA’s concern that the TTIP may result in the revocation of their financial

crisis prevention legislation, such as the Dodd-Frank Act;

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

1. Encourages the European Commission (EC) to go forward with the negotiations concerning the implementation of the TTIP;

2. Urges the EC to release all finalised and working documents regarding the agreement;3. Further recommends the EC to provide regular updates on the progress of the aforementioned negotiations

for European citizens;4. Endorses the creation of a new entity responsible for measuring the impact of the TTIP on third-countries;5. Requests the aforementioned entity to outline the sectors on which the TTIP has a larger negative impact;6. Recommends the EU and the USA to invest on the abovementioned sectors in order to off-set the negative

consequences of the trade partnership;7. Requests the creation of a Transatlantic Fund responsible for supporting companies that are more severely

affected by the TTIP;8. Calls for a stricter inspection on the production and transportation conditions of goods imported to the EU;9. Recommends that on the ongoing negotiations of the TTIP:

a) the USA increases their standards concerning labour market laws,b) the Member States of the EU increase their standards on financial crisis prevention measures;

10. Urges the European Commission to guarantee that in the ICS all disputes are settled by an independent judge.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION BY THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT

GMOs: bearing the risks and reaping the benefits. What position should the EU take considering GMOs’ capacity to boost production and efficiency worldwide, without disconsidering current issues with

intellectual property rights and uncertainty in terms of the health and environmental impact of their application?

Submitted by: Afonso Ferreira (PT), Bárbara Amaral (PT), Beatriz Horta (PT), Diana Gonçalves (PT), Dora Dimitrova (SE), Hélder Faria (PT), João Paulo Monteiro (PT), Margot Vervaecke (BE), Ricardo Sousa (PT), Tereza Voženílková (Chairperson, CZ)


A. Keeping in mind that the stance of EU citizens towards genetically modified organisms (GMO) is influenced by their religion, personal belief or cultural background,

B. Concerned that public opinion can be easily influenced by group pressure, the media and political parties,C. Observing with appreciation that harvesting GMOs produces higher crop yields,D. Having studied that GM technology has reduced the use of pesticides and herbicides on a global scale,E. Realising the local farmers’ difficulty to compete with large companies which benefit from economies of

scale, F. Fully aware of the monopoly on Intellectual Property Rights certain companies possess,G. Aware of the complicated process of genetic engineering as genes work in a complex network not fully

understood,H. Aware of the threat of potential health risks caused by the consumption of GMOs, I. Taking into consideration the negative impact GMOs may have on the environment, J. Noting with regret that the GMO approval process is very slow,K. Taking into account the different stances of Member States on GMOs;

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

1. Expresses its appreciation for the information provided by GENET on GMOs;2. Calls upon raising awareness on GMOs among the public through:

a) recommending Member States’ Ministries of Education to include the issue of GMOs in school curricula,

b) creating certificated websites to enable access to verified information about GMOs to everyone;3. Promotes low-interest loans for small-scale farmers, using regional development funds created by the

European Commission (EC) and supervised by the European Court of Auditors (ECA);4. Urges the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the EC to reach an agreement regarding a

preliminary deadline for the GMO approval process;5. Recommends the EC to fund a study lead by the EFSA in cooperation with the World Health Organisation

(WHO) and GENET on the long-term consequences of the introduction of GMOs on the European food market;

6. Urges Member States’ governments to adopt anti-monopoly policies such as:a) regulating the market price of GM crops for a certain period of time, after a crop has received EFSA

approval, b) requesting the EC to propose legislation revoking Intellectual Property rights on GMOs when the

determined period of time has expired;7. Approves the labelling of GMO products before entering the market.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION BY THE COMMITTEE ON INTERNAL MARKET AND CONSUMER PROTECTION

The shared economy and anti-competition laws: innovative shared economy applications, such as Uber and AirBnB, have been met with great resistance throughout Europe. Although potentially beneficial to consumers, they are incompatible with current legislation, disruptive to the labour market, and a threat

to government-protected industries. What should the EU’s role be in regulating this new economy?

Submitted by: Amir Esaias Qazi (SE), Camila Costa (PT), David Teixeira (PT), Duarte Godinho (PT), Eduardo Paiva (PT), Gilles Vauterin (BE), Gustavo Pita (PT), Maria Leonor Braga (PT), Maria Martins (PT), Joanna Stachera (Chairperson, PL)


A. A. Observing that the Shared Economy (SE) has flourished due to the low prices of their services,B. Deeply regretting the lack of transparency and control over the working conditions of SE companies,C. Further regretting the fact that this regulation gap leads to:

i) a lack of definition of customers rights,ii) a lack of personal security,

D. Bearing in mind that overregulating the shared economy may result in its complete depletion,E. Confirming that even though the shared economy may temporarily increase employment, it may cause

unprecedented unemployment in traditional industries,F. Fully aware that SE regulation varies drastically between Member States,G. Convinced of the growing popularity of full-time jobs within the shared economy due to their accessibility

and flexibility,H. Taking into account the SE’s competitive advantage over traditional sectors due to their lack of regulation,

licensing, and taxation,I. Expressing its satisfaction at the fact that the smart economy´s ability to share private property constitutes

a more environmentally friendly alternative for traditional sectors, J. Noting with regret that although service providers have similar duties to traditional workers, their role

definition is lacking adequate legal framework;

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

1. Proclaims that the EU should differentiate between shared economy services which require extra labour from those that do not;

2. Calls for taxation on shared economy services that require extra labour;3. Recommends that solely labour intensive shared economy services be regulated in the framework of shared

labour services;4. Calls upon Member States to limit shared labour service providers working hours by dramatically increasing

taxation on all work within this sector above half a day;5. Expresses its hope for sharing labour services to be incorporated into the same unions as their traditional

counter parts to conduct collective bargaining for wages and job security; 6. Invites each Member State to launch a commission to decide which shared economy companies need to be

unionised and which do not;7. Urges companies within the shared economy sector to require both extensive review systems as well as

thorough background checks on providers in order to ensure consumer safety.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION BY THE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT AND TOURISM

Unmanned revolution: with the development of new technologies, Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems will soon flood the market. How should the EU regulate the civilian use of drones to account for privacy

risks without undermining its potential?

Submitted by: Ana Rita Garrido (PT), Adriana Borges (PT), Beatriz Silva (PT), João Macedo (PT), Elise Meersseman (BE), Gonçalo Valente (PT), Jéssica Covas (PT), João Paulo Lemos (PT), Martyna Szumniak (SE), Anna Petterson (Chairperson, IT)


A. Emphasising Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems’ (RPAS) potential use in various fields and industries such as emergency, security, media, and entertainment,

B. Deeply concerned about the lack of regulation regarding the civilian use of drones in regards to:i) who is allowed to operate them,ii) where they can operate,iii) what technology is available,

C. Bearing in mind the Riga Declaration1 that outlined the guidelines for handling RPAS,D. Seeking legal framework that people can rely upon if and when they feel their privacy is violated,E. Aware of the reported incidents involving drones affecting both property and privacy,F. Observing the general lack of awareness of RPAS’ capabilities, leading to the fear of RPAS as well as the

ignorance of their potential,G. Noting with satisfaction the increasing interest developed by companies in the usage of RPAS in their

businesses, boosting the market size for the technology in question,H. Taking into account the increasing accessibility and affordability of RPAS,I. Aiming at a society that is fully aware of RPAS’ true potential and takes advantage of its usefulness which

includes emergencies services, law enforcement, transport, delivery and entertainment,J. Seeking a more competitive and affordable RPAS market through investments from larger corporations,K. Welcoming cooperation between different industries in order to further develop RPAS;

1 Riga Declaration is a declaration that outlines the main principles for developing the future of aviation; it is the outcome of the summit that took place in March 2015.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

1. Calls for a conference involving representatives from all Member States that will develop common-based rules for operation of RPAS;

2. Urges each Member State to adopt country-specific regulation regarding:a) the areas the RPAS can fly over,b) the minimum age to purchase and operate drones,c) the kind of technology that can have available for drones;

3. Encourages Member States to reach out to organisations such as the European Aviation Safety Agency in order to establish regulations that are technologically based;

4. Recommends Member States to implement special certificates, obtained by passing a course and a final exam, which allows individuals to buy and operate drones;

5. Draws attention to the fact that certificates may vary depending on type of drones and its field of use;6. Further invites special permits or licenses with time limit depending on purposes and on the entity;7. Recommends for regular check-ups for companies that integrate the services of RPAS;8. Calls upon the creation of a database from a third party company that will:

a) be established after the implementation of the aforementioned regulations, b) include information about RPAS purchases, technological specifications, and features,c) have a timeframe for already existing RPAS to register,d) be consulted in legal situations arising from infringements concerning drone usage;

9. Encourages geo-fencing as a form of protection from RPAS around certain areas such as airport, governmental buildings and military bases;

10. Requests the cooperation between the EU and the drone industry for the elaboration of an advertisement campaign raising awareness towards the true potential of RPAS;

11. Supports the inclusion of education about RPAS into school curricula managed by ministries of education of each Member State;

12. Endorses the integration of drones in different industries through trainings on the use of RPAS organised by specialised staff, from companies that produce drones, emphasising the importance of consumers’ feedback in order to develop the products;

13. Further invites governments to support cooperation projects between these different industries in order to boost the development of the involved parties;

14. Calls for EU grants to be available for small drone companies if a severe drop in the growth rate is noticeable after the regulations are settled, working towards an increasingly competitive market.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION BY THE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS

The increasing number of refugees coming from the Mediterranean and war zones such as Syria have raised issues of solidarity between Member States. What role should the EU play in upholding the

Geneva accords by offering shelter to asylum seekers and war refugees alike, whilst safeguarding its borders and homeland security?

Submitted by: Ana Catarina Arantes (PT), Cheila Henriques (PT), Guilherme Belmiro (PT), José Paulo Ferreira (PT), Margarida Alves (PT), Moisés Feliciano (PT), Pedro Maia (PT), Sara Provaznikova (CZ), Sumaya Ahmed Nuur (BE), Christian Paratore (Chairperson, IT)


A. Bearing in mind that the Dublin Regulation is no longer efficient in upholding the aims of the Geneva Accords,

B. Having studied that Member States have different criteria for the recognition of refugee status to asylum seekers,

C. Convinced that the allocated 2014-2020 period budget to the European Refugee Fund is insufficient for supporting Member States dealing with the asylum seekers’ flows,

D. Deeply conscious of the disparity in the distribution of asylum seekers between Member States,E. Emphasising the dangerous possibility of jihadists of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) being

smuggled to the European Union (EU) as asylum seekers,F. Realising that security measures adopted by some Member States are not adequate, as proved by the

terrorist attack in Paris on Friday, November 13th 2015, G. Aware of the fact that there is no full joint EU database regarding asylum seekers coming to EU countries,H. Noting with deep concern the social tensions affecting the Member States which are most exposed to the

migrant flows from African and Middle-east war zones;

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

1. Encourages the European Council to set new guidelines regarding the long-term management of asylum seekers’ flows;

2. Urges Member States to elaborate a new distribution of refugees and asylum seekers according to Gross Domestic Product (GDP), population size and employment rate;

3. Further invites Non-Governmental Organisations to initiate funding campaigns aimed at supporting Member States in their asylum policies;

4. Further recommends the abovementioned funds to be given according to the following parameters:a) 50% to neighbouring states,b) 30% to transit states,c) 20% to final destination states;

5. Further recommends the European Commission to work on a legislative proposal setting unique EU recognition criteria;

6. Encourages each Member State to increase its contribution to the European Refugee Fund by donating 1% of their GDP;

7. Emphasises the need to mobilise more agents from Member States’ police forces, in addition to FRONTEX, in order to guarantee a more effective border safeguarding;

8. Calls for a deeper collaboration and information sharing between Member States’ intelligence agencies in order to successfully avoid future terrorist attacks by ISIS;

9. Further requests the Council of the EU and the European Parliament to set a registration system tracking all of the asylum seekers and refugees coming to the EU.

APPEJ - ASSOCIAÇÃO PORTUGUESA DO PARLAMENTO EUROPEU DOS JOVENS/EUROPEAN YOUTH PARLIAMENT PORTUGALE-mail address: [email protected]: www.pejportugal.com

BRAGA 2015 - 33 RD NATIONAL SELECTION CONFERENCE OF EYP PORTUGALEmail address: [email protected] Facebook page: www.facebook.com/Braga2015

Head-organisers

E-mail address: [email protected] (reaches both)Mobile numbers:Mafalda Rodrigues: (+351) 915 676 118Miguel Paiva: (+351) 912 702 185

Session President

Henrique Vieira MendesE-mail address: [email protected] number: (+351) 919 061 935

Contacts All general queries should be addressed to the Head-organisers of the session. Any more specific queries may be taken up with EYP Portugal. Matters of an academic nature will be dealt with by the Chairpersons, who will contact their Delegates directly.

P A R T N E R SUnder the patronage of the Municipality of Braga, Instituto Português do Desporto e da Juventude, I. P., Triformis and BPI.

With the support of Escola Profissional de Braga, SYnergia, Hotel Residencial Centro Comercial da Avenida, Fundação Bracara Augusta, XDOC and Gabinete de Informação do Parlamento Europeu em Portugal..

GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING

GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING MOVING LIVING GROWING

Documents

Resolution Booklet - Braga 2015