1

ISSUE 3- THE EUROPEAN -

2

EDITORIAL

Noone really seems to agree on what it means to be European. It’s a debate that has remained prevalent through-out the last century and probably will rage on for many years to come. Over the years Europe has developed to come to this point.

The European Issue represents the thoughts of our individual journalist’s opinions and analyses of current Eu-ropean Affairs that affect our every-day life. We, to a certain extent, can stake a claim to representing Europe’s youth, which is why it is so vital to un-derstand our own backyard and our neighbour’s perspective. Only once you study and comprehend those around you can you even hope to build a future with them.

That is why this issue aims to high-light different points of view and vari-ous concerns to be had about Europe, varying from a disillusioned youth protesting in order to be heard to the democratic deficit in elections for the European Parliament. The crisis has taught us that, regardless which cor-ner of Europe we may stem from, we need to be aware of the issues facing our European neighbours. In many ways, this applies even on a global scale.

We can only urge you to take a look at what matters to everyone around you, however The Essential’s European Is-sue might help to serve that purpose.

EditorsBerkok Yüksel (TR)Theodor Hall (CH)

Video EditorJoão Brandão (PT)

3

CONTENTLocked Doorsby Britta Thiemt

Coping with the Crisisby David Teruel

Beyond the Bitcoinby Titus Verster

Featured: Faulty Linesby Ella Glenz & Martha Saunders

Single Energy Marketby Chris Nölte

Topic Mapby Mara Bălaşa

The Continental Dreamby Lee Moran

National Nationalism vs European Nationalismby Megan Smith

Monopoly: Corporate Colonialism Editionby Caley Routledge

p. 4-5

p. 6-7

p. 8-9

p. 10-13

p. 14-15

p.16-17

p.18-19

p.20-21

p.22-23

4

CLIM

LOCKEDDOORS

by Britta Thiemt

5

With the next elections for the European Parlia-ment (EP) approaching, the topic arises once more as to whether the EU´s policy making is democratically legitimate.

list of ways to annoy strangers: First of all, walking extremely slowly and getting in people’s way,

second of all listening to music way to loud on the bus and finally, handing out leaflets that urge them to become politically active.

Considering that the voter participation of the last EP elections in 2009 was only 43%, anybody working for the EU’s “Go vote!” campaign will probably not make themselves especially popular. There are certainly various factors causing this: while many issues discussed and influenced by the Parliament directly affect people living in all Member States, European politics is often perceived as distant and difficult to grasp. Add the ignorance and lack of interest regarding politics in general, and the low voter participation really is not much of a surprise.

But there is also a large number of people who arrived at the decision not to participate in the election in a very well-considered way: Euro-sceptics aside, there are many people who see severe problems in the EU as an institution. They refrain from voting for a parliament that, despite being the only organ that is directly elected by European citizens, does not have significant power. Instead, it is the Commission that holds the Right to Initiative, which is problematic as European Commissioners are not elected, but appointed by their respective Member States.

So the question arises whether we should bother to make our way to the voting booths at all. But before judging the effectiveness of the European Parliamentary elections, one first has to understand them, especially considering the changes that were introduced just recently for the next

elections. So, who votes for whom, and what will they be responsible for?Basically, all citizens from EU countries who are at least 18 years old (or 16 years, if you are lucky and from Austria) can register and vote for the candidates representing their Member States. These candidates are elected as delegates from their national parties; however, parties from different countries form the so-called “Europarties” that are united by common political goals and ideology after the elections. In addition to national campaigns, the respective parties will be able to share a campaign on a European level for the first time in 2014 – a change that was desired by many of the Europarties and their respective candidates.

But despite these steps towards unification, the voting procedure still differs to a great extent: some countries are divided into regional electoral districts, while others have certain regulations such as a 3% threshold for parties that seek to enter the parliament.

The seats are distributed relative to the number of citizens living in a Member State and range from a minimum of 6 seats (Luxembourg) up to 96 seats (Germany) at most.

Next year’s elections were also supposed to be the first ones to implement the voting regulations of the Lisbon Treaty, setting the maximum number of Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) at 751, but due to the inclusion of Croatia as the 28th Member State, the number of seats in total is still not set.

Unlike most national parliaments, the EP is not eligible to submit proposals for laws themselves since this competence lies with

the European Commission. Nevertheless, the Parliament can deny or adapt proposals in cooperation with the Council of Ministers and serves as the main control instrument for the Commission.

In reports revolving around the changes of the European elections, it was often emphasised how the EP would be responsible for appointing a candidate for the Commission’s president. But in fact, the only change is that the council has to take into account the election results in respect to possible nominees’ party affiliations.

Again, the surplus in competence for the one institution that Europeans do have direct influence on is a very minor one. Commissioners will not decide to hand away their power, and national governments certainly won’t either – even though it contradicts the widely celebrated concept of democracy: European citizens’ democratic influence on decisions made by the Commission is reduced to a minimum, as they only elect politicians who work within the same government as the ones choosing citizens’ representatives in the Commission.

I cannot say whether this issue of injustice is going to be addressed any time soon, and the hypocrisy you can detect behind many politicians’ statements, along with the feeling of futility, is something that can infuriate you. But in the end, although falling into the black hole of disillusionment with politics is easy, capitulation would be the wrong reaction. It might be difficult, but we as European citizens do have means of demanding to be more involved in the decision making and demonstrating our engagement with Europe. The best way to do that? Go vote.

After all, if we want the locked doors to be opened, knocking is the first step. •

LOCKED

A

6

e have to go back to late 2009 to find clear evidences of Europe’s debt crisis. Although it touched

every Member State, there were some, spe-cifically the southern ones such as Spain, Portugal and Greece, that suffered more of the consequences and got dealt the worst cards.

The first Mediterranean country to deal with the crisis and, therefore, to feel the pressure from the Eurozone, was Greece. Once the birthplace of democracy, it is now reliant on Eurozone bailouts. With an economy completely devastated, the Greek government had and has to deal with se-vere austerity measures, in order to meet its debt obligations beyond the specific dates.

COPING WITH THE

Eurozone proposed cuts and reforms that were supposed to counterbalance the bad economic situation some countries were dealing with.

However, there is a wide group of people, mostly citizens from southern countries, that have countlessly expressed their dis-agreement not with the measures taken, but with fury at the way the Eurozone is treating their country. The reasons the Eurozone remit to justify their measures are quite reasonable. Giving financial aid is a potential measure that can be carried out and it has already been implemented. However, they bring to light the fact, that more failing Member States would lead to the exhaustion of the current resources of the International Monetary Fund and the

As Greece has been the first country to suf-fer from the economic crisis, it is also con-sidered to be a source of contagion, which also poses the question of increases in exi-gencies coming from the EU.

With the fear that the economic crisis would spread faster throughout the Med-iterranean countries, there was a concern that countries such as Spain could join the group and start a domino effect. This could have ended in a bigger crisis and finally the withdrawing of the common currency throughout the Eurozone. It was in light of this context that Spain was also put under the spotlight of Europe.

In order to ensure the economic wellbeing of EU Member States, in general terms, the

W

CRISISBY DAVID TERUEL

7

Still being engulfed in an economic crisis, there is a wide consensus that it has clearly become as much a social crisis as an economic one. Have the austerity measures implemented mostly in Mediterranean countries endangered the social wellbeing instead of solving the economic crisis? Have the strict measures helped to relieve them?

Eurozone. That is the main reason why countries such as Spain or Italy have had to balance their accounts with unpopular reforms.

The stance the Eurozone is taking to tackle the economic crisis can be perfectly sum-marised with the sentence that Olli Rehn, the EU Commissioner for Economic and Monetary Affairs, declared last year: “Eu-rozone states have extremely tough de-cisions ahead and it’s important to face truth”. It was a way of justifying they are strict in order to not imperil the other countries and to ensure enough resources for the other countries forming the EU; in the certain case they would need it.

Regardless of how valid the Eurozone pro-posals are it is also a matter of importance to highlight the dissatisfaction the vast ma-jority of Mediterranean citizens face when it comes to how Europe is dealing with the crisis. It is true that the Eurozone has not left Spain, Greece or Italy defenceless but maybe the road taken has not been the best one. They only focused on an eco-nomic side and that did not take into con-sideration serious social problems such as younger people unemployment which de-manded more tact.

It all came suddenly, and, that Europe was not prepared enough to face the economic crisis without affecting society. The pan-icked markers made the investors and the Eurozone in general work to save assets, which consequently sparked in other sec-tors.

I am Spanish and I really believe there was a need of restructuring the economic situa-tion in Spain. However, I also wish that the Eurozone would take the social impact of

their austerity into concern when deciding upon measures to solve the crisis. When the Eurozone gave bailouts to save banks in Spain, there was the feeling that it would actually help to overcome a major problem in Spanish crisis. However, it turned out not to be so effective and, although in the government it was an image that all went as planned with Europe, the real feeling through citizens was that we were even more dependent to the Eurozone’s inver-sion and that despite being told that Spain could overcome their crisis without having to be rescued it, somehow, had to be so.

What has been done by the moment can’t be changed. Rather, we can learn from it so that if we have the unfortunate luck to face a similar situation again, we will be more prepared. •

8

BEYOND THE

9

From a user’s perspective, using Bitcoin is much like normal online banking. Trans-ferring Bitcoins is possible via an applica-tion on your phone or computer. When you transfer Bitcoins, an electronic signa-ture is added which is then verified by one of the computers ‘mining’ Bitcoins. This way, Bitcoins cannot be used in the same transaction twice, which makes it impos-sible to forge them. Afterwards, all trans-actions are stored in a large database that everyone can access, which means that normal use of Bitcoins is not completely anonymous. It is, however, very difficult to trace transactions back to individuals due to the lack of a central bank.

Apart from the (almost) anonymity and the fact that there is no central bank con-trolling the currency, there are more rea-sons behind using Bitcoin. First of all, transaction fees are very low compared to other online paying methods. Whilst you pay a 2 to 3% fee with credit card, payments with Bitcoins often do not even require an extra fee. Secondly, Bitcoins can be used in every country, which makes it unnecessary to exchange different currencies. Also, it is impossible to freeze accounts or perform any type of arbitrary interference with ac-counts belonging to others.

All in all, it seems like all the benefits of using Bitcoin come forth from its lack of a central, controlling bank. When regarding the virtual currency as a get-away from the dependence on decision-making on a level that cannot be influenced by consumers, the creation and growing popularity of Bitcoin might very well be a direct conse-

quence of the financial crisis in 2007-08. This crisis, combined with the recent dis-coveries regarding the practices of institu-tions like the NSA, led to a widespread dis-satisfaction concerning the illicit activities of banks and governments. Looking at it this way, Bitcoin would be a good example of a citizen’s initiative to reclaim control over their resources, personal information and independency. This also explains the considerable amount of Bitcoin imitations already have been created. However, this begs the question of how good of a tool Bitcoin is in order to achieve this.

Even though the idea and concept of Bit-coin are good, that does not mean that the execution is too. Many economists have expressed their doubt regarding the stability of the currency, and think that, despite the rapidly rising value, the ‘Bit-coin Bubble’ will burst sooner or later. The main reason behind this belief is the lack of a “true value” to the coins. While at the moment people still acknowledge the worth of Bitcoin as an idea, this might change in the future. In 2011 for example, Bitcoins went from thirty-three dollars to one in the timespan of a day. Moreover, in case the value of a Bitcoin does suddenly drop, there is no central bank or govern-ment taking measures to sustain the value of the currency. In this situation, the pro of not having a central banking system would turn into a con.

No one can tell whether Bitcoin will make it to become a mainstream payment meth-od or not, but the social context of the currency is far more important. Time will tell whether or not Bitcoin will become the first major step in the fight for financial in-dependency and privacy. •

F

“The value of the virtual currency has in-creased more than tenfold in approximately two months, from a hundred dollars in Oc-tober to about twelve hundred at the time of writing.”

or the past few weeks it has been close to impossible to not read, see or hear anything about Bitcoin. The

value of the virtual currency has increased more than tenfold in approximately two months, from a hundred dollars in Octo-ber to about twelve hundred at the time of writing. Also, the amount of daily transac-tions has risen to over a hundred thousand. This is mainly due to the open letter from Fred Bernanke, chairman of the central bank of the United States, to the U.S. Sen-ate. He stated Bitcoin to be “a remarkable conceptual and technical achievement, which may well be used by existing finan-cial institutions or even by governments themselves”. However, many people do not know or understand the concept behind Bitcoin, which is crucial to understanding the debate around the controversial cur-rency.

Bitcoin is a form of money that was cre-ated in 2008, by someone operating under the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto. It is the first decentralised digital currency. De-centralised means that there is no central bank controlling the currency and digital implies there is no physical value to a Bit-coin. Whereas normal currencies repre-sent a certain amount of gold, Bitcoin gets its value from the fact that people agree that it is worth something, hence the name ‘virtual money’. Bitcoins are generated by mathematical algorithm. This process is called ‘mining’. However, there is a limit to the number of possible iterations, which means the creation of Bitcoins is not end-less. In total, there are 21 million Bitcoins to be mined, which will take until 2140.

BEYOND THE

by Titus VersterThe virtual currency and its social significance

10

11

Many countries around Europe have been turned upside down by protests and riots - most recently in Ukraine.

FAULT LINES

In the days before the session, President Yanu-kovych’s unexpected withdrawal from an un-precedented EU trade integration pact caused the streets of Kiev to flood with protestors. The ongoing unrest was met with a brutal police crackdown which has exacerbated tensions with EU Member States. But does withdraw-al from the agreement necessarily symbolise a step away from Europe back into the arms of Moscow? And what do the protests tell us about the wider culture of social resistance in Europe? •

by Ella Glenz& Martha Saunders

12

kraine is a nation divided. Only attaining independence in 1991, the country remains suspended

between East and West, treading a delicate and uncertain path between two key powers – its previous Soviet superior Russia and the European Union. From speaking with the Ukrainian delegates about where the borders of these divisions lie I learned that older or more conservative citizens, many of whom grew up under the shadow of the USSR, are likely to support maintaining the country’s relationship with Putin – particularly those in the Russian speaking areas who perhaps perceive more of a historical or cultural allegiance than they feel with the West.

Many politicians, including the current government under Yanukovych, argue the same but for very different reasons; Ukraine’s fragile economy relies on access to a very beneficial cheap oil supply from Russia which Putin has made clear would end with further EU integration. However, a strong pro-European movement has been emerging since the inception of Ukraine as an independent state. Yehor, a delegate from the Committee on Foreign Affairs concluded that particularly among young people the values of the European Union stand as a beacon of aspiration for what they want corruption-ridden and crisis-struck Ukraine to become. In addition, further integration and the possibility of eventual membership would undoubtedly bring Ukraine economic benefits in the long term with new levels of trade and investment.

Yehor, along with fellow Ukrainian delegate Dmytro, emphasised the importance of aligning with the EU. Expressing concerns about press freedom and the lack of transparency in their political process, as well as the understandable aspirations

towards achieving the same standards of life and economic stability as they perceive in many Western European nations, they conclude that the arguments for joining hands with the EU were infinitely stronger than aligning with corrupt and regressive Russia. Whilst they had some concerns about relations with Russia, Yehor still perceived Yanukovych’s decision as a “road to nowhere” merely prolonging Ukraine’s frozen status and drawing out making the inevitable decision between the two.

With all these undercurrents of tension, it is unsurprising that Ukraine’s withdrawal from the trade agreements in Vilnius last week have been interpreted as a symbolic movement towards Russia. However, Nadiya (ITRE II) was sceptical of this perception. “People are afraid of further political influence from Russia” she explains. “Students think they are standing up for Europe but they they do not really understand what the are doing, or what the trade agreement is actually about.” The reality is that Ukraine has been hit hard by the economic crisis, which saw a colossal drop in GDP and a sharp increase in unemployment from which it is only beginning to recover from.

The EU trade agreement, whilst certainly a step towards further integration, offers nothing in terms of the direct and immediate benefits Ukraine needs and the inevitable disintegration of support from Russia could leave the fragile economy shattered. While Yanukovych’s pro-Russian stance is indisputable, there is a strong case for reasoning that his decision was made in Ukraine’s best interests. While the values of the EU are likely to be advocated passionately in a country that fails to provide transparency or adequate

freedom of speech, the nation cannot be blamed for seeking to protect itself from complete economic failure. The threat of immediate and brutal retaliation from Russia is undeniable. Putin has already implemented clearly politically motivated trade embargoes on Roshen sweets and chocolate, a major export for Ukraine, as a thinly veiled punishment for the owner’s pro-EU stance and contribution to the trade agreement. Combined with the Ukrainian gas dispute of 2009, it is indisputable that consequences from Russia could be devastating.

No matter what Ukraine’s long term political aspirations are, many people contest that it’s not a risk any sane leader would be willing to take. Nadiya is among them. “We must become stronger before breaking ties with Russia” she reiterates. When I asked her about the widespread protest movement, she was equally cynical. ‘Most of my friends understand the more sensible options when you speak to them alone. But when you are in a group it is different. There are thousands and thousands of people standing and nobody knows exactly why.”

Perhaps Russia is not what Ukraine wants to become. But the relationship it currently has with it is beneficial. Additionally, we cannot dismiss the wishes of the pro-Russian part of the Ukrainian population simply because they do not fit the ideals we possess in the EU. When a population is divided, dramatic action and decisions cannot take place without repressing the voices of a large amount of people. Ukraine may face a crossroad, but no journey is worthwhile if it leaves half the population behind. Perhaps before making it’s final decision, taking the scenic route down the “road to nowhere” will only be valuable. •

U

13

lass is cracking under your feet. Broken bricks are lying around and a neglected cat is roaming

around plastic leftovers in the street. Just yesterday, hundreds of people were standing right here, at this very place, shouting and holding signs. The gathering was supposedly organised via Facebook, Twitter and other social media; some were invited by their friends. The aim: to make your voices heard, together. You recall the events. The crowd was heaving. You didn’t see where it came from, but a rock found its way into a shop window nearby. You heard the glass crashing, and turned to see the whole room behind it erupting into flames. Before you could figure out what was going on, fully equipped police forces appeared at the scene and started clubbing people on the outskirts of the crowd with their batons. Luckily you managed to escape. In daylight, the burning shop has turned into this smoke-blackened ruin in front of you. Some of your friends have been arrested for the night, some others are going to face legal proceedings.

Not every public gathering is meant to turn into this sort of disaster. The freedom of assembly is a basic right, and is one of the most crucial parts to democracy; EU Member States ought to respect and fully allow it. But assuming, that some of the demonstrations do not go that well, when not only opinions are shared but transforms into a violent brawl. What if, when a peaceful protest movement sets the whole country on fire?

Currently, several European countries – not necessarily in the EU itself – are in flames. Unfortunately it has not only just started with the recent anti and pro movements concerning the EU association treaty in the Ukraine. Just before summer this year, the inhabitants of Istanbul struggled with governmental orders to cut down the trees of Gezi Park. Instead, camps were set up, wide-spread protests arose and the so called ‘standing men’ silently faced the police forces by – as opposite to the story described – not moving at all. Apart from that, there has been far from silence in Greece, Spain, Portugal or the United Kingdom either. As the EU and other neighbouring countries can be called one of the richest, most healthy and secure regions in the world, what exactly are the motives for the uprising complaints?

In order to approach this question from a more scientific point of view, there has been the suggestion to differentiate between the various motivations demonstrators can have.

On the one hand, protest can be used as an instrument to voice your agreement or disapproval of certain issues taking place outside the demonstration itself. For example, if you hardly disagree with your government constructing a third airport and another bridge over the Bosporus as it is the case in Istanbul at the moment, you usually are not satisfied by merely joining the protest. Instead, you intend to make a difference with the potential outcome of your actions.

Counterpart to that is the expressive motivation which is only directed to voice your personal feelings. In general, you can be driven by anger or, appreciation, sadness or joy, hate or affection and every other emotion you are capable of. Sometimes ideology or religion play an important role as well; though tough principles are usually not quite helpful to actively deescalate conflict situations.

As you will recognize in real life, instrumental and expressive motivation are often strongly connected. To be honest, by joining a protest movement you should be able to name your reasons for supporting this one in particular – no matter if they are intrinsic and emotional or the other way ‘round. But there is still another dimension left. As we have heard from Nadiya (ITRE II), peer pressure or at least a collective motivation can be assumed to be the most frequent one. ‘Collective identity’ is the major characteristic for the so-called ‘new social movements’ that have emerged since the 1980s. Therefore it always feels better to express one’s uneasiness and dissatisfaction in a group instead of holding a sign on your own saying ‘I really need to get a better job’.

But one should be careful of interpreting the protestation of controversial topics as representation of an entire nation’s genuine opinion. As you know, media reports tend to put a strong emphasis on very specific points of view. But these does not necessarily fully cover the actual conflict lines present in reality. •

G

14

rogress has already been made: the consumers can switch suppliers for gas and electricity and suppliers

must provide clear explanations of terms and conditions. However, there still is some work to be done such as including an aligning national market and network operation rules for gas and electricity as well as making cross-border investment in energy infrastructure easier. 

It is important to give the market the chance to deliver in practice what it prom-ises in theory: correct investment signals, technological innovation where needed and the fairest possible price for all – af-fordable for the more vulnerable and in-tensive users, but still high enough to stimulate investments. This requires a high degree of trust in the market and in neigh-bouring Member States.

It is to be considered that Europeans have already benefited from the Single Market and what one could expect from it in the future.

The first benefit from the internal market is the increased prosperity: over the last 15 years the Single Market has increased the EU’s total GDP by 2.15%. In 2006 alone this meant an overall increase of EUR 240 billion - or EUR 518 for every EU citizen - compared to a situation without the Single Market.

Furthermore, it offers the unique possi-bility to sink unemployment. During the period from 1992-2006, over 2.75 million extra jobs have been created as a result of the Single Market. As the energy sector is crucial for all citizens and will become even more important for future genera-tion, there is a huge potential for employ-ment on a large scale.

Another virtue is the wider choice of prod-ucts and service providers: 73% of EU cit-izens think the Single Market has contrib-uted positively to the range of products on offer, while the establishment of common

standards has led to safer and environmen-tally friendlier products. This process is most likely to happen in the energy sector as well, since the trend to renewable and safer energy has already started. The single energy market has the potential for all EU citizens to benefit from a better form of en-ergy supply.

In addition to that, the prices will lower: the opening up of national markets and the resultant increase in competition has already driven down prices of, for example, internet access, air travel and telephone calls, so the same will happen with ener-gy. In addition to that, a better value for taxpayers arises. As a result of more open and competitive public procurement rules, governments have more money to spend on other priorities such as health and ed-ucation.

Another side effect is less red tape: rath-er than adding to red tape, Single Mar-ket rules often replace a large number of complex and different national laws with a single framework, reducing bureaucra-cy for citizens, and compliance costs for businesses, which passes those savings on to consumers. Examples for this are the already existing 20-20-20 targets and the Energy Roadmap 2050. In order to fill the policy gap between those two targets, it is crucial to create the single energy market. Since the start of the Single Market, for in-stance, it has also become much easier to start or buy a business: the average cost for setting up a new company has fallen from

EUR 813 in 2002 to EUR 554 in 2007, and the time needed to register a company ad-ministratively was reduced from 24 days in 2002 to about 12 days today. But more progress is needed in this direction to en-sure the successful reach of the targets.

As soon as the single energy market is here, there is a huge economic potential. Any business in the EU automatically has up to 500 million potential customers on its doorstep, since energy is a necessity for ev-eryone. This would allow larger businesses to benefit from enormous economies of scale, while new technology markets, such as the Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), have been opened up to small- and me-dium-sized businesses which previously would have been dissuaded from export-ing by the cost and hassle.

Finally, it would be much easier to do busi-ness in general. The trade within the EU has risen by 30% since 1992 due to the Sin-gle Market. The absence of border bureau-cracy has cut delivery times and reduced costs.

As Günther Oettinger, EU Commissioner for Energy once said, “it is not just rules that make a market work. Markets are ac-tually only as effective as the people who make them – producers, traders, consum-ers, ordinary citizens”. Therefore, we need to ensure to apply these rules, with a strong belief, from both politicians and citizens that these rules are there to work for our common benefit. We are responsible. •

To give consumers and businesses more and better products and services, more competition, and more secure supplies, the EU aims to fully integrate a na-tional energy market by 2014.

SINGLE ENERGY MARKET

P

BY CHRIS NÖLTE

15

BENEFITS FOR EUROPE

16

What if the Europe you know were to change tomorrow? What if nothing would ever be the same? What if you could not adapt? What if…

CHALLENGE YOUR IMAGINATION

17

icture you have an acquaintance, with which you exchange goods, such as certain types of food, toys,

medicine. Sometimes you might also share your secrets, in order to increase your pow-er. His “special food” is really tasty and he can supply you with exotic goods that you cannot normally obtain. However, your parents do not, under any circumstances, want to allow you to accept those things, because they might harm your health and have other effects on you and your fami-ly. In addition, you live far away from one another, so you always have to pay extra sums of money in order to send the goods and cover travel expenses and other taxes. Therefore, your exchange is partially hin-dered.

After you have imagined that, think of the European Union’s relations with the Unit-ed States. Although they are completely different, they are able to reach a consen-sus, they trade and collaborate. However, certain barriers exist in the process. Tariff barriers consist of taxes on imports while non-tariff barriers, such as labeling, in-tellectual property rights or quality stan-dards have nothing to do with money. In order to eliminate these barriers, the two parties have recently started negotiating a Transatlantic Free Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). This agreement would most certainly create new jobs and boost exports, through eliminating the barriers. Moreover, it is meant to strengthen the economic efficiency and to gain political momentum, since it is the biggest bilateral agreement ever negotiated.

Because most of the tariff barriers are rela-tively low, most observers believe that they are “low-hanging fruit”, since their elimi-nation will not cause any problems. The main challenge consists in the regulatory talks, as there are starkly divergent points of view. While the European Union strives towards centralisation, the United States of America are more inclined to self-leg-islation. The fact that both parties are not

able to come up with a common model of a “crash-test dummy” emphasises their lack of similarities.

There are also heated debates when it comes to National Security Agency access-ing the Europeans’ browser history, home address and other personal information. Moreover, no country would allow secret dataflow go across the ocean, especially af-ter the incident with PRISM, an American surveillance data mining program which resulted in loss of trust on Europe’s side. France’s desire to be a so-called “cultur-al exception” was also a factor that made the Member States even more reticent. The country has especially insisted on film and television, as this agreement would, for ex-ample, lead to the existence of more Amer-ican movies in the cinemas. Therefore, los-ing the countries’ national heritage is not appealing either and citizens usually agree upon the fact that there is no refined cul-ture across the Atlantic.

Labeling could also stay in the way of these negotiations. We, the European citizens,

value our geographical indications (GI) and they could never be replaced with trademarks, since this would only fasten the identity loss process. The GIs protect a product made in a certain region, thus being guarantees for quality, whereas the latter are symbols used to prevent others from using a similar mark, No one would accept eating parmesan cheese produced in California, or drinking Champagne pro-duced in Washington.

In addition, it is understandable that the EU has strong product and food safety reg-ulations, considering that many Americans suffer from weight problems. There will be the case when EU will have to choose between pleasure and health. Do we want genetically modified food? Do we want a better taste and a cheaper production? Or can we be satisfied only with regular food, grown in our own backyards?

Nevertheless, maybe the developing coun-tries will be able to cope with an extremely competitive market. Maybe the Member States will start investing more in Research & Development, so that they will innovate in order not to fall behind. Maybe some states will also start increasing production, thus providing the citizens with a wider variety of products. A sure thing is that everyone will enjoy the thousands of new-ly created jobs and the limitless options. Maybe we will even be able to travel across the Atlantic without a visa, who knows?

Either way, TTIP will cause numerous changes and people are afraid. Afraid of losing their culture, afraid of the compet-itiveness that might arise if the agreement is signed, afraid of its consequences. How-ever, this fear is natural, since the unknown is always terrifying. One cannot know for sure which precise consequences will be if EU comes to terms with the US. The only thing that we can do now is analyse this hy-pothetical situation while keeping in mind that where there is no risk, there is no gain. After all, an acquaintance can become friend only if given a chance. •

byMaraBălaşa

P

18

BY LEE MORAN

istorically, America and Eu-rope have a strange relationship. America was carved up amongst

European superpowers from as early as its discovery by Europeans. America would eventually through revolution and social change provide people with the greatest opportunity in the world to gain their free-dom and wealth for nearly two hundred years. However, today America has such major problems one must consider the possibility of a massive collapse of society in a country which the world once depend-ed on. The recent government freeze over “Obamacare” and the NSA controversy have led many people to become disen-franchised with the USA and the Ameri-can Dream.

Should we look at Europe as the solution? Europe has after all shown massive social growth and has received a Nobel peace prize for its efforts to promote peace in one of the most historically war mongering places on the planet. Europe now demands human rights for all of its citizens and at-tempts to promote equality of opportunity for all. With recent developments in the EU and the massive growth all Member States has received it would be logical to assume Europe is once again a major world power, and therefore a major prospect to emigrate to in the future.

However one must take into account the EU and its creation of Europe as the “cradle of civilised society” depends entirely on the American investment into Europe in the form of the Marshall plan during the Cold War. Europe for decades had depended on America to put it back on its feet after two devastating wars and so many people feel

that America was the saviour of Europe in its darkest hour. It is difficult to argue that Europe’s influence on global politics would be greater than America’s someday when America holds such a trump card.

What also must be taken into consider-ation is that America is failing to uphold its status as “the home of the free”. The Patriot Act and the investigations by the NSA make people feel as though they are once again living in a repressive society which watches and records everything they do. This is not an attractive prospect for immigrants, who otherwise would be guaranteed their privacy within the EU. Not only that but also America’s economy is beginning to dwindle as Europe co-op-erates more and more to create a power-ful economy. This co-operation has led to Europe arguably having the most powerful economy in the world.

Although the European economy is strong and its mission clearly states it fully sup-ports human rights, it has experienced lapses on both. Europe has a serious prob-lem with Member States being equal in terms of economy. Many Southern Eu-ropean countries and Ireland were detri-mentally affected by the global recession of 2008 but people generalise that Europe’s economy is strong because of the success of the Northern and Central European coun-tries. They neglect that Europe as a whole is not a success story economically. Human rights is particularly an interesting issue as Europe is definitely the champion of uni-versal human rights. But, millions of Eu-ropeans work in forced labour situations and are victims of slavery both trafficked internally and externally. Recent accusa-

tions of slavery in London can only show us a very recent example of how relevant this argument is.

One must also consider Australia as a po-tential place to develop the next “dream”. The Australian Dream is definitely a notion which exists in the mind of the thousands of Northern Europeans and far Eastern Asian immigrants who flock there to find a better life. Australia is going from strength to strength. This could potentially upset the balance as the American Dream begins to unfurl and the European Dream is not yet fully realised. But Australia also has its problems: restrictions on immigrants, the election of Tony Abbot, a man who had referred to his opponent as an “evil witch“ and a “bitch“. He also referred to abortion as “the easy way out“. Australia arguably also has problems with racism and its own inferiority complex. That is due to the fact it is a member of the British Common-wealth and the union-jack on their flag still represent its colonial past in daily life. This perhaps displays insecurity with its legiti-macy as a global contender.

In our rapidly developing world perhaps there is no longer an American Dream or a growing European Dream. Perhaps both are suffering as the world slowly, but sure-ly, is catching up. The example of Australia was also shown but that can be problemat-ic too, a country with such amazing poten-tial is almost self-deprecating and facing an immigration crisis during its greatest economic boom. Maybe the problem that is we perceive there to be a dream to begin with, it is time to focus on reality. •

H

THE CONTINENTAL DREAM

19

W i t h regard to the Amer-

ican Dream, many people believe it is beginning to collapse.

Europe is growing from strength to strength, and even in a time of great re-cession has shown solidarity. Is there a possibility that the European Dream ex-ists? If so will Europe eventually over-

take America as the ideal location to live in for future generations?

20

hile patriotism and pride in one’s country is entirely nor-mal, nowadays it appears that

we have stretched our understanding of our own individual identities, and in do-ing so what we define as our nationalities. Nationalism  is a belief, creed or political ideology that involves an individual iden-tifying with, or becoming attached to, his or her nation. 

The ideology of a politically united Europe has been evident in the European culture since the Middle Ages and this idea has inspired the proposals of many forms of confederation among our countries. With-in our continent there are many individ-uals that believe that Europe is, or more commonly, should be a single nation. The European Union is, in essence, a form of these proposals. While the EU is not a sin-gle nation, it does represent a significant effort being made in order to further con-nect European countries.

European Nationalism is not necessari-ly the movement towards federalism, it is about feeling united by our geographical location. While the United States became one nation and thus has a US national-ism, if anything we, the citizens of Eu-rope, seem to have latched on to our own sense of nationality. While this seems like a strange concept, it is certainly a factor. In

On a continent of 739.2 million peo-ple, is individual nationality prevailing or is a Pan-European identity a consensus?

W

vsNational Nationalism

the world. It equally supports the founda-tions of common European values, such as of fundamental human rights and spread of welfare. It also inherently strengthens the supra-national democratic and social institutions of the European Union.  The concept of common European identity is viewed rather as a by-product than the main goal of the European integration pro-cess, and is actively promoted.

There are however dangers of this Euro-pean Identity that have surfaced. The in-crease of pride and unity among European countries can lead to an exclusivity of its members. While it is of course a positive sign that Member States are showing a lev-el of unity and appear to be achieving the ambitions the EU was founded upon, it is important to remember that we are not an exclusive club and thus it is not acceptable

some cases, people throughout the conti-nent and especially those who are involved in business and politics feel more Europe-an than even their own nationality.

A Pan-European identity  refers to the sense of personal identification with Eu-rope. At times Europe is used synony-mously with the EU, as 500 million Eu-ropean citizens also are a member of the EU. However, many European countries are not EU Member States and that does not prevent them from believing them-selves to be European. In many situations, people are beginning to think of them-selves as both Europeans and nationalists. Pan-European means that the identity of European applies throughout Europe. The European way has led to people develop-ing contrasting opinions on national and European ideologies and ways of thinking. ‘Europeanism’ is a related term that refers to the assertion that people of Europe have a distinctive set of political, economic and social norms and values that are slowly di-minishing and replacing existing national or state-based norms and values. At pres-ent, European integration co-exists with national loyalties and patriotism.

A development of European identity is re-garded as a vital objective in pursuing the establishment of a politically, economically and militarily influential united Europe in

21

by Megan SMITH

vs European Nationalism

to exclude and deem ourselves better than outside European borders and neglect our neighbours and beyond. This pride in be-ing European should be acknowledged, but it should not enable us to reject others. In-clusion and unity is what has brought us to this point, taking any other position would be a step in the wrong direction.

While in recent years there seems to be an increase in the Pan-European identity approach there has also been a growth in actual nationalism which opposes this. The United Kingdom has not been shy in em-phasising its wish to leave the EU and be-come a more self-focused country. France and the Netherlands, nationalist parties are uniting in euroscepticisms as shown by Le Pen and Wilder. Throughout the conti-nent the struggle between these conflicting views is growing.

Being from Ireland I think the only time I have actually realised the difference be-tween actual nationalism and this Euro-pean identity is at my own International Session, where one of my fellow Irish del-egates said something about the difference in the Irish delegation’s viewpoint and ‘the Europeans’ implying we were not ac-tually part of Europe and were segregated from the rest. It is an interesting concept and people throughout the continent have vastly differing opinions on the matter. It is quite evident that discussions on bring-ing Europe closer to being a single nation will continue, but will those numbers ever bring it to the point where it could become a realisation? •

22

by Caley Routledge

Monopoly: Corporate Colonialism Edition

23

What amounts to a giant game of monopoly is being played out across the planet, and as we all know, monopoly never ends well.

As a Brit, colonialism is a topic very close to my heart. However, it might surprise you that I won’t be

arguing in favour of it. What a plot twist. What amounts to a giant game of monopo-ly is being played out across the planet, and as we all know, monopoly never ends well.

My reasons for this defection from the em-pire are simple: its resurgence in modern society is subtle, but has the potential to be as equally damaging as it was in the past. States that have already suffered from se-vere exploitation risk facing it again, this time at the hands of corporations, invest-ment funds, banks, universities and, as be-fore, governments.

Two problems face all nations. First, pop-ulation levels are reaching unsustainable heights. Global population is expected to reach 9.1 billion by 2050, 2 billion greater than it is now. In the next 20 years alone demand for food is expected to increase by at least 50%. Alongside this lies the second issue: a decrease in available ara-ble land due to climate change, soil deso-lation, urbanisation and water shortages. Combined, these two issues mean that any available land is rapidly increasing in value; value attracts investors. But these are not the only elements at play in what I’ve labelled ‘corporate colonialism’. Land is scarce and expensive throughout West-ern Europe and the US; new land is only available in Africa, Asia and South Amer-ica. It’s also more often than not extremely cheap. A hectare of land in Zambia tends to cost those interested between $350 and $500, not even a tenth of the price for a plot of similar land in the US. This, along-side the growing need for food and land, makes purchasing in these countries what

is known as an “alpha investment” – the re-turns far outweigh any risks; this is certain-ly being taken advantage of.

Renaissance Capital, a Russian investment company, have acquired more than 100,000 hectares in Ukraine, where a further third of arable land is also held by American companies. Worse than this, it is thought near 100% of Liberian farmland is under foreign ownership. The likes of Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank, and even Harvard University are following suit and snapping up land where they can; it is estimated at least a third of the world’s arable land is up for grabs. Although not in a sovereign sense, control of states is essentially being sold to new owners. The Sudanese gov-ernment has leased 1.5 million hectares of prime farmland to Gulf States, Egypt and South Korea, for 99 years. That’s a govern-ment, with 5.6 million citizens dependent on food deliveries, selling the land that could be used to feed those who they are meant to serve. Because make no mistake, the food produced is being exported. Sau-di Arabia, one of the most aggressive land grabbers, held a ceremony for their first delivery of rice from Ethiopian territory, which was attended by the king. Interest-ingly, until the 1990’s Saudi Arabia was the 6th largest exporter of wheat. But it real-ised it had used nearly all its water reserves achieving this, and is now allowing other nations to bear such burdens; exporting food is essentially exporting water.

There are admittedly some merits to this system. It’s being encouraged by govern-ments, making it legitimate colonialism. The Turkish agriculture minister stated “Choose and take what you want.”, and the Ethiopian prime minister announced

he’s “eager” to provide access to hundreds of thousands of hectares. As well as this, the investors are bringing modern equip-ment and fertilisers with them to the land; in parts of Africa this has led to a 10 fold increase in output. Theoretically this is the way to tackle global food issues. How real-istic that is, is another matter entirely.

When famines do strike, these investors will still continue to export any produce to the nations to which their loyalties lie. Furthermore, Pakistan has already com-mitted 100,000 of its security forces, it’s own resources, to future protection of for-eign-owned fields. That is, if they can figure out how much land they have sold, which is often unclear. On this, even the UN has been seen to cite figures from unreliable newspapers in their reports. At its worst, this land grabbing undermines state com-mitment to its own citizens, as it thrives in weak states. The investor needs a weak state that does not force him to abide by any rules; a state that permits grain exports despite famines at home, that is consumed by corruption or deeply in debt, ruled by a dictatorship, racked by civil war. The in-vestors will be keen to see this perpetuated.

This situation is constantly evolving. What the EU must consider is how happy it is to exploit these countries, bearing in mind that China, America and Russia are far ahead of us in pulling raw resources and land from, for example, Africa. We our-selves must not fall behind. But we must also accept that world powers are at risk of preventing developing countries from pro-gressing. With one billion people on earth already suffering from food shortage, this isn’t an issue we can exacerbate in order to maintain “first world” lifestyles. •

24

a project of:

supported by:

The European Youth Parliament is a programme of the Schwarzkopf Foundation.

Dieses Projekt wurde mit Unterstützung der Europäischen Union durch das Programm JUGEND IN AKTION �nanziert. Der Inhalt dieses Projektes gibt nicht notwendigerweise den Standpunkt der Europäischen Union oder der Nationalagentur JUGEND für Europa wieder und sie übernehmen dafür keine Haftung.