G.A Issue

editorial“Adobe Indesign is shutting down. A serious error was detected.

Please restart Indesign”

That’s not the message one wants to be greeted with at 5:00 am dur-ing a late night edit binge. However, we bested technology (that in-cludes malfunctioning Indesign, Word docs, Facebook blocks and printers... well sort of in relation to the latter). Due to the afore-mentioned printer being a moody, pre-teen (the journos even tried cuddling it), we decided to join the Next Generation Sustainable Lifestyle and go digital. We’re saving the environment, some time and our sanity.

What did we learn over the weekend? Anything is funny at 5:00am. Indesign is both angelic and demonic. Not taking yourself too seri-ously is key to suriving in this EYP world of font sizes, text boxes and photoshop. We live, we learn.

xoxoGossip Editors.

LIBE I

ENVI

AFETSPACE

LIBE IIIJURI

ITRELIBE II

LIBE IPECH

ENVI

The revolution in Syria started in March 2011 and since then 3.5 million Syrians have been forced to leave their country. Six thousand Syr-ian citizens are still being forced to leave their country every day, becoming the biggest exodus since the Rwandan genocide. Due to this large rate of emigration, countries in the Levant area like Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey are being over-run by refugees and are becoming increas-ingly irritated. The government of Lebanon has even gone so far to state that the influx of refugees has resulted in a decline of the GDP, increased unemployment rates and damaged water and sanitation systems.

The situation of Syrian refugees is inhumane, however, almost all governments in the area have set up refugee camps for the Syrians, in collaboration with the UN. The camps are over-crowded and the living standards are poor. Due to the camps being overcrowded, an estimated 70% of Syrian refugees are forced to live else-where. They use old sheds, ruins and aban-doned buildings as shelters. On top of that they have no access to humanitarian aid. Some of them decide to seek refuge in Europe, in hope of finding better living circumstances. However, this often doesn’t happen due to intensified bor-der control in Europe, especially in the periph-ery. Seeking refuge as a Syrian in Europe often turns out to be a lengthy period of detainment, as every refugee needs their

asylum request to be processed and approved. Furthermore, most legal routes into the Euro-pean Union have been closed, pushing refu-gees to choose illegal ones. Those endeavours are risky and potentially fatal to obtaining legal refugee status.At the UN Refugee Convention in 1951 it was agreed upon that countries may not deny ref-ugees’ asylum requests. The problem is that, whilst Member States acknowledge this, there is no common EU policy that ensures that this right is respected. This has led to a situation of Syrian refugees in which they are detained for years, awaiting the outcome of their requests. For instance, Greece has received about 8,000 asylum requests by detained refugees. However, only a miniscule portion of these refugees were granted access to Greek territory, whilst the rest still await a decision by the Greek government.

German president Johachim Gauck stated that “protecting lives and granting refugees the chance to be heard is at the foundation of our legal and moral codes”. Therefore, a common policy must be established that ensures that the agreements made in 1951 are respected. It’s up to the committee on Foreign Affairs to tackle this challenge.

Tadeus Nikos Hogenelst (NL)

During Committee Work the Committee on Foreign Affairs had to find a way to integrate Syr-ian refugees into the European Member States. They have split the problem into multiple fields, including the question of integrating Syrian asylum seekers into European Member States and the role of the European Asylum Support Office (EASO).

Most importantly, the committee on Foreign Affairs agreed that Syrian refugees are in an uniquely dangerous position. Because of this the committee members decided to grant all legal Syrian refugees a special status; the Syr-ian Asylum Status (SAS). This status would give all Syrian refugees the right to education, basic healthcare, shelter and employment upon be-ing accepted into a Member State.

The committee on Foreign Affairs agreed that all Member States of the EU should take up re-sponsibility of handling Syrian refugees. This would mean that refugees with the SAS would be redistributed throughout Member States, based upon a country’s GDP, population and un-employment rate. Quota’s based upon the crite-ria would be made by the EASO, determining the amount of refugees a country should host. This would greatly lower the amount of stress in the main entrance points of Syrian refugees into the EU. To ensure that Member States would collaborate, a Syrian Asylum Fund would be es-

tablished to reward the Member States that try to meet the quotums established.

I feel the committee on Foreign Affairs did an impressive job during CW, since the redistribu-tion of refugees with the SAS over all Member States would be a good example of a common approach by all EU Member States. It could the-oretically provide Syrian refugees with normal living circumstances, a right which they can all call upon too. It is a good thing that the commit-tee chose to base the criteria upon the situation of Member States. Doing this not only shares the responsibility of the Syrian refugees, but also the stress it might cause to Member States.

The main problem I see with this resolution is that the Syrian Asylum Status possibly incentiv-izes too many Syrian refugees to come to Europe to find refuge. This might even worsen the prob-lem, since the EU’s Member States already have problems hosting 40,000 Syrian refugees. How does the EU ensure that acknowledging the SAS doesn’t simply move the problem in the Levant area to the peripheral area of the European Con-tinent?

Tadeus Nikos Hogenelst (NL)

AFET

52 years ago, on the 12th of April 1961, the first man was sent to space; Yuri Gagarin. It was one of the great milestones of the Space Race be-tween the United States and the Soviet Union, and ever since that day, space has captured the imagination of people all around the globe. The Space Race lasted for years, and has consumed huge amounts of manpower, money and re-sources, all in the name of prestige and capital-ism/communism.

At the beginning of the third millennium, hu-man space exploration has stagnated and has been replaced by Mars rovers, Voyagers, and other similar projects. These machines are still

exploring the boundaries of the unknown, but the end of the Space Race had a huge impact. Budgets were cut and the money-devouring task of space exploration was no longer deemed a vital part of modern day governments inter-ests. So now, another space race has begun,and the key player in this so called ‘New Space Race’ has now become the private sector. Gone are the days of space exploration and soon we will be talking about space exploitation; mining aster-oids, satellite observation, space tourism, the possibilities seem limitless.

Many ask what role the European Union has to play in this new era of space exploration. The answer is that the EU still has a surprisingly big role to play in space matters. In the Treaty on the Function of the European Union (TFEU), the following is stated:“To promote scientific and technical progress, industrial competitive-ness and the implementation of its policies, the Union shall draw up a European space policy. To

SPACEThe final frontier...

...or the frontier too far?

this end, it may promote joint initiatives, sup-port research and technological development and coordinated the efforts needed for the ex-ploration and exploitation of space.”

These ‘joint initiatives’ have mainly take shape in 3 European priority programs: - the Galileo satellite navigation system, - the EGNOS; which aims to improve the quality of the signals sent out by the previously mentioned navigation systems, - and the GMES program; an observation program put in place to fight global warming and improve European security through space observation decks.

The unique thing about these programs how-ever, is that they are all civilian and not military initiatives, made possible through extensive co-operation with the private sector. I believe that the future of European space policy lies in these aspects. The European Union has many routes

it could go down; it could encourage Public-Pri-vate-Partnerships (PPP) through cooperation with the ESA and the member states. Equally it could fund innovation and ground breaking research together with European higher educa-tion institutions.

Missing the relaunch of space research may spell disaster when space matters are taking an ever growing presence in our daily lives. Howev-er many still ask should we not take care of the many problems within our atmosphere before we begin to venture out of it?

Who knwows, the European Union may still have an important role to play in the New Space Race. I’ll leave that for you delegates to decide.

Yannick Léonard (BE)

SPACE

The committee has taken a clear stance against conventional weapons in space, which were not covered by the Outer Space treaty, yet they still allow coun-tries to arm themselves against international threats. This is a good balance between safety and peacekeeping, something that is not easy. This ban will still be relevant on the long term, when the reality of in space warfare may be a more realistic threat.

The finders-keepers principle regarding space re-sources will allow for a competitive market, which is still regulated by governments, allowing for space exploitation and exploration in a safe and respon-sible way. This is the best way to tap in to the cur-rently unexplored and unexploited market that is space, because it leaves enough breathing space for companies.

The stance against space waste is tackling a major issue in the world right now. If we continue launch-ing debris into space at the rate we are today, there will come a time that a wall of debris surrounding earth will prevent anything from leaving. This res-olution looks in both a long and short term per-spective, by enforcing cleaning up space debris and stimulating research on the long run.

Licensing all orbital objects that might affect European citizens, even though they may be owned by other governments and com-panies from outside the Europe-an Union, may possibly be out-side of the tasks of the European Union. Requiring other govern-ments to license and expose all

satellites is playing ‘police’ from a higher moral ground, since space is, as defined by the Outer Space treaty as common heritage for mankind. The way this resolution treats the space above Europe is as if it is owned by Europe itself. Yet for example the United States cannot launch any orbital satel-lites above the US without them passing trough ‘EU space’.

The principle on which finding resources is based may possibly lead to monopolization if rare re-sources are found in great amounts on other celes-tial bodies. This can harm the economy on the long run.

Currently, collecting space debris is a difficult and painstaking process. If the EU would require any-one to clean up their debris, they may scare off up-starts who don’t have the money to pay for remov-ing their junk, because it is simply very difficult to do it in a safe and responsible way.

Yannick Léonard (BE)

LIBE IIILIBE III recognises the need to tackle the dis-ease, not just treat the symptoms of racism in sport. It’s not enough to simply acknowledge the act after it has passed and take the ‘appropriately deemed’ action.

The current structure of penalties is ineffective largely due to govern-ing sports bodies not carrying their weight in responsibility in dealing with racism.

LIBE III are arguably taking a hard line with imposing stronger penal-ties and a 3-strike policy. However the need to rid our sport of racism warrants such measures. After all ; if you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime.

Governing sports bodies within Europe are not ful-filling their duties in effec-tively tackling racism and removing it from European sport for once and all.

Whilst Civil Liberties III hope their new EU body will correct the deficiencies already present in governing sports bodies, there is no guarantee it won’t be ham-strung in the same way as the current bodies.

While this resolution covers a wide area; individual player responsibility is omitted; yet arguably a pivotal role within this debate. High-profile play-ers hold much influence in modern sport culture; and as role models for younger sportsmen, they should share some of the responsibility in combat-ing racisim.

David Corish (IE)

Drones represent a double advantage for any rear echelon military commander. They not only mi-nimise troops exposure to danger while keeping a “man in the loop”, but provide a cheap, expendable “bomb bus” that can deliver a lethal payload to vir-tually any location in the world within 24 hours. As the American RQ-170 stealth drone that crashed in Iran last year proved, the lack of a downed pilot to go with the downed aircraft is a positive aspect, any head of state can benefit from.

Currently, the capability of precision strike targets through the use of RPAs (Remotely Piloted Aircraft) and drones within Europe is only held by France, Britain and Germany, with almost all other EU na-tions possessing some form of unmanned recon-naissance capability. However the development of autonomous drones, such as the American Global Hawk Drone, which can fly a predetermined route, even drop bombs, without a human “pushing the button” is fast becoming the new contentious issue, the “robot revolution” has been brought forth.

The stance of the majority of EU countries is one which is firmly opposed to the idea of drone strikes with widespread condemnation of American drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen and other terrorist “hot spots” exists within the European Parliament. Many European nations operate drones and carry out op-erations within organisations such as NATO, for ex-isting operations in countries such as Afghanistan and previously Iraq.

This hasn’t stopped the research and development of European drones, with British attempts to design an autonomous stealth drone (Taranus) proving largely successful, as well as French efforts led by Dassault Aviation proving to be somewhat of a suc-

cess, Europe definitely has the capacity to manufac-ture indigenous unmanned aircraft. Europe is home to some veritable giants of the aviation industry; BAE, Dassault (France), Finmeccanica (Italy) as well as CASA of Spain, each with massive technological bases to form the foundation of any European UAV initiative.

European militaries working together to create an indigenous product, is nothing new, with the front-line fighter Jet of many European nations, (the Eu-roFighter Typhoon) being made entirely within Eu-rope. So the tools and infrastructure exist entirely, for the production of modern aviation capabilities. Under the guidance of specific organisations such as the EADS (European Aeronautics Defence and Space Agency) and the EDA (European Defence Agency), it is entirely plausible for the EU to create a Network of legislation that ensures Drones are used in a manner which can only ever benefit the EU and its member states.

It is worth noting that European policy, lags behind European technological advancement. This dispar-ity is a factor that must form an integral part of any solution to the problem at hand. For instance, there is a lack of definitive political action on the subject of the legality of drone strikes, while as previously mentioned, industry has accelerated past the grid-locked EU.

Moral and legal ambiguities aside, Drones are be-coming more and more relevant in both civilian and military life and to ignore their prominence and ca-pabilities would be a mistake that would restrict the EU on a multitude of levels.

Jack Sargent (IE)

JURIDrones within Europe regardless of their application, pro-vide the EU companies and corporations with an opening into a market that is largely dominated by tech giants, like Israel Aerospace Industries and American corporations such as Lockheed Martin. This will allow for Europe, to be synonymous with America and Israel within the context of advanced robotics, i.e Drones. While this may appear dras-tic to some, direct action is necessary in situations such as European technology, lagging behind European policy, in areas ranging from fire containment to border patrol.

Having assessed the process of integration in other coun-tries, a trial phase, using off-the-shelf Drones, will be im-plemented. This will provide member state governments with first hand experience of the proposed map of EU ex-pansion of drones.

While the advantages that drones pose to every aspect of government, the EU will avoid running counter to its over-arching support of human rights, and will condemn the use of drones in a military capacity in civilian population areas. However, the EU is not blind and sees the potential increase in intelligence that the use of drones in Afghani-stan has provided.

As a last and very European note, JURI has witnessed the stalemate that has been seen when a common EU drone policy has been debated and It has factored in this inabil-ity to reach an agreement into its policy formulation.

Jack Sargent (IE)

The most important aspect of any EYP topic is to first identify what the prob-lems are in your assigned issue, why is this an issue? How is it caused? What can be done to alleviate the problem?

The ProblemIt was estimated that by 2007, at least 11 % of Europe’s population and 17 % of its ter-ritory had been affected by water scarcity, putting the cost of droughts in Europe over the past thirty years at 100 billion euro. The European Commission expects further deterioration of the water situa-tion in Europe if temperatures keep rising as a result of climate change. Water is no longer the problem of a few regions, but now concerns all 500 million Europeans.

Problems: - Primarily in Europe it is the poor or out-dated water infrastructure. Ireland is a prime example, every year in the last 5 years there have been water shortages in the capital. More water is lost through burst pipes than any other wasteful prac-tices in households.

- The poor allocation of resources to wa-ter management in European nations, taken for granted – this may or may not be solved by the introduction of a “water tax” in many European nations in the next few years however it is more likely the wa-ter tax is to be used to balance struggling

economies rather than being put back into the infrastructure.

- Out-dated thoughts and practises to water. There are still many who do not release that while water is an unlim-ited resource, usable water is not.

- The effects of Climate change with additional pollution is rendering large quantities of water supplies useless

But what can the Euro-pean Union do? Proper manage-ment of water re-sources is often argused as a good start; t a x a t i o n ,

Water where art thou?

quotas, rationing at non-peak hours. Heavier regulation of pollution in water sources. However the need to balance pan-European intervention with national soverignity is key.

Often calls for the installation of new water infrastructure or the upgrade

of existing infrastructure to bring into line with newer innovations

and thus save additional water. Yet should the EU cover the

cost for this alone or should Member States be expect-

ed to contribute?

When I look at this topic I see three

things. Reduc-tion, Regula-

tion or Inno-

vation. Reduction; reduce the wasteful uses of freshwater. Regulation; better control of water man-agement.Innovation; the implementation of new technologies and technical innovations in order to safeguard future water sup-plies and protect against drought.

Generally it is easier to improve and elabo-rate upon existing laws than to complete-ly overhaul the European policy so dele-gates should be reasonably well versed on current measures that are already being implemented by the E.U. Whilst finding the right balance between EU and Mem-ber States cooperation will be a key aspect of any resolution, such a topic warrents careful thinking.

Cian Rynne (IE)

ITREITRE have brought their heads together and prepared an article that is strong and simple in its construction. Effective in its implementation solid as regard to potential pitfalls.

They exceeded the resolution goals I had set in my head before the session started, I was pleased to see that the ideas that were presented to combat the issue were creative but not overly fantastical or radical.

There was strong emphasis on tackling compla-cent water consumption, improving infrastruc-ture, encouraging innovation projects, tax in-centives and an educational campaign.

Pros

With the introduction of the privatiza-tion of the water system combined with a tariff on profits from water distribution from private companies a conscious limit will be placed upon the complacent use

of water in European households and business-es. This will have a knock on effect of forcing companies to improve the infrastructure of wa-ter pipe systems so as to improve profit margins.

The money levied from private water compa-nies is to go back into the development of exist-ing facilities in Europe

Research Grants are to be given for projects that further the development and innovation of wa-ter preservation and conservation.

Cons

The educational campaign is a good idea but its implementation has a number of question marks, there are educational campaigns already in existence such as the green schools

water flag and “water day” some schools have this or its equivalent and other schools do not in Europe and it is unclear what the educational program intends to achieve as opposed to the current educational systems already in place

The potential monopolization of the water in-dustry by one or two extremely powerful emer-gent private water industries could put serious stress on already difficult economic conditions for many struggling people in the E.U

Private companies aren’t necessarily subject to the same safety regulations that governments are, a simple example is that bottled water companies do not have to meet the same safety standards with their water as a government that provides tapwater, if not addressed this could become a serious issue in the future of EU policy

SummaryDoes this resolution solve the issues facing the EU at this time in water? NoIs this a significant step in the right direction? A resounding yes.

Cian Rynne (IE)

FEMMWhen debating the most effective way of improving women’s representation in decision-making roles some of the main points brought up by the committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality where maternity leave, cultural traditions and deep rooted stereotypes. It was agreed that negative stereotypes were encouraged from a young age through gender specific toys. This was then supported further through media’s perception of women. The committee concluded that these behaviors induce gender barriers, not only through men’s view on women but also through women’s view of themselves.

To encourage women to return to work after giving birth, childcare was heavily discussed. The improve-ment and implementation of childcare was to be encouraged through tax credits. Subsidized childcare would allow parents, and especially women, to return to work sooner. The matter of parental leave being so aimed at women was also reflected upon. Sweden’s was seen as a good example of a parental leave policy that promoted gender equality where parents receive a fixed amount of days that they can divide freely between the two of them.

The committee also touched upon discrimination of already employed women. One idea was to create an in-house official per constituency to deal with any gender discrimination issues that arose.

The most contentious issue was, of course, gender quotas. The overall consensus appeared to be that while not ideal, gender quotas could be a good temporary way to combat underrepresentation of women in decision-making roles. However, concern was raised that they could encourage people to view women negatively by affirming the opinion that they’re weak to the point where they need a leg up. Although, it was also mentioned that in countries where gender quotas had been implemented in certain areas, there was an observable snowballing effect where female representation was improved even in areas where the quotas had not been implemented.

Allotting a certain amount of time for parental leave, that the parents can then split up freely, would help re-move the ingrained belief that child-care is a specifically female task, as it removes any kind of gender specifica-tion. Employers would also not nec-essarily have to take potential parental leave into consideration solely for the employment of women.

While having an appointed person to observe and maintain gender equality in constituencies could greatly reduce gender discrimina-tion, there is no guarantee that the person in question isn’t prejudice themselves, nor is there any guar-

antee that all discrimination is directly observ-able, provable or that women being discrimi-nated will feel comfortable reaching out to this person without worrying that it might put the security of their employment in question.

Quotas have been considered the solution to gender discrimination and underrepresentation of women in high profile positions. While they inar-guably improve the statistics when implemented, are gender quotas truly working towards a more equal minded society?

There are many arguments for and against gender quotas. In terms of numbers and percentages it’s

difficult to claim that quotas are ineffective or un-successful when followed. However, it’s my belief that they encourage a dangerous mindset. The whole concept of gender quotas is quite undemo-cratic. Basically we are circumventing people’s right to freely vote and promote the individual they feel will benefit their company or country the best by making gender the deciding factor. Quotas remove the concept of equal opportunities for everyone by favouring a gender.

What we as a society should aim for is not com-plete 50/50 representation of both genders in every field, instead I believe that the main aim should just simply be gender neutrality. True equality does not mean hiring more women simply because they are female, instead it means employing the best person for the job regardless of their gender. If there then happens to be more males, or more

FEMMTo quota or not to quota?

That is the question

females, then so be it - as long as gender or gender discrimination wasn’t a factor. What person would want to know that he or she was chosen for some-thing, not primarily for his or her merits or quali-fications, but first and foremost because he or she happened to be born without the “correct” set of chromosomes?

Sexism is a real issue today, and it does need to be addressed. I’m just not convinced quotas are the best solution in the long run. In fact, it seems a bit hypocritical. A true anti-sexist shouldn’t care whether or not some gender is over-represented or under-represented anywhere, provided that it’s not for sexist reasons. However, one could argue that quotas are a necessary first step in order to even out the playing field before a true mindset of gender equality is reached. Yet it seems counteractive to work towards minimizing gender as a deciding fac-

tor while at the same time implementing a policy that highlights gender and makes it a priority. Quotas encourage people to view and treat genders differently. So not only are they not addressing the issue, one could even say the quotas fuel the prob-lem. Women being prioritized over equally, or per-haps even more qualified, men can only facilitate a feeling of injustice for everyone involved. The main focus should be, and remain, to offer equal oppor-tunities for all by actively working against gender discrimination.

By Sarah Ek (SE)

Governmental par-ticipation by women

Edward Snowden , considered by some (Americans) to be a treasonous traitor. To others, he’s held up next to Julian As-sange and others who’ve un-earthed some of America’s dirt-ier secrets, as an educator and an acclaimed whistleblower. Whatever your opinion is, it’s clear to most the information he disclosed is significant and quite damaging to in-ternational relations. Your challenge, dear delegates, is to decide whether his rev-elations should influence the EU’s data protection policy.

The Terrorist Finance Track-ing Program (TFTP) was a pro-gram the Unites States govern-ment had in place to access the SWIFT’s networks. SWIFT if you don’t know, is a net-work for financial institutions worldwide to send and receive information about financial transactions in a secure, stand-ardized and reliable fashion. The program was outed by the New York Times in 2006 and by 2009 the agreement was made for the legal transfer of data from the European Un-ion to the United States for the purpose of the TFTP.,

Essentially what Edward Snowden told the world was that the naughty NSA had been breaching the TFTP agree-ment. In reaction to this just over two weeks ago the Euro-pean Parliament voted to sus-pend all data transfers accord-

would our government let alone the US government want to see what me, an ordinary European citizen, does online and in the bank? Well, terror-ism... the word that’s thrown around again and again as a defense when our civil liber-ties are challenged in a post 9/11 world. It must be said that according to The New York Times, the TFTP played a role in apprehending and al-Qaeda operative known as Hambali who was responsible for the Bali Bombing which resulted in over 200 dead civilians.

In my opinion, employing a taste of realism could be

useful. Governments are spying on their citi-zens and on each other the entire time, Bel-gium openly admitted using similar tactics to the US albeit with less

advanced technology and resources. With this in

mind, we must realize that the only difference here is that the US was caught. Even so, agree-ments were broken and this harms their international repu-tation. The EU doesn’t gain any-thing outright from the TFTP, so maybe we should be asking“why cooperate fully without at least some sanctions or condi-tions that benefit Europe direct-ly?”.

James Joy (IE)

US vs EU...Fight

ing to the TFTP with the US. Historically many companies and allying countries are quite cooperative when it comes to subpoenas and requests from intelligence agencies for infor-mation. However, it seems the NSA or more accurately the US has gone too far this time. For the average Europeans citizen we have to keep in mind that companies can see and record almost everything you do on-line, naturally governments are interested in this data.

“But why?” you may ask. Why

LIBE IILIBE II rightfully (ethics-wise) and correctly (logic-wise) appreciate the right to everyone’s privacy. More-over, they completely dis-agree with spying on EU leaders such as Angela Merkel by intelligence agencies. This is a logical stance to take as no one agrees politically with the concept of spying on your allies.

They outline the fact that the TFTP isn’t suf-ficient to prevent terrorism but smartly also understand that close cooperation with the NSA at this time would be a bad idea. I would agree when it comes to security that coop-eration with international organizations is a rationally sound idea.

An inner task-force that deals with reports of privacy breaches is useful and an interesting idea to help public attitudes towards online monitoring. This also acts as a deterrent for privacy infringing companies and websites.

They seem to agree with the TFTP on it’s basic terms. This is fine in my opinion though the European Parlia-ment has recently suspend-ed the agreement. There’s a

clear conflict here between things that the EP has decided versus what LIBE II want.

They have a potentially controversial idea for a computer system which picks out piec-es of data (relevant to security) such as key-words in search engines, followed by a war-rant of some kind to further investigate. The problem with this may be that everyone is basically being monitored at all times before they have even done anything wrong.

Jurisdictions are complicated in this topic, they may have forgotten that much of the data they are trying to protect are held on US servers i.e Facebook, Gmail, Skype. No matter who the data belongs to (e.g an EU citizen) logistically it’s retrievable by the US government.

James Joy (IE)

Have you ever experienced that anxious feel-ing after you have taken down that one photo of yourself on Facebook? I bet you have. Imme-diately tons of questions rush through your in-nocent head. Does everything that hits the so-cial media scene stay there until eternity? Even if that embarrassing picture was online for only two little seconds, could it still haunt me for-ever? Does this mean any future employer or cli-ent will reject me without blinking? One simple solution: think before you press ‘submit’. Easier said than done!

You can end up trapped in a world wide web of lies. This world does not discriminate with regard to social standing leaving us all a little more vulnerable to the speculative eye of the public domain.

That is the main issue. Our vulnerability and naivety is taken advantage of by those who have lost their moral standard of respecting one’s privacy. The internet was intended to be used as a source of information and a way of assuring the right of freedom of expression, the develop-ment of social networking has created a new bully and that bully needs to be stopped.

Ann-Sophie Vandomelle (BE)

I’m pretty sure everyone has experienced it: in order to use a website to its full extent you must agree to a bunch, well, thousands of overly complicated or understandable terms and conditions. From the moment you click on the ‘I agree’ button you are immediately legally bound by all the following terms. But there’s the trick. These terms are frequently updated and amended and we, innocent internet users, have to review them on a regular base to ensure we are aware of any changes made concerning the site’s regulation. Who has time for that?

What if in the future all website administrators reformed their terms and conditions whilst making an easy-to-read summary that both stresses and underlines its most important parts? This could sustain one’s immunity to flags or being reported. But then again: how many of you have actually read the terms and conditions of every site? So why bother now? With implementing a law like this we are not guaranteed that admins will include every aspect of their terms in the summary. There’s always going to be a leap hole somewhere. There are dishonest people using the internet you know.

New means of protecting minors could be put into practice as well: face recognition, screen-ing, monitoring and a regularly updated reviewing process for reported unsound photage. It could be a little controversial since protecting one’s privacy is at stake here.

Ever heard of the Date Protection Act? You couldn’t have because it has yet to be realised. I suppose a little explanation is in place here: social media users would be given the option if they want their data still to be available after the event of their death. You must have heard of the EU Safer Internet Action Plan ‘97, it is a little bit archaic though. That is why I should be modernised. How, you ask? Still debating on that.

Let us take a different road and educate those parents of ours a little bit more. Brainwash them trough media and advertising campaigns? By organising state funded school talks? True, parents and guardians will dispose of a knowhow they can pass on to their children. The problem is that most minors have no actual reason why they post a video. Teenagers never think of the amount of damage it could do nor are they aware of the consequences of their actions. They are mostly not even concerned about third parties accessing their info. Youngsters do know it is bad and stuff, they just do not really care. And there is only so much a parent can do changing how a teen’s mind works.

So for now the only proper advice I can give you: think before you click.

Ann-Sophie Vandomelle (BE)

LIBE I

With fisheries being an integral part of the econo-mies of many European Member States, the Com-mon Fisheries Policy (CFP) was created to man-age fish stock for the European Union as a whole. Although it set specific quotas for the amounts of each type of fish that each Member States can catch and encouraged the fishing industry through vari-ous market interventions, it failed due to many –mainly structural- shortcomings (such as the deep rooted problem of fleet overcapacity and its short-eyed policy). The reform that shortly followed was severely criticized, opening the debate on how the fisheries policy of the Union could be more coher-ent and successful.

Broadly speaking, the answer to this issue is not easy at all; however, there is a number of solutions we can definitely offer. First of all, we have to stress the importance of promoting more selective fish-ing methods and active support for research that can make applicable the ban to discard unwanted catches into the sea. In addition, an intensive public education and awareness raising campaign is need-ed in order to diversify the range of eaten species as much as possible by improving consumer knowl-edge and skills. The multi-annual management plans that have been proposed as a means to achieve the goal of the maximum sustainable yield (MSY), should refer to individual stocks, in order to ensure sustainability and to reduce both unwanted catches and the negative impact on ecosystems. In terms of

management and dissemination of data, it would be crucial to set specific deadlines for their collection and form an independent scientific body to super-vise the process. Moreover it’s equally necessary to define new strategic guidelines for the development of aquaculture, as a means to avoid the problems of overcapacity and low profitability, as well as poten-tial environmental damages. Last but not least, all the segments and stakeholders of the sector should cooperate and equally participate in the formation of a common policy.

To conclude, the current form of the CPF is ineffec-tive and unable to achieve its primary goals, which include measures to protect endangered stocks and the ending of discards. Being criticised by fisherman – who claim it is threatening their livelihoods- and argued by scientists to have disastrous consequenc-es on the environment, it was soon labelled a ‘mess’. So, if we want to achieve a coherent European fish-eries policy, we have to understand that this issue is not monolithic and needs to be considered from a series of complex and diverse aspects.

Artemis Triki (GR)

Fishing in troubled waters?

PECHThe Committee on Fisheries (PECH), having examined the many concerns on the functioning and development of the Common Fish-eries Policy (CFP), tried to give solutions on have to make it more coherent and successful. But why should we care about the CFP? Be-cause oceans are very sensitive and hugely affected by all human ac-tivities, be they land-based or aquatic. And what were their aims? To avoid the same problems of overcapacity, low profitability and envi-ronmental damages already experienced in the fishery sector. PECH, together with their lovely Chairs, adequately explained the issue and, after extensive brainstorming, and fruitful dialogue, proposed a number of solutions to tackle it. Looking at different aspects of the problem, they managed to form a successful resolution that proposes concrete and achievable goals, as well as a structural framework with precise policy objectives. Bearing in mind that aquatic ecosystems are very difficult to monitor and that most of the food we harvest from the sea does not respect national boundaries (ex. large fish are mostly migrant and swim through many different territorial waters), they tried to give priority to the protection of the environment, seen both as a shared asset and as an instrument for production activi-ties. Deeply disturbed by the common practice of many fishermen to discard unwanted catches into the sea, PECH shifted from the con-cept of fishing quotas to catch quotas; after all, fishing directly relies on natural resources and thus should not be regulated on a primar-ily commercial basis. The Committee on Fisheries, additionally, de-bated on how to ensure that fishing activities maintain stocks above the level of maximum sustainable yield (MSY). Lastly, they discussed about the importance of conducting scientific research, in order to pursue a more rational and efficient management of fisheries.

The resolution takes into account a series of complex and diverse aspects concerning the topic, thus it creates new opportunities for intervention.

Innovative proposal to oblige fishermen land the entire catch, as it paves the way for the promotion of more selective fishing.

It is not technically possible to carry out monitoring and/or any control on what fish-ermen discard at sea when they pull up their nets and are still very far from the docks.

Nothing mentioned an intensive public education and awareness raising campaign, in order to diversify the range of eaten species as much as possible.

ENVIENVI have worked long and hard on this resolution and for the most part it is a solid solution for the European Union to adapt to address the chronic issue of undernourishment in the world today. After splitting their discus-sion into eight themes; Culture, Industry, Politics, Society, Hypocrisy, Economic factors, Education, Environment, the committee tackled these themes in a structured manner.

The main problem ENVI came across in writing this resolution was that of food wastage, throughout the developed world particularly in supermar-kets. ENVI wish to install quotas to limit supermarkets from overbuying goods which they will not sell and if the case arises where they do oversell these goods they shall be distributed to those less fortunate and while this sounds like a fantastic idea in theory, it must be viewed from a supplier’s point of view what exactly happens when the farmer who has grown all of these vegetables for a supermarket that has previously taken it’s stock but is now been refused and must find somewhere else to distribute their produce.

I also question what exactly MUST ( wMalnutrition Universal Screening Tool) does, there is a distinct lack of what their actual function is and per-haps ENVI should have clarified this in their resolution.

ENVI’s resolution overall is quite good and covers the topic question quite well.