joensuu 2013 – preparation kit

Joensuu 201319th National Session of EYP Finland

Preparation Kit for Delegates

European Youth Parliament Finland – EYP-Finland ryc/o Oikokatu 5 G 55, 00170 Helsinkihttp://www.eypfinland.org – [email protected]

Welcome words

Dear delegates,

With this greeting I want to extend my congratulations to you on being selected to take part in Joensuu 2013, the 19th National Session of EYP Finland. It is your commencing step into the vast opportunities out there for the alumni of the European Youth Parliament. The National Session will be more challenging than the Regional Session, but it will simulta-neously offer you more opportunities to increase your knowing about the European Union, meet new people and develop your teamwork skills.

In this topic preparation booklet, you will find a topic overview written by your respective chairperson. It offers a brief outline of the issues you will be discussing in your committees. You are required to prepare – it will give you a huge ad-vantage in both committee work and the General Assembly. In addition to preparing for your own topic, I encourage you to take some time to look into your fellow delegates’ topics. With the knowledge from the topic overviews and your own research, you will be able to challenge each other’s understandings and opinions, plunge into the issues and offer your own solutions.

I wish you the best with your preparations and warmly welcome you to Joensuu 2013!

Hanna OllinenPresidentJoensuu 2013

---

European Youth Parliament (EYP)

The European Youth Parliament represents a non-partisan and independent educational project which is tailored specifi-cally to the needs of the young European citizen. European Youth Parliament Finland, established in 2011, is the National Committee of the EYP in Finland.

The EYP encourages independent thinking and initiative in young people and facilitates the learning of crucial social and professional skills. Since its inauguration, many tens of thousands of young people have taken part in Regional, National and International Sessions, formed friendships and made international contacts across and beyond borders. The EYP has thus made a vital contribution towards uniting Europe.

Today the EYP is one of the largest European platforms for political debate, intercultural encounters, political educational work and the exchange of ideas among young people in Europe. The EYP consists of a network of 36 European associa-tions in which thousands of young people are active in a voluntary capacity.

The EYP is a programme of the Schwarzkopf Foundation.


European Union (EU)

The European Union is an economic and political union of 27 Member States. The EU was established by the Treaty of Maastricht in 1993 upon the foundations of the European Communities. With over 500 million inhabitants, the EU gener-ated an estimated 21% of the PPP gross world product in 2009.

The EU has developed a single market through a standardised system of laws which apply in all Member States, and ensures the free movement of people, goods, services, and capital, including the abolition of passport controls within the Schengen area. It enacts legislation in justice and home affairs, and maintains common policies on trade, agriculture, fisheries and regional development. Sixteen Member States have adopted a common currency, the euro.

With a view to its relations with the wider world, the EU has developed a limited role in foreign and defence policy through the Common Foreign and Security Policy. Permanent diplomatic missions have been established around the world and the EU is represented at the United Nations, the WTO, the G8 and the G-20.

The EU operates through a hybrid system of supranationalism and intergovernmentalism. In certain areas, decisions are taken by independent institutions, while in others, they are made through negotiation between Member States.

The EU traces its origins from the European Coal and Steel Community and the European Economic Community formed by six countries in the 1950s. Since then, it has grown in size through enlargement, and in power through the addition of policy areas to its remit. The last amendment to the constitutional basis of the EU came into force in 2009 and was the Lisbon Treaty.

The institutions of the European Union

The European Council is responsible for defining the general political direction and priorities of the EU. It comprises the heads of state or government of EU Member States, along with its President (currently Herman Van Rompuy from Bel-gium) and the President of the Commission.

The Council of the European Union (commonly referred to as the Council of Ministers) is the institution in the legislature of the EU representing the governments of member states, the other legislative body being the European Parliament. The exact membership depends upon the topic: for example, when discussing agricultural policy the Council is formed by the 27 national ministers whose portfolio includes this policy area.

The European Parliament is the directly elected parliamentary institution of the EU. Together with the Council, it forms the bicameral legislative branch of the EU. The Parliament is composed of 736 MEPs. The current president is Martin Schulz from Germany.

The European Commission is the executive body of the EU. It is responsible for proposing legislation, implementing deci-sions, upholding the Union’s treaties and the general day-to-day running of the Union. The Commission operates as a cabinet government, with 27 Commissioners. The current President is José Manuel Durão Barroso from Portugal.

Other important institutions of the EU include the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Central Bank. The EU also has several agencies and other institutions.


Committee topics

1. Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development (AGRI)

Chairperson: Marja Pentikäinen (FI)

Feeding the continent: with the Common Agricultural Policy representing a half of the EU’s budget, should the EU con-tinue subsidising agriculture in its Member States or rely on other measures or areas of the globe in securing its food supply?

2. Committee on Foreign Affairs (AFET)

Chairperson: Oona Kiiskinen (FI)

Responsibility to protect: what role should the EU take in dealing with the violent suppression of civil movements in non-Member States, such as in the cases of Libya and Syria? What should the correct balance between diplomatic, military and civil measures be?

3. Committee on Development (DEVE)

Chairperson: Hammu Varjonen (FI)

Dead aid? Combined, the European Commission and the EU Member States constitute the single largest donor of development aid, but the effectiveness of development aid is frequently questioned. How should the EU make sure the European development funds are best utilised to secure a better economic and political future for the developing world?

4. Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON)

Chairperson: Willem Koelewijn (NL)

Rebuilding the eurozone: with the sovereign debt crisis continuing to threaten the existence of the common currency, what should the future model of the monetary union be? Does the answer lie in further centralisation of the financial system or stronger national sovereignty over financial matters?

5. Committee on Employment and Social Affairs I (EMPL I)

Chairperson: Randolf Carr (DE)

After the arguably unsuccessful “Science: It’s a girl thing!” campaign by the European Commission: going beyond mere media campaigns, how should the EU make careers in science more attractive to young people, both female and male, and better ensure a successful and sustainable future for European science?


6. Committee on Employment and Social Affairs II (EMPL II)

Chairperson: Lukas Rosenkranz (DE)

The ageing population: with fragile pension systems, talks of labour shortage and increasing demand for health care services, how should the European governments best prepare for the coming era of an ageing continent, and what role should the EU play in it?

7. Committee on International Trade (INTA)

Chairperson: Mikey Finn (IE)

The rise of the East: with China expected to surpass the United States as the world’s foremost economic power even sooner than expected, where should the priorities of the EU lie in building its economic relations on the global arena?

8. Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE)

Chairperson: Jorge Simelio Jurado (ES)

The post-Fukushima Europe: with the challenge of balancing environmental sustainability, security and the need for cheap energy, what role should nuclear energy play in EU Member States’ energy strategies?

9. Committee on Regional Development (REGI)

Chairperson: Lars Melakoski (FI)

Building the periphery: mechanisms such as the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund have played an important role in developing the peripheral areas of Europe, but they are also costly. Keeping in mind that metropolitan areas are the primary motors of growth, how should the EU best support its peripheral areas to suit the needs of their population?

10. Committee on Security and Defence (SEDE)

Chairperson: Lucie Mérelle (FI)

Hacked passwords, identity theft and the power of the Anonymous: with hackers outsmarting engineers, institutions and citizens are subject to attack. What measures should the EU take to better ensure cyber-security and the protection of personal data?


Committee experts

Each committee at Joensuu 2013 will have an expert, an experienced researcher on their relevant field. The expert hear-ings will be held on the first day of committee work. The committees will have the chance to discuss and test their ideas and receive further information from some of the leading scientists in Finland.

The committee experts will be provided by the Academy of Finland. The Academy is the leading funding body for scientific research in Finland. Yearly, it administers over 260 million euros to Finnish research activities. Over 5,000 researchers are working on the projects supported by the Academy.

European Youth Parliament Finland and the Academy of Finland have co-operated since 2011.

1. Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development (AGRI)

Academy Professor Jari Valkonen, University of Helsinki, is a specialist in plant pathology and plant virology, but he also applies and combines methods of genetics, genomics and molecular biology. Valkonen conducts research into diseases caused by plant viruses and the ability of plants to resist such diseases. He also develops new strains with higher resist-ance to viruses, particularly for the potato.


Academy Research Fellow Mika Aaltola is Programme Director of the Global Security Research Programme of the Finn-ish Institute of International Affairs. He is a specialist in US domestic and foreign affairs, major-power relations, Finnish foreign policy, religion and world politics, humanitarianism, and the politics of international health.


Tytti Nahi is working on her doctoral dissertation for the Aalto University School of Business in Helsinki. She is interested in the societal effects of Finnish business enterprises’ activities in the limited markets of developing countries. Previous-ly, she has worked as a development policy adviser for Kepa, the umbrella organisation for Finnish civil society organisa-tions (CSOs), as a lobbyist for Finnish politicians in issues concerning development, trade and international economic policy.


Marko Terviö has held a professorship at the Aalto University School of Business (Department of Economics) since 2009. Before that, he was Assistant Professor at the University of California, Berkeley. Terviö’s field is microeconomics, with particular focus on labour market issues.


Marja Tiirola is Lecturer in Hydrology at the University of Jyväskylä. Tiirola heads the Nordic Network for Stable Isotope Research (NordSIR). Her research focuses on the biogeochemical cycle of coal in land and water ecosystems as well as on the development of novel methods of molecular biology for environmental microbiological research. Tiirola has a background in molecular biology.


Teppo Kröger is Professor of Social and Public Policy at the University of Jyväskylä (Department of Social Sciences and Philosophy) and holds a docentship in social work from the University of Tampere. Kröger’s specialty is international


benchmarking of care services. He has participated in several European and global research projects that have compared child day-care, services for older people and informal care in different countries and analysed the reconciliation of fami-lies’ care responsibilities with work participation.


Simo Leppänen is a Research Fellow at the Center for Markets in Transition (CEMAT) at the Aalto University School of Economics. He recently finished his dissertation on the roles of the public and private sectores in Russia.


Rainer Salomaa is Professor of Applied Physics at Aalto University, specialising in lasers, radiation physics and nuclear energy. Salomaa has done extensive work with safety issues of nuclear power plants and with R&D in the context of next-generation fission and fusion reactors.


Heikki Eskelinen is Professor of Regional Studies at the Karelian Institute of the University of Eastern Finland. Eskelinen conducts research into the development of remote areas and the collaboration between cross-border regions. Previously, he was a Jean Monnet Professor in European Spatial Development and Policy. He is currently also Director of the Finnish Contact Point for the ESPON Programme (European Observation Network for Territorial Development and Cohesion).


Professor Kaisa Nyberg from the Aalto University Department of Information and Computer Science conducts research into the security of cryptographic algorithms. Nyberg heads a team that is developing statistical analysis methods es-pecially suited for defining the security level of symmetric-key encryption methods. The team is also analysing security as to the implementation of various forms of encryptions, both in a software environment and in hardware. She has also worked for Nokia Research Centre and participated in the planning of new encryption methods for 3G mobile phone net-works and Bluetooth systems.


1. Committee on Agriculture (AGRI)

Chairperson: Marja Pentikäinen (FI)

Feeding the continent: with the Common Agricultural Policy representing a half of the EU’s budget, should the EU continue subsidizing agriculture in its Member States or rely on other measures or areas of the globe in securing its food supply?

Overview

Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) came into force in 1962 in the original Member States to guarantee affordable food for European citizens and income for farmers. The CAP has always been a major factor in the budget of European Union (EU), as agriculture in the Member States heavily relies on subsidies. In its peak in the 1970s, CAP expended 70% of the budget, but since then, its share has somewhat dropped. However, in 2011 it still overrode nearly 40% of the EU’s budget, causing discussion whether it is useful to spend so much money on it. Simultaneously, farmers across Europe have pro-tested against agricultural subsidy cuts.

14 million farmers keep the various rural communities vibrant; many jobs in the countryside relate to farming or pro-cessing agricultural products. However, it has been speculated that agriculture in Europe is economically unprofitable. If that were true, could it be more beneficial to import surplus food and invest the money for raising EU’s competitiveness in other sectors, rather than using it for CAP? To what extent could the EU safely rely on other countries on agricultural produce? According to the United Nations the worldwide food production should see a 70% increase by 2050, in order to meet the needs of world’s growing population.

The CAP has been accused of distorting the global food market as it makes farmers’ income and food prices in the EU higher than elsewhere. The policy allegedly encourages export through subsidies and discourages import by means of various rates and food safety regulations. This puts farmers, especially in developing countries, at disadvantage, as CAP makes investing and competing with the farmers from the EU extremely difficult. In newly industrialised countries this has even led to discarding of food and cotton that otherwise could have been exported to European consumers. Despite this, through bilateral agreements the European Union is already the biggest supporter of food production in developing countries. Furthermore, it has decided to increase the cooperation with the above stated. The CAP has also caused ten-sion between the EU and countries exporting goods to its market. For example, Australia has strongly expressed its hope for the EU to open up its market for more competition.

Are the benefits of the CAP worth the money? Should the EU depend more on non-Member States for food supply or continue favouring European agriculture? How can the EU sustain its food supply without abandoning the European rural areas and its farmers or jeopardising its relations with non-Member States?

Keywords

Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), agricultural subsidies, import rates, import, export


Links for further research

1. Introductory material

Agriculture and its problems in Europe:http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/europe/agriculture/

Extensive information package by Trinity College Dublin:http://www.tcd.ie/iiis/policycoherence/eu-agricultural-policy/

Questions and answers regarding the CAP:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11216061

2. Official sources

Information booklet about CAP and its purposes:http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/cap-overview/2012_en.pdf

The agricultural cooperation between the EU and developing countries:http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/developing-countries/publi/overview/text_en.pdf

EU farm policy:http://europa.eu/pol/agr/index_en.htm

Frequently asked questions about the CAP:http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/faq/index_en.htm

3. Newspaper articles and other materials

Negative side effects of farm subsidies:http://www.guardian.co.uk/sustainable-business/farm-subsidies-unintended-consequences

Pros and cons of the agricultural policy in the EU:http://www.ecpa.eu/news-item/food/02-11-2011/529/neglecting-productivity-leads-import-dependency-and-price-paid-grocery

Protest in Ireland against reforms of the CAP:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-19880647



Chairperson: Oona Kiiskinen (FI)

Responsibility to protect: what role should the EU take in dealing with the violent suppression of civil movements in non-Member States, such as in the cases of Libya and Syria? What should the correct balance between diplomatic, military and civil measures be?

Overview

According to the UN principle “Responsibility to Protect”, sovereignty comes with strings attached – the responsibil-ity of a country to protect its own citizens. However, this doesn’t always hold true as seen in the violent suppression of civil movements in Libya and Syria, those that have triggered a “major humanitarian crisis at Europe’s doorstep”. Libya, for instance, has enjoyed a relatively calm environment since its transition, and having held relatively successful demo-cratic elections it is said to have created “a political community from a scratch”. However, the tribal divisions continue to threaten national unity together with the existence of several militia groups, some of them considered benign but some with questionable connections. In addition, some of their attacks being targeted to foreign officials (eg. killing of the US Ambassador) complicate Libyan’s relations with the Western powers – not only in diplomatic terms but they might also lead to some Western NGOs “to curtail their efforts, which would further slow progress toward transition.”

The situation in Syria varies greatly from the one described above. The country continues to face a full scale civil war, which has led to an enormous humanitarian crisis in the hands of the al-Assad regime. The country is marked by great internal divisions, most notably secretarial tensions that further add to the complex political landscape within Syria. Many ethno-religious minorities are left without adequate representation in the governing of the country, which has led them to take up arms and protect themselves. Al-Assad has blocked many outside humanitarian and human rights groups from entering the country. While the international community has largely condemned al-Assad, Syria’s traditional supporters, namely China and Russia, have thus far blocked all plans for an effective UN Security Council response to the crisis.

Committed to a multilateral approach to security challenges in accordance with international law and the UN character, the EU has searched for ways to deal with the suppression of civil movements taking place in wider Middle East region. In light of the violent responses with which the anti-governmental protests were received in the respective countries, the EU “froze the draft Association Agreement that had been negotiated with Syria” and suspended both the negotiations on the EU–Libya agreement as of 22 February 2011 and bilateral cooperation programmes between the EU and the respective governments under the MEDA/European Neighbourhood Policy Instrument (ENPI).

In order to deal with the crisis in Syria, a number of restrictive measures followed: targeted sanctions on Syria including frozen assets and travel bans imposed on the top members of military and government in the respective countries, sanc-tions on the financial institutions (eg. Syrian Central Bank) and bans on the import of oil and the export of the equipment for petrol industry. Furthermore, the arms embargo has been set on place. The Libyan crisis, on the other hand, set a first test case for the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP): in an attempt to address the crisis in Libya, the Com-mission set up a military mission called EUFOR Libya that in cooperation with the UN aimed at safeguarding the evacu-ation of internally displaced persons and at facilitating the delivery of humanitarian aid. This decision, however, faced large opposition in the Council meeting and was not supported by all Member States. It is also important to note that the EU has contributed more than 80.5 million euros in humanitarian aid to the region. “The analysis of the EU’s responses reveals the imbalance between military and civilian crisis management and moreo-ver the lack of an integrated civil military approach”. Noting that the EU doesn’t have a military mandate, nor big enough international clout to act outside the decisions made by the UN Security Council – what are the possibilities for it to take action? Should the EU continue imposing sanctions on Syria or prefer another mode of action? As with Libya, EU’s han-dling of the issue has been for its passive nature and indecisive character – how that could be changed in the future?


Keywords

Responsibility to Protect (RtoP), Arab Spring, Libya, Syria, Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP), European Exter-nal Action Service (EEAS), European Security Strategy



Libya and overview of the EU’s response, by the European Commission: http://ec.europa.eu/news/external_relations/110310_1_en.htm

Factsheet on Syria by the European Union: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/128379.pdf

Definition of the UN Responsibility to Protect principle:http://www.un.org/en/preventgenocide/adviser/responsibility.shtml

2. Official sources

European Union, External Actor page on Syria: http://www.eeas.europa.eu/syria/index_en.htm

Responsibility to Protect: the Crisis in Syria:http://www.responsibilitytoprotect.org/index.php/crises/crisis-in-syria

European Neighborhood Policy report on Syria: National Indicative Programme 2011-2013: http://ec.europa.eu/world/enp/pdf/country/2011_enpi_nip_syria_en.pdf

Humanitizing security? EU’s responsibility to protect in the Libyan crisishttps://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:aV4UwJfpPsgJ:www.fiia.fi/assets/publications/wp75.pdf+&hl=fi&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShTPO3rdLHQLoA_vmUnzUqiojgaDP8tBw8ti9dDSSW6rHuXX8ruA9S3E8039ykBWf9Fb1rgsFUkVlMwCqcIFcx-y16QPDl4LsSQcKl-olfqYTY-BkHUrRm5SJPkgiBoMxX19yKLO&sig=AHIEtbSlx3GL953RLsYXYypFjSPCGx37DQ

Working paper evaluating the EU’s response on Libyan crisis: http://www.iai.it/pdf/DocIAI/iaiwp1119.pdf


Coverage of the crisis in Libya and Syria (news articles and videos) by Euronews: http://www.euronews.com/tag/syria/ http://www.euronews.com/tag/libya/

Article on the protection of religious and ethnic minorities:http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/10/26/beware_the_tyranny_of_the_mob

Article illustrating the history of the UN “Responsibility to Protect” principle:http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/10/11/responsibility_to_protect_a_short_history?page=0,3



Chairperson: Hammu Varjonen (FI)

Dead aid? Combined, the European Commission and the EU Member States constitute the single largest donor of development aid, but the effectiveness of development aid is frequently questioned. How should the EU make sure the European development funds are best utilised to secure a better economic and political future for the developing world?

Topic overview

In her controversial book Dead Aid (2009), Zambian economist and author Dambisa Moyo argues that in the course of the past three decades development aid has not helped Africa; she claims aid to be the key reason for Africa’s poverty. In Moyo’s view, the constant flow of development funds to Africa has fed corruption and increased the countries’ depend-ency on assistance.

According to EuropeAid, the body in charge of designing and delivering the development aid issued by European Union (EU) institutions, the EU along with its Member States spent 53.8 billion euros in 2010 in official development assistance (ODA). Even though Moyo’s criticism is generally seen as very radical, it highlights the importance of ensuring European development funds are used to their full capacity.

One of the greatest issues of development aid is widespread corruption. It can cause fund leakage all the way from the beginning of a development project. Financial aid may even breed corruption since it provides an opportunity for wealth and is, often due to a lack of proper monitoring, easy to direct to private use. In a recent example a number of European countries have halted their assistance to Uganda due to a corruption scandal, in which the prime ministers office was involved in the embezzlement of $13 million of donations.

Not all problems originate in the developing countries though. Some non-governmental organisations have argued that up to 60 per cent of all ODA consists of so-called phantom aid. Phantom aid is taken to mean aid, which returns to the donor country and thus doesn’t serve to eradicate poverty. A common example of phantom aid is called tied aid. This is a situation in which the receiving country is compelled by a contract or other circumstances to spend the aid on services or products of companies from the donor country. Other forms of phantom aid include expensive and ineffective technical co-operation or excessive transaction and administration costs of aid to receiving countries. In the case of France and the United States the level of phantom aid has been estimated to be up to 90 per cent of total ODA.

Crucial problems as they are, the abovementioned are only an example of the numerous problems posed to aid effective-ness. To combat these issues, the international community has established a set of principles for delivering development aid. Manifested in i.e. the 2005 Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness, these principles include harmonisation of aid to evade overlapping and the increasing of accountability of project results. The EU has also issued its own “Agenda for Change” to restructure its development policies.

What remains to be decided is what are the best ways to fight corruption in developing countries and how can the EU ensure its aid funds are spent on eradicating poverty rather than subsidising western enterprises; Or should the conven-tional system of aid as such be abandoned to combat these problems as Dambisa Moyo suggests?

Keywords

Agenda for Change, aid efficiency, corruption, dead aid, EuropeAid, official development assistance, phantom aid




A promotion video for EuropeAid’s Agenda for Change:http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/what/development-policies/agenda-for-change/agenda_for_change_en.htm

The Wikipedia article on aid effectiveness:http://www.globalissues.org/article/35/foreign-aid-development-assistance

General problems of development aid:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aid_effectiveness

Introductory cartoon:http://bit.ly/SJEmNL

2. Official sources

EuropeAid’s homepage:http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/index_en.htm

A sum-up on the principles of The Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness and the succeeding Accra Agenda for Action:http://www.oecd.org/dac/aideffectiveness/parisdeclarationandaccraagendaforaction.htm

An article on the problems posed by corrution on The World Bank’s website:http://ow.ly/fTjAZ

A comprehensive collection of statistics on EU Donor Atlas:http://development.donoratlas.eu/home.html


An article on tied aid by the Guardian:http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/2011/sep/07/aid-benefits-donor-countries-companies

ActionAid’s report “Real Aid: An agenda for making aid work”:http://www.actionaid.org.uk/_content/documents/real_aid.pdf

Der Spiegel interview of Dambisa Moyo:http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/development-aid-for-africa-the-problems-don-t-disappear-with-sacks-of-rice-a-786465.html



Chairperson: Willem Koelewijn (NL)

Rebuilding the eurozone: with the sovereign debt crisis continuing to threaten the existence of the common currency, what should the future model of the monetary union be? Does the answer lie in further centralisation of the financial system or stronger national sovereignty over financial matters?

Overview

According to the worlds largest banking service provider ING, a break-up of the monetary union would lead to a struc-tural fall of the eurozone’s GDP by 9% in the first year alone. Moreover, countries such as Germany and the Netherlands would be outcompeted by deflation, whereas countries such as Greece and Spain would suffer from a destructively high inflation. A monetary break-up does not seem to be an option. But what is the way to go for the euro? How should the monetary union be rebuilt to regain stability and the trust of the markets?

The Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) was founded in the 1990s. Its goal was to converge EU economies in stages, to pave the way for the single currency, the euro. The final stage meant the introduction of the euro and the establishment of the Eurosystem, the eurozone’s monetary administrator. The Eurosystem consisted of the newly-founded European Central Bank (ECB) and the central banks of the countries within the monetary union. Its main objective was to guarantee the stability of the common currency through its monetary policies. In the first decade of its existence, the euro has allowed the eurozone to flourish and create a more wealthy Europe than ever before. However, the current eurocrisis has revealed that the the stability of the eurozone could not be maintained. When the EMU was introduced, many questions were raised concerning the single currency. How can a monetary union survive without enforcing fiscal discipline? How can a centralised monetary policy suffice the needs of such divergent economies? The eurocrisis has shown us that it simply cannot. This topic looks to answer the latter question.

During the current crisis countries, such as Spain and Ireland have become the evidence of the imbalance between Euro-pean monetary and national economic policies. While the Spanish and Irish governments were stimulating their econo-mies, the ECB lowered the interest rate, allowing the ‘economic bubble’, based on private and public debt created before the crisis, to burst. Apart from that, the ECB has managed to keep inflation relatively low, despite applying the method of quantitative easing, which is not within their mandate.

The EMU’s architects created the monetary union under the assumption that an economic one would soon follow. However, due to the financial and economic situation of the late 1990s and early 2000s, there was no real need for more economic integration. Now, the consequences are evident: the eurozone economies are simply too different to be treated as one, at this point. The eurozone is far away from being a so-called optimum currency area. At the same time, apply-ing different monetary policies to specific countries would harm the concept of the monetary union. The question for the committee to answer is the following: more or less centralisation when it comes to financial matters?

Keywords

European Monetary Union (EMU), Treaty of Maastricht, monetary policy, monetary union, European Central Bank (ECB), Eurosystem, quantitative easing, economic union, optimum currency area




Report on an EMU break-up by ING:http://www.ing.com/Our-Company/About-us/Features-archive/Features/New-report-on-EMU-break-up-by-INGs-Chief-Economist.htm

Introduction to the euro-jargon:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/special_report/single_currency/66823.stm

Concise explanation of the eurocrisis:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16290598

2. Official sources

Official summary of the Treaty of Maastricht:http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/institutional_affairs/treaties/treaties_maastricht_en.htm

The “masterplan” for the eurozone by Herman van Rompuy, President of the European Council, which is mainly based on the optimum currency area theory:http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/focuson/crisis/documents/131201_en.pdf

2012 State of the Union by José Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission (part 3a is the most relevant to the topic):http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-12-596_en.htm


Article on the structural problems of the EMU:http://www.tsglobalist.com/2011/10/31/the-structural-problems-with-the-european-monetary-union-emu-by-kenneth-ho/

Article on the optimum currency area and the EU (strongly recommended):http://atlismta.org/online-journals/0607-journal-gender-environment-and-human-rights/the-euro-zone-canada-and-the-optimum-currency-area-theory/

Article on quantitative easing by the ECB:http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/feb/28/european-central-bank-euro-eurozone

Speech by the Vice-President of the ECB on the proposed banking union:http://www.ecb.int/press/key/date/2012/html/sp120907.en.html



Chairperson: Randolf Carr (DE)

After the arguably unsuccessful “Science: It’s a girl thing!” campaign by the European Commission: going beyond mere media campaigns, how should the EU make careers in science more attractive to young people, both female and male, and better ensure a successful and sustainable future for European science?

Overview

Young people love high-tech gadgets and can talk about their innovative features for hours – but they find the science behind the technology boring, confusing and “uncool”. So far, so clichéd. That is probably why the European Commission thought it would have to “speak their language to get their attention.” The resulting media campaign was as stereotypical as it was unsuccessful.

Scientists, economists and politicians are becoming concerned about a potential bottleneck of scientists and engineers, which could hamper the growth of the high-tech industry. Disinterest in science among youths is certainly one reason for the decreasing numbers of students choosing a career in the natural sciences. However, so is the fact that many youths who are so intelligent as to be interested in science on their own initiative recognise the limitations of science as a career path: Rigorous, overly theoretical academic courses and uncertain employment prospects, to name a few. The challenges in attracting young people to science range from the school classroom to the lab workplace.

67% of students in European schools who responded to the Eurobarometer survey on science and technology in 2005 said that they thought that science lessons should be made more attractive. No doubt, many of you will agree as you read this. EU initiatives like the Euridice Network analyse national education strategies and policies and try to identify practices that can be applied across Europe. Privately initiated programmes to bring young science-interested pupils into mentor-ing relationships with professional researchers and give them practical lab experience have usually been successful in various countries.

Another promising approach, for example, is Inquiry Based Science Education (ISBE). ISBE is based on modelling science teaching after the real research process of professional scientists. It supposed to provide a more dynamic, individualised contrast to the established concept of ‘deductive’ science teaching, where students conduct assigned experiments to reproduce results, or just observe teachers presenting scientific content.

Even when students express a strong interest in science, many are ostensibly discouraged on the way to pursuing it as academic path or a career. Part of the blame for this phenomenon lies with the design of higher education science cur-riculums, which are often seen as rigidly designed as a ten-year process for producing doctoral candidates. However, of all the students who voluntarily choose science courses in secondary school, only 10% go on to complete this process from beginning to end. The lack of interest in studying for degrees in certain scientific subjects also seems to indicate that many young people do not perceive a career in the sciences to be an interesting or lucrative option.

Attracting young people to careers and higher education in scientific fields is not just about filing university classrooms and staffing laboratories. Creating a sustainable research landscape that produces excellent personnel and results is part of the EU’s vision for its future. The EU’s Lisbon Strategy from 2000 to 2010 set the EU the goal of becoming “the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world”.

The key is to identify what you, young people, need and what education institutions can provide in order to make early and secondary school science education more effective and engaging. Beyond that, every step of the way from higher educa-tion to the science labour market has to be examined for obstacles. Improving practical relevance and orientation, and flexibility in the working environment are key factors.


Keywords

EU science graduate shortage, European science education


“Ecsite” newsletter on youth science careers, addresses attitudes and opportunities in science, briefly introduces se-lected existing projects:http://www.ecsite.eu/sites/default/files/Ecsite_91.pdf

Science in Society, connects key problems of the issue, includes links to studies on science education and gender in research: http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/index.cfm?fuseaction=public.topic&id=1248&lang=1

2. Official sources

Report of the High Level Working Group on Human Resources for Science and Technology in Europe (see esp. 2-2.1 and 4-4.3):http://ec.europa.eu/research/conferences/2004/sciprof/pdf/final_en.pdf

Eurobarometer report on Young People and Science (see esp. 2-2.5 and 5-5.4):http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_239_en.pdf


Commentary highlighting additional points of the High Level Report (2.a):http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=187898&sectioncode=26

Critical study on science education, makes specific recommendations:http://www.fisica.unina.it/traces/attachments/article/149/Nuffield-Foundation-Osborne-Dillon-Science-Education-in-Europe.pdf

Description of a successful school science fostering project, makes transferable observations:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1326364/



Chairperson: Lukas Rosenkranz (DE)

The ageing population: with fragile pension systems, talks of labour shortage and increasing demand for health care services, how should the European governments best prepare for the coming era of an ageing continent, and what role should the EU play in it?

Overview

“Life expectancy is increasing while Europe’s workforce is shrinking and, in some member states, this is happening very fast,” EU social affairs commissioner Laszlo Andor explained in 2011 during the presentation of the annual EU demog-raphy report. Member States therefor face the harsh challenge of finding ways to prepare their social welfare system for the era of an ageing continent whilst bearing in mind principle of intergenerational justice. According to the report, the European life expectancy will climb up by two to three months each year. Besides low fertility rates, this increasing lon-gevity causes a change in the old-age dependency ratio between the population aged 65 and over and those persons aged between 15 and 64. The ratio is about to move from 4 working aged persons for each pensioner to a ratio of 2 to 1.

Pension systems in the EU-27 States differ, but all of them consist of 3 basic pillars: A public mandatory old-age pension, occupational pensions and private savings plans. Pension systems in Europe rely on those three pillars, nevertheless different Member States coordniate the pillars differently in order to balance their pension system in an effective and sustainable way. Which pillar should be a key element of the future pension system?

All over the union, governments scale up the pensionable age for finding a new balance between the time spent work-ing and being a pensioner. But critics such as labour unions claim those measures to be counterproductive since the umemployment rate of the population aged 60 and over is too far above average. Should the EU follow the path of higher pensionable ages and try to improve the labour market situation of the older generation or does this policy lead to cuts in pensions and poverty among the elderly?

At the same time some studies suggest that there is an urgent need for high qualified labours in the European labour market. They estimate that in 2050 20 million skilled jobs will be vaccant. With their lifelong work experience being a potential source of qualifiying co-worker, are there ways to integrate the elderly into a dynamic labour market? Or could this measure jeopardise the labour market situation of the youth?

Along with a rising longevity there will be an increase in the demand for health care services. Society has experienced a rapid rise in people being affected by diseases generally connected to age, such as dementia, articular troubles, cataract etc.. In the future, not only investments into health care will be necessary to ensure that every European retiree can live a dignified life, but also the ambulatory and stationary care systems need to be improved.

What measures should be taken to safeguard a system that satisfies pensioners´basic needs whilst not overstraining the public purse? How can Member States cooperate in this field of the political agenda of the EU? What is the right path to a future European labour market that takes advantage of an elder workforce and enables them to enjoy their growing lifespan?

Keywords

Demographic change, pensionable age, intergenerational justice, old-age dependency ratio, EU demography report, flexibilisation of labour markets




A comparison of different pension systems in the EU:http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/31053/1/text_final.pdf

A work about the consequences for European pension systems caused by demographic change:http://www.cer.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/attachments/pdf/2011/p475_old_demo_pension-1652.pdf

An essay on how demographic change can influence economic affairs:http://www.aas.ac.at/vid/download/FB32.pdf

2. Official sources

A short introduction to the topic of demographic change provided by the European Commission:http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=502&langId=en

An overview of the EU´s work and retirement policies:http://europa.eu/eu-life/work-pensions/index_en.htm


The Times of Malta on the EU´s pact on demographic change:http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20121122/letters/EU-pact-on-demographic-changes.446383

An example of pension reforms from France:http://www.euronews.com/2010/06/16/france-says-live-longer-work-longer/

Euronews on ways to tackle Europe’s pension crises:http://www.euronews.com/2012/01/05/the-network-tackles-europe-s-pensions-crisis/



Chairperson: Mikey Finn (IE)

The rise of the East: with China expected to surpass the United States as the world’s foremost economic power even sooner than previously expected, where should the priorities of the EU lie in building its economic relations on the global arena?

Overview

Little over a decade ago, the United States boasted an economy three times the size of that of China. One year ago, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) predicted that by 2016, China’s economy will grow larger than America’s. As the EU’s two largest trading partners, these developments call for considerations in our economic policies and priorities. Should the EU compromise its stance on human rights issues to develop an even stronger trading relationship with China? Should the EU aim to bolster its trade with the US?

The complexity of this issue becomes more obvious when we consider the fact that while China is a trading partner of the EU, it also represents competition in many regards, notably in the push for resources in Africa. Should the EU become involved in encouraging China to deregulate their somewhat restrictive economy? It is often suggested that when the EU develops economic relationships, the relationship should encourage spreading the values which Europe prides itself on such as democracy. Since China joined the World Trade Organisation (WTO), they have supported dictatorships and elit-ism, hence the criticism they have been subject to by humanitarians .

A simple way of analysing the variances between our cultures is to notice the treatment of Chinese people by its own gov-ernment. Policies such as the one-child rule and captial punishment – China executes more people than the rest of the world combined each year. The laws regarding religion provide even more food for thought. Members of the Communist Party are obliged to be athiests, Christianity true to the Pope is outlawed, and those who do not abide by these laws are persecuted despite the fact that the 1982 Constitution of the People’s Republic of China guarantees each citizen’s right to freedom of religious belief.

The European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) is an example of where the EU has used its economic strength to persuade neighbouring countries to work towards transforming the economic and social issues of these countries with the EU providing counsel and offering increased trade where positive change is apparent. Should any EU–China economic policy be subject to similar conditions? Is this even possible considering the strength of the Chinese economy?

How would any China-EU agreement affect relations with the US? The US and the EU are heavily dependent on each other currently and represent each others largest trade partners. However, recent developments have been slow due to protectionism on either side. A Transatlantic Free Trade Area has been suggested by Angela Merkel as a step forward for growth on either side, though no progress has been made in implementing such an idea. This mechanism could protect both the EU and the US from being out-powered by the Chinese economy by removing the existing barriers between increased EU–US trade. However, this would also raise the issues of sovereignty and nationalism which have aready become major talking points in EU growth.

China has becomed involved in internal EU issues recently, for instance by purchasing Eurozone junk bonds. Many have viewed this as an attempt to gain political popularity within the Union whilst China have insisted that it was purely to pro-tect existing Chinese investments in Europe. Realistically, the EU has no option but to trade with China. Whilst maintain-ing links with the US is essential, the Chinese manufacturing industry may be too powerful for the EU to compete with or ignore.

Important issues for the INTA delegates to consider are:


– Differences between the role of EU governments in their economies in comparison to that of China– Existing relations between China and the EU (E.g. Arms Embargo) and how tensions could be resolved to ensure long term stability (possibly through a European Union Association Agreement-type deal).– How the EU can continue to work with its other main trading partner, the US.

Keywords

European Neighbourhood Policy, WTO, IMF, Protectionism, Eurozone, EU-US Policies, EU-China Policies, Textile dispute, Arms Embargo



Profile of the Chinese economy:http://www.indexmundi.com/china/economy_profile.html

Wikipedia article on the European Neighbourhood Policy:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Neighbourhood_Policy

Wikipedia article on EU–US relations:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_%E2%80%93_United_States_relations

2. Official sources

Statistics on the EU’s bilateral relations:http://ec.europa.eu/trade/creating-opportunities/bilateral-relations/statistics/

EU–US economic relations:http://eeas.europa.eu/us/economic_en.htm

EU–China economic relations:http://ec.europa.eu/trade/creating-opportunities/bilateral-relations/countries/china/index_en.htm


China in Africa by the BBC:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7086777.stm

China–Africa relations under Xi Jinping:http://www.theafricareport.com/20121206501821880/soapbox/little-change-in-china-africa-relations-likely-under-jinping-501821880.html

Transatlantic relations after Obama’s re-election:http://www.economist.com/news/europe/21565973-after-barack-obamas-re-election-it-time-push-transatlantic-free-trade-hope-and-no



Chairperson: Jorge Simelio Jurado (ES)

The post-Fukushima Europe: with the challenge of balancing enviromental sustainability, security and the need for cheap energy, what role should nuclear energy play in EU Member States’ energy strategies?

Overview

The issue of nuclear energy brings about a larger question: that of an integrated European energy market. On November 15, 2012 the European Commission published a report on the current state of the Internal Energy Market, which is to be completed by 2014. At the moment, Member States are largely responsible for supplying their own energy demands, a strategy which is less competitive and productive than the proposed EU-wide energy market. By creating a common EU stance on energy production, we will be able to face key issues such as dependency on foreign oil and gas, sustainability and cost-effectiveness. However, if we are determined to create a market that supplies sustainable and cheap energy for the EU, what role must nuclear energy play?

The kind of nuclear reaction that is currently used for electricity generation is known as nuclear fission. Nuclear energy currently accounts for 6% of global energy production, a figure rising to 28.5% in the European Union. However, the role of nuclear energy varies largely between Member States, with figures as high as 76% of total electricity generation in France. On the other extreme, electricity generation in Malta and Cyprus is based almost entirely on oil.

Furthermore, nuclear energy is an extremely controversial topic. Nuclear catastrophes receive extensive media cover-age, most recently in the case of Fukushima. Considering that Japan is a developed country with the sufficient means to maintain safety checks on its nuclear facilities, nuclear catastrophes seem extremely hard to avoid. Also, governments are wary of the potential for terrorist attacks on nuclear plants, which could prove extremely severe. However, the danger of nuclear energy is not limited to discrete catastrophic moments, seeing as nuclear power plants produce high-level nuclear waste, the radioactivity of which poses a threat to life. Currently, there is no method for re-cycling or re-using nuclear waste, which means that it must be stored indefinitely in secure facilities, which can often prove costly. Further-more, radioactive waste can pose a serious problem to future generations, who will in turn be responsible for its storage.

When considering the adverse effects of nuclear fission, it would seem obvious that it needs to be phased out, as a method of energy production in the EU, however is there currently a better alternative? Diminishing the role of nuclear energy would mean increasing Europe’s dependency on foreign energy resources, especially oil, which can have serious consequences on the economy and population. Though the EU is a global leader in the use and development of renewable energy such as solar, wind and hydroelectric power, currently these resources only contribute 18% of the EU’s energy production.

Another alternative to nuclear fission is known as nuclear fusion, a process, which could potentially be much more ef-fective than nuclear fission without producing any form on radioactive waste. Research into this field is currently spear-headed by the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER), a project largely funded by the EU’s Fusion for Energy (F4E) programme and which plans to build a fusion reactor in the south of France. Though nuclear fusion seems promising, it is not currently viable for energy production.

Thus, taking into account the current challenges which the EU is faced with, what is the best road towards a future in which energy will be available, affordable, and sustainable?


Keywords

Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Disaster, EU Internal Energy Market, European Environmental Agency (EEA), ITER, Fusion for Energy (F4E)



Wikipedia article on nuclear fission power:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power

Fusion for Energy’s brochure on Nuclear Fusion:http://fusionforenergy.europa.eu/downloads/mediacorner/factsheets/3_Fact_sheet_Fusion_light.pdf

2. Official sources

European Commission’s Internal Energy Market communication:http://ec.europa.eu/energy/gas_electricity/internal_market_en.htm

European Energy 2020 Strategy:http://ec.europa.eu/energy/energy2020/index_en.htm


The Guardian on Fukushima:http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/fukushima

New Scientist’s special report: The Fallout from Fukushima:http://www.newscientist.com/special/fukushima-crisis



Chairperson: Lars Melakoski (FI)

Building the periphery: mechanisms such as the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund have played an important role in developing the peripheral areas of Europe, but they are also costly. Keeping in mind that metropolitan areas are the primary motors of growth, how should the EU best support its peripheral areas to suit the needs of their popu-lation?

Overview

One might not realise how big a part the peripheral areas of the EU actually play. The role is 348 billion euros, approxi-mately one third of the EU budget. This is what the EU has budgeted for regional development during the current budget period 2007-2013. The Regional Policy of the European Union, the Cohesion Policy, focuses on three main objectives: convergence, regional competitiveness and employment, and European territorial cooperation. These three objectives get funding from three different Structural Funds: the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), European Social Fund (ESF) and the Cohesion Fund. The main objective is equalising the big gap between metropolitan and peripheral areas concerning employment, development and competitiveness.

Structural funds in the EU are delivered to different economic territories in the EU using the Nomenclature of Units for Territorial Statistics (NUTS), which consists of three levels. NUTS-1 is defined as state level and NUTS-2 and NUTS-3 further divides the states into territories (valid until the 31st of December 2014). The first and second objective of the Co-hesion Policy is distributed on a NUTS-2 level, while the third objective works on a NUTS-3 level. Every region in the EU is covered by two of the three objectives; however, most of the funds are targeted in regions with a GDP per capita below 75% of the EU average.

A problem with Structural Funds is the allocation of them. The funds are not always spent on the most essential – Spain has used most of its funds on improving infrastructure rather than developing more self-sustainability and competitive-ness. To quote German Chancellor Angela Merkel, “There are many beautiful tunnels and highways [in Madeira]. But this did not contribute to competitiveness.” Madeira still gets funding even though no clear development has been seen. The funding is always received for a whole period and evaluated afterwards, in practice this means that regions can do nearly whatever they want with their money, it will still keep coming for a few years.

The definition of ‘most essential’ is also open for discussion. The goal with the funds is to foster convergence, not the highest investment return, which is let to the market itself. Should the funds thus be allowed to regions and countries that already are relatively wealthy at all? Additionally, a question of the role of the receiver, the local authority, must be posed. If the authorities mismanage funding, is there a reason to question the appropriateness of delivering capital to that authority, despite its fit with the criteria of funding?

Another problem is that subsidising areas can have a very reverse effect on growth. Some argue that subsidised areas, especially in less developed Member States, tend to become dependant on external funding. If no goals are met by the end of the funding period, and the criteria for the next funding period are not met, these areas may be at a worse state than originally. This is however not always the case. To tackle this problem there is a catch with the ERDF. The catch is that for it to be available a region has to match it with other funding. In reality this means that if a region gets 1 million euros of ERDF funding the region must match that million with another, in order to claim the money. This leaves the re-gion with 2 million euros. This has proven effective to stimulate the growth of some regions, but for others it has left the region with too much funding.

In the current state of the EU, budget cuts are inevitable. Considering the facts and looking forward, how can the EU improve their budgeting strategy for Regional Development in 2014-2020?


Keywords

Cohesion Policy, Structural Funds, European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), European Social Fund (ESF), Cohesion Fund, NUTS



General information on Structural and Cohesion funds:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_Funds_and_Cohesion_Fund

General information on the EU’s regional policy:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_policy_of_the_European_Union

2. Official sources

Overview of the EU’s regional policy:http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/index_en.cfm

Legislative proposals for the Cohesion funds (2014–2020):http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/what/future/proposals_2014_2020_en.cfm

Essential information on the EU 2020 Strategy and 2014-2020 programming period:http://www.eurada.org/files/343-E%20Quarterly%20barometer.pdf


A critical view on the current usage of EU’s funds:http://openeuropeblog.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/folly-of-eu-structural-funds.html

A view on how the funds may be allocated in favour of certain lobby instead of regions in need:http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2012/04/09/eu-structural-funds/

Article explaining the proposed simplification of the cohesion policy:http://www.euractiv.com/regional-policy/cohesion-policy-baby-steps-simpl-news-515323



Chairperson: Lucie Mérelle (FI)

Hacked passwords, identity theft and the power of the Anonymous: with hackers outsmarting engineers, institutions and citizens are subject to attack. What measures should the EU take to better ensure cyber-security and the protec-tion of personal data?

Overview

Under EU law, it is fair to conclude that everyone has the right to protection of personal data. But this law is constantly being abused by not only the Anonymous but every site in which we have shared personal data, putting ourselves at risk whenever one piece of information about one’s self is shared on an online site. Furthermore, persons or organisations which collect and manage your personal information must protect it from misuse and must respet certain rights of the data owners which are guaranteed by EU law.

Everyday, not only in the EU but all across Europe and in some cases the world, information is shared by public authori-ties, businesses and individuals unconscious as to where their information is going and who is likely to come across it. Despite being asked security questions and being ensured that personal data is safe, no one person can really ensure that their information is truly safe. Many would say that the protection of personal data is down to the person in question as usually it is up to them as to how much information is shared on the internet, on the other hand, many popular sites do not function without specific details, so is it really up to us or is it the fault of certain sites asking for too much?

The internet is a large part of many peoples daily life as it provides us with work, promotes trade and even crosses board-ers online, making the EU and Europe more unite. Looking at the internet this way, we see there are several positives aswell as several negatives. With there being a high risk of exposure, the EU has created proposals to increase security of the individuals and organisations and has even created European Network and Information Security Agency (ENISA) to ensure the protection amongst major companies and institutions that use online sites and protect them from cyber threats.

Regardless of this, we can see that with ENISA and the commision proposals, not much is being done to protect the secu-rity of Europe itself and the organisations within Europe, so how is it possible to continue action on protecting confidential personal data? What is the right path to take to ensure a safe and protected Europe? Is the answer to enforce another program in which each institution must adapt to?

The problem of hacked passwords, identity theft and the power of the Anonymous is global and is an increasing issue happening as we speak. A person is a person and should not be subdued to loss of identity and as individuals we all ex-pect our information to be safe however, the question as to whether the EU is properly protected remains unanswered. Whilst discussing this topic, the committee must look at what is the best solution in order for Europe to be safe and protected, but also why nothing has already be done. Several different point of view should be taken into consideration, to discuss what must be done in order for all to be satisfied on an international level despite the fact that the internet is used in many different ways by many different people.

Keywords

Hacked passwords, identity theft, institutions and citizens subject to attack, cyber security, personal data




Summary of EU legislation concerning data protection:http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/information_society/data_protection/l14012_en.htm

Introduction to ENISA and its function in the EU: https://www.youtube.com/user/ENISAvideos

2. Official sources

Information on cyber-security and protection:http://www.euractiv.com/infosociety/cybersecurity-protecting-digital-linksdossier-508217

Information on the EU insafe programe concerning safe surfing amongst youngsters:http://www.cisco.com/web/strategy/docs/education/EUInsafeProgram.pdf


Blog created by Brian Pennington concerning incidents on identity theft and EU legislation:http://liaison.com/blog/bloggers/brian-pennington/liaison-blog/2012/09/06/incidents-and-eu-legislation

Article on the increasing problem of identity theft:http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/12/04/the_growing_problem_of_identity/

News article on online identity theft:http://www.oecdobserver.org/news/fullstory.php/aid/2662/Online_identity_theft.html

Article drawn from “the telegraph” stating the UK as being the worst in Europe for fraud:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/consumertips/9579167/UK-worst-in-Europe-for-identity-fraud.html

Passage on EU data protection rules and the delay with the enforcement:http://euobserver.com/justice/118425

Joensuu 2013 – the 19th National Sessionof European Youth Parliament Finland

is supported by

European Youth Parliament Finland has received funding from the Ministry of Education and Culture and

the Ministry for Foreign Affairs in 2012.

European Youth Parliament Finland – EYP-Finland ry

Hämeenpuisto 17–19 A 10, 33210 Tampere

http://www.eypfinland.org

[email protected]

joensuu 2013 – preparation kit

Documents

european communities

young european citizen

union euthe european

largest european platforms

european associations

thousands of young people

political union

new people