5Model European Union Strasbourg 201Strasbourg Snitcher

We heard this morning that a new faction was to be created. This rumor was soon confirmed by the members of the new group.Who are these people and what is their goal in the EP? The Strasbourg’s Snitcher met them.

There was hearsay this morning, agitat-ing the EP and its members. Whispers of “A new faction is to be created” and “it’s a feminist group” echoed through the crowds of people waiting for coffee. Indeed, a new faction has emerged this morning, comprised of girls “who be-lieve in gender equality” and who want to see this issue raised in the EP.

“Today’s a very bright day for the Euro-pean Union and for the European Parlia-ment because today we handed in a pro-posal for a new faction: the Progressive Feminists of Europe will hopefully be

present soon in the parliament” Aysegül Öztekin, member of the new faction, told us.

The decision was confirmed with an opening speech of the faction this after-noon at 2:00 pm.

Even though the faction does not have its leader yet, the girls who gathered to create the group have strong ideals in common: “we all believe strongly that gender equality will brighten up Eu-rope, will have Europe recovered from economic crisis and in the end will cre-ate a more human European Union” Ms Öztekin, said.

6 girls from ALDE, EPP, GUE/NGL and S&D have created this new fac-tion according to our sources and there might be more people joining it within the next days. The feminist faction de-fines itself as very open and said it would welcome women and men equally.

ALDE’s faction leader Pascal Nohl-Deryk said that he was happy of the cre-ation of this new faction and that he fully supported gender equality. Same goes for Mr. Wolf, faction leader of GUE/NGL, who told us that it is important, that equality in general, and especially gender equality is represented in the EP, since it is one of the main values of the GUE/NGL.

By raising new ideas such as gender equality and women’s right, the new feminist faction is going to bring a sub-stantial change to European politics. This new faction is also changing the constitution of the Parliament since some MEPs left their factions and some are still planning on joining the feminist group. The Progressive Feminists of Europe need to take a stance concerning the European Banking Union’s proposal that is currently being discussed in the EP - a real challenge for the new group.

Wednesday, 15. April 2015

The Progressive Feminists of Europe: How Women Hit the European Parliament

Daily News of Model European Union Strasbourg 2015Issue No 04/15

Follow us: #MEUs2015

IN THIS ISSUESEEKING: ASYLUM IN WELCOMING COUNTRY

‘Director General: “A lot of people may think ‘oh, that’s not my concern, they don’t have to come here’. But if you were in their shoes…what would you do?’

Page 2

UK MINISTER GIVES THE EU THE MIDDLE FINGER

Today, Dominik Hüller, the Minister of the United Kingdom, gave the Union and everything it stands for, the finger.

Page 3

BACK TO THE EUSSR?

Is the EUSSR a product of Mr De Vinck de Winneezele’s quest for attention, or is it a viable possibility?

Page 3

Anouk Heili

Issue No 04/152 | Wednesday, 15. April 2015 — Strasbourg Snitcher . Daily News —

Yesterday afternoon we were addressed by Lionel Hilaire, a representative for the charity ‘Collectif pours l’Accueil des Solliciteurs d’Asile a Strasbourg’ (CASAS). He discussed the difficulties people face when seeking asylum and their fight to help those in need. Accord-ing to a parliamentary report by MPs Jeanine Dubié, from the centrist Radical Party, and Arnaud Richard, of the right-wing UMP last year revealed France’s system for handling asylum-seekers was “in crisis”. The report highlights that procedures are often ineffective and long drawn-out as well as over their budget (the prediction of minimum total spend-ing on asylum-seekers for 2014 was 666 €). Despite this and the fact that the number of applicants has almost doubled in the last four years, thankfully the re-cord numbers of applicants of 1989 and 2003 were not beaten.

Mr Hilaire pointed out the unfairness of the long drawn-out procedures claim-ing that there are asylum-seekers who try to explain their circumstances when applying for registered status and ‘are told “I don’t believe you” by authori-ties’ which is ‘frustrating and insulting’ for those seeking asylum; additionally, authorities seem to be trying to ‘disman-tle their arguments’ and stories. In fact, according to Mr Hilaire 75% of asylum-seekers don’t achieve registered status. Moreover, Philippe Leclerc, representa-tive of the United Nation High Com-

mission for Refugees in France claims that the wait for claims to be processed is so long that they are unable to ‘receive asylum-seekers in conditions of dignity simply because there isn’t enough space in the special centres made for them.’

So, why are the donations of our charity 1920s night going to CASAS?

Because the number of applicants they receive is increasing, Mr Hilaire says that last year they received more than 400 people primarily from ‘Azerbaijan, Georgia, Armenia, the former Yugosla-via: Kosovo and Chechnya’, as well as Africans and a small minority from the Middle East, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. Additionally funding is being decreased and they’ve gone from 6 employees to only 4; they therefore need help to raise money to help those who are simply looking for a better life. Mr Hilaire told us that luckily there are volunteers who teach French and interpreters and he

was pleased that the majority are young people.

Ms Billen, an MEP representing Ro-mania for S&D asked Mr Hilaire what three things he would change in the Eu-ropean Policy on refugees and asylum. Mr Hilaire expressed a wish that ‘from one country to another, [there would be] the possibility of having shelter’. He noted that asylum-seekers apply to France, not because they want to but, because they don’t have the option of ap-plying somewhere closer. He criticised the U.K. and Germany for not helping countries like Italy who are receiving thousands of people, dismissing their plea for help saying ‘we have enough [people] like that - you deal with them’ – Mr Hilaire simply wants solidarity in countries.

Philomena Taylor, Director General, said that CASAS was chosen to ‘try and shed some light on the situation

Seeking: Asylum in Safe, Friendly and Welcoming Country

with immigration’ and that there have been countries over the last few years who ‘don’t want to accept them’ and ‘don’t want to help’ and that, by sup-porting CASAS people can have access to the ‘real facts’ and have an insight into ‘the reality of the situation’. Taylor finds that often ‘when people watch the news [and] hear about asylum-seekers, they react [with an] “oh please!” dismissive attitude.’ Taylor believes it’s important to think about what it would be like if you were in their shoes and what you would do if you were trying ‘to have a better life for you and your family’. Tay-lor is hoping that we will be able to raise at least a few hundred Euros to help CASAS .There will be some fundrais-ing activities today and tomorrow so you can buy raffle tickets and win some prizes. So make sure you buy tickets and help this worthwhile charity.

Sian Maria Morgan

The Banking Union is possibly the most ambitious project that has been under-taken in the EU since the creation of the single currency in 1999. The complexity of the text, which includes the creation of a common monitoring mechanism managed by the European Central Bank, has opened an interesting debate amongst the higher echelons of the bank-ing and political sector, as Strasbourg Snitcher reported yesterday.

Along with that common supervision, the project is based on homogeneous rules for every single country: a unique

agency for resolving future banking cri-ses and insurance bank deposits. It will take a long time to conclude this com-plex puzzle; as it will involve complex negotiations between the EU Member States. But, what does the Banking sys-tem think about this new regulation?

An agent from the think tank Build a Better Bank, Miguel Raya welcomes the Banking Union, as well as introducing the cascade of liabilities. He believes that it will help “harmonize the Europe-an situation and banks will be stronger with capital requirements. Europe needs an integrated banking system, in order to guarantee the long-term stability of monetary union”. Otherwise, the rep-

resentative foresees a moral risk related with the creation of the SFR (which is the mechanism designed to regulate bankruptcies), because “its liquidity will come from directly from European clients”. This new agency will get a full bailout fund that will reach to 55,000 million Euros (the rescue of the Spanish banking sector rose to 62,000)”. This means, “European citizens will have to pay rescue costs of bank’s bankrupts in case it happens”. According to Raya, Build a Better Bank considers that some changes should be introduced into the project, such as increasing the percent-age of money that bank owners should pay in case of bankruptcy from 8% to 20 or 30%.

Francisco Daniel Garcés

The Banking Union: What does the Banking System Think about It?

The representative from Global Al-liance for Banking on Values, Mario Husillos, feels that the Banking Union would “only benefit the big banks’ and [would harm] the smaller ones, since capital requirements cannot be the same for all the European entities”. In addi-tion, he thinks that “the banking super-vision cannot be carried out by a cen-tralized institution, even with the help of every national bank”.

From Barclays, Natalia García insists that “constructing a Banking Union must include all the affected parts. This initiative is needed to recover the trust in our system and our currency, the Euro”.

Issue No 04/15 Wednesday, 15. April 2015 | 3— Strasbourg Snitcher . Daily News —

Today, Dominik Hüller, the Minister of the United Kingdom, gave the Union and everything it stands for, the finger. “Today, at the Council we heard several statements on the Data Protection Reg-ulation which are – like the one on the Banking Union – completely uneconom-ic and anti-business. The other Ministers are calling themselves pro-citizens. But how can they be, when their proposals are bound to be detrimental to both the economy and business and hence hin-der employment? We are unsatisfied with the procedure”, he said, when in-terviewed by the Strasbourg Snitcher Newscast today. Does Britain really feel that threatened? Ever since the British influence in European matters has been weakened, Euroscepticism has kept on growing among politicians and citizens; especially when it comes to the current debate on the Data Protection Regula-tion and the European Banking Union. And now, the country seems to have turned into a time bomb, posing a seri-ous threat to the European Union. At the General Elections, which are to be held in May this year, the UK will be holding a referendum on whether the country wants to stay in the European Union, announces Hüller. “Hopefully we do not. We can only stick the finger to the EU and say: we are out.”

Actually, current discussions and de-bates held in the Council do not seem

to be as constructive as some Ministers say they are. While German Minister Lisa Weinberger prefers to keep silent and describes what is happening in the Council as fruitful, others, like Samuli Pekka Silmarinen, Minister of Ireland, thinks the opposite. “Quite frankly I am concerned about the situation. The Republic of Ireland fears very strongly about its role in the European economy, especially the information economy. We are Europe’s hub for data companies –

like Google and Facebook. Any kind of restrictions on data gathering will hamper our economy and will put peo-ple out of work. Any kind of Regulation will result in our Continent regressing and becoming the world’s old house”, said Silmarinen earlier today. But when it comes to Data Protection Regulation not all of the Ministers seem to care a lot in first place. “The Czech Republic does not really mind if it is Directive or a Regulation. We will have to find a com-

Daniela Pruggerpromise though”, Daniel Prause, Minis-ter of the Czech Republic, explains. He then discloses– as he calls it – his “main objective”: “I need to find a clause that I can rewrite in a way that it allows the EU - and hence the Czech Republic -to implement armed drones for defence purposes. Meaning: Russia, Vladimir Putin, drones and Data Regulation are all tightly related and we are afraid of them.“

UK Minister Gives the EU the Middle Finger

The austerity measures introduced by the EU to tackle the economic cri-sis have forced people to tighten their purse-strings, sparking, as one may ex-pect, widespread discontent. EU citi-zens are not just upset about having to exercise self-control and moderation at a time when unemployment is skyrock-eting, but they are also concerned about national governments being bossed around by a patronizing Union. Demo-cratic deficit is a cause of widespread distress among EU citizens. Yesterday, during the Press Conference, Donald de Vinck de Winnezeele of the EFDD voiced similar worries. But according to the spirited faction leader, we’re not just talking democratic deficit: the EU Parliament has become a full-blown Soviet-style democracy.

‘Today we have seen the political ideol-ogy of this house. The faces have been changed, the names have been changed. We no longer have Lenin and Stalin, we now have Barroso, Tusk and Juncker. We are just going back to the EUSSR’, he said, earning himself a loud cheer by his party. Such radical statement sought to undermine Mr Wolf’s suggestion – made earlier in the day - that the EFDD withdraw from Parliament. A sugges-tion that is not only appalling, but that more shockingly seems to tickle many other leaders’ fancy. In an interview with the press today, Mr Wolf was widely apologetic about the whole mat-ter. He argued that ‘if [a faction] is part of the EU Parliament, then [it] is meant to represent the European citizens. It is difficult to enter the EU Parliament with the idea of wanting to dissolute it, to destroy the EU in a certain sense (…). It is not illegitimate, especially since there are people in the EU that follow

this idea, but it’s a very difficult stance to hold inside a EU institution’. Mean-while, although concerned about the EU trying to silence the views of non-Euro-zone countries, Mr Fehling of the ECR dismissed De Vinck de Winnezeele’s claim as ‘ridiculous’. While we may think that ‘ Donald was just trying to cause a stir (….) and just wants to have to get his name said and his hands seen!’, as Michaela Reilly of ALDE put it, several lobbyists have sided with the faction leader’s ‘exuberant’ allegations. Emilio Raya Saez, representing the Federation of European Direct and Interactive Mar-keting, says Vinck de Winnezeele has a point. The EU is leaning towards over-regulation, often disregarding the needs of all the actors that are affected by its legislations. Although Mr Saez consid-ers this approach as deeply damaging and even undemocratic, he refrained from endorsing De Vinck de Win-nezeele’s views. On the other hand,

Back to the EUSSR?both Mario Husillos of the European Publishers’ Council and Michael Stock-hammer, representing MOTA and the European League can see the seeds of a European dictatorship in the making. They both hold that lobbyists are not being heard, even though they represent citizens and enterprises and that democ-racy is in severe danger of disappearing from the European stage. According to Stockhammer, even parties such as the GUE/NGL are ‘using fluffy words, saying “we have to defend our citizens” without saying how’. So although we should refrain from extolling De Vinck the Winnezeele’s populist remarks, it seems like they have struck a chord with several people here at the Parliament. Therefore, we should ask ourselves whether the ‘EUSSR’ is just a product of De Vinck the Winnezeele’s quest for attention, or rather, a viable - yet daunt-ing - possibility.

Isotta Rossoni

Issue No 04/154 | Wednesday, 15. April 2015 — Strasbourg Snitcher . Daily News —

Editors Sian Morgan Isotta Rossoni

Journalists Francisco Daniel Garcés Maria Salomé Fernandes Anouk Heili Rikke Mathiassen Daniela Prugger Alessandra Sinno Diana Tavares Alexandra van Walraven

Photographers Marlene Stocker Petar Georgiev Santiago de la Presilla

Impressum

Follow us:

/user/MEUStrasbourg

/modeleu

/beta_europe

Welcome to the fourth edition of the Strasbourg Snitcher. First things first. We hope to make up for the small blunder in yesterday’s news-paper. We sincerely apologize for confusing non-Eurozone countries with Eurozone countries. But hey, even the best can make mistakes! We hope you still love us and are still keen to delve into today’s edition, because trust us, it’s well worth it. MEPs giving the EU the middle finger, Risso’s struggle to keep her party together and the EU Parlia-ment as EUSSR are all discussed in this edition. As well as today’s hot topic: the birth of a new party aka the Progressive Feminists of Europe. Enjoy!

By Sian MorganIsotta Rossoni

A WORD FROM OUR EDITOR...

Ms. Francesca Risso affirms to have a cohesive party. Only three things gave her anxiety away yesterday: the need to approach journalists in an attempt to stop ‘rumours’ from spreading, MEPS’ chuckling during her statements at the Press Conference, and her desperate emphasis on an “overwhelming major-ity” supporting her. And if her unani-mous victory after the new election this morning is supposed to confirm such no-tions, the departure of an MEP from the party seems to contradict this.

Sara Duque is leaving. Even though she does not accuse the EPP of any failures and fully supports Risso, she considers the new party more appealing and bet-ter suited to her interests. Sounds like the EPP is just not good enough to pre-vent people from being drawn into other projects. Other factions appear to be sensing the same, as they are after MEPs like vultures, waiting to see who can get

new party members first. Because Ms. Duque is not the only one who is keen to leave. Pier Luca Avramo has declined an invitation to join ALDE team, but his decision could change in the near future. In addition to this, Felix Fehling stated that the ECR “[has] seen EPP members very concerned about some topics. We officially invite them to participate to-gether with us on common positions or if they wish to, we would accept any re-quest on either joining our meetings or joining our faction”. Unfortunately for Risso, Fehling’s attempt to warm EPPs up to the ERC might even be successful.

It must be said, however, that there is common scepticism among MEPs about people’s trust in their faction leader. “We are more than united” and “we give our leader full support”, comment-ed Yannick Somauroo. Marie Colom-bani endorsed this view. As did Ilkay Uysal’s. But considering that no other comments besides reassurances on the cohesion of the EPP were made – and curiously these do not coincide with the

criticism directed at the party by many of its members – we must ask ourselves if we should believe all this, or if party members were brainwashed and con-vinced to keep silent around journalists and other Members of Parliament.

There are no doubts about Risso’s con-fidence or eloquence, nor about her abil-ity to come up with convincing answers under pressure. But being the faction leader of EPP requires other important skills. It won’t be easy to maintain cohe-siveness amongst a group of 26 people of different nationalities – even if they share the same values, divergences are bound to happen. So far, Risso has man-aged to keep the EPP together. How-ever, cracks in the biggest bloc within the European Parliament have started to become visible. EPP members argue that ALDE, the ECR or even the press team itself are responsible for spreading ill-founded rumours. However, there is no real proof of this. Are Risso’s leader-ship skills good enough to keep together her party?

Maria Salomé Fernandes

EPP BRAINWASH

Issue No 04/15 Wednesday, 15. April 2015 | 5— Strasbourg Snitcher . Daily News —

“The supervisory role of the ECB is not in question” says the Commissioner for Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union, in his of-ficial statement. The Commission con-siders the Banking Union to be for all banks, and SMBs need to be supervised in the same way, with the same rules. The Commissioner defends “Banks should pay for banks”

As the Council of the European Union decides, the European Commission (EC) worries about some of the devel-opments. There is legitimate concern from Member States regarding some of the clauses, but the EC does not agree with the alteration proposed by the Council, namely the attempt to offer a different status for the small and medium banks and the role of the ECB.

The Commission was not pleased by the initial positions of the Council when it comes to the EBU: proposals were put forward by several Members States (ac-cording to Germany and the U.K.). The

Commissioner believes these propos-als exclude Sparkassen and other small banks and would severely cripple the purpose of the EBU if they were to be approved. The Commissioner pointed out that to pursue the exclusion of the SMBs by returning them to national su-

pervisors would eliminate the ECB as the supervisory authority.

According to an official statement, the role of the ECB as a supervisory au-thority cannot be dismissed due to his know-how and expertise on dealing with the Eurozone and its credibility.

‘Banks Should Pay for Banks.’The Commissioner points out that “no other entity has the capability to carry out this supervision” and because of this “[they] cannot agree with the attempt to apply different rules to different banks”.

The addition of Non–Eurozone coun-tries into the European Banking Union “is a concern the Council brought up”. The Commission proposal allows these countries to join insisting that it is meant for all Euro banks. The proposal the Ministers of the Council put forward is for Non Eurozone states to have guaran-tees, for instance in the altering of voting procedures in the Single Supervisory Board and full membership to it.

However, when it comes to amend-ments, the Council has proven to be “ex-tremely cooperative” the Commissioner defends (with the discussion being on the verge of consensus) the EC proposal only if amended on three separate occa-sions with the ‘essentials’ untouched. The Commission is pleased with the outcome and calls for the Parliament to follow suit in upholding the protection of EU citizens and defending the integ-rity and unity of the Single Market.

Diana Tavares

Member States that are not part of the Eurozone will get equal voting rights in the new so-called Single Supervisory Mechanism of the European Central Bank if they join the EBU.

Member States that are not part of the Eurozone will get equal voting rights in the new so-called Single Supervisory Mechanism of the European Central Bank - if they chose to join the European Banking Union, that is. This will be the outcome, if one of the amendments, which the Ministers of the Council of the EU agreed on yesterday, goes through.

While Adela Zabrazna, Minister of France called this “a very big improve-ment”, Gabriele Rosana, the Minister of Bulgaria - not a Member of the Eurozone - was “quite okay with the outcome” of the negotiations in the Council. He says that the amendments were passed with “a very large consent”:

“If we opt in to the EBU, we’ll have the right to vote, because the amendments

abolished the division between par-ticipating members - which previously were the only ones who had the right to vote- and the non-Eurozone countries, which were not allowed to vote before”, Rosana told the Strasbourg Snitcher.

In total, three amendments were passed in the Council of Ministers following yesterday’s debates. Besides giving vot-ing rights to non-Eurozone countries in the ECB, another proposal was passed that among other things, will mean that the ECB will have to hand in annual reports to the Commission, Council and Parliament in order to secure its accountability. Finally, the Ministers agreed to enlarge the Resolution Fund, which all banks in the Member States of the European Banking Union will have to contribute to.

Some Ministers, especially from the non-Eurozone member states, had, how-ever, hoped for much more. Yesterday, an amendment by the two biggest non-Eurozone countries, the United King-dom and Sweden, was turned down by a majority of Ministers. The amendment suggested that EU countries outside the Euro should have a joint veto-right

over the Banking Union decisions made in the ECB. While satisfied with the new-gained voting rights in the ECB, a slightly disappointed Alba Espino, Minister of Sweden, met the Strasbourg Snitcher this morning:

“There were some member states that supported the amendments, but due to the weight of France and Germany, it didn’t work”, Espino says: “Once again this is demonstrating that some of the Members of the Council are not follow-ing the solidarity among Member States, which is one of our principles in the Eu-ropean Union.”

Also Daniel Prause, Minister of the Czech Republic was far from satisfied with the outcome of the Council’s de-bates on the European Banking Union. Keeping in mind the large number of Czech banks that is owned by banks from Eurozone-countries, he fears that the Czech Republic will indirectly come under the influence of the Euro-pean Banking Union - even though his country is against it.

“The proposal on the Banking Union gives the ECB power over the Czech

Ministers Agree on Voting Rights for Non-Eurozone Members in the ECB

banks to request information, and to take away the credit license if they don’t fill the capital requirements and so on, he says: “This is why, basically, this super-centralised, power-craving ECB now has all the sovereignty when it comes to the banks within the banks within the Czech republic”.

This is however an argument, which Adela Zabrazna, the Minister of France, doesn’t buy. She argues that the non-Eu-rozone Member States that have banks that are foreign-owned will not lose any sovereignty because of the European Banking Union.

“They will just have to comply with rules that are set on an EU-wide level, not on a country-level”, she says, while referring to the fact that as things are now, the rules of foreign-owned banks are already decided almost exclusively in the country in which the owner of the bank is located: “- which means, that there is not going to be a significant change for these banks”, she adds.

The final vote on the amendments on the European Banking Union will take place in the Council on Friday.

Rikke Mathiassen

Issue No 04/156 | Wednesday, 15. April 2015 — Strasbourg Snitcher . Daily News —

The European Parliament has passed the baton on the data regulation to the Council of Ministers who will discuss the amendments today and tomorrow. The EP proposed 40 amendments from which 11 have passed. Most amendments were from the left parties and concerned consent of users, sanctions and process of data. In general the MEPs are con-tent with the results of the first read-ing. S&D faction leader preferred a rise of sanctions for the SMEs and a focus on prevention of breaches, but is satis-fied for now. Faction leader of ALDE is especially happy with passing three amendments and finding an agreement on the amendments on sanctions and consent. A second reading still seems necessary especially for the right wing parties. The increase in sanctions was, for instance, not preferable for the ECR and the EFDD.

The amendments have only been re-ceived by the Council today and further debate seems necessary. The Commis-sioner, Karolis Jonuška, is not particu-larly pleased with the amendments and wishes to give some new insights to the Council to discuss. Mr. Jonuška calls the amendments “not significant,” with only a few exceptions – but not in a positive

manner. Amendment 33 to article 7.2 now states that consent has to be given every two years, regardless of whether the terms of use have changed. Mr. Jonuška claims that this does not change the regulation positively. He listed the argument that had been forwarded by Ms. Lois McLatchie, representative of Google: adapting a business to a new regulation takes time. Google already has a mechanism in place and should not be scared off with new and stricter regulations.

Secondly, Mr. Jonuška fails to under-stand the reasoning of increasing the sanctions from 2% to 5% of the global turnover. If the current competition policy already achieves the objective of deterrence, a stricter sanction regulation will only have negative consequences. Mr. Jonuška fears that higher fines will discourage non-EU companies from in-vesting in the European market. “There is always a possibility of having to pay a fine, even though it is not an intention of the company to break the regulation.” Companies include sanction regulations in their risk assessment. A high percent-age will, therefore, deter foreign invest-ment.

The Commissioner, hence, gives advice to the Council on some matters. Firstly, he wishes the Council to review arti-

cle 9 on special categories, which were simply copied from the 1995 directive. Perhaps an update to the current envi-ronment could be considered. Secondly, with regards to article 20, the issue of profiling has not been addressed. The Council will have to discuss the limits of profiling and contemplate whether it should be allowed at all. Thirdly, Mr. Jonuška wishes the Council to consider what the role of data protection authori-ties should be. Should there be more power to the European data protection authorities or should it be left with the member states? Fourthly, the Council needs to determine how free the inter-net market should be. Can the EU for instance decide who has to be the data officer for each company?

Although the ministers have not yet had the possibility to discuss the proposal in depth, certain issues are already obvi-ous. Firstly, there are some differences in opinions on deciding whether the current regulation should be a directive. Some ministers, such as the minister of Belgium, Germany and the United Kingdom, would prefer to see a direc-tive. “For Germany this would mean that we would have to change over 300 laws on data protection,” if a regulation will be put in place, says the German minister. The minister of Cyprus does not agree with this opinion and claims

Ready, Set, Go Ministers!

that the regulation only imposes a mini-mum standard. This is favoured by the minister of Greece, who wants one digi-tal market with clear regulations: “This will save around 3 billion euros a year and it will make the European market more competitive.”

The ministers of Belgium, Greece and the Czech Republic are, therefore, not content with the increase of sanctions. They do not understand why there is a need to increase sanctions if those in place already sufficiently deter com-panies from breaking the rules. The minister of Cyprus, however, is not displeased since the amendment claims “up to 5%,” meaning that it simply puts a maximum.

The last issue concerns the balance be-tween freedom of expression and pri-vacy. All ministers have argued that this has not sufficiently been addressed. The minister of the Czech Republic feels that the amendments were skewed to-wards protection of privacy and not the freedom of expression. “This freedom to uncover big stories is the proof of de-mocracy,” and thus of great importance, he claims. There seem to be many dis-crepancies between the ministers, the commissioner and the decisions of the EP. Will there ever be a consensus?

Alexandra van Walraven

A presentation of Collectif pour l’Accueil des Solliciteurs d’Asile à Strasbourg took place yesterday after-noon, just before the Press Conference.

Born in 1983, the aim of the association consists of helping people in Strasbourg who claim asylum, after having left their home countries for religious, political, and even gender-related persecutions; they- both families and individuals- are mostly from Eastern European coun-tries.

To leave your own countries implies leaving your home, your family, your

friends, your job; fundamental in the lives of all human beings. We sometimes forget that asylum is a right, not a privi-lege. It regards people first and foremost.

As was remembered yesterday, much solidarity and collaboration is necessary among countries, including European Union Members; indeed, we should not forget that one of the most relevant rights on which European Union is founded is the right to the free move-ment of persons.

This notion took form in 1985, with the Schengen Agreement, and the sub-sequent Schengen Convention in 1990, which abolished local border controls and restrictions between Member

States. Economically speaking, the ben-efits they establish seems very clear, especially in terms of the internationali-zation of trades and occupations. Moreo-ver, they really represent the ideal spirit of the European Union.

Indeed, the right, ratified in Article 45 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, discussed in more de-tail by EU secondary legislation and the Case law of the Court of Justice, states that every single EU citizen has the right to reside and work in another Member State without needing a work permit, continuing to live there, with exactly the same rights as national citizens in terms of employment and tax arrange-ments. The above-mentioned right is

The Right to Free Movement as a Universal Right

also valid in countries which belong to European Economic Area, such as Ice-land, Liechtenstein and Norway, albeit with some differences.

To allow people to get a job means ren-dering them autonomous, as well as ac-tive members of a community. Moreo-ver, it encourages them to improve themselves and to collaborate with peo-ple who have a different cultural back-ground. This is absolutely necessary for European integration.

Every EU Country should always bear in mind this Right when they discuss immigration. EU Member States and their citizens forget about fundamental human rights all too often.

Alessandra Sinno