preparation booklet - eyp nacka gymnasium
DESCRIPTION
ÂTRANSCRIPT
Preparation Booklet
Dear Delegates of the Third In School Session of Nacka Gymnasium,
It is my great honour and pleasure to welcome all of you to this session; your first
encounter with the European Youth Parliament. I am excited to welcome you to what I
hope with prove to be a challenging, fun, and memorable experience!
I am, and I hope that you also are, incredible excited about what is to happen in just
few days. Hopefully, this is the spark that ignites an interest and a passion for the civil
society; something to show that democracy means so much more than merely placing
your vote every fourth year; the start of a challenging and rewarding journey as an
active citizen.
All of you should take these two days as an opportunity to seek out ideas that are not
familiar to you. Critically consider and rethink your values and ideas, and find yourself
a better person as a result of it.
Make the most out of every moment,
Hannes Ahlvin
Words from the President
Dear Delegates,
We can finally start to welcome you to the Third In School Session of Nacka
Gymnasium! Most of you, if not all of you, have not experienced EYP before. I can
promise you though, that this will be two instructive and fun days – and hopefully
the beginning of your EYP-journey.
I, Nelly Gunnarson, and the Organising Team started to plan this session for
you slightly before Christmas. With the amount of hard work and effort we have put
in, we are literally so excited to see what you will be able to bring to this session!
Even though the session will be during two regular schooldays, remember that
this is a great way of learning not only about interesting up-to-date issues, but also
how to work with them in a different and fun but formal way.
We hope that you are excited and that you are going to like the two days that
we have planned for you, after all it is up to you how awesome this session will be!
So, let’s get prepared and we will be looking forward to seeing you all dressed up
next week.
Best Regards,
Nelly Gunnarson - Head Organiser, and the Organising Team
Words from the Organisers
CULT - Committee on Culture and Education In light of the recent rise of extremist right wing parties in Europe, what approach should be taken
by the EU in order to address the influence of these parties, whilst at the same time respecting the
right to the freedom of speech and opinion?
In several countries all across Europe, the radical right has surged in the recent years, as political
dissatisfaction combines with anti-immigration sentiments. From the Sweden Democrats to the Danish
People’s Party, the United Kingdom Independence Party, and the National Front (France), far right
wing parties all across the EU have seen their followers grow quickly, as seen in the 2014 European
Parliamentary elections.
Most far right parties of Europe share the trait of euroscepticism. In addition to this, many hold
xenophobic and racist views, many being described by media and political analysts as fascists. It is
very important, however, to realise that although these parties share many features, there is a range in
the political values and their policy platforms. Most far right wing parties of Europe are not as extreme
as Greece’s Golden Dawn.
The instability caused by the economic crisis, acts of terror, and now the refugee crisis has meant
that many Europeans have become disillusioned with their governments and political institutions.
Debate over how to best combat the rise of the far right has sprung up in all countries affected. While
many argue that it is important to come together across party lines to combat the far right parties,
others claim that it is more important that parties listen to their electorate and prove that they are
listening to their people. A hot debate has been waged on whether or not conceding policies,
particularly in the field of migration, ends up helping or hurting the far right.
While the European Union formally rejects and condemns all forms and manifestations of racism,
many Europeans gather around far right wing parties to express support for eurosceptcism and more
restrictive migration policies. Both of these reasons are valid opinions which citizens are entitled to
hold and express, and must be taken as genuine political arguments. The institutions and political
parties of the EU now need to find ways of addressing the growing euroscepticism and
disillusionment.
While the vast majority of those voting for far right parties are peaceful, there is a clear and
distinct overrepresentation in terms of violence and hate crimes within these parties. To protect its
citizenry, it is vital that Member States are watchful over extremist groups, particularly during physical
manifestations and demonstrations. Many politicians and non-governmental organisations describe the
need for exit programmes for those that realise that want to leave extremist circles. It is key that ideas
and political opposition is allowed room to be voiced, while hate crime, violence, and discrimination
must never be accepted.
DROI - Committee on Human Rights The Roma are the most discriminated minority in all of Europe. How can the EU ensure the social
and economic rights of the Roma and protect them from discrimination by both the private and public
sector alike?
Although there are no definitive statistics, Roma is considered one of the most vulnerable and
discriminated against minority in Europe. What is definitive, however, is that it is the largest minority
group in Europe; approximately 10-12 million Roma live in Europe, 6 million of which live inside of
the EU. Due to their semi-nomadic lifestyle, Roma has since the earliest of days been regarded with
fear, and subsequently chased away and subjected to oppression and hate. Roma were enslaved in
Hungary and Romania in the 15th
century, and more than 200,000 Roma were exterminated in the 2nd
world war.
Roma people face a unique and daunting economic situation – according to the World Bank, more
than 70% of all Roma households live in deep poverty, and only 29% on Roma have graduated from a
secondary school. In addition, less than 50% of Roma men and less than 25% of Roma women are able
to find employment. When comparing this data to how up to 10-20% of new labour market entrants are
Roma, it is plain to see that better integration of Roma would be not only of social but also of
enormous economical benefit.
The on-going migrant crisis has exacerbated the situation in terms of discriminating acts, both
from states and citizens. Throughout Europe, it has become politically easy for governments to remove
makeshift camps and declaring the Roma illegals to their country. A growing part of Roma chooses
not to register their national identity for fear of repercussions, making it even more difficult for the
Member States hoping to aid them.
The Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies aims at meeting the EU Roma
integration goal in the areas of education, employment, healthcare, and housing. To meet their goals,
the EU has been making unprecedented sums available for the projects targeting Roma integration, yet
their situation has only worsened in recent years.
The EU has made these large sums of money available for several countries, but in particular for
Romania. The vast majority of resources allocated, however, has not been taken advantage of, due to a
multitude of reasons. It can be a poor political strategy for Romanian politicians to advocate for the
Roma people, which has lead to an unwillingness to lend aid. Further, the institutions that projects and
organisations that funding applications needs to go through are often corrupt, meaning that decisions
that should normally be completed in a matter of weeks can be unresolved several months later.
Finally, most project funding made available from the EU require the Member State or a non-
governmental organisation to co-fund the projects, something which is unfortunately not always
possible.
Considering both the hence shown inability to autonomously implement positive change for the
Roma people, as well as the current state of affairs within Member States as a result of the migration
crisis, how can the EU remedy its policies to ensure the protection of the Roma, and ensure that they
have access to education and employment?
ENVI - Committee on Environment, Public Health and Food Safety The oil prices sharp downturn has had a major negative impact on the global investment in
climate-friendly energy. How should the EU act to further push their agenda for clean energy in a
future where oil prices can be very low for extended periods?
With global temperature rising and extreme weather conditions increasing in frequency across the
world, combatting climate change and its effects is both critically important and urgent. Since the
establishment of the Maastricht treaty, concrete goals have been set to reduce emissions and promote
more environmentally friendly growth.
Transitioning into a green, low-carbon economy is not only relevant with concerns to the
environment, but is also considered to be strategically important for the EU’s economic objectives and
competitiveness. To this end, the EU has put forth several Roadmaps, White Papers and Strategies to
reduce its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. For example, the EU GHG emission reduction targets for
2020, 2030 and 2050 are respectively 20%, 40% and 80-95% below the 1990 emission levels.
The price of a barrel of crude oil has decreased by two thirds in less than two years, from $114
USD in June 2014 to $38 USD in April 2016. As a result of the massive price drop, investors may now
be shying away from green energy research and development in favour of further investing into fossil
fuels. Consensus among experts is that in the short term, the drop in oil price will not be a decisive
factor for the development of clean energy sources, as many of them are driven primarily by national
incentive schemes. The drop in price has indeed not yet translated into an equivalent decrease in oil
prices within the EU, but prolonged periods of low oil prices is likely to eventually affect the
consumers’ end of the market, decreasing public interest in green energy and thus slowing down its
development.
The potentially decreased interest in green energy investment can cause decreased share prices on
green energy companies resulting in a lowered return on investment, further making green investments
less desirable. In this context, the EU will need to alter its energy and labour policies to ease the
transition towards a low-carbon economy, as currently 14 out of the 28 Member States are expected to
fail the EU clean energy agenda for 2020 goals of increasing renewable energy and enhancing energy
efficiency.
A primary tool for the EU to curb GHG emissions has been the EU Emissions
Trading System, a so-called “cap and trade” system in which the total amount of GHG emissions that
factories and industries are allowed. Companies receive or buy allowances to emit GHG which they
can then trade with other companies. This has placed an economic incentive on keeping emissions low.
The EU now need to find ways of incentivising and progressing both the research and usage of
green energy if it is to reach its targets for 2020, 2030, and 2050 respectively. This will require an
approach that aims to create more green jobs, support green small and medium sized enterprises
(SMEs), and encouraging green consumption. With the issue made difficult by the varying levels of
green energy, willingness, and capacity to implement these policies within the Member States, the EU
must now find a way to push all Member States to perform in order to meet their GHG emission
reduction targets.
FEMM - Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality Despite the 2009 European Parliament Resolution on Combatting Female Genital Mutilation
(FGM), the practice remains prevalent within the EU. How should the EU and its Member States act
in order to prevent the occurence of FGM?
Female genital mutilation (FGM) is a widespread cultural practice, primarily in many African
countries, in which the female genitalia are altered or injured for non-medical reasons. There are no
health benefits, and is known to be a harmful, painful and traumatic experience. The process interferes
with the natural functioning of the body, and causes severe immediate and long-term health
consequences. Since certain minority groups and immigrant communities continue their cultural
practices in other countries, the issue has also become a European one. Half a million women and girls
within the EU have undergone or are at risk of undergoing the procedure.
More than 125 million women and girls are estimated to have been cut in the 29 countries in
Africa and the Middle East where FGM is primarily concentrated. One in five of these live in a single
country – Egypt. The actual figure of victims is however unknown, as reliable data on the phenomenon
is largely unavailable. The practice is recognised as a violation of human rights and is usually carried
out between infancy and 15 years of age. Efforts to combat FGM have primarily come from individual
initiatives without major backing from governmental institutions. Recently the EU has created some
initiatives, most aiming at gathering reliable data and conducting thorough research.
All European countries have banned the procedure, either by employing previously existing
legislation or by introducing new. Four countries have a duty to report suspected case, and only two,
Sweden and Norway, have a duty to avert it whereby those who fail to try to prevent the practice are
liable to fines or even imprisonment. In addition to legislation, information and awareness spreading
campaigns, training of health workers, voluntary genital examinations and free hotlines have been
introduced.
The practice of FGM is a deeply rooted cultural practice, and legislation alone is not sufficient to
stop it. Communities that practice FGM report a plethora of social and religious reasons for continuing
the practice. Where practiced, both men and women support it, making it difficult to find victims of the
practice. Those not adhering to the norm may face social condemnation, harassment, and ostracism,
making it difficult for families to abandon the practice without support from the wider community.
In the EU, very few cases have been brought to court due to the secrecy and
transnational nature of the practice, as the people concern are usually part of a migrant community that
travels out of the country to undergo the procedure. Further, fear of racism and discrimination has
contributed to FGM being underreported. In Norway, the Association of Somali women and children
complained of discrimination by the exercise of the duty of avert FGM after 42 women and girls were
examined, with only two having been mutilated.
While the practice is illegal, social and cultural limitations have prevented the
eradication of the practice. The EU now needs to find a way to combat FGM without unduly
discriminating against individuals of ethnic minorities that to do not participate in the practice.
REGI - Committee on Regional Development Since the goals that have been put both under the EU’s Cohesion Policy 2014-2020 and under the
UN’s Climate Conference in Paris (COP21), a transition to a low carbon economy is necessary. As
cities play a key role in the regional implementation of such a transition what should the EU do to
tackle those problems and at the same time make the cities ready for such a transition so that they can
take their responsibility?
The low-carbon economy, with minimal usage of greenhouse emissions (GHG) has often been
labelled as the only realistic means to prevent the drastic effects of climate change. It is a strategy that
enables the EU to remain economically competitive in the future, through the creation of jobs and the
development of technologies. Since the concept was introduced in 1972, the EU has been world-
leading in lowering GHG emissions.
Currently, 75% of the total population of the EU resides in urban areas –a percentage that is ever
growing. Many cities face issues of severe congestion, poor air quality, high levels of noise and CO2
emissions. Urban mobility accounts for 40% of all CO2 emissions of road transport and up to 70% of
other pollutants from transport. The European Commission has subsequently identified the heavy
reliance on private conventionally fuelled cars a key issue behind the EU’s difficult and inefficient
urban mobility. A transition to a low-carbon economy without addressing the carbon-related
challenges of urban areas is as such not plausible.
From 2014-2020, the EU aims to reduce GHG emisions by 20%; increase energy efficiency by
20%; generate at least 20% of consumed energy from renewable sources. The European Commission
has set a target for the EU to cut its GHG emisisions to be 80% lower than the 1990 levels by 2050.
The EU’s Cohesion Policy is the primary tool that the EU uses to invest at the regional level, and
delivers such investment through funds. The transition to a low-carbon economy is one of the main
priorities of the Cohesion Policy.
The different Member States and their cities have taken varying approaches to solving the issues
of urban transportation. Many have chosen to invest in public transport, both in making it a more
viable option and in reducing the GHG emissions from said transportation. Other cities try to be as
accessible as possible for cyclists, and some choose to try to enable a more widespread usage of
electric cars. While each city is unique, the EU has to find a way of pushing its agenda further if it is to
reach its stated targets.
With non-conventionally fuelled cars and public transport already existing, the EU now need to
find a way to further develop and implement these technologies to enable a wider use, if it is to have a
meaningful effect. Further, for any policy to be implemented on a wider scale, it is important that the
differences in problems faced by cities in Europe is taken into consideration, and that local authorities
are taken into account.
LIBE - Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs With refugee numbers unprecedented in the history of the EU, many Member States are
experiencing immense pressure. How can the EU and its Member States prevent the social exclusion
and provide opportunities for work and a dignified life for the asylum seekers?
Immigration to the European continent has reached its peak in the history of the EU due to
escalating conflicts around the world. In 2006, 200,000 people applied for asylum in an EU country; in
2015, that figure was 1,300,000. Roughly 500,000 decisions were made on asylum requests in 201,
half of which were positive, granting either refugee or subsidiary protection status or allowing stay for
humanitarian reasons.
Due to the unprecedented volumes, many Member States are now struggling to find ways of
adequately supporting the refugees in their quest to forge a new life in their host country. Some
Member States with more beneficial asylum policies in particular, such as Germany and Sweden, have
taken on a greater share of refugees than most others.
Many refugees, particularly those from Iran and Syria, have university degrees and are
underutilised, partly due to difficulties in verifying the degrees. Austria’s Public Employment Service
carried out competency checks between August to December last year, and found that 90% of Iranians
and 70% of Syrians had completed some form of training or further education after leaving high
school. Barriers such as difficult accreditation processes to verify highly qualified labourers, language
and the lack of social network remain and prevent many otherwise employable refugees from
obtaining a job.
Further, large portions of refugees are very young, and are still in need of being schooled. As the
Syrian crisis has been ongoing for five years, many have fallen far behind the Members States
children. These children will need help to ensure that they receive all the education that they need to
build a successful life and integrate into the population.
Resources are tight, both economically but also due to lacking infrastructure. With huge spikes in
the number of people now looking not only for employment, but also for access to public services, it is
difficult for the Member States to keep up. Many schools see their class sizes increase dramatically,
and there is a lack of social workers to process all the necessary paperwork associated with applying
for an asylum and starting up a new life. Further, many of the refugees are traumatised by the war, and
require help that is often difficult to get for lack of resources. The EU and its Member States will now
have to find a way to guarantee that the people living within the EU have access to the public services
they are entitled to.
Further, housing all the refugees has proved a difficult task. The UN special rapporteur on the
right to adequate housing, Leilani Farha, says that pressure on European countries to act quickly in
response to the influx of refugees could exacerbate the problem of social exclusion, as people are
housed in poor, temporary positions. The Member States will need to find more permanent solutions to
housing the refugees, while avoiding social exclusion and segregation. In light of a large set of issues,
the EU has to take firm action to ensure that all refugees are properly welcomed and given the
opportunities to succeed in life and contribute to society.
SEDE - Committee on Security and Defence After years of combatting terrorism, the intelligence agencies of the EU’s Member States and its
allies have grown tremendously. How can, and to which extent should, the EU utilise the great amount
of personal data being gathered by these agencies to combat terrorism without violating the right to
integrity and privacy?
From propaganda to recruitment, technology has granted terrorists ease of access to Europe.
Consistently, legislators of Member States have pressed for a greater level of data collection and
information sharing. With the technological capacity of terrorist groups such as those responsible for
the recent attacks on Paris and Brussels increasing, and with growing dissent among the public over
ever increasing surveillance, it is clear that data protection and privacy is one of the most controversial
issues facing the EU.
Recently, Europol launched a new subdivision, the European Counter Terrorism Center, which is
strictly tasked with combatting terrorism. Following the attacks on Paris, many legislators and people
of political influence across Europe called for an increase in surveillance and multilateral cooperation
to prevent further similar acts of terrorism from being carried out. In France, law enforcement agencies
were almost immediately granted sweeping powers to collect, store, and read data and digital
communications. Further, the willingness of Member States national intelligence agencies to cooperate
across borders dramatically increased, as the number of countries participating in formal intelligence
sharing rose from 14 to 25, with the remaining being expected to follow suit. Despite these measures,
many call for further cooperation, and the establishment of a single database across all of Europe to
track suspicious individuals.
One of the more controversial aspects of data collection is that of encryption. The perpetrators of
the Paris attack had used encrypted messaging services such as WhatsApp™ in order to conceal their
plans. As a result, many argue that developers should be made to build in deliberate weaknesses, “back
doors”, into their software to allow authorities to access the communications of suspected and
confirmed terrorists. Opponents fear governmental abuse, and argue that there is a critical lack of
insight and regulation of surveillance programmes. Recently, Apple was in the spotlight after being
sued by the United States’ government in an effort to gain access to encrypted data on an iPhone
belonging to one of the terrorists who carried out the San Bernardino shooting. The case was highly
controversial, and though it was dropped after the FBI managed to break the encryption, the underlying
dispute of built-in weaknesses was never settled.
Member States are further committing to combatting terrorism through preventative measures,
focusing on preventing religious radicalisation and closing exploitations used by terrorists to funnel or
laundry money.
As the desire for increased intelligence-sharing and cooperation between Member States is rising,
it is important to simultaneously consider the impact that it can have on the rights and freedom of law-
abiding citizens. The EU now needs to find an acceptable balance between maintaining an adequate
level of privacy for its citizens while maximising counter-terrorist capabilities.