1

spectrum04

GeneraL AssemblyISSUE

MAG

AZIN

E OF

THE

73R

D IN

TERN

ATIO

NAL

SESS

ION

OF E

YP IN

ZUR

ICH,

sw

itze

rlan

d

LEAD ARTICLEEuropean Young Philosophers

ResolutionsCritiques

General AssemblyHow To, Speeches and attire

2

Letters on Paper and Vocal Performance

EDITORIAL

How much can you actually accomplish in 45 minutes? Prob-ably run a quick errand, fix a bicycle, get from Basel to Zu-rich (if your train is fast), write 300 words for an article or simply have a power nap. It seems like not that much can be

done with this limited amount of time. When you think about it, ¾ of an hour is not that much. 45 minutes. 2700 seconds. That is it.

At an EYP session, this time can be put into much more productive use. It is no hassle to use 45 minutes to phrase the operative clauses or write an attack speech for another committee. The magical 45 minutes really make a distinctive difference during the General Assembly, where 2700 seconds are dedicated to each committee to present their resolu-tion. That time really is of crucial importance for you to make sure that your hard work pays off during the GA. Having worked passionately on your topic for days, it is more than understandable how fighting for your resolution on Friday and Saturday is absolutely inevitable.

Even though 45 minutes is seemingly not a lot, much can be done during that time with regards to your committee’s debate. Knowing the meaning of the phrase ‘hard work’, we encourage you to make sure that your work gets the appreciation it deserves. Therefore, you must make sure to be active and engage yourself in a discussion among other par-ticipants. Challenge everyone else like you will be challenged when given an opportunity to explain your thoughts and ideas. Be passionate and be willing. Most importantly, make sure that after you will be able to reply to the question of ‘how much can you actually accomplish in an hour’ with an answer: “a lot.”

LUCA OLUMETSFRANZISKA MAIER

MARIE DROMEYMAIRI SÕELSEPP

3

resolution critiques

Letters on Paper and Vocal Performance

tie-rarchy GA How-To

interview on politics and philosophy

CONTENTS

4

Interviewwith Michel Bourban

Rebecca Smith sits down with Michel Bourban, a doctoral student in phi-losophy, to talk about climate change justice, how philosophy can be used in

politics, and how EYPers can take into account the philosophical implications of their discussions and resolutions.

There is a lively debate on the philosophy be-hind climate

change negotiations. How-ever, there is little discus-sion on how it can con-cretely be applied into politics. “The current philosophical debate in intergenerational climate justice is focused on two main problems, from past to present generations, and from present to future gen-erations”, explains Michel Bourban, a doctoral stu-dent in philosophy at the University of Lausanne, whose dissertation is titled “Climate change and politi-cal philosophy: Foundation and application of the prin-ciples of climate justice”. The first problem has been thoroughly addressed in different theories of who should be accountable for the costs. The Polluter Pays Principle (PPP), the most

intuitive and hotly debated one, is based on the ‘no harm’-principle, according to which one must clean up one’s own mess. However, there are two main objec-tions to this principle: the polluters are dead, and the polluters were ignorant. Why then should current generations be responsible for them? Bourban sug-gests to only take emissions after 1990 into account, the date at which the IPCC came out with a report clearly explaining the ills of climate change and link-ing it to human activity: the PPP cannot be applied to pre-1990 emissions.

The second principle, the Ability to Pay Princi-ple (APP), is difficult to justify because there is no direct causal relation be-tween those who pay and what they pay for. It states that those most able should pay for the costs of cli-

mate change, even though it does not explicit the rela-tion between the two. The Beneficiary Pays Principle remedies this last point, using the justification that once people benefit from past injustices, they have to pay to remedy the harm of those injustices. These two last principles explain why developed countries are also responsible for post-1990 emissions: because they are able to pay for their consequences, and because this ability is the result of past emissions.

Bourban’s opinion of this theoretical debate is that despite being an im-portant one, there is too much writing and the same ideas are being repeated. “Although it is interesting in philosophy, it is not as useful in a political nego-tiations: politicians do not always see the point of this debate” says Bourban. He

5

with Michel Bourban

suggests making the debate more practical, setting aside a lot of philosophically dif-ficult questions, keeping in mind how politicians un-derstand these debates and principles.

In the second problem of the present’s responsibility to the future, the approach is to use human rights as today’s basic moral stand-ard. In particular, Bourban explains: “within human rights, there are three that are fundamental: the right to life, the right to health, and the right to subsistence. Climate change violates these basic rights in many ways”. Some examples are the effect on agriculture, or increased coastal floods due to sea level rise putting lives in danger.

Drawing from the exam-ple of climate change, Bour-ban describes how we can incorporate ethics in poli-tics, and more specifically, how to balance rationality and morality in politics. “To-day, rationality is mostly rep-resented by rational choice theory. It is a particular in-terpretation of utilitarian-

ism, and very influential to-day, according to which we improve the collectivity by making a cost-benefit analy-sis”. Economists working on climate change often use this theory. The critique of this approach is that it is in-complete because it focuses on the short term. It should be made more complex by taking into account middle and long-term interests of affluent people and funda-

mental interests of poor and future people.

Morality has a crucial role in politics: to examine the assumptions underlying political positions. “We have to start with notions used in political and economic debates, look at it from a moral perspective, and make a conceptual contribution” explains Bourban. Political debate, in most cases, relies on something that is not clear, distinctions that are used without being made

explicit, such as the notions of “responsibility”, “capac-ity” and “interest”. The goal of philosophy in this case is to remedy this problem by bringing clarity. This is an efficient way to change peo-ple’s minds, by showing that the base of their arguments is flawed. In the case of ra-tionality, we should take the model used and wonder what the moral basis of the argument is, examine why it is good and why it is bad.

Each EYPer should thus keep in mind, during de-bates in committee work and general assembly, how philosophy can help to have a strong outcome. Since So-crates, philosophy addresses what is assumed and ques-tions it. A philosophical ap-proach is to ask people what they think, and why they think that.

Climate change is a good illustration of what philoso-phers can do and how they can contribute to the po-litical debate, by clearing out confusions and undoing a tight knot of ideologies and interests.

“ Morality has a crucial role in politics: to examine the assumptions underly-ing political positions. “

European Young Philosophers

6

SPECTRUMdeve

Committee on Constitutional Affairs I

The creation of a powerful institution with monetary and supervisory pow-ers at the heart of Europe: which role should the European Central Bank (ECB) best play in the Single Supervisory Mechanism (SSM) and how can effective, fair, transparent and democratically accountable supervision of the Europe-an banking sector be guaranteed?

Hugo Dürr

The Single Supervisory Mechanism (SSM) is a mechanism which will be responsible for the

supervision of all Eurozone banks, ensuring the stability of the Euro-zone banking sector. The issue dis-cussed by the committee was how to ensure that the SSM will be an ef-fective, fair, transparent and demo-cratically accountable player in the European banking sector. The un-dertaking becomes more complex with the fact that the SSM is not in place yet, thus there is no solid evi-dence to base discussions on, only the suggested legislation.

After initially reading through the entire resolution, and acquiring a general understanding of the SSM and what it entails, one finds no fundamental additions to what the Single Supervisory Mechanism is al-ready said to impose. The resolution mentions the differentiation be-tween significant and smaller banks, briefly touches upon the opt-in opt-out option for non-Eurozone mem-

bers, as well as the division of direct supervision between the SSM and the national supervisory authori-ties. But all these aspects are already stated in the Treaty Functioning of EU, Article 127/ §6, mentioned in the committee article in Issue 1. (1)

One of the main values the committee focused on was making the aforementioned mechanism as transparent as possible. This is set to be achieved through traceability of decision-making as well as an-nual reports of the SSM’s work. This is proposed with good inten-tions, and a valid point, but it cannot stand alone. This desired level of transparency cannot be maintained in such large organisations as the European Central Bank (ECB) and the European Parliament (EP), one needs more than simply follow the decisions made and read a report every year. Transparency needs to come from lessening the hierarchy of such an organisation, something which is unfortunately terribly bu-reaucratic and rather improbable in

the EU. Additionally, the resolution also authorises the SSM to overrule the decisions of national supervi-sors. This restriction in fiscal sover-eignty is yet another step the EU is taking into the kitchen, closer to the pie it is already eating.

This may all sound bleak, but the committee’s labour have not been fruitless. The resolution also urges the SSM to prioritise its members from the Eurozone above non-members, and this is a clear-cut step in the right direction. Also, the SSM will delegate supervisory powers to local committees, thus spreading command and focusing on not too many banks directly.

The topic of banking and the implementation of this Single Su-pervisory Mechanism is a broad and complex issue, having spent four years in planning with the ECB. That being said, the Committee on Constitutional Affairs I has shown grit and fortitude in completing this challenging question.

1: Spectrum, Issue 1, A New Hall Monitor in the EU Corridors

7

SPECTRUMeconI

Committee on Economic and

Monetary Affairs I

In their resolution, ECON I has found short-term solu-tions to the issue at hand and there is no doubt that the de-

bate was of exceedingly high quality. Sadly, I do not believe the resolution to be the best possible solution to the problems that the Eurozone is facing.

My first concern with the reso-lution is the clause regarding the European Council to formulate a long-term policy discouraging a fis-cal union. One of the main prob-lems of why the Eurozone failed in the first place, was the fact that the central power was inable to form a suitable common fiscal policy. This meant that the heterogenous fis-cal policies left the euro extremely vulnerable to assymetric shocks and with very little ability to react appro-priately in dire situations. At least

from this resolution onwards, the Eurozone‘s set-up remains faulty and vulnerable for the future. With varying inflation rates developing as well as too little fiscal and political integration the euro remains weak.

Whilst the committee has touched upon the Optimal Curren-cy Areas in the introductory clauses they seem to not have found con-crete solutions to the problem. La-bour mobility and the lack of a fiscal transfer mechanism are two issues that have been neglected. Those are two issues of crucial importance for many different facets of this topic.

ECON I’s resolution brings out excellent points, for example sup-porting countries in need with struc-tural and cohesion funds. However, that is a dearly needed amount of extra funding for those affected and they seem to have recognised the

problem but sadly not have solved it. The euro has two potential roads to pick from, and ECON I seem to have picked neither. Over lengthy debates with contrasting opinions they have managed to take a stance, but not one substantial enough to make the difference on a long-term level.

As a bigger picture, a strong po-sition is necessary, specifically a de-cision between a break-up of the Eurozone or a federalisation with full fiscal integration. A middle way cannot end well, as the economies stay vulnerable. This means that in the long-term it can only inevitably lead to the euro‘s break-up, in which case - why wait?

The faulty set-up of the Eurozone? Should the EU compensate for its Member States‘ lost ability to shape monetary policy and how can the is-sue of macroeconomic imbalances within the Union best be addressed?

Theodor Hall

8

SPECTRUMeconII

Committee on Economic and

monetary Affairs II

Culture change within the banking in-dustry: how can the EU support a sec-tor that works better for the general public without driving investment and bankers out of Europe?

The main premise of the resolution by this com-mittee rests upon the stimulation of a more

sustainable banking culture through-out the European Union (EU). For this, amongst others, the commit-tee aims to promote ethical banking and a further cap on bonuses. Fur-thermore they wish to implement a stronger division between commer-cial and investment banking as well as a more continuous and central-ised banking supervision culture.

However ethical banking cer-tainly puts forward a viable alter-native for classic banking activities, the committee might have overdone the effort with their proposal for an ethical banking rating. The danger with an initiative like this is that the level playing field, a fundamental EU principle, gets distorted. Exist-ing ethical banks that receive the certificate might thus experience an unfair advantage over more classic corporations that will have a much harder time conforming towards

these guidelines.The capital split put forward

by the committee appears to be a quite radical measure. This meas-ure demands banks to completely overhaul their corporate structure by implementing a strict top-down dichotomy between commercial and investment banking. The aforemen-tioned severely restricts the freedom of bankers to move around capital. Furthermore, this measure might encourage banks to succumb to pressure, resulting in banks moving out of one of the Member States in order to further continue its activi-ties in a financially more attractive area of the world.

Lastly, the committee has re-solved into a reform of the bonus system in the investment banking sector. The proposal contains a zero per cent start-off bonus accompa-nied by a bonus-malus system, with a cap on 200% of the basic salary. This way it will be possible to also actively decrease the bonus an em-ployee receives if the performances

of this person are unsatisfactory.The criticism on this proposal is

twofold. First of all, the question re-mains if it is desirable that the EU as a governmental institution inter-feres in the internal remuneration system of a business. Next to that it is apparent that this measure could deliver too hard a blow to bank em-ployees, and in turn create an envi-ronment that is overly austere.

The efforts undertaken by the Committee on Economic and Mon-etary Affairs II are most certainly commendable from a client per-spective. The proposed measures tackle the most pressing concerns for those who found distrust in the banking sector in the aftermath of the biggest crisis known to this generation. For the banking sector in the EU however, these propos-als are potentially very harmful as they might drive investment banks out of the Union leaving us with a weakened banking landscape.

Jonathan Piepers

9

SPECTRUMeconIII

Committee on Economic and monetary Affairs III

Off-shore tax havens within and outside Europe: how can Europe jointly address the criminal avoidance of taxes while respecting the citizens’ right to privacy and foreign states’ sovereignty?

Tax havens, being the economic destination for profits of companies trying to avoid tax, are also a big debate in the political agenda of international stakeholders such

as the G8, G20, OECD and the EU. ECON III started out well by agreeing on a com-

mon decision for the term ‘tax haven’ to prevent any misunderstandings on a global level. The committee also jointly explained the following terms: tax eva-sion, criminal activity, and tax avoidance, a merely sneaky way of paying less tax.

The idea of a public blacklist aiming to involve public interest into the topic and facilitate legal pros-ecution in case of a criminal happening, is seen twice in this resolution. One regarding the jurisdictions and the other concerning companies who do aggressive tax planning. Informing the public about tax haven

countries and tax avoiding companies is the same as proving that McDonalds’ is bad for your health. It is true; it concerns the public directly, but it does not make a dif-ference. Instead of hoping for public support, blacklists should only be used as a collection of data for assisting the process of taking action.

On a more European level, the committee has agreed on respecting the fiscal sovereignty of Member States and endorsing previous efforts on country-specific so-lutions. As we say, ‘go big or go home on your own ex-pense’. Why not deal with a big part of the issue with one solution: a fiscal union. The concept is very debatable, but making Europe a stable, self-protecting and attractive economy by unifying monetary systems and putting rea-sonable tax rates for companies is an idea to consider. A fiscal union would eliminate the mismatches among tax governance policies and decrease the amount of profits shifted to offshore jurisdictions, not to mention the nulli-fication of Member State tax havens. Instead ECON III decided to take the other road and improve information exchange between countries and harmonise tax govern-ance policies to a certain extent.

Rather than reducıng tax havens’ attractiveness through excessıve fiscal control, why not try to make your country and in this case a whole continent, a tax haven? Having a stable economy, a privacy-respecting fi-nancial environment and a good economic service struc-ture is an idea that would not hurt.

Berkok Yüksel

10

Committee on Employment

Mitigating skills and qualification mis-match with Europe‘s labour market re-quirements: how can Europe best satisfy the demands of its employers and fu-ture employees in order to improve the employability and prospects of younger generations?

Juan Estheiman Amaya

In a situation such as the one that Europe’s strug-gling with, it is of vital necessity to ensure that its

younger generations have a future regarding labour opportunities. A sustainable educational structure and the development of both short- and long-term solutions to the problem of unemployment need to be developed.

Although the committee has prioritised the development of a broader strategy regarding state and enterprise intervention, it has not taken a concrete stance on who should individually take the initia-tive towards recovery. While its fo-cus includes measures regarding both public and private sectors, a final conclusion on the interrelation between one and the other is not concrete. To what extent will the measures regarding education and subsidies be adaptable on the long

term to a changing labour market’s personal and academic skill require-ments?

Regarding the role that young citizens should play when tackling youth unemployment, the commit-tee has been debating in quite an abstract way about the facilities that the EU can provide to those indi-viduals with the skills required to engage in entrepreneurial activity. Even though it calls upon a frame-work that facilitates entrepreneurial start-ups, it completely disregards a true financial support system for it to be initiated. We have to acknowl-edge that without economic means, skills and talent will eventually still find a way to accomplish their inten-tions, even if outside our borders.

Another problem that I person-ally believe has been insufficiently considered is the endorsement of a youth working culture in Europe. While in many countries through-

out the world, it is youngsters who start looking for a job at an early age because of economic necessities, this is clearly not the case in Europe. Could further social incentives for the young working population or stricter requirements for those ben-efiting from the EU Youth Guar-antee be a sufficient motivation for young people to enter the labour market?

As broad as the topic of youth unemployment is, without an estab-lished goal it is impossible to have an effective long- or short-term out-come. Despite that, the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs has decided upon a series of meas-ures that widely promote social in-clusion, the assessment of our cur-rent labour market’s requirements and a balanced focus from both the private and public sector’s perspec-tives on the short-term.

11

SPECTRUMafcoII

Committee on Constitutional Affairs II

Lobbying the European Parliament (EP) for the common welfare? In the light of discussions about the introduction of a legislative footprint and increased civic participation, what strategy should the EP adopt towards interest representa-tion and Non-Governmental Organisa-tions (NGOs) as legitimate partners in policy- making?

ProsThe Committee on Constitutional Affairs II definitely takes a clear stance on legisla-tive transparency by introducing a legisla-

tive footprint. By including an annex to each legisla-tion explaining who influenced what clauses it will be easier to balance different stakeholder interests. In addition to benefiting the democratic process, the footprint will also serve as positive publicity for lob-byists, whose job will be more recognized and ap-preciated. In other words, having this sort of expert’s bibliography for pieces of legislation may boost both the positions of the lobbyist and MEPs, as it shows to the general public that both have done their job. Furthermore, the committee takes a very firm step by making the transparency register mandatory for the Commission, Parliament and Council. Especially with the introduction of regulation for the Council, an institution that up to now has received enormous uncontrolled pressure from stakeholders at the na-tional level, increased democratic transparency will be an evident consequence.

ConsRegulation and prohibition can have a down-side and in this way, one can argue that the position adopted by AFCO II may negatively

hinder the lobbying phenomenon. It is possible that small interest groups, usually the weaker stakeholders, may be intimidated by the mandatory registration and the strong penalties for false information which may prevent them from getting involved. Even the Bundestag, the German Parliament, which currently has the strongest lobbying regulation in Europe, leaves more room for exceptions and flexibility in its registry than what AFCO II propos-es. Ultimately, the representation of interest may suffer as a consequence of the proposed resolution. There is an attempt to control the phenomenon of lobbying; de-ciding the time, place and means where the interactions can take place, while simultaneously ignoring some im-portant and established procedures. For example there is already a rule that inhibits non-registered lobbyists from accessing the parliamentary building unescorted, leading to the question of what is the reason behind this more extreme attempt to restrict contact is?

In addition to overregulating the lobbying industry, there might also be an overregulation of the actions of Members of European Parliament (MEP’s). A cool-off period of two years restricting MEPs from working in companies signed up in the registry is definitely a breach of freedom and an excessive step, especially if the other steps by the committee are so focused on increasing the members of the transparency register. The problem of conflict of interests ought to be regulated solely by the code of conduct. One might therefore very well conclude that the resolution of AFCO II could infringe upon civil liberties and participative democracy. Manfredi Danielis

12

SPECTRUMcult

Committee on Culture and

Education

The Committee on Cul-ture and Education put the emphasis on guar-anteeing a free and plu-

ralistic media in all Member States by a Pan-European press regulation whilst sustaining European democ-racy. They agreed that the role of the media in a democracy is not only to provide the public with informa-tion and diverse ideas, but also to serve as investigator and ensure the accountability of public representa-tives, thus to act as a fourth estate. Also, transparency and a critical ap-proach are crucial to ensure a fitting outcome for the solution.

In order to ensure an independ-ent and pluralistic media in all Member States, the committee calls for the European Commission to establish the Pan European Regu-latory Body (PERB). While estab-lishing a new body is probably one

of the mainstream solutions and nothing revolutionary in EYP, it is rather rare that the respective com-mittee elaborates on that like CULT does. Starting with the necessary legislative procedure to establish the PERB, to delivering warnings and fines should a Member State fail to respect and maintain the EU media freedom guidelines, the PERB is well thought through.

However, the resolution has suf-ficiently failed to address the issue of increasing European identity. The proposed online social media campaign is nothing innovative ei-ther, which does not deter from it is overall quality, aiming mainly at the younger generation and is thus inaccessible for the older genera-tion. Additionally, the resolution is undoubtedly missing a long-term solution to the problem.

Furthermore, this resolution

lacks in the field of cultural sensi-tivity. Having solely two representa-tives of each Member State in the PERB will never manage to address the full array of cultural particulari-ties incumbent in these countries. If one wants to create an all-encom-passing strategy to impose mini-mum standards in the media sector, surely a wider reach is vital.

Moreover, the resolution con-tains a few clauses which do not contribute to the solution as a whole and give the impression of just fill-ing the resolution, like congratulat-ing the EuroParlTV for providing a source of information on European matters.

Taking it all into account, the question remains if this resolution suggests too much press regulation, hence, hindering the freedom of press or should another alternative be found?

Working with the watchdogs: re-sponding to recent concerns about media regulation in the United King-dom and Hungary, how should Eu-ropean decision-makers in tandem with the ‘fourth estate’ achieve free and pluralistic media that sus-tain European democracy? Lia

Pachler

13

SPECTRUMfemm

Committee on Women’s Rights and

Gender Equality

‘Glass ceiling’ effect vs. low public pan-European support for gender quotas: learning from the early lessons of the Commission’s strategy for equality between men and women 2010-2015 and the Coun-cil of Europe’s (CoE) Gender Equality Programme of 2012, how should European stakeholders seek to achieve gender parity across the continent?

The Committee on Wom-en’s Rights and Gender Equality have spent the past three days discuss-

ing an issue, which is one that has always caused very heated and ideo-logical debates. For FEMM this has been no different. However, these lively discussions have not stimulat-ed the committee enough to come with up creative, effective and nec-essary solutions.

The focus that FEMM set from the very beginning was one concen-trating on the cultural position of women in society. Stereotypes and misconceptions concerning wom-en were noted as one of the pri-mary problems concerning women achieving gender parity in Europe. Stereotypes and misconceptions are

harmful for job-seeking women and the committee on FEMM have tak-en an ambitious approach that tries to solve these socio-cultural issues, which lacks feasibility.

Culture change is definitely the key issue concerning this topic. This is also exactly what FEMM has tried to achieve however the approach taken lacks the tackling of struc-tural problems. Through structural reforms on the labour market, such as the implementation of gender quotas, FEMM could have changed culture through politics. This pro-cess would have been more realistic because a more structural strategy will be able to change the culture in a relatively short time.

FEMM has clearly chosen to tackle the relevant socio-cultural

problems with a bottom up ap-proach by, for example, trying to help women during their education by increasing women’s knowledge on their possibilities for their fu-ture careers through having certain career days in school. The problem with an approach like this one is that it is less practical than taking a top down approach to this issue, such as labour market reforms. FEMM are clearly trying to nip their problems in the bud. The problem that arises with this though, is that it will be ex-tremely difficult to achieve results in society in the short term. And with regards to the decreasing workforce in Europe, FEMM will not be able to be successful in solving this ma-jor issue that is heavily entwined with their topic.

Karim Ben Hamda

14

SPECTRUMimco

Committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection

Linking the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy to public procurement policy: building on current reform proposals modernising tendering in the EU to guar-antee ‘best value for money’, which cri-teria and instruments should the EU and its Member States use in order to ensure transparent, efficient and competitive use of public funds?

Public procurement, the process by which a state, regional or local author-ity governed by public law

purchases works, goods and ser-vices from the private sector, falls under the category of exclusive competences of the EU. Current European-wide procurement pro-cedures provide transparency and objectivity in public procurement which results in considerable sav-ings which benefits Member States’ taxpayers. Thus the Committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO), in comparison to other committees, begun with a substantial advantage of having a broad scope of competences.

However, the resolution does suffer from major gaps, mainly due to the lack of attention paid to the last Directive proposal on public procurement. While the directive proposal successfully tackles the

majority of twenty-first century re-lated topics such as ecological and social, or the usage of internet, this resolution takes a step back. The committee suggests that Member States should have the ultimate right to choose the option that best fits their needs. Although the Member states are still sovereign entities on the global scale, when handling an issue falling under the internal mar-ket of the EU we should be certainly considering our common interests and needs. Otherwise we might eas-ily become diversified in diversity.

Considering the aim of the com-mittee, which was guaranteeing the best value for 18% of public funds (the amount of GDP within the EU member states spend on public procurement) through setting crite-ria and instruments of public pro-curement, the resolution could have gone more into depth. Especially in the era of economic crisis it is nec-

essary to face the reality and fight corruption. On the one hand the committee admits corruption leads to losses of funds but on the other hand it does not offer any solutions. An option that was not considered is e-procurement, which has previ-ously been introduced in several Member States.

Certainly, there are several strong points of the resolution such as consortia as a solution for small and medium enterprises and the support for research. However, the resolu-tion lacks a clear stance on the top-ic. My expectation to see the com-mittee’s understanding of the best value for money was not fulfilled as simply balancing quality and price cannot be considered sufficient. For the next time, I would suggest leave the empty phrases for public speak-ing and concentrate on concrete measures in committee work.

Zuzana Holakóvska

15

SPECTRUMlibe

Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs

The fear of rising ‘benefit tourism’: an-ticipating the removal of the restric-tions to free movement for Bulgarian and Romanian citizens in 2014 and bear-ing in mind complaints of unequal access to social benefits within the Union, how should basic EU liberties be safeguarded whilst considering the socio-economic pressures placed upon the welfare sys-tems of Member States?

When assessing the work of the Com-mittee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE), it is evident that the significant effort of both

its members and chairperson should be applauded. Their resolution however does contain several as-pects with which one can easily and fundamentally disagree. Perhaps the most important conclusion that can be drawn from LIBE’s work is that there is the fine line between upholding the EU’s core values and ensuring economic stability.

Having closely observed LIBE at work, it must be said that their understanding of the topic is impres-sive. The committee felt very strongly that intra-EU migration is beneficial to the economic welfare of the entire Union. They did, however, omit a signifi-cant consequence of large-scale migration. LIBE is right when they argue that large amounts of immi-

grants suddenly entering a Member States’ labour mar-ket will result in increased competition for jobs; driving down wages and increasing the competitiveness of the nation as a whole. However, this increased competition will also force many native workers out of the labour market, subsequently putting pressure on governmental social assistance schemes. I wonder if by omitting this notion, LIBE has fully considered all consequences of their proposed measures.

Of the measures proposed by LIBE, their concept of a ‘blacklist’ can be considered the most prudent and effective, although only time will tell whether it is actu-ally feasible. Furthermore, although LIBE felt strongly that the freedom of movement should not be impugned, they do exactly that when banning an individual from a country after abusing its welfare system. For the sake of consistency, it might be better to consider not only ban-ning such an individual from a single Member State, but rather to contain him in his country of origin instead.

The significant effort LIBE invested into associated issues occurring from benefit tourism and large-scale im-migration should also be praised. Providing support for sending countries in order to reduce the economic imbal-ances that can prompt individuals to emigrate is an effec-tive, albeit very long-term solution. Furthermore, finan-cially supporting receiving Member States is an integral aspect of their resolution. Unfortunately however, these last two are fundamentally contradicting. This support to the receiving countries must be financed by the sending countries themselves, leading to a bizarre situation where nations are obliged to sustain their own citizens living off the social assistance scheme’s of other Member States.

To call LIBE’s efforts ‘solid’ would be a serious un-derstatement. There are, however, significant aspects of their solution that are debatable or inconsistent. The resolution might very well pass in GA, but LIBE should expect, and welcome, an interesting and lively debate!

Dirk Hofland

16

SPECTRUMdeve

Committee on Development

A framework for ‘common but differ-entiated global responsibilities’: how should Europe contribute to a fair dis-tribution of the costs for climate miti-gation and adaptation between the de-veloped and the developing world?

Rebecca Smith

The Committee on De-velopment was charged with the arduous task to distribute the costs of

climate change. The topic deals with several controversial points, such as the historically loaded relationship between developed and developing countries, and whether historical emissions should be taken into ac-count in further climate legislation.

Although the resolution makes some interesting points and con-crete contributions, it does not take a strong ideological stance, which is a pity considering the topic. The greatest piece missing from the resolution is a legislative answer to climate change. There is a signifi-cant debate on whether the most effective solution is to improve the Kyoto protocol, or to create a new treaty from scratch. The committee did not address this issue in the res-olution. Instead, it focused solely on the EU’s responsibility to shoulder

the costs of climate change mitiga-tion and adaptation, rather than its responsibility to lead a global uni-fied action against climate change.

A greatly innovative point the committee agreed upon is the crea-tion of an index to categorise coun-tries according to their emissions. This would replace the separation of “developed” and “developing” countries made in the Kyoto Pro-tocol which are no longer relevant. This index would be based on the Human Development Index and emissions per capita, and thus con-sider both the economic capacity of the country to take on the cost of climate change, and its contribution to the problem. This is a concrete manifestation of the concept of Common but Differentiated Re-sponsibilities, where each country is held accountable for its emissions, but only to the extent of its capaci-ties.

The committee had to take a po-

sition on the heavily debated topic of whether the present generation is responsible for the previous genera-tion’s emissions. It decided to com-pletely ignore previous emissions, and start the index in the present. Although it would solve the debate and make an agreement more pal-atable for some countries, for ex-ample the US, climate negotiations have been going on for two decades and it seems a little odd to com-pletely disregard this time period, its targets and tragic short fallings.

The index would allow categori-sation, but what would this be use-ful for if there is no progress in leg-islation?

Overall, the committee offers some realistic solutions to the prob-lem, but they could have been far more ambitious in their aim con-cerning what the EU could achieve in the fight against climate change, and reflect a clear opinion on the topic.

17

SPECTRUMenviI

Committee on Environment, Public Health

And Food Safety I

How to improve the cur-rent measurement of development was the topic of ENVI I’s viv-

id discussions during these past days of committee work. Their topic be-ing rather technical demanded both concrete yet innovative answers.

The approach ENVI I has taken to answer this question is an inter-esting one. They acknowledged that GDP is not always functional when it comes to measuring development. However instead of dealing with these failures the committee decid-ed to improve the already existing measurement of Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI). GPI does improve what GDP lacks in the field of so-cial and environmental factors. The problem is that GPI is still in its early stages of development and it lacks certain characteristics. As GPI is an

improved version of GDP it also includes some of its weak points, for instance the fact that GDP in-creases after a natural disaster giving the economy a false impression of growth.

Two other problems GPI faces the definition of the cost of crime and the operationalisation of things which are difficult to define objec-tively. Is crime defined as the pure loss of money or does sentimental-ity have an impact to some extent? In order for the indicator to be functional the monetary value of similar goods should always remain the same, which is rather difficult to achieve. GPI has also been criticised for being overly ideological; as it de-fines well-being according to a spe-cific ideal. It is said to be unable to measure common goals of a diverse and plural society, as is the Europe-

an Union.Environmental and social sus-

tainability are both tackled well within the discussions. Both were partly solved by the introduction of the GPI and the updated criteria for the EU funds given to countries falling under the specified cap of GPI, however one crucial factor is left unattended. As GPI only takes into account pollution as a reduc-ing factor, the actual environmental sustainability of production is left unattended.

Apart from the criticism, ENVI I does provide a feasible and realis-tic solution to the question at hand. There is no such thing as a perfect indicator as there are too many ele-ments in the equation, which makes it impossible to reflect reality with 100% accuracy.

Beyond Gross Domestic Product (GDP): in the light of the ‘Trio Pro-gramme’ priority for Europe to look beyond growth in capital, how should Europe consider environ-mental progress, well-being and other indicators alongside more traditional measures of development?

Waltter Suominen

18

Committee on Environment, Public

Health And Food Safety IIBearing the risks and reaping the bene-fits of genetically modified crops: what stance should Europe take considering both their potential to boost agricul-tural production and efficiency world-wide as well as the environmental, pub-lic health and socio-economic impact of their application?

Conall O’Rourke

The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety spent two days of com-

mittee work tirelessly working to develop an acceptable Europe-wide stance on Genetically Modified Crops. To fully understand the com-plexity of this task we need only look at their discussion. Economics, foreign trade, social impact, political implications, and agricultural sus-tainability were a few of the areas extending from this topic and as a result it is important to remember that the goal of the committee was to simply form a stance on the issue.

Overall, the core focus of the committee was on preserving health and safety standards and ensur-ing constant development without compensating on safety. As such, the common opinion was that cur-rent EU legislation, restrictions, and complex procedures, whilst creat-ing disincentives for farmers and greatly slowing the uptake of new technologies, were necessary for en-vironmental and public health secu-

rity. However, a clear distinction was drawn between commercial GMO introduction, and GMO research and development. The committee was largely of the opinion that to compensate for the stringent legisla-tion, greater flexibility and incentive should be placed on research on and development of new GM technolo-gies. The ultimate hope here was to minimise all potential risks both to citizens and the environment.

Misinformation was attributed to much of the scepticism and nega-tive attitudes towards GMOs and highlighted as a problem on both consumer and governmental level. To tackle this, focus was placed on both traceability, and labelling re-quirements, so that consumers can be better informed and govern-ments will have the data to allow for more effective decision making.

Overall, the committee played a very conservative game with few risky or controversial approaches pursued beyond a short discussion. It was apparent that much of the committee approached the topic

with common ideologies and beliefs that channelled the discussion in quite a linear direction. This meant that there was little thought put into the fact that maybe the risk to pub-lic health is not significant enough to justify such strict and, as afore-mentioned, economically restricting policies. In terms of the misconcep-tions and labelling, again the linear thought process overlooked the fact that perhaps more information i.e. percentage of GM contents and traceability to source, fails to pro-vide consumers with useful infor-mation on what effect, if any, that .9% GM content actually will have on their bodies. Information needs to be focused on the misconcep-tions about the threat of GM, rath-er than simply information on the products’ origins.

Perhaps if more time was avail-able, or the topic was more specific the committee could have taken the debate to more interesting and crea-tive areas.

19

SPECTRUMinta

Committee on International Trade

China’s monopoly on rare earth ele-ments (REEs): how should Europe help to guarantee sustainable supply of REEs, whilst ensuring the viability of re-serves and reducing the environmental impact of their mining worldwide?

INTA is clearly looking into the future. The goals they have set out to achieve include re-ducing dependence on rare earth elements (REEs), re-opening mines in the EU and de-

creasing demand for REEs by emphasising recycling, alternative product design and finding substitutes for REEs.China has stated two major reasons for reducing its export quotas – negative impact on the environment and ensuring of domestic supply. Although environ-mental damage resonates in China’s GDP by making up 6% of it, the first reason seems a bogus excuse, as China’s methods are known for their neglect to-wards nature and sustainability. INTA cleverly sug-gests sharing experts and eco-friendly technologies with the Chinese in order to reduce damage to the nature to the minimum so that China would not be able to use this excuse anymore. Although this could be a good solution in the environmental regard, it does not exactly address the real issue – production of technology is ever increasing in China, meaning

that they need more REEs. Also, the implementation of these new and better technologies would take a long time, still leaving the rest of the world without the des-perately needed metals. Trying to offer a short term solution, INTA encourages agreements with other REE-producing countries, there-fore creating a more varied network of imports in the future. However, as China produces nearly 100% of the global supply, these agreements would be of little help in relieving the shortage now. Achieving a sufficient level of production in other countries would take a too long a time.For long term solutions, INTA emphasises subsidising research to find alternatives to REEs and the importance of sustainable design while keeping in mind future recy-cling when creating new technologies, making it easier to extract the REEs and other important materials from the waste. Furthermore, INTA brings out the importance of a reliable infrastructure, making it easy for people to properly dispose of their waste. According to INTA, ur-ban mining is an important concept, ensuring the neces-sary sustainability and flow of resources. Finally, future reopening of mines in the EU would grant us independ-ence from China.Furthermore, INTA endorses the EU’s support for Chi-na in combating illegal mining, and believes in the im-portance of introducing a tax penalty for companies that buy their materials from mining companies which do not ensure environmental sustainability. This tax would be applied only after a balance has been achieved between demand and supply.Although INTA has offered sufficient answers for the problem in the long term, the actions proposed for short term relief do not seem to be enough to ensure our nec-essary supply now. Luckily, long term sustainability seems guaranteed with this resolution, ideally granting a bright

Kaarle Olav Varkki

20

SPECTRUMitre

Committee on Industry, Research

and Energy

Emission trading vs. carbon tax in the absence of an international agreement: working towards a decarbonised Euro-pean economy whilst trying to maintain global competitiveness, which reforms and policies should the EU pursue at home in order to further reduce green-house gas emissions?

Tackling climate change is one of the most heated discussions of our times. It presents

one of the rare cases in which many do not limit themselves to passion-ate discussions, but also take serious action to prevent the scary scenarios of global warming. People use an-noying but energy-efficient light bulbs, public transport is favoured over private cars, and those more passionate even become vegetarian to tackle this issue in their very own way.

ITRE however did not go for risky solutions. The vast majority of the committee members were in fa-vour of keeping the existing Emis-sion Trading Scheme (ETS) from the beginning. The main reason for this was the already existing legal and structural basis. The committee judged that the ETS, despite its nu-merous problems, is a scheme that if implemented appropriately can actually meet the 2020 goals. The

advantages of a carbon tax were acknowledged, but after a quick compromise it was not considered as an option since the impacts, par-ticularly the economic ones, can be unpredictable. No risk means that one does not lose much, but it also means that one does not gain much.

The committee identified the main flaws of the existing system and tried to find adequate solutions to regulate the market. One of the central proposals is to implement a minimum price of carbon, which will increase gradually from 6€ up to 25€ a tonne in 2020. The aim is to make polluting more expensive and thus to encourage investment in eco-friendly technologies. Choos-ing a gradual increase of the price instead of fixing it from the start might not have the same wished environmental impacts, but this is necessary to strike a balance with regards to the economic impacts. Another concrete proposal is the incentive to increase the percentage

of the reductions of each year from 1,74% to at least 2,6% a year.

However, some of the proposals are relatively vague and general. The call for structural reforms without any specific possible measures or the ways in which the allocation should be run by the national governments lack necessary details of their im-plementation. The same goes for the idea to increase the proportion of auctioned allowances and the integration of several international emission trading schemes. The issue of the maintenance of global com-petitiveness of the EU could have been addressed in a more detailed way.

This resolution does not bring a revolution in the already disturbed market of the ETS. It does not radically reform it or take a turning point. And yet, as many bold politi-cal experiments of the past years in the EU are struggling, maybe it is better to go the safe way.

Aida Grishaj

21

Speeches in EYP; sometimes dreaded, but more often a misconceived concept: Waltter Suominen and Jonathan Piepers take a look into this often overlooked yet vi-tal part of the General Assembly.

Letters on Paperand Vocal Performance

Speech writing is a familiar practice within EYP. The actual process of speech writing differs between individuals, with the resulting conclu-sion that there are many ways to write a ‘good

speech’. However, there are certain principles that should be kept in mind.

Structure is the most important factor in any speech. Every speech must have a clearly defined beginning, mid-dle and ending. Furthermore, the argument must follow a logical progression.

Regarding content, do not be afraid to show this pas-sion. The more personal the speech is, the easier it will be for the writer to present it in an engaging way. However, it is important to remember that while passion is recom-mended, one needs to always harbour a critical mind. As subjectivity tends to make one blind to the obvious answers, an objective mind might discover flaws in their own argument and remedy them sufficiently.

Considering EYP speeches, it is vital to remember the time constraints. Thus, be as straightforward as possible, without unnecessary metaphors. Use the words you are comfortable with and write from the heart.

A big part of speech writing is remembering that it is essentially, a performance. Make sure that you do more than just read what you have written down, because a written text does not always correspond to the needs of a public performance.

If you are generally not as confident with public speak-ing then start with observing other speakers and learn from them; TED talks are a great source of inspiration.

Then again, make sure to adapt to your own per-sonal style in order to convey a genuine message. A good tool for this is to concentrate on the message and not the medium. This will help you move away from your own anxieties and move outwardly towards your audience, because in the end they are your main focus.

Next to these motivational tips, there are some practicalities you want to take into account. Try to give yourself stage hints when writing down your speech, use big fonts and only write on one side of the pages you use and number them. So if there would be one tagline for the perfect speech it would be: take all of the guesswork out of the equation and prepare, but do not forget to be passionate.

SPECTRUMadvice

22

Above all, I must admit that I totally agree with the fact that this topic must be looked at from two completely dif-ferent angle.It is quite obvious that in order to boost their efficiency and in the meantime minimise their risks, GMOs have to be strictly debated about. However, we might argue that the risks outweigh the benefits, while some see it as the other way around. Science and technology are moving for-ward faster day by day and it is probably the humans who cannot really keep up with that speed. This might as well be a cause of a negative attitude towards GM engineer-ings. On the other hand, it is vital that for people to have enough information as to be able to make a correct and argumented decision.

I truly enjoyed reading this article, as it applied one of the best known models on organisational behav-iour to EYP and analysed the activities we under-take through this filter. The dimensions Hofstede introduced are definitely applicable to our organisa-tion and can help us understand the EYP sessions a lot better. What EYP has taught me though is that generalisations are dangerous: two delegates from the same country can possess the two opposing traits of the same dimension, having different per-spectives on how they perceive e.g. power distance, individualism or uncertainty. Nevertheless this does not substract from the validity of Hofstede’s study and its applicability to the EYP structure, and I be-lieve it is important to understand what role group dynamics and individual traits play in EYP.

Andrea Pop Suri on ‘GMO?! more like GMOh-No!’

Kinga Darida on‘EYP: The culture behind the name’

Reflecting on our article on recommendations (Spectrum Issue 3), in which we discussed the competitive side of EYP, we

thought of one of the more obvious com-petitions, who has the most dapper suit? In this edition of EYP analysis, we will try and shed some light on the formal fash-ion competition amongst certain male EYPers.

As we are completely oblivious to fe-male fashion – except that we know that many women consider any skirt or dress “GA appropriate”– we have decided that for the purpose of this article we will lim-it ourselves solely to tendencies in male fashion in EYP.

The General Assembly is the highlight of every EYP session. The participants of the session gather together to engage in the core activity of EYP, debating. The raging style war has unfortunately been overshadow-ing what we hold so highly in our organisation, these debates. Naturally, fashion can be an inte-

gral part of many people’s lives and people wish to express their individuality by dress-

ing in a certain manner. However, when one observes the effort put in to having the most stylish suit and the growing competitive edge to this occurrence, one could conclude that argumentation and rhetoric seem to have been replaced by cufflinks and bow ties.

In the end though, what does a suit sym-bolise? Suits, represent an upper-class cul-ture that is undeniably part of a wealthier side of society. An interesting thought is how this ties in (pun intended) to EYP. Without a shadow of a doubt EYPers mostly come from an educated and rich up-per echelon, one of the reasons for what on could call EYPelitarianism. We often forget, in our organisation, just how exclusionary we as an organisation can be. Considering we are an organisation that is tailored (pun intended)

to ‘dialogue and social inclusion’ we still per-sistently neglect to involve people that maybe

couldn‘t afford a Saville Row tie.

Tie-rarchy

In this article our very own fashionistas and experts on EYP haute couture, Dirk Hofland, Theodor Hall and Karim Ben Hamda, take a look at fashion culture in EYP.

SPECTRUMtierarchy

23

SPECTRUMeconII

Readers’ Letters

Thank you to everyone who has taken the chance to send in their comments on the ar-ticles in Spectrum. If you have further comments, criticism, corrections or anything else to say concerning our products, you still have the chance to do so for all Issues until Sunday, July 28. Submit your contribution to zurichmediateam@gmail.com or to a journalist. All letters will be published online after the session.

Don‘t speak for the mere sake of it.As the time for the debates in GA is limited, del-

egates are required to plan their comments accordingly. Following the discussion closely and making sure to not make any points that have already been mentioned is crucial. Also, it is very much appreciated to rather make constructive points than asking questions as this con-tributes to a more fruitful debate. It is important to be both clear and concise in order contribute to the effi-ciency of the debate.

Do not make an attack speech if you are not attacking the resolution.

Far too often we hear an Attack Speech beginning with, “I think this is a good resolution, but...” This is not an attack speech. An attack speech should only be made when you fundamentally disagree with the resolu-tion. If you fundamentally disagree with the resolution, you do not find it a “good”. You can appreciate the time and efforts put into the resolution and still respectfully disagree with it.

Don’t be personal. Points starting with “In the country where I come

from…” are preferably to be left out of the discussion. Even though one could argue that they bring a unique perspective to the debates, the resolution will be affect-ing the EU as a whole. We are here not only as citizens of our countries, but also as citizens of Europe. There-fore, if one is concerned that the interests of the own country are infringed, elaborate objectively.

Don’t be disrespectful.Committee work was not tiring for your committee

exclusively. The process of writing a resolution can be frustrating at times and both mentally and physically ex-hausting. A resolution represents the preparation and the work of an entire committee. Mind your language and your tone. Some debates can be heated indeed, but that does not justify losing your temper at any point. Again, objectivity is key.

4 Dont‘s for the GA

Hugo Dürr, Aida Grishaj and Lia Pachler ellabo-rate on the unwritten rules of the General Assembly.

24