“The European Union is a political and economical union of 28 countries. EU policies aim to ensure the free movement of people, goods, services, and capital within the internal market, enact legislation in justice and home affairs, and maintain common policies on trade, agriculture, fisheries, and regional development. Within the Schengen Area, passport controls have been abolished.” (Wikipedia)

Member states are located primarily in Europe, however not every country from Europe as a continent is in there. Some countries with the strong economy like Switzerland do not want to belong to the EU and those small groups of developing countries bordered by the EU members like Ukraine, Georgia or Montenegro would like to be a part of the EU, but cannot because of their unstable economical situations. 

Let me tell you about most common ways to go to the EU, if you do not possess a European pass, using Ukrainian citizenship as an example. Average monthly salary in Ukraine is 6000 UAH [Ukrainian Hryvnia, ed.] according to Trading Economics and some students get a government scholarship which is not more than 30 Euros. In Ukraine, it is possible to survive for 100 Euros per month, but in the EU prices are different.

1) If you are a student
AEGEE-Kyiv members want to go to AEGEE-Budapest for a Civic Education conference for three days. They are allowed to get a visa when the invitation from AEGEE-Budapest (with all stamps and so on) is provided but only for this period of time. So they pay like 140 Euros for a round trip without an opportunity to stay longer to have a look around, plus they pay a visa fee. The same applies to study trips or any short term trips to the EU for which you can provide an invitation.

2) If you want to study in the EU
Many Ukrainians choose Germany for the universities to have quality education and pay no tuition fees. To get a student visa, you have to bring an account statement of 8500 Euros to the German embassy as a prove that you are not going to beg and have enough money for living. You have to show this bank statement each year to extend your student visa, whereas it does not matter whether you are a good student or not. Not to mention how many years Ukrainians have to spend to gather this amount of money, and once you are enrolled, you are not allowed to withdraw more than 650 Euros from this account since it is blocked while you are studying.

3) If you want to travel around Europe
To get a tourist visa for the EU to travel or to visit your relatives and friends, you as Ukrainian are going to go through fire and water. I am not kidding! To get a tourist visa officially from the embassy you have to provide a bank statement (from 1000 Euros on, depending on the trip duration), plus a сertificate on real estate, plus a certificate of marriage and having children, plus a certificate of employment, plus either booked hotels or an invitation by those who are going to host you, and to top off all of that, booked round tickets with dates. Why? Because the EU government is afraid that all Ukrainians are obsessed with the idea to work illegally somewhere in Europe.

Because of current unemployment and iniquity, many Ukrainians are informally employed, so they cannot provide a certificate of employment to the embassy. To get a tourist visa they go to any tour operator, who writes a fake certificate of employment and also a fake bank statement since it is impossible to prove 2000 Euros on an account while earning 200 Euros monthly. Furthermore, it is actually dangerous to have a bank account in Ukraine, since at any time the bank can go broke and vanish with all your money. The tour operator asks three times the price for a tourist visa compared to the embassy, but for many Ukrainians, it is the only chance to go to the EU.

In addition, you have to travel to Kyiv for fingerprinting (which are actually already in Ukrainian biometric passports), so you need to consider the time and money you will spend for this trip (Ukraine is the Europe’s biggest country if you did not know).

The process for getting the EU visa is super expensive and demanding. Most of Ukrainians are happy to be Ukrainians and do not want to leave their country. Yet, why are they not allowed to travel right after buying a ticket like their neighbour countries and have to spend years for saving money for a bank statement or find illegal ways to visit their friends?

The EU and Kyiv began visa liberalisation negotiations in 2008. At the end of 2015, the European Commission concluded that Ukraine had made the necessary progress and had met all the benchmarks, despite the exceptional internal and external challenges it faced in recent years and presented a proposal to grant its citizens visa-free access to the EU in April 2016. The legislation was signed by the Parliament’s President Antonio Tajani and representatives of the Maltese Presidency of the Council on Wednesday 1st of March and will enter into force 20 days after it is published in the EU Official Journal. Once the change enters into force and provided they have biometric passports, Ukrainians will be able to enter the EU for up to 90 days in any 180-day-period for business, tourist or family purposes.

Of course, Ukrainians will not have the right to work or study in the EU, but at least it will be so much easier for them to visit AEGEE or Erasmus friends and to travel this big world without such strong limitations.

P.S Great MMA Fighter Genki Sudo did not come down to the ring with a flag of his native country. Instead, he had a flag unifying us as equals. What if we all do the same?

Written by Aliona Sytnyk, AEGEE-Berlin

To Brexit or not to Brexit: that is the question. Though this be Brexit, yet there is method in‘t.  Can one desire too much of a Brexit? The thing we call a Brexit would be just the same if we called it by any other name. Despite the badly quoted bits of Shakespeare, people do wonder: should the United Kingdom leave the European Union? What is the thought behind it? Do people think too much of it? And why did people come up with such a lame and catchy name for this? Some of these questions, and more, will be answered.

Qu’est-ce qu’est un Brexit?

The word ‘Brexit’ is a contraction of the words Britain and exit, and refers to a possible event of the UK, colloquially dubbed Britain, to leave or exit the European Union. This decision will be submitted to the British public in a nonbinding referendum on Thursday, the 23^rd of June 2016, meaning that British Members of the Parliament could block a Brexit. Regardless of a possible block, British, Irish and Commonwealth citizens over 18, who are resident in the UK, UK nationals living abroad, and members of the House of Lords and Commonwealth citizens in Gibraltar can vote on polling day on the following question, “Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?”.

Doctor ehm… Politician Who?

The British public seems to be quite evenly split on the matter of leaving the EU. The same goes for the MPs of the ruling Conservative Party in the UK Parliament. The UK Independence Party (UKIP), who won 12.6% of the popular vote in the 2015 UK General Elections, is in favour of secession, just as several MPs of the Labour Party, the largest opposition party, and of the right-wing Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) (Wheeler).

While the Conservative Party has pledged to remain neutral in the referendum campaign, British Prime Minister and leader of the Conservatives, David Cameron, has come out in support for staying in the EU. The Labour Party, Scottish National Party (SNP), Liberal Democrats (Lib Dems) and Plaid Cymru (Party of Wales), being the second, third, fourth and seventh largest parties in the UK, have all spoken out in favour of staying in the EU. The EU, not willing to see its second largest economy leave the Union, would also not want the UK to leave (Wheeler).

ACTOR (amazed): Why?

The two main arguments in Britain for leaving the EU centre on economics and border security. Pro-secession groups state that the EU imposes too many rules on businesses and charges billions of pounds annually in membership fees, which both reduce, if not cripple, economic output in Britain. Another big issue is the EUs relatively loose restrictions on travel between its member countries. The pro-secession camp advocates stronger borders for the UK and more direct control of those borders by the UK government (Wheeler).

The two main British arguments for staying in the EU, also centre around economics and border security. Anti-secession groups point out that it is economically more beneficent to stay in the EU, because of free-trade agreements between member states and those between the EU and non-member countries (Wheeler).

Regarding border security, some British politicians point out the importance of collectively managing the flow of immigrants throughout the EU. Others point out that staying in the EU is critical in order to maintain the British border control in Calais, France. This is crucial, because the UK is not obligated to provide asylum to people who are not in Britain, like those who are prevented from travelling to Britain at the UK border checkpoint in Calais (Wintour).
David Chameleon

British Prime Minister, David Cameron, had initially resisted calls for a ‘Brexit referendum’, but changed his mind in 2013 due to the level of influence of EU policies in Britain. After the Conservatives won the UK General Election in 2015, they pushed for a referendum, which started negotiations between the UK and the EU.

Cameron has recently made a deal with the other EU member states that will go into effect should Britain vote for staying in the EU (Wheeler). This deal gives the UK more control over its own border security, limits further influence of EU regulations on Britain and other member states, and protects UK financial institutions, most notably those in the City of London and the Bank of England. This deal, in turn, has made Prime Minister Cameron argue for staying in the European Union.

The terms of our divorce

If a majority of Britons should vote in favour of leaving the EU, then the United Kingdom would not have seceded on the next day. Even if British MPs would not block the referendum, Article 50 of the EU’s ‘divorce clause’ states that secession from the European Union would be preceded by a two-year negotiation phase (Karnitschnig). As a member state, Britain has signed a lot of treaties with the EU over the years that would require many months of redefining, renegotiation, and rewriting, before any secession could be finalised. However, since a secession from the European Union has never happened before, there are hardly any provisions.

What do the AEGEEans say?

Being a youth forum that advocates for European integration, some AEGEE locals are involved in projects to discuss the ‘Brexit referendum’. AEGEE-Canterbury, as a chief example, has organised a debate regarding the UK’s membership within the EU, and has been actively campaigning for staying in the EU. AEGEE-Manchester, to name another, is trying to organise an event in May that would try to focus on the positive aspects of the relation between the United Kingdom and the European Union.

Written by Willem Laurentzen, AEGEE-Nijmegen

Works Cited

Karnitschnig, Matthew, and Nicholas Hirst. “A long, costly and messy divorce.” Politico 2 Mar. 2016: n. pag. Web. 25 Mar. 2016.

Wheeler, Brian, and Alex Hunt. “The UK’s EU referendum: All you need to know.”BBC 24 Mar. 2016: n. pag. Web. 25 Mar. 2016.

Wintour, Patrick, and Anushka Asthana. “French minister: Brexit would threaten Calais border arrangement.” The Guardian 3 Mar. 2016:n. pag. Web. 25 Mar. 2016.

The Hungarian government has recently made headlines (again) with the government announcing it is going to erect a 4m high and 176 kms long fence along the Serbian-Hungarian border, investing 23 billions Forints (Hungarian currency, approx. 75 million euros), “protecting the borders of Hungary and protecting the borders of the EU”. Denying help from masses of people fleeing their war-stricken countries and treating refugees like criminals with aggressive border-patrolling measures are acts against inalienable human rights and the Hungarian government’s actions are the manifestation of how the misguided ‘illiberal state’s government is rotten to its core – the international media loudly agrees pointing all fingers at the country.

Do you agree with condemning Hungary’s actions? Do you agree with condemning Hungary’s actions while being fully aware of the circumstances and the reality of the country? You might be surprised to learn some of the internationally lesser-known facts about the migration situation in Hungary.

Imagine Agora sleeping conditions, lasting for 4-6 months and only 5% of you would manage to get the papers for a start of a new life.

1. Hungary is one of the main points of entry for migrants into the Schengen passport free zone and has received more refugees per capita than any other EU country apart from Sweden. Over the past three years the number of people illegally crossing the southern border has become twenty times more. Only in 2015 around 60.000 migrants have entered the country and 95% of those cross from Serbia, which is not a member of the EU but has started accession talks. This massive influx has gone way beyond the capacity of what the national authorities can handle in terms of the evaluation of individual cases; who is a refugee – who is a migrant? The camps are slowly unable to provide even the bare minimum for civilised living conditions for refugees, or proper surveillance for the migrants’ activities of the southern areas of the country. The sudden peak in the number of people entering the country has left the (only!) three existing refugee camps of the country unable to keep up with the workload of providing proper healthcare, shelter and aid with the paperwork for these people.

2. But Hungary did offer help and has opened its borders to refugees in the 1990s, when people from mainly Afghanistan, Iraq, Bangladesh started arriving. The country also accepted around a 100.000 refugees from Romania during the Ceausescu regime and kept its borders open when asylum-seekers from the Former Yugoslav Republic started arriving in masses, fleeing from their war-torn country. Because of the EU requirements Hungary’s policy concerning refugees has become stricter since 2010. Hungary means the Schengen border, therefore neighbouring countries try to defend themselves from illegal migration by putting extra pressure on Hungary. Meanwhile, border patrol stations, detention camps and police lock-ups started filling up with the people waiting for their refugee status to be approved and when they started overcrowding these facilities, the refugees were released to live on the streets.
The United Nations Commissioner for Refugees reported already in 2010 that the decreasing financial resources did not allow the assimilation process to begin for these people. Isolated, unable to learn anything about the new country, the language or culture has been making it increasingly hard for refugees to sustain themselves in the country. Also facing hostility from around 80% of the Hungarian population who do not believe the country should accept refugees – the situation has been getting worse and worse for years.

3. Anti-immigrant propaganda is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to how the public opinion handles the immigrant question. Besides firmly defending its political actions in Brussels, the Hungarian government also had to provide its citizens with a clear message on their official position on the matter: trying to highlight how the drastic measures are all being evoked in order to protect Hungarian citizens against the “foreign invaders”. Huge billboards with anti-immigrant slogans were erected all over the country, spending billions of Forints (once again) with the propaganda messages of the “National Consultation” – aiming to gather the opinion of Hungarian citizens on the matter.
After being 10 months away from my country, I came home to see signs like this:

“If you come to Hungary, you cannot steal jobs from the Hungarians!
National Consultation on immigration and terrorism”

The main message of opening a “National Consultation on immigration and terrorism” on the matter is already suggestive enough; the general public is more exposed to the anti-immigrant sentiments, than the humanitarian aspect of saving other human beings who are seeking refuge. With the migrants depicted as invaders “stealing jobs” from the Hungarians and even as terrorists, the public opinion is already against border-crossing and in favour of the fence as a more spectacular than practical tool to make the message clear: the country is reaching its limits regarding illegal border-crossings.
The billboards, radio and television advertisements on the National Consultation are actions of a government that has been facing growing unpopularity in the country as a result of a chain of corruption scandals, and is resorting to rather desperate measures to reconnect with its citizens by means of uniting the country against a common “enemy”.
Several civil society organisations, humanitarian foundations and statements from the political opposition are criticising the government’s plans for the fence, some are even organizing demonstrations. At the same time, in other parts of the country, people are protesting against the establishment of new refugee camps. It is hard to decide who is right.

“We don’t want to be afraid!”
T-shirts: “There is no place for a refugee camp here!”

4. Mr. Orbán Viktor vs. Brussels – Round 145. “Hungary has been trying for months to have the EU recognize that a third of the immigration pressure on the continent is focused on Hungary, with around one third of illegal migrants registered in the country.” (From Magyar Hírlap – Hungarian newspaper, auth. )
While wildly attacking the Hungarian government for its drastic measures, several sources fail to mention that close to a dozen other countries of the EU (including Germany, France, Belgium etc.) are issuing notices for deportation of immigrants from their own countries – sending them back to Hungary, based on the Dublin Regulation of the Schengen Treaty.
The Visegrad Four (alliance of Central European states – Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland and Hungary) all agree on the misguided EU attempts on trying to remedy the situation. All four countries were strongly lobbying against the compulsory migrant quota proposed by the Commission, urging more effective measures than “superficial act of goodness”.
The Hungarian government is also keen on emphasising how it is protecting not only its own borders, but the borders of the EU, and the Schengen zone. Mr Orbán also makes the claim there is a huge difference between refugees escaping persecution and “existential immigrants” – while the former need humanitarian aid, the latter have a clear intent of not staying in Hungary after they receive their papers to travel with.
With all this said, it might come as a surprise that:
5. Foreigners visiting the country still quickly fall in love with Budapest and Lake Balaton, the easy accessibility in the heart of Europe, the country’s cuisine and culture and a holiday being significantly cheaper than in the western parts of Europe. In the less touristic and developed parts of the country however, the reality strikes as a shock to many, with 40% of the population earning below minimum-wage, with the highest rate of alcohol use disorders in Europe, a middle-class standard slowly disappearing and the rising frustration and desperation over social inequality and a widening chasm between the shamelessly rich and the starving poor.

Many independent observations would testify to the fact that Hungarian people in general are not so welcoming towards foreigners settling in the country, mainly because of the increasing economical and social tension, the working hours/salary ratio being way behind western European standards, and the feeling of uncertainty about the future for many families. The ‘Erasmus generation’ is not only leaving the country to study abroad for half a year, but young people are leaving the country in unprecedented numbers, being unable to find a stable and well-paid job after completing their education.
When we talk about a country whose very own national anthem is a gloomy recollection of hundreds of years of being ravaged by wars and territorial occupation as an glimpse into the mentality of the people, we might realise that the gradually aging society does not see how some of the western ideals of tolerance, solidarity and the dominance of a pro- or anti-European ideology would help them make ends meet at the end of the day.
I am proud to be an AEGEEan who has the chance to look at Europe and the world from a more open-minded perspective, being able to travel and relocate freely in the continent and be an activist fighting for a good cause, for the good of a community and the good of the continent. As AEGEEans, we are striving for a borderless Europe and any act of intolerance against its citizens or violation of basic human rights of those in need should be condemned.
Erecting the fence along the southern border of Hungary is not the solution to the problem. But you cannot pass a valid judgment on the country’s attitude without walking a mile in our shoes.

Written by Réka Salamon, AEGEE-Aachen

If you want to know more about the situation you can read some articles here:

– 444 (Hu) 

– Index (Hu)

– Magyarhirlap (En)

– Radio Free Europe Radio Liberty (En)

– 4024 (Hu)

– Reuters (En)

– The Guardian (En) 1 – 2

– The Telegraph (En)

– Fotomemoria (En)

Every five years, a new European Commission (EC), consisting of 28 Commissioners (one from each EU country), is elected. The current Commission’s term, presided by José Manuel Barroso from Portugal, is running until the 31st of October 2014, after which it will be time for a new term headed by Jean-Claude Juncker from Luxembourg. The President is nominated by the European Council and elected by the European Parliament, but the Commissioners will be chosen by the President, although the Parliament has to approve his choices. Suggestions for these candidates are made by the Governments of the Member States, after which Juncker can reject or accept them.

Soon after his election, Jean-Claude Juncker expressed his concerns about the fact that rumors about potential Commissioners were almost all about men. Over the past ten years around one-third of the European Commissioners have been women, largely because Barroso insisted on this, but the fear rose that this would change this year. Therefore, he urged the national governments of Member States to bring more women forward, promising to reward those that do so with a big portfolio or vice-presidency, since he “doesn’t believe that a Commission with only two or three women would be credible or legitimate”.

One day later, the current female Commissioners sent a letter to Juncker, supporting his “call for the Member States to support more women as new Commissioners”. In this letter, they noted that it had become through research that large organisations perform better with a diverse leadership, which corresponds with their own experiences. Next to this, they expressed the feeling that the European Commission was “committed to making continual progress towards gender equality.” They too therefore urge the Member States to nominate at least ten female Commissioners, because “you [Juncker, red.] deserve a flying start – and with ten or more female Commissioners in your team you will get it.”

With this letter, the #TenOrMore/#10ormore campaign was started, urging the Member States to give Juncker this flying start by nominating at least ten female Commissioners. One of the contributors to this campaign is Neelie Kroes, who is still a Commissioner at the moment. Through different tweets, she asked attention for the lack of female nominations, and expressed her doubts about the many nominations of former Prime Ministers. As she explains: “Former Prime Ministers make up 0,0000001% of the European Union population, yet more of them are nominated as European Commissioners than the 51% of women!”

With small success, because the campaign lead to different suggestions for female Commissioners, sometimes even done by the national newspapers, supporting the call for more women in the European Commission. However, the definite decision was up to the national governments, who so far have officially nominated three women, namely Véra Jourová for Czech, Federica Mogherini for Italy and Cecilia Malström for Sweden. Next to this, it was announced on the 6th of August that Bulgaria had nominated another female Commissioner: Kristalina Georgieva. Slovenia did not nominate one candidate but a list of proposals, on which also two female candidates were  named.

Not all countries have officially announced their nomination, but since there are only five countries left, the new European Commission will have a maximum of eight female Commissioners. However, the European Parliament, who has to approve or reject the new team in October, has threatened to reject a European Commission with less than ten women, putting pressure on the Governments of the Member States to come forward with female candidates, who there should be enough of as the different suggestions so far have shown.

Written by Svenja van der Tol, AEGEE-Nijmegen

Recently, on the 27th of June 2014 the Republic of Albania saw its status elevated from ‘potential candidate’ to ‘candidate country’ to join the European Union. The question whether this is something positive or negative, good or bad remains a much heated and lengthy debate between those who trust in or those who are sceptic of the European Union. However, using the misconceptions of both sides, what could correctly be stated?

Some people for instance state that citizens of ‘candidate countries’ are able to  freely move to other member states of the European Union. These people often point to the Schengen Agreement as the cause for this migration. However, this would be confusing two main concepts. Regardless whether a country has signed the Schengen Agreement, every citizen of the European Union is able to live and retire in any of the other member states: they all have freedom of movement. The Schengen Agreement then, simply abolishes all types of border controls between their international borders, unless they have an opt out or unless their bid for participation in the Schengen Area has not yet been approved by the European Parliament or the Council of Ministers.

Much of the confusion might come from Iceland, a ‘candidate country’, to and from which citizens of both the EU and Iceland can move freely.  However, this happens because, unlike Albania, Iceland together with Norway, Liechtenstein and the EU is part of the European Economic Area, which is the actual area in which there is freedom of movement. That is to say, within the EEA all citizens of member countries are able to freely choose where to live and retire. So, will we see an increased, legal migration to and from Albania any time soon? –Not likely.

A second misconception is that once a country becomes a ‘candidate country’ it has also the right to print and use the euro. While a country’s political measures to become a part of the European Union might coincide in measures taken to make it join the Eurozone, this is not mandatory. ‘Candidate countries’ are allowed to enter the European Union without having the right to be a part of the Eurozone. Examples of which are Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary.

In order for Albania to become a member of the Eurozone upon becoming a member of the European Union, it must do three things. Firstly, it must decrease its government deficit from 6.1% to under 3%; secondly, it must drop its debt to GDP ratio from 70.5% to under 60%; and lastly it must shrink its inflation from its current percentage of 1.7 to at best around 1,5 percent. (note: all of these figures come from the 2013 estimations from the CIA The World Factbook)

Considering these three prerequisites to join the Eurozone, it becomes unlikely for Albania to become a part of the Eurozone within the first years of its admittance to the European Union. Out of the ten countries that became members of the European Union in 2004 for instance only six have entered the Eurozone and those only between 2008 and 2014.

A final misconception is that non-EU member states, especially those in Eastern Europe, are impoverished and backward countries. Most popular images might include a fragment of the 2004 movie Eurotrip. In this movie Slovakia, at the time recently admitted to the EU, was portrayed as a desolate place, where technology and broadcasting shows were several years behind, and, where $1,83 was enough to rent an entire suite in a five-star hotel. So, considering this negative stereotype, what does this say about the political and economic state of Albania in 2014?

Generally it could be said that the European Union is foremost a democratic political and developed economic union. Since EU membership has only been made available to democratic countries, what could be said of the stereotypical dictatorships in the east of Europe? According to The Economist Intelligence Unit’s Democracy Index, Albania is not a dictatorship. It is categorized as a ‘Hybrid Regime’ with an overall score of 5.91, which is just 0.09 points shy of being called a ‘democracy’. It also puts Albania on par with its fellow ‘candidate country’ Turkey. The next ‘candidate country’ on this list is Montenegro, with an overall score of 6.57 being categorized as a ‘Flawed Democracy’, and the first EU member to follow is Croatia with an overall score of 7.04, still categorized as a ‘Flawed Democracy’.

Economically speaking, it could be said that the country is doing well, it is certainly not backwards. As previously stated, Albania has an inflation rate of 1.7%, which is economically very sound, since most economists agree that optimum levels of inflation are between 1-3%. Furthermore, Albania a high Human Development Index score of 0.749, which is somewhat comparable with other countries in the region including EU members such as Romania (0.786) and Bulgaria (0.782).

In short, Albania is not the most democratic or economically strongest country on the European continent, but it is roughly comparable with the rest of the Western Balkan. Additionally, there are figures that at least economically the country is improving each year, partly thanks to the EU Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance funding. While full membership to the European Union might not happen within the next decade, Albania has already signed a number of agreements with the EU and is likely to eventually comply to all of the EU requirements for membership.

Written by Willem Laurentzen, AEGEE-Nijmegen

On the 1st of July 2014 a new Trio came on stage for the Presidency of the Council of the European Union, starting with Italy (till the 31^st of December) and will continue with Latvia and Luxembourg. While the Presidency itself carries on the tasks of preparing, coordinating and chairing the work of the Council, while also acting as honest broker to promote legislative decision and policy initiatives and to negotiate with members states, each Trio agrees on a programme that will be further developed by each state during its own mandate.

The current Trio, taking the lead right after the European Parliament elections, promised a more concrete approach in focusing citizens expectations to overcome the economic crisis and ensure a positive job trend, with a strong support to Youth Guarantee schemes and the Youth Employment Initiative; other focus areas will be sustainable growth, cleaner energy and climate policies, Digital Single Market, migration and border control, neighbouring policies and much more.⁽¹⁾

In this context, Italy presented a full programme ⁽²⁾ underlining the priorities for this semester:

– Employment and Economic Growth, with a particular focus on Small and Medium Enterprises (or SMEs) and sustainable development, to be linked to Expo Milano 2015;

– Protection of fundamental rights, with a special look to migration and asylum policies;

– A more integrated foreign policy, focusing mostly on the Mediterranean and the Europe Neighbourhood policies including enlargement, and with an eye on the strategic partnership with Asian economies.

The focus on SMEs is a clear and evergreen Italian standard: to get some figures, SMEs represent 99,9% of Italian companies, with the highest EU rate in terms of micro-entities (94% vs the 92% EU average), contributing to more than half of the total employment rate and one third to added value; SMEs provide occupation for around 80% in Italy, way more compared to the 68% average in Europe.⁽³⁾

Less evident is the link to EXPO Milan 2015, whose theme is Feeding the Planet, Energy for Life, even more after the recent scandal regarding a huge flood of bribes estimated on around 1 million Euros.

As well, the topic of fundamental rights is a very well known issue for Italy, considering the huge flow of illegal migrants coming from the southern bank of the Mediterranean sea, and the continuous and unattended requests for help and cohesion in adopting a shared solution to ensure the basic respect for human rights and a more coherent patrol of the EU borders.

Last but not least, the focus on Mediterranean is evident thanks to the strategic position Italy has; after the Arab spring spread over north Africa in the past years and the failure of Barcelona II and the Union for the Mediterranean, it is time to put a cooperative approach back on the table to make sure that both banks of the sea get closer and to enhance a mutual beneficial trade cooperation. Of course, Ukraine and Syria will not be forgotten, being the hottest issues on the foreign EU political agenda at the moment.

Italy drew a challenging programme, for which a budget of 68 million Euros has been foreseen (Latvia’s budget for its Presidency term after this year foresees 100 million Euros budget), and will have a hard way to go to lead both the Council of the European Union and solve the home affairs issues arising. Italy is currently under the third non-elected government, with a maxi coalition formed by the main centre-right party (Partito Democratico, or PD) supported by a new-born centre-right party (Nuovo Centro Destra, or NCD) from a scission from Forza Italia, meaning a constant mediation in terms of policies so far didn’t bring the expected results (Matteo Renzi, the current Prime Minister, promised his first results after one month in office), nor the light after the tunnel is visible.

Moreover, the Presidency started with the English speech of Renzi at “Digital Venice” (high level meeting hosted in Venice, to support a sustainable digital economy and promoted by the Italian Presidency of the Council of the European Union), where the Prime Minister showed a poor language knowledge; the only clear part of his speech has been the closing part: “as in Italy we value food, now it’s time for lunch”.

Hopefully the path will be smoother for the Italian government, which just recently saw the failure in getting Federica Mogherini (current Italian Minister of Foreign Affairs) nominated as high commissioner for EU foreign policy. Baltic States and Poland rejected her candidature because of her lack of experience and her inadequate response to Russia regarding the Ukrainian crisis, while she rejected the accusations as “manipulation” against Italy; in the end, the next European Commission  is still far from being formed, a further summit meeting has been called at the end of August.

The first delay of the mandate, not exactly the best to give a real boost compared to the need for “concrete measures” (as foreseen in Italian programme) but rather a well-known commonplace.

Written by Alfredo Sellitti, AEGEE-Salerno

Should doping be allowed? This was the question raised to the Sports Working Group members shortly after Lance Armstrong, America’s former professional road racing cyclist, confessed his use of doping to media mogul Oprah Winfrey not so long ago.

The first response was not surprising: a member asking if it was a joke asking to allow doping? If you cheat, you do not play fair. However, not everybody agrees. Some believe that if everybody uses doping in cases such as cycling then why not allowing it? The sport fanatics of AEGEE disagree loudly. Zoi from AEGEE-Athina says “First of all doping is bad for the athletes’ health. We have many examples of deaths at a young age most probably because of doping and that’s really sad. And then I believe that everybody should compete with their own natural abilities and show what they are capable of. If I take the “right” medicine maybe even I could win the marathon, is that the point? Not for me, and I am totally against doping.”

It is curious that fair play is not promoted much at all levels. FIFA does it in football, but what about the other sports? Though not having much relevance of doping it is interesting to mention a big sportive gesture that took place in Spain in December. The 2^nd of December an athlete from Kenya, Abel Mutai, who won the bronze medal in 3000 m. steeplechase in the London Olympics last year, was close to win in Spain as when he entered last step of the race he thought he had won so he took the pace down, relaxed and started saluting the audience. Behind him came Iván Fernández Anaya, a 24 year old Spanish athlete who had the opportunity to win but instead of accelerating for the win, stayed behind Mutai, making gestures to make him understand (and almost pushed him forward) that he was letting him finish in the first place. Fernández is considered to be an athlete with a bright future and former Spanish champion says about the episode: “Even if they had told me that had I won I would secure a spot on the Spanish national team, I wouldn’t have taken advantage of the situation. I think that my action was better than if I had won. This means a lot, because today with how things are in all environments, in football, in the society, in politics where it appears that everything matters, a gesture of honesty goes well.” Unfortunately, this is a gesture that very few people know about. (The story has been retrieved from here)

It is important to promote fair play and actions like the one mentioned above together with promotion of how it is possible to be physical active without consuming products dangerous to your body, and the European Union agrees “The problems caused by doping are obvious – it undermines the principle of fair competition, discourages people from taking part in or following sports and poses a real risk to health. The EU is funding research projects in this area and is also in regular contact with relevant bodies, including the World Anti-Doping Agency.” (http://europa.eu/pol/spo/index_en.htm)

And this discussion has made the Sports Working Group start working on a ”Europe on Bike” project taking participants of a potential event from AEGEE local to another promoting fair play, sports, health and combating physical inactivity amongst other topics. The discussion about doping is not new, but the confessions from Armstrongs are and hopefully many people will support and take part in building an interesting project such as “Europe on Bike”.

Written by Patricia Anthony, AEGEE-København

Watch this video interview with Doris Pack, Member of the European Parliamant and Chair of the EU Committee on Culture and Education, made by Luis Alvarado Martínez, Kathrin Renner and Lucille Rieux from the Comité Directeur about the future of the Euroepan Union (EU) education and youth programmes.