There is a project that is involving people from many countries of Europe. Its aim is to discuss the EU issues and protest against Brexit and other events undermining the European Union. In this interview we spoke with Leo Bue, from AEGEE-Aachen, and he told us more about the project, the feedback of some supporters and the situation of basic rights in Europe.

The AEGEEan: What is “Pulse of Europe”?

Leo Bue: Pulse of Europe is a pro-European initiative, which was founded in 2016 as a reaction to Brexit and the presidential elections in the USA. After those elections, there were massive protests against the results. Pulse of Europe wants to be visible beforehand: before the elections in the Netherlands, France and Germany. We do not want to be the “silent majority” anymore, but a visible crowd standing for a peaceful, borderless and cooperating Europe.

How do you think to have an influence upon the vote of the next presidential elections in France, for example, and the ones in Germany?

I think our impact is to be visible as the pro-European crowd. In the past months and years, the critics of the EU became louder and very visible in the media. Now, we want to be loud and visible in favour of the European project.

How can AEGEE people join the project?

The easiest way to join is to participate! There are over 60 European cities where Pulse of Europe takes place every Sunday at 2 pm. You can find them here.

If there is no such event near your place, initiate one on your own! Ask your friends, there is not much effort to announce an event:

1. Contact the initiators from Frankfurt.
2. Call the police and tell them you want to register a demonstration.
3. Ask your (AEGEE) friends to meet at 2 pm in blue and yellow.

Why did you translate your website into so many languages?

The web page is translated into German, French, English, Polish, Portuguese, Spanish and Italian. The goal of Pulse of Europe is to be spread all over the continent. So, there is still missing Dutch, Greek, Lithuanian, etc.

Why do you say there is a current threat to peace in the European Union?

We all have seen that people chose Brexit. If other member states decide to leave, the European project is going to fail. I fear a missing discussion between the states’ interests, which could, in worst case, lead to conflicts and war; our own history predicts this.

How can a society oppose destructive and backward-looking tendencies?

Being aware of the danger. Standing up and opposing those who do not care about or welcome this danger. Speaking out about the EU’s problems. Working on the problems and helping to make the EU better instead of destroying it.

What do you mean with “basic freedoms”? What is the situation of the basic rights and the rule of law in Europe?

We can see many problems in different states with freedom of the press and democracy. There is obviously no effective control if a government chooses to violate general European principles or bend them in its favour. Same about the refugee crisis. Same about tax-havens. The same is true for almost every negative development, like the economic criteria that was once agreed on. The EU, or more so the national states, do not live up to the standards they proclaim.

What kind of reform is necessary to improve Europe?

In my personal opinion, the most important reform is the European Parliament’s right of legislative initiative. This means the parliament has the power to make laws proposals independently and could cure a lot of EU problems in a democratic way. Also, the voters have to hold their politicians accountable for what is wrong in Europe and not only focus on their national level.

How can we preserve regional and national identities in Europe?

I do not think that is a problem at all. Maintain your own (regional or national) culture, share it with others and learn about theirs.

Can you tell us the feedback about Facebook and Twitter pages?

It is not bad, Facebook is one of our main tools to spread the message. Most people are supportive, even though we had a few trolls. If politicians speak, it is always a bit tricky since we are non-partisan and people really care about that.

Did you find any supporters until now? If so, from which countries?

Last week, we had 900 participants in Aachen, over 30.000 people on the streets in all cities together. This supports us the most. Here are two comments of AEGEEans that participated in other cities.

“I am taking part in Pulse of Europe demonstrations in Essen, Germany. Last Sunday there were around 450 people. I really liked the atmosphere, everyone was very positive. My favourite part of the demonstration is when they open the microphone to citizens. It is so important to hear what citizens have to say about the topic of Europe and what they value most. Last Sunday an elderly woman approached the microphone and started with ‘I have experienced war in Germany. I never want to see this happening again’. Those are the stories that need to be told over and over again!”

Julia Krebs, AEGEE-Osnabrück

“I was in Stuttgart and Munich: in Stuttgart there were 200 people, in Munich last week 1500. I participated in Pulse of Europe because I feel that I have benefited from so many things since 1989. We did grow up with an ever uniting Europe that is now facing severe obstacles, and we cannot NOT stand up for Europe. I feel goose bumps every time someone speaks at the open microphone and I feel even more European now”.

Caroline Eißler, AEGEE Passau

Written by Matteo Lai, AEGEE-Cagliari

“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.

Early January of this year, the world was shocked by the attack on the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in Paris. Two gunmen forced their way into the magazine’s building and killed twelve people, among which staff cartoonists and editors. The world was in shock, and the survivors of the magazine were shown an overwhelming amount of support. Freedom of press seemed to be higher on the agenda than ever, but at the same time a very important question rose: how free is the press in Europe really?

Before we delve into the answers, it’s important to take a look at what freedom of press really is. Simply said, it is the freedom of communication and expression through diverse mediums (electronic media and published materials). In practice, this means that the press is free to cover topics of their interest without interference of the government or other parties. Basically: the right to write about what they want, without fearing for consequences in the form of fines, regulating laws, threats or worse.

The legal framework is ensuring the freedom of press…

How well is the European Union doing at guaranteeing this right? In 1950, the Council of Europe was barely a year old when it affirmed the “freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by any public authority and regardless of frontiers.” A strong statement, which has been reiterated many times in documents created in the 63 years after, like the European Convention on Human Rights (1953) and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (2000). In May 2009, the European Charter on Freedom of the Press was released too. According to these, citizens in Europe should have the freedom to not only be informed, but also inform themselves.

… but what about the reality?

The Freedom of Press Index 2014

The Press Freedom Index, an annual ranking of countries drafted and published by Reporters without Borders, suggests that Europe is doing quite well with their statement. The list is based on the number of journalists murdered, expelled or harassed and the existence of a state monopoly on TV and radio, as well as the existence of (self-)censorship in the media, the overall independence of media and difficulties foreign reporters may face. Thirty-one countries of the top fifty of the list are located in Europe, with the winner being northern Europe with leading stars Finland (#1), the Netherlands (#2) and Norway (#3). Despite this fact, there are still countries where freedom of the press isn’t completely guaranteed, in order to write what they want.

Take for example the United Kingdom (#33), where in 2013 officials were sent to The Guardian’s basement to supervise the destruction of the newspaper’s computer hard disks, containing information from whistleblower Edward Snowden. Or France (#39), where the Constitutional Council approved a law that makes publishing the assets of certain elected officials punishable by imprisonment. Examples that show the legal framework for freedom of speech is readily available in Europe, but that does not mean it is implemented by the countries falling under the European Union too.

The bad, the worse and the worst

The lowest ranking member of the European Union is Bulgaria (#100), where reporters repeatedly became victims of police violence during demonstrations calling for the government’s resignation in 2013. Besides that, independent journalists are exposed to harassment that can even take the form of attacks on their cars, as it has happened to Genka Shikerova, a journalist known for critical political interviews.

Very close to Bulgaria is Greece (#99), which fell down fifty places in the ranking in only five years. The economic crisis hit the media too, because the investors in the national media have moved their investments leading to many journalists becoming unemployed. The big turning point was June 2013, when the national broadcaster, consisting of four TV stations and five radio stations, was shut down due to budget cuts. Dark screens with the words “no signal” stunned Europe and the world until the government, pressured by the international society, announced the creation of a new state broadcaster.

Another ‘high ranking’, in the wrong way, country is Hungary (#64), where a highly restrictive media law was adopted in 2011, introducing fines for creators of content that is not “balanced” and a media regulatory authority was set up. The “Media Council” claims to make sure the news sent out is according to the law, but actually it mainly ensures that politics get involved in reporting. A good example is the news and talk radio station Klubradio, which became a symbol of the fight to be informed. Despite having hundreds of thousands of listeners and a good few years of existence, the Council refused to renew its license and banned its frequency to an unknown station. Without success, because after a major campaign and several court rulings the Klubradio was still given a long-term license in March.

Free press in Europe: a dream or a reality?

Many more examples like this can be given, for example about non-EU members Macedonia and Montenegro, not leaving out Russia and Ukraine, but there are also good examples that can be shared. To sum up, we can conclude that the rights for freedom of press in Europe are guaranteed for the members of the European Union at least, but they are not always implemented into daily lives as well. Looking at the examples, in some countries, freedom of press seems to only apply when it is beneficial to the government. This doesn’t mean the fight for it is over, because especially happenings like the one in Paris attract the attention to the matter again and will hopefully lead to a completely free press in Europe (and the rest of the world) soon.

Written by Svenja van der Tol, AEGEE-Nijmegen

On the 17th of July this year an airplane departing from Amsterdam crashed, while it was flying over the Ukrainian province of Donetsk, which is currently beset by pro-Russian groups. The crash could be seen as a tragedy on itself, but it could also be seen as a part of a greater conflict.

As the occasionally violent protests in Ukraine show, lines have been drawn between a pro-European and a pro-Russian side. However, by using the words pro-Europe and pro-Russia, people give off the illusion that Russia is not a part of Europe, but rather Europe’s opposite. It also supposes that the pro-Russian faction in Ukraine wants their country to be the opposite of Europe or that the EU Association Agreement is a join-Europe-today signup sheet. When someone believes this to be true or believes Europe stands for benevolent democracies or Russia for a malevolent dictatorship, this person might suffer from a almost 2500-year-old bias that the East is evil.

In the 6th century B.C. Greek explorer Anaximander categorised the earth. He devised it to be surrounded by one large ocean and divided by three rivers, which flowed from the outer ocean to the eastern part of the Mediterranean, thus dividing the earth into three continents: Europe, Asia and Libya. (Side note: according to Anaximander’s map East-African countries like Kenya would be part of Asia)

After the Grecian victory in the 5th century B.C. Greco-Persian Wars, however, the Greeks, mainly the Athenians and their allies, conceived the divide between Asia, home of the Persians, and Europe, home of the Greeks, to be both a natural and cultural one. The East, according to the Athenians, was stained by despotism, decadence and debauchery, whereas the west was characterised by democracy, superiority and decency. This was partially, because they had recently become a democracy by overthrowing their dictator, Hippias, who fled to Ionia (nowadays the west coast of Turkey) and allied himself with the enemy Persian Empire. Victory over the Persians might at the time very well have been seen as victory of democracy against the old ways.

This biased worldview, however, especially for Europe turned out to be a fallacy, since Europe has had its fair share of autocrats in the past: Roman dictators such as Sulla and Caesar, Roman emperors such as Caligula, Claudius and Constantine, the self proclaimed French emperor Napoleon Bonaparte and kings such as Charles I of England, Frederick II of Prussia and, Louis XIV ‘the Sun King’ of France might come to mind. In the 21st century it is even hard to argue that concepts like chattel slavery or modern imperialism are indicators of either superiority or decency in the West.

While Russia could be considered to be less democratic than all of the other EU states or candidate members, it does not have to be categorised as a dictatorship or so much as an evil dictatorship. When someone reads about the conflict in Ukraine, western media often tend to view the Association Agreement, between the EU and the Ukrainian government in Kiev to be a ‘haha-in-your-face’ victory over Russia. This discourse, however, actually seems to be nothing but a cocktail of Cold War sentiments, infused with the ancient ‘East-is-evil’ bias. As a matter of fact, considering its elected house of representatives one could argue that Russia is more democratic than other states in the west of Europe such as Vatican City or Liechtenstein. Simply because it lies in the East, it does not mean that Russia or the Russian people instinctively despise either democracy or Europe. As the Anaximander’s map shows, the divide between Europe and Asia seems to be somewhere between arbitrary and non-existent.

Placing the aforementioned bias aside, there is, however, a political and economical divide in the border regions of Russia, which causes the conflict in Ukraine. With the signing of the Association Agreement on the 27th of June 2014 Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine have agreed to implement a number of reforms aimed at improving democracy, the rule of law, human rights, fundamental freedoms, and at creating a well-functioning market economy and sustainable development in return for the creation of a framework to aid the enforcement of these reforms.

This Agreement, however, could have already been signed half a year ago by Ukraine’s former president Viktor Yanukovych, were it not for the political and economic alliances that presently fuel the conflict in Ukraine. Yanukovych refused to do what Ukraine’s current president Petro Poroshenko did, because of Ukraine’s shift from a non-associated economy to a politically charged one. In 2001 Ukraine had founded GUAM, an organisation to support democracy and economic development with its other members: Georgia, Azerbaijan and Moldova. One of the core principles of this organisation was that it was to be neutral, meaning not to the EU or to Russia aligned. However, between 2010 and 2013 Yanukovych not only considered Ukraine to become a member of the EU, but also to become part of the Customs Union of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Russia. In response to this, both the EU and Russia declared that Ukraine could not become a member of both economic zones. Subsequently Yanukovych was persuaded by Russia not to sign the Association Agreement with the EU and strengthen Ukraine’s ties with Russia instead. Immediately after this decision protests broke out in Kiev, prompting a regime change, a transfer of the Crimean peninsula to Russia and a civil insurgence in the East of the Ukraine supported by Russia in order to pursue its economic interests with Ukraine and on top of which a plane from Amsterdam crashed.

In short, by signing the Association Agreement the government in Kiev has agreed to aid in conforming Ukraine’s democratic norms as well as its trade and customs regulations to those of the EU and that much of the European market will open up to Ukrainian exports. With the signing of similar Agreements by Georgia and Moldova these countries will receive similar benefits. Furthermore, now three of the four members of GUAM have aligned themselves with the European Union through these Association Agreements, it might become interesting for Azerbaijan to ponder upon a pro-European course as well.

However, as the plane crash demonstrates, when two political bodies fight, in this case for the pursuit of economic interests, civilians die. The fighting continues every day in Ukraine and the Association Agreement is by no means an end to it. However, without bias at least it becomes visible that the insurgence is not a glorified conflict between Good and Evil, democracy against dictatorships or West versus East.

Written by Willem Laurentzen, 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

After six years of a Visa Facilitation Agreement (meaning a lower visa fee and simplification of visa procedures) between the EU and Moldova, on the 3^rd of April the Council of the European Union granted Moldova with a visa-free travel regime. After the visa liberalisation dialogue that started in 2010 and encouraged Moldova to successfully implement many reforms like strengthening the rule of law, Moldovan citizens didn’t need to apply for a visa anymore when travelling to the EU from the 28^th of April onwards. The AEGEEan spoke to a member from AEGEE-Chișinău, Aliona Ciorba, about her reaction and the future of Moldova in her eyes.  

Although the visa-free regime is great news, it doesn’t mean that Moldovans can travel as freely as European citizens are able to right now. “It means that we can travel to thirty states in Europe for a short-term stays up to 90 days in six months”, Aliona says. “In addition, on entering the EU, Moldovan citizens have to presents the same documents as they did when applying for a visa at embassies (trip tickets, hotel reservation or invitation of the person you are staying at, medical insurance and a proof of holding sufficient financial means).”

Still, the reactions of Aliona and other Moldovans were positive. “For me, as an AEGEEan, the liberalisation of the visa regime has a direct impact”, Aliona says. “I don’t have to worry about planning my trip anymore, so I can participate in events without any barriers. The members of my antenna can participate in mandatory events like the NWM, EPM and Agora too, so the criteria can be fulfilled and our antenna is saved.” Before the new rule, planning a trip could easily take some months, because appointments at the embassy sometimes couldn’t be planned earlier than a month ahead. Since the liberalisation of the visas, this part can be skipped and trips can be planned on a shorter notice. A chance happily accepted, because on the first day of the visa-elimination, 1683 Moldavian citizens travelled to EU countries.

Although the possibility to travel for free is great, Aliona does point out that many Moldovans still won’t have the money to travel to the EU. According to the public opinion poll, conducted in April 2014 by the Public Policy Institute of Moldova, 83% of the Moldovans didn’t travel to EU countries in the last five years and 54% didn’t believe that the visa-free regime would benefit them, because they didn’t plan to travel (34%) or didn’t have the financial resources for a travel (20%). Although the visa-free regime itself is a great step for Moldova, there is still a lot that can be done to improve the situation.

Right now, the opinions about how to better the Moldovan situation, are divided into two groups: the Romanian speaking Moldovans who want Moldova to take further steps and become a part of the EU, and the Russian speaking people who would be very happy if Moldova was reoriented towards Russia and became a part of it. Seeing the situation in Ukraine, many Moldovan citizens are also worried about the conflict between Ukraine and Russia and the possibility that it will extend to Moldova as well. It’s expected that the same scenario as happened in Crimea will take place in Transnistria too, but this isn’t something that most Moldavians would want to happen. “We believe in a bright future and the possibility to solve the conflict peacefully”, Aliona says.

Written by Svenja van der Tol, AEGEE-Nijmegen

This was the question that we wanted to debate at the conference held by AEGEE on June 5th and 6th in the European Parliament, where different Belgian and European NGOs had the opportunity to discuss the possibilities for Co-Management in the European institutions, together with representatives from the European Commission, the European Parliament, the Council of Europe and its Advisory Council on Youth, and the European Youth Forum. The event was hosted by the MEP Hannes Swoboda, who is also President of the S&D Group in the European Parliament and financed by the Youth in Action Grant. AEGEE-Brussel/Bruxelles was organising the conference together with AEGEE-Europe.

What is exactly the Co-Management that we are proposing? We want more than just being consulted in the EU decision-making process. Young people should be involved in the three phases: consultation, decision and monitoring. Co-management is a unique model where governments and youth representatives sit together to decide and to monitor the sector’s programmes. We have seen that this scheme works in the Council of Europe and we want to put it into practice in the European Union.

On the first morning, we had two panels moderated by Marko Grdosic, former president of AEGEE-Europe, where we could get a lot of input.

In the first panel there were interventions from Marian Harkin, MEP from the ALDE group; Pascal Lejeune, Head of the Youth Unit of the European Commission; André Jaques-Dodin,  Head of the Intergovernmental Division of the youth department of the Council of Europe; Maria Paschou, Chair of the Advisory Council on Youth of the CoE; Peter Matjašič, President of the European Youth Forum (YFJ); and Luca Scarpiello, Secretary of the Youth Intergroup of the European Parliament. They debated the current structure of the Council of Europe as an example of best practices, and explored the benefits of having a similar system for the European Institutions.

The second panel counted on the participation of Giuseppe Porcaro, Secretary General of the European Youth Forum; Kaisu Suopanki from Allianssi, the Finnish Youth Council, which has already implemented a co-management scheme; Ivailo Kalfin, MEP from the S&D Group; and André-Jacques Dodin. They were discussing the different possibilities of implementing the co-management in the EU institutions.

During the afternoon session on Wednesday, two parallel sessions were scheduled to discuss in depth and work in small groups. On one of the workshops, the focus was on the possible structure for a youth co-management scheme in the EU and the fields where the co-management would be needed; on the second workshop, the discussion was focused on legitimacy and representation of the European youth in this new structure.

On Thursday, the  participants presented the results of the previous day’s work to MEP Hannes Swoboda, president of the S&D Group in the EP. After that, they prepared the follow-up of the conference. This process was just initiated and has a long way ahead, but we young Europeans want to play a bigger role in the EU!

We would like to thank all participants for their active contribution, their ideas and their involvement in the whole process. Without them, and the expertise from their organizations in many cases, we could never have achieved such a big outcome. Thanks also to the European Parliament for hosting us, especially to MEP Hannes Swoboda, his office and the S&D group of the EP for their support.

With this event, we wanted to take the lead in proposing a greater involvement of young people inside the European Institutions, because we believe that we need to involve them when the discussions are taken, in order to make young people more aware of and more interested in what European Politics is about. The co-management system is an open and very transparent system for the youth and in the current context, where young people’s need are being one priority of decision-makers, we think that it is very important to take into account the input of young people. We hope that in the future, there would be a body of young people representing European youth who could sit equally with the European Commission when making decisions about youth issues.

As a young researcher interested in how the world works, I have always been surprised by the limited amount of science-related events we have in AEGEE. While it is true that our members are mostly studying social sciences and languages, this should not keep them from being curious. Science can be a great fun, specially when dealt with in a non-formal way! We have a big deal of members studying almost all scientific disciplines, with the knowledge and a passion for sharing.

At the beginning of AEGEE, our association was famous for the thematic conferences we used to organise. Some of them were very scientific, like the ones about aeronautics and space. And they were a great success, and brought a lot of impact for AEGEE in terms of visibility in Europe, PR and contacts. But somehow this tradition faded several years ago.

Poster of the first conference on Space organised by EGEE-Toulouse in the EASA in 1986

Why is science relevant to AEGEE, you may wonder? How can we contribute in the field?

There are plenty of examples to mention. For example, this year we became partners of the Right to Research Coalition, and we were present at their very first General Assembly (GA) which took place in Budapest. This GA was a great opportunity to discuss a very important issue which limits the students not only in Europe, but all over the world. This is the barrier to access essential research results. Why are these results so important and why is it a problem that we cannot reach them? The answer is quite simple: as students, nowadays we need to learn not only the history of our field, but also be updated to the most recent achievements of the researchers and experts, to be able to build on their findings and make steps further in these fields. The big issue here is that we as students cannot afford the fees to access those data, even though the researches were paid in many cases by the citizens’ taxes. Why that? Because publishers define such a high price for the academic journals that even several universities had to cancel their subscriptions lately.

How does “publishing an article” work? Click on the image to see the full comic strip at www.phdcomics.com

The Right to Research Coalition is advocating for policies, educating stakeholders and mainly researchers and scholars about the possibility of Open Access publication of results which is free, not restricted but still peer-reviewed, which guarantees the trustworthiness of the results.

We have also recently received a request to sign and spread the petition No cuts on research launched by Initiative Science Europe.

Click on the image to sign the petition online!

Education and Erasmus mobility are not the only future-oriented budget areas that are under threat of severe cuts in the new EU budget. Science is also on the target, and the most relevant scientists of our continent, including 44 Nobel laureates, have joined forces to prevent these cuts that jeopardize the future of Europe. But they need also the support of society to gather as many people as possible to convince the heads of state that will take this decision. The EU budget proposed by the European Council was sent back by the European Parliament; therefore there is still time to fight the cuts that will have a bigger impact in the future (Science and Education). So please sign the petition and share it among your friends in your universities!

The story does not end there. Recently the EU has acknowledged the big gap between science and society and is taking measures to close it. The last one, launched by Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, Commissioner for Research, Innovation and Science, consists in a series of surveys launched in collaboration with Atomium Culture (an intersectoral platform to promote knowledge sharing and “out of the box” thinking on issues regarding the development of a European knowledge society) and five big European Newspapers, to consult citizens about science-related topics, in order to direct the demands of society when planning investments in science for the next Multiannual Financial Framework. The first round of questions has already been launched in newspapers such as El País (in Spanish), The Irish Times (in English), Frankfurter Allgemeine and Der Standar (in German) and 24 Ore (in Italian). Go to the website and fill it in, this week it questions how Science is taught in our schools.

But… will there be people interested in the topic in AEGEE?

I believe AEGEE can benefit a lot in getting back in the field of science and technology. And I am not the only one: during a recent training in Ljubljana, one of the participants mentioned how shocking it was for her to see the lack of science content at our events. She mentioned that maybe a Science and Technology Working Group (STWG) could be created, in charge of spreading relevant information to AEGEEans in an understandable way. I presented the idea in my candidature for Projects Director in Agora Rhein Neckar and also recieved positive feedback.

We have some of the best research centers in the world based in Europe. We have several great researchers among AEGEE members. The Science & Technology Working Group (STWG) can give them the opportunity to contribute to AEGEE thematic work. It can be a forum to discuss the news in technology, to explore how to make science understandable to general public, to claim for better research in Europe as a way to have a stronger Europe in the future. I will continue working on the topic, and hope that the ones with an interest in science and technology will contact me so that we can make it happen together. There is even time enough to prepare everything and create the STWG in Agora Zaragoza in October.

Written by Miguel Gallardo, Projects Director, and Beata Matuszka, Network and Human Resources Director of AEGEE-Europe