The renaissance of young progressive activism

I often read that the youth are uninterested in politics; that young people believe that politics has become irrelevant, and that our generation might be willing to share posts on social media, but many of us will not cast our vote and decide an election. Generally, I am afraid much of this is true. Not many young people ever took part in a political rally, and many of us are probably less ideologically driven than earlier generations. From an electoral perspective, not only we are less numerous than the elderly, but we are also less likely to vote.

General Election 2017

Continue reading “The renaissance of young progressive activism”

Seven Nation Army

“In peace, there’s nothing so becomes a man
As modest stillness and humility:
But when the blast of war blows in our ears,
Then imitate the action of the tiger;
Stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood,
Disguise fair nature with hard-favour’d rage;
Then lend the eye a terrible aspect;
Let pry through the portage of the head
Like the brass cannon…”

 

It has become some kind of European routine: confronted with an increasing number of citizens displeased by the Union’s policies, lack – or excess – of shared programs, European leaders revive the idea of a European army from time to time. There’s nothing new about using the military to reassure people, for it’s both a useful tool and a symbolic object of the utmost importance: in France, politicians are after all still debating about re-establishing a military service and arguing about its ability to mix social groups ([1]) within a single, united corp. But as Russia seems to be revaluating its strategic orientations to promote a more active approach to security issues while revitalising its military industrial complex, Europe, now forced to act by The Donald’s erratic way of handling foreign affairs, might have no other choice but to go “once more into the breach.”

Still, obstacles are various: even though interoperability have been promoted for quite a long time, European armed forces still use different material, especially in strategic realms such as the air force – the French Armée de l’Air uses Rafale and Mirage, while the German Luftwaffe uses Eurofighters, for instance. Moreover, shared industrial program such as the A400M one ([2]) – which aimed at providing various European armies with a common transport aircraft – met surprising difficulties, costs skyrocketing without any apparent progress being made. In addition to those technical, industrial issues, the sole idea of a common European armed force raises many more issues, from political ones to military ones: what would the missions be of such a force? By whom would it be commanded? What about language and structure? Where would its bases be located? In order to rationalise all of these rightful inquiries, one has to draw the line somewhere: it is almost impossible, if not simply bizarre to imagine that 28 countries will ever come together to form an armed force capable of designating its capacities, foes, theatres of operations and missions in a clear way.

The French Armed Forces, created in 1792, are currently divided into five branches: the Armée de Terre, the Marine Nationale, the Armée de l’Air, the Gendarmerie and the National Guard. Recently deployed in Sub-Saharan Africa (3,000 troops) in Iraq (3,200 troops) the French Armed Forces are also taking part in various peacekeeping missions by mobilising nearly 1,000 blue helmets. Besides enjoying the world’s only nuclear-powered carrier completed outside of the United States Navy, the French Armed Forces can rely on highly functional tools as various as fifth-generation aircraft (Rafale) and ultramodern frigates (FREMM) Yet, the French Armed Forces are suffering from the same drawbacks as most of their European partners: a chronic lack of funding which currently sever its ability to carry out  missions on its own and this has resulted in a lack of strategic airlift and unmanned aerial vehicles. However, recent reforms have been announced: they include investing in the modernisation of the Rafale, investing in the French special forces and speeding up the modernisation of France’s armoured vehicles

While discussing military integration, less is more. It is always easier to merge a small number of forces into one than to try and design a European military based on twenty-eight countries’ will to create something shared and common. ([3]) In fact, common characteristics exist between some militaries in the Union: German and French forces, for instance, are reaching an almost similar level of operational capacity, France’s main asset being that they have  acquired important experiences on theatres as diverse as South America, Sub-Saharan and Central Africa, Levant and Middle-East and own combat-proven aircrafts (Rafale) self-propelled howitzers (Caesar Canon) infantry fighting vehicles (VBCI) tactical transport helicopters (Caracal) and attack helicopters (Tigre) the latter being the result of a European military program and therefore used not only by France but also Germany and Spain.

 The Spanish Armed Forces aren’t as important as the French or Italian ones, but they still represent forces to be acknowledged, members of both NATO and the Eurocorps and representing around 130,000 men and women divided between the Ejército de Tierra, the Armada Española, the Ejército del Aire and the Guardia Civil. Though only carrying modest missions and relying on small battlegroups, the Spanish Armed Forces enjoy modern and various equipment including German MBT (Leopard II) European and American helicopters (Tigre, Chinook) and Austrian-Spanish IFV (ASCOD Pizarro) asserting its capacity to act in coordination with other western forces. Yet, and as many European forces, the Spanish ones suffer from a lack of investment resulting in poor operational abilities based on aging tools and gears, which was made even worse by the political turmoil faced by the nation a year ago

 This, for instance, came from a simple thought: “We all need a similar tool to carry out similar missions on similar theatres of operation. Why not share the costs of production as well as future, prospective benefits?” such a model of military cooperation being encouraged by the Organisation for Joint Armament Cooperation ([4]), which currently supervises no more than twelve military programs, from armoured fighting vehicles (Cobra) to multi-mission frigates (FREMM). Its most active members include France – with nine shared military programs – Italy – seven – Germany – three – and Benelux – three. Seven military’s therefore sharing highly efficient tools and reaching an almost unmatched interoperability capacity; seven countries active on shared battlegrounds such as Mali or Iraq and who could, at one point, start to exist as a Seven Nation Army.

As far as organisation is concerned, the Forze Armate Italiane can be compared to the French one. It is divided into four corps: the Esercito Italiano, the Marina Militare, the Aeronautica Militare and the Arma dei Carabinieri and represent nearly 300,000 men and women. Recent reforms in the Italian military included a decrease in the number of the army personnel meant to reallocate military funds to instruction, training and armaments. Its main assets include: owning two STOVL aircraft carriers – short takeoff and vertical landing – meant to carry short-range missions in the Mediterranean Sea, having at its disposal a vast number of military aircrafts – the most recent being Eurofighter and F 35 – and an even more impressive number of soldiers. This military strength furthermore relies on two things: an efficient arms-industry – Leonardo, Beretta – and a satisfactory operative level based on experiences acquired in Afghanistan

But as important as industrial cooperation might be, their sine-qua-non conditions remain to share strategic orientations and goals, and that’s where the rub is. Italian and French objectives include controlling the Mediterranean Sea or having the means to carry out short-range missions, but France has interests in North and Sub-Saharan Africa, as well as in the Pacific and Indian Oceans. It therefore needs slightly different tools, including the ability to carry out long-range missions, such missions relying, for instance, on tanker aircrafts and light warships. But why would Germany need those? Its most recent military doctrine has been designed after the Ukrainian Crisis and mostly revolves around countering any Russian aggression in Eastern Europe. ([5]) Such a threat isn’t to be deterred by tools designed for long-range projections, but rather by mechanised and armoured vehicles, anti-aircraft weapons, intelligence and counterintelligence assets or artillery systems. But what would France make of those in Mali’s desert, or in Bangui’s unstable streets? That’s when the dream of a European army meets a dead end.

With military budgets barely superior to 1% of their GDP, the Belgian and Dutch Armed Forces aren’t as impressive as the French or German ones. Though mostly equipped with modern equipment, they are both in need of more recent planes, the Royal Netherlands Air Force having already settled for American Lockheed Martin F-35. This of course came as a surprise, since such an investment would have been a perfect occasion to support Europe’s military-industrial complex. Moreover, the Composante Terre/Land Component suffers from the same flaws as the French Armée de Terre as it is currently used to patrol the streets which weaken the soldiers’ morale while damaging its military budget. Though modest in strength, the Belgian and Dutch Armed Forces are still members of the European military cooperation programs, with one each: the A400M Atlas and the Boxer

Finally, the idea of a European military poses another issue: the one of nuclear defence. In its recent article The Case for a European Nuke, Foreign Affairs’ Doug Bandow ([6]) perfectly explained how the perspective of a shared nuclear programme could benefit both the European and the American military interests by reducing Washington’s expenditures on our soil while increasing our influence in the West’s military decisions. As noted by Ulrich Kühn of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, “it would be far too expensive for Europe to match Russia’s store of 2,000 to 3,000 tactical nuclear weapons” but Europe could, by using France’s nuclear doctrine settle for a deterrent force. “Europe,” notes Doug Bandow, “is also the most obvious place for Washington to close at least one of its nuclear umbrellas. None of the United States’ Asian allies possesses nuclear weapons, and their development would have unpredictable regional effects and be more likely to trigger proliferation” making this issue of a European Nuke a priority of the utmost importance.

Such a European military revolution would nevertheless have to be handled with care. Creating a European Nuke and therefore increasing the number of nuclear weapons possessed by European nations could arguably have an important impact on non-proliferation. It would also pose a very concrete question: to whom should fall the ultimate decision to fire those weapons? This has been established by many specialists: the first and main strength of a nuclear deterrent is its credibility. Not only do you have to let your prospective enemies know about your weapon, you also must absolutely erase any possibility to let them think you might not be prepared or ready to resort to those weapons of mass destruction. In the French case, the president has the possibility to order the use of nuclear bombs without referring to any counter-powers. This of course goes with him constitutionally being the commander-in-chief of the armed forces, and raises some political issues, but it is also ultimately there to assert France’s ability to punish any important attack on its most vital interests. In the event of a European Nuke, who shall we entrust with the possibility to unleash weapons so powerful one might think of them as blasphemous ([7])? Here, the military idea of a shared weapon meets the political necessity of a common executive power.

The almost romantic idea of a European Army, let alone of a Seven Nation Army, is no dream nor illusion, but a strategic necessity. Yet, the obstacles to be overcome in the process of creating such a tool are both various and imposing: beyond the inherent need to build it around shared military objectives, orientations and tools, it would furthermore require a common sense of politics, a remarkable – almost unreachable in those modern times – pedagogy and the insurance that this device, while being controlled by civil authorities, would not be neutralised by them. In the meantime, humble industrial cooperation appears to be the main way forward in designing the collective tools upon which unity shall, one day, be accomplished.

 

Hugo Decis is currently studying International Relations i Paris and is the current Communication Officer. This article was previously posted on Mercoeur, a french blog specialised on International Relations, at this address:  https://mercoeur.wordpress.com/2017/04/30/seven-nation-army/ 

 

[1] Le Creuset de l’Armée : Un Mythe de l’IntégrationJean-Dominique Merchet, Libération

[2] Airbus : Le Programme A400M est-il en danger ?Michel Cabirol, La Tribune

[3] Samuel Beckett’s European ArmyDaniel Keohane, Carnegie Europe

[4] Organisation for Joint Armament Cooperation, official website – available at: http://www.occar.int/programmes

[5] In a Reversal, Germany’s Military Growth Is Met with Western ReliefAlison Smale, The New-York Times

[6] The Case for a European NukeDoug Bandow, Foreign Affairs

[7] Towards the Nuclear Sublime: Representations of Technological Vastness in Postmodern American PoetryRob Wilson, Cambridge University

Giovanni Falcone: at the periphery of power, at the centre of the State

When an Italian goes abroad, s\he already knows what will be the first three words heard: pizza, mafia and mandolino.

This set of words might have slightly changed over time, being substituted by various other ‘symbols’: gelato, The Great Beauty, Berlusconi…

But if there is one word that keeps being said to Italians, that one is, beyond any doubt, mafia.

However, while it is true that everyone knows about the whole world rotating around ‘mafia’ , with its symbols, lifestyle and hierarchy, (and here it is where the film industry, see: The godfather, might have played a role!), very few can nod their heads at the hearing of the names of Giovanni Falcone and Paolo Borsellino.

Apart from my personal stories, also a simple google research can prove this. Try google ‘italian mafia’, and you will get 10.000.000 results. Try again with ‘antimafia judge Giovanni Falcone’: 22.400 results (mainly from Wikipedia and old articles).

So: who was Giovanni Falcone? 

Giovanni Falcone was an Italian anti-mafia judge who eventually paid with his life his commitment towards the preservation of justice and the State.

Sicilian by birth, Falcone had, therefore, a direct and clear perception of the problems that his city, Palermo, was facing back then. Almost all the businesses were forced to pay  pizzo to mafia bosses, as a way to seek protection and avoid further problems with the local ‘mafiosi’; the streets of the city were often the theatre of bloody confrontations between rival mafia families and the State was not equipped with the necessary tools in order to combat the phenomenon.

Against this background, Falcone brought about a real revolution in the way mafia was treated judicially. As a judge in Palermo, he was asked by Antonino Caponnetto to join the first ‘antimafia pool‘: a group of 4 judges (besides Falcone, there were Paolo Borsellino, Giuseppe Di Lello and Leonardo Guarnotta) that will join forces, for the very first time, and conjunctly analyse the activities of ‘Cosa Nostra’ (literally translatable as: our own thing). 

The latter was a powerful Sicilian mafia organisation whose structure was still thought to be, at the time, made of various groups with autonomous decision-making powers. Falcone was the first to understand the hierarchical nature of Cosa Nostra and, consequently, the fundamental role of joint investigations beyond national barriers.

During the investigations, he applied what would be known as ‘Falcone Method’ which can be best summed up with this words: ‘ In order to understand the mafia, you need to follow the money’. This interdisciplinary approach led him to liaise with banks and obtain critical information about capital flows and illicit affairs that the mafia was conducting abroad.

Meanwhile, the environment was exacerbating, making it more and more difficult for the judges to continue their work amidst death threats.

For this reason, Falcone and Borsellino were forced to move with their families to a prison (what an irony!), where they would continue their investigations in a more secure way.

Finally, the long investigations came to an end. On February 10th, 1986, which will be remembered as a historical day, the very first and big trial against Cosa Nostra (known as maxiprocesso ) started. This trial would change the way State-mafia relationships are governed, and will give the very first serious blow to the strongest mafia organisation of the time.

The ‘maxiprocesso’ would be also the main reason Falcone and Borsellino are known today; unfortunately, it was also the reason why they were both assassinated years after – respectively on May 23rd and July19th, 1992.

If you are wondering why it was called ‘maxi-processo’, a few figures could put it into perspective: 475 defendants, 200 lawyers, 900 witnesses, 600 journalists, a sentence to 2665 years in jail in total.

But not just the numbers can speak about the unicity of the judicial proceeding. A look at the place where the trial was conducted itself, with blinded doors and bulletproof windows, can help convey the tension surrounding the happenings: these Youtube videos (in Italian) are a must to better understand the ‘mafiosi’ and their insolence, irony and attitude towards justice.

Giovanni Falcone and its fellow judges could finally breathe a sigh of relief: they had just proven that mafia was not invincible. That the State was present and strong, and it was capable of punishing Mafia bosses.

However, this positive spirit would not last for long. Soon enough, Falcone will be isolated, his systematisation of the way anti-mafia investigations were held, jeopardised.

When it came the time to elect the successor of Caponnetto at the office in Palermo, he was thought to be the natural candidate for this position. However, the National Council of Judges (CSM) voted in favour of Antonino Meli, an older judge who started to dismantle the work of the antimafia pool. Believing that the Casa Nostra was made of various autonomous cells, rather than a single, vertical organisation, he did not embrace the unifying and interdisciplinary method of Falcone. To the contrary, he spread the judicial cases over various offices – in so doing, connecting the dots and looking for the ‘fil rouge’ linking all of these cases would become way harder.

But it was not just the lack of institutional support that caused the isolation of Giovanni Falcone. A mixture of suspicious theories, according to which Falcone had brought a ‘pentito’ (mafia informer) back to Sicily only to diminish the power of the antagonist mafia family, along with an environment of mistrust and delegitimisation, eventually led the judge to say:

Why does one die? Loneliness, or the fact of entering a game that is bigger than ‘us’. 
Lack of necessary alliances, lack of support. 
In Sicily mafia kills the State servants which haven’t been protected by the State

Unfortunately, his predictions were right. However, as we say in Italy, ‘time is a gentleman’. It puts everything back on the right track.

Following its cruel assassination, in fact,  Falcone has become a national hero. Streets, schools, festivals, awards have been named after him. As I am writing, a national manifestation is going on in Palermo with thousands of students coming from all over Italy to commemorate his memory.

This mythologising of his figure that has been happening lately if, on one hand, it was a necessary expiation for those who had not understood his importance back then, on the other hand, it epitomises the lust for justice, equality, rule of law the new generations have.

Given the changing nature of mafia, however, one should be wary of this ‘hero’ narrative that has pervaded the Italian media. By defining those who have conducted their role with respect to the State and the rule of law as ‘heroes’, one could start detaching their stories from reality. By delegating the fight on mafia to ‘extraordinary figures’, one could then justly feel exempted from fighting its own battle on injustice.

Giovanni and Paolo, before being visionary judges, were great citizens with a great sense of respect towards Italian institution, the State, their beloved homeland. The thing is that they were too ahead of time; and, as it happens in this cases, they were not understood by the majority of the people.

They were seen as heroes because they were going against the flow.

There is no better way to honour their memory than to conduct our daily ordinary acts of legality. Together, we can make sure that nobody is left alone anymore: not because the flow has stopped, but because it has finally started going in the right direction.

Federica Giordano Galasso is a 2015 Graduate and the President of the Erasmus Student Network Roma LUISS

Trouble in Paradise

Sweden is often praised as one of the, if not the, most successful welfare states in the world. Many progressives around the world take the country´s strong welfare system, pared with a healthy economy, as an example. According to a recent survey by World Economic Forum Sweden stands out as the best country in the world to live in, with top rankings in areas like gender equality and business climate. But something in this does not seem to translate into reality. Polls suggest that many Swedes do not think that their country is heading in the right direction, and the political situation is becoming more and more uneasy with minority governments and threats of snap elections. The Social Democrats, often attributed for Sweden’s success, seem to be heading for one of their worst election results ever, just around 30%. And how could a populist right wing party, that has its roots in 80s neo-nazism, become the third largest party and parliamentary kingmaker in the world’s most successful welfare state?

18136383_1412864355403528_536882536_n
Continue reading “Trouble in Paradise”

The Left needs to dump YOU!

Each left-wing movement in Europe has its own intricansies, but almost all of them were born of the Labour movement. After the industrial revolution, poor people, working class rallied together in center-left parties for more rights like paid sick leave, Universal Healthcare, social benefits. Social democratic parties were the party where the masses rallied in hope for a better life. Now the masses couldn’t be more detached from Social democratic parties. In Britain, the Labour Party is just the third most popular party among the working class, in France, the Front National also leads by a wider margin among working class while the socialist party drowns in popularity with this group of people and the same story happens in the Netherlands, Austria and many other countries. Center left parties are, in some cases, more popular among rich people than with poor people. Why this is happening? Very simple: Center left parties were once the party of the poor, unemployed, the factory worker, the uneducated, disaffected the one who was against the establishment. Now Center left parties are the party of the well connected, the rich, the college professor and the corporate lawyer.

Center left parties had once a clear agenda because they were made by working class people and for working class people; they knew clearly what they want and what were their priorities. They knew their struggles and their problems and wanted to solve them. Now, center left parties aren’t made essentially by the same people as before. They are leaded by elitist people who don’t have a clue how life is outside college campus or big cities. For some of these elitist people, going to a disaffected community or a desindustrialized area may be a field trip or a campaign stop but it will be never be their reality, their struggle, their problems, so working class or people in those communtities will never see them as their own representative.

 

18012659_1947625368794495_426899917_o Continue reading “The Left needs to dump YOU!”

La Primera de Muchas

17888097_1259379007502561_1214337678_nAyer fue un día triste para el socialismo español. Ayer, mientras seguíamos discutiendo sobre un proceso interno que cada día que pasa nos va enfrentando un  poco más, murió a los 46 años Carme Chacón a causa de problemas cardiacos.

Carme Chacón materializaba gran parte del ideario socialista. De familia humilde, gracias a sus profundas convicciones progresistas, a su gran trabajo como concejala de Esplugas de Llobregat y a su labor como observadora en la OSCE  , consiguió hacerse  un hueco en el mundo de la política. Fue una férrea defensora de la “Nueva Vía” de Zapatero y todos los valores que ella representaba, convirtiéndose en una de los miembros  más populares del gobierno del presidente socialista.

Carme Chacón fue la primera mujer en llegar al cargo de  Ministra de Defensa  en España, pero no fue sólo eso, fue mucho más. Continue reading “La Primera de Muchas”

¿Un Erasmus a Los 16 Años?

El pasado sábado día 25 de Marzo, se cumplía el 60 aniversario de la firma del Tratado de Roma que dio origen a lo que hoy conocemos como Unión Europea.

Si volvemos la vista atrás para ver cuánto se ha avanzado, podremos observar que ya  han pasado 30 años desde que por  primera  vez  un estudiante europeo cogiera sus maletas y enfrentándose a lo desconocido  hiciera “un Erasmus”. No resulta descabellado pensar  que aquellos que marcaron la senda del programa  más popular entre  estudiantes  europeos , al principio, lucharían contracorriente para poder emprender su aventura hacia tierras europeas.

Continue reading “¿Un Erasmus a Los 16 Años?”

Men as Victims of Intimate Partner Violence: an Undiscussed Tragedy

Are you really going to let a woman beat you up?’

This was the question posed by a Finnish emergency telephone number operator in 2009 to a frightened man who was calling to report that his wife was physically assaulting him (Kaleva, 2010). It is disturbing to think about what was taking place. The man had previously had to escape to a safehouse with his children in order to get away from his abusive wife. When he returned to retrieve clothes for himself and for his children, his wife attacked him again, and when he tried to get help, he was mocked (ibid.). This man’s cry for help over the phone serves as a great j’accuse against our very society, and our common way of thinking: the case received widespread publicity in Finland, and led to temporarily increased discussion about those cases of intimate partner violence (IPV) where men are the victims. Sadly, the topic is still largely ignored, not only in Finland, but in other countries and on the international level as well. Continue reading “Men as Victims of Intimate Partner Violence: an Undiscussed Tragedy”

#EU60 Proposals

The occurrence of the 60th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome offers the opportunity to both celebrate the successes reached so far and reflect on the future of the European project. As a result of the vision of the European Community’s founders, today Europe is a more prosperous and peaceful continent.

While taking pride in these conquests, there is no space for complacency: the future of the European project is at risk. From an American administration not supportive of the European Union to the threat posed by terrorism, external challenges abound. These problems are compounded by a generalised loss of confidence in conventional forms of politics and the European project, which feed populism and narrow nationalism across the continent.

As young European progressives, we believe that it is not possible to stand by while sixty years of European integration are put under discussion. Bold action and reforms are needed. Institutions more responsive to the people of Europe, new opportunities to rejoice in our shared identity and the forging of a more just, sustainable and secure Europe all go in the direction of a stronger European Union, a Europe that can look at the future with confidence.

 

Part A: European Institutions

A number of European institutions whose actions are often not felt by Europeans, as well as increased bureaucracy, have resulted in widening the gap between citizens and the decision makers. We want to target this institutional crisis by:

  1. Reforming the EU so as to increase its efficiency and credibility. It must be closer to its citizens, in order to improve transparency. A multispeed EU can permit the integration of some member states without affecting others. This can increase public support, as the EU will be seen as an opportunity rather than an imposing actor.
  2. Decentralizing some of the decision making that is currently conducted in Brussels and giving more credit to the member states and subnational entities, which are closer to the everyday life of people. The EU should always respect the result of democratic elections and give elected leaders the room to pursue their own policies, also at the national and subnational level. Simultaneously, this places responsibility on these entities: their failure is to blame on themselves only, not on the EU.

Part B: European Citizenship

Solid foundations for the future of the European Union are not only the result of better institutions but depend on a shared European identity. With the aim of furthering the understanding among European peoples and of better appreciating our shared history and values, we propose:

  1. Actively promoting the core European values through Member States’ educational systems. These include, but are not limited to, Openness, Inclusivity, Diversity, Democracy, Rule of Law and Human Rights. Should the EU wish to remain the most ambitious project of integration between peoples, it should promote the creation of physical spaces to stimulate dialogue between people.
  2. Increasing spending on higher education and lifelong learning -especially focused on the acquisition of languages, IT and technical skills. So far much has been said about Europe as a ‘knowledge economy’, but too little has been done to achieve this. Technology changes fast and the skills of people cannot stay behind. EU social funds need to be used to help entrepreneurs starting a business. The corporate sector is welcome to contribute as part of their CSR initiatives.
  3. Expanding the Erasmus + studies program to 16-year-old students and providing guidance to the relevant actors on how to get all the grants and programs they can currently benefit from.

Part C: Building a safe Europe

In an era of several diplomatic cases of abuse where authoritarianism is thriving in neighbouring states, the safety and unity of the European community heavily depend on its capacity to collectively defend its borders by:

  1. Acting as a proud and united global actor. This includes strengthening the EU military, cooperation on cyber security and terrorism prevention, and closer region-to-region partnerships with the African Union. Also, the EU must revise the modes of integration with third countries, in order to increase partnerships with mutual benefits and reduce the insider-outsider duopoly.

Part D: A sustainable Europe for future citizens

Europe’s security and future highly depend on how it deals with climate change. Given the current American administration’s lack of willingness to face off this great challenge, it is time for Europe to take a lead and set the path towards a more sustainable future. With this in mind, we propose:

  1. Taking back our role as the global leader in the fight against climate change and in the implementation of the COP21 agreement. In doing so, the EU needs to phase out lignite and coal burning, abandon nuclear energy and diesel, while investing in renewables. The green and the circular economy will create many new jobs that can replace those lost by ceasing polluting activities.
  2. Adopting an ambitious EU infrastructure investment policy. We believe that policies in this domain should be more focused on the long-term objective of creating a sustainable, green and inclusive Europe. Thus, we call for EU investments to integrate and modernize the European railway network, because this upgrades the cleanest mode of transport, improves connectivity, creates jobs and stimulates the economy.

Part E: Society

Even though the survival of the EU should be the priority, it makes little sense to keep the project alive while not ensuring harmonic, progressive and prosperous societies, aiming at the welfare of their citizens. Bearing that in mind, we propose:

  1. Supporting the institution of a real European Social Pillar. The EU policy has been guided by macroeconomics and lost sight of the social component for too long. All policies should be tested on their social impact, and aim to create jobs and reduce poverty. The Fund to the European Aid of the Most Deprived (FEAD) must be used more to compensate those who have economically suffered from Globalization.
  2. Being a cohesion actor so as to maintain European unity and peace. EU membership must bring more benefits than disadvantages to all concerned parties. Concrete policies to benefit all might include a compensation scheme for countries that have been struck by brain drain or extending 4G internet coverage to all citizens of the EU, including those who reside in the most disadvantaged or remote areas.
  3. Discouraging unpaid internships to the youth. Europe is a rich and progressive continent, where systematic exploitation should not be tolerated. Labour needs to be rewarded even if it is done by young or inexperienced people.
  4. Establishing directives for the progressive increase of the budget for Research and Development among all member countries.

Part F: Economic Policy

 Economic policy should be a means to the end of a more cohesive European Union, where there is solidarity among countries, generations and social groups. The European project shall be a source of prosperity for everyone. To this end, we propose:

  1. The cooperation of European countries so as to avoid tax competition and establish high taxation standards. Tax havens for big companies should no longer exist in the EU and no cooperation shall be entertained between the EU and tax heavens. An increase in transparency and taxation of profits in the countries where they are made will contribute to a more just Europe. Finally, a minor EU tax for companies acting within the single market could be established, and create the basis for a European fiscal revenue.
  2. A reform of the Euro Area would bring the members of the common currency area back to the ideals of shared prosperity and solidarity underlying the Treaty of Rome. This would be to everyone’s interest, not just of those countries that are still suffering from the dramatic social consequences of the 2009 Euro crisis: a more prosperous Europe is going to be a more harmonious Union. The institutions of the Eurozone have to change, starting from the ECB’s mandate so that in its monetary policy takes into account not only stable inflation but also full employment. In the presence of a common monetary policy, there is also the need for some forms of fiscal policy.
  3. Making the EU trade policy more transparent and aimed at enhancing EU standards globally.