Thessaloniki International Forum

Resolution Booklet

10th - 18th August 2014

Timetable

Saturday, August 16th

9:00 – 10:30 Opening of the GA

10:30 – 11:30 Motion for a Resolution by the Committee on Womens’ Rights and Gender

Equality

11:30 - 12:00 Coffee Break

12:00 – 13:00 Motion for a Resolution by the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs

13:00 – 14:00 Motion for a Resolution by the Committee on Constitutional Affairs II

14:00 – 15:00 Lunch

15:00 – 16:00 Motion for a Resolution by the Committee on Environment, Public Health and

Food Safety II

16:00 – 17:00 Motion for a Resolution by the Committee on Legal Affairs

17:00 – 17:30 Coffee Break

17:30 - 18:30 Motion for a Resolution by the Committee on International Trade

18:30 – 19:30 Motion for a Resolution by the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home

Affairs I

19:30 – 20:30 Dinner

Sunday, August 17th

9:30 – 10:30 Motion for a Resolution by the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home

Affairs II

10:30 – 11:30 Motion for a Resolution by the Committee on Transport and Tourism

11:30 - 12:00 Coffee Break

12:00 – 13:00 Motion for a Resolution by the Committee on Development

13:00 – 14:00 Motion for a Resolution by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs

14:00 – 15:00 Lunch

15:00 – 16:00 Motion for a Resolution by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Affairs

16:00 – 17:00 Motion for a Resolution by the Committee on Constitutional Affairs I

17:00 – 17:30 Coffee Break

17:30 - 18:30 Motion for a Resolution by the Committee on Environment, Public Health and

Food Safety I

18:30 – 19:30 Closing Ceremony

19:30 – 20:30 Dinner

MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION BY THE COMMITTEE ON WOMENS’ RIGHTS AND GENDER

EQUALITY

The May 2014 elections saw just a 2% increase in the number of women represented at

the European Parliament. Despite this modest growth, gender disparity still remains a

reality in both public and private sectors across the EU. Bearing in mind that gender

quotas are already in place in a number of Member States and are currently under

discussion in the European Commission, what strategies can the EU employ to achieve

equality?

Submitted by: Patricia Belem (PT), Emma Cauwelaers (BE), Kaan Diriker (TR), Armine Khamoyan (AR), Margit Kienzi (AT), Jeanice Koordijk (NL), Ainhoa Larreategui (IT), Sofia Magopoulou (GR), Marina Mantsai (GR/AL), Tamta Tsveraidze (GE), Sigrun Fagerfjall (SE, Chairperson)

The European Youth Parliament,

A. Bearing in mind the proposal “Women on boards”1 which aims to introduce gender quotas in all Member States is currently going through its first reading in the Council of the European Union,

B. Expressing its appreciation of already existing successful quota systems in Member States such as France2 and Belgium3,

C. Observing the absence of a common quota system across Member States,

D. Regretting that previous measures such as the EU’s Equal Treatment Directive4 has failed to achieve positive results in increasing female representation in decision-making positions,

E. Having received the European Commission’s 2013 Annual Report on Equality Between Women and Men5 stating that with current systems in place it would take a hundred years to achieve gender equality,

F. Alarmed by the fact that only 37% of the Members of the European Parliament are female,

1 Proposal that sets a target of 40% female representation in non-executive positions in companies listed on stock

exchanges in Member States for 2020. 2 Target of 40% women in executive and non-executive positions for 2017 applying to both listed and non-listed large companies. 3 Target of 33% women in executive and non-executive positions in state-owned and listed companies by 2017. Belgium also has 50% quotas for their electoral lists for the national parliament. 4 Directive on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities of men and women in matters of employment and occupation. 5 A report published annually by the European Commission that states and analyses progress in the field of gender equality.

G. Noting with regret that on average only one in four national members of parliament and

ministers are female,

H. Deeply disturbed by the large pay gap between men and women with equal qualifications in positions of equal authority,

I. Fully alarmed by covert and obvious sexism in workplaces,

J. Noting with deep concern that although more than half of university graduates are female an alarming number of these women are not employed in positions which require or utilise their qualifications, having examined research conducted by McKinsey6 showing that an increased number of women in workplaces directly contributes to higher performance and better resource management,

K. Taking into account the lack of public awareness of the capabilities and the potential of women in positions of leadership;

1. Supports the European Commission’s (EC) proposal “Women On Boards”;

2. Recommends Member States to implement the election system of the Belgian national parliament7;

3. Encourages Member States to adopt the gender equality initiative8 implemented in Denmark with sanctions for companies that fail to comply or explain in order to reduce the pay gap;

4. Further invites private enterprises to support women in progressing along the corporate ladder by organising leadership trainings under the condition that these women stay in the company for two years afterwards;

5. Calls upon Member States to implement an equal period of obligatory maternity and paternity leave;

6. Further requests Non-Governmental Organisations dealing with gender discrimination at workplaces to cooperate and share competences with each other through the creation of a common database;

7. Affirms the promotion of the “Women on Boards” proposal through a media campaign targeting adults in order to raise public awareness of the need for gender quotas;

8. Endorses the promotion of gender equality from a young age on through school conferences and other events.

6 Stated in “Women matter”, research conducted by McKinsey that explores the role women play in the global workplace, their experiences and impact in senior-executive roles, and the performance benefits that companies gain from gender diversity. 7 A system where every party has to include 50% women in their electoral lists. 8 Companies have to show the pay gap between their male and female employees in their annual reports and according to the “comply or explain” principle account for a failure to achieve equality.

MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION BY THE COMMITTEE ON EMPLOYMENT AND SOCIAL AFFAIRS

With youth unemployment averaging a rate of almost 23% across Member States and schemes such as the Youth Guarantee Scheme still not being widely or successfully implemented at a national level, how should the EU work with Member States to encourage increased use of these projects and improve the quality of proposed schemes?

Submitted by: Filip Eyoum (PL), Athena Karameliou (GR), John Kerr (IE), Hovsep Patvakanyan (AR), Kamiel Peeters (BE), Holger Qinami (AL), Milja Radosavljevic (RS), Eva Raikidou (GR), Pitt Sietzen (BE), Tamar Simonishvili (GE), Anamaria Todor (RO), Efe Unluoglu (TR), Nicole Goetz (Chairperson, CH)

The European Youth Parliament

A. Deeply concerned by rising youth underemployment1,

B. Disturbed by the rising unemployment rate among young people who have only completed mandatory education,

C. Taking into account the lack of incentives for employers to hire inexperienced young people,

D. Regretting the insufficient number of long-term employment offers to young people,

E. Noting with regret the insufficient funding of the current European Union (EU) youth unemployment schemes such as the Youth Guarantee Scheme2, Youth on the Move3 or the European Alliance for Apprenticeships (EAfA)4,

F. Observing the variation in implementation of these schemes caused by disparities in labour markets and educational systems of Member States,

G. Aware of the importance of increased cooperation between Member State governments and their respective private sectors concerning youth unemployment,

H. Confident in the advantages of youth labour mobility in the EU,

I. Having considering the benefits of youth entrepreneurship throughout the EU,

1A term to describe workers who are highly skilled but working in low paying or low skill jobs and part-time workers that would prefer to work full-time. 2 A scheme aiming to ensure citizens under 25 receive an employment offer within four months of leaving formal education or becoming unemployed. 3 A package of policy initiatives on education and employment that is part of the Europe 2020 strategy. 4 An alliance by the DG Education and Culture and DG Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion with the aim to promote and reform apprenticeship initiatives across Europe.

J. Referring to the billion 21 EUR cost projections of the International Labour Organization5

for successfully implementing Youth Guarantees in the Eurozone;

1. Accordingly calls for an increase in funding for Youth Guarantee schemes from billion 6 EUR to billion 21 EUR;

2. Further encourages the European Commission to increase the proportion of the European Social Fund allocated to the execution of the Youth Guarantee Scheme;

3. Supports the expansion of the Youth Guarantee Scheme to include a directive aiming to inform students and NEETs6 about the supply and demand in the labour market in order to support carreer choices;

4. Urges private enterprises and Non-Governmental Organisations to offer students more internships, apprenticeships, and other forms of skill-based educational training;

5. Further recommends national governments offer tax incentives to companies proceeding to hire young people following a period of training or internship;

6. Encourages Member States to review their respective legal frameworks for enterpreneural start-ups, in order to facilitate young people’s involvement in enterpreneural activities;

7. Calls for the organisation of an annual summit between Youth Guarantee co-ordinators of Member States to discuss and reevaluate current procedures and adjust future strategies;

8. Recommends the implementation and further development of Your first EURES Job (YFEJ)7;

9. Endorses the expansion and implementation of the EAfA to include those who have only fulfilled compulsory education.

5 A United Nations agency dealing with labour issues.

6 Not in Education, Employment or Training 7 A scheme where national employment services provide support for both young job seekers and businesses interested in recruiting from outside their home country.

MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION BY THE COMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS II

On the question of: "Fighting corruption needs to come from the top and that is where Europe fails the test." Cobus de Swardt, Managing Director of the global Transparency International Secretariat in Berlin. With confidence in EU institutions at an all-time low and 120 billion Euros missing from EU coffers, how should the EU work to fight corruption in its institutions and their employees?

Submitted by: Tigran Bazarchyan (AR), Nathan Canadas (FR), Arina Florescu (RO), Ludovica Formicola (IT), Miltiades Grigoriades (GR), Styliani Kontou (GR), Zuzanna Lewandowska (PL), Andreas Loutzidis (GR), Molly McKeagney (IE), Paraskevi Pandazi (AL), Madeleine Trattler (AT), Malika Bouazzaoui (FR, Chairperson)

The European Youth Parliament

A. Concerned that billion 120 EUR is being diverted through corruption within EU institutions,

B. Noting with regret that corruption leads to mistrust in EU institutions as reflected by the Eurobarometer survey of December 2013 which states that one third of EU citizens distrust the EU,

C. Fully aware that corruption risks in the EU are highest in public procurement1 according to Transparency International’s report of 2013,

D. Deploring the lack of independence of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF)2 from the European Commission (EC) which makes it difficult to investigate higher officials,

E. Observing that the current mechanisms for reporting corruption suspects to OLAF is useful but insufficient,

F. Approving the European Court of Justice’s (ICJ) use of OLAF’s recommendations to prosecute corruption cases,

G. Realising that lack of transparency makes decision-making procedures unaccountable,

H. Alarmed by the lack of transparency of decisions taken during trilogue meetings3,

I. Noting with regret that it is not compulsory for EU civil servants to report conflicts of interest,

J. Further noting that less than one third lobbyists are on the transparency register,

1 Procurement is the acquisition of goods and services with public funds

2 The mandate of the European Anti-Fraud Office is to investigates corruption cases

3 Trilogues are informal meeting convened to reach an agreement among the European Parliament, the European

Commission and the European Council in a shorter time than the usual bureaucratic procedures

K. Welcoming the decision of the EC to publish a biannual anti-corruption report,

L. Viewing with appreciation the deterrent effect of sanctions for the violation of the principle of integrity which encourages EU civil servants to act in the public interest;

1. Has resolved to make the declaration of conflicts of interest compulsory and enforced by

OLAF;

2. Calls upon OLAF to cooperate with procurement teams in EU institutions to monitor possible conflicts of interest;

3. Urges OLAF to become an EU institution independent from the EC;

4. Supports Transparency International’s recommendation to create a publically accessible online procurement database compiled by OLAF and the procurement teams of EU institutions to inform citizens about the spending of the EU budget and the allocation criteria;

5. Requests that the transparency register become mandatory for all lobbyists;

6. Calls upon OLAF to monitor the transparency register and make it publically accessible, including:

a. the identity of the lobbyist,

b. the interest they represent,

c. their financial resources,

d. the means of communication used with EU civil servants,

e. previous work experience in EU institutions;

7. Further invites the EC to evaluate the aforementioned reforms of OLAF in its future biannual reports;

8. Calls for a record of meetings between EU civil servants and lobbyists to produce a legislative footprint4;

9. Requests that minutes be taken in trilogue meetings to ensure traceability;

10. Draws attention to the EU Staff Regulations which protect whistle blowers through:

a. an anonymous process,

b. opportunity to move position within the EU institution,

c. sanctions for retaliatory actions;

11. Supports the achievements realised by Revolving Door Watchdog database.5

4 The legislative footprint is the record of the decision-making process that lead to a new law

5 The Revolving Door Watchdog database is compiled by a non-profit organisation which records movement of individuals between EU institutions and the private or non-profit sectors.

MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION BY THE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, PUBLIC HEALTH

AND FOOD SAFETY II

With the recent European Council agreement for Member States to have the final say on Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) cultivation, the EU has taken a step towards a new era of GMO legislation. Given that many Members of the European Parliament are still doubtful about GMO cultivation, how should the EU move forward to prepare for consequences to future generations and bear the advantages to GMOs in mind?

Submitted by: Vayalena Drampa (GR), Duarte Esteves (PT), Julia Fotiadou (GR), Giorgos Kotsadam (GR), Petra Kumi (Al), Leah Moloney (IE), Katarzyna Rachuba (PL), Jip Rietveld (NL), Carla Sabău (RO), Noah Schumacher (ES), Dennis Patriarcheas (Chairperson, GR), Lorenz Stree (Vice-President, DE)

The European Youth Parliament

A. Approving the recent agreement that enables Member States to ban GMO cultivation given that each of them has different agricultural needs,

B. Acknowledging the lack of comprehension among EU citizens due to the absence of adequate information,

C. Disturbed by the ongoing failure to reach consensus among scientists regarding the risk assessment of GMOs leading to a lack of public understanding,

D. Noting with regret 54% of European citizens being against the use of GMOs1,

E. Aware of the complications involved in the coexistence of Genetically Modified (GM) and non-GM crops due to the risk of contamination,

F. Deeply concerned by farmers’ excessive use herbicides and pesticides causing serious risks to human health and the environment,

G. Alarmed by the potency and spread of “super-bugs” and “super-weeds”2 which threaten the ecosystem,

H. Viewing with appreciation the positive impacts of GMOs on the economy through higher yields in comparison to their conventional counterparts while having the same production cost per crop,

1According to the 73.1 Eurobarometer Survey on Biotechnology. 2 Insects and weeds which have grown resistant to pesticides and herbicides respectively after having been exposed to increased amounts.

I. Considering the insufficiency of labelling and tracking methods hindering consumers’ right

to choice,

J. Fully alarmed by the widespread life threatening malnutrition in developing countries,

K. Bearing in mind the potential uses of GMOs to improve human health and lifestyle;

1. Supports the funding of the European Food Safety Authority’s (EFSA) long term research

as a neutral GMO risk assessment body;

2. Recommends the European Research Council allocating grants to biotechnological companies as an incentive for the latter to engage in further innovative research in genetic engineering, including:

a. the enhancement of food which could be grown in developing countries to combat malnutrition,

b. the properties of crops cultivated for clothing,

c. the production of pharmaceutical components;

3. Urges the EFSA to update guidelines concerning crop cultivation, pesticide, and herbicide usage with regards to the present or future GMOs being cultivated;

4. Encourages Member States to improve their national quality checks by means of more frequent and thorough investigations of production fields;

5. Emphasises the need for Member States to choose to cultivate GMOs abiding by the regulations set out by the European Commission (EC), guided by the European Coexistence Bureau (ECoB)3;

6. Trusts Member States to introduce effective procedures advised by the ECoB to minimise the potential effects of transgenic contamination;

7. Implores the EC to improve the labelling methods already in existence by introducing a more comprehensive symbol to be placed on foods produced using genetic engineering;

8. Advises Member States to introduce a module into secondary school curricula to educate young European citizens on the fundamentals of GMOs;

9. Requests that the European Anti-fraud Office (OLAF) oversees the running of the EFSA in order to ensure they maintain their objective function;

10. Invites the establishment of a pan-European media campaign on GMOs targeted at specific age groups and supported by the EFSA;

11. Further recommends the inclusion of a smartphone application, under the same media campaign, targeted at young consumers;

12. Expresses its belief that the aforementioned campaign can target the older generation through television, press and radio advertising.

3 A European Union Body setting advisory guidelines for the coexistence of GM and non-GM crops.

MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION BY THE COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AFFAIRS

On the question of: The right to be forgotten: The recent ruling of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in connection with the Right to be Forgotten as provided in the European Union’s (EU) Data Protection Package sets a precedent for citizens to control the exposure of their personal data, but amidst growing concerns about the implementation and abuse of these measures by public figures, how can the EU balance the rights of its citizens against the risk of revisionism?

Submitted by: Nikolaos Alexiadis (GR), Ani Baghdasaryan (AM), S. Ecem Can (TR), Sarah-Jane van Els (NL), Malgosia Giemza (PL), Christ Ligori (AL), Myrto Mylona (GR), Saskia Piercy (ES), Emma Saliaris (FR) , Şayen Tokyay (TR) (Chairperson)

The European Youth Parliament,

A. Believing that the proposed Data Protection Reform1 increases citizens control over their personal data while restoring trust in social media, online services, and upgrade protection of the personal data processed,

B. Observing that the recent ECJ ruling on the right to be forgotten2 requires updated detailed criteria and procedures to be implemented by search engine operators,

C. Taking into account that the criteria for technical and practical implementation of the right to be forgotten ruling are currently insufficient,

D. Deeply concerned that the recent ECJ ruling on the right to be forgotten may result in a considerable number of takedown requests to Google3,

E. Considering that every takedown request made to a search engine operator requires case by case examination that should not be completed automatically or electronically,

F. Fully aware that information is not fully removed from the web as only specified links are hidden from initial search results of a certain search engine subsidiary4,

G. Deploring that the right to be forgotten ruling might be easily bypassed by accessing a removed link from a non-EU search engine operator5,

1 Data Protection Package is a major overhaul of already existing EU data protection rules aiming to put people in control of their own personal data. The reform aims to improvise the data protection rules in the EU. 2 The ECJ ruling dated 13 May 2014 which said under certain conditions the individuals have the right to ask search engines to remove links with personal information about them. 3 As of July 18th 2014 more than 91,000 requests have been sent to Google for the removal of more than 328,000 links with 53% being successfully removed. 4 According to the right to be forgotten ruling even if the physical server of a company processing the data is located outside Europe, the EU rules apply to the search engines if they do have a subsidiary in a Member State.

H. Keeping in mind that the right to be forgotten might be used especially by public figures to

disclose information which is not relevant or no longer relevant;

1. Encourages search engine operators to notify citizens on the processing of their personal data during the implementation of:

a. the new set of rules set forth in the Data Protection Reform,

b. the right to be forgotten ruling;

2. Requests the European Commission (EC) to publish recommendations on the implementation of the right to be forgotten ruling, emphasising:

a. the need for fair and impartial takedown request process,

b. the significance of prioritising public interest as a criteria in the implementation of the right to be forgotten;

3. Further encourages the search engine companies to publish:

a. more detailed criteria for removal requests in the form of guidelines,

b. reports on changes made through the implementation of the aforementioned EC recommendations;

4. Proposes Impact Assessments6 to be prepared by the EC concerning the costs and the possible consequences of the right to be forgotten in the long term for the search engine companies;

5. Strongly encourages cooperation among search engine companies in order to facilitate and accelerate the implementation of the ruling;

6. Calls for the EC to initiate viral campaigns in order to inform citizens of their rights concerning:

a. the Data Protection Reform and its content,

b. the dangers of publishing and processing data on digital platforms;

7. Supports the fining system as a tool to enhance compliance with the ECJ ruling 7;

8. Recommends the publication of transparency reports by all search engine companies on the implementation of the recent ECJ ruling and contain detailed but anonymous information on takedown requests;

9. Further encourages search engine companies with transparency reports already in place to particularly include implementation of the right to be forgotten ruling in the aforementioned reports.

6 Impact Assessment is proposed by the EC and it evaluates economic, social, environmental consequences. 7 By the implementation of Data Protection Reform, the data protection authorities will be able to fine companies who do not comply with EU rules with up to 2% of their global turnover.

MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION BY THE COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL TRADE

While the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) offers the opportunity for EU to strengthen its position on the global market politically as well as economically, questions surrounding the nature of negotiations and resulting quality standards are still at large. How should the EU move forward in the negotiations with the US so as to harness the potential of such a partnership, while upholding the process standards that govern its internal market?

Submitted by: Panagiotis Athanasopoulos (GR), Alicia Gómez (ES), Yassin Halabi (FR), Hanna Korinh (AU), Yannick Léonard (BE), Stephen Morawski (PO), Dario Neraj (AL), Alina Pisareva (RU), Konstanina Rompesi (GR), Christina Zacharaki (GR), Victoria Savvidou (Chairperson, GR)

The European Youth Parliament,

A. Bearing in mind that the European Commission (EC) is the body which represents the European Union (EU) at TTIP negotiations,

B. Further aware that agreements reached at said negotiations must be approved by the European Parliament (EP) before implementation,

C. Declaring that a successful agreement will generate new job opportunities and growth through increased market access and greater regulatory compatibility while facilitating the development of international standards,

D. Noting with concern that according to the EC all documents related to the negotiation or development of the TTIP agreement will be confidential,

E. Affirming the protection of EU regulations in the TTIP negotiations,

F. Approving efforts taken by the EC in order to enhance transparency,

G. Noting the different standards in regulatory systems between the EU and the USA,

H. Alarmed by the possibility of the TTIP allowing companies to use the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS)1 instrument to protect corporate interests and enable them to seek compensation from the respective government for discrimination, nationalising assets and loss of profit,

1 Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) is a procedural mechanism provided for in international agreements on investment. Countries sign such agreements in order to set out ground rules when foreign companies invest on their territory. Source: European Commission, Factsheet on Investor-State Dispute Settlement, 3 October 2013

I. Taking into account current EU legislation regarding geographical indicators2,

J. Considering EC research which shows that the TTIP could boost:

i. The EU's economy by billion 120 EUR,

ii. The US economy by billion 90 EUR,

iii. The rest of the world by billion 100 EUR,

K. Estimating that the TTIP agreement will improve EU-US mutual access to public procurement3 at national, regional and local level,

L. Fully dissatisfied by the limited awareness of the majority of EU citizens have regarding

TTIP,

M. Expresses its appreciation for the European Ombudsman4 opening of two investigations into the Council and EC regarding the lack of transparency around negotiations, on 31st of July 2014;

1. Requests an open and competitive public procurement market to ensure the efficient use of public resources while emphasising the right of individual governments to freedom of process and choice;

2. Encourages the publication of detailed reports after each round of negotiations in order to foster trust in the advancement of negotiations;

3. Further encourages that such reports be disclosed to the Members of the European Parliament;

4. Calls upon EU negotiators to pursue the protection of intellectual property rights and geographical indicators for the benefit of both partners;

5. Urges the continuous inspection and review of the Partnership in line with legislation of both EU Member States and the US;

6. Deems the ISDS unnecessary due to the sufficiency of both parties’ judicial systems with regards to corporate issues such as discrimination, nationalisation of assets and loss of profit as a result of respective legislation;

7. Trusts the EC to guarantee the persistence of EU environmental standards during negotiations in order to avoid the lowering of such standards to meet those of the US;

8. Further recommends that regulation regarding EU public services will not be compromised;

9. Asks TTIP negotiators to clarify their position regarding public service policy after the potential implementation of the TTIP.

2 A geographical indication is a sign used on goods that have a specific geographical origin. 3 Public Procurement is the acquisition of goods and services by public bodies. It ranges from the purchase of routine goods or services. 4 The European Ombudsman investigates complaints about maladministration in the institutions and bodies of the European Union.

MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION BY THE COMMITTEE ON CIVIL LIBERTIES , JUSTICE AND

HOME AFFAIRS I

On the question of Inward migration: a challenging opportunity. While many migrants come to Europe by choice in search of better living standards, others migrate in search of safety and shelter as they flee from their home countries. How should the EU balance catering for these migrants and their integration into European society and still protect its external borders?

Submitted by: Giacomo Checcin (IT), Charlotte Croison (FR), Hannes Holemans

(BE), Razvan Lacatusu (RO), Ilias Mavromatis (GR), Dylan Mcdermott (IE), André Nüßlein (DE), Alexander Penkovskiy (UA), Nikola Ristic (RS), Pinelopi Spania (GR), Enki Shehu (AL), Melis Yilmaz (TR), Mathieu Llohr (Chairperson, LU), Alex Nompilakis (Vice-President, GR)

The European Youth Parliament,

A. Alarmed by the disproportional distribution of 90% of immigrants in the European Union (EU) to only nine Member States,

B. Noting with deep concern despite every Member State having ratified the Universal Declaration of Human Rights the principle of Article 15 “everyone has the right to a nationality” is currently not applied to every exile,

C. Taking into account the disparities amongst Member States regarding asylum application processes and living conditions for asylum seekers,

D. Noting with deep concern high levels of discrimination towards immigrants regarding:

i. job applications,

ii. wages,

iii. unrecognised university degrees,

iv. employment exploitation,

E. Recognising immigrants’ need for increased awareness of their rights and respective legislation as part of their integration process,

F. Noting with regret the frequent lack of access to public services such as healthcare or

education systems for migrants,

G. Fully aware of the ever-present problem of asylum seekers arriving without or with

counterfeit documentation resulting in application processing delays1,

H. Fully alarmed by the widespread deplorable conditions in internment camps including overpopulation, insufficient security, and hygiene,

I. Alarmed by the fact that the vast majority of refugees are hosted by developing countries lacking the resources to appropriately accommodate refugees,

J. Expresses its appreciation for humanitarian missions and economic aid to developing countries and acknowledging its contribution to the prevention of conflict in countries of origin,

K. Having thoroughly examined the different reasons for migration such as the political state of the country of origin and low standards of living,

L. Realising that corruption and incompetence of border police has resulted in on-going crimes such as the trafficking of humans and drugs,

M. Deeply disturbed by the fact that Frontex and national coastguards have turned away immigrant boats on several occasions;

1. Urges the EU to implement a quota system for the distribution of refugees throughout

Member States based on population and capacity of resources;

2. Calls for the European Commission to enforce financial sanctions on Member States that do not respect the human right to a nationality;

3. Calls upon Member States to offer Temporary Protection2 to stateless people;

4. Strongly recommends the Common European Asylum Service to be fully implemented by 2020;

5. Further recommends the EU to provide accessible language courses for immigrants in temporary protection and mandatory lessons for immigrants whose temporary protection has ended;

6. Requests access to healthcare and other standard public services to immigrants;

7. Further requests the EU agency on Fundamental Rights to implement already existing anti-discriminatory legislation in all Member States;

8. Supports the introduction of standardised university tests allowing for the confirmation of immigrants’ university degrees not being recognised in the EU;

9. Calls for further funding for internment camps which aim to:

a. guarantee well-being and safety,

1 Dublin III states that the processing of an application should take no longer than 9 months. In France it

currently takes up to 20 months for the application process. 2 Temporary protection is a measure to provide displaced people from non-EU countries unable to return to their country of origin with immediate and temporary protection

b. develop adequate infrastructure of camps,

c. improve hygiene conditions to at least meet minimum standards;

10. Encourages further cooperation between Member States and developing countries to guarantee at least minimum human rights standards in refugee camps outside the EU, such as:

a. basic healthcare,

b. security from criminals,

c. adequate infrastructure and human resources;

11. Recommends the EU to identify bureaucratic bottlenecks in the processing of asylum seekers;

12. Further urges additional resources dedicated to the aforementioned bottlenecks;

13. Calls for an enhancement of Member States’ border controls, through:

a. the provision of additional training to border police,

b. the increase of checks on each border point,

c. the introduction of stricter punishments for corrupt border police;

14. Supports better cooperation between Frontex and the European Asylum Support Office3.

3 A European body providing practical support to Member States for the implementation of asylum laws. It

focuses on Member States that face particular strain due to increasing numbers of migrants

MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION BY THE COMMITTEE ON CIVIL LIBERTIES, JUSTICE AND

HOME AFFAIRS II

Freedom of the press and media pluralism is often cited as a key component for the protection of civil liberties, but in recent years there has been an increase in journalists using the legal defences to which they are entitled to perform illegal and intrusive surveillance on private citizens. How can the EU continue to protect press freedom without encroaching upon the rights of its citizens?

Submitted by: Zahr Kahn (IE), Dolora Kasemi (AL), Tatevik Mkrtumyan (AR), Ali Okumusoglu (TR), Iulia Valentina Radu (RO), Niusha Shahmoradi (DE), Valentin Solimeo (FR), Kalliopi Terzidou (GR), Carla Tortora (IT), Justine Tremerie (BE), Nikola Vranes (RS), Barbara Zaraveli (GR), David Corish (Chairperson, IE)

The European Youth Parliament,

A. Recognising that free and pluralistic media acts in the interest of freedom of speech and freedom of expression, and is crucial for European democracy,

B. Bearing in mind the influence of the Media in shaping public knowledge and opinions through material broadcasted and published,

C. Approving the work of the Press Complaints Commission (PCC)1, the European Federation of Journalists (EFJ) 2 and the European Publisher Council (EPC)3,

D. Noting with regret the effect of the financial crisis upon the quality and standard of journalism,

E. Concerned by the fact that profit–orientated Media can be driven to use illegal and intrusive practices in order to obtain information for writing material,

F. Deeply conscious of growing public scepticism towards media organisations due to reported cases of illegal and intrusive activities,

G. Taking into account the negative effect caused by the spread of false and unverified information in stories which lack reliable sources,

H. Realising that the majority of media industries currently operate under self-regulation4,

1 The PCC is a voluntary regulatory body for British printed newspapers and magazines that consists of

representatives of the major publishers which administers the system of self-regulation for the press. 2 The EFJ is a regional organisation of the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ). It promotes and defends

rights to freedom of expression and freedom of information as guaranteed by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 3 The EPC review the impact of proposed European legislation regarding the press before expressing an opinion to legislators, politicians, and opinion-formers with a view to influencing the content of final regulations.

I. Fully alarmed that governments have the power to deny licenses for independent television

and radio channels as well as critical newspapers which limits their ability to publish their views,

J. Noting with satisfaction the 30 recommendations for respect, protection, support and promotion of pluralism and freedom of the media in Europe proposed by the HLGMFP in January 20135,

K. Further noting in particular the recommendation which calls upon Member State National Competition Authorities to make proactive and regular assessments of individual countries’ media environments and markets and highlights potential threats to pluralism;

1. Calls for the pending recommendations of the January 2013 High Level Group Report to be implemented by the Commissioner for Digital Agenda as soon as possible;

2. Requests that the assessment of media organisations by Member State National Competition Authorities be according to their compliance with common guidelines ensuring that all information:

a. derives from a multitude of verified sources,

b. is obtained exclusively through legal methods,

c. remains factual, truthful and reliable,

d. is reported to the relevant authorities if obtained by illegal or intrusive practices;

3. Designates National Competition Authorities to accordingly award a certificate of compliance, which can be displayed on all published material, to media organisations that adhere to the above guidelines;

4. Reminds the media of the right to approach relevant National Competition Authorities in cases of misconduct or violations of Freedom of Press;

5. Recommends the introduction of a pan-European identification card for journalists working for European media corporations in all Member State;

6. Solemnly confirms that any violations against the common guidelines by journalists will be strictly punished with the confiscation of their pan-European identification card;

7. Supports the constant accessibility of the MAVISE6 database administrated by the European Audiovisual Observatory;

8. Urges the introduction of Media Literacy Modules in High-School curricula.

4 The Media is self-regulating when it implements and abides by its own unique policies, guidelines, ethics and standards. 5 The High Level Group on Media Freedom and Pluralism was established in October 2011 by Vice-President of the European Commission Neelie Kroes. The Group is fully independent and its mandate is to draw up a report for the European Commission with recommendations for the respect, protection, support and promotion of pluralism and freedom of the media in Europe. 6 MAVISE is a database on television channels and media companies in the EU which was created to provide better knowledge of the audiovisual market and ensure a transparency industry.

MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION BY THE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT AND TOURISM

Transport is responsible for more than a quarter of CO2 emissions in Europe, with 71% of this figure coming from cars. As findings and initiatives such as the European Union (EU) Transport Scoreboard show great disparities in energy efficiency, use, and performance across the EU, how should a comprehensive and coherent EU transport policy be developed bearing in mind the aims of the 2050 roadmap?

Submitted by: Katharina Franke (DE), Melanie Gendre (FR), Tuna Gonen (TR), Candice Lalande (FR), Sara Lamcellari (AL), Dorien Lijnzaad (NL), Stefanos Mantzarlis (GR), Nikos Mentesidis (GR), Veronika Mctchedlishvili (GE), Martin Pichler (AT), Luca Rayes (ES), Misra Sirvanlioglu, Davide Monticelli (IT, Chairperson)

The European Youth Parliament,

A. Considering that congestion costs the EU trillion 1.3 EUR annually as stressed by the European Commission (EC) on the report ‘Road Transport a change of gear1’ published in 2012,

B. Alarmed by the fact that road transport alone contributes to one fifth of the EU’s total

CO₂ emissions according to the report ‘Reducing Emissions from Transport2’ published by the EC in July 2014,

C. Condemns the increased use of road transport as this continues to increase the amount of corresponding CO2 emissions given that road transport is among the most pollutant modes of transport,

D. Recalling the results of Eurostat’s ‘Report on Passenger Transport3’ indicating that 84.1% of passengers transport consists of private vehicles,

E. Deeply concerned by the disparities in infrastructural networks of different Member States as shown in the European Transport Scoreboard,

F. Observing that cars are responsible for 12 % of total greenhouse gas emissions as underlined by the EC in the report ‘Reducing CO2 Emissions from Passenger Cars4, published on the 9th of July 2014,

1 Report containing guidelines for a more efficient road transport industry. 2 Report containing guidelines to reduce CO2 emissions from transport. 3 Report containing statistics on passenger transports usage and emissions. 4 Report containing guidelines to reduce CO2 emissions from passenger cars.

G. Keeping in mind that the involvement of private companies in transportation differs amongst Member States as shown by the disparities in their respective allocation of national budget to the sector reported on the EU Transport Scoreboard5,

H. Taking in consideration that on average 25%6 of vehicle-kilometre7 in freight transport, both national and international, are empty runnings,8

I. Expressing its appreciation for the aim of 2050 Roadmap to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 80% in comparison with 1990 levels,

J. Aware of the positive results achieved by public transport smartphone applications such as NEDAP AVI which monitor and control the movement of vehicles and people,

K. Conscious of the fact that traffic congestion causes an increase of CO₂ emission by 300% annually according to the International Road Transport Union,

L. Bearing in mind that dust particles produced by road traffic have a major impact on the quality of air and human health,

M. Noting with regret that electric-powered modes of transport may still be run on energy which originated from fossil fuel combustion,

N. Deeply disturbed by the phenomenon of oil companies buying registered patents of electric motor technologies in order to impede further development of these technologies;

1. Proposes that the European Parliament (EP) allocates specific funds for the construction

of cycling paths and lanes reserved exclusively for public vehicles as well as non-polluting cars;

2. Further supports the implementation of software which aims to strengthen existing car-pooling systems;

3. Recommends the organisation of car-pooling schedules in state institutions and private work places;

4. Emphasises the need for cooperation between Member States and car-pooling software developers with the aim to connect each registered driver’s account with their driving licence insuring complete safety for passengers;

5. Calls for further advertisement through television, internet, and newspaper articles of convenient and affordable modes of transport both public and private with the aim to reduce traffic congestion;

6. Proposes the creation of a European body which will evaluate projects submitted by developers in the field of public transport software and grant funding and technical support to those who will be found worthy;

5 The EU Transport Scoreboard is a compilation data platform on disparities between Member States on all modes of transport. 6 Data collected from Eurostat report 117/2007.

7 A measure of traffic flow determined by the number of vehicles multiplied by the average journey length.

8 Transportation vehicles only partially loaded.

7. Invites Member States to involve private investors in the public transport system only should they agree to invest in less profitable routes as well as those of their choice;

8. Endorses the creation of a list of companies to encourage cooperation and coordination to avoid empty runnings which will be used by the Member States to provide relief on tolling and taxation;

9. Proposes that Member States provide tax relief for companies which prove to rely on over 80% of their exports on efficient modes of transport such as railroad and shipping;

10. Suggests the promotion of non-fossil fuel vehicles by:

a. reducing taxation and tolling for electric cars,

b. allowing electric cars to use the bus lanes

c. saving parking seats for electric cars only;

11. Calls upon the EC to discuss the creation of a coherent EU-wide framework for eco-incentives for vehicles with minimum CO2 emissions to be assigned in case of inefficient vehicles dismantlement;

12. Encourages the EU to invest in buying patents on electric cars’ technologies and to publish the related research in order to provide European companies with a chance to further develop their electric cars’ designs;

13. Calls for the EC to introduce an pan-European initiative to incentivise the combined purchase of electrical vehicles and solar panels in order to counterbalance the customers’ surplus need for electricity;

14. Congratulates and further supports the efforts made in research and development on the field of alternative forms of vehicle fuels.

MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION BY THE COMMITTEE ON DEVELOPMENT

“Ending Poverty and ensuring sustainability are the defining challenges of our time. Energy is central to both of them.” Jim Yong Kim, World Bank Group President. Following on from the creation of the SE4All (sustainable energy for all) initiative, what action should the EU now take to deliver sustainable energy for all?

Submitted by: Nadia D’Amico (IT), Jana Degrott (LU), Nozizwe Dube (BE ), Evangelia Grammatopoulou (GR), Nila Hedjri (ES), Robin Hietz (AT), Gulnara Iusupova (RU), Paula Keller (DE), Ionut Nitulescu (RO), Despoina Elisavet Stavridou (GR), Nevis Veli (AL), João Moreira (Chairperson, PT)

The European Youth Parliament

A. Congratulating the creation of the Sustainable Energy for All (SE4All) initiative and all associated stakeholders,

B. Contemplating that the EU is the world’s largest provider of development aid,

C. Bearing in mind that the provision of universal energy access is considered a hidden Millennium Development Goal which was not included in the initiative despite its relevance and direct connection to several goals,

D. Fully alarmed by the fact that 1.3 billion people worldwide have no access to electricity,

E. Noting with deep concern 2.8 billion people worldwide having no access to clean cooking facilities which leads to both outdoor and indoor air pollution with the latter resulting in four million premature deaths every year,

F. Further noting the extremely negative impact that a lack of energy access represents for women and children forced to spend significant amounts of time collecting firewood for cooking and working on other household tasks,

G. Emphasising that money annually invested into expanding energy access needs to be tripled in order to reach the SE4All goals by 2030,

H. Recognising investors’ reluctance to finance projects in developing countries since some have proven to be either non-profitable or highly risky,

I. Profoundly concerned that inadequate education and lack of know-how represent an obstacle for empowering local people and providing long term solutions in developing communities,

J. Taking into account that a further use of European Union (EU) funds for development aid may be met with scepticism by its citizens,

K. Conscious that providing universal energy access through non-renewable sources will worsen climate change even though they are cheaper and more effective in the short-term,

L. Expecting the global energy demand to grow by one third by 20351,

M. Stressing both development and programme financing being hindered by corruption, bureaucracy, political instability, and war,

N. Pointing out different Member States’ interests in development aid possibly affecting EU actions,

O. Aware of the lack of statistics, information, and studies that provide a clear perception of the situation in countries facing energy poverty,

P. Considering that poor access to modern energy in Africa is estimated to slow down GDP growth by an average of 2-3% per year,

Q. Fearing an exacerbation of poverty due to approaches focusing solely on renewable energies,

R. Regretting the widespread phenomena of relative energy poverty amongst developed countries;

1. Proposes that the majority of European investment in the development sector are directed at the construction of renewable energy infrastructures through off-grid and mini-grid solutions2;

2. Further proposes that a small portion of the aforementioned investments should still target on-grid solutions3, extending the already existing national electricity grids to areas without access to it;

3. Calls for the implementation of a formative two-phase approach to provide clean-cooking facilities in regions without access through:

a. the creation of public and free clean-cooking camps funded and monitored by EU Member States and NGOs,

b. the creation of a subsidised market system to gradually sell the clean cooking ovens to individual households;

4. Calls upon the EU to assist and improve resource mapping in developing countries through the provision of expertise and scientific resources in order to help them acknowledge and take full advantage of their potential energy resources;

5. Encourages the EU to stress the importance of a common international approach towards the delivery of universal sustainable energy coverage through sharing scientific knowledge, project reports, and joint financial resources;

6. Urges the promotion of dialogue between the EU and developing countries’ governmental institutions in order for the latter to understand the importance of tax reduction and the minimisation of bureaucratic procedures regarding renewable energy investments;

1 Data attained from the International Energy Agency 2 Not connected to the main or national electrical grid 3 Connected to the main or national electrical grid

7. Invites EU-subsidised renewable energy companies to establish themselves in regions with

no energy access in order to provide job opportunities and expertise to locals in building, operating, maintaining and further developing its infrastructures;

8. Recommends closer cooperation between the EU and developing countries in order to minimise the financial risks for investors through:

a. more accurate risk assessment,

b. expertise checks and balances,

c. the replication of successful project strategies,

d. the involvement of investors in the initial phases of project development;

9. Supports the creation and investment of micro-finance networks in regions with no energy access to facilitate small start-up businesses and innovative projects proposed/suggested by local citizens;

10. Requests the gradual eradication of subsidies for non-renewable energy and the channelling of the resulting funds into the development of renewable energy sources.

MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION BY THE COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC AND MONETARY

AFFAIRS

Dealing with debt; Five years after harsh austerity measures were first implemented

across Europe, calls have been made by Francois Hollande and Matteo Renzi to

reconsider the terms of the Fiscal Stability Treaty. Should the EU revisit these terms

with a view to a greater emphasis on stimulus and less on austerity?

.

Submitted by: Matteo Anastasio (IT), Sara Berent (PL), Inut Danci (RO), Adrian Galleoni (SE), Sumeon Gkegkas Stratilatis (GR), Emma Ruano (ES), Milyausha Sharifullina (RU), Charissa Spekle (NL), Deniz Tokmakoglu (TR), Bryan Tremblais (FR), Christos Zois (GR), Izaura Mantsai (Chairperson, GR/AL)

The European Youth Parliament

A. Acknowledging the difference in financial capacity between different European Union (EU) Member States,

B. Deeply concerned about the lack of transparency in all bodies involved in fiscal policy decision-making on both European and Member State level,

C. Fully aware that EU unemployment reached 11.50% on July 31st 2014, with youth being the most affected age group,

D. Noting that stimulus may be executed through regulative measures such as:

i. the facilitation of trade through the lowering of trade barriers,

ii. the reduction of production costs in order to encourage long-term growth on a local level,

iii. an increase in competitiveness of the EU's economy in relation to other international economic powers,

E. Noting with concern that in 2013 the overall debt in the Eurozone was 93.4% of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP), whilst GDP in the Eurozone declined by 0.4%,

F. Deploring the imbalance in EU budget allocation between different policy sectors,

G. Recognising the limitations of the measures of the Fiscal Stability Treaty1,

1 The Fiscal Stability Treaty is an intergovernmental treaty which aims to strengthen fiscal discipline in the

Eurozone through a balanced budget rule and automatic correction mechanism.

1. Supports the current terms of the Fiscal Stability Treaty in combination with the following

additional solutions;

2. Calls for the establishment of a new European Labour Strategy which aims to mitigate

costs associated with high unemployment through:

i. the expansion Flexicurity2 amongst the Member States,

ii. further development of the already existing trainee programmes;

3. Asks the European Commission to publish guidelines aiming to reduce unnecessary and

wasteful expenditures in Member States;

4. Further requests the introduction of a fair and strict financial support system for

unemployment which is based on subsidies adjustable to a minimum standard of living

set in reference to GDP per capita in each Member State;

5. Affirms that the aforementioned support system should require a set number of job

interviews before becoming a prospective receiver of subsidies;

6. Calls for the redistribution of the EU Budget especially concerning:

i. the restructuring of the Common Agriculture Policy since it constitutes only 3.2% of

the EU GDP, whilst it constitutes 39% of the EU Budget,

ii. the cost-effectiveness of EU administration;

7. Affirms a transition of energy sources from fossil fuels to more renewable energy sources

in order to increase energy independence for the benefit of respective Member States and

generate income through exports;

8. Calls for further investment in Research and Development through initiatives such as

Horizon 20203.

2 Flexicurity is an integrated strategy for enhancing, at the same time, flexibility and security in the labour market. It attempts to reconcile employers' need for security-confidence that they will not face long periods of unemployment. 3Horizon 2020 is the financial instrument implementing the Innovation Union, a Europe 2020 flagship initiative aimed at securing Europe's global competitiveness. Seen as a means to drive economic growth and create jobs, Horizon2020 has the political backing of Europe's leaders and the Members of the European Parliament.

MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION BY THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND RURAL AFFAIRS

Agribusiness efficiency and global poverty: After the conclusion of the Common Agricultural Policy reforms under the Irish Presidency of the European Union and the implementation of said reforms under the 2014-2020 budget, what steps should the European Union take to mitigate the impact its Common Agricultural Policy may exert on production in developing countries?

Submitted by: Charlotte de Groot (NL), Jelle de Ruiter (NL), Anthony Fedorov (FI), Artemis Giasimakopoulou (GR), Tazo Natsvlishvili (GE), Oisin O’Sullivan (IE), Eirini Papadopoulou (GR), Petar Poljak (RS), Teodora Popa (RO), Victoria Radda (AT), Tom Wolfskamp (RS), Yiannos Vakis (CY, Chairperson)

The European Youth Parliament,

A. Deeply concerned by the negative impact that the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) of

the European Union (EU) has on the agricultural sectors of Developing Countries (DCs),

B. Bearing in mind that increasing the CAP budget creates further market distortion and makes DC exports less competitive on EU markets,

C. Recalling that the original aims of the CAP include balancing price volatility in the agricultural sector caused by unpredictable external factors such as adverse weather conditions,

D. Realising that out of 900 million farmers worldwide only the 11 million EU farmers benefit directly from the CAP through the Single Farm Payment Scheme (SFPS)1 of Pillar 12,

E. Noting that the CAP affects each DC’s agricultural sector differently,

F. Approving the recent reforms of the Generalised Scheme of Preferences (GSP) 3focusing on fewer beneficiaries and giving more support to countries through GSP+4,

G. Alarmed by the dependency of DCs on EU exports hindering development in their own agricultural sectors,

1 SFPS is an agricultural subsidy paid out to farmers in the EU in the form of direct payments. 2 The CAP is structured into two Pillars: Pillar 1 relates to direct support payments to farmers, such as the SFPS,

whilst Pillar 2 relates to the Rural Development Programme which supports economic and social development in the countryside. 3 The GSP is designed to support DCs export to the European Union (EU) and so facilitate their integration into international markets by providing for duty reductions on about 66% tariff lines. 4 GSP+ is a specific incentive arrangement offering deep tariff cuts for vulnerable countries which ratified and implemented international conventions relating to human and labour rights, environment and good governance.

H. Condemning the dumping of excess EU agricultural produce to DCs,

I. Fully alarmed by the phenomenon of exploitation of workers and child labour in DCs which could be potentially attributed to increased demand for their exports by the EU market,

J. Noting with regret that the EU’s Policy Development for Coherence (PDC) 5is not reflected in the CAP,

Keeping in mind the Millennium Development Goal 1 (MDG1)6 which aims to eliminate global hunger and poverty;

1. Authorises the stabilisation and gradual reduction of the subsidies given to EU farmers through the SFPS of Pillar 1 of CAP by:

a. maintaining the CAP budget at billion 59 EUR in the year 2015,

b. reducing it gradually during the next 10 years;

2. Calls upon the Directorate-General (DG) for Trade of the European Commission (EC) to use multilateral negotiation platforms to encourage DCs to report problems that EU Policies present in order for the EU to better evaluate the impact of the CAP on individual DCs;

3. Requests that all EU Free Trade Agreements with DCs include the option for DCs to choose to retain tariffs on 20% of their sensitive7 products in order to mitigate dumping;

4. Calls for the modification of the current Everything But Arms8 arrangement allowing it to impose quotas and restrict market access to companies that do not comply with adequate worker conditions;

5. Urges the DG for Development and Cooperation of the EC to set up an expert advisory task force to be deployed in areas with low agricultural efficiency in order to assist farmers in becoming more efficient in their methods of production;

6. Further urges the creation of an online platform to enable exchange of knowledge and expertise between farmers in the EU and DCs in order to help increase farming efficiency in DCs;

7. Strongly urges the EC and Member States to take the PCD commitment into account when drafting future legislation.

5 PDC is a commitment based on the recognition that in pursuing its domestic policy objectives, the EU should

avoid negative spillovers which could adversely affect the EU's development objectives. PDC is set out in Articles 3 and 21 of the Treaty on the European Union (TEU) and Article 208 of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union (TFEU), 6 MDG1is an international development goal established by the United Nations which targets to eradicate extreme poverty and hunger. 7 “Sensitive products” refers to those agricultural commodity markets that are most vulnerable to significant losses due to influxes of European imports. 8 The EBA offers full duty free, quota free access for all products except arms and ammunition for 49 Least Developing Countries on 99% of all tariff lines.

MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION BY THE COMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS I

Despite the EU’s efforts to stimulate voter participation in the 2014 European Elections, voter turnout marginally decreased to 43%. Given that voters who did exercise their right to vote elected an increased number of Eurosceptic and nationalist parties such as UKIP and Front National, how should the new composition of the European Parliament engage in constructive dialogues with such movements and mitigate anti-integration movements?

Submitted by: Yanki Bambal (TR), Olalla Benito (ES), Dafni Karachaliou (GR), Mariia Kostiv (UA), Mateo Kuka (AL), Eva Nelson (FR), Ilias Pagkozidis (GR), Myrto Skouteli (GR), Sopiko Tsertsvadze (GE), Luca Vanhemmens (BE), Adriaan Van Streun (NL), Mateusz Zakzecki (PL), Laure Steinville (Chairperson, FR), Alastair Payne (Vice-President, UK)

The European Youth Parliament

A. Observing Eurosceptic parties make up more than 20% of the European Parliament (EP) since the 2014 European Parliament elections,

B. Deeply regretting the presence of far-right parties such as Jobbik (Hungary) and Golden Dawn (Greece) in the EP which jeopardise the basic principles of the EU,

C. Seriously concerned by the combination of Eurosceptic views with far-right policies of xenophobia and racism limiting the potential for debate on European reforms,

D. Bearing in mind that rendering Eurosceptic and extremist parties illegal is an undemocratic radical decision which may broaden their support base as alternative parties,

E. Convinced of the correlation between the economic recession and the rise of nationalism and Euroscepticism since the 2008 crisis,

F. Regretting that the functioning of the EP is not adequately prepared to incorporate dissenting views on European integration into its proceedings,

G. Noting with deep concern low turnout levels at European elections caused by a general lack of understanding and interest in European affairs amongst citizens,

H. Realising Eurosceptic views are exacerbated by inefficient working procedures of EU institutions such as:

i. the democratic deficit arising from the presence of two unelected chambers, the European Commission (EC) and the Council of the European Union,

ii. the EC having the sole right of initiative1,

1 The right of initiative is the ability to propose new European legislation.

I. Considering the Europeans Citizens Initiative2 (ECI) a complex and expensive process

which cannot effect treaty changes;

1. Calls for the organisation of regular debates between Eurosceptic and non-Eurosceptic

parties in order to ameliorate communication between them;

2. Draws attention to the need for the establishment of a code of conduct of the EP for all Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) to enforce a set of ethical rules which respect the fundamental values of the EU;

3. Further requests immediate temporary suspension of MEPs or cuts in their salaries in the event that they breach the aforementioned code of conduct;

4. Calls upon the Committee on Economic and Monetary affairs to relax austerity measures in order to regain citizens’ trust towards EU institutions;

5. Has resolved to adjust the voting procedures of the EP to raise the majority necessary to legislate to at least 70%;

6. Recommends an electoral reform which would enable all citizens to directly elect candidates for the presidency of the EC;

7. Requests an expansion of powers of the EP to include the right of initiative;

8. Further requests that if the EP was granted the right of initiative, then ECIs would be:

a. sent direcly to the EP instead of the EC,

b. allowed to propose treaty changes;

9. Endorses the development of comprehensive media coverage concerning operations of the EU, especially during election campaigns, through means such as governmental and non-governmental organisations’ publications.

2 The European Citizens’ Initiative allows the citizens to be “co-authors of the law”: if a measure gathers up to

one million signatures coming from at least 7 out of the 28 Member States, it will be adressed to the EC.

MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION BY THE COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEE ON

ENVIRONMENT, PUBLIC HEALTH AND FOOD SAFETY I

As political unrest between Russia and Ukraine persists and the EU’s dependence on Russia for natural gas imports is called into question, fracking is once more brought to the fore as an alternative energy source to allow the EU increased control over its energy supply. Given that some Member States already use or intend to use shale gas exploitation in the near future, what should the EU common approach to this suggestion be?

Submitted by: Mariam Aghayan (AR), Franziska Franke (DE), Aleksandar Gigov (RS), Anastasia Tsilia (GR), Avtandili Karaulashvili (GE), Seán Mahon (IE), Cagan Mungan (TR), Vlada Mykhailova (UE), Nadina Nicolov(RO), Charo Rodríguez Martín (ES), Glen Trebicka (AL), Zoi Tsangalidou (GR), Annmarie Kiiskinen (FI, Chairperson).

The European Youth Parliament

A. Regretting the potential for trans-boundary pollution from fracking in border regions,

B. Acknowledging tensions resulting from the lack of a common legal stance on fracking among Member States,

C. Highlighting the environmental impact of shale gas wells particularly with regard to ground water pollution as this is a shared resource in Europe,

D. Aware of the imbalance between Member States regarding dependence on Russian gas supplies, the level of energy infrastructure, and available funding,

E. Deeply conscious that fracking especially affects the health of workers and local residents living close to shale gas plays caused by air, water, and soil contamination and pollution,

F. Taking into account the lack of objective research and studies on the long-term effects of fracking which results in uncertainty and lower interest in investing in the industry,

G. Keeping in mind the lack of public awareness since fracking currently remains uncommon in Europe,

H. Emphasising the importance of transparent industrial policies relating to toxic chemicals used and released during the fracking process,

I. Recognising the lack of funds and competitiveness in the gas sector of the EU,

J. Fully alarmed that fracking may distract Member States, Non-Governmental

Organisations, and the private sector from investing in renewable energy sources and reaching the energy and climate goals outlined in Europe 2020 and 20301,

K. Bearing in mind the positive aspects of development in fracking processes in Europe such as:

i. the potential for direct and indirect job creation which has been the case in the United States,

ii. lower greenhouse gas emissions than coal,

iii. more energy independence;

1. Suggests Member States to practice fracking as a short-term solution so as to improve energy security, while still encouraging them to invest primarily in renewable energy resources;

2. Urges Member States to support alternative fracturing techniques instead of hydraulic fracturing such as, but not limited to, propane fracturing2 in order to:

a. prevent water wastage,

b. prevent ground, water, and soil pollution;

2. Proposes the Member States use part of the fracking tax revenues to fund research and construction of renewable energy infrastructure in order to reach the 2020 and 2030 goals;

3. Further recommends the European Investment Bank prioritise funds for energy investments;

4. Expresses its hope that the EU will diversify gas supplies and take measures to stimulate the internal energy market by improving and expanding Europe’s pipeline networks to reach new suppliers;

5. Request that the EC propose guidelines regarding unconventional hydrocarbons in accordance with the EC’s final choice of the options presented in the Impact Assessment3;

6. Strongly recommends the implementation of such guidelines on Member States level;

7. Encourages Member States to share experience, technology, and expertise in order to promote independent energy resources;

8. Calls for cooperation between neighbouring Member States on environmental protection on shale gas wells in proximity of borders and common waters;

9. Calls upon national authorities to undertake regular inspections of shale gas wells and impose sanctions in cases of regulatory breaches, such as:

a. suspension of licenses,

1 10 and 20´year plan launched by the European Commission (EC), aiming for the economic development of the

EU, for instance by increasing the usage of renewable energy sources and lowering the CO2 emissions. 2 A technique focusing on stimulating the shale formations in order to free the gas or oil trapped inside by using propane as a fracturing fluid, avoiding the release of toxic chemicals in to ground water. 3 Economic, social and environmental evaluation of the consequences of a certain issue, created by the EC before proposing an initiative.

b. compensation for residents who have been affected,

c. fines for companies which have caused environmental damage;

10. Affirms the importance of all Member States further implementing the REACH4 regulation;

11. Further advises that the EC keep the REACH regulation up to date in order to prevent pollution by chemicals related to fracking in the future;

12. Invites Member States to relocate scientists from their environmental protection agencies and universities in order to create an independent research group to:

a. produce peer reviewed studies on the long term effects of fracking,

b. expand the research covered by the Impact Assessment to include long-term effects of fracking;

13. Recommends the provision of easily understandable and accessible public information through:

a. a public database including neutral information on fracking provided by the EC,

b. public consultations involving national governments and regional authorities;

4 Regulation on the registration, evaluation, and authorisation of chemicals (1907/2006/EC).

With the cooperation of :

With the kind support :

Under the auspices of :

ΔΗΜΟΣ ΠΟΛΥΓΥΡΟΥ