LOMODEMICISSUE II

As in all great cliche films, all good things must come to an end. For al-most the very last time, we would like to share our work with you all. We had a single tear rolling down our cheeks, whilst finishing this editorial, as we will miss putting these issues together incredibly much. Hence, we have written you a small haiku.

Place digits one tonine, in rows, columns,

subgridsOnly one in each!

LOMODEMIC

9 4 7 1

7 8 2

1 3

1 3 4 8

2 8 3 5

5 4 7 6

9 6

8 7 2

3 4 9 8

Puzzle 1 (Medium, difficulty rating 0.59)

Generated by http://www.opensky.ca/~jdhildeb/software/sudokugen/ on Sun Feb 16 16:37:34 2014 GMT. Enjoy!

Lobi,

Matteo and Nastassia EDITORSJasper EDITORIAL ASSISTANTTim VIDEO EDITOR

4

6

10

8

14 16

22

24

The committee on Transport and Tou-rism II has been working hard on a long-term solution for the increasing

demand of maritime safety and security with regards to the threat of piracy and sea robbe-ries. The committee has been looking at long-term solutions to completely end the threat of piracy, as well as short-term solutions solving the problems the EU is facing soon. The committee also realised many humanitarian and political conflicts have to be dealt with in order to solve the problem completely. Howe-ver, since the committee focusses on trans-port, they have decided to concentrate on what effect the problem has on the worldwide economy as well as what effect the problem has to international maritime transport.

As maritime transport concerns nearly all politically influential nations, many internati-onal organisations as well as individual states are involved in this issue. For example, the United States of America (USA) have been involved in safeguarding the important trade routes by using their military power. They acted as a security force granting the safe-keeping of international trade vessels sailing through the Gulf of Aden and the Arabian

sea, both hot-spots for piracy attacks. The European Union (EU) is working on the attack on piracy around the Gulf of Aden and the Arabian sea, as well. They cooperate close-ly with the USA and benefit from the Ame-rican military force. However, the USA have decided that they are going to retreat from the security operation, as their trade interests are altering towards Asia, making the Gulf of Aden and the Arabian Sea trivial trade routes. This means the EU will lose a major partner security defence. Thus, a gap on the attack of piracy will occur immediately when the USA leave East Africa.

The committee on Transport and Tourism II believes the EU should step up their game and fill up that gap. In order to do this, the committee has acknowledged the basics of the operations already in place prosecuted by the EU. They feel those operations should be expanded and extended on, with the aim of ensuring the safety of the vessels sailing the most dangerous routes. In addition, TRAN II considers encouraging negotiations with involved international orga-nisations and parties to expand and extend on the existing attacks. For example, start nego-

PIRATES HOOKED ON

INTERNATIONAL INTERFERENCE

tiations with United Nations (UN) member states with the same interest in regards to tackling piracy. The gap the USA leave behind could then possibly be filled by setting up new anti-piracy missions with the benevolent UN member states.

Another problem the committee on Transport and Tourism II is facing, concerns the lack of efficient water fronts, which result from ge-neral dysfunction within the infrastructure in East Africa. The harbours of East Africa are generally incapable of docking large, modern vessels. Instead, companies and international organisations are forced to send older models of their ships to the East African harbours. These ships are more expansive to dock and they are more vulnerable to piracy attacks. This decreases the chances of an effective long-term solution to the problem, since a piracy attack is more likely, when the ships are not properly equipped. Moreover, the committee believes the unne-cessary expenses that come with docking ol-der ships have negative consequences for the country’s economy. This may result in more

instability within the harbouring country,

eventually leading to more instability in that country. Therefore, the proposing committee believes the EU should strive for updating these harbours so that they will be able to dock the modern vessels there. The commit-tee considers setting up a fund dedicated to the updating of East African harbours. This fund would then fall under the supervision of an EU committee, overseeing if the funds are utilised correctly. Next to that, the committee proposes supporting plans that help East Afri-ca setting up more adequate infrastructure.

The committee on Transport and Tourism II thus acknowledged a broad spectrum of problems on the subject of piracy attacks. The committee members have carefully looked at these subjects and recognised the internati-onal importance. Consequentially, the com-mittee is aiming for international cooperation coming up with a long-term solution ending piracy entirely. The committee also acknow-ledges that the core of the problem partially lies in East Africa and aims for granting aid in that area as well. The international communi-ty is on its way of attacking piracy, but loose ends need still to be connected.

ARTICLE BY CASSIE TINGEN

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT AND TOURISM II (TRAN II)

INTERNATIONAL INTERFERENCE

5

DECISIONS AND CONSEQUENCES

ARTICLE BY RICCARDO PASSARELLA

The INTA committee managed to reach a consensus about the main problems related to the question of va-lues. There are many aspects to take into account when negotiating a trade agreement. In fact, it is advisable to consider the impact the agreement has on the environment and make sure certain sustainability standards are

respected.

The recognition of human rights is another fundamental feature that must be faced within the treaty, since directly or indirectly accep-

ting their violation will necessarily affect the political image of at least one of the parties. Furthermore, in order to achieve an efficient accord, especially in the area of international trade, it is wise to study the way of limiting the impact protectionism measures will have in practice. Neither of the parties aims at finding obstacles that would harm or make more difficult the domestic economic growth. The right to intellectual property also appears, nowadays, as a hot topic. These aspects are not only relevant to the relations the Eu-ropean Union (EU) establishes with other countries. Some of them are actually issued from rules of inter-national customary law and represent the erga omnes obligations that any State has to respect and for which it can be kept accountable whenever it goes against them, may it consents to these rules or not.

To aspects usually correspond an even number of consequences and it is also the case in this situation. When a consent is given to something, the necessity of ensuring the respects of the terms and condition of the agreement arises. Mechanisms of control are to be put in place in the goal to guarantee that every aspect is observed by both the parties. In order to understand these mechanisms, it is possible to make an analogy between them and tribunals established by national law, that are permanent, independent and of obliga-tory jurisdiction. In the absence of such systems, the public international law makes use of the principle of reciprocity. The principle implies the respect of obli-gations and the assurance of the agreed rights, but whenever these expectations are not met, it is unilate-rally possible to suspend a treaty. Of course reciprocity

cannot be used as a pretext to give up the respect of erga omnes obligations. Another serious consequen-ce is the interdependence that is created between the parties of an agreement. Ideally, all the parties would be equally dependent to one another. In this situation, none of them would occupy a stronger position and be able to threaten the other parties. In real life, though, perfect interdependence is almost impossible and a country would benefit more from an agreement than another or the degree of importance of an agreement could not be the same for all of these countries. This can be interpreted positively, as a way of improvement to reach equality, or negatively, as a restriction to state sovereignty.

It is of fundamental importance to find a balance. In the case of the European Union, it is viable to state that its values are a significant pillar. They must be taken into account and the best thing would be for the trade partners of the Union to be able to respect them. However, this is not always possible. In such cases the EU should find a way to provide aid to less developed countries, but the only way to constructively help them is to put up a solid exchange of goods, services and capitals. The question about how to act towards these work-in-progress situations is legitimate. A good suggestion could be to entertain relations with the direct partners of the agreement, namely the manu-facturers. In fact via a general imposition of technical and environmental standards and the enlargement of the network of companies that contribute to the different stages of the trade, it is thinkable that, in the long term, the obligations derived from international law and the values of the EU itself would be broadly respected.

DECISIONS AND CONSEQUENCES

COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL TRADE (INTA)

7

When asked what words people associate most with Europe or the European Union (EU), it is doubtful that most people would choose the

words agriculture or farming. In today’s urbanised and industrialised European Union, farming makes up less than 3% GDP. Even though agriculture, as a share of the EU budget, has declined dramatically over the past three decades, at over 40% it remains the largest area of budget expenditures. The Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development (AGRI) has managed to illustrate and define the problems surrounding the Common Agricultural Poli-cy (CAP) very clearly. The CAP has an enormous effect on the global market and this has been the main focus of the discussion. The committee decided to look at the current situation from the perspective of not only the EU, but also foreign countries.

The committee came to realise that production support definitely is of great importance for the welfare agricultu-ral sector of the EU. Production support increases compe-titiveness, which is a must for a prosperous economy, yet it results in a lack of solidarity towards non-EU countries in the European culture. The EU is currently not considering the impact of national and EU policies on the rest of the world. Consequently, the EU policies set a moral standard that future generations will adopt in the nature of their policy-making. The committee argues that this standard does not correspond with the main values of the EU, one of them being our moral obligation to allow developing countries to reach their goal in self-determination. Rela-tively speaking the EU is a generous contributor when it comes to providing development aid. The combination of being a big player in development aid as well as being a big player in impeding economic welfare in develop-ment countries is completely inefficient and contradictory according to the committee. Therefore reforming this is a

main focus.Besides production support, there is a green subject to the topic. The CAP has a big impact on climate change. The environmental challenges traditionally faced by agricultu-re have worsened by climate change, because this results in extreme and unpredictable weather conditions. Now, more than ever farmers need to mitigate climate change, which the EU is trying to realise in their reforms. These reforms mean that rural development has started focus-sing on greening of the agricultural sector. The committee raises awareness of the fact that not only the European harvest, but also the harvest in developing countries that rely on agriculture is at risk. The farmers in those coun-tries are more sensitive for these changes due to their relatively unstable economies and thus are more at risk. Considering that the CAP is a big contributor to climate change in the whole world, the committee feels that dra-wing back climate change should not only be for the EU’s own benefit. It is important for the welfare of the agricul-tural market of countries all over the world.

There are certain factors of the CAP that, according to the committee, do not only seem to go against the values of the EU, but are also illogical. For example as Beatrice stated: “Many products that naturally grow, and therefore can be produced cheaper, in African countries, are produ-ced in greenhouses in Europe. This does not make sense.” It is clear that it is the production support system that ma-kes this more efficient for EU farmers, however, this is not the most sustainable way of producing agricultural goods. The committee has decided that if the EU actually wants to make the CAP more environmentally friendly, this part certainly has to be amended.

VALUES VS. WELFAREARTICLE BY EZINNE MOLENKAMP

main focus.Besides production support, there is a green subject to the topic. The CAP has a big impact on climate change. The environmental challenges traditionally faced by agricultu-re have worsened by climate change, because this results in extreme and unpredictable weather conditions. Now, more than ever farmers need to mitigate climate change, which the EU is trying to realise in their reforms. These reforms mean that rural development has started focus-sing on greening of the agricultural sector. The committee raises awareness of the fact that not only the European harvest, but also the harvest in developing countries that rely on agriculture is at risk. The farmers in those coun-tries are more sensitive for these changes due to their relatively unstable economies and thus are more at risk. Considering that the CAP is a big contributor to climate change in the whole world, the committee feels that dra-wing back climate change should not only be for the EU’s own benefit. It is important for the welfare of the agricul-tural market of countries all over the world.

There are certain factors of the CAP that, according to the committee, do not only seem to go against the values of the EU, but are also illogical. For example as Beatrice stated: “Many products that naturally grow, and therefore can be produced cheaper, in African countries, are produ-ced in greenhouses in Europe. This does not make sense.” It is clear that it is the production support system that ma-kes this more efficient for EU farmers, however, this is not the most sustainable way of producing agricultural goods. The committee has decided that if the EU actually wants to make the CAP more environmentally friendly, this part certainly has to be amended.

The committee does realise that their aims mainly focus on improving the situation in foreign countries. Drawing back the side effects the CAP has on the global agricul-tural market, is the most important in the committee’s opinion. As Joost stated, the system the EU made has resulted in negative consequences for non-EU farmers. This goes against the values of the EU, which are obviously not aimed at impeding foreign agricultural markets. The committee’s suggestions may have some unwanted, but inevitable, impacts on the welfare of the EU. In conclusi-on the topic requires a choice between values or welfare. Apparently, the decision has been made.

VALUES VS. WELFARE

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT (AGRI)

9

ATTACK OF THE DROIDS

EPISODE II: A NEW HOPE ARTICLE BY KEES FOEKEMA

11

Legislation concerning medical devices is commonly assumed to be safe and solid, but experience has shown the opposite. Legal

loopholes in an affair so delicate and of such a common concern are dangerous, as the PIP scan-dal has proven.

Luckily, last September the European Commission (EC) showed to have learned from the PIP implant scandal and proposed an extensive set of new regulations.

In short, they will significantly tighten the authori-sation process for medical devices before they are introduced on the market. Furthermore, the main changes include an extension of the current legal definition of medical devices to - among others - include breast implants. Thirdly, independent assessment agencies will be given more power in monitoring device manufacturers, including the so-called dawn rides. Although most people would say that the proposals would effectively tackle the problems, the Committee on Human Rights (DROI), however, takes a clear stance and is planning on taking the solutions even further and keeping the patient’s interests at the heart of the debate.

Indeed, the Committee on Human Rights decided to make a drastic change in the medical devices legislation. In the current system, medical devices need to receive a CE-mark before being placed on the market. In order to receive this stamp of appro-val, a medical device must meet EU safety, health and environmental protection requirements. These requirements are based on the Medical Device Directive (MDD). The MDD intends to harmonise medi-cal devices legislation within the European Union and are used as guidelines for national governments and notified bodies. Yet, DROI agreed that it was unfair that all the recipients of PIP bre-ast implants were exposed to high risks of unpleasant conditions, all thanks to a notified body in France. In the system the delegates propose, the directives would be tigh-tened greatly. That means that there is little room for interpretation of legislation for Member States (MS) and carry out the laws in the fashion that they think is best for their country. The directives would apply to all Member States and national governments would be expected to carry them out properly. Of course, this change in legislation is

“In the system the delegates of the Committee on

Human Rights propose, the directives would be tightened

greatly.”

Indeed, the Committee on Human Rights decided to make a drastic change in the medical devices legislation. In the current system, medical devices need to receive a CE-mark before being placed on the market. In order to receive this stamp of appro-val, a medical device must meet EU safety, health and environmental protection requirements. These requirements are based on the Medical Device Directive (MDD). The MDD intends to harmonise medi-cal devices legislation within the European Union and are used as guidelines for national governments and notified bodies. Yet, DROI agreed that it was unfair that all the recipients of PIP bre-ast implants were exposed to high risks of unpleasant conditions, all thanks to a notified body in France. In the system the delegates propose, the directives would be tigh-tened greatly. That means that there is little room for interpretation of legislation for Member States (MS) and carry out the laws in the fashion that they think is best for their country. The directives would apply to all Member States and national governments would be expected to carry them out properly. Of course, this change in legislation is

highly contentious, as it is undeniable that diffe-rences between Member States regarding resources could help abide these newly proposed changes in legislation made by the Committee on Human Rights.

What is more, the Committee recognised the necessity of tackling the loopholes in current

legislation, which exist as the directives were set up at a time where technology was not as far developed as it is today. Namely, the directi-ves were harmonised in the 1990s. However, pioneers in the medical device industry have developed many new products since then and con-

tinue to do so. Therefore, the system of directives set up in the past is currently terribly out-dated. In other words, the legislations that were set up back then, no longer apply to the medical devices that we now know today. The Committee aims to find out which changes need to be made to ensure this will not happen again in the future. In any case, it is important to realise that legislation concerning technological in-novations can never be up-to-date. That is becau-

se innovation in the medical devices market is a never-ending process.

Finally, one dilemma still remains unresolved. The medical devices sector is commonly considered to be one of the most diverse and innovative sectors in the EU. This innovativeness will always remain to be of a vast essence. Innovativeness enables us, people all over the world, to keep up with diseases like cancer and aids that claim human lives every day. On the other hand, tighter regulations propo-sed by both the EC and DROI, may harm the great innovativeness. The committee on DROI gave dif-ferent views on the dilemma and asked themselves when a trade-off is for ‘the greater good’. The way they decided to tackle these problems insinuates the stance the Committee has taken in this discus-sion. Obviously, this is very interesting to take note of.

In conclusion, the stance of the Committee on Human Rights is clearly based on the interests of the patient’s health. The tightening of the directi-ves raises many questions, such as whether or not it will harm the innovativeness of the sector. In any case, the Committee has profound reasons for their position in the dilemma.

COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS (DROI)

“In the system the delegates of the Committee on

Human Rights propose, the directives would be tightened

greatly.”

13

In the aftermath of World War II, when the foundations of the current European Union (EU) were laid, the main goal of the European community was peace. In its developing stages the

focus of the EU shifted during the past decades to the economy. Unfortunately, this has also resulted into the current hypocrite stance of the EU in the Middle East, putting us on the same level as any other super state. In order to justify the protective role of the EU versus values, one has to go over the ties and their conse-quences between the two regions.

The relations between the Middle East and Europe are getting tigh-ter. As has been stated before the relations of the European Union with the Middle East are highly dependent of one another. The strongest ties are the oil industry and arms trade. One can imagine the catastrophic effects of cutting one of these ties.

When the EU would stop delivering weaponry to the Middle East it is most likely that more than one tie will be cut. Take for exam-ple the diplomatic relations between the two superpowers: if the European influence in the Middle Eastern weapon industry will elapse, other domestic industries will probably also be affected and diplomatic relations will be made more complicated. When one of the superpowers then chooses to cut a tie, for example by means of legislation, it is only logical that it will be the most effective one. In this case it is the limitation of Middle Eastern oil on the European Market with its most crucial consequence, a shortage of European energy sources. Meaning, that the leaders of European Nations have to look for other ways to keep their inhabitants energized, green energy maybe? Evidently the share of sustainable energy should be enlarged but realistically scientists do not possess the technical knowledge to provide the whole EU with green energy. Resulting in the quest of finding a new oil supplier, a new oil su-perpower where the EU will be depending on. Fact is that the EU publicly keeps judging other countries in the world for not caring about human rights while at the same time the Member States are also not actively caring for human rights in the Middle East by keeping the current situation unchanged. In 2012 alone the EU delivered arms to the Middle East for a total worth of 9.7 billion euros. Compared to the budget of the EU, many worry about the gap it will create if the EU would regula-

te and thus probably limit their proliferation of weaponry in the Middle East. And maybe the even bigger concern is where the EU can acquire that amount of money to fill this gap. Or one should look at the motives of European countries, why do they keep delivering the tools of conflict to unsettled areas? The answer is clear, the trade of arms is simply a highly lucrative business, as it continually results in huge profits, which on the short term lead to economic benefits for Europe but on the long term decrease the chance of a sustainable relationship with a more peaceful Middle East.

Furthermore, this is not the only problem the EU is facing regar-ding the trade of arms. Decreasing or regulating the trade of arms to the Middle East does not necessarily lead to the end of the con-flicts in these areas. The world is home to more superpowers that are ready to take over the share of European arms traders. The in-fluence of Europe in the Middle East today is not large enough to have a significant impact on the situation. The reason why it would be a bad situation for the EU if other powerful countries take over their control, especially Russia and the United States, is that they are right opposite from each other which causes extra tension that the EU cannot control in any way. Moreover the EU will have a weaker economic position.

Last of all, a part of the European politics of 2014 is gradually smudged by hypocrisy. The judgemental position of the EU to-wards other countries may affect their relations negatively as the EU is not actively fighting for human rights in the Middle East either. Moreover, the purely capitalistic point of view of weapon distributors leads to a blind eye towards a sustainable future in the Middle East. Thereby the EU is also overestimating the role of the EU in the Middle East. To conclude, nowadays the EU is not acting towards the standards they have set for others, which makes us hypocrite in the Middle Eastern region. Therefore many factors have to be taken into account but above all the EU should do so-mething about it by changing the current ties between the Middle East and the EU.

RIVALRY OF SUPERPOWERS

ARTICLE BY JOSEPHINE DATTATREYA ANDELA

te and thus probably limit their proliferation of weaponry in the Middle East. And maybe the even bigger concern is where the EU can acquire that amount of money to fill this gap. Or one should look at the motives of European countries, why do they keep delivering the tools of conflict to unsettled areas? The answer is clear, the trade of arms is simply a highly lucrative business, as it continually results in huge profits, which on the short term lead to economic benefits for Europe but on the long term decrease the chance of a sustainable relationship with a more peaceful Middle East.

Furthermore, this is not the only problem the EU is facing regar-ding the trade of arms. Decreasing or regulating the trade of arms to the Middle East does not necessarily lead to the end of the con-flicts in these areas. The world is home to more superpowers that are ready to take over the share of European arms traders. The in-fluence of Europe in the Middle East today is not large enough to have a significant impact on the situation. The reason why it would be a bad situation for the EU if other powerful countries take over their control, especially Russia and the United States, is that they are right opposite from each other which causes extra tension that the EU cannot control in any way. Moreover the EU will have a weaker economic position.

Last of all, a part of the European politics of 2014 is gradually smudged by hypocrisy. The judgemental position of the EU to-wards other countries may affect their relations negatively as the EU is not actively fighting for human rights in the Middle East either. Moreover, the purely capitalistic point of view of weapon distributors leads to a blind eye towards a sustainable future in the Middle East. Thereby the EU is also overestimating the role of the EU in the Middle East. To conclude, nowadays the EU is not acting towards the standards they have set for others, which makes us hypocrite in the Middle Eastern region. Therefore many factors have to be taken into account but above all the EU should do so-mething about it by changing the current ties between the Middle East and the EU.

RIVALRY OF SUPERPOWERS

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS II (AFET II)

ARTICLE BY JOSEPHINE DATTATREYA ANDELA

15

THE BITCOIN: ANARCHIST COINAGE OR DEMOCRATIC CURRENCY

The introduction of the bitcoins has also been referred to as ‘the third revolution’. The first revolution was the democratisation of information, that came along with the rise of the Internet. The second revolution was the democratisation of property, that was a result of the invention of 3D-printers. The third revolution is the liberation of currency. With the virtual currency that is the bitcoin, people regain the power over their money from the government. It is the ultimate hacker’s dream; but will the bitcoin really be the currency of the future? The Committee on Economic & Monetary Affairs (ECON) has

discussed the different aspects of the topic regarding, whether this modern gold rush should intervene in the financial world at all.

ARTICLE BY RUBE DE BRUIN

THE BITCOIN: ANARCHIST COINAGE OR DEMOCRATIC CURRENCY

The introduction of the bitcoins has also been referred to as ‘the third revolution’. The first revolution was the democratisation of information, that came along with the rise of the Internet. The second revolution was the democratisation of property, that was a result of the invention of 3D-printers. The third revolution is the liberation of currency. With the virtual currency that is the bitcoin, people regain the power over their money from the government. It is the ultimate hacker’s dream; but will the bitcoin really be the currency of the future? The Committee on Economic & Monetary Affairs (ECON) has

discussed the different aspects of the topic regarding, whether this modern gold rush should intervene in the financial world at all.

ARTICLE BY RUBE DE BRUIN

17

What the committee found very appea-ling about bitcoin is that money can be exchanged from one party to another

without the interference of a third party. This is done through a peer-to-peer network, increasing the in-dependency of the individual from the government. The money is encrypted in such a way that hacking is virtually impossible (Nakamoto, 2012).

Although the committee sees this form of money transfer as revolutionary, they recommend imple-menting it in the current banking system, which in the long term can make today’s transaction methods between users better. However, the opponents of the bitcoin are numerous. The bitcoin is expected to fluctuate heavily (European Central Bank, 2012). Moreover, the consequences are not yet overseen: the bitcoin is still an experiment. What exactly could be its negative impacts?

To obtain bitcoins, one has to solve complex ma-thematical encryptions. These encryptions become increasingly difficult to solve as the bitcoin becomes scarcer. This can have negative consequences. Only those that can afford lots of computing power will be

able to solve the problems that enable the mining of Bitcoins. Providing the right information to all Euro-pean Union (EU) citizens will create a better view of the involved consequences. At this moment, the value of a bitcoin is still based on ‘real’ currencies like euros and dollars. However, as the bitcoin becomes more accepted and more widely used, it can become a currency of its own. By then, banks will inevitably regain control over the bitcoin, effectively reducing it to just another currency. The committee has agreed on the fact that the EU should advise their member states and governing bodies to not accept any form of virtual currencies.

Also, there is a maximum amount of bitcoins that will be produced: 21 million. This might look positive, as inflation is cut down. However, instead money will deflate: its value will increase. This has effect on the behaviour of the consumer. If the value of money will increase in a day, one will wait with buying a certain product. This will go on and results that the consu-mer will keep postponing their purchases, which affects the economy in a bad way. After all, if nothing is purchased, there will be no money spend and there

will be no circulation of money: technically, there is no liquidity. Liquidity is a cornerstone of a healthy economy. Moreover, as the bitcoin is still a relatively new con-cept, legislation lags. There are few laws in the EU to govern the use of bitcoins. They are not supervised by central banks, which could result in heavy fluctu-ation of its value. After all, banks work as a buffer for money fluctuation. Creating a centralised bank for the exchange of Bitcoins is one of the solutions the committee had to this problems. This way the curren-cy will not influence the economic market.

Lastly, bitcoin-transfers can be made anonymous, via so-called crypto-currencies. This opens the door for illegal activities, such as drug trade and terrorism. For example, the illegal drug-trading website Silk Road makes use of bitcoins to hide the identity of its users. The lack of transparency could be one of the major dangers of the bitcoin. The committee has agreed on creating funds to create a program for tracking down criminals to reduce the amount of illegal activity.

There are two different aspects on the stance the EU should take according to the committee. They have agreed on the fact that realistically it is very difficult to prevent the citizens from using the Bitcoin as it is an open source. However, as many users of this cur-rency do not have the knowledge of the consequences the EU does want to take a protecting stance towards her citizens from the aforementioned dangers. Provi-ding them with the needed information will in their mind make a difference to the nonchalant approach of the users.

In conclusion, on can say that although the bitcoin is a very progressive concept, it has too many problems to solve before it can be widely used. The commit-tee on economical affaires will try to address these problems as well as possible, regarding all the diffe-rent perspectives. They look forward to coin a strong debate.

COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC AND MONETARY AFFAIRS (ECON)

19

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS I (AFET I)

In Europe, when we describe a democracy, we generally mean a representative democracy where politicians are elected to act on behalf of

the people. This government must be both accoun-table and legitimate. Accountable in the sense that the government, once elected, can be held respon-sible for its actions. This is often through referen-dums, votes of no confidence or simply regular elections. On the other hand, legitimate requires that the government has a mandate or right to rule. To achieve this, a country must have free and fair elections, open to all, in order to elect politicians that are truly representative of the people’s wishes at that time. It is also necessary to balance this with maintaining a pluralist society by encouraging deli-beration between a variety of groups with differing opinions. However these features would mean no-thing if the basic rights of citizens were not preser-ved. This includes the protection of minorities and respecting the inalienable freedom of all citizens. Un-fortunately, there are mul-tiple examples in Ukraine where the government has disastrously failed to imple-ment such practises.

As Jean-Jacques Rousseau said, “Man is born free, yet everywhere he is in chains.” The Ukrainian peo-ple have often had to fight for their basic human rights. These offences did not just begin with the demonstrations. For example, ex-Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko was unlawfully imprisoned after being charged with embezzlement and the abuse of her official powers. Despite calls from international authorities to release Tymoshenko, she remains un-der police surveillance. During the demonstrations themselves at least four people have been killed. Numerous individuals have reported torture or abuse by security forces. This kind of unacceptable violence needs to end. This is not only undemocra-tic but truly unjust.

The violence intensified when Anti-Protest laws began to restrict citizens’ freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. These tyrannical measures became collectively known as the “Dictatorship Laws.” This label simply emphasises the extent to which the government was ignoring fundamen-tal democratic principles. Fortunately, due to the outraged response by protestors and international

authorities, these were repealed less than two weeks after they had been passed. This is not the first time that it has required violence and revolution to produce change. This was evident in the 2004 Orange revolution where the elections were rigged in favour of candidate Viktor Yanukovych. A revote only occurred as a result of widespread protests with more than 500,000 participants occupying Kiev’s independence square. The fact that it takes such upheaval by the Ukrainian people in order to be heard is extremely worrying.

One should recognise that any democracy strug-gles when there are two main opposing factions. In this case, the pro-European Ukrainians and the pro-Russian Ukrainians. Regional imbalance, a small majority and a large minority creates a sys-tem that is constantly swinging back and forth bet-ween looking to further develop a relationship with

Europe or with Russia. In a country like Ukraine that is so fundamentally divided by its aims and aspirations, the tyranny of the majority beco-mes apparently clear. A minor difference in the

percentage vote of a Ukrainian election can mean that the wishes of just less than half the country may not be taken into account. However, this is not helped by the government’s failure to represent and support its people.

Ultimately, as Mr Lutsenko, the former Minister for Internal Affairs said, “It is not just the president who must be replaced, but the whole system.” If we examine Ukraine’s political system, it is clear that whatever democratic structure they supposed-ly have in place needs to be vastly improved. The pervasive corruption, abuse of human rights and failure to coordinate free and fair elections counters the majority of essential democratic principles that the EU stands for. No democracy is perfect but the Ukraine often acts more like a dictatorship or authoritarian regime than a functioning represen-tative democracy. The voices of the people are not heard and corruption has infiltrated most, if not all layers of government. It is not just, it is not legiti-mate and the government is not accountable. The Ukrainian system is, by no definition of the word, democratic.

As Jean-Jacques Rousseau said, “Man is born free, yet everywhere

he is in chains.”

ARTICLE BY CIARA ROBINSON

The term democracy is often used carelessly. When addressing a topic such as Ukraine it is im-portant to understand the depth of meaning behind a word that is repeatedly used by politicians

across the world.

“BY THE PEOPLE FOR THE PEOPLE.”

21

The European Commission within their exi-sting frameworks currently h§ighlights green transportation as a very important aim. These programmes attempt to promote sus-tainable urban mobility, increased quality of life and support the use of clean and energy efficient vehicles.

Some of the strategies adopted by the European Union (EU) include the White Paper 2011: Roadmap to a Sin-

gle European Transport Area, the Horizon 2020 and the Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans (SUMP). The White Paper is a road-map of forty initiatives for the next decade. These initiatives include the formation of a competitive transport system and the removal of major barriers while cutting carbon emissions by 60% by 2025. The key goals of the White paper include the re-duction of conventionally-fuelled cars, the use of sustainable low carbon fuels and the shift from private to public transport. On the other hand, the existence of an action plan called Horizon 2020 tries to combine urban development with sustainable trans-portation. The main priorities of this plan are the use of resource-efficient transport that respects the environment, reduces congestion, improves mobility and provi-des greater safety and security. Furthermo-re, the SUMP aims to ensure the transport system in terms of accessibility, safety and security. In addition, they also want to re-duce air and noise pollution and improve the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the persons and goods’ transportation.

Although these measures aim towards eco-friendly transportation, there is a distinct lack of cooperation between the relevant institutions. The Committee on Transportation and Tourism has succes-sfully identified this during Committee Work and cleverly intends to develop the relationships between key actors including the Covenant of Mayors, the CIVITAS initiative and the GET service. Stronger cooperation between urban authorities is crucial in the creation of innovative and

successful measures. However, it is also important to recognise that each city has a unique infrastructure and transport system. This makes it difficult to produce policies that are applicable to urban areas throughout the EU.

Moreover, research and financial help to develop green transportation is also needed. Increased funds could enhance research for green technologies. This could speed up the transition from the use of fossil fuels to green transportation in order to reduce CO2 emissions. However, this may have little effect if urban inhabitants are unwilling to use public transport, which is considered by many to be inef-ficient or unappealing. Equally, citizens must be aware of the benefits of using pu-blic transport as well as the negative effects that the overwhelming use of private and fossil-fuelled transportation has on the environment. Some countries such as the Netherlands, Germany and Belgium have opted for more environmentally friendly transportation such as bicycles. However, there is still a lack of infrastructure for cyclists and pedestrians in many European cities. It is for this reason that many people choose to travel by car instead of using alternative means of transportation. This causes congestion and thus further pro-duction of CO2 emissions.

In conclusion, many initiatives have been considered and public transport has been recognised as a strong solution to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases. Yet, this has not proven an efficient enough method in many countries. The inaccessibility and negative perception of public transport as well as the last mile problem has not been solved. Ultimately, there are numerous me-thods that are yet to be fully utilised. It still remains unclear how the EU is going to produce a unified approach to im-proving urban mobility whilst recognising the significant differences across European urban areas. GREEN FUTURE

GREEN FUTUREARTCLE BY CARLA CELDA

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT AND TOURISM I (TRAN I)

23

LOMODEMICISSUE II