Preparation Booklet

Dear Delegates of the Third In School Session of Nacka Gymnasium,

It is my great honour and pleasure to welcome all of you to this session; your first

encounter with the European Youth Parliament. I am excited to welcome you to what I

hope with prove to be a challenging, fun, and memorable experience!

I am, and I hope that you also are, incredible excited about what is to happen in just

few days. Hopefully, this is the spark that ignites an interest and a passion for the civil

society; something to show that democracy means so much more than merely placing

your vote every fourth year; the start of a challenging and rewarding journey as an

active citizen.

All of you should take these two days as an opportunity to seek out ideas that are not

familiar to you. Critically consider and rethink your values and ideas, and find yourself

a better person as a result of it.

Make the most out of every moment,

Hannes Ahlvin

Words from the President

Dear Delegates,

We can finally start to welcome you to the Third In School Session of Nacka

Gymnasium! Most of you, if not all of you, have not experienced EYP before. I can

promise you though, that this will be two instructive and fun days – and hopefully

the beginning of your EYP-journey.

I, Nelly Gunnarson, and the Organising Team started to plan this session for

you slightly before Christmas. With the amount of hard work and effort we have put

in, we are literally so excited to see what you will be able to bring to this session!

Even though the session will be during two regular schooldays, remember that

this is a great way of learning not only about interesting up-to-date issues, but also

how to work with them in a different and fun but formal way.

We hope that you are excited and that you are going to like the two days that

we have planned for you, after all it is up to you how awesome this session will be!

So, let’s get prepared and we will be looking forward to seeing you all dressed up

next week.

Best Regards,

Nelly Gunnarson - Head Organiser, and the Organising Team

Words from the Organisers

CULT - Committee on Culture and Education In light of the recent rise of extremist right wing parties in Europe, what approach should be taken

by the EU in order to address the influence of these parties, whilst at the same time respecting the

right to the freedom of speech and opinion?

In several countries all across Europe, the radical right has surged in the recent years, as political

dissatisfaction combines with anti-immigration sentiments. From the Sweden Democrats to the Danish

People’s Party, the United Kingdom Independence Party, and the National Front (France), far right

wing parties all across the EU have seen their followers grow quickly, as seen in the 2014 European

Parliamentary elections.

Most far right parties of Europe share the trait of euroscepticism. In addition to this, many hold

xenophobic and racist views, many being described by media and political analysts as fascists. It is

very important, however, to realise that although these parties share many features, there is a range in

the political values and their policy platforms. Most far right wing parties of Europe are not as extreme

as Greece’s Golden Dawn.

The instability caused by the economic crisis, acts of terror, and now the refugee crisis has meant

that many Europeans have become disillusioned with their governments and political institutions.

Debate over how to best combat the rise of the far right has sprung up in all countries affected. While

many argue that it is important to come together across party lines to combat the far right parties,

others claim that it is more important that parties listen to their electorate and prove that they are

listening to their people. A hot debate has been waged on whether or not conceding policies,

particularly in the field of migration, ends up helping or hurting the far right.

While the European Union formally rejects and condemns all forms and manifestations of racism,

many Europeans gather around far right wing parties to express support for eurosceptcism and more

restrictive migration policies. Both of these reasons are valid opinions which citizens are entitled to

hold and express, and must be taken as genuine political arguments. The institutions and political

parties of the EU now need to find ways of addressing the growing euroscepticism and

disillusionment.

While the vast majority of those voting for far right parties are peaceful, there is a clear and

distinct overrepresentation in terms of violence and hate crimes within these parties. To protect its

citizenry, it is vital that Member States are watchful over extremist groups, particularly during physical

manifestations and demonstrations. Many politicians and non-governmental organisations describe the

need for exit programmes for those that realise that want to leave extremist circles. It is key that ideas

and political opposition is allowed room to be voiced, while hate crime, violence, and discrimination

must never be accepted.

DROI - Committee on Human Rights The Roma are the most discriminated minority in all of Europe. How can the EU ensure the social

and economic rights of the Roma and protect them from discrimination by both the private and public

sector alike?

Although there are no definitive statistics, Roma is considered one of the most vulnerable and

discriminated against minority in Europe. What is definitive, however, is that it is the largest minority

group in Europe; approximately 10-12 million Roma live in Europe, 6 million of which live inside of

the EU. Due to their semi-nomadic lifestyle, Roma has since the earliest of days been regarded with

fear, and subsequently chased away and subjected to oppression and hate. Roma were enslaved in

Hungary and Romania in the 15th

century, and more than 200,000 Roma were exterminated in the 2nd

world war.

Roma people face a unique and daunting economic situation – according to the World Bank, more

than 70% of all Roma households live in deep poverty, and only 29% on Roma have graduated from a

secondary school. In addition, less than 50% of Roma men and less than 25% of Roma women are able

to find employment. When comparing this data to how up to 10-20% of new labour market entrants are

Roma, it is plain to see that better integration of Roma would be not only of social but also of

enormous economical benefit.

The on-going migrant crisis has exacerbated the situation in terms of discriminating acts, both

from states and citizens. Throughout Europe, it has become politically easy for governments to remove

makeshift camps and declaring the Roma illegals to their country. A growing part of Roma chooses

not to register their national identity for fear of repercussions, making it even more difficult for the

Member States hoping to aid them.

The Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies aims at meeting the EU Roma

integration goal in the areas of education, employment, healthcare, and housing. To meet their goals,

the EU has been making unprecedented sums available for the projects targeting Roma integration, yet

their situation has only worsened in recent years.

The EU has made these large sums of money available for several countries, but in particular for

Romania. The vast majority of resources allocated, however, has not been taken advantage of, due to a

multitude of reasons. It can be a poor political strategy for Romanian politicians to advocate for the

Roma people, which has lead to an unwillingness to lend aid. Further, the institutions that projects and

organisations that funding applications needs to go through are often corrupt, meaning that decisions

that should normally be completed in a matter of weeks can be unresolved several months later.

Finally, most project funding made available from the EU require the Member State or a non-

governmental organisation to co-fund the projects, something which is unfortunately not always

possible.

Considering both the hence shown inability to autonomously implement positive change for the

Roma people, as well as the current state of affairs within Member States as a result of the migration

crisis, how can the EU remedy its policies to ensure the protection of the Roma, and ensure that they

have access to education and employment?

ENVI - Committee on Environment, Public Health and Food Safety The oil prices sharp downturn has had a major negative impact on the global investment in

climate-friendly energy. How should the EU act to further push their agenda for clean energy in a

future where oil prices can be very low for extended periods?

With global temperature rising and extreme weather conditions increasing in frequency across the

world, combatting climate change and its effects is both critically important and urgent. Since the

establishment of the Maastricht treaty, concrete goals have been set to reduce emissions and promote

more environmentally friendly growth.

Transitioning into a green, low-carbon economy is not only relevant with concerns to the

environment, but is also considered to be strategically important for the EU’s economic objectives and

competitiveness. To this end, the EU has put forth several Roadmaps, White Papers and Strategies to

reduce its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. For example, the EU GHG emission reduction targets for

2020, 2030 and 2050 are respectively 20%, 40% and 80-95% below the 1990 emission levels.

The price of a barrel of crude oil has decreased by two thirds in less than two years, from $114

USD in June 2014 to $38 USD in April 2016. As a result of the massive price drop, investors may now

be shying away from green energy research and development in favour of further investing into fossil

fuels. Consensus among experts is that in the short term, the drop in oil price will not be a decisive

factor for the development of clean energy sources, as many of them are driven primarily by national

incentive schemes. The drop in price has indeed not yet translated into an equivalent decrease in oil

prices within the EU, but prolonged periods of low oil prices is likely to eventually affect the

consumers’ end of the market, decreasing public interest in green energy and thus slowing down its

development.

The potentially decreased interest in green energy investment can cause decreased share prices on

green energy companies resulting in a lowered return on investment, further making green investments

less desirable. In this context, the EU will need to alter its energy and labour policies to ease the

transition towards a low-carbon economy, as currently 14 out of the 28 Member States are expected to

fail the EU clean energy agenda for 2020 goals of increasing renewable energy and enhancing energy

efficiency.

A primary tool for the EU to curb GHG emissions has been the EU Emissions

Trading System, a so-called “cap and trade” system in which the total amount of GHG emissions that

factories and industries are allowed. Companies receive or buy allowances to emit GHG which they

can then trade with other companies. This has placed an economic incentive on keeping emissions low.

The EU now need to find ways of incentivising and progressing both the research and usage of

green energy if it is to reach its targets for 2020, 2030, and 2050 respectively. This will require an

approach that aims to create more green jobs, support green small and medium sized enterprises

(SMEs), and encouraging green consumption. With the issue made difficult by the varying levels of

green energy, willingness, and capacity to implement these policies within the Member States, the EU

must now find a way to push all Member States to perform in order to meet their GHG emission

reduction targets.

FEMM - Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality Despite the 2009 European Parliament Resolution on Combatting Female Genital Mutilation

(FGM), the practice remains prevalent within the EU. How should the EU and its Member States act

in order to prevent the occurence of FGM?

Female genital mutilation (FGM) is a widespread cultural practice, primarily in many African

countries, in which the female genitalia are altered or injured for non-medical reasons. There are no

health benefits, and is known to be a harmful, painful and traumatic experience. The process interferes

with the natural functioning of the body, and causes severe immediate and long-term health

consequences. Since certain minority groups and immigrant communities continue their cultural

practices in other countries, the issue has also become a European one. Half a million women and girls

within the EU have undergone or are at risk of undergoing the procedure.

More than 125 million women and girls are estimated to have been cut in the 29 countries in

Africa and the Middle East where FGM is primarily concentrated. One in five of these live in a single

country – Egypt. The actual figure of victims is however unknown, as reliable data on the phenomenon

is largely unavailable. The practice is recognised as a violation of human rights and is usually carried

out between infancy and 15 years of age. Efforts to combat FGM have primarily come from individual

initiatives without major backing from governmental institutions. Recently the EU has created some

initiatives, most aiming at gathering reliable data and conducting thorough research.

All European countries have banned the procedure, either by employing previously existing

legislation or by introducing new. Four countries have a duty to report suspected case, and only two,

Sweden and Norway, have a duty to avert it whereby those who fail to try to prevent the practice are

liable to fines or even imprisonment. In addition to legislation, information and awareness spreading

campaigns, training of health workers, voluntary genital examinations and free hotlines have been

introduced.

The practice of FGM is a deeply rooted cultural practice, and legislation alone is not sufficient to

stop it. Communities that practice FGM report a plethora of social and religious reasons for continuing

the practice. Where practiced, both men and women support it, making it difficult to find victims of the

practice. Those not adhering to the norm may face social condemnation, harassment, and ostracism,

making it difficult for families to abandon the practice without support from the wider community.

In the EU, very few cases have been brought to court due to the secrecy and

transnational nature of the practice, as the people concern are usually part of a migrant community that

travels out of the country to undergo the procedure. Further, fear of racism and discrimination has

contributed to FGM being underreported. In Norway, the Association of Somali women and children

complained of discrimination by the exercise of the duty of avert FGM after 42 women and girls were

examined, with only two having been mutilated.

While the practice is illegal, social and cultural limitations have prevented the

eradication of the practice. The EU now needs to find a way to combat FGM without unduly

discriminating against individuals of ethnic minorities that to do not participate in the practice.

REGI - Committee on Regional Development Since the goals that have been put both under the EU’s Cohesion Policy 2014-2020 and under the

UN’s Climate Conference in Paris (COP21), a transition to a low carbon economy is necessary. As

cities play a key role in the regional implementation of such a transition what should the EU do to

tackle those problems and at the same time make the cities ready for such a transition so that they can

take their responsibility?

The low-carbon economy, with minimal usage of greenhouse emissions (GHG) has often been

labelled as the only realistic means to prevent the drastic effects of climate change. It is a strategy that

enables the EU to remain economically competitive in the future, through the creation of jobs and the

development of technologies. Since the concept was introduced in 1972, the EU has been world-

leading in lowering GHG emissions.

Currently, 75% of the total population of the EU resides in urban areas –a percentage that is ever

growing. Many cities face issues of severe congestion, poor air quality, high levels of noise and CO2

emissions. Urban mobility accounts for 40% of all CO2 emissions of road transport and up to 70% of

other pollutants from transport. The European Commission has subsequently identified the heavy

reliance on private conventionally fuelled cars a key issue behind the EU’s difficult and inefficient

urban mobility. A transition to a low-carbon economy without addressing the carbon-related

challenges of urban areas is as such not plausible.

From 2014-2020, the EU aims to reduce GHG emisions by 20%; increase energy efficiency by

20%; generate at least 20% of consumed energy from renewable sources. The European Commission

has set a target for the EU to cut its GHG emisisions to be 80% lower than the 1990 levels by 2050.

The EU’s Cohesion Policy is the primary tool that the EU uses to invest at the regional level, and

delivers such investment through funds. The transition to a low-carbon economy is one of the main

priorities of the Cohesion Policy.

The different Member States and their cities have taken varying approaches to solving the issues

of urban transportation. Many have chosen to invest in public transport, both in making it a more

viable option and in reducing the GHG emissions from said transportation. Other cities try to be as

accessible as possible for cyclists, and some choose to try to enable a more widespread usage of

electric cars. While each city is unique, the EU has to find a way of pushing its agenda further if it is to

reach its stated targets.

With non-conventionally fuelled cars and public transport already existing, the EU now need to

find a way to further develop and implement these technologies to enable a wider use, if it is to have a

meaningful effect. Further, for any policy to be implemented on a wider scale, it is important that the

differences in problems faced by cities in Europe is taken into consideration, and that local authorities

are taken into account.

LIBE - Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs With refugee numbers unprecedented in the history of the EU, many Member States are

experiencing immense pressure. How can the EU and its Member States prevent the social exclusion

and provide opportunities for work and a dignified life for the asylum seekers?

Immigration to the European continent has reached its peak in the history of the EU due to

escalating conflicts around the world. In 2006, 200,000 people applied for asylum in an EU country; in

2015, that figure was 1,300,000. Roughly 500,000 decisions were made on asylum requests in 201,

half of which were positive, granting either refugee or subsidiary protection status or allowing stay for

humanitarian reasons.

Due to the unprecedented volumes, many Member States are now struggling to find ways of

adequately supporting the refugees in their quest to forge a new life in their host country. Some

Member States with more beneficial asylum policies in particular, such as Germany and Sweden, have

taken on a greater share of refugees than most others.

Many refugees, particularly those from Iran and Syria, have university degrees and are

underutilised, partly due to difficulties in verifying the degrees. Austria’s Public Employment Service

carried out competency checks between August to December last year, and found that 90% of Iranians

and 70% of Syrians had completed some form of training or further education after leaving high

school. Barriers such as difficult accreditation processes to verify highly qualified labourers, language

and the lack of social network remain and prevent many otherwise employable refugees from

obtaining a job.

Further, large portions of refugees are very young, and are still in need of being schooled. As the

Syrian crisis has been ongoing for five years, many have fallen far behind the Members States

children. These children will need help to ensure that they receive all the education that they need to

build a successful life and integrate into the population.

Resources are tight, both economically but also due to lacking infrastructure. With huge spikes in

the number of people now looking not only for employment, but also for access to public services, it is

difficult for the Member States to keep up. Many schools see their class sizes increase dramatically,

and there is a lack of social workers to process all the necessary paperwork associated with applying

for an asylum and starting up a new life. Further, many of the refugees are traumatised by the war, and

require help that is often difficult to get for lack of resources. The EU and its Member States will now

have to find a way to guarantee that the people living within the EU have access to the public services

they are entitled to.

Further, housing all the refugees has proved a difficult task. The UN special rapporteur on the

right to adequate housing, Leilani Farha, says that pressure on European countries to act quickly in

response to the influx of refugees could exacerbate the problem of social exclusion, as people are

housed in poor, temporary positions. The Member States will need to find more permanent solutions to

housing the refugees, while avoiding social exclusion and segregation. In light of a large set of issues,

the EU has to take firm action to ensure that all refugees are properly welcomed and given the

opportunities to succeed in life and contribute to society.

SEDE - Committee on Security and Defence After years of combatting terrorism, the intelligence agencies of the EU’s Member States and its

allies have grown tremendously. How can, and to which extent should, the EU utilise the great amount

of personal data being gathered by these agencies to combat terrorism without violating the right to

integrity and privacy?

From propaganda to recruitment, technology has granted terrorists ease of access to Europe.

Consistently, legislators of Member States have pressed for a greater level of data collection and

information sharing. With the technological capacity of terrorist groups such as those responsible for

the recent attacks on Paris and Brussels increasing, and with growing dissent among the public over

ever increasing surveillance, it is clear that data protection and privacy is one of the most controversial

issues facing the EU.

Recently, Europol launched a new subdivision, the European Counter Terrorism Center, which is

strictly tasked with combatting terrorism. Following the attacks on Paris, many legislators and people

of political influence across Europe called for an increase in surveillance and multilateral cooperation

to prevent further similar acts of terrorism from being carried out. In France, law enforcement agencies

were almost immediately granted sweeping powers to collect, store, and read data and digital

communications. Further, the willingness of Member States national intelligence agencies to cooperate

across borders dramatically increased, as the number of countries participating in formal intelligence

sharing rose from 14 to 25, with the remaining being expected to follow suit. Despite these measures,

many call for further cooperation, and the establishment of a single database across all of Europe to

track suspicious individuals.

One of the more controversial aspects of data collection is that of encryption. The perpetrators of

the Paris attack had used encrypted messaging services such as WhatsApp™ in order to conceal their

plans. As a result, many argue that developers should be made to build in deliberate weaknesses, “back

doors”, into their software to allow authorities to access the communications of suspected and

confirmed terrorists. Opponents fear governmental abuse, and argue that there is a critical lack of

insight and regulation of surveillance programmes. Recently, Apple was in the spotlight after being

sued by the United States’ government in an effort to gain access to encrypted data on an iPhone

belonging to one of the terrorists who carried out the San Bernardino shooting. The case was highly

controversial, and though it was dropped after the FBI managed to break the encryption, the underlying

dispute of built-in weaknesses was never settled.

Member States are further committing to combatting terrorism through preventative measures,

focusing on preventing religious radicalisation and closing exploitations used by terrorists to funnel or

laundry money.

As the desire for increased intelligence-sharing and cooperation between Member States is rising,

it is important to simultaneously consider the impact that it can have on the rights and freedom of law-

abiding citizens. The EU now needs to find an acceptable balance between maintaining an adequate

level of privacy for its citizens while maximising counter-terrorist capabilities.