IGNITI N

The Academic Issue

Energy - The Powerful ManipulatorWith the recent events in Ukraine highlighting the dangers of over-depend-ence on imported energy, what steps can the EU take to limit reliance on external energy sources and to protect consumers from price shocks? Written by Annette PiirsaluOver the years, the European Union’s (EU) dependency on energy imports has increased from less than 40% in the 1980s to 53.4% in 2012. Currently, energy is definitely key for growth and economic competitiveness. Bearing this mind, over-dependence on imported fuels leads to a gap in the EU´s security seeing as external countries have the opportunity to influence the EU’s politics by m anipulating them in this way. Russia remains to be one of the biggest exporters of gas and oil to the EU and, therefore, energy has become more and more of a political tool. Furthermore, it is extremely challenging to find a common strategy to tackle the problem con-sidering the potential conflict of interests amongst Member States. For example, six member states import all of their gas from Russia currently, whilst the UK imports none.

One of the most important measures to reduce the Union´s dependence on energy import, is the EU´s energy policy which sets goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, raise the share of energy consumption and improve energy efficiency. Reducing the energy usage whilst ex-panding renewable energy is seen as the main and most effective solution to reduce the EU´s dependency on energy import. According to EU Climate Commissioner Connie Hedegaard en-ergy security and the fight against climate change are inseparable. Member states’ natural gas production dropped by 30 % between 1995 and 2012 and oil dropped by 56 % while renewable energy production has increased significantly and now accounts for 22 % of the EU’s primary energy production. Moreover, Europe is already saving 30 billion Euros a year by replacing im-ported fossil fuels with locally produced renewable energies. In other words we are investing money in Europe instead of sending it to Russia and other fossil fuel providers.

In the light of the recent events in Ukraine, reducing Europe’s dependency on Russia’s fuel import is also seen as a political tool to weaken Russia’s economy. Due to the fact that Europe remains highly vulnerable to Russian control over gas supplies, President Putin thinks Europe will not act decisively against him regarding the annexation of Crimea, or any further potential territorial depredations. Poland and the Baltic States are the most dependent on Russian gas and are therefore considered to be the largest advocates for more severe sanctions against Russia. As a solution, to decrease external partners’ chance to use their gas as a political tool, many have suggested that Europe should speak with one voice when negotiating. In that way, cheaper gas and oil could not be used as a sweetener to influence the country’s political deci-sions. All in all, given that most of the gas imported from Russia travels across Ukraine where the current political situation is extremely unstable, the energy security has once again risen to the top of the EU’s agenda. It is extremely crucial to instantly implement effective measures, re-think our values and jointly move towards a more energy-independent Europe.

A short manual on how to succeed in the Dublin System

Mounting waves of immigration on the EU borders: should the principles of Dublin III regulation be revised in order to enhance refugee protection and ensure a fair distribution of migrants across the union? Written by Jana SoukupovaThis year a new system for asylum-seekers came into legislation. Even though it brought some minor changes with it, it still did not deal with the main Dublin system issue - mutual recogni-tion between Member States. If you consider yourself to be an asylum seeker, this guide may help you to succeed and to be considered a true refugee.

I purposely said “to be considered a true refugee”. Although it may appear logical that every-body requesting asylum is a refugee, this couldn’t be further from the truth. Up until the point that you do not receive protection by a member state, you are merely an asylum-seeker. It is a member state that decides whether you are a refugee or not; not your personal background.

If you want to be guaranteed that, you firstly have to choose a respective member state wise-ly. There is a graph showing the percentage of accepted asylum requests in 2013. As you can see, your chances vary among member states. For example it is almost impossible to be grant-ed asylum in Greece or Hungary, on the other hand – Malta or Bulgaria are quite a certainty. This was actually the biggest problem of the previous Dublin II regulation and I can predict that “acknowledging this to be a problem” in Dublin III will not change anything.

Another fact you have to be aware of is that you can only choose one member state at a time to process your asylum request. And even if you travel to another member state in order to ask for asylum there, you will be transferred to the original one. There is, however, a positive innovation accompanied by Dublin III – if you have a family member living in a different mem-ber state, you will not be separated, but you will be given permission to travel to a different member state in order to be reunited. There is also almost no jeopardy of detention before the transfer to original member state if there is no risk of absconding.

After finally settling in a chosen Member State, the process starts. From now on there are inter-views examining your background that you have to pass. If you succeed, you can stay calm. Since the implementation of Dublin III, there are certain deadlines member states have to abide. It was not guaranteed in the previous Dublin II regula-tion, but now it is clear that you will not be lost in the bureaucracy and be waiting for ages. And even if you fail, there is a new possibility to appeal against the decision.

Now comes the key question – will these minor changes, ignoring the mu-tual recognition problem, actually bring anything good? In my opinion, it won’t. It is still up to member states to decide if you are eligible for asylum and the graph clearly shows their different attitudes. It also does not solve the issue with border states like Greece and Italy that are over-flowing with immigrants.

Should the EU and the USA use a soccer strategy?

Living together apart: With the EU and the USA having harboured close ties since the end of the World War II, what is the significance of this relationship for Europe and how should it look like in the 21st century? Written by Caro-line Opperman

In the 21st century radar, being a major influence in WWII, got replaced by microchips. Many more changes have occurred since then. Not only on a material level, but also countries’ re-lationships either strengthened or dealt with severe difficulties. Nevertheless, the relationship between the United States of America (USA) and the European Union (EU) still has a great influence on both parties. Citizens perhaps notice this mainly visually; Obama on the news and Beyoncé starting a new concert tour in the EU. However, behind the scenes there is much more to it.

After WWII the EU and the USA started collaborating. It started mainly in the form of the USA’s Marshall Plan in post WWII Europe, but after most of the WWII destructions were improved it shifted towards more of an equilibrium. Lately, namely since 2000, the USA has invested 14 times more in the Netherlands than in China. That emphasises that the USA’s trust in the EU’s development has increased even further. However, one of the fields which has developed but is still in need of further improvement is technology.

Windows (8) by Bill Gates, Facebook by Mark Zuckerberg, Apple by Steve Jobs, are all well-known concepts in both the USA and the EU. Nevertheless, all have been initiated and devel-oped in the USA. Where is the EU’s initiative? Do they play a role as a global initiator in technol-ogy? No, they do not. On the other hand, the EU has specific knowledge on certain fields, such as delta works, solar cars and wind and water energy. Unfortunately for the EU’s reputation these are not as “famous” as Windows, Facebook, and Apple.

So what does this mean for the relationship between the USA and the EU on a technological level? The relationship between the USA and the EU is in need of a change. The idea that the USA aids the EU and invests in it is outdated. Export from the EU’s specialties must be in-creased to show the world its importance. Knowledgeable students should be drawn to the EU due to its reputation of universities. Knowledge from the USA has to be combined with that of the EU to take its technology to the next level. Together they are able to create a huge spec-trum of exclusive knowledge in technology and can be of great importance to the entire world.

Imagine if technology development would be dealt with similarly as soccer. Companies or countries could ‘’buy’’ intelligent people to increase their level of development in improving technology. To a certain extent this is currently occurring at universities which employ intelli-gent tutors from other countries. Is this soccer mindset the future? Should this happen in order to enhance the EU-USA technology relationship to its maximum?

The price we pay for economic growth

Economic atlanticism in the 21st century: with the Transatlantic Trade andInvestment Partnership negotiations set to conclude in 2014, what should be the right balance between protecting investors and safeguarding the EU’s right and ability to regulate in the public interest? Written by Niks BerzinsBearing in mind the new proposed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP)agreement, many researches have shown how much economic growth it will provide. Thenumbers are rather impressive – an estimated increase of GDP for both the United States ofAmerica (USA) and Europe, by €95 and €120 billion respectively, and this would be apermanent increase in the amount that both countries can produce. A significant positiveimpact on both economies and due to spill over effects, possibly even for the world. Everheard of something being too good to be true? No this is not the case, something great is coming towards us, but at what price? Are wesure that we have all the information, to know that this is indeed not too good to be true?We try to do our best to improve the economy, but do we stop and ever look back at, what awe sacrifice? A lot of compromises ought to be reached before considering this noble task.So what are those compromises? For example the standards of food safety are generallyhigher in Europe, so are we willing to sacrifice those for a stronger economy? We couldassume the US are not famous for food poisoning cases, therefore thinking that ourstandards are maybe unnecessarily high, and yet dare I remind you of the recent horsemeatscandal. So what we are planning here is to compromise in areas that are far fromperfection.

We do still have a rather impressive amount of money potentially available, we have toconsider what we are exactly giving up for that money, and are we willing to essentially sellsome rules of trade, for a larger income? I try my best not to imply one or the other, I dobelieve that for a significant enough amount of money, that could potentially improve livesof millions, we most definitely should consider it. Maybe we are indeed willing tocompromise in some areas, for a cheaper and much more effective trade with an economythis big.However there is a significant problem. The French film industry and several others(including the minister of culture in France) are the first ones to call for an opt-out andothers will possibly follow. The French are calling for a “cultural opt-out”, due to fear that,this agreement would result in Hollywood movie industry pushing the French film industrydown, since movies in English are easier to sell. Many brilliant films have only been createddue to the heavy subsidising of the French film industry. The subsidies are supposed to givethem a chance against Hollywood.

To sum up, there are definitely things that we are willing to give up, and we indeed shouldgive up those rules and standards, if we truly think, that it is worth the price. However thesociety often fails to take into account the negative externalities, thus not fullyunderstanding what we get and what we give up for it.

My right to smoke

EPot as a gateway drug? With Uruguay and Colorado legalising the produc-tion, sale and use of marijuana thus minimising the black market, what ap-proach should the EU take in the ‘war on drugs’? Written by Annika Ader

Legalising marijuana has been a hot topic in the United States ofAmerica (USA) for a while now with a lot of states legalising the drug for either medical or recreational use. Uruguay has legal-ised the production and sale of cannabis in the whole country and now its Europe’s turn to take a step. A European Citizens Initiative, “Weed like to talk”, aims to making European Union (EU) lawmakers adopt a common policy on the control and regulation of cannabis production, use and sale. The floor is now opened for a dialog.

There is a big black market that benefits from selling cannabis: they do not pay taxes nor are the clients restricted to any age limit. The risks of producing and selling marijuana are quite substantial which makes the price and the profit even bigger. Legalising the product would mean regulating the production and taxes that would benefit the economy. The violence asso-ciated to the black market would decrease and the energy spent on the “war on drugs” could be focused on other issues.

The “war on drugs” has been going on for a long time, primarily in the USA. The market for illegal drugs is the biggest in the USA. Europe has been a bit more quiet. The laws concern-ing cannabis vary a lot, with coffee shops in the Netherlands, small fines for using cannabis in Estonia, decriminalised possession in Spain or up to 6 years in prison for possession in Bulgar-ia. This is the main reason why Europe should have a common policy. To be a criminal in one country and a citizen enjoying its freedom in the next shines a big light on inequality, especially in an area as small as Europe.

Europe is not threatened by an alarming number of violent drug traffickers nor is there a prob-lem with addiction. This topic is not so much a safety or economic issue but an issue concern-ing freedom and citizens’ right to define their own culture of consumption. More updated studies show that marijuana use has less health risks than drinking alcohol or smoking tobacco. An adult should have the freedom in their choice of substance (ab)use. The EU puts human rights on a pedestal and this is exactly the place where citizens should speak up.

When looking at the topic rationally, it seems that the pro’s do outweigh the cons. Although there are no alarming problems that legalising cannabis should solve in Europe, there is a lot more to gain then to lose from it. So shouldn’t we at least think about it?

DoublethinkingPrivacy vs security? A year after Snowden revelations, to what extent should governments be allowed to monitor their citizens whilst upholding the princi-ples of human rights? Written by Laine MelkerteDouble-think [duhb-uhl-thingk] - The power to hold two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accept both of them. “It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.” Winston Churchill said those words 60 years ago, and we still have not come up with anything better. At the same time, whilst the citizens believe that democracy is all about their rights and their idea of justice, Snowden has revealed that people are being watched, including us Europeans.

While several of the revelations were a little exaggerated at first and turned out not to be that horrible after all, the fact that we can be monitored without knowing about it is true. My first association with this topic was Big Brother, who was always watching the citizens of Oceania in George Orwell’s 1984. Its citizens did not know, whether they were monitored at any given time, so it was too dangerous to try anything that may be perceived as conspiracy or confron-tation. Big Brother was watching them.

Of course, 1984 is a novel, though, when looking at the tabloids embellished with large warn-ings that NSA were not only watching U.S. citizens, but Europeans as well, made me feel like 1984’s events are becoming a reality. My parents have always taught me to be careful with what I post online or send via SMS. They were probably thinking of reas reasons like possible paedophiles on the Internet or the aftermath of choosing the wrong recipient for a message, instead of my privacy and security being violated by governmental and international organisa-tions. Though I now realise that people may easily turn tables using everything they may find and see and, the greater power is involved, the greater danger is a possibility afterwards.

We live in a democratic society, where all citizens participate equally to maintain justice. We have freedom of speech, choice and expression. Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights states that one’s right for privacy can only be disturbed in accordance with the law and when it is necessary in a democratic society to prevent any disorder or crime , which is why we need security cameras, identity cards and monitoring of operations on the Internet are necessary. On the other hand, if one is being monitored without permission, does it really meet one’s rights of freedom or privacy? Can such materials be used against one in case of actual violation of law?

The EU and its member states have several laws that regulate or limit this monitoring, such as the Data Protection Directive and the EU General Data Protection Regulation. However these are still not enough, seeing as technology is improving day by day, meaning that such regu-lations should be improved regularly, both nationally and EU-wide. Knowing that cloud com-puting and synchronisation of profiles from different websites make the personal information more approachable to third parties, governments should think of how to avoid the monitoring of their citizens by third parties rather than be more involved in actions that may confront the citizens.

While Big Brother is only a fictional character, one can never be sure whether drunken tweets from Friday nights or confronting selfies posted on Facebook will not be used against one.

The Enabling Artist The enabling artist? Considering the differences between the Member States, how could the European Union use Culture and the Arts to serve as vectors of social integration for people with disabilities?Written by Anna Vitola

Double-think [duhb-uhl-thingk] - The power to hold two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accept both of them. “ILook at people around you. Each and every one of us is different. I may be a huge fan of Jack White, but you might not have even heard of him. I have been dancing ever since, and you? Maybe you are an amazing singer or a guitar player. We are different, as you can see, but there is one thing that brings us all together, whether it’s an origami master, a street dancer, an amazing writer, a painter or maybe a graffiti artist, they all have one thing in common- art.

First things first, did you know that 5,4% of Latvia’s citizens are people with disabilities, it’s around 121 thousand talented people, who are still waiting for their chance to speak up. Of course, nothing is as black as it may seem at first, there are programs and schools that provide art and music classes all around Europe, but still, there are no concrete measures, no concrete policy tools that could help these people get involved in our society. The problem is that it is up to each member state whether they have programs which help these people or not. For instance, there is an NGO called ‘’Future For You’’, which provides art, singing and other classes for people with disabilities, but it is based in only one city in Latvia: Jelgava. Only people from this city can take part of it, and it is absolutely normal that Latvia’s government don’t do any-thing about it.

Another thing is that even if there are chances for enabling artists to speak up, these chances are often provided only for under aged talents. A huge part of people with disabilities (aprx.13%) are aged 55-59, and what about programs for them? When talking about arts we have to always bear in our minds that we are different. Latvian culture is very different from Italian or French culture, and there are numerous social barriers between them, including language, living standards and even temperament. At the same time, we are all Europeans and we all can speak in the language which is almost as timeless as love-art.

Parlez-vous Russian?Between two worlds: following the annexation of Crimea and Russia’s an-ti-western policies, what measures should Latvia take to ensure a healthy relationship with its Eastern neighbour and promote a sustainable integration of the Russian-speaking minority on its territory? Written by Florian Schinnerl

Uncountable cubic metres of gas per year as well as over 10% of all in- and exports (in 2012) are a clear sign: Russia is of incredibly high economic importance for Latvia. On top of that there is a minority of Russian speaking Latvians, which is over 25% of the population. This shows that there is also a strong cultural connection between the two countries.

So what would happen if Latvia would try to cut all connections to Russia in order to prevent a Russianisation of the country? And what would be needed to make this possible?

A very important step in this direction has been taken in 2004, when Latvia joined the EU. With this step, many economic advantages arose, and most importantly, these were based on other European countries. So while this step, combined with other trade unions all over the world, would make economic independence somehow possible. The dependence on Russia’s gas is a problem that countries all over Europe are facing. A proper solution has not yet been found, so it will probably take at least some years to become more independent with the use of re-newable or nuclear energy. These are problems, but there are proper solutions in the future.

What might not have a proper solution is the problem with the Russian-speaking population in Latvia: how would they react if Latvia makes this decision? If Latvia would really want to be 100% non-Russian, it would have to get rid of the Russians in the country. Neither forcing them to leave nor making them leave by taking away their rights (such as education in the Russian language) is a proper solution that does not violate human rights.

So while a 100% anti Russia course might be possible, it is nothing I would personally support. Becoming independent is important, but not by any means necessary. Independence does not imply a healthy relationship, so it is definitely the goal to achieve both. In my eyes an econom-ic cooperation is the most important thing for a healthy relationship, but of course the proper integration for the Russian-speaking population needs to be taken into account. This of course requires a proper number of educational offers such as language courses as well as the coop-eration of the Russian-speaking people, which the country might currently not get from every-one, but this could be solved in the next generations.