In Discussion: Britain and the EU

Within Britain and continental Europe, EU membership and its conditions are becoming a hot political topic. With election outcomes increasingly lurching to extremes and nationalist parties on the up, is there room for the EU any longer? Has the period of the European Union come to an end?

Perhaps these questions are too severe, but as a young European I hope the answer to the latter question to be a no. However, living in the UK I’m regularly confronted with views very much in contradiction of my own. With growing concerns in areas like the economy, people are becoming sceptical as to whether the EU holds any of the answers. The very hazy and bureaucratic set up of the European Union and the impression of no accountability doesn’t always enamour one towards the EU either. With the rise of parties such as UKIP proposing a swift exit, the current British government has already bowed to pressure- offering a referendum on the question of membership. What the outcome would be is still unknown, and how this relates to young people in the UK today is an even harder question. Talking and discussing with other young people on the history of Britain in the EU and by trying to find what the EU really stands for will – perhaps – help shed some light on whether there is a place for Britain in a diverse and enriching Europe.

Can the island of Britain be in Europe?

When talking to friends from Britain, Europe, and further afield, it’s interesting what is nearly always the first topic of conversation. The economy. It seems to be everyone’s focus, probably to do with the relevance of the current economic climate we’re living in. But when asking whether Britain even felt ‘European’ the first response and perhaps best put by Emma is that, “I don’t feel like we are, because we aren’t attached to it so we feel segregated. The barrier is like the sea so we’re not as included [as other European countries]”. Britain is geographically not part of mainland Europe. And for lots of people, that does make a difference to the relationship Britain has with Europe. Historically Britain was a world power, ruling the world by the waves. Being surrounded by water does still encourage our insular mentality, encouraging the notion of a defiant island nation with a vast empire. But it isn’t true.

Britain’s main reason for entry into the European Union back in 1961, or then known as the EEC (European Economic Community), was due to the shift in global power. With the US and USSR dominating economically, it created a situation where Britain could no longer compete. Membership itself took a long time to come about as France vetoed Britain’s application in 1963 and 1967. Perhaps Britain’s lack of European spirit comes from the fact that it wasn’t a founding member and reluctantly joined due to the economic benefits, unprepared to embrace the opportunity for a unity beyond that.

Money makes the world go round

As a student, money is the elephant in the room for most of us. Our meagre student budget means that there’s always a small worry around every financial corner. This awareness of finances seems to reflect onto the EU. When talking about the EU many of my friends and family assumed that I wanted to hear their opinion on the economic area, the euro or the effects of the economic crash. And as previously said the main reason for Britain’s membership was for increased economic security. But is that what Europe solely is?

The only positive for a euro-supporter is that Britain is generally seen as if it could not survive without the European Union. Free trade and the tax rebate negotiated in 1980s is a deal that Britain would never be able to attain again. These positives far out weigh the unknown of leaving the Union.

I am first and foremost…

German? English? European? A ‘World’ citizen? How people see themselves, has often affected how they see the European Union and its’ relationship with Britain. A friend from Bahrain interestingly said “I like Europe because it has much more of a free society where freedom of expression is displayed quite clearly”. This view of Europe has never even crossed my mind that we are lucky enough to live in a progressive and quite remarkable union. How Britain is seen internationally is important for lots of people. If we’re seen as united, protecting human rights, for me I can only see positives.

Therefore what perhaps is most important is creating a European identity around these ideals. A French friend interestingly found in Britain that “there is some kind of reluctance to pass on the European ‘pride’ ”. Here in Britain we should be proud of the EU and the fact that we’re part of it. We have free movement within the whole of Europe, all with similar tolerant, uniting principles. Using the perks of free movement like many other young Europeans has always given me a wealth of experiences. Cheaper than going to another continent yet one can still appreciate the richness of our differences.

So is Britain European?

When we look at Britain there are of course cultural differences between here and other European countries but also more organisational; which I feel encourages the isolated feeling in Britain. It can be seen as a trivial matter but the use of number plates on cars and identity cards all show the defiant UK side of being ‘separate’. A small blue strip on the left hand side of the number plate shows the European flag of the golden circle of stars and a letter signifying the country of origin. Across Europe the practice is almost universal but in Britain, they are few and far between. Similarly, most countries in the EU provide their citizens with a European identity card, allowing one to travel with it. Britain abolished this in 2011. Again the Euro, a huge unifier missing from Britain, as the website for the European Union states, “[the Euro] is the most tangible proof of cooperation between EU countries.” Britain is once again alienated, remaining an island using the restricted British pound.

Britain does love to perpetuate otherness when compared to Europe. Our island status, for many in the UK, is seen as a strength and not a weakness. Yet Ama, a non-European student, doesn’t quite see Britain how we may see ourselves; “I do think Britain is part of Europe…. But I do think it’s unfair that all the other countries have to abide by the same laws and have the same currency and England think they’re the ‘superpower’ and they don’t have to do that”. Perhaps it’s time for Britain to leave some of its differences to help it become more integrated in Europe.

So do we all have to be the same to be European?

Well no, not the same but perhaps not so defiantly different. During one discussion I had amongst friends, William, who is British, felt very strongly as to whether Britain was truly part of the EU. “No. I think we’ve developed separately [Britain]. We are culturally, socially, politically distinct from continental Europe.” But does this mean Britain can’t be part of the European Union?

No, I feel what is missing from Britain is to follow the European motto, ‘United in diversity’. Throughout the talks with friends and family, what came out of Britain staying in Europe was trying to unite Europeans. Allow the various cultures and languages to flourish within a diverse global community and accept that the EU is in no way a perfect institution with positives that to me, far out way the negatives. Thus, Britain can be proud of our unique heritage while also learning to love our membership to the bigger European Union.

Cleo Anderson

France / Russia : A chess game with a taste of Cold War

                             

The current situation between the EU and Russia feels like an old-fashioned Cold War atmosphere. Recent military moves in Ukraine – not seeking for more political stability – and Putin’s coldness and early withdraw from G20 in Brisbane spoke volumes of tensions between Western countries and Russian foreign policy. In this context stands one country dealing with a major economic and geopolitical impasse, and as often, this is France.

How did France get bogged down in this Affair?

In June 2011 France and Russia reached a military agreement in which France committed to provide two BPC Mistral ships to Russia by 2015. At a time when former President Nicolas Sarkozy saw Russia as a « natural partner for France », this enhanced partnership up to 1.2 billion € was a vital shot in the arm for French Saint-Nazaire’s naval industry. Both for economic and political reasons, the agreement was almost uncontested at this time. Indeed, it was for the good of French economic health, international confidence, as well as France’s competitiveness on the arms market. On the Russian side, being equipped by French high-technological and polyvalent helicopter-carriers was an efficient way to re-assure its presence and flexible capacity to react on the seas.

However, the geopolitical context radically changed since ‘Euromaidan’, the annexation of Crimea and the settlement of the conflict in which Russia in largely condemned to be implicated. Thus, French Minister of foreign affairs Laurent Fabius announced in March that France would place the selling under conditions of the Ukrainian Crisis’ resolution, putting pressure on Russian policy.

But between the unfortunately expected freeze of the conflict in Ukraine and domestic economic needs of this huge contract, France has reached an impasse between international multilateral pressures and economic issues. The symbolic Vladivostok, first ship supposed to be sold November 14^th is still in St-Nazaire’s docks. A chess game is settled in which France would have everything to lose.

Which issues are making this situation so complex to handle?

Let us have a look at the three main conceivable scenarios.

France could deliver the Vladivostok in the next few weeks. This would draw a hail of accusations of betrayal by Western powers, especially the US and the UK, as well as Eastern Countries fearing Russian military expansion policies, such as Finland and Poland. Here, should we consider the delivery as a glaring admission of France’s economic weakness, selling its dignity for money? Former president Sarkozy itself argues that France should sell the Vladivostok, agreeing with one of De Gaulle’s famous political belief, that France should “define its own position, rather than following others’ advices and will”. But would it be a proof of political strength to give in to Russian blackmail? Definitely not. Moreover, more than being ethically hugely contestable, it is never without any risk to sell military forces. Should we remind ourselves when two British ships were sank by Argentinian missiles sold by France, in 1982 during the Falklands war, leading to geopolitical tensions between the two European allies.

France could try to continuously postpone the selling and carry on putting pressure about Ukrainian issues, which is probably the most likely to happen despite the Kremlin’s ultimatum to sell before December. But France is aware of dramatic economic issues: the accumulation of massive penalties, a thousand of jobs at stake and the 1.2 billion Euros contract. And this money – as announced by Russian Minister of Defence – would be allocated to its military budget. It was at a time suggested that NATO could re-buy the ship, but the project was judged impractical. It is above all a threat to the international image of French military industry, almost 10% of French foreign trade, and crucial partnerships with India, Saudi Arabia and Brazil at stake. At the end of the day, it is paradoxically France that endures more pressure than Russia, using the affair as an instrument of pressure, weakening France and dividing Western opinions. And what about the Sebastopol, supposed to be delivered by 2015?

Finally, a third scenario suggesting than France would sell the ships in a few months or years in a politically and socially stabilized Ukraine and EU-Russia diplomatic relationship, could today be seen as utopian. Indeed, the situation in Eastern Ukraine is alike Donetsk, where the deteriorating circumstances are no longer alarming, but disastrous.

What about the EU?

The Mistrals Affair doesn’t seem to tip the balance of power in Europe’s favour. As explained to me Anand Menon, Professor of European Politics and Foreign Affairs at King’s College, it will be hard for the EU to agree on new effective economic sanctions, as it also having a negative impact over European countries, notably concerning energy (especially Italy) and investments (the UK). This will make the task for France harder in the Mistrals Affair. The European issue will also be on whether NATO will provide weapons to Ukraine.

Economics or Ethics? What should prevails on the international scene?

Political morality and economics and ineluctably linked in international relations. I recently had the chance to meet Renaud Dehousse, chairman of the Centre for European Studies at Science Po in Paris, who said to me that – concerning arm selling – the ethical dimension was finally almost never taken into account as a major decisional factor. To ethics we should substitute the balance between economics, diplomacy and geopolitics, in which economics is usually the most influential. Here, Anand Menon reminded me of the need for a government to be elected in dealing with domestic economic issues, which usually overwhelm moral issues. Indeed, deals with Saudi Arabia, Bahrain or Qatar proves him right.

A taste of Cold War

Since the beginning of the Ukrainian Crisis, have European powers been still acting too peacefully, letting Putin dictate its foreign policy? The recent G20 revealed the seriousness of the game. Be it as it may, the suspense remains open about the Vladivostok’s fate. A conclusion “we’ll wait and see” would unfortunately be relevant, as diplomatic tensions are so, that future perspectives and issues remain unpredictable. At the moment, as time passes, the more the penalties accumulate and the more the economic situation sinks at St Nazaire’s docks.

    .                                                      Guillaume Beaud

European culture in danger

Two women sitting at a bar, (1902), Picasso.

As described by Jean-Claude Juncker, the president of the European Commission, in his Mission Letter to the Commissioner for Culture, Culture is a key component of our shared European identity and values. It contributes to the social cohesion and dynamism of our society. Therefore, Europe should promote our cultural diversity by helping Europe’s culture sectors to reach out to new audiences. But nowadays, Eurosceptic politicians all around the European Union threaten European culture.

How can the European Culture be defined?

François Vienne, the Vice President of the International Festival of Opera of Aix en Provence, France, defines it as “the free circulation of works of art and artists. It is about learning to work together on common projects, beyond the borders.”

European networks of Culture are a great way to improve and modernize the image of Europe who currently suffers from a very present Euro scepticism. In addition, Cultural Projects, which gathered several European countries, can help revitalize a country that suffers from economic or political crisis inside its borders, as culture represents 4,5 % of the EU GDP.

Therefore, in a context of economic crisis, European Union has everything to gain by promoting and financing Cultural European projects.

This view is not shared by most of the Eurosceptic politicians who show a strong attachment to traditionalism, national preference and cultural nationalism. In fact, opponents have, at multiple occasions, described European Culture as “decadent”, or even a “cultural elitism”.

Why do these parties oppose the emergence of a European culture?

In general, far-wing Eurosceptic parties accuse European Culture of being a threat to national identity by promoting multiculturalism and cosmopolitism. They have a very restrictive view of Culture and refuse to admit that a country can combine European Culture and Local Culture at the same time.

This worldview shared by far-wing parties is not recent. The most striking period of history in which contemporary and multicultural culture has been scorned and criticized in Europe took place in the late 1930’s. On November 1937, the Nazi regime organized a “degenerate art”, as opposed to the “heroic art” figurative exhibition to show the massive decadence of art in Europe. Among the degenerate: Picasso, Chagall, and Kirchner…

Today censorship is of course not as threatening as it was at the time of the totalitarian regimes, but yet some elements outline the fact that European Culture is still threatened.

In most of the places rules by far right-wing parties, Culture comes up against censorship, critics and all kind of difficulties.

Striking examples took place in the 1990s, in the South of France, near Avignon. For the cities run by the Front National, it was more about censorship than cultural policy: asphyxiated associations, eliminated subsidies, closed places, officials ostracized, attacked festivals, books censored. Plus, far right wing politicians tried to impose their nationalist, and even sometimes racist, culture. On the public libraries, they cancelled the subscription to all of the leftist newspaper and replaced them with right-orientated papers and, even more striking, they imposed books written by racist theorists, such as the Vichyist Alexis Carrel. On the cities, they changed the names of public places and street, in order to create a more nationalist environment.

Who to rely on to protect our European culture today?

The first answer that comes to mind is the European institutions such as the European Commission. But the new commissionner for Culture, the former Hungarian minister, does not seem to be the ideal man to fulfil this mission. In fact, Tibor Navracsis has been accused to limit the freedom of expression and to undermine the arts sector in Hungary. Even if more than 30 European artists, including the director Simon McBruney and the the composer George Benjamin, put forward evidences showing that Navracsis settled hash the medias and the cultural institutions, Jean-Claude Juncker named him commissioner anyway.

I believe, it is now the artist’s responsibility to protect, defend and promote European culture. None of them should follow the behaviour of the president of the Festival of Avignon, Olivier Py, who threatened to cancel the Festival if the Front National was to be elected. The artists’ mission, as it is supported by public found, is to use their talent to sensitize the audience to European culture.

.                                                   ….          Mathilda Loussert

Act, react, impact! When right-wing populism threatens Europe’s future

A few weeks before Christmas, Steven Clark, head of Web Communications of the European Parliament, came to Maastricht University to give a lecture on the upcoming European elections. As could be expected, the presentation of the communication campaign was professional and visually perfect. However, it was striking to see that Clark showed a high degree of honest enthusiasm for conveying the European course. Speaking positively and even advertising Europe is something students at Maastricht University might be used to, but it is highly delighting to see such commitment by a British representative.

Britain is widely considered as one of the most eurosceptic states in the European Union. It is therefore no longer alarming when David Cameron opts out of deals at European Council meetings, and most of his twenty-seven fellow heads of state will consider this to be commonplace. The same holds for UKIP’s continuous calls for an in- or out referendum of the European Union. Euroscepticism is then more of a usual British feature the Union has dealt with for more than forty years and nothing sounds alarming in Berlin or Paris.

One can only hope that Europe’s heads of state do not turn a blind eye to the real and far greater danger lurking in political systems throughout EU member states. The danger spreading like a virus from country to country is the rise of right-wing political parties. This however must set off alarm bells in Berlin and Paris, both of which have faced the rise of radical parties in their recent national elections. In Germany, the Alternative für Deutschland failed to cross the 5% border staying out of the Bundestag by a whisker. Be sure they will get their votes next May, when Germans go to the ballot boxes to select their European representatives. The situation has been exacerbated by Bavaria’s CSU stirring fears that a wave of Romanians and Bulgarians might come to abuse the EU-internal free movement to take advantage of German social benefits.

Germany’s case is however not as worrying as the French one. Marine Le Pen’s Front National has already demonstrated that her party’s programme favours La Grande Nation over any European interest. Evidently, a core point of the party’s current manifesto is a sharp critique of the European Union and this seems to attract votes. Her party won astonishing 54% in last October’s local elections in southeast France. The power of Front National can be exemplified by looking at the national level as well, where it ranked on the third place in the 2012 presidential elections. If this is not worrying enough, Le Pen’s party recently formed a transnational right-wing alliance with the Dutch Partij voor de Vrijheid led by Geert Wilders.

Similar stories could be reported from other Member States, not at least in the crisis-torn states in southern Europe. Just take a look at recent events in Greece, where the residence of the German ambassador was attacked by right-wing extremists. The frequency of comparable incidents throughout Europe illustrates that this was not merely a unique case of xenophobia.

The reasons for the popularity of populism can of course be traced. Although politicians claim that the eurocrisis seems to be over, Spanish and Greek youths are still on the streets looking for jobs. Right-wing parties such as Front National use this climate to present themselves as Samaritans caring about the citizens’ needs. According to recent polls 24 % / one fourth of French voters tend to believe the parties’ promises about more jobs, better wages and a government bringing back the glory of La Grande Nation.

It all boils down to a danger of “flawed” elections next May. Flawed in that people could be blinded by the great promises of right-wing parties and thereby elect what would probably be the most eurosceptic European Parliament since elections started in 1979. But also flawed in that people lose sight of the core values and achievements Europe stands for. For what kind of Parliament will a public relations director of the European Parliament advertise five years from now? How positive and enthusiastic will he then present the elections to students?       It is up to every citizen to make sure that Europe stays on the track. A track that does not lose sight of the values this unique success story has always produced. The main election slogan presented by Steven Clark could be a hint into the right direction: Act, react, impact.

Sebastian Franzkowiak

#GreenPrimary – The E-Democracy project of the European Green Party

  Many young people use hashtags on social media platforms such as Twitter, Facebook or Instagram, but most lack any political purpose. Instead, most prefer to link photos with hashtags to share emotions with their friends and followers – or to refer to a broader topic which can be accessed by clicking on the given hashtag. #GreenPrimary – this is the hashtag being used by the European Green Party (EGP) to promote their party online in regards to the upcoming European Parliament elections. But what structural ideas and motivations stand behind #GreenPrimary?

What does #GreenPrimary stand for?

Once you click on the #GreenPrimary hashtag you will enter the webpage greenprimary.eu where you are welcomed to the first Europe-wide Online Primary open to anyone wishing to participate! This means that theoretically every European from Lisbon to Warsaw can vote for the two candidates which appeals him or her most. The idea behind this campaign is to rebuild the trust of European citizens which has been unstable since the economic crisis in 2008. Thus, the EGP opts to give citizens an increased voice in European politics by allowing a facilitated access to primary voting. The Madrid- based campaign began in May 2013 and is now supported by 46 Green Parties in and outside of the European Union.

How is the Primary Process organized?

The Online Primary of the EGP follows a schedule which is constructed by the committee of the European Green Party, supported by the campaign team. Additionally, an electoral board takes care of the entire primary process. The electoral board consists of representatives of members of Green Parties from different member states.

From September to the end of October 2013, candidates have been chosen by Green Parties from all over the EU, with each member party of the EGP allowed to support one candidate.

Only contenders which gained the backing of at least four member parties within the EGP were permitted to run in the Green Primary. The Primary voting phase started on November 10^th 2013 and will last until January 28^th 2014. Until then, all European residents are allowed to vote for either one or two out of the four contenders.

The campaign is supposed to include especially the younger generation as voting is allowed from the age of 16 in all parts of the EU. On January 29th, the results of the Primary will be announced and the leading candidates will be presented. The two winners will be the representing faces of the European wide election campaign of the Greens and will therefore participate in TV debates with the leading candidates from other European parties.

How does the online voting work?

Voting is possible with laptop, tablet or even the smartphone – a functioning internet connection is equally recommended. There are four rather small steps to take in order to cast a vote. For more information, follow #GreenPrimary!

Further information can be found about the candidates, via videos, chats, and public debates taking place in different cities all over Europe, aimed at allowing you to have your say in the #GreenPrimary.

One might wonders what happens with the personal data one indicates on the webpage in terms of personal data security. greenprimary.eu explains that the information given by voters will be saved on the servers of SCYTL, the company in charge of the voting system. It promises to delete the data by a certified procedure after the end of the Green Primary. Furthermore, each vote is encrypted and can only be decrypted by the electoral board.

Green Online Primary – success or failure?

Given the chance to select online candidates, one indeed feels closer to the elections. Throughout the last few years, internet voting systems have become popular in many different countries, whether in governmental elections or referendums. The E-Democracy project of the EGP is certainly a unique and new approach to involve citizens in the political process and to approach green-minded people all over Europe. Nevertheless, one wonders how representative the Green Primary is, as one fourth(!) of the European population do not have access to the internet and is therefore not able to participate in the Online Primary.^[1]

Furthermore, it remains questionable how many people actually participate. The results published at the end of January will reveal more information on the success or failure of the campaign.

One should keep in mind, however, that for the actual elections in June, citizens still have to vote in the ‘traditional way.’ Regardless, the aim of the Green Primary to connect all green-minded people can be seen as a further step towards European-wide integration and as an an attempt to reduce the democratic deficit.

---

^[1] http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/sites/digital-agenda/files/scoreboard_life_online.pdf

Inga Von der Stein

Ukraine: The battle is still on

The European Union and the Eurasian Economic Community (EurAsEC), or – to be more precise – Russia, were fiercely fighting over ex-soviet (C.I.S.) states until mid-December. The typical Western reaction had originally been to look in a despising way at what seemed to be a Russian proposal to re-launch the old soviet satellites system: surely, countries recently freed from the Kremlin’s authoritarianism would not even consider EurAsEC as an alternative to the European Union! Recent happenings, however, showed the Western leaders the seriousness of this game. In mi-December, Ukraine walked away from the EU and signed trade agreements with EurAsEC. Now that the Ukrainian government has taken clear steps towards the Russian-dominated market, we might just consider that Ukraine is back in Russia’s hands. However, the mass demonstrations of Ukrainian citizens who are protesting against the government’s decision is reviving tension in East Europa. Is the loss of trade agreements with Ukraine a total failure for the EU?

Russia’s strategy to convince its neighbours of the quality of cooperation they could benefit from joining the EurAsEC has been to force them into it, in a brutal way. Whether by using economic or political means, Vladimir Putin has made it clear that he would not let the former soviet states turn their backs on him. When, several months ago, Armenia moved considerably towards the EU, Russia used its strong-arm tactic of persuasion: it supplied Azerbaijan, currently in a frozen but long lasting conflict with Armenia, with weaponry. Soon after, Armenia’s president changed its mind and officially announced its candidacy for the EurAsEC. This unexpected outcome ultimately revealed the seriousness of the battle for Russia.

Putin’s economic pressures revealed themselves to be persuasive on already very fragile and dependent economies such as Ukraine. Russia has taken advantage of its position as the main trading partner and raw materials’ supplier of the region, to warn against the sharp rise in economic costs the states would face by walking away. It has done so by offering a glimpse of it: ever more products from those states were banned from export to Russia and the price of Russian gas was extremely high. Ukraine’s situation was and is still particularly critical, as it is on the brink of bankruptcy – it was in desperate need of financial aid, whether from the EU or the EurAsEC. To make a step towards the West, it would have needed the guarantee that the EU would be able to offer a sufficiently advantageous trade area to balance the loss of the Russian market and Putin’s economic war. However, with the crisis hitting Europe, it was fairly simple for Russia’s president to point out the advantages of his proposal, amongst others to cut gas prices if Ukraine were to choose EurAsEC over the EU. The EU, apparently, didn’t point out the advantages of entering a single market clearly enough.

The difficulty for Ukraine to make a choice was increased with a more political issue: Yulia Tymoshenko’s controversial case. This was the only main obstacle which seemed to remain to the signing of an immediate partnership with the EU, in the form of an Association Agreement. Out of fear of a strong opposition for the next presidency elections, Ukraine’s current president was unprepared to release his political enemy from prison. The EU, on the contrary, was considering this as essential. The risk was that the Tymoshenko deadlock could lead Ukraine to choose the easy way (EUrAsEC) and reverse its steps in favour of Russia. The EU was well aware of this issue and was ready to give up some of the requirements of Tymoschenko’s release. The proposition of sending the politician to Germany for health reason without giving her the right to return to Ukraine was not only unsatisfying for the Ukrainian government but was also and still is downgrading for the EU’s rule of justice and democracy.

Both the EU and EurAsEC were willing to guarantee deals and to create a solid partnership with the former soviet states. The reason for that stubbornness is not surprising: this region is a door to new market opportunities, amongst others in the Caucasus and in Asia, and offers prospects for new investments. A tightening solidarity between the EU and the CIS and the desire to ease trading concretely developed since the EU mediated a ceasefire between Russia and Georgia in 2008. What followed from this were continuous counter-attacks to Russian economic pressures, i.e. the EU increased the quotas of Moldovan wine to be imported to the community as a way of compensation to the Russian recent ban of it. But where was the EU at the crucial time of negotiations with Ukraine? Why didn’t it react to Russian economic pressures on the country? Relations towards Armenia haven’t faltered: some member states of the EU, especially France, persist in their will of fostering democracy and respect of justice as a smaller, but still prominent, alternative to economic trades. This might be a hope for the future of relations between the EU, Ukraine and the whole Eastern region.

Ukraine has missed the great opportunity of being economically independent from Russia. The EU has missed the opportunity of opening to the East. The EU has to remember that it can have the power to counter-attack even if it is ‘only’ to foster democracy as it did in Armenia. The recent rise of pro-European and pro-Tymoschenko demonstrations is encouraging as it reveals the will of the people to follow this line. The demonstrations are, however, decreasing in scope and there is ever less hope for the president to be forced to call for early elections.

Whatever the outcome of the demonstrations and of Ukraine as a whole, the EU has to stay true to itself and avoid arrangements similar to that proposed for Tymoschenko. The CIS states are not lost and the solidarity between the EU and those states could continue to prosper. It would be, without doubt, a great investment for the future.

Hélène Maghin

The Generation easy jet

Taking the tube for the first time after four months of summer break, there was nothing I was looking forward to less than starting university again. I carried my lanky tanned body down the stairs, listening to a beat of Jonas Mantey discovered in a little open air bar in Berlin. Nostalgia  was at its peak in my mind. Nothing seemed to make me  a little more enthusiastic, the tube probably being the least romantic place on Earth. Arriving on the platform, a familiar tone of  orange struck my attention: an easyJet poster. . On the advert two beautiful pair of legs pushing young girls (maybe undressed) in some pure water.  Looking at the sky, it’s a late afternoon, the two young girls have  probably drunk a few beers, listen to some alternative music or maybe played it with a guitar.

Under the poster was written ‘‘This is the EasyJet generation’’.

The generation easyJet has become a European reality: we can go anywhere, anytime, thanks to the creation of a single market for aviation in the 1990s. I will now stop limiting myself to easyJet, I don’t want to give the impression that this is just a praise of an airline. It is not and in fact, easyJet is getting too expensive for the poor student I am, so I would probably form part of the generation Ryanair. But let’s stop with company names! Our generation suffers from capitalism and its failures, let me find a less commercial name for our generation. The single market generation? Too bureaucratic. The post cold war generation? Too long. I can’t seem to find a name worthy of representing our generation, can you?

The only thing I’m sure of is that we are one generation of Europeans. The Berlin Wall was torn appart four years before I was born, I never saw the divided Europe on TV – instead, my generation of Europeans grew up with ads for the famous German Kinder chocolate, in which a young boy spoke Polish in a Polish ad, Romanian in a Romanian ad and not only French in a French one. At the same time, the Las Ketchup song with three Spanish “bonitas” and O-Zone’s “Numa Numa iei” replaced the hymn to joy during the summer when I was twelve. We all did an InterRail as our first big trip with our friends, we all take a low-cost carrier to go away for a week-end, we all have the same cultural references: between East and West, we are united.

When the Berlin Wall was broken down fourteen years ago, the victory of capitalism over communism seemed indisputable; some scholars called it the end of History. But as it so often happens, the end of one thing marks the beginning of another. European politicians understood these changes and saw the East as a partner and not as satellite states or only new export markets. Cooperation between politicians from all countries involved led to an efficient integration of the East. The opening up of the East was enabled by agreements between the Eastern and Western countries. The European market slowly integrated the countries formerly belonging to the Soviet block. The European Union changed its condition of entry to welcome ten countries from the East in 2004, two more in 2007 and finally Croatia in 2013. This process may be considered natural by our generation, but it is not. The courage of the leaders of the time must be remembered. This step was the first attempt to guarantee peace in the whole continent. Moreover, this process was not simply based on a new capitalist market but had a truly social and cultural aspect. For instance important funds were sent to those countries to help their development not only economically, but also in the fields of health and social care and education. Important agreements were signed to guarantee freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom from want and freedom from fear, to say it in Roosevelt’s words. Put another way, the citizens and their rights were out at the center of the Union. This progress created an homogeneous idea of all European states, based on liberty, equality and the welfare of its people, words previously restricted to Western nations.

We need to realize how lucky we are to be one single generation and that is thanks to history and amazing politicians. Today with the economical crisis it is easy to become Eurosceptics, but our duty is to stay EUptimistics and help for always a better change.

I love Europe. I know it’s old-fashioned, but in two years it will be vintage, and I will be a hipster. I bet on the future.

W. d’Harcourt