While FAO estimates that agricultural production should increase by 70% to feed 9 billion people in 2050 - only through yields improvement - other experts prefer to talk about 30%. The IAASTD, at an international level, the 3d SCAR Foresight at a European level and Agrimonde in France, believe that the "business as usual" scenario is not sustainable for the future, given the ecological and climatic constraints we face on our planet.

Such an alternative scenario involves changing the way we eat - less animal calories and more plant calories, reducing losses and waste, inventing ecological, economical but effective systems of production, and improving governance of agriculture and feeding at different scales.

Given this agenda, ARC 2020 considers it urgent to take the opportunity of the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) in the EU 27, and undergo a transformation of agricultural production systems and food consumption that can respond to contemporary challenges in a simultaneous and coordinated way.

First of all, the CAP should not be circumscribed to subsidies distribution to farmers. It must be used to coordinate and organize the relationships between sectors and territories, farmers and eaters, but also to bring the European institutions and citizens closer.
If the challenges are global, multiple and collective, it is pretty odd that since 1992 the CAP has been based on a tool that individualizes the EU public intervention. Indeed the farm income support which remains at the heart of the CAP after the reform, still does not take into account the real levels of income and wealth of farm households - as 20% of beneficiaries receive more than 80% of the aid -!
 
The resources devoted to agricultural policy should contribute to better protect the environment, to keep and create jobs and to foster rural development, while promoting collective and cooperative operations. Therefore, the two pillars of the CAP should be complementary in achieving these goals being placed on an equal footing.

The ARC supports the choice of the European Commission to improve community-based targeting of aid to young farmers, small farmers, the real farm assets, the environmental performance of farms called "Greening", the most deprived areas. The ARC also supports a greater use of EU public funds, with on one hand the progressive decrease of the amount given, according to the type of agricultural jobs, and on the other hand the strategic coordination of the various funds targeting rural areas.

On all the subjects dealt with by the reform, the ARC 2020 considers that the CAP must go along two parallel movements:
- A paradigm shift in agriculture and food systems, to promote sustainable agriculture on the maximum of territories, with a diversity of production practices and food processing at regional and local level, with a closer relationship between farmers and consumers and with a focus on public health, environment and animals' welfare.
- An economic, social and environmental revival of rural areas based on diversity of rural communities, cultures and local resources, and honoring the commitment of the EU towards social, economic and territorial cohesion. It is time to recognize rural development as a framework policy that allows farmers and the people who live in the country to start long-term projects. It should not be an agricultural annex of the CAP dedicated to farm redevelopment.

With the reform of the CAP, the EU should set an example to strive for greater efficiency of agriculture and budget. Efficiency of plant calories produced and processed into animal calories, thanks to innovative farming techniques, with a low fossil fuels cost, guaranteeing a fair income for farmers, supporting the fight against global warming, being respectful of other agricultural methods and ecologically and territorially balanced. Efficiency of public money, finally, that every euro invested in the CAP brings in an added value to European citizens. It is in this sense that ARC 2020 supports a new partnership between the European Union, farmers and citizens.


Samuel Féret is a rural sociologist. He has worked with groups of French farmers involved in sustainable farming for 10 years before co-ordinating Frenchs NGOs and Agricultural organisations on CAP reform agenda since 2008. He is a member of the "Groupe de Bruges" -an independent think tank dealing with EU agricultural and rural policies- and a member of "ARC 2020 ".

Croatia is meant to become the 28th member states of the EU in July 2013. Are you confident that every EU member states will ratify the adhesion treaty? What could be the obstacles for Croatia?
The Accession Treaty will be ratified by Croatia as well as by the 27 member states according to their national procedures. There is broad support to the accession of Croatia in all member states. Also the European Parliament's consent was given on 1 December 2011 by a large majority. This was a vote of confidence in Croatia, in the work accomplished so far. I am convinced that Croatia will continue this work, building on a large cross-party consensus on EU integration.
 
I am therefore confident that each member state will ratify the Accession Treaty in time for Croatia to accede on 1 July 2013. I look forward to this final step in the accession process.
 
The campaign for the referendum in Croatia happened to be very quick. Do you think that enough debates have been organized to give the floor to each side?  At the same time, the turnout was very low for a country wishing to join the EU. Do you think that there is a fatigue within the population as far as the adhesion process is concerned?
Participating or not in a referendum is up to each Croatian citizen. Most important for me is that all Croatians had the possibility to cast their vote, all of them could make their own decision. And I was glad to see the 2/3 of the voters are in favour of Croatia's accession to the European Union and voted to make the EU stronger with Croatia as a fully fledged member.
 
We should not forget that the referendum took place after several years of intensive preparations for EU-membership by Croatia. I have followed the press in Croatia and I have seen quite a lively debate on pros and cons of EU membership. There has been a longstanding dialogue on EU membership and a great deal of information has been made available over the course of the accession negotiation process.
In order to support and complement the information campaign undertaken by the Croatian Government, the EU Delegation also provided information to the Croatian citizens and will continue to do so in the future.

What about the public opinion within the EU member states? It feels like there is a large disinterest on this adhesion.
The public opinion in the Member States supports a credible process of Enlargement, a process which has as result the transformative power that prepares the future EU Member State to be a value added and a contribution that helps the EU in dealing with the challenges we face today. For the EU, having Croatia 'in' means extending the area of political stability in a strategic European region that was torn by conflict not so long ago; expanding the EU's internal market, along with new opportunities for EU businesses and customers; expanding the application of EU laws and standards in various crucial areas that have impact on Europe as a whole: energy, transport, environment, etc. I believe that by signing the Accession Treaty the member states confirmed the importance of Croatia's accession.

Croatia is facing a very deep crisis. Is there, for you, no doubt that the EU membership will be beneficial for the country in this respect?
To Croatia, accession to the EU offers long-term political stability, increased economic and trade opportunities in a market of more than 500 million people and access to structural and cohesion funds, to name just a few. Moreover Croatia will be a significant net recipient of the EU budget and will benefit from actual payments already in the second half of 2013 amounting to €374m.
 
These are all concrete benefits and they become even more important now in a time of crisis, when it is clear that together we are better equipped to face global challenges.
 
But becoming a member of the EU is not only an economic or social gain. It is first and foremost a sense of belonging. Belonging to the European family, belonging to a community based on the rule of law, belonging to an area of peace, stability and prosperity. Croatia and its people, language, rich culture will fortify the EU which is based on the motto 'United in diversity'.
 
What could be the role of Croatia as regards its Balkans neighbours’ negotiations? Could it become a facilitator or do you expect tensions?
Croatia plays an important role already by being behind the table where decisions are being made by member states. This helps Croatia shaping its future to its own benefit and to the benefit of the whole Europe including its neighbours. Croatia's prospective accession will not only move closer the EU borders; it actually brings closer the European perspective to all Western Balkans as it anchors the region more firmly in the EU. Croatia has shown the way for other countries of the region and, together with EU Member States, has a responsibility to help them advance on their path towards EU integration. I am convinced we can count on Croatia for that.

How can we make the European Parliament more vocal and better known by citizens? A greater transparency and a clearer functioning of the way MEP vote could be helpful to make the decison making process easier to understand. Extending the roll call vote procedure (vote where the identity of the vote are accessible to citizens) to parlementary committee is a simple and technical measure which could paradoxically mean a lot for pushing the European Parliament's greater accountability and transparency. Does this measure have the chance to be voted soon? Are we also heading towards a more Europeanized and democratized European electoral system?
 
We debate on those topics with Doru Frantescu from the NGO VoteWatch.eu. An organisation set up to promote better debates and greater transparency in EU decision-making by providing easy access to analyse the political decisions and activities of the European Parliament and the EU Council of Ministers.

We also have the pleasure to receive Siestse Winjsma, political assistant to Andrew Duff, British MEP belonging to the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ADLE) - Member of the European Parliament Committee on Constitutional Affairs.


Watch your EP is recorded within the European Parliament in Brussels and presented by Arezki Yaïche

Watch your EP - Podcast

Watch your EP - the Webradio of Generation 112

Last week, Serbs in Northern Kosovo conducted an informal vote on their acceptance of the legitimacy of Kosovo’s ethnic Albanian led state. The so called “referendum” was not legally binding nor did it offer any political alternatives. It was a poll on popular sentiment and a symbolic gesture. Its message however was clear; 99.7% of respondents answered no.
 
AN INDEPENDENT STATE?
 
The result did not come as a surprise to anyone following recent events in Kosovo. Kosovo has a population of 1.7 million people, 90% of whom are ethnically Albanian. Although it declared itself independent in 2008, it is home to an estimated 120,000 ethnic Serbs who generally do not recognise its autonomy. Eighty eight states, including the United States, Canada and most EU member states recognise Kosovo’s independence; Russia, China and their allies do not. Critics of an independent Kosovo state point out its institutions are largely administered by an international force made up of NATO, UN and EU civilian and military personnel. This international policing force has not only failed to stop Kosovo becoming a major hub for human trafficking and the drugs trade,  but in many cases international forces have been found to be active participants in such extra-legal activities . Members of Kosovo’s government have been accused by the Council of Europe of leading a network which traffics weapons, heroin and human organs. With respect, under the circumstances some scepticism about the feasibility of a Kosovo state is perhaps understandable.
 
NORTHERN KOSOVO
 
Northern Kosovo is a majority Serb enclave, with an estimated 40,000 Kosovo Serbs residing in the region. Bordering the Republic of Serbia, the ethnic Serbs of Northern Kosovo largely ignore the Pristina’s claims of autonomy, choosing instead to observe Belgrade’s direct rule and create their own parallel structures of authority. The vote should not be considered to be anything more than an opinion poll, and it is important to point out that only a third of Serbs residing in Kosovo took part in the vote. But it has refocused international attention on the region and stimulated debate on the EU’s policy towards the Western Balkans. Outbreaks of violence have been occurring since late last summer, as NATO peacekeepers confront renegade Kosovo Serbs who are becoming bolder in their efforts at resisting symbols of an independent Kosovo state. In July 2011, the Kosovo government attempted to establish customs and border posts in the north of the country. Posts were burned and Kosovo policemen attacked by Serbs who also began to erect roadblocks. Confrontations with NATO troops trying to dismantle the roadblocks turned violent and have continued to flare up sporadically since. In November 20, Hungarian and Portuguese troops, serving under the auspices of NATO, were injured. NATO instructed their troops to begin using live ammunition.
 
RENEGADE REBELS
 
The EU has been mediating talks between the Serbian and Kosovo governments, both of whom are keen to resolve the dispute in a bid to improve relations with the EU. The Kosovo Serbs are proving problematic; however the vote indicated that Belgrade no longer has any influence over the actions of Kosovo Serbs. Serbian President Boris Tadić has urged Kosovo Serbs to stop the violence. The majority of Kosovo Serbs see themselves as being abandoned by Belgrade, sacrificed for the sake of possible EU membership.
 
There’s no doubt that Serbia is making a concentrated effort to improve its prospects as a potential EU member state and the actions of the Kosovo Serbs are endangering that. Croatia has witnessed an economic boom in recent years, largely due to tourism and is set to join the EU in less than two years; Serbia in contrast is languishing behind, held back by its past failures to cooperate with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), in apprehending suspected war criminals. The apprehension of Ratko Mladić, wanted by the ICTY in The Hague on charges of genocide, removed the last major roadblock to Serbia’s accession talks with the EU. Many hard line Serbian nationalists view Mladić as a hero however and resented what they saw as Serbian leadership being held hostage by Europe. The perceived abandonment of Kosovo Serbs by Belgrade is viewed through a similar lens.
 
All of which makes the situation in northern Kosovo even more dangerous. The Kosovo Serbs feel threatened, abandoned and besieged on all sides. Serbians themselves are beginning to get impatient with what they consider to be constant sacrifice making in order to gain EU candidate status. The EU is due to make a decision on Serbia’s status the 1st of March; if they delay a decision, as they have done before due to the unstable situation in Kosovo, it may strengthen the nationalist movement and set off a violent chain of events, once again.

The new rescue plan (bail-out plan) promised in 2011 was signed the 21^st of February. EUR 130 billion were eventually granted to Greece to avoid a default in March. Eurozone and its member which suffers the most are not yet saved. Greek GDP decreased by 7% in 2011 and will drop by 4% in 2012 according to some experts. With an unemployment rate reaching around 20%, the exodus of unemployed Greeks and youth is not over. In Athens, the government and the major conservative party in the opposition both pledeged after April’s elections to implement EUR 3.3 billion spending cuts and to reduce public deficit from 160 to 120 of the GDP by 2020. Many deem those measures as undemocratic others as a backlash for the corrupted Greek politicians. Whatever one can think, the people of Greece and the European Union as whole in its own values have just been humiliated.
 
GREECE AND EU HUMILIATED
 
By the way, what do we know about Greece? Harsh comments issued by some politicians and media in Europe lead us to cowardly blame this country.  Unfortunately we have all witnessed those two last years that a hawkish neoconservative moral virtue mattered more than economic solidarity.

However, yes it is true; the Greek conservative government with the complicity of Goldman Sachs lied in 2002 for entering the European monetary Union. Yes, in 2009 following the disclosure of those deceit figures by the freshly elected social and democrat Prime Minister Papandreou triggered an unprecedented crisis for the EU.
Yes the political system in Greece must be reformed. The people of Greece are paying unfairly for corrupted political class where the military budget (more than 4% of the GDP) and the unbearable tax evasion are benefiting respectively European weapons sellers, the few wealthiest, ship-owners and multinationals (indeed reduce the minimum wage is far more courageous). Of course more than EUR 200 billon was given by member States in May 2010 to save Greece from default, however is it a reason to humiliate the Greeks whose majority (70%), according polls, has the great honour to declare their willingness to remain within the Eurozone and to not blame Europe and Berlin for all their troubles? Of course not!
.
NORTHERN INGRATITUDE AND POPULISM
 
One can consider nevertheless irresponsible to hear from an EU official that we can get rid of Greece. Defining the people of Greece as lazy and liars is unacceptable when you look at the huge queues in front of greek employment agencies and at the steady flow of persons, young especially, fleeing their native country with sorrow for jobs well under their competencies. Let aside a country, expelled from the financial markets and from the free trade area is deeply wrong and criminal. What do really know the accusers who oppose a so called virtuous North to a prodigal South?

In Germany, wrongly considered as the absolute model, the low unemployment rate (6.9%) can be explained partly by a decade of non rising wages and few millions of employees in partial unemployment and working poor. As often pointed out by American Economics Noble Prize Winner and New York Time’s columnist, Paul Krugman, if we apply the German model to each European country, “we might need another planet to exports all the European goods “. Indeed in our European Monetary Union, exports from the Northern countries where the domestic demand i slow benefited from the indebtedness of the Southern consumers where the goods are mostly sold.   Don’t get it wrong then, more than 60% of European trade takes place within the Eurozone!
In some rude governments, especially in the Netherlands and in Finland, ungratefulness goes unfortunately with self-centred behaviour and a rising populism.
 
Italian Prime Minister, Mario Monti has finally well summed up this acute issue during the European Parliament plenary session of February: "The Eurosovereign debt crisis has created too much stereotypes and has divided Europeans". Europeans, the people of Greece ahead, are therefore waiting for accountable and responsible leaders. Those leaders have to bring forward collective solutions in order to stimulate growth and foster the envy to live together in a mutual respect.

"Creative Europe ": it is the name of the new EU Culture program to be implemented between 2014 and 2020. The budget allocation represents 1,8 billion Euros. In the last months, the Commission has published several proposals in order to plan the future of EU policies after 2013. The plan is to develop a creative Europe but the UE will also have to be competitive according to the program.
 
THE ECONOMIC ANGLE

Cultural activities play their part in the European economy, that should not be denied: as the European Commission claims, cultural activities represent about 4,5% of the EU GDP and 3,8% of the jobs in the EU. The sector benefited from an average growth of 3,5% between 2000 and 2007 whereas the global European economy increase was only of 1%. The European cultural policies have to take into account this economic aspect: how to adapt to the technological changes and to the digital revolution, which considerably changes the way the society works, how to find a way to meet a new audience, how to export the European culture across the world? In other words, how to lay the foundations for a sustainable economic model for culture, a sector which has to deal with severe cuts in public funds in the context of the current economic crisis?
The Commission found a way to answer the question by reversing it: the point is not to find out what the economy can do for Culture anymore but what Culture can do for the economy. Make Culture a vehicle for growth and wealth by achieving the objectives set in the EU 2020 strategy. The strategy, adopted at the beginning of 2010, is supposed to frame the EU strategy for the next 10 years, with one motto: develop a smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. What a plan!
 
FORGOTTEN VALUES

In its « Creative Europe » program, which deals with culture in general but also the audiovisual sector, the European Commission aims at answering two main objectives: protect and value cultural diversity as well as enhance competitiveness of cultural and creative activities?
In reality, the Commission does not innovate much on content and financing tools but it redirects its action towards a certain type of actors: the creative and cultural industries, which are more likely to participate in increasing economic growth than the public or semipublic cultural actors, widely subsidized.
To go even further in this logic, the Commission suggests the implementation of a “financial facility” to guarantee the loans made to the cultural actors. In fact, one can hardly imagine that the public actors, barely financially viable, are the ones targeted by that policy. Here again, it has more to do with helping the private sector. There is nothing wrong with that, except that the first objective which was at the core of the implementation of European cultural policies, namely the aim to develop a European citizenship, has been forgotten…
 
How to support the creation of a common cultural space through the cultural dialogue, the spread of pieces across Europe, the artists’ mobility…? In such a way that it could finally contributes to reinforce the sense of belonging to a common project, the development of common values, and thus manage to get the European peoples closer. That was the governing principle until now, and it seems that we have lost it…
 
EUROPE 2020: THE MOTHER OF ALL POLICIES

The reason behind the redirection of cultural policy has to be found in the progressive and general drying out of funding for not very profitable sectors having a weak impact on economic growth, but it can also be found in a more mundane fight. The one which opposes a General Directorate of the European Commission dealing with culture (DG EAC ), often marginalized, to the more powerful ones like Competition, Budget or Internal Market DGs or even the general secretariat of the Commission.
 
How to value the relevance of a cultural program in this uneven balance of power when the very existence of the program is under threat? The reply is simple, and has to do with a Faustian compromise: deciding that culture has to serve the economy and thus satisfying the most powerful ones, by establishing Europe 2020 and its ambitions of growth at the level of a unique political thought.
 
Hélène Ahrweiler, putting herself in Jean Monnet’s shoes, said, 25 years ago, “if it was to be done again, I would start by culture”. This false quote, which nonetheless has been widely used and commented, shows a kind of nostalgia of the European integration which, instead of having been built through the economy, could have started by culture. Obviously, one identity cannot be created through a market, one needs content. Culture is surely a piece of it.

What would be an acceptable level of tax that could be actually implemented, and what amount of revenue would you expect then?
The Commission has proposed minimum rates. The exchange of shares and bonds would be taxed at a rate of 0.1% and derivative contracts at a rate of 0.01%. I expect this could approximately raise €57 billion every year.
 
What would be the area where the tax would be in force? The whole EU? The Euro-zone only? And on what kind of transactions?
The Commission tabled a proposal for all 27 EU Member States and I will work for agreement at 27 because I believe it has real benefits to deliver for all EU citizens. This is about fairness and meeting the legitimate expectations of citizens across Europe. 65% of the population in the EU is in favour of an FTT. It is also about making things easier for businesses by avoiding a patchwork of national approaches. 10 Member States already have a form of FTT in place. So an agreement amongst the 27 Member States is my preferred outcome. 
The tax will be levied on all transactions on financial instruments between financial institutions. This would include products such as shares, bonds, derivatives and structured financial products. The minimum tax rates proposed are very low so as to avoid damage to the real economy due to an increased cost of capital. We have excluded the day-to-day financial activities of ordinary citizens and businesses, in order to protect them and ring-fence the real economy.
 
How would be spent the money gathered from this tax? We’ve heard so many proposals that we feel that this money has been spent ten times already…
In fact, it is possible for this revenue to have multiple benefits. The share that goes to Member States could help in their consolidation efforts, bolstering national budgets, or it could be invested intelligently into growth-promoting measures. The share for the EU budget could help fund wider policy goals, such as development and climate change for instance. It is important to note that if the FTT is partially used to fund the EU budget, Member States will see a corresponding reduction in the amount they have to contribute to the EU. 
However, no formal decision has been taken on how FTT revenues might be spent yet. This is for the EU Member States and at a later stage for the European Parliament to decide where the income of an FTT would go.
 
Does the EU really have the means to implement such tax, with the opposition of the USA or China for instance?
A global approach to the FTT remains our ultimate goal. We know that this is the ideal way to help fund global challenges and ensure greater financial stability and fiscal justice worldwide. The best way to achieve this is for the EU to take the first step: to implement a well-designed and workable FTT, as I believe we have proposed. Others will soon follow as they see it achieve its objectives and deliver considerable benefits. This wouldn't be the first time that Europe pioneers a global movement – look all that has been achieved in Climate Change as a result of the EU pushing ahead with high ambitions. I strongly believe that we can lead by example with the FTT too.

Poland has a geographical location at the heart of the European continent. Its population, the sixth largest in the European Union, is largely young and well-educated. Their democratic pedigree is rather impressive; in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, when the rest of Europe was largely indulging in bloody religious conflict, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was ruled by an elective monarchy, held in check by a senate and elected parliament. The 1791 Constitution enacted by the Republic of Poland and Lithuania was influenced by ideas of the Enlightenment and was modern Europe’s very first constitution. Today, Poland is of the few EU member states that remain generally enthusiastic about the Union. Throughout Poland’s EU presidency last year, the Prime Minister Donald Tusk consistently reiterated that the solution to the continents fiscal crisis was “more Europe, not less.”
 
These are just a few of the reasons why Poland may emerge as one of the leaders of the EU in the coming years. Of course, Prague may challenge the notion of Warsaw becoming the next city of influence on the continent; Budapest also sees itself as setting a strong example for other Central and East European countries. As enthusiasm for EU membership continues to dramatically wane amongst the general public in West European nations, will the capitals of the East step forward?
 
LONDON STEPS BACK...
 
Britain, which was never the most Euro-enthusiastic of countries, has taken a sharp turn towards entrenched euro-scepticism in its politics, media and general public opinion. London currently seems to be varying between wanting nothing to do with the Eurozone crisis and being vaguely resentful when it’s not included in Eurozone summits. David Cameron recently tried to veto a future EU treaty; unfortunately for the British Prime Ministers pride, Britain didn’t actually possess a veto and the other 26 EU member states simply pressed ahead in the negotiations without Britain. It was all slightly awkward but Paris and Berlin, in the form of European super-couple “Merkozy” had long ago seized the unenviable position of spearheading the economic recovery efforts anyway and there simply wasn’t time to indulge Britain’s tantrum throwing.
 
...WARSAW STEPS IN
 
Donald Tusk recognised an opportunity and demanded a seat at the table of negotiations, pointing out that although Poland may not yet be a member of the single currency, it intends to join in the coming years. More importantly, perhaps, it intends to be one of the leading economies of the single currency zone and as such it wants a say in current deliberations which may affect the currencies future. But why is there suddenly a space for Poland to gain more influence within the EU?
 
THE SINGLE CURRENCY- CHANGING EUROPE’S POWER STRUCTURES
 
The Council of the EU is the EU’s main decision making body. Although votes are weighted in terms of population size, smaller countries receive more votes per capita than their larger neighbours and two thirds of member states must approve any decision. The system gives smaller states a fairer say in EU decision -making than a system of proportional representation would. So the power of larger states derives not necessarily from the size of their populations but rather the size of their economies. It is the sheer size and strength of Germany’s economy that has enabled it to take the lead in Europe. The economic crisis is currently absorbing all of Europe’s energies and affecting all aspects of its political and social life; therefore, those countries leading the European economy are, in turn, leading Europe.
 
WHY POLAND?
 
So why is Warsaw going to be the one to step forward? The most significant factor is undoubtedly their pro-EU political leadership, a consideration which rules out Prague or Budapest. The Czech Republic’s political leadership has turned firmly Euro-sceptic and Hungary’s Prime Minister is having some trouble observing democratic norms, which rules out those two possible contenders. Apart from population size, there also remains the remarkable fact that Poland is the only EU nation to avoid recession. Its growth may have slowed to a veritable crawl but it still remained ahead of its 26 fellow EU member states thanks to low levels of private debt and high levels of domestic demand.
 
Under its terms of accession, Poland will adopt the single currency no earlier than 2019 due to the necessity of constitution changes to facilitate a change of currency. Assuming of course there still is a single currency by then, Poland’s sizable economy is sure to impact the Euro-economy when it does join. In the meantime Warsaw is set to continue to demand a higher profile within the EU.

Follow the Generation 112 WebTV on Youtube: G112 TV

Find all the Euro-Zappings: click here

The new constitution is blatantly incompatible with Hungary’s laws; recognising, for instance, that life begins at the moment of conception and that marriage is a contract between a man and a woman- despite the fact that both abortion and same sex marriage are legal in Hungary.
 
ATTACKING THE FOUNDATIONS OF DEMOCRACY

The new constitution is also an attack on the main organs of democracy; a free media and an independent judiciary. Controversial laws which challenge Hungarian press freedom were actually enacted a year ago but their consolidation in the recent constitution has led to international condemnation; the new legislation gives great power to the Media Council, consisting of five individuals directly appointed by the government. With a nine year long term, the Media Council is exclusively responsible for media licensing in Hungary and also handles the imposition of fines on media outlets due to biased reporting; accusations of bias may be made anonymously, without evidence, and there is no legal interpretation of what such bias might actually entail, leaving the definition at the discretion of the Media Council, and by extension, the ruling Fidesz party.

The constitution also introduced new regulations pertaining to the judiciary, including an upper age limit which will result in the forced retirement of 274 judges in the near future, including Supreme Court judges. They would be replaced by the personal appointees of a single individual, who in turn is chosen by the ruling Fidesz Party. This astonishingly brazen attempt to politically consolidate the country’s judiciary has led to a remarkable 8,000 individual applications being lodged in a single month against Hungary at the European Court of Human Rights.

The independence of the country’s Central Bank is also a cause of concern for both the EU and the IMF as Hungary seeks more budgetary assistance, having previously received an IMF bailout in 2008. This may be one issue however where some compromise may be found, as Hungary is keen for international financial assistance and aims to enter into IMF/EU talks by May of this year.
 
LEGAL ACTION BY THE EU?

In January, the European Commission took the first steps towards launching legal action against Hungary over its new constitution- a move previously unheard of but undoubtedly necessary. President Orban has refused to listen to the wishes of the Hungarian people, who have been protesting in large numbers for months over his personal consolidation of power, and so far has resisted any significant compromise despite the EU’s insistence.  

Orban’s actions have revealed a fundamental flaw in the EU’s legal framework. Potential member states must prove compliance with democratic norms in order to gain admission to the EU but once a member, there is no sufficient monitoring system of democratic practices. There is also no legal guidelines on the proper causes of action to take against a member state which refuses to back down on the implementation of legislation which is seen as being incompatible with EU law. The European Court of Human Rights can make individual rulings but they rely on states to implement them. If Hungary refuses, what course of action is the EU left with?

WILL HUNGARY LEAVE THE EU?

Given the recent continent wide financial crisis, many media observers have speculated on the possibility of Greece leaving the EU. Hungary has changed the debate to the possibility of a country being forced to leave, or even leaving of its own accord, due to non-compliance with democratic norms.

Although leaving the Union would be an extreme outcome, Hungary’s political leadership has so far demonstrated remarkable resolve in the face of widespread international condemnation and has been unwavering in its refusal to sway under international pressure. Financial blackmail, for lack of a better word, may be the only realistic option available to the EU; trading financial incentives for democratic reforms isn’t an attractive avenue but it may just be the most effective.

With the final results from Egypt’s six week parliamentary elections tricking in, all talk is about the strong election performance of the two main Islamic parties. With 43.7% of the vote, the Freedom and Justice Party (the political wing of the Muslim Brotherhood) was the clear winner, although the ultra-conservative Nour party surprised many by taking home 22%.

As the gains of the Islamic parties became evident over the past few weeks, more and more Western analysts and policy makers have started to become anxious. How exactly will these parties perform in government? Many hope that they will try to follow Turkey’s model, which is seen as the first real successful marriage of an Islamic society and secular democracy. Despite its critics, Turkey’s ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) is credited by many in the West, and the East, with clean electoral victories, sound economic management and legal reform.

However in a recent article, Sebnem Gumuscu argues against a simple assumption that Egypt will be able to embrace Turkey’s model. As he explains, in Turkey’s case, the AKP has flourished because it has embraced the secular-democratic framework of the Turkish state. Gumuscu argues that the main reason for this was the neo-liberal transformation that Turkey began in the 1980s. This transformation led to the flourishing of a new group of devout businessmen who argued in favour of ideological moderation, stronger relations with the EU and political pragmatism. Together these moderate Islamists formed the AKP.

Gumuscu argues that Islamism and democracy have become compatible in Turkey, under neo-liberalism. The result has been a downsized state, greater economic and political stability and better relations with neighbouring countries. The AKP has been rewarded with greater support from secular business folk and the middle classes. For Gumuscu, the embrace of neo-liberalism was the main cause of the transformation, rather than Turkey’s culture of secularism, its relations with the EU or pressures from the military, all of which had been resisted for decades by organized political Islam in Turkey.

The comparison with Egypt is striking. As Gumuscu explains, neoliberalism in Egypt has largely benefited cronies of Mubarak’s regime and no Turkish-style business class has emerged within Egypt’s main Islamic parties. Rather these parties are made up of individuals from the professional sectors who prefer a strong and expansive state. It is this large state presence which was picked up on by The Economist as Egypt’s main economic challenge.

According to Gumuscu, the Freedom and Justice Party (FJP) supports private enterprise but its desired economic system is closer to Corporatism, with the promotion of import substitution and exports, rather than a small state and free trade.

Gumuscu is also dubious about the ability of economic reform in Egypt to develop the sort of pragmatism that Turkish-model advocates are seeking. If a new Islamist class wishes to emulate the success of the AKP then they will first have to become fully-fledged political parties.  At present however, the Muslim Brotherhood remains primarily a religious society, with political, economic and cultural objectives being secondary.

The FJP relies on the brotherhood rank and file for support in elections and thus the botherhood casts a large shadow over the party. According to Gumuscu the decision of the brotherhood not to nominate a Presidential candidate under the FJP already shows that political objectives are being superseded by religious ones.

As Gumuscu summarises, there is no Turkish model. Rather there are Muslims in a secular-democratic state working within a neo-liberal framework. Gumuscu feels that the first task of Egypt’s Islamic movements is to  separate their political and religious functions. Then they must also shed deeply ingrained habits of hierarchy and proselytization to build a democratic system with unique institutions.

Since the Schengen Agreement of 1985, free movement of persons within Europe, has become a fundamental right for European Union citizens, though this wasn’t achieved easily with countries imposing their own restrictions on the movement of labour or lack thereof. For those that didn’t such as the UK, there was an outcry that migrants most notably from Eastern Europe though would provide low cost labour, would also leave home grown talent at a disadvantage while simultaneously putting a strain on national services such as healthcare and education.

MYTHS AND SCAREMONGERING

The various bones of contention surrounding migration arise very often, particularly in the current climate of austerity. Even the go-to guys are split on the matter; recent findings by the National Institute for Economic and Social Research (NIESR) found that immigration has no impact on unemployment. Their findings are antagonized by Migration Watch UK, who claim that since the former Soviet-bloc countries joined the EU, it would something of a “remarkable coincidence” if there was no relationship between the influx of Eastern European workers and rising levels of youth unemployment.

Similar sentiments are also echoed on the continent. Dutch right-wing politician Geert Wilders’ Freedom Party (PVV) has launched a website, inviting people to publicly criticize Polish, Romanian and Bulgarian nationals for their combined efforts, as he sees it, to sabotage Dutch society. The site has courted a fair amount of controversy; in response the EPP Group have unreservedly denounced the initiative, Luc Vandeputte, Deputy Secretary General of the European People’s Party, describes the very essence of it as “appalling and gruesome.” Publishing vitriolic content is certainly nothing new; the shock factor is largely in action here. The Internet is notoriously difficult to regulate as such the simplicity with which online platforms can be created has given rise to the negative attitudes surrounding migration and even worse played a significant role in recruiting others to think in such dogmatic ways.

The term ‘migrant’ is not a one-size-fits-all model readily applicable to any person that should find themselves for one reason or another on foreign shores. The more sinister use of the term sees the migrant being blamed for depleting countries of their vital resources such as welfare support, a view widely purported in sensationalist media. Apart from the obvious enrichment that other cultures bring, migration boosts economic growth and encourages innovation, making the rhetoric a reality. Migration is crucial in maintaining competitiveness. Dublin’s position as the technology hub of Europe, being home to the European offices of Twitter, Microsoft among other technology giants is a prime example of the need to attract highly skilled, talented individuals with backgrounds including computer science, engineering, communications and languages.

THE ROLE OF THE EU

Perhaps the route to take in fostering healthy migration and principally healthy views of migration lies in strengthening transnational projects. Consider migrant students, or more eloquently put Erasmus programme students. Living and working abroad has become popular amongst many young Europeans. A myriad of university degrees have sandwiched such a year within courses, equally, as far as vocational training goes the Leonardo Da Vinci programme actively supports European mobility. Initiatives like these go a long way in creating a pan-European identity, familiarizing cultures and traditions with a view to harmonize them.

Europe needs to move forward as a unified continent that respects and tolerates different cultures while embracing transnational identity. A hard ask if there ever was one, however, there is much more to be gained in the movement of people from one place to another than to be lost. Whether EU citizens feel as though migration policies are failing, or even that the European Union itself is stretching far beyond its means, respecting a nation’s culture should not be reason to alienate the migrant population of that country.

Negative attitudes towards migration cannot be obliterated overnight. If European governments are ever to achieve their goals of integration within Europe, politicians and citizens alike need to be pro-active in understanding the issues that come with migration. 
In order to stem the ever developing anxiety over this issue, the EU must put more emphasis on strengthening relationships in communities; a move which would tackle the perceived discontents attached to migration more appropriately.

Will the new president of the European Parliament, elected last January, make the European Parliament more vocal towards citizens and EU head of states? Is the rule for electing the president democratic enough?
We debate about this topic with Doru Frantescu from the NGO votewatch..eu. Votewatch.eu is set up to promote better debates and greater transparency in EU decision-making by providing  easy access to, analysis of the political decisions and activities of the European Parliament and the EU Council of Ministers… 

Our program today will focus mainly on the debate surrounding the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. Is it a threat for civil liberties on the internet as some MEP, NGO and citizen’s fear?
To discuss on this crucial legislation we have the great honour to welcome Amelia Andersdotter, Swedish MEP from the Green political group in the EP and member of the Piratepartiet in Sweden.


Watch your EP is recorded within the European Parliament in Brussels and presented by Arezki Yaïche

Watch your EP - Podcast

Watch your EP - the Webradio of Generation 112

Get to know what is going on in your European Parliament! The only European Institution directly elected by the people. News, highlights of each plenary session in Strasbourg, analysis of the most important votes with an expert from the NGO votewatch.eu, "Watch your EP" brings you briefly and simply all you need to better understand the European legislative process.

Sport is one of the competences of the European Union since the Lisbon Treaty came into force. What is the added value of the EU in this field?
In any case, it is a subsidiary competence, as the main competences in sport belong to Member states and also to federations. But it is true that there are certain areas where the world of sport asks Europe to take measures, as, for example, the fight against doping-substances trafficking, making the fraud in sport an criminal offence, protecting minors, controlling the activities of sport agents, etc.

What do you think about the proposal of the European Commission to create a program dedicated to Sport, within the “Erasmus for all” program, with an envelope of 30 million Euros? What would be the actions the EU should support at first?
In my opinion, I believe that the word "Erasmus" should continue to be used as until now: exchange programs for young people. I believe that the money should be used for general European programs in order to support the organization of the European Day of Sport, the European Capital of Sport, the protection of indigenous sports, etc. I think that it is very important to be able to use structural funds for sport purposes, because the biggest amount of money we can use for sport infrastructures is in the structural funds.

What about the cooperation between the EU and the Council of Europe, which is very active in the field of Sport, or other sport institutions such as the IOC, the UEFA etc.?
I  firmly believe in the cooperation among bodies, as each of them has their own competences and it is of course very important to keep a close dialogue with European sport bodies like UEFA, Olympic committees, sportsmen associations, etc.

On issues like doping, racism, stadium violence, the Sport social impact, is the EU ready to commit itself? What about the means?
In these subjects that you mention is exactly where the EU should be involved, creating for example a European database in order to share information and to enhance cooperation, underlining the social impact that sport has and its importance for health, for the integration between different social groups and, above all asking Member states to adapt their legislation and, if necessary, to create a criminal offence to fight against doping-substance trafficking in the same way they fight against drugs. As I already mentioned, defining the sport fraud as a criminal offence in order to fight against illegal betting is also very important.

Sport is often described as a federative factor in our societies. Considering the current crisis, and the huge amount of money involved, spent into indecent salaries, is the EU willing to implement some regulation on this?
We live in a free market economy and it is really difficult to put salary limits. I do believe in financial transparency of clubs, agents and sportsmen, and Member states should take the corresponding measures (via taxation) in this sense. In any case, the European Parliament has entrusted Jean-Luc Dehaene a study on the financing of big clubs.

Interpol operates as its own international territory, similar to the Vatican, and as such is entitled to invite anyone it likes. However, in order to travel to Interpol’s headquarters in Lyon, Kuleshov had to obtain a French travel visa. Despite widespread condemnation of the French government for issuing the visa, Free Belarus Now, an umbrella group for Belarusian dissidents mainly in exile, saw an opportunity and petitioned the French Ministry of Justice to arrest Kuleshov over alleged breaches of the UN convention against Torture. The French authorities failed to respond to the request.

INTERPOL - A LAW UNTO ITSELF

The travel ban on Kuleshov and over 200 other prominent figures of President Lukashenko’s regime dates back to January 2011, following a brutal crackdown on civilians protesting allegedly rigged presidential elections. Belarus is commonly referred to as “Europe’s last dictatorship”. The three- term President, Alexander Lukashenko, has little patience for dissent, routinely imprisoning political opponents, human rights defenders and independent journalists on trumped up charges. Trials of political dissidents are held behind closed doors and the accused are usually denied legal counsel, according to Amnesty International. Many opponents of the regime are not charged at all; they are simply seized by the police and disappear into the prison system. Torture is said to be widespread.

IMPROVING THE CAPACITIES OF A POLICE STATE

Aside from the ethical uneasiness over Kuleshov’s visit, the practical repercussions are severe. Interpol Secretary General Ronald K. Noble stated “By sharing important crime related information with Interpol and by recognizing the Interpol passport, Belarus enhances the security not only of its country and citizens, but of all Interpol’s 190 member countries,”  Noble goes on to link this statement to the global terrorist threat; but how will the sharing of information with the Belarusian authorities enhance the security of Belarusian citizens? Belarus is essentially a police state. Now it may become a police state with increased capacity and resources. The argument that better training of police will provide for better political conditions is disingenuous in the extreme; the most likely outcome is the Belarusian authorities will be better trained and equipped to apprehend those opposed to it’s regime, through the improved technology and intelligence resources Interpol provides.

LENDING A VEIL OF LEGITIMACY

Last December, Ales Mikhalevich was arrested at Warsaw airport en route to London, at the request of Belarusian authorities who had used Interpol to issue an arrest warrant. Mikhalevich was one of a number of politicians who dared to stand against Lukashenko in the 2010 presidential elections, which international observers noted to be flawed. Following widespread political demonstrations over the disputed results, Mikhalevich and other candidates were arrested on charges of inciting mass riots. He claimed he was tortured and once released, immediately fled to the Czech Republic where he was granted political asylum. The Polish government is one of the most outspoken critics of Belarus’ government and arrested Mikhalevich only because the warrant was issued through Interpol channels; once they realised the reality of the situation, they immediately released Mikhalevich and allowed him to travel onto London, where he met with British government officials to discuss the political situation in Belarus.

What happened to Mikhalevich is an example of the veil of legitimacy Lukashenko and his cohorts can now apply to their extra-legal attempts to quell political opposition in their country, thanks to Interpol’s willingness to cooperate with their efforts. Following the recent controversy over Kuleshov’s blatant flaunting of the travel ban, the European Union’s foreign ministers announced they had agreed to widen the scope of the EU’s sanctions against Belarus; the gesture appears rather empty however as no new individuals or companies were added to the list of those already facing sanctions, merely a lacklustre promise that a “substantial” number would face repercussions for their actions within Belarus in the coming months. No details were given either as to what “widening the scope” of existing sanctions would actually entail. Given the diplomatic reception Kuleshov received, Belarus’ political opposition and jailed human rights defenders shouldn’t hold out much hope of the EU or Interpol furthering their cause.

The road was long and hazardous. Approximately six years of negotiations, chapter by chapter, were needed before the Accession Treaty could finally be signed on December 9th, 2011. Between the signature and the referendum, there were only six weeks including Christmas break. The main Croatian political parties, SPD (Social Democratic Party, the ruling party since December) and HDZ (Croatian Democratic Union, leader of the opposition and ruling party from 2003 to 2011) set up a common understanding based on a shared goal: the accession to the European Union. The hit-and-run campaign left the adhesion opponents with no means to make themselves heard, against the "moderate" political parties and even the Church which is very powerful in this Catholic and very religious country. The result is clear: nearly two-thirds of voters said yes (66.27%). However, the turnout was the lowest ever recorded for a country wishing to join the EU (42.5%); the Eurosceptics having preferred to stay home rather than participating in an election which was already lost.

Since October 2005, and the beginning of the negotiations, the question of the population support has been a chronic subject of concern in Brussels. Yet, the Croatian leaders never seemed to be really worried about it. Besides, this strategy of "laissez faire" was reinforced by the examples of the 2004 newcomers. From the leaders’ point of view, there would always be enough time to campaign. Actually it never happened to be necessary.
 
Successive governments have systematically ignored the call from a part of the population. No broad debates on joining the EU were organized; neither was any educational work done on the consequences of EU membership for the country. Let's be clear, it would not have changed anything. By initiating the negotiations in 2005, Croatia was already setting one foot in Europe. Six years later, after having implemented the necessary reforms to complete the 35 negotiating chapters, Croatia had transposed all the acquis communautaire. Clearly, the vast majority of Croatian legislation had become European. The debate should have taken place in 2005, it was back then that the Croatian should have decided whether or not they wanted to start this process. On January 22nd, 2012 it was too late to ask their opinion to the people.

Therefore it goes beyond whether the accession of Croatia is a good or a bad thing for the country. Certainly, positive and negative aspects will have their place in the first reports on adhesion, which would come in a few years. This is about democracy, accountability to the citizens of the candidate countries. Today, in Montenegro, Serbia or Macedonia, like in Croatia few years ago, people are kept out of the most important political decision of the last 20 years: it  will not only have a negative impact in these countries on the long-term but it will also affect at last the image of the European Union within the population. The EU does not need this bad publicity.

This is crucial if there is going to be enough food to feed the world’s growing population at a price which people can afford. Farmers are facing more challenges, including extreme volatility on agricultural markets, rising input costs, more extremes in weather as well as long term changes in climatic conditions. They will have to adapt, invest and modernise to meet these combined challenges. That is why the future CAP must focus on improving the economic performance of farming families and agri-cooperatives to enable them to get a better return from the market. We are concerned that the Commission’s proposals, which propose further mandatory environmental constraints on farmers making up to 30% of farmers direct payments dependent upon complying with environmental conditions, will not achieve this and will just add more costly burdens onto EU farmers, thus threatening their competitivity and economic viability. Farmers are already doing a lot for the environment and are willing to do more. But it must be based on win-win solutions for the both environment and growth. Farmers must be able to choose the measures which are most appropriate for their farm.  
 
Measures to promote green growth, which Copa-Cogeca is proposing, is the only way forward. Copa and Cogeca do not believe that it makes sense to require every single farm to stop producing on a certain percentage of their land when world food demand is set to rise by 70% by 2050 and production is threatened by more extremes of drought, flooding and storms. This has also been supported recently by many EU Agriculture Ministers and MEPs. Furthermore, the EU Commission proposal on the CAP post-2013 runs counter to the Commissions’ 2020 strategy for growth and employment.
 
The EU agriculture and agri-food sector ensures employment in EU rural areas for around 40 million people, providing the heart of rural areas,  and ensuring high quality food for 500 million consumers. Yet EU farmers’ income is on average only half that of average earnings. This is why it is essential that direct payments to farmers are maintained if the agricultural sector is to continue to assure these benefits. Currently, many young farmers are not willing to take over from the farm and older farmers are leaving the sector in view of the drastic economic situation. This is not sustainable or acceptable.  The real obstacle for young farmers is the lack of access to capital, poor returns from the market and the resultant low level of profitability of farm businesses.
 
We support the principle that CAP payments under the first pillar go to active farmers but the definition proposed by the Commission is not satisfactory. A very positive element in the Commission’s proposal is the introduction of European Innovation Partnerships to help improve links between researchers, farmers and advisors.We also need efficient and flexible measures to manage the market. These are crucial in view of the increasing market volatility. But we are concerned about the Commission’s proposed market measures.  Simply maintaining existing safety net measures, as proposed by the Commission, will not be adequate given the prospect of increasingly volatile markets. The level of the current safety nets has remained unchanged for over a decade while farm costs have risen rapidly. As a result they no longer even cover production costs of the most competitive producers and will therefore not enable producers to survive crises. We repeat our call for safety nets to be reinforced and updated to ensure they enable producers to cope during periods of low market prices and/or rapid increases in costs.
 
In addition, it is essential to strengthen producer organisations (POs) position in the food chain to meet the increasing world food demand. Farmers are currently up against the huge buying power of a few supermarkets and only get a fraction of the retail price. This situation must be improved in the reform.  They must get a better return from the markets. We welcome as a move in the right direction in the Commissions proposal the extension of the product coverage for recognition of producer organisations and their associations, as well as interbranch organisations, in addition to the Commission’s proposals for the milk sector. But we are very concerned about the fact that there is not a clear definition of a producer organisation in the EU Commissions proposal. It is also paramount that EU competition rules are adjusted to help producer organisations, such as cooperatives, to grow in size and scale.
 
The CAP is the only truly common policy and has made an important and successful contribution to the construction of Europe. Copa-Cogeca wants to ensure in the future the maintenance of a strong, dynamic, innovative CAP, with a strong EU budget behind it. We will continue to fight for this and call on EU Ministers, MEPs and the Commission to ensure that there is a profitable EU agri-food sector in the future, contributing to flourishing EU rural areas.


COPA-COGECA (Committee of Professional Agricultural Organisations - General Committee for Agricultural Cooperation in the European Union) is a EU farming representative organisation, recognised as one of the main representative bodies and the spokesman for the agricultural and fisheries cooperative sector.

As negotiations continue apace however, criticism of the new treaty (or inter-governmental  agreement, as it more correctly termed) has poured in from all angles. The European Parliament has passed a resolution opposing it, while European trade unions have called for a European day of protest on February 29th, the day before the negotiations are set to be concluded.

In their political resolution, the Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) expressed their doubts on the necessity of such an intergovernmental agreement. Criticising the method behind the agreement, as well as its content, MEPS also blasted the European leaders who today support the enshrining of new rules on fiscal discipline, but who flaunted similar rules at will in the past. The fact that the new treaty simply reiterates measures that are already part of EU law, since the passing of the new economic governance package in September 2011, was also criticised.

Both the Parliament and the trade unions expressed their concern at the focus on continued austerity, and the lack of a complementary plan for growth, with the Parliament calling instead for a "Union of both stability and sustainable growth." While the MEPs praised the use of the community method and the inclusion of the Parliament in the negotiations, they claimed that their suggestions to date have been largely ignored, putting the treaty’s democratic legitimacy at risk.

In their opposition to the treaty, the Parliament and trade unions have acquired an unnatural ally, with the rating agency Standard & Poors, fresh from downgrading several European countries in January, claiming that the new treaty’s sole focus on austerity could be largely self-defeating. According to their report, the new treaty will cause "domestic demand to fall in line with consumers' rising concerns about job security and disposable incomes, eroding national tax revenues." Instead of negotiating tighter rules on fiscal discipline, S&P believes that European leaders should be focussing their attentions on "a strong and consistent program to raise the growth potential of the economies in the eurozone."

To date, this diverse opposition against the treaty has yet to impact on the pace of its negotiations. If nothing else however, it will cause European leaders, some of whom face the prospect of a referendum on this treaty, to sit nervously.

Few months ago, Hungary chaired the European Union (EU). On Wednesday, 18th, it was behind the Danish representative that Viktor Orban answered the critics addressed to his government in front of the European Parliament.

Many observers, such as Hungarian MPs and Hungarian and European citizens are concerned by the new constitution which came into force on the 1st of January 2012. While speaking in the plenary session in Strasbourg, the president of ALDE, Guy Verhofstadt, presented a document of fifteen pages pointing every issue of concern, not only those regarding the European law, but more importantly those dealing with the EU fundamental values.

AN INFRIGEMENT PROCEDURE

Among these issues, the European Commission has selected three: by sending three letters of formal notice, the EC has in fact started an infringement procedure against Hungary, the first step before possible referral to the European Court of Justice for having breached EU law. Viktor Orban has now to take the necessary steps to address the concerns over the independence of the Hungarian Central Bank, the judiciary and the data protection authorities.

To prove its determination on the dossier, the European Commission decided to shorten the time limit to receive an answer very fast: in theory the Member state has two months to react but in that specific case, Hungary has to answer within a month, maybe even 15 days!

The Commission is therefore awake. Whereas, until now its focus has been mostly on the economic measures necessary in Hungary, President Barroso told Viktor Orban and the European Parliament that these issues could go beyond the law: he called on the Hungarian government to respect its democratic obligations. According to some observers, this shift arises quite late; for others it does not go far enough. This being said, what is important to notice is that such a political debate on an EU Member State had not taken place in the EU for a long time.
Hungary is at the heart of the debate in the EU, but it is also the case back home: few days ago, demonstrations involving thousands of people took place in Budapest: on Saturday, 21st, to support the government and on Sunday, 22nd to defend the Klub radio, threatened with closure.

In a previous article, we discussed the difference between the greater desire for democracy in the countries of the South side of the Mediterranean and the weakening democracy in the North side countries: the Hungarian case proves that we need to be vigilant. If one wants to mention a positive aspect on this issue, it would be the creation of a debate, not only on the rule of law but also on the founding values of the EU. Such a debate could prove to be beneficial in the period of identity crisis we are facing. It remains now to be seen whether the debate on Hungary can be the "trigger of the advent of a new European citizenship‘s feeling" [1]?


[1] A quote from P. Gradvohl (Le Monde, January 13th, 2012)

Since 2008 the world is experiencing a dramatic increase in food prices creating instability in the world market and social  unrest.  Although the EU  is one of the wealthiest region in the world and is at the frontline to reduce by half the number of people in developing countries suffering from hunger by 2015,  nearly 43 million people living in the Community are at risk of malnutrition.

The EU with its "Food Distribution programme for the Most Deprived Persons of the Community" (MDP) is ensuring  since 1987 the distribution via charity organisations of free food to people in need. In 2009, around 18.3 million people in 20 member Sates benefited from the scheme.

SOLIDARITY BADLY SHAKEN

But the mechanism that allows to release public intervention stocks of agricultural products to Member States wishing to use them as food aid for people in need, suffered an embarassing political impasse when, in April  2011, the European Court of Justice, ruling on a request from Germany in 2009, said the programme could only use supplies from EU food stocks . Moreover, six member states (including Germany itself, the Czech Republic  and the UK) blocked a plan to keep aid flowing in the form of cash payments under social goals. This program conceived as an emergency  measure seemed to become unfortunately  over the years a long term solution. Something unbearable when combined with CAP's more market-oriented system and much lower levels of intervention stocks.
The 6 opposed countries  argued that  MPD was a social programme for which member states are responsible. In that case it has not be  financed under the EU's Common Agricultural Policy.  After a strong lobbying from France (which is one of the top aid recipient along with Poland and Italy) Germany eventually agreed to continue the programme for the next  two years provided that the European Commission pledged not to make a proposal to continue the food aid scheme beyond 2013. The agreement reached set €113 million as the total quantity allocated for the 2012 MPD's programme, exclusively based on all the available existing intervention stocks.

The  question is obvious now. With the economic and social situations we are currently facing, to what extent can we afford to jeopardize one of the only symbol of the European Union mutual solidarity? If the EU wants to  promote solidarity and prosperity approach on the world stage, shouldn't it start within its own boundaries?