WHAT IF...?

Vote: Bologna process, Paragraph 2/3, March 2012.

In 1999 the ministers of education of the EU Member States met in Bologna (Italy) to discuss ways to promote student mobility (i.e. studying abroad) and to improve the quality of higher education, through the creation of a European Higher Education Area (EHEA). Ministers wanted to establish a system where university degrees would be comparable and thus recognised in different countries. A European Credit Transfer System (ECTS) and common quality assurance standards were at the heart of this proposal. This became known as the Bologna Process.

Under EU law, education policy is the prerogative of Member States. The EU is not competent to act. Therefore, participation in the Bologna Process is voluntary. No legally binding decisions can be taken. Despite this, the education ministers of the EU Member States meet regularly to evaluate progress and to exchange best practices.

The last big gathering took place in 2012 in Bucharest (Romania), where ministers decided on next steps. As the Bologna Process still lags behind expectations, the European Parliament (EP) adopted a resolution in which it urged the EU Institutions and Member States get their act together. In particular, MEPs asked for the harmonisation of academic standards, whereby the various national academic standards would change to a common European one.

Vote: Joint motion for a resolution - Preparations for the European Council meeting (27-28 June 2013) - European action to combat youth unemployment, Paragraph 22/2, June 2013.

Several years of economic crisis have led to high levels of unemployment, particularly among young people. Youth unemployment in the EU has reached unprecedented levels, and is expected to rise higher still.

Against such a backdrop, MEPs asked to the EU Council of Ministers and the Commission to improve their efforts in combating this critical problem. They underlined that the most efficient tool to fight youth unemployment is sustainable economic growth, and they stressed the need for long term reforms, especially in the education systems of the Member States.

MEPs also welcomed the Youth Guarantee agreed by the European Council, which is a programme aimed at providing jobs and education programmes for unemployed EU citizens up to the age of 25 years and recent graduates under 30.

The resolution - which was voted down by the Parliament - asked the Commission to exempt investments in areas that could help boost youth employment from budget cuts and deficit targets. This would have allowed EU countries to spend money even if this increased public debt. Some MEPs wanted this to be allowed because they believed that the austerity-only measures set up to combat the crisis were in part to blame for the rise in youth unemployment.

Vote: Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement between the EU and its Member States, Australia, Canada, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, Switzerland and the USA, final vote, July 2012.

The European Parliament refused to give its consent to the ratification of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), a multilateral trade agreement aimed at establishing international standards for intellectual property rights (IPRs) in order to tackle copyright infringement and stop the spread of counterfeited goods and generic medicines.

Although MEPS had previously supported the principle of such a treaty, they decided to reject ACTA following a highly successful campaign which mobilised millions of citizens across Europe, both online and in the streets. The no-campaigners argued that ACTA would lead to censorship and to a loss of online privacy.

IPRs cover goods such as patents, designs, copyrights, manufactured goods, films and music. These rights are designed to protect creators, businesses and inventors against the illegal exploitation of their creations. They are also intended to stimulate innovation.

But opponents of ACTA said it would undermine the privacy of internet users, the openness of the internet and the production of generic medicine which are used in the developing countries as cheaper alternatives to branded medication.

Vote: Guidelines for the 2014 budget - Section III, Paragraph 15, March 2013.

To finance its policies the European Union (EU) needs revenue. But unlike national governments, the EU is not allowed to levy its own taxes - it is dependent entirely on financial contributions from Member States. These make up more than 75% of the EU’s budget.

Member States do not all pay the same amount: richer countries contribute more than poorer ones, and some countries (such as the UK) benefit from special discounts agreed in the past. EU governments regularly clash with one another over who contributes what to the budget, and what the money should be spent on.

Critics say the EU should spend less money, but others point out that the EU’s budget is still tiny compared to the national budgets of Member States (in 2011 the EU spent 140 billion euros; the 27 Member States together spent almost 50 times more).

Most MEPs believe the EU’s budget system is unnecessarily complicated. In a non-binding resolution they called for the EU to have its own sources of income, for example in the form of a European value-added tax (VAT).

Vote: 5th cohesion report and strategy for the post-2013 cohesion policy, text as a whole, 5 July 2011.

The EU's regional policy is an instrument for reducing the social and economic differences between Member States and their regions and cities. Its aim is to support job creation, competitiveness, economic growth, quality of life and sustainable development. The policy covers all EU regions, but most financial support goes to the poorest ones.

The EU wants to become more competitive in the global marketplace, but factors like urban decay and a decreasing rural population are making this difficult. The European Commission argues that in order to promote smart, sustainable and inclusive growth it needs to make better use of the potential of EU regions. For this, adequate funding is needed.

The EU's financial contribution to regional development, which amounts to approximately one third of the EU's annual budget, is in addition to what the Member States themselves are doing. Even so, many MEPs believe that the EU's added value in this policy area should be defined more clearly.

Vote: Fight against homophobia in Europe, final vote, May 2012.

The European Union is founded on the values of equal treatment and non-discrimination, and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights rejects discrimination based on sexual orientation. The European Parliament has been a driving force in putting Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) rights on the political agenda. However in many Member States LGBT people meet intolerance on a daily basis and in some European states, laws prohibit LGBT and gay rights demonstrations.

In April 2012, the European Parliament adopted a resolution against homophobic laws and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. In the resolution, which defines homophobia as 'the irrational fear of homosexuality', MEPs asked to the European Commission and national governments to better protect the rights of LGBT people against hate speech and violence.

The resolution particularly denounces and condemns recent laws or proposals in EU countries making it a penal or criminal offence to 'talk positively' about homosexuality in public. The text also argues that Member States should set an example in fighting homophobia and should consider giving access to cohabitation, registered partnerships or same-sex marriage to LGBT people.

Vote: European dimension in sport, Paragraph 100, February 2012.

Six out of ten Europeans participate in sporting activities on a regular basis and some 700,000 sports clubs exist in the EU. Sport plays an important role in our societies. It not only has social, educational, cultural and economic significance but also an important, cross-border, European dimension. Big sporting events, such as the UEFA Champions League, are watched by millions of citizens across Europe. Put simply, sport brings EU citizens closer together and creates a sense of belonging. But in virtually every sport, competition is between national teams. Golf is the only sport where the EU fields a joint team: in the bi-annual Ryder Cup against the United States.

Since 2009 the European Union has the right to help coordinate and support Member States’ policies in the field of sports. In 2012 the European Parliament (EP) adopted a resolution calling on Member States and sports organisations to consider flying the twelve-starred EU flag at major international sports events taking place in the EU. The EP also suggested the European flag should be displayed alongside national flags on the team tracksuits of athletes from EU Member States.

 

Vote: Improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding, Amendment 12=38, October 2010.

Gender equality is one of the EU's fundamental rights. Despite significant achievements over the last few decades, however, gender gaps remain in the labour market. They have even widened as a result of the economic crisis.

The legislation covering the extension of maternity leave is part of an EU strategy aiming at eliminating gender gaps and bringing about economic independence for working women and mothers. The gender gap is sometimes seen as a consequence of differing views on the role of women and men in society. As a result of the way society is organised, women often have to choose between being a mother and pursuing a professional career.

The key provision of the text - increasing maternity leave from 14 to 20 weeks on full pay -is therefore aimed at promoting equality between men and women in the labour market. By giving women the right to return to work under the same conditions after their maternity leave, the proposal aims to encourage women to go back to work after a certain period of time. And by regulating paternity leave, it also aims to promote active parenthood with shared responsibilities. But some fear that in the current economic situation this measure could become a burden for businesses which would not be able to afford it.

Vote: Common system for taxing financial transactions, final vote, May 2012.

The current economic crisis started in the financial sector. Several big European banks could no longer meet their obligations and were in danger of imminent collapse. National governments had to intervene to bail them out. As a result of the crisis banks stopped lending to governments with unsustainable levels of debt. The EU intervened to bail out those governments, but it also told them to make big cuts to reduce their deficits. Taxes were increased and wages and pensions were cut. Citizens picked up the bill for years of risky lending and trading by big banks.

The crisis gave renewed impetus to an old idea: a tax on financial transactions (FTT), also known as the Tobin tax or the Robin Hood tax. This tax was designed, among other things, to put a brake on speculative trading. In 2012 the European Parliament adopted a resolution urging Member States to introduce an FTT. Such a decision requires the unanimous agreement of all 28 EU Member States. As several Member States threatened to veto the proposal, 11 Member States decided to go it alone and try to reach an agreement that would only apply to them.

Vote: Motions for resolutions - Feasibility of introducing stability, Motion for a resolution, February 2012.

Governments need to borrow money to finance their expenditure. They do this mainly by issuing bonds, in return for which investors lend them money. The interest rate depends on how much confidence investors have that the government in question will be able to pay back the money. The greater the risk, the higher the interest rate. Countries with unsustainable levels of debt and high budget deficits pay punitive rates of interest, which in turn only worsens their economic and financial outlook and makes it harder to pay off their debt.

To break this vicious circle, the European Parliament in 2012 adopted a resolution asking for the introduction of 'Eurobonds'. A Eurobond would work like a government bond, with the difference that the 17 Member States which use the Euro as a currency – including the more solvent countries - would issue common bonds and would together guarantee paying back the cash received from the investor. The effect would be that financially weaker Member States could borrow money at lower interest rates and thus at lower costs. This would allow them to finance measures aimed at improving their economic situation while safeguarding the interests of investors.

Vote: Framework Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community for nuclear research and training activities, Amendment 36 (Annex I, part II, section 2, paragraph 1), November 2011.

Nuclear energy is a part of the EU energy mix, along with other sources of energy such as fossil fuels (oil, gas, coal) and renewable energy sources like solar, wind and hydro-electric power.

Nuclear power plants generate about 30% of the electricity produced in the EU (compared to just 12.7% generated by renewables) and there are currently 132 operating reactors in 14 EU Member States as of June 2013. Four more are under construction and over a dozen are planned. On the other hand, after the Fukushima nuclear disaster some countries decided to reconsider their reliance on nuclear energy.

The EU is the world’s largest energy importer. The 2009 gas crisis showed how dangerous this dependence on external suppliers can be. In addition the stocks of fossil fuels are forecast to run out. The main goal for Europe is to secure its own energy supplies by tapping into new sources like nuclear power or renewables.

The European Commission put forward a legislative package stressing the strategic role of nuclear power in the security, independence and diversity of the EU’s energy supply. In response, one European Parliament political group put forward an amendment arguing that nuclear energy should be phased out entirely, and that the EU should move resolutely towards a non-nuclear economy.

Vote: Common fisheries policy (CFP reform), final vote, February 2013.

The Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) is an instrument for the management of fisheries in the EU. EU Member States collaborate jointly to ensure fish stock sustainability and protect the marine environment.

In theory the system of quota imposed by the CFP ensures that only sustainable quantities of fish are caught. In practice, however, vessels catch more fish than is allowed, which leads to a depletion of fish stocks.

In order to ensure the sustainability of fish stocks and fishing industry itself, the European Commission put forward reform proposals. At the core of the new rules is a 'sustainable fishing' principle, which means that stocks cannot be exploited above a certain level. EU Member States will be prevented from setting high quotas, and fishermen will be obliged to catch no more of a certain stock than can be reproduced in a year – that is, the 'maximum sustainable yield'.

In addition, there will be a discard ban for unwanted catch that fishermen currently throw back into the sea.

Vote: Timing of auctions of greenhouse gas allowances (Reform of the ETS, backloading), July 2013.

In order to combat climate change the European Union needs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) was established in 2005 as the world’s largest carbon market. It is a tool for reducing industrial carbon emissions in a cost-effective way. There is an overall limit (cap) on the level of emissions over a certain time. Companies buy credits auctioned by EU Member States. One credit corresponds to one tonne of CO2 emissions.

If a company invests in a low-carbon technology it can sell unused allowances in the marketplace. This means that the companies which invest to limit emissions are rewarded, and companies which don’t have to pay extra. However, the carbon price must be high enough, otherwise investment in green technology is unattractive.

The economic crisis has led to a surplus of allocations, driving down the price of carbon. In order to address the current imbalances in the ETS, the European Commission proposed postponing ("backloading") the auctioning of some allowances, to increase the price of carbon and create renewed incentives for investing in clean technology.

Vote: Motions for resolutions - Freedom of movement for workers within the European Union, Paragraph 2, December 2011.

Freedom of movement for workers is one of the most important rights for EU citizens. Every EU citizen has the right to move and reside freely within the EU territory and at the same time to look for a job in another EU country and work there without a work permit.

However, as part of the agreement reached between EU Member States to allow Bulgaria and Romania to join the EU, Member States may apply restrictions on the free movement of workers from these countries for a transitional period of up to 7 years.

Bulgaria and Romania joined the EU in January 2007. The transitional arrangements were divided into a 3 phases. The current, final phase started on 1 January 2011 will end on 31 December 2013. Austria, Germany, Belgium, France, Luxemburg, Malta, the Netherlands, Spain and the United Kingdom continue to impose restrictions on Romanian and Bulgarian citizens.

In a joint motion for a resolution on freedom of movement for workers in the European Union adopted in December 2011, the European Parliament called on these Member States to abolish all transitional measures in force, claiming that there is no real economic justification for such restrictions.

Vote: Future of EU development policy, final vote, October 2012.

The EU is the world's leading provider of development aid. The EU’s development policy is primarily aimed at the elimination of poverty, as well as the promotion of democracy, peace and security, fighting hunger and preserving natural resources.

The resolution “Future of EU development policy” is the European Parliament’s response to a European Commission proposal to reform EU cooperation with developing countries. The proposal focuses on more effective cooperation with developing countries and communities receiving the aid. Moreover it argues that assistance to the emerging economies should be reduced in favour of countries which are more in need of help.

In its vote, the European Parliament supported the Commission's plans to concentrate EU aid on the poorest countries. However it also asked the Commission to reduce the assistance to emerging economies such as Brazil and India more gradually than proposed, since the majority of people living in poverty are to be found in those countries.