Resolution booklet fribourg2014

„Civil Rights in a Diverse Europe“

Resolution Booklet

18th National Selection Conference of the European Youth Parliament

Switzerland

Fribourg, 3rd – 7th of September 2014

Fribourg 2014, 18th National Selection Conference of EYP Switzerland

European Youth Parliament Switzerland

Resolution Booklet

2

Programme of the General Assembly University of Fribourg

Saturday, 6th of September 2014, Auditoire Joseph Deiss

11:00 – 11:15 Opening of General Assembly

11:15 – 12:00 DROI

12:00 – 13:30 Lunch break

13:30 – 14:15 EMPL

14:15 – 15:00 LIBE I

15:00 – 15:15 Coffee break

15:15 – 16:00 AFET

16:00 – 16:45 AFCO


17:00 – 17:45 DEVE

Sunday, 7th of September 2014, Aula Magna

11:00 – 11:45 ENVI

11:45 – 12:30 LIBE III

12:30 – 13:30 Lunch break

13:30 – 14:15 ECON

14:15 – 15:00 LIBE II


15:15 – 16:30 Closing Ceremony



Resolution Booklet

3

Procedure of the General Assembly

Language

English and French may be used during General Assembly. However, once you started

a speech or point in one language, you are not allowed to switch to the other.

Procedure of a debate

1. Reading of the operative clauses – one delegate - podium

2. Defence speech – one delegate – podium – 3 minutes

3. 2 Attack speeches – podium – 2 minutes and 30 seconds each

4. Answer to the attack speech – floor – 1 minute 30 seconds

5. Points of Information – one delegate answering - floor

6. Open debate – 4 rounds of points and 3 responses from the proposing committee

- floor

7. Summation speech – one or two delegates (microphone may only be passed once)

– podium – 3 minutes

8. Voting procedure – show of hands, chairs collect votes if necessary

Friendly amendments

A friendly amendment is when a committee would like to make a change to their

resolution. Friendly amendments must be presented by the proposing committee to

the board two debates prior to being discussed and be signed by the chair of the

committee.

Committee placards

Raised on their own if the committee wishes to make a point of debate and always

raised alongside other placards so the board knows which committee is making the

request.



Resolution Booklet

4

Point of information

Only to be used if delegates require a brief explanation of the meaning of specific

terms, initiatives or institutions/agencies. Delegates should always ask their chair for an

explanation first and only if their chair cannot provide one should they raise this

placard.

Point of personal privilege

To be raised if a delegate cannot hear a point which is being made. This placard must

not be raised if a delegate was not listening to a point or requires a translation.

Point of order

This placard may only be used by a chair if the board makes a procedural error.

Direct response

Each committee has two direct responses per debate. The DR placard can only be used

if the committee wishes to directly respond to a point of debate just made, however,

once it is raised, the committee will be immediately recognised by the board.



Resolution Booklet 5

MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION BY THE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS

“With evictions, discrimination and bigoted rhetoric on the rise across Europe, and in light of the new requirements on EU Member States to produce and implement ‘National Roma Integration Strategies’, what further steps should European institutions, such as the EU and the Council of Europe, take to ensure the full inclusion of the Roma community in the economic, social, cultural and political life of European countries?”

Submitted by: Jakub ČEŠKA (CZ), Jo Ann EGGER, Gilles HAUERT, Marisa HUNZIKER, George KURIAN, Yell LEUTENEGGER, Leonie MEIER, Jeanne MORAND, Milena PESIC, Isabel STRANSKY, Evanthia KASIORA (Chairperson, GR) The European Youth Parliament, A. Aware of the fact that an estimated 10 to 12 million Roma live in Europe1, B. Taking into account that approximately 80% of Roma are sedentary2, C. Deeply concerned that about 80% of Roma in Europe live in severe poverty3 and degrading living

conditions, D. Expressing its concern about the rise in forced evictions of Roma communities by European

governments, E. Noting with regret that the life expectancy of the Roma people is about 10 years below the average of

the general population4, F. Alarmed that only 42% of Roma children complete primary school5, G. Deeply disturbed that Roma students are often placed in segregated schools, H. Alarmed by an unemployment rate of approximately 33% among Roma people6, I. Deeply regretting the persistence of ‘Romaphobia’ and violence against Roma despite the existing anti-

discrimination regulations on a national as well as a European and international level, J. Bearing in mind the lack of significant representation of the Roma people in European political

institutions, K. Recognising that Roma need to play an active role in society so as to bring about a successful

inclusion process, L. Believing that legally non-binding measures are insufficient to achieve the full inclusion of Roma into

civil society; 1. Deplores the effort to assimilate rather than integrate Roma people which is to the detriment of their

distinct cultural identity; 2. Calls upon European countries to improve the quality of life of the Roma people by providing them with

clean, drinkable water, heated accommodation, electricity, sanitary facilities and medical care; 3. Recommends that EU Member States limit the number of forced evictions of Roma groups to cases

when they are residing on private property or when there is a risk of serious health hazards; 1 Council of Europe, http://hub.coe.int/web/coe-portal/roma, accessed 05/09/2014. 2 “Descriptive Glossary of terms relating to Roma issues”, Council of Europe, 18 May 2012. 3 “Human Rights Here. Roma Rights Now”, Amnesty International, April 2013. 4 COM(2009) 567, Solidarity in Health: Reducing Health Inequalities in the EU, 20/10/2009. 5 International Comparative Data Set on Roma education, Open Society Institute, 2008.

6 “The situation of Roma in 11 EU Member States”, European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, 2012.


European Youth Parliament Switzerland Resolution Booklet

6

4. Urges European countries to provide evicted Roma with alternative accommodation that guarantees better living standards;

5. Emphasises the need for European countries to ensure that Roma children complete primary school;

6. Affirms that the full inclusion of Roma in school life and the eradication of ‘Romaphobia’ in school environment can be facilitated by:

a) the presence of Romani speaking teachers in schools with a significant number of Roma students,

b) diverse classes where Roma and other students work together,

c) activities and group projects undertaken by both Roma and other students with the aim of overcoming cultural barriers;

7. Further recommends that the European Roma Rights Centre7 puts greater emphasis on the unhindered access of Roma to the labour market;

8. Calls for the involvement of national and European media in raising awareness about Roma issues by providing coverage of the European Roma Summits8 and the filming and broadcasting of documentaries on the Roma community;

9. Encourages the participation of Romani speaking people in the ROMED programme9;

10. Requests Member States to commit to the implementation of their respective National Roma Integration Strategies10.

7 The European Roma Rights Centre (ERRC) is an international public interest law organisation working to combat anti-Roma racism and human rights abuse of Roma through strategic litigation, research and policy development, advocacy and human rights education. 8 Organised by the European Commission, the European Roma Summits bring together high level representatives of EU institutions, national governments and civil society organisations in order to discuss Roma issues. 9 The International Training Programme for Roma Mediators (ROMED) is a joint project of the Council of Europe and the European Commission that aims to reinforce mediators’ skills to facilitate communication and cooperation between Roma and public institutions. 10 The National Roma Integration Strategies are adopted by EU Member States in light of the implementation of the EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies (COM 2011/173) and the improvement of the economic and social integration of Roma in the EU.



7

MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION BY THE COMMITTEE ON EMPLOYMENT AND SOCIAL AFFAIRS

“Unpaid internships; a necessary bridge between education and employment or an opportunity for businesses to avail of free labour? Should European governments act to protect the working conditions of stagiaires and interns across the Continent?”

Submitted by: Marc AEBY, Aaron DANIEL, Ekaterina GUREVICH, Jeannine HERSCHE, Anna KREMLÁČKOVÁ (CZ), Adrian LANG, Tarik LAZOUNI, Lucius MILLER, Patricia MOREIRA AZEVEDO, Sarah RICKENBACHER, Sean RUBEN, Michael VON BALLMOOS, Lisa WITZIG, Tobias SATLOW (Chairperson, AT) The European Youth Parliament, A. Alarmed by the frequent exploitation and poor working conditions of interns, B. Noting with deep concern that 60 per cent1 of internships throughout Europe are unpaid, C. Deeply conscious of the fact that close to 50 per cent2 of interns rely upon the financial support of their

families to sustain themselves through an unpaid internship, D. Realising that some companies are unable to provide remuneration for stagiaries as a result of a lack

financial resources, E. Noting shortcomings in internships with respect to the development of skills and the prospect of a job

offer upon completion, F. Recognising that interns often lack information about internship opportunities and their rights as an

intern, G. Disturbed by the fact that internships often replace entry level jobs, H. Deeply concerned that companies believe interns are a hindrance when it comes to profit maximisation

and company development; 1. Expresses its hope that national laws will be introduced:

a) limiting the duration of internships similar to the French “Cherpion” law3,

b) enforcing mandatory remuneration for interns following the example of the City of Bern4;

2. Recommends that the European Social Fund (ESF)5 increase the flow of resources towards projects supporting: a) underprivileged interns to cover their basic living expenses

b) small and medium sized enterprises to increase the overall number of interns;

3. Reaffirms the principles set forth by the Directorate General (DG) for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion6 in the Corporate Social Responsibility Agendas7 and the Quality Framework on Traineeships8;

1 “Interns Revealed – A survey on internship quality in Europe” by the European Youth Forum, 2011 2 “Interns Revealed – A survey on internship quality in Europe” by the European Youth Forum, 2011 3 The French “Cherpion” law limits the workload allowed to be put on an intern as well as the overall duration of the internship. 4 The city council of Bern adopted a law that requires stagiaries to be paid a certain percentage of the national minimum wage. 5 The European Social Fund finances projects in Member States which benefit their participants, usually individuals, but also companies or organisations. 6 The Directorate Generals are departments of the European Commission, preparing proposals for the respective Commissioners. 7 The CSR agendas are aimed at stimulating growth in the job market and addressing social issues as part of the Europe 2020 strategy. 8 The QFT is a document currently within the process consultation, dealing with the situation of internships throughout the EU.



Resolution Booklet

8

4. Urges the implementation of quality labels by the above-mentioned DG in order to rate internship providers by their working hours, working environment and learning experience;

5. Calls upon the DG for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion to create an online platform tasked with informing the public about opportunities for internships, the rights of stagiaries and the quality labels proposed;

6. Invites companies to offer entry level jobs without requiring internships;

7. Trusts that tax reductions for companies offering internships are a valid first step to help both the employer and the employee in establishing a culture of healthy internships.



9

MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION BY THE COMMITTEE ON CIVIL LIBERTIES, JUSTICE AND HOME AFFAIRS I

“Following the adoption of the Dublin III regulations, and with the growing number of civil conflicts across the globe, how should the EU respond to the refugee crisis so that all asylum seekers are treated fairly and humanely while simultaneously ensuring that all Member States can cope with the challenges posed by having a higher number of migrants within their borders?”

Submitted by: Louis BISCHOF, Michelle BLATTER, Naila CAMENZIND, Cédric CORDEY, David DEGEN, Loris FIVAZ, Carmen JEANGUENAT, David KNOBLAUCH, Leonie LAUX, Nina MONTANELLI, Anouk ROSSIER, Laure STEINVILLE (Chairperson, FR) The European Youth Parliament, A. Welcoming the work of the European Commission (EC) and the European Parliament (EP) in

introducing a common standard for asylum assessment through the Common European Asylum System (CEAS)1,

B. Bearing in mind the increasing number of refugees worldwide due to escalating conflicts such as in Syria,

C. Contemplating the ever-present problem of asylum seekers arriving without official documentation or with counterfeit documentation resulting in delays processing asylum applications2,

D. Recognising that the financial resources allocated by the European Refugee Fund (ERF)3 are neither sufficient nor properly distributed among Member States,

E. Fully aware of the low living standards faced by asylum seekers in multiple Member States whilst the asylum application is pending,

F. Further noting that the sovereign debt crisis has negatively affected the living standards of asylum seekers, particularly those in Southern Europe,

G. Taking into account the disparities between Member States regarding asylum application processes and asylum seekers’ living conditions,

H. Noting with deep concern the negative treatment of refugees due to xenophobia, leading to: i. discrimination in access to basic needs such as healthcare, food, housing, education and jobs, ii. difficulties integrating into society,

I. Deeply disturbed that asylum seekers are not always treated equally and humanely in detention centres, resulting in overpopulation, insufficient security and a lack of hygiene,

J. Fully alarmed by the fact that border regions are not sufficiently prepared for the amount of people coming into the EU, forcing FRONTEX4 and national coastguards to turn away vessels carrying immigrants on several occasions,

K. Regretting that asylum seekers are often not informed about their rights whilst in the process of seeking asylum;

1 This common standard assessment aims to: bring more harmonisation to standards of protection by aligning Member States' asylum legislation; effective and well-supported practical cooperation; increasing solidarity and the sense of responsibility among the Member States, and between the EU and non-EU countries 2 The Dublin III regulation states that the processing of an application should take no longer than 9 months. In France it currently takes up to 20 months for the application process. 3 The ERF is a fund representing 0.07% of the EU budget. The fund is targeted at persons having refugee status or a form of temporary or subsidiary protection, or who are being resettled in a EU country. 4 FRONTEX is the European Union agency for external border security. It is responsible for co-ordinating the activities of the national border guards in ensuring the security of the EU's borders with non-member states.



10

1. Trusts that the CEAS will respect the rights enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

2. Demands the EC to abolish the “entry state clause” in article 13 of the Dublin III regulation in order to ensure a proportional distribution of asylum seekers and refugees on the basis of a country’s population and resources;

3. Recommends the implementation and application of the Asylum Procedure Directive5 in every Member State to ensure an effective application procedure so as to avoid processing delays;

4. Calls upon the EC to raise the budget of the European Refugee Fund from 0.07 to 0.1 per cent of the EU budget;

5. Requests that the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights implements already existing anti-discriminatory legislation in all Member States;

6. Further requests support for NGOs such as Amnesty International to maintain their programmes aimed at preventing the spread of xenophobia;

7. Encourages the EC and the EP to legislate on further funding for detention centres, which aim to:

a) guarantee well-being and safety,

b) develop adequate infrastructure within said facilities,

c) improve hygiene conditions to at least minimum standards;

8. Supports better cooperation between FRONTEX and the European Asylum Support Office6;

9. Urges the EC to propose a ‘compulsory information procedure’ which will inform asylum seekers of their rights in the application process in line with article 4 of the Dublin III regulation.

5 The Asylum Procedures Directive establishes common standards of safeguards and guarantees access to a fair and efficient asylum procedure. 6 A European body providing practical support to Member States for the implementation of asylum laws. It focuses on Member States that face particular strain due to increasing numbers of migrants.



11

MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION BY THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS

“In light of recent reports of civil rights violations in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir, how should the EU approach the ongoing negotiations for a comprehensive Free Trade Agreement with the Indian Union so as to protect the civil rights of the people of Jammu and Kashmir?”

Submitted by: Miriam AITKEN, David ALTNER, Mélanie CARREL, Zoé EICHENBERGER, Charlotte GARCIA, Clara GEHNER, Fabian HOFMANN, Roman MAZUR (UA), Silvio MÜLLER, Tabea NYDEGGER, Jan RUFLIN, Vivienne WOODTLY, Lena VOGEL (Chairperson, CH), Jonathan PIEPERS (Vice President, BE) The European Youth Parliament, A. Noting with concern that the disputed territory of Jammu and Kashmir is divided into Indian and

Pakistani controlled regions, B. Further noting the implementation of Art. 370 of the Indian Constitution1, C. Observing that the social tensions resulting from historical, ethnic and religious events have deemed

Kashmir and Jammu a “disturbed area”2, D. Believing that the limited cooperation between the Jammu and Kashmir and the international

community to be the result of a nearly absent democratic and administrative structure in the aforementioned states,

E. Alarmed by the fact that the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA)3 legalises violations of fundamental human rights in certain circumstances,

F. Deeply concerned by the fact that the Indian armed forces do not face legal consequences when violating civil rights due to the AFSPA,

G. Taking into consideration that under Article 3.5 of the Treaty of the European Union (TEU)4, India does not comply with the human rights requirements therein,

H. Underlining the potential of the negotiated comprehensive Free Trade Agreement (FTA)5 to: i) Involve 1.8 billion people, ii) add € 8.5 billion to European Union (EU) exports, iii) generate an additional economic growth of 0.3% in the short and 1.6% in the long term for India;

1. Encourages trade between the Pakistani controlled and Indian controlled Jammu and Kashmir, by

enforcing the 1994 Cooperation Agreement6 through the allocation of European Instrument for Democratic and Human Rights7 (EIDHR) funds;

2. Allocates funds and resources from the EIDHR to local projects including telephone lines, transport and the eradication regulatory barriers;

1 Art. 370 of the Indian Constitution grants Jammu and Kashmir special autonomous status in the Indian Union and stipulates that their citizens do not enjoy all rights guaranteed by the Indian Union. 2 Term used by the Indian government to grant special rights to military forces in territories under social unrest and turmoil. 3 Act granting special powers to armed forces in “disturbed areas”, such as opening fire, arresting civilians, searching without a warrant, taking hostages, and permitting seizure or damage of property. 4 Article 3.5 TEU: “In its relations with the wider world, the Union shall uphold and promote its values and interests and contribute to the protection of its citizens. It shall contribute to peace, security, (…) mutual respect among peoples, (…) the protection of human rights, in particular the rights of the child, as well as to the strict observance and the development of international law, including respect for the principles of the United Nations Charter.” 5 Agreement for cooperation between two or more countries in order to reduce trade barriers and intensify trade relations. 6 Economic partnership agreement aiming to enhance dialogue by means of trade and investment. 7 Instrument to promote democracy and human rights outside the EU, with around € 157 million allocated annually.



12

3. Authorises funds from the EIDHR to be used to establish an annual conference involving all stakeholders and non-governmental organisation (NGO) affiliated mediators,

4. Further invites the aforementioned conference to tackle territorial discrepancies and problems resulting from Article 370 of the Indian Constitution;

5. Calls for the EIDHR to establish monthly interregional events supervised by international peacebuilding experts to create a regular dialogue among the members of different ethnicities in the Jammu and Kashmir region;

6. Has resolved to improve the administrative infrastructure of Jammu and Kashmir by: a) Commissioning a special EU Delegation to map the political, economic and social conditions in the

area, b) Employing crowd-sourcing8 experts and practices to gather real-time information and coordinate

humanitarian response, c) Utilising the expertise of the Election Observation Democratic Support (EODS)9 to educate, raise

awareness and empower young citizens; 7. Calls upon Member States to implement an arms embargo until the Indian Armed Forces cease to

violate civil rights under the AFSPA; 8. Invites the United Nations Human Rights Council and Human Rights Watch10 to assess and declare the

end of the conflict in the region and thus the cessation of the aforementioned embargo; 9. Expresses its hope that the international community continues to put pressure on the Indian

government to revise the AFSPA; 10. Further requests the European Commission to negotiate the inclusion of a clause in the FTA that states

appropriate measures may be taken if: a) the immunity of Indian soldiers acting under the AFSPA is abused for non-military crimes, b) the Indian government does not respect fundamental human rights;

11. Approves the ongoing negotiation of EU-India comprehensive FTA that commenced on 28th of July 2007.

8 Crowd-sourcing is the method of receiving needed services, ideas or content y soliciting contributions from a large group of people. 9 EU institution that educates and prepares EU election observation experts. 10 An NGO advocating and conducting research on human rights.



Resolution Booklet 13

MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION BY THE COMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

“With a referendum on Scottish independence imminent and in light of the continued tension between the Catalonian and Spanish governments, should the EU take action to affirm the right to self-determination of all its citizens?”

Submitted by: Fabian ARAYA, Florian BLASER, Sacha FADEEV, Cédric FOLLONIER, Johanna FURRER, Nina GWERDER, Cyrielle KALTENRIEDER, Grace KURIAN, Robin LETTI, Kateryna PRYKHODKO (UA), Martin ŠIMÁČEK (CZ), Heinrich VON WALDERSEE, Sandro WENGER, Andong HU (Chairperson, CH), Sophie DUFFIELD (Vice President, UK) The European Youth Parliament, A. Alarmed that the Treaty on the European Union (TEU) does not contain clear accession procedures for

newly independent regions of Member States, B. Regretting that Article 49 of the TEU1 requires Member States to reach an unanimous agreement on

the accession of a state, C. Concerned that during reapplication to the European Union (EU) a newly independent state would face

economic problems, such as trade barriers and import taxes, due to no longer being a party to treaties such as the European Economic Area (EEA) and the Schengen Area,

D. Keeping in mind that inadequate integration of newly independent states could endanger the unity, stability and efficiency of the EU,

E. Further noting that the two year delay for a new state to (re-)join the Eurozone as set out by the Copenhagen Criteria2 could lead to: i) price inflation in the post-secession currency of the new state, ii) decreased trade due to the complexities introduced by currency exchange, iii) depreciation of the Euro;

1. Calls for an Intergovernmental Conference to supplement Article 49 of the TEU with a simplified

accession procedure for newly established states formely part of a Member State; 2. Further requests the simplified accession procedure to delegate the Directorate General for

Enlargement the power to decide if a temporary EU membership could be granted on the criteria that the newly independent state is: a) economically self-sufficient, b) abides by the provisions enshrined in Articles 23 and 49 of the TEU;

3. Confirms that temporary membership: a) can only be granted if the region became independent via democratic means, such as a

referendum, b) will allow the territory to remain party to all existing treaties, e.g. EEA, Schengen Treaty and

Eurozone, c) suspends the newly established state from partaking in decision-making concerning all matters

enshrined in the founding treaties of the EU; 1 Article 49 deals with the ordinary accession procedure for states wishing to join the EU. 2 Criteria new states have to comply in order to join the EU. 3 Article describing the values of EU which all Member States must abide.



Resolution Booklet

14

4. Urges the newly established state to reform its national laws to meet the Copenhagen Criteria;

5. Supports the transition from temporary into full membership once the aforementioned standards are met and a simple majority vote in favour is taken by the Council of the European Union;

6. Accepts that the opt-outs4 of the Mother State may also be applied to the seceded region.

4 Non-participation in certain policy areas and EU treaties



15

MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION BY THE COMMITTEE ON DEVELOPMENT

“With supply chains of multinational corporations being spread across an ever greater number of countries to take advantage of less regulated labour markets in the developing world, should Europe act to ensure that products bought and sold within Europe’s markets are produced safely and ethically?”

Submitted by: Iana CULIC (CZ), Silvan GALLIKER, Laura JUAN-TORRES, Eugénie MÉGEVAND, Julie PASQUALE, Susanna SCHMIED, Elena SIEGRIST, Angela VON BALLMOOS, Luis WYSS, Anna ZELLWEGER (Chairperson, CH) The European Youth Parliament, A. Deeply concerned by the lack of enforcement of existing labour laws in developing countries,

leading to incidents such as the Savar Building Collapse1, as a result of: i) unsafe facilities, ii) child labour, iii) insufficient wages, iv) unjust working hours,

B. Realising that labour regulations in developing countries often do not fulfil International Labour Organisation (ILO)2 standards due to a lack of financial and organisational means or the prioritisation of other policy areas,

C. Further realising that poor labour conditions in developing countries are often exploited by multinational corporations (MNCs),

D. Acknowledging that the dependency on Foreign Direct Investment (FDI)3 of MNCs creates a conflict of interest for the national governments of developing countries thus impairing the improvement of national labour regulations,

E. Fully aware that consumers in Europe are often insufficiently informed about the conditions in which imported goods have been produced,

F. Appreciating the efforts of organisations such as the ILO in putting forward regulations containing international labour standards,

G. Welcoming the efforts of international unions such as IndustriALL and UNI Global in improving labour standards in developing countries, such as through the Bangladesh Accord on Fire and Building Safety4,

1. Expresses its hope that the national governments of developing countries will seek assistance from

the European Union (EU) to make the enforcement of labour policies more effective; 2. Supports the request5 directed to the European Commission and the Council of the EU to develop

a European multilateral framework governing companies’ operations worldwide;

1 The collapse of a factory Building in Savar, Bangladesh on the 24th of April 2013. 2 An agency of the United Nations responsible for coordinating international labour regulations. 3 The direct investment of resources into production or a business in one country by a company in another. 4 The Bangladesh Accord on Fire and Building Safety is an agreement amongst MNCs on improving working conditions in developing countries, especially in Bangladesh 5 Resolution of the European Parliament on European Union Standards for European Enterprises Operating in Developing Countries: Towards A European Code of Conduct [A4-508/98] 1999



16

3. Recommends the immediate creation of a blacklist of goods produced in an environment with a high risk of human rights violations in order to raise awareness among consumers in the EU internal market of the conditions in which these goods were produced;

4. Calls upon the Directorate General for Trade of the European Commission (DG Trade) to establish a ‘mandatory evaluation system’ for MNCs importing goods into the EU internal market, categorising them according to the extent to which their production facilities fulfil ILO Labour Standards6 which will: a) allow customs regulations to be tailored to the respective categories, b) regularly assess the labour conditions at MNCs facilities so as to ensure that the appropriate

categories are used;

5. Recommends the publication of all the above-mentioned evaluations conducted by DG Trade of MNCs importing into the EU, thereby encouraging the usage of positive evaluations as a seal of approval;

6. Urges the DG Trade to launch a media campaign aimed at: a) Informing citizens of the introduction of the evaluation system,

b) calling upon citizens to buy ethically produced goods, c) informing citizens about labour conditions in developing countries;

7. Encourages the creation of an exchange platform by European labour unions in order to foster dialogue between unions based in developing countries;

8. Emphasising the importance of the Generalised Scheme of Preferences7 and the inclusion of labour standards in bilateral treaties;

9. Calls for all European development aid projects in developing countries to lay emphasis on raising awareness among the local population about the basic labour regulations published by the ILO;

10. Proclaims its full support for the ‘Guidelines for Multinational Corporations’8 and the Resolution of the European Parliament ‘European Union Standards for European Enterprises Operating in Developing Countries: Towards A European Code of Conduct [A4-508/98] 1999’.

6 The ILO has developed a system of International labour standards aimed at assuring work under conditions of freedom, equity, security and dignity for all. These standards include regulations concerning issues such as wages, working hours or safety. 7 The GSP was introduced in order to facilitate the access to the European internal market for developing countries. Countries that implement human and labour rights are rewarded with more favourable customs tariffs. 8 The OECD provides a platform between governments to discuss the aim of improving their social and economical situation and furthermore has also issued Guidelines for Multinational Corporations.



17

MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION BY THE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, PUBLIC HEALTH AND FOOD

SAFETY “Despite the creation of a ‘Health for Growth’ programme, the cost of health care continues to rise across the Europe. How can the EU assist Member States’ efforts to ensure that all citizens have fair and equal access to health care, irrespective of their socio-economic background?”

Submitted by: Sabrina BOSS, Mina BRIGLJEVIC, Juliette HALDEMANN, Jakub HAMEL, Sarunja KATHIRGAMATHAMBY, Carlo LIENHARD, Valentina PARROTTA, Christian SCHULZ, Jennifer SEIZ, Sarah STEBLER, Kira WETZEL, Waltter ROSLIN (Chairperson, FI) The European Youth Parliament, A. Noting that the European Commission (EC) initiated the Health for Growth Programme1, B. Acknowledging that the European Union (EU) has a supporting competence2 regarding healthcare, C. Recognising that the costs of health care continue to rise within the EU due to:

i) an ageing population which requires greater attention regarding health, ii) increased research in the fields of medicine and development of new technologies, iii) unhealthy lifestyles such as smoking, drinking, malnutrition and a lack of physical activity,

D. Aware that one tenth3 of EU nationals are employed within the healthcare sector, E. Desiring that all citizens have access to basic health care regardless of their socio-economic

background, F. Bearing in mind that some citizens may not be able to match the price charged by pharmaceutical

companies for their medicine,

G. Welcoming the increased interest in initiatives that improve cross-border healthcare4; 1. Urges all Member States to act according to the Health for Growth Programme; 2. Recommends that Member States reduce healthcare costs by:

a) supporting home care of the elderly through economic provisions within state welfare systems, b) encouraging young people to do community service to help the elderly, c) participating in European programmes that share medical research and public sector best

practices, d) increasing provisions for physical education, health information and cooking classes in school

curriculum; 3. Encourages Member States to further invest in the health care sector; 4. Requests that Member States ensure that all citizens, regardless of socio-economic background, are

able to see a general practitioner within 3 days of requesting an appointment;

1 A 2011 European Commission initiative to combat rising cost and the ineffectiveness of European health care services between 2014-2020. 2 Article 6 of the TFEU: the EU can only intervene to support, coordinate or complement the action of Member States. Consequently, it has no legislative power in these fields and may not interfere in the exercise of these competences reserved for Member States. 3 According to the health for growth program 4 Health care that takes place in a Member State other than the individual’s place of residence.



18

5. Calls for Member States to:

a) increase awareness of generic medicine5 by ensuring medical professionals fully disclose all available treatment options,

b) support parallel importation6 of medications;

6. Further invites Member States to implement information programmes on the availability and benefits of the European Health Insurance Card7.

5 A generic drug (generic drugs, short: generics) is defined as "a drug product that is comparable to a generic drug brand/reference listed drug product in dosage form, strength, quality and performance characteristics, and intended use. 6 A generic product produced in another country with lower production cost. 7 The European Health Insurance Card (or EHIC) is issued free of charge and allows anyone who is insured by or covered by a statutory social security scheme of the EEA countries and Switzerland to receive medical treatment in another member state for free or at a reduced cost, if that treatment becomes necessary during their visit.



19

MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION BY THE COMMITTEE ON CIVIL LIBERTIES, JUSTICE AND HOME AFFAIRS III “Free movement or annual quotas? Following on from the vote of the Swiss electorate to place restrictions on the free entry of EU citizens, what should the stance of the EU be towards member and associated states with restrictive immigration policies?”

Submitted by: Anastasiya BORTNYK (UA), Anna BRESSAN, Giovanni FANIN (CZ), Rachid FREUDEMANN, Till HAECHLER, Yves HAYOZ, Matthias MASINI, Jasper ROHNER, Ronja ROHR, Antoine SCHALK, Gaëlle WAVRE, Daniel WIEDLER, Manfredi DANIELIS (Chairperson, IT) The European Youth Parliament, A. Concerned that generous unemployment and other welfare benefits provided by some national

governments often leads to benefit tourism, B. Aware that some Member States have requested the possibility of establishing bans for re-entry for

European Union (EU) citizens who have previously committed fraud against the welfare system of their host countries,

C. Bearing in mind that when a country accedes to the EU the other Member States are entitled to a transitional arrangement1,

D. Fully aware that following the Swiss Initiative Against Mass Immigration2 the European Commission (EC) released a press statement outlining the non-negotiability of the Free Movement of Persons Agreement3,

E. Recognising the importance of the strong economic, political and cultural ties between Switzerland and the EU,

F. Deeply concerned that the EU has degraded Switzerland’s status in the Erasmus+4 and Horizon 20205 programmes,

G. Realising that if the negotiations between the EU and Switzerland are not successful the Guillotine Clause6 can be evoked and cause the cancellation of six other bilateral treaties;

1. Authorises Member States to restrict access to unemployment benefits for a minimum time period of

nine months for non-permanent residents; 2. Calls for the European Commission to affirm that Member States are not allowed to punish welfare

abuses by setting up bans for re-entry; 3. Approves the current system of transitional arrangements in which citizens from acceding countries

can be subjected to immigration restrictions for limited time periods; 4. Calls upon the EC to reiterate the non-negotiability of freedom of movement and the incompatibility of

annual quotas with the Fundamental Principles of the EU;

1 Restrictions on the free movement of workers may apply to workers from newly acceded EU member countries for a transitional period of up to seven years. Individual governments of the countries that were already part of the EU can decide themselves whether they want to apply restrictions. 2 A federal popular initiative of the 9th of February 2014 which was accepted with 50,3% of votes in favour and obliges the Swiss Federal Council to renegotiate the Free Movement of Persons Agreement with the aim of limiting immigration through quotas. 3 A bilateral agreement that confers upon the citizens of Switzerland and EU the right to freely seek employment and maintain residence within the national territories of the contracting parties. 4 A combination of the EU student exchange programmes established in 1987. 5 The biggest EU research and innovation program providing €80 billion between 2014 and 2020. 6 Article 25 of the Free Movement of Persons Agreement which allows either party to terminate all seven agreements of the Bilateral I treaty in case one of them is breached.



20

5. Expresses its hope that Switzerland will resolve the contradiction between the Free Movement of Persons Agreement and the results of the Referendum Against Mass Immigration with a new popular initiative in the upcoming three years;

6. Urges that Switzerland should be fully reinstated in the Erasmus+ and the Horizon 2020 programs providing the Bilateral I treaty7 is not breached;

7. Recommends the EC to commit itself to enforcing the Guillotine Clause as soon as one of the seven bilateral agreements of the Bilateral I treaty is terminated.

7 Bilateral I: Treaty of 1999 between Switzerland and the EU which contains the seven agreements concerning free movement of persons, air traffic, road traffic, agriculture, technical trade barriers, public procurement and science.



21

MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION BY THE COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC AND MONETARY AFFAIRS

“In light of the ‘Safeguarding Human Rights in Times of Austerity’ report by the Council of Europe which stated that Europe’s policies of debt reduction were undermining civil rights; should Europe seek alternative strategies for reducing its debt burden?”

Submitted by: Claudio AFFOLTER, Naomi AIDLIN, Severin BACHMANN, Julia BRUHIN, David ECKERT, Tomáš FARNÍK, Laura INDERBITZIN, Rebecca RUIZ, Elis SAAVEDRA, Pablo SCHNELL, Cédric SIDLER, Christian SIEGENTHALER, Patrick LAVELLE (Chairperson, IE) The European Youth Parliament, A. Alarmed that the high debt levels of certain Member States has resulted in unsustainably high interest

rates being charged on government debt on financial markets, B. Observing that austerity measures were implemented to reduce debt levels thereby improving investor

confidence and leading to reduced interest rates on government debt, C. Noting with deep concern that while the aforementioned measures have been economically successful,

many basic civil rights, such as the right to justice and the right to health, have been threatened, D. Keeping in mind that education is of great importance, both as a civil right and for long-term

sustainability of an economy, E. Realising that collaboration between individual EU Member States is heavily impaired because of

cultural differences and individually unique economic conditions, F. Welcoming steps taken to strengthen the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP)1 with agreements such as

the Two-Pack2, the Six-Pack3 and the Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance (TSCG)4 improving the European Commission’s (EC) ability to: i) Monitor the macroeconomic imbalances of member states, ii) Make recommendations to said Member States, iii) Impose sanctions if economic issues go unaddressed,

G. Having considered the insistence of creditor nations within the EU that recipient Member States of bailout funds implement austerity measures to reduce their excessive deficits and high debt levels,

H. Fully aware that negotiations between the Troika5 and national executives lacked democratic accountability as conventional democratic processes were bypassed,

I. Deeply concerned by the fact that the swift implementation of austerity caused a lack of transparency and a violation of the right to information;

1. Supports the EU’s policy of austerity to reduce debt levels provided that the EC allows Member States

a longer period of time to fulfil their budgetary adjustment obligations under the SGP so as to reduce the negative consequences on civil rights;

2. Calls upon national governments to avoid cuts that negatively impact on a citizen’s right to education;

1 A rule-based framework for the coordination of national fiscal policies in the EU. It was established to safeguard sound public finances. Specifically, each country must maintain an annual budget deficit that is no greater than 3% of GDP, and each must have a national debt of lower than 60% of GDP. 2 Two regulations complementing the SGP which introduced additional coordination and surveillance of budgetary processes for all Eurozone members. 3 A set of legislative measures to reform the SGP and introduce greater macroeconomic surveillance. 4 An intergovernmental treaty between the Eurozone members and 8 other EU member states, which builds of the SGP. 5 A group of international lenders, consisting of the European Commission, European Central Bank (ECB) and International Monetary Fund, who provided bailout loans to the indebted European countries of Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Cyprus in return for strict and detailed austerity programmes.



22

3. Requests that the Troika give greater consideration to the cultural values and the civil rights of the citizens affected by their programmes;

4. Endorses the EC’s improved ability to monitor Member States for macroeconomic imbalances; 5. Further recommends that the EC monitors budget cuts by Member States to ensure civil rights are not

violated insofar as is possible; 6. Urges governments to inform their citizens about the content, reasons and consequences of any new

policy throughout its formation and implementation; 7. Notes however that certain national governments had to act quickly and without the involvement of the

broader population in implementing emergency measures in times of exceptional crisis.



23

MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION BY THE COMMITTEE ON CIVIL LIBERTIES, JUSTICE AND HOME AFFAIRS II “‘We have learned that the times of mass surveillance are not relegated to the past (Commissioner Reding, 2014).’ As EU citizens share more personal data online than ever before, what provisions should be made in the EU’s proposed ‘Data Protection Compact’ to safeguard the digital rights of all Europeans?”

Submitted by: Alexander APOSTOLOV, Eugénie DE WECK, Felix FALTINGS, Katia LEONELLI, Valentin LEUTWYLER, Allegra MARGELISCH, Linda MATHYS, Janka MÖLLER, Christina PALLIKUDIYIL, Lorena RECHSTEINER, Fabian WINKELMANN, Yuliia YEHOROVA (UA), Alastair PAYNE (Chairperson, UK) The European Youth Parliament, A. Noting with regret that mass surveillance has led to a lack of trust by citizens in their government and

represents a violation of civil liberties,

B. Recognising the necessity for both the operations of intelligence agencies and the strict control of their surveillance of citizens,

C. Realising that personal data on the internet circulates on a global level and data protection cannot be ensured without legislation on the European and international level,

D. Considering the potential for the inclusion of international data protection provisions in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP)1,

E. Fully aware of the difficulty of keeping data protection laws on par with new developments in technology,

F. Regretting the influence of private companies’ financial interests on the way they handle personal data,

G. Alarmed that companies processing data, particularly social networks, may use their monopolistic market position to force users to either accept their terms and conditions or not use their services,

H. Further noting that terms and conditions are often expressed unclearly,

I. Believing that ownership of data uploaded on social media can be ambiguous to citizens,

J. Keeping in mind that citizens are responsible for their own actions on the Internet,

K. Welcoming the Data Protection Package2, which strengthens and protects the rights of EU citizens,

L. Reaffirming the need for the ‘right to be forgotten’3 contained within the Data Protection Package,

M. Deeply concerned that the criteria4 under which the right to be forgotten is applied are too broad;

1. Advises the Council of the European Union to amend the proposed Data Protection Package so as to

include a provision requiring secret services to seek court approval to access the personal data of an individual;

1 TTIP is a trade agreement that is presently being negotiated between the European Union and the United States. 2 A regulation harmonising and strengthening data protection legislation in the EU, and a directive designed to protect both domestic and cross-border transfers of data. 3 A component of the proposed General Data Protection Regulation within the Data Protection Package granting citizens to have certain data concerning them removed from search engine results. 4 Information which is “inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant, or excessive in relation to the purposes for which it was processed and in the light of the time that has elapsed”.



24

2. Approves of the decision for the Data Protection Package to include a regulation harmonising data protection legislation in the EU;

3. Requests data protection legislation to be kept under constant review by the European Commission (EC);

4. Urges the European Council and the EC in its capacity as EU negotiators of the TTIP to ensure that the personal data of EU citizens processed in the US is handled according to European legal requirements;

5. Invites the EC to launch an investigation under article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union5 to discover if popular sites processing personal data, primarily social media companies, have exploited their market position to demand unfair terms and conditions from users regarding data collection;

6. Calls for ‘data controllers’ to offer a clear summary of their data processing policies and terms and conditions to their users;

7. Encourages companies providing online services to encrypt all personal data transmissions ‘end-to-end’6 between users;

8. Recommends Member States to include education on online responsibility in school curricula with teaching materials on the subject produced under the direction of the EC;

9. Further recommends the EC to introduce a standardised take-down request form for ‘right to be forgotten’ requests;

10. Further invites search engines to disseminate received ‘right to be forgotten’ requests to other relevant internet data handlers;

11. Emphasises the duty of search engines to take into account potential conflicts between the right to be forgotten and the rights of press freedom and freedom of information when processing take-down requests;

12. Demands that the criteria for a ‘right to be forgotten’ request be strengthened to ensure data removed is:

a) not in the public interest,

b) violating a fundamental right of the requester.

5 An Article which prohibits corporations from abusing their dominant position within a market, particularly by imposing unfair practices. 6 A form of encryption which prevents intermediaries or third parties from accessing the content of communications, with the content only being accessible to the sender and the receiver.

Partners of Fribourg 2014 18th National Selection Conference of EYP Switzerland

Rock the cup!

Das Mehrwegsystem für Ihren Anlass

phone 061 333 13 60 www.cupsystems.ch

Resolution booklet fribourg2014

Documents

Transcript of Resolution booklet fribourg2014