Europe’s aim for the sky: reality or only a dream?

The Single Market was introduced in 1993 as a tool to remove barriers within Europe. It includes the four freedoms: people, goods, services and capital.[1] However, the single market should not be seen as complete. Today the EU is aiming higher. Using more research money and a further goal-oriented approach the EU is working towards creating a Single European Sky (SES).[2]

The Vice president of the Commission and the DG for the mobility and transport Siim Kallas, had a meeting today with the High Level Group (HLG) for Aviation and Aeronautics Research. The goal for this research group is to establish a vision for 2050. Their work will be presented at the Madrid conference next spring. [3] The year 2050 can appear for anyone as being somehow far away, however Kallas calls for the importance of prioritising for the future. ‘EU research money should be spent on real industrial priorities with a clear EU-added value, so as to preserve EU growth and competitiveness worldwide, whilst meeting our energy and environmental challenges.’ [4]

Clear EU-added value: if not growth and competiveness one could definitively argue that energy and environmental challenges are moving closer to become core values of the EU. The SES project, launched in 2004, became an even more important issue for the Commission as a result of the volcano outbreak on Iceland. According to Siim Kallas:

‘The accelerated implementation of the Single European Sky is crucial for the European air transport system. Inefficiencies of the Air Traffic Management system in Europe are responsible for 16 million tonnes of unnecessary CO2 emissions. The fragmentation of the airspace costs the sector €3 billion. The implementation of the Single European Sky is therefore not an option – it is an essential requirement for an efficient and sustainable air transport system in Europe.’[5]

Even though this might be in line with the process of globalisation and the external challenges, the road towards a single sky implementation is not straightforward. On October the 25^{th 2010} the Commission presented the proposal on ‘performance targets on environment, capacity and cost-efficiency’ for the Single Sky Committee and this proposal was a ‘reference for the future setting up of national plans and targets’ and supposed to be voted on.[6] Although trying to compromise in terms of cost efficiency, the result was that the Commission had to withdraw the proposal.[7]

However, on December 6^th  the Committee voted in favour of  ‘performance targets for the EU’s air navigation service providers for the period 2012 to 2014’[8] something which Kallas calls ‘a key milestone’[9] for a single European sky. But it is still only a milestone and closer cooperation within the research area is necessary in order to reach a common position. Let’s see what the HLG for Aviation and Aeronautics Research has in mind for 2050.

- Ann Mårtensson

---

[1] European Commission, the EU single Market, (updated 12.02.2010) http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/top_layer/index_1_en.htm retrieved: 13.12.2010

[2] European Commission mobility and transport, Opening Session of the European Aviation Summit: (October 26, 2010):  http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=SPEECH/10/596&format=HTML&aged=0&language=en&guiLanguage=fr retrieved: 13.12.2010

[3] European Commission, Meeting of High-level Group on Aviation and Aeronautics research, (updated 13.12.2010)  http://ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/kallas/headlines/news/2010/12/20101213_hlg_en.htm retrieved: 13.12.2010

[4] Ibid.

[5] European Commission mobility and transport, Opening Session of the European Aviation Summit: (October 26, 2010): http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=SPEECH/10/596&format=HTML&aged=0&language=en&guiLanguage=fr retrieved: 13.12.2010

[6] Ibid.

[7] Ibid.

[8] ATW, Single sky committee agrees on EU air navigation proposal, (December 6, 2010) http://atwonline.com/international-aviation-regulation/news/single-sky-committee-agrees-eu-air-navigation-proposals-1203 retrieved: 13.12.2010

[9]  Ibid.

The EU’s Cohesion Strategy within Regional Policy: An Investment with Bullish Returns?

Pop quiz: How do you close the economic and cultural disparities of 27 countries?  For the EU, the answer lies in focusing largely on regional policy to achieve economic and social solidarity among its member states.  If the EU’s cohesion strategy turns out to be successful, Europa may be riding a new ‘bull’ – all the way to the bank.

Look out Zeus - There may be a new bull in town...

The EU’s cohesion policy, the keystone of EU regional policy, consists of three separate – yet related – objectives: convergence, competiveness, and cooperation.   Put succinctly, the main goal of EU cohesion policy is to limit the wide inequality among the EU’s 271 regions.  The labor productivity of inner London, for example, rests at 296% of the EU average, whereas the Northeast region of Poland has only 44.5% the EU productivity average. [1]

The EU’s regional policy website cites possible causes of such lagging regions as “longstanding handicaps imposed by geographic remoteness or by more recent social and economic change, or a combination of both.”[2] The consequences of these factors can seriously inhibit the quality of life in poorer regions, as evidenced by “social deprivation, poor quality schools, higher joblessness and inadequate infrastructures.”[3] The goal of the EU’s regional policy, then, is to bolster growth and innovation in suffering regions by revamping infrastructure, creating jobs, and providing economic incentives for entrepreneurs.

The strategy employed by the EU’s regional policy is two-fold.  Economically, regional policy aims to bolster growth in laggard regions through revamping infrastructure, creating jobs, and providing incentive for innovation and entrepreneurship.  Socially, regional policy provides funding for programs such as bettering schools or re-introducing criminals into society.

The price tag for this goal is hefty at €350 billion (from 2007-2013), but the fact that regional policy consists of 36% of the EU’s total budget highlights the important role regional policy plays in achieving European solidarity.[4] Thus far, the results have been positive. Since 2007, regional policy has contributed to a 10% gain in employment and has created 1.4 million jobs.  Johannes Hahn, the European Commissioner for Regional Policy, has stated in a press conference in January that “regional policy has been an absolute success story for European integration…I’m saying [this] with clear words and I have no doubt about it.”[5]

Skeptics, however, point out that the structural funds that grant regional policy funds lack transparency and are overly complex.  Marian Harkin, an MEP from Ireland, has noted that there is “a strong argument for greater visibility of these funds, and an urgent need for simplification.”[6] She goes on to say that bureaucracy and red tape limit the availability and swift deliverance of regional policy monies.

Still, regional policy overall has seemed to be quite effective in facilitating European solidarity despite numerous obstacles to integration.  One such obstacle is labor mobility within the EU.  In 2008, only 1.2% of total working age population changed their residence within the EU, compared to 2.8% in the US.[7] This could pose a real threat to future economic stability of the EU as the baby-boom generation retires.

There is a beacon of hope,  contingent upon the outcome of regional policy itself.  The European Commission cites “significant differences between countries in the extent of regional movements, with a clear distinction between the countries in the Eastern and Western part”[8] as one explanation of the lack of inter-EU mobility.  If regional policy continues to be successful in facilitating European integration, perhaps the cultural differences among EU member states may be diluted enough to encourage more inter-EU mobility.  If this becomes the scenario (certainly the hope of EU regional policy advocates), Europe will open the floodgates for unimaginable economic prosperity – and the billions of Euros pumped into cohesion policy will be returned tenfold.

However, even if regional policy fails in accomplishing its goal of social solidarity across Europe, it will remain hard for Europeans to argue that granting funding to socially and economically disadvantaged regions was a mistake – especially when viewed against the backdrop of normative EU social values.

- Michael Bossetta 

---

[1]“Investing in Europe’s Future” (Video) http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docoffic/official/reports/cohesion5/index_en.cfm

[2] http://europa.eu/pol/reg/index_en.htm

[3] Ibid

[4] Ibid

[5] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQUY1ch-20k

[6] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhcrzV6B8F4

[7] European Commission. Investing in Europe’s Future: Fifth report on economic, social and territorial cohesion. Pg 9

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docoffic/official/reports/cohesion5/index_en.cfm

[8] Ibid, Pg. 10

Isolating Nordic Identity

What does it mean to be Nordic?  Is it having a keen sense of rationality, a desire for peace, a willingness to shell out 40-60% of your gross income to the state?  Or, is it having the strength of Pippi Longstocking whilst splitting the head of your foe with a battleaxe during a Viking raid?

For Ole Weaver, “[T]he essence of ‘Norden’, its identity, was based on its difference from Europe.” Weaver goes on to define Nordic identity by a ‘Third Way,’ an alternative to ideals exemplified by a conflicted Europe, fractured by liberal Western and communist Eastern ideologies.   The Norden aloofness from the rest of Europe has allowed the region to develop sustainable welfare states, exhibiting socialist ideologies yet driven by capitalism.

When Weaver published his article in 1992, the future of the Nordic welfare states was uncertain in the wake of the fall of the Iron Curtain.  Weaver questioned whether the Nordic countries would remain autonomous and protective of their identity, or whether they would opt to join an increasingly powerful European Union – with the risk of potentially being drawn into international conflicts with which they would have formerly abstained.

However, the Nordic countries seem to be heading towards stronger European integration throughout the two decades after Weaver’s article.  Today Sweden, Denmark, and Finland are members of the EU, and Iceland is sure to follow suit.  Norway, an economic powerhouse driven by oil, is the only Nordic country who has opted not to participate, arguably because it has the resources to do so.  Despite increased cooperation and integration with the southern continent, Nordic identity remains strong – contradicting Weaver’s speculative hypothesis.

Nordic identity goes deeper than Weaver’s notion of a construct formed as a contrast to Europe.   It is not the ‘other’ that defines the ‘self identity’ of Nordic peoples, but rather it is the Nordic people who have created their own culture.  Their values have been framed not only by economic and political interactions with other nations; the Nordic countries have brooded a distinct cultural heritage stemming from their geographical position and collective historical memory.

Isolated in the north, Nordic peoples have traditionally bred a homogenous culture of blonde-haired, blue-eyed people.  This notion, coupled with a similar climate across the five Nordic nations, has led to a community structure – concretely through politics and banally through ideology – which aids in facilitating the mindset necessary for a successful welfare system.   Through the centuries, such a cooperative mentality has slowly evolved into a collective consciousness of ‘leaving no man or woman behind.’

Certainly Weaver is correct in assessing that an aggressive and war-torn Europe has had its historical effect on Nordic consciousness.  Looking down at their seemingly barbaric neighbors in the South, the Nordic people have preferred to strengthen their own communities instead of joining the ruthless notion of what it was (in the 19^th century) to be ‘European.’  This isolation, we argue, has bred the Nordic conceptions of peace, rationality, and pragmatic alternatives to conflict.  While Weaver focuses on these current factors of Nordic identity, we feel that this is just the tip of the iceberg – underneath the surface lies the frozen foundation of collective memory upon which Nordic values were built.

As what it means to be ‘European’ changes – from militant nations to a cooperative continent – the visible part of the Nordic iceberg will be molded and sculpted for the international community to see.   However, even if the EU breaks apart and the ice above the water melts, deep below the surface there will always be an enormous collective consciousness among the Nordic peoples – as solid and impregnable as permafrost.

- Ahmet, Lina, and Michael

Will the sun ever rise?

You must have heard of the ground-breaking novel of Ernest Hemingway: The Sun Also Rises or with its first name Fiesta. It is considered as Hemingway’s masterpiece. I am quite fond of this book.

Let me elaborate a bit on the plot of the novel to allow those who have already digested this piece of art to refresh their memories and those who have not started reading it. Our protagonist, Jake Barnes, is a young, novice American writer who decides to leave his homeland, the USA, in 1926 (not so long time from the end of World War I) for Europe, the source of knowledge, art, literature and prosperity. Jake suddenly finds himself in a fast life full of drinking, shuttling back and forth between many places in France and Spain and his story ends on a taxi seat with his dearly, beloved love who makes up her mind on leaving him for someone else. Nevertheless, this is not the most interesting part of the novel for me. As soon as you start reading the piece, you encounter a statement :“ You are all a lost generation” and it hits you like a sledgehammer.

It has not been quite long since life dragged me into Europe and direction of the conversation among comrades has been constantly pointing to a cliché, yet a critical part of our lives: “the future”.  Considering the delirious “global” effects of the last economic crisis, one cannot help but ponder questions about “the future”: Will I ever be able to find a job? Should I get another master’s or a PhD? Will it ever suffice? Have a look at Europe: Austerity measures which found its way first in Greece, then France and now Ireland, rising unemployment (especially among the youth). Let aside those trying to find answers to whether this is the end of capitalism or if there is an alternative to it, many university students and graduates are alarmed about their future. Having a university degree or knowledge of only one language do not fall into the category of finding a job relevant to your previous studies. Competition is getting bloodier gradually: more languages, more experience, more education. Many graduates are home hoping to find the appropriate job related to their studies but most of them just end up doing irrelevant jobs which do not require any skill or knowledge they learnt during their education. And there are those who are applying for unpaid internships to gain more experience through not just one but two, three, four because most of the companies, institutions and NGOs do not offer any payment saying out loud “ Hey, if you want more experience, accept it. There are already many other people out there waiting for the same post and you will not gain experience by working in a coffee shop”. An interview on the BBC site appears to confirm what I said above. The TV reporter was interviewing a “fresh” Spanish graduate who studied economics at the university but now is working as a juggler to entertain people. He told him that he had to do this job because there was no alternative.

Is the European youth the next lost generation or will the sun ever rise for them? Just as Zizek states, “History still remains to be written and we are all a part of it”.

What if?

Cultural exchange in Europe: No more obstacles by visa obligations

In the article from The New Federalist, Lea Sarah argues that Non European students have troubles getting their VISA in order to study in Europe. In the case of European Studies it is much bigger problem. She is arguing that students coming from different parts of Europe, and out of Europe would create liberal exchange environment and it will create an interaction. She concludes that European Union should be more welcoming to the students out of Europe.

Our Comment——–

We believe you are right. We are Master students of European Studies in Lund University, and we have the same problem that you have mentioned in your article. We have some colleagues as well who had the same problem and some of them could only get a visa for one year for a two year masters program and we find this unfair especially in the case of European Studies. We believe that European Studies master programs will be much better if people with different backgrounds and who are from different parts of Europe could participate as well. This would bring diversity and a different point of view to the subjects in the masters and the students can share their experiences and their knowledge of Europe to their home countries. With that, the idea of Europe will be promoted as well and it will grow not only in the political point of view, also with the cultural and integration point of view. Also it would be really useful to have educated and qualified people outside of the Europe in case of a future enlargement those people would help in the process of their integration to the EU.

For example, Sweden was one of the last countries that didn’t have fees for education regardless of their nationality (even higher studies). But for the next year, Sweden has changed the law, and now the Non-European students will pay a huge fee to study in a Swedish university. It for sure will be another obstacle in addition to the VISA problem. Until now, one could see a town full of students from everywhere around the world, and it makes education much rich and better. For the next year, Swedish education will have less diversity than previous years, and Sweden will lose one of the best points it has in education.

As Flingstein points out more interaction would promote further integration of the European citizens so EU should lay the grounds for people so that they can interact more easily and freely, if it wants to create a common European identity and promote interaction.

Can Olgu ERDEREN

Javier RUIZ

A fragmented Europe?

 

      The vision of a united Europe is often contradicted by various approaches and through different perspectives. In a similar way do we believe that the picture represents the numerous attitudes and concepts that consist of the challenges that Europe faces in the 21stcentury.  First and foremost do we believe that the picture, like Europe, can be interpreted in numerous ways!

      While various transnational European Institutions such as the EU, the CoE etc. over the recent decades have sought to create a common European framework does it appear that the advancement of the Europeanization in recent years has been a setback rather than a continuous progress.

      On one hand has there been numerous attempts to create a common European framework and on the other it appears that the EU member states permanently are trying to obstruct the common vision of an inclusive EU. The recent example is when the states decided to “take ownership” of the EU’s foreign policy at a summit designated to set the EU’s strategic priorities.

      Particularly interesting, is it that unlike the discussions of the Lisbon Treaty, where European citizens to a large extent rejected the Treaty. This time is it the decision makers that actively oppose the progress of the vision of the EU – in ensuring that the states will maintain their sovereignity in regard to questions on foreign policy.  The picture can be perceived as a symbol of this political fragmentation.

      Another way of interpreting the picture is through the puzzle of Europe on the desk, in front of a computer and the globe in the back. Is this a symbol of the increasing significance of the EU in the global order? Or is it a symbol of the emergence of the globalization where the EU plays a major role in developing new forms of communication? 

      The mess of the puzzle on the desk poses some of the more difficult questions! Who is going to put the pieces together? in which order? Politicans? EU-crats? People that only work from a top-down approach while neglecting the reality and the societies they influence? Which kind of Europe are we facing in the future with this type of integration? Europe, and European identity should not be constructed in an office rather it should be a joint project of the EU in conjunction with the European citizens. 

      European identity and European integration have to be built from the streets, from the people in every city if the European vision of unity in diversity needs to become a success. Is it possible to build a house starting with the roof? or is there a danger that it might collapse before the dream will become a reality? Like any other top-down approach is there a strong need for a civil society and a bottom-up approach that reflects the facts on ground!.

      This puzzle is not only about fitting the right pieces and nation states together but more importantly how we can live together and embrace European diversity! It is a puzzle that no one expects will be easy and it’s a task where the EU institutions, nation states and citizens need to go hand in hand in order to shape the future! The main question is not how and why, but rather if the European citizens are interested in the Europeanization project and EU’s vision of unity in diversity?

     These are just a few examples on how the picture can be interpreted – we would like to include other questions such as the emergence of a European power-state, and of course the question of the European enlargement but most importantly we would like to hear your perspective on the picture!

 

Jonas Herzberg Karpantschof

Javier Ruiz Soler