Raising divergences
- Towards a “youth check” of EU policies
- EU’s top joba undermining institutions’ credibility as we get closer to June’s elections
- Socio-economic inequalities are becoming deeper
- Gaza: the European Parliament calls for a ceasefire, and the ICJ issues its ruling
- NGOs are losing ground and fascism is advancing
- European Commission sealing new deals on migration with North African countries
Youth: where are we and what are the EU’s priorities for the next six months?
The European Commission (EC) analysed the 2022 European Year of Youth (EYY), which aimed to prioritise young people amidst the socio-economic challenges of the Covid pandemic. The initiative fostered collaboration between youth organisations and EU institutions. In response to calls from youth civil society, the EC committed to implementing the Youth Test, a measure ensuring the assessment of new EU policies’ impact on young people.
The EYY legacy report, published by the EC, highlighted achievements and outlined future steps. In the last year, the European Parliament (EP) and Council urged a mainstreaming approach on youth, aligning with the EU Youth Strategy 2019-2027. The EC pledged a “youth check”, involving phases like youth relevance assessments, consultations, impact assessments, and scrutiny to integrate a youth perspective across policy areas.
Effective youth participation in EU decision-making requires a two-way dialogue, facilitated by the EU Youth Dialogue. The current focus, under Belgium’s presidency of the Council which started this month and will last until July 2024, includes promoting inclusive societies and enhancing youth work with a focus on democracy. A mid-term evaluation of the European youth programmes Erasmus+ Youth and the European Solidarity Corps is scheduled in a meeting between the Directors of the EC’s Directorate Generals of Youth and National Agencies.
Power struggles and rule of law ahead of EU elections
With the EP elections coming in six months the campaign is underway, and notable figures, including Charles Michel, the current President of the European Council, revealed their intentions to run for the next five years. After a wave of criticism accusing Michel of prioritising his own political future over the EU’s general interest, the President of the European Council withdrew his candidature as MEP.
Michel’s potential election would have led to his early departure from the European Council’s presidency, leaving a leadership vacuum, which would have been filled in by the rotating presidency of the Council. It happens that, next July, this latter will be up to Viktor Orbán, Hungary’s eurosceptic Prime Minister, who is currently abusing his veto power in the European Council to obstruct decision-making processes.
On the left, the current President of the European Council, Charles Michel. On the right, Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orbán. Photo: Ludovic Marin/AFP via Getty Images.
The EP has recently threatened to employ “any legal and political measures” if the Commission releases – for the second time – EU funds to Hungary despite its lack of commitment to meeting standards of judicial independence. The Parliament also criticised the Council’s failure to curb Orbán’s veto power, as well as the Commission’s decision to unblock funds to dissuade him from vetoing a €50 billion aid package for Ukraine. On 18 January, 120 MEPs also asked to strip Hungary of its voting rights because of the country’s democratic backsliding.
Despite Michel saving the European Council from being (temporarily) led by Orbán, his U-turn hasn’t saved the credibility of this institution. Michel would have been the latest in a trend of EU leaders resigning for personal political interests, openly discrediting the importance of the role they cover and undervaluing the consequences that an early resignation might have. In fact, European Commissioner for Youth, Mariya Gabriel, and Commission’s Vice President and “father” of the European Green Deal Frans Timmermans, already resigned in December, showing the hypocrisy of the EU claiming how youth and environmental policies are on top of its agenda.
The beginning of a decade of strong socio-economic division: we need to tax the rich
With the new year, new and unprecedented rules entered into force to introduce a minimum tax of 15% to multinational companies with revenues of at least 750 million euros active in any EU Member State. This Directive aims at reducing incentives to shift profits to low-tax territories – the so-called “race to the bottom” – and to therefore prevent the battle between countries to reduce their corporate tax rates to attract multinationals’ investments.
Meanwhile, in the recently published report “Inequality Inc.”, Oxfam denounced that global inequalities are going to become even stronger in the next decade, with the world about to see its first trillionaire. According to the report, “the world’s five richest men have more than doubled their fortunes since 2020 – at a rate of 14 million dollars per hour – while nearly five billion people have been made poorer”. Oxfam International interim Executive Director Amitabh Behar said that “through squeezing workers, dodging tax, privatizing the state, and spurring climate breakdown, corporations are funneling endless wealth to their ultra-rich owners. But they’re also funneling power, undermining our democracies and our rights. No corporation or individual should have this much power over our economies and our lives —to be clear, nobody should have a billion dollars”.
Oxfam said measures that should be considered in an “inequality-busting” agenda include the permanent taxation of the wealthiest in every country, more effective taxation of big corporations and a renewed drive against tax avoidance. Does this mean that the EU is on the right track? Experts are calling out loopholes: States can still respect the Directive while offering generous tax credits and other deductions to attract multinationals’ investments.
On the other hand, EU citizens now have a new instrument to advocate for fiscal justice: the European Citizens’ Initiative “Tax the rich” is open for the collection of signatures. Its aim is to ask the EC to establish a European tax on great wealth to finance socio-ecological transition. Support it by signing here!
South Africa accuses Israel of genocide before the International Court of Justice
This month marks 100 days since the beginning of Israel’s war on Palestine. Tens of thousands of people took to the streets worldwide to protest the onslaught in Gaza. However, the EU still struggles to speak with one voice on the issue. It was not one of the European or western “democratic” nations, but South Africa that formally accused Israel of committing genocide in a landmark case presented at the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The five genocidal acts included by the prosecution were mass killings of Palestinians, bodily and mental harm, forced displacement and food blockade, destruction of the healthcare system and preventing of Palestinian births. On 26 January the ICJ issued its first ruling, though the verdict on the central allegation of genocide is expected to take much longer. According to the judges, Israel should “take steps to limit harm to Palestinians, preserve evidence, and submit a report within a month on all measures taken in response to the court’s order”. However, so far the ICJ declined to make the most important order to stop all military operations in Gaza.
The EU has remained silent on the ICJ case. The EP’s The Left group is the only one to fully support South Africa.
Members of the South Africa Delegation at the ICJ. Photo: ICJ
On the same day that the case was brought to court, the EP adopted a resolution calling for a permanent ceasefire in Gaza, on the condition that Hamas is dismantled and all hostages are released. On one hand, it is a step in the right direction. The countries of the bloc have struggled to find a consensus for a long time and many stayed away from the word ‘ceasefire’. However, a conditional ceasefire is not the same as an immediate ceasefire. Hamas doesn’t wish to be dismantled, and forcing it hasn’t worked so far. What if it takes months or even years for the militant group to stop existing? 23,000 Palestinians are dead already and stopping their genocide should not be conditional. Moreover, it was European countries that supplied Israel with weapons from the beginning, and the resolution doesn’t mention anything about stopping it.
Unfortunately, it is unclear whether the ICJ case or the EP resolution will have any significant effect on Israel even in the best-case scenarios. While the Court’s orders are considered binding, Israel will not be forced to stop. Even if the decision, which might take years, results in UN sanctions, they can be blocked by the US. The EP resolution is a highly symbolic gesture that doesn’t have any binding power.
Shrinking civic space across the EU
MEPs discussed in plenary – again! – the situation of rule of law backsliding and media freedom in Greece. Sophie in ‘t Veld, Dutch MEP (Renew Europe group) stated that Greece is openly breaching EU criteria and conditions to receive EU funding, underlining how corruption, political capture and rule of law corrosion “pervade all government’s sectors”. The EP will vote on a resolution on the situation in Greece during the next plenary session on 5-8 February.
Paradoxically, in the very same days where MEPs were expressing their concerns over a weak civic space in Greece, they approved a report on transparency and accountability of NGOs, drafted by the right-wing party EPP. The report is dangerously weakening and discrediting NGOs’ work in holding EU institutions accountable, defending human and social rights, and fighting corruption. The EPP rapporteur generalises and stigmatises NGOs as a problematic category of beneficiaries of EU funds, advancing accusations of a lack of transparency and accountability in their use of European taxpayers’ money.
As stated by Civil Society Europe – the umbrella organisation of European CSOs – the own-initiative report, which has no legal weight but reflects a political stance of the EP, is “largely based on assumptions or opinions rather than facts, and it is not justified by any substantiated analysis by EU institutions and bodies or verified risks or malpractice”. Moreover, the report asks for “special provisions” to apply to NGOs, expressing concern about “the lack of information, data and control on who or what receives EU funds” (point 9 of the report). It is clear that the EP is, embarrassingly, not aware that all NGOs applying for EU funds go through ex ante and ex post verifications and reporting on how they intend to spend resources, and whether their actions comply with EU values. In the aftermath of the Qatargate scandal, the EP is trying to externalise onto NGOs a crisis that happened behind its doors and at the expense of EU citizens.
Resurgence of neo-fascism
The rise of fascist ideologies is a worrying reality in Europe. In Germany this month, far-right politicians and neo-Nazi activists were discussing the ‘masterplan’ for mass deportations of “illegal” and “unassimilated” migrants, meaning second generation migrants, in case they came to power. On 13 January, 500 right-wing extremists marched through Paris carrying torches. Finally, reports of mass fascist salutes at an event attended by the ruling party members shook Italy. The EU acknowledged it as a problem, and following the events in Rome a plenary debate was held at the EP in Strasbourg.
Thousands protest against the AfD party and right-wing extremism in Frankfurt, 20/01/2024. Photo: Michael Probst/AP
In her opening speech, Commissioner for Home Affairs Johannson spoke about the issue with much hope, stating that the actors rejecting democracy and choosing a ‘strongman’ approach to power are ‘an exception’ in the EU. However, the rise of the far-right has been a worrying trend of 2023. Latest national elections in most Member States as well as the incidents discussed at the plenary debate make it evident that such radicalisation is not just an exception.
While the Commissioner acknowledged the risks for democracy involved and stated that much more work needs to be done, she tried to give an impression of the EC having things under control. Johannson mentioned the legislative proposal on the transparency and targeting of political advertising that the Parliament and the Council have recently agreed on. Indeed, the Union will benefit from better surveillance of political advertising. However, the new rules will come into effect only in 2025, months after the 2024 EP elections in June. The Commissioner didn’t state what actions will be taken in the next six months in order to stop the right-wing extremists from coming to power. Time is of the essence here and, with the political trends we are seeing at the moment, it’s not on the Union’s side.
Migration: keep on externalising, EU!
On 23 January the EP’s Committee for Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs held a debate on EU-Tunisia cooperation, with Amnesty International and DG HOME Commissioner Johansson. In June 2023, the European Commission made a 100 million euros deal with Tunisia for border management, search and rescue operations and migrant returns. Medecins Sans Frontières reported increased violence against Sub-Saharan Africans in Tunisia by national security forces. During the debate in the EP, Commissioner Johansson acknowledged that the practice of deporting people on the move to the desert has not stopped. Amnesty International confirmed the ongoing violence. Despite evident breaches of fundamental and human rights, the EU keeps erogating money in its externalisation strategy, now crystallised into the New Pact on Migration and Asylum that was finalised last month. In fact, the EU has just granted 87 million euros to Egypt for migration management in 2024. As it was clear to everyone’s eyes, the EU keeps failing to deliver on its promises of respecting human rights. Human Rights Watch put it in words, denouncing once again the EU’s underperformance, blaming in particular the Commission’s president Von der Leyen.
