Just a collection of signatures?

Nov 28, 2020 | inequality, Newsroom

Author: Karmen and Maja

Violence against women is still a big problem. 9 out of 27 European countries still hold laws that fail to measure rape as a sexual act that occurs without consent. This can’t be it, says politikorange journalists Karmen and Maja, in their discussion of the Istanbul Convention as a possible solution.

Women wearing feminist t-shirt. I Source: Foto Chelsi Peter auf Pexels (CC0 freie Lizenz)

According to the EU-wide FRA study of 2014 entitled ‘Violence against women’, every third women living in Europe has experienced physical or sexual violence during their adult life. About 55% of women living in the EU have been sexually harassed. 32% of all victims in the EU said the perpetrator was a superior, colleague, or customer. Yet another new problem has emerged in cyber-bullying, which allows perpetrators to remain anonymous, and while easily reaching victims beyond borders and countries. What can the EU do to lower the occurrence of these violations?

One of the main steps taken could lie in the Istanbul Convention. It is to date the most far-reaching treaty, proposing zero tolerance for violence, whilst protecting victims and prosecuting perpetrators. With its creation, the architects of the convention also intended to change a certain way of thinking in popular society: especially that of male society members, whose attitudes should develop through increasing awareness. The idea is to teach them about the importance of gender equality from an early age.

A lot to be done

The convention papers were consolidated as far back as August, 2014. By now, 45 countries and the European Union have signed in agreement. By that, they signing nations are obliged to modify laws and introduce new, protective measures with the help of allocated resources. The convention itself encourages the removal of barriers that prevent someone from reporting a crime. It also empowers police to remove a perpetrator from home, and demands victim assistance via shelters, dedicated phone numbers, specialized support services, crisis centers, and legal aid. The convention also encourages participating countries to train professionals to support victims in their physical and emotional recovery. It conducts awareness-raising projects, organizes education classes, and creates treatment programs for perpetrators. It criminalizes various forms of violence against women, and makes sure that perpetrators face conviction and punishment by reforming judicial proceedings.

The situation is not bright

With so many countries signing this convention, you get the feeling that things are really changing for the better. However, the situation is not very bright. Out of 45 signing countries, only 34 of them have actually ratified conventions and put new laws into force*. That means, 11 countries have only signed the convention, but never changed anything within their legislation. The EU also signed the convention in 2017 and has not ratified it to this date.

One of the countries that has not adopted the Istanbul Convention is Bulgaria. There, the ratification of the convention was disputed in the country’s constitutional court, as it was suggested that adopting the convention could lead to the creation of a “third gender” and the legalization of same-sex marriage. In the end, the court did not accept the convention because as far as the Bulgarian constitution is concerned, humans are either male or female. That outraged women and women’s rights groups across the region. On the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women, people protested in the center of Sofia, Bulgaria’s capital city. The motto of the protests: #YouAreNotAlone. The protestors demanded the creation of prevention programs and shelters for victims, as violence against women is still a big problem in Bulgaria. Unfortunately, today, things still haven’t changed. Other countries like Slovakia and Poland also felt that the convention endangered their culture and values, and that it would lead to the destruction of the term gender.

We need its full potential now

It is undeniable that the Istanbul Convention brought some significant changes in the fight regarding violence against women, and helped to spread awareness in the society. However, it needs to reach its full potential now. It gave women a voice – a strong voice that is shouting that things need to change, and that safety and freedom should not be seen as a privilege, but as a basic human right.

* You can find the full list here. 

 

Karmen Matko und Maja Hočevar…are best friends who study media and love to see the world through different lenses.

Disclaimer

The supporting organizations for the production of these articles do not constitute an endorsement of the contents, which reflect the views only of the authors, and the supporting organizations cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein

Prevention is better than the cure

Nov 28, 2020 | Migration, Newsroom

Author: Nuno Silva

Providing sustainable alternatives for asylum seekers is one of the EU’s main criteria in finding a solution to the so-called migration crisis. Politikorange author Nuno explores whether this is the best approach.

A refugee camp in Shinkiari Pakistan I Picture: Pixabay.com

Almost eighty million people are currently displaced from their homes, according to UNHCR’s latest Global Trends report. This isn’t just motivated by armed conflict. Hunger, persecutions, and numerous violations of the human rights also lead to forced migration, the main beneficiaries of which are groups that explore factions of illegal trafficking. Providing sustainable alternatives to those who search for asylum is one of the EU’s main criteria in finding a solution to the so-called migration crisis. But is this the best approach?

According to the High Commissioner of the UN for Refugees, in 2018 alone, 13 million people were displaced, half of which were, to date, underage. Most refugees came from five countries: Syria, Afghanistan, South Sudan, Myanmar and Somalia. As stated in UNHCR’s 2018 Global Trends report, most of these migrants were granted asylum in Turkey, Pakistan, Uganda, Sudan and Germany. Of these, Turkey is a candidate for the EU and Germany is one of its founding members.

The topic of migration became especially urgent to the European public in April 2015, when more than 700 people drowned in just one week. This motivated the EU to adopt the measures outlined in the European Agenda on Migration: the registration and identification of migrants, the prevention of lives lost at sea, the fight against human trafficking by means of military intervention and the relocation of refugees to EU member states. Regardless of these efforts, people continued to attempt to flee to Europe. According to UNHCR data, in 2018 almost 140,000 people tried to reach Europe by sea.

An obstacle

The national policy of each state has impeded a joint EU response from taking place – in 2017, Germany gave asylum to 186,644 refugees, while Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic were sanctioned by the European Commission for not giving asylum to anyone. According to a study carried out by the Migration Policy Institute in 2018, even if the EU is in a better position to respond to mass migration, the present situation is fragile, due to the possible non-sustainability of the implemented mechanisms. This shows that the measures introduced to date are insufficient.

The lack of a consensus between EU-countries is obvious. According to Johannes Hahn, European Commissioner for Budget and Administration, individual decisions cannot be taken, requiring a coordinated, collective and coherent response:

Each country’s attempts to close borders will only transform other countries into ‚parking lots‘ for detained migrants.

Hungary’s construction of a barrier in 2015 pushed migrants towards Croatia and Slovenia. The current approach focuses on the application of human rights and providing minimum subsistence to migrants. However, the prevention of the circumstances that force people to flee in the first place would, ultimately, be the correct, long-term approach.

The proposal

„Prevention is better than the cure“ –  as stated in this famous phrase delivered by Desiderius Erasmus Roterodamus, the solution for this problem must be to prevent the events that motivate forced migration. This would constitute a complex long-term strategy. Conflicts, hunger, persecution, and violations of human rights are the main boosters of migration. The most basic solutions are also the hardest to implement: diplomacy and education.

Education is recognized as a human right, and the main source of the maintenance, transformation, and evolution of society. Providing education is normally the state’s responsibility. In the absence of state support, certain external entities should invest in the financing of NGOs and in solidarity acts, which would result in a gradual decrease of illiteracy and an increase in instruction. According to Paul Collier and Nicholas Sambanis, authors of „Understanding Civil War: Europe, Central Asia, and other regions“, a secondary enrollment rate 10% higher than average reduces the risk of war by 3%. In 2019 there were still around 750 million illiterates and 260 million people without access to school education. Entities with power should provide education in order to soften the negative indexes and boost the positive ones, until misinformation is no longer the root of problems that motivate migration.

Children at school I Picture: Pexels/Akela Photography

Diplomacy is a natural consequence of education, and one of the primordial dimensions of foreign politics. It is also a core feature in the fight against forced migration. Diplomacy determines the processes through which states establish in-depth contacts, encompassing matters related to conflicts, commerce, cultural promotion, and coordination between organizations. More and better interstate relations, would not only eliminate the most notorious cause of emigration – conflicts – but it would also facilitate the allocation of resources to those in need. Case in point, when, in 1999, several countries joined the United Nations Mission in East Timor, which culminated in the end of the clashes between Timor and Indonesia and the independence of the former.

Compared to education, diplomacy is not easy to apply. The majority of diplomatic relationships are fragile. Differences in agenda and countries’ refusal to grant asylum or compromise stop the cultivation of healthy relations between them. Diplomacy, and the lack thereof, are naturally associated to peace and war, respectively. In 2018, the United States’ withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action with Iran triggered several military actions on both sides of the conflict.

As part of this preventative approach, there are other, more immediate measures to be taken. Trade in unregulated weapons favors conflicts and persecution, and is a catalyst for human rights violations, as can be seen currently in Syria, Afghanistan, or Yemen. A poor distribution of resources delays progress in combating each of the aforementioned evils. Data from Amnesty International proves that arms trade supplies conflicts and repressions, victimizing civilians around the world. In order to extinguish this commerce, states have to ratify the Treaty about the Commerce of Conventional Weapons, creating or reforming certain laws that reflect the regulations from the agreement.

In resource distribution, bad practice leads to an abrupt increase in inequality. According to Oxfam, in 2018 the 26 most wealthy individuals in the world possessed as many resources as 3.8 thousands of millions of the poorest individuals, essentially from countries in sub-Saharan Africa, North Africa and the Middle East – regions from which the largest number of forced migrants come. This disparity caused a deterioration in the democratic institutions, intensifying, consequently, popular disbelief in the possibility of equality. This has created a vicious cycle, in which citizens neither support, believe, nor recognize the legitimacy of the state. States must guarantee the subsistence of the poorest, prioritizing policies of family support for those most in need and reformulating certain laws and programs to support this fraction of the population. This set of procedures would provoke, gradually, a decrease in inequality.

The application of all these solutions in the current context would reduce forced migration in the future, and alleviate the impact of current migration. Given the gradual character of the preventative proposal, as well as the current state of emergency, the wisest resolution should be correcting the current problems, while simultaneously preventing future setbacks. The necessity to create conditions that ensure the prevention of future migration overshadows the need to alleviate the impact of current migration. Appeals go to those who have the capacity, the good faith, and the benevolence to act – because it’s more important to guarantee that no one leaves their home, than to find a house for someone.

Disclaimer

The supporting organizations for the production of these articles do not constitute an endorsement of the contents, which reflect the views only of the authors, and the supporting organizations cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein

What happend to »no more plastic«?

Nov 28, 2020 | Green deal, Newsroom

Author: Teja Miklavčič

Covid-19 came into our lives with many negative side effects. But another symptom of the pandemic is climate amnesia. Politikorange journalist Teja Miklavčič talks about what a pandemic can’t let us forget – that saving lives only makes sense, if we’re saving the life-giving planet along with them.

Picture: Engin Akyurt / unsplash.com

I have been in Provence, Rome, Hamburg; Munich, Plymouth, Venice; Vienna, London, Salzburg, and Graz. And that’s just a few I can remember off the top of my head.
I saw some cities. I’ve seen some cultures and people. And I’ve seen so much pollution and waste of plastic in stores, at gas pumps, in parks, bars, and restaurants.

Statistics show that here, in Slovenia, every resident creates an average of 1,3 kg communal waste per day. Communal waste is waste that comes from household, production, store, or service activities.
More than 1 million seabirds die every year; one in four fish has plastic in their stomach; there are more than 150 million tons of plastic in the ocean right now and 83% of water has micro plastic in it. We could go on.

It’s fine if we make mistakes

The corona crisis forced us to make some very significant mistakes. We’ve been through some terrible times, and it’s not over yet.  A few years ago, the Slovenian president told us that we will abolish small plastic products for good. Indeed, we have seen some great improvement. In Slovenia, plastic cutlery and cups in stores are very hard to find. That made me happy. But we still have tons of plastic.

And then, this pandemic arrived. All of a sudden, plastic gloves were everywhere. Masks for single use were everywhere. And not just on people’s faces, but on the streets and in the ocean. I understand that this situation is unprecedented, and that people reacted to take care of themselves. But we all forgot about the environment. Everything was just about people and health, all over again. We forgot about everything else overnight.

There is no Planet B

We need to save planet earth, because there is no alternative. If we forget about this little Earth, we will all soon be gone and nothing will matter anymore – not our problems, not Covid-19, not if we gain a little bit of weight.

Plastic is a huge intruder in life, so make good decisions. It’s up to you: you can buy a mask for single use or you can buy a unique, well designed, cotton mask, that lasts forever.

Teja Miklavčič…is a proud Slovenian, who doesn’t want to stop learning about life and cultures. She loves to travel and getting to know other people.

Disclaimer

The supporting organizations for the production of these articles do not constitute an endorsement of the contents, which reflect the views only of the authors, and the supporting organizations cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein

The Sneaking Danger of Populism

Nov 28, 2020 | Media, Newsroom

Populist calls from left, right, centrist, and also green movements in Europe have been getting louder throughout the past few years. The label ‘populist’ is thrown around in discussions, the media, and parliamentary debates. But what is populism, and what dangers does it hold to the European Union? Politikorange editors Lukas Hinz and Leander Löwe tried to find out more about the occurrence of Populism.

Dark clouds hanging above the EU Parliament / Source: pexels.com

Populism – The ‘Thin Ideology’

Populism appears in three different shapes. According to Hanspeter Kriesi, a well-respected political scientist from the European University Institute in Florence, it should be categorized as a discourse and communication style, as a political strategy and as an ideology. He is referring to one of the first definitions of populism developed by the Dutch political scientist and expert in populism and extremism Cas Mudde. According to him, the thought of dividing society is essential to populist ideology.

In his paper “The Populist Zeitgeist” from 2004, he describes how this thin ideology of populism

considers society to be ultimately separated into two homogeneous and antagonistic groups, ‘the pure people’ versus ‘the corrupt elite’, and which argues that politics should be an expression of the volonté générale (general will) of the people.”

Populists try to present the people as the sovereign in the state, and claim that “the elite has betrayed the sovereign”, Kriesi explains. He adds that populism can only exist in combination with ‘thicker,’ fake-ideologies that have strong content. This is why populism often appears (depending on the national context) in extreme right, centrist, and left parties and supports various ideas, which could not be more diverse.

Spoiler alert: Crises support Populism!

Populism is often successful during times of crisis. In his paper from 2013 Kriesi adds that this is most evident during political crises, which “[enhance] anti-elitism in the country in question” and economic ones, because they serve as a catalyst for political crises.

According to his research, Kriesi cites that “the combination of two types of crisis is the most favorable condition for populist mobilization”,  and that populists are especially encouraged by the ‘losers’ of globalization.

Francis Fukuyama, Professor for History and Political Science at Stanford University, delivered a different explanation for the rise of populism in 2019. In an interview with Deutsche Welle, he says that people’s need for a common identity is greater than could be ever fulfilled by an open-minded and liberal society with “massive immigration and outsourcing measures”. In his book called “Identity”, he analyses one of the biggest consequences of this need: Identity politics.

According to Fukuyama’s book, identity politics means the conscious representation of one’s own interests and the associated delimitation and exclusion of other ideas and of dissenters. In combination with populism, these can become very dangerous for both democracy and global politics. The main reason is that identity politics places the identity of groups above that of others, thus making compromises more difficult, which are essential for a basic democratic and multilateral order.

For Fukuyama, a growing need for identity could also be a main driver of the European Union’s struggle with populism. Because the European Union never created an extended European identity, citizens have a more intense connection to their national states. That strengthens euro-skepticism in the member states.

The trend has been confirmed by numerous studies: for example, “National and/or European identity?: Issues of self-definition and their effect on the future of integration“ conducted by the Hungarian Political Capital Policy Research and Consulting Institute and the German Friedrich-Ebert Foundation „.The study from 2013 states that “according to surveys, the primacy of national identity is unchallenged in all cases.” This could be one of the reasons why, according to SPIEGEL, left and right populism almost always go hand in hand with skepticism towards the European Union.  But what do the actual programs of populists look like?

The Different Faces of Populism

Today, populist parties are attracting voters in almost all EU-member states. The political directions of these parties vary vastly. The different ways a populist party can go are illustrated by the Manifesto-Projectinitiated by the WZB Social Science Research Center Berlin.

A prominent example for a populist party which shifted its direction entirely is the Movimento Cinque Stelle in Italy (short: M5S, Engl. the Five Stars Party). Originally founded by the Italian comedian Beppe Grillo with a green-left agenda, it further and further moved to the right with increasing migration and the upcoming need for identity. The right-left-index of the Manifesto-Project is a piece of evidence for this.

Picture 1: The M5S directly shifted its programmatic direction from the right to the centrist wing of the party spectrum.

Source: Volkens, Andrea / Burst, Tobias / Krause, Werner / Lehmann, Pola / Matthieß Theres / Merz, Nicolas / Regel, Sven / Weßels, Bernhard / Zehnter, Lisa (2020): The Manifesto Data Collection. Manifesto Project (MRG/CMP/MARPOR). Version 2020a. Berlin: Wis-senschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung (WZB). https://doi.org/10.25522/manifesto.mpds.2020a

Similarly, the German AfD started out with the euro-skeptic liberal program and moved to the extreme right between its foundation in 2013 and 2020.Picture 2: The AfD moved from the center to the very right-wing of the party spectrum.

Picture 2: The AfD moved from the center to the very right-wing of the party spectrum.

Source: Volkens, Andrea / Burst, Tobias / Krause, Werner / Lehmann, Pola / Matthieß Theres / Merz, Nicolas / Regel, Sven / Weßels, Bernhard / Zehnter, Lisa (2020): The Manifesto Data Collection. Manifesto Project (MRG/CMP/MARPOR). Version 2020a. Berlin: Wis-senschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung (WZB). https://doi.org/10.25522/manifesto.mpds.2020a

Another prominent example of how ‘thin’ the ideology of populism itself is – and of how much the agenda of a party can shift – can be seen in Hungary. The Fidesz Party was initially founded as a liberal protest movement. Nowadays, party-leader and prime minister Victor Orbán is setting the stage to turn Hungary into a right-extremist autocracy. Even in Portugal, which had no populist party for years, the right-extreme populist party “Basta!” (“Enough!”) is on the rise, as POLITICO showed in 2019. Its motto: Being “Anti-party, anti-immigrant, Eurosceptic”.

Picture 3: The Fidesz changed the left-liberal agenda to an extremely right-conservative one in the last 15 years.

Source: Volkens, Andrea / Burst, Tobias / Krause, Werner / Lehmann, Pola / Matthieß Theres / Merz, Nicolas / Regel, Sven / Weßels, Bernhard / Zehnter, Lisa (2020): The Manifesto Data Collection. Manifesto Project (MRG/CMP/MARPOR). Version 2020a. Berlin: Wis-senschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung (WZB). https://doi.org/10.25522/manifesto.mpds.2020a

EU-Presidency 2020: Example of how to Deal with Populists

The European Union developed its own strategy to handle populist ideologies in its middle over the years. This is especially evident in 2020: As observed by the Associated Press, populists in Europe were weakened during the corona crisis. Angela Merkel’s speech in the European Parliament, where she took a stand against the division of the European society by the populists, underlines this. In her speech, she highlighted that “Germany is prepared to show extraordinary solidarity”, and that the pandemic is revealing the limits of populism in Europe.

In her speech to mark the start of the EU Presidency on July 1, she urged the member states of the EU to confirm the recovery package for the European economy, amounting to more than 750 billion Euros. Therefore populists would be deprived of any benefits from the corona crisis: “We are seeing at the moment that the pandemic can’t be fought with lies and disinformation, and neither can it be with hatred and agitation. Fact-denying populism is being shown its limits.” While Hanspeter Kriesi says that especially crises help populist parties to rise, the corona crisis seems to have had the contrary effect. According to Merkel, solidarity among member states is the most effective way to take a stand against the voice of populist parties in the European countries.

Lukas Hinzhttps://lukashinz.de…hat Bock auf Medien, Fotografie, Journalismus und viel viel mehr. Wenn er gerade nicht online ist, dann sucht er nach coolen Dingen, die ihm vor die Linse springen oder sitzt – ohne Internet – in der Bahn.

Author: Lukas Hinz

Disclaimer

The supporting organizations for the production of these articles do not constitute an endorsement of the contents, which reflect the views only of the authors, and the supporting organizations cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein

Germany’s Council Presidency: Between the Public Interest and Lobbyism

Nov 28, 2020 | Newsroom

Author: Paula

A new report from LobbyControl reveals a lack of conspiracy in the European Council. The authors of the study fear that during the German EU Presidency, individual corporate interests could become the focus of attention. Germany must be careful not to let itself be influenced by economic actors during its Council Presidency.

Photo: Kaique Rocha / Pexels.com

In June, the Brussels-based NGO Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) and LobbyControl e.V.published a report titled „The German EU Council Presidency: Industry in the Lead Role?“. In it, the authors show the influence that German industry and lobbyism has on decisions made by the German government.

Germany will take over the role of the European Council Presidency at a special time. It will be marked by the climate crisis, Brexit, and the corona crisis. Lobbying influences will play a particularly important role in dealing with the Corona pandemic. The next few months will show which sectors benefit for which reasons, especially in the distribution of EU-wide corona aid.

Case studies show the influence of economic actors

Nina Katzemich works as an EU campaigner at LobbyControl. „We stand up for transparency and equal access, which simply does not exist at the moment“, she says. In a cross-party open letter delivered in mid-June, the Corporate Europe Observatory and LobbyControl came together with almost 100 members of the European Parliament. These members already called on Chancellor Angela Merkel to make transparency a central concern during the German Presidency. The idea for LobbyControl’s recent report arose when the organization noticed how individual member states impeded one another’s EU decision-making, evidently because they represented the interests of their country’s corporate lobby. In the report, six case studies by various organizations demonstrate how the German government has blocked EU projects in the past in favor of German corporate interests.

For example, a BUND study shows the relationship between the federal government and the automotive industry, and points out how Germany tried in the past to keep CO2 emission limits as low as possible in order to support the German car industry. A study by German Environmental Aid (Deutsche Umwelthilfe) reveals non-transparent talks between the Federal Ministry of Economics and Energy and the gas industry, the former of which planned to use gas as a fossil energy source for energy transition. A further case study by Network Tax Justice (Netzwerk Steuergerechtigkeit) shows how Germany has blocked decisions on tax transparency in the EU to protect German companies who evade taxes by leveraging operations in low-tax countries.

Industry associations do not dictate opinions

LobbyControl now fears that industry influences could have an impact on the European Council Presidency, and potentially sway important decision-making processes, such as the European Green Deal. The Green Deal’s initiative is to reduce net emissions of greenhouse gases to zero, and make Europe a climate-neutral continent by 2050.

Dr. Silke Karcher is the Head of Division in the Federal Ministry of the Environment on European climate and energy policy. „We have these industry associations and their role is to stand up for their members“, says the engineer. „Industries and NGOs are influential lobbyists, but only serve as a guide to politicians“, says Dr. Karcher. „The industrial organizations contribute to the country’s prosperity. Politicians listen to them, but hopefully only to reflect and come to the right decisions,“ she explains.

For her, the decision of the Federal Government to pay a premium price for buying electric cars in order to boost consumption in the aftermath of the pandemic is one example of how the Federal Government does not listen exclusively to the interests of the car lobby. The car industry had demanded a similar premium for new cars powered by fossil fuels. „The package for the economic upturn that has been adopted in Germany proves that at least here it is not true,“ declares Karcher.

Katzemich was surprised by this decision, but for her, this was not illustrative of the fact that the Federal Government is not influenced by the automotive industry. „We see this with pleasure and as an achievement of civil society that has put pressure and in the end was understood by the politicians,“ says Katzemich.

Intransparency of the European Council

A major problem for LobbyControl is the non-transparent way in which the European Council works. They demand a lobby register – specifically, that meetings of ministers with lobbyists should be published. According to LobbyControl, around 25,000 lobbyists with an annual budget of 1.5 billion euros directly and indirectly influence EU governing institutions.

Not everything is black and white, of course, and companies do create important jobs. „But they have powerful arguments that do not fit in with the common good“, explains Katzemich. The work of the EU Commission and EU Parliament has become more transparent in recent years, but large, corporate interest groups still maintain greater influence over the Council, and that influence is largely unobserved by civil society.

Dr. Susanne Hegels is Head of Unit for the German EU Council Presidency at the Federal Ministry of Economics and Energy. She considers the fears of LobbyControl to be exaggerated, but sees the need for more transparency at the European level. „We talk to representatives from the industry and listen to what they want. But that does not mean that we do exactly what they want and are not able to think what is right and what is in the general interest at the same time“, explains Hegels.

„The truth is that Germany does not have a very strong lobby register“, she adds. There is already a provision that a common transparency register of the European Union should be introduced voluntarily. Currently, it is failing due to several legal problems. However, as of January, the permanent representation of Germany in Brussels publishes all meetings of their ambassadors.

Under public observation

Even if Germany has been guided by lobbying interests in the past, this does not necessarily mean that nothing will change during this Council Presidency. Germany could seize the opportunity to set a good example. Above all, Katzemich wants to bring the work of the European Council and its functioning closer to the citizens: „We want the public to take a closer look so that the Federal Government is now more closely scrutinized in its handling of the climate crisis and the distribution of the Federal Government’s funds.“

Paula Meister…kommt eigentlich aus der Nähe von Leipzig. Mittlerweile studiert sie in Frankreich Politik- und Sozialwissenschaften. In ihrer Freizeit engagiert sie sich in der Jugendbildungsarbeit, bastelt gerne Ohrringe und schreibt Artikel für verschiedene Unizeitungen.

Disclaimer

The supporting organizations for the production of these articles do not constitute an endorsement of the contents, which reflect the views only of the authors, and the supporting organizations cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein