Before delving into the feasibility of a solution, it is important to first comprehend the actions taken by the EU and their corresponding language. In other words, gaining an understanding of the EU’s rhetoric and the measures they have implemented in response to the IRA law is crucial.

IRA: A Plan to Stabilise Prices and Boost the Economy

EC President Ursula von der Leyen had proposed the European Sovereignty Fund (ESF) as a response to the controversial American IRA. The ESF would be integrated into the EU’s long-term budget and support the transition to renewable energy, along with relaxed state aid rules for member states to subsidize companies. However, some experts had expressed concerns that this may lead to a subsidy race between the EU and the US, which could prove to be costly for European taxpayers. While some European leaders have called for a “Buy European” policy, others resist further subsidies.

Meanwhile, the American IRA is a substantial climate bill that aims to lower energy costs, increase cleaner production, and reduce carbon emissions by 40% by 2030. It also includes provisions to make corporations and the ultra-wealthy pay their fair share and lower healthcare costs for Americans. Despite this, France and Germany have voiced concerns over provisions that may benefit US producers over foreign ones and are pushing for a robust European response in the form of greener subsidies and a “Buy European” policy.

Overall, these bills highlight the importance of striking a balance between environmental sustainability, economic growth, and worker welfare.

IRA: Is it Delivering on its Promise to Tackle Rising Prices?

European clean tech companies are considering the US as a more favourable location for their operations due to the generous tax benefits offered by the US IRA, passed last year. The act offers $375 billion in benefits for renewable industries, and Norwegian start-up Freyr is among the companies building a factory for electric car batteries in Georgia, citing the new law as a “massive, massive incentive.” Similarly, companies across Europe making green energy products like EV batteries and solar panels are also considering the US, as the EU response has been described as “underwhelming” and bureaucratic, causing fears that Europe may fall behind in the green energy transition. The EU has responded with plans to ensure at least 40% of clean tech is produced in Europe by 2030, while also limiting the amount of strategic raw materials from any single third country, such as China. However, the simplicity of the US program is proving attractive to many businesses. Nevertheless, concerns have been raised over the increased costs of local production and whether consumers will be willing to pay more if global supply chains disappear.

Why does it matter?

The recent development of US clean energy policies and the resulting influx of European clean tech companies into the US is an important topic for EU citizens and in particular EU students to be aware of due to its potential impact on the European economy, job market, and essentially global competition in the green energy sector.

With the US set to outpace the EU in the global push to reduce carbon emissions, leaving EU countries at risk of losing billions of investments and jobs.

Furthermore, the EU’s response to this development has been underwhelming to say the least, with complaints that its plan is confusing and bureaucratic (nothing new unfortunately), putting Europe at risk of falling behind in the green energy transition.  

Lastly, the impact of the US incentives concerns the global (and European) supply chains and manufacturing models.

In conclusion, the current state of affairs in Europe is cause for concern, with the ongoing conflict in Eastern Europe (Russia-Ukraine War) and China’s growing influence (in Europe through its companies, and Taiwan), now compounded by the recent bill that challenges the very foundation of the EU economy. These developments signal a turbulent future for Europe, making it imperative for the public, especially students, to engage in open discussions to understand the predicament we find ourselves in. It is crucial that we recognise the gravity of the situation and take proactive measures to address the challenges facing Europe.

This article was written by an independent writer whose views are not associated with The Third Eye. The Third Eye strives to be the student’s voice, and that entails giving them a platform to voice their opinions.

The post The Green Revolution: Europe’s Race to Catch up? appeared first on The Third Eye.

Despite the EU’s reputation for progressivism, for its value-based aspect, and its Nobel Peace Prize, European governments are not collecting reliable and comparable data on domestic violence, rape, and femicide – just to name a few. Furthermore, there is inconsistency in legal definitions and criminalisation of gender-based violence. It is ironic that the EU, which is known for its norms and values (human rights, equality, human dignity, freedom, rule of law, and democracy), is failing to address this “silent war on women”.

Now that I have gotten your attention, let’s dive into the nitty-gritty stuff and get to the heart of the matter.

What’s this guy’s deal with blabbering about this topic anyway?

Data and definitions are crucial for identifying and addressing issues related to social inequality. The lack of data and definitions (or well the absence of consistent and reliable data) can make it difficult to measure progress and identify areas that require improvement. However, in the spirit of recent local issues and the 8^th of March, the scope of this article will be to focus on a subcategory of social inequality (furthermore, addressing this topic in its entirety would be an enormous undertaking, quite a behemoth task): gender equality. By delving into the belly of the beast of inequality here I hope we can understand a bit more that in our society we still have unequal treatment, opportunities, and outcomes that individuals face based on their gender.

This social issue affects both men and women, but can disproportionately impact women, leading to discrimination, poverty, and violence. In various aspects of life, including education, employment, politics, social norms etc; gender inequality can limit women’s access to healthcare, education, and economic and political opportunities, whilst potentially perpetuating harmful gender stereotypes and norms.

Oh where, oh where is the data?

The absence of consistent and reliable data, along with the lack of cross-border frameworks, weakens both national (member state) and the EU-wide efforts to achieve justice, protection, and convictions in cases of violence against women. With the COVID-19 pandemic and the (on-going) war in Ukraine already straining state resources across Europe, NGOs are bearing the brunt of meeting women’s needs. Additionally, authorities’ inability to collect accurate data or define domestic violence and femicide further complicates the situation.

The European Commission lacks a clear overview of the situation regarding violence against women in the EU, and even when asked for figures and trends, they do not have a complete answer. Additionally, the European Women’s Lobby highlights the issue of a lack of data and proper definitions of femicide and domestic violence at both levels of governance, leading to the underestimation of the scale of the problem. Women’s organisations report that existing figures do not provide a complete picture, making it difficult to fully address the issue with policies currently in place. The lack of comparable EU-wide data on violence against women has resulting in the EU not receiving a score in this domain, which is something that simply cannot and should not be happening in this day and age.

We are all too familiar with the prevalence of femicide…

UN Women defines femicide as “an intentional killing with a gender-related motivation”. Yet, several European countries lack reliable data on femicide, domestic violence, and convictions.

For example: in France, femicide is not legally recognized, while NGOs are largely responsible for keeping track of cases. Austria, Belgium, Bulgarian, and Germany also fail to maintain centralised records of femicide and domestic violence, with some countries authorities fail to gather information on rape as well. The Czech Republic records instances of violence against women but does not recognize the concept of domestic violence. In Albania, domestic violence is classified as `family violence`, and femicide is not legally defined.

This behaviour risks further holes in the data that lays the foundation for policy development, to inevitably actually wage an effective war on gender-based violence.

Violations on other fronts

There is divergence among EU member states in criminalising psychological violence and coercive control, with only 4 EU member-states being compliant with the article on psychological violence in the Istanbul Convention. A 2022 report found that a whopping 44% of women in the EU have experienced psychological violence, emotional abuse, or coercive control in their lifetime.

This is very much a serious problem, and deeply concerning, all of which goes against the very values of equality, respect, and human rights that the EU upholds and preaches internationally. It is important to take a strong stance against violence towards women and to work towards creating safer communities for everyone.

However, it is crucial to recognise that responsibility for this issue is not solely on the EU’s fault, but shared by its member states as well. Across Europe, low conviction rates in cases of violence against women are preventing victims from reporting crimes against them. A lack of trust in the judiciary and high rates of cases dismissed for lack of evidence or an unknown perpetrator contribute to this problem.

For example, in Belgium, 53% of rape cases are dismissed, while in France only 1% of complaints result in conviction. Increasing conviction rates requires clearer recognition of violence against women, and better recording of these crimes. Additionally, a more common method of documenting and measuring such pervasive crimes would help authorities actually address the situation.

Roughly what has been done so far?

The European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE) is working to gather data from each member state on violence against women, but the collected data is not up to date. However, this proposed system regarding data gathering would extend well beyond the intimate partner violence. The EU has established a common helpline number for women experiencing violence and proposed a directive on combating violence against women and domestic violence. The European Women’s Lobby is calling for swift adoption of the directive and final ratification of the Istanbul Convention, despite opposition from 6 member states.

This is merely the beginning. We need to continue to improve and take further action. One critical step towards addressing such major disparities within our society is acknowledging that there is a problem both within the society, and within the systems meant to run it.

Food for thought to ponder over.

Gender inequality is an essential social issue that demands attention and action from individuals, communities, policymakers and the EU itself in order to promote gender equity and ensure equal opportunities for all individuals, regardless of their gender. Although International Women’s Day has passed, the fight against gender inequality must continue to achieve a more equal, just, and inclusive society.  

This article was written by an independent writer whose views are not associated with The Third Eye. The Third Eye strives to be the student’s voice, and that entails giving them a platform to voice their opinions.

The post How the Mighty have fallen: the EU’s failure to Protect Women appeared first on The Third Eye.

Picture this: fumes rising that block the sun in clouds of grey, beastlike machines roaring that scare the birds away, concrete jungles and concrete plains stretching from Mellieha to Birzebbuga. This land degradation and ungodly urbanised (lacking any appeal) plateaus are any islanders worst nightmare.

Throughout this article, I might sound overly dramatic and I could easily say: we are on the brink of annihilation, on the front lines of this battle for mother earth and our future; and hope that would prove to you how crucial a role we all have to play in the avoidance of this hellish nightmare that`s sitting on our doorstep, and leave it at that. However, that might sound to most like hippie nonsense so I`ll try a different approach and be more graceful throughout this piece.

I don`t know about you, but personally in the corner of my mind I do find myself occasionally having a conversation with myself (or sometimes with actual people) about the perception of distance. Us Maltese tend to find it, somewhat begrudgingly to travel from one side of the island to the other, or even a 1 or 2-hour drive is often regarded as a day`s trip; while for our friends across the pond, those from mainland Europe, seem to regard distance somewhat differently. For instance, if you had to travel from one of the northern most cities in France, Dunkirk, to one of the southern most cities in France, Perpignan, it would roughly take you 11 hours to cross circa 1,140.7km. While in Malta, from Birzebbuga to Mellieha, roughly a distance for 28.5km is estimated to take 39 minutes. But as we know all too well, with the number of cars on the road, it would take 2 or 3 hours depending on traffic.

While we can appreciate the different perception of distance, we need to recognise that we live under this illusion of a grand distance from one side of our tiny island to the other. For instance, let`s compare a port city in southern France, Marseille, which has an area of 240.6km² with a population of 861,635, while in Malta we have an area of 316km² with a population of 518,536. We fail to realise that Malta is but a microstate. It should not take us all these hours to cross our beautiful country. If it hasn’t occurred to people yet, by tackling the issue of construction and transportation, Malta would not be just any old concrete jungle, but could rise to heights of how people regard grand cities like Dubai. Malta can be a great, sustainable, blue-green circular economic, megalopolitan microstate.

More people in the street means more cars on the road. In Malta we have got used to butchering the little nature we have left, to replace the trees with concrete pillars to hold our junctions, soil with tarmac, animal sounds with machine noise. Last October, the NSO released a shocking statement how the stock of licensed motor vehicles stood at 422,576 (74.9% were passenger cars). That’s more than half our population. This increase in vehicles, 58.8% of which are petrol-powered engines and 36.9% of which are diesel-powered engines, have tremendous environmental and health issues.

As you can see, we miss the forest for the trees, but now we miss it for the cars. This dire issue is affecting us all: past, present, and future. What I mean by this is that we, the present, have a duty to change the face of the past for the future. We are the road to change. Nothing can be changed until we face this challenge. 

For a state of our size, shouldn`t we opt to be Greener? We could utilise the roads we have and convert their purpose for transportations to that of trams, which fills the gap between trains and buses. They can carry large numbers of people, are faster than buses, and can stop more often than trains. Trams would help add to our aesthetic capital, improve our air quality, reduce congestion, tackle climate change, cutting down on car expenses…just to name a few. Does this not already sound much nicer? Obviously, this is just one idea. There are various political parties and organisations, such as: Rota- who advocate for sustainable mobility in Malta for instance bicycle transportation.

Changing the face of the Maltese public transport will encourage people to leave their cars behind. Imagine not having to worry about parking, petrol consumption, car maintenance and so on, and instead using that extra cash to treat yourself. Obviously, Malta needs a multifaceted and sustainable solution to make the shabby buses, and the act of being packed like sardines gasping for air, a thing of the past. Imagine taking the public transport that is sustainable, is on time, aesthetically pleasing, having plenty of leg space, and actually getting to your job on time.

Obviously, cars will not be eliminated. As such, hybrid/electric cars should therefore be the definition and face of the Maltese private transport. This will in turn help create more pedestrianised and bicycle friendly towns which would add to our aesthetic capital and improve our health.

This is just the beginning, the beginning of the end of all worries hopefully, and unlike Babylon, Malta won’t fall. We need to start step by step, from the bottom, and work our way up or we will never live to see Malta achieve greater heights. After all, we the people have the power to redeem the work of fools, and through our collaboration we can pump life back into our islands.   

This article was written by an independent writer whose views are not associated with The Third Eye. The Third Eye strives to be the student’s voice, and that entails giving them a platform to voice their opinions.

The post The Road to Change? appeared first on The Third Eye.

Earlier this year, on the 3rd of May, the constitutional affairs committee proposed to reform
the European Electoral Act, defining common minimum electoral standards and a Unionwide constituency #MajorReform to EU electoral laws!

Transnational list: the what, the why, the what next?

To avoid all the heavy jargon that politics brings with it, this reform would have seen 28 additional MEPs that would be elected on an EU-wide list, but would not substitute for the Member State MEP list. The parameters of this transnational list would also ensure a balanced geographical representation, equal access to ballots with postal voting and gender-balanced lists, as well as a minimum age to stand for said election.

All this was brought forward in the hopes of building a real European public sphere that
would foster essentially political debates on key issues that we as EU citizens face, as well as
the threats that directly impact the Union.

While to some this might simply be pure idealism, the transnational list was also proposed to contribute to the solidification of a truly and democratic European political system. Essentially, we the voters, would have voted for the National list (our 6 Maltese MEPs) and voted for the European list (the one that is made up of said 28 MEPs).

This 2-ballot list is there to address the plethora of political issues, inefficiencies, and the needs of the people.

For the most part, its not uncommon that people do not give a rat’s arse to secondary elections. Can`t quite blame them completely if they do not understand nor feel as close to the EU as they wish. Why would they when Brussels is so far away in their hearts, since most of what goes on is not communicated that well. Then, you have the problem of secondary elections not given as much care, whereby the parties that start gobbling it up are the ones that instead of wanting to better the Union and the lives of its people, they want to cripple it. Our country, like many other EU states, has been faced with the rise of Euroscepticism, Nativist, and Far-Right tendencies. You see this with each EU election. In our very own
country, the ultra-far right party keeps gathering sizeable support.

Now this proposed reform would have given more validity to European elections, would have ensured that MEPs do not succumb to national bias, held accountable by all, and push for stronger European political families in parliament that would all translate into a more democratic parliament and EU.

Drafted Termination

According to the draft conclusion prepared in advance to the upcoming EU leaders gathering, the Council indicated that there was “no unanimity in favour of the European Parliament`s proposal as it stands”. Most of the delegation seemed to be opposed to the key political innovations. The worry is that this undermines “the principle of subsidiarity and proportionality concerning provisions which go in the direction of establishing a uniform procedure in all member states.

Concluding remarks

As citizens we have the duty to listen to the decisions taken by the ones we elect. It is our
duty to hold them accountable and educate ourselves to things that will inherently affect us,
whether we like it or not.

As students we should not shy away from reading, from understanding and whatnot the
realities of the world around us. To not let ourselves be cut off from those realities as we
submerge ourselves in our studies, as that will only dull us.

The intention of this piece was to bring EU Affairs closer to your attention, while hoping to raise awareness for the much needed activism, active citizenship, and EU reformation, for this Christmas, we are most likely going to see the once brightly lit up Spitzenkandidat Christmas tree, effectively getting the axe.

This article was written by an independent writer whose views are not associated with The Third Eye. The Third Eye strives to be the student’s voice, and that entails giving them a platform to voice their opinions.

The post Krampus goes to Brussels? The killing of the Spitzenkandidaten and the transnational list appeared first on The Third Eye.

You’d imagine a country, constitutionally Roman-Catholic, with more than 85% of its population being ardent believers, to be fairly conservative and traditionalistic.

You’d imagine a country which has been following the path of further Europeanisation to be quite liberal and progressive.

Yet, when it comes to our country’s political climate and political culture, you realise we are somewhat unique: a country plagued by political illiteracy and political fanaticism, run by administerial-type politicians that lack any sense of vision for the state and the nation. This can easily be seen and spotted when you look towards social issues within the country itself.

We rank 1st in Europe when it comes to LGBTQIA+ Rights for 7 consecutive years, and in 2021 becoming the first EU country to legalise recreational cannabis. Then you have the polar opposite, leading Europe in the most authoritarian rules when it comes to abortion. Aside from these, let us not forget how the sex work industry in the country is an administrational blunder – simply put, it’s a wild west, with plenty of topics like euthanasia, the lack of disentanglement between political parties and media relations, and education reforms still not being talked about enough.

I might not be a medical practitioner nor student. I am but a simple political science student, however, I’d say that the country suffers from a complete Napoleonic complex.

This in itself stems from Malta`s long history of bipolarisation that acts as a slippery slope for progress and innovation.

Therefore, you realise early on that the political culture here is one based on family tradition, which often more times than not, lacks any reason and logic for their loyalty and vote.

In the “Political Fanaticism in Malta” article by independent writer Katrina, a profoundly important point was mentioned: “Politics seeps its way into our educational experience in subtle ways.” Be it the student parties, or the media, family and friends, the constant feeding of bipartisan politics and traditionalistic views on politics; we vilify politics as if it is simply dirty and corrupt; we fear discussing or openly making logical political statements – yet we glorify the party leaders as if they are above us, separate from our mortal world – and we permit ourselves to remain ignorant of political matters and ignorant of our political duties.

Essentially all this disdain poisons our minds and limits our education, which in turn impacts the level of actual active citizenry.

But to cut to the chase.

Strong political neutrality is needed to avoid the nuances of the political-religious jargon where it is not required, as to give justice to these social issues that are present in our society and to avoid the superficiality that is traditionally taken with them, primarily to tackle the misnomers associated with them.

Our political climate and system essentially comprise three actors that have a close relationship with the public and leverage over them, these being: Political Parties, the Catholic Church, and the Government.

Therefore, it is important that there is a serious public discussion without the interference of these actors. A series of debates that have the backing of the government but include all voices, not simply the powerful and popular voices, and not simply from one strain of the argument, as to provide an honest and just platform for the people, and help citizens to formulate their own opinion so as to effectively exert their right to vote.

By properly educating the public through extensive debates and campaigns that include all the relevant actors, no matter how big or small, to present the various cases for the different hotpot topics, this will help avoid sham referendums and formulation of open-ended politics that will only derail democracy further, as well as help make the public more politically literate.

This article was written by an independent writer whose views are not associated with The Third Eye. The Third Eye strives to be the student’s voice, and that entails giving them a platform to voice their opinions.

The post Malta’s Napoleonic Complex Love For Taboo Topics appeared first on The Third Eye.