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.

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.

Written by Lara Bajada Young and Andrew Alexander Caruana

How are the EU’s efforts helping the Maltese Islands become greener and more sustainable?

Sustainable development refers to different societies making use of the resources they need without taking up the resources for future generations. Through this practice, people must learn how to leave things in a better state or as they found them. This important phrase refers to three pillars; the economy, the social and the environment working together in equal harmony to lead a greener and more sustainable life.

The European Union has given a lot of importance to this through its Directives, where they aim at solving a current environmental issue to better one’s health and lifestyle. These directives are a necessity as they help protect, conserve and restore natural habitats and species. Some other topics that have been tackled within these directives include: conducting assessments on air quality in order to detect and control the various pollutants found in the atmosphere, provide a cleaner water supply, ensure proper waste management and helping businesses move towards a more sustainable approach to the economy.

The European Union also provided its member states with a great initiative known as The European Green Deal’s Investment Plan. Climate change and environmental degradation are a huge threat to the Earth and in order to overcome this challenge, The European Commission has decided that it needs a new growth strategy to transition its Union into a more resource-efficient and competitive economy. Their main aim is to transition to a climate-neutral, green economy and to diminish net emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050.

This investment plan is based on investing sustainably a minimum of €1 trillion over the next 10 years. Providing new incentives to redirect their public and private funding so that The EU would provide tools to facilitate sustainable funding at the top of their list to promote green budgeting and procurement. Lastly, The EU Commission will help support public plans and projects which are designed to be more sustainable.

Why haven’t the EU’s efforts to slow down climate change not worked as effectively yet?

In 2007 the European leaders created a climate and energy package to ensure that the European Union (EU) meets its climate and energy targets by 2020. The package sets three key targets: a 20% cut in greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 levels, renewables must account for 20% of the EU energy and the energy efficiency needs to improve by 20 percent. The package is also a headline target for smart, sustainable, and inclusive growth.

Official data from the European Environmental Agency (EEA) showed that greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions had already decreased beyond the 20% reduction target in 2014. The levels were 24% lower than they were in 1990. This prompted praise from some quarters but also criticism that the goals were not tough enough. Hans Bruyninckx, executive director of the EEA, said the shift was encouraging. However, climate campaigners argued that the Paris agreement could have been more demanding.

The success of the EU showed that the targets were not ambitious enough, particularly since some European Union countries will now overshoot their 2020 goal by at least 10%. Climate campaigners argued that the aim for a 40% cut by 2030 was far too lenient. Wendel Trio, director of Climate Action Network (CAN) Europe, said the achievement proved the EU’s “climate policies were out of touch with reality”. He added that the findings were further proof that the Paris Climate Agreement, which academics said was “inadequate”, had not been stringent enough. “The findings demonstrate that the EU could easily increase its climate target for 2030 in order to reach the goals of the Paris Agreement.

Unfortunately, the European leaders agreed that they need to raise their climate ambition above the existing target, but they did not endorse a proposal to cut greenhouse gas emissions by at least 55% when compared to 1990 levels. Eastern EU countries that depend on coal for much of their energy needs were not enthusiastic about this proposal and as a result, it was not approved. The European Union will try to find a consensus in the next meeting in December since every member state needs to endorse the revised target. However, scientists have argued that unless drastic steps are taken right now that cut down greenhouse gas emissions, countries will miss both goals from the Paris Agreement (to keep the global warming increase below 2 degrees Celsius, and ideally no more than 1.5 degrees C).

The European Union must take action now. Some countries like Norway already generate 99% of their electricity from hydropower – a renewable source of energy and in Denmark on one particularly windy day the country produced 140% of its electricity needs and sold the excess off to Germany. These findings clearly show that the European Union could actually increase its 2030 targets and one can thus conclude that although the European Union is actually making advancements in slowing down climate change, its efforts could be much better.

The post Combating Climate Change and the European Union | EU&STEM appeared first on The Third Eye.

Beyond The Influence

The world of drugs is wide and large. This campaign firstly intended on raising awareness of drug use and abuse (yes, there’s a difference) amongst young adults. It also covered illicit drug activities- particularly drug trafficking as well as the kind of effects drugs have on the body and mind. The effectiveness of drug treatment and rehab was also covered. But it went beyond that too; touching upon how law enforcement may be enhanced to fit the holistic context of drugs as well as the judicial cooperation and legislation in the EU.

The wide array of topics covered highlights how interconnected societal systems are in relation to the individual and the kinds of decisions they make, especially when it comes to drugs.

Meet the Panelists – The National and European Impact of Drug Use

A discussion of such high importance cannot be held without a well-informed collective. For this reason, KSU brought to the panel four professional guest speakers from various backgrounds to implement a vibrant discussion.

Karen Mamo – with a background in Harm Reduction and Conflict resolution, Mamo raised awareness about the necessity of dialogue. Her inclusive approach ensures the promotion of health and wellbeing for people who use substances.

Julian Delia – an up and coming journalist for the Times of Malta. His activism as one of the former founding members of ReLeaf brought well educated and researched contributions to the discussion on legalisation, regulation and taxation of cannabis.

Dr. Philip von Brockdorff – Head of the Department of Economics at UoM. His profession as an applied economist and contributions to the economic review of several Government policies made him a key speaker on drug-related policies which were discussed in this panel.

The Honourable Claudette Buttigieg – Deputy Speaker of the Parliament of Malta. She is also PN’s spokesperson on Social Policy and the Family. Her work in the fields of Equality, Social Dialogue and Health contributed greatly to the conversation on the National and European Impact of Drug Use.

It’s All About Policy

As mentioned above, ‘The National and European Impact of Drug Use’ was the final panel discussion in this campaign’s series. This particular discussion focused on the following policy areas of the Drug Policy. These being the;

1. ‘Drug Demand Reduction’ which aims at reducing the publics desire for illicit and illegal drugs.
2. ‘Drug Supply Reduction’ which aims at interrupting drug trafficking across various transportation modes.

Despite the increase in this policy’s implementations, drug use is still a prominent issue. The campaign tackled this by paying particular attention to Malta’s implementation of the EU minimum quality standards. The discussion also talked about enhancing security and enhancing effective judicial cooperation and legislation in the EU as potential solutions.

To Legalise or not to Legalise?

The panel delved beyond policies too! Besides touching upon all aspects of illicit trafficking of drugs- if and how the legalisation of drugs will have an effect on it for instance. They also focused on the hypothetical impact legalising particular drugs would have on the drug demand and supply relationship in Europe. Will legalisations result in an increase or decrease in demand? Following this, a discussion on the negative and positive impacts of decriminalisation ensued. After decriminalisation, EU countries like Portugal experienced significant drops in overdoses, HIV infection and drug-related crimes occurred in. Could and should Malta follow suit on this basis?

The Cannabis Conundrum

Particular attention was given to a rather hot topic in the drug world at the moment- cannabis. Questions on the panel included the contrasts between recreational and medical cannabis- accessibility being a prominent issue. Although medical cannabis has been legalised, contrasting regulations regarding it have hindered its movement as a good across States. This was tackled through legislation amendments made by the European Medicinal Cannabis Alliance. The speculated impacts this harmonising motion has had on Maltese citizens using cannabis as a treatment was touched upon.

Apart from this, the conditions regarding legalisation of Recreational Cannabis in Malta was also posed. Questions included, “What kind of restrictions should be posed regarding consumption?” And secondly, “how can Cannabis’ reputation as a gateway drug be combatted, especially given this potential legalisation? “

Your FuturEU

On top of the Drug Awareness Campaign, KSU will be holding another two campaigns co-funded by the EU. These campaigns form part of the umbrella campaign Your FuturEU, all oriented towards the well-being of students and young adults. Check out KSU’s space for more information on the upcoming The Future is Equal: A Gender Equality Campaign and Mind Your Health: A Mental Health Campaign. We’re fervently anticipating these campaigns and holding them to the same standard as ‘Beyond the Influence’.

The post Zooming in: KSU’s ‘Beyond The Influence’ Campaign appeared first on The Third Eye.

Written by Juanita Galea

The sun, too, is a star.

North Macedonia’s ostentatious yet elegant motto for its campaign to enter into the European Union truly reflects the aspirations of the former Yugoslav republic. The question of what will arise from the Balkan country’s aspirations have definitely gained international attention.

North Macedonia’s accession to the EU has been part of the contemporary agenda for future enlargement of the European Union since 2005, with negotiations expected to start on the 15th of October 2019. Yet, these negotiations were immediately halted, due to disagreements among the various European Union member states, most significantly France.

North Macedonia, or as it was then known, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, originally submitted its membership application in the same year that Malta became an official EU member— in 2004, 13 years after it gained independence from Yugoslavia.

North Macedonia is currently one of five countries that are currently EU candidates for accession, the others being Albania, Montenegro, Serbia and Turkey.

The dispute between Greece and Macedonia

It is significant to note that Macedonia was the first non-EU country in the Balkans to form a part of the Stabilisation and Association Process in 2001. In 2004, the Macedonian government adopted a national strategy for EU integration, supported by the country’s parliament through its commission for European issues.

Therefore, as early as 2004, we can see a Macedonia which is working to strive for closer ties and links with the Western European bloc. At this point in time, Macedonian accession into the European Union was blocked by Greece, who exerted her veto power (which could be used in the case of new accessions), mainly due to the naming dispute. While the country preferred to be called by its constitutional name— the Republic of Macedonia, Greece felt that this was a threat to its territories in the northern province of Macedonia.

Yet, on the 12th of June of 2018, the Prespa Agreement was signed between the Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras and his Macedonian counterpart— Zarev Zaev. Through this agreement, there was mutual consensus that this country (Macedonia) should be renamed as the “Republic of North Macedonia”.

As a result of this deal, Greece withdrew its previous position of total opposition, paving the way for accession talks with the EU to begin. Economically, North Macedonia is currently receiving €1.3 billion in development aid till 2020, through the pre-accession assistance instrument. It is also interesting to note that the Albanians of North Macedonia are traditionally strongly pro-EU.

Donald Tusk’s tweet after the bloc summit

European Union leaders have as of yet failed to initiate membership negotiations with both North Macedonia, as well as Albania, with Brexit and other issues taking over the main headlines instead.  France had been at the forefront of objections for the accession of both these countries, together with the Netherlands and Denmark.

In a tweet at the time, Donald Tusk (who has been the President of the European Council since 2014) shared his solidarity with the people of Albania and of North Macedonia, after the failure of the decision taken at the bloc summit.

“Don’t give up! You did your share and we didn’t. But I have absolutely no doubt that you will become full members of the EU.”

Donald Tusk

Mr. Tusk’s words seem to be ringing true, as Mr. Oliver Varhelyi, the EU Commissioner in charge of enlargement announced that membership negotiations with North Macedonia and Albania could re-start within weeks amid good progress made by the two Balkan countries in their preparations.

Is Macedonia meeting European norms?

France’s main argument for being so staunchly against Albanian and North Macedonian accession is due to its politicians believing that the accession process itself is in dire need of reform, and therefore in their opinion, the two countries should wait until after such reforms have been discussed and eventually implemented.

The European Commission did take into consideration these arguments and earlier this February, proposed reforms to the enlargement process which would give more of a voice to EU governments and would make it easier to freeze funds and to stop or reset negotiations. Subsequently, France and the Netherlands both indicated that enlargement negotiations could start if the Commission gave North Macedonia and Albania gave both countries a positive review.

According to President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen, “enormous efforts to meet European norms” have taken place in both countries. This, together with the publication of the Commission’s report this week raises hopes for North Macedonia to finally become a member of the EU.

What is in store for the EU and Macedonia?

North Macedonia has on numerous occasions shown the extent of its commitment towards the process of accession into the European Union. When one looks at all the steps forward it has made to build sincere relationships with the EU, one sees the actions of a country which merits being taken seriously.

Pro-EU sentiment within the Balkans should be received positively. It is unacceptable that North Macedonia, a state which even compromised on its own name to be given a chance towards EU membership, had the rug swept from under its feet. North Macedonia would not only expand the European Union’s borders, but it also has a lot to bring to the table in terms of industry as well as culture.

North Macedonian accession into the EU shouldn’t be seen with hostile eyes, but rather it should be seen as an opportunity to further increase stability and influence, with closer connections to eastern Europe. With the European Commission lauding North Macedonia’s progress, it is expected that a start date for accession negotiation is to be announced in the coming weeks, finally formally starting the process towards North Macedonia’s much-deserved membership.

The post A star is born | JEF Malta appeared first on The Third Eye.

MEP Francis Zammit Dimech made these remarks after the European Parliament adopted its proposal for the next Erasmus programme for the next 7 years.

Zammit Dimech had consulted with various organisations including KSU (Kunsill Studenti Universitarji), KNZ (Kunsill Nazzjonali Zghazagh), ESU (European Students Union) and sports organisations in both Malta and Gozo. In his first intervention at the European Parliament over a year ago Zammit Dimech had raised the concerns of youths and students with respect to bureaucracy and delays in the application phase and problems with recognition of studies conducted in other educational institutions. Zammit Dimech had also raised these concerns with the European Commissioner for Education, Youth and Sport. He had also invited Erasmus participants from Malta and Gozo to give feedback to the EU institutions during a special event held at the European Parliament and the European Commission on the 30th Anniversary of Erasmus. Zammit Dimech explained how the new provisions call for administrative support for applicants making it more user-friendly.

In the Committee of Education, Youth and Sport of which he is a member, Zammit Dimech had raised with the rapporteur the need to make Erasmus more inclusive and to ensure that persons from disadvantaged backgrounds are not excluded from the programme due to economical barriers. The increase in funding means that more young people will participate in this programme. In this regard Zammit Dimech explained how Malta’s national agency will be called to come up with measures to provide more financial support for mobility, adjust monthly grants and regularly review living and subsistence costs as needed.

Zammit Dimech had also pushed for more emphasis on sports. “I have visited several nurseries and sports organisation over the past months. We have some good practices but I have seen a clear desire by sports organisations to participate in Erasmus exchanges. This is why I have appealed for Erasmus to shift from a focus on academia only and give due importance to sport too”. Zammit Dimech added that Malta and Gozo experience a high rate of obesity and diabetes. We need to invest more in sport including at the grassroots level. The proposal of the European Parliament also pushes for this. In this regard the programme is now also providing budget to allow young athletes and sport coaches to participate in mobility schemes.

The programme is also good news for MCAST as Vocational education exchanges have also been considered as a priority.

The proposal has also envisaged funding for the DiscoverEU initiative to ensure that more young people can travel for free when turning 18. Meanwhile emphasis was made on the need to further develop the programme and include a learning component and proper dissemination of the experience.

The agreement needs to be negotiated and agreed with council. Zammit Dimech urged the Maltese government to use all its resources in Brussels to ensure that Council supports the European Parliament’s proposal during negotiations. Zammit Dimech recalled how several organisations including KNZ had insisted for the budget to increase. “We need a concerted effort to make this happen” he concluded.

The post Erasmus Budget to Triple | Francis Zammit Dimech’s Proposal Approved in EU Parliament appeared first on The Third Eye.

This was the prime focus of a conference hosted by ALDE and PD, entitled ‘Young People and Political Renewal in Europe’. Youth organisations collectively discussed how to get youth more politically involved on a European scale and how to distance Maltese youth from the polarised local political scene. 

There is low awareness of what is going on in the EU amongst Maltese youth. The local climate is polarised, and people vote for MEPs based on the party they belong to, not the policies of the European Parliamentary group. To get youth engaged the policies addressed to them need to be repackaged and made relatable to them. This way young people can feel more involved in issues concerning them and make informed decisions, rather than voting for MEPs based on local issues.

However, even voting every 5 years is blatantly not enough. Participation should be continuous and active so as to bring about positive change and improvement. Youths need to take responsibility. People need to learn to identify themselves from their beliefs and create a distinction as far as identity goes. Ideas should be based on their own merits and be put forward proudly.

We need to take responsibility and be the ones to change the world, rather than wait for the world to change itself.

The post European Youth – why don’t we care? appeared first on The Third Eye.