Meet the new team:

• President – Andrew Micallef
• Vice President – Nicole Spiteri
• Secretary General – Nikos Chircop
• Financial Officer – Timon Nuernberger
• International Officer – Andrea Pavia
• Project Officers – Kyle Patrick Camilleri and Nicholas Cauchi
• Civic Education Officers – Joanna Camilleri and Jake Muscat
• Public Relations Officer – Julianne Vella
• Press Officer – Selina Holgersson
• Events & Outreach Officer – Juanita Galea
• Operations Officer – Liam Gatt

The Third Eye got in touch with the current President, Andrew Micallef and former President, Emma Vella, to get their comments on the new and previous term.

I am humbled to have been chosen to lead JEF Malta as President for this term. The past year and a half have been a huge challenge for all student organisations, but despite everything, we at JEF Malta managed to adapt our work to the new reality we faced. I look forward to lead such a fantastic team of talented individuals towards relaunching our projects, events and activities for this year. We want to especially focus on revitalising the social and political debate by bringing young people and policymakers together, especially as we emerge from the pandemic. Most of all though, JEF Malta remains committed to its main aim of working towards a more united and democratic Europe.

Andrew Micallef, JEF Malta President

Even though this past year proved to be challenging due to the pandemic, JEF Malta was still able to further the cause of European integration and federalism through its hard-working executive. I wish the best of luck to the newly elected executive, I am sure they will take JEF Malta to a whole new level and make themselves and past alumni very proud.

Emma Vella, Former JEF Malta President

The Third Eye wishes the best of luck to the new team! We look forward to continue working with this ever-growing organisation.

The post Andrew Micallef to lead JEF Malta for 21/22 appeared first on The Third Eye.

By Alexander Borg

Few in history have had as influential a mark on the bond between the British Isles and the European Continent as the illustrious Winston Churchill;

“If Europe were once united in the sharing of its common inheritance, there would be no limit to the happiness, to the prosperity and glory which its three or four hundred million people would enjoy […] We must build a kind of United States of Europe.”

These words sealed Churchill’s symbolic role in founding the European family of nations. This being very different from the powerful forty-two years on when another wartime Conservative premier once again contributed towards a paradigm shift in the European political landscape:

“We have not successfully rolled back on the frontiers of the state in Britain, only to see them re-imposed at a European level with a European super-state exercising a new dominance from Brussels.”

Margret Thatcher’s notorious Bruges Speech of 1988 arguably set the U.K. on the road to Brexit. By establishing Euroscepticism as a serious movement in British and European politics, a movement that ultimately culminated in the monumental referendum of 2016.

Today, Britain has yet another Conservative premier in a tug-of-war with the European question; Boris Johnson, a relatively recent convert to Euroscepticism. This government’s actions with regards to Europe will undoubtedly be under scrutiny for years to come. One comes to understand the present, and even the future of Anglo-European relations, by analysing its past.

Decline of the Age of Imperialism

In 1957, the colonial empires of Britain and France were quelled with a single, bloody strike by an emboldened Egypt. Egypt was being led by the Pan-Arab Nationalist Gamal Abdel Nasser. The defeat of Paris and London at the hands of Nasser’s Egypt uprooted decades of Franco-British control over North Africa and the Middle East. It effectively terminated the imperial powers’ era of colonial hegemony over the region.

Between 1958 and 1969, the French Republic was effectively governed by one man: Charles de Gaulle. The wartime leader of Free France turned the first President of the Fifth Republic. He is who controversially wielded emergency powers in Paris as a consequence of the Algerian War, while concurrently taking advantage of his newfound strength to assert French leadership in Europe.

French Leadership and British Stagnation

De Gaulle employed France’s effective leadership of the European Economic Community (EEC) to explicitly block British accession requests from the Labour government under Harold Wilson on two grounds. Firstly, that Britain would not be as committed to European unity and integration as France or any of the other EEC members at that stage. Secondly, that Britain would serve as a lobby for US influence over Western Europe. For these reasons, de Gaulle was passionate about his opposition to British accession.

In 1969, de Gaulle was succeeded by his former Prime Minister, Georges Pompidou, who finally lifted the French veto to allow Britain. It is now under Edward Heath’s pro-European Conservative government, to accede to the EEC in 1973. In the following years, the Elysée was inherited by Giscard-d’Estaing and Mitterrand. They are both loyal pro-European presidents who worked to ally the French political consensus with European integration and close cooperation with the West. They later also re-unified, Germany.

On the other side of the English Channel, Britain’s relationship with Europe was still undecided and would face countless bumps on the road to the present. The 1975 referendum being one example. Wilson’s second premiership in 1974 and succession by James Callaghan in 1976 saw a period of stagnation in the British economy, infamously epitomised by the ‘Winter of Discontent’.

From Neo-Liberal Thatcherism to New Labour to Now

In 1979, came what was meant to be the Tory Spring to Labour’s Winter as Margaret Thatcher was swept to power with a landslide victory for the Conservatives. Thatcher’s optimistic views towards Europe soured as economic and political integration hastened, standing in direct contrast to Thatcher’s laissez-faire capitalist views at home. The usurpation of Thatcher by John Major in 1990 as Conservative leader and Prime Minister signalled a significant change in the Conservative government’s view of Europe; in 1992, Major avidly signed the Treaty of Maastricht which established the EU as the more politically integrated successor to the EEC.

In 1997, the Conservatives were replaced by Tony Blair, who led the Labour Party to its first ever major landslide in recent years, having re-branded the socialist movement into ‘New Labour’, a socially progressive and broadly pro-European party that went as far as to even adopt a lot of the Conservatives’ economic policies.

With the onset of deepening public disapproval of New Labour, Tony Blair resigned in 2007, handing over the Labour leadership to Gordon Brown. In spite of his efforts in grappling with the fallout of crises inherited under Blair, Brown was voted out after just 3 years, being replaced by another Conservative premier, the fence-straddling David Cameron. During this time, one can properly evaluate why and how things came to a grinding halt after 2016, leading to the current turbulence of trade negotiations.

Getting to Grips with it all

The idea of splendid isolation stuck for as long as Westminster politicians were preoccupied with an empire upon which the Sun never set. Following the unparalleled political upheaval of the World Wars in the 20th century, the British Empire declined and faded into the annals of history. While France, following Suez, did face significant internal upheaval, leaders in the Elysée have always found confidence in consolidating the strength and influence of France in Europe. Britain, on the other hand, simply never found its own place in the World after 1957. Instead, British leaders have been desperate to wear an American leash in international affairs, as a junior partner beholden to a former colony.

Of course, the UK could always look to Europe, making use of its closest European partners as a means for British leadership to shadow Germany’s. To act as a leader in, or of, Europe however, would certainly mean concessions, just as other nations have conceded for the sake of integration, something the UK has never intended to do. It is for that reason that one may come to the saddening conclusion that maybe General de Gaulle was right after all, in that Britain never deserved to form part of a united Europe on account of Britons’ refusal to do so.

Perhaps, a glimmer of hope for the UK, one that is both near Europe, yet far from the Union. However, this does not mean that Britain ought to be antagonized by today’s European Union.

Europe must acknowledge Britain as a separate state. A separate state which while alongside a greater, more powerful and united European family of nations, will never serve as a father, mother, uncle or aunt, but as a neighbour upon whom Europe can always rely on as an ally and friend. Bound by the common and unbreakable virtues of democracy, freedom, the entrepreneurial spirit, international peace and security, opposition to terrorism, hatred and tyranny. Britain and the EU, both with the common goal of preserving peace, security and stability both on the European continent, as well as on the international stage as a whole.

The post Brexit In-depth: A Longtime Coming? | JEF Malta appeared first on The Third Eye.

Written By Selina Holgersson and Nikos Chircop

On the 7th of February 2020, when Europe was still at the cusp of the pandemic, Patrick George Zaki, a Masters student of Gender Studies at the University of Bologna, was detained under dubious pretences upon returning to his native Egypt for a family visit.

Till this day, he remains in arbitrary detention. While a number of reputable news outlets have reported shocking allegations of torture methods, ranging from beatings to electric shocks being used on the 27-year-old activist, his mother, who recently was allowed to visit him, found him in a relatively good state of health. 

The Egyptian authorities’ premise for his arrest is based on his ‘dissemination of fake news, and incitement of protest, violence, and terrorist crimes’. These claims, made by what is after all a military dictatorship, hold little clout upon seeing Zaki’s work in promoting human rights, especially the rights of minority groups in society. This surely doesn’t merit the 13 to 25-year prison sentence that the Al Sisi regime is intending for Zaki.

While not a citizen of the European Union, Zaki was living and studying in the EU through the Erasmus Mundus programme, which is directly supported by the European Commission. Zaki certainly isn’t being protected by Egyptian institutions like the courts who not only accepted a falsified police report, but allowed for his fifteen-day pre-detention trial, and neither by his country’s mainstream media which, in an attempt to humiliate him, have called him ‘a terrorist and a subversive and degenerate homosexual’. It is precisely for these reasons that we owe it to Zaki to raise awareness, and pressure our authorities to step up their game in promoting values of press freedom, rule of law, and fundamental human rights. 

In recent years, the EU has become a hotspot for young international students looking for quality education. According to Eurostat, over 0.6 million first residence permits for the purpose of educational activities were issued in 2016. The majority of EU-based universities cater to international students and through programmes like Erasmus Mundus, Europe has widened the doors for international students.

Universities have never existed within a vacuum, rather, they have historically been pillars of our societies, as well as a community within a community. The Commission has even gone as far as to introduce incentives that encourage international students to stay beyond the completion of their studies, such as simplified application procedures, the possibility for post-grads to remain in Europe while searching for a job, full access to the labour market, and lower salary requirements. Most EU-27 countries also allow third-country nationals with student permits to work for a maximum number of 15 hours per week, thus contributing to their economies.

However, the case of Patrick Zaki exposes the flaws within the European push for third-country students. International students do not just benefit from our academic institutions, but they actively contribute to our stellar academic record and also to our economy. They become ingrained in our society, they become our university colleagues, they become our friends, and they become a part of our community.

We cannot deprive international students of the rights we give European citizens, as thanks to their determination, they have undefined, but vital roles in our society. As one of the most influential political entities in the world, we cannot dismiss our moral responsibility to protect the people who contribute to the functioning and well-being of our society. 

Patrick Zaki unfortunately falls within a group of people who have slipped through the cracks, who have been left undefined and vulnerable by the failure to recognise universities as communities and failure to recognise the status of third-country national students. Students and academics at the University of Bologna have called for the EU to step in to help their colleague, and to sever academic ties with countries that no longer fulfil their moral obligations. After all, how can we support regimes which suppress the values we cherish so greatly in our society?

Authoritarian regimes suppress the critical thinking and intellectual achievements of their academics, and our institutions that continue working alongside these regimes are complacent in the suppression of free speech. With only 16% to 30% of international students remaining in the EU after graduation, we cannot teach a generation of third-country nationals to be critical thinkers only for them to be punished for it in countries that we actively maintain a relationship with. 

To know more and see what you can do to help #FreePatrick you can access the European Students’ Union’s dedicated webpage here and sign their petition.

The post When human rights need not apply | JEF Malta appeared first on The Third Eye.

This simulation would not have been possible without ERASMUS+ funding as well as the help of MEUSAC and the EUPA.

What is IDE?

Former Projects Officers Adam McCarthy and Bernice Zarb explain:

IDE started with the perceived need to provide a different experience for youths who want to participate in politics by debating and speaking about subjects that impact our lives on a daily basis. As JEF Malta, we decided to take on this idea from the unique perspective of a more integrated form of the European Union.

This was done through the formation of three different bodies consisting of the Government of Europe, Parliament and Senate. Each section played a significant role in forming legislation as well as creating a financial resolution that sought to exemplify tangible solutions the EU could take with issues similar to the topic in hand. The main topics discussed throughout IDE were the environment, the economy, culture, and education. These are topics which heavily concern today’s youths, due to their direct impact on their livelihood and quality of life, as well as their overall implication to society as a whole. Furthermore, the ideal solutions to these topics are highly subjective and controversial, with benefits and problems arising from the ideas on either side of the debate.

Giving participants the opportunity to debate these topics as well as create legislation about them was an important aspect of the simulation, as it allowed youths to voice their own opinions on such issues, rather than those of other people. This aspect of the simulation was amplified by the fact that the participants were encouraged to form their own political parties, rather than being assigned one. Because of this feature, participants had the liberty to experiment with and research different political ideologies, which would help them develop their own personal ideals which they would uphold in their future lives.

As the different parties argued in Parliament about the future of Europe’s position with regard to the topic of the session, a smaller group of individuals were having a very different discussion at the Senate. In the latter context, each participant was assigned a country they would represent, where they would have to represent that particular country’s views and geopolitical standing on the topic at hand. However, after a brief statement made by each participant, they were presented with a crisis that requires immediate attention. The participants would then need to employ the research they had done to try and deal with the crisis in a manner which would coincide with their own country’s stances and political tendencies.

Overall, the simulation put all participants through situations in which they had to apply their critical thinking and could rapidly nurture a wide variety of skills, such as compromise, teamwork and lobbying. The result of this was blatantly evident during the course of the simulation, in which the participants’ performance improved steadily between each session.

Juanita Galea shares her experience of IDE

In my view, IDE was a very well organised simulation that really challenged some pre-conceived notions I held with regard to certain topics such as the economy. The simulation brought together individuals who held different political views and alignments, with at times diametrically opposing ideologies. The beauty of IDE comes from the fact that it instigates a fruitful debate between different individuals, and it motivates them not to back down and always fight for what they believe in. At the same time, listening to other participants’ perspectives indeed helped me in cultivating my own opinion, be it when my opinion was challenged — or instead reaffirmed. IDE not only helped me improve as an individual delegate, but also as a team player during the parliamentary session as part of the European Christian Democrats. Portraying a unified front is of essence in any simulation— especially in IDE. My experience taught me to be more humble and to be willing to listen to my fellow team members, while at the same time endowing me with the confidence to stand up for what I believe in, all while aiming for compromise within a parliamentary group setting.

On a personal note, I felt that IDE helped me mature as an orator and motivated me to speak with assurance, yet to also think on the spot in the case of an unexpected rebuttal. All in all, IDE truly prepares its participants to become well-rounded delegates— to speak with more confidence, to be capable of sticking to your own guns when it comes to ideology without going back on your initial position, all while also focusing on the crucial aspect of policy and speech writing— which are vitally important skills to possess.

IDE gave me the opportunity to step out of my comfort zone and for the first time truly strive for what I believe in on a political level. Despite the COVID-19 pandemic, the JEF Malta team organising and running IDE was highly proactive and efficient in trying to find solutions for all participants to be able to participate in the final sessions, which had to be delayed, with the final session being held this July. Looking back, my fellow teammates and I can see a notable improvement— one which we are extremely proud of, with our team placing Second. Such improvement surely could not have come about without the help and constant support of JEF Malta’s executive board, especially Project Officers Bernice Zarb and Adam McCarthy, who believed in us and gave us valuable advice.

IDE was and is a brilliant and innovative project in Malta, offering a unique opportunity for youths which developed the way it did due to the tireless effort of an extremely visionary executive board, to whom I am extremely grateful. IDE is truly a unique simulation and as JEF Malta’s new Projects Officer for the 2020/2021 term, I look forward to actively working on the second edition of IDE later on this year.

Nikos Chircop shares his experience

Despite the logistical challenges posed by the pandemic mid-way through the simulation, COVID-19 clearly showed the enthusiasm of all us participants, as well as the determination of the organisers, to pull through and successfully complete the first-ever edition of a political simulation that in itself is truly unique! Participating in JEF’s IDE simulation, for me at least, was much more than a Degree+ recognised activity, it is an active political statement. A statement of faith in the possibility for a better, truly democratic, and integrated pan-European Political structure, and ultimately a valuable exercise in furthering debating and consensus-building skills.

I felt that what really made the simulation tick was the sheer diversity of opinions among not just the different ‘parties’, but also among the participants. Representation from all parts of the political spectrum allowed for a dynamic debate that was far removed from the typical run-of-the-mill partisan discourse that continues to impair the national political scene. This as participants were fundamentally concerned with policy, not personality. What I found particularly interesting in the format of the simulation was the fact that all participants got to represent not only our own views in parliament, but also got a taste of what it is like to represent the interests of a member state, a taste of European realpolitik so-to-speak, in the senate session.

I cannot recommend this experience enough and am humbled by the chance I have been given to represent JEF-Malta in the Y-FED simulation in Strasbourg.

The post Exploring the Europe of Tomorrow | JEF Malta appeared first on The Third Eye.

This list of the new team goes as follows:

President – Emma Vella
Vice President & PR Officer – Petra Mizzi
Secretary General – Bernice Zarb
Financial Officer – Adam McCarthy
International Officers – Andrew Micallef and Darlene Schembri
Projects Officers – Juanita Galea and Andrea Pavia
Civic Education Officers – Sarah Bonnici and Nicole Spiteri
Press Officers – Nikos Chircop and Selina Holgersson
Social Policy Officer – Chantelle Sammut

Having been elected as president, Emma Vella shared her thoughts with The Third Eye on her new role.

The past couple of years have seen JEF Malta flourish into the successful organisation that it is today. It is through the tireless work of the previous executive teams that JEF Malta was able to improve and innovate in its projects and outreach. The past term saw JEF Malta launch its first edition of Integrated Democratic Europe (IDE) Simulation giving a voice to youths on various topical issues as well as improving on old projects such as Europe at School, where we have reached the 1000 student milestone.

Emma Vella, JEF Malta President

Vella thanks the outgoing executive team for their work and is now looking forward to the year ahead.

We aspire to make JEF Malta thrive by innovating new projects and improving old ones. This newly elected body is eager to work harder than ever in order to promote European values and further the cause of European Integration.

The Third Eye would like to congratulate the new team and looks forward to continue collaborating!

The post Emma Vella to lead JEF Malta for 20/21 appeared first on The Third Eye.

Written by Juanita Galea

COVID-19 is bringing the world to its knees. From a distant problem seeming to only affect China, the virus soon came banging on our doors.

In an age where globalisation is the world order, limiting the spread of something such as this is no easy feat. Yet, something more intellectually damaging which looms over us during these times is fake news. Such a term seems to be loosely associated with articles of a political nature. Can one think of a more politically motivated action than the intentional perversion of facts during a time of international crisis?

The word ‘crisis’ itself induces pure panic— triggering a flight or fight instinct. In the past month, the world has witnessed various panic-induced behaviour. From bulk buying food and sanitary products to packing up and returning to one’s homeland almost immediately. One cannot help but wonder whether such actions were really the best path forward. The problem here was not people’s reactions in themself, but the sources of those reactions which triggered such perturbation. Social media (like in any other circumstance) is engulfed with misinformation. Platforms where anyone and everyone can share their opinion, which can hardly be appropriate and reliable sources for unblemished factual data.

The problem becomes all the more serious when the intentional distortion of statistics and facts is coming not from an average person rambling on in front of their computer screen, but from governments themselves. In an age where most warfare occurs online, the war of information should frighten us to the core. Proponents of information warfare make use of information and communication technology in order to gain a comparative advantage over an adversary. The spreading of propaganda and fake news by governments around the world is one such example.

China’s apology

The worst for China, seems to be over. But for Europe, the best is yet to come. Whilst the rest of the world is struggling to contain this outbreak and cope with the rampant spread of the virus, China seems to have somewhat gained control over it. With far fewer cases being reported, Chinese officials have launched a PR campaign with the primary intention of presenting China as a friend, who is there to help in times of need. China is being portrayed as a nurse, caring for the sick, placing her at the forefront of the battle trying to save lives. Lest we forget, that these very same officials originally helped to conceal knowledge of the spread of the virus in China from the rest of the world.

Through the shipment of hundreds of thousands of face masks— as well as medical personnel, China is exerting its efforts to amplify its soft power. In adopting the stick and carrot approach, China is hoping to gain sympathy points from the general public. Where the European Union seemed to be failing Italy, China stepped in, taking a further jab at the lack of European solidarity being shown towards struggling Italy. Soft power is crucial for a country such as China, whose government faces harsh and severe remarks from other powers over matters such as their numerous human rights infringements, namely the United States.

The United States against the Chinese virus

Twitter is the modern-day armour and weapon of any 21st-century diplomat. Exchanges on this social media platform between US and Chinese diplomats have been nothing short of antagonistic. With China taking on the role of the victim against the wicked and belligerent United States, it has allowed it to gain sympathy points from across the globe, especially in those states where China is synonymous with investment.

Trump’s inability to mince his words has further contributed to this. Chinese officials have repeatedly tried to counter American claims that the virus originated from labs in China, through spinning the latter on its head and pushing the conspiracy theory that it was the US military which indeed brought the virus to their country, leading to the deaths of so many. In turn, the United States is quick to point out China’s history and reputation of skewing data and have expressed hostile sentiments towards China, with President Donald Trump referring to the Coronavirus as the Chinese Virus.

Nationalities united more than ever

In such a sensitive time, factual and correct information is imperative. By fully understanding the problem we are facing, we can and will save lives. This means that we all must be careful as to what sources we are going to receive such data from. Being an Italian, a Chinese, a Maltese or an American citizen makes no difference. This virus ignores nationality, race or borders. It attacks ferociously, without prejudice.

This may be a time of social distancing and of isolation, yet the world has never been more united in its struggle against COVID-19. It is only together that we can get through this time of distress, and arrive at a reality where at least, a semblance of normality is restored. Rather than trying to distort information and facts on one or the other and making capital out of the situation, we should show solidarity with one another in these times. It is what got our ancestors through the toughest of times, and it is what will get us through this.

cover image: source

The post The Year of the Red Herring | JEF Malta appeared first on The Third Eye.

Written by Emma Vella

The European Union has a shared court system, shared currency, shared borders and a shared parliament. Should the next step be moving towards a shared military?

With the United Kingdom having left the European Union, a leading voice opposing such an institution, the path is made clearer for the formation of a joint force.

What does all this mean?

The debate on the possibility of an EU army raises various questions from different quarters. Would the army engage in foreign conflicts or would it be mainly focused on defence? How would it be managed and controlled? What are its objectives and limits?

The typical vision of an EU Army is one based on national armies working together; a vision which I argue would be best realised through the formation of a European Federal State with corresponding parliamentary powers. Only a single accountable body with the political power to deploy such an army would be able to realise the full scope of the European Army beyond the factitious agreements of a few member states with vested military interest.

Unfortunately, such a vision might seem rather far fetched in the current political climate, and proponents of an EU Army might have to settle for a common army deployed at the instruction and with the full agreement of member states.

Results from the Eurobarometer

The idea of a European Army is a rather popular one. Apart from having two of the most influential countries of the Union as its proponents, surveys also lean in favour of such a project. According to a special Eurobarometer on security and defence in 2017, 75% were in favor of a common EU defence and security policy and a majority 55% were in favor of creating an EU army.

This notion was reconfirmed in March 2018 when another Eurobarometer survey saw  68% in favour of an EU army. This follows a widespread belief that European countries should no longer solely rely on NATO, even more so when the current American President deemed it “obsolete”.

Huge strides have been made to bolster defence and security within the Union. In fact, since 2003, under the Common Security and Defence Policy, the European Union has launched 6 military operations. Strategic efforts have also been made to integrate better force planning. However, the main obstacle has always been a lack of cooperation when it comes to investment in defence with the main detractor being the United Kingdom.

Britain’s position with the Union

There have been clear signs showing that post-Brexit Britain is set to remain closely linked with the Union, even when it comes to the field of defence. However, having lost its say in the formation of EU policy, the United Kingdom might see itself allied to an increasingly integrated European Union with a European Army.

During these past years, it was always the case that at any time the budget for the European Defence Agency was discussed, the UK acted as a barrier to block any increase. Now with Brexit, plans can be drawn up without any worry of a veto or objections to the allocation of funding for such a project.

The fragmented nature of member states’ approach to defence has inarguably been detrimental to the Union’s influence in international political circles. In these turbulent times, the time has come for Europe to have a defence union or, as EU Commission President Ursula Von der Leyen described it, “a Schengen of defence.”

Marching towards a united military

Contrary to the idea shared by some that the Union is a haven for security and peace, we cannot afford to ignore to fact that this idealistic characterisation is at odds with the reality of a world marred by terrorism and inter-state hostility. In a world where Russia is not afraid to invade its neighbour and with the tenant of the White House not afraid to use belligerent rhetoric, Europe should not and cannot afford to sit idly.

We are increasingly isolated, to the East an unpredictable Russia and the growing economy of China in turmoil and to the West a hostile United States, no longer the dependable ally of old but rather a capricious opportunist. European States must now recognise that their best chance is to unite and establish a strong, common military presence, one that will match our integrated economies and ensure our continued prominence on the world stage.

The post Enemies to the West, Enemies to the East | JEF Malta 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.

Written by Lara Kitney

Nature vs Nurture debate

Renowned psychologist John Broadus Watson famously said,

“Give me a dozen healthy infants, well-formed, and my own specified world to bring them up in and I’ll guarantee to take anyone at random and train him to become any type of specialist I might select—doctor, lawyer, artist, merchant-chief and, yes, even beggar-man and thief”.

Being a Behaviourist, Watson, needless to say, was on the nurture side of the nature vs nurture debate. Although today we know that both nature and nurture exert their influences concurrently to contribute towards what ultimately makes us who we are, we cannot deny that the environment in which we grow up and live in has a lot to say as to who we become and how we behave.

What we can deduct from this quote, if nothing else, is that man is influenced by the context in which he exists and grows up in: and what more prominent context is there than our socio-economic and cultural one?

The socio-economic and cultural context

Our socio-economic and cultural context does not only influence our physical development but also our psychological one. Hence, it should come as no surprise that the trigger of many mental health issues may very well find its roots within one’s own society and the conditions, ideals, expectations and general mentalities that that particular society harbours and imposes upon its members.

Watson speaks of ‘[his] own specified world to bring [individuals] up in’, but aren’t we all, for all intents and purposes, living in our own different realities, and hence our own different worlds, framed by the political, economic and cultural dimensions of the societies we live in?

The point here is that mental health issues and psychological distress may be brought on the individual depending on the conditions of the country he lives in such as the country’s lifestyle and its society. Mental health is not an element in the human condition that can be overlooked and affects the whole nation.

Ultimately it affects the lives of people suffering such conditions holistically and impedes their performance in their careers, and the productivity of society as a whole. In fact, the mental health programme at WHO/Europe works with European countries and other partners to develop and implement national mental health policies and plans that reflect the WHO vision of “no health without mental health”.

Why have I said all this? Well if one looks at the statistics it all falls into place: In many Western countries, mental disorders are the leading cause of disability, responsible for 30-40% of chronic sick leave and costing some 3% of GDP.

The major depressive disorder

Let’s take major depressive disorder, or as it is most commonly known as; depression, as our first example. Depressive disorders cover single depressive episodes and recurrent depressive disorders. In typical depressive episodes, the patient suffers from a lowering of mood, reduction of energy, and decrease in activity. The patient’s capacity for enjoyment, interest, and concentration is reduced, and marked tiredness after even minimum effort is common; sleep is usually disturbed, and appetite diminished. Self-esteem and self-confidence are almost always diminished, and feelings of guilt or worthlessness are often present.

People suffer quietly at work, unable to perform, or go on sick leave, sometimes for long periods. One in seven people suffers from depression or any other form of mood disorder throughout their entire lifetime. It should then come as no surprise that in the EU, an average of about 7% of the population suffer from major depressive disorder every year. This figure rises to over 25% if anxiety and lighter forms of depression are included.

And this is just looking at depression, which is one of the most common conditions present in the EU and hence one of the more well-known forms of mental illnesses. Studies have shown that people living in European cities were amongst those reporting the highest rates of major depressive disorder. This is due to the unsurprising fact that the prevalence of chronic depression is affected by the degree of urbanisation, resulting in people who live in cities to have an elevated risk of suffering from chronic depression. In 2014, 7.8 % of the persons living in cities in the EU-28 reported depression.

How are disorders classified?

Other forms of mental illness or psychological disorders that may affect individuals include chronic anxiety, bipolar disorder, body dysmorphic disorder, borderline personality disorder, narcissistic disorder, schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders. These contribute to 4 % of all deaths in the EU, as recorded in 2015.

The key factor in all of this, from which many dissonances and incongruencies arise is the fact that here in Europe, we mainly use one of two classification publications: the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) which is published by the WHO or The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) which is published by the American Psychiatric Association and covers all categories of mental health disorders for both adults and children.

Although recent editions of the DSM and ICD have become more similar due to collaborative agreements, each one contains information absent from the other, so how is it that both can be used separately and independently? Just stop and think about this situation and the possible issues that it may cause.

This system can be highly criticised on the bases of reliability and validity of many diagnoses, not only because of the social construct that man himself has created as to what is normality and what is mental illness, but also majorly because it excludes and ignores all possible cultural biases and influences. Being published by the American Psychiatric Association, the DSM is based on the research agendas that take place across the pond.

Therefore the DSM is based on the statistics, white papers, monographs and journal articles generated from information gathered from the American population, whose lifestyle and cultural baggage may differ quite substantially from that of us Europeans. Therefore, how can these guidelines and findings be applied to the diagnosis of a different population?

Improving mental health in Europe

Why not move towards a more united Europe in the sphere of mental health by formulating our own method of classification? One based on research that has been done here within the EU?

If every member state were to put forward a panel of mental health professionals, to create a board of European researchers who would work towards gathering data through longitudinal studies within their states and from this information formulate our own standard diagnostic book, wouldn’t it be more suitable? Wouldn’t we be promoting a more Social Europe to fight, diagnose and treat mental health more adequately and effectively?

This must be done through consultations with stakeholders such as Mental Health Europe (MHE), a non-governmental network organisation committed to the promotion of positive mental health amongst other objectives.

This would greatly facilitate the coherent treatment of mental health problems in different EU countries thus promoting the mobility of citizens suffering from such conditions. Not only would patients be given a more consistent line of treatment wherever they may be residing in the EU, but it will also make it much easier for psychologists and psychiatrists across the 27 member states to consult one another and share research findings.

Europe would finally have the autonomy to identify its own method of diagnosis and line of treatment based on shared European cultural tendencies and hence enhancing the well-being of its people.

cover image: source

The post Europe for mental health | JEF Malta appeared first on The Third Eye.

This debate will feature several prominent European politicians, dignitaries, and officials. The first hour will take the form of a hot seat question and answer session with several European ambassadors who will be there to share with us what Europe means to them. Following this, a lively panel debate will begin at 13.00. The aim of this debate is to bring policymakers, experts, and youths closer together, in an attempt to look towards ideas that would fit our vision as European youths.

The hot seat session will see guest speakers H.E. Ambassador Béatrice Le Fraper Du Hellen (France), H.E. Ambassador Gudrun Maria Sräga (Germany), O.B.E. British High Commissioner Stuart Gill (United Kingdom), H.E. Ambassador José Maria Pons Irazazábal (Spain), H.E. Ambassador Mario Sammartino (Italy), H.E. Ambassador Joop Nijssen (Netherlands), Dr. Elena Grech (Head of Representation, European Commission Office). Following this, the panellists for the debate will be Hon. Dr. Roberta Metsola MEP (EPP), and Dr. Mark Harwood (Director of the Institute for European Studies). More panellists will be confirmed closer to the date.

Facebook Event

The post Our European Identity – JEF appeared first on The Third Eye.