“Don’t ask what Europe can do for you but ask what you can do for Europe!” In his speech given in February, the German president Gauck makes good use of this reference to Kennedy’s well-known inaugural address. Beyond resistance towards sometimes petty political decision-making, we need a stronger common civil society. Promising projects are under way.
Will the common currency still be around in 2020? Ridicule me in ten years, but I am certain that it will be. It is not very common these days to defend the euro; and it is even less common to praise it as one of the main, positive, achievements of the European integration project. This however, is what this article sets out to do. Voices defying the status quo in reporting and public opinion are needed to prevent the onset of a negative self-fulfilling prophecy. The constant reporting on and prognosis of a collapse of the Eurozone will lead to just that: the end of the common currency. Differentiated analysis of the euro’s weaknesses is in order; hysterical blabbering about the euro’s apparently imminent end is not.
With a youth unemployment rate of 56% in Spain, 58% in Greece and over 30% in Italy and Portugal, young Europeans are taking advantage of the free movement of people and labour, which has become a symbol for European integration. Similarly, other countries such as Germany, which has a youth unemployment rate of only 8% and a shortage of qualified workers, benefits from it as well. This fundamental freedom constitutes one of the most important rights that the EU guarantees to its citizens.
From the instant you wake up and turn the light on to the minute you decide to download a movie online before going to bed, the EU invisible hand has been influencing the most varied aspects of your day- to- day life. A few illustrative examples were selected to illustrate the rather positive effects of EU action in order to bring up a reflexion on its achievements and its importance in citizens’ lives.
The European Union foreign policy is generally harshly criticised. The very fact that the EU might be an actor in international relations is often questioned. Indeed, the EU foreign policy has demonstrated in the years to have several shortcomings, and sometimes to lack the necessary consistency and efficacy. But this is not what this article is about.
Is there a difference in treatment between natural science and humanities at national and European level? If yes, why is it so? What are the obstacles humanities are facing when it comes to funding? What is the EU position from this perspective? To answer these questions and highlight the differences between natural science and humanities research in Europe we interviewed Colm Lennon, Secretary for the Humanities and Social Sciences in the Royal Irish Academy and member of a Working Group on Social Sciences and Humanities of ALLEA (ALL European Academies: European Federation of Sciences and Humanities).
The European Union’s growth strategy for the period 2010-2020, known as Europe 2020, aims to make the EU ‘smart, sustainable and inclusive’ by improving skills and education, modernising industry, and also, by boosting research and innovation. Its financial instruments, the FP7 (2007-2013) and Horizon 2020 (2014-2020) contribute to this agenda, as does its funding to projects with an international dimension such as the CERN and Project ITER.
Hot debates about immigration, economic crises or international issues often posit that Eastern Europe is a coherent whole, despite the diversity of countries it denotes. True, their common soviet past and its aftermath easily come to mind when we think about this particular half of Europe. Yet “Eastern Europe” as a political term (and no mere geography) is no longer relevant, argues journalist Anne Applebaum at the London School of Economics (LSE).
The first European Environmental Action Plan (EAP) was launched in 1986 and since then, environmental policy has been considered as one of the most important areas of EU legislation. It is however criticised nowadays for its lack of an appropriate long-term strategy. Two experts in environmental policy gave Nouvelle Europe their opinion on EU's leadership in international environmental policy, green accounting in Europe, and as a candidate country to the EU, Turkey’s environmental policy.
Anil Markandya has worked as an environmental economist for over thirty years. He has held academic positions at the universities of Princeton, Berkeley and Harvard in the USA and at University College London and Bath University in the UK. He has served as an advisor to several governments and international organisations.