Category: Introductory Clauses Heemstede 2020

  • LIBE I

    Motion for a Resolution by

    The Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs I [LIBE I]

    Building bridges, not walls: with rising cultural tensions and increasing polarisation across the continent, how can the EU aid Member States in ensuring cultural integration of people with a migratory background?

    Submitted by: Stella Naudts (NL, Chairperson)

    The European Youth Parliament,

    1. Alarmed by the immense and steadily increasing number of migrants[efn_note]A migrant is someone who has either moved to a Member State and is expected to live there for at least 12 months after leaving a different country, or has lived in a Member State and has not lived there for at least 12 months.[/efn_note] and refugees[efn_note]A refugee is  someone with a third country nationality, who comes to a Member State due to having a well-founded fear of persecution due to their race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership with a certain social group and is unable or unwilling to return.[/efn_note] entering the European Union (EU), 
    2. Concerned by the frequent racism and discrimination migrants face in the housing and labour market as well as social activities,
    3. Noting with regret the unequal distribution of migrants between Member States,
    4. Aware of the differences in the Member States’ legislation regarding migration, 
    5. Emphasising the importance of integration into the labour market for the cultural assimilation of migrants,
    6. Realising the fact that migrants’ skills are often underestimated, causing migrants to have jobs that are not to their full potential,
    7. Bearing in mind that many migrants do not have sufficient education or language proficiency in Member States;

  • ENVI

    Motion for a Resolution by

    The Committee on Environment and Food Safety [ENVI]

    Turning tides: With more than 150 million tonnes of plastic still existing in the oceans today and an estimated 4.8 to 12.7 million tonnes entering the ocean annually, causing harm to marine life as well as human health, how can the EU and Member States simultaneously prevent further plastic waste polluting the ocean whilst ensuring the sustainable restoration of marine ecosystems?

    Submitted by: Gabriele Rimkute (IE, Chairperson)

    The European Youth Parliament,

    1. Noting with deep regret that a large quantity of marine litter comes from human behaviour,
    2. Further noting that 80% of this comes from land-based sources such as  littering of beaches,
    3. Taking into consideration that humans can ingest microplastics through eating seafood,
    4. Recognising that the Member States do not have an universal approach in managing plastic waste,
    5. Deeply concerned by the damage to marine animals as well as the environment caused by inefficient management of marine litter,
    6. Regretting the lack of environmentally friendly waste management technologies made available in the Member States,
    7. Taking note of directives such as the Marine Strategy Framework Directive[efn_note]A directive that requires Member States to ensure properties and quantities of marine litter do not cause harm to the coastal and marine environment.[/efn_note];
  • ECON

    Motion for a Resolution by

    The Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs [ECON]

    #Sustainable future post-Corona: With 2 364 billion euros made available for Covid-19 economic relief, taking into account the different scenarios for economic recovery strategies, as well as the long term goals and priorities of the EU, should European Member States use the disruption caused to the economy by Covid-19 to restructure its economy in a more resilient, climate-friendly, and equitable way, and if so, how?

    Submitted by: Carla Sava (RO, Chairperson)

    The European Youth Parliament,

    1. Concerned by the increase in unemployment due to the COVID crisis, with 5.5 million jobs lost in the European Union (EU) during the second quarter of 2020,
    2. Alarmed by the economic impact of the pandemic on the Member States citizens, with 50% of EU households struggling to make ends meet by April 2020,
    3. Nothing with deep regret that the passing of the current package[efn_note]The package refers to the sum of money reserved by the European Union for supporting Member States in their handling of the COVID-19 crisis[/efn_note] is contingent on unanimity, given that several Member States have previously objected,
    4. Aware of the vastly diverse needs of disproportionately affected regions,
    5. Deeply alarmed by the Member States’ lack of resilience for potential economic downturn,
    6. Strongly emphasising the need for restructuring in Member States’ stagnant economies[efn_note]An economy which is experiencing minimal growth or no growth at all.[/efn_note], given the example of Italy,
    7. Concerned by the economic vulnerability in the Member States who do not currently incorporate circular economic [efn_note]Circular economy defines an economy which focuses on consumption of renewable resources. This system aims to minimize waste and pollution, keep materials in use and regenerate natural systems. This stands opposed to an economic model in which materials are extracted, produced, consumed and thrown out as waste.[/efn_note]practices causing lasting economic recovery,
    8. Gravely concerned by the EU’s low targets in accordance to the Paris Climate Accords'[efn_note]The Paris Climate Accords are an international agreement, outlining the targets for environmental policy of the involved parties to combat climate change.[/efn_note] standard;
  • DROI

    Motion for a Resolution by

    The Committee on Human Rights [DROI]

    #Fundamental rights and statelessness: With an estimated 600,000 stateless individuals living in Europe today, how should Member States ensure the protection of their fundamental rights and access to health care and other basic needs such as shelter and food during the COVID-19 pandemic?

    Submitted by: Carla Sava (RO, Chairperson)

    The European Youth Parliament,

    1. Alarmed by the fact that 600,000 individuals in Europe are currently not recognized as nationals by any State,
    2. Recognising that the legal definition of statelessness is changeable, 
    3. Further recognising that the  categories of de facto[efn_note]De facto stateless are those  who have no “effective” nationality meaning they are not recognized as citizens by any State even if they have a claim to citizenship under the laws of one or more States.[/efn_note] and de jure[efn_note]De jure statelessness refers to stateless people who have no legal nationality, meaning they are not recognized as citizens under the laws of any State.[/efn_note] statelessness do not cover all current cases of statelessness,
    4. Noting with deep regret that stateless people in Europe and elsewhere face human rights violations in the form of:
      1. barriers to education, healthcare, shelter and employment,
      2. racial and gender discrimination leading  to their application for nationality being rejected,
    5. Gravely concerned by the low social status of stateless people in Europe, caused by exploitation, marginalisation and discrimination,
    6. Further concerned that marginalisation, discrimination and stigmatisation of stateless persons have increased during the COVID-19 pandemic,
    7. Fully alarmed that 15 Member States lack mechanisms to achieve facilitated naturalisation of stateless individuals due to not having an established statelessness determination procedure,
    8. Deploring that 12 Member States have not acceded to the 1954 UNHCR Convention on the Status of Stateless People[efn_note]The 1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons is a UN multilateral treaty providing a definition of statelessness and guaranteeing a set of minimum standards for their treatment.[/efn_note], 
    9. Bearing in mind that signatory countries have expressed reservations regarding several obligations included in the UNHCR Conventions, 
    10. Conscious that data on statelessness is unreliable as a result of a lack of birth registration systems along with other identification methods for statelessness,
    11. Regretting that numerous stateless people and those at risk of statelessness have limited access to healthcare and social services during the COVID-19 pandemic;

  • CULT

    Motion for a Resolution by

    The Committee on Culture and Education [CULT]

    Not an issue to tackle alone: In 2019, more than 75 million European adults met with family or friends at most once a month and around 30 million European adults felt frequently lonely. Considering the impact of loneliness on health and life satisfaction, what should be done to turn the tide of increasing loneliness in the EU?

    Submitted by: Muna Shaiye (NL, Chairperson), Aya Bennis (NL, Chairperson)

    The European Youth Parliament,

    1. Fully alarmed by the increase of loneliness, especially among younger individuals,
    2. Stressing that Member State’s governments are not taking enough measures to prevent loneliness,
    3. Further stressing that there are not abundant active measures taking place regarding social inclusion, 
    4. Deeply concerned that there is not sufficient medical attention given to solving mental, psychiatric and physical issues that can arise when loneliness is not resolved on time,
    5. Acknowledging that the pandemic COVID-19 made the tackling of loneliness more complex,
    6. Cognisanting that people have indulged in a deeper sentiment of loneliness due to the fear of contracting the virus and the increase in the pressure on the health sector;
  • LIBE II

    Motion for a Resolution by

    The Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs [LIBE II]

    Believe it or not: With a new era of heavily edited audiovisual content on their way, the intentional spread of fake news and misleading content has never been easier, affecting 4 out of 10 European citizens daily. What measures should the EU and its Member States do to minimise the circulation of disinformation via traditional and digital media?

    Submitted by: Esmee O’Connor (IE, Chairperson) 

    The European Youth Parliament,

    1. Noting with regret the lack of formal recognition in the form of legislation on the issue of fake news in certain Member States,
    2. Concerned by the growing polarisation along with wavering tolerance towards people with different political beliefs in society, 
    3. Conscious of the difficulty in differentiating between fake and factual news,
    4. Acknowledging the existence of algorithms on digital media outlets that result in an incomplete and biased presentation of current affairs,
    5. Recognising that the intention of the news industry is turning a profit resulting in smaller outlets depending on rapid production over quality control to stay competitive, 

    Alarmed by the prevalence of circular reporting and evidence by citation in the news industry resulting in the spread of incorrect information perceived as factual and checked;