Unfortunately, You may first be required to log in to Facebook (after logging in You may have to come back here and click on the link afore again) in order to see the photos, but they really are worth seeing.

Specific information about Estonian midsummer celebrations can be found at http://www.ut.ee/578629

In the last couple of months various insular Regional administrations repeated their demand for a stronger inclusion of ‘insularity’ in the EU agenda. The claim is more than ever timely due to the ongoing economic crisis that affects sensitive insular areas more than the mainland regions.

EU islands constitute mostly small, remote and scattered communities which have to deal with high costs of transport. The current economic crisis hits tourism which is the main source of income for most of the EU islands. The financial crisis creates high levels of unemployment and consequently, causes the weakening of social cohesion in insular areas. Agriculture is another source of income for insular areas. However, due to the high costs of transport, the exportation of local products (which are none the less high in quality) remains uncompetitive. 

It is a fact that, being small entities, the islands constitute the ‘weakest link’ in the EU. Many of them are located on the periphery of the EU, far from metropolitan regions and/or urban centres. EU islands are characterised by sensitive environmental, social and economic structures. They are underepresented in the Brussels-based lobbies. In addition, many EU islands are close to conflict zones and are exposed to clandestine immigration or other kinds of trafficking. They are also vulnerable to accidental or deliberate marine pollution. For all these reasons, islands indeed require special attention by the EU.

Insularity adds further difficulties when it comes to competing with other advantageous regions. The EU has already acknowledged the delicate state of islands through the recognition of the special status of insular territories in its Treaties (see also the EU Lisbon Treaty). What remains to be done though, is the transformation of this recognition to a fully fledged EU policy framework that will address the problems of insularity in various policy areas that are important to insular territories.

                                                 Conferences on Insularity

Three recent Conferences on insular related topics emphasised the fact that EU policies should include an element of insularity in their agendas. A basic summary of some of the ideas that were developed in these conferences follows below.

1.   The Mallorca Summit on the recognition of insularity in the European Regional Policy (26^th April 2010)

The first major event on EU insular politics was the Summit on the recognition of insularity in the European Regional Policy which was organised by the Baleares Regional Government in Palma de Mallorca on 26th April. The government of the Balearic Islands has recently presented a Declaration called ‘Proposals for improving the way island territories are dealt with by European Regional Policy’. The document came in the form of a Final Declaration after the conclusion of the Summit. The Summit was attended by a large number of elected officials and civil servants, mainly from islands of the EU territory.

The Summit Declaration claims that a better assessment of the impact of insularity is necessary and that various insular conditions should be taken into account in the framing of EU policies. It also states that particular attention should be paid to islands when considering policies aimed at reducing the backwardness of the least favoured regions. This demand is in accordance with the Lisbon Treaty which recognises that islands suffer from a severe, and permanent, natural handicap.

According to the Declaration, GDP per region has been one of the main indicators in the shaping of European Cohesion policy. However, new social and environmental indicators must be used in the case of islands, in order to assess the state of insularity. The importation of goods or services, the absence of scale economies and the geographical handicaps that characterise many of the EU islands generally imply higher costs when it comes to policy implementation. Besides the mere acknowledgment of insularity, the EU should recognise that the resulting insularity handicaps have a cost. As the implementation of EU policies is more costly in an insular territory, the EU should therefore bare the extra costs. This recognition should lead to a better use of resources available in proportion to the severity of the particular disadvantages of each island. Nevertheless, implementing an EU insular dimension is not an easy task. Measures and solutions cannot be uniformly applied to all EU islands without taking their diversity into account. One should bare in mind the complex conditions of EU islands (e.g. archipelagos, mountainous islands with low density population, off-shore islands). Particular care should be taken in order to avoid a situation where islands situated geographically close to a mainland are included in a larger statistical unit at Nuts 2 level, thus losing various benefits.

The Declarations suggest that at the EU level, a first step towards such an integrated approach would be the setting up of an “inter-services” group within the European Commission with responsibility for the islands, or more generally for all territories which suffer from severe and permanent natural or demographic handicaps.

Some issues related to insularity have been already integrated in the field of maritime transport policy. However, a coordinating ‘all inclusive’ approach is necessary to cover other policy fields such as transport, education, research, the environment, agriculture/fisheries, health care, migration and culture. Such a practice would facilitate a better implementation of EU policies and would limit the side effects of damaging economic factors on insular territories. It would also lead to a better synergy and efficiency among different EU policy tools.

Overall, the Summit Declaration is a well-written and self-explanatory document. It provides various sound policy suggestions that should be taken into account by the EU. The Declaration constitutes a positive contribution on how EU Regional Policy can become more effective vis-à-vis insular territories. EU islands possess considerable potential for growth which remains underexplored. The Declaration makes some practical recommendations which, if implemented, will ensure that insularity becomes less of a handicap.

2. ‘How can islands seize new opportunities in the prospect of a sustainable development?’, 20-21^st May, Azores (Ponta Delgada)

The CPMR Islands Commission and the Autonomous Region of Azores organised a conference with the title: ‘How can islands seize new opportunities in the prospect of a sustainable development?’ which adopted a ‘self-empowering’ logic. This adds a crucial element to the EU-insular debate: although EU policies have an important role in insular development, islanders should not only rely on the EU but also assume a leading role in the shaping of policies.

In his speech, Alex Mac Donald, President of the CPMR Islands Commission Bureau argued in favour of the study of the applicability of EU legislation for those territories which are beset by insular handicaps. Mac Donald suggested that the European Commission should set-up an Inter-Service group whose duty would be to coordinate the framing and the implementation of EU policies in territories beset by permanent handicaps, as well as to suggest possible modifications or adaptations (a claim also made at the Mallorca Summit). The President of the Islands Commission also claimed that the principle of “positive discrimination” should be applied in the case of EU islands.

Opportunities in the field of Renewable energy, transport, communications and tourism were discussed in detail during the conference. The Azores Government also presented various plans on the Green development of the Azores with a special focus on geothermal projects. 

The conference also covered the issue of forming ‘insular statistics’ (another claim that was also made at the Mallorca Summit) with officials from Eurostat and the Azores Statistical office presenting their ideas on the issue.

Adding a positive spin to insularity was another idea that was developed by Professor Spilanis (University of the Aegean) who mentioned the idea of insular ‘attractiveness’. According to Professor Spilanis there are various island advantages waiting to be developed. Some of these are: the authentic, high quality and safe food production, the small-scale societies and rhythms of life in a low human print environment as well as the use of cultural and natural heritage as resource of artistic, scientific and technological creation with high added value.

It is also my personal view that islanders should indeed invest in the attractiveness of insularity as they have a lot to be proud of. Islands constitute important cultural spaces that have inspired many artists in the past and continue to do so today. Due to their historic trajectories, many of them constitute idyllic examples of multi-culturalism and multi-ethic co-existence. In addition, due to their remoteness and natural conditions, islands constitute important spaces of bio-diversity.

Not all is gloom and doom. Tourism is quite developed in many insular territories. Nevertheless, there is an urge for a re-orientation of tourism towards a greener eco-friendly model. Furthermore, the use of new technologies and the internet can help to diminish the distance between the islands and the rest of mainland Europe.

3.   The Forum for Outermost Europe 2010

The third conference on issues related to insular regions was the “Forum for Outermost Europe 2010,” which took place on 27th and 28th of May. The conference was hosted by the European Commission and featured representatives of territories belonging to France, Spain and Portugal. Outermost territories include the Caribbean islands of Guadeloupe, Martinique, Saint-Martin and Saint-Barthelemy, along with Reunion island in the Indian Ocean and French Guyana. Spain’s Canary islands and Portugal’s Azores and Madeira in the Atlantic Ocean are also included in this the group.

One of the main claims of the Speakers was that certain EU policies on free trade, agriculture and fisheries do not take into account the interests of the Outermost Regions. For instance, the EU’s free-trade agreements with other countries which are close to the Outermost islands often jeopardise small producers, who remain dependent on the cultivation of few concrete crops. Furthermore, it was argued that due to their extreme remote conditions, the handicaps of insularity have exacerbated the fragile economies of these islands.

Under a special provision in the Lisbon Treaty, Outermost Regions can apply for special exemptions from some policy areas that may impact their economy. In addition, according to the Lisbon Treaty, Denmark, the Netherlands and France have reserved their right to recognise other territories as “Outermost Regions”. This may help to promote the cause of the Outermost Regions as only three EU countries out of 27 have such territories. Nevertheless, the Outermost Regions of the EU can become more influential if they unite their voices with those of the other EU islands.

It is worth noticing that the Council of the European Union adopted the Council Conclusions on the Outermost Regions (14th June 2010) after taking notice of the results of the conference. In its Conclusions, the Council highlighted the important role of the natural and cultural heritage in the Outermost Regions, in terms of economic development and creation of employment. The Council also called for the need to promote initiatives that have a clear added value for the Outermost Regions, for example in the field of Research and innovation, renewable energies, biodiversity, agriculture, fishing, health, information and communication technologies, cultural industries, maritime affairs and territorial cooperation. The Council also stressed that the EU 2020 Strategy should be fully applied in the Outermost Regions by taking into account the special characteristics and constraints of these regions. Finally, the Council invited the Commission to present a renewed strategy for the Outermost Regions and to evaluate the effects of EU policies on the Outermost Regions, in particular when carrying out impact assessment studies.

Conclusions

Many challenges lie ahead for the islands of the EU. The three conferences that took place in the last couple of months underlined the problems of insularity and presented various solutions to insular-related problems. In short, some of the most interesting policy proposals that were made are the following:

1.  The development of new statistic data packages for the islands that would take into account the peculiarities of insularity when it comes to the shaping of major policy areas.

2. No mere reliance on GDP growth when it comes to shaping the EU Regional Policy for insular territories. An extension of EU data parameters is necessary in order to include social, cultural, educational, environmental standards in the regional development of insular territories.

3. Adopting an ‘all inclusive’ policy approach is necessary in order to address issues of insularity. EU initiatives must cover policy fields such as transport, education, research, the environment, agriculture/fisheries, health care, migration and culture.

4. The implementation of EU policies is more costly in an insular territory.  The EU should therefore bare the extra costs of transport of the imported materials and social services aimed to fulfil the potential of the EU-run scheme/policy in order to balance the gap between insular and mainland territories.

5. The development of green, eco-sustainable insular communities through the development of innovative technologies is an imperative task.

6. The promotion of an ‘attractive’ dimension of insularity by an emphasis of the advantageous aspects of island life may contribute to positive economic, social and environmental developments.

7. The establishment of an EU Observatory on EU islands and insular policies will help to tackle some the failures of EU policies in insular territories and will lead to a better understanding of insular problems in EU institutions.

It is now up to the EU to adopt some of the ideas which were developed in the three conferences so that the insular dimension can be fully incorporated in EU policies. A development of this kind will be a proof that the EU is listening to the demands of its citizens. Adopting an EU insular approach will help to improve the public image of the EU as it will bring positive publicity to the European Union.

Vasilis Margaras

Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS)

Key words: insularity, EU Regional Policy, EU Cohesion Policy, EU islands,

After a week of observation, I can say that Barcelona is the least non Spanish city in this very autonomous community. People tend to use Castilian more than Catalan, which is not a case in most of the other big cities, not to mention small villages all through the region.

“Spanish team is playing? ah, I don’t care!”
“Eurovision? Why should I watch it, my country isn’t participating there!”

These kind of statements can be heard all around Catalonia…

But, it is definitely a huge topic to go through and I sort of got interested in this Spanish-Catalunyan story, will write about some other interesting stuff soon. but for now the picture which interested me a lot.

Australia boasts a successful record in fighting tobacco consumption: tough government regulations on tobacco advertising have reduced smoking in Australia from 30.5 per cent of the population in 1988 to 16.6 per cent in 2007. This bill finds its origin in the National Health Taskforce discussion paper issued in 2008, which put forth recommendations as to how to address a number of health issues over the next decade. The stated goal of the plain packaging as enshrined by the Australian Federal Government is to:

(a) reduce initiation of tobacco use, tobacco consumption and quitting relapse;

(b) enhance the effectiveness of package warnings; and

(c) remove the package’s ability to mislead and deceive consumers.

Yet, plain packaging raises both legal and health-related tricky issues. Indeed, not only its legality is all the time more disputed by the tobacco industry, but also its public health effectiveness in reducing consumption levels is increasingly challenged today.

On the one side, supporters of plain packaging argue that this innovative way of marketing cigarette packs would make them look not only less attractive but also contribute to make health warnings (“Smoking can kill you”) more visible. Warnings on plain white packages may be more effective at getting attention and enhancing recall than warnings on regular packages.  On the other side, tobacco companies argue that plain packaging represents an encroachment on the rights of trademark owners and their ability to properly and lawfully use their trademarks.

In an extraordinarily fancy and content-loaded website, Philip Morris International states that “we are a supporter of regulation of tobacco products but believe that plain packaging is ineffective legislation, not proven to have any effect in reducing smoking. We believe that adult smokers should be able to see, identify and select the brands they prefer”. Rather than playing on the consumer choice argument, BAT prefers to amplify the scientific argument : “We are strongly opposed to plain packaging of our products. There is no proper evidence to suggest that plain packs would have any effect on smoking uptake by anybody, including children”. On the other side of the spectrum, the Smoke Free Partnership, on of the most vocal tobacco control advocacy and policy research at EU and national levels, welcomes the Australian bold regulatory move by emphatically declaring that: “thetobacco package is the silent salesman to recruit young people and women to a lifetime of tobacco addiction”. In the meantime,  the  Australian initiative won praise from the World Health Organization, which welcomed the measures as “a new gold standard for the regulation of tobacco products”.

Besides the legal argument, tobacco companies argue that plain packaging would push the affected market in the opposite direction to mainstream government policies of helping consumers make informed decisions, providing high levels of consumer protection, empowering consumers, promoting innovation and promoting competitive markets.

As the battle on plain packaging is on, Enrico Bonadio and I are currently working on an independent analysis aimed at exploring the legality of such a practice in both the WTO and EU legal orders. Regardless of whether you smoke or you don’t, plain packaging is a fascinating issue at the intersection of law, regulatory science and behavioural economics.

Hungary – Budapest, November 2009

Czech Republic, Prague 2008

SoKo (full name Stéphanie Sokolinski) is a French singer and actress. She is best known for her 2007 single “I’ll Kill Her”. Sokolinski was born in Bordeaux, France to a Jewish Polish family. She has used the nickname Soko as long as she can remember. Soko has not yet released a full album but I’m pretty sure she is gonna get huge popularity.

This very song I’m posting in here is called – “My wet Dreams” and it’s sort of my favourite, but in case you like her listen “I’ll kill Her”, “My ex-boyfriends”, “My Enemy”, “The Dandy Cowboys.”

Click here to view the embedded video.

Shocking news indeed! and many questions that need to be responded…

70 years ago soviets murdered Polish elite in Katyn, and today nearly on the same place, huge part of Polish political elite died as the result of plane crash…

But most importantly, I would like to express my sincere condolences to my Polish friends and the Polish people! Despite the fact that he was a controversial figure inside Poland or within the EU, he was certainly a great supporter of Georgia and as a citizen of Georgia I do appreciate it!

For the vast majority of the European people secularism is one of the pillars of the society they live in.

Medieval European societies were most of the time organized and ruled by the combined authority  stemming from the clergy (temporal and moral power) and the monarchs (sovereign authority). Local princes or kings would need to get recognition from the clergy in order to fully consolidate their authority upon the populace in a widely fragmented Europe. A few centuries and numerous religious wars later the idea of multi-confessional kingdoms worked its way through (for instance the Edit of Nantes signed by Henry the IV^th in France which granted religious freedom rights to Protestants to appease the country after the numerous massacres – XVI^th century). By the end of the XVIII^th century the first French Republic and its constitution encompassed the right to religious freedom along with the Human Rights. It was only slightly more than a century later that the law of 1905 in France officially set apart the church and the state: religion is an affair which must remain that of the private sphere. Religious freedom is a right and the state institutions must remain neutral to guarantee this right. Each European country has its own history and its own set of laws (and exceptions) to reflect secularism in daily life but the core of the ideal which is about “religious freedom” is a common ground to most Europeans.

It’s important to get familiar with the development of secularism in our societies and realize that what we nowadays take for granted was a lengthy, sometimes bloody and complex achievement across the continent as many wars, intellectual enlightenment and revolutions had to take place before the ideal could expand and soaks in the intricate mosaic of European peoples’ minds and traditions.

Since the end of the XIX^th century the visible practice of religion in Europe (practice of liturgies, dressing codes, impact of the religious moral on daily life ethic etc…) has been consistently diminishing while the industrial revolutions were shaping up the modern societies of standardized production and mass-consumptions where the place of the religious would drastically dwindle. As a result, secular post modern European fellows of the XXI^th century are sometimes at shock when observing a more visible spirituality of its fellow Muslim citizens who only immigrated lately to European countries.

Opportunists far right parties across the continent, give their own revisited definition of secularism (most of the time to highlight their own ignorance) to use it as an argument to justify the impossibility to integrate the Muslim populations within the European frame. They usually dangle the threat of shocking visible Islam and present the argument ad nauseam that Muslims cannot integrate in Europe because their religion is too pervasive and because the Koran precepts prevail on our “traditions and culture”. They like to point out the Muslims dressing codes, the fervor of the prayers or whatsoever that might appear exotic and scary enough to appall their constituency (not to mention all the stereotypes and the confusion about the Jihad, the terrorists and the “backwardness” of certain Muslim countries). The recent referendum in Switzerland which called on people to vote for or against the construction of new minarets was an appalling reality check of how malleable the public opinion has become in such fearful context to the point where they end up voting against one of the very basic principles that made up their nation (isn’t Switzerland made of confederations of different people and linguistic entities?).

The discussions in France (home to the largest Muslim population in Europe) and some of the voices around it about whether or not the “Niqab” (the veil that entirely covers the head except for the eyes) and the “burqa” should be forbidden or if the pupils should be able to wear headscarf at schools reveal the divergences on the interpretation of secularism. Some also tend to mix these problems with issues such as the national identity. These are the marks of the profound failure to understand the true social problems of our societies when the religious becomes the scapegoat of the failed social policies of our leaders. When one turns secularism into an ideology against Islam (or any other religion) he is turning his back to the philosophical work of our forefathers and chooses to forget (or ignore) history. When politicians or even intellectuals find it peculiar that some ordinary fellow citizens beg for some considerations which could make it easier for them to live by their religious precepts in the private sphere this is sheer hypocrisy or intellectual dishonesty. Don’t we have private Catholic or Jewish schools? Haven’t we been running separate swimming pools for men and women before the Muslims ever asked for it? Irony is that before the infamous students’ riots in Paris in May 1968 men and women were usually separated in schools and the French society was still predominantly patriarchal.

No, secularism is not asking Muslims to become non Muslims or less visible. Secularism is not about alienating people and their religious belief on behalf of the new natural religion called secularism which screams: “be like me and follow my truth, the unique truth”. The state via its inherent social contract is effective and viable when it facilitates the “vivre ensemble” (living together) based on universal values as opposed to creating disparate communities which share nothing in common and therefore legitimately feel disconnected to the res publica. By discriminating and by relentlessly pushing the Muslims to the fringes of our society we certainly risk more of creating resentful people and nurture fundamentalists who will only feel at odds with our culture than if we were capable of properly applying the very same universal principles that we have been applying to the different confessions on our continent since a few centuries be it the Jews, the Christian Orthodox, the Catholics or the Protestants. Islam has its place in Europe’s religious mosaic and the spirituality has its place in the Europe of the XXI^th century.

Finally I would like to end this second part with a quote from Henri Pena-Ruiz (French Philosopher):

“Secularism is a core value which by essence conveys the ideas of freedom of consciousness and equality of all men may they be religious, atheist or agnostic. The secular ideal is not that of resentment against religion. Interpreting the ideal as any sort of hostility toward the principle of religion would be the greatest misunderstanding of secularism. It is a positive ideal stressing freedom of consciousness and putting the religious and atheist people on an equal foot with the idea that the Republican law must aim at the common good instead of the particular interests. This is called the principle of the public sphere neutrality.”

Translated from the French : “La laïcité est une valeur essentielle, avec ce souci de la liberté de conscience et de l’égalité de tous les hommes, qu’ils soient croyants, athées ou agnostiques. L’idéal laïc n’est pas un idéal négatif de ressentiment contre la religion. C’est le plus grand contresens que l’on puisse faire sur la laïcité que d’y voir une sorte d’hostilité de principe à la religion. Mais c’est un idéal positif d’affirmation de la liberté de conscience, de l’égalité des croyants et des athées et de l’idée que la loi républicaine doit viser le bien commun et non pas l’intérêt particulier. C’est ce qu’on appelle le principe de neutralité de la sphère publique.”

The Estonian Ministry of Foreign Affairs has put up the new Estonia Quiz 2010. People are invited to test their knowledge and win a trip for two to Estonia.

Viru värav (Getaway to Tallinn Old Town). Source: Google images.

With the noughties done and dusted, we thought it would be interesting to forecast the most likely and significant events of the coming decade, from 2010 to 2020. This is a difficult endeavour by any account, but nevertheless possible—and necessary. So, here are our projections for the next ten years:

1. The European Union will enlarge to cover Iceland and the Western Balkans, but Turkey will not be admitted.
2. The Franco-German engine will weaken in the European Union, potentially endangering the future of European integration.
3. After initially being very reluctant under a new Tory government, the United Kingdom will work with France to lead the European Union’s Common Security and Defence Policy.
4. Russian power will grow in the European Neighbourhood and Central Asia, while European power in those regions will decline, but only due to a lack of European unity, determination and political leadership.
5. China will become more aggressive politically and economically and will break out of the American ‘grand barrier’ in East Asia, which will lead to the formation of a counter-coalition led by India and Japan, aided by Australia and South Korea (making the United States very nervous).
6. Brazil will emerge as the dominant power in South America, meaning the Western Hemisphere will be more and more in play as tensions between Washington and Brasilia mount.
7. Piracy around the Horn of Africa will get worse, until Europeans eventually muster the courage to intensify their military operation in the region, which will require the naval bombardment of pirate havens on the land.
8. Iran will get bombed, either by Israel or an American-led coalition.
9. The European Union will learn nothing from the Copenhagen fiasco in December 2009 and will continue to hanker after multilateralism, to no avail.
10. There will be another Islamist terror attack on a major European or American city.

Obviously, we hope many of these projections turn out to be very wrong. But grand strategy requires that we plan for the worst, while simultaneously hoping for the best. If the European Union is to keep its head above the water, it seems clear to us that the new foreign minister, Catherine Ashton, has much work to do—and that the Member States must do all they can to support her…