89ers: Writing the Next Chapter

8/17/2019 89ers: Writing the Next Chapter

1/34

1

89ERS:

WRITING THENEXT CHAPTER


2/34

2

I don’t know whether the 89ers will come togetheras a dening political generation, how they will actand – as important – how they will react whenstuff happens”, as stuff will. But one thing is clear:on them will depend the future of our past.

Timothy Garton Ash

Professor of European Studies

at Oxford University

“


3/34

3

It started with a call to action...

On the 7th of December 2014, Oxford Professor Timothy Garton Ash issueda challenge to the next generation of European citizens. In an article writtenfor the Guardian, he called on Europe's '89ers' - the generation bornin or around the tumultuous year of 1989 - to take ownership of theirand Europe's future, and save it from its current malaise.

He lamented the absence of this group from European affairs predictinga slow, tortuous unravelling of the European Project, should the 89ersnot quickly emerge as a leaders of a revival.

Responding to the call of Timothy Garton Ash, then-studentsat the European Institute, LSE, established the 1989 Generation Initiative.Committed to developing - and uniting Europeans behind - a new purpose

for the EU, it has since engaged large numbers of 89ers and visionary leadersin politics and civil society, inspired by its cause, to develop policy proposalsdesigned to re-invigorate the European Project.

Building a new European mission

Amidst crisis and internal conflict, the European Project is in urgent needof reform. With the growing threat of terrorism, the prospect of Brexit,the rise of nationalist forces and instability caused by waves of migrationfrom the Southern Neighbourhood, new impetus is necessary. Yet the EUis exhausted and lacks the power to regenerate itself. There is an absenceof mission - or clear purpose. A new vision for the EU is needed,one capable of inspiring and uniting Europeans of different culture,language, and faith in a fast-changing world.

The 89ers are those who will shortly assume the mantle of leadership,yet they find themselves dis-unified, disinterested and disaffected.They will need to awaken from this slumber, for without their ideas,actions and ownership, the European Project will decline, then fall.For the Project to realise its potential in the long term, the 89ers willneed to play the central role - starting today.

Yet they cannot do it alone: A broader process of intergenerationaldialogue, consensus-building, and practical implementation over manyyears is necessary, where new vision is designed, then put into action.This should go beyond the 89ers and involve a broader coalition of Europeancitizens. Yet, as the generation of Europe’s future, it is the 89ers that must leadthis universal process of EU reinvigoration. The 1989 Generation Initiativeaims to inspire and mobilise 89ers to join it in embracing this responsibility,

representing a beacon of hope for the future of Europe.


4/34

4

Policies for PeopleWe call on 89ers and European citizens morebroadly to coalesce around one single,seemingly simple idea:

That Europe should have as its core aimthe improvement of its citizens’ lives; that thisshould be the driving force behind its broaddirections and policies; and that the premisemust transcend political ideology,party affiliation, national boundaries,professional discipline and age.

We put this premise forward as a fundamental

starting point and request broad collaborationto build upon, better define and planthe long-term implementation of a new actionplan for Europe, with the notion at its heart.

Through initial discussions, we have identifiedthree broad principles that we feel oughtto be plugged into a new mission for Europe,emerging from the idea of ‘policies for people’.

Connectivity between citizens

In this hyper-digitalised world, connections

between individuals are easier and moreimmediate. As a generation, the 89ers must usethis to their advantage and create in Europea great web of interconnections, where materialbarriers are transcended and interactions in allareas promoted.

In trade, education, politics, and security,connectivity should be fostered between citizensand governments, bringing out the bestof our potential. Whilst Europe might designpolicies that promote this, these cannotbe top-down, nor overbearing.

The 1989 Generation Initiative suggests

that the EU do only the things that its peoplecannot themselves achieve. Networks of citizensshould be built by citizens; networks of states,by states! It is time to build a continent-wide web,connecting citizens and states in different formats,and for different purposes: Social networksfor students or start-up platforms for entrepreneurs;intelligence sharing systems to counter terrorism;or, pan-European political parties extendingacross borders. Networks build connectionsand connections foster social and politicaldevelopment. As the world moves from a systemof hierarchies to an array of looser collectives,Europe must be best placed to prosper.

To this end, the 1989 Generation Initiative invites89ers and citizens to join it in envisioning,and building, a Europe of connectivity:The Europe of the network.

Solidarity with citizensThe Eurozone and migrant crises demonstratethe need for new principles by which we respondto collective adversity.

Member states must embrace their responsibilityas part of something bigger, and defend the rightsand prosperity not merely of their own citizens,but of Europeans more broadly. Only this willform the basis of true European solidarity.

Such solidarity underpins all efforts to shareintelligence, provide safety nets for the mostvulnerable and assume global responsibility

- necessary if we are to conquer our greatestexistential crises. The 1989 Generation Initiativeurges the European Union to embracethe principle of solidarity as a means of betteringlives. Only thus will we defeat terror and revitaliseour European South.

Most importantly, in this way alone will trustbetween governments and peoples be built,feeding the virtuous circle: As trust increasesacross politics and society, so will solidarity.The 1989 Generation Initiative calls upon allinterested to share ideas for the creationof a Europe where trust, mutual assistanceand solidarity foster a safer, more prosperous

environment upon which citizens’ aspirationsmay best be realised.

Opportunity for citizens

The history of Europe is a history of great ideasand innovations. But behind each of theseis a great scientist, artist or political thinker.

Consistent with the notion of policies for people,is the premise that systems must be createdto allow citizens to best fulfil their potential:A Europe of universal opportunity.

If Europe is to continue to play a prominent rolein the progress of human civilisation, its citizensmust be inspired to dream, and be empoweredto achieve. A Europe of excellence across sectorsrelies on a Europe in which opportunity exists.The 1989 Generation Initiative contends thatevery citizen - regardless of nationality,faith or age - should be empowered to achievetheir particular aspirations and shape their society.This can happen through private enterprise,scientific research or political activity,in accordance with the simple idea thathappiness and personal fulfilmentmust be open to all.


5/34

5

We call on you to join us, and contributeideas for the reinvention - perhaps evenrelaunch - of the European Union, based

upon these universal principles.

Our ideas and consensus will createa roadmap; our actions a reality.

It is time to unite in vision, to bridgethe gap between thinking and doing,

and write the next chapterin the history of Europe.

We ask you now to considerour proposals.

Policiesfor People

Connectivitybetween citizens

Solidaritywith citizens

Opportunityfor citizens


6/34

6


7/34

7

POLITICS &INSTITUTIONSIn the eyes of many Europeans, the EU is complex,distant and undemocratic. The 1989 Generation Initiativebelieves that strengthening its accountability, transparencyand representativeness will substantially improve citizens’perceptions of the EU as well as its overall image as a democraticentity. In turn, this would spark increased popular interestand trust in EU institutions, whilst fostering new dynamics

in politics at the supranational level.


8/34

8

The 1989 Generation Initiative calls fora Mandatory Registry of lobbying activityapplicable to all EU institutions, bringing greatertransparency to dealings between decision makersand outside interests. In order to ensure fulltransparency, a ‘legislative footprint’ is essential.

This must involve a detailed public recordof all meetings and external factors that influencethe shaping of EU legislation. The 1989 GenerationInitiative urges the EU to take action to guaranteeequality, both of access and opportunity,

for all European citizens through the adoptionof this mechanism.

Reformed selection processof the European Commission President

The 1989 Generation Initiative calls moreoverfor the reformed selection of the Presidentof the European Commission, based on themajority parliamentary group in the EuropeanParliament. Particularly, the system of ‘leadcandidates’ should be institutionalised as partof the European Parliament election campaigns.The 1989 Generation Initiative urges the EUto ensure the fair representation of all citizens

in its decision-making via the transparentappointment of its executive.

Impact

The two proposals must work in synergyto enhance the accountability, transparencyand representativeness of the EU. Together,they will spur civic participation in politicaldecision-making and prevent future generationsof Europeans becoming alienated from EU politics.

A stricter framework for the exercise of lobbyingactivities in the EU, coupled with the reformedselection of the European Commission President,

will inject greater political accountability intothe EU: Transparency will be restored throughthe introduction of a comprehensive legislativefootprint, tracking the constructive exchangeof expertise between decision-makers,businesses and civil society; on the other hand,an institutionalised system of lead candidatesfor the selection of the EU executive will greatlyempower European citizens, and help democratisethe European Commission.

Better regulation of EU lobbying

A stricter framework for theexercise of lobbying activities in the EU, coupled with the reformedselection of the EuropeanCommission President, will injectgreater political accountabilityinto the EU.


9/34

9

The 1989 Generation Initiative calls forthe implementation of a mandatory register,the introduction of an obligatory legislativefootprint, as well as the creation of a body forits supervision. The EU Transparency Registerwas revised on 27 January 2015 to includechanges to the declaration on human resourcesand estimated costs. Also, an ‘alertsand complaints’ procedure was created

to allow for greater scrutiny of allegedlymisleading information.

Furthermore, since the 1st of December 2014,the European Commission has publishedinformation on meetings of Commissioners,members of their cabinets and Directors-Generalwith lobbyists. This new system aims to improvethe quality of data provided by registeredorganisations. However, it lacks supervisionand regulation. In addition, there exists no systemof information on legislative input from lobbyistsfor EU regulations. Whilst some member statesalready have such a measure in place,the EU lags far behind. The European Parliament

has called several times (2008, 2011 and 2014)for the establishment of a mandatory transparencyregister, to no avail.

Opaque and unfair lobbying

The data quality and transparency of the currentregister is poor. When declared, information isoften inaccurate or incomplete when comparingthe expenditure of some firms on lobbyingactivities with the number of meetings.

Thus, the Transparency Register is counter-

productive as it paints a false picture of currentlobbying activity, whilst the public do not havean accurate measure of EU lobbying activities.Furthermore, although the register allowsfor more clarity on the ‘form’ of activities,there is no transparency on the ‘content’.The European Commission has recently startedthe registration of meetings, but this is notextended to everyone involved in the decisionmaking (i.e European Parliament,Council of the EU and European Commission’slower-level management and officials).In addition, there is no information aboutverbal or written input provided by lobbyistson EU legislation.

The current system allows resourceful multinationalsto be in an advantageous position to lobbyon EU legislation. 75% of lobby meetings arewith corporate and industry representatives.A Transparency International report showsa strong link between lobbying budgetsand access to policy-makers in EU institutions.Other actors that have fewer resources, suchas NGOs (18% of meetings), think tanks (4%),municipal (2%) and grassroots organisations havetheir interests represented to a far lesser extent.Moreover, the distribution of meetings acrossportfolios shows a deep imbalance betweencertain sectors. The four most lobbied portfolios

are Energy, Growth, Digital Economy and FinancialMarkets; and the least are Regional Policy,Home Affairs, Humanitarian Aid andNeighbourhood. Such imbalances musturgently be addressed.

Proposals in detail

Proposal 1: Better regulation of EU lobbying


10/34

10

Policy Recommendations

The 1989 Generation Initiative callsfor the Transparency Register to be mademandatory so that no one can access EUpolicy-makers without being registered.This will make policy-makers responsiblefor adopting this code of conduct, holdingmeetings only with registered lobbyists.

If a breach occurs, they will be subjectto sanctions. Lobbyists will, in turn,have the responsibility to provide accurateand regularly updated information

on the Register.

In order to bring transparency to the contentof lobbying, there is an urgent need for thecreation of a ‘legislative footprint’ where recordsof meetings and written input from lobbyists willbe systematically documented.

The legislative footprint should be mandatoryfor the European Parliament, the EuropeanCommission and the Council of the EU.This would allow citizens to become awareof external actors involved indirectlyin the making of EU policy.

A supervisory body will ensure the registrationof lobbyists in the Transparency Registerand the completion of the legislative footprintby policy-makers. The Transparency RegisterSecretariat to some extent, already fulfills this taskof oversight.

However, the Secretariat needs increasedresources to allow for better supervision,the activation of a sanctioning mechanism,and to address imbalances in representation.The supervisory body should monitor boththe accuracy of information providedin the Transparency register and complianceto the legislative footprint.

Accordingly, it should report on fraud and imposesanction mechanisms - such as a temporarywithdrawal of access for lobbyists and appropriatepunishment for policy-makers - should rulesbe breached. The supervisory body shouldalso place a strong emphasis on encouraging

the greater participation of less representedinterests such as NGOs, think tanks,municipal and grassroots organisations.

This could be achieved through active and regularcommunication, as well as through more intensiveEU engagement with these organisations.

The aforementioned changes will bring fairerand more diverse representation of interests to thepolitical process and increased transparency of EUlobbying activities. As a result, the public willbe reassured about the integrity of EUpolicy-making whilst the accountabilityof its policymakers will be restored.

This will grant them, in turn, greater legitimacy.These improvements are expected to spur civicparticipation in the medium-term.

The implementation challenges to considerare related to a budget increase for the creation,or empowerment, of a supervisory body.In addition, there is a risk that over-formalisationof the lobbying activities could deter someand push others to seek new, informal channelsof influence.

Let’s restore EU integrity!

The proposed reforms are a minor challengewhen considering the potential benefits thatwill result from such changes: The image of EUlobbying will be improved only through restoredtransparency; through this, EU policy-makers willgain accountability and integrity. Perhaps mostimportantly, the EU will become a much morelegitimate entity in the eyes of the Europeanpublic, with representation of diverse interests,as well as engagement with a wider civil society,now ensured.


11/34

11

The EU faces a political crisis: with anti-Europeanmovements gaining momentum across thecontinent, never before have EU institutionsbeen as mis-trusted and maligned.That the EU’s executive body, the EuropeanCommission, is appointed, not elected, contributesto perceptions of the EU as elitist, impenetrable,and undemocratic. Voters’ opinions are notrepresented in the process. Strengtheningand institutionalising the ‘lead candidate’procedure for European Parliament electionsshould increase the legitimacy of the EUas a whole, addressing questions of democraticdeficit and lack of transparency, whilst enablingcitizens to better understand and engagewith EU politics.

A challenged democratic exercise

The European Commission exercises greatinfluence in EU decision making, yet Europeancitizens have no say in determining its direction.This alienates those whom it is meant to serveand exacerbates perceptions of the EU’sdemocratic deficit. Furthermore, the EuropeanParliament - as citizen assembly and supposedbastion of European democracy - sustains littleinfluence over the European Commissionand interferes only infrequently in its affairs -the 1999 corruption scandal a rare exception.

Proposal 2: Reformed selection process of the European Commission President

The lead candidates procedure was introducedin 2014 as an attempt to institutionalisethe selection process of the European CommissionPresident, based on the majority parliamentarygroup. By doing so, it sought to address questionsof representation and democratic deficit.However, the procedure was poorly designed,with the majority of voters unaware of its workings:Few national political par ties conveyed thisinformation to the public during the campaign;whilst following the election, several memberstates were reluctant to endorse the leadcandidate of the majority European party.As such, the democratic nature of the processshould be brought into serious question.

What is more, the voter turnout in EU elections hasconsistently been decreasing, to a low of 42.62%in 2014. Meanwhile, extreme anti-system oppositionparties have doubled their representationin European Parliament since the last elections.In view of decreasing public interest in Europeanpolitics and growing Euroscepticism, the EU shouldplace high on its agenda the regainingof its citizens’ trust.

The EU faces a political crisis:with anti-European movements

gaining momentum across thecontinent, never before have EUinstitutions been as mis-trustedand maligned.


12/34

12


The 1989 Generation Initiative calls forthe strengthening and institutionalisationof the lead candidates procedure.

The Lisbon Treaty (TFEU Article 223.1) grantsthe European Parliament the right to propose EUelectoral reform requiring unanimous approvalby the Council of the EU and the Member States.The European Parliament must boldly exercisethis right, whilst abandoning the conditionon member state ratification.

Prior to elections, all relevant information aboutlead candidates should be made publiclyavailable at least 12 weeks before the electionday to ensure public awareness. It is of utmostimportance that the European Parliament ensurethat European citizens are fully informed, and thusbest able to exercise their democratic rightsat the ballots. Moreover, national parties shouldbe strongly encouraged to spread informationabout their affiliation to a European political party,as well as the candidate they support for theEuropean Commission presidency. To this end,the 1989 Generation initiative proposes theinclusion both of the national party and leadcandidates in ballot papers to ensure citizens are

fully aware of the consequences of their choice.This measure will help ensure that results arenot challenged by some Heads of State, as haspreviously been the case. Finally, member statesshould not sustain the right to challenge the resultof the European elections: Following elections,the candidate of the majority parliamentary groupshould be appointed President of the EuropeanCommission, without further consultation.

The strengthening of the lead candidatesprocedure will enable voters to hold boththe European Parliament and the Presidentof the European Commission to account,rewarding their successes and sanctioningtheir mistakes every four years. The measure willenable European citizens - collectively - to decidethe direction of the EU, generating broadsentiments of popular empowermentand ownership at the European level;that their vote counts.

That selection of the European CommissionPresident is directly determined by voters shouldincrease the legitimacy of both the European

Commission and the EU. At the same time,institutionalising the lead candidates procedurewill improve the transparency of EU decision-making. Furthermore, increased legitimacy,transparency and accountability will fostera new sense of European citizenship – enablingcitizens to better understand and participatein the functioning of the EU. In the medium- to long-term, the benefits will be reflected in higher voterturnouts at EU elections. Citizens will be betterequipped to make informed decisionsand to analyse the discourse of candidates,in addition to understanding EU mechanismsand more able to identify populist rhetoric.

One main challenge of implementation is the needto establish an adequate mechanism - enshrinedin law - to prevent Member States from interferingwith the selection procedure. Another challengewould be to ensure efficient communicationto citizens about the effects of their voteand the creation of public awareness beforeand throughout the election period.

The European institutions need to be at the heartof this effort, given its crucial importanceto the success of the measure.

Electoral reform for a democratic EU!

These challenges are minor when compared tothe potentially great benefits of the policy. Throughreformed selection of the European CommissionPresident, a direct line will be drawn betweencitizens and EU institutions, whose greaterlegitimacy and accountability will allow for theexercise of stronger EU leadership, at a timewhen this is crucial. Citizens will at last possessthe opportunity to shape and influence the EU- something that a true European democracyshould provide. With Europe’s future in the handsof its informed citizens, democratic deficit will beaddressed, and the emergence of a Europeancivic identity assured. Through this, the EU will

over time emerge as an exemplar of positivepublic engagement and a beacon of democratic

legitimacy in the eyes of its citizens.


13/34

13


14/34

14


15/34

15

ECONOMIC

AFFAIRS

Since the Global Financial Crisis in 2008, European economieshave witnessed uneven recovery, with sluggish growth in someareas and recession in others. Economic and social hardshiphas sparked a loss of legitimacy at both supranational andnational levels, leading to the emergence of parties that threatenthe development - perhaps even survival - of the EU.

Every political crisis has an economic back story, and this oneis no different. As such, resolution of EU’s political crisis requiresaddressing key structural flaws in the EU’s economic governance.

To this end, the 1989 Generation Initiative envisions a Europeof greater solidarity in times of economic hardship, and one thatgoes further in providing leadership on global environmentalchallenges through the utilisation of idle resources.


16/34

16

Common European UnemploymentInsurance Scheme

A large proportion of EU citizens still bearthe socio-economic impact of the 2008 financialcrisis. In light of this, the 1989 Generation Initiativecalls for the establishment of a ‘Common EuropeanUnemployment Insurance Scheme’. Europe urgentlyneeds a mechanism to protect its citizens fromshocks that contribute not only to unemployment,but also to related social and political pressures.

European Green Innovation Fund

In order to address issues of growth, investment

and climate change simultaneously, the 1989Generation Initiative proposes the creationof a ‘Green Innovation Fund’. By taking upa ‘first-mover’ role, the EU will be able to set thegreen economic agenda through the channellingof idle capital into the productive economy. In thisway, millions of ‘green collar jobs’ will be created,placing Europe on a sustainable path to recovery.

Impact

Employment is at the centre of both proposals.The first proposes a pan-European ‘top-up’of existing unemployment benefits, accrued during‘good times’ and utilised during ‘bad times’.The second not only paves the way the forthe creation of multiple well-paid jobs, but alsotackles the truly existential problem of climatechange.

The direction set out is one of a joint economicfuture, and a recognition of the contribution of allEuropean citizens and member states. Commonunemployment insurance will allow resources to be

distributed across Europe to where they are mostneeded, whilst the Green Innovation Fund setsa clear direction for future growth and investmentpriorities across the continent.

Europe urgently needs a

mechanism to protect its citizensfrom shocks that contributenot only to unemployment,but also to related social andpolitical pressures.


17/34

17

To tackle structural unemployment and addressasymmetric shocks occurring across theEU, the 1989 Generation Initiative suggeststhe establishment of a ‘Common EuropeanUnemployment Insurance Scheme’.

The EU lacks a human face

Short-term unemployment is a key contributor

to the fall in aggregate demand, spurring viciousrecessionary trends. When economic crisis strikes,it is imperative to use the correct tools to stopand reverse this self-fulfilling, downward spiral.However, countries of the Eurozone find themselvesin an economic straight-jacket: Whilst sharinga common currency, there exists no common EUbudget from which resources can be transferredto the most vulnerable.

As such, when countries are hit by an asymmetricshock, the EU’s present economic governancesystem is simply unable to cope. During therecent financial crisis, certain countries suf fereddisproportionately from unemployment - such

as Spain - which has experienced youthunemployment rates of over 50%. With labourmarkets increasingly interconnected,shocks occurring in one country mayhave spillover effects into others.

Proposals in detail

Proposal 1: Common European unemployment insurance scheme

Policy recommendations

We propose an ‘Common UnemploymentInsurance Scheme’ which would create a stockpileof resources, used to address future shocks. Theseresources would be built up during economicbooms - with contributions of both the private

and public sector - and would provide a safetynet, helping to tackle unemployment during busts.Implementation of the scheme would takeplace over time, fostering mobility and helpingto create a single EU labour market. As this fundwill focus on cyclical unemployment, insurancepayments will be limited in time and size,topping up national benefits where required.Moreover, it should include an appropriateincentive structure in order to limit moral hazardand avoid permanent transfers from somecountries to others. Given the structure of theEurozone, this scheme must apply to the entiretyof the currency union. However, in the spirit ofsolidarity, other EU countries should have the

opportunity to join.The unemployment insurance scheme willhelp absorb shocks to the European economy.Moreover, it will allow for more dynamic labourmarkets with access to a wider array of jobsfacilitated, and individuals enjoying greaterfinancial security. As the fund will prevent cyclicalunemployment from turning into structuralunemployment, economies will return more quickly

to normal output levels, something which will,in turn, stimulate job demand. Furthermore,even countries experiencing an economic boomwould benefit from the scheme, as this wouldincrease the economic stability of trading partners,whilst different member states could benefitfrom the scheme at different points of theireconomic cycles.

The unemployment insurance scheme will furtherenhance the social dimension of the EU,by specifically targeting the unemployed and thosehit hardest by the economic downturn.

Of course, integration fatigue may create

resistance amongst member states towardsthe idea of fiscal transfers. Let it be emphasised,however, that through the scheme, fiscal transfersbetween countries would be limited. Rather, surplusresources from booms would be made availablefor use during busts. To reinforce this, a mechanismshould be built-in to determine member statecontributions according to their size and economicstrength, reducing the potential for moral hazard.

Let employment be the driverin solving recessions!

The current economic malaise shows theimportance of employment as one of the main

engines of the economy. Unemployment placesthe burden of recession upon people who donot necessarily bear responsibility for the crisis.Moreover, preventing cyclical unemployment fromturning into structural employment can significantlyshorten economic recessions. The commonfund would help strengthen economic cohesionand reduce disparities in levels of developmentacross the EU. Its importance is great and itsimplementation necessary. In this spirit, the 1989Generation Initiative urges the EU to act fast,before crisis strikes again.


18/34

18

The 1989 Generation Initiative proposesthe establishment of a Green Innovation Fund,allowing the EU to drive the pace of changeand lead the shift towards a green economy,creating jobs for its citizens in the short-term,and a more sustainable environmentin the long term.

A stalled economic engineand environmental opportunities

Since the recession, markets have remainednervous about the EU’s economic prospects.Despite the European Central Bank’s effortto allay their fears, this has not provided thenecessary kick-start. Growth and - more importantly- investment, continues to be at an historic low.Reticence on the part of investors constrains cashflows and, ultimately, economic growth.

The equally pressing issue of climatechange continues to pose major challengesto decision-makers across Europe. Whilst politicalcommitments have been made, movementin our real economies towards a green,sustainable model of economic growthhas lagged far behind. A few EU memberstates have embarked upon the journeytowards a greener economy, through investmentsin renewable energy and energy efficiency.However, these efforts lack the scaleand necessary cooperation across sectorsand state borders for their success.

A coordinated European approach would servenot only to unlock and attract idle capital,but would combat directly the EU’s economicstagnation, and propel it forward as a leaderin green innovation. As the first to take sucha step, the EU would contribute to the creationof a virtuous global cycle, offering it theopportunity to secure its - and the world’s - journey

toward a growth, powered by green innovation.

Proposal 2: European Green Innovation Fund


The Green Innovation Fund aims to go beyondthe current EU Investment Plan. Particularlyit hopes to deepen and broaden its mandate,whilst maintaining the following three-part structure:The European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI)as the core element; the European InvestmentProject Portal (EIPP); and European InvestmentAdvisory Hub (EIAH). Funding must be made moreselective - targeting ventures in the green economy

only - and also more comprehensive. Projects willhave to contribute to sustainable economic growth,whilst preference must be granted those projectsbest able to demonstrate their reinforcing effecton other undertakings in the value chain.

The size of the fund must be as ambitiousas its goals, if it is to deliver. Whilst current greeninvestment of the European Investment Bankis around €20 billion, the 1989 Generation Initiativeenvisages a much higher milestone- an initial €200 billion.

Sources and priorities of fundingand strategic impetuses in the Union

To reach this new financing threshold, fundingsources must be diversified. Where it is todayonly possible to invest in the EFSI portfolioas a member state or an institutional investor,it should be possible to do so as any investorgroup (i.e. non institutional investors) and further,as any individual - facilitated by local banksand digital platforms. Priority investment shouldbe in the areas of infrastructure and agriculture,providing the basic layer for all economicendeavours. Member states must committo creating a favourable ecosystem for this typeof change to occur. The EU Investment Plan

regulation already lays down the commitmentof member states towards a Digital Single Market,Energy Union and Capital Markets Union.The Green Investment Fund should play a key rolein shaping each of these projects, and taking themeven further.

Impact for a generation

By widening and deepening the EFSI throughallowing private investment, the Green InnovationFund will channel capital into projects, researchand other investment opportunities that directlycontribute to the development of a sound greeneconomy. Increased employment, coupled withsustainable production, will lead to higher demandfor green solutions across sectors and completethe shift from a vicious to a vir tuous cycle.The resultant surge in investment will kick-startgrowth in the European economy.


19/34

19


20/34

20


21/34

21

EU AS

GLOBALACTORIn the past twenty years, the world in which the EU operateshas changed almost beyond recognition: It is faster, moredynamic, full of rapidly emerging challenges and uniqueopportunities. In order to strengthen the EU as a global actor,and sustain it on the path to global leadership, the 1989Generation Initiative submits two specific policy proposals.

These focus on creating valuable and well-functioning relationswith EU’s neighbours on one hand, and improving EU-wideintelligence sharing on the other.


22/34

22

From the ENP towards a RegionalPartnership of Equals

The 1989 Generation Initiative believes thatrelations with its neighbours are crucialto defining the EU’s role on the world stage.In view of a seemingly contested neighbourhoodpolicy, the 1989 Generation Initiative calls forthe abandonment of the outdated ENPin favour of a more tailor-made and inclusivenew policy. Fostering an environment of solidarityand cohesion within the EU neighbourhoodis an important priority, but it is important alsoto recognise the value of stronger bilateralrelations between individual partners. Crucial too

is the idea that relations with neighbours shouldbe informed by geographical and geopoliticalcontexts particular to each. As such, the 1989Generation Initiative suggests that engagementwith the EU’s Eastern neighbours should explicitlytake into account their potential membership,whilst MENA partners should be allowedto pursue different levels of EU association,without the prospect of membership.Complementing this approach, the EU must worktogether with all its neighbouring countries aswell as other regional players. To this end, the1989 Generation Initiative proposes an ambitious‘Regional Partnership of Equals’, tackling issuesof collective interest and common existential

threats. In this way, the EU would be developvaluable relationships with its neighbouring regionson the path to more stability and prosperity for all.

European Security and Intelligence System

Next, the 1989 Generation Initiative identifiesthe threat of radicalisation and terrorism as theprimary security challenge facing the EU today.Following the recent terror attacks in Paris andBrussels, it is clear that more EU-level cooperationin matters of security and intelligence sharingis necessary to dismantle EU-wide terrorist andcriminal networks. In this spirit, the 1989 GenerationInitiative proposes the immediate establishment

and effective operationalisation of an all-inclusivesecurity database – a so-called ‘European Securityand Intelligence System’ – under the supervisionof Europol and with the obligatory participationof all EU member states, EU institutions andagencies. In view of the ever increasing linkbetween the EU’s internal and external security,the 1989 Generation Initiative specifically callsfor the more effective exchange and sharing ofinternal and external intelligence. The proposeddatabase should serve as the first step towardsan overarching European intelligence

database encompassing a wide rangeof crime-related information.

Impact

The two proposals must work togetherto strengthen the EU’s position on the world stage,since they are interlinked and mutually reinforcing.This is most evident when it comes to the aimof stabilising the neighbourhoodand ensuring internal security.

The developments in its neighbourhood, includingthe civil war in Syria, emergence of ISIS andthe resultant migrant crisis, show that the EUis not able to fully ensure security within its borders,unless it deals first with outside issues. It is thusimportant that the EU engages pro-actively with

its neighbouring countries in areas of mutualinterest, and thereby contributes to the stabilisationof its partners and their security environments.

At the same time, in order to act externally,the EU must remain strong internally.Particularly, the EU must overcome existingobstacles to cooperation between its memberstates and institutions in matters of security.In addition, it must account for the connectionsbetween internal and external securityand dismantle the remaining barriers betweendomestic and foreign intelligence sharing.

Both proposals will undoubtedly improve the EU’s

ability to address key existential challengesand take advantage of the opportunitiesit is faced with: More dialogue, engagementand collaboration with neighbours on issuesof existential importance will create anenvironment of trust in and support for the EUalong its borders; whilst intelligence sharingand increase cooperation between internaland external intelligence would contributegreatly to tackling the increasing threat posedby international terrorism.


23/34

23

The 1989 Generation Initiative proposesthe abandonment of the outdated EuropeanNeighbourhood Policy (ENP) in favour ofa tailor-made Regional Partnership of Equalsalong with a more inclusive role for civil society.‘From ENP towards a Regional Partnershipof Equals’.

Euro-centric policy framework

The ENP is increasingly seen by neighbouringcountries as an EU-driven endeavour that reducesthe scope for partner ownership. The EU can nolonger afford to apply a vertical approach in itsneighbourhood when some partner countriesdo not favour the dialogue that the EU engages in.Not only should the EU adapt its policyto countries that do not seek close relationswith Brussels; it must also explore politicalrelations with increasingly influential neighboursof neighbours (cf. Iran). A singular neighbourhoodpolicy becomes too restrictive in scope and toowide in scale. What the EU needs is a strategicforeign policy. To this degree, the 1989 Generation

Initiative proposes a two-strand approach that willfundamentally address the stated shortcomingsof EU policy towards its neighbourhood.


First element: In light of the great diversity betweenand within the EU’s two neighbourhood regions(East and South), the 1989 Generation Initiativecalls for the abandonment of the outdated, inertand inflexible ENP and its replacement with tailor-made partnerships, based on mutual ownership,and reflecting partner aspirations.

Moreover, distinction should be made betweenpartners that seek closer ties with the EUand those that do not. A policy inspired byan enlargement logic applied to the EasternPartnership should be conducted separatelyfrom EU relations with MENA Partners, whilstrecognising several different levels of associationwith the EU.

The incentive to move through these will actas a form of ‘soft conditionality’ to collaboratewith the EU on building security and achievingdevelopment. Moreover, the 1989 GenerationInitiative urges a shift in the conduct of neighbour

relations towards a more inclusive approach,where civil society plays a key role both

Proposals in detail

Proposal 1: From the ENP towards a Regional Partnership of Equals

at the negotiation table and in monitoringeffective implementation.In order to develop a bottom-up approachcreating domestic preference for reform,civil society will need to be considerablystrengthened across the neighbourhood.For this, the 1989 Generation Initiative calls forthe establishment of a fund from which financeswill be pooled into the civil society sector,

depending on national context and needs.

Second element: In addition to bilateralrelationships it is equally important to developa greater sense of companionship andcooperation within the neighbourhood region.

This must be achieved through the establishmentof a high-level Regional Partnership of Equals(including the EU, MENA countries,Eastern Partnership, EFTA countries, the Balkansand Russia) to address existential issues of sharedconcern on an ad hoc basis. Such issues wouldinclude energy security, terrorism, migration,regional conflicts, state failure, and climate

change. Forum meetings will be chairedby the EU’s High Representative and would involverelevant ministers from partner countries as wellas EU officials. Taking into account the themeof co-ownership in a partnership of equals,the forum will be hosted by different partnercountries on a rotating basis. Moreover,a non-political secretariat will manage thelogistical aspects of meeting preparation.Lastly, the decision-making process will seekto build consensus, with no veto powers,although there will be provisions for opt-outs.

the 1989 Generation Initiativecalls for the establishment of afund from which nances willbe pooled into the civil societysector, depending on nationalcontext and needs.


24/34

24

In view of the security challenges that the EUfaces in the area of counter-terrorism, the 1989Generation Initiative calls for the establishment- with immediate effect - and ef fectiveoperationalisation of a European Securityand Intelligence System, where participationof all EU member states and institutionsis obligatory.

Member states remain uncommittedto sharing information

In light of changing global threats and recentterrorist attacks in Paris and Brussels, Europolestablished the European Counter Terrorism Centre(ECTC). As part of this project, a virtual networkfor information sharing will be in place fromJuly 1, 2016. Critically, this platform will excluderadicalised Europeans or individuals livingin the EU who are travelling abroad to jointhe Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). Whilst there already exist numerous mechanismsfor information sharing – such as the SchengenInformation System (SIS II), European CriminalRecords Information System (ECRIS), or the EU

Intelligence and Situation Centre (EU INTCEN) –practice shows that they are either inefficientlyused or left entirely neglected. The main problemis the irregular updating of the systemsby the member states, whether on the groundsof insufficient staff or simply the decision to retainsensitive information. This issue was highlightedby the terrorist attacks in Paris last November,when Belgian intelligence authorities did notupdate the Europol database, meaning that Frenchofficials had insufficient information to preventthe attacks.

Proposal 2: European Securityand Intelligence System


To complement the opening of the new ECTCin January 2016, the 1989 Generation Initiativecalls for the creation of the European Securityand Intelligence System - an all-inclusivedatabase that will contain detailed intelligenceon all individuals across the EU that are suspectedor known for having a connection to radicalor terrorist movements. Furthermore,individuals based outside its territoryand thought to threaten EU security shouldalso be included in the database.

By breaking with the one-size-fits-all approachand putting an emphasis on inclusiveness andregional cooperation, this proposal fills in majorgaps in the EU’s policy towards its neighbourhoodand answers the partners’ call for greaterownership of bilateral relations with the EU.In addition, strengthening civil society withinchallenging national contexts has proven extremelydifficult thus far. The 1989 Generation Initiativethus proposes two initiatives to curb this problem:Partnerships between business incubatorsand universities co-funded by the EUto promote education and innovation;and promoting peace-building and social cohesionthrough a universal sport – football (namely,

through collaboration between UEFA and the EUto set up academies run by major Europeanfootball clubs). To address challenges ofimplementation in the wake of RegionalPartnership meetings, the 1989 GenerationInitiative suggests the establishmentof transnational working groups to manageand carry out the delivery of policies.

A strategic policy built on co-ownershipand focused on individuals!

In sum, grounded on the assumption that thereis an urgent need to change the EU’s strategytowards its neighbourhood partners and hit the

reset button; and echoing the partners’ callfor greater ownership, the 1989 GenerationInitiative calls for the replacement of the outdatedENP with a new two-strand approach.

The new policy will focus more on each partner’sneeds and political objectives of its engagementwith the EU, whilst promoting a much-neededbottom-up approach, whereby the EU engagesbetter with partner countries’ civil society.

On the other hand, the Regional Partnership ofEquals will contribute to fostering a ring of friendsthrough cooperation in addressing common priorityissues at a regional level. By this token, the EU’s

policy towards its neighbourhood will recoverits strategic purpose - the promotion of stability,development and regional cooperation - whilstco-ownership of this policy will promote solidarityand stability in the neighbourhood region,improving the lives not only of EU citizens,but also of those in its neighbourhood.


25/34

25

The European Security and Intelligence Systemshould be an EU initiative in which all memberstates have an obligation to share intelligence.Access to the database would be grantedto every national intelligence authority.In this regard, the 1989 Generation Initiative callsupon EU member states to provide all operationalinformation at their disposal.

Sharing this information with others would allowfor authorities to possess up-to-date information

on the individuals who have joined terroristnetworks and facilitate tracking systems if theymove across countries.

Another idea behind this all-inclusive databaseis to strengthen the collaboration betweenthe Europol and EEAS. This relationship couldenrich available information by combining internaland external intelligence. In the long run, it mightevolve into even closer partnership that wouldgive birth to other initiatives bringing informationsharing to a new level. Meanwhile, Europol shouldoversee the counter-terrorism database,which in the long-run could develop andincorporate a wide range of intelligence

concerning criminal activities. Whilst its primaryfocus should be counter-terrorism, the proposedsystem should eventually develop into anall-encompassing database includingintelligence from all sectors of crime.

When it comes to investigation of terrorismand crime, the 1989 Generation Initiativeendorses the existing ‘Joint Investigation Teams’and suggests that Europol be given the rightto initiate these teams. To this end, memberstates should increase funding for Europol.Where countries refuse to share intelligence,the threat of cross-border terrorist activity becomesmore acute. The only means of combating

small, partially independent and widelydispersed terrorist groups is through internationalcooperation. The European Security andIntelligence System would allow EU bodiesto obtain data on individuals operating insideand outside EU borders, and thus effectivelytackle a threat that grows more complexand sinister with each passing month.

Building trust The proposal and its implementation shouldbe seen as the first step on the path to fardeeper intelligence sharing, not only withincounter-terrorism efforts, but also other areasof crime. To this end, the 1989 GenerationInitiative stresses that information sharing amongthe member states and EU institutions be made

obligatory. Whilst there might be difficulties relatedto the implementation of the proposal, these arepredominantly based on national reluctanciesand inter-institutional rivalries that can easilybe overcome, where there is sufficient politicalwill. If implemented, the European Security andIntelligence System has the potential to savecountless lives, without compromising the libertiesthat are valued by our societies. Thus, in viewof the recent attacks that have deeply touchedthe whole of Europe, the 1989 Generation Initiativeurges immediate action from all parties involvedto ensure the safety and securityof all European citizens.

One issue which impedes cooperationis the lack of direct experience in combatingterrorism exhibited by many EU member states.As such, individual member states evaluateand prioritise threats differently. Moreover,the obligation to share intelligence in the terroristdatabase might be controversial since statesregard certain information to be sensitive.Nonetheless, Europol has already expressedan interest to work more closely with EEAS.Even though this process is very slow,

the 1989 Generation Initiative would like to seefurther developments and strengthened relations.Finally, whilst increased funding for Europol in lightof public spending cuts is a challenge, this couldlimit even greater spending in the long run.


26/34

26


27/34

27

EUROPEAN

IDENTITYPOLITICS‘United in diversity’ is the official motto of the EU. Yet the EU hasrecently been dividing along national lines, threatening the futureof the European Project. To rediscover what makes us European,we must recapture the ‘Erasmus spirit’, and take it to the nextlevel. The 1989 Generation Initiative believes it is time forthe EU to put the question of identity at the centre of its agenda,by adopting the following two proposals, thus fostering a new,youthful, interconnected future for European civil society.

This would in turn foster the image of Europe as a ‘commoncradle’, providing all with the opportunity to broaden personalhorizons and possibilities.


28/34

28

European accreditation agencyfor educators

The 1989 Generation Initiative callsfor the establishment of a European accreditationagency for educators to dissolve the bordersbetween national education systems and differentforms of teaching across the continent.The goal is to issue accreditation labelsfor any form of teaching that meets certain qualitycriteria, without distinctions between formal,non-formal and informal learning.

This will increase the overall qualityof the educational space, promoting integration

between educational systems, the mutualrecognition of skills, and a broad Europeannetwork of citizens involved in education or lifelonglearning. Following a specific course of training,the agency would issue the ‘European TeacherCertificate’ to teachers and trainers.

European media incubator

The 1989 Generation Initiative moreover proposesan ambitious initiative to help foster the emergenceof genuine EU-wide media projects: The EuropeanMedia Incubator. This would comprise a fundingscheme for media ventures, within the followingkey actions: Education and training for individuals

(mentorship, training, know-how); sharing of bestpractices among media actors; and exchange forstaff and joint ventures. The aim is to foster greaterpublic debate on European themes across thecontinent, thus contributing to a vibrant Europeanpublic sphere..

Impact

European civil society is at the centre of theseproposals, thus making them consistent withan idea at the core of the 1989 GenerationInitiative’s mission - that of taking ownership.With these proposals the 1989 GenerationInitiative seeks to arm civil society with the toolsto shape a European public space, in this waystrengthening links between Europeans. Moreover,both proposals are directed toward the youngergeneration of professionals and citizens,fostering greater and more direct participation,and a higher standard both of European education

and media. Lastly, they rely on the conceptof mobility and exchange. Drawing on the Erasmusmodel, educators, students, journalistsand other civil society actors should have concreteopportunities to travel to other European countriesas part of their job or commitment.

Through the social interactions and connectionsthey develop, these initiatives would go a longway towards breaking down the seeminglyimpermeable barriers between Europeans,including language.

Following the recent terrorattacks in Paris, it is clear that more EU-level cooperationin matters of security andintelligence sharing is necessary

to dismantle EU-wide terroristand criminal networks.


29/34

29

The 1989 Generation Initiative calls forthe establishment of a European agency forthe accreditation and validation of formal,

non-formal and informal education. Through this,it seeks to build a common European educationalspace giving room to bottom up initiatives, helpingultimately to foster a European identity. Within this,the 1989 Generation Initiative also proposesthe establishment of a European Teacher

Certificate, facilitating the mobilityof professionals at the EU level.

Current European educationalpolicies are too narrow.

Presently, the EU lacks a unitary systemof accreditation for educators in all areasof education. Whilst the European Credit TransferSystem (ECTS) and European Centre for theDevelopment of Vocational Training (CEDEFOP)continue to work, they are limited to formaleducation and vocational training respectively.

Fundamental differences between nationaleducational systems continue to impedethe development of a more integrated educationsystem across the EU. Most strikingly, there existsno synchronisation of teaching methods or content,nor a full mutual recognition of skills and diplomasat EU-level. These differences hinder the potentialof the Single Market by hampering the mobilityof its citizens. Ultimately, these differences pullEuropean nations apart. In terms of educationalexchange in Europe, the EU relies upon theErasmus+ programme which offers plentyof opportunities, but within a limited scope.What the EU severely lacks is an instrumentcapable of providing opportunities withindifferent, or non-traditional forms of education.

Proposals in detail

Proposal 1: European accreditation agency for educators


The 1989 Generation Initiative wants to goa step further and envisions the institutionof EU-wide quality recognition and theharmonisation of different types of education.It thus proposes a solution that would more

effectively combine crucial elements of educationand mobility to help foster greater connectivitybetween Europeans. The proposed accreditationagency will certify the learning outcomes of a widerange of educational platforms without distinctionsbetween different types of education or trainingsoffered by universities, schools, NGOs or trainingproviders. Practically, any educational institutioninterested in receiving accreditation would submittheir application to the agency for assessment.The agency would then evaluate the coursesoffered according to their compatibilityand conformity with its overall goals and

assurances over the quality of learning outcomes.Through the agency, the 1989 Generation Initiative

hopes to foster high quality education withoutborders. The agency would represent a uniqueopportunity to foster dialogue between countries,whilst helping to promote different kinds ofeducation and civil society. It will bring educationalinstitutions closer and spread digitalised andmultilingual education at all levels for the benefit ofEuropean students or trainees. The agency wouldtherefore ease access to high-quality educationwhilst also bridging the gaps between countries.It will also ensure that institutions which offertraining courses or other kinds of education areable to certify their quality whilst at the same timeachieving greater visibility.

Alongside various other certifications,the accreditation agency would issuea ‘European Teacher Certificate’. Partnershipswould be established with universities and otherinstitutions, capable of meeting certain standardsin education, who would be able to issuethe certificate. The courses would be focusedon three main areas: Language; teaching methods;and relevant subjects. A final exam assessingthe competencies developed in all these brancheswould take place at the end of the course.

On successful completion of the programme,the candidate would become an accredited‘European teacher’, able immediately to work

anywhere in EU, without further qualifications.


30/34

30

Effectively, the European Teacher Certificate wouldpermit teachers from all over Europe to join abroader network, providing each with opportunitiesto gain experience working abroad. By promotingmobility and interaction, the initiative wouldpromote greater flexibility for teachers in theircareers, stimulating their personal interests, andproviding them with the chance to develop theirprofessional skills and abilities. This would onlyenhance the positive impact that they can have onyounger generations. A truly European teachingbody would make a difference in the way weteach ‘Europe’ to the next generations of citizens,undoubtedly triggering a new wave of exchangesand the maximisation of currently available

resources for education.

In practical terms, one of the main challengeswould be to define the criteria for assessing thelearning outcomes of non-formal and informaleducation, or for teachings that do not follow theformal career path for educators. In this context,everything should be done to avoid class orwage based discrimination. When it comes to theEuropean Teacher Certificate, there should be well-defined criteria followed by all teacher trainers.Questions remain regarding funding, logistics andinstitutional setup of the initiative, on which werequest your input.

Learning without borders

These proposals are more than feasible,rely as they do upon the deepening of existingschemes. Through its system of accreditation,the Initiative attempts simply to improve them.Moreover, benefits would be universal:A wide-range of new professional opportunitieswould exist for teachers; new perspectives wouldbecome available for students or trainees;and educational institutions would become morecompetitive. Lastly, a EU-wide accreditation wouldcompel nation states to ensure the quality of theirsystems in order to meet pan-European standards.

In order to facilitate the development of a commonEuropean public sphere, the 1989 GenerationInitiative proposes the establishment of anambitious ‘European Media Incubator’,providing a unique platform for projectsin the media and communications sector.

The lack of a real European public sphere

Few are the pan-European media projectscapable of reaching broad publics acrossdifferent European countries, despite the often

acknowledged importance of developinga European public sphere.

The reasons for this are various:First, is the a limited record of success amongstexisting pan-European media projects. Europeanmedia outlets are perceived as elitist, top-downand failing usually to touch upon issues of highinterest for a wider public. What is currently lackingare new formats centered on the concepts of directparticipation, and content of universal appeal.Another problem lies in the relative lack of funding.The existing EU financial channels for informationprojects, such as the MEDIA programme,are limited taking the shape of highly competitive

calls for proposals. Since European issuesare not considered as relevant as domestic ones,pan-European media outlets encounter separatematerial obstacles.

The EU should provide more funds and supportin order to foster new spaces for public debate.These must be open to the whole European civilsociety. In addition to funding issues, there are alsolegal, administrative and linguistic barriers. Mostimportantly, pan-European media projects arestructurally hindered by the absence of a commonEuropean language. A new approach should makean effort to go beyond mere translationsof material and broadcast, or publishingcontent in multiple languages.

The EU should provide more fundsand support in order to fosternew spaces for public debate.

These must be open to the wholeEuropean civil society.

Proposal 2: EuropeanMedia Incubator


31/34

31


Taking into account this set of problems,the proposal of a ‘European Media Incubator’ aimsat turning the risks of a project into opportunities,facilitating the launch of pan-European mediainitiatives. This platform would combine aspectsof funding, services, mentorship, logistical support,know-how as well as training for journalistsand non-professionals. Thus, it is supposed to helpstartups, but also established media organisationsfind the perfect conditions to promote theirinitiatives on the European level.

This bottom-up approach is meant to supportall stakeholders. The services offered wouldbe tailored to the specific needs of the ventureswhilst the call would be open to broad actorsbringing together investors and media acrossdifferent member states. Public funds may triggerprivate investments showing that there is a publicin Europe interested in European news, leadingmajor stakeholders in launching joint ventures.The funding scheme might have the same structureas ‘Erasmus+’, being based on three or morekey actions such as capacity building,strategic partnership and mobility. Furthermore,the training might be managed by the Education,Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA).

As the Media Incubator relies on a bottom-upapproach, European citizens would gain moretransparency, self-determination and a free,democratic pan-European media sphere.The grassroots character of the incubator wouldgenerate media that cover a wide rangeof themes of an everyday concern.

New, small European newspapers and otherprojects would have it far easier to launch theirinitiatives and expand their networks. Establishedmedia, on the other hand, would benefitfrom the increase of expansion opportunities.Journalists and non-professionals would have their

professional perspectives fluid and broadenedas they gain networking opportunities beyondnational borders.

What is more, provided that the proposalis successfully implemented, it would also havean indirect bearing on the developmentof an European political sub-consciousness.The funded media projects would naturally adopta European perspective on reporting, which wouldtranscend viewpoints following strictly nationalcontexts. European politics would also benefitfrom the media umbrella, as EU-wide debateswithin the European Parliament (for instance),would attract more media attention. The same

is true when it comes to public debate duringEuropean election campaigns.

An enhanced awareness of the European publicsphere would on one hand allow politiciansrunning for posts in EU institutions to more easilybring their agendas to the electorate,whilst on the other enabling citizensto more effectively scrutinisethese programmes.

In practical terms, the first question that mustbe raised is whether partially EU-funded mediainitiatives allow independent press and critiquetowards the EU and national governments.

In order to prevent the influence of politicaland private stakeholders, a system of strict criteriaand checks-and-balances is required.

Moreover, it might be the case that establishednews channels would consider the new Europeanmedia as competition. Finally, questions remainover funding and the extent to which the poolingof private and public funding mightbe legally viable.

Triggering a wave of new European media

Getting around the legal complexity of fundingis one of the core challenges of policy making

in general. Nevertheless, there is huge potentialin this solution. The design of the Incubator fundingscheme is the key to its success, protecting it fromcorruption and propaganda. In addition, existingpan-European projects like Erasmus+ provideuseful models that may be adopted in this case.Resistance may exist, but overall the obviousbenefits should allow any dissent to be overcome.The scheme would have a dramatic impact bothon the European media scene, whilst kick-startingthe development of a European public sphere.As such, the 1989 Generation Initiative looksforward to its implementation.


32/34

32

AcknowledgementsWe continue to be most grateful for the role that the European Institute, London School of Economics

and Political Science has played in helping set up the 1989 Generation Initiative, and progressing it to where

it is today. In particular we have benefitted from the support of Kevin Featherstone, Head of the European Institute

and his predecessor, the late Maurice Fraser, whose whole-hearted embracing of the Initiative provided its initial

impetus. We are thankful also to Spyros Economides for providing advice and mentorship to the organisation in its

early stages. The Initiative continues to be an LSE associate organisation, based at the European Institute, something

which allows it day-to-day access to some of Europe’s most influential political scientists, economists, and practitioners.

The advantages of this cannot be overestimated.

Sponsors and co-hosts

During the last cycle of work the 1989 Generation Initiative has been fortunate enough to receive policy inputs

from some of Europe’s best-known think tanks. These have provided an underpinning of cutting-edge research

and an invaluable resource for our participants. We warmly thank the following:

Centre for European Policy Studies (BEL)European Policy Centre (BEL)Clingendael Institute (NDL)European Dialogue (SVK)

MEP Othmar Karas &MEP Eva Paunova European People’s Party

MEP Sylvie Goulard &MEP Angelika Mlinar Alliance of Liberals

and Democrats for Europe

MEP Ulrike Lunacek European Greens

We extend our warmest thanks to our main sponsors MEP Othmar Karas (European People’s Party) and MEP Angelika

Mlinar (Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe) for covering the financial costs of the event and the printing of

the declaration through their respective parliamentary groups. Their sponsorship is deserving of our deepest gratitude.

Without their input, 89ers: Writing the Next Chapter would, quite simply, not have been possible. We also warmly thank

our cross-party team of MEP co-hosts for providing us with a platform to present the 1989 Generation Initiative’s visions

for the future of Europe.

MEP Richard Corbett Socialists and Democrats

Think tank collaborations

Co-host and sponsor Co-host and sponsor Co-host and sponsor Co-host

Particularly, we express our deepest gratitude to MEP Othmar Karas, who embraced the 1989 Generation Initiative

and played a key role in facilitating this event. The tireless work of his staff and in particular, Michaela Kofler,

must also be acknowledged.


33/34

33

Jo MurkensLSE Associate Professor in Politics

Karen SmithLSE Professorin International Relations

Katharina MoserFounder of MOSAIK

Kenneth KeulmanHarvard Professorin European Studies

Kevin FeatherstoneHead of LSE European Institute

Neil KinnockFormer Vice Presidentof the European Commission

Philippe LegrainAward-winning political writer

Simon GlendinningDirector of Centre for EuropeanPhilosophy

Slawomir SierakowskiPolitical Criticism, Director

Timothy Garton AshOxford University IsaiahBerlin Professor

Valery Giscard d’EstaingFormer President of French Republic

Contributions and collaborationsWe would like to thank our team of 70 89ers that contributed

to the formulation of this document. Together with leaders in politics,

academia and civil society, they have built ideas and visions

for the future of Europe. We thank the following individuals and groups

for having contributed their insights and expertise during the process:

Abby InnesLSE Associate Professorin Political Economy

Angelina EichhorstEEAS Director for Western Europe,the Western Balkans and Turkey

Charles GrantDirector of Centrefor European Reform

Sir Christopher PissaridesLSE Regius Professor of Economics

Didem Buhari-GulmezLSE Visiting Professorin International Relations

Dragos BucurenciCommunications Advisor in Cabinetof Commissioner C. Cretu

Eckhard WurzelHead of Eurozone Section at OECD

Fabrizio SaccomanniFmr Italian Finance Minister

Heike WietersHumboldt Universitat AssociateProfessor in History

Ian HallUK Director of Euractiv

Ingrid KylstadNorwegian Shipowner’s Association

Jacqueline Minor

Head of European CommissionRepresentation to the UK

James MoranHead of EU Delegation to Egypt


34/34

Documents

89ers: Writing the Next Chapter