„Defeat is simply a signal to press onward.” ~Helen Keller

 

Although I think that there should be zero tolerance towards any kind of extremism, the EU completely missed the point when it suggested that it is up to the EU to make sure that the rule of law in its Member States/in its neighbourhood is fully respected. Unfortunately, the EU is neither able to play the role of the police of Human Rights Officer in Europe nor would be such a role advisable or useful.

Is the EU really unable to protect the respect of Human Rights and democracies?

Without analysing the reasons behind that statement, I simply refer to the unfortunate facts which prove that this is the truth. Just have a look on states in the European part of the former U.S.S.R. (Ukraine, Belorussia,) on the balkan (Kosovo, Macedonia, Turkey) or even within the EU (Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary).

The EU simply failed to improve the respect of Human Rights and never accepted the full rights of national and ethnic minorities living almost in all member states. The behaviour of the majority towards the minorities describes the best the true quality of whichever society.

Why would be unfavorable to force the respect of democracies to those countries?

Simply because it cannot be done effectively. Democracy can be neither exported nor forced. Moreover, such a move would discourage the population of the concerned countries to fight for their own democracies. People do not appreciate the freedom if it is given priceless for them.

What does history teach us? Although there were hidden resistance movements in the former Eastern socialist countries before the  collapse of communism, without Gorbatchev these countries could have never make themselves free. See the tragic outcomes of the Hungarian revolution in 1956, of the Prague Spring in 1968 or of the state of emergency in Poland in 1980.

That’s why the people of Eastern Europe do not respect the democracy as much as they should do: they did not really have to fight for it in 1989-1990. They received it as a gift.

We must see that with foreign pressure the EU will loose more than it could ever gain.

Don’t deprive the people of fallen democracies to fight for their own justice by themselves! Don’t deprive them from hope!

Does it mean that the EU is armless and it shall see the deterioration and the falling of the democracies in its neighbourhood or within its territory?

Not at all.

But repsonsible EU decision makers shall consider and understand their limits. The limits of the EU law. The EU has an important but limited role to play: the watchdog role. The EU shall remain independent, strong but well balanced and consistent.

The EU must remain a pharos for candidate/hesitating member states. The EU must remain firm in principles but never shall force the democracy.

This is the true legacy of the Nobel Peace Price.

I remain at your disposal.

 

                     

_____________________________

______________________________

Zoltán MASSAY-KOSUBEK ● zoltanmassaykosubek@yahoo.com

EU Policy Officer & Public Affairs Expert | Legal Adviser

„Don’t let anyone ever make you feel like you don’t deserve what you want.”

 

It would be so easy to cut the budget of the ERASMUS Programme to make immediate, short term savings in period of economic crisis. It is true that there is a massive push on national political leaders to achieve as many cuts at European budget level as possible.

From this perspective, maintaining the same level of the ERASMUS budget would be a real victory for those who intend to defend the ERASMUS project.

But it can be considered only as a defeat for those who think that the ERASMUS project is the third most relevant achievement of the EU (after the 60 years period of piece and the economic union based on the supranational Union law) the relevance cannot be overestimated of. Therefore, for us, only a massive increase of the budget of the ERASMUS programme could be acceptable as a real European answer to the crisis

It only required simple long term thinking in a time when unfortunately short term savings became the buzzwords.

The problem I identified in my practice (which mainly covers the public health EU policy) that all interested parties would like to have immediate, short term benefits preferably right now. Thus, it is quite difficult to make people understand that long term benefits are more serious and therefore more important and decisive than the quickly changing short term effects. This applies to public health at EU level but also to education – including the ERASMUS programme.

Why then? Why cannot European politicians appreciate the importance of long term savings? The answer is included into the question. Because they are politicians. Even, presuming their best will, their mindset is focused on the next election turn. And since the longest democratic mandate in the EU is 5 years in case of MEPs, this is clearly not long enough to make political benefits from successful long term projects such as the ERASMUS programme. (Not to mention the technocrats who do not have democratic mandate at all.)

How could I best describe the true nature of those “long term benefits” in a simple and easy way?

Let’s take the example of an imaginable Eastern European law student from the 1999-2004 university period. Due to the ERASMUS programme, a student in that time could have been spent 4 months in Paris in the semesters 2002-2003. Later on, inspired by the experiences got there, imagine that 4 years later, in 2007, he would have successfully applied for a traineeship for the European Court of Justice paid by the EU. This traineeship would have been made possible for him to join his home country’s national administration, as a member of the department responsible for EU affairs for further 4 years, from 2008 to 2011. And now, in 2012, this former student could be situated in Brussels, working closely with the EU and he would be probably fully convinced in the benefits of the European integration.

Having said that, it is clearly visible that a simple 4 months ERASMUS scholarship could be seen as an investment in having committed, EU-minded professionals later on. Europe urgently needs such professionals. Believe me when I am saying that the ERASMUS is the cheapest and best way to achieve this goal not only because I know quite many people having similar success stories but also because this imaginary law student was me.

 

I remain at your disposal.

 

                     

_____________________________

______________________________

Zoltán MASSAY-KOSUBEK ● zoltanmassaykosubek@yahoo.com

EU Policy Officer & Public Affairs Expert | Legal Adviser

 

 

"You always pass failure on the way to success." ~Mickey Rooney

 

We, the respected leaders of the 27 EU Member States failed once again to show to our citizens that we still believe in the European project and that we have understood that only a joint agreement and a commonly agreed budget – as a convincing sign of our good faith – can fight successfully the political-economic-financial crisis that surrounds Europe.

 

We have clearly shown that the egoist interests of our own single countries are still much more important than the future of the whole integration altogether. We all wanted to be winners even if meanwhile we all become looser. With that selfish attitude we raised our hands and tacitly accepted that our trust in our common European future has been shaken.

 

We admit that a simple school class from any European primary school would have been acted much more wisely than we did. Although we all know that the best examples are the most persuasive tools to gain the support of the general public – often called as the misty ‘financial markets’ – we were not able to reach a compromise about the long-term budget of the EU the whole integration is based on.

 

Let’s be honest about it: we simply gave up.

 

The problem is that we have still not understood that the single Member States alone – even the mightiest ones – are simply not able either to resist the repeating waves of the current crisis or to comply with the demanding criteria of the globalised competition of the XXIst century.

 

We made it absolutely clear to all global actors that Europe – as a unified entity – cannot be taken seriously. Although we intend to follow dreaming about Europe as a leading power, we demonstrated that we were unable to accept the very basic condition of such an experiment: our budget.

 

We showed no willingness at all to understand the other’s opinion. We neglected the spirit of cooperation and solidarity and we have not taken into account the concerns of the European Commission and of the European Parliament representing by the way our common interests. We are sure that they understood well that we are counting only with our own interests.

 

Nonetheless, we will not forget to tell 27 versions about what really happened in Brussels these days. Obviously, we are more than happy to blame ‘Brussels’ for this failure. We will state with pleasure that all the responsibility lies only and exclusively on ‘Brussels’. We will certainly remain silent about the fact the ‘Brussels’ as an independent entity does not exist at all since we, esteemed leaders of the Member States, are part of what we usually call ‘Brussels’.

 

Finally, in order to hide the still prevailing mistrustfulness among us, we accepted an irritating optimistic formulated press release knowing that the gap between the ceremonial declaration and the reality is bigger than ever.

 

As a conclusion, may we reassure all interested parties that we were pleased to note the excellent atmosphere that prevailed during the negotiations.

 

 

I remain at your disposal.

 

                     

_____________________________

______________________________

Zoltán MASSAY-KOSUBEK ● zoltanmassaykosubek@yahoo.com

EU Policy Officer & Public Affairs Expert | Legal Adviser

 

 

“I am not font of quotas but I very much like what quotas do. And maybe it is necessary what quotas do.' ~Viviane Reding, European Commissioner for Justice

 

Are women happy with their secret supporting role in the shadow of successful men? I don’t think so.

 

Has it become a common place that the long term future of the EU integration is inextricable linked to women’s appropriate representation in the European decision making processes? Unfortunately, not.

 

Why did I become so indignant with the Commission proposal about 40% female quota on corporate boards?

 

I had 3 good reasons to be angry.

 

1. Firstly, the facts about women’s high level representation are crystal clear.

 

Let’s adopt as starting point that every second human is a women. Assuming that this ratio is cca. 50%, let’s have a look at female members of the European Commission, of the European Parliament or even of the national governments or parliaments. Based on a very positive and optimistic estimation I am sure that the final outcome would be around 10%. Without conducting in-depth researches about the reasons of that high gap between the society and politics it is obvious even for an average European citizen that this situation is somehow unnatural.

 

2. Secondly, the hypocrisy of the European men being in decision making positions in the public sector, making decisions on the private sector with lack of self-criticism.

 

What about the relation between plagiarism and femal quotas?

 

The buzzword must be credibility in that case.

 

In our times, credibility is the alfa and the omega of every successful policy. If a minister, a prime minister or a president of the Republic hit by plagiarism cannot be considered as a credible decision maker, how can  men decide upon quotas which are intended to make restrictions on the private sector and having, at the some time, so many political bodies in the public sector full of men? Where are the legal obligations for public bodies? I think some definetly missed the point.

 

3. Thirdly, surrender and weakening the original Commission proposal on femal quotas is not the appropriate answer to the resistance.

 

I expected some oposition in respect of that proposal, but I was shocked when I realised that most of the critics came from female commissioners: “Reding’s earlier proposal had met with strong opposition from other commissioners, Catherine Ashton, in charge of foreign policy, Connie Hedegaard, the climate commissioner, and Cecilia Malmström, responsible for home affairs. The loudest critic of the earlier proposal was Neelie Kroes, the commissioner in charge of the digital agenda. (Euractiv article)“

 

And what did happen? In spite of clear political signals coming from the European Parliament, the female Commissioner responsible for the proposal weakened its proposal.

 

Moreover, we lawyers know very well the main charactestics of the ‘lex imperfecta’ fin Roman law. And I am sorry but I can not simply understand how serious would be a legally binding proposal without having due and dissuasive sanctions.

 

Is it a dream or true? I wonder if this move would be the most appropriate step forward…

Conclusions

1. It is a shame for all of us that 100 years after the start of the sufragette movement, the representation of women is still at a ridicoulous low level everywhere in Europe.

2. In time of economic crisis, men are good at proposing financial cuts. Yes, there is a need for cuts but in the right places: let’s be all important political decision making body be divided in two equal part between men and women!

3. It does not mean in any sense that the current Commission proposal shall be withdrawn. In the contrary, it shall be coplemented with appropriate, binding measures on the public sector – at all levels.

4. If a mariage between a man and a women is based on the principle of equality, why do we not apply the same principle on our societies?

5. Without resolving the representation of women in political decision making processes, there will be no economic recovery at all, dear Sirs.

 

PS: I have already referred to the Roman law, where women had to remain under guardianship until the end of their entire life due to the “improvidence linked to their gender”. Is this really the direction we want to direct the European integration in the XXIth century?

 

I remain at your disposal.

 

                     

_____________________________

______________________________

Zoltán MASSAY-KOSUBEK ● zoltanmassaykosubek@yahoo.com

EU Policy Officer & Public Affairs Expert | Legal Adviser

 

 

 

“You must be the change you wish to see in the world.” – Mahatma Gandhi

 

Is Water a Human Right in the EU? Is Water Shortage a Matter of Concern in the EU? Can We Sweep this problem under the Carpet(as usual)?

 

Yes, yes and no.

 

Yes, I firmly believe that water is a human right.

 

Yes, there are alarming water shortages within the EU. It would be calm to think that water shortage concerns only the third world. But as a matter of fact, many European countries witness every Summer serious water shortage. It is enough to think about the Mediterranean EU Members.

 

Or let’s take the example of Hungary. If we look at the map we can see that the country is rich in rivers and in spas. However, even there, in a medium sized country you can identify regions (especially the Pannonian steppe – Puszta) which face serious dryness and in some places, the rich groundater ressources are contaminated.

 

Consequently, if a country having relatively strong water resources still has problems with water supply, you can imagine the situation in other EU Members.

 

Thus, the water shortage as a danger is not the privilege of the third world but the cruel reality in the EU.

 

Having said that, the question emerges: what can we do to stop this?

 

Well, there is always a way and an obligation to act.

 

As a matter of fact, water can be subject of EU legislation. Water as a commodity. Well, It sounds a bit strange for me since as I stated before, I consider water, as a human right. This implies that every EU citizen has a right for having water. If not, it can cause serious harms not to mention the danger of rebirth of long forgotten infectious diseases. This is what we really want?

 

If yes, than go ahead, consider water as a commodity and liberalise the EU market.

 

If not, than create a legally binding EU law which obliges the Member States to provide clean water to every citizens.

 

I am aware of the fact, that there is an ongoing European Citizens’ Initiative which aims that goal. As of today, there are only 39.819 signatures collected. This seems to be far from the aimed 1 million signatures.

 

I am wondering if the European society is strong enough to convinve of the necessity of a new EU legislation in that matter. Are they able to collect 1 million signatures?

 

I don’t know. But in order to have a clean conscience, I am going to sign this petition from my side RIGHT NOW!

 

What about your opinion?

 

I remain at your disposal.

 

                     

_____________________________

______________________________

Zoltán MASSAY-KOSUBEK ● zoltanmassaykosubek@yahoo.com

EU Policy Officer & Public Affairs Expert | Legal Adviser

 

 

 

We may not be so silly that we give up before the goal! The real issue behind the whole #Dalligate story is not the future position of a single Commissioner or ourshaked faith in President Barroso but the failure or success of the revision of the Tobacco Products Directive  (2001/37/EC)

 

This is the real and the only question we should really focus on.

 

If the revision happened as expected, we would handle satisfactorily this crisis by neglecting its personal dimension and keep focusing on the most important stake: the Tobacco Products Directive.

 

If the revision failed then the conspirators would win whoever stays behind the forced resign of John Dalli or the recent brake-in into 3 anti-tobbaco fighter NGOs’ offices.

 

It is so simple. Either you get the point or the point gets you.

 

I am not saying that Dalli’s (or Barroso’s if it comes out later that the OLAF report and the whole procedure against Dalli was not well founded) personal fate is not a matter of importance. Of course it is.

 

They are very important persons shaping the EU’s future being at the top of the mightiest institution of the EU.

 

However, they are single men in a very complicated institutional and political framework, and with all due respect, they are only politicians whose political mandate would reach an end in 2014 anyway.

 

On the other side, there is a crucial piece of EU legislation which has been already suffered 1 year delay by the way. The Tobacco Products Directive (2001/37/EC) concerns a wide range of population from a public health point of view. It will have a real long term effect on the population of 27 Member States determining indirectly the life-quality of several generations.

 

Being an EU blogger I know very well that it is always easier to follow persons and the drama gets much more media attention than the faceless and dry facts. However, behind these ‘dry facts’, behind the possible delay of the Tobacco Products Directive, there are also thousands and millions. Don’t forget these people! Ordinary people desire also our attention not only the famous-ones.

 

“Most people give up just when they’re about to achieve success. They quit on the one yard line.” We simply shall be better than that!

 

As of today, both possibilities are still open. It is our responsibility if there will be a happy end at the end of that story.

 

I remain at your disposal.

 

                     

_____________________________

______________________________

Zoltán MASSAY-KOSUBEK ● zoltanmassaykosubek@yahoo.com

EU Policy Officer & Public Affairs Expert | Legal Adviser

 

 

"It’s only after we’ve lost everything that we’re free to do anything."

This nutshell summary is based on a NEW EUROPE VIDEO INTERVIEW with Commissioner John DALLI

 

Basic timeline of the Dalli-gate:

February 2012 - The Commission finalised the concept of that Tobacco Product Directive (TPD)

March 2012 - dealings between the tobacco lobby and this individual

until August 2012 - DG SANCO managed 2 impact assessments on the TPD

August 2012 - Interservice consultation in the Commission stoped by the legal service "postponed for further discussions"

Early October 2012 - the interservice consultation was to be relanched and postponed again by the legal service

11 October - Commissioner John Dalli was informed about a meeting with President Barroso

15 October - Presentation of the OLAF report to President Barroso

16 October - Meeting between John Dalli and President Barroso and issueing a Commission Press release

17 October - the VIDEO interview with John Dalli

18 October 02:00-04:00 in the morning - Brake-in into the offices of 3 antitobacco NGOs (European Public Health Alliance - EPHA, European Respiratory Society - ERS, Smoke Free Partnership - SFP)

(Monday) 22 October - the planned date to relaunch again the Interservice consultation of the TPD

to be continued... ?

 

Strong sentences

 

"I have not yet as of today [Wednesday - 17 October] received this report."

"The report stated that there is no proof at all that I was involved in any misdeeds. It was also stated that the process of the decision of the Commission was not at all jeopardised (...) and that no money passed. But they said that there are circumstancial evidences on which they conclude that I was aware what was happening. This I refuted categorically."

"I was informed about that meeting [with President Barroso] on last Thursday [11 October].

"We finalised the concept of that directive at the end of February this year."

"The dealings that started between the tobacco lobby and this individual were in March."

"There will be no such directive during this Commission."

"This directive (TPD) basically looks at making cigarettes less attractiv."

"Now again, the fact this directive will not see the light of day, is a big gate for the tobacco industry."

Conclusion

I am just wondering: why did Commissioner John Dalli have to be removed?

 

I remain at your disposal.

 

                     

_____________________________

______________________________

Zoltán MASSAY-KOSUBEK ● zoltanmassaykosubek@yahoo.com

EU Policy Officer & Public Affairs Expert | Legal Adviser

 

 

 

"Kites rise highest against the wind, not with it." ~Winston Churchill

Itt olvasható egy magyar nyelvű összefoglaló a betörésről (Hungarian summary about the brake-in)

I witnessed a very targeted and professional break-in into 3 public health related NGOs offices (I work for one of them) on the early morning of 18 October 2012. We can all agree that is very harsh and brutal action against the representatives of the public health civil society whoever stands behind these attacks (if anybody). Although nothing is sure for the time being, the European community cannot leave without comments such a thing.

What can we conclude without having clear evidences?

Obviously we are not in the position to make clear statements in that issue, yet. However, there are some coincidences which can raise further concerns and conspiracy theories. And obviously, there are not enough clear evidences to make clear deductions.

Thus, the only thing a legal mind can do in that situation is to list some important facts, to refer some policy developments and let the reader to make his/her own conviction.

 

3 FACTS TO BEAR IN MIND

- As a matter of fact, 3 Brussels based NGOs (European Public Health Alliance - EPHA, European Respiratory Society - ERS, Smoke Free Partnership - SFP) have suffered a break-in during the early morning of 18 October, and with the exception of one unrelated other forced entry – where nothing was disturbed – these were the only organisations targeted.

- As a matter of fact, these organisations are on different floors but in the same building (ERS/SFP (5th floor), EPHA (2nd floor), and a law firm (8th floor),

- As a matter of fact, several laptops were stolen from EPHA/ERS/SFP offices

 

3 RECENT POLICY DEVELOPMENTS

- John Dalli the commissioner responsible for health will leave his position following an anti-corruption investigation the result is not published, yet

- All the mentioned 3 NGOs were strongly advocating for stricter legislation on tobacco products

- In respect of the ongoing review of the Tobacco Products Directive (TPD) which is on the top of the EU's agenda, an important and confidential document related to the TBD has been leaked to the press  making likely further restrictions on tobbacco products

 

Conclusion

European policy has a huge influence on our everyday life that is why advocacy is so important. Lobbying should mean a conflict of arguments in well balanced discussions. The only tools which can be accepted in these debates are evidences, facts and arguments. Nothing more.

Therefore, any kind of attempts which go beyond those things and passes the written and unwritten rules of advocacy are simply unacceptable  and they should be a matter of concern not only for the public health community but also for every responsible European policy decision makers.

 

May I draw your attention to the official press releases of the concerned 3 Public Health NGOs.

- European Public Health Alliance (EPHA)

- European Respiratory Society (ERS)

- Smoke Free Partnership (SFP)

 

Last but not least, a recent piece of media coverage:

 

Anti-smoking campaigners accuse tobacco lobby after office break-in

Brussels police sweep for bugs two days after European health commissioner quits, saying he was forced out over Olaf report

 

I remain at your disposal.

 

                     

_____________________________

______________________________

Zoltán MASSAY-KOSUBEK ● zoltanmassaykosubek@yahoo.com

EU Policy Officer & Public Affairs Expert | Legal Adviser

 "Great opportunities are not seen with your eyes. They are seen with your mind." ~Robert Kiyosaki

 

Being a European blogger I would like to contribute to the Blog Action day with 8 key messages an EU Bloogger (me) could identify in his career so far.

 

1.) “European Bloggers are closer to the civil society than regular journalists do.”

The voice of usual bloggers reflects more the real opinion of ordinary people.

Because journalists work for newspapers/websites/newsletters therefore they concentrate on issues having general interests and follow strict professional rules in order to meet expectations, high quality standards and strict deadlines.

On the one hand, all these efforts may result high quality and interesting articles about general European issues. On the other hand, there is a danger that at the end of that process, the professional article will not really mirror the real opinion of an ordinary woman/man (in other words, the sincere opinion of the author) in spite of her/his best wishes.

And here can European Bloggers come in. Internet and blogs are democratic and for free. What is the weight of a woman/man if she/he is only a European Blogger?

• We have no financial interests at all.
• We write blog entries if we wish to do so.
• We have no deadlines (I am writing these      lines several days after the event).
• We have the necessary freedom to be      creative.
• There are no limits to the length of our      entries.

Therefore, it is worth to listen to what regular and not professional bloggers want to say. Between our lines, you can find the often missing voice of the civil society.

 

2. “Only writing a blog isn’t enough. There is more to be done”

The Blog is only one of several ways to express our opinions using social media: twitter, facebook, LinkedIn, personal websites, etc. Blogs are important but bloggers have to find a proper way to deliver their blogs’ messages to the potential readers. That’s why I regard a blog as only one single building block in a complex on-line media structure. Other building blocks are regular and relevant tweets on twitter, a strong and professional media presence on LinkedIn, including active participation in networking group debates and a professional facebook site. (Comment: since the separation of the professional life from the private one is important, I created a separated facebook page dedicated only to my own blog.) Last, but not least, a personal website can facilitate this process and can bring together to one platform all links pointing at relevant sites. See my example:

• ABOUT.ME
• EU-BLOG.ME
• CONNECT.ME
• LIKE.ME
• FOLLOW.ME - @MASSAYKOSUBEKZ
• E-MAIL.ME zoltanmassaykosubek@yahoo.com

 

3. “You are certainly ready to express your opinion. But what about listening to the views of others?”

There is a real danger that bloggers become selfish. They are probably very keen on expressing their own opinion but in the meantime, they might miss the point: to listen to the views of others. It is crucial to have real on-line discussions by confronting divergent views. Therefore, it is not the right way to

• blog out our opinions without reading other’s blogs;
• give tweets and expecting followers without following others;
• launch LinkedIn discussions without participating therein etc.

Therefore, bloggers have to be not only active on their own blog, but in the same time, be ready to give comments elsewhere. What do you think: could any kind of European Initiative reach the European people without having a real discussion?

I would appreciate if you had firm opinions on different subjects (so many people don’t) but you should always bear in mind before expressing yourself that perhaps you might be wrong!

 

4. “Is there any difference between an official press release and your blog/tweet?”

Blogs (and mini-blogs like tweets) have to be personal. We are fed of reading hundred times the same official blabla. Yes, fact and figures are crucial but be sure that people will find easily the basic information on websites/traditional media in no time. They read your blog/follow you on Twitter/focus on your updates on LinkedIn because they are interested in your personal views. Let’s bring a bit more personality into social media! Let’s show the human face of people/institutions!

People are more and more likely to use social media to have real/more information/opinions about affairs they are interested in. And rapidly growing social media news can have real effect on policies as the fall of ACTA is the real evidence for that.

However the citizens were those who made the first step: the citizens decided to bring closer the politicians to them through social media and not the politicians. Social media patterns are real opportunities to give a face to the faceless policy intentions. Social media can change the relation between governments and journalists. In other words, the EU cannot survive this crisis in the XXIst century with the old habits and methods of the XXth century.

 

5. “You are equivalent to as many persons as many languages you speak.”

Luxemburgish people are famous about the variety of languages they speak. The devise I choose reflects the true European message: United in Diversity. One reason of why is the EU so far from its people is the linguistic barrier. Different languages are bridges to bring European people closer to each other. The role of the English as a quasi common language is important but not enough. We must rely on the other important working languages (French and German) and at the same time to take on board as many rare and specific languages as possible. That’s why I try to use as many languages as I can to reach out to readers, including my native Hungarian. Only a Europe which speaks the languages of its citizens has a real chance to be successfull.

 

6.  “The civil society is completely underdeveloped.”

Unfortunately, the people are not as active as they could be in many European countries. That is why ordinary people can only be reached through ordinary media (television, newspapers, radio) and the possibilities of social media are limited. Influencing the society through a blog is not very easy. Moreover, bloggers usually have a regular job therefore their time to be spent on blogging is limited. However, bloggers can change the dominance of traditional media: ex. by being present in ordinary media and blogging not only about the big European affairs (Macro-Europe) but also about everyday situations where Europe has an impact on the usual life of its citizens. In that way they/we can make a difference (Micro-Europe).

Let’s bring new ideas on the table! Let’s bring fresh air into the room.

 

“7. Take us seriously!”

This is the real message of the blogosphere. Read us! Take us seriously! Be even more transparent and more open to criticism than you were in the past.

 

"8. Where to find us?"

Blogs are everywhere: you may easily find European blogs surfing on the internet by using regular searching engines. However, there is an alternative way to read interesting and relevant blog entries. Portals (like BlogActive) usually publish regular selection of blogs where you will find an impressive variety of different opinions. The project called Bloginportal.eu is about gathering all the European blogs together (cca. 8-900 blogs) to make easier to follow the most relevant blogs.

 

I remain at your disposal.

 

                     

_____________________________

______________________________

Zoltán MASSAY-KOSUBEK ● zoltanmassaykosubek@yahoo.com

EU Policy Officer & Public Affairs Expert | Legal Adviser

 

 "People who never do anything more than they get paid for never get paid for any more than they do."

 

It is somehow ironic that the EU faces the biggest crisis of its history and in the meantime it has been awarded with such a prestigious acknowledgment that the 2012 Nobel Peace Prize. I do not believe that it mirrors that the EU has been determined for success. Although faith is an important factor of innovation and persistence, the EU is a man made and therefore imperfect creation. Thus, its future lies on the good/bad decisions of simple men and these decisions are not taken, yet. And the future Turkish EU Membership is definitely one of these important decisions.

 

Will Turkey be a Member of the EU in 15 years?

 

I think we can go to the idea of the ‘Amoeba EU Integration’ through this question since Turkey’s EU Membership is a decisive factor of the EU’s future. Obviously, I do not say that if Turkey is not soon an EU Member State the EU will collapse. But I do say that the ‘yes and no’ answer to this question do not apply anymore. In other words: the EU reached the Rubicon and alea iacta est ("The die has been cast").

Neither the EU nor Turkey are ready and capable to a marriage, yet. The lack of political will is more than obvious on both sides. Turkey’s population is almost equivalent to the most populous EU member states’ figures. Turkey’s territory and its huge military capacities make him at least an equal partner of the French-German tandem in an age when the third major EU player, the United Kingdom’s fidelity to the EU is at least uncertain. And the other two major EU powers (Italy and Spain) are deeply run into dept. On the other hand, Turkey realized its emerging importance and the European integration (which is certainly part of the Atatürk heritage) is not of the utmost importance for it anymore.

In my opinion, Turkey would be an EU member state in 15 years only if both sides broke up with the reluctant behaviour and made a clear and fair political message: the aim is a Turkish EU Membership and only its timing can be questioned. Full stop.

Only following this pathway can the EU win the Turkish society’s support to the European Integration and only then could Turkey take seriously the accession criteria, including the full respect of national minorities, which is actually a double-edged blade since there are relevant Turkish minorities in several important EU states, not to mention the current president of the Council of the EU: Cyprus.

 

Why is the long term future of the EU depending on the Turkish membership?

 

Because the EU is before a huge reshuffle and it will not exist in its current form in 15 years.

What I expect is the birth of a truly federal amoeba EU-integration. The basis of the new federal EU institution will be the current Economic Union. The new EU will look like an amoeba since the different segments of that existing Union (the Single Market, the Schengen area, the Banking Union, the financial tax, in a wider sense NATO membership, the EFTA area and the Council of Europe etc.) will always incorporate different number of Member states. However, in the centre of that amoeba will be the hard stone of the integration: a mini United States of Europe having a common president, a common army, common foreign policy with one foreign minister and probably having a harmonised tax system and using the truly federal currency: the euro).

I am not saying that this will happen fast and straight forward and without exceptions. Some Members may leave not only the stone but also the wider body of the EU amoeba. Others may leave either the banking/tax or the currency Union. But this is the main direction where we are going and as a long term result, this can be expected.

And in this changing game, the role of Turkey may be important: it can be the key of the future integration. If the EU could integrate Turkey into the body of the EU amoeba it could stabilise the whole integration. The EU was founded on the historic reconciliation between France and Germany. Why not base the United States of Europe on the EU-Turkey Reconciliation?

 

I remain at your disposal.

 

                     

_____________________________

 

______________________________

Zoltán MASSAY-KOSUBEK ● zoltanmassaykosubek@yahoo.com

EU Policy Officer & Public Affairs Expert | Legal Adviser

 

 

Did you know that 2012 is the European year of Active and Healthy Ageing and the Solidarity between Generations? If I had made a research among the readers of my blog, not so many would have answered the question correctly (including myself).

Why?

Some say that Europe has urgent problems to be solved right here right now: the euro crisis, the large amount of state debts, the danger/reality of the two-speed Europe, the democratic deficit, the reform of the institutions, and so on.

Nonetheless, I simply do not believe that this is the truth.

Of course, I do not want to belittle the seriousness of those existing problems. They exist indeed and I admit that they are valid questions to be answered. However, from a long term perspective they might be not the most serious ones. Shall I argue for it?

Here we go: what do you think, will the euro crisis be solved in 75 years? In one way or another, certainly. And the ageing population and the sustainability of pension systems? Or the climate change? The long term public health conditions of our societies? From that perspective, it is not obvious at all that the ageing population is bigger problem or the euro crisis. 

Ageing – as the Non-Communicable Diseases – are the silent killers of our modern societies. Let’s make 3 basic statements to underpine it:

1. Ageing mainly concerns not the old population but the young, active people. Active people (roughly say, people between 20-65) create the financial resources to finance our pension and social systems. In 40 years, these people will be retired and due to the current tendencies, it is far from clear whether the upcoming generation will be able to finance their own elder lifetime.

2. Healthy ageing starts before the birth. Our health conditions are determined not only by genetics but also by the lifestyle. Our lifestyle is as much important as our parents’/grandparents’ way of life. In other words, our healthy choices (drug, alcohol, tobacco consumption) harm not only ourselves but also our descendants’ health. What a responsibility to bear! This is another form of solidarity between generations.

3. Health literacy is a fundamental Human Right. Every human has the right to make healthy choices. However, our choices are far from free: poverty, low awaireness, lack of clear information, social exclusion are likely to hinder us to decide which type of food/drink do we consume. Every citizens should be in the position of making the right choice. Not surprisingly, healthy people became happier in their elder period, they consume less pharmaceuticals and use less primary healthcare services therefore they save valuable money for the state – in a long term.

 

What is my diagnosis?

 

Our societies are focusing on short-term happenings. From the moment of their election, politicans keep carefully in mind the date of the next election days – which is most probably in 4-5 years time maximum. The mainstraim media is as sensation-hunter as it always was. Researches, impact assessments and proven health and financial benefits in a lifetime seem not to be valuable/interesting enough from that perspective.

Having said that, it is more than clear for me, that the real issues to be dealt with are conceptual, long term challenges such as ageing (or climate change) rather than short term financial threats. As regards the euro crisis we know at least in principle the answers: austerity, economic growth, reducing debt. For ageing, I am not sure, if the philosophers’ stone is in our pocket.

“Envy is the art of counting the other fellow’s blessings instead of your own.” ~Harold Coffin

 

I remain at your disposal.

 

                     

_____________________________

______________________________

Zoltán MASSAY-KOSUBEK ● zoltanmassaykosubek@yahoo.com

EU Policy Officer & Public Affairs Expert | Legal Adviser

 

“Employ your time in improving yourself by other men’s writings, so that you shall gain easily what others have labored hard for.” – Socrates

 

All the important EU decision makers beginning with the presidents of the most powerful EU Institutions until the most influential EU Member States’ leaders are busy to find the way out from the EU’s biggest crisis so far. We have never had so many ideas, meetings, proposals intending to either find an immediate solution for the crisis or create a reshuffled, reformed EU. The chaos is almost complete and no-one could foresee so far, what will be the final outcome. Therefore, it made sense for me to briefly analyse the current risk factors the EU faces (1), to shortly present the exisiting strategies being on the table to save the EU (2) and finally, to present my advise (3) to find a simple but appropriate answer in order to save the future of our European Union.

 

(1) Risk Factors: the root of all problems is the economic crisis and its second wave, the euro-crisis

As regards history: the whole economic crisis started in 2008 in the U.S. but it became a real European-specific danger later on questioning eveng the existence of the European integration after the economic breakdown of Greece in 2010. Do you still remember the Icesave and the collapse of Iceland, meanwhile whole Europe was poisoned by vulcanic ash? Afterwards, the Greek disease infected other EU countries one after the other: Ireland, Portugal, later Cyprus and most recently Slovenia. We learned a completly new but deadly word: downgrading. And when really big, G20 Member EU economies started struggling such as Italy (or lately Spain), the situation became really alarming.

 

New imaginary borders split Europe: the two-speed Europe is not a possibility anymore but the cruel reality

The complete unity of Europe became an Utopia, and new divisions created new borders splitting Europe. We learned about the “rich and sparing” Nord and about the “poor and indepted” South. The never ending “austerity versus growth” discussion began and the two main EU-wide political parties immediately familiarised themselves with one of them. Therefore, favorising growth instead of austerity became a question of faith. Thus, the two-speed Europe became an immediate reality with the visibility of the closer integration of the euro countries. And not to mention the rebirth of EU scpeticism and some countries even put on question the added-value of the EU Membership. Furthermore, several important territories of different EU Members started to think about independence (Grönland-DK, Scottland-UK, Calatonia-ES etc.). The example of Kosovo is expanded.

 

Sick men of Europe: the core values and principles of the EU such as democracy and rule of law are not evidences anymore

Although the economic difficulties may undermine the stability of the Union, other non-euro EU Member States put into question the EU’s legitimity to “dictate” and new frontlines have been opened between the EU and countries like Hungary, Romania or Bulgaria. With the active involvement of the Council of Europe, there are ongoing political and legal processes based on the existing EU law and partially on the Europan Convention on Human Rights to clear the situation, but there are no light at the end of the tunnel, yet.

 

What a mess!

 

(2) Existing Strategies to save the EU

 

Since every disease, all of these symptomes proved the existing weaknesses of the EU and stimulated immediate reactions.
During the last, n+1 “historic” EU Summit the President of the European Council presented its plans for a Banking Union and the machinery of the Council prepares the framework of a genuine economic Union which may lead to a political Union.
The President of the Commission held its famous State of the Union-speech in which Mr. Barroso made clear his vision about the Political Union of the European Nations.
The ECB President tried to extend the ECB’s mandate with creative legal interpretation and announced his wishes to buy bonds of indepted countries in order to save the euro.
The President of the European Parliament expressed his wishes to have more say for the European Parliament in the future of the EU (bearing in mind the importance of the upcoming 2015 EP elections).
Meanwhile, the Member States are fighting each other to have a bigger piece from the EU budget cake and they keep planning the future of Europe: Europe biggest economy keeps insisting to launch a new EU convention and codify a new EU-Treaty to deepen the integration and meanwhile, 11 important EU foreign ministers presented a 4 steps plan which may also lead to a real Political Union.

 

(3) My nutshell analysis and expectations instead of: “Keep calm and held another Summit!”

Historia est magistra vitae. The EU Integration has its 60 years history. The EU faced and survived a lot of crises (the fall of the Pleven-plan, de Gaulle and the policy of empty chairs, the ’70ies as the decade of euroscepticism, the fall of communisme followed by the big bang – the historic enlargement of the EU, the Constitutional crisis etc.).

 

We speak too much instead of focusing on the right problems. My advice is to learn from the examples of the Founding Fathers (Paul-Henry Spaak, Robert Schuman, Jean Monnet, Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, Jacques Delors) and simply follow their examples: Do not speak too much about the EU Integration. Just do it!

 

PS: If you don’t believe me, just remember: the European electors rejected the European Constitution because of saying too much: Hymne, flag and common EU Foreign Minister. They were more than happy to accept ratify and apply basicly the same legal text under the name of “Lisbon Treaty”

 

I remain at your disposal.

 

                     

_____________________________

_____________________________

Zoltán MASSAY-KOSUBEK ● zoltanmassaykosubek@yahoo.com

EU Policy Officer & Public Affairs Expert | Legal Adviser

 

 

 

“I DON’T MAKE JOKES. I JUST WATCH THE PUBLIC AFFAIRS AND REPORT THE FACTS.” – Will Rogers

 

“Freedom of Media is for us … I mean, it is a sacred principle. It is a problem of values. Let’s have no doubts about it.” stated the President of the Commission in respect of the controversial Hungarian Media Law adopted in 2010. And now, on the occasion of the 15th EU-China Summit on 20 September 2012, we were informed that there would be no Press conference at all.

 

Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi?

 

(1) I certainly wouldn’t be upset if I received clear, concise and fair arguments. But all what we got is evasion of the real issue. Since there was no clear announcement we had to read between the lines. We were informed that the summit would take place in the Palais d’Egmont,  a Belgian stately home which has – unfortunately – only limited access for journalists. (EU summits are normally held in the EU Council building and open to any EU-accredited reporter to come and ask questions.)

 

(2) In addition to that, instead of clear communication, the two sides – officially – blamed each other, as follows: (…) For its part, the European Commission blamed China for the press gag. The EU spokeperson said: “We held a number of meetings with our Chinese partners on this … but it was not possible to agree conditions that would have enabled the press conference that we would have liked to take place.” (…) Chinese EU embassy spokesman Wang Xining told EUobserver: “Whenever there is something that does not conform to European habits and the commission is asked by press about it, it always blames China. I’m very disappointed about this.” To make it clear: we are talking about an international federation of powerful states and the most populous emerging power of the world. And the joke is that it is not a joke.

 

(3) This was not the first time when such an incidence happened: the Commission had received similar critics when they did not find time for a press conference on the occasion of Jose Manuel Barroso’s  meeting with Chinese vice premier Li Keqiang in Brussels in early May 2012.

 

(4) In every culture, the respect of guests and courtesy is important, I admit that. But at the same time, any guest should accept the receiving country’s habit and respect its legislation either – including the fundamental rights the media freedom is absolutely part of. Thus, if an EU delegation visited China, it should not expect an open, free and fair press conference. Fair enough. Nonetheless, what if a Chinese delegation visited Europe? Since this is the case now, why the EU shall accept such a degrading situation? What if the next visitor from country X demanded to skip the press conference? And if Member State Y asked for the same? I simply cannot follow this logic.

 

(5) If the EU has a certain level of standard and a high EU official met with the representative of another country which has another level of standard: shall we always compromise our values and downgrade our claims in order to have a consensus? What will we abandon then the next time? Our climate goals? Let’s have only a 11% emission limit for 2020 to have a globally binding legal instrument which is acceptable for everyone? Or the public health? Shall we then lighten the strict EU regulation on dangerous chemicals (REACH) to allow competitive non-EU companies to come to Europe? This is really the pathway we want to follow?

 

(7) I would like to mention another element: on the day of the Summit, while working in my office, I realised a massive demonstration on the streets of Brussels in support of Tibet. Such a demonstration could took place but this is not the case everywhere in Europe. May I refer to the visit of the Chinese Prime Minister in Hungary in June 2011 where through administrative and legal tools, any attempt to make such a demonstration had been prevented. Do we really want to see this happen in the next time?

 

Conclusion

 

(8) “In the European Union, freedom of media is a sacred principle. It is a fundamental principle. Fudamental value.”

 

I remain at your disposal.

 

                     

_____________________________

______________________________

Zoltán MASSAY-KOSUBEK ● zoltanmassaykosubek@yahoo.com

EU Policy Officer & Public Affairs Expert | Legal Adviser

 

 

 

"THE FASTEST WAY TO PASS YOUR OWN EXPECTATIONS IS TO ADD PASSION TO YOUR LABOR."

 

Previously

 

European Commission Vice President Viviane REDING has called for the current Commission President José Manuel Barroso to stay on for an unprecedented third term. She pushed for a third BARROSO term at the Commission in an interview with EurActiv Italy.

 

(1) Commissioner REDING confirmed that „Besides, with José Manuel Barroso, we have a very good and active president, whom I admire for his strength, his legal mind, his patience and his wisdom in managing the current crisis. He is by the way a couple of years younger than I. So my personal wish would be that José Manuel stays on for a third term. Because I am sure that we need continuity and stability at the helm of governments in the years to come to continue to make Europe stronger and more resilient to future crises.”

 

(2) There is nothing personal in my opinion you’ll read below. Let’s make it clear: I am a personal fan of Mr BARROSO and I appreciate very much his efforts to keep the European idea alive. Do you still remember the roars of the EU lion at the G20 summit? In addition to that the whole discussion about a possible third term isn’t fair for Mr BARROSO in some way since it wasn’t he who launched this public discussion inconvenient for him. Nonetheless, Mr BARROSO bears personal responsibility as the Commission’s President what the Commissioners say since he is their boss after all. And even the words of the Commission’s vice-president cannot make an exception.

 

(3) Having said that, I cannot subscribe to a potential third term of Mr BARROSO because of several reasons. May I mention just 3 of them.

 

(4) REASON 1: a third term is not fully democratic in the sense that variety is the core principle of democracy. Varietas Delectat. Democracy is about making choices and the more choices we have the better. Even the United States, one of the oldest democratic federal state of the world decided to limit the presidential mandate to 2 terms maximum, after seeing the so called ‘Roosevelt phenomenon’. Why shouldn’t the EU follow this example?

 

(5) REASON 2: a third term is not effective enough. The EU has as many as cca. 500 million habitants– a quite many of them could be potential candidates. Shall we throw away the possibility of using all advantages of these talents? We could let fresh air coming into the European framework instead of keeping the usual way of doing businesses.

 

(6) REASON 3: a third term is not flexible but rigid. One of the usual arguments in favour of that initiative is the need for stability. As a Hungarian EU Presidency veteran, I can well remember the often quoted arguments in order to replace to rotating 6 months Council Presidencies with a permanent one. Well, the EU has made already a timid step to that direction with the inclusion of the permanent president of the European Council to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) who is Mr VAN ROMPUY for the time being. However, we can clearly see that the simple permanent position cannot be alone the solution.

 

What is my proposition?

 

(7) I agree that Europe need (if you like: urgent) changes – including the institutional framework. And yes, there are still good possibilities to improve the quality of the high political management of the EU. Let’s have a look on the acts, statements, opinion of Mr. VAN ROMPUY and of Mr BARROSO: there are not so many differences between them and even the existing ones aren’t really relevant. The tandem at the top of the EU makes extremely difficult the effective action of the EU and causes confusions in the global political dialogues. Let’s make things easier and more simple: let’s elect one single person as the President of either the Commission and the European Council. I have good news for those who are afraid of a time consuming Treaty change in that regard: no Treaty change is required for that purpose. Based on the current text of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), a common COM-CEU President is possible. Actually, it is more than possible: it is highly recommended.

 

Conclusion

 

(8) So please, Mr BARROSO, don’t play with the fire. With all due respect, we recognise and admire your personal skills and excellent job you have done as the esteemed President of the Commission. But please, do not run for a third term!

My nutshell summary: YES for the heritage of Barroso I-II, but NO for Barroso III.

 

I remain at your disposal.

 

                     

_____________________________

______________________________

Zoltán MASSAY-KOSUBEK ● zoltanmassaykosubek@yahoo.com

EU Policy Officer & Public Affairs Expert | Legal Adviser

 

"Try not to become a man of success but a man of value." ~Albert Einstein

 

Previously

 

In February 2004, Mr. Ramil SAFAROV SAHIB, an Azeri soldier cruelly and treacherously murdered the 26 years old Armenian Gurgen MARKARIAN (in fact: decapitated with an axe in his sleep) in Hungary when both participated in an English course at the Zrínyi Miklós National Defence University in the framework of a NATO partnership program. Due to the location of the murder, the legal proceedings had been taken in Hungary and SAFAROV was sentenced to lifelong prison in February 2007 in Budapest. Before the final decision, SAFAROV had been elected for “the man of the year” in Azerbaijan.

 

What is Hungary’s role in the Armenian-Azeri conflict?

 

(1)    In the recent days, Hungary surprisingly delivered the lifelong prison sentenced axe murderer - who is considered as a national hero in his home country - to Azerbaijan following a long negotiation process between Hungarian and Azeri officials (in the end at the highest possible level). The deliverance was legally based on the European Convention of the European Council on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/Commun/QueVoulezVous.asp?NT=112&CM=8&CL=ENG  after receiving “appropriate guarantees” that Azerbaijan will follow the execution of the definitve judgment. Not surprisingly, after the deliverance of Mr. SAFAROV, the Azeri President Ilham Aliyev immediately pardoned to him and set him free.

 

What is the relevance of that decision?

 

(2)    Mr. SAFAROV comes from the disputed Nagorno-Karabak region which belongs to Azerbaijan according to the international law. Nevertheless, after the end of the bloody Nagorno-Karabakh War in 1994, Armenia control 91% of the region. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagorno-Karabakh. And now, following Hungary’s decision, Armenian soldiers fired to Azeri-ones on the Azeri-Armenian border, and in addition to that, the Obama administration expressed its worries concerning the situation and expects further justification from Hungary. Armenian civil population ripped off and burned the Hungarian flag in the Armenian capital city, Yerevan and Armenia officially cut diplomatic ties with Hungary. http://www.azatutyun.am/content/article/24693965.html

 

My personal role in that story

 

(3)    It isn’t a secret that between 2004-2007, I served the Hungarian Judicial system as a clerk of the Court of Appeal of Budapest (Fővárosi ítélőtábla) and I was present on 22 February 2007 when our 2.Bf Criminal Council sentenced Mr. SAFAROV at last resort to lifelong imprisonment in Budapest. I mentioned this fact in my earlier blog entry, as well. http://massay.kosubek.zoltan.dinstudio.com/diary_1_8.html. Thus, I have a personal responsibility to present my legal interpretation and deliver my professional opinion on the desirable steps forward.

 

Did Hungary act fully in line with the international law?

 

(4)    Definitely not. But may I immediately add thereto: Hungary didn’t violate the international law, either. In fact, the European Convention of the European Council on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons regulates the deliverance of sentenced persons outside of their home countries and Hungary formally followed the rules (at least the letters) of the Convention. But doing so, he violated the spirit of the convention: such a deliverance of a sentenced person can take place ONLY IF the other party give APPROPRIATE GUARANTEES that the judgment will be executed under the same conditions. And it had to be obvious for everyone, that the words of a Minister of Justice cannot be considered as an appropriate guarantee in that case since SAFAROV, the axe murderer is considered as a national hero in Azerbaijan. And even not lawyers could have been aware of the existence of a potential Presidential Pardon. (another legal example: A Serbian murderer Magda Marinko has been sentenced for lifelong prison for several assassinations in Hungary. However, he cannot be delivered to Serbia since there is still death penalty in Serbia and Serbia couldn’t give enough Ggarantee that it wouldn’t execute the murderer if Hungary delivered him. At least so far.)

 

Shall somebody bear political responsibility for that case?

 

(5)    In order to save the country’s remained reputation: yes. Pourque l’honneur du pays soit sauvé : oui. Comme Monsieur Fouché a exprimé sincérement son avis même pour Napolèon : c'est plus qu'un crime, c'est une faute. http://vdaucourt.free.fr/Mothisto/Fouche/Fouche.htm Évidémment, la conséquence politique est le résultat d’une faute politique. Néanmoins, à mon avis, dans cette situation particulière, c'est la la faute morale qui est plus grave et qui compte.

 

Is the EU concnerned ?

 

(6)    Obviously. We cannot leave without comment that the country acting such a controversial manner is a respected member of the European Union. This time, the EU won’t launch additional infringement procedures since it hasn’t the competence of doing so. But the political and diplomatic consequences will badly affect even the EU’s reputation in that conflict – thanks to Hungary.

 

 Conclusion: What is the next step ?

 

(7)    The situation is grave enough but there is never too late to do the right thing. As regards my role - since I took part in the Criminal process: I can raise my legal voice in this public Blog and I will consequently represent my clear legal conviction. And I am not afraid to give my advice, as I always do. The Hungarian government laid down that the Hungarian foreign policy will be based on values not on interests. Hungary has 13 officially recognized minorities Armenian is one of them. Armenian population contributed to Hungary’s history: in the 1848 revolution, Armenian generals sacrificed themselves for the Hungarian freedom. And now, since Hungary didn’t apply very basic judicial and diplomatic rules in an appropriate manner and created international conflicts the final magnitude cannot be seen of, the political responsibility of the concerned ministers can really be brought into questions.

 

(8)    And the key of the situation is in the hands of the concerned ministers.

CORRIGENDUM

(9) According to the latest news, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán admitted in a closed party meeting that he had ordered Ramil Safarov to be transferred back to Azerbaijan despite the fact that he was aware that Safarov would be released sooner or later.

 

(10) If that was the case, I would slightly modify my conlusion. I maintain that for such a decision both the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Foreign Affairs have to bear political responsiblity (even if they had to obey the PM since due to their signature/agreement they took the political responsibility upon themselves) but the Hungarian Prime Minister shall also take this responsibility accordingly. As I quoted above, the transfer was more than a simple legal case: it was a political mistake. Mutatis mutandis: C'est plus qu'un crime, c'est une faute.

 

I remain at your disposal.

 

                     

_____________________________

______________________________

Zoltán MASSAY-KOSUBEK ● zoltanmassaykosubek@yahoo.com

EU Policy Officer & Public Affairs Expert | Legal Adviser

"He who learns but does not think, is lost!

He who thinks but does not learn is in great danger." ~Confucius

 

As Euractive reported in its recent article, „Danish Environment Minister Ida Auken has decided to ban four industrial chemicals linked to disrupting the human endocrine system, pushing Denmark ahead of the European Union which has already started a process of phasing out phthalates.” 

What does it mean? Just after the end of the Danish EU presidency, Denmark strikes back: in order to protect health and environment, Denmark is ready to risk even an EU infringement procedure the outcome is questionable of.

 

(2) From a legal point of view, it is highly probably that – formally – this Danish manoeuvre breaches the EU law. On the one hand, the protection of health and environment is of utmost importance. This is what laid down in the precautionary principle (“If an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking the action.”).

 

(3) On the other hand, it is our common interest not having dangerous chemicals on the EU market. There shouldn’t be health and environmentally inequalities on the EU market. The aim is that the protection of the cca. 495 million population of the EU would be at least as high as the level of protection of the 5 million Danish people.

 

(3) Let’s be aware of the legal facts: the European Court of Justice is supposed to interpret the EU law in the last resort. And indeed, the ban of dangerous chemicals is urgent and important. But assuming that the Commission and the Member States did the job correctly by regularly updating the REACH regulation, let’s use the law of the Union to ban those phthalates in the future not only in a single but in all Member states.

 

Can the protection of health make an exception from that principles?

(4) Yes, it can, but only in exceptional and rare cases. In other words: the protection of health can overrule the respect of EU law but if this is the case the Danish Governments shall present convincing scientific arguments. In any other cases, the rule of law and the EU law shall prevail.

 

Denmark is not Hungary

(5) I know that the two countries are not comparable because of quite many things. However, it is worth to play with the idea: will the Commission act against Denmark at least as harsh as it did against Hungary?

 

(6) I don’t think so, since the nature of the Danish violation of the EU law is completely different. In case of Hungary, the democratic and common EU principles were put to the test. In case of Denmark, a relatively small Member States was fed up with the presumed “too light” EU policy as regards the ban of dangerous chemicals and made a brave but maybe not legally justified step.

 

(7) Nonetheless, by doing so, Denmark would spat into the soup of powerful industrial players – as it already did with the inauguration of the fat tax. Therefore, this time the powerful industry may do some lobbying by the Commission for an immediate legal action.

 

Conclusion

The intentions are noble but maybe the Danish government didn’t choose the most appropriate legal tool.

Can a positive aim legalise the breach of EU law?

No.

The respect of the EU law is one of the most sacred acquis communautaire.

Not respecting this value may undermine the long term stability of the EU based on rule of law.

 

My advise

With full respect of the intentions of Denmark – I fully share – my piece of advise would be: let’s use the EU law (the REACH regulation) to ban those dangerous chemicals.

 

I remain at your disposal.

 

                     

_____________________________

______________________________

Zoltán MASSAY-KOSUBEK ● zoltanmassaykosubek@yahoo.com

EU Policy Officer & Public Affairs Expert | Legal Adviser

 

"A year from now you will wish you had started today." ~Karen Lamb

 

The European Bloggers were provided before the usual Summer holiday with an opportunity to have a face-to-face meeting with the Cyprus presidency on 26 July 2012 (Thursday). This event took place in the JUSTUS-LIPSIUS Council building’s press room and in the famous café Autriche (to be pronounced: OUTREACH). The list of the subscribed bloggers clearly demonstrates that the variety of participants was impressive. Further details are available here.

Being a European blogger and one of the lucky participants, I present the 10 key messages I identified which can help to keep the dialogue between the EU presidencies and the EU bloggers active.

 

1.) “I appreciate your presence to help establish the public opinion and to better understand the people’s voice. Let’s bring closer Brussels to Nicosia.”

What is the Cyprus EU Presidency of the Council all about? The CY PRES did its best to show openness to the civil society and this kick off meeting was a good way to present the Cyprus presidency’s 4 priorities. The Presence of the Cyprus COREPER II Ambassador (Permanent Representative, Mr. Kornelios KORNELIOU) and of the Cyprus COREPER I Ambassador (Deputy Permanent Representative, Mr. George ZODIATES) marked the political importance of that meeting. They did not contributed only to the plenary meeting through speeches but also to the in-depth panel discussions.

 

2.) “European Bloggers are closer to the civil society than regular journalists do.”

As I stressed during the panel discussion 1, the voice of usual bloggers reflects more the real opinion of ordinary people.

Because journalists work for newspapers/websites/newsletters therefore they concentrate on issues having general interests and follow strict professional rules in order to meet expectations, high quality standards and strict deadlines.

On the one hand, all these efforts may result high quality and interesting articles about general European issues. On the other hand, there is a danger that at the end of that process, the professional article will not really mirror the real opinion of an ordinary woman/man (in other words, the sincere opinion of the author) in spite of her/his best wishes.

And here can European Bloggers come in. Internet and blogs are democratic and for free. What is the weight of a woman/man if she/he is only a European Blogger?

• We have no financial interests at all.
• We write blog entries if we wish to do so.
• We have no deadlines (I am writing these      lines several days after the event).
• We have the necessary freedom to be      creative.
• There are no limits to the length of our      entries.

Therefore, it is worth to listen to what regular and not professional bloggers want to say. Between our lines, you can find the often missing voice of the civil society.

 

3. “Only writing a blog isn’t enough. There is more to be done”

The Blog is only one of several ways to express our opinions using social media: twitter, facebook, LinkedIn, personal websites, etc. Blogs are important but bloggers have to find a proper way to deliver their blogs’ messages to the potential readers. That’s why I regard a blog as only one single building block in a complex on-line media structure. Other building blocks are regular and relevant tweets on twitter, a strong and professional media presence on LinkedIn, including active participation in networking group debates and a professional facebook site. (Comment: since the separation of the professional life from the private one is important, I created a separated facebook page dedicated only to my own blog.) Last, but not least, a personal website can facilitate this process and can bring together to one platform all links pointing at relevant sites. See my example:

• ABOUT.ME
• EU-BLOG.ME
• CONNECT.ME
• LIKE.ME
• FOLLOW.ME - @EU_Hemicycle
• JOIN.ME
• E-MAIL.ME zoltanmassaykosubek@yahoo.com 

 

4. “You are certainly ready to express your opinion. But what about listening to the views of others?”

There is a real danger that bloggers become selfish. They are probably very keen on expressing their own opinion but in the meantime, they might miss the point: to listen to the views of others. It is crucial to have real on-line discussions by confronting divergent views. Therefore, it is not the right way to

• blog out our opinions without reading other’s blogs;
• give tweets and expecting followers without following others;
• launch LinkedIn discussions without participating therein etc.

Therefore, bloggers have to be not only active on their own blog, but in the same time, be ready to give comments elsewhere. What do you think: could any kind of European Initiative reach the European people without having a real discussion?

I would appreciate if you had firm opinions on different subjects (so many people don’t) but you should always bear in mind before expressing yourself that perhaps you might be wrong!

 

5. “Is there any difference between an official press release and your blog/tweet?”

Blogs (and mini-blogs like tweets) have to be personal. We are fed of reading hundred times the same official blabla. Yes, fact and figures are crucial but be sure that people will find easily the basic information on websites/traditional media in no time. They read your blog/follow you on Twitter/focus on your updates on LinkedIn because they are interested in your personal views. Let’s bring a bit more personality into social media! Let’s show the human face of people/institutions!

People are more and more likely to use social media to have real/more information/opinions about affairs they are interested in. And rapidly growing social media news can have real effect on policies as the fall of ACTA is the real evidence for that.

However the citizens were those who made the first step: the citizens decided to bring closer the politicians to them through social media and not the politicians. Social media patterns are real opportunities to give a face to the faceless policy intentions. Social media can change the relation between governments and journalists. In other words, the EU cannot survive this crisis in the XXIst century with the old habits and methods of the XXth century.

 

6. “You are equivalent to as many persons as many languages you speak.”

Luxemburgish people are famous about the variety of languages they speak. The devise I choose reflects the true European message: United in Diversity. One reason of why is the EU so far from its people is the linguistic barrier. Different languages are bridges to bring European people closer to each other. The role of the English as a quasi common language is important but not enough. We must rely on the other important working languages (French and German) and at the same time to take on board as many rare and specific languages as possible. That’s why I try to use as many languages as I can to reach out to readers, including my native Hungarian. Only a Europe which speaks the languages of its citizens has a real chance to be successfull.

 

7.  “The civil society is completely underdeveloped (but not only in Cyprus).”

What is the message of the Cypriot Bloggers? Unfortunately, the people are not as active as they could be in many European countries. That is why ordinary people can only be reached through ordinary media (television, newspapers, radio) and the possibilities of social media are limited. Influencing the society through a blog is not very easy. Moreover, bloggers usually have a regular job therefore their time to be spent on blogging is limited. However, bloggers can change the dominance of traditional media: ex. by being present in ordinary media and blogging not only about the big European affairs (Macro-Europe) but also about everyday situations where Europe has an impact on the usual life of its citizens. In that way they/we can make a difference (Micro-Europe).

Let’s bring new ideas on the table! Let’s bring fresh air into the room.

 

“8. Take us seriously!”

This is the real message of the blogosphere to the national governments through the Cyprus Presidency. Although this meeting was an impressive step forward, a unique occasion won’t fill the gap between the glorious intention of the presidency and the real needs of the European society: much more is to be done. What is the positive message and wish of the EU bloggers to the current (and upcoming) presidency(ies)? There is a need for more continuity between bloggers and the rotating EU presidency. One possible way may be maintaining a common EU PRES twitter account.

As a former Hungarian presidency veteran, I am aware that presidencies are busy and have enough official duties to be fulfilled. But European bloggers have also a regular workplace, and at the same time, they have firm opinion on EU affairs, which may reflect the views of ordinary people. And we spend our time writing blogs in order to reach people. Read us! Take us seriously! Be even more transparent and more open to criticism than you were in the past.

If not, the result will be the same: people and national governments and parliaments will always blame Brussels for their own incapacity. Let’s stop that the centre be blamed! We are also part of the centre.

 

9. Where to find us?

Blogs are everywhere: you may easily find European blogs surfing on the internet by using regular searching engines. However, there is an alternative way to read interesting and relevant blog entries. Portals (like BlogActive) usually publish regular selection of blogs where you will find an impressive variety of different opinions. The project called Bloginportal.eu is about gathering all the European blogs together (cca. 8-900 blogs) to make easier to follow the most relevant blogs.

 

10. LIST OF THE SUBSCRIBED BLOGGERS – and most importantly – LINKS to their blogs.

Having said that, I am very pleased to offer you the opportunity to focus on the diverse opinion of the European Blogoshpere: here is an indicative list of European Bloggers, blogging regularly about European affairs: LIST OF PARTICIPANTS 

 

I remain at your disposal.

 

                     

_____________________________

______________________________

Zoltán MASSAY-KOSUBEK ● zoltanmassaykosubek@yahoo.com

EU Policy Officer & Public Affairs Expert | Legal Adviser

 

"If we're growing, we're always going to be out of our comfort zone." ~John Maxwell  

 

This time, I will react on the content of a more-or-less objective analysis about the situation In Hungary (and the perception of the international media of it)

Wrong Way Down the Danube

 

“Greece's economic peril has raised fears about the end of the eurozone. But Hungary's autocratic turn under Prime Minister Viktor Orban presents a more fundamental challenge to the European project.”

 

(Comment: Politics are very sensitive issues - especially in Hungary. People take it as a question of faith/internal conviction rather than a subject of objective exchange of views. However, Hungarian politics have reached the European threshold and the international public became interested in what happens there. Thus, an interesting article (see above) about Hungary could help for both Hungarian and non-Hungarian readers to re-think their opinion.)

 

My starting point is that it is agreed among the different players that the situation in Hungary is very controversial and complex. Let’s examine the case from the perspective of the European Union.

 

Is the EU a Democratic or an Economic Union?

 

The EU is both of them. However, from a legal point of view, the economic dimension is much more developed than the political/democratic one. The democracy in the EU is (was) a self-evidence based mainly on non-written habits and courtesy, and the soft-law of the European Council (which is out of the EU law but in a larger sense it belongs to the European Integration).

 

Should the EU became – soon or later – a political Union? The answer is yes, the EU should develop the political dimension of the legal Union but the ineffective sanctions towards Austria in 2001 and the recent developments in Hungary and Romania clearly shows the limits of the EU.

 

Federalisation of Europe and pressure on Hungary

 

I don't regard politics as a matter of faith therefore I am not afraid of giving my professional opinion on it. Let’s make another remark about the federalisation of Europe and the decision of the Hungarian people. In my democracy conception people have to deserve having a well-functioning democracy.

 

If a foreign power removed a democratically elected Hungarian government by force/influence and put directly or indirectly a fully professional and pro-European government on the neck of Hungary, the people simply wouldn't accept that legal but illegitimate government at all. Therefore, in my opinion, it is extremely important, that the common opinion of the people be democratic enough and any kind of decision have to issue from a clear democratic mandate coming from the Hungarian electorate as it was the case in 2010.

 

What about creating a Second House of the Parliament in Hungary as an alternative “brake” (checks and balances)

 

This idea is not from the devil. The "second house" of a Parliament is nothing else than another constitutional balance on the executive power like the president of the Republic, National Courts, Constitutional Court, Ombudsman, Court of Auditors etc. Several European countries have a second house like the United Kingdom or France. Due to their federal system, a second chamber system functions in Germany and Austria but there is an existing Senate in Romania for ex. ([VIDEO] Barroso: Romania has shaken EU trust)

 

In History, there was always a second chamber in Hungary. In the Hungarian Kingdom in the middle age, the "Felsőtábla" represented the Hungarian Lords against the members of smaller nobility. In Austria-Hungary (1867-1918) this institution functioned as "Főrendi ház" After the dismemberment of the historical Hungary, the new regime between the two World Wars re-installed the so-called "Felsőház" (1927-1944).Thus, this legal entity existed already in Hungary and it was always a place where the most conservative clerical and secular lords were collected (respectively in positive and negative sense)

 

Going back to our days, some say that after 1989 there were too many balances which blocked the proper function of the Hungarian state. This remark might be true from a certain point of view. If I understand well the arguments of the international community, they are saying that the problem of the current government is that they systematically tear down the balances - so there won't be enough balances, due to the current government's different democracy conception. Having said that, the possibility of the re-installation of the Hungarian Second Chamber is definitely on the table but it doesn't mean in any way that it will alone protect the democratic function of the state. Thus, if a democracy had enough balances there would be no absolute need for a second house. In other words the existence of the second house is purely optional and doesn't describe the level of democracy.

 

Who has the final say in that debate?

 

The performance of the current government must be measured by the upcoming free and fair elections. The actual government received a very large mandate and they weren't afraid of using it - but this was the clear (good or bad) decision of the Hungarian people:

 

May I draw the attention to the conclusion of the above mentioned article since we all - having different opinion about Hungary - can agree upon one thing: the fate of the Hungarian government lies in the hands of the Hungarian electors. It is important not only from pragmatic but also from principal point of view: Hungarian electors have to understand the complexity of the situation before making their judgment.

 

As far as the EU isn't a political union, external powers (commission, IMF, another member states) do not have the legal possibility to change the government in Hungary. There are thousand forms of influencing a country (in financial, political or cultural way) the external powers may use (and actually they do) but only a democratic election can make a final decision on the government. Do not forget: the current government received its extremely large power (a 2/3 majority) due to fair and free elections following the bad performance of the previous socialist governments.

 

It is up to the Hungarian people to make the final sentence on the current political direction. If the people vote in favour of the government they will keep the ruling party in power. If not, they will send it to the opposition as they did in 2010 with the socialists.

 

We will see. Nevertheless, I will closely monitor the situation from an independent point of view as I always did so far.

 

Last but one remark, some another element:

 

Hungary court says judge retirement law unconstitutional

the reaction of the Hungarian PM to the decision of the constitutional court:

Hungary opened bailout talks with IMF 17 July 2012

 

Finally may I copy here a citation as a last word without any comment:

 

“The government does not really want a deal unless there is little or no chance of surviving financially without it.” Mujtaba Rahman, Eurasia Group

 

I remain at your disposal.

 

                     

_____________________________

______________________________

Zoltán MASSAY-KOSUBEK ● zoltanmassaykosubek@yahoo.com

EU Policy Officer & Public Affairs Expert | Legal Adviser

 

 

"Failure is often that early morning hour of darkness which precedes the dawning of the day of success."

 

There is an ongoing, interesting vote on LinkedIn launched by Dan Anderson, Social Media Producer at European Parliament with the following title:

"Yays, nays and maybes - plenty of important and sometimes controversial issues have passed through Parliament the first half of 2012. But which is the most important? Cast your vote and tell us why!"

 

1. Two pack on economic governance (your vote)

2. ACTA

3. Stricter rules for bankers' bonuses

4. Mobile roaming charges

5. Animal welfare strategy

 

A lot of items passed through the #EP the first half 2012 were significant. Which one was the most importanf from these five examples? I vote for the two pack on economic governance.

(1) The two pack on economic governance (I voted for) isn't the ultimate answer alone. But it contains the more important message to the future: it is the grain of a potential political Union. On the other hand, the most recent problem to be solved is the economic crisis in Europe and this decision is an important part of Europe's crisis-handling strategy.

All the other 4 items have their significance.

(2) By neglecting ACTA, the EP shew its power.

(3) Stricter rules for bankers' bonuses wasn't the coherent response to the European Crisis but rather a symbolic one.

(4) Reducing mobile roaming charges is an important building block in the process of building up the internal market but it cannot be regarded alone as a revolutionary decision.

(5) Animal welfare strategy clearly shows that the EU is becond the pure and dry economic policies and the Union method can be applied on other policies like the protection of animals.

 

Further details and another interesting data about these subjects are available on the EP's website.

 

I remain at your disposal.

 

                     

_____________________________

______________________________

Zoltán MASSAY-KOSUBEK ● zoltanmassaykosubek@yahoo.com

EU Policy Officer & Public Affairs Expert | Legal Adviser

 

 

"Life is ten percent what happens to you and ninety percent how you respond to it." ~Lou Holtz

 

The main purpose of this blog entry is to raise awareness among public health experts concerning a new, recently published piece of the EU’s health related environmental law regulating a specific group of dangerous chemicals: the so-called biocides (dangerous chemicals intending destroying/deterring harmful organism) the health dimension is often forgotten of.

 

Biocidal products are basically non-agricultural pesticides which are useful and necessary for our everyday life and for the safe functioning of healthcare institutions such as hospitals (i.e. cleaning liquids, rodenticides, antibacterial soaps but even drinking water could not be preserved without appropriate disinfectants which are of course biocides). On the other hand, they put not only the environment but also human health in serious danger therefore a very careful human health based approach is inevitable from the EU co-legislators.

 

The role of the Health sector in the adoption of the new biocide regulation 528/2012/EU

 

The new Biocide Regulation 528/2012/EU has been published on the 27th June 2012 in the Official Journal which is a good occasion to re-focus the attention of the interested environmental health and public health professionals on the strong connection between dangerous chemicals in general (and more specifically biocides) and public health.

 

Formally, biocides belong to the environmental regulatory sector. From the Council’s perspective, the Environmental Ministers discussed and adopted the new biocide regulation 528/2012/EU together with the European Parliament (and especially with the ENVI Committee) following the ordinary legislative procedure according to article Article 294 TFEU (ex Article 251 TEC) [1] between 2009-2012.

 

However, this legal perspective does not mean at all, that the health sector would have been excluded from the process. In the opposite way, under the auspices of the environmental ministries, the representatives of the Ministries of Health of several EU Member States negotiated this regulation. Thus, in a special, hidden way the health sector had a say in the debate with special regard to the fact, that Member States have been designated public health authorities as Biocide Competent authorities in many cases.

 

Nonetheless, if we take seriously the Health in All Policy (HIAP) approach, we cannot pay enough attention to every single form of threats caused by dangerous chemicals. Health professionals use regularly antibacterial liquids in hospitals to disinfect every available material and to sterilize medical instruments. Furthermore, special soaps are used for washing the hands before serious medical operations. From the perspective of general public health, other form of biocides are essential to fight vector-born diseases since rodenticides and repellents can be crucial to keep away mosquitos, ticks and other vectors. And even one of the most essential components of human life, drinking water could not be preserved without appropriate disinfectants.

 

It is therefore vital to re-focus the attention of the interested environmental health and public health professionals on the strong connection between dangerous chemicals in general (and more specifically biocides) and public health.

 

Entry into force

 

If you realize that biocidal chemicals would be interesting for you/your organisation, save the date! With the exception of transitional measures the new biocide regulation 528/2012/EU will enter into force on 1^st September 2013 (paragraph 2 of article 92).

 

Basic information about the biocide legislation of the EU

 

The European Union has been establishing a harmonised regulatory common background for biocides based mainly on the Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market, with a view to ensuring a high level of protection for human health and the environment.

 

Following a long evaluation process, in the light of the gained experiences, the Commission presented its proposal to repeal and replace the old directive by a new regulation. After a 3 years longing ordinary legislative procedure, the new Regulation 528/2012/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 concerning the making available on the market and use of biocidal products (hereinafter referred to as ’the new biocide regulation 528/2012/EU’) has been published on the 27^th June in the Official Journal.

 

In order to avoid overlaps between the existing EU law concerning some aspects of the public health (worker’s health, food, medical devices, etc.) and the new biocide regulation 528/2012/EU, this regulation sets up a detailed list of existing legislation this regulation shall not apply on.

 

Both the existing and the future legal framework collect the biocidal products into 4 different ‘Main groups’ and into several ‘Product types’ (PTs). These structures are essential to better understand the logic behind the legislation. The Main Groups and PTs are the followings according to the new regulation:

 

MAIN GROUP 1: Disinfectants (this main group is presented here in a more detailed manner since they might be more interesting for health professionals)

 

Product-type 1: Human hygiene - Products in this group are biocidal products used for human hygiene purposes, applied on or in contact with human skin  or scalps for the primary purpose of disinfecting the skin or scalp.

 

Product-type 2: Disinfectants and algaecides not intended for direct application to humans or animals - Products used for the disinfection of surfaces, materials, equipment and furniture which are not used for direct contact with food or feeding stuffs.

 

Usage areas include, inter alia, swimming pools, aquariums, bathing and other waters; air conditioning systems; and walls and floors in private, public, and industrial areas and in other areas for professional activities.

 

Products used for disinfection of air, water not used for human or animal consumption, chemical toilets, waste water, hospital waste and soil.

 

Products used as algaecides for treatment of swimming pools, aquariums and other waters and for remedial treatment of construction materials.

 

Products used to be incorporated in textiles, tissues, masks, paints and other articles or materials with the purpose of producing treated articles with disinfecting properties.

 

Product-type 3: Veterinary hygiene

 

Products used for veterinary hygiene purposes such as disinfectants, disinfecting soaps, oral or corporal hygiene products or with anti-microbial function.

 

Products used to disinfect the materials and surfaces associated with the housing or transportation of animals.

 

Product-type 4: Food and feed area

 

Products used for the disinfection of equipment, containers, consumption utensils, surfaces or pipework associated with the production, transport, storage or consumption of food or feed (including drinking water) for humans and animals.

 

Products used to impregnate materials which may enter into contact with food.

 

Product-type 5: Drinking water

 

Products used for the disinfection of drinking water for both humans and animals

 

MAIN GROUP 2: Preservatives

 

MAIN GROUP 3: Pest control

 

MAIN GROUP 4: Other biocidal products

 

A summarised presentation of the structure is available under the link below, following this basic structure:

 

General overview of the biocidal legislation of the EU can be seen here:

• Scope
• Obligations of the Member States
• Principle of mutual recognition of authorisations
• Conditions governing the granting of authorisations
• Placing on the market of active substances
• Inclusion of a new active substance in the Annex
• Cancellation of an authorisation
• Modification of an authorisation
• Procedure for requesting authorisation
• Provisions applicable to a biocidal product that has already been authorised
• Exemptions
• Role of the Commission
• Research and development
• Classification, packaging and labelling
• Safety measures
• Confidentiality
• Safeguard clause
• Advertising
• Comitology

 

For further information about Chemicals, you may visit Health and Environment Alliance - HEAL’s website.

 

Application of the new biocide regulation 528/2012/EU to consumer products (the example of washing liquids as potential treated articles)

 

The new biocide regulation 528/2012/EU is a very complicated legislation. The sooner the interested become familiar with it the better. To illustrate that complexity, EPHA is very pleased to refer to the following case:

 

A single example may be sufficient to demonstrate the complexity of the application of the regulation in the practice. Let’s take the example of an antibacterial washing up liquid[2] consumer product, where the first action is cleaning and the second one is as a bactericide effect.

 

There were fierce discussions during the adoption of the new biocide regulation 528/2012/EU about the scope. To consider whether or not such a liquid can be considered as a biocidal product the biocidal product’s legal definition[3] will guide us.

 

The definition of treated article (point l) paragraph 1. Article 3):

 

“‘treated article’ means any substance, mixture or article which has been treated with, or intentionally incorporates, one or more biocidal products;”

 

If the liquid doesn't fit the definition of the biocidal product it can be still considered as a treated article if it contains at least one substance considered as a biocidal product having primary biocidal functions.

 

"A treated article that has a primary biocidal function shall be considered a biocidal product."

 

If the biocidal substance in the washing liquid has a secondary biocidal function, it can be considered as a treated article.

 

The antibacterial effect of a washing liquid seems to be a primary biocidal function. Another example for biocidal products having secondary biocidal function would be a mosquito net treated by a repellent material. In this case the main function of the net is keeping away the mosquitos by a physical way, and the chemical repellent - biocidal - effects is just an additional effect to make the net even more effective.

---

 

I remain at your disposal.

 

                     

_____________________________

______________________________

Zoltán MASSAY-KOSUBEK ● zoltanmassaykosubek@yahoo.com

EU Policy Officer & Public Affairs Expert | Legal Adviser

 

 

 

"It is easier to do a job right than to explain why you didn’t." ~Martin Van Buren

 

Sin taxes may result a WIN-WIN situation under the current economic crisis and they can help to avoid another health crisis.

On the one hand, they can produce additional benefits for national budgets and promote a healthier lifestyle on the other.

Sin taxes are therefore typical examples where financial and public health benefits can go hand in hands.

 

 

I read a recent short article about ‘Fat Taxes in Europe’ I would like to argue with. The article of Alberto ALEMANNO has the following main message:

 

“Should the European Union (EU) institute a “fat tax” on unhealthy foods to prevent obesity? Is it even legal for the EU or its member states do so?

According to Alberto Alemanno, a law professor at HEC Paris, although fat taxes may be legally feasible, European policymakers should address several key policy issues before implementing such taxes.”

 

What is the main conception of such a tax?

 

It is quite simple: unhealthy food (such as chips or hamburger containing too much fat) may be subject to an additional tax (called Fat Tax) in order to (1) produce additional financial tax-benefits for the budget and (2) to discourage consumers to eat such food.

In my opinion the effectiveness of a fat tax is proven from both financial and public health points of view.

Financially, it may result more state revenues to the public budget which is a crucial aspect in time of financial crisis and economic turmoil. That's a clear WIN.

From a public health point of view, the taxation of unhealthy products may have a discouraging effect for the consumers. The ‘silent killer’ Non-Communicable Diseases (NCDs) are mainly related to unhealthy diets and if the consumption of unhealthy food decreased it would save additional lives through reducing the number of NCDs respectively. That's obviously another WIN.

That is why I am talking about a WIN-WIN situation.

 

Two arguments against the fat taxes

 

Nonetheless, there are counter arguments on the table we have to deal with.

 

1.) Priority of educational campaigns

 

The first one is mentioned in the above quoted article: "While noting that it is debatable whether fat taxes actually decrease obesity, Alemanno argues that governments might just as effectively address obesity through educational campaigns."

Well, the European public health policy is applied as an overall, cross-cutting policy (HIAP Health in All Policy). I can agree to that educational campaigns are important to fight obesity but it doesn't mean in any way that an appropriate fiscal policy couldn't apply at the same time, having clear and proven financial and public health benefits. A well tailored educational campaign can be effectively underpinned by the beneficial effects of a fat tax and an educational campaign does not preclude the possibility of a fat tax and vice versa.

 

2.) Negative effects on the labour market

 

Another often quoted critic is that such taxes might be bad for the labour market. Well the truth is that such kind of negative effects aren't proven, yet.

Thus, in the light of the above mentioned wins I can see a clear preference in favour of the fat tax.

Last but one remark, as a piece of information: Denmark was a pioneer to introduce such a tax applied to saturated fat followed by many other countries (France, Hungary). As far as I know, Denmark is considering the withdrawal of this tax which could be a step backward to the wrong direction. The European Public Health Alliance (as a public health NGO) wrote a short, 2 pages open letter to the respective danish ministers responsible for health/finance in order to re-consider their position.

Finally, although we are talking about fat taxes, the same principle apply to alcohol/tobbacco and similar "sin taxes" as well.

 

Conclusion

 

I warmly welcome the idea of introducing fat (or SIN) taxes. May I stress the most obvious advantage of them once again: they may result a WIN-WIN situation under the current economic crisis and it can help to avoid another health crisis.

On the one hand, they can produce additional benefits for national budgets and promote a healthier lifestyle on the other.

Sin taxes are therefore typical examples where financial and public health benefits can go hand in hands.

 

If you have a say in that debate you can easily do it by joining the open and public ongoing debate in the European Affairs LinkedIn networking group. The following persons contributed to the public debate so far (in order of appearance). However the floor is still open for further written contributions.

- Mr. Alberto ALEMANNO, Jean Monnet Professor of EU Law, HEC Paris; Editor-in-Chief, European Journal of Risk Regulation.

- Patrick LAUREYS, Diplomat at DG European Affairs and Coordination

- Patrick MCCUTCHEON, senior policy analyst at European Commission

- Zoltan MASSAY-KOSUBEK, EU Policy Officer & Legal Expert in public health / environment / social security. ★ 2011 HU EU presidency veteran (author of this blog entry)

- Ankit KHANDELWAL

- Erik ZOLCER, Media and Regulatory Affairs Monitoring Intern at EUK Consulting

- Per SJOBERG, GM at SEP Belgium SA

- Piero SOAVE, Consultant at Harwood Levitt Consulting

For those who are more interested in that question are more than welcome to join the 2nd HEC Paris Workshop on Regulation that will be devoted to the challenges of regulating lifestyle risk choices in the EU. The workshop will take place on September 20-21, 2012 at HEC Paris main campus organised mainly by Mr. Alberto Alemanno, Jean Monnet Professor of EU Law, HEC Paris; Editor-in-Chief, European Journal of Risk Regulation. The draft program is now available and registration is open.

 

I remain at your disposal.

                     

_____________________________

______________________________

Zoltán MASSAY-KOSUBEK ● zoltanmassaykosubek@yahoo.com

EU Policy Officer & Public Affairs Expert | Legal Adviser

 

 

 

"Not everything that is faced can be changed. But nothing can be changed until it's faced." ~James Baldwin

Comment: this blog entry focuses on the "gratitude money-phenomenon” in Hungary and since this can be considered as a Hungaricum symptom in the Hungarian healthcare system therefore this summary will be edited exclusively in Hungarian since it might be interesting especially for the Hungarian readers.

Megjegyzés: Jelen blogbejegyzés a "hálapénz-jelenségre" fókuszál Magyarországon, és mivel a magyar egészségügy hungaricumnak számító kórtünetéről van szó, amely a magyar olvasók számottevő érdeklődésére tarthat számot, ezen írás nyelve – kivételes jelleggel – kizárólag a magyar.

 

Született július 1-én

 

2012. július 1-e több szempontból is figyelmet érdemlő nap lesz a magyar egészségügyben.

 

(1) Mindenekelőtt ez a nap a világhírű magyar orvos, Semmelweis Ignác Fülöp, az anyák megmentőjének születésnapja, egyúttal a magyar egészségügy napja (mint ahogy József Attila születésnapja a költészet napja).

 

(2) Ám az idei évben e nap arról is nevezetes, hogy ezen a napon hosszas előkészítés és tervezés után új kórházi ellátórendszer kerül bevezetésre.

 

(3) Harmadrészt ezen a napon lép hatályba a Munka törvénykönyvének olyan irányú módosítása, amely – egyebek mellett – a törvény erejével fogja tiltani a harmadik személytől származó díjazást, s így a magyar egészségügy rákfenéjét, a hálapénzt is – kivéve, ha a hálapénz utólagos elfogadását a munkáltató engedélyezi. Ezt az utolsó tagmondatot vizsgáljuk most meg közelebbről.

 

Nehéz elfogulatlanul írni a hálapénzről

 

Jóllehet e sorok szerzője jogász, mégis orvosi hasonlattal élve a hálapénz leginkább egy elgennyesedett, súlyos sebhez hasonlítható. A magyar egészségügyi rendszer (példánkban az emberi test) sérült, seb keletkezett rajta (itt most leegyszerűsítve a korlátozott erőforrásokra gondolunk), a szervezet a maga módján védekezik, immunreakció keletkezik, amely folytán a seb elgennyesedik (ez lenne a paraszolvencia rendszere). Bármely óvatlan mozdulat, túl hirtelen beavatkozás a seb kifakadását, továbbfertőződését eredményezheti (orvos és beteg egyaránt szenvedő alanyai e jelenségnek). A seb azonban a gyógyuláshoz tisztítást igényel, ellenkező esetben a sérülés példánkban akár üszkösödéshez, amputációhoz is vezethet.

 

A bevezető gondolattal is azt kívánom érzékeltetni, hogy – miként a gyógyítónak a visszataszító gennyes sebbel – úgy nekünk is a problémáinkkal, félelmeinkkel – tetszik, nem tetszik – szembe kell néznünk. Ennek első lépése a kérdés nyílt, adott esetben szókimondó, de hiteles és mindig szigorúan korrekt bemutatása. Márpedig aki betegként maga is hozzájárult tettével a hálapénz-rendszer fenntartásához, és adott esetben szakmailag több éven át az egészségügyben, az egészségügyért dolgozott, az természetes módon felelősnek érzi magát, és nem kívánja növelni a bajt azzal, hogy elfödi.

 

A hálapénz a legszélesebb társadalmi rétegeket érintő, komoly kérdés

 

Nincs ma Magyarországon olyan ember, akit ne érintene így, vagy úgy ez a probléma. E sorok írója is – szégyellve vallja be – oly sok honfitársához hasonlóan már adott életében orvosi ellátásért pénzt (utólag, jegyzem azért meg). Mivel valamilyen módon mindenki érintett – és megalázott – mindenkinek van felelőssége a rendszer létezésében, és abban, hogy az – horribile dictu – a mai napig létezhet. Márpedig aki dolgozott az egészségügyi közigazgatásban – akárcsak nemzetközi és európai jogászként is – annak talán kötelessége is felemelni a fejét és a szavát, hogy tiszta víz kerüljön a pohárba.

 

Mi ma a hálapénz-rendszere?

 

A hálapénz fogalmának részletes elemzésre itt és most nincs lehetőség, de annak megragadására igen, hogy mit értünk a hálapénz-rendszer gyűjtőfogalom alatt. Ma Magyarországon a társadalom kiemelkedően képzett, alapvető fontosságú rétege (nevezetesen az egészségügyi dolgozók: orvosok, nővérek, mentősök, stb.), a szakmai tudásukhoz, és a viselt felelősségükhöz képest (ne felejtsük el, hogy társadalmunk legfontosabb alkotmányos értéke, az emberi élet őrzőiről beszélünk) méltánytalanul alacsony fizetést biztosít az állam (hozzátehetjük rögtön: a teherbírásának megfelelően). E fonákságos helyzet „átmeneti” „megoldásaként” alakult ki, termelte ki a magyar társadalom azt a mára már berögzült szokást, hogy ennek „ellentételezésére” a beteg a kezelés előtt-alatt-után (természetesen adómentes) anyagi juttatást ad az egészségügyi dolgozónak.

 

A paraszolvencia jelensége ezerarcú, de lényegében minden formája beleillik a fenti képletbe, még azok a súlyosan kirívó esetek is, amelyek a fentieken túlmenően már-már az ellátás nyújtását teszik függővé az előnyökért, ami adott esetben bűncselekmény is lehet.

 

Kivétel erősíti a szabályt

 

Természetesen vannak kivételek: egészségügyi dolgozók, akik vállalva minden következményt nem fogadnak el semmilyen előnyt, és lényegében úgy viselkednek, ahogyan azt egy normálisan működő egészségügyi rendszer megkívánná. És természetesen vannak olyan betegek, akik „csakazértsem” alapon megtagadják ebben a megalázó rendszerben való részvételüket, vállalva ennek minden következményét, vagy egyszerűen megengedhetik maguknak anyagilag a privát ellátást.

 

A hálapénz-rendszer azért súlyos társadalmi probléma, mert a szereplők meghatározó többsége nem a fenti kivételekbe, hanem a rendszer általános szenvedő alanyai közé tartozik.

 

A hálapénz ugyan nem szigorú értelemben vett korrupció, de…

 

Szinte kínálja magát a hálapénz fogalmának összehasonlítása a ’korrupció’ fogalmával.

 

„A korrupció (a latin corruptĭo, romlás, rontás szóból) vagy megvesztegetés olyan törvénybe vagy közerkölcsbe ütköző cselekedet, aminek során valaki pénzért vagy más juttatásért vagy juttására való kilátásért cserébe jogosulatlan előnyhöz juttat másokat.”

 

Eszerint alapul véve a korrupció fenti fogalmát - jóllehet általánosabb definíció esetén más következtetésre is juthatnánk - a hálapénz legáltalánosabb formája nem tekinthető korrupciónak. De hamis következtetésre sem szabad jutunk! Pusztán az, hogy önmagában a hálapénz nem minősül vesztegetésnek (és önmagában nem ütközik a büntető törvénykönyvbe), még nem jelenti azt, hogy ne lenne súlyosan közerkölcsbe ütköző, társadalmilag és az egészségügyi rendszer szempontjából rendkívül káros, közgazdaságtanilag is veszteséges üzlet, és ne kellene tűzzel-vassal küzdeni a megszüntetéséért.

 

Leszámolás a ’meghálálás kényszerének’ illúziójával.

 

Halljuk, látjuk, hogy a beteg igenis hálát érez a kapott ellátásért, és ezt ki is akarja fejezni valamilyen formában. Ebben nem kételkedem. Ez azonban nem jelenti azt, hogy ennek feltétlenül az a következménye, hogy anyagi ellenszolgáltatást kellene adnia. A fodrász iránt is hálát érezhetünk, mert megszabadított zavaróan hosszú hajunktól, vagy az autószerelő iránt, mert újra működik a gépkocsink. De ha egy működőképes egészségbiztosítás érvényesül egy országban, a beteg teljesen biztos lehet benne, hogy az őt ellátó dolgozó bőven megkapja a munkája jogos ellenértékét, akkor fel se merül benne a hálapénz adás belső kényszere (mint ahogy külföldi betegek is vélhetően hálásak, és a kinti normális rendszerek mellett nem is adnak hálapénzt).

 

Miben rejlik a hálapénz-rendszer ördögi körének legkirívóbb veszélyessége?

 

A jelenség károsságának hangsúlyozásával bizony oldalakat lehetne teleírni. Mégis miben ragadható meg a jéghegy vízből kiálló csúcsa? Számomra a megaláztatáson és az anyagi kiadásokon túlmenően sokkal mélyrehatóbb a jelenség káros hatása a gondolkodásmódra.

 

A beteg hozzászokik, beletörődik ebbe, és mivel évtizedek (!) óta létező jelenségről van szó, szinte belső kényszerből, egy vélt, torz társadalmi normának engedelmeskedve ad juttatást.

 

Az orvos számára lehetetlenné teszi a hippokratészi hivatás tiszta lelkiismerettel való gyakorlását, és a ’fekete pénz’ révén akaratlanul is a törvény keretein kívülre szorul.

 

A mindenkori állam reakciója számomra a legcinikusabb. Egyfelől törvénnyel nem írja elő, adózott formában a hálapénzadás kötelességét – nem is teheti. Ugyanakkor – mivel teherbírása miatt nem tudja azonnal biztosítani az egészségügyi dolgozók tisztességes fizetését – „nem szeretem, de had legyen” alapon eltűri annak létezését.

 

A királynőt megölni nem kell félnetek jó lesz ha mindenki beleegyezik én nem ellenzem

 

Itt érkeztünk el egy arcpirító példához (amely jelen blogbejegyzés megírására sarkallt). Miként az e cikk végén olvasható sajtóhivatkozásokból kitűnik, a Munka Törvénykönyve végre betiltja a hálapénzt, de kiskaput engedve munkáltató jóváhagyásához kötve fenntartja azt. Ez számomra döbbenetes, és kiválóan beleillik a fent részletezett állami hozzáállásba.

 

Ez ugyanis azt jelenti, hogy – ismerve a realitásokat – felelős szakmai vezetőknek kell ipso iure, a törvény erejénél fogva közokiratban elismerni a hálapénz-rendszer fennállását, mi több, továbbélését. Józanul gondolkodó ember, aki ismeri a realitásokat a magyar egészségügyben, nem szólhat a vádló hangján, amikor az egészségügyi dolgozók munkáltatói – vállalva a szégyent – eleget tesznek a törvényben foglaltaknak.

 

Itt számomra a problémával való őszinte szembenézés, és az arra irányuló egyenes beszéd hiányzik: a mindenkori politikai felelősséget hordozó vezetők helyett egy lényegében politikai döntést szakmai vezetőknek kell meghozniuk.

 

És el is érkeztünk napjainkhoz: a jelenlegi pénzügyi, gazdasági és politikai válság közepette a hálapénz-rendszer lételemét, az egészségügyi dolgozók alulfizetettséget máról holnapra nem lehet megszüntetni. Így a hálapénz rendszer egy olyan-parazitához hasonlítható, amely legyengíti ugyan a gazdaszervezetet, de egyben életben is tartja: ha a parazitát eltávolítjuk, a beteg azonnal meghal. És az egészet ez teszi mérhetetlenül iszonyatossá, és ezzel az ördögi kör be is zárult.

 

Az hálapénz áfium ellen való orvosság

 

Aki nem tud, vagy nem akar kiutat mutatni, az ne fogjon írásba „Minden jó dolog erős izgatószer az életre, még az a jó könyv is, amely az élet ellen van írva.”

 

Belekontárkodva szakmai érdeklődési körömbe, vegyük példának okáért a – mondhatjuk nyugodtan – világméretű európai válságot. A magyar egészségügyben létező hálapénz-rendszert a maga valóságában nem túlzás ehhez hasonlítani. Az európai válság is megoldásra vár, de senki sem várja azt, hogy a görög, spanyol, olasz államadósság máról holnapra párologjon el, és a stagnáló gazdaságok július 1-től szárnyalni kezdjenek. Nem, a világ közvéleménye (amely a hangzatos ’a piacok’ fedőnév alatt rejtőzik) bizalmat akar látni. Azt, hogy van egy megoldás az európai vezetők kezében, akik eltökéltek a válság megoldására, és ennek tanúbizonyságát adják, tettekkel, adott esetben kis lépésekkel, kis lépések sorozatával.

 

Nincs a zsebemben a bölcsek köve, hogy az itt leírtakat arannyá változtatva teremthetném elő a bérrendezéshez szükséges anyagi fedezetet. De az igenis módomban áll, hogy elősegítsem a szemléletmód megváltozását, ha csak egy karnyújtásnyira is a környezetemben.

 

Mondjuk ki: a hálapénz bűnös dolog. A hálapénz jelenlegi formájában fenntarthatatlan, és el kell törölni a lehető leghamarabb. Szögezzük le: ennek feltétele az egészségügyi dolgozók (jogosan elvárt) bérrendezése. Tegyünk jogilag kötelező, progresszív vállalást (hívhatjuk életpályamodellnek is), amely évről évre, rendszeresen emeli a béreket, még ha az ország teherbíró képessége bizonyos esetekben csak lélektani (azaz az inflációt meghaladó, tényleges, de az elvárt szinttől elmaradó) növelést tesz lehetővé. De a rendszeres növelést legalább biztosítja (és itt a hangsúly a rendszeres szón van) egészen addig, amíg a kívánt szintet el nem éri. Dolgozzunk ki az ezt elősegítő stratégiákat! Meggyőződésem, hogy amint a fenti pozitív intézkedések rendszere eléri a kritikus tömeget, a hálapénz rendszere kártyavárként fog összedőlni.

 

Csak jó egészség, semmi más

 

Végül, de nem utolsó sorban: az állam mindenkori vezetői pedig hozzanak politikai döntést (magyarul: adják meg az egészségügynek a neki járó politikai fontosságot). Hányszor halljuk a mindennapokban: Hogy vagy? És az egészséggel nincs gond? Ó, csak jó egészség legyen, az a legfontosabb, a többi nem számit!

 

Ha ez így van a mindennapok magánéletében, a közéletben, a politika világában vajon miért nincs így?

 

PS: Akit érdekelnek a vonatkozó sajtóhírek:

 

Tilos ugyan, de lesz hálapénz és borravaló

 

Rábólintottak a kórházak a hálapénzre

 

Rábólintanak a hálapénzre a kórházigazgatók

 

Hálapénz: tiltják is meg nem is

 

Több magyarországi kórházban is engedélyezték a hálapénz utólagos elfogadását

 

Dire Prognosis for Nation’s Moral Health as Hospital Association Urges Doctors to Keep Taking Patient Bribes

 

Mi az a paraszolvencia?

 

I remain at your disposal.

 

                     

_____________________________

______________________________

Zoltán MASSAY-KOSUBEK ● zoltanmassaykosubek@yahoo.com

EU Policy Officer & Public Affairs Expert | Legal Adviser

 

 

"It's hard to beat a person that never gives up." ~Babe Ruth

 

“Mini Public Health Day - 19 June 2012”

 

Introductory comment: On the 19^th June I faced an inconvenient situation which may occur quit frequently in the life of EU professionals in Brussels due to the high intensity of networking events: at least 2 health related workshops took place simultaneously (at the same building of the EP!).

 

1. Workshop: 'EMERGING AND RE-EMERGING INFECTIOUS DISEASES: A CONTINUOUS CHALLENGE FOR EUROPE', 19-06-2012, ASP 5G2, EP, Brussels, 14:30-18:30

 

2. Workshop: ‘MENTAL HEALTH IN TIMES OF ECONOMIC CRISIS’, 19-06-2012, ASP A1E1, EP, Brussels 16:00-18:00.

 

What should I have done? As a wise person once said “If you don't like something, change it. If you can't change it, change your attitude.” That’s why I tried to realize as much benefits as I could: I simply attended the 1^st workshop as long as the 2^nd has started.

 

Mental health as part of the public health agenda

(Event held under the auspices of the European Parliament’s Health Working Group and the chairmanship of Glenis WILLMOTT MEP)

 

Since the crisis isn’t over, yet, its negative impacts on the whole population become as visible as more statistic data are available. According to the most recent statstics: the suicide rate in Greece emerged by 40% and the youth unemployment rate in Spain is as high as 50% (remember the tragic example of a Greek man’s public suicides having fiscal woe). Having regard to these circumstances, the need for alarming the bell of the danger of a hidden public health disaster is of utmost importance. This second workshop examined the links between the economic crisis and one of the most important components of public health: the mental health.

 

Short summary on this workshop is available on the EP’s website here.

 

There is an evidence base linking debt to poor mental health

 

The perturbing debt ratio in state budgets is at the very centre of current public debates. However, debt is also imminent part of private households’ everyday life. It is important to note that not the pure existence of debt may concern mental well being (since in economic sense, debt is natural part of financial management) but if it becomes unmanageable. If you have financial difficulties, you’re 2-4 times more likely to have major depression. This cruel correlation works vice versa: living in poor mental health may result higher risk to have unmanageable dept and increasing debt rates may cause poor mental health which implies other physical health problems. Nevertheless, if there is an economic case for investing in measures to tackle/prevent unmanageable debt (such as debt advice and consulting services) it could be beneficial from a public/mental health point of view. Experiences show that benefits (including public health benefits) overweight the costs and a common work with the financial sector is inevitable.

 

Europe is facing a suicidal crisis the exact magnitude we don’t know of

 

The most massive form of mental disorder is obviously the suicide which is a complex phenomenon since people making suicide often have mental health problems. Suicide doesn’t mean “only” the lost of an irreplaceable human life but it has also measurable negative impacts on GDP. Moreover, every 1% rise in unemployment correlates to a 0,8% rise in suicides. Europe is facing a suicidal crisis the exact magnitude we don’t know of. And the fresh, probably terrific post-crisis suicidal data are becoming available in the very soon future...

Useful links:

List of countries by suicide rate

Current Worldwide Suicide Rate

Suicide rates per 100,000 by country, year and sex (Table)

Happiest Places Have Highest Suicide Rates

Table 1343. Daily Tobacco Consumption by Country and Sex: 1990 and 2009

 

Top 10 Countries With Highest Suicide Rates – 2011

10 : Finland  Annual suicide rate per 100,000 is 24.3

09 : Kazakhstan  Annual suicide rate per 100,000 is 28.7

08 : Ukraine Annual suicide rate per 100,000 is 29.4

07 : Slovenia  Annual suicide rate per 100,000 is 30.9

06 : Hungary  Annual suicide rate per 100,000 is 32.1

05 : Estonia  Annual suicide rate per 100,000 is 33.2

04 : Latvia  Annual suicide rate per 100,000 is 34.3

03 : Belarus  Annual suicide rate per 100,000 is 35.0

02 : Russia  Annual suicide rate per 100,000 is 37.4

01 : Lithuania  Annual suicide rate per 100,000 is 42.0

 

 

Dans notre société moderne, on peut costaté la duplication de la période entre l’enfance et l’âge adulte : d’une part, l’adolescence (l’âge entre 12-18 ans) et d’autre part, la jeunesse (l’âge entre 18-30 ans) dont la fin est devenue de plus an plus incertain. L’enjeux de l’adolescence et la jeunesse est complex : l’integration des changements physiques et mentales et la création d’une espace d’autonomie au sein de la famille et de la société. L’élément le plus important de ce changement est le conflit entre la déconstruction et la réconstruction des jeunes. Les jeunes qui vivent dans une monde imaginaire dans la famille doivent regarder en face les réalités : des enfants roi devient des vrai individues dans le monde des adultes. Ce processus peut impliquer la déconstruction : dépression, phobies, toxicomanies. Lorsque le statut social se change, il y a un besoin d’une réconstruction : l’aide de la société adulte pour surpasser ces défis.

 

L’impact de la crise financière : une génération perdue ?

 

Néanmoins, les effets negatifs de la crise financière sur les parents fragilisés peuvent toucher les jeunes aussi : leur dépendence familiale s’allonge et ils peuvent perdre la crédibilité dans les institutions et des instances de régulation. Dans une société sans valeurs et sans projects et dans un monde sans pitié, il faut que la déconstruction soit empêchée. Le clivage entre les jeunes et les adultes devient encore plus compliqué si on tiens compte les differences entre les pays « riches » et pauvres, de familles peu touchées par la crise et les familles précarisées ainsi que les adolescents et jeunes « performants » et les adolescents et jeunes « flottant ».

 

Des solutions possibles : des espaces différents

 

Qu’est-ce que pourraient être des solutions possibles ? La création des différents espaces de régénération à retrouver : des espaces de déconstruction pour canaliser la violence, des espaces d’enchantement pour re-créer la réalité et des expaces intermediaires pour réduire la dualisation.

 

The WHO Europe’s approach: Social protection, the Tallinn Charter and the 3 dimensions of well-being

 

Populations well being is dependent on many social factors (health/marital/employment status, ethnicity, relative income, country and social class). The difference is amazing between countries of northern Europe where the crisis had no real impacts on suicide rates and countries of southern Europe where there is a strong correlation between an economic turmoil and the number of suicides. What kind of solution can WHO put forward? As it is included in the Tallinn Charter: social welfare system can protect the 3 important dimensions in that regard: health, wealth, and health systems. Some other actions can be implemented in order to influence health determinants (alcohol, smoking, diet, obesity, physical activity), improve mental wellbeing and prevent mental disorders.

 

Psychosocial Factors - Depression - Suicidality

 

Suicides (most of them) occur within psychiatric disorders. Psychosocial factors (such as stress unemployment) can lead to depression and suicidality, but depression has also an impact on suicidality and those factors. Depression can also have a hidden impact on economy: people with depression can still work but their performance is much more lower than before the illness. And data prove that economic progress do not necessary mean progress of mental health, in some cases in the contrary. Therefore, there is a need to understand how the crisis truly hit the economic and mental health (unemployment is just one of the factors). Monitoring is essential since a viable policy response cannot be based only on estimations. A targeted reaction of the society is advisable to protect people from these negative impacts by social protection.

 

The example of GAMIAN, a patient driven pan-European NGO clearly shows that a strong representation of the mental illness hit patient can influence in a positive way the European decisions.)

 

Magyarország és a Szomorú vasárnap (Gloomy Sunday in Hungarian)

 

Az öngyilkosság és a mentális betegségek (mint a depresszió) témájának vizsgálata során nem hagyhatjuk szó nélkül a magyar viszonyokat. Nem véletlen, hogy a világ leghíresebb, öngyilkosságot középpontba állító dal szerzője Seress Rezső, és az sem az, hogy az ihlet a 29-33-as gazdasági világválságban gyökeredzik (Szomorú vasárnap - Gloomy Sunday).

 

Az a tény, hogy Magyarország hosszú időn át világelső (!) volt az egy főre jutó öngyilkosok számában, és etekintetben még mindig „előkelő” helyen szerepel, további óvatosságra int bennünket. Pont Seress Rezső dalának sikere (és az ő személyes sorsa) is azt igazolja, hogy itt mélyebb jelenségről van szó, semmint hogy ezt pusztán a szocialista Magyarország önpusztító életmódot eredményező viszonyaira vezessük vissza. Az országot, és az egyes egyéneket ért kudarcok lecsapódásaként értékelhető a kiugró öngyilkossági ráta lényegében az egész XX. század folyamán, amely megerősíti az egyes népek, kultúrák szerepét és egyben kötelez is minden népegészségüggyel foglalkozó magyar szakembert a kérdés alapos vizsgálatára és megfelelő megoldások kezelésére.

Ennek, és a pozitív hozzáállás fontosságának szemléltesésére a művészetet hívom segítségül, és ajánlom mindenki figyelmébe az alábbi linket: így is fel lehet dolgozni igényesen a témát: Bijou - Depresszió.

 

Discussion and Conclusion

 

Politicians are fighting the undefinied monster of public debt but in policy decisions, long term (health) effects shall be taken into account respectively not only the short term economic benefits. Behind the numbers, there are people. Since the EU isn’t a confederation of states, the Member States preserved a large autonomy in respect of public health. Therefore, the Commission and Member States shall handle the current situation hand in hands. The above presented problems are well known by the health professionals and the next step should be finding the appropriate channels to target the financial sector, in order to find complex solutions not only for financial but also mental health problems.

 

Mental Health as an occupational disease?

 

The binding law of the European Union obliges employers to monitor risk factors affecting employees at their work place. Having regard to the fact that in some cases, there is an obvious link between stress at the workplace and depression, why couldn’t mental disorders be regarded as an occupational disease?. In that regard, the relating ILO recommendations have to be taken into account.

 

ANNEX

 

Further information about invited speakers and special guests:

 

Invited Speakers

 

Prof. David McDAID, Mental Health Economics European Network

 

Dr. Jean-Paul MATOT, Member of Action for Teens, Psychiatrist

 

Roberto BERTOLLINI, Chief Scientist, WHO Regional Office for Europe

 

Prof. José Luis AYUSO-MATEOS, Department of Psychiatry, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid

 

Pedro MONTELLANO, board member of Global Alliance of Mental Illness Advocacy Network (GAMIAN)

 

Special Guests

 

Jurgen SCHEFTLEIN, DG SANCO

 

Jorge COSTA-DAVID, DG EMPL

 

Last but not least, the detailed presentations are available here.

 

I remain at your disposal.

 

                     

_____________________________

 

______________________________

Zoltán MASSAY-KOSUBEK ● zoltanmassaykosubek@yahoo.com

EU Policy Officer & Public Affairs Expert | Legal Adviser

 

 

"It takes many good deeds to build a good reputation, and only one bad one to lose it." ~Benjamin Franklin

 

“Mini Public Health Day - 19 June 2012”

 

Introductory comment: On the 19th June I faced an inconvenient situation which may occur quit frequently in the life of EU professionals in Brussels due to the high intensity of networking events: at least 2 health related workshops took place simultaneously (at the same building of the EP!).

 

1. Workshop: 'EMERGING AND RE-EMERGING INFECTIOUS DISEASES: A CONTINUOUS CHALLENGE FOR EUROPE', 19-06-2012, ASP 5G2, EP, Brussels, 14:30-18:30

 

2. Workshop: ‘MENTAL HEALTH IN TIMES OF ECONOMIC CRISIS’, 19-06-2012, ASP A1E1, EP, Brussels 16:00-18:00.

What should I have done? As a wise person once said “If you don't like something, change it. If you can't change it, change your attitude.” That’s why I tried to realize as much benefits as I could: I simply attended the 1st workshop as long as the 2nd has started.

A few words about STOA and AVIESAN

 

Science and Technology Options Assesment (STOA) is an official body of the EP mandated to carry out independent scientific assessments to support and reinforce the EP’s political decisions with in-depth technical knowledge.

Alliance Nationale pour les sciences de la vie et de la santé (AVIESAN) is the French National Alliance for Life Sciences and Health which works as an umbrella organisation making scientific and operational coordination among French public health institutes.

After digesting the various presentations of the first session about the stay of play of infectious diseases in Europe I collected my reflections around the following thought-starter sentences.

 

The End of ‘Europe is Safe from Tropical Infectious Diseases’  Myth

 

The recent outbreak of epidemics (avian flu, dengue fever, H1N1, West Nile virus, and most recently the EHEC) clearly demonstrated that any kind of declaration upon the victory over infections were premature. Not only forgotten microbes are re-appearing but new forms of pathogens threaten the health of the European society. It is a common place among health professionals that only the timing of the next epidemic is undecided. And taking into account the alarming fact that microbes are more likely to adapt to antibiotics and becoming resistance than ever, the danger of a possible pandemia cannot be overestimated.

 

An interesting aspect: how do we prioritise NCDs and CDs? Which one is more important?

Any contradiction between Non Communicable Diseases (NCDs – the “silent killers”) and Communicable Diseases (CDs) at public health policy level are illusory and misleading. NCDs are heavy burdens on the society and fortunately they seem to be on a very high rank on the Public Health Community’s agenda. However, this shouldn’t mean in any way either the negligence of CDs or making some kind of hierarchy between them. In the opposite, they are equally important since there is a strong correlation between them as the two sides of the coin. NCDs are often followed by CDs and patients suffering from CDs are more likely to get NCDs. Therefore, the appropriate public health policy shall tackle them simultaneously.

 

The true ‘European’ dimension of Infectious Diseases

 

Doubtlessly infectious diseases represent a challenging public health threat in Europe. Diseases do not know borders, and the Schengen area in Europe facilitates not only the free circulation of persons but also the spread of diseases (in some cases through vectors [mosquito, flies, ticks, etc] bearing the pathogens of them). Therefore, a ‘wider-than-just-the-EU’ approach is urgently needed in public health policies. In my opinion, WHO must have a crucial role to play in that regard. From that point it has a crucial importance that the WHO European region is much better suited to appropriately tackle the pandemics than the narrow EU region, since the WHO EURO region includes the whole territory of Russia and other former soviet satellite states. Briefly: let’s address these highly contaminable diseases in this larger ‘European’ dimension wherever it is possible.

 

Why are infectious diseases so challenging for Europe?

Obviously, in our globalised world the distance between Europe and tropical areas (where some of these diseases usually appear) do not protect the continent from the danger anymore.

There are several factors promoting the spread of pandemics. After the collapse of the former soviet bloc, the globalisation and the European Integration resulted in a relative high level of migration directing from the third world to Europe and the high number of immigrant might occasionally bear some pathogens.

Another problem is the low level of surveillance (not only among migrants) and the latent infection rate which meant that people affected by some types of diseases are not always aware of that circumstance. Thus, the available public data can be in some cases only the top of the iceberg.

The golden rule of the effective healthcare applies here, as well: prevention is always better than cure. Prevention can save lives, and reduce the big amount of used medicines. In some cases of communicable diseases, prevention can be achieved mainly through vaccination.

 

The high capacity of self-adaptation of viruses and bacteria need improved flexibility from public health actors

The way how these diseases can spread in space requires a strong, co-ordinated answer from our part. This means first the effective implementation of the Health in All Policies (HIAP) approach and secondly, a new partnership between policy makers and the industry, the scientific community, health professionals and ordinary patients. Viruses/Bacteria show very impressive level of adaptability. Let’s learn from them and realize a more enhanced co-operation among the public health sector members.

 

The example of one of the most commonly known deadly communicable diseases: HIV (AIDS)

The research in that area clearly shows the power of scientific research. Scientific data prove that after the publication of the first guideline in respect of HIV in 1996 in Vancouver, the mortality rate related to HIV went down dramatically. Most importantly, nowadays the life expectancy of an early detected HIV patient is comparable to a healthy person. What does it mean in fact? Although the disease is still incurable, by using various drugs and therapies people don’t die anymore following a HIV infection. In the 90s, affected patients needed 28 pills a day to control the disease. Today, only 1 pill is needed. And another motivating data: by using the right methods it can be avoided that the child of a HIV+ mother become infected.

But there is a lot of thing to do: patients often come late because they don’t know that they are bearing the disease. Therefore, a more developed monitoring system is needed not only to prevent the spread of HIV but also for having more accurate public data. A large part of the used pharmaceuticals are becoming generic in the near future which could be also a useful opportunity for the European health industry.

Last but not least, there is still an existing inequality among the treatment of different patients not only between Europe and other part of the world but also within Europe, among the regions being at different level of development.

  

What are the main messages of the scientific world to the policy makers?

 

In other words, what is needed at public policy level?

•Strengthening disease surveillance capabilities

•Creating the evidence base as a core part of public health infrastructure

•Providing the research infrastructure to continue building excellence in basic, translational and clinical sciences and training the next generation of researchers

•Encouraging private sector innovation for health and wealth creation

•Ensuring coherent and co-ordinated action across different policy-making departmental functions, recognising that health issues are often very relevant to strategic decisions in other policy areas.

•Identifying opportunities for European involvement at the global level, for surveillance, research, innovation and strategy development.

 

See further details and the relating European Academies Science Advisory Council (EASAC) report here.

  

PREMATURE (due to the fact that I missed the second part of the workshop) CONCLUSION

 

The 3 main messages of the first session were for me the followings:

1.There is a need for strengthening the      surveillance through capacity building

2.Only a highly developed public health infrastructure      can appropriately handle the situation and the private sector (through Public-Private      Partnership constructions)

3.A coherent, strategic co-ordination among      policy makers and a Health in All Policies (HIAP) approach is inevitable

 

What have I missed in the afternoon?

 

WHO challenges and priorities for immunization policy making

 

SESSION II: RESEARCH AND INFRASTRUCTURES: STAYING ONE STEP AHEAD OF THE GAME

 

“Resistance to antibiotics: preserving a precious resources”

“An overview of European Commission research programmes on infectious diseases”

“ECRIN: The European Clinical Research Infrastructures Network”

“ERINHA: Framework for the biological high containment research infrastructures”

 

ANNEX – LIST OF SPEAKERS

Kent JOHANSSON, STOA MEP

André SYROTA, Alliance nationale pour les sciences de la vie et de la santé (AVIESAN)

Jean-François DELFRAISSY, Agence Nationale de Recherches sur le Sida et les hépatites virales (ANRS),

Robert LODDENKEMPER, German Central Committee against Tuberculosis, Berlin; European Respiratory Society (ERS)

Hervé ZELLER, European Center for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC)

Stefano VELLA, Istituto Superiore di Sanità (ISS)

Philippe DUCLOS, World Health Organization (WHO)

Laurent GUTMANN, Hôpital Européen Georges Pompidou

Ole OLESEN, DG Research, European Commission

Jacques DEMOTES-MAINARD, European Clinical Research Infrastructure Network (ECRIN), INSERM, Institut

 

Hervé RAOUL, European Research Infrastructure on Highly Pathogenic Agents (ERINHA), Laboratoire P4 Inserm Jean Mérieux, LYON

 

THE DESCRIPTION OF THE ‘MINI PUBLIC HEALTH DAY’ WILL BE CONTINUED SOON…

 

I remain at your disposal.

 

                     

_____________________________

______________________________

Zoltán MASSAY-KOSUBEK ● zoltanmassaykosubek@yahoo.com

EU Policy Officer & Public Affairs Expert | Legal Adviser

 

 

"If you worry about yesterday’s failures, then today’s successes will be few."

 

In this current entry I will present you what kind of messages have I captured from the twin-presidents of the EU (namely from Mr. Barroso, President of the COM and from Mr. Van Rompuy, president of the Council).

The EU's two presidents 3+3 messages to the rest of the world on the G20 summit:

 

 

Those were the main messages. But as Mr. Barroso said, it will likely need a bit more time. Business as usual in the EU. Nevertheless, time is a luxus the EU doesn't have too much of.  However, if this is the price for a matured decision and for a well balanced, deeper co-operation: so be it.

 

I remain at your disposal.

 

                     

_____________________________

______________________________

Zoltán MASSAY-KOSUBEK ● zoltanmassaykosubek@yahoo.com

EU Policy Officer & Public Affairs Expert | Legal Adviser

 

 

 

"It is amazing what you can accomplish if you do not care who gets the credit." ~Harry S Truman

 

Conference on Social Innovation (Brussels, 13th June 2012)

 

The co-organizers of the Conference on Social Innocation and Independent Living were the Liaison Agency Flanders-Europe (VLEVA) and the Kent County Council on behalf of the Social Inclusion Regional Group (SIRG). The invited speakers firstly presented a comprehensive view on the role of the social innovation in the elderly care during the plenary session followed by the closing remarks of HE Jo Vandeurzen, Flemish Minister for Welfare, Public Health and Family. Afterwards, 4 different workshops were set up to share best practices and to tackle special issues such as

 

1. Supporting independent living elderly and their informal carers

 

2. Living independently better, longer and safer: technology can help, but how to implement?

 

3. Autonomy, empowerment and dignity in residential care

 

4. Persons with disabilities or ethnic background

 

(I had the pleasure to participate in the 1^st and 4^th workshop sessions).

 

Comment: At the end of this blog entry, you’ll find a questionnaire in English – French - Dutch targeting the impact of new technical equipments on the social sector.

The documents of the meeting are now available on the vleva website.

 

Social innovation in focus as a tool to tackle the consequences of our ageing population

 

Nowadays the expression of ‘ageing population’ became a common place. The generation of baby boom is getting older, and the gap between caregivers (1) and persons in need (2) grows exponentially. As soon as the number of the latter overcame the former, the balance between the care expenditures and incomes will be less sustainable than ever. Hence, there is an urgent need to find ways out. A possible solution may be the innovation in social care.

 

Housing as an important aspect of elderly care

 

“Where to live?” This simple statement implies a lot of questions to be answered since there is an emerging need to find appropriate housing solutions for those aged 50 and over.

 

“At home.” - can be the most obvious answer which is at the same time an important policy goal: to keep people in their own homes for as long as possible. From that point of view the right policy will take into account the PUSH factors (factors forcing older people to institutional facilities – even if it isn’t needed) and the PULL factors (adapt the housing situation of elderly people to the changed circumstances) and will exploite as much as possible the PULL factors.

 

Having said that, let’s have a look at the opportunities of urban developing as a tool for creating elderly friendly urban environment.

 

The idea of age-friendly cities was set up first by WHO in 2006 which aims at including the age-friendly approach into urban planning. Since elderly people who have been living their life at the same place for decades don’t want to change in their houses anything at all. However, they will have natural needs and wishes, such as avoiding too much traffic, noise, degradation and pollution, having enough facilities and a pleasant neighbourhood, etc. Briefly: they would like to have integrated care and houses and no ‘ghettos’. Therefore, a long-term perspective and solution would be to persuade people that they make the necessary changes during the active part of their life. To make a good example we can start this persuasion with ourselves since as mortal beings ageing concerns all of us.

 

Municipalities as key players in urban planning

 

We can hardly overestimate the importance of urban planning and as the municipalities are the closest decision makers to the ordinary people, the local decision-makers can help a lot by paving the way for neighbours, local communities, and NGOs to create the appropriate physical environment inside and outside for the elderly people’s houses. The politicians have to provide the framework so that the civil society can do the job properly by working on important factors (such as physical space, free access, use of space, design, local networks etc). This was the key political message of HE Jo Vandeurzen, Flemish Minister for Welfare, Public Health and Family.

 

Social environment

 

Obviously, particular attention shall be given not only to the physical but to the mental environment. The social/psychological well being of elderly people is sometimes even more important since it determines their mental health. Without a healthy mental life, no healthy life is imaginable.

 

In order to achieve all the above mentioned tasks, some kind of integrated approach is inevitable. At every (international – national – municipal) level only an effective transsectoral policy making can provide us with a real integrated solution. Appropriate social care is inseparable from health care services. The decision makers have to take into account that the social and health expenditures are closely linked to each other and with no transsectoral approach, the savings in one pocket of the state (ex. in the health sector) can transform to expenditures in the other (ex. in the social sector).

 

Integration without care co-ordination cannot lead to integrated health and social policies - the example of Kent

 

One possible attempt to tackle this challenge is the integrated social-health local policy in the Kent County Council in the UK. Through integrated health and social care services, the County Council try to tackle the most vulnerable persons, to put citizens in control (to have a choice) and in the meantime to generate economic growth. They set up integrated health and social care teams and try to involve people in self-care by creating the round table of social and health professionals. These round tables can realize shared decision making without costly institutional changes. Briefly: bringing people together without merging institutions.

 

The so-called Integrated Personal Budget is just an example to demonstrate an innovative method of saving: instead of providing free healthcare in the state system, the County provides the patients with the appropriate financial sources so that the patients have the possibility to change the desired healthcare service-provider which is the most appropriate for their need. In other words: give money to the people to bring more flexibility in the system.

 

Another new and useful element of the integrated care is the inclusion of new Referral Points (Single Points of access) to the system. Another viable solution may be setting up Integrated Care Centres which can be stepping stones between Hospital and Home.

 

There are however legal barriers due to the respective data protection rules. In some cases, the social institutions are not allowed to handle sensitive health data. Nevertheless, without appropriate data legislation, no integrated care will be possible.

 

The desired outcome of all these policies is finally an improved co-ordination of care through bringing together people and sustained change and better outcomes for patients and service users.

 

Ageing well

 

In the light of the rapidly increasing care budget, innovation is urgently required. Since financial resources are limited due to the economic crisis, only innovation can bring the required cost-efficiency into the system while maintaining the high level of social and health services. Either the European Commission’s so called Innovation Union project or the Joint Research Centre (JCR) are flagships in that innovation project, in the general framework of the Europe 2020 strategy.

 

This is the first attempt to bring together interested parties from public and private sector to deliver innovative solutions for an ageing society. New Knowledge, Proven Ideas, New Solutions, Evidence and Innovation Guidelines and Development Support are key words which may lead to an active and healthy ageing partnership.

The main areas are the followings: addressing major age-related chronic-diseases, innovation in integrated care delivery systems, innovation in independent living and social conditions, etc.

What are the main obstacles to innovation? Patents, lack of standards, end users (patients, caregivers) resistance to new ideas, lack of training, unclear regulation, lack of evidences of benefits, different priorities for funding bodies, scattered evidences, partial funding of innovation, etc.

Nonetheless, each political choice has an ethical dimension.

Why Research & Innovation is so important? Because an evidence based response is needed to these major challenges. The Joint Research Centre (JCR) examined in close co-operation with 12 countries (including the Institute of Sociology of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences) good practices across Europe. The impact on quality of life of those innovations were on the very centre of these studies. The involvement of end users (patients, caregivers) and of the political decision makers is also needed and there is a meaningful role for volunteers (NGOs, civil society) to play.

Un jour, tout le monde sera aidant

Soit vous êtes déjà un aidant (1) soit des futur aidants(2) ou membre de la famille d’un aidant (3). Mais un jour, nous aurions aussi besoin d’aide(4).

Les ’aidants’ sont les gents qui s’occupent des personnes vulnerables (les personnes âgées, malades) chez eux. Dans la plupart des cas, ils sont membres de la famille. Le model du région Val de Marne en France a bien montré qu’ils peuvent créer des fortes communautés entre eux qui peut aider les aidants beaucoup et les supporter pour lutter des défis psycologiques (97% d’entre eux n’avais pas besoind d’une aide professionelle d’un psychologue). 60% des aidants sont des femmes, 57% d’entre eux sont plus que 50 ans et l’âge moyen est 64 ans. « Mais vous ne recontrerez jamais un(e) aidant(e) général(e). »

La nouvelle téchnologie est très important pour eux et les innovations peuvent aider ses travaux (même les personnes âgées peuvent utiliser sans difficulté les tablettes simplifiées pour parler avec ses parents lointaines), mais la dimension humaine est beaucoup plus importante. L’idée essentielle est que les aidants eux- même peuvent organiser ses activités communes. Comme ça, ils peuvent avoir de temps en temps quelques heures libres qui ne sont qu’un souffle mais qui peuvent signifier quand-même beaucoup. « Quand la dente va bien, les dentes vont mieux. »

Cette communauté locale se base sur la communautélocale où ces aidants livent. Ils organisent des ateliers, et l’association est active sur facebook aussi. « Si tu veux que les hommes et les femmes construisent un bateux ne donne ni des outils ni des matériaux pour eux mais fait naître dans le coeur des hommes et femmes le désir du mer. »

En même temps, il faut voir que dans le passé, le model de nôtre sociétés ont été différent. Tant que les générations différentes ont vécu ensembles auparavant, la solidarité de la famille se disparu aujourd’hui et la carrière individuelle est devenue plus important que la famille.

Il y a quand même une approche alternative : ce n’est pas le devoir des parents mais plutôt du gouvernement de gérer des personnes vulnerables. Dans la société, on ne peut pas forcer des gens et surtout pas des femmes de retourner chez eux et se perdre leur travail. Comme c’est un devoir de l’État, une solution alternatives serait si l’État se concluait un contrat avec des futur aidants qui recevrait une rémuneration officielle pour cette activité. Comme ça, ils acquieront aussi une obligation juridiques et ils ne pourraient pas simplement utiliser les subventions financieres pour des raisons différentes du but original.

Brief conclusions of the 4 workshops:

1. Supporting independent living elderly and their informal carers

This subject was very emotional and closely related to socio-economic changes. The proportion of the shared burden by families and the government needs a political decision.

(See also the French part of this blog entry.)

2. Living independently better, longer and safer: technology can help, but how to implement?

Technologies can really help and the manufacturers of the different devices can contribute to this. However, a complete strategy must be set up.

3. Autonomy, empowerment and dignity in residential care

In respect of residential care, the right balance between the proximity and the autonomy can be the key aspect. The more independent are the residents the more money we save. But one thing is sure: regardless the amount of money spent to the system, the same number of caregivers will be needed.

4. Persons with disabilities or ethnic background

Since these groups are very special, an individual/person entered approach can contribute the most. “When you want to go fast you have to go slow.” People with different backgrounds need simple more time to get in touch. It is always very difficult for elderly people to be honest when they say what they really need. Although social care is a question of money social services cannot be available only for those who can pay for it. The voluntary and professional care can co-operate and complement each other. Since the structures for fund allocations are very complicated, some simplification and flexibility is needed. Avoiding labelling money may also contribute to better adapt the health and social sectors to the different target groups.

Szociális ágazati innováció és a független életvitel lehetőségei

2012. június 13-án (szerdán) került megrendezésre Brüsszelben a Flamand Régió Tájékoztatási Irodája (Belgium) és a Kent Megyei Tanács (Nagy-Britannia) közös szervezésében a „Szociális ágazati innováció és a független életvitel lehetőségei” konferencia, amelyen a résztvevők az öregedő társadalom demográfiai tükrében keresték a lehetséges megoldásokat az idősek és ápolásra szorulók számára.

Mivel a gazdasági válság kedvezőtlenül érinti a nagy ellátórendszerek (egészségügy, szociális ágazat) költségvetési helyzetét, ezért a megfelelő megoldás a rendelkezésre álló források hatékonyabb felhasználása lehet, amelyben kulcsszerepet tölt be az innováció. A szociális és egészségügyi ellátások összehangolása, és az érintett szakértők folyamatos együttműködése révén elkerülhetőek a koordináció hiánya miatti többletkiadások, duplikációk és jelentős pénzügyi tartalékok szabadíthatóak fel.

A konferencia résztvevői rámutattak arra, hogy a méltányos és egészséges időskor a társadalom valamennyi tagját érinti, és generációk közötti szolidaritást igényel. A cél az, hogy az emberek a lehető legtovább eredeti lakóhelyükön maradhassanak, amelyet különösen az épített külső és belső környezet megfelelő ki- és átalakításával lehet elérni. Mivel a megfelelő lakókörnyezet kialakítása elsősorban a helyi lakókörnyezetet érinti, ezért mind a helyi önkormányzatok, mind az önkéntes civil kezdeményezések aktív szerepvállalása rendkívül fontos.

A modern technikai eszközök nagymértékben megkönnyítik a gondozás eredményességét, de még ennél is fontosabb az emberi tényező. Mivel az ápolást végző családtagok számára az ápolás nemcsak fizikailag, de lelkileg is rendkívüli igénybevételt jelent, ezért az ápoló családtagok által létrehozott öntevékeny közösségek rendkívüli mértékben hozzájárulnak a terhek enyhítéséhez és a lelki egyensúly megőrzéséhez.

A konferencián a szociális ágazati szakemberek mellett a Bizottság és a Közös Kutatási Központ szakemberei bemutatták, hogy az Európai Unió miként járul hozzá a megfelelő tudományos háttér biztosítása, és a különböző finanszírozási formák révén a sikeres innováció elősegítéséhez.

Miként Jo Vandeurzen flamand népjóléti miniszter záróbeszédében összegezte, a politikai döntéshozók feladata helyi és országos szinten egyaránt a megfelelő szabályozási környezet kialakítása annak érdekében, hogy biztosítsák a hatékony infrastrukturális feltételeket a megfelelő innovációs megoldások kidolgozásához és alkalmazásához.

PS: Study and Questionnaire on the use of new technologies in the field of services to individuals.

In the margin of this conference, the noble idea of a study was presented jointly by VLEVA and the ’Pour la Solidarité’ NGO. This questionnaire examines the impact of technologies on the beneficiaries, the worker, and notably in terms of quality of service, quality of life (well-being, autonomy) and professionalization. In order to complete the study, they developed a questionnaire intended primarily for structures supplying home care services. Through this questionnaire, we wish to study practices, experiences and obstacles towards a wider use of ICTs in local services. This questionnaire is mainly aimed at structures offering services to individuals.

Questionnaire in 3 languages: ENGLISH – FRENCH - DUTCH

« Questionnaire : L'utilisation des nouvelles technologies dans les services à la personne

Il existe un nombre important de personnes en situation de dépendance (personnes âgées, personnes handicapées…). De plus en plus de personnes souhaitent rester chez elles aussi longtemps que possible dans de bonnes conditions. Les budgets des soins résidentiels sont en outre sous pression à cause du changement démographique. Les Technologies de l’Information et de la Communication (TIC) ainsi que les avancées technologiques dans certains secteurs comme la domotique favorisent le maintien à domicile des personnes ainsi que leur autonomie. Toutefois, l'utilisation des TIC reste marginale et peu systématique dans ce domaine. Via cette liste de questions, nous souhaitons enquêter sur votre pratique, vos expériences et les obstacles à une utilisation plus répandue des TIC dans les services de proximité.

Ce questionnaire s'adresse en particulier aux structures qui offrent des services aux personnes. L'enquête est diffusée au niveau international dans le but de comparer les expériences. Elle ne s'inscrit en effet pas dans le cadre d'une recherche avec des ambitions scientifiques. L'objectif étant davantage de collecter des indicateurs sur les technologies les plus utilisées dans les services de proximité ainsi que sur les obstacles rencontrés par les structures dans leur implémentation, dans différents pays européens. En répondant au questionnaire ci-dessous, vous contribuez largement à la réalisation de notre étude. Vos bonnes pratiques seront en effet partie intégrante de notre publication. »

 

I remain at your disposal.

 

                     

_____________________________

______________________________

Zoltán MASSAY-KOSUBEK ● zoltanmassaykosubek@yahoo.com

EU Policy Officer & Public Affairs Expert | Legal Adviser

 

 

"If you want to make your dreams come true, the first thing you have to do is wake up."

~J.M. Power

1. Does Europe Need a “European New Deal”?

Europe is struggling under the continuous pressure of the economic and financial crisis. The French-German stewardship followed a strict austerity policy in order to reduce the huge amount of state deficit. Since the economic situation didn’t improve so far, an alternative way of crisis-handling emerged promising economic growth through investments. After the socialist victory in the French presidential elections, the question is still open whether the new French policy approach could generate economic growth. If the socialist-fashioned political leadership gains majority in most of the Member States, the whole European crisis management will turn to a completely new direction.

2. What is the Fate of the Euro?

The Euro is one of the most important symbols of the European Integration. If it failed, the whole integration would fail and Europe would remain only a free-change economic zone. Through the Golgotha of Greece, the weaknesses of the euro-zone came out (a monetary union without a fiscal union). Therefore, it is clear that no common currency is imaginable without some level of economic governance in the future. Nevertheless, Greece has chosen another way on the last parliamentary elections and it is highly questionable, if it could maintain the euro after the results of the upcoming new elections.

Comment: May I draw the attention to a legal aspect of the country’s potential leave from the euro-zone. Such a move would probably need the appropriate change of the primary law of the Union which would imply a formal Treaty change. This legal process would require a long and complicated procedure involving every Member States the outcome is questionable of.

 

3. What European Perspective Will the EU Give to its Neighbourhood (Balkan, Turkey and the Mediterranean Region, Eastern Partnership)?

There are several potential EU candidate countries in the Balkan region (not to mention the already in-door country Croatia). We may not forget that this region gave place to several bloody armed conflicts in the past (Srebrenica, Vukovar).

Turkey is another key-player for Europe who has been provided with a candidate status for a half century without having the real opportunity to join the EU in the near future. Turkey might serve as some kind of facilitator or focus point between the EU and the Arab Spring hit Mediterranean region.

Last, but not least the 6 countries of the Eastern Partnerships deserve special attention. We can find among them the last remaining dictatorship of Europe (Belorussia) and the most important power due its size - (Ukraine - see further details about the Tymosenko-case here). Nevertheless, the European or Asian future of these 6 countries is still pending since they are currently balancing between the EU and Russia.

 

I remain at your disposal.

 

                     

_____________________________

______________________________

Zoltán MASSAY-KOSUBEK ● zoltanmassaykosubek@yahoo.com

EU Policy Officer & Public Affairs Expert | Legal Adviser

 

"It has been my observation that most people get ahead during the time that others waste."

~Henry Ford

 

 The Impression of an Independent Health Expert on the Spot - EPHA Conference 06/06/2011

 

Although there were several health related events on 6th June 2012, I decided to take part in EPHA’s Annual Conference organized under the auspices and financial contribution of the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC).

I didn’t make that choice only because of the impressive list of speakers. My motivation to do so came from my experiences when I attended several times the plenary meetings of the EP, where the crisis management was one of the most important issues put on the table. After having some ideas what the 7 main European political groups (EPP, S & D, ALDE, ECR, The Greens, GUE/NGL, EFD) think about an effective crisis management I was looking for the special answers for the health sector.

After thinking about the different health events, I found that the EPHA’s Annual Conference would be the most likely to give me the most relevant summary of the stay of play in the health sector under the turmoil of the crisis.

 

List of Speakers

 

Obviously, all of my perceptions are based on the useful inputs of the esteemed and distinguished invited speakers and panel Members. Since it is not up to me to prepare the detailed minutes of the conference, I will rather focus on the key messages. However, I am very pleased to provide you with the list of the guests with a helpful link about the person in every case, as follows:

 

List of Speakers

 

John DALLI, Commissioner responsible for Health and Consumer Policy

Zsuzsanna JAKAB, WHO Regional Director for Europe

Renate HEINISCH, Member of the European Economic and Social Committee

Archie TURNBULL, EPHA President

Carlos ARTUNDO PURROY, Director – Andalusian School of Public Health

Marietta GIANNAKOU, Member of the European Parliament, Head of the Greek EP Delegation to the EP

David STUCKLER, Social Epidemiologist and Lecturer- Cambridge University

Maria NYMAN, Director – Mental Health Europe

Paul DE RAEVE, Secretary General, European Federation of Nurses Association

Conny REUTER, President, Social Platform

Pervenche BERÈS, Member of the European Parliament, Chair of the Employment and Social Affairs Committee

Pascal GAREL, Chief executive, HOPE European Hospital and Healthcare Federation

Christoph SCHWIERZ, Policy Analyst, Economist Unit Sustainability of Public Finance DG Economic and Financial Affairs, European Commission

Valerie MORAN, Health analyst, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development

Carola FISCHBACH-PYTTEL, General Secretary at the European Public Service Union (EPSU)

Sanjeev GUPTA, Deputy Director Fiscal Affairs Department – International Monetary Fund

Federico PAOLI, Policy Officer and socio-economic analyst – DG Health and Consumer Protection, European Commission

Josep FIGUERAS, Director, European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies Head – WHO European Centre of Health Policy

Susanne LOGSTRUP, Director, European Health Network

Alejandro CERCAS, Member of the European Parliament

Paul TIMMERS, Director, DG Information Society and Media, European Commission

John ASHTON, Joint Director of Public Health for NHS Cumbria and Cumbria County

Monika KOSINSKA, Secretary General, EPHA

 

General Comment: I would like to clarify for those who aren’t familiar with the way of function of NGOs: the conference wasn’t the usual, so-called General Assembly of EPHA according to its rules of procedures. Usually, the General Assemblies make the necessary organizational decisions (ex. adoption of the budget, election of chief officials, etc.) which are very important in the life of an NGO.

 

The current EPHA Annual Conference was rather a professional event the preparation of started at least 6 months before. In my opinion, the above mentioned list of invited speakers mirrors clearly its high professional quality. It was also very impressive for me that the organizers had to decide about the title half a year ago, when they couldn’t foresee the tragic events in Greece, the deepening of the economic and political crisis and the related political changes in some countries.

 

The Health sector/professionals were fragmented and weekly represented so far.

 

There is very difficult to find a consensus not only on the causes of but also on the appropriate responses to the crisis. One of the basic problems is that under the current economic situation the health system doesn’t have enough money to function. Unfortunately, the health and social sectors were hit the most by the required budget cuts given to the fact that those sectors hold a large amount of available public money. The decrease of health budget is underpinned by exact data and numbers in some EU countries such as LV, PT, IE, EL, CZ, FR, NL, AT, HU, ES. In the time of austerity, the available funds are more likely to being subject of cuts and it seems that the health professionals were not organized enough to protect the necessary resources so far.

 

It happened in some countries that patients with the worst conditions (cancer) had to pay the very costly (several 1000 euro) treatments in every months and only after a massive campaign from the general public and from the media normalized the situation for a while.

 

The health sector suffered major losses in recent time. 92% of nurses are women who lost 25% of their salary so far, and the general level of their monthly income is in some countries around 250 euro or even just 100 euro.

 

The projections aren't optimistic either. The crisis will probably worsening in the sector and the intensity of fear paralyses our way to act innovatively and creatively. There is a matter of urgency to act since not surprisingly, always the poorest people are the most disproportionally affected by the crisis being not responsible for.

 

A very suggestive example to demonstrate it is the cross-cutting issue of Mental Health or the alarming increase of suicide rates. Before the crisis in Greece, the suicide rate was among the lowest  and after the crisis it emerged. And the suicide rate is only the top of the iceberg. The ratio of HIV+ patients also emerged due to the more intensive drug use.

 

Thus, social safety belt and the health system are crucial for that people and austerity is threatening this stabilisation. No other industrial sector neglects as much its clients as the health sector does with its own patients.

 

Even the healthcare systems differ significantly in different Member States. In some country the system covers 90% of health expenditures than in others this ratio is only around 60%. Another difficulty is to see what problem is due to the crisis and what is to other causes.

 

In conclusion, the public health sector was too silent so far. But what can the health community do to improve the situation?

 

There is neither economic growth nor recovery without a robust health system.

 

Demographic changes, climate change and the appearance of new technologies create new challenges and opportunities for the health sector. The growing life expectations made visible the existing health inequalities in Europe. Therefore, a purely separated health policy cannot deal with these challenges anymore. Only the Health in all policies (HIAP) approach and linking health on social determinants (education, environment, industry) can produce the desired positive results.

 

There are several WHO studies presenting exact data and quoting exact numbers, how many percentage of GDP can be saved through preventing costly Non-communicable diseases (NCD) such as mental illnesses, cancer, respiratory diseases, heart attacks etc. by reducing alcohol consumption, smoke and by promoting a healthy lifestyle and diet. These are the best ways forawrd to prevent the undetected illnesses of tomorrow.

 

Today is it already widely recognised that good health is a prerequisite of economic well-being. Unfortunately it seems that the importance of social cohesion was neglected by member states so far.

 

There are also positive examples of regional co-operation. The Ministry of Health of Germany with the involvement of Belgium and Sweden has been participating in a special partnership with the Ministry of Health of Greece since 2010. This mutual co-operation is based on earlier professional contacts where German bodies try to share their positive experiences with the Greek health authorities. Such kind of programmes can be considered as very positive signs of hope.

 

The priority of health is a matter of political choice made not always by ministries of health.

 

The healthcare systems are neither the cause of the crisis nor an additional burden on the society.

 

There are 3 major parts of countries for the time being from the perspective of the crisis and the debt rate:

 

1. Countries with accumulated savings who have some room for manoeuvres.

 

2. Countries with a reduced and low level budget who can also opt for deficit financing

 

3. Countries with a high deficit rates who are in a very difficult situation since they are excluded from the solutions of options 1-2. No need the mention that a major part of the concerned European countries (at least 14 states) belong to the 3rd group.

 

But even these countries have the opportunity to move forward by putting health on a high priority of political agenda. Decisions (the size of the health budget) are often made by Finance Ministers and sometimes even at higher political level. Thus, the only way to have real impact on the governments’ policies is the level where the political decisions are made: at the level of prime ministers/presidents.

 

The short time cuts in the health sector are very damaging. Health expenditures aren’t simply costs but investments in the future.

 

The challenge of the crisis was somehow simple: there is a need to cut the expenses and countries had to act as quick as possible without counting on the long term negative consequences. Finance ministers were obliged to act with high debt levels with relatively low GDP growth and under high level of pressure (“To act quickly and dirty and to resolve the problem for now.”).

 

Due to the nature of the health sector, it was very difficult to accentuate the costs of the impacts since they occur and manifest in the form of cost savings in the long term. Cuts of costs without knowing the reason for it are always very dangerous.

 

Yes, we need cuts but not in the wrong places. (In some cases, the existing corruption can be the reason of relatively high spending.) The so-called ‘bookkeeper’ mentality must be abandoned for once at all since not everything can be let for the market. We cannot jeopardize the relatively high level of health care in comparison with other global players’ healthcare systems.

 

Health is the engine of economic growth. If life expectancy grows the GDP will emerge accordingly. Investing in health is a crucial factor for stimulating economic growth where we have to always bear in mind the importance of patient safety and the quality of care.

 

Sin-taxes can be considered as successful tools to achieve not only the balanced budget but also a higher level of public health. Taxing unhealthy products like tobacco, alcohol or unhealthy food doesn’t only result direct revenues to the public budget but also motivates people to give up those bad habits increasing the health consciousness in the wider society. It cannot only end in a WIN-WIN situation but these kind of taxes are usually widely recognised and supported by the general public.

 

The Financial turmoil can be used as an impetus for change, since simply spending more money doesn’t necessarily mean more equity in the system. The possible solution is therefore not to spend more money but to spend the existing resources better.

 

(Megjegyzés: Ehelyütt nincs hely sem mód egy létező probléma mibenlétének részletes kifejtésére megoldási javaslatokkal egyetemben, de alapelvként és kiindulópontként mindenképp ki kell jelenti, hogy a jelenlegi magyarországi gyakorlatban az a tény, hogy a betegek lényegében pszichikai/fizikai körülményeknél fogva kötelesek pénzt adni/ténylegesen pénzt adnak a jobb, vagy egyáltalán a normális ellátásért [amit a Magyar nyelvben hálapénznek nevezünk] az én fogalmaim szerint feltétlenül kimeríti a korrupció fogalmát. Ebből az alapelvből kiindulva, ezt követően minden vitának arra kell irányulnia szerintem, hogy lehet ezt a korrupt jelenséget maradéktalanul kiirtani a rendszerből.)

 

If the civil society wants to make its voice heard, NGOs should target national decision makers and the Commission respectively.

 

Only a well underpinned convincing action can successfully influence the decision makers. Such argumentation cannot go without appropriate data and numbers. Nevertheless, there are existing (WHO, OECD, European Observatory) data for that purpose and they must be used in a clever way.

 

Common international and European efforts are needed to collect the successful models in order to elevate the relatively low rate of use of social cohesion funds for health purposes.

 

There are health sub-sectors where a more rational allocation of financial resources is inevitable. It is vital to spend more efficiently the public money where the system wastes. The costly health administration and the inefficient services have to be changed. Investments to the infrastructure can lower the long term costs of running.

 

In some special cases, a large number of young doctors work at a very technical area with very few clinical examination which is not a healthy organization culture. The health sector needs quality employment not only new jobs.

 

The European semester and the country specific recommendations may have a health dimension and the European 2020 strategy can be an additional way to push the HIAP approach forward.

 

Instead of the hospitalization based approach a more strengthened public health is required.

 

Some think that the collective answer to the 1929-33 global economic and financial crisis was the New Deal politic but it couldn’t avoid the 2nd World War. Others say that the real answer was the establishment of the welfare state. In the Nordic countries the welfare state is especially well developed and the negative effects of the crisis in that region were lower than in other areas. In spite of the financial meltdown and the adopted icesave measures, the happiness index of Iceland is among the bests. Maybe, there is a connection between the good performance of the Nordic countries and their high standard of social security?

 

It is often forgotten that health doesn’t only mean costs. The cost saving approach narrows itself on health care system (1.) but another, important dimension of health is the population health (2), and the importance of the health of every human being cannot be stressed enough.

 

The financial crisis isn’t as bad is it seems since sometimes it implies the long overdue and needed reforms. It is not an option to regain just the ante-crisis situation. The lessons must be learned and new ways are to be discovered: a different model of growth must be found. Investments in primary and outpatient services can avoid additional costs related to potential hospitalisation which can manifest in a form of clear savings. The appropriate training of public health professionals is a possible way forward to achieve that goal.

 

Prevention is surely the most difficult but also the most effective method. The technology assessment requires additional resources since new technologies are expensive and in 2-3 years time, new inventions are available.

 

The establishment and use of a European wide, unique detailed monitoring system can provide the necessary feedbacks, as in important piece of an overall framework to have comparative data and the opportunity to make effective preventive measures.

 

An impressive positive example can be the e-Health initiative which can lead to lower number of physical examinations. An additional argument which promotes this initiative is that the cross-border healthcare directive contains a legal obligation to establish such a system. Another cost savings can be reached by creating interoperable systems.

 

It is up to the health professionals, up to us to influence accordingly the decision-makers to achieve the required results in the public financing.

 

There is no doubt that the right to health is a universal human right codified not only in all national constitutions but also to the Charter of Human Rights being part of the primary law of the Union.

 

Especially under the current circumstances, several European countries received financial aid from international actors.

 

(According to the EPHA summary these countries were:

 

2008. Iceland, Hungary

 

2009. Romania, Latvia

 

2010. Ukraine, Ireland, Greece

 

2012. Greece

 

The necessary meetings between the concerned governments and the international players (IMF, World Bank, ECB, Commission) took place always behind closed doors. Therefore, the obvious question emerges immediately: where are we? Where are the health professionals, doctors, nurses these decision may concern seriously?

 

One thing is clear: international financial organizations aren’t experts in health matters. They don’t have either the legal mandate to examine such questions or the special knowledge about it. But they have the overall overview of the financial sector. Therefore, the governments, who have the democratic mandate and the responsibility for the health policy of the country are in the position to argue for health investments against the international financial institutions. Therefore, these governments must be influenced. And since health professionals are who know the evidences, it is their task to bring them at appropriate levels. The existing evidences must be turned into action.

 

In countries where no recent elections have been taken in place, new governments must be set up with a fresh mandate and these newly elected bodies can rely on the new type of HIAP WHO policies. Even the municipalities and regions must be taken on board since the health-focused use of structural funds won’t be possible without them.

 

The future plans of the Commissions (to revise of the clinical trials directive and to present a new EU regulation on medical devices) provide with the possibility to further develop the efficiency of health systems at European level. Furthermore, there are other ambitious goals: the Commission intends to launch within 1 year other, concrete, real projects at the level of hospitals and patients.

 

We are waiting for the expected invitation of Commissioner John DALLI by the European Finance Ministers to the upcoming ECOFIN Council

 

Not only the European but also international fora dealt with the “silent killer” NCDs. On its 19-20 September 2011 high level meeting, the UN General Assembly adopted a political declaration on noncommunicable disease prevention and control.

 

There is always easier to influence the national decisions pointing at International/European examples/pressure. Since Finance Ministers are key decision makers and – apparently – they are not aware of the crucial importance of health therefore a potential meeting with Commissioner John DALLI can be the appropriate way of targeting that issue. The Health Commissioner himself can be especially well positioned to do so since Mr. DALLI has been served as Minister responsible for Finance at his home country Malta for more than 10 years  before becoming Minister responsible for Health.

 

Even this conference intended to shape the expressed thoughts in a formal letter and send it to the European Council. In this future request, the joint will of the health professionals will be included and accentuated. I truly hope that this conference wasn’t the end, but on the contrary, only the beginning of such common thinking and there will be additional opportunity to contribute to the final content of that document from the part of the different health professionals.

 

Last but not least there are further opportunities under the upcoming Cypriote EU presidency the slogan of is Better Europe which means an enhanced social dimension of growth.

 

Hungary

 

I will provide you with some additional details about Hungary. Since it doesn’t literally belong to the general subject, I will make it in Hungarian for the Hungarian speaking community. The motivation for doing so was the interaction with some participants on the spot, and the explicit reference made by some EPHA document distributed during the conference to the participants, which document was based on a meeting between EPHA and the Hungarian Minister of State for Health, MD Miklós SZÓCSKA held on 7th September 2011 the summary are available here of.

 

Comment: Although I belonged to the staff of the Hungarian Ministry of Health (called Ministry of National Resources) at that time I wasn’t involved in that meeting at all.

 

Nemcsak azért írok pár sort az anyanyelvemen is, mert ez a napirendi pont épp Magyarországot érinti – bár nyilván ez is közrejátszik benne. A fő ok, hogy így szeretnék nyomatékot adni az esemény magyar vonatkozásainak. Mindjárt az elején említést érdemelnek a magyar résztvevők, kezdve JAKAB Zsuzsannával, a WHO Európai regionális igazgatójával, aki maga is egykor az Egészségügyi Minisztériumban dolgozott, folytatva KAJTÁR Nórával, aki az Európai Bizottságnál dolgozik (szintén korábban az Egészségügyi Minisztérium dolgozója, a magyar elnökség előtt/alatt pedig egészségügyi attasé volt), de a meghívottak között szerepelt még Dr. ÁDÁNY Róza is, a Debreceni Egyetem Népegészségügyi Kara részéről.

 

Mivel magam is korábban az Egészségügyi Minisztérium (Nemzeti [Emberi] Erőforrás Minisztérium) dolgozója voltam, nyilván figyelemmel kísérem a további egészségügyi szakpolitikai fejleményeket is azzal, hogy független szakértőként nyilván egy kicsit más perspektívából kell szemlélnem az eseményeket. Valamely résztvevő rámutatott, hogy ’Magyarország’ bizonyos szempontból ’gyenge pont’ az egészségügyi szektorban, amivel nyilván az egészségügyi kiadások radikális csökkentésére utaltak, amely rendkívül hangsúlyos a konferencia témája szempontjából, hisz jelen konferencián a felszólalók többsége pont a kiadáscsökkentést magát ellenezte. S bár ismereteim szerint az EPHA nem rendelkezik magyar taggal, ennek ellenére mégis fontosnak ítélték a szervezők, hogy – más országokhoz hasonlóan – Magyarország is szerepeljen a fenti adatok mellett az EPHA által a konferencián kiosztott kiadványban.

 

Talán nem árt megemlíteni azt sem, hogy a fenti – a költségmegvonás szempontjából negatív – aspektus mellett kettő, kifejezetten pozitív példa is megemlítésre került: egyrészről az úgynevezett chips vagy hamburgeradó, amelyben az ország (Franciaország mellett) élen jár. Ez nemcsak költségvetési bevételt eredményez, hanem egyúttal szolgál népegészségügyi célt, nevezetesen az egészségügyi szempontból káros termékek fogyasztásának visszaszorítását. A másik pozitív példa pedig a közelmúltban nagy sikernek és elismerésnek örvendő dohányzási tilalom bevezetése volt a nyilvános helyeken.

 

Végül, de nem utolsó sorban: a konferencián ugyan nem hangzott el, de ide kívánkozik annak megemlítése is, hogy a közelmúltban történt megállapodás az egészségügyi kormányzat részéről a rezidensek fizetését illetően - ha nem is oldotta meg a kérdést egyszer, s mindenkorra, de - jelentős előrelépésnek tekinthető az egészségügyi ágazat konszolidációjának, és az ágazat egyensúlyának hosszú távú céljának eléréséhez.

 

CONCLUSION

 

- The Health sector/professionals were fragmented and weekly represented so far.

 

- Always the poorest people are the most disproportionally affected by the crisis being not responsible for.

 

- There is neither economic growth nor recovery without a robust health system.

 

- A purely separated health policy cannot deal with these challenges anymore.

 

- The priority of health is a matter of political choice made not always by ministries of health.

 

- The short time cuts in the health sector are very damaging.

 

- Health expenditures aren’t simply costs but investments in the future.

 

- If the civil society wants to make its voice heard, NGOs should target national decision makers and the Commission respectively.

 

- Instead of the hospitalization based approach a more strengthened public health is required.

 

- It is up to the health professionals, up to us to influence accordingly the decision-makers to achieve the required results in the public financing.

 

- We are waiting for the expected invitation of Commissioner John DALLI by the European Finance Ministers to the upcoming ECOFIN Council.

 

PS: Se also the attached links:

 

- EPHA Media Release - “The economic crisis should not turn into a health crisis” – John Dalli, Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection

 

- EU commissioner John Dalli told a conference that the economic crisis should not turn into a "health crisis".

- Euractive article - DALLI: 'The economic crisis should not turn into a health crisis'

- Report from the Annual Conference of EPHA 2012 von Nora Laubstein (ANME e.V.)

 

I remain at your disposal.

 

                     

_____________________________

 

______________________________

Zoltán MASSAY-KOSUBEK ● zoltanmassaykosubek@yahoo.com

EU Policy Officer & Public Affairs Expert | Legal Adviser

 

 

"It does not matter how many times you get knocked down, but how many times you get up." ~Vince Lombardi

 

Previously

There were and still are fierce discussions about the financial crisis almost at all imaginable levels. Austerity, budget cuts and the need for ‘crucial reforms’ became key words of exchange of views. Let’s talk about these reforms which mean in most of the cases simply budget cuts which often touch upon (negatively) the amount of social security expenses. After participating in some of those debates, I decided to publish some basic remarks with regard to the – obvious – link between the financial crisis and the social security schemes.

Comment: In order to put my thoughts in a certain framework I understand under social security systems in the most wide sense the healthcare system, the pension system, the invalidity allowances and other special in kind and cash benefits such as unemployment benefit.

The social security systems and the European identity

From my point of you, social security systems are fundamental parts of the European identity. If we compared the European States (and mainly the EU Member States) to the rest of the world, we would see that the so called welfare state is one of the most important achievements of Europe in the XXth century. There are several antecedents of the today existing systems but the most important initiative among them issued from Bismarck who created the first modern insurance based system in Germany after the first reunification of the country and the Bismarck model was followed by several other European states after the end of the XIXth century.

The European social model is in crisis

That is another, undeniable fact. In other words it is widely recognized that social security systems spend more than the state can allow for that purpose. In other words, the welfare state became – in its current form – unsustainable. Since these systems concern a major part of budget spendings – in some cases around 1/3 of the budgetary expenditures – it is of utmost importance to examine the efficiency of these large public expenses.

The financial crisis and the social security systems

Some think that the social security systems are the main causes of the financial imbalances and therefore of the financial crisis. This is simply not true. In my opinion, the causes of the crisis are mainly of economic and financial nature so social security systems themselves aren't responsible for the crisis.

On the contrary, these systems have a crucial role in fighting the crisis since only these financial and in kind benefits can protect people from the negative economic and health effects of the crisis. Without social security systems, the negative impacts of the crisis would have been more serious.

Social security schemes and austerity policy

I am aware that these schemes produce a major part of state deficits. That is true: there is a clear budgetary link between the two economic factors (social security costs are budgetary expenditures). On the other hand, social security schemes aren't perfect, either. Sometimes they do not function properly since they can spend a large amount of state money inefficiently. Thus, I agree with those who are saying that there is an urgent need for a reform since social security systems have to be sustainable. But I do not agree that these systems would be only ‘public money expenditures’ and that the reforms would mean only cost cuts.

Conclusion - the added value of social security systems

I am deeply convinced that there is a strong need for social security systems. Without effective health, pension and unemployment systems there is no effective crisis management.

YES for the rationalisation of expenditures,

YES for putting these system to a sustainable way but

NO for just cutting the costs without a well-tailored plan and

NO for denying the merits of such systems.

Social security systems contributed to the financial crisis but in a positive way: without the safety net of these systems, the effects of the crisis would have been more grave.

 

I remain at your disposal.

 

                     

_____________________________

______________________________

Zoltán MASSAY-KOSUBEK ● zoltanmassaykosubek@yahoo.com

EU Policy Officer & Public Affairs Expert | Legal Adviser

 

 

"If you don't know where you are going, any road will get you there." ~Lewis Carroll

 

I had the honour to participate in a public workshop organized at the European Parliament on the 30th May 2012. The meeting provided an open platform for an exchange of views among the European Decision Makers (EP, Commission, Member States) and the civil society (NGOs). As an independent expert for the time being, I think that I am in the best position to sum up what has been said from a stakeholders point of view.

Comment: Instead of preparing the unofficial minutes of the meeting, I found more useful to present the most interesting comments about the “old” European Health Strategy 2008-2013 taking into account that probably all participant had in mind what could be included into the new European Health Strategy 2014-2020. I am delighted to provide the list of the invited speakers, as follows:

Alojz PETERLE, MEP (EPP), co-chair

Glenis WILLMOTT, MEP (S & D), co-chair

Adrzej RYS, Commission, DG SANCO

Antonyia PARVANOVA, MEP, (ALDE)

Monika KOSINSKA, European Public Health Alliance (EPHA)

Raed ARAFAT, Ministry of Health of Romania

Chris DECOSTER, Ministry of Health of Belgium

Loukas GEORGIOU, Permanent Representation of Cyprus

 

Introduction – the Skeleton of the European Health Strategy 2008-2013

The global public health tendencies are not only challenges for the health sector but they can be considered as opportunities to help to develop the quality of health services. Those global public health tendencies are: population ageing, threats to health (Climate change, bioterrorisme), and new technologies (e-health)

There are 4 core principles underpinning 3 strategic objectives in the strategy. The most important characteristic of the EUs health policy is the Health in All Policies (HIAP) approach.

Comment: I already covered the complementary character of the EUs health policy in an earlier blog entry (9. (H) The Choice is Yours: either You Drink or... Re-think the EU's Alcohol Strategy (EN)).

 

PRINCIPLES	STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES
1. A strategy based on shared health values. 2. “Health is the greatest wealth” 3. Health in all policies (HIAP) 4. Strengthening the EU’s voice in global health	1. Fostering good health in an ageing Europe 2. Protecting citizens from health threats 3. Supporting dynamic health systems and new technologies

 

Health from a political point of view

The fact that the participating MEPs belong to different political family clearly shows me that the overall population health condition and the need for better health is regardless of political affiliation. It might not be obvious but health is clearly linked to growth. The motor of growth can be the investment in health prevention instead of direct healthcare. The improved expenditures on prevention are costs in a short term, but they can be considered as savings in long term. (This was the main political message of the meeting in my opinion.). The point 14 of the Council Conclusion on the Commission’s European Health Strategy stresses this message:

“THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION NOTES that population health contributes to competitiveness and prosperity, hence the importance of reviewing the evidence on health as a “productive” rather than a “spending” sector.”

Comment: I have argued earlier in this blog for the necessity of raising health-cost in the European budget. 10. (H) How Healthy is Our Way of Thinking about Healthcare Cost Cuts? (EN)

The twofold approach of the European Health Strategy

As it is highlighted in the EU Health Strategy itself, Member States have the main responsibility for health policy and for health systems. Nonetheless, in some regards they cannot act alone effectively, since major health threats such as pandemics or bioterrorism have a cross-border nature. Therefore, the 27 Member States have to find coordinated solutions to the global challenges at European level. Based on this approach, there were 2 aspects of health policy on the table during the meeting: what can an effective (new) Health Strategy do (better) at European level (1) and what kind of impact can such a European Strategy have at Member State level (2)?

The EU Health Strategy at European level (1)

The careful analysis of the EU Health Strategy is based on a questionnaire filled by Member States the completion is still ongoing of. From the perspective of the EU Health strategy the adoption of the cross border healthcare directive (2011/24/EU) in March 2011 under the Hungarian EU presidency was an important step forward. Moreover, particular attention should be given to its implementation since its deadline is October 2013. The EU was also very active recently in the pharmacovigilance system field (falsified medicines, clinical trials, medical devices) as well as on EU Directive on Organ Donation and Transplantation in 2010. The EU tried to make its voice heard at international level, mainly in WHO.

Comment: I experienced personally how difficult was for the EU to speak in one voice when I was member of the EU team (EU delegation + rotating Hungarian EU presidency) in Geneva in April 2011 during the debate of Pandemic Influenza Preparedness, and in May 2011 during the 64^th World Health Assembly.

The health systems don’t necessarily mean only cost-savings

There are different ways to further evaluate the EU health strategy following the lessons learned from the available results. There is ex. a possibility to link the health issues to Europe 2020 which doesn’t have a robust health dimension, yet. The different use of available EU funds may be another opportunity to improve the efficiency of the strategy. Moreover, in the framework of the European semester, even the country specific reports can contain some health aspects. The health systems don’t necessarily mean only cost-savings. The system itself can also boost economy through creating jobs not only for health professionals.

The new form of innovation

Another key word for the health sector can be the new form of innovation. Unfortunately, innovation meant only industry based investments so far. However, strengthening the public health system would be also desirable. To achieve this goal, an evidence based approach is needed.

Hence, the success of any kind of health strategy is in the hands of the people. Therefore, improvement of health literacy (the ability to read, filter, and understand health information in order to form sound judgements) is of utmost importance. It can help people to become capable to make healthy/healthier choices.

The efficiency of an ante crisis strategy

At the moment of the adoption of the current EU Health strategy 2008-2013 the long-term duration of the financial and economic crisis wasn’t predictable, so the old strategy reflected the time of the Lisbon strategy. But now, in the middle of the economic difficulties, the necessary changes shall be included somehow into the new strategy.

Another meaningful remark is that according to different surveys, wealth does not necessarily mean health. In other words, the good performance of the economy alone doesn’t resolve the problems, special actions are needed to protect public health. Not only the EU but also other international organizations (OECD, WHO) are working on smart and specific policies aiming

1. to keep people as healthy as possible, and

2. to provide them with the best possible care if they became sick.

The EU must give effective answers to the challenge of ageing (see EPHA’s statement on Healthy and Active Ageing) and children do not have enough emphasis in the health strategy, either.

Comment: Children were on focus in the Hungarian EU Presidency’s health program, as well

The EUs Tobacco policy

Some consider the Tobacco question as one of the most important health risks. Although the tobacco industry might not be happy with the new legislation, the Commission intends to present its proposal at the end of November 2012.

Comment: It will be probably highly debated since smoking is allowed even in the buildings of the European Parliament under certain circumstances.

Chronic diseases

Most of the Chronic diseases (diabetes, cancer, etc) can be prevented. They are usually very costly for the health systems and investing in prevention not only people’s life can be saved but also a large amount of money can be economized. Thus, commonly agreed indicators may help to realize such savings since they can numerically present the results achieved. Another additional element could be the relation between health and workplace. Health protection can be more effective there since people spend considerable part of their lifetime at workplaces.

Placing useful ideas on the table, we can conclude that the NGOs can play a crucial role to give an impetus to the common thinking about the future EU health strategy, and since they are in direct connection with doctor/nurse/patient organizations, they can express the voice of the civil society.

The EU health strategy and the challenges of the health systems from the perspective of Member States (2)

Although the resources allocated to health are increasing at EU level, they aren’t sufficient to the full implementation of the EU health strategy. Therefore, there are 2 possible solutions: either to allocate more resources to that purpose or to re-focus the priorities to re-direct the money to the most important fields. In order to better use these opportunities, Member States do need more technical support for special programs. But without a higher level of infrastructure, neither the health inequalities (defined as inequalities in health that are avoidable and unfair) can be beaten nor the cross border directive can be properly implemented.

Shortage of health workforce

Some member states are particularly affected by the lack of sufficient health professionals. With regard to the connections between the different health sectors of different Member States, a reform in a Member States’ health system can affect the health system of another Member State (ex. if a MS reduces the working time of health professionals, it will need more doctors, therefore health professionals from another MS will migrate to that MS). Therefore, the European health policy has to tackle the shortage of health professionals in some Member States due to the fact that these vacancies cannot be filled easily from outside the EU.

Links between European and Member State level health policy

Hospitalisation is not always the best solution. The resources allocated to that purpose shall be redirected to prevention. The agenda of the EU can be used for promoting some subject at member state level. Ex. Belgium managed to include the question of e-Health into the text of the Council Conclusions. After its adoption, every member state had to prepare reports in that regard which could further promote the elaboration of such programs not only in Belgium but in all 27 Member states. Another important health policy issue is the Mental Health which is unfortunately not well developed at EU level.

The effects of the crisis on the health costs

In most countries, the Health Ministries and Finance ministries are fighting concerning the amount of health costs. Countries with significant financial difficulties are in close collaboration with IMF which prepares country specific recommendations mentioning sometimes a certain maximum level of health costs. However, the legitimacy of such a procedure is questionable since IMF is not a democratically elected and accountable body. There are the national Parliaments and governments who are responsible for the electors for any decision made concerning health costs.

In that situation, ministries of health are in a very difficult situation when they try to defend the need for health spending against the ministries of finance. An EU wide policy may help a lot to demonstrate that the short term health expenditures are long term savings.

A specific solution would be a European study stating that a basic x% (?6 / ?6,5% / ?7%) of the national GDP must be spent on health since unfortunately, in some member states this rate is in a very low level. Such a study may help national ministries of health their position.

Another European cost-saving method would be the preparation of common European guidelines. By finding common professional standards, the 27 MS wouldn’t have to invest in preparing separate guidelines and that can reduce costs.

 

FINAL CONCLUSION

SHORT TERM HEALTH EXPENDITURES ARE LONG TERM SAVINGS.

 

I remain at your disposal.

 

                     

_____________________________

______________________________

Zoltán MASSAY-KOSUBEK ● zoltanmassaykosubek@yahoo.com

EU Policy Officer & Public Affairs Expert | Legal Adviser

 

"Don't ever take a fence down until you know the reason it was put up." ~ G.K. Chesterton

Comment: The open discussion in the EP started with a performance of the ALDE group. Several Members showed a transparent with the picture of the former prime minister. Moreover, the daughter of Tymosenko attended the major part of the debate.

FÜLE (Commission) “What we need is a concrete strategy for improving the judicial system, free and fair elections and commitments to the reforms in Ukraine.”

There is a selective problem in Ukraine which needs a selective resolution. Ukraine has to make definitive decisions aiming at the restoration of rule of law and fundamental principles. The adoption of the new Ukrainian Code of Criminal Procedure is an important step forward to the right direction but more is needed. There are people who are already sentenced. The upcoming elections in October will be an important test of democracy. May I highlight that the Commission provided that country with financial support for an effective judicial reform.

What we need is a concrete strategy for improving the judicial system, free and fair elections and commitments to the reforms proposed by the joint European-Ukrainian Committee.

BROK (EPP) „Das EP ist bereit, das Abkommen schnell ratifizieren wenn Ukraine darauf bereit seinen wird.“

Es gibt ein systemisches Problem mit den Menschenrechten in der Ukraine und die EU muss daraus die Konsequenzen ziehen. Nur dann können die Wahlen frei sein wenn die Opposition auch daran teilnehmen kann.

Ukraine ist ein Teil von Europa. Das EP ist bereit, das Abkommen schnell ratifizieren wenn Ukraine darauf bereit seinen wird. Keine Müdigkeit darf die Kommission, das EP oder den Rat erreichen.

ROUČEK (S&D) “The whole legal system is problematic in Ukraine so we don’t address just one individual case.”

The whole legal system is problematic in Ukraine so we don’t address just one individual case. We welcome that Ukraine took into consideration the recommendations of the Venice Committee of the Council of Europe on the reform on the criminal procedure. The release of Tymosenko shall be pursued in accordance with the international and Ukrainian law. We are keen on the final decision of the Court of Justice on Human Rights of Council of Europe which will take place here, in Strasbourg.

Yes, the S&D group signed a memorandum with the ruling Ukrainian party. In this memorandum, we expressed our will to develop human rights and we urge our Ukrainian colleagues to make progress. The Czech government gave political asylum to the former economic minister.

VAN BAALEN (ALDE) “The Tymosenko case will be a test case.”

The door is still open. Ukraine can follow either the way of the Belorussia, of the last dictatorship of Europe or became an integral part of Europe. The Tymosenko case will be a test case. He receives already better treatment but it isn’t enough. The Ukrainian parliament adopted a new law condemning the free promulgation of homosexuality. This law is not in line with the principle of equal treatment of people. The October election will be an important benchmark.

As regards the European Football Championship Euro 2012 , we shouldn’t boycott this event but use this opportunity to draw the attention to the still open cases.

HARMS (Les Verts) „Die Europameisterschaft ist eine gute Gelegenheit um die Debatte über die Demokratie zu intensivieren.“

Es ist ein Erflog dass große öffentliche Interesse erreicht wurde. Aber dieser Fall ist leider nicht der einzige und wir müssen auch über die andere Fälle sprechen und Solidarität zeigen mit den anderen ehemaligen Politiker.

Über den Boykott kann man sich nur schwierig entscheiden: wir müssen nur die Regierung, die verantwortlich ist, boykottieren aber nicht die Bürgern. Die Europameisterschaft ist eine gute Gelegenheit um die Debatte über die Demokratie zu intensivieren. Vor der Spiele müssen wir unsere Meinung unbedingt deutlich machen und wir dürfen mit unserer Kritik nicht nachlassen. Das Assoziierungsabkommen zwischen die EU und Ukraine darf nicht unterschreiben werden.

KOWAL (ECR) “We have to send a delegation as big as possible to Ukraine.”

We still hope that Ukraine has a European future. We agree on that we have to send as big delegation as possible with the High Commissioner FÜLE to Ukraine in order to closely monitor the elections.

ZIOBRO (EDF) “Even the Ukrainian opposition does not accept the idea of boycott. Why should we do so?”

Even the Ukrainian opposition does not accept the idea of boycott. Why should we do so? It is not in our best interest: we don’t want to throw away Ukraine to the Russian side. If we boycotted the European Football Championship Euro Cup, should we do the same thing in Sochi in Russia next time? The situation of Human rights is not far better there. We shouldn’t forget that Ukraine organizes the cup jointly with Poland. Why Ashton did not comment that circumstance?

KOHLICEK (GUE/NGL) “The condemnation of Chirac shall be the exception not the main rule.”

Comment: After presenting the main ideas of the principal speakers of various political groups, I will share with you some other captured ideas without mentioning either the name or the political affiliation of the esteemed MEPs since they shared basically the same opinion.

“The problem is the existing selective standards. The prosecutors are in the pockets of the government and the judicial system does not follow the European standards.”

“European Ukraine or Russian Ukraine that is the question.”

“The economic climate is very bad in Ukraine. The election law is adopted with the votes of the opposition.”

“Building a democracy needs time. The post-communist Eastern European countries needed 10-15 years to do the same thing.”

“Wir müssen aber Ernst sein: einige wirtschaftliche Problemen konnte das Land unter der Regierung von Tymosenko auch nicht lösen.“

„Ich respektiere Tymosenko persönlich und politisch auch. Ukraine muss die Menschenrechten schützen, egal, wer das Land regiert.“

„Die Machtkonzentration wurde auch in der Steuerbehörde gemacht, die den Interessen der Oligarchen gedient hat. Die EU muss das Abkommen kündigen, die Dialoge weiterführen und Janukovich die Grenzen zeigen.“

„The EU must follow a consistent policy either in the neighborhood policy or in the Association agreement, and more and more should be placed into practice.”

“Around 70% of the Ukrainian population supports the country’s EU integration. We were very happy if the same amount would appear in some EU member states. Ukraine must abandon the soviet mentality. The choice is free: either to follow Lech Walesa or Lukasenko.”

“Political responsibility is different from criminal responsibility.”

“When I visited Tymosenko, it was astonishing to see such an active person in visible pain and suffering. She expressed her wish that the country shall not be punished because of her.”

“Az EU-nak határozott üzenetet kell megfogalmaznia Ukrajna irányában. Az ezeket támogató felszólalásokat helyeslem. Ami a jogi eljárást illeti: teljesen bizonyos, hogy koncepciós eljárásról van szó. Ugyanakkor nem lehet elmenni szó nélkül amellett, hogy természetesen Tyimosenkó nem Jeanne d’Arc, nem ma született bárány, ezt tudjuk, de a jogállam által biztosított alapvető jogok mindenkit megilletnek kivétel nélkül. Ezért továbbra is erős nyomást kell gyakorolni Ukrajnára.

A másik dolog, amire itt fel kell hívni a figyelmet, az a választások és a kisebbségi jogok helyzete. Az Ukrajnai Kárpátaljai régióban úgy alakították ki a választási körzeteket, hogy az az ott élő magyar kisebbségek számára rendkívül hátrányos. Míg a korábbi választási körzetek meghúzásánál figyelembe tudták venni a kisebbségi szempontokat, addig ez ebben az esetben egy alkalommal sem sikerült.”

„Every citizen has right to a fair trial.”

“Ukraine must respect human rights. In that case there is no place for compromises.”

“Wir dürfen keine naive Hoffnung haben über die freien Wahlen in der Ukraine. Auch wirtschaftliche Korruption ist sichtbar: die großen Stadien haben mehr gekostet als vorgesehen, und ein Drittel des Geldes ist in private Taschen geflossen. Diesmal ist es nicht ausreichend die gelbe Karte zu zeigen. Letztendlich müssen wir die rote Karte zeigen.“

„Anti European forces are gaining power in Serbia, Belorussia, Russia and Turkey, as well.”

“Tymosenko’s treatment isn’t acceptable. However, we mustn’t mix up politics with sport.”

FÜLE (Commission) “The EU must therefore help this country in it’s transformation.”

You are all right. We are facing a very complex situation. There is a huge country with 50 million inhabitants in our Eastern neighbourhood. The EU tries to export it’s democratic values to the former Soviet region. The EU must therefore help this country in it’s transformation.

 

I remain at your disposal.

 

                     

_____________________________

______________________________

Zoltán MASSAY-KOSUBEK ● zoltanmassaykosubek@yahoo.com

EU Policy Officer & Public Affairs Expert | Legal Adviser

 

"A bird does not sing because it has an answer.

It sings because it has a song." ~Chinese proverb

 

On the 22th May (Tuesday) - just one day before the extraordinary European Summit about Investments, Growth and Jobs to be held on the 23th May (Wednesday) immediately followed by a dinner intented to discuss the situation in Greece - the European Parliament discussed openly the Council’s and the Commission’s statements. The answer to the question ‘Can Europe successfully overcome the financial and political crisis?’ mainly depends on the outcome of that summit and dinner. Since I had the honour to be present during that interesting debate I make an attempt to present the essence of the debate highlighting some elements I consider being important.

Comment: As I always do in similar cases, I never intend to present simple quotations; that isn’t my job. My intention is rather to capture the hidden/obvious messages behind the spoken words.

WAMMEN (Council, DK Minister for Europe) “Reaching the desired competitiveness is not possible without economic stability and fiscal discipline.”

Some consider that the contradiction between austerity and growth is in the centre of the upcoming extraordinary summit. I think this is a false distinction. Reaching the desired competitiveness is not possible without economic stability and fiscal discipline. The purpose of the meeting is agreeing on principles, how to put Europe back on the growth track. The Danish EU Presidency expects that this extraordinary summit will be a stepping stone before the ordinary European Council meeting in June 2012. All our efforts are focused on 3 key issues:

1. Mobilizing EU funds, especially for SMEs to boost (youth) employment.

2. Preparing a detailed external trade strategy.

3. Reducing debt/deficit.

(Comment: Mr BARROSO could not be present in that important debate due to the parallel G8 and NATO summits.)

REHN (Commission, vice-president) “Achieving sustainable growth is impossible with unsustainable debt. Therefore implementing structural reforms is not a possibility but a necessity.”

The EU reached a turning point in it’s history and the member states have to find out how to achieve growth based on stability. According to the so-called European semester, the Commission has already prepared it’s country-specific reports and it seems that member states are more willing to take action.

There is a need that Member States mandate the Commission to prepare a proposal against tax evasion and fraud (which is still blocked by 2 [AT, LU] Member States) and to negotiate as many free trade agreements with key global partners as possible. The promotion of public and private funding is also inevitable. There are potentials in green growth and in renewable energy sources. Another step forward could be the introduction of a new financial transaction tax. At the same time, particular accent should be given to the implementation of existing proposals such as the Single Market Act or the Service Directive.

Unemployment is the most demanding challenge of Europe today. The (youth) unemployment rate is at an intolerable level. As regards the long term perspectives of the Economic and Monetary Union, there will be a roadmap on the table aiming at debt mutualisation (Eurobonds).

Europe will stay with Greece during it’s journey of reforms. Since Greece has been lived over its limits for a long time there is no reason to wait, no time to lose. The Commission hopes that after the next elections, Greece will be committed to make the necessary reforms and to create an efficient and fair tax system.

WORTMANN-KOOL (EPP) “Sometimes financial responsibility needs unpopular measures which are painful in the short term but in the long term, they can create more money.”

We attach great importance to SMEs since they can be the solid foundation of sustainable growth and they can create more jobs. Sometimes financial responsibility needs unpopular measures which are painful in the short term but in the long term, they can create more money. Based on the agreed Six-Pack and the Stability and Growth Pact, the Commission shall carefully analyze where have been already taken efficient measures and where is more to be done.

Although Monsieur François Hollande expressed his vision, he did present neither specific reforms nor any message about his thoughts on internal market. In our opinion, legislation concerning data protection and professional qualifications are very important but their transposition is far too slowly. European entrepreneurs need less bureaucracy and more money spent for Research & Development and infrastructure.

SWOBODA (S&D) „ Die staatlichen Investitionen können Inflation generieren. Aber die schlimmste Inflation ist die Arbeitslosigkeit.“

Solidarität ist unser Stichwort. Ich wundere mich darüber dass die Europäische Staaten wirklich der Mut haben die Arbeitslosigkeit zu bekämpfen. Das Investitionsniveau ist zu niedrig, wir müssen auch die Privatinvestitionen ermutigen. Letztendlich müssen wir mit der ineffizienten Austeritätspolitik aufheben. Das Wachstum gefährdet nicht die Budgetdisziplin. In der Gegenteil: Wachstum und Budgetdisziplin gehen zusammen.

Wir wissen genau dass Griechenland in einer sehr schwierigen Situation ist. Das Land wird für sich entscheiden: entweder tritt es aus der Eurozone aus oder führt das Land die Notwendige Reformen eing. Das Land braucht aber Erleichterung, um diese Ziele erreichen zu können. Die staatlichen Investitionen können Inflation generieren. Aber die schlimmste Inflation ist die Arbeitslosigkeit.

VERHOFSTADT (ALDE) „Obama is waiting what we are waiting for.”

This summit will be the 18^th special summit since December 2008 when the crisis has been started. And the European leaders tackled every time the ‘real issues’ and every summit intended to make ‘the final decisions’. And now, just one country, Greece which represents only 2% of the EU GDP may jeopardize the function of the whole Union. Therefore we are talking neither about a financial nor about an economic but about a political crisis.

The situation can reach an unseen magnitude: the eurocrisis became even an agenda point on the NATO Summit and all other NATO countries’ fingers are pointing at Europe. The European leaders did not make the right decisions in the right time. What we need is

1.) real economic and fiscal union,

2.) mutualisation of debts and

3.) a real growth package to boost the EIB, the structural funds and eurobonds.

If the Commission was not afraid to use the right of initiative, even Merkel could not resist the need for improving the Dept Redemption Fund. We do not need temporary but permanent solutions and we do not need millions but billions of euro in the growth package.

HARMS (Les Verts) „Griechenland braucht solche Methoden die nicht nur die Problemen von Morgen sondern auch die Forderungen der weiteren Zukunft lösen können.“

Der Ton Überrascht mich mit dem hier über Griechenland gesprochen wurde und morgen werden die Saat- und Regierungschefs einen anderen Ton benutzen. Unserer Meinung nach die 2 große Problemen sind einerseits die umfassende, tiefe, globale Finanzkrise und anderseits, dass das Griechenland-IWF Abkommen über die Austerität einfach nicht machbar ist.

Die Länder und die Leute wissen genau, worum geht es der EU-Gipfel. Warum sprechen aber die Politiker nicht offen? Warum stellen sie es nicht ganz klar fest: die echte Frage ist, ob Griechenland in der Eurozone bleiben kann.

Wir glauben dass Griechenland in der Eurozone bleiben soll. Es ist besser nicht nur für Griechenland sondern auch für ganz Europa. Griechenland braucht solche Methoden die nicht nur die Problemen von Morgen sondernd auch die Forderungen der weiteren Zukunft lösen können. Und solche Lösungen sind die Energie- und Ressource-effiziente Investitionen. Ich frage die Kommission: wo sind diese Initiativen?

CALLANAN (ECR) “Instead of the better regulation approach we would rather need a deregulation plan.”

There has been organized not only 18 but 22 summits for the last 2,5 years and it wasn’t the only thing where Mr. Verhofstadt is wrong. However all of them failed since they did not tackle the real problem. In spite of the S & D group’s opinion, Europe does not need more but even less State intervention. I share Margaret Thatcher’s views who said: The real problem with socialists is that they can run out of everybody’s money. There are problems with Europe’s social security legislation which is unable to protect the workers from unemployment. The real effect of the working time directive is that people are not willing to work. The Europeans are the most protected workers but they have no workplaces. What shall we do?

Instead of the better regulation approach we would rather need a deregulation plan. May I refer to the example of 12 Head of States who underlined in their joint letter the need for a free trade zone. Unfortunately, Mr. Barroso and Mr. Van Rompuy failed to listen to them. Since the so-called Lisbon strategy failed, the Commission should promote a pro-competition initiative. Instead of another dinner/summit, we need real action. In the upcoming 7 years budget, we have to avoid to increase state investments. In other words: do not throw a good euro after a bad euro.

FARAGE (EFD) “We must break up the eurozone.”

Mr. Barroso and Mr. Van Rompuy try to force their failed idea: the European United States. The euro is a common economic suicide. We heard already before that the euro will bring us creativity, more jobs and growth and instead of that we only had to pay the bill. There is no doubt, a humanitarian catastrophe has begun, some children do not get enough food in Greece, where tensions are growing.

But there is still hope since we can put this terrible mistake right. We must break up the euro. Greece has to readopt the drachma. Yes, we all know all economic consequences of that but on the other hand, it can give back Greek people the creativity, they can make products. Let’s give Greece a chance.

ZIMMER (GUE/NGL) „Wirtschaft sollte nicht sich selbst dienen, sondern die Leute.“

Die Kommission und der Rat hüten uns unmenschlich Rezepten. Die echte Katastrophe ist die schlimme soziale Leitung. Das vorgeschlagene Sparprogram für Griechenland, Spanien, Italien ist ein Gift. Die Bekämpfung der Armut sollte die oberste Priorität sein. Wirtschaft sollte nicht sich selbst dienen, sondern die Leute.

Comment: Following the debate, I would like to put particular accent on the following opinions from individual MEPs without naming them, except the High Commissioners:

EPP:

„Wir müssen die folgende Märchen endlich vergessen und die Realität erkennen: ‚Sparpolitik ist Eiskalt.‘ Wir brauchen die Schulden sinken damit die zukünftige Generationen die wichtige Entscheidungen treffen können. ‚Eurobonden werden die Lösung sein“. Man kann die Schulden nicht mit noch mehr Schulden bekämpfen.“

« Malheureusement, après l’inauguration de M. Van Rompuy, le Parlement Européen n’a plus direct relations avec des chefs d’État. On a besoin d’un audit indépendent mené par la Cour des Comptes Européenne en collaboration avec des cour des comptes nationales. Le but est la restauration de la competitivité du continent européen. Chaque État soit payer sa propre dette. Pour rédéfinir l’Europe, on aura besoin d’un Congrès européen avec la participation des États membres, des parlements nationaux, des governements et de la Commission. »

”The first step is fiscal consolidation and Eurobonds might come only afterwards.”

“We need more Europe than ever. We need values. We do not turn our back to Greece.”

“The theoretic German model won’t work in Greece.”

“The most important task is: making SME-friendly rules.”

“Budgetary discipline does not ruin growth.”

S&D

“There is a need for a European Marshall plan. The possibility of transfer of credits must be possible in order to set up an effective, real firewall against dept.”

« L’exit de la Grèce de la zone d’euro ne va rien résoudre. Notre union se base sur la diversité. Il n’y a pas seulement une seule modelle allemande. On a besoind d’une stratégie de croissance. Et l’Europe n’a rien fait pour aider la Grèce quand elle a négotié avec la Suisse. »

„Der Anteil des öffentlichen Eigentums in Europa ist unter 1%. Heute sind die Investitionen so wichtig. Früher hat Mario MONTI auch darüber geschrieben aber heute zitiert man seine Sätze nicht mehr. Warum nicht? Man darf nicht bergauf bremsen.”

“What a pity that this Summit did not take place last year. We need a careful analysis, what happened so far and the right decision in the right time is inevitable. I do not want to discuss the same issue this time next later.”

“Extraordinary summits became ordinary. Without specific measures, it is unlikely that a solution will come out.”

“Plan ‘A’ is not working. Where is plan ‘B’? Obama managed to reach a balanced deficit. Cameron, Merkel, Sarkozy failed to do so. Let’s give a chance to Hollande.”

« Le Conseil a l’occasion de changer l’orientation de l’Europe

ALDE

“Since the marathon of austerity did not achieve growth, Europe must guarantee the regulatory framework so that entrepreneurs could make their own profit.”

„Leider bezahlen wir noch immer die Zinsen der Staatenschulden, deswegen brauchen wir die Konsolidierung der öffentlichen Wirtschaft. Das Finanzsteuer kann das Wachstum helfen.“

Les Verts

« L’opportunité unique est devant l’Europe : le temps est venu pour investir à l’efficatié énérgetique. »

„Es gibt eine wirtschaftliche, politische, europäische Tragödie in Griechenland. Das Land braucht einen grünen Investitionspakt. Luxemburg und Österreich dürfen ihres Veto über die Steuerharmonisierung aufheben.“

ECR

“Mr. Verhofstadt tries to sell to the people the idea of the financial union but the people do not buy it. People are fed up with the never ending crisis and they voted either in France or in Greece for strong national leaders. The solution is: let the debt management in the hands of the states.”

EFD

“Greece lost it’s political center. The question is still open whether Greece will be a Weimar Republic or a European Cuba. Since Greek voters failed to understand the importance of the situation, I urge to launch a campaign in favor of the euro.”

“The single currency throws away investments.”

GUE/NGL

“People rejected the failed austerity policy. I hope that during the referendum in Ireland, the people will reject the Growth and Stability Pact, as well.”

“Euro means different things for different people.”

NI

“Euro is part of the problem. More debt isn’t the right answer.”

BARNIER (Commission) « Les banques doivent travailler pour l’économie réelle. »

« La crise elle-même est paradoxale. Elle porte colère, depression mais aussi la chance. La Commission a déjà proposée ses plans pour la croissance depuis quelques semaines. Il s’agit d’une projet bande qui contient à peu près 40 propositions qui sont sur la table, y compris le brevet européen, la signature éléctronique et la révision de la directive sur les qualifications professionelles. La Commission propose aussi un livre d’épairgne européen.

La Commission veut suivre une nouvelle aproche de la governance du marché public avec tolérence zéro. La Commission n’a pas de mémoire brève : les banques ont été irresponsable. La caricature de le libéralisme ne marche pas : les banques doivent travailler pour l’économie réelle.

ANDOR (Commission) “The Commission intends to take on board all expressed opinions except one: we cannot accept the deregulation of the social protection.”

The Commission made a number of initiatives to reinforce the social dimension of the common market. But there are many things to do. The biggest drama for the time being is the youth unemployment. The relocation of structural funds may help as it was the case not only in Greece but also in Romania where we succeeded in speeding up the access to these funds. However, those successes aren’t efficient without macroeconomic growth.

The Commission intends to take on board all expressed opinions except one: we cannot accept the deregulation of the social protection.

REHN (Commission, vice-president) “The stimulation of public and private investments may be the fuel of growth. La croissance est une priorité absolue mais on n’accepte pas n’importe quelle mesures. On n’accepte pas l’accumulation des dettes.”

Following this substantive debate, I can confirm that the Commission shares the Parliament’s views on the urgency of sustainable growth and job creation, fiscal consolidation. The stimulation of public and private investments may be the fuel of growth.

We hope that the summit will reaffirm the commitment to the integrity of the eurozone. There are good examples: DK and NL in the 80s, FI and SE in the 90s, DE in 00s and most recently IE.

La qualité est essentielle. La croissance est une priorité absolue mais on n’accepte pas n’importe quelle mesures. On n’accepte pas l’accumulation des dettes.

WAMMEN (Council, DK Minister for Europe) “Growth creates more jobs, but economic stability is a precondition.”

Growth and job creation go together beyond doubts. National budgets have to focus on stability, growth and structural reforms without high deficit. A comprehensive, holistic approach is the key issue. Member States have to share the same commitments. Growth creates more jobs, but economic stability is a precondition. Energy efficiency can be a possible way out.

PS: For those who are interested in the deeper connections: parallel with the summit, the EP discussed and voted on the report on a common system for taxing financial taxation on the 23th May.

 

I remain at your disposal.

 

                     

_____________________________

______________________________

Zoltán MASSAY-KOSUBEK ● zoltanmassaykosubek@yahoo.com

EU Policy Officer & Public Affairs Expert | Legal Adviser

 

"At one point in your life you either have the thing you want or the reasons why you don't"

~ Andy Roddick 

This time I have willingly chosen the last item on the EP's plenary agenda on 21 May (monday) and the title reflects this approach. Although the end of the public debate was expected at 23:00, finally it lasted "only" until  a bit later than 21:00. I am strictly convinced that the order of the agenda points cannot mean any kind of order of priority. All agenda items have to have the same level of importance as others do.

As regards the report on a strategy for strengthening the rights of vulnerable consumers, from a legal point of view it can be considered as a typical example of soft law. The EP as the main European democratic institution acting on behalf of the European people has the opportunity to articulate a political message towards to the European co-legislators: to the Member States (to the Council) and to the Commission. Hence, this current report seems to be an appropriate legal tool to highlight some principles of consumer safety so that the Council and the Commission can take them into consideration, as appropriate.

If you read the report (or a short summary of it), you could see that it touches upon several pieces of the EU legislation in different fields such as: financial sector, food, transport, internet, and liberalised markets.

Comment: Although this item touches upon a wide range of issues I have chosen to mark this blog entry having (H) (health) relevance since the strongest accent was on the protection of vulnerable groups and the present commissioner responsible for consumer production was John DALLI.

Consumer protection in the EU

Firstly, I would like to refer to the Treaty on the European Union (originally called as Treaty of Maastricht) which enriched  the up to that time purely economic community with other politically important areas, such as transport, environment, social protection or even consumer protection. The consumer protection is a cross-cutting issue - as it is the health protection which means that every official body of the EU shall consider consumer protection aspects in every policy of the EU. That is why the current proposal does not present a single legal  act and it touches upon several fragmented, different European laws.

Food security

Since I focus - among others - on health related issues, I would like to adress only one subject of the proposal: the food security. In that case, the most relevant area where immediate action is needed is the advertising of food with special regard to e-commerce and transborder commerce. Vulnerable groups are not always able to appropriately understand the hidden messages of promotions and they are more likely to become victim of unhealthy foods than usual consumers. Not surprisingly children are likely to consume more sugar. As one MEP pointed out in the public debate, even in the European schools, there are automates providing soft drinks and chocolate. Would be another way to provide the children with healthier products (ex. fruits) instead of that? Therefore, consumer protection must give to the vulnerable consumers more than just providing information.

That proposal is particularly important since it shows that in some cases, the fragmented political groups can be united for a common, agreed goal. In that case, the outcome of the committee voting clearly shows the unique political support of the EP and even the comissioner DALLI accepted most of the arguments of the EP in his oral presentation. Moreover, he put particular accent on the importance of Research & Development in that area which has to play a special role in that regard.

Most vulnerable groups

For me, this expression is the real added value of that debate and this is why I appreciate very much that the EP discussed that issue. The most vulnerable groups, especially children were in focus of the Hungarian EU presidency's health program in 2011. As the EP pointed out: there is neither a possibility nor a need for a unique definition of 'vulnerable consumer'. Vulnerability can mean different things in different situations and all of us can be in some cases considered as vulnerable. However, the main identified vulnerable groups are the followings: children, pregnant women, people living with disabilities  and elderly persons.

The democratic function of the EP

Since this debate started very late I think it is worth to consacrate at least some part of this entry to the realtively low number of present MEPs during the debate. If I wanted to count, how many MEPs from 754 were present, perhaps my two hands would have been enough. Can this perception damage the public reputation of a very prestigious  public body which is proud of being the only democraticly elected European Institution and of representing cca. 375 millions European voters?

Do not let you mislead by that seeming contradiction since the reason behind that phenomenon is quite simple and understandable. If I am not wrong, from 19:00, there were several committee meetings in parallel with the plenary session so the MEPs could not have been present simultaneously in both places.

Why are not MEPs always present?

Let's have a look at behind the scenes. As a lawyer having some working experiences with both the Hungarian and the European Parliament, I have some overlook on their functioning. And I know that MEPs' duty is not simply to be present but rather the best representation of their electors which contains a lot of additional activities: organizing side-events, participating in public conferences, having special meetings with lobbying groups which can draw their interest to important political issues, participating in committee meetings, welcome external delegations etc. I have to be fair with MEPs: this is the way how democracy and freely elected parliaments work and there is a similar experience in almost every parliament all over the world.

When I was a law student in Szeged (Hungary), a Hungarian MEP made a presentation in 2002 about the national parliament and he tried to justify why were MEPs missing the regular discussions in a great number. He explained us that students could especially easily understand that public debates are like university courses: the participation is not obligatory and  they have to just pass the exam. The same applies to the Parliament: the MEPs do not have to attend all the debates, but they have to vote. In addition to that there are several subjects on the agenda of the EP and MEPs are more likely specialized for different subjects. It implies that every political group has one or more responsible MEPs for a given case and their presence is absolutely necessary. If every MEPs should be present in every debate, the Parliament could not use the strength of it's diversity and the different backgrounds of it's members.

Therefore, we can conlude that the presence of all MEPs have a particular importance during the voting process since so can they  represent the political interests of their sending parties. Even the governing political force has not a majority if it's members are missing.

PS: On the 22 May, the EP finally adopted the above mentioned report.

 

I remain at your disposal.

 

                     

_____________________________

______________________________

Zoltán MASSAY-KOSUBEK ● zoltanmassaykosubek@yahoo.com

EU Policy Officer & Public Affairs Expert | Legal Adviser

 

"Any person who knows all the answers most likely misunderstood the questions."

~ Dr. Joyce Knudsen

After reading and analyzing a consize article  on EurActiv about that issue, I decided to draw the general public's interest to the significance of the REACH regulation. I hope that this short summary can serve as a thought starter for REACH professionals and REACH specialists, and I am very keen on public and private reactions and comments.

Five years after the adoption of the controversial REACH regulation (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Dangerous Chemicals EC/1907/2006 Regulation, hereinafter referred to as the REACH regulation) the revision and the potential modification of  this important regulation is on the top of the EU's agenda. The REACH regulation concerns mainly the (dangerous) chemical substances and I intend to present it's main characteristics in a nutshell.

A few words about the role of the European chemical industry

In my opinion, the chemical industry notably contributed to the industrial revolution. I do not exaggerate when I say that the chemical industry revolutionized our everyday life, since ex. plastics and another artifical substances controbute to the development of  the science and most of the inventions (mobile phones, computers, industrial robots etc.) could not be imaginable without a highly developed chemical industry.

The European chemical industry is the third biggest economic sector of the EU's industry: the EU produces 31% of the World's chemicals, more than the U.S. (28 %). The chemical sector created cca. 1,700.000 jobs and it is responsible for the indirect employment of 3.000.000.- people in Europe.

Dangerous chemicals from environmental point of view

Chemicals can be dangerous if they are not used properly (see the example of the frequent acid rains in the XXth century).  However, the chemical industry can also effectively help the fight against climate change, since through research and development, new, safer and environmentally friendlier substances can be discovered.

Dangerous chemicals from economic point of view

Dangerous Chemicals and the REACH regulation have a strong economic dimension, as well. The REACH regulation lays down bindig rules for the companies belonging to the chemical industry, and especially under the critical effects of the  financial crisis, the economic viability of the chemical sector is crucial. A strong European chemical industry can help Europe to create more workplaces and boost the struggling economy.

 

A few words about REACH

The adoption of REACH was one of the biggest challenges of the EU at the end of 2006. The main subject of the REACH regulation is the protection of environment and health but it significantly contributes to the economic vialbility of the  chemical companies which are prtly SMEs.

Registration (Reach)

From a legal point of view, the REACH regulation collected several different pieces of the chemical legislation into one single legal act. Furthermore, the REACH regulation introduced a new approach concerning the authorization of dangerous substances. In the past, the authorization of the substances was mainly the responsibility of the national authorities but after the adoption of the REACH regulation, it was up to the industry to register every single existing and new substances.

After the adoption of  the REACH regulation, the EU created a lot of other legislations concerning dangerous chemicals (ex. CLP regulation, PPP regulation, Biocide regulation, etc.). Obviously, the European legislator tried to harmonize the content of those new laws with the existing REACH approach as much as possible. However, the chemical legislation is still fragmented, and the REACH regulation does not completly unify the European chemical legislation.

Evaluation (rEach)

The REACH regulation entered into force gradually starting from the 1st June 2007, and a common work and co-operation has been started among the industry, the NGOs, the national authorities and the European institutions. The common evaluation of the chemical substances is a challenging goal that is why the REACH regulation set up the Helsinki based European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) which is a technical body intending to help adressing those challenges.

Authorisation and Restrictions of dangerous chemicals (reACH)

Last but not least, the protection of the high level of health and environment is one of the most important goal of the REACH regulation, based on the precautionary principle. Therefore, the new approach still envisages restrictions and even authorisation for the most dangerous chemical substances, in order to find appropriate alternatives where they exist.

What is the stay of play now and why is the REACH regulation in  focus?

After presenting the basic meaning of Registration, Evaluation, Restriction and Authorization in the 'REACH' acronym, let's have a look on the actual situation. 

The so-called REACH-project started after the adoption of the new regulation at the end of 2006. The REACH regulation  touched upon the core interests of several important Member States, companies and other consumer protection and environmental protection organisations. Thus, the interested parties were not 100% satisfied with the end result and they wanted to change the legal text for their purposes as soon as possible.

At the early periode of the new REACH system,  there was no possibility to change the REACH regulation since there was a need for more time to further evaluate the effects, and even the text of REACH itself projected an overall overview of the Regulation 5 years after it's adoption.

And here is the point. The five long years have been passed, the necessary data and experiences are already collected and every eyes are now on the Commission. All interested parties, companies and NGOs, national authorites and professional organizations are waiting for the next COM proposal. That is why the REACH regulation  is in the center of interests and referring back to my starter remarks that is why the time has came to draw the general public's interests to the importance of the revision of REACH. 

 

The particular example of Substances of very High Concerns (SVHCs)

Finally, in order to help facilitate the ongoing debates, I decided the give a special and actual example. Although there are other interesting and politically heated debates such as the controversial effects of REACH in different Member States, I try to focus on another, more general subject which equally concerns every European stakeholders: the issue of SVHC substances.

"Article 57

 

Substances to be included in Annex XIV

 

The following substances may be included in Annex XIV in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 58:

(a) substances meeting the criteria for classification as carcinogenic category 1 or 2 in accordance with Directive 67/548/EEC;

(b) substances meeting the criteria for classification as mutagenic category 1 or 2 in accordance with Directive 67/548/EEC;

(c) substances meeting the criteria for classification as toxic for reproduction category 1 or 2 in accordance with Directive 67/548/EEC;

(d) substances which are persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic in accordance with the criteria set out in Annex XIII of this Regulation; (e) substances which are very persistent and very bioaccumulative in accordance with the criteria set out in Annex XIII of this Regulation;

(f) substances - such as those having endocrine disrupting properties or those having persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic properties or very persistent and very bioaccumulative properties, which do not fulfil the criteria of points (d) or

(e) - for which there is scientific evidence of probable serious effects to human health or the environment which give rise to an equivalent level of concern to those of other substances listed in points (a) to (e) and which are identified on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the procedure set out in Article 59."

Politically, one of the most important benefit of the REACH regulation is the higher level of safety, especially from environmental and health point of view. Therefore, there is a real need to demonstrate that improvement.

However, the identification of those dangerous substances did not work as quickly as it was projected. The famous Annex XIV does not contain the required high number of the most dangerous SVHC substances defined by article 57 of REACH. Therefore, there is a high pressure on the Commission to show some progress.

Hence, the Commission and ECHA shall take every necessary steps to accelerate that process so that the number of SVHC substances be included into Annex XIV.

The industry need to make appropriate legal and business decisions to meet those criteria. This task will need an effective co-operation among the companies. Since SVHC substances cannot be replaced in every special cases according to the current status of the science, the industry has 2 basic choices to meet the REACH criteria:

1. either to replace the SVHC substances with existing suitable alternatives, or

2. to demonstrate that such substitution is not possible or benefitial (ex. from socio-economic point of view) and the problem of the given SVHC substance can  be solved only with appropriate level of protecting measures.

Obviously, COM, ECHA, the Industry, Member States and NGOs can and shall rely on and closely co-operate with each other.

 

I remain at your disposal.

 

                     

_____________________________

______________________________

Zoltán MASSAY-KOSUBEK ● zoltanmassaykosubek@yahoo.com

EU Policy Officer & Public Affairs Expert | Legal Adviser

 

"We believe what we repeatedly tell ourselves. What are you repeatedly telling yourself? "

 

Foreword

Under the auspices of the following 3 public health NGOs

European Society of Intensive Care Medicine [ESICM],

European Public Health Alliance [EPHA], and

LIFE-PRIORITY,

a policy debate took place on 15 May 2012 in the European Parliament chaired and moderated by Dr. Cristian Silviu BUŞOI, MEP. The public debate focused on better understanding of intensive care medicine (hereinafter referred to as ICM).

As part of my foreword, I am very pleased to present the 6 speakers following the order of appearance and express my gratitude for having the opportunity to participate in that awareness-raising event.

(I will adress the speakers key-messages later-on.)

 

1. Prof. Andrew RHODES, ESICM President,

2. Prof. Richard BEALE, Chair of ESICM Research Committee,

3. Ms. Laura WAGNER (ICU and H1N1 surviver)

4. Mr. Stefano SORO, Head of Unit, Medicinal products, DG SANCO

5. Dr. Cornelius BARTELS, Senior Expert, ECDC

6. Prof. Jean-Daniel CHICHE, ESICM President-Elect

 

Instead of providing the reader with a detailed report of what was said exactly, I rather decided to set up a concise analysis in order to better adress the key messages of the meeting which would be interesting not only for the health professionals but also for a wider public.

Why intensive care medicine (ICM) is so important?

ICM  means  most commonly all joint efforts of health professionals  intending to save the patients' life in emergency health situations.

In a wider sense, the ambulance makes an integral part of the emergency medicine where the patient being in life-danger first meets the ICM.

In a more restricted sense, ICM means the professional activity of the Intensive Care Unit (hereinafter referred to as ICU) which is usually integrated in the organization of Hospitals.

But whatever approach are we following, it is out of question that ICM requires a very complex team-work of doctors, nurses,  and other health professionals on the one hand, and a very expensive and sophisticated, always modernising technical equipment, on the other.

 

Core elements of ICM

ICM is one of the most expensive and technologically advanced medical care fields, therefore we will have to have a closer look on ICM's main characteristics.

Multidisciplinarity is the most  essential attribute of ICM since ICM covers a high number of medical areas such as cardiovascular, neurological, respiratory, renal, digestive, haeatological, microbiological, trauma, etc. This special branch of medicine concerns the diagnosis and management of life threatening conditions requiring sophisticated organ support and invasive monitoring while usually the patient moves from one location (place of accident ex. a heart-attack) to another location (ambulance car, hospital). More detailed information on ICM is here.

 

What are the key-words for Intensive Care Units (ICU)?

ICUs are the organizational frames where ICM is enforced in practice.  

In order to reach an effective function, ICUs need 3 main requirement: staff, machines, money.

Staff. The most important part of the ICM sector is the health staff: doctors, nurses, nurse-assistants, pharmacists, social workers, ambulance men, and even social workers.

Machines. Another important characteristic of that field is the need for usually very expensive and modern technical equipments which are required for life-saving in emergency situations. May I simply refer to the example of Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) techniques.

Money. Not surprisingly, as a necessary conclusion following the above mentioned 2 factors (Staff, Machine), ICM is one of the most resource-needed sector in the health-care system.

I have already drawn the attention to the importance of healthcare fundings in respect of the EU budget in my 10. blog entry (4/May/2012). However, these fundings for ICM are often considered as investments in future rather than single costs since ICM is strongly correlated to the level of mortality.

The challenges of ICM and 6 different approaches to adress them

During the public debate, 6 speakers with different professional backgrounds shared with the audience their approaches to adress appropriately the challenges of ICM and their solutions/proposals.

In the following paragraphs I underline some remarking points and/or key messages of the 6 speakers to stimulate further re-thinking.

 

1. Overview of Intensive Care Medicine: Particularities and challenges

Prof. Andrew RHODES, ESICM President,

"It is not just about money, it is about how we organize our efforts."

ICM combinates high-intensive hands-on care and modern technology. However, the appropriate staff (men) are much more important than just the expensive equipment (machines). By attracting highly skilled doctors and nurses, not only ICM will be cheaper and more cost effective but also the mortality rate can be reduced.

How do we attract more doctors/nurses?

• Harmonisation of professional status (to be equivalent to other disciplines)
• Revision of the 2005/36/EC Professional Qualification Directive (There is a need for a larger scope of the automatic recognition of health professionals. The free movement of doctors is of utmost importance. Another piece of legislation, the working-time directive has to be taken into account.) 
• Appropriate training (which must be competency based rather than regulating just their duration)
• Access to resources
• Quality control

3 key messages:

• The need for ICM is growing of an alarming rate.
• We need to urgently develop plans to train more doctors and nurses in this speciality.
• We must increase research funding towards understanding how and when and why to use intensive care.

 

2. Surviving Sepsis Campaign: An international effort to improve sepsis outcomes

Prof. Richard BEALE, Chair of ESICM Research Committee,

"In order to avoid sepsis, sometimes it is enough to do simple things properly."

The SEPSIS is suitable to present the importance of ICM, since sepsis is responsible for a high rate of mortality. Sepsis is the body's response to serious infection which may lead to organ damage or shock.

ESICM started a campaign to appropriately handle the situation which started with the Barcelona declaration in 2002.

The 3 core messages of that campaign was:

• Declaration of Barcelona
• Evidence-based guidelines
• Education and awareness

Further details about the 'Surviving Sepsis Campaign' are here.

 

3. Testimony of an ICU survivor: How flu has changed my life?

Ms. Laura WAGNER (ICU and H1N1 surviver)

"I am very thankful that I can be here and that both my child and me survived the H1N1 flu".

The example of a surviver clearly shows the significance of patients. They are the most important since behind the figures and numbers, there are always ordinary people.

 

4. Revision of the Clinical Trials Directive (2001/20/EC).

Mr. Stefano SORO, Head of Unit, Medicinal products, DG SANCO

"The Clinical Trials Directive is probably the most criticized piece of the European Health legislation."

Although there is no final decision taken, the Commission intends to re-cast  the Clinical Trials Directive (2001/20/EC). According to the projections, the new legislative proposal - which will be a Regulation instead of a Directive - might be presented in middle July 2012 at the earliest.

The urgent revision is needed since the number of clinical trials is decreasing according to the administrative burdens and fragmented legislation. The Directive is equally criticized by the patients/academical research/industry.

The impact assesment is already prepared which takes into account the direct and indirect effects of the old Directive.

The core concept of the new legislation would be the destruction of the wide authorization obligation and in the future, one single authorization will be enough in the EU.

 

5. Frontline detection of public health risks in the ICU

Dr. Cornelius BARTELS, Senior Expert, ECDC

"The barrier nursing in case of pandemic infection would require 5 doctors and 8 nurses for just 1 patient /24 hours."

The European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) is a Stockholm based agency of the EU. EU Agencies are technical bodies for a specific area, slightly outside from the governmental sphere, with a high level of professional and budgetary indpendence (they are very likely to the national agencies and authorities)

The List of the recent epidemics:

• (1995 - Sarin gas attack - Tokyo - not a traditional pandemic but it had similar effects)
• 2001 - Anthrax - U.S.A.
• 2003 - SARS - Toronto, Hong Kong
• 2009 - H5N1 pandemic - Middle and Far East (Human cases since 2006)
• 2011 - EHEC - Northern Germany

(H1N1 2008 can be considered as a 'soft' pandemic)

6. Presentation of LIFE-PRIORITY & European Parliament exhibition

Prof. Jean-Daniel CHICHE, ESICM President-Elect

"Just 3 simple moves can mean the difference between life and death."

LIFE-PRIORITY has launched a campaign in 2010 - focusing on teaching people life-saving techniques. Although athletes are often touched by heart attack, statistics prove that during the championships, the overall number of heart attacks are higher in the whole population who are following these events through TV.

Since heart attacks concern mainly (but not only) sportsmen, the main ambassador of the campaign was  Eric (Sylvain) Abdal, a famous French soccer-player.

(Comment: The conference was followed by the opening of the  "15 minutes to Save a Life" exhibition at the European Pariament (ASP 3rd floor balcony, zone G) which included a teaching session of life saving cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) techniques.)

 

I remain at your disposal.

 

                     

_____________________________

______________________________

Zoltán MASSAY-KOSUBEK ● zoltanmassaykosubek@yahoo.com

EU Policy Officer & Public Affairs Expert | Legal Adviser

 

"Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts." ~Winston Churchill

 

Why did I focus on the European Youth Capital issue?

I discovered the significance of that idea when I participated in the conference organized on 9th May by the PONT expert group from Transylvania with the participation of Hungarian (Gyula WINKLER,  Csaba SÓGOR) and Romanian (Rareş-Lucian NICULESCU) MEPs. Although I am usually open-minded for such iniciatives (I am a former ERASMUS student [2002-2003 Paris], participant of the summer University about the European Constitution [2003, Brühl, Germany] and trainee of the Court of Justice [2007, Luxembourg]), I have never ever heard about this initiative prior to that event. Shame on me. That is why I decided to correct my ignorance on the best and most elegant way by summarizing my experiences in this Blog.

Some basic information about the European Youth Forum

The European Youth Forum (hereinafter referred to as: EYF) some kind of umbrella organization for different National and International Youth organizations. It's headquarter is located in Brussels. Due to its wide scope and to its strong attachements to the culture, recognizing that Youth is generally considered as the motor of the innovation of the societies through creativity, not surprisingly EYF exceeds the strict limits of the European Union: EYF belongs to the structure of the Council of Europe. For further information, please visit the EYF's website.

What is the European Youth Capital initiative all about?

The idea behind the European Youth Capital idea, which is a relatively new initiative which is very similar to the one of the European Capital of Culture. EYF awards every year the title of the 'European Youth Capital' (hereinafter referred to, as EYC) to a selected city following strict criteria. The official possesor city of the EYC title will have then the possibility for one year to show it's youth-friendly caracter through social, political and economic programmes. The owners of the EYC title were so far:

Rotterdam (NL) 2009,

Turin (IT) 2010,

Antwerp (BE) 2011,

Braga (PT) 2012,

Maribor (SI) 2013, and

Thessaloniki (EL) 2014.

There are no financial fundings for that title, just the right to bear this title.

Why have I taken the example of CLUJ - KOLOZSVÁR - KLAUSENBURG?

I thought that the most appropriate way to present this plan would be to take the example of a candidate city. According to my knowledge, there are several cities, about 10-15 candidates, who are competing for that title as regards the year 2015. A few of them are - among others - Barcelona (ES), Las Palmas (ES), Katowice (PL), Baku (Azerbaijan), Ivanovo (RU), Cluj (RO), etc. After participating in the above mentioned conference, I have choosen Cluj as an example to present the overall EYC plan as a true added value to the Europan culture. The example of Cluj might be instructive for everyone and the readers can further orient about this process and hopefully they will be enlighted to discover other candidate cities, as well.

The City is commonly known as the Treasure City ([Romanian: oraşul comoară]; [Hungarian: kincses város]; [German: Schatzstadt]). It is the second most significative City of Romania, and can be considered as the 'capital' of and the most important city of Transylvania. The City played a crucial role in the history of it's  Saxon (German), Hungarian and Romanian communities. In the middle age, the Saxon (German) population was impressive with around 50%. Later in the history, until the first half of the XXth century, the Hungarian population was dominant, and nowadays the vast majority (80%) of the population is Romanian with a significativ Hungarian and German minority. One of the symbol of the city's youth-related multiculturality is the Babeș-Bolyai University which provides the graduates not only with Romanian, but in some cases also with Romanian-Hungarian and with Romanian-German curricula. The name of the University refers to the Romanian bacteriologist Victor Babeș and to the Hungarian mathematician János Bolyai originating from Transylvania.

For further information, you can follow these links: CLUJ - KOLOZSVÁR - KLAUSENBURG.

 

Eddigi erőfeszítések és további tervek a Kolozsvári fiatalok részéről

Értelemszerűen minden jelölt város pályázata nagyban múlik a szervezők kreativitásán és elkötelezettségén. Nézzünk néhány példát a kolozsvári fiatalok elképzeléséből. A projekt hivatalos oldala, amely magyar és román nyelven is elérhető: http://www.cluj2015.ro/magyar.

A Facebook jelentős szerepet tölt be a kampányban, lévén, hogy ez az on-line tevékenység azon formája, ahol mérhetően lehet prezentálni az aktivitást. A projekt facebook oldala http://www.facebook.com/cluj2015 eddig több, mint 2600+ tetszik ('like') jelet gyűjtött össze, és egy internetes flashmob keretében több, mint 750 személy cserélte le a profilképét a pályázat logojára.

A tervek között szerepel a "világ leghosszabb péntekének" megszervezése, azaz egy alkalommal a péntek nem érne véget este, a tömegközlekedés tovább működne éjszaka is, a boltok nyitva tartanának, számos rendezvény kíséretében egészen szombat estig.

Mivel a google műholdjai rendszeresen készítenek fényképet, eredményes egyeztetés folyik annak érdekében, hogy amikor ez legközelebb megtörténik, akkor mintegy 4900 fő részvételével egy megfelelően széles, kolozsvári füves területen a résztvevők egy QR kódot formázó alakzatot alkossanak, ami a műholdról is látható lesz majd.

Figyelemmel a korábbi magyarországi példára, amikor is 2010-ben Pécsett nyári egyetemet szerveztek, hasonló eseményt terveznek Kolozsvárra annak érdekében, hogy az egyetemvárosok esetében szokásosan csendesebb nyári időszak felpezsdüljön.

 

Schlussfolgerung

Das Verfahren hat schon angefangen um den Titel 'die Jugendliche Hauptstadt von Europa' zu erreichen. Wenn ich mich nicht irre, der Termin für Bewerbungen war nur bis zum Ende April geöffnet. Das bedeutet, dass nach dem ersten Mai, nur diejenige Städte im Wettbewerb bleiben können, die ihre Kandidaturen schon vorgelegt haben.

Soviel  ich weiss, das Europäische Jugendliche Forum (EYF) wird ihre vorgehende Entscheidung über die beste Kanditaten am 1. Oktober 2011 treffen. Das bedeutet, dass nur etwa 3-4 Städte können weitergehen, um am Finale teilzunehmen. Am Ende wird nur am 1. November herauskommen, welche Stadt die beste Plazierung erreichen wird.

Das kann man natürlich nicht entscheiden, wie viele Chance Klausenburg hat, wenn man die Bewerbungen der andere Städte nicht kennt. Aber dass können wir schon mit sicherheit festlegen, dass Klausenburg ganz viele Möglichkeiten hat, und auch wenn die Bewerbung nicht klappen würde, konnte die Stadt ziemlich viel auch nur von der Kandidatur profitieren.

Ich habe nur ein Gebiet entdeckt, worauf man ein bisschen mehr Wert legen konnte. Ich habe erlernt, das die Kandidatur und die vorgeschlagene Programmen dreischprachig (Englisch, Rumensich, Ungarisch) sind. Ich verweise darauf, was ich früher gesschrieben habe: die deutsche Minderheit hat lange historische Traditionen in Klausenburg (die offizielle Broschuren von Klausenburg sind auch viersprachig). So, meiner Meinung nach, wenn Deutsch als vierte offizielle Programmsprache einfügen würde, hätte die Stadt auch viel mehr Chance,  und damit konnte Klausenburg eine richtige, multikulturelle Engagement präsentieren.

 

I remain at your disposal.

 

                     

_____________________________

______________________________

Zoltán MASSAY-KOSUBEK ● zoltanmassaykosubek@yahoo.com

EU Policy Officer & Public Affairs Expert | Legal Adviser

 

"Common looking people are the best in the world: that is the reason the Lord makes so many of them." ~ Abraham Lincoln

The 9th May was a very special occasion for the European Parliament to dedicate one agenda item of its Plenary Sesssion to the overall discussion about the Future of Europe I had the opportunity to participate in.

What is the hidden agenda behind this post?

I decided to present my understanding about the main messages of the manifestation of the President of the EP and of the 7 main political group's speeches. I intend to show you what are the 7 main approximations on the future of Europe for the time being in the middle of the crisis.

Since the official record of the debate is already available I do not desire to give you a dull and uninteresting record 2.0. My intention is rather  to clearly draw your attention to the core messages of each speeches as I can see it and to present them in a short and concise way.

I am doing so since I am deeply convinced that the President and the 7 major political groups clearly mirror the existing division between the different views of the European voters, and everyone can find its ideal(s) in one (or in more) of them. Which approach is the closest to you?

 

Martin SCHULZ, Vorsitzende des Europäischen Parlamentes

"Ich will es nämlich nicht, dass meine Kinder und Enkelkinder den Preis meines heutigen Lebensniveaus bezahlen müssen."

Die Leute die den Zweiten Weltkrieg erlebt haben, haben ein nie erreichtes gemeinsames Gesellschaftmodell aufgebaut und das heisst Europa. Die Gründungsväter, die den Krieg übererlebt haben, wohnten noch zwischen Ruinen, waren Opfer von Terror oder Gefängnis. Sie haben also die Zusammenarbeit mit der Absicht angefangen um nie wieder Krieg zu haben.

Diese leise Revolution, die vor 62 Jahren angefangen hat, ist das erfolgreichste Gesellschaftsexperiment so weit. Die Leute damals haben die Einsicht in die Notwendigkeit des Zusammenlebens verstanden, dass die gemeinsame Interesse unsere Nachbaren uns nicht trennen, sondern verbinden miteinander; dass Europa keine Mauern sondern gemeinschafte Integration braucht; dass wir allein schwach, aber zusammen stark sind.

So sind wir in der Mitte der Krise in der Gefahr schweben dass wir auf die zwei wichtigste Erfolgen der EU verzichten müssen: auf das grenzenlose Leben und auf den Euro.

Für die Erasmus Generation ist die Freizügigkeit ein selbstverständliches Recht und Schengen ist die Grundfeste der EU. Das gemeinsame Geld hat nicht nur eine ökonomische sondern auch eine politische Bedeutung obwohl es das Symbol der Spaltung geworden ist.

In der Mitte der möglichen Lösungen steht die Haushaltsdisziplin mit dem Wachstum zusammen weil die Sparen ihre Wirkungen nur mit Wachstum tun können. Die bedeutendste Problem ist heutzutage vielleicht die Arbeitslosigkeit, besonders bei den Jungen, die zwischen 18 und 30 sind. Jeder vierte, in besondere Länder jede zweite Jugendliche arbeitslos ist. Und für diese Leute reicht es besonders nicht was wir am meisten Fall als Antwort sagen können: wir brauchen mehr Europa. Das reicht nicht mehr. Ich will es nämlich nicht, dass meine Kinder und Enkelkinder den Preis meines heutigen Lebensniveaus bezahlen müssen. Und die Wahlen in Frankreich und Griechenland zeigen genau diesen Will für Änderung.

Europa basiert auf 4 gründliche Prinzipen: Demokratie, Freiheit, Solidarität, Menschenrechten. Die Diktaturen sind in der Vergangenheit nicht von sich selbst gefallen. In Spanien, Portugal, Griechenland und die Länder des ehemaligen Ostblockes waren die Diktatoren durch die Menschen gebrochen und diese Leute waren Vorbilder für andere Freiheitskämpfer der Welt. Es gehört auch zur Europäischen Identität was eine sehr wichtige Botschaft ist für die Länder des Arabischen Frühlings.

Auf vielen Gebiete hat Europa gezeigt: es geht. Unseren höchsten Umweltschutzstandard ist weltweit anerkannt geworden. Wir haben weder Todeschtraf noch Kinderarbeit. Aber wir müssen aufpassen: es gibt keine Entwicklungsgarantie und unsere Werten sind nicht selbstverständlich. Wir müssen uns erinnern, woher kommen wir, und wir müssen unsere Grundrechte jeder Tag wieder erreichen und verteidigen.

 

1. Joseph DAUL, EPP (Group du Parti Populaire Européen)

"Sans la réduction des dettes, la croissance ne sera qu’artificielle."

Le populisme gauche et droite sont également dangereux pour la démocracie en Europe et il ne faut pas banaliser des extrêmes. La croissance ne peut pas résoudre les problems qu’avec l’austerité. Sans la réduction des dettes, la croissance ne sera qu’artificielle.

La solidarité et la résponsabilité sont également important. Cela veut dire, que l’un et les autres, chacun fait des efforts. Nos devises sont les suivants : solidarité, responsabilité, enthousiasme, conviction.

 

2. Johannes (Hannes) SWOBODA, S&D (Progressiven Allianz der Sozialdemokraten im Europäischen Parlament)

"Wir brauchen Investitionen und keine goldene Regeln für Austerität."

Obwohl die Wahl in Griechenland zeigt, wie verzweifelt die Leute sind, es gibt auch Hoffnung. Und der Sieg von François Holland bedeutet, dass „Le changement, c’est maintenant.“ und Europa nicht nur auf deutsch sprechen wird.

Europa bedeutet Frieden zwischen die Völker aber die Austerität bedroht diese Frieden weil die anti-Europäischen Parteien können die politsche Frieden ruinieren: die EU muss also mehr bieten.

Wir brauchen Investitionen und keine goldene Regeln für Austerität. Es ist kein Wunder dass die Leute neben der massive Arbeitslosigkeit nicht für Europa begeistert sind. Im Gegenteil was Le Pen und die Faschisten sagen: die EU soll die Mitbürgern, die hierher kommen nicht sausgrenzen sondern integrieren, damit sie sich hier auch zu Hause fühlen.

Die Krise ist keine Gottesstrafe. Das ist Hand- und Selbstgemacht und man kann auch dagegen verteidigen und die Europäische Werte stärken.

 

3. Guy VERHOFSTADT, ADLE (Alliance des Démocrates et des Libéraux pour l'Europe)

"L’Europe sera fédérale ou ne sera pas."

L’Europe, c’est le changement. Il ne faut pas négliger les faits : l’Europe est en train de marginaliser au monde. Le rattrapage des pays européens émerge, le vieissement du continent est évident dans une monde qui devient de plus en plus jeune. L’Europe est morcelé et divisé parmi des empires économiques et politiques.

Ce n’est pas la crise financière et économique qui nous touche mais la crise européenne, la crise des états européennes. L’Europe sera fédérale ou ne sera pas. C’est la seule solution qui s’impose : obtenir un trésor fédéral, un budget fédéral et peut-être un jour une armée fédérale aussi, on n’a pas le choix. Seul l’austerité ne résoudra pas la crise. Il faut que la discipline et le rigeur soit en ligne avec la solidarité et la croissance.

Only the fiscal compensation is not enough: the role of the ECB must be reinforced and we have to re-think the situation of bondholders. If we want that Europe survive, we need federalization.

 

4. Daniel COHN-BENDIT, Les Verts/ALE (Allience Libre Européenne)

"La démocracie n’est rien d’autre que la recherche perménente des alternatives. We need a Green New Deal."

La deficit démocratique est visible et il faut répondre aux peuples. C’est très dangereux si quelqu’un dit qu’il n y a pas des alternatives. Cette approche se rappelle aux idées des pacts/traités de Versailles. La démocracie n’est rien d’autre que la recherche perménente des alternatives.

Il faut donner des conditions au peuple grec qu’il soit capable de les accomplir sans être affamé. Sinon, on peut organiser n’importe combien élections en Grèce, le résultat sera toujours le même, et les Grecs vont voter pour les partis ultranazi et ultrastalinien.

Si on dit après les élections françaises qu’il n y pas de choix et des autres solutions, dans ce cas-là, il n’est pas nécessaire d’organiser des élections.

C’est mieux si l’Italie et les autres pays écoutent la France parce que le changement va venir dans les autres pays aussi. Il faut redonner au peuple l’espoir. L’espoir qu’ils seront capable de réduire la déficite.

La Banque européenne d’investissement (BEI) soit être renforcée. We need a Green New Deal. L’économie néolibérale est déjà devant la mur. Il faut maîtriser la crise avec des investissements écologique.

 

5. Martin CALLANAN, ECR (European Conservatives and Reformists Group)

"What we need is systematic growth, an entrepreneur led growth.  Trust the people, they know better. Do less but do it better."

Neither the Wall of Berlin nor the Iron Curtain exist but we still fight with the problems of the XXIth century with XXth century’s solution. People do not trust Europe, 1/5 of the French electors voted Le Pen. We may not underestimate that Greece’s greatest contribution to Europe was still the democracy.

The Commission’s often quoted response that “More Europe is needed.” is not enough anymore. What we need is systematic growth, an entrepreneur led growth. The key for this growth is the free trade. The European policy must be better focused and prioritized. We need less single market, let us say more single market deregulation and much more harmonization.

Many of us said in 2005, after the rejection of the European Constitution by France and Netherlands that the trompets sounded. It seems that we did not hear them but it is not too late, either. Trust the people, they know better. Do less but do it better.

6. Nigel FARAGE, EFD (Europe of Freedom & Democracy)

"Europe need more cooperation sensible rules and we owe no allegiance to the EU flag."

There is no need to celebrate today, and it seems that it would be better if we celebrated the 8^th of May, the Surrender of Germany, since then, at least half of the continent regained its freedom. The tragedy of Yugoslavia clearly shows the dangers of the further integration. The EU Titanic hit its Iceberg with the low growth and with the economic prison of the euro.

There is desperation everywhere in Europe, the extremes rise on the left and the right across Europe and if we do not change the main direction of the integration, mass civil protests are likely and even the National Socialism may rebirth.

But there are hope, too. The change has began in Finland with the victory of the true finns. Europe need more cooperation sensible rules and we owe no allegiance to the EU flag.

 

7. Patrick LE HYARIC, GUE/NGL (Gauche Unitaire Européenne/Gauche Verte Nordique)

"Les États sont dépensé pour qu’ils puissent sauver les Banques, donc il faut imposer les banques (...) et les capitaux."

La devise de l’Europe pourrait être : richesse – minorité – privatisation. Il faut tirer les conclusions de la crise. La nouvelle vague de la gauche est visible. C’est passé le plus récemment en Roumanie mais aussi en France. Le gouvernement aux Pays-Bas n’a pas réussit de stabiliser le budget et il y avait des succès de la gauche au nivau locale en Angleterre, en Allemagne et en Espagne aussi.

L’Europe n’a pas besoin de Merkozy, ce protocol antagonique. Il faut inventé dans les humaines, il faut accentuer le rôle de la Banque européenne d’investissement (BEI) et garantir des emplois.

Il ne faut pas oublié que les États sont dépensé pour qu’ils puissent sauver les Banques, donc  il faut imposer les banques. Le tax de transaction soit être consacré aux États et pas aux Banques. Il faut imposer les capitaux aussi, on a besoin d’un capital levy.

Il faut inaugurer une moratoire pour une partie des dettes et organiser un nouveau FORUM EUROPE avec la participation de la Commission, des États Membres et des principaux syndicats.

____________________________________________________________

Finaly, may I repeat it: those who are more interested in this exciting debate can follow it's record on the website of the EP.

 

I remain at your disposal.

 

                     

_____________________________

______________________________

Zoltán MASSAY-KOSUBEK ● zoltanmassaykosubek@yahoo.com

EU Policy Officer & Public Affairs Expert | Legal Adviser

 

"All the so-called secrets of success will not work unless you do."

This blog entry can be regarded as some kind of reaction to another interesting note of Mr. Eberhard Rhein visible on his blog:

 EU Health Policy should focus on Disease Prevention.

 

In this current post we will follow the next topics:

1.  The first part covers some aspects of the legal bounds which limit our efforts in the  European public health field.

2. The second part adress the state of health of European citizens through the following sub-items:

a) the possibilities of the Union and the Member States to fight diseases

b) the connection between the ageing pupulation and public health policies, and finally

c) my thoughts with regard to the disease prevention, as the suggested best  way forward.

1. Legal limits and opportunities

In order the better adress the public health relevances, I would like to set up the legal framework as limits of my thoughts.

(Comment: I refer here to my earlier clarification and I mostly repeat it [see under number 12. or under date: 5/5/2012]. People often say that "the Treaty of Lisbon lays down that..." which is not really correct. The Treaty of Lisbon only introduced the necessary modifications to the original texts of the Treaties. However, the Treaty of Lisbon only _modified_ the Treaty on the European Union (TEU) and not only modified but renamed the Treaty establishing the European Community to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). Therefore, the primary sources of the law of the Union are now the TEU and the TFEU and not the Treaty of Lisbon, and from a legal point of view the text of the Lisbon Treaty does not prevail.)

The changes of the Lisbon Treaty affected the article regulating public health and the numbering has been changed: the old Article 152 EC became the new Article 168 TFEU. In order to make clear the changes we are talking about, I insert here a reference to the examined article before and after the change:

1.) Paragraph 1 of  Article 152 of  the Treaty establishing the European Community:

"1. A high level of human health protection shall be ensured in the definition and implementation of all Community policies and activities.

Community action, which shall complement national policies, shall be directed towards improving public health, preventing human illness and diseases, and obviating sources of danger to human health. Such action shall cover the fight against the major health scourges, by promoting research into their causes, their transmission and their prevention, as well as health information and education. The Community shall complement the Member States' action in reducing drugs-related health damage, including information and prevention."

2. Paragraph 1 and 5 of Article 168  of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

"1. A high level of human health protection shall be ensured in the definition and implementation of all Union policies and activities.

Union action, which shall complement national policies, shall be directed towards improving public health, preventing physical and mental illness and diseases, and obviating sources of danger to physical and mental health. Such action shall cover the fight against the major health scourges, by promoting research into their causes, their transmission and their prevention, as well as health information and education, and monitoring, early warning of and combating serious cross-border threats to health.

The Union shall complement the Member States' action in reducing drugs-related health damage, including information and prevention."

(...)

5. The European Parliament and the Council, (...) may also adopt (...) and measures which have as their direct objective the protection of public health regarding tobacco and the abuse of alcohol, excluding any harmonisation of the laws and regulations of the Member States."

In my opinion, the most important aspect of the EU's public health policy is in the first sentence of paragraph 1 of both Article 152 EC and Article 168 TFEU:  a high level of human health protection shall be ensured in the definition and implementation of all Union policies and activities. Which means that instead of creating an independent and overregulated public health legal framework, the intention is rather to include the public health aspects in every segment of the EU policies (ex. new technical standards, safety of workplaces, authorization of new dangerous substances, food security and animal health, safety on roads and the enumeration would be run on).

However, we may not overestimate the significance of the exact naming of physical and mental health as well as of the fight against serious cross-border threats such as the tobacco and abuse of alcohol since these are not crucial, revolutionary inclusions. made by the Lisbon Treaty

Thus, in my opinion, regardless the exact wording of the law of the Union, even before and after the Lisbon Treaty, there were no major changes included, and either the EC or the TFEU provided with the necessary legal approval to take appropriate actions which seems necessary to adress a given public health problem.

2. Which actions do seem necessary to improve the state of health of European citizens?

May I make my position quite clear already at the beginning: I share either the methodology or the main findings of the referred article. However, it seems to be useful to highlight some other elements after the above presented legal clarifications.

a) the possibilities of the Union and the Member States to fight diseases

Based on the legal text and my fiindings, we can stress, that within the public health policies, the Member States have a more accentuated role and opportunities than the EU does.

(Comment: In other words the public health belongs to the so-called 'weak' European politics as Education or Culture do which operates mainly with soft-law in spite of the 'strong' European politics such as competition or the common currency, operating with binding hard-law.)

As I clarified earlier, the legal changes of the Treaties did not touch upon seriously the divison of the competences between the EU and the Member States. Therefore it is up to the 27 Member States to find appropriate solutions, and the EU can rather help and promote this procedure. Hence, the solution is in the hands of the 27 Member States, which may result theoretically 27 different approaches. A program or a treatment policy which might work quite well in a given Member State, would be completely ineffective in an other-one. 

b) the connection between the ageing pupulation and public health policies

Let's be clear: the high level of the healthcare services is mainly a question of money. And under the financial and economic crisis the financial resources are limited. It does not mean necessarily a bad thing: this can promote the cost-friendly solutions and might make result a more effective healthcare system.

And the ageing population is also a crucial cause of healthcare expenditures, that is also true. But it is a complex problem - mainly related to the rate of births  - which has a social dimension., too Therefore, this is rather a social policy problem than a health-related one, although it has doubtless serious health implications. In that regard, I would like to refer to my findings concerning the subsidiarity of the public health policy. 

Therefore it is not up to the ongoing healthcare reforms to resolve this problem although a cost effective and efficient healthcare system is in the best interests of everyone.

c) my thoughts with regard to the disease prevention, as the suggested best  way forward.

I share most of the findings of the referred Blog including that "Life-long health prevention must therefore become the buzzword."  The prevention is the most effective method and as efficace as much money will be spent to it.

Unfortunately the positive effects of any preventive health policies will occur only in long term which is a goal difficult to achieve in the crisis hit countries where the governments face serious political turmoils (see the recent example of France or Greece).

Referring back to the responsabilities of the Member States, the viable solutions can differ among the Member States. But even if the need for cost-efficiency is highly appreciated, I believe in the need of appropriate financing of the Member States' efforts to make them possible to create effective prevention programs. It might be advantagous to re-think the sources allocated to these purposes since with a clever use, this investment could result the most vaulable benefit of any economies: a healthier society.

 

Conclusion

 

1.) Concerning the legal side, my conclusion would be that although the Lisbon Treaty introduced some changes, the core content of the public health part of the Treaty is rather unchanged or only slightly modified.

2.) a) It is up to the 27 Member States to adress the particular problems of their healthcare systems. However the co-ordinating role of the EU would be highly appreciated with special regard to the cross border issues.

b) The ageing population is a serious problem whith remarkable health effects. Nonetheless, it is rather a social than a pure healthcare problem and it is mainly up to the integrated social policy to promote the raise of births and to adress the problem taking into account the public health aspects.

c) The cost efficiency of the healthcare systems is highly desirable but without appropriate European budget allocations, even the cleverest prevention cannot be effective.

 

I remain at your disposal.

 

                     

_____________________________

______________________________

Zoltán MASSAY-KOSUBEK ● zoltanmassaykosubek@yahoo.com

EU Policy Officer & Public Affairs Expert | Legal Adviser

 

"Don't let something that doesn't matter cause you to lose something that does." ~Phil Torcivia

 

The problem of Chemical coctails still emerges and can be considered as a relatively new field of chemicals. It is quite easy to understand why are chemical coctails in the very center of interests of scientific and legal professionals and why are they one (1.) of the three most dangerous categories of chemicals - in line with Endocrine Disruptors (2.) and Nanosubstances (3.) - where the existing framework of the law of the Union - including the famous REACH regulation - does not provide an efficient level of protection of health and environment.

Let's assume that neither substance 'A'  nor  substence 'B'  have harmful properties alone. Nonetheless, if they are mixed with each other, it may happen ex. that above 100 C this new coctail became explosive. Or 'simply' they will have corrosive, carcinogen, mutagen or other harmful effects which do not occur if the components are separated. Additionally, if we use instead of either substance 'A' or substance 'B'  a 'mixture' (which contains in itself already several substances) the possibilities of occuring potential harmful effects of such chemical coctails would emerge accordingly.

With this basic, theoretical example it is obvious why shall we take those 'chemical coctails' seriously and in that matter, the precautionary principle must be applied doubly.

I can clearly remember that under the Hungarian Presidency in the first half of 2011, Denmark  - who was always a flagship of new environmental initiatives - put forward at ministerial level a proposal aiming at accentuating the relevance of this problem in the Council. So, it is not a surprise that the Commission is likely to present a new strategy paper on chemical combination effects in this May, under the Danish EU presidency, followed by other initiatives in 2012 and in 2013.

The European Parliament is well aware of the problem and closely monitors this process. May I draw the attention to its resolution of April 20 on the review of the 6th Environment Action Programme and the setting of priorities for the 7th Environment Action Programme . In this legal text, EP gives clear political indications under the title 'Environmental quality and health', in point 44., fourth subparagraph, as follows:

 

"The Europpean Parliament

(...)

44.  Takes the view, given that poor environmental conditions have a substantial impact on health, involving high costs, that the 7th EAP should notably:

(…)

–             provide for the development of specific measures relating to emerging human and animal health threats, currently not sufficiently addressed, to examine the effects of new developments on human and animal health, such as nanomaterials, endocrine disruptors and the combination effects of chemicals, on the basis of scientific studies and commonly accepted definitions, where available;"

 

Obviously, any kind of new proposals will be based on existing scientific evidents which are collected in the recent Commission's 2010 study which serves as a basic document for further legal steps.

We shall bear in mind that Europe and the EU is often considered worldwide as a leading regulator in the chemicals sector who is strongly committed to discover new pathways in that specific area with serious health, environmental and economic effects. The REACH regulation is one of the cornerstones of this leadership-role since the  global influence of REACH is clearly visible: other important countries (ex. Chine, Thailand) are interested therein. However, any kind of such advantage in the chemical sector can be easily overshadowed by the very fast scientific development. Taking into account two decisive factors, namely that

1. - the chemical sector is strongly dependent on the latest scientific data,

 and

2. - the EU still spend less for Research & Development than its global partners,

it is not a surprise that the EU's leading role is in danger in that matter, too. And since the field of chemical coctails is such an identified territory where it is already stated that the EU does not meet the required protective level of regulative framework, this circumstance may be - among other factors - a signicficativ competitive disadvantage in spite of other global actors/countries.

Thus, it is of utmost importance that the above mentioned paper be placed on the table as soon as possible (in May).

The perspectives of the future coctail-regulation are not so optimistic, either. Not only because of the scientific complexity of the territory but also because of the fragmented legal framework. The law of the Union is very complex in that regard, and several pieces of legislation regulate the dangerous chemicals (REACH, CLP, Biocide regulation, PPP regulation, waste legislation etc.). From a legal point of view it makes a difference which legal way will be choosed. Either to implement all new element in every single existing regulations/directives or to draft a completely new legislation dedicated to regulate coctails (and endocrine disruptors and nanosubstances).

Conclusion

The EU legislators (COM, Council, EP) are not in a favorable position: there is a need for a new, stricter regulation in order to reach a higher level of protection of health and environment and to maintain competitivness in the global world on the one hand, and there are the above mentioned special scientific and legal complex issues on the other.

Although the situation is complicated and difficult, the example of the succesful adoption of the new biocide regulation clearly demonstrates that with political will and with a lot of flexibility, 'impossible' can be deleted from the European stakeholders' dictionary.

 

Those who are interested can read this Bloomberg article about this issue: 

Risks of Chemical Mixtures, Endocrine Disruptors, Nanosubstances

 

I remain at your disposal.

 

                     

_____________________________

______________________________

Zoltán MASSAY-KOSUBEK ● zoltanmassaykosubek@yahoo.com

EU Policy Officer & Public Affairs Expert | Legal Adviser