I perceive the European Union as a very successful cooperation project between independent autonomous states. This project started after the Second World War with the objective of peacekeeping. Although nowadays we tend to forget it, peacekeeping was the key topic after the World War I and World War II. The European Coal and Steel Community had been transformed step by step into an economic area with four basic freedoms: free movement of goods, services, capital and people. Creation of a united economic area is the only way for small and diverse European countries to compete with other large fast growing world economies. I fully support this form of the European Union, the union of independent and autonomous states which associate because it is useful for them.

Unfortunately, the new phenomenon of the social and environmental EU has recently started to appear. Furthermore due to the continuously growing pressure the fiscal, political and federalist EU has begun to emerge. I cannot agree with these changes. They are not beneficial for our citizens. In this case I am actively against the delegation of powers from the national to the European level. I also try to prevent implementing further regulations which restrict the development of the Member States.

The European Parliament (EP) in Strasbourg creates a first impression of a friendly and close atmosphere. The buildings of the parliament are, of course, huge, but one easily navigates within them and has a feeling of human contact. During the plenary meeting in Strasbourg Dr. Milan Cabrnoch brings me along to various meetings, debates and sittings, including whip meetings and the assembly of the heads of the various EU delegations. Although our program is full, on the way we stop to say hello to an MEP from Poland. Only later do I learn that in fact I just shook hands with the former Prime Minister of Poland and former President of the EU Parliament.

When I have a bit of spare time, I go to see the voting in the parliament and then a debate about the US spying program PRISM and the protection of EU citizens on the internet. The debate is quite interesting, nevertheless even here one can find a broad spectrum of opinions about the leaked information and what the EU’s action plan should encompass.

I am also given the task of summarizing a report about tobacco and to translate a upcoming speech for the MEP from Czech into English. The speech concerns the case Mr. Mammadov and breaches of human rights in Azerbaijan. Dr. Cabrnoch gives his speech on Thursday afternoon during the debate on human rights and, although tere is only a handful of MEPs present, the resolution concerning Azerbaijan is fully-legally carried. After handing in my translation, I am told that it is likely that my translation will be printed in the newspapers of Azerbaijan, a sign of how the EU’s resolutions can have consequences far beyond its borders. Perhaps the EP should thus consider changing its protocol to prevent a small number of MEPs who stay behind on Thursday for the human rights debate from voting on and passing resolutions that the full house of 754 MEPs is responsible for.

Two weeks later I find myself on the plane to Brussels. Upon arrival, I immediately notice the lack of such a friendly atmosphere within the EU Parliament, an atmosphere that was very inviting in Strasbourg. There are much more people working for the parliament in Brussels and so one has a more anonymous feeling, unlike in Strasbourg. It might also be due to the fact that the EP complex in Brussels is several times bigger than in Strasbourg, and the same can be said about the two cities themselves. Whilst in Strasbourg I would meet familiar faces from the EP within the city, in Brussels this never happened.

In Brussels I mainly attend the meetings and votes of the employment (EMPL) and environmental (ENVI) committees. This week both committees discuss fairly high-profile propositions, including quotas for female workers and the backloading CO2 permits, and so the committees are full of TV cameras and reporters.

Finally during the first week of July I return to Strasbourg for the last plenary sitting of the EP prior to the summer holidays. The timing of this internship could not have been better, as on the 1st July Croatia entered the EU. Preparations for this memorable event were clearly well under-way in Brussels, but most interesting of all was this week in Strasbourg, where I could see the huge celebrations for the entrance of Croatia into the EU, such as their naval choir. Nevertheless, inside the EP the work ethic continued like before, with the addition of Croatian MEPs.

On Monday I attend with Mr. Cabrnoch the whip meeting for ECR, where the entrance of Croatia into the EU is felt after all as a new MEP from Croatia is welcomed into the political group ECR. The meeting otherwise continues in a similar as during the last plenary sitting, but still gives a great insight into what will be voted upon during the next couple of days and the position of ECR on each of these issues.

On Tuesday at 10 am I have the opportunity to attend a meeting with lobbyists for manufacturers of cigars. Naturally I am trying to anticipate what sort of arguments they might try to use to support their cause, and what goals they hope to accomplish. However, no extreme arguments are expressed during the meeting and the lobbyists do not denounce existing and upcoming EU legislation concerning tobacco. I am no friend of smoking, but their concerns are understandable in that they wish to distance themselves from cigarette manufacturers and prevent future EU legislation from causing the closure of small and family-sized cigar manufacturers.

What was perhaps the most enticing part of this entire experience in the EU Parliament was the fact that often in the evening I could see news reports concerning decisions made by the EP; decisions I had already seen in real-life during the day and knew their outcomes. It is in these moments that one truly realizes how close one really was to the legislative process and, more importantly, to the people involved that one often only knows from TV screens.

Lukas Vacek
EU Parliament

The fifteenth meeting of the inter-parliamentary committee EU – Georgia was held in Brussels on the February 25 and 26, 2013. It was the first meeting after the parliamentary elections in Georgia.

The Georgian delegation was lead by Tinatin Khidasheli, the Member of the Parliament of the governing formation Georgian dream.

At the meeting were discussed relations between the European Union and Georgia, above all a progress regarding visa policy liberalization and free trade agreement, as well as human rights compliance and judiciary independence. A tense relationship between the Georgian government and opposition has shortly become a major topic of the discussion which arose into violence on the February 8. On this day were also injured few Members of the Opposition.

Read more »

Yerevan, 13. February 2013 -- Presidential election in Armenia was generally well-managed and all the candidates had the chance to campaign freely, said Milan Cabrnoch, Czech conservative MEP who led the European Parliament delegation to Armenia.

Milan Cabrnoch said:

"We have observed a calm election day, characterized by no major difficulties in electoral procedures, following a somewhat quiet, low-key election campaign lacking significant political debate and real competition. This was mainly due to the decision by three main parties not to nominate candidates."

"Armenia has undergone two elections in less then a year, and we have seen improvements in the process. Now, it is key that Armenian authorities deliver on important results, as regards to promoting democratic, economic and social reforms, essential for the conclusion of the EU-Armenia Association Agreement, and also for restoring faith in the future electoral processes."

It is almost unbelievable that a directive which pharmaceutical market follows nowadays was issued in the year 1989. This directive has not been changed since the time it came in force and it reflects conditions on the pharmaceutical market which existed more than 20 years ago.

Milan Cabrnoch considers this fact as a mistake. "These conditions have principally changed not only due to arrival of generic drugs on market which represent less costing alternatives but as well as due to development of modern (and more expensive) pharmaceutics" says Milan Cabrnoch.

Market development is very dynamic but it is being hindered by our current out of date directive. Legislative process related to launching new pharmaceutics on the market is usually lengthy which leads to availability postponement of pharmaceutics for citizens. In the Czech Republic it is the State Institute for Drug Control which is in charge of this field but the situation is not an exception either.
It is Milan Cabrnoch who is a shadow reporter for these amendments which reduce the amount of time spent on pricing and deciding about reimbursement by the health insurance. Nevertheless it does not intervene pricing and reimbursement in Member States.

Milan Cabrnoch comments on unnecessary long terms: "New pharmaceutics should be available for patients in time. Authorities must work quickly and effectively on behalf of patients and not for a comfort of clerks." He hopes that he will manage to convince also his colleagues for these changes.
On today’s voting the European Parliament decided to enlarge the terms proposed by the Commission and delivered a proposal for changes to the Commission.

Presidential elections in the South Caucasian Armenia will be held on the February 18. The European Parliament observers’ delegation will be led by Milan Cabrnoch who was unanimously elected at constitutive delegation meeting.
It is possible that the current president Serzh Sargsyan will be directly re-elected in the first round of the direct elections. Surveys predict that he might obtain more than 50% votes.

It is not the case that Sargsyan would be so popular but rather the fact that he does not have any worthy opponent. Representatives of strong political parties who could have become his rivals eventually decided not to stand as candidates for these elections. This decision was taken by a favourite chairman of the opposition party Prosperous Arménia, Gagik Tsarukyan as well as a former president and leader of the opposition group Armenian National Congres, Levon Ter-Petrossian. There has appeared rumour about the fact that Tsarukyan changed his mind not to stand as a presidential candidate after he had met the president Sargsyan.

The election campaign was also influenced by the assassination attempt of another candidate, dissident and political prisoner Paruyr Hayrikyan who was wounded on January 31. In the case that one of the candidates is similarly disadvantaged, the Armenian constitution allows the date of elections to be postponed. Nevertheless Hayrikyan announced that he will not require this postponement.