On Wednesday, 7 April 2021, MEP Irena Joveva participated in the online debate “The Pandemic, Youth, and Europe: how to prevent a lost generation?” organized by the European Parliamentary Association. In their discussion, young Europeans focused on preventing long-term mass youth unemployment and filling the skills gap that will result from the disruption of the traditional learning process.

The pandemic is reducing young people’s opportunities for education and employment. Increasingly, we hear that the ‘lock down’ generation is the lost generation. MEP Joveva agreed with the young people that it is really hard to be 20 years old at this time. “It must be a challenge to be isolated with no real social contact and getting their education through distance learning.” She began by pointing out that education is a Member State competence, meaning that countries have faced the challenges of the pandemic differently. But this does not mean that nothing is being done at the European level.

“At the beginning of the epidemic, in the so-called first wave, when we didn’t know much about the virus, the only right thing to do was to close educational institutions. No one knew how long it would last, for how long the distance learning would be needed, or what the effects of this kind of teaching would be. Today we witness that European education systems have many shortcomings.” Joveva agreed that the pandemic has also led to a lack of social skills development and increased psychological consequences and inequalities. “Since before the pandemic we in Parliament have been working on promoting IT skills, STEM education (science, technology, engineering, and maths), volunteering, internships, exchange programmes … Erasmus+ and the European Solidarity Corps are excellent examples of how we are trying to bridge the gap between traditional schooling by teaching international competences, encouraging practical work, and opening up new horizons.”

Joveva also emphasized that digital education is crucial as it represents an investment in the future and the development of individuals and society. In October, the Commission, which has been working on education reform and Union-level guidelines since before the pandemic, presented its Digital Education Action Plan. It is in the common interest of all EU Member States to fully exploit the potential of education as a driving force for job creation, economic growth and the transition to the digital economy, and for greater social cohesion, especially in the light of the ongoing crisis we are facing momentarily.

Participants agreed that during the pandemic we all became (even more) aware of the importance of volunteering. Joveva, who was shadow rapporteur for the European Solidarity Corps, said that Parliament was working to further improve volunteering opportunities. The new European Solidarity Corps programme will be more accessible, more inclusive, and will provide more safety and security for participants, additionally, online volunteering was also highlighted.

“National agencies can invoke force majeure clauses. This will allow them to assess the possibility of accepting additional costs up to the maximum grant amount. It also allows them to postpone planned activities for up to 12 months per project. The Commission has also secured €100 million for the Digital Education Call for Schools, which will support projects in school education, vocational education, and higher education. The aim of this call will be to improve online, distance, and blended learning – including support for teachers and tutors.”

Despite the complexity of the topics discussed, the young people concluded the debate with optimism, and were especially pleased to have had the opportunity to share their experiences and reflections with the two MEPs. In addition to Joveva the young MEP Alexander Bernhuber (EPP) from Austria also took part in the discussion.

El Confidencial, a Spanish newspaper and website specializing in economic, financial, and political news, has published an interview with MEP Irena Joveva. Below you can find summary of the discussion:

Irena Joveva was a journalist for eight years, so she knows and understands very well the campaign against the freedom of the press that the Janez Janša government is waging in her country. “We cannot afford to have three illiberal countries in the European Union,” she says in an interview with El Confidencial as part of the “Decoding the European Parliament” project. In the interview, the young, Renew Europe MEP talks about the rule of law in the European Union and Slovenia, a country following the illiberal trend of Hungary and Poland. However, Joveva is confident that the Slovenian Presidency of the Council of the EU, starting on July 1st this year, will be well managed.

Slovenia has been under scrutiny in recent months due to its situation of the rule of law. How would you sum up the situation of fundamental rights and freedoms in the country?

I wouldn’t say that Slovenia is like Hungary or Poland at the moment. Not everything is as black as it seems, but it is darker than it should be. This is why it is important to talk about Slovenia. The situation of fundamental rights is deteriorating and, if we don’t stop it, Slovenia could be the next Hungary or Poland within a year. This is not purely a national policy, confronting the coalition and the opposition. The general situation in the country is horrible – since Janez Janša came to power many civil society organizations have been facing serious problems. Brussels is paying a little more attention to what is happening now, as Slovenia will take over the EU Council Presidency in July. In summary, the Slovenian government is following the example of Hungary and Poland. They are using all means at their disposal to eliminate free and critical thinking. Not just against journalists, but also against NGOs, universities, and anyone else who disagrees with them. The government insults them, discredits them and uses mechanisms such as withdrawal of funding or legislative measures against them.

You mentioned the coming Slovenian Presidency of the Council of the EU, starting July 1st. Do you see this as an opportunity to improve the situation in the country or is this a bad moment for the EU?

I think everything will be fine in the end. But I hope that in these months leading up to the Presidency, European institutions will not be passive, saying that there is nothing they can do. This is not true. I think they have learnt from the mistakes they made in the past with Hungary and Poland. But I believe that the Presidency itself will not be badly run.

The European Parliament held a debate on the attempts by the governments of Poland, Hungary and Slovenia to silence free media. Do you think that the freedom of the press is at risk in these countries?

Yes. Slovenia is not yet Hungary or Poland, but if we do nothing, it will head that way. Before entering politics, I was a journalist for eight years. So, I know how things work on the other side. There is no doubt that the situation is worsening. While I cannot claim that pressures or attacks have never happened in the past, the fact is that with the new government, the situation is gradually deteriorating. Janša tried to suspend the Slovenian Press Agency and national public television RTV SLO because he had built his own media system. He also has issues with the culture because they are trying to create a kind of parallel social trend. He manipulates people through historical traumas and the current pandemic. The goal is obvious: they want to subjugate the whole of society, and they want to have power eternally. Janez Janša wants to be eternally in power, that’s the whole issue here. He deliberately tried to divide and polarize society to achieve his political goals. And his political goal is autocracy.

In fact, in the last few weeks, we have seen the Prime Minister directly attack journalists here in Brussels, where he is known as the “Trump of Europe”. Do you think this label is fair?

I am not in a position to judge whether that is fair or not. But the reality is  Janša idealizes Trump and Orban. He uses social networks a lot, he attacks everyone on Twitter, so he uses the same methods as Trump. Things are going to extremes because we are no longer just talking about rhetoric.

You personally have been the target of attacks due to your Macedonian origin. What was happening?

This is normal for Janez Janša, his voters, and his supporters. Unfortunately, I am not the only one and, of course, I will not be the last to be the target of such attacks. It’s sad because none of them have told me exactly what I did wrong or what they think I should have done better. They are only talking about where my parents are from, even though I was born in Slovenia, by the way. They don’t even care what I say, and that is what saddens me the most. Politics has led to a very offensive trend. Hate speech in particular is becoming normal, most notably on Twitter.

Do you think the European Commission is doing enough to curb these trends and defend the rule of law?

I think the Commission should do more because it has enough tools at its disposal to do so. I hope they will take steps in the right direction because we cannot afford to have three illiberal countries in the EU that do not believe in freedom of the press. Furthermore, I hope and trust the European Commission to do more.

What measures or tools do you think Brussels could use?

First, we need to stop talking about how bad we are all the time and take action. The Commission has annual country reports on the rule of law, as well as a mechanism to condition European funding on respect for these fundamental values. It is a crucial instrument, and we must start using it to punish those who undermine our values.

Do you have confidence in the rule of law? We have already seen that some, such as Article 7, have proved ineffective …

You never know, but I remain optimistic because the rule of law mechanism is necessary precisely because of the apparent ineffectiveness of other mechanisms. The European Union was founded based on fundamental values, and this is clearly reflected in the Treaties. This is not about ideologies, but about non-negotiable values. The governments of Poland and Hungary are constantly losing court battles before the EU Court of Justice. I believe that we can use these tools to ensure that European taxpayers’ money does not go to waste.

You mentioned Janša’s admiration for Viktor Orbán. Do you think he will follow in Orban’s footsteps and his party, SDS, will end up leaving the European People’s Party?

I don’t think he will dare to do that because then his party would have less power than it has now as a member of the EPP. My colleague from Janša’s party has already said on camera that she will continue to work with Fidesz, regardless of which political group she belongs to. Orban and Janša no longer have so much political power, not in Parliament, or more importantly in the Council. They will not be part of “mainstream” politics. Janša’s party is simply too small (at the European level) to do anything, especially now that Fidesz is no longer in the EPP. So, I don’t think they will leave the group, but they will continue to work with Orban’s party.

And one last question. Are these illiberal democracies a threat to the future of the EU?

Yes. We do not need three illiberal democracies, even if they are still a minority. What is most important now is to stop the spread of such democracies.

 

Journalist: Maria Zornoza

Published: El Confidencial, 23rd March 2021

Full article accessible here.

In the spirit of the conference on the future of Europe, the Europe Direct Koroška Information Centre organized a literary-political discussion on the current perception of the socio-political situation in Europe among the inhabitants of the Koroška region. The discussion was organized based on a literary competition held from February to September 2020. The virtual event was attended by MEPs, including MEP Irena Joveva, the European Commission Representation in Slovenia, and members of the literary competition committee.

The committee announced the three best works, and at the beginning of the conversation, the author read their winning work on the turtle named Sofija. The short story addresses environmental issues, and MEP Irena Joveva said it was a text that should be internalized by all of us.

Next, she addressed media freedom and the importance of investigative journalism and warned that freedom of media is an issue in democratic societies as well. During the pandemic, journalists face increasing difficulties in accessing official information, which is the only way to provide adequate information to the public and assure an open and plural media space. Another challenge is resources. “Good investigative journalism requires time and resources, which is becoming increasingly difficult. The corona crisis is merely accelerating this trend and investigative journalism is under increasing pressure. There is a great risk that important stories that are in the public interest remain untold.” At the same time, in many countries, including the EU region, an atmosphere of hatred towards the media and journalists is being fomented systematically:

It is a goal-driven process that has been intensifying in recent years, with the media owned by political parties leading the way. These parties are taking advantage of the void left behind by crises, economically weak media owners, changes in the habits of media content users, etc. However, if the media freedom falls, so does democracy. If democracy falls, freedom is the next in line.

On all the opportunities offered by digitalization, the MEP drew attention to the fact that some technology giants control much of our lives and directly threaten the democracy of our societies, with most subscriptions flowing into large media companies. At the same time, a lot of information is available for free on the Internet. Asked if money could mean freedom, she replied: “Certainly money does not bring a sense of freedom. Good investments are much more important than accumulating money. The best and most profitable life investment is the one in our mind and knowledge. Do not count the stars. Become a star. The star of your own mental universe.“

On Friday, 6th November, MEP Irena Joveva was a guest on the Slovenian Radio Ptuj’s show ‘Slovenia, the European Union and the World’. The conversation covered issues around the pandemic, such as the current situation, disinformation, and the negative impact of disinformation and this sphere’s regulators within the EU – where the Digital Services Act will play a key role.

“This mandate is truly unique. First the exit of a member state and then the pandemic. Only for the short period of six months could we work normally. In March, everything came to a standstill, including our work and after that, everything changed,” began the MEP.

How successful was the first year of her mandate? What were her priorities and her achievements? Joveva is a member of four parliamentary committees and a shadow rapporteur responsible for numerous opinions, from the Digital Services Act and artificial intelligence to the strengthening media freedom and the European Solidarity Corps. Soon she will cooperate in her capacity as the general rapporteur on the opinion of the Committee on Culture regarding the citizens’ participation in the decision-making in the EU.

“I am building credibility with my colleagues, they trust me with more important reports, they ask for my opinion and my support … But you should know that most of the results are only evident later on because the legislative process is long-running and one can hardly attribute it to only oneself,” explained the MEP, emphasizing the importance of networking to gain influence and to achieve goals.

Joveva and the journalist also discussed briefly the current situation regarding the pandemic and in the second part, the MEP spoke about fighting against disinformation, especially in current times.

I believe there has been too much disinformation going around since time immemorial, even only one is overmuch and it’s getting  increasingly dangerous in these times. On the one hand, because of the digitalization of our age, and, on the other,  – which is even worse – because it is dangerous to human health and lives.

As a result, the Digital Services Act, according to Joveva, has never been more important. Although the EU and major online platforms have already taken some steps, it is still insufficient: “Twitter removes or flags certain misleading records, and Facebook removes dangerous groups, but we need clear, legal regulation. Rules for moderating online content, including disinformation, illegal content, hate speech, and the spread of conspiracy theories…”

According to the MP, it is crucial to find out, who is behind the disinformation: “I find it most problematic that politicians deliberately use these methods, fear and people’s sense of helplessness, to achieve their goals. Politicians, on the other hand, are diverting attention away from the real problems that people face, which they should address together. And that is precisely the problem that makes people feel excluded and disappointed, prompting them to seek explanations on dubious-credibility websites.”

At the same time, she was particularly critical of Slovenian government’s (non)communication. “If you listen to something a politician says every day, then to something another speaker says on another day, and then again to a leader from whatever group, at some point everything starts to seem suspicious, and you ‘switch’ to deceptive information because everything appears to be much simpler at first glance,” Joveva observes.

Is there anything else we can do? The Digital Services Act by itself, as well as increased platform responsibility, will not suffice. “Manipulative policies or systems will always exist, but it will be up to us to decide whether we will – and I apologize for my choice of words – be so stupid as to believe in something that is so obviously manipulative. Education and awareness-raising are critical here, not only from educators, but also from those of us who co-decide and co-shape decisions, and we must be the first to set an example,” the MEP concluded.

The digital legislation that we are preparing inside  European Institutions is necessarily complex and cannot be explained in only two minutes, so I would like to offer you a more extensive and detailed background on the subject.

Over the last few decades, we have been overwhelmed with the prodigious technological progress on the internet that has  influenced our way of living (how we access information, how we communicate and interact with each other, etc.). The line between real-world and virtual reality has been blurred, and the current health crisis has only accelerated the digital transformation. Every technological revolution brings new possibilities and thus has a significant impact on the structure of society. Gutenberg’s printing press helped create a wider literate reading public and contributed to society’s growth of culture and literacy. Radio offered an instant information transition directly to citizens, although it was also abused as Goebbels’ propaganda tool, just as Berlusconi’s ownership of the television network made it possible to change the Italian political landscape.

Every technological revolution has not only brought advantages but is persistently challenged with restraining potential exploitation by various lobbies, and with the implementation of regulations for each new technological progress into our system.  Not so rarely in our history have  governing parties usurped the propaganda tools to systematically spread false news. Yet the situation here and now is becoming far more bizarre and extremely alarming as the “tools” become remarkably more efficient, while the regulations – or better said the democratic control – evidently cannot keep up with the technological progress of private internet companies. Some technology giants control a large part of our lives and directly threaten the democracy of our societies, which in a way is a paradox, as these networks have enabled a plurality of opinions, the possibility of public expression, and for  politicians to directly inform citizens.

Cases like the interference in the last US presidential election, the referendum vote on Britain’s exit from the European Union, the organized spread of false news, and the undermining of trust in the European Union by state actors such as China or Russia must not be forgotten. In the most extreme case of interference, the incitement to violence led to ethnic cleansing in Myanmar, where the military used social media to spread their messages. And also a more recent incident in Ethiopia, where false news and hate speech spread after a musician’s death, leading to violence in which at least 160 people lost their lives. The spread of a message also led to the recent assassination of French teacher Samuel Paty. One of his students’ father published his disapproval of the teacher’s lesson on freedom of speech, which was seen and spread by Islamist extremists culminating in one of them beheading him.

What do all these tragedies have in common? Hatred spread throughout social media. Sadly, these publicised horrific cases are merely extreme forms of consequences. In my opinion, the whole concept of the sole nature of social media or rather the implementation of the “business model” to track users, analysing our data and selling our “personalities” to the highest bidder is completely misguided. The internet has become a global control machine managed by the abuse of personal data on an industrial level and is being propelled by constantly updated advanced algorithms that offer a targeted audience to the advertiser. One very concerning result of this is that the algorithm itself systematically offers fake news, conspiracy theories, or incitement to hatred to those who are more susceptible to it, and mostly abuse the user’s fears or self-image to sell products or services. Needless to say, fake news or disruptive far-right populism is spreading several times faster than verified media information. The key element of this is that every individual is presented with a customized world according to his online interests. Meanwhile, popularisation is spreading, distrust in the profession and independent institutions is increasing, and information manipulation with enormous consequences in the “real world” is present at every turn.

This week, the European Parliament accepted three Digital Services Act reports that address the issues at hand. The European Commission will prepare a legislative proposal in early December, based on our starting points. The main highlights of the reports include requirements for algorithm transparency, labelling of (political) advertising, labelling of misleading and false information, identification of advertisers, and rules for moderating and removing controversial content. Before the European elections, online platforms voluntarily entered into an agreement with the EU for self-regulation under the EU Code of Conduct on Disinformation. Additionally, they are gradually adjusting to the demands and the appeals of legislators and public debates on the subject of more rapid elimination of illegal content. They are adapting their algorithms with the intent to reduce the swift spread of hate speech and false information, and to mark controversial information, harmful conspiracy theories and harmful information, such as QAnon, Holocaust deniers or harmful information to public health. Removal of such is also performed, even if in the past they constantly avoided responsibility and have hidden behind freedom of speech.

But what stays online and what doesn’t, should not be solely in the hands of private corporations, so in the DSA we suggest transparent rules for online content moderation and demand an appeal mechanism option for users and individuals to assert control over the algorithms. The removal of legal content by private corporations in a censor role is inadmissible. It was often the case that social platforms successfully removed the content of ISIS Propaganda in Syria, but due to the imperfections in algorithms, the evidence for crimes against humanity was also erased and the investigators could no longer access them. It is more than difficult to find the right balance between fundamental human freedoms, such as freedom of speech, freedom of reporting, and the right to privacy on the one hand, and protecting people from hate speech, misinformation, and manipulation on the other. And the fact remains that private corporations cannot make decisions on this whilst holding the monopoly over all our data. For the time being, they are carefully keeping the data to themselves for  a market monopoly (which is also controversial), but we do not know how authoritarian governments could abuse it for their own interests if they had to disclose user identities to governing structures – and what this would mean for freedom on the Internet. This (more and more increasingly dominant) monopoly over public space must be returned to the people, and they must regain control over their data , have the option of anonymity, and must demand transparency over the individual presentations of the world and the various actors’ attempts of manipulations of an individual.

The DSA is a step in the right direction and is followed by the addition of the Digital Market Act, which will provide the tools to break the market monopoly of some dominating corporations and allow other smaller and medium-sized companies to grow. In other words: to ensure equal opportunities and conditions for competitiveness. Into the bargain, the intent is also to ensure researchers and public institutions access to, and use of, the anonymized data for the public good. Unfortunately, the current structure of the savage online capitalism itself, which prays over our weaknesses and ensures manipulation, stays firm. The same goes for the motives of various actors, including countries straining for geopolitical influence, the private sector for material benefits, and political parties who exploit people’s fear, anger, or disappointment for their benefit – with no moral reservations -by intentionally inciting hatred through national division and imaginary battles with the ghosts from the past. Possible is also the fair taxation of digital giants and the introduction of the digital tax, for which we are waiting on an agreement at the OECD level, although the US is doing everything in its power to ensure that no agreement is reached. Some European countries have already tried to introduce a tax on a national level until they were forced to yield under pressure. Loans for “non-refundable means” borrowed by the EU from member states will have to be paid back, whereas the digital tax would not be a direct burden to EU citizens. There is also the agreement between digital giants and publishing media to invest part of their profits into the quality media content that is regularly published on their platforms. France and Germany are coming close to an agreement, but it would be necessary to introduce statutory stipulations suitable EU-wide.

For too long we have merely observed alarming trends and acted far too late. The current situation will become more and more unbearable in the long term, but we must ask ourselves for what reasons do people tend to reach for simple explanations for their poor living conditions like poverty, rising inequality, abuse of power, and exclusion from society.

Maybe some ideas might seem too utopian or naive. But in the history of humankind, many who have pushed the limits were labelled as naive. In my opinion, the only way is to do everything we can (emphasis on doing and not just talking about it) to create a safe online environment for all  people, and to build and preserve democratic boundaries for those holding too much power.

Irena Joveva