60 Years of Gender Equality in the EU

“Gender mainstreaming is not practices, with gender budgeting, gender impact assessment, and gender evaluation rarely implemented. But we do not have another 60 years to wait for the guarantee of the Treaty of Rome of equality to become reality. The guarantee of an equal Europe is in our hands and depends on us.”

Equality between women and men in the EU was established in 1957, by enshrining in the Treaty of Rome the principle of equal pay for equal work[i].

Despite legislative achievements at European and national level regarding equality of women and men before the law, despite numerous political commitments at all levels, equality between women and men is still not a reality in Europe in 2017; the EU remains only halfway towards achieving gender equality: the EU´s overall score on gender equality is 52.9 out of 100, having risen since 2005 1.6p, and thus showing almost no progress in the matter. The guarantee of equality, given to the women of Europe 60 years ago, has actually never really existed in reality.

What persists in reality is a gender pay gap that remains at 16.5% and, according to Eurostat, in some Member States this gap has in fact increased during the past 5 years. Obvious becomes the structural problem of direct discrimination against women by sectoral, occupational and work pattern gender segregation, structural inequalities in access to education and training, biased evaluation and pay systems, and stereotypes. The gender pay gap includes an hourly- wage pay gap, a position gap: even in the sectors dominated by women, men occupy the higher pay bracket, and an income- distribution gap.

The gender pension gap is at an alarming 40%. Even more worrying is the fact that in half of EU MS, the pension gap has increased and between 11-36% of women have no access to a pension. Due to austerity policies, women have been most affected by public sector cutbacks (in particular in areas such as education, health or social work) as they represent the 70% of work force in the sector. Nearly every third woman in the EU (32%) works part time, compared to 30% in 2005. Many pension schemes in the EU Member States still leave many women with only “derived rights” based on their husband’s employment record, with the consequence that the majority of older people living in poverty are women. Ensuring a better life for older women requires the individualisation of pension rights (and social security and taxation systems overall) to encourage women and men to engage in paid work, and thus earn individual economic security;

Gender Time gap/ Gender Care gap: on average in the EU, 77% of women, compared to only 24 % of men, do cooking and housework every day for at least 1 hour or more. Women continue to take a far greater responsibility in taking care of a family or other dependants. Inequality in time-sharing at home also extends to other social activities. In the majority of MS, men are more likely than women to participate in sporting, cultural or leisure activities outside the home. Eurofound illustrates the disproportionately higher time pressure that women face across the EU28, confirming that care responsibilities and unpaid domestic work are unevenly shared between women and men. Although these Time and Care gaps between women and men, better known as women’s ‘double burden’, have been factually documented for the past 60 years, caring for others in society continues to be institutionally and systemically supported as a biological female trait, a service offered ‘naturally’ by women to society, an ‘obligation’ of women to provide care. Male economic inactivity is considered unnatural, whereas economically inactive women are not always defined as ‘unemployed’ and may be defined as ‘housewives’. Many women and girls are cut, burned, beaten, raped and killed in order to be subjugated to traditional social stereotypes of women’s position and role in society, which includes remaining economically inactive in order to provide care and protect the living standards of their male partners and children.

Equal pay legislation, equal opportunities policy and relevant wage policies are not effective or adequate, if affordable, accessible and high-quality care structures for children, other dependents and people with additional support needs are not intrinsic components of the effort to close the pay gap. The governments, employers and trade unions own the problem and are responsible for its solution. The EU is responsible for not prioritising the closing of the gender gap, and is guilty of allowing Member States the option not to refer to specific measures aimed at reducing the pay gap in their Implementation Reports. There are no sanctions against Member States that do not progress with achieving equality targets.

Economic power remains the domain with the biggest gender gaps. While the share of women among board members has increased from 10% in 2005 to 23% in 2016, in 2015, of the biggest companies publicly listed in the EU only 4,3% of CEOs were women. In the finance sector, women are nearly absent in decision making. In 2014, only one of the 28 central bank governors was a woman, and there were only two women finance ministers in the EU. Broader public debate and awareness raising are needed to change the corporate culture. Long working hours and physical presence at work, combined with the practice of traditional masculine leadership styles and a lack of transparency in recruitment and promotion practices, advantage men and reinforce gender inequalities.

Furthermore, 1 in 3 women in the EU has experienced sexual violence since the age of 15, and half of all women in the EU avoid certain situations or places for fear of being assaulted. All European legal systems have an unequal legacy of male domination, with the laws historically enforcing men’s right to control women´s time, property and bodies. During the last 60 years, laws have proclaimed equality between women and men on paper, which means that now women have the right to control their own time, property and body – although with certain exceptions, as in some cases, the State maintains the right to control women´s bodies, with the objective of controlling humanity´s reproduction. In practice, the legacy and mentality of male domination/ ownership of women continues to be applied, with current legal systems in the EU maintaining non-individualisation of tax and social security systems, with women have derived rights through their relationship to men, including for access to health and pension services. Although equality between women and men is a principle of European and national laws, violence against women (VAW) is not automatically considered a substantive equality issue, as traditionally VAW is considered a private issue.  The majority of victims of violence and sexual abuse are women and the majority of perpetrators are men: this fundamental social gap requires immediate positive action in order to start being eliminated.

However, sexual and reproductive rights are not explicitly recognised as EU fundamental rights neither in legal texts nor in the Commission´s communications. Rise in right wing populism has brought strong support for return to the traditional values that reinforce the family model of the economically dependent wife/mother, without access to birth control.

In these times, the Commission downgrades the policy field of gender equality, withdraws the draft maternity leave directive, and has no plan to propose further legislation as per it work program. Gender mainstreaming is not practices, with gender budgeting, gender impact assessment, and gender evaluation rarely implemented. But we do not have another 60 years to wait for the guarantee of the Treaty of Rome of equality to become reality. The guarantee of an equal Europe is in our hands and depends on us.

[i] Article 119 EEC, then 141 EC, now Article 157 TFEU. In 1976, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) decided in the Defrenne case that Article 119 EEC had not only an economic but also a social aim. This judgment paved the way for modern European gender equality law. The Treaty of Amsterdam (1997) stipulated that the promotion of equality between women and men was one of the EU’s fundamental tasks and introduced the principles of non-discrimination and gender mainstreaming. The principle of equality as a founding value of the EU was established in the Lisbon Treaty (articles 2,3 TEU and 8, 10 TFEU) and is featured in the EU Charter for Fundamental Rights (articles 23, 21). Since the Treaty of Rome, a series of EU laws (directives) broadened the principle of equality to cover working conditions, social security, access to goods and services, maternity protection and parental leave.


This post comes from a paper written by Georgia Tsaklanganos for the Greens/EFA group in the European Parliament


If you are interesting in contributing to this project of feminist reflection on the EU at 60, please see here for details.

Europe helped women in Italy, but we still need progress today

“we are still stuck here dealing with the problem of effectiveness – of rights that are only on paper and that do not even touch the daily life of women’s bodies”


In Italy, the 60 year anniversary of the EU intersects with the first but very significant steps of the new feminist movement “Non una di meno” (Not one less).

The themes launched in January by the World March of Women in Washington- fighting gender violence, opposing discrimination, sexism in language and in representation of women’s bodies, taking back the public space: all these are the key concepts desctibing  the present time, but also representing the past forty years of feminist struggles in Italy.

In the seventies, the feminist movement gathered  in  squares and along the streets fighting against violence, against the old sexist system, asking for an egualitarian presence of both sexes in the public space of the city, And then  all this was translated into rights, laws and principles that put in the corner obsolete institutions, nailed to patriarchal traditions.

Today although a regulatory framework in our country does exist – on reproductive rights, on violence, on gender equality- certainly thanks to the widespread and tenacious action of the women’s movement, we cannot forget to thank – and here is my reflection on this anniversary – the Europea institutions, that have always pushed – in one way or in another- for certain key concepts to be introduced in our culturale framework– I think to equal treatment in employment, to parental leave, to support and welfare services. But after that, now that the regulatory scenario is relatively stable, we are still stuck here dealing with the  big problem of effectiveness of rights that are sometimes only on paper and that do not even touch the daily life of women’s bodies. Stuck with the fact that in Italy women are discriminated at work; in Italy you sign resignation letters before signing for the real employment. In Italy women who are beated,  raped and killed by their partners are considered “poor victims” while men perpetrators and murderers are “impulsive human beings pushed to kill by a mad raptus of passion”. In Italy the labour market is increasingly precarious for women, underpaid, humiliating. Even expulsive, if they have to look after children or elders; women lose their jobs or do not seek for  it anymore in Italy due to a non-existent welfare; in Italy women cannot choose to be mothers or not since abortion is not performed by doctors in hospital as prescribed by the laws, because doctors can claim their objection of conscience; in Italy you do not live in peace if you are a same sex couple, because of the stigma , The cattolica Cage of stereotypes we are always in.

In Italy there is still a lot room for the sexist language of the patriarchy, for the discriminatory and offensive language of the Catholic traditionalist Church fostered by the media, underlined by the political parties and by single politicians. Media and politics that deliberately ignore and misrepresent the movement’s actions, that do not hear the voices of the many women and men who in these days fill the streets pushing for change. And that is why today the movement “non una di meno” new and old at the same time, full of soul, strength, creativity and legitimacy given by the international network that has been created, flags as we would really need European institutions – equal rights for women, a highest level of EU citizenship for everyone.

This comment comes from Dr. Lorenza Perini http://cirsg.unipd.it/il-centro/lorenza-perini/

Europe: Sense and Sensibilities

“the need is for a new model and a new project for Europe which cannot but see women in leading roles”

The below is an editorial from the Italian feminist magazine Donna Woman Femme. The full issue is available here – http://www.dwf.it/dwf-110-111-europa-ragioni-e-sentimentieurope-senses-and-sensibilities-2016-2-3/


Actually, we had been contemplating dedicating an issue to Europe for a long time. It has been a long gestation, which has made itself felt on a number of occasions. At times collectively, at times individually, the dream of the ‘Project Europe’ has been recurring for all of us. It may have been conjured up by a childhood song (Carol), or pursued in a form other than the single currency or the rape of Europa but, without risking being naive, we have all in one way or another seen in the birth and growth of the European Union a possibility, an opportunity.

As from the Maastricht Treaty of 1992, the EU’s lifespan so far is approaching long enough to see adult “native Europeans” by now. So we feminists, we who “relate”, who start from ourselves, Europeans travelling without passports and with euros in our wallets, often with three toothbrushes, each in different share accommodation (or coloc, as the French put it) – we were wondering if we had something to talk about, and if so what, with the feminists in Sweden, Austria, Lithuania, Poland… and whether one could speak, even if to some extent provocatively, of the existence of a feminist movement in Europe. There certainly are differences, but the challenge is to see whether there is a common thread binding them (Pacella).

And if there happened to be this thread – we went on to ask ourselves – would the transnational feminist movement be Europeanist? And on what bases, seeing that the great project of united Europe, aiming to keep the differences together without flattening them out on a universal standard, has produced a form of governance and a system put together with restrictive rules? A system that has given way to finance, erected walls or, even worse, got others to, standing as a “fortress”– in short, that preferred straight lines to curves, which are less tameable or predictable (Gregoratti).

We are well aware of what Europe has proscribed. The question we ask ourselves – and others – in this number is what Europe has permitted or permits women, in the first place. And we ask it bearing in mind that Europe’s favoured perspectives start from the cities (Sassen), and that all too often Europe itself (its fault) forgets that not all the people live in metropolises.

Starting from our own lives, these considerations have gone a long way (Dro), raising many questions and demands which we report in this number of DWF. We are aware that many issues have been left out, but we are equally sure that wehave begun to traverse the map of Europe with specific and unequivocal political questions.

We have questioned groups and individuals. The result is not that of a journalistic enquiry clarifying this or that point, but rather a burgeoning of considerations and observations that we deem no less eloquent, no less important to present to and share with the readers of DWF.

Of the interweaving threads to be examined in order to see whether we can speak of a “European feminist movement” European project, the main three are:

  1. How to construct European citizenship: for example, bringing the focus back to welfare, well-being, the opportunities the European Union should guarantee (Pacella), and the rights that some women have and others are waiting to have (Björk, Jafari). There can be no getting around the fact that the human rights that European culture has been built upon have for some years become an obstacle (to break down) favouring a market rationale. At the same time, we may say that Europe, given the heterogeneous characteristics and multiplicity of cultures it embraces, is probably one of those places where citizenship is destined to become a matter of physical human beings inhabiting a certain territory, and not of passports.
  2. What is already common culture, such as the urban lifestyle, and what has yet to enter into it, namely a common identity expressed in terms other than the single currency and the rape of Europa.
  3. What are the theories, reasons and feelings for us to give a political future to Europe.

This questioning leads to one only – but decisive – result: the need is for a new model and a new project for Europe which cannot but see women in leading roles (as political actors). The reasons adduced for this were: women have never constructed their political identity on nationalistic bases (Virginia Woolf – El Fem), most probably because their cause is rooted in the fight against patriarchal universalism (Braidotti); and their European experience, networking with women of different backgrounds, has proved highly beneficial in terms of learning about other practices and comparing them with their own. In other words, it is thanks not only to the Erasmus Programme that we have learnt about each other, but also, and above all, to comparison between various different practices.

It is women themselves who map out the urban context where they take their conflicts (Sassen), where they take their physical presence, occupy streets and squares. Again, it has always been women who have learnt, the hard way, the biopolitical risk now threatening (in Europe, too) many more bodies, for exclusion or inclusion can be a matter of life or death (Braidotti). And again, it is women who understand and exercise the movement, the dynamics of contemporary life between micro-macro, inside-outside. This is evident in the migration processes (Brinis), which see women mayors taking on full commitment in their areas, together with involvement in European emergencies. Moreover, women create culture top-down and bottom-up (Spinelli, Hirschman, Warso, Forenza), which means that the feminist movements represent the only policy that flows while remaining rooted, which takes to the streets but can also become theory, responding to emergencies and transforming them into new directions.

Nevertheless, the data on gender inequality and discrimination (in the labour market, but not only there) tell us that the imbalance is still too great (inGenere, Squillante, Manca).

This number of DWF is important because it brings complicated issues into discussion, but it does not demonstrate that the new model of Europe based on the physical and intellectual presence of women is being implemented or finding political scope to emerge. All of us, women and men, feel the urgency of this, and all the more so if Europe’s scope is hemmed in by currents moving in the direction of authoritarian democracy (Russia, Turkey, USA), but we cannot count on effective response from Europe. The ‘European feminist movement’, as far as there is one, could in the meantime be working towards other legitimate options: a new internationalism, practical nomadism, caravans, matriarchal communities, taking the struggle to common territories.

This number does not offer direct answers to start on immediate political action and the necessary alliances to construct the new model within our map – the geographical and cultural map we inhabit (including the sea). On our experience, however, we can propose political action that takes on form and force like a mosaic “piece by piece”. Our proposal is to set about seeking alliances immediately – political action – on the single pieces of the mosaic, instead of delaying in the expectation of coming to agreement on the overall political project, which still needs clarifying.

We can put the first “piece” in place now, making the gender approach obligatory in all the proceedings of the European and, in cascade, national institutions, introducing a different attitude and/or a gender impact assessment in all cases, at all times, alongside assessment of other impacts. In short, what is known as. “Gendermainstreaming” (Forenza) must be made effective and widespread.

In fact, 8 March 2016 saw approval – during the Strasbourg plenary session – of a report on Gendermainstreaming to the European Parliament3. The rapporteur, Angelika Mlinar, liberal, Austrian and full member of the FEMM Committee (women’s rights and gender equality), enjoyed the support of an overwhelming majority within the committee and subsequently in the plenary session with 453 votes in favour, 173 against and 79 abstentions. Starting from this Report, the offices of the women MEPs who had given it most support set to work to make Gendermainstreaming a perspective adopted across the board for all EU policies. A letter was also sent to the chair of AFCO (Committee on Constitutional Affairs) with the request to modify the rules of procedure in the European Parliament with a view to making adoption of a gender perspective binding throughout all the work of the Parliament.

Another piece of the mosaic consists in a new design for education taking gender into account, able to deconstruct stereotypes and offering European programmes and European handbooks to all, based on studies by women with experience of the project Athena4: in other words, working towards implementation of a platform for construction of European citizenship characterised not by national borders but by border crossings, and thus ever subject to mutations.

Yet another piece of the mosaic consists in continued reflection on everything that obstructs, filters or raises issues with our European project: wayward populist trends, institutional arrangements, the distribution of powers, the bureaucracies, commons, governance of conflict, town/country relations, patriarchal hangovers, economic freedoms, nationalisms.

The Dashwood sisters, all three having rightful claim to the title of this number inspired by Jane Austen’s novel, unconcerned about Brexit and the conventions of the English provinces, have declared their enthusiasm about the work that has been and will be done!


If you would like to contribute to this project of feminist reflections on the European project, see here for details.

‘Militarisation’ and the CFSP Strategy 2016: Post-‘Brexit’ alternatives?

“this military-based approach is in stark contrast to, and undermines, any efforts of the EU to incorporate a more ‘feminist’ outlook on its operations and activities.”

The UK Brexit referendum of 2016 was a turning point. This, almost too close to call, vote was the result of a culmination of negative attitudes towards the European Union dream post-WWII. A dream which began with a hope for a future free of regional conflict, economic stagnation and, arguably, a future free of the xenophobia which had blighted some nations in recent memory.

Brexit and the European Dream

The path to this future began with a handful of European neighbours agreeing to join a common market, for a shared stake in a more stable and prosperous economic future. It was in this ‘pilot’ project that the European Union made its foundation and further grew to include more member states. These states sought to trade in this common market, but more than that, members sought shared values, greater power globally, guidance and the free movement of their peoples throughout Europe.

During this period of expansion for the EU, the UK has continued to have a difficult relationship with the EU, though at best the UK response may be described as ambivalent. The Brexit referendum saw the UK-EU relationship at its worst point in decades. The vote (and pre-vote campaigning) indicated widespread distrust of the EU bureaucracy and a lack of knowledge or awareness of EU activities and purpose. This vote also facilitated other member states’ anti-EU pressure groups to come forward and lead local debates in calling for a cessation of their relationship with the EU (for example, Marine Le Pen’s right-wing party in France). Though the economic impact of the UK’s decision to leave the EU is yet to be determined (and the legal arrangements are yet to be made, with ‘article 50’ yet to be invoked), the political ramifications are already becoming visible.

The author focuses on the security and defence implications, post-Brexit, and most notably the response of the EU to the Brexit referendum decision.

CFSP, Maastricht, Mogherini and Militarisation               blogimage2

Under the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) pillar of the EU, established in 1993 by the Maastricht Treaty to enable the EU to speak and act with one voice on security, diplomatic and defence matters, with the aim of preserving peace and security; Federica Mogherini delivered a global strategy aimed at further unification.

As vice-president of the Commission (under the Juncker-led Commission) and High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Mogherini outlined a core strategy of further evidencing ‘unity’ and ‘strength’ of the EU by ultimately creating an EU-wide military force, proposed in July 2016.

It is understood that, as this strategy was published post-Brexit, this is a response to fears and concerns regarding the EU and its role in the future. This may also be a response to greater concerns regarding Russian aggression, particularly in relation to some member states on the regional borders of the EU and Russia. The Russian question, and two other contemporary security concerns for the EU in the near future are considered in this brief, ultimately the author will argue that in seeking a ‘strong vision, shared action’ – a greater military build-up in the EU will be costly and counter-productive.

Cold War 2.0?

The threat of Russia continues to plague the European community. Though the Cold War is said to have ended with the ‘fall of the Berlin Wall’ in 1989, Russia remains a cause for concern and significant threat to the stability of the European region, economically, politically and physically. Post-Cold War, in hindsight, we still appeared to be in something of a détente with Russia, keeping the nation at arm’s length. Recent years have seen operations in Syria and wider Middle East conflicts continuing and worsening, with material and financial support provided by Russia facilitating the continuation of hostilities, and the attempted expansion into Georgia and the Crimea. The Russian question is again on our lips.

Traditionally, NATO has been the provider of security for the European Community, particularly in relation to the potential threat of Russia – indeed it has often acted as a deterrent for Russian aggression. However, post-Cold War NATO’s role has been called into question, particularly given the long period of apparent ‘détente’. NATO, to some extent, became obsolete and appeared to struggle to reconstitute itself to remain relevant in a changing security landscape. This may have been seen as an opportunity, by the Russian state, to again challenge the balance of power(s) globally. The author believes this issue is best combatted by NATO, as the traditional leader in regards to this security concern, as the EU is not equipped – nor is it fundamentally constituted to tackle Russian aggression (in any military capacity at least).



During its attempts to ‘rebrand’, NATO has made efforts to counter the threat of cyber-security and hacking (on behalf of member states). Indeed, this is also an attempt to counter the Russian cyber threat. Such a contemporary threat, in light of our globalised world, requires a coherent and ‘networked’ strategy – a ‘web’ or ‘net’ of sorts.

As cyber-security not only includes threats to state infrastructure, but also threats to the individual (i.e. fraud), this is an issue which would benefit from strong diplomatic relations and an integrated approach across various EU and global organisations. It would appear that the EU and NATO are now in a very strong position to lead on these efforts. Thankfully, such an issue does not require a stronger military approach, but rather increased funding for resources (i.e. technology, R&D) and greater organisation of intelligence (knowledge) sharing and man-power. A member state, such as France which has previously struggled with attaining a streamlined and organised strategy, would certainly benefit from such an EU-wide approach and support.

Trafficking, Refugee migration & criminal networks

Such a contemporary approach, focusing on integration, organisation and networks is also very beneficial for some of the oldest criminal practices and issues which have plagued the EU and member states. The crisis in Syria, among other recent conflicts, has been a particular problem for the EU given the vast and sudden increase in refugee migration to or through the EU. Whilst this crisis has highlighted the best in some states’ response to ‘open borders’, this phenomenon has also highlighted the xenophobia, political tensions and organisational or ‘structural’ problems in some parts of the EU. Urgent meetings and debates will no doubt continue in the EU, in regards to this continually developing issue.

Criminal networks operating within the EU have been a concern for some time. There appears to be a fairly robust approach by parts of EU infrastructure focusing on law enforcement and criminal activity. Trafficking, particularly human trafficking is an ongoing issue and increases when crises arise and major sporting events are hosted. The law enforcement approach should continue (with some adaptation in responses to trafficking ‘victims’); but should also act as a template for the Mogherini global strategy – in seeking a more cost effective military alternative. Efforts of Interpol, for example, indicate what is possible with a more integrated approach.


  • Increased profits for the Arms Trade
  • EU funding and resources wasted on outdated military solution
  • Undermines gender-mainstreaming and other ‘feminist’ inspired practices


Conclusion blogimage3

Whilst the strategy adopted by the EU in 2016 (post-Brexit), for a more unified, strong approach to foreign and security policy, appears a good strategy; attempting to strengthen or streamline the position and look of the EU by creating a shared military force is misguided, given the contemporary security landscape and perceived threats. The author would argue that it would be best to instead imitate the integration efforts of the EU in seeking to combat criminal networks, for example, pooling resources, man-power and knowledge (intelligence) and developing a flexible and adaptable (EU-wide) network.

The concern over Russia, which may also be a significant concern in creating Mogherini’s strategy, whilst a reasonable concern is not really a concern for the EU to resolve militarily – this, is a problem for NATO. NATO is the relevant organisation to address the threat of Russian expansion or aggression, which is also the reason for its creation during the Cold War. It is not the role of the EU to provide a military response to Russia; indeed this appears to contradict the fundamental ‘raison d’être’ of the Union and the CFSP.


Militarising the EU will simply improve business for the Arms Trade; it will not substantially improve the stability or strength (in real terms) of the EU. Furthermore, this military-based approach is in stark contrast to, and undermines, any efforts of the EU to incorporate a more ‘feminist’ outlook on its operations and activities. Therefore, gender-mainstreaming or equality practices, and any efforts to propagate gender-sensitive or neutral practices elsewhere (globally) would be called into question, following this very masculine show of ‘strength’ against Russia. However, the EU could have a role, supporting the USA, in facilitating (politically, diplomatically, economically) a renewal of NATO efforts to tackle this threat.

Originally produced as a mock policy brief for TEPSA

Rosalie D. Clarke


Nottingham Trent University (NTU)












Federica Mogherini













Global Strategy (2016)



































A Collection of Feminist Reflections on the EU at 60

An online collection of feminist reflections and commentary on the EU at 60.

I’ll be collecting links to any existing blog posts, journal articles etc. that fit this brief, but I also want to encourage any feminist scholars of the EU (however broadly that category needs to be!) to submit reflections or commentary to be posted and promoted.

Posts can cover any aspect of EU integration, the current crisis, gender equality policy, the field of EU studies, or any topic you think might contribute to a broad feminist reflection on the EU.

Word counts should aim to be between 300 and 1,500. Use of images or other media is encouraged!

For any questions or proposals, please contact Muireann at odwyer.muireann@gmail.com

Please also share with anyone you think might be interested.