As we all know, Europe is a continent where languages and identities have thrived for centuries complimenting each other. This diversity is a shared treasure that we must foster and take care of as one of the pillars of the European project. However, many of these languages do not receive the treatment that they should, either with no official recognition and facing discrimination from governments and institutions, both at state and European levels, or with little to no attention to the recent laws and policies that protect them.
According to the Council of Europe’s European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, we find more than 60 minority languages ranging between 40 and 50 million speakers. Yet, multiple from them find themselves at high risk of disappearing if urgent action is not taken. This is not due to the natural course of things, but the result of decades of centralistic and assimilationist policies that have bestowed officially recognised languages utter privilege, hindering the public use and the institutional adoption of these European-native languages.
This imbalance is reinforced by the fact that the European Union only recognises as official languages those that have the status of state officiality, leaving dozens of living languages outside its legal and symbolic framework, even if these languages enjoy some type of state recognition as in the case of Valencian in the Valencian Country. This means that millions of people cannot use their mother tongue in European institutions, being excluded from a fundamental linguistic right.
It is extremely alarming that there are no binding legal mechanisms in the European Union that require the assessment of the impact of policies from different institutional levels of European states on minoritised languages. This means that laws, bills, directives, and rules can be approved without considering whether they benefit or harm the situation of historically oppressed languages.
For instance, we consider of the utmost importance that the European Union acts against laws and policies that further contribute to the disappearance of minoritised language, such as the recently passed new law of education in the Valencian Country that features a voting system on the main language of teaching in schools specifically designed to always favour Spanish against Valencian, when there was no sign of social demand for it - especially after decades with a system that for the most part catered to the needs of the Valencian society.
There is an urgent need for decisive action from European institutions to protect linguistic diversity and to ensure the survival, transmission, and normalisation of all languages spoken within the territory of the Union. Linguistic justice cannot continue to depend on state recognition or the will of central governments.
Only by doing so will we be able to progress towards a democratic and cohesive Europe where Valencian as well as other minority or minoritised languages are given the importance they deserve. Given this reasoning, we propose that EFAY passes this motion and works toward the following points:
1. Recognition and protection: We demand the official recognition of all minoritised languages of the European Union as a common European heritage, and we request that it consequently makes sure that all its members guarantee their protection at every level.
2. Specific legislation: We urge the European Parliament and the European Commission to draft a specific directive for the protection and promotion of minoritised languages, with economic resources and concrete measures to foster their social and institutional use, and to ensure that no backtrack in minority language legal coverage takes place, such as in the case of Valencian.
3. Rejection of the recent Education Law in the Valencian Country: We strongly reject the passing and implementation of the so-called Law for Linguistic Freedom in the Valencian Country and denounce its negligent and unfair application after the results of the voting.
4. Cross-sectoral application: We ask that, in legislations approved by the European Union or different institutional levels of member states, the impact on minority and minoritised languages be taken into account, especially in areas such as education, culture, the media, and public administration.
5. Institutional respect: We request that European institutions adopt inclusive linguistic protocols that respect linguistic diversity and allow the use of minoritised languages in their communications and interventions, as well as taking action when possible in the case that European states or regions pass policies that harm these languages.
6. Support of local institutions: We call for the strengthening of support mechanisms for local and regional institutions that work in the promotion of their languages, ensuring cooperation and adequate budgetary allocation.
On 16th April 2025, the Supreme Court decided that only biological women are women for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010 (EA 2010). It held that the terms “man”, “woman” and “sex” in the EA 2010 refer to biological sex as “as any other interpretation would render the EA 2010 incoherent and impracticable to operate” – completely negating any protections for gender identity. In short, by defining “sex” strictly as biological, the decision affects how transgender people are recognised under the EA 2010, particularly concerning access to single-sex spaces and services.
While acknowledging the legal capacity the UK Supreme Court has, the YSI condemns the unprecedented risks set by the UK Supreme Court to the reductionist definition of women, which undermines intersectional rights by rolling back progress for all women, including transgender, non-binary and intersex peoples. This
ruling poses defining identity through birth certificates – it has just allowed for horrific practices from the now legalised strip-searches of transgender women by male police officers to the medical exclusion of transgender people in certain healthcare practices.
The Gender Recognition Reform Bill, passed by an overwhelming majority in the Scottish Parliament with cross-party support, represents Scotland’s commitment to inclusivity. The UK Government’s use of Section 35 to block this legislation is an unprecedented challenge to the Scottish Parliament’s ability to legislate on devolved matters, setting a dangerous constitutional precedent. The politicisation of gender identity by the UK Government, fuelled by far-right narratives, has created a constitutional and democratic crisis for Scotland. This highlights the necessity for Scottish independence, as the Scottish judiciary has consistently demonstrated an inclusive approach, rejecting narrow and exclusionary definitions of women that has been overruled by the UK Supreme Court.
Scotland aligns itself with many European countries, such as (but not limited to) Ireland and Spain which recognise this intersectionality and have successfully instituted such reforms to protect LGBTQ+ and intersex communities.
In light of these considerations, the European Free Alliance Youth calls for:
● Holistic recognition of gender identity, respecting individual self-determination as seen across many European nations, rather than restricting it to outdated and harmful classifications.
● A clear distinction between biological sex and gender identity, ensuring the inclusion of all identities and biological states.
● Advocacy for inclusive rights and intersectional equality, to protect marginalized groups and uphold progressive values.
● A resolute affirmation that trans women are women and trans men are men, standing firm against transphobia in all its forms.
● Continued recognition and protections for intersex peoples.
| Explanatory Notes: Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act (2018) ● In 2018, the Scottish Government introduced the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act to promote gender balance on public boards, which oversee vital services such as the NHS, colleges, and other public organisations. The Act set an ambitious target: at least 50% of non-executive members on these boards should be women. To assist public bodies in implementing this law, the Scottish Government issued guidance clarifying that the term “woman” included individuals whose “acquired gender is female” under the UK’s Gender Recognition Act 2004. ● However, the Act faced opposition from For Women Scotland, a trans-exclusionary radical feminist (TERF) organisation that advocates for women’s and children’s rights in Scotland. They argued that the Scottish Government had redefined “woman” in a way that contravened the law. According to the group, this interpretation conflated sex and gender identity and exceeded the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament, as equality law is reserved to the UK Parliament. Their legal challenge escalated through the judiciary system, ultimately reaching the UK Supreme Court, the highest authority for civil cases in the UK. The Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill ● On 22 December 2022, the Scottish Parliament passed the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill with overwhelming support, achieving a vote of 86 to 39, with backing from members across all political parties. This landmark bill sought to streamline and modernise the process for obtaining a Gender Recognition Certificate, reflecting Scotland's progressive stance on gender identity. ● In January 2023, the UK Government controversially invoked Section 35 of the Scotland Act 1998 to block the Bill from proceeding to Royal Assent. This unprecedented action challenged the Scottish Parliament's ability to legislate on devolved matters, sparking a constitutional and democratic crisis. The move, widely criticised as politically motivated, underscores the broader tensions between the UK and Scottish Governments on issues of equality and devolution. |
Acknowledging the democratic will of the Scottish People, as demonstrated in the 2016 EU referendum, where 62% voted to remain in the European Union, and in the 2014 Scottish Independence referendum, where many voted to stay in the United Kingdom based on the promise that the UK would remain in the EU. As a result the people of Scotland had been lied to and consequently kidnapped from our European family.
Recognising that the UK Government has since disregarded fundamental democratic principles, violated international agreements with the European Union in the Brexit process, and undermined devolved powers of the Devolved Nations through measures such as the Internal Market Act 2020 and the blocking of the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill in 2022.
Highlighting that the Westminster system continues to pose a threat to Scotland’s democracy, in contrast to the protections of democratic values upheld through EU membership. In spite of these obstacles, Scotland has steadfastly demonstrated its commitment to European principles. This dedication is reflected in the Withdrawal from the European Union Continuity (Scotland) Act 2021, which ensures Scottish legislation remains aligned with EU law where feasible, and notably extends to preserving the symbolism of European unity by protecting the Flag of the European Union through Parliamentary Motion.
In light of these considerations, the European Free Alliance Youth calls for:
● The reaffirmation of unwavering support for the Scottish people’s right to self-determination, as enshrined in Article 1(2) of the UN Declaration of Human Rights.
● The commitment to advocating for a clear and supportive pathway for Scotland's re-entry into the European Union, ensuring a smooth and cooperative process. In essence, pledging to leave the light on for Scotland, guiding its return to the European family.
● Recognition of the potential of an independent Scotland to contribute meaningfully to the European project, upholding shared values of democracy, human rights, and environmental sustainability.
| Explanatory Notes: Historical Context Scotland has a long and distinct history as an independent sovereign state, with its own cultural, legal, and educational institutions. The Treaty of Union in 1707 (an international treaty) merged Scotland and England into the Kingdom of Great Britain, but Scotland retained many aspects of autonomy, such as its separate legal system which had been gradually eroded. Over the centuries, debates about Scotland’s sovereignty and the imbalance of power between Westminster and Holyrood have shaped calls for independence. Modern Political Landscape The movement for Scottish independence has gained momentum in recent decades, particularly since the reconvening of the Scottish Parliament in 1999. The devolution process gave Scotland control over various domestic matters, including health, education, and justice, but key areas such as defence, foreign policy, and much of economic policy remain reserved to Westminster (UK Parliament). Even then, there is no codified constitution which has allowed for Westminster to overrule supposed ‘devolved powers’. Many Scots feel that the current arrangement does not grant Scotland enough control over its present or future with current polls still pointing in favour of independence in the EU. |
We live in a digital era where access to technology is no longer optional but essential for the educational, social, and professional development of young people. However, there remains a significant digital divide that affects youth unequally, depending on their socioeconomic, territorial, and family contexts. This inequality results in exclusion, limited job opportunities, and difficulties in fully participating in public and democratic life.
Moreover, as technology becomes embedded in all aspects of our lives, it is essential that young people understand their digital rights and know how to protect themselves from the risks of the virtual environment. Increasingly, minors face threats such as cyberbullying, disinformation, data exploitation, and exposure to harmful content—often without the tools or knowledge to manage them effectively.
The European Union, in its commitment to inclusion, equality, and human rights, must play an active role in ensuring equitable access to digital tools and in providing education in ethical, safe, and critical digital competencies.
Justification
From Juventudes Andalucistas, we believe that there can be no social justice or progress without addressing the digital divide affecting youth. Just as there are public policies such as the cultural voucher or free access to education, we propose the implementation of European and national mechanisms to ensure that no child or adolescent over the age of 12 is left without access to appropriate technological devices for their education and social participation.
We also emphasize the urgent need to strengthen institutional commitment to digital rights education, personal data protection, and the creation of safe online environments for minors. As digital threats evolve rapidly, institutional responses must be proportionate, effective, and focused on defending children and adolescents.
Proposals for Agreement
1. Urge the European Commission and Member States to create a specific aid programme for the acquisition of technological skills aimed at young people over 12 years old in vulnerable situations, as well as social settings for communal use and learning of technological devices.
2. Request that European institutions make digital rights, critical digital literacy, and personal data protection a mandatory subject or module in school curricula across all Member States, adapted to the students’ age.
3. Promote the strengthening of European mechanisms for child protection on the internet, including awareness campaigns, the development of safe platforms, and active collaboration with social media companies and digital service providers to prevent harmful or illegal content.
4. Reinforce funding and resources for youth organizations and social entities working to reduce the digital divide and protect digital rights.
5. Request that the European Free Alliance Youth (EFAy) publicly support this initiative and forward the proposal to the European Parliament through its representatives.
Since the 4th of January 2016 the Danish Government has enforced a temporary border control at the German border. This means that one now must carry their passport when crossing the border or risk a heavy fine - which applies to over 10.000 people that do this daily to get to work or school in the neighbouring country. On top of this the border control often causes big traffic jams, sometimes leading to waiting times of several hours, which present an annoying struggle in an everyday commute. These border-commuters are vital for the region, as they often fill gaps in the workforce of the respective neighbouring country.
While the temporary border controls introduced by Denmark in 2016 were unilateral—affecting only those entering Denmark—Germany followed their lead in September 2024 by implementing its own border checks. Restricting the freedom of movement in the border region even further. In February 2025, the German government announced that these temporary controls would be extended beyond March 15, for an additional six months, until September 15, 2025.
The continued use of temporary border controls at the German-Danish border represents a clear violation of the Schengen Agreement, which was designed to ensure the free movement of people within the Schengen Zone. While Article 25 of the Schengen Borders Code allows for the reintroduction of internal border checks in cases of serious threats to public policy or internal security, such measures are meant to be truly exceptional, limited in scope, and strictly time-bound. Denmark, however, has continuously extended these controls since 2016, citing vague threats such as migration pressure or crime, without providing sufficient evidence to justify such measures under Schengen rules. Germany’s recent reintroduction and extension of border controls – despite the absence of a clearly defined and immediate threat – raises similar concerns, suggesting a worrying normalization of what should remain an emergency exception.
This prolonged use of “temporary” border checks undermines the legal framework and spirit of Schengen, turning what was meant to be an emergency measure into a de facto permanent border control. The European Commission, which is responsible for ensuring that EU law is upheld, has so far failed to take meaningful action against Denmark, despite repeated concerns raised by legal experts and civil society groups in the region. This inaction sends a troubling signal to other member states: that violations of EU agreements can go unpunished. If left unchecked, such behavior threatens the cohesion and future of the Schengen Area as a whole.
For these reasons, the European Free Alliance Youth, reaffirming our commitment to the Schengen Agreement:
- Demands that the Danish and German governments end the prolonged and unjustified border controls at the German-Danish border, in accordance with the Schengen Borders Code. Any future controls must be clearly time-limited, proportionate, and based on concrete, transparent threat assessments.
- Calls on the EU Commission to initiate proceedings against Denmark and Germany for violating Schengen rules. The Commission must uphold EU law and ensure all member states comply with the agreed-upon standards for internal border governance.
- Advocates for stronger enforcement mechanisms within the Schengen framework, including stricter oversight and consequences for long-term misuse of temporary border checks.