The EU is not in a great shape. It faced huge challenges to remain competitive and try to preserve at least part of the welfare state, to deal with aging population, integration of migrants etc. Now, the financial crises has highlighted both the financial and political faults within the system. Scrapping the system is not an option unless people are willing to suffer a major setback to European and global stability and prosperity, so compromises have to be made.

The European Union must become a transfer union. This means that money needs to flow automatically from richer countries to poorer member states (the way it does in the US). Without a transfer union, we will be permanently in the crisis mode and we will have serious problems preserving not only the euro, but the integration project as a whole. Therefore it is inevitable to have a transfer union, which facilitates the movement of resources automatically from the well-off parts of Europe to less well-off parts. We currently have some transfer through the EU budget (via the structural funds), but those sums are too small, too targeted and too inflexible although they are increasingly being used to prop up the economies of states in trouble.

There are few options to enable a stronger transfer union:

• increase the amount of EU budget and allow the EU to re-distribute wealth in a greater amount. This will probably not work because of the limits and conditions of EU funding;
• bring a part of taxes, medical and unemployment insurance, education funding and other key social areas to an EU level. This would mean an EU tax of some sort as well as pan-European unemployment and medical insurance schemes. The easiest would be the unemployment insurance, but it might not be enough;
• create a bulletproof bail-out mechanism, which helps out those who are in need (not only member states, but perhaps their banks and other big businesses);
• create so-called euro-bonds to fund the bailouts or structural fund projects.

All of these steps will be unpopular for those who pay, unless the politicians are able to explain to people that the EU is not workable in any other way.

This brings us back to the Estonian constitutional debate. A transfer union as such is probably not supported by the current interpretation of the Constitution. There is a fundamental choice that the that will have to made: whether they support the changing of the interpretation of the Constitution to accommodate the transfer union (i.e. lose the parliament’s control over certain parts of the state budget). All other issues are technicalities in my opinion (not insignificant ones, but still technicalities). It was unfortunate political reality that the ESM treaty is not agreed within the EU framework, but that does not stop it becoming EU law.

The European Union is unique. Therefore there is room for creativity regarding interpretation of EU law. There are few established rules, but plenty of legal and political choices to be made, new doctrines to be created. I do hope that the choices made by the Estonian government and Supreme Court will be based on a broad vision of the future of Europe. I hope the decision will be one that established a clear doctrine to be used in future cases involving the relationship of EU law and the Estonian Constitution (of which there is bound to be many).

For me this is not about paranoia or mob-mentality trying to ruin a perfectly reasonable international agreement. There is a legitimate concern that ACTA, while strengthening the global protections against counterfeiting, will also result in less protections for some of the most fundamental human rights. There have been also people like Linnar Viik saying that rather than helping young new startups, it might stifle them in a difficult-to-navigate labyrinth of intellectual property rights. Instead of fostering innovation and creativity, ACTA might instead will be used to try to fight innovation and preserve business models, which are long overdue to be dismantled. Of course, it is difficult to say what will be the actual impact of ACTA, because much of it depends on the interpretation and implementation of the agreement.

Intellectual property rights are a legal construct, created by people for people for specific goals (to provide creators and inventors incentives to create and invent). Thye give certain exclusive rights (monopolies) to use and licence etc. However, any intellectual property reform will be fought by the monopolies that have been created as they will lose their business even if different system might make more sense for the society as a whole. I refuse to believe that if we were to start afresh with the IPR framework, we would end up with anything remotely similar to the terrible mess we are in today. As a lawyer I feel sorry for my profession as instead of trying to enable and support actual innovation and creation (which in today’s world is usually built upon exisiting technologies or art) we as lawyers mostly work to try to prevent and stop the spread of technology. Fortunately there are some like Karmen Turk or other people at Estonian law firms who see that the IPR system needs reform. (A sidenote: Tallinn Law School will begin from Autumn 2012 with a new Master programme in Law and Technology where these issues can be studied and researched in depth.)

Human rights are in a way very similar to intellectual property rights. Both got started internationally after WWII and reached real global acceptance in the 90s after the collapse of the Soviet Union. After that time both human rights and intellectual property rights have spread internationally all over the globe. However, IPR are usually supported and promoted by multinational corporations whereas human rights do not have such wealthy and organised proponents. At the same time, human rights are at least in most countries considered far more fundamental than IPR.

Intellectual property rights can be also considered human rights, as right to property is also recognised as a human right. However, the case-law of European Court of Human Rights so far has emphasised other rights such as freedom of expression or freedom of speech as more fundamental to the functioning of a democratic society than property rights. With ACTA this balance is under threat.

If there is a choice to have ACTA or not have it then it is for sure better to not have it. What we would rather need more is a global freedom of movement of information agreement, protecting internet from unreasonable interference from states. The European Commission a few years ago proposed to add free movement of knowledge to the EU’s current four fundamental economic freedoms (goods, persons, services, capital). I think that would do much more for both European competitiveness as well as helping creativity and innovation. Sadly, not much has been heard about this idea after 2008.

In Estonia from this year, public libraries (people’s libraries) have to spend 50% of their state funding on specific Estonian publications, as directed by the state. This has been the result of a minor culture war in Estonia waged by our Minister of Culture Rein Lang against books written by Barbara Cartland and the like. These state mandated, so-called cultural publications, are prizewinners, somewhat elitist works who are rarely read otherwise. Although I can detect some sort of a good intention in this action, I cannot in any way support or agree with it. Even though it is not full-blown Orwellian censorship, it still stems from the notion that the people are dumb and the government is smart and people need to be told what to read. It also means that especially those people in rural areas who had grown accustomed to reading recent bestsellers are no longer able to do so, which is a shame.

It is early to tell what the impact of this decision is, but my guess is that people will use libraries less, because books that they want to read are not there. With dwindling numbers come more budget cuts and reduction of numbers of libraries and soon we might end up with a situation in which this important network of local libraries is no longer there, depriving people of an important service. This means also that fewer children go to the library and appreciate its value.

If the government really wanted to help libraries to perform better, then they should encourage the transfer to and accessibility of digital publications. They should provide better tools for digitizing existing content and create a legal framework where this can be accessible. This should not only be limited to books or periodicals, but also music, films and other important arts. The information society has provided us with incredible possibilities for enjoyment of culture, all kinds of culture, by everyone, but sadly much of the content is locked away due to draconian and outdated intellectual property laws (I know first hand what are the expenses involved in accessing academic journals). In order to make libraries more relevant they could be made into zones where all this culture and education is accessible by all for free.

The basic aspects of the reform are reform of funding of universities by making new result oriented agreements for receiving state funding (which is a good thing) and banning universities from taking any tuition fees from students who complete their studies in due course (which is a bad thing in my opinion unless the state is willing to provide the same amount of financing students paid before). Thus, funding of higher education is decreased.

The issue I wanted to point out regarding the reform relates to the fact that only studies that take place in Estonian are funded by the state. This language based restriction seems to me to be in contradiction to free movement rules of the EU (and I doubt that it could be objectively justified in this scale). The European Court of Justice, while agreeing that every Member State has the right to organise educational system in their countries, has stated that they must observe EU law when doing so:

The Member States are thus free to opt for an education system based on free access – without restriction on the number of students who may register – or for a system based on controlled access in which the students are selected. However, where they opt for one of those systems or for a combination of them, the rules of the chosen system must comply with European Union law and, in particular, the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality. (C-73/08 Bressol, p 29)

In the Bressol case Belgium limited access to medical or paramedical programmes to only residents of Belgium, because a lot of students from other EU countries wanted to study there. The ECJ found that this was indirect discrimination based on nationality and this contrary to the Directive 2004/38/EC guaranteeing free movement rights. The court was presented several justifications for this by Belgium, most notably a justification based on risk for public health, which was ultimately left for the national court to decide.

It is correct that the proposed Estonian system is pretty unique and comparable only to the Czech Republic where free higher education is available if it is in the Czech language (based on studyineurope.eu). Although there currently are no further judgments on this from the ECJ, it is something that should be looked at. Language-based discrimination in tuition fees could be found not justified if the actual content of studies are essentially similar.

The constitution was drafted in almost 20 years ago, in a completly different set of circumstances. Accession to the EU was not on anyone’s minds (nor did the EU exist in its today’s form), the understanding and content of several human rights provisions have been altered, etc. The world around us has changed, and Estonia has changed even more dramatically.

The Estonian constitution has been for me, and I suspect for most Estonians, the most fundamental basis for the existence of the Estonian state. I cannot really remember the first time I read it, but it was during school, and I think it was one of the things that made me decide to study law, instead of anything else. The constitution sets out clearly and powerfully why we have the state and what it does. I was most impressed with the Bill of Rights section, which I thought was a brilliant thing to have. Indeed, I was not and am still not so much interested in the institutions the constitution created, but rather the principles it provides.

Estonia is a part of the EU and this is not reflected well in the constitution. The constitution suffered its heaviest blow with the 2004 Amendment Act and its subsequent interpretation by the Estonian Supreme Court. Today, it is no longer clear to which extent the constitution applies in case it is in conflict with an EU legal act. A new Constitution should state more clearly and confidently the basis according to which Estonia belongs to the EU, and not only that, but the way it operates in today’s multilevel governance framework. This not only applies to the EU level, but also to the relationship between the state level and local governments. The latter subject (i.e. local government functions and their financing) have been one of the most contentious issues in Estonian politics for a long time. Therefore my first proposal would be to describe in a chapter the role of the Estonian state in this framework. The current constitution largely ignores the fact that governance is no longer limited to a single state entity, but is much larger concept.

The Bill of Rights needs updating. There have been many changes in recent decades in the understanding and development of human rights, including for example data protection rights. The family rights section should also be expanded to be more clearly inclusive of all types of relationships. For example, although the current constitution does not prohibit same-sex marriages, these relationships should be more clearly protected. A good, but not perfect, example could be found in the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights.

The provisions relating to the nation state should be reviewed. The constitution contradicts itself by providing those who are of Estonian nationality preferential treatment. The preservation of the Estonian nation in the preamble is one of the things that should go, and better protection be afforded to minorities. Multiple citizenship should be clarified in the constitution, the current blanket ban is unfair and dumb. The constitution would provide an opportunity for a truly new societal agreement to involve in the governance of the state also those who have been left out so far (ethnic Russians and other marginalised minorities) and move Estonia forward in the democratic path.

A few other things that I would also rather see changed:

1. Abolish compulsory military service. It has no place in today’s society: it serves no legitimate defence need and is burdensome for the individuals from the liberty perspective as well as the society as a whole.

2. Add innovative  things that pave the way for success, for example the right to access to Internet and the principle of Open Data.

The rules that govern us determine where we go as a society. I think there should be more discussion in Estonia on the most fundamental of these rules, especially on the eve of the 20th anniversary of the Estonian constitution next year. Let’s face it: the current constitution and life in Estonia today have grown apart and need to be re-aligned. Otherwise we will see in future more and more incredible feats of teleological interpretation, which interpret a clause in the constitution to say the exact opposite of its text and that is not good.

I do not advocate shifting the blame from the individual who committed the crime to the society on the whole. It is clear that those individuals who were proven to commit a specific act deserve to be punished according to the law. However, in order to prevent such acts in the future, it is important to look at and analyse the causes of these events. The society should also look into things that are wrong and try to remedy these. This way, the horrific events could be turned into possibilities to make a better society. This does not mean that we somehow reward the criminals, because the motivation should not be fear of someone doing something similar again, but to eliminate the root causes of these actions.

Some people (especially those who like to see things in black and white terms) think that there are people who are evil and that is that. Those ‘evil’ people need to be tracked down and put to prison or even killed. That is not the way I look at things. I think people and life in general is much more complex. Goodness and evil are subjective, relative terms that could, at best, relate to specific actions in a specific ethical or moral framework, but not really to the whole of a person.

Faced with complex set of issues that shock or frighten, people tend to seek for strong leaders with simple, harsh measures. However, I think it is best to analyse the situation and also look at the root causes of these criminal events. Trying to ignore problems will not make them go away.

I was at a lecture at the time, it was the beginning of my sophomore year at Concordia University Law School.  I had my birthday the day before, but I do not recall any big party or a hangover. It was a lecture of Public International Law by Maureen B Fitzmahan, one of the American permanent lecturers at Concordia. Suddenly, text messages started arriving that New York City is attacked and the whole city blown up, the skyline gone. Everyone was taken aback, but the lecture did go on, people who had relatives or friends in the US were suggested to go and try to contact their relatives. Concordia at the time was very international, with a few American students.

I was quite shocked and thought about the impact to the world when I was waiting for the bus to take me back to my parents flat in Õismäe from Viimsi, where this small private university was located. It was such a clear and beautiful, sunny day, but I wanted to return quickly to find out more what had happened. The world really seemed different.

There have been terrorist attacks before and after September 11, 2011, but not one of those had the same impact on me.

Speaking the truth is closely related to trust and transparency. Governance needs trust and transparency to be democratic and legitimate. Professional sports need the same values in order to preserve the notion of fair play and to attract interest of supporters. It would be difficult for me to place trust in an educational institution or people involved in higher education that resort to lies and dirty tricks to achieve their goals.

In the long run honesty is still the best policy, although in the short term some people might think that desperate or extraordinary circumstances merit spreading of lies. These people are wrong, because the short term lies create long term distrust and we need to have a society where there is less distrust and more trustworthiness.

Stable and prosperous democracy can in my opinion be built only based on mutual trust and trust of important state or private institutions. It is a shame that some people in our society still are willing to sacrifice these things for personal short term gains.

• The iPad editions of all of the items I read seemed shorter. They actually had in general the same content, but in paper form I had the impression of getting more. I believe it is due to the fact that people are used to associate physical printed material with more content than electronic versions. The Internet seems vast and there is a lot to it, but the individual pieces are usually shorter. The paper edition also allows you to see the whole article on one page, zoom in and out of different parts of the article, whereas the iPad’s 10” screen requires you to scroll down to find interesting stuff in a single piece.
• There seems to be more value in a physical product. Although the amount of content is the same, and there are even some nice extras like music and video, it is difficult to pay the same amount (or more in Eesti Ekspress’s case!) for essentially the same product, but in an electronic format. GQ is a nice exception as it costs here in Estonia significantly less than the physical copy. There is also the notion that information should be free online and therefore any kind of paywalls are undesirable and fragmenting. My suggestion is to sell the iPad editions of newspapers in a subscription format.
• The current system of downloading the whole newspaper to the iPad and then reading it is tedious (especilly as it seems that it cannot download in background). Therefore I am stuck looking at the downloading screen for a signficant amount of time. The GQ solves the problem partly by starting already to display textual content before all the ‘heavier’ stuff has been downloaded, but it still is cumbersome. The ideal solution in a subscription world would be that the electronic edition would be delivered not on-demand, but immediately when available so that I do not have to wait for the hundreds and hundreds of megabytes to download. There must be a better technical solution to this waiting. I can get to the www.epl.ee website instantly, but have to wait for 30 seconds or so each day before the newspaper downloads (and installs!).
• My last gripe about the iPad versions of newspapers is payment and pricing. Surely the reduced costs of not having to print the newspaper and the added benefit of targeted and smart ads should lower, not raise, the price of the newspaper. I think a small weekly or monthly subscription fee for a bunch of newspapers bundled together is the way to go. I am especially disappointed with Eesti Ekspress who sells their iPad edition for significantly more than their paper version. Who was the idiot who came up with this?

I think that media has an ever increasing role in today’s world and as a watchdog of democracy. New technological advances, such as the iPad, open new ways of delivering high quality content instantly and with added value. This means that journalism must adapt to these new realities and also alter the business model accordingly, not simply create paywalls for content that was previously available for free. I think that the podcast model suits news media better than the music store model…