EU Politician for Five Days




  • In Archive
  • 2014-10-23 20:03:54
  • By
  • 249 Views
Around 200 students from a great variety of countries participated in the Model European Union simulation in Belgrade, Serbia, between Oct. 15 and Oct. 22, 2014. They got the chance to gain practical insights into the work and the procedures of the different EU institutions – European Parliament, European Council, and Council of the EU – and into the roles that they had been assigned to play. Apart from Members of the European Parliament, heads of states and Chargés d’Affaires in the European Council, and ministers in the Council of the EU, some of the participants acted as lobbyists, advocating corporation interests by legitimate and not so legitimate means – they were equipped with BEUM play money €500 bills. Also, journalists were assigned, reporting exclusively for the newspaper “The BEUM Herald,” available in print and online. The event started with the official opening ceremony on Wednesday, noon, in the Rectorate Building of the University of Belgrade, including a lecture by Miloš Erić, an expert on the field of European Integration. The topic was European identity and the democratic deficit. The question that the lecture tried to answer was whether the EU’s institutional structure supports the integration process. Before the ceremony, there was time for some sightseeing in the city centre of Belgrade, when many of the Belgrade European Union Model (BEUM) participants explored the Kalemegdan Park and the fortress of Belgrade. The first organized night out, which would be followed by three others until Sunday, unified the BEUM participants in more comfortable clothing in the Kafana Velika Skadarlija, one of the popular local bistros with Serbian live music. The second day began with seminars and workshops, which elucidated the functions and competences of the EU institutions, as well as the relationships between them. Furthermore, the participants learned that the regulation on organic production in agriculture, which had been sent to them in advance via e-mail, would first be debated and amended by the European Parliament, then sent to the Council of the EU for further debating and amending, and then sent back to the EP for the final vote which would decide whether the regulation passed or failed.The process went vice versa for the directive on freezing and confiscation of proceeds of crime in the EU, which would first go through the Council, then through the Parliament and back to the Council again. The organizers then explained the rules of procedure during the parliamentary and council sessions; after this instruction, the participants knew, inter alia, how to raise a point of personal privilege and when it is appropriate to call for a motion for closure of debate. The new skills were then tested in a mock debate on whether the European Union should have its own national team for international soccer tournaments. The main part of the Model European Union took place on Friday and Saturday, when the participants came to enter the halls of the House of the National Assembly of Serbia. This had originally been planned for Thursday afternoon, but due to the visit of the Russian president Vladimir Putin in Belgrade on that day, the beginning of the institutional part had to be postponed. Of the 89 delegates, assigned for the European Parliament, 74 showed up on Friday morning in the assembly hall. Consequently, the absolute majority that was needed for a decision to pass was 38 votes. Further, the fractions in the Parliament had to elect their fraction leaders, whose task consisted of delivering a general speech of three minutes on each of the topics that the regulation and the directive dealt with. The largest fraction was made up by the representatives of the conservative European People's Party (EPP), followed by the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats (S&D), the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE), and the European Greens – European Free Alliance. After the introductory speeches, which also included statements by the lobbyists, the delegates had the chance to apply for the general speakers’ list. In the course of the day, amendment proposals were sent to the Amendment Assistant and the discussion turned to the suggestions, presented by their framers. Two speakers were then invoked to speak in favor of a particular proposal, and two speakers against it. The delegates had the chance to recharge during the lunch break and two coffee breaks each day. The first parliamentary day ended with the vote on the amendments to the regulation. On the second day, both the amendments to the directive and the final vote on the regulation had to take place, which caused a tight schedule. Nevertheless, in the end of Saturday’s sessions, there was some time left to nominate candidates for the Funny Awards, which comprised the award for the MEP who was most likely to go to jail one day, or the award for the MEP who would most probably become a real MP in the future.