The document summarizes discussions and debates around amending the EU biofuel directive that took place at the MEUS 2016 simulation in Strasbourg. Key points include: 1) Council members disagreed on proposals to raise the cap on conventional biofuels from 5% to 6-7%. Voting procedures were disorganized. 2) Ministers from several countries accused others of being uncompromising, hysterical, and sexist. There was a perceived morale problem in the council. 3) The European Parliament rejected the two amendments proposed by the council, expressing frustration with the proposals and process. 4) Disagreements and a lack of consensus prevented a long term solution on the biofuel directive from

1. Strasbourg Daily
Now that the MEUS 2016 will soon
come to and end, the Strasbourg
Daily decided to investigate how
things were going in the council
of minister and research what they
had proposed to amend in the
biofuel directive. The Council has
agreed to have member countries,
biofuel producers, and associated
parties produce periodical reports
on the process of the advancement
of biofuels. In short, they will share
knowledge with each other. The
other amendment was about the
founding of a structural fund that
would incentivise less prosperous
member states to do research and
development on advanced biofu-
els. The minister of the UK had to
make the finance of the structural
fund voluntary to get it ratified by
the council.
The Minister of France has stated
that the debates were quite pro-
ductive in the Council yesterday, in
spite of drowsiness among council
members. She could not disclose
who fell asleep but we’ve heard
numerous reports that it was the
Slovakian minister.The Belgian Min-
ister said that many council mem-
bers did not know what they were
voting on.
Voting procedures were therefore
a failure. For example, the Coun-
cil was to vote on whether to raise
the cap for conventional biofuels
from 5%. The German minister sup-
ported raising the 5% cap on con-
ventional biofuels to 7%. When she
had the chance to vote on raising it
to 6%, she abstained. This among
other things created a great deal
of frustration and guilt among the
minsisters of the Council about the
results.
The decision making process has
been ruined by unprofessionalism
and Westminster style politics. For
example, the ministers of Finland
and the Netherlands have claimed
that the minister of France has been
hysterical, uncompromising, incom-
petent and “full of s***.“ Slovakian
minister has said that both France
and Germany were uncomromis-
ing and that the E.U was becoming
a dictatorship. When asked whether
there was a morale problem in the
council the minister of France didn‘t
say much but she admitted that
there was a degree of sexism. She
claims to have been trying to nego-
tiate with the parliament in the tria-
logue meetings to prevent a lack of
output. The minister of Greece has
also claimed that the decision mak-
ing process within the council has
been a disappointment as some
members of the council were unap-
proacable and unwilling to compro-
mise.
Andrija, from Saphire Energy
claimed that the two amendments
passed yesterday didn‘t really ad-
dress the subject of lowering the
cap on conventional biofuels.
Northern countries like Sweden and
Finland didn‘t introduce any specif-
ic amendments to support the pro-
duction of advanced biofuels even
though they are leaders in this field.
The ABC coalition was very frustrat-
ed with the results.
When the MEPs were asked about
their stance towards the amend-
ments from the council they
exressed great frustration with it.
They did not like the amendment
about the voluntary structural fund.
Yesterday the EP discussed about
50 amendments. Today they dis-
cussed two. Many MEPs have used
the debates in parliament as an op-
portunity to take a nap. The Euro-
pean Parliament has now rejected
both of the amendments. In short,
a Council that once dominated the
decision making process within the
Friday, 8th April, 2016
E.U FAILS TO AMEND BIOFUEL
DIRECTIVE
Daily News of Model European Union Strasbourg 2016 Issue No 06
Erikur Haraldsson
TAG WITH #MEUS2016
E.U has lost its momentum due to a
lack of consensus and understand-
ing. A long term solution has yet to
be ratified. Therefore, the European
Union remains mostly divided and
uninformed on the Biofuel Direc-
tive.
The ministers of
Finland and the
Netherlands have
claimed that the
minister of France
has been hysterical,
uncompromising,
incompetent and
“full of s***.“
When asked
whether there was
a morale problem
in the council the
minister of France
didn‘t say much
but she admitted
that there was a
degree of sexism.

2. Issue No. 06 Friday, 8th April | 2— Strasbourg Daily —
In order to have an organization
that is adequately representative, it
is required to have representatives
from a wide range of backgrounds.
Strasbourg Daily interviewed
numerous representatives from
the MEUS simulation. Through
this, we were able to get an insight
from individuals whose race,
gender, sexual orientation, and
disabilities have subjected them to
marginalization in the past.
Diversity amongst society is
becoming ever so important and
prominent amongst all member
states within the EU due to the
positive influences of globalization.
From the interviews, it was evident
that a more accepting behavior
is required towards diverse
individuals, which can be achieved
by raising awareness through
educative means amongst the
public.
When interviewed about gender
diversity, Ms. Constance Colot, who
is the president of the Parliament,
seemed optimistic about women
in leadership roles. Nevertheless,
there was a particular emphasis on
the need for improvement in the
workplace.
“There’s more women being
represented on the boards of big
companies, so even though things
are improving it’s not fast enough.”
Preconceived prejudice was one
of the main barriers of acceptance
amongst all our interviewees. |For
example Ms. Colot believes that
“some men seem to still have a
problem with female authority,”
which possibly perpetuates the
longstanding perception that
women wouldn’t be adequate in
managerial positions. Furthermore,
the reality that many women voice
their insecurities more than men is
an indicating factor that provides
reasonable evidence behind the
discriminationofwomen.Therefore,
even if women are just as qualified
and skilled, their insecurities
prevent them from applying for
certain roles, which is something
that“needs more encouragement.”
Dorian Frasineanu, who is acting
as the minister of Estonia, spoke
to us about discrimination against
homosexuality and how it can
be tackled. Major steps in society
have been taken in some member
states in order to enhance the
rights of the LGBTQ+ community,
but there is undoubtedly room for
improvement.
Shifting the focus onto the
simulation itself and the
proceedings, Mr. Frasineanu
highlighted the divide between
western and eastern countries’
approaches towards homosexuals.
“Some of the legislation, especially
in Eastern countries within the EU,
doesn’t match the realities that
surround our communities on a
daily basis, such as the importance
of LGBTQ+ rights.”
Adrien Verhoeven, an interpreter
for the French booth, raised some
interesting points, regarded the
marginalization of disabilities.There
was a distinct acknowledgement
that “when someone might
look different from you, then it’s
understandable for others to
be curious about the situation.”
Nevertheless, the interpreter who
was born with a missing limb
highlighted that many people with
disabilities are just as capable as
anyone else and that there needs to
be an adequate attempt in society
to raise peoples’ consciousness
regarding the matter.
Lastly, Adeniyi Banjo was
interviewed about racial
discrimination and inequality
within society but also within
parliamentary procedures. It is
evident that there is an under
representation for people of colour
within the MEUS simulation - Mr.
Banjo is the only person at MEUS
2016. He emphasized that the EU
is more democratic than countries
like Nigeria, which is where he’s
come from.
“I’m confident than when someone
puts across a convincing argument
in favour of racial equality, then
others will understand.” The
statement made by Mr. Banko
shows confidence and trust
towards the EU’s understanding
and egalitarian objectives.
Overall, there is a constant theme of
prejudice that overrides the issues
that need to be tackled in order to
enhance the rights of individuals
who belong to diverse groups.
Many may not be aware of their
privileged status in society with
regards to how accepted they are by
mainstream institutions, and others
should seemingly be reminded of
it. It is important that everyone is
regarded as an individual in their
own rights in order to take positive
steps towards a more equal and
accepting society.
Photo Credit: Penelope Bielckus
Natasa Christofidou
A word from the Editor…
Hey everyone!
Today is the last day of MEUS 2016
and, by the time you read this,
the closing ceremony would have
come to an end. You only need to
look around the sleeping faces in
Parliament to realize how exhaus-
ted we all are.
Last night’s masquerade party
proved to be another successful
social event, where participants
and organisers danced to their
heart’s content.
As the conference has comes to an
end, people have formed friend-
ships that might last a lifetime. We
hope that you all have safe travels
tomorrow, and we hope that you
enjoyed the conference and Stras-
bourg as a whole.
Many thanks to everyone who
made this an unforgettable expe-
rience!
Take care,
Strasbourg Daily editors- Natasa
Christofidou & Laura Whetherly.!
DIVERSITY AND THE EUROPEAN UNION

3. Issue No. 06 Friday, 8th April | 3— Strasbourg Daily —
„POLITICS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IN THE WORLD“
The world through a lens: Santiago
de la Presilla is the man behind the
camera – he works as a video jour-
nalist at this week’s plenary session.
The 21-year-old is Warsaw based
and covers central and eastern
European politics. The Strasbourg
Daily talked to him about his work,
the specialty of political journalism
and how he ended up in Poland as a
Venezuelan-Spanish-American.
Typically, Santiago de la Presilla
starts his day like everybody else
does: “I wake up, I shave, I put on
some work out clothes. And when
I am done with that I take shower.”
Being suited up, he dives right into
work with updating himself on the
latest news by reading Politico’s
“Brussels Playbook”. “After that, I
look over a list of people I should
interview, go to University for a
couple of classes and then I will go
to the office.” The journalism and
new media student covers politics
and security issues, working for the
Visegrad Insight and the Warsaw
Business Journal. He started like
most people did: with an internship.
And he was able to proof himself:
“When the editor likes what you are
writing, then you are going to get
paid.”
Populism is on the rise all over Eu-
rope and also presents a pressing
challenges in the European Par-
liament. During this conference,
Members of Parliament raised com-
plaints about the impossibility to
debate constructively due to the
high number of populist parties.
This is not a new phenomenon, but
nonetheless it is alarming.
There is no such thing as a fixed
definition of populism. In general, it
is seen as a political style character-
ized by dichotomy and confronta-
tion, antagonism and personalisa-
tion. It is different to other political
styles because of its aggressiveness
right wing populist fractions proved
this again and again, for example
by referring to attacks in Paris and
Brussels or by striking up national
anthems during the debates.
Many Members of Parliament, es-
pecially from the left political spec-
tre, are concerned by this patter.
Aliz Fabian (S&D Spain) said: “They
have the opinion that the national
is more important than the inter-
national. I think the EU has to focus
and has to compromise in order to
solve this problem together”.
The Commissioner for Migration,
Home Affairs and Citizenship, Franc-
esca Risso is equally worried. That is
why she held a forceful speech to
the Council yesterday, talking about
the danger of populism in Europe.
POPULISM: A THREAT TO EUROPE AND THE SUCCESS OF THE CONFERENCE
Today she underlined again: “Pop-
ulism is a very distractive factor for
the working of the legislative pro-
cess because if we focus on things
that only sound good, we forget to
focus on things that actually make
solutions”, she said and went on:
“Even though it’s really important
to give voice to everyone, the voice
of populists is mainly distracting.
We need to aim at creating solu-
tions and not at creating borders
between each other because that’s
what populism does. Instead of be-
ing productive we are being the
very contrary. This distracts people
from proposing solutions that will
actually make lives better and pro-
cedures easier”.
Lisa Urlbauer
“I work mostly online, but I also re-
cord many events in the city. Lately
it has been the protests against the
polish government, for example
against the abortion laws that have
passed”, de la Presilla says towards
the Strasbourg Daily, “Then I am
selling the footage to news agen-
cies, which is very profitable.”
De la Presilla always has had an in-
terested for the part of the world he
is working and living in now.“When
I was living in Western Europe, I was
always kind of obsessed with east-
ern Europe’s work.” He once took a
trip to Belarus by taking the train
from west to east. He got to see
a lot of the post-soviet countries.
Later on, he ended up in Russia for
a couple of months.“Then I decided
the best place to stay safe, while
covering the area and study would
be Warsaw.”
When we asked him about the
specialties of political journalism,
he had a straightforward answer: “I
think politics is basically the most
important thing in the world. With
political journalism it depends on
where you are and where you live. In
some countries, people care about
politics more than in others. Poland
is a very political country. Eastern
and Central European countries in
general are. The United States are a
politically divided country. France is
also very political. The specialty of
political journalism would be, the
fact that what you are covering re-
ally has an effect on people’s lives.”
Understanding the politics of the
European Union takes some time,
Santiago de la Presilla says, since it
s a complex entity with lots of bu-
reaucracy. “The European Union is
unique, there is no other institution
like this in the world. It finds itself
in between a federation and just a
union of states. But actually it’s a lot
simpler that most people think.”
De la Presilla is convinced that there
is no more difference between
covering european and national
politics. “Right now, everybody is
paying attention to European deci-
sion making. We just saw it with the
Dutch referendum – people said
astonishingly no. Every big decision
that the EU makes right now will af-
fect national politics”, he says. “The
days were the commissioners, the
MEPs and the Council could get re-
ally important things done behind
closed doors are over.”
Isabel Niesmann
Interview with
Santiago de la
Presilla
and the rigid way in which conflicts
are solved. The most important
characteristics are the claims for
direct democracy, anti-elitism, a
simplistic style, and the notion of
“the people” in contrast to minori-
ties such as immigrants or refugees
for example. Institutional factors
such as the often mentioned lack of
direct democracy in the European
Union, the decline in electoral sup-
port, the fragmentation of the party
system and the dissatisfaction with
the status quo contribute to the rise
of populist parties.
Obviously, it is especially easy to
give supposedly easy solutions and
to establish black and white think-
ing in the context of migration and
refugees. During this week, the

4. Issue No. 06 Friday, 8th April | 4— Strasbourg Daily —
QUESTION OF THE DAY
Iro Katsantoni
Cristina Grațiela Chiran
In the light of EP negotiations and
Thursday’s press conference it
seems that big factions are quite di-
vided, failing to work effectively as
a team. Confessions from members
of ALDE and the Commissioner on
the Directive regarding biofuels re-
veal that MEPs have failed to listen
to each other when it came to im-
portant matters in the negotiations.
When voting amendments on the
Directive of Biofuels, MEPs did not
take into consideration the insistent
suggestion of ALDE and the Com-
missioner that two amendments
proposed by ALDE, namely 12 and
13, were complementary and there-
fore should have either passed to-
gether or not passed at all. Instead,
only amendment 12 passed. As a
result, the procedure that went to
the Council had two contradictory
mechanisms.
Marco Gerbaudo, the ALDE Germa-
ny MEP explained how this works.
Simply put, amendment 12 intro-
duces mandatory targets for ad-
vanced biofuels set at 2,5%, which,
alongside the already imposed tar-
get for traditional biofuels, set at
5%, amounts to a 7,5% total target
for all biofuels. However, the annex
that was written previously for only
traditional biofuels sets the target
to 5%. The two total targets for bio-
fuels are different, yet they are both
in place in the Procedure. According
to Mr Gerbaudo “It’s nothing politi-
cal and it’s nothing really compli-
cated. It’s nothing too technical,
DISUNITY WITHIN EP FACTIONS
during her speech my colleague
said clearly that if we don’t approve
amendment 13, then amendment
12 makes no sense, and the Com-
missioner agreed. It’s just their un-
willingness to listen.”
Yesterday’s press conference con-
fronted the representatives of
all factions with the question of
whether they believe that they
made an informed decision with re-
gard to these two amendments.The
representatives for S&D, GUE/NGL,
and the Greens were very defensive
and claimed that they have sup-
ported both amendments. The EPP
representative also declared that
EPP have voted in favour. Despite
their confident claims, Ms Riquito
Pereira, the representative for ALDE,
was quite skeptical with regards to
some of them, including GUE/NGL.
The representatives for ENF, ECR
and EFDD claimed that they voted
against.
Supposing that the factions are
united and all the MEPs of every
faction voted accordingly to the
claims of their representatives,
there should have been 66 votes in
favour (6 (GUE/NGL) + 22 (S&D) + 5
(Greens) + 9 (ALDE) + 24 (EPP)) and
20 votes against (9 (ECR) + 6 (EFDD)
+ 5 (ENF)). Given that the amend-
ment did not pass, it means that
at least a whooping 23 MEPs from
the factions in favour have voted
against. Of course that MEPs are en-
couraged to vote according to their
values and beliefs... But shouldn’t
they work as a team towards a com-
mon goal that is in harmony with
the values of their faction? This is
crystal clear proof that factions are
disunited and MEPs are confused to
whom to listen.
The responses from EP faction rep-
resentatives can only be interpreted
in two ways. Either some factions
clearly did not understand that the
amendments were complementary
but refused to admit it in order to
maintain a good image. Or big fac-
tions such as S&D and EPP (the larg-
est amongst the supporters, pre-
sumably, of amendments 12 and
13) are not able to work and thus
are divided.
“Factions don’t listen to each other.
Far right factions listen to the far
right, left factions listen to the left
but we are from the centre so we try
to speak to everybody but in gener-
al all factions were not interested so
much in listening to us. A really im-
portant amendment like this is not
a political amendment, it is just one
for the Procedure to make sense.”
Photo credit: Penelope Bielckus
This question has been key to this
week’s debates on the reception of
refugees, so we asked participants
to answer, based on their personal
opinion rather than their simulati-
on role.
Ksenija Ivanovic:“Definitely be-
cause it is in their best interest to
get examined and it could provide
them with more help. Also, it is im-
portant for us for relevant statistics
and info.”
Gianluca Vaccaro:“I welcome this
proposal mainly because it’s impor-
tant to get relevant information in
order to provide medical services
with information. It seems to be
very important an equilibrium
between European Security and
Human Rights.”
Stefan Rodev:“Medical Services
must have info of who is getting
inside the EU in order to be able
to prevent threats for both the EU
citizens and the refugees.”
Emil Zaharia-Kezdi:“In my opinion
mandatory medical examination
that is non-invasive is acceptable
so as to find a balance between hu-
man rights and public health. (no
one can predict epidemics otherwi-
se they would not be epidemics)”
Natasa Radic:“They deserve to
know in which medical situation
they are because they come from
places where they may not have
been able to have had examined
before and also it is important to
protect the other citizens. However,
due to financial constraints it may
not be possible.”
Ceren Keser:“Yeah it should be
mandatory because we have to
deal with which kind of disaster
they had phased.”
Should refugees
receive mandato-
ry medical exami-
nation upon ente-
ring the border?

5. Issue No. 06 Friday, 8th April | 5— Strasbourg Daily —
CRISIS IN THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
Laura Whetherly
Yesterday’s voting in Parliament
was plagued by delays and disrup-
tions, resulting in several proposed
amendments being entirely dis-
counted from the proceedings.
At the high point of disquiet in the
chamber, the doors to Parliament
were opened and members of the
public (including journalists and or-
ganising team members) entered.
MEPs were seen to be out of their
seats, several standing on the other
side of the room to where they sat
during normal proceedings. Alt-
hough order was soon restored by
members of the organising team,
the following discussion over how
to proceed with voting was also
characterised by disquiet, which
could be heard even from outside
of the chamber.
Earlier in the day, debates on the
proposed amendments in the
chamber were interrupted by seve-
ral incidents, including the removal
of two Nationalist representatives
by security forces, meaning that
proceedings were significantly de-
layed even before voting began. In
total, around 50 amendments were
proposed, significantly more than
would normally be expected, and
these factors lead to there being a
very limited time frame in which the
voting could take place.
MEPs interviewed commented that,
with the delay and the large num-
ber of propositions, the President
of the Parliament was forced to go
through the voting procedure ex-
tremely quickly. In particular, the
fact that the amendments being
voted upon were printed in a diffe-
rent order on MEPs’handouts to the
order in which they were addressed
meant that several MEPs were con-
fused as to which they were con-
cerned with at any particular point.
MEPs also commented that they
felt frustrated because they did not
have time to clarify their position on
any one point before the next vote
began.
During the procedure, there were
also complaints that not all of the
voting results were clearly dis-
played. When challenged on this,
and asked to clarify whether one
reported where members of Parli-
ament and members of the chair
were in direct conflict during vo-
ting, including shouting at one ano-
ther in the chamber.
Around fifteen amendments were
removed from the voting, on the
basis that there was not time to
vote on them as well as do the press
conference. Sixteen amendments
were passed.
The President’s initial proposal af-
ter the opening of the chamber,
suggesting that MEPs vote on
amendments in blocks rather than
individually, was also poorly recei-
ved because the blocks including
amendments from parties on oppo-
site sides of the political spectrum.
Despite the obvious issues plaguing
parliamentary procedure, represen-
tatives from both S&D and ALDE
spoke about having a “productive”
session when in discussion with
the press. MEPs were told that jour-
nalists were not willing to give up
on the conference, which was why
the voting had to come to a close.
Members of the press were never
consulted on this issue.
Photo credit: Raquel Fernandez
particular amendment had passed
or failed, the President was unable
to do so.
In the wake of Thursday’s events,
several MEPs have also commented
that there was also no roll call at the
beginning of voting, and no confir-
mation that there was a quorum in
the Parliament. Although this point
was raised by an EPP MEP during
the session, no action was taken.
“This makes everything we voted
for entirely invalid,” commented Fi-
lip Filipek, ENF Italy representative.
“They ignored the point yesterday,
and then when we raised it again
today, they said we should have
said something the day before. The
whole procedure was totally illegal.”
In response to this claim, Constance
Colot, President of the European
Parliament, stated that, while the
rule of simple majority was in action
during Friday’s session, it had not
been confirmed during Thursdays’,
and therefore the vote still had va-
lidity. She also added that “We are
not talking about what happened
yesterday”.
There were also multiple incidents
„Dziękuję“ from Polish
interpreters:
We would like to express
our deepest gratitude to
the honourable MEP Mr.
Stefan Hardt for being
the only Polish spea-
ker in this chamber. We
appreciate his effort to
indulge the Polish in-
terpreters. Congratula-
tions on your amazing
delivery and impeccable
accent.
The Polish booth: Anna,
Bartosz and Anna

6. Issue No. 06 Friday, 8th April | 6— Strasbourg Daily —
In today’s coffee break, the Minister
of the United Kingdom, Matthias
Straub, together with the three
ECR-Members of Parliament from
the UK, Philipp Frey, Imilian Gena-
diev and Julia Hermann made an
official statement. With posters in
their hands and thumbs down they
declared:“Say no to EU”.
Straub told the Strasbourg Daily:
“The British Government is no
longer satisfied with Europe”. He
added: “Europe is not a place full of
ideas and solidarity any longer, but
a place of redistribution. Europe is
not what Churchill wanted it to be.
It has not become an intergovern-
mental project but has turned into a
supranational one”. He furthermore
criticized the great power of the
Commission and compared the EU
to a skeleton. “The EU tries to inte-
grate as many states as possible in
order to authorise the dictatorship
of the Commission.The UK does not
longer want to take part in that. The
UK wants to preserve national sov-
ereignty”.
He continued: “We have never un-
derstood Europe as a supranational
project. For centuries we have al-
ways been the strongest country
in Europe. But this is not respected
any more. That is why we are deeply
in favour of an EU Brexit!”. Nonethe-
less, Straub thinks that the British
people and not the government
should decide on that:“If the British
people decide to stay in the EU, we
will do that, but only under protest”,
he emphasised.
Photo credit: Raquel Fernandez
UK OFFICIALLY STATES: “SAY NO TO EU”
Isabel Niesmann
MEU 2016: “THE CONFERENCE HAS SUCCEEDED”
People are getting tired as the MEUS
simulation is coming to an end. Af-
ter the Slovakian minister, who, ac-
cording to our sources, was sleep-
ing in the Council, lobbyists and
MEPs have been seen asleep during
conferences. Today (8th April) is the
last day of Model European Stras-
bourg 2016. “It is quite sad that it’s
over”, the lobbyist coordinator Lois
McLatchie admitted.
The week in the European Parlia-
ment was quite intense and it is
difficult for people to realize that
it is already over. For the organis-
ing team, the week represents the
culmination of over a year of work.
“It is crazy that the participants can
only see the top of the iceberg”, Lois
McLatchie said, who further stated
that “it is really fun to see everyone
enjoying”.
Participants enjoyed a week of hard
work. “I’m a bit sleepy”, Raquel Gar-
cia Fernandez affirmed. She was a
photojournalist in the conference,
taking pictures for the newspaper
and the official Facebook page. “It
has been hard, especially because
you spend many hours in the Parlia-
ment,”she said.
The week in the EP’s hemicycle was
very intense and yesterday session
was quite confusing, especially for
the vote of amendments. “Yester-
day was unproductive, nothing
concrete happened, as we did not
arrive to a conclusion,” Iona Voina,
MEP for Europe of Freedom and Di-
rect Democracy (EFDD), affirmed.
Sitting in the parliament all day,
which is quite “stressful and nerv-
ous,” Iona Voina was not expecting
the very radical position of some
factions. But generally, everyone
played his or her roles well. “I met
incredible people that defend the
opinion of their role. They are act-
ing as they were MEPs or ministers,
without sharing any personal opin-
ion”, interpreter Adrien Verhoeven
said.
The Interpreters’ work is really hard,
as “you always have to manage two
languages in your head”, Adrien
Verhoeven said. At the back of the
hemicycle, MEPs do not see them
but know perfectly their voices.
“People are coming to the booth
and ask questions about interpreta-
tion. And it’s kind of a recognition of
our work”, Adrien Verhoeven added.
Everyone agree to welcome the
work of interpreters. “Interpreters
do not just interpret words, they
interpret cultures and emotions.
Without them, I think we could not
be united in diversity”, the vice-
president of the European Parlia-
ment, Marina Carré Molina, said.
She wants to thanks every par-
ticipants and organisers: “I am very
happy with everyone. Not just one
person, but everyone”.
Some moments in the Parliament
was a bit intense and messy. But,
according to the vice-president,“we
have to regard it as positive”. The EU
institutions can have problems, as
Europe is very diverse. “If the par-
ticipants see how difficult it is in the
simulation, they will see how diffi-
cult it should be in the Parliament.
Just with that, the conference has
succeeded. And the next time, they
are going to have a consent with
everyone, and make everything
much smoother. That is what we are
doing in the simulation, to prepare
for real life”.
In the Council as well, the consent
is very crucial. “It is important that
all the member states feel included,
that their visions of Europe are tak-
ing into consideration”, German
minister Emma Elizabeth explained.
Otherwise, the EU does no longer
exists in a united sense, leading to
what is today happening, from the
closing of Schengen borders to the
UK’s EU referendum.
What is next? Although she does
not want to become a minister,
Emma Elizabeth stated that MEU
made her“more aware of what hap-
pens in the institution, because the
simulation as a whole has been au-
thentic”. Well, let’s hope that these
institutions survive the major crisis
which has been pointed out in the
parliament this week.
Awenig Marie

7. Issue No. 06 Friday, 8th April | 7— Strasbourg Daily —
MEUS EVALUATION
Pablo Rodríguez
The 2016 Model European Union
Strasbourg is coming to an end. To-
day, the last debates on the rights
of refugees in the council and par-
liament are occurring. Subsequent-
ly, the final votes will be held on
both sides. We now wonder what
the general opinions of the parti-
cipants in the simulation, We have
three interesting questions in this
newspaper, which were addressed
to a Minister, an EMP, a Lobbyist,
and an interpreter.
What do you expect of this event,
has it satisfied your expectations?
Ms. José María Gutiérrez Agrafojo,
EPP Croatia
“The truth is that it was really
good. I did not expect it would be
so intense to the point where we’re
cramming so much on paper. I’ve
had a good time though”
Ms. Eva Gonzalez Carro, interpreter
“Yeah, I guess it has satisfied me
as I see how things work in par-
liament. I have learned so much
more about European politics. I’ve
also become close with my booth
partners. At university I’ve never
worked so closely with anyone be-
fore, so this was a great opportuni-
ty to do that.
Ms. Yaiza Bolea, lobbist
“Yes, it is very real, a friend of mine
came last year. I never realized
that we would have so much work.
I liked the experience; we have
combined leisure and work in an in-
tensely cultural and multi-linguistic
week.”
Mr. Plamen Pachec, minister of the
Netherlands
“Expectations were high because
this event is like the Olympics of
MEUS, held in the European Par-
liament, so I knew that the level
would be very high. But there were
some organizational problems, but
I would not talk about them, as the
organizers decide how to work. But
I‘m a little disappointed, because in
the council people who had more
experience had countries that had
too many votes and countries that
were more relevant and more vo-
tes. For me, this has been the big-
gest disappointment, as I wanted
to have a discussion with people
who were really prepared and not
to have things that had not been
anticipated in relation to the proce-
dures or preparation.
But overall I would recommend
MEUS yes, the human factor can
never anticipate.”
Would you change anything about
the event?
Mr. José María Gutiérrez Agrafojo,
EPP Croatia
“For example change what happe-
ned yesterday with amendments
that time did not allow us to vote
on them. We have too many coffee
breaks and interruptions and then
there is no time for the important
things.”
Ms. Eva Gonzalez Carro, interpreter
“Yes, the most discussed among
my colleagues is that in the gala
too much money was spent on the
building, but should have invested
more in food. I also think that peo-
ple just trying to highlight parlia-
ment to draw attention instead of
offering useful suggestions.”
Ms. Yaiza Bolea, lobbist
“No, not really, we can always go a
little out of hand the organization
of things, as in real life, but nothing
happened serious to say that the
organization has failed. The only
thing that the food is very repeti-
tive and poor, have not eaten very
healthy.”
Mr. Plamen Pachec, minister of the
Netherlands
“If I were an organizer I’d try to be
more selective with the selection
of the ministers, so I’d do it accor-
ding to their experience and en-
thusiasm. In organizational terms I
would not want to make any com-
ment, as this is a process that lasts
about a year, I‘m not sure how the
organizers work. I think it should
think for themselves.”