Category: Uncategorized

CNN) – The first day of the Plenary session of the International Model European Parliament (iMEP) kicked off at the Old Parliament house in the heart of Athens, Greece. This vital event helps shape the EU, dealing with extremely important subjects, affecting all member nations across the EU. The session is split into five one hour fifteen minute sections, each of them critically exploring a different committee.

The Power of an Intense Speech

During each designated time slot, a group of young aspirational members of MEP showcase and grow their skills of cooperation, debate and critical thinking through simulations of parliamentary sessions. Whether or not a delegate can successfully win over the crowd and help pass their resolution takes incredible amounts of knowledge blended together with exquisite abilities to hold a speech.

Speeches held during these sessions are essential for the committee’s success. They can leech onto a listener’s attention, and since the members of the audience (the delegations and delegates) are the ones voting for their passing, their attention should be the objective.

Fatigue Experienced by The Audience

During many speeches, numerous members of the audience were caught sleeping, oblivious of their surroundings. Many with lack of sleep, filled with exhaustion, felt no choice but to take a nap while hidden from anyone who may judge them.

The speech that changed perspectives: The Power of One Man

However, a strong reaction and engagement was seen during the amendment speech for the committee of IMCO, held by an exciting delegate from Ireland. His passion, energy and spirit could be felt echoing all around the hall.

He was able to capture everyone’s attention and hearts with his subtle yet powerful movements. He could be seen jumping up and down, as if of excitement, looking as if he was ready to fly away. This slight gesture of hopping up and down rumbled through the halls, mesmerizing each member of the audience.

Despite his heroic efforts, his amendment was denied, but one thing was made crystal clear; he stole the whole audience’s hearts.

-Milla Jalasto, CNN

The day of the first half of the plenary session arose on October 17, 2024. In the plenary session, the delegates were able to vote in favor or against the amendments and the resolutions presented by the presidents with their delegations. The plenary session took place in the Old Parliament House of Athens—the building grasped everyone’s attention with its breathtaking details and structure.

The first half of the plenary session covered a total of 5 committees: AFCO, IMCO, LIBE/JURI, ENVI, and DEVE. The first round of the session started with the committee of foreign affairs—AFCO. The committee of AFCO devised their resolutions for the enhancement of the EU’s coherence while reconciling with the diverse interests and preferences of the EU member states. The Bulgarian delegate of AFCO began the session with an opening speech, emphasizing the necessity to “amplify democracy” among the EU member states. Then, other delegates had the chance to ask any factual questions to the committee of AFCO, and a lot of countries, including Bulgaria, Hungary, Turkey, and Cyprus, took part in this. An amendment was suggested during this process by the delegate of Bulgaria, suggesting to strike the whole OC3 of the resolution. However, this amendment was declined with 53 votes in favor and 59 votes against. Next, the delegates were able to ask open debate questions; the floor was filled with fierce debates among the delegates. The UK delegate was chosen to give a speech against the resolution, and he was able to critique the resolution of AFCO. He described the resolution as “vague” and “ludicrous” as it did not provide any specificity for the plans. Going against the UK delegate, the delegate of Malta from the AFCO committee was chosen to give a speech refuting the UK. The delegate underscored the importance of “unity, not division” among the member states, firmly restating how “opt-outs should not be an abundant option” as it hinders the EU from being truly democratic. However, the AFCO resolution did not pass by 58 votes against and 34 votes in favor.

The second round of the plenary session was devoted to the committee of internal market and consumer protection—IMCO. The delegate of Cyprus opened the session with an opening speech. Next, an amendment suggested by the delegate of Greece was chosen by the presidents: the delegate found a flaw in OC8, as just implementing a special tax for large tech companies would ultimately be passed on to the consumers, resulting in increased prices, which would further worsen the problem. Therefore, the delegate of Greece suggested creating special funds for emerging companies instead of special taxes imposed on the companies. For the responding speech to the amendment, the delegate of Ireland was chosen from IMCO. The amendment was passed by 94 votes in favor and 24 votes against—approximately 80% of the delegates in the parliament voted in favor of the amendment. In the end, the resolution of IMCO passed with 63 votes in favor and 48 votes against.

The third round of the session centered around the committee of Civil Liberties and Home Affairs/Subcommittee on Legal Affairs—LIBE/JURI. The opening speech of LIBE/JURI was firm: the delegate of Portugal strongly articulated how “democracy is not negotiable.” The amendment raised about OC2 was accepted by just one vote: there were 59 votes against and 60 votes in favor of the amendment. The amendment pointed out how OC2 oppresses the freedom of press and speech in a way since it is seen to promote the idea of propaganda. During the open debate question session, many delegations held their flags up in order to ask a question. The delegation of Latvia pointed out OC13 to give an example of cases where AI was used to identify corruption in financial streams. The committee of LIBE/JURI pointed out how there hasn’t been an AI implementation yet, but how they are eager to start implementing AI for a more efficient process. Unfortunately, this resolution did not pass with 28 votes in favor and 81 votes against.

The fourth round revolved around the committee of Environment, Public Health, and Food Safety—ENVI. Unfortunately, this resolution did not pass; it received several criticisms regarding how inaccurate the resolutions are. The OC13 of the resolution mentions removing the vegetation in dry areas to reduce the risk of wildfire. However, the Netherlands delegate refuted this OC by commenting how removing vegetation would only further erode soil more quickly. Furthermore, a lot of controversial discussions were shared regarding OC4, which suggests using free roaming cattle to remove vegetation. The delegate of Netherland further critiqued the OC4 by pointing out the possibility of production of methane—which is 25 times more powerful than CO2—by the free-rattling cows. Due to these points lacking enough backup evidence, ENVI’s resolution was not able to pass.

The fifth round centered around the committee on Development/Artificial Intelligence—DEVE/AIDA. The amendment was proposed by the delegate of Bulgaria regarding OC7 to make a change in how the clause is worded. The delegate suggested specifying the word “source” in the clause to “publicly available sources” so that it promises a more transparent usage of information. However, the delegate of Malta pointed out the misuse of sensitive data like medical records. As a result, the amendment did not pass, receiving 48 votes in favor and 68 votes against. Through fierce discussions and debates, the majority of the delegates voted in favor of the resolution.

Euronews, Dayeon Woo

As the years progress, and the age of access to social media decreases, technology claims more of a chokehold on not only the market, but the people.

Technology monopolies grow arguably, because people allow them. Not by choice, but by addiction. The growing addiction to technology creates a higher demand, therefore tech companies rise to power. This monopoly then comes to exist as particular companies rise to power and popularity, gaining control over the market and therefore the people, creating an inescapable cycle of growth. This is the committee of Internal Market and consumer protection’s main issue to solve.

Addiction to these technologies develop from a place of funds in the first place. The more money a tech company has, the more traction it can gain, through adverts, unending and constantly placed strategically. This therefore brings more attention to them and allows them a greater income than smaller companies.

Furthermore, as the age of introduction to technology decreases, addiction increases as this tech is normalised, in fact, a life without technology is considered alien. Therefore, as younger people are introduced to this technology, they are more involved with it through their lives, developing an unfortunate addiction early in their adolescence. This further supports the development of tech monopolies as people are exposed to their products from a young age and therefore develop an early loyalty towards products and a distrust for smaller products that they are not accustomed to.

An example of the developing control of tech monopolies is the occupation of Twitter by Tesla creator Elon Musk. Though Twitter is undeniably not a small company, by buying the company, Musk presented a monopoly in his power over the media, as well as technology, from cars to phones and otherwise. This was similarly emphasised as Facebook began to take over social media – Instagram and WhatsApp now belonging to the Facebook empire. This is a threat to the people as it shows a select group of elites controlling that which everyone interacts with daily. This means that these elites can therefore channel their own opinions into their platforms, influencing not millions, but billions. This is also evident in the news medias, many controlled by a small group, newspapers like the sun, the times, the daily telegraph, the wall street journal, the new York Times and the Australian all being owned by one person: Rupert Murdoch. This results in his power and opinion spread throughout the Internet with millions exposed to biases created based on the owner. The fact this is possible shows that tech monopolies have full capability of controlling the population, leaving said population vulnerable.

Tech monopolies further influence the day-to-day lives of the people, from infinite scrolling, to grocery shopping. This infinite scrolling returns to the concept of addiction, social media sites resulting in the death of free time, people rather spending it on their tech, due to the monopoly of tech not only on the market but on the people. Furthermore, due to this tech, people no longer feel reason or energy to leave their homes, rather using monopolies like amazon or uber to order food to their homes. This could be considered positive for some as it gives easy access to necessary life resources, but also generates laziness in some.

Salma Nassar, EUobserver

On the second day of the GA, the committee on CULT proposed their resolution, which contains the European Degree.

This committee has worked towards their European Degree, a new type of degree awarded after transnational Bachelor, Master, or Doctoral programmes delivered at national, regional, or institutional level. The degree is automatically recognized everywhere in the EU, it’s awarded jointly and on a voluntary basis by a group of universities across Europe and it’s based on a common set of criteria agreed at European level.

Its goal is to contribute to Europe’s competitiveness by equipping students and graduates with future-proof skills to master the green and digital transitions, it creates a symbol of our European identity and sense of European belonging.

This European Degree offers value to students, higher education institutions and employers.

It will offer opportunities to study at various universities all over Europe and graduate with one universal diploma, it will give access to learning opportunities and future-proof skills that everyone needs. It will also make it easier for universities to have a joint degree programme with several universities and it will increase the competitiveness and attractiveness of those universities. The graduates would also be highly skilled and qualified.

The committee CULT e.g. urges that the participating member states allocate the received funding equitably across various fields, such as but not limited to infrastructure development, faculty development and access to digital resources. They propose that an annual award should be granted to the participating universities and that there should be communication between small businesses and the participating universities.

They talk about a Code of Honor, composed of a board of educational experts, which shall develop a comprehensive set of regulations to prevent violations of the code, and to construct a framework for gathering feedback from individuals of various backgrounds.

Cult also authorizes the creation of an intergovernmental committee that will ensure each member state’s educational standards are incorporated into the European Degree curriculum, while upholding European Educational objectives.

The committee CULT also calls upon the increase of investment in The Digital Action plan and the AI Act.

However, not everyone thinks that the European Degree is beneficial. For instance, a delegate of Germany prepared an against speech, because they think that the EU forces the European Degree on the EU member states. Instead of bettering the quality, the degree would decrease the value of various universities. The degree risks damaging the valuable diversity of education in the European Union.

This resolution passed.

Myrre de Nies, Reuters

The European Union exists – although in many different forms – since the 1940s. From the formation of the council of Europe consisting of 6 members, up until our modern union with 27 members and many more in the way, the EU has only grown and flourished since it began.

As the questions of the application and accession policy to the EU has been debated in the plenary session as part of the AFCO resolution, the BBC believed that a more in depth view of the history of the accession process could help widen understanding of the debate at hand.

During the aftermath of the Second World War, the continent that we know as Europe was on its knees. After the physical and psychological damage of nearly five years of bloodshed, 10 nations (Belgium, Denmark, France, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom) decided to bond together and form a “federal union” to help resolve common problems between the countries of Europe. These ideas had been in the works since suggested by leaders such as Aristide Briand in 1929, and Winston Churchill in 1939. 

The Council was signed into existence on the 5th of May 1949 under the Treaty of London. The organisation set out three of their major values; human rights, democracy and the rule of law. This organisation upheld these policies, specifically during conflicts such as the Cold War. All of these principles are still kept in utmost importance by the EU to this today. 

To be accepted into this council, there were steps the nation had to complete;

• After the application of membership was submitted, there would be a an intense evaluation of their adherence to the three values of the Council.

• Their entrance would then be debated and would have to be proved by the Parliamentary Assembly. A two third majority vote would be necessary to have their accession granted.

• The formal accession would then be granted by signing the Statute of the Council of Europe.

If the Council of Europe was created to handle European human rights, then the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) of 1951 was created to handle economy and resources. Created by France, Germany, Italy and the Benelux countries (Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands), it was created to pool together and share resources, as well as to prevent any country obtaining enough of this materials for malicious means. This foundational organisation was then improved upon by the signing of the Treaties of Rome. These agreements expanded the economic reach of the ECSC beyond coal and steel, creating a general body known as the European Economic Community.

The accession policy was similar to that of the European Council, but was obviously more focused on economics and market;

• After the formal application was submitted, the candidate nation would have their economic policies examined, as well as their market stability being taken into account.

• Negotiations would then occur. These could be centred around economic alignment with the EEC’s policy, adoptions of their legislature as well as contribution to its budget. These negotiations could take multiple years.

• Finally, the applicant would be approved 

The final evolution of what we know as the European Union today was established in 1958. This was the first demonstration of the European Parliamentary system as we know it today. The first meeting of this group was held in Strasbourg.

Finally, after nearly 10 years of name changes and refurbishments, the European Union has become what we know it as today. The process of the modern day is slightly longer, but is much more comprehensive. As well as the previous steps, the candidacy system was introduced. This allowed countries to be declared candidates, but not full members. Some countries that fall under this role include Bosnia and Herzegovina (since 2016), Albania (since 2009), Georgia (since 2022), Moldova (since 2022), Montenegro (since 2010), North Macedonia (since 2005), Serbia (since 2010), Türkiye (since 1999) and Ukraine (since 2022).

The European accession process has been a long road, and will only get longer in time. The BBC is committed to keeping you updated with information of the utmost quality regarding the European Union.

Tom Egan, BBC

The air in the conference hall was thick with anticipation, a charged stillness hanging like a veil over the assembly of delegates. Eyes flitted nervously across the room as pages of resolution booklets were turned with careful, deliberate hands. There was a singular focus among all present— the IMCO Committee’s resolution, a proposal that had sparked fierce debate and skepticism from the outset, was now on the precipice of either validation or collapse. Each delegate held their breath, knowing the weight of what was about to unfold.

It all began with the quiet yet determined words of North Macedonia as they read the Opening Clauses, signaling the start of what would be a turbulent debate. The delegate from Cyprus, with all the poise of a seasoned diplomat, delivered an impassioned opening speech, rallying support for IMCO’s cause. Yet, what followed were waves of opposition. Portugal led the charge with factual questions, probing and testing the committee’s foundations.

Though there were many amendments, the chosen one was that of the Greek delegation. The delegate introduced a pivotal amendment, proposing the start of a fund aimed at safeguarding the future. The hall seemed to hold its breath as Greece argued for its necessity. Tension mounted as IMCO’s delegate rose in opposition, defending their stance with unwavering resolve.
In a blow that could have sealed their fate, the amendment was denied—just shy of passing, with 24 votes in favor out of 29. The room buzzed with unease, but IMCO was far from finished.

The pressure only intensified when Luxembourg, with a flair for the dramatic, delivered a speech in favor of the resolution. With words of wisdom on balancing the tech market, fostering innovation, and protecting the very liberties that define the European Union, Luxembourg stirred the room. But the divide was deep, and whispers of doubt still lingered in the hall.
As the final moments approached, it was clear that the committee’s future would be decided in a matter of seconds. The voting commenced—each delegate’s decision felt heavier than the last. The atmosphere crackled with tension. And then, as if by some miracle, the results were revealed: 63 in favor, 48 against, with 10 abstentions.

For a fleeting second, silence gripped the room. And then—an eruption. Cheers and claps filled the hall as the IMCO Committee celebrated their narrow, hard-fought victory. Against all odds, they had done it. In the face of countless amendments, opposition speeches, and a razor-thin vote, they had emerged victorious. This was not just a win; it was a testament to perseverance, determination, and the sheer will to push through when all hope seemed lost.

In a turn of events that no one saw coming, the IMCO Committee, battered by amendments and fierce opposition, emerged victorious in the final hours of voting. What seemed an impossible task just hours earlier has now become a story of resilience, with the votes hanging precariously on a knife’s edge.

Elitsa Petrova, The Guardian

The MEP conference in Athens has been hit with an ultimatum: the creation of a European Army.

The resolution of the AFET committee has proposed in operative clause 1 the creation of a “European Union Force” that will be “charged with defending the peace and the security of the European Union”

The BBC went undercover and into depth to figure out the opinion on this clause, and it was quite the result. The perceived vote that we have received is nearly fifty fifty. The nations that have proposed this have a strong voting bloc, which could lead to some interesting moves in the plenary session. 

On the other side, multiple amendments have been witnessed gaining traction. These amendments either fully strike the clause, or amend it to make the perceived “army” as more of a peacekeeping force.

Could this be the beginning of Europe’s rise to an international superpower? 

Only the plenary session will hold the answer.

 Tom Egan, BBC

All over the EU, younger people are faced with a personal crisis: where to live. With skyrocketing rent prices, student debt and unending waits for social housing, more 15–35-year-olds are homeless than ever, and it most certainly isn’t their fault. So, who’s fault is it?

In 2022, Hellas estate agencies reported that over the last 12 months, rental rates increased by 12%, and in England, in 2024, rental rates increased by 8.8%. This is to show that rates continue to rise, and many younger generations are unable to cope. Halifax building society coined the term ‘Generation Rent’, which describes market conditions for first time buyers. In 2011, Generation Rent suggested that anyone age 20-35 had little to no chance of owning their own property within the next 5 years. This evidence showcases the struggles of younger generations and the modern struggles to find affordable housing, let alone get onto the property ladder. However, this does not answer the question: why? A housing crisis does not simply happen, so why did it happen? Perhaps more aptly, who let it happen?

Many factors contribute to rising rental rates, each playing a role in the housing crisis. While it’s easy to place blame on any one factor, determining which is the most significant or sole cause is complex and a different question.

Firstly, financial crisis resulted in the reduced flow of ‘quick money’, meaning less were able to buy houses due to the unavailability of mortgages. This led to higher demand. As demand grows, the rental buildings increase in value and therefore the price is upped. Due to this, the increasing rental rates that mean the youth cannot afford to rent can be traced back to financial crises as far back as 2010.

On the other hand, student debt could be a root cause of the struggle to get onto the property ladder. This occurs because lenders look at the debt-to-income ratio to determine the risk in loaning money (the money that would be used to help in buying property). However, with a student debt, the debt-to-income ratio is impacted, and the credit score is lowered, meaning that a young person with student debt is less likely to be offered a loan to assist with getting on the property ladder. Furthermore, thought the increasing interest rates on student debts do not directly affect the ability to buy property, they result in the young person accumulating a higher debt, and therefore making rent, let alone property less affordable. Nonetheless, if the student loan was to be paid back in efficient time, it can benefit the credit score, meaning, if anything, they’d find it easier to get a mortgage, and for this reason, student debt cannot be named the sole blame of the youth housing crisis.

The current state of social housing could be argued to be a primary issue as the scheme is intended to be a solution to the housing crisis all over Europe, offering affordable housing for people in a certain tax bracket. However, as seen in the 1.3 million household waiting list in England alone, social housing is not fit to accommodate all the people it is intended to protect, meaning many people – not only youths – find themselves homeless, or in houses unfit for living in – because there is not available social housing. Using England as an example could be considered an inaccurate representation however as, after Margaret Thatcher’s Right to Buy scheme, hundreds of thousands of social housings were sold off, meaning there is currently less social housing overall, so there will undeniably be less available. Nevertheless, it can be seen EU-wide that young people are not prioritised for social housing and are therefore highly impacted by the minimal number of houses, leaving them much more likely to face homelessness.

In conclusion, though certain failures in social housing, and the detriments of student debts and credit scores are factors in the inability for young people to house themselves, the root of the cause is, in the end, the economy, as shown through the constantly rising rent, interest rates and the Right to Buy scheme.

Salma, EUobserver