Issuu on Google+

the

Confessional MAGAZINE OF THE EUROPEAN FORUM REGENSBURG

II

the

1 | C


Content 3 From Rick Astley Jan Bubienczyk

4 Committee Updates 6 Femminism

John Von Caprivi & Silvia Susach

8 Officials

Giada Benfatto

10 Yes, We Can’t John von Caprivi

12 Compromises Simon Kohl

14 What Just Happened? Committee Articles

23 Choices Within Luca Olumets

Team Editor: Jan Bubienczyk Assistant Editor: Tim Keegstra Video Editor: Heiko Brantsch Journalists: Luca Olumets Charif van Zetten Silvia Susach John von Caprivi Simon Kohl Giada Benfatto

2 | C the

Special thanks to: Angelika Maier Dan Brown Vivek Gathani


Lost my Game We’re no strangers to love You know the rules and so do I A full commitment’s what I’m thinking of You wouldn’t get this from any other guy I just wanna tell you how I’m feeling Gotta make you understand Never gonna give you up Never gonna let you down Never gonna run around and desert you Never gonna make you cry Never gonna say goodbye Never gonna tell a lie and hurt you We’ve known each other for so long Your heart’s been aching but You’re too shy to say it Inside we both know what’s been going on We know the game and we’re gonna play it And if you ask me how I’m feeling Don’t tell me you’re too blind to see Never gonna give you up Never gonna let you down Never gonna run around and desert you Never gonna make you cry Never gonna say goodbye Never gonna tell a lie and hurt you.

You were rickrolled and you lost the game!

the

3 | C

Jan Bubienczyk


ion of istribut d e h t g aomi iscussin ber states, N eds d s a w e m EMPL II hin me many n When our wit “Wh at if Ger b la t n a , ndered immigr (DE) po e id a Alc rs?” strippe

Wh tea en Sa commbui brina l vis mitt ding Bard ee du its e ick d du rin id no to ill (DE) gt hei t l et ness, coul h r fr t ee er do he re tim wn e. an

Surprisingl y enough, ECON wants to go on a vacation to Cuba, not only for the cheap drinks, but also to mock Hawaiian flower shirts.

t las e th a re g e n n r i ur . An E) a d g D ed din r ( fac buil ube r H su m ? ts tea Elif ight n e s r d n L’ al s, n t EMP Z) a nist e (C oo dd of Hi urs ová art ho šičk od c Ku y go all

the

4 | C

M O C T A D UP


All I and TRE m laz stre emb n i tea ness gthe ers fe n mb aft e uild er o ed, a l incr nd e ing ne and are dibl y . c a h full of onfid alf e e n da ys erge nt of int tic ens e

ld n o est t atte of t nd nd h pa e EN id h V er I

ing cogniz ize e r e m i n recog h ard t h ad a he y h ad to r Julia s e t a hen t del eg s poo IMCO t genders w ed. Or doe ne? n ld uli differe ther blindfo l very masc o n st fee one a (DE) ju s r e w Sie

LIBE se ducto t the all-t ime r r ec after y clauses just a by a g ord of fo rmula work r coup . t l e of eeing on minu their ing introtes in first o to co mmit ne tee

5 | C the

E E T T I M M S E T A


FIERCE WOMAN

VS

Silvia “Gold-digger” Susach explores the necessity of feminism in a world where gender equality is taken for granted. Writing articles is boring, unless you use your passion as a weapon. Fortunately, yesterday I had the urge to run to my laptop and start typing desperately. I am thankful to my Editors for awakening that passion in me. It was barely 4 pm when they expressed their deep disagreement with the necessity of feminism nowadays. Shocked as I was, I reminded them about the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality, which exists in a remarkable number of EYP sessions. Surprisingly, they thought it was pointless. The question I am willing to answer is the following: Is feminism still necessary nowadays? And if it is, why?

human beings, regardless of their sex. In any case, it does not aim to put women in a superior position, but to put both men and women at the same level.

men and women. Nevertheless, dear editors and anti-feminists of the world, I do believe that the problem lies in culture itself, that is, in education. Despite laws being passed, sexism still exists. I do believe that feminism is necessary, above all, as a change of attitude within society. Human beings have to learn how to pass on their heritage while getting rid of the old sexist prejudices, and the first step is detecting those conducts. As an example, think about plastic surgery. Almost all consumers are women, and we should wonder why. Society seems to believe that a woman who is not young and beautiful is simply uninteresting. And who has not heard some time that “men get better with age”? For some reason, society forces women to be perfect, but not men.

At this point, the readers might be wondering why does positive discrimination exist. It seems sensible to remind them that the adjective “positive” placed before “discrimination” is not there as an ornament. It makes reference to the fact that, by means of discriminating men in very specific circumstances, society gets a positive result in the far or near future. This method consists in offering opportunities to women by taking them from its original owners: mostly men. Positive Before judging the necessity of discrimination has become the feminism, it seems sensible to most controversial measure to define what it is. Sadly, many accelerate gender equality. An people dare criticize it without example of it can be found in making the effort to understand. some institutions, where there I believe that feminism is not Feminism is a movement that must exist a minimum propor- only a necessity, but also a aims to establish equal political, tion of women. priority. By promoting gender economic, and social rights, as equality, it is every human being well as equal opportunities for In any case, it is true that almost that will live in a better future. So women. In other words, the one all the countries from the Euro- make a difference, and dare to and only objective of feminism pean Union have achieved, at stand against ignorance. For is to achieve equality between least, legal equality between the world’s sake, be a feminist. the

6 | C


GET ME A SANDWICH

S

Gian Caius “Wife-beater� von Caprivi de Como delivers his view on feminism, and why it has to go.

For one, positive discrimination is never acceptable. Just as two wrongs do not make a right, positive discrimination will never make anything better. Positive discrimination is a cheap cop out. It is effectively saying that women are too incompetent to actually get jobs for themselves so instead, we must provide them. This is both insulting to women, and downright offensive to men. Why should the deciding factor between two job candidates be gender, regardless of which?

Secondly, inequality between men and women is an artificial concept. By their endless tirades over the most miniscule issues, feminists only serve to perpetuate this illusion. The best way to get rid of gender inequality is to ignore it. This may seem counterintuitive, but if we proceed with the attitude that men and women are inherently equal, then discrimination will effectively disappear. Today there are few, if any, Europeans that truly believe women are inferior. So why do we continue to act as if there are?

ly docile, weak, and fragile that any kind of sexualisation would break them. But that is not what I believe. I believe that women are beautiful and strong enough to stand for themselves; their sexuality should not be something to hide, but rather to celebrate.

Men and women have always coexisted. Their value is equally intrinsic. I am a firm believer in equal rights. However the degenerate modern form of feminism has little, if anything, to do with that. It has no foundation other than, perhaps, a general dislike of men. This kind of thinking is counterAnother of the most per- productive and degradplexing tenets of feminism is ing. If we truly strive for an its twisted concept of sexual egalitarian society, we must liberation. Why must wom- move forward without this en be ugly, unkempt, hairy, destructive and outmoded and braless to be liberated? thinking. Now where is that Why can we not rejoice in sandwich? the beauty of women, unencumbered by such prepositions? It is because feminism is based on the supposition that women are so natural-

7 | C the

Get back in the kitchen and make me a sandwich. This is what I feel like saying to feminists. This is not because I have any kind of disrespect for females. Nor is it due to any kind of feelings of male superiority. Rather, it is because feminism in modern Europe has degraded to such a shrill and irrational philosophy that the act of making a sandwich would have a greater benefit for society.


THE OFFICIAL BACKBONE Arriving in Regensburg as a delegate, you found everything already there and waiting for you. However, behind every session there is always a motivated officials’ team ready to welcome you. Whether the session is serious and debate-centred or very light-hearted and fun depends exclusively on how they set it up. It is certainly not a coincidence if the first thing you look for when applying to a session is the names of those who will be leading it. Chairs, journalists, and organisers, each guided by their respective leaders, all play a role in the way the session is laid out. Although these roles might differ substantially, it is essential that the teams work together to achieve optimal results. The first people you met at the session, your chairs, were there for you from the beginning of teambuilding until the end of the General Assembly. They were “a lighthouse in stormy weather”, as Nikola Lambrev puts it, whereas Evegniy Manko prefers the comparison to the security service inside a prison: without them everything would have fallen apart and at the same time the

8 | C

they made us feel safe. It is they who helped you through tough moments in committee work and it is they who motivated you when you get weary after a hard day of work. Part of their responsibility was to make sure your resolution came together. Additionally, in the words of Nicole Desirée Kruger, they were the ones who helped us when did not feel well. Furthermore, it was their role to make sure you enjoyed this session. These are great responsibilities and can get stressful at times, thus hug your chair the next time you see him or her. Nevertheless, even when doing all this, the chairs were dependant on the structure given to them by the programme, which was set up by the organisers. Under the guidance of the Head Organisers, they were the ones who planned the session to its finest details. They decided how long teambuilding lasted, when General Assembly will take place, and at what time of you were woken up every morning. “We set up the frame of the session,” Head Organiser Annika Heffter explains. “Without us nothing would


Chairs, organisers, and journalists – all of them contribute to making this session a unique event. Giada Benfatto displays the view of some of the session’s participants on the different roles.

work. Nobody would know where to go or what to do.” As rewarding as it may be though, organising remains a long and stressful process. It can even lead to nervous breakdowns if something goes wrong at the last minute. Therefore give them a hug as well; they will very much appreciate it after a day of hard work. Last but not least, there was the Media Team, which was composed of the journalists, Jan Bubiencyzk, the Editor, Tim Keegstra, assistant Editor, and Heiko Brantsch, the Video-Editor. Unlike the other officials, they were not bound by the session’s programme, probably making them the most deviant part of the officials’ team. In fact, their manner of action depended completely on the way the Editor structures it. The fact that your journalist was with you through out the entire program, was thanks to Jan Bubienczyk. It is more common to only catch glimpses of the journalists during a session. Do not forget to hug them too; they will get jealous if everyone else is getting hugged whilst they are not.

about Vivek Gathani, the President of the session. His primary role was one of guidance to the chairs. In the same way your chair supported you when you were struggling with a point in your resolution, he supported the chairs when had problems. Furthermore, the President was responsible for everything that happened at the session, from the behaviour of the officials to making sure the delegates had a great time. The overall flow of the session was hugely influenced by his effort. When you sum it up, the officials’ team consisted of a combination of three very diverse groups. They played different roles and may at times have had opposing views on how the session should work. However, the feeling you will have when you get on the train back home, like Vivek sometimes mentioned, were formed by the way the efforts came together. Therefore make sure to give them all a hug.

A final word should be said the

9 | C


CHANGE WE CAN’T BELIEVE IN Gian Caius Jesus Ibrahim von Caprivi de Como examines our current predicament and our options for resolving it.

the

10 |C

EYP has a fairytale ending. People from all over Europe come together and solve some of today’s most complicated problems. It seems magical - making friends and sharing this amazing experience. EYP has expanded to 34 countries and continues to grow. By any measure EYP is doing well. However, when we then look to Brussels, the EU is in a sorry state indeed. The Eurozone is teetering on the edge of collapse. The EU stands completely paralysed when confronted with the waves of immigrants from across the Mediterranean. Why is EYP prospering whilst the EU is on the brink of catastrophe? Lisbon is a damp rag. The Treaty of Lisbon was supposed to change everything, to be the crux of a new age of European brotherhood. However, it was an utter letdown in many respects. Instead of bringing about a tenacious new Europe, it only widened the gap between the world of the institutions and the European people. Instead of establishing a figurehead that Europe can look up to, we have the likes of van Rumpoy, a man whose personality has been aptly described as that of a “low grade bank clerk”. Instead of having a European Hillary Clinton, we have the depressingly inadequate Baroness Ashton and let’s just say she is not exactly the prettiest flower in the field. Instead of bringing direct democracy, we have opened a window for extremist ideology. Instead making the EU more efficient, simple, and accessible, it brought only disappointment. Only the most freakish Europhilic can find anything truly satisfying about this overwrought treaty. There is no doubt that the days of


The EU stands at a critical juncture. At such a time it is sheer negligence to stand by Lisbon. Now is the time for change, and unless we act swiftly and with purpose, we risk destroying 60 years worth of progress. We need radical reform to usher in a brave new Europe. However, what this brave new Europe will look like and, more importantly, who will be calling the shots is a highly controversial issue. I cannot tell you what will happen, but I can give you my thought on the matter. There seems to be only two general approaches to resolving our current situation. The first would be to dismantle the common institutions of the Union. By severing the institutional links between the member states would be less affected by situations of crises. For example, if not for the Euro, the debt crisis would be contained in the financially insolvent peripheral countries. Countries such as Spain, though still with their own problems, would not be plagued by plummeting currency confidence. Strong economies such as Germany and Austria would remain virtually unaffected. However to break the common institutions would mean the undoing of over 60 years of hard work. Not only would it make every treaty since Rome null, but in normative terms, Europe would be worse off. The EU would never have come close to this stage of in-

tegration if it did not benefit from these measures. Sure some countries lose a bit here, but they win elsewhere. By and large integration is an effective and successful concept; to undo everything that has already been accomplished would be senseless. The other option for resolving the current crisis is increased integration. However, within this option there are two distinct approaches; the intergovernmental and the supranational. The intergovernmental approach is basically the idea that decisions should be taken by gatherings of national officials. This approach is embodied in the European Council and the Council of Ministers. The supranational approach is manifested in the European Commission and Parliament, i.e. having separate bodies for EU-level decisions, independent from national governments. The intergovernmental school argues that their way offers the effectiveness of the common policies all the while allowing the member states to retain a high level of sovereignty. However, the main problem is that national ministers are, first and foremost, politicians at the national level. They will always give priority to their short term political interests. Putting these people in positions where they are supposed to make a decision for the best of Europe is a toxic situation. Supranationalism is the only viable option, as increased competencies and independence of EU bod-

11 |C the

Lisbon are numbered. In today’s world it is akin to giving someone with emphysema cough syrup.

ies seem to be the answer. These institutions would be able to implement effective and impartial solutions for the best of all Europe. The counter claim that the institutions are undemocratic is grossly simplistic. “Why do we not have an elected Commission!” is a common and a very British source of discontent. Do you actually vote for your ministers in your own country? No. You elect them indirectly, but you have no say in who they are. Why should the EU be any different? One of the biggest improvements that can be made is to impart constitutional competencies to the institutions. Every time the EU’s structure needs to be altered, instead of having a drawn out treaty processes, the EU could simply amend itself. Just think, Lisbon was delayed over a year just because of a referendum in a country of 3 million. Some of the changes are a hard pill to swallow, but if Europe is to thrive it must come together. We will never get anywhere with the endless bickering of national politicians and breaking up the Union would have even worse implications. EYP is a perfect example of how Europeans can not only get along together, but thrive. By thriving here together in EYP, we can lay the foundations for a better tomorrow. Our differences are miniscule in comparison to our common desires. We must put the past behind us, and proceed hand in hand.


POLEARNINGUB SFDAHOWASDFS SADHFLPOJCOM Europe at a regional level. Simon Kohl investigates as to whether Europe fails right at its heart. Following Mister Weber along his chain of arguments, the points he brought up did certainly not seem entirely unreasonable. Splitting up Europe into its smallest elements, it is the communities that it all comes down to. Even within the borders of member states differences in their individual needs and aspirations are more than obvious. Given the framework of the EU it is only too understandable, that legislation-making for a regional level can be a delicate issue. So yes, the European Union is an immense undergoing, still even increasing in extent. Yes, that is part of the reason as to why the decisionmaking process and the

12 |C the

“Cities are continuously torn between the European Single Market and local government oriented interests”. Wait a minute. Have we not heard that exact phrasing just the other day? During the speech Regensburg`s Mayor Weber delivered? Indeed and we were even told more as he proceeded: “The increasing Europeanization of local politics is often not met by sufficient participation of local governments on EU decisions.” Where we really given to understand, that this unique Institution, fails at its very heart? At its ma jor target field, namely the abundance of communities the European Union is composed of?

implementation of laws are incredibly complex. And yes again this complexity, inherent of the nature of the EU, can definitely cause tensions and misunderstandings. Still all these slight problems should surely not make us question the idea as a whole. On the contrary, I would personally even take these symptoms, if you will, as a sign of too little “Europeanization”. Part of the reason as to why local authorities feel insufficiently involved, even undermined by the EU at times, is that too many national institutions at too many levels have a saying in the respective political areas. This keeps the level


BAGHHJSVDFGH SADATOKAJDAS MPROMISELSKD of beaurocracy high, even if claimed differently, and artificially traps the communication between the actual parties concerned in detours. Handing over more responsibility in certain fields might even make the whole process of decisionmaking smoother and in doing so more efficient and targeted.

resolutions will have very little actual impact, if any at all. Investigating on exactly this point, the replies were frankly speaking not too unexpected. According to Tim Backhaus (FI) from ECON the main reason to participate is the EYP spirit. Valerie (AT) from EMPL I reacted in a similar fashion: �I just enjoy being here. I actually don`t really care that our work does not have any direct influence.� Does this not prove all the more that even though seemingly failing at being heard, one should neither stop voicing one`s concerns and opinions nor challenge a fundamentally great concept?

The first thing that actually popped into my mind, when hearing of authorities that were under the impression of being unheard, were the participating delegates of the session. How is it that they never seem to get tired of discussing issues over and over again, whilst knowing that their The European Single Marthe

13 |C

ket, even though probably not perfect in quite some respects, is a huge achievement. As it has brought about great economic success along with countless changes, one should surely not forget about these benefits, when addressing its mistakes. In doing so we should try to come up with constructive ideas, preferably strengthening the concept of approaching it on a European level. As shown by our fellow delegates before, a certain amount of ideologism is probably not entirely out of place.


IT STAR CHAMPAG Luca Olumets tries to prove that the secret sins of ECON make them unique. There is no shame in being a sinner. Not admitting it, on the other hand, is a dreadful act. I am sincerely thankful that the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs is fully aware of an appalling habit they have. They want to get as much out of life as possible, but for the smallest price possible. Simply, they are one greedy group of people and it is acceptable because they feel no shame.

this committee won the bucket race. Apparently victory is not enough because after being crowned as winners ECON stole water from every committee to top off their own bucket. Greedy delegates agreed that this was a noble act and allowed them an extraordinary champagne dance. Those moves have been following this committee for the last four days whenever there is an awkward moment of silence or just a need for a According to some theolo- relaxed dance routine. gists greed is considered to be an eternal sin. ECON One would think that the is like a pocket book of im- tremendous amount of witty moral acts. In order for them tricks and the champagne to start the struggling road dance are all there is to to recovery the truth has to ECON, but they would be far be said out loud. On Tues- from it. ECON delegates are day, slightly after six o’clock full to the brim of fascinatthe

14 |C

ing secrets. For some reason Tim Backhaus dislikes his country more than just a little bit. That is why he spends his free time exploring other cultures and learning new languages. I will not tell you where Tim is from because I would not like to make the other Finns feel bad. Also, Jan Janouch (CZ) has a dangerous addiction to traveling. He is convinced that the trip he made on top of the roof of a Jeep in Italy was remarkably safe. Lisa Satolli (NL) did not have a wild trip story to share but she told the tale of her bungee jumping experience, which made her exceedingly brave in the eyes of other committee members. Tuesday’s Eurovillage raised


RTED WITH GNE a lot of stories about food and drinks. Jennifer Labe (DE) revealed that she loves spinach. That recurringly sweet silence surrounding ECON after that story was spiced up when Rassoul Pourassad (SE) told everybody that he has eaten cake with the prime minister of Sweden. Meanwhile, Laura Thiemt (DE), the future of our health and safety department, mixed up the calm aura by telling everybody that she has touched the human brain. Food and anatomy – This is not the best combination.

childhood stories out of the blue, proved this. All these tales were told during committee work while Sarandra Ha jdari (KS) and Rojan Amini-Nejad (DE) were trying their best to focus either on the topic or the clapping game. Furthermore, during the committee dinner Johan Hedlund (SE) and Gustaf Åkerman (SE) made sure that everybody, and I do mean everybody, in Regensburg understood that they are from Sweden. I really hope their voices from singing will recover within a week. Meanwhile, Colin Hablützel (CH) was incredibly All in all, ECON is not known eager to figure out whether for its great combinations. Apple really trumps the PC. I The chair, Sebastian Hosu cannot be fully objective as (RO), who has an incredible I own a mac myself. talent of telling the weirdest the

15 |C

ECON definitely does not feel ashamed for being a group of sinful people. They take greedy little tricks for granted and do not worry about their voices or dancing skills. I am sure they will get over their little greedy habits and continue trying fascinating things in life. If they want they can get as much as possible out of life, but the committee just has to continue being the wonderful group of people they already are.


TINKERBELL GETS TAPED Gian Caius Julius Caesar von Caprivi de Como reveals the truly epic nature of EMPL II

jamin let out his absolutely hysteric laugh, it didn’t take long before the rest of the committee was cracking up. Everyone, that is, except the stone-faced Irene who was able to keep her cool for the entire game. As the day went on, the countless comical situations and puzzling games left the committee with more than a few memories. By the end of Tuesday it was as if the committee members had known each other for their entire lives. On Wednesday, “Honey, tell me that you love me” brought about the most silly and sexy aspects of the committee. Again, Irene dominated with her immovably stern expression. On the other hand, Naomi and Marketa could hardly keep from laughing. All one had to do was give Naomi a funny look and her quivering lip quickly would turn into an uncontrollable chuckle. Soon however, teambuilding ended and committee work started. EMPL II was tasked

16 |C the

From the outside, the second Committee on Employment (EMPL II) might not seem so different from any other. On closer inspection, one finds out that EMPL II is anything but normal. With so many distinct personas and memorable situations, EMPL II is definitely a committee to be reckoned with. This manifested itself as soon as the teambuilding began. Right after the name games, the committee proceeded to two truths and a lie. Lisa Reicher revealed that she often picks fight with boys while Luckas told that he is, in fact, quite the dancer. There was some initial apprehension about how this wild committee would be able to work together. However as the teambuilding progressed, it was obvious that this team would be, frankly, kick-ass. One of the most memorable games was definitely the laying and laughing game. Despite a slow start, as soon as Ben-

with finding the solution of how to maintain Europe’s welfare system despite the demographic changes, especially concerning immigration. Though the committee progressed fast, they wrangled with the problem of how to ensure that immigrant labour is properly distributed while still maintaining basic human rights. It was especially difficult because of the EU policy of freedom of movement of labour. However, in the end EMPL II was able to find a comprehensive solution that struck an appropriate balance. EMPL II has been through so much but still finished strong. I have seen a lot of committees in my time with EYP, but never have I seen such a dynamic, intelligent, and happy committee as EMPL II. So to other committees: beware, EMPL II has been known to kick ass.


TO JOIN OR NOT TO JOIN Charif van Zetten sheds a different light on energy future Turkey-EU relations through processes ITRE undertook.

Like willing sheep, the committee members were guided to safety by their shepherd Lea Rösner. It was an extremely sunny day in a field in Regensburg, when seven complete strangers started

their six-day journey to create limitless mutual trust. For trust is an essential component of future relations, as Benedetta Inguscio experienced when Alitalia failed to deliver her suitcase to the right airport. Of course not only trust was built, but also tight time scheduling and close cooperation were developed when ITRE engaged in solving the blind human knot coordinated by Alexander Heβ. Finally, they ended the day as merchants at Eurovillage.

to comments such as “Hey guys, why are we talking about Turkey?” After finding their way out of this vicious circle, the committee was on a role and started collecting all the relevant facts under Malin Musers’ leadership. As committee work progressed from stage to stage, the walls became ever more remarkable by Jetro Vienola’s drawings of Europe. In the end, whilst concluding two days of intense committee work with a delicious dinner, Daniel Yu was the first one to figure out the pointing game Although during teambuild- initiated by Franziska Maurer. ing the committee developed a sense for squares through All in all, the committee emplaying the blind square, bodied a diverse set of qualicommittee work started off ties, which were all utilized in circles. As mentioned be- to their full potential. Even fore it proved to be incred- though ITRE personified the ibly hard to clear the mind’s sin of sloth, they managed boundaries and think in more to finish their resolution on shades, than simply black time. The result is a reflecand white. The question “so, tion of two days of hard work should the EU allow Turkey by a team flooding with EYP to become a member state?” spirit. This committee defikept on stalking the del- nitely proved to be a Shakeegates. Sometimes leading spearean in the making.

17 |C the

A question, but not the question. Although the Shakespearian title suggests otherwise, the Committee on Industry Research and Energy was not given the primary task of deciding whether Turkey should either join the EU or not. Instead, they had to target a closely related topic heavily affecting future Turkey-EU relations, with at the core formulating energy policies. People tend to judge this kind of issue with a black and white kind of philosophy, with black being a resolute no and white a definite yes to the question whether Turkey should enter the EU. However, in order to get to an effective and adequate resolution ITRE had to reach a consensus by investigating the grey area in between.


Through whichever means or games, bonding between people consumes quite some time. In order for people to really feel familiar with one another it sometimes even takes years. In this light EYP can truly function as a time machine. In less than two days of teambuilding a strong team of what previously was a bunch of strangers can truly be assembled. Initial hesitations are forgotten about and shyness is turned into open-armed sympathy. Even turned into a sort of amicality, that is usually only shared between people that would also call themselves friends, if there was no such thing as Facebook. Nevertheless, this fast-forward friend-making mode does not come without a price tag. It is the result of jumping one`s personal borders and thus not always the simplest task. This was also observable during the efforts the committee on Employment and Social Affairs I made, for instance while being asked to sing the song “F*** you!” by Cee Lo Green on the first day, the delegates almost seemed irritated. So

HOUR PLEAS

Simon Kohl accompa the process of evolvi (NL) ironic remarks and creative ideas of cheating that cheered the group up: ”It does not matter if our hair touches, right? So why don`t we just tie our hair to Even though the newly it and pull?” formed EMPLI certainly approached the team-building After the first two intense games with enthusiasm, I days EMPLI was looking forhave admittedly experi- ward to moving on to anenced committees before other crucial part of the that broke the ice faster. session, the actual commitIt took them a little while tee work. First off it was unto get communicating and voiced reluctance though successfully tackle what that seemed to predomiwas asked to be solved. nate the committee`s atClearly they were not func- titude when hearing they tioning as one team from would have to move to town the beginning on, but the for committee-work. The time machine was certain- more they felt relieved and ly set running. Even though happy with finding what not always exactly helpful in could easily be entitled as the particular tasks, it was the nicest committee room especially Frank Heijboer`s in session. Not only did they how is it that this group of young Europeans eventually managed to warm up and unite in order to efficiently reach one common goal?

18 |C the

„You used to give us hours of pleasure”-“I still don`t get it. I mean, I know by now that I`m Italian, have a mustache and wear red.”-“Well,you go after princesses kidnapped by dragons too, and kind of always walk right bound.”“Hmm…am I Super Mario?” The conversation you just read is a quite typical example that arose during one of many teambuilding games.


RS OF SURE

anies EMPL I during ing into one team.

In order to start discussing EMPLI picked the story of Abigail, which is wellknown amongst EYPers. The task was to come up with a common judgment of the characters behaviors. In the retrospective this game certainly foreshadowed the controversial but constructive debate that was to follow: Whereas the boys clearly questioned

Sindbad`s moral integrity the most, Nicole Weber (AT) argued that he had actually just offered a trade. In doing so, Nicole had most of EMPLI`s girls on her side, what lead to a lengthy discussion hereafter. As aforementioned the committee was undergoing a Then, finally, the committee rapid process that surely inreached its actual battle- corporated many highs and ground. Namely the ques- smaller lows. Throughout all tion as to how personal times of team-building as rights of employees can be well as committee-work EMstrengthened while not in- PLI could rely on the guidfringing with company`s ance of its passionate chair discretionary competences. Ingrid Sårheim (NO). I am It was particularly interest- certain the committee creing to observe in what way ated a convincing resoluEMPLI approached this is- tion, it will be exciting to sue. After all, the committee see it up for discussion durseemed to have become ing GA. Full-heartedly I can a dynamic group by now, say that accompanying this with each and every one of committee was a great exthe delegates having their perience for me.

19 |C the

get to enjoy high ceilings decorated with crown moldings, a beautifully patterned wooden floor and a huge mirror-covered back wall, but also a big and cozy carpet. Given this living-room atmosphere, one could not picture better preliminaries for successful and lively debates.

share. Charlotte Bach (DE) seemed to be some sort of mediator of the group, never growing tired of involving the whole group in what was currently going on. Nicole Weber (AT) constantly made sure the discussions were not going too far off topic whereas Frank was having an eye on the actual applicability of their ideas: “Making laws from an idealistic point of view is not going to lead to solutions that work in reality.” At a certain point in time though, the group apparently revolved around the same ma jor ideas over and over again. In this phase of stagnation it was Elif Huber (DE) who took over a key role and put lots of effort into involving all committee members into the debate. When Valerie Nitsche (AT) came up with an igniting and fresh idea, the whole team seemingly regained motivation and finally the confidence that they would create a well thought-through resolution spread.


the way to solve the challenge made. Especially Jara Verkleij (NL), who proved to be one of the strongest and most freethinking women I have ever had the chance to meet. What I truly admire is that she is very clear about her principles, and she is neither afraid of defending them, nor worried about people judging her. Nevertheless, the real conflicts appeared during committee work, where Wolf Last (DE), who also held strong opinions, had

reaching compromise. Julia Siewers (DE) could not have put it in better words: “Convincing is not going to happen, so let’s reach compromise”. Their lack of consensus provided a fruitful and interesting discussion. Disagreeing was the proof that they were on the right track. After realising that consensus was unlikely to happen, delegates felt forced to reach commitment. It was not an easy task, but they succeeded. With the help of the enlightening Leni Zumbusch (DE), who efficiently contributed in the most difficult moments of the discussion, IMCO could finally come up with some bright solutions. Not to mention Igor Woloschtschuk (AT), who was an essential element for minimizing cultural differences by means of his simple but still useful contributions.

Silvia Susach explores compromise as a way of tackling the lack of consensus

It surprised me to see that the delegates of IMCO had diverse backgrounds and opposite opinions in many issues. After realising that convincing each other was unlikely to work, the delegates put all their efforts into

20 |C the

As hours went by, IMCO stopped being a group of strangers facing challenges to become a group of people with a common objective. The arrival of the last delegate, Benjamin Dousa (SE), who made very interesting contributions during both teambuilding and committee work, helped complete the team. IMCO proved to have a healthy self-criticism at all times, and whenever they failed in a game, they were always willing to try again. I was very glad to see how they always fighted to find the right path, that is,

to defend an opposite opinion to Jara’s. Unable to convince each other, they had to rely on commitment and find a common position. Fortunately, they succeeded in doing so. But what if commitment fails? What if a delegate refuses to move a bit forward from his original opinion? I believe that when a meeting point between opinions does not exists, the committee has to move on and defend the opinion chosen by the ma jority.

I am really glad that I spent these days next to such a bright bunch of people. EYP has proved once again that one should never stop learning from others. IMCO has taught me a lesson: no matter how different the backgrounds of people are, they will still be able to find the “middle road” if they are willing to. I am sure that all of them are going to succeed not only in their EYP career but also in their personal lives, and I can’t wait to meet them again.

LEARNING TO COMPROMISE

A group of youngsters is standing under the German sun. I walk towards them, and warm smiles welcome me as I join the circle. From the very beginning, IMCO looked like a Committee with a lot of potential to exploit. All its members seemed to be integrated in the team in a very short time, and every single person collaborated in solving the challenges proposed by their chair, Niklas (DE). After some name games, Nela Gábrisová (CZ) joined the committee too. Her manners denoted patience and peace, which made me realise that she would be a very important element for the committee’s development. Every group of human beings needs a person to represent a middle point, a person who can understand the opinions of both sides and make them realise their similarities.


All committees start off with a circle of strangers looking at each other apprehensively. ENVI’s circle was made up of people excitedly wondering what was to happen next. These nine individuals soon revealed to possess an energy that would be characteristic to them for the duration of the session. These delegates did not just play the games, but adapted them to make them more exciting. The ninja game was spiced up by some excellent sound effects, while Sophie Rialland introduced the “Rio” move to Street Fighter. As if this was not enough, the magic square was formed in less than one minute. Marieke van Bladel even found a way to outsmart the coin game.

Luckily, it only took him ten seconds of fame, a game of twister, and a few rounds of pass the orange to get to know the group. Concerning the latter, one should not put Federico Lorenzon and Nina Gohlke next to each other if one wants to avoid hysterical laughter and losing of the ball. At the end of the day, ENVI proved that they had grown much closer as a group by paying visit to the ill Sabrina Bardick during their spare time. Wednesday, also marked

While at the beginning of Committee Work the debate went smoothly and ideas piled up until there was a shortage of postits, the committee soon hit rock bottom. When discussing the possible approaches against industries with excessively high CO2 emissions, a debate sparked whether the measures against these companies should be under the responsibility of supranational or regional entities. Several minutes of debating later, the argument had evolved to the point where nobody knew what the discussion was about. A short break followed by an accumulation of ideas on a flip chart and an economy-related explanation from Mattias Dec finally solved it. Even Nicole Krüger, who until that moment had been holding back, got more involved. By the end of the day, the committee had a finalised and solid resolution in their hands.

Giada Benfatto recounts the story of how nine enviWous beings became a group hugging, Riodancing, Mazinga shouting team.

21 |C the

Of course, there were also multiple challenges. Working like a team rather than individuals turned out to be a challenge for these strong personalities. Additionally, one of the delegates, Mattias Dec, only arrived on Tuesday.

the beginning of committee work, which involved making the committee room more comfortable. Some stolen mattresses became a comfy sofa in a corner, however they ended up attracting the wrath of the youth hostel lady. At the same time, Nikola Lambrev and Evgeniy Manko improvised a “chair-dance” with the help of two small stools. With a great ambience achieved, the committee went on to tackle the problem they had been presented. Due to the technical aspects of the question, this would soon prove to be much harder than expected.

One can never predict how a committee will turn out. What appeared to be an energetic, yet individually driven committee turned into a solid team that dance the “Rio” every time they group hug. And, although one of the things that irritate me about committee topics is the way they all seem to end in the cheesiest manner you can imagine, no other words seem to apply. ENVI has been one of the better

GREEN OUT OF ENVY

I associate the committee on Environmental Affairs with dull topics and unimaginative resolutions and it is admittedly not my favourite committee. However, this particular ENVI could not create a bigger contrast to my earlier experiences. The dominating characteristics, creativity, and motivation, were brought to good use due to a challenging topic.


THE REFUSED OFFERS Charif van Zetten engages in a dialogue with the Godfather

However, before proceeding to the actual debating, there is the need to familiarize with the committee. Knowing all the names is one thing, trusting each other and being willing to give your life for your team is another. After the first few introductions it is clear that we are dealing with an extraordinary committee. With members ranging from lusty hip hop dance queens, Laura Kuntschmann and Alexandra Klima, to the Dutch supermodel Sophie Droogendijk. The three headed couple

exhibited their competence when the sinners of LIBE were asked to invent and perform a choreography to their personal lusty song, “I just had sex” by Lonely Island and Akon. Furthermore, the committee proved successful at completing the spider’s web in full silence and it appeared that strong bonding between the committee members had taken place. Under the natural leadership of delegate Sebastian Hermann, LIBE started their first day of committee work. With only minimal guidance from their chair, the committee tackled problem after problem. After having started for just five minutes, Vladislav Valiev came up with the first introductory clause in the form of a definition that everyone agreed upon. During the subsequent hours, although ups and downs were present, this close group of people seemed to have caught the perfect EYP philosophy. The next day of committee

22 |C the

“Infiltration in diverse functional areas of the EU by mafia organizations”. As the topic is promising to be one of the most exciting subjects of this session, so is the committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs. The committee, led by Mita Talenti, is likely to face tough dilemmas during committee work, involving Europol along with installing and regulating existing European law concerning mafia organizations.

work was characterized by a specific smell, evoking the need for thorough investigation. The committee eventually found out that the smell found its origins in Emanuele Cossa’s clothes. He apparently lost his luggage at the airport and had been walking around in outfit of the day before, which explained the funny smell in room 227. Even under these circumstances, LIBE stayed on the right track and they were well ahead of their schedule thanks to critical thinkers Maximilian Reichart and Katerina Zejdlova. In the end, this particular committee came up with a whole set of refreshing, innovative, and high-quality ideas that will be presented in GA. The immense effort that has been put into this resolution will not go unnoticed. LIBE is on its way to reap the rewards when making their final proposal; one that even godfather Don Corleone could not resist.


THE CHOICES WITHIN Luca Olumets tries to prove how EYP is filled with endless opportunities to challenge yourself.

Surprisingly, proving something to be viable can take a lot of time. This is proven by the fact that it took four years to legally recognise EYP as an organisation. Furthermore, during this period of time the very first sessions were already being held. The frequency of sessions kept growing throughout the

years and by now the number of participants has risen to 40000. The amount of youngsters taking part in sessions every year is astonishing and the reasons for doing so are remarkably different. Firstly, EYP gives a unique chance to get engaged in European politics. As people do not have the possibility to debate on current economical issues and political problems every day, they find the discussions in EYP extremely motivating. A session provides a right place at the right time to share thoughts and opinions on contemporary issues. People who come to sessions to share their ideas and thoughts will not be disappointed by the amount of discussions taking place during a few days. In addition, sharing ideas is exceptionally mind opening and especially if you have a significant group of people to share these thoughts and opinions with. EYP gives a

23 |C the

Everything has a reason. Either it is a simple motive, a rational thought or a certain fact. European Youth Parliament started out modestly but has been gaining popularity throughout the years. The organisation did not become recognised or wellknown overnight, instead it started quietly as a school project. Back then, in 1987, no one would have guessed that 24 years later 33 countries will have joined this organisation. Moreover, no one could have predicted that there will be so many motives for doing EYP. This just proves the fact that faith has a tendency to surprise us.

fantastic opportunity to learn about others and spot cultural differences between countries. What is more, simple communication is highly appreciated and making friends in EYP is relatively easy due to the large amount of common interests people share. EYP is full of choices. It may be a rational thought or a certain fact that drives people to decision making in EYP. What matters is that people understand why they like going to sessions and whether or not they enjoy it. Understanding things acquires time but hopefully it does not take people 4 years to realise that EYP is beneficial and full of many different opportunities to challenge yourself.


the

C

the

24 |C


Second and final issue of The Confessional.