Aidan Stern, Thomas Repass, March 21st, 2024
The Model Council of the European Union met on March 11th and 12th. This was a two day event where local high school students studying AP European history or US government could role play countries in the European Union government. The problems before them were to discuss immigration, artificial intelligence (AI) security, and Chinese trade policies. Multiple propositions floated around the conference hall while countries flip-flopped on positions. We reported on their process and interviewed the leaders of the discussions. It almost felt like a council session if not for passionate spouts of European racial purity by non-Europeans.
When we walked into the event, Mr. Baker and the smell of coffee greeted us. Tables in the conference hall formed a square space with a podium for announcements along a wall with presentations and an empty center for informal meetings. Students settled in and began conversing together or grabbed a muffin from the cafe. Once every representative filed into the hall, the president of the European Council, also a student, called the meeting into order. A pair of Virginia Tech College students and one of their professors briefed the assembly members about the problems they needed to legislate and vote on together. These dilemmas included at what levels they trust free AI development, at what rate to allow immigrants to enter the EU (if any), and how to address a joint trade policy with China.
Afterward, the leaders from each member country read their position statements aloud to proclaim their viewpoints to everyone in the room. The countries had a wide variety of opinions on the debated issues. However, there was a common theme to each viewpoint. Countries who wished to regulate immigration, AI, and Chinese trade worried about how liberal policies could hurt the liberties of their current citizens. Countries who hoped to bolster their economy worried about stagnation based on restrictive regulations and thought that less restrictive legislation would help them stay competitive on the global stage. Interestingly, countries held alternating views on each subject.
After position statements, the floor was open for discussion, allowing students to mingle and collaborate on bills. Each team tried to follow their country's viewpoints while roleplaying their country's quirks. At the end of the first day, three different policies competed on immigration.
At the start of the second day, we invited Hungary, Cyprus, Sweden, and the Czech Republic for interviews. We found that the countries grappled with practicality and idealism. The politicians had to weigh the positive or negative effects of Chinese trade against Chinese human rights abuses and choose the best option for their regime and country.
The Hungarian prime minister Rishi told us, “Hungary has maintained its position since the beginning of the debate. Right now, we really do like China and like a lot of other countries, but we are going to wait to see where the vote is going, and if we end up having to leave China, then we are cool with that, and we don’t want to make too many enemies.”
They also clashed over the idealism of wanting a safe place for all people while not wanting a rush of migrants overwhelming their countries. Because the delegates needed unanimous agreement on these issues, intense bargaining ensued. Some countries drove uncompromising values, while others used immigrants as bargaining chips for economic development.
Naveed, the Dutch prime minister, said, “I love the fact that this was spread out over two days and not just one day because we learned from our mistakes the first day, so we can be super super efficient today. As a group, we realized no one was centralizing the massive immigration legislation, so we said, ‘We are going to do that.’ So, we drafted up a bill and brought it in today. While we are trying to help immigrants find a way into the EU, we are also trying to find a way to help stop immigrants from going to small countries that don’t want them.”
There were several prominent challenges that these proposals faced. Some policies ballooned with misinformation, like a game of telephone gone out of control. Meanwhile, conservative countries liked the status quo and were less likely to budge on their agreements.
Later on, bills coalesced and merged according to agreements between countries. An AI bill emerged that established a regulatory body of member states to further focus on the issue. The other legislation had to take a more pragmatic approach. Because many countries wouldn’t cut off trade with China, the Czech Republic devised a plan to decrease tariffs on countries that compete with China to incentivize member countries to buy alternative products in response to Chinese humanitarian abuses. Additionally, Sweden, The Netherlands, Cyprus, and Lithuania co-authored a bill on immigration. The bill would establish immigration centers in countries that wanted migrants. The EU countries would jointly fund the immigration centers that needed basic housing and amenities as well as work visas to stay in the country. However, each country could only reject a certain proportion of immigrants’ visas before funding for the centers dried up.
At the end of the second day, the council voted on each resolution. The students have to pass a qualified majority for their resolution on AI and two unanimous decisions on immigration and Chinese trade policy. A qualified majority requires at least 55% of countries in the EU to agree with 65% of the total EU population. The two other decisions need unanimity because they involve foreign security and policy.
The Council President tallied the votes and found that the resolution for AI was passed by a qualified majority, but several countries vetoed the policies on immigration and trade.
Following the vote were closing remarks from a Virginia Tech Professor who stressed the importance of this event and thanked the event’s organizer, The Center for European and Transatlantic Studies (CEUTS). Teachers also handed out awards for the best delegates from each school. Mr. Baker recognized Emma Amodeo, Bradon Hu, Xavier Gitre, and Naveed Jantzen as the outstanding leaders from Blacksburg High School.
While the students might not have achieved everything they set out for, they celebrated the bill accomplished. Through our time at the model debate, we observed that communication is the hardest part. They stood against each other, trying to bridge the gap between your thoughts and the unknown. Furthermore, they needed to convince everyone that what they made was exceptional and practical in a limited time frame. Sometimes, you hope beyond hope that others receive your olive branch with compassion and interest, but sometimes, your plans get thrust back into your face. That is the careful game we play in deal-making and interpersonal relationships. This model council of the EU might not be so different from many other parts of our lives.
The journalism team gives a huge thank you to Mr. Baker for inviting us and to all organizers at Virginia Tech and CEUTS for providing this opportunity for local students.
Comments