THE DAILY TRACTOR

EditorialPress Room at 04.15 am. While we were still editing for this issue, we couldn’t resist anymore and decided to join the popular ‘selfie’ craziness nowadays. This is what we got!

Also at this issue, we decided to have the controversial ‘GMOs’ as our cover topic. In the following pages, you will be able to learn all the insights of it and make up your mind about this complicated of this issue.

Lastly, we’d particularly like to thank Lewin Schmitt for his precious help with the design of our tractor logo.

Enjoy!

Onur & Olivier

Table of ContentOur European Matryoshka Identity//Monica MaurelliCommittee Article on CULT//Lauri LahtinenTimeline of Farming//Monica Maurelli & Emre ÖrendilCover Topic: Genetically Modified Food DilemmaWhat is GMO?//Lauri LahtinenInfographic: Genetically Modified OrganismGo Home Greenpeace//Gustaf WestinFrankenfood Phenomenon//Silja TuovinenIntroduction to the European Union//Tim BackhausINTA on the Dancefloor//Gustaf WestinYou, Delegates!//Kira LangeThe Time Bomb Ninja//Kira LangeMasters of The Human Knot//Silja Tuovinen

This Issue was brought to you by:

Emre Örendil (TR)Giz Belkaya (TR)

Gustaf Westin (SE)Kira Lange (DE)

Lauri Lahtinen (FI)Monica Maurelli (IT)Silja Tuovinen (FI)

Tim Backhaus (CH/FI)

Olivier Rostang Rejdvik (FR/SE)Onur Can Uçarer (TR)

According to the biblical tradition, a long time ago the inhabitants of the city of Babel tried to build a high tower in order to reach the sky. They were so determined to pursue their arrogant aim of feeling superior over all the other populations that they totally forgot to be respectful and com-prehensive to each other during the progress of the project. For that reason, God decided to pun-ish their haughty ambition by mixing their lan-guages; all of a sudden, the inhabitants of Babel weren’t able to understand each other anymore, and so obliged to abandon the construction of the tower. The legend reveals how the act of creation should necessarily result from different factors. Even if diversity might lead to some misunderstandings, it is essential; indeed, it represents the salvation from the malediction of the tower of Babel. And Europe perfectly em-bodies the importance of diversity; our different languages, traditions and national identities induce us to cooperate and improve our willingness to understand each other. If we imagine our identity like a Russian Matryoshka doll, namely a set of wooden dolls of decreasing size placed one inside the other, we can say that our common Europe-an culture is the wood of which our identity is created. Dante as well as Cervantes, Shakespeare, Kafka, Hugo and Bergson belong to our cultur-

al blood. The multiple faces of our Matryoshka identity perfectly embody the richness of diver-sity in our life: our identity is at the same time re-gional, national and international: different social environments and knowledge combine together to build our personality. In the same way – as a positive feedback - the chaos of our personality should allow us to penetrate and understand the complexity of our European identity. This shows the key concept of the diversity of Europe as the

expression of the individual, and the European integration as the effect of the construction of each citizen’s personality. Participating in a Euro-pean project such as a session of the European Youth Parliament is like becoming one of the in-struments of a “European orchestra”, in which different tones and rhythms blend in order to cre-ate a melody, always able to maintain its harmoni-ous equilibrium within the diversity of the sounds. The European reality can be actually compared to a Jackson Pollock’s artwork. The artist said, “you should not watch the canvas, you have to go in the canvas”. You have to be one of the little spots that create the colourful painting to really experience

the value of an International Session: namely, the value of diversity, the richest gift European peo-ple can give each other. Travelling around Europe and gathering people from different countries ac-tually teaches us how to feel always foreigners in our own life: being foreigners among foreigners is maybe the only way to feel part of a unique European culture. EYP journeys enriches every participant with a great sense of humbleness, it allows one to explore and expand the limits of

his mind, to understand the inadequacy of the prejudices with whom he attempts to shape the re-ality around you. People who travel a lot feel to be always foreigners or

guests; they realize that no one can ever possess a place, but only stop somewhere with respect and gratefulness. And every place, small or big as it is, famous or unheard of, can be the centre of the world, if in that place people from different cul-tures come together. EYP reality can be defined as a broadminded way of seeing reality, a work of art created by different people and cultures that come together like the intertwined pieces of a puzzle.

‘And Europe perfectly embodies the importance of di-versity; our different languages, traditions and national identities induce us to cooperate and improve our will-

ingness to understand each other.’

Our European Matryoshka Identity

Monica Maurelli

CULT

This committee is guided by the dedicated cult leaders Maria Pashi and Mareike Berger. Instead of being the secretive type of cult however, the committee CULT is dealing with education in the EU and the various problems and challenges related.The delegates’ names are Conlin, Pauline, Lana, Antonia, Hannah, Sven, Florian, Jan, Selina, and Ferdinand. A few of them having

discovered an unexpected connec-tion, in having been on student exchanges through the same orga-nisation, the day started well for the new formed group, and as time progressed, more mutual interests were discovered.Among the delegates there is a cowgirl, a language enthusiast, a bookworm, a sceptic, and one in-terested in music; in other words a wide variety of differing personali-

ties. In spite of this, the coopera-tion in the group went smoothly, and as teambuilding progressed to more and more difficult games, it got better and better. Together, the committee ma-naged to solve a number of tricky challenges, one where they all had to stand on one side of a towel and then flip it being by far the most challenging. The delegates also learned a thing or two about

knots, and how to pass a ball through the hands of everybody in one single fleeting second.Finally, when playing street figh-ter, the committee was actually so energetic that it resulted in a brief thunder storm. All in need of saying is that this, if anything, speaks volumes about the com-mittee, does it not?

Lauri Lahtinen

TIMELINE OF FARMING

If you ask your grandparents how they used to get their food, they might have a different answer than you think. Why is this? It’s because agriculture has changed and evolved throughout history. How? Well, you can discover that on your session t-shirt: just have a look! There you see: an uneducated Australopithecus unable to plow, then Fred Flintstones haunting with a knife, followed by an exemplar of Neanderthal armed with a sickle and a skilled farmer Homo Sapiens. Finally, as a consequence of thousands of years of evolution, Homo Erectus comes

into existence with his advanced skills both on technology and farming.

However, one thing has remained the same about agriculture today as it was centuries ago: farm families own and operate farms. Whether it is your next door neighbour or farm miles away from you, farmers and their families are working hard to bring healthy and affordable food

to your dinner plate.

11000-9000 BCThe first domestication of animals such as the ancestors of modern cat-tle, sheep, goats and pig in the Fertile

Crescent of Western Asia.

9500-8500 BC

Early Neolithic villages show evidence of the ability to process grain, and the ancestors of wheat, barley and peas

were grown in the Near East.

8700-8400 BC The use of soil amendments, includ-ing manure, fish, compost and ashes, appears to have begun early, and de-veloped independently in several ar-eas of the world, including Mesopota-mia, the Nile Valley and Eastern Asia.

4000 BC

Agriculture advanced to Europe slightly later, and there are two theories for this situation. The first is a “wave of advance”, which holds that agriculture travelled slowly and steadily across the continent, while the second, “pop-ulation pulse” theory, holds that it moved in

jumps.

3000 BC Nomadic pastoralism, with societies focused on the care of livestock for subsistence, appeared independently in several areas in Europe and Asia.

600-400 BC

Scholars documented farming techniques, including the use of fertilizers. Much of what was believed about farming and plant nutrition at this time was later found to be incorrect, but their theories provid-ed the scientific foundation for the devel-opment of agricultural theories through

the Middle Ages.

“My grandfather used to say that once in your life you need a doctor, a lawyer, a policeman and a preacher. But every day, three times a day, you need a farmer” Brenda Schoepp

Monica MaurelliEmre Örendil

600-400 BC

Scholars documented farming techniques, including the use of fertilizers. Much of what was believed about farming and plant nutrition at this time was later found to be incorrect, but their theories provid-ed the scientific foundation for the devel-opment of agricultural theories through

the Middle Ages.

agricultureager (n.) field, farm

cultūra(n.) cultivation, growing

900 AD In Europe, developments in iron smelting allowed for increased pro-duction, leading to developments in the production of agricultural imple-ments such as ploughs, hand tools

and horse shoes.

A global exchange of previously local crops and livestock breeds occurred. Key crops involved in this exchange included maize, potatoes, sweet pota-toes and manioc travelling from the New World to the Old, and several varieties of wheat, barley, rice and turnips going from the Old World to

the New.

1492 AD

1750 AD The market for agriculture was sub-stantially commercialized - crop surpluses were routinely sold by the producers on the market or exported

elsewhere.

Harvesting had a surge in terms of productivity by the help of revo-lutions such as the production of the first tractor and application of

new techniques.

1850-1914 AD

Despite the tremendous gains in agricul-tural productivity, famines continued to sweep the globe through the 20th century. Through the effects of climactic events, government policy, war and crop failure, millions of people died in each of at least ten famines between the 1920s and the

1990s.

1920-2000 AD

2010s

Agriculture has been characterised by increased productivity, the sub-stitution of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides for labour, water pollution, and farm subsidies. In recent years there has been a backlash against the external-environmental effects of conventional agriculture, resulting in the organic and sustainable agricul-

ture movements.

an advice!Do not forget that you can still grow your own food at home:

you could plant a garden and see what it is like to be farmer

on a small scale!

Regional Selection Conference Ahaus

EY

P

The Genetically Modified Food DilemmaAn Introduction to GMOs. by Lauri LahtinenGo Home Greenpeace! by Gustaf WestinThe Frankenfood Phenomenon. by Silja Tuovinen

The Genetically Modified Food Dilemma

What is GMO?In 2013, an annual survey by a non-profit group called the In-ternational Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Appli-cations (ISAAA) revealed that 18 million farmers in 27 coun-tries planted genetically modified crops. The acreage under GM cultivation is doubling every five years and now accounts for about 12% of global arable land. Also in 2012, biotech crops represented 35% of the global commercial seed market.However, despite the growing use of GM crops, there have been common misconceptions and doubts regarding them. For starters, genetically modified foods are simply derived from organisms whose genetic material (DNA) has been modified in a way that does not occur naturally. For exam-ple, a gene can be introduced from a different organism. Currently available GM foods stem mostly from plants, but it is possible that foods derived from GM micro-or-ganisms or animals are introduced to the market sometime in the future. Plants or animals producing pharmaceutically important proteins such as vaccines are another possibility.The release of GMOs into the environment and the marketing of GM foods have resulted in a public de-bate around the world. However, there is no global con-sensus to date on issues such as labelling and traceabili-ty of GM foods as a way to address consumer concerns. There are three main issues in the GMO debate. Firstly, there is the problem of the tendencies to provoke allergic reac-tion (allergenicity). The transfer of genes from commonly allergenic foods is generally discouraged, unless it can be demonstrated that the protein product of the transferred gene is not allergenic. While traditionally developed foods are not generally tested for allergenicity, protocols for tests for GM foods have been evaluated by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the WHO. Secondly, gene transfer from GM foods to cells of the human body or to bacteria in the gastrointestinal tract would cause concern, if the transferred genetic material would affect human

health. This would be particularly relevant if antibiotic resistance genes that are used in creating GMOs were to be transferred.Finally outcrossing, the movement of genes from GM plants into conventional crops or related species in the wild, as well as the mixing of conventional crops with GM crops, may have an effect on food safety and security. For exam-ple, traces of a maize type, which was only approved for feed use, have appeared in maize products for human consump-tion in the USA. Some countries have adopted strategies to reduce mixing, including a clear separation of the fields within which GM crops and conventional ones are grown.Also, intellectual property rights (IPRs) are likely to be an el-ement in the debate on GM foods, with an impact on the rights of farmers. IPRs, especially patenting obligations of the TRIPS Agreement - an agreement under the World Trade Organization concerning trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights - have been discussed in the light of their con-sequences on the further availability of a diversity of crops.Sustainable agriculture and biodiversity benefit most from the use of a rich variety of crops, both in terms of good crop pro-tection practices as well as from the perspective of society at large and the values attached to food. As a result of the inter-est of the chemical industry in seed markets, the range of va-rieties used by farmers could be reduced mainly to GM crops. This would affect the food basket of a society. The exclusive use of herbicide-tolerant GM crops would also make the farm-er dependent on these chemicals. This would give the chemi-cal industry a dominant position in agricultural development.However, the use of GM crops has its upsides, too. Most com-mon GM crops have been developed for an improved yield. This can be done, for example, with an improved resistance for insects and diseases. The potential for GM seeds to result in bigger yields per cultivated area should lead to lower prices. It is also possible to aim genetic modification at altering the nu-trient content of food, reducing its allergenic potential, or im-

Lauri Lahtinen

proving the efficiency of food production systems. These could even be steps forward in solving the world hunger problem. With GM foods, some national authorities consider specif-ic assessments necessary. Specific systems have been set up for the evaluation of GM organisms and GM foods relative to both human health and the environment. Evaluations of this scale are generally not performed for traditional foods. The safety assessment of GM foods generally investi-gates direct health effects, allergenicity, specific com-ponents thought to have nutritional or toxic properties, the stability of the inserted gene, nutritional effects as-sociated with genetic modification and any unintend-ed effects which could result from the gene insertion.Environmental risk assessments cover both the GMO con-cerned and the potentially receiving environment. The assess-ment process includes evaluation of the characteristics of the GMO as well as its effect and stability in the environment, combined with ecological characteristics of the environment in which the introduction will take place. The assessment also includes unintended effects which could result from the in-sertion of the new gene. The environmental safety aspects of GM crops vary considerably according to local conditions.In order to ensure that the development of GMOs takes place in complete safety, the European Union has estab-lished a legal framework regulating GM food and feed in the EU. This framework pursues the global objective of ensuring a high level of protection of human life and health and welfare, environment and consumer interests, whilst ensuring that the internal market works effectively. Since the first introduction on the market in the mid-1990s of a major GM food (herbicide-resistant soy-beans), there has been increasing concern about such food among politicians, activists and consum-ers, especially in Europe. Several factors are involved. In the late 1980s – early 1990s, the results of decades of mo-lecular research reached the public domain. Until that time, consumers were generally not very aware of the potential of

People demonstrating Monsanto. Monsanto is the leading company in genetically modified products. this research. Consumers started to wonder about the safety

of the new kind of food, because they perceived that mod-ern biotechnology would lead to the creation of new species. Consumer concerns have triggered a discussion on the de-sirability of labelling GM foods, allowing an informed choice. In the EU labelling is mandatory for products de-rived from modern biotechnology or products containing GM organisms. This legislation also addresses the problem of accidental contamination of conventional food by GM material. It introduces a 1% minimum threshold for DNA or protein coming from genetic modification, below which labelling is not required. In the meanwhile, it has proved difficult to detect traces of GMOs in foods, which means that very low concentrations often cannot be detected. The humanitarian crisis in southern Africa has drawn atten-tion to the use of GM food as food aid in emergency situ-ations. A number of governments in the region have raised concerns relating to environmental and food safety fears. Although workable solutions have been found for distri-bution of milled grain in some countries, others have re-stricted the use of GM food aid and obtained commodities which do not contain GMOs. Distrust towards GMOs in Africa is strengthened by the fact that two major blocs, the EU and the USA, are quite strongly divided over the issue.As of 2014, Europe has approved only two GM crops for growing, but the US allows 96. Even though Eu-ropeans are arguably more suspicious towards GMOs than Americans, more than 70% of EU animal pro-tein feed requirements are imported as GM crop prod-ucts. This actually makes EU citizens exposed to GMOs.However, it should be remembered that different GM organisms include different genes inserted in different ways. This means that individual GM foods and their safe-ty should be assessed on a case-by-case basis, so it is hard to make general statements on the safety of all GM foods. One general statement can be made though; there has not been enough research on the long-term effects of GM food.

Go Home GreenpeaceThe activists, possibly financed by European forei-gn aid and inspired by Greenpeace, threw themsel-ves at the Philippine farm. Some inhabitants they killed, and others they beat so badly that many will never walk again.

Gustaf Westin

Okay, that may not have been exactly what happened. The activists didn’t kill farmers, but if they get what they want that will be the consequence. What they in fact did do was to destroy a testing facility where specimens of the Genetically Modified (GM) “Golden Rice” were being grown. The rice, given its name be-cause of its yellow colour, has been modified to contain a greater amount of vitamin A. Thou-sands of children die from Vitamin A deficien-cy daily, and hundreds become blind because of it.

Genetic modification of food has the possibi-lity to not only to give us in the developed wor-ld healthier, cheaper and more nutritious food, but also to literally save lives in the third world. Through genetic modification, we can make our crops more resilient to insects and damage, and consequently reduce the usage of dange-rous and poisonous pesticides. We can make food last longer and make it more durable in transports. Farmers’ incomes can increase, and we can feed a growing population using less and less farm land. The food can be made more nutritious, and we could remove the proteins in for example peanuts that make people allergic.

This is, of course, good for us in Europe, but far more is at stake in the poor countries of the third world. Two billion people suffer from a lack of vitamin A, millions die, and 500 000 turn blind every year. Every other pregnant woman in the third world suffers from a lack of iron. With the Golden Rice, all this could be

changed. At a low cost, the new rice that has been enriched with beta-carotene (a substance the body converts into vitamin A), millions of lives could be saved every year.

Unfortunately not everyone is happy about this development. A variety of leftist and en-vironmental groups are demanding a ban on all types of genetic modification, including the Golden Rice. Greenpeace, for instance, wants to stop the Golden Rice and other genetical-ly modified crops on the basis of them being dangerous for your health, despite the fact that this is something that over and over again has been dismissed as a myth by many of the wor-ld’s leading scientific organisations. The pres-tigious magazine Science wrote in an editorial that “If there’s ever been a time for rage, it is towards the campaign by Greenpeace against the Golden Rice”.

The problem with many of these groups is that they often don’t settle with merely trying to in-fluence lawmakers and the legislative process concerning GM crops. Doug Parr at Green-peace’s British branch once said that “when de-mocracy fails, direct action is the only alterna-tive”. What he’s referring to are outright attacks on companies, laboratories and farmers legally developing genetically modified crops, carried out by a variety of different organisations (one by the name of Reclaim the Seeds being one example), with the purpose of scaring away investors and scientists. Unfortunately, this sort of activism has had effects. Knowing this

kind of research could mean destroyed equip-ment and negative headlines in newspapers have kept many companies and scientists away from these promising ideas. The total ban on imports and the strict regulations related to GM crops in the EU has further hampered the progress, all this in spite of the aforementioned lack of evidence that GM foods would be dan-gerous at all.

Many opponents, including Greenpeace, argue that “a principle of carefulness” must be ap-plied when dealing with genetic modification. They argue the need for further testing and proof that GM crops aren’t dangerous, a cri-tique that strikes a false note, since the testing facilities being destroyed in attacks (perhaps not carried out by Greenpeace itself, but still attacks that Greenpeace has expressed support for) are the direct result of the demands for more testing. Greenpeace maintains that more testing is needed, but at the same time they want to stop the testing.

According to Stewart Brand, a pioneer in the environmentalist movement, the worst mistake he and the environmentalist movement did was to oppose GM crops; “We have starved people to death, hindered science and damaged the environment.” Brand says it’s a question of morals. You can’t preach about leaving a bet-ter planet to our children, if at the same time you’re condemning millions of them to an early death.

What’s up with theFrankenfood Phenomenon? Without knowing the long-term effects of the genetically modified organisms, using

them in our daily products raise concerns throughout Europe.

By Silja Tuovinen

The positive effects of GM food get more attention today due to the impacts of global warming and its threat to restrains our ability to plant in the areas where the weather conditions and climate used to be perfect. Regardless of the fact that there are more pros than cons of GMO’s currently in the surface, there are activists who are drastically against and openly afraid of GM food. Genetically modified foods have gained a nickname among the activists, called Frankenfood. Franken – as in Fran-kenstein, one of the most famous horror stories ever written. The story can be well related to the highly up-to-date issue of GMOs, since it furthermore explains what could happen if a human cre-ation gets out of hand. In the story, Mr. Victor Frankenstein wants to create something new and incredible, while at the same time bring science to a new level. The conclusion of the story is quite fatal, since the human creation ends up destroying its creator. Es-sentially that is what’s feared to happen with the GMOs as well. The term Frankenfood was first used by some headline journalists in the New York Times in the 1992 in articles con-cerning food and genetic-related issues. It was discovered from a letter written by Paul Lewis, where the phrase was coined. After the term Frankenfood had been made official to some extent by the papers, the activist groups started using and capitalizing on it. The debate over genetically modified crops has fall-

en into two camps, dividing experts and leading to confusion for consumers. The Frankenfood phenomenon essentially an-swers the question of meddling with nature’s processes for ge-netic evolution with a strict no. The Frankenfood activists often fit into the box tagged with a label: “anti-science” and they of-ten get labelled as conservatives. Not only is this interpretation highly generalized, but also ignores the ethical part of the issue. Regardless of the fact that the story of Frankenstein is fic-tion, it’s good to keep in mind that the overall message it covers is current. The long-term effects of genetically engineered food on human health are not yet verified to be completely safe. Some claim that we as human beings are the lab rats to test the technol-ogy with, thus predisposed to allergies, cancer and other diseases. A few studies have even shown that the GMOs can make a human being resistant to antibiotics, this of course in utmost rare cases. The highly global Frankenfood phenomenon is a clear example of one of the most radical attitudes towards ge-netically modified food. Having fear towards GM food can be interpreted logical and understandable taking into con-sideration most of the facts about the issue. However, defin-ing genetically modified food as Frankenfood creates images of GM food that are not completely accurate. Due to this, the phenomenon is less popular in today’s world as it was before.

Genetically modified wheat being harvested in Kansas.

Introduction to the European Union28MEMBERSTATES//500MILLIONCITIZEN//EUROCURRENCY//4MILLIONSQUAREKM

The European Union is an economic and political union of 28 Member States. The EU was established by the Treaty of Maastricht in 1993 upon the foundations of the European Communities. The EU has developed a single market through a standardised system of laws, which apply in all Member States, and ensures the free movement of people, goods, services, and capital, in-cluding the abolition of passport controls within the Schengen area. It enacts legislation in justice and home affairs, and maintains common policies on trade, agriculture, fisheries and regional development. Eighteen Member States have adopted a common currency, the Euro.

With a view to its relations with the wider world, the EU has de-veloped a limited role in foreign and defence policy through the Common Foreign and Security Policy. Permanent diplomatic missions have been established around the world and the EU is represented at the United Na-tions, the World Trade Organi-sation (WTO), the G8 and the G-20.The EU operates through a hy-brid system between federalism and intergovernmentalism. The institutional structure of the EU cannot be compared to any other international organisation (e.g. NATO or the UN). It is neither a centralised unity like a nation state, nor does it imi-tate a relatively loose structure,

such as the Commonwealth of Nations or a federation like the United States of America. In certain cases, decisions are made by independent institutions and in others, they are made through negotiation between Member States.The EU traces its origins from the European Coal and Steel Community and the European Economic Community formed by six countries in the 1950s. Since then, it has grown in size through enlargement, and in power through the addition of policy areas to its remit. The last amendment to the constitutio-nal basis of the EU came into force in 2009 and was the Lis-bon Treaty.

Legislative procedure in the European UnionThe European Union is able to distribute se-veral legal acts, however, not all are binding for its Member States. The EU has the fol-lowing legal options to regulate: Regulations, Directives, Decisions, Recommendations and Opinions. Regulations have to be imple-mented straight to national laws without mo-difications. Directives provide a framework and give a certain policy direction, but leaving the EU Member States with more flexibility for modifying. Decisions always address cer-tain recipients and are only valid for those spe-cific people or institutions. Recommendations and Opinions are not legally binding.The European legislative procedure lasts a bit longer than on a national level. The European Commission has the exclusive Right to Ini-tiative, the Council and the European Parlia-ment decide if the proposal becomes a legal act after having discussed relevant details. Legal acts passed by the European Parliament and the Council only enter into force after the res-pective national governments have introduced and implemented it within their national laws.

The institutions of the European Union

European CouncilThe European Council is responsible for defining the general political direc-tion and priorities of the EU. It comprises the heads of state or government of EU Member States, along with its President (currently Herman Van Rompuy from Belgium) and the President of the Commission.

European CommissionEuropean Commission is the executive body of the European Union. It has the right to initiative is res-ponsible for proposing and implementing EU laws, mo-nitoring the treaties and the day-to-day running of the EU. The Commission ope-rates as a cabinet govern-ment, with 28 Commissio-ners. The current President is José Manuel Durão Bar-roso from Portugal.

European ParliamentIt is the only directly elec-ted institution in the Euro-pean Union. It represents the voice of the European citizens, over 500 million people. It plays a key role in electing the President of the European Commis-sion and besides legislation it shares power over EU Budget with the Council of the European Union. In the upcoming elections in May, 751 Members of the European Parliament will be elected there in line with Lisbon Treaty. The current President is Martin Schulz from Germany.

The Council of the Euro-pean UnionThe Council of the Euro-pean Union (commonly re-ferred to as the Council of Ministers) is the institution in the legislature of the EU

representing the govern-ments of member states, the other legislative body being the European Parliament. It is also representing the voice of the Member States. The Presidency of the Council of the European Union rotates every six months between Member States. Greece holds the current presidency until June 2014, when Italy will take over.

Othetr important institu-tions of the EU include the Court of Justice of the Eu-ropean Union and the Eu-ropean Central Bank. The EU also has several agen-cies and other institutions.

©Harmon

INTA On The DancefloorAn EYP session without dancing is like an EYP session without an EYP session. I de-cided to take a closer look on the dancing habits of the Committee on International Trade, so I sat down with each of its members and asked them a few simple questions.

1. What animal are you on the dance floor?2. If you were to dance nonstop for two straight days, what song would you listen to?3. When dancing, do you ever feel that you reach a threshold, becomes one with the music, and that such things like time and space ceases to exist?

Marius Gerwing1.Lion2.Smells like teen spirit – Nirvana3.He doesn’t think so (so maybe)

Sebastian Miles1.Rabbit2.Paradise City – Guns ’N Roses3.No, not often unfortunately

Marie Kaiser1.Dog2.Liebe – Sido3.Perhaps not when I’m dancing, but when I’m listening to music without dancing it happens.

Mikael Hekkinen1.Reindeer2.Californication – Red Hot Chili Peppers3.Not that often

Sarah Dölger1.Wolf2.Staying Alive – The Beejees3.Not that she can remember (so possibly all the time)

Alina Gagu1.Cat2.The Kooks – Naive3.YES. At least once or twice a month.

Jonas Aaron Carstens1.Sloth2.Hate me now – Nas3.No, the music he listens to isn’t dancy enough

Jan Schilling1.Horse2.Wake Me Up – Avicii3.“That’s the only way I dance”

Lisa Latussek, Chair1.Dolphin2.What Makes You Beautiful – One Direction3.Yes, very often.

Angie Freimoser, Chair1.Zebra2.You Belong With Me – Taylor Swift3.No (but her eyes are literally screaming “YES!)

Gustaf Westin

Most of you have never been to a session of the European Youth Parliament before and probably didn’t know what to expect. Maybe some of you thought, it would be some kind of holiday. Young people from all over Europe having fun with each other, partying all night and not going to school? Sounds like heaven indeed. Some others perhaps thought of it as four days of constant discussion and work. Appropriate work days end with having fun to relax, if deserved. Otherwise people might have to catch up. Anyways EYP is not only about discussing Europe, but also experiencing it. Since there is an evening programme at every session you will quickly realise where to set your sleeping limit to actually be able to work the next day. Ne-vertheless the evening programme is only one reason you will have the urge to sleep through a whole day and night after getting back home.Sleeping in a school, in a huge room with a lot of people in one place obviously does not fit the usual sleeping habits one tends to have. At home you possibly have a room for yourself or maybe share it with siblings and on class trips maybe with a few of your friends. Some of you may have done something similar with their class when they were younger. Here there are actually total strangers sleeping right next to you. It really is something new, something exciting and something worth

staying up for. Getting to know the people slee-ping next to you really helps with breaking the tension and prevents awkwardness between one another. Avoiding awkwardness basically makes everything easier!You should always be prepared! Not just for com-mittee work, but also for the general assembly you should have an opinion on every topic and even more important, on every resolution. Reading the topic overviews might help getting to know what the others have worked with. Reading the whole preparation kit takes time but is a gold mine as well. Also studying the resolution booklet very closely takes time. Time you will have to spend in order to have a proper discussion.Sometimes a total of three or four hours per night is everything you will get and you should be happy for every one of them! Still EYPers are not bad people and organisers mainly come to partici-pants’ interest when coffee break is on. The enor-mous consumption of coffee is almost unbearable, but it is what makes delegates and officials look awake and what makes them feel ready to get so-mething done. In the end it is all about the spirit though. If you truly get what all of this is about, you can bear a little less sleep. Being part of the whole thing is definitely worth it.

You, Delegates!

Kira Lange

The Time Bomb NinjaKira Lange

When something happens during teambuilding that you then think of constantly during the day, it’s either a great feeling you shared in the group, like a victory over another committee, or something very funny happening, something that can leave a delegate saying: “That was the funniest moment of my life!”

The situation the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs II was the latter of the two. During a great battle between eight rather unexperienced ninjas and their masters, as one of the novices was moving quickly in order to avoid losing an arm, a sound was suddenly heard. Simply put: said delegate farted. These things happen, and embarrassing moments like them make interactions in the committee less awkward. Essentially, the incident contributed to making EMPL II a real team!

The Spider’s Web, however, turned out not to be made for them. Fourth try in, a delegate resorted to climbing over the web in a last ditch effort to make it work. But still, they didn’t manage to solve the problem. According to rumours however, this particular web was especially hard, and consequently the capability of the team remains unquestioned.

The committee ended the day by creating a new version of the story about Abigail, introducing new characters like the homosexual couple Adam and Mike, and boat owner Robert. The new story even had a happy ending, something the com-mittee creatively included in the committee’s own flag. When the actual discussions and exchange of ideas started, it became obvious that the delegates had quite different ideas, something that might lead not only to an interesting discussion, but likely also to an interesting resolution.

Masters Of The Human KnotSilja Tuovinen

The teamwork within the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs works well, in the terms of the incredibly fast and good conclusion of the human knot during com-mittee work. The committee members seem to complement each other with their ideas, both during teambuilding and especially during the committee work. Having different views and information provides space for a broad ap-proach to the demanding topic.

The committee work starts off with writing down some golden rules. The delegates listed down the basics of teamwork - always be res-pectful and open-minded, pay attention and speak up if you have any concerns, but remem-ber to have fun as well! As the committee work properly begins the rules are taken into consi-deration. The atmosphere between the dele-gates is light and tolerant.Two charming gentlemen rule the committee:

Clemens and Karlis. The chairs modified some well-known teambuilding games to suit the committee topic. The fruit salad was played with a businessman and an investor and in the name game instead of an adjective the delegates had to say out loud a word that has something to do with money. ECON clearly is very com-mitted to their committee topic.

Volksbank

Gronau-Ahaus eGRC Gronau-Euregio

supported by: