[Simulation] LIVE: European Agora

LIVE updates ended on 27th of February at 12:57pm

26TH FEBRUARY: FOREIGN AFFAIRS PARLIAMENT

On February 26th, for the first Foreign Affairs Parliament session, scheduled from 10:00-12:00, the topic for debate was the amendments proposed to Article 2 and 3. At this time, no new amendments to Article 2 could be proposed. 

At 10:05, an internal interpreter check was conducted while the session waits for its remaining MEP’s to arrive. Shortly after at 10:10, the chairs declared decorum within the ongoing informal gathering between the parties as they waited for the session to officially start.

Before the debate, the chairs Léa and Chloé, addressed procedural matters. (1) MEP’s without placards are to raise their hands, (2) interpreters and chairs encourage speaking in official languages, English, French, Italian and German; emphasizing articulation and steady speed, (4) along with this, advice on microphone usage was distributed by the lead interpreter through whatsapp and (5) “roasting” is encouraged but respectfulness is held above all. Was this reminder needed as a result of yesterday's session or merely procedural?

At 10:14, an unmoderated caucus for 20 minutes was proposed by The Greens, the motion was supported only by their own party. The first motion entertained was a moderated debate on the topic of Article 2 and 3 amendments. Discussion started on the Alliance of Socialists and Democrats (ASD) amendment of Article 2(1), aimed at improving coherence and retention of data. Specifically in relation to Article 7: Restrictive measures and suspension of cooperation  and 8: Union position on Taiwan and coordination. *Article 8 was later rejected as of the current proposition document. 

This addition was met by resistance, namely by the Patriots, Non-Affiliated (NA) and The European People's Party (EPP), calling into question the relevance of regulating European institutions, since the floor subject is foreign affairs. The Green party showed their support for the amendment, noting that Europe should be a leader in adopting the regulations they expect from international channels. Gaining a large round of applause from the left side of the room. Conversely, NA and EPP MEP’s challenged the legitimacy and place of argumentative logic based on ethics and human right freedoms. Followed by a rivaling round of applause from the right side block of the room. The chairs asked for a comment from RENEW, no comment was given. After a few rounds of discussion, voting on amendment 2(1) started at 10:27, and was passed with majority. 

Discussion over the following subclauses was smooth. Amendments of the draft directive 2-1a and 2-1b proposed by EPP,  were passed shortly within 3 minutes of each other. Notably, ASD and The Left parties abstained from the latter. 

At 10:32, the Green party amended 2-1(c), essentially emphasizing that data collection demands specificity and must avoid generalization to avoid foreign interference. Making each state responsible for providing judicial authorizations with oversight from EU level systems. The vote was officially opened at 10:35, and rejected after the majority was not met; earning a round of applause from the right side block which did not vote. 

Amendment 2-2: Records referred to in paragraph 1 shall be retained in compliance with Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (General Data Protection Regulation) for a maximum period of 90 days, unless extended by judicial order and shall be made available, upon lawful request, to competent national supervisory authorities and relevant Union bodies, sparked discussion on how this would impact investigations. The MEP's positions were divided into two recurring arguments, (1) concern over the reduction's potential to stress and slow justice processes– represented by EPP, The European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) and The Europe of Sovereign Nations (ESN)–, and (2) in support for the reduction, highlighting the possibility of an extension if needed– represented by The Greens, ASD, The Left, and NA. Voting officially started at 10:55, despite their representatives' statements ERC was divided. Majority was met, and the amendment was adopted. 

This council session embodied the multi-lingual facet of European Agora. However, the heated debate exacerbated the speed of the discussions, leading to some interpretation issues for mortals that do not speak the official four languages. Throughout the sessions the chairs, Léa and Chloé, were forced to make several interventions reminding the MEP’s of the microphone procedures, along with instructing members to slow down an outstanding 11 times (as counted by our reporters, real numbers may vary).

Discussion starts on ECR’s amendment to Article 2(3), essentially stating that records shall be stored and processed on European Union servers to prevent unauthorized access or transfer to third-countries. The highlights of this debate include; EPP noting that in subclause 4, a specific strategic action plan designating Malta the chosen location for storage. Which received a strong declaration from ASD’s MEP, suggesting that the driving force behind the destination was tax avoidance. Followed by party colleagues discussing alternate European locations with pre-existing infrastructure like Sweden and Finland. However, support for the location was presented by ESN, addressing the environmental concerns stating that water used to cool systems is not dumped, but recycled. After some back and forth, the majority vote was met and the amendment on subclause 3 was passed, along with 4–  specifying Malta as the designated location. Shortly after, amendment 2-5: stating storage in third-countries, was deemed inadmissible as it contradicts amendment 2-3. 

Further, Article 3(1): Where a provider has reasonable grounds to believe that online activities constitute foreign interference, propaganda, or information manipulation linked to third-country actors, the provider shall:, was the subject for 2 rounds of unmoderated caucus, the first being 15 minutes and the second 10 minutes. 

EPP and The Greens reached an agreement, specifying the conditions, reporting and monitoring of the previous amendment. ASD is not a participant due to lack of time, however they relayed their full support. Conversely, ECR, raises concerns over placement of burden on the side of the provider. The vote was officially open at 12:02, following the adoption of 3-1 subclauses a,b and c, smoothly followed by paragraph 3-2 and 3-3. 

The session was ended by a rapid presentation and voting of amendment 3-4; emphasizing sanctions on information providers if they fail to comply with the previous directives. Proposed by EPP, stating the necessity of concrete measures to ensure credibility, supported by ECR. The voting started at 12:05– the Patriot party and ESN MEP’s did not vote– the amendment was adopted. A minute later a procedural vote was held to validate Article 3 as a whole, marking an end to this session.

26TH FEBRUARY: FOREIGN AFFAIRS COUNCIL

From 15:45 until the end of the day on the 25th, the Council of Foreign Affairs’ debate centered only on Article 1: Subject matter and Objectives of their proposal. Stances and proposals were multifaceted. 

Ireland initially proposed a re-wording of 1(a) to prevent and address foreign interference and information manipulation linked to third countries, to read “foreign interference and any interference that threatens EU safety;” a proposal denied on the grounds that threatening interferences would be included as such normally. The point concerning child labor–1(b) – acquired much debate as well. Some delegates wanted to ban market goods made by child labour entirely, citing human right violations. Others, primarily, Estonia and Austria expressed both concern for human rights violations, but also, the unfeasible nature of a full ban due to the mass quantity of, child labour produced, goods on the market today. Therefore, delegates proposed making such goods illegal under Union law, so as to maintain a human rights focus, while also being realistic about their ability to constrain the marketplace at such a wide level. The vote took place, a qualified majority was reached and the modification was adopted. 

After a speedy coffee break, delegates and translators had a lengthy introduction round to establish a friendly connection with one another. This was followed by an unmoderated caucus that ended up closing the session with instructions for the next day to arrive with moderation suggestions for Article 1(2) at 10:00 am. 

On February 26th at 10:02 am, the chairs, Adelaide and Eva, marked the beginning of the day with a roll call of all countries–revealing only the Netherlands to be missing. Prior to opening a General Debate session, the president announced that delegates “should not be scared to disagree and/or call people out,” signaling the start of an interesting day of debate. 

The highlighting points from this debate are as follows: 

• (1) A reminder to remember union values of democracy, human rights and Union solidarity; brought forth by Denmark and emphasized various times by others, most notably Austria, who argued that union unity is crucial for facing Russia and China. 

• (2) Urging to adopt a more relaxed and diplomatic attitude towards China, something not reflected in the proposal’s articles; an idea brought by Sweden and supported by Spain, Germany and Slovakia.

•  (3) Latvia’s unyielding advocacy for Baltic and EU member state safety from China’s cyber attacks and condemnation of the China-backed Russian threat posed to their region. A notion corroborated by Finland’s citing their experience of China’s bombing of Finnish ships in 2022– warning that association to China should be monitored closely. 

• (4) Greece was singular in the assertion that, forging strong alliances, trade and strategically deep ties with China was the future of international politics– a move they proudly claimed to be on top of. 

• (5) France warned of a loss in European Union credibility on a global stage if the move to become more dependent on China, over of the U.S., was adopted, urging delegates to consolidate interdependence within the Union. To which Romania countered, noting this to be generally a false attitude of the council–the EU doesn’t need to be dependent on either superpower, rather use both of them in a strategic and beneficial manner. 

At 10:40 general debate was closed, marking the resuming of delegate revisions to the proposal of the conference. 

Article 2: Obligations of internet information service providers, led to a comprehensive and productive debate between the delegates. An initial proposal to include, in 2-1(a), a condition for the recording of information to be done only if the citizen has posed a real threat identified under conditions and certain key words, was rejected after Latvia emphasized the potential consequence of marginalized peoples being targeted under such a modification. 

The real debate on the article began however, with Austria’s proposed amendment to 2-1(a), to tighten constraints on EU citizen data collection to only situations of absolute legal necessity, authorized by competent judicial actors. Two camps were set up as a reaction. Those opposed entirely to the amendment; for fear of a failure of these constraints to preemptively detect attacks, and those supporting the motion. The former comprised Greece and Romania; Romania holding firm that Austria’s amendment only makes sense after an attack/offense has been committed for the purposes of pursuing the perpetrators. Greece on the other hand, rallied that “data monitoring saves lives” and that the threat of terrorist attacks should deter other states against the amendment. The latter was primarily Latvia who supported the amendment fully and, through questioning, got Austria to expand an effort to cooperate and support national intelligence services to cover preemptive attacks without overriding EU citizen privacy. 

The vote at 10:58 on Austria’s amendment saw all member states present except for Cyprus and Czechia, adopting the amendment into the proposal, enshrining deeper data protection for EU citizens. 

Finland proposed an amendment to strike all of article 2.2– covering conditions for outsourcing data records to third country authorities (eg. Palantir), should European servers be unable to do so–arguing that doing so risks racialization, bias, espionage, etc. The loudest reaction came from Greece asking if “Finland is supporting terrorism?,” by implying that Finland’s proposition to reshore data record consolidation within the Union, was a call to reduce and relax on data collection efforts altogether. However, the points emphasized were centered on concerns of primarily racialization of individuals through using third parties and a move to fortifying EU resources to be fully capable for complete data management for security purposes rather than less safe third parties. The former was reinforced by Estonia's response to  Czchecia–who implied that the Union has no other option but to outsource—critiquing this as an offense to the technological and innovative capabilities in the EU. In the end, Finland’s amendment reached no qualified majority, and was therefore denied.

Out of the two amendments Denmark proposed– (1) Add stored in European companies; (2) To change “within the union” to “within the country of the citizen” – only the first was adopted., on the premise that the language made for an easier read.. This concluded the modification for article 2, driving a reorienting of the council to article 3; after a series of unmoderated caucus and two debates.

Article 3, Reporting and mitigation of suspicious activities, had three quick amendments before the council broke off for lunch. The first, proposed by Bulgaria, urged adjustment of the wording, seeing as suspicious is not defined, and risks being used in undemocratic ways. The second, amended by Austria, added a second report– following the preliminary one within 72 hours of reasonable suspicion– a follow-up report 7 days post-incident to allot sufficient time for actors to gather information. The third, proposing the detection of suspicion be based upon– the basis of clear, objective and publicly accessible criteria– so as to deter discriminatory measures. 

At 12:07, following a brief overview of Article 4 and a few of the delegates basic stances, the council adjourned for lunch, thus concluding extensive MD inside information for the Council of European Foreign Affairs. 

26TH FEBRUARY: ECONOMIC AFFAIRS PARLIAMENT

MEP’s returned to their esteemed seats, in the Parliament of Economic Affairs, at 13:07; and the first 7 minutes of plenary appeared to be one of total agreement across parliament. Two immediate motions were proposed; firstly, to amend the title to Article 7, by switching language from “CRM Fund” to “CRM Program;” and secondly, to allow mobilizing 100 billion euros instead of 10 billion and a 70% financial enveloping clause. The phase of total agreement ended at 13:14, after RENEW called for a 10 minute unmoderated caucus and a remit to Article 4. 

Return to plenary took place around 13:25, in which one major controversy of the afternoon took place. RENEW, EPP and Patriots announced an alliance in acting on Article 4-Transparency and supervision mechanisms–where their goal being to protect the EU from supply shocks and foreign dependence by securing access to critical raw materials (SSRs). Arguments across the left, center and right revolved around the threshold of dependency the RENEW–EPP–Patriot alliance proposed of 66% (insinuating that China would be allowed to supply 80%). The Left and the ASD’s, opposed this on the basis that 66% was too large a threshold to adopt; arguing that by the time 66% is overreached member states will not have enough leverage to consolidate power, suggesting a 45% threshold. Most RENEW, EPP and Patriots, refused to abandon their stance, seeing it as crucial to assert an image of sovereignty, independence and power, while still being able to trade with third-country parties–in line with the benchmarks in the CRM Act– and pull back when it is felt that the third party is over reaching. Both the left and the center-right MEP’s had spats about working with one another, with the Left and ASD condemning RENEW for partnering with the far-right Patriots and the former accusing the left of refusing to work democratically. At 13:39, Article 4 was adopted, and after a brief proposition from the ECR, to amend subclauses 3(b) and 3(c), that was denied, the parliament moved along. 

After some technical difficulties with the working document for proposal modifications, chairs Philomene and Tom brought order back to the floor at 13:55 to amend Article 5, Eligible jurisdictions for investments. The debate topic went outside the scope of the question Philomene had posed of “does anyone have amendments for the Title of the Article?” For after she posed the question, a rogue member from the RENEW party delivered a powerful message on the dangers of normalizing casual relationships with the far right. The MEP pointed to the dangers of eurocentricism, hatred and nationalism which the rise of the far right in Europe poses to the EU’s values. Albeit a very valid point, the speech diverted MEP’s from the matter at hand, when an ECR MEP called out the left side of parliament as “whining as though they were in kindergarten…refusing to work with us” because they did not attain the parameters they sought in past articles. In the same sentiment, a member from RENEW expressed their assumption that the left will “never want to compromise with us [center, center-right parties].” At 14:02, the chair brought attention back to the vote on the title of Article 5, which maintained its original format. 

In terms of actual amendments to Article 5 content, the Greens brought in a commendable proposition for the EU commission to: prioritize foreign investment relations with those powers who share EU values of environmental, social and human rights standards, incentivized through rewards and union support for their complying to such standards. The ESN, Patriots and EPP opposed the amendment, highlighting that a “priority on investments abroad” is not what the EU should be doing, rather they should focus on resource cultivation in the Union. Greens and ASD, reminded them how much of critical resources for the EU are extracted abroad and the importance of sticking by EU humanitarian and environmental values in such relationships– a notion the Patriots saw as irrelevant to economic matters. As such, when the vote took place at 14:13, the majority of the EPP, all of the far right parties and most of the RENEW MEP’s were not in support and therefore this did not go through. However, at 14:15, the Left swiftly passed amendments, with no objections, also regarding value-based requirements for Union alliances and conditions for EU approval of such cooperation. Patriots, echoing protectionist-style policy, wanted to remove points b and c (and later clause 2) from article 5, which lay out strategic partner countries and candidacy requirements for EU alliance. However, RENEW shot them down pointing to the fact that without Foreign investment, the EU would not have the resources to be able to sustain itself and that a united Europe is one that embraces a liberal market–something only possible by inter-nation collaboration. Votes shot down Patriot suggestions and at 15:02, Article 5 was finally adopted.     

Focus on to Article 8: Development of Union‘s refining and recycling capacities, brought in the debate of recycling versus refinement. The Greens emphasized that a recycling annual waste fund priority should be given priority, suggesting an allocation of 10% from the CRM fund to do so. While RENEW felt that refinement was more important for the Union, since China refines 90% of rare earth minerals. EPP’s two points made the deciding factor, that (1) 10% of the CRM fund equates to 10 billions, an amount not considered so sensible and (2) Given that recycling is somewhat profitable, there’s no need to allot that much money and focus on recycling. The Greens proposal was denied, as well as an extra amendment put forth by the Patriots and at 15:10 Article 8 was adopted. 

The Parliament swiftly adopted Articles 6, 9 and 10 marking a close to their work for the EuropAgora conference. The MEP’s pounded the table in joy and joked around as they nominated the most eloquent participant to go on into the final rounds for a chance to compete for a railway pass! After a quick round of votes, Felipe, an MEP from the Patriots was elected to pass on to the closing ceremony competition. As the Economic Affairs Parliament wrapped up their session, so has MD coverage of the European Agora.  

26TH FEBRUARY: ECONOMIC AFFAIRS COUNCIL

After the lunch break and the return of the coveted muffins, the Council committee for Economic Affairs resumed at 13:15 the afternoon of February 26. Opening debate on Article 4: Commission intervention in case of serious risk. Luxembourg was given the floor to discuss their amendment to Article 4(3), proposing that if the required process is not reached within 100 days, the Commission should stop the emergency response. This was audibly supported by Denmark and Hungary. The amendment was passed unanimously at 13:28, and Article 4 was adopted one minute later.

The most heated discussion was surrounding Article 5. Brought by Hungary’s proposition to suppress Article 5(1), stating that Brussels should not dictate smaller states' dependency on third countries. Austria clarified that the paragraph only limits investment in rare earth materials. Romanian supported Hungary, framing the issue from a geopolitical scope, stressing that states closer to Russia could not afford rigid dependency rules in technology and healthcare. The debate escalated, culminating in the Netherlands telling Hungary that if it rejected shared rules fundamentally it "shouldn't have joined the EU”. The suppression was not adopted at 13:48, with only Croatia, Hungary and Latvia in favor.

Following this, debate moved to the diversification threshold itself. Centered on Slovakia’s proposition to lower the cap from 33% to 25%, arguing this would encourage at least four different economic suppliers and better protect smaller member states. Reactions varied between the ministers. Denmark supported reducing dependency, while Hungary objected that the move contradicted the idea of a liberal economy. Conversely, Luxembourg challenged whether 33% dependence on a third country could even be considered acceptable. The amendment passed despite opposition from Portugal, Slovenia, Malta, Belgium, Hungary and Latvia. In the final propositions, this appears under Article 6: Diversification safeguard, now setting the cap at no more than 25%, with further investments dependent on a Council decision.

Article 7: Eligible jurisdictions for investments, faced recurring discussions centered on whether legislation should name countries directly. Started by Bulgaria, stating that the wording used left out strategic partners such as Albania, Greenland and Iceland, proposing instead the broader term Exclusive Economic Zone. This passed unanimously at 14:00. However, Bulgaria’s next proposition to address the United States directly was met by resistance.  

The Netherlands argued that law should be built around standards and rules, not named countries. Denmark supported this argument. Furthering this, Germany proposed the removal of all country names so that the text would not be limited to a list. That position passed unanimously at 14:08.

Financial partners brought into question European Union standards— specifically, to what extent should third-country sub-optimal practices be considered in the Union's financial partnership. Do investments mean complicity in human rights violations? Denmark was particularly concerned about child labor, and extreme working hours, arguing for these standards to be made explicit. Seated to his left, Hungary rejected moral framing, standing by his position that a good leader cares for their own first. The amendment did not pass. Shortly after, Luxembourg successfully proposed that only investments exceeding EUR 100 million should be examined by the Commission, an amendment adopted unanimously at 14:19.

The later part of the session was much more constructive. Starting with Ireland’s amendment to Article 7(2): aimed at increasing domestic critical raw materials resources by mapping and finding rare earth within the Union. This was passed unanimously. In another success story, Finland proposed the addition of 7(5): prioritizing projects from the EU and allied states, especially where they support sustainable development. This was strongly supported by Sweden and Lithuania, commenting on its importance for strategic autonomy. After voting At 14:38, the addition of CBAM revenues and EU ETS revenues passed unanimously, with Hungary not voting. One minute later, the priority clause for domestic and allied resources also passed. 

After a much needed 15 minute break at 14:40, debate resumed on Article 8: Development of Union recycling capacities. Bulgaria started us off by proposing an addition to clarify where the funding for recycling expansion would come from. Voting officially started at 15:04, passing unanimously not a minute later. Bulgaria, with the support of Denmark, then introduced an amendment on standardized product labels, arguing that they would help reduce bureaucracy. The amendment passed at 15:06. Returning to naming conventions, Luxembourg also replaced “union” with “European Union” in Article 8(4), which was adopted without resistance.

Shortly after, logistics in increasing investment following the proposed addition to Article 8(5): innovation in sustainability, ignited debate. The Finnish minister argued for increased investment in research programmes related to recycling rare earths, highlighting that these had been losing money. This was supported by Estonia and Denmark, framing it as beneficial for both the environment and European economies. However, Hungary responded by accusing the room of hypocrisy and insisting that working people would pay for it. To this, Bulgaria demanded an apology, reminding Hungary that delegates were working for the whole EU. The Netherlands replied that the Hungarian minister was not from the working class, questioning his positioning. Despite the back and forth, the amendment passed unanimously, with Hungary not voting— surprised? Article 8 was then adopted.

Although this session had varied strong positions, the last minutes went by smoothly. Article 9 was passed, and Article 10 was also adopted after a mixed vote. At 15:28, Luxembourg asked whether the first paragraph functioned as a preamble and, if so, proposed removing the mention of China to remain objective. This passed. Denmark then proposed removing any legal mention of partnerships, which also passed. This consolidated the ministers' shared argument of maintaining neutrality in legislation, avoiding politicization. Lastly, Hungary’s later intervention.  Revising the generalities, the minister suggested the suppression of environmental considerations from the last point of the committee's objectives which reads: To promote a circular economy by investing in recycling technologies, reducing consumption through innovation, and ensuring that all sourcing, domestic or international, meets the highest environmental and human rights standards. This instance can be summarised in the line “I can tolerate human rights but not the environment” which was promptly rejected. The general text was then adopted unanimously, and the room applauded. The chairs, Ludine and Alexandre, gracefully declared the session ended at 15:35.

CLOSING CEREMONY

Relief, laughter and joy was what was felt in the European Parliament at around 16:30, as delegates, MEP’s, organizers and staff crammed in to commend the work done over the past 24 hours. A rundown and comparison of each Parliament and Councils decision on the same article was presented and the last votes were cast. Representatives gave proud and engaging summaries of their groups and how they worked with one another, before cellist Paul, made a final appearance to perform an enchantingly captivating song. Up next, were your lovely “best delegates” who all gave beautiful speeches and interpretations on the question posed: is the relationship between China and the EU a reflection of a modern love story? Able to let a little more loose, the delegates cracked jokes, made some double entendres and of course tied a bit of politics into it all–Truly captivating. Finally, the organizing committee and the president gave thanks to the European Parliament and all organizations, partners, staff, participants, photographers, chairs and board members who could make the whole event possible. The parliament erupted in a standing ovation, a celebration and closing of what was truly an incredible event. 

CLOSING MD STATEMENT

On behalf of the Maastricht Diplomat, we have thoroughly enjoyed watching all the fruitful discussions and meaningful interpersonal bonds that were built these past two days. Thank you for letting us take part in this conference alongside you as press. We are very grateful to the organizing team, for inviting us and welcoming us with such warmness. Last but not least, we want to thank the wonderful interpreters for all their work, who made the multi-lingual element possible and accessible for all.

 Feel free to follow us on instagram and website to keep up with our work! We will leave the socials of our team incase anyone wants to connect: A.G (linkedin, instagram), Ella (linkedin, instagram), Lionel (linkedin, instagram), and Raquel (linkedin, instagram).

Much love,

from the MD team at European Agora 2025

25TH FEBRUARY: THE EP AND COUNCIL OPENING SESSIONS ON HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT

The European Parliament’s (EP) Health and Environment Committee’s floor was first declared open at 13:48 today, where the European Commission’s legislative proposal – the subject of debate for the remainder of the conference – was initially and formally presented. 15 minutes of informal debate was allotted for the MEP’s to consolidate their proposed positions and amendments to the eight articles comprising the proposal. Finally, MEPs could take a closer look at the work the Commission had been preparing in the last weeks, finalised only in the last hours, while the rest of the cohort had been enjoying the opening ceremony. 

Meanwhile, in the Council committee for Health and Environment, from the representatives' opening remarks, different priorities and strategies were presented. After the chairs recommended an unmoderated caucus, the council allocated 20 minutes for the ministers to discuss amongst themselves, find common ground, and make amendments to the Commission's proposal. 

According to Article 1 of the draft directive, the instrument aims to implement measures to reduce the carbon footprint of medicines placed on the EU market, strengthen resilience and sustainability of pharmaceutical supply chains, support the relocation and development of strategic pharmaceutical production within the EU, and enhance digital and technological capacities for health security. While doing so, the draft directive also intends to ensure a high level of public health protection, environmental sustainability, and strategic autonomy in the Union’s health sector. 

Debate on this article in the EP began with a proposition from the RENEW party, who wanted to amend the order of priority under article 1(1). They proposed that point 1(c), support for the relocation and development of strategic pharmaceutical production within the union, be given priority over 1(a), the reduction of carbon footprint of medicines placed on the Union market. The argumentative logic revolved around protecting the EU from so-called "dangerous” consequences of overdependence on foreign powers for medical resources and overall reallocating medicine production as much as possible within the EU. 

MEP’s positions were varied. Non-Affiliated (NA) MEP’s largely supported the amendment, holding that quick medicine distribution is vitally more important to member states, trumping goals for reducing carbon footprint. Conversely, the Alliance of Socialists and Democrats (ASD) questioned the notion of an EU-centered medical and pharmaceutical industry; specifically, the risk of a singular country’s monopoly on medication production, support for pharmaceutical companies in the sector, and the different nature and standards of each EU country’s health sector. The Green Party showed support for priority of 1(c), however, on the notion that the EU would be able to both manage medicine production and then be able to regulate the carbon footprint of production (scope of point 1(a)), since production would be under EU rules and law. The Left also expressed support on the condition that RENEW’s wording of “dangerous” be changed to  “which places the EU in a vulnerable position;” so as to lower risk of future confusion. The wording was adopted, and at 14:47, the vote to adopt RENEW’s amendment took place, with all in favour, besides 7 MEPs’ abstensions. 

The EPP proposed the final amendment to Article 1 at 14:52, to bring in a 3rd subclause to ensure prioritization of the EU’s health sector’s sovereignty. Essentially, this implied a focus on reducing EU dependency on China for medical resources, while maintaining their more “balanced and strategic relationships,” such as Norway, Switzerland, the UK, and other African and Pacific partners. This received much backlash from the Left and Green parties, who feared a turn towards protectionist-style policies on non-EU countries. After a bit of back and forth, the Chair proposed 15 minutes of informal debate to alter the wording and scope of the amendment, a motion which was passed at 15:11. Following this, the final subclause read “aims to ensure a high level of public health protection, environmental sustainability and strategic autonomy in the Union’s health sector.” 

MEP’s report that the afternoon break in the Health and Environment EP started at 16:00, despite it being scheduled at 15:00. As the day wrapped up, the MEPs still found themselves in debate on Article 2 of the draft Directive, which seeks to implement a regulatory framework for assessing the carbon footprint of medicinal products imported into the EU. 

After the Council’s session break, at 15:27 moderated debate was proposed by Hungary, the Council’s resident motionmaker, which passed by a unanimous vote. The Hungarian minister states Article 2 as their main discussion point, emphasizing the need for pragmatism and avoiding shortages in the search for economic development and improving healthcare accessibility. This sentiment was supported by Bulgaria.

In the Council, amendments to Article 1 at 15:41 sparked debate between Germany and Hungary. Specifically, Germany and its allies, Belgium, Luxembourg, and Sweden, mention China in their amendment text, aiming to counterbalance the ongoing challenge of dependency on China. This received much backlash from Hungary. The minister responded to the direct mention of China by stating that European independence needs to be built with precision, not targeting statements. He emphasized that European strength comes from its neutrality. This sentiment was supported by Poland, noting China as a strategic trading partner, fearing deteriorating relations. At 17:05, Germany’s minister made the strong statement that silence is complicity. This sparked a discussion regarding legislation being used as a political tool and its legitimacy. After a prolonged discussion and a session break, the amendment was passed with an effective majority of 13. 

The representatives seem to agree on the need to strengthen European independence, particularly regarding pharmaceutical innovation and production. The approach to reach this united goal remains disputed. Member states reported concern over isolation, particularly smaller and coastal nations, which would face disproportionate consequences if trade with third-country suppliers were diminished rashly. These fears seem to be foundational in the proposed amendment to Article 4; Article 4 of the draft directive outlines the intention to form a dedicated European funding mechanism for purposes of supporting production of Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients within the EU, which shall finance research and innovation, support industrial scaling, and facilitate public-private partnerships to strengthen resilient pharmaceutical manufacturing capacities, all within the framework of and in accordance with EU state aid and competition rules. This discussion is set to continue in the next session. 

25TH FEBRUARY: EUROPEAN AGORA’S OPENING CEREMONY 

EuropeanAgora 2026 was officially opened by Mauriane at 10:30 this morning during an engaging opening ceremony in the Robert Schuman Forum at the European Parliament in Strasbourg. To start, participants were briefed on the interpretation systems and then had plenty of opportunity to practise throughout the ceremony, with speeches held in multiple languages by the president, head of simulation, and committee chairs.

Paul, a French cellist, delighted participants with Cello Suite No. 2 in D Minor by Johann Sebastian Bach, a German composer. A reminder of the two Europes and two Germanys. This performance made tribute to Russian cellist Mstislav Rostropovich, who, upon hearing reports of the fall of the Berlin Wall, flew to Berlin to perform this chosen celebratory song at the wall. 

The president, Louis, provided insights on the intention and architecture of this year’s European Agora edition. For the first time, the simulation offers a glimpse of the European Union’s institutional ecosystem. Three institutions are presented: (1) The Council of the European Union and (2) The European Parliament, both divided into economy, health and environment and foreign affairs, and (3) The European Commission, grouping all themes. This structure was constructed with the intention that everyone at the conference works in parallel to negotiate a shared goal; strengthen the Union’s autonomy by balancing power relations between China and the EU.  

In a brief note of levity, the organisers introduced participants to the voting system with a small quiz, opening with a question on “panda diplomacy.” Following this, Antoine Bondaz, current advisor to the President of the European Commission and specialist on China and Indo-Pacific affairs, joined in on video call to brief the Parliament on EU Relations with China. Opening with the point that the imbalance of China-EU relations has increasingly deepened and accelerated in recent years, Bondaz ran down their main points of contention concerning “The China Question”.  

Bondaz’s points can be summarized into the following: (1) Chinese economic global expansion and supremacy as threatening to EU sovereignty and economic output; (2) China’s lack of a Green policy adoption; being the world's largest carbon dioxide polluter; (3) Chinese security and defense and their growth as a strong military power, encompassing their relations with Russia and stance towards Taiwan; (4) Chinese efforts to globally present themselves as a stabilizer in comparison to the EU and the US, highlighting expanding relations of major-middle power with China (eg. Canada, Russia, Iran etc). Overall, Bondaz highlighted the imminent nature of the ongoing China shock in Europe and how it is of utmost importance for the EU to act on the imbalance. 

Once the talk and brief Q&A were concluded, the ceremony closed, with remaining delegates being asked to move into their political groups to get introduced to each other. They began conversations about choosing group presidents.

As of 12:02 Economic Affairs is off to lunch, Foreign Affairs and Parliament will attend an expert conference, and the Commission's debate continues.