[Simulation] LIVE: European Agora

LIVE UPDATES IN PROGRESS

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.