zondag 30 januari 2022

Seventh Debate: ENVI

 This is it folks. We're almost done. At the end of the line. It has all come to this. ENVI, the committee on environment, public health and food safety, it's only you now. TAKE THE STAGE!

A goal was set for this debate: to get 14 direct responses. This has certainly reignited the competitive spirit in the delegates. But before they could try to accomplish this goal, the OC's have to be read out and the defense speech has to be delivered. In the aforementioned speech the delegate painted a disney-esque picture of a guppy losing her mother to platics in the sea. To protect the maritime environment ENVI suggests investment into sustainable plastics and enforcing further taxation on the production of single-use plastics. All in all, great speech. 

Now onto the last attack speeches of the day. The first one went to FEMM. They do not believe that taxation will decrease the amount of single-use plastics, they used the increased price on sigarettes and how that barely had any impact. The second one went to LIBE II. They too criticized the taxtion on single-use plastics, because it will always be more financially viable to use single-use plastics. They suggested trying to change individual people first. The last and unusual third attack speech went to DROI. They stated that the plastics that are already in the ocean should also be removed and suggested to invest in already existing programs with this goal. 

Now onto the last first round of open debate. FEMM noted that ENVI did not come up with a solution to safe the fish that are dying in the ocean right now. The first direct response was made by LIBE II as they stated that raising awareness would be a better solution to the amount of single-use plastics than a tax. ECON suggested to ban single-use plastics all together, this got a direct response from CULT stating that banning plastics would be impossible because they are used in almost every product. ECON directly responded to point by clarifying that they just meant single-use plastics. LIBE II brought up the point that banning single-use plastics would be a huge detriment to the disabled community and the medical community, who both heavily rely on them.

It was a difficult task for ENVI to respond to the wide range of points made. But unsurprisingly they managed it very well, responding to nearly every single one of them. This neatly brought us to the second round of open debate. After a short tangent about minecraft from one of our very professional board members. CULT argued for products without plastics to be more readily available. ECON pointed out that a lot of plastics in the oceans get there via rivers and that they would have liked to see this included in the resolution. DROI advocated for reducing the amount of redundant single-use packing plastics is the only real solution. FEMM responsed directly and said that they agreed that some single-use plastics are necessary and others are not. ECON brought up the point of microplastics and that they didn't see anything mentioning those in the resolution. ITRE said that reducing single-use plastic is not the main goal, but cleaning up the ocean is. DROI used their direct response to say that preventing more plastic from reaching the ocean will make cleaning the ocean a lot easier. The last point was made by LIBE II. They also touched on the lack of solutions to all of the plastic in the ocean. 

Again the ENVI committee handled their response very wel, were very thorough and responded to practically every point made. Then the floor was opened to the last round of this debate and of this BYP session. It started of with a bang from ECON about microplastics comprimising our health. DROI also used their direct response and wholeheartedly agreed with ECON. FEMM pointed out that just funding research isn't a real solution and certainly not now that time is of the essence. LIBE II advocated for the reuse of single-use plastics. The very last point of this session went to CULT. They stated that further taxation would only target the people who "need" single-use plastics the most and the people who can afford alternatives would still be able to afford the more expensive single-use plastic.

This brought us to the uprepared summation speech by ENVI. They stated that to come up with a solution for the toxicity of plastics the first need information, which is why they want to fund research. They also pointed out that micro-plastics are a long term problem and macro-plastics are a short term problem. That is why the focus on the macro-plastics. As for the prepared summation... What can i say but WINTER IS COMING FOR US ALL! and also that is was a spectaculair end to a spectaculair debate.

It seems that the musical attitude has left the building and humour, rhyme and divided opinions have entered. ENVI definitly wins most theatrical committee. They can come and get their applause, because their resolution has passed! Such a nice positive ending to this session!

Sixth Debate: FEMM

 The penultimate debate! FEMM, the committee on women's rights and gender equality. We started of strong with a confident reading of the OC's and this atmosphere was carried over into the defense speech. It is difficult to make percentages sound interesting and inspiring but this defense speech did the trick with confidence and passion. Down with the Peters. 

Every committee really wanted to get the attack speech. The first lucky one was DROI. They made the point that companies can lie about the percentages of the salaries if men and women. They were also very constructive when they said that encouraging women and girls to participate in STEM subjects. The second attack speech went to CULT. This speech was delivered in a very charismatic manner and also had good content, that there are already a lot of women in STEM and governments should encourge and support them. 

With that the first round of open debate got started. Very quickly there was a direct response from LIBE II about the gender quotum not being fair because people should be hired for their skills and not their gender. FEMM clarified in a direct response that their quotum would concern the ampount of women who sollicitate and not the amount of women who are hired. ENVI made a point about the underlying factors of systematic sexism and those not really being represented in the OC's. In their response FEMM stated that quotums would not deminish the quality of the work. Nobody wants positive discrimination, but in our society it is unfortunatly necessary. To prevent the companies from lying they would want to instate a third party to publish the information about the different salaries. It was a very passionat and thorough response.

The second round of open debate started with a point by ECON, who suggested anonymous application. CULT stated that the wage gap is not because of sexism because women who have children can often only work part time or take maternity leave and cannot work as much. DROI suggested to try to get more women on the company boards or the third party that would have the information about the salaries. FEMM responded to CULT's point by saying that because of maternal leave women get promoted less than men, because men don't often take paternal leave. THis marked the end of the second round of debate.

ECON started the third and final round of open debate out strong by suggesting that both mothers and fathers take periodical sabbaticals to even out the difference. CULT stated that FEMM wanted equalized maternal and paternal leave but that this will probably not work because men are hesitant to take paternal leave. 

In their unprepared summation speech FEMM stated, in regards to their quotum, that higher placed jobs should be divided equally amongst men and women. In the prepared summation FEMM put us in the shoes of a mother and carreer woman who is unable to continue to grow professionally due to sexism. Thy advocated for an equal society and not companies filled with Peters.

Just when we thought the singing and rhyming was getting a bit old, these kids suprised us all with they're creativity and humour. But we we not the only ones who were suprised as with 46 in favour and 5 against FEMM's resolution has passed

Fifth Debate: CULT

 It's not a cult! It's just CULT, the committee on culture and education. To open this debate the Operative clauses were read and the Defende Speech was given. The latter made us feel for every LGBTQ+ child in school who is getting bullied, feels isolated and alone. It was a touching speech about recognizing that we are all humans and that sexuality, gender indentity  or race should not matter because everyone deserves respect and love. This message was delivered with a serious tone to perfectly accompany the severity of the topic. 

The attack speeches both critisized the LGBTQ+ employee quotum for being both discriminatory and demeaning. The first point in the debate was made by FEMM about bullying and how the CULT committee would tackle this. CULT used a direct response to say that there is no universal program on how to handle bullying and that it is very difficult to determine what is and isn't bullying. I'm sure the board was happy to see a direct response this early in the debate. The teacher quotum was brought up again and how it is rather easy to pretend to be part of the LGBTQ+ community. ENVI asked what the criteria should be to be part of the LGBTQ+ community. LIBE II immediatelty used a direct response to say that there should be no criteria exept to identify as not heteroromantic, heterosexual or cisgender. 

There were a plethera of points made during the first round of open debate and CULT responded expertly to them, using the whole floor. After the response, debating resumed and the second round of open debate  got started. ECON responded to a point that CULT had made in their response, which was that the teachers in the quotum didn't have to be part of the LGBTQ+ community but that they just had to be a representative. ECON stated that someone who is not part of that community wouldn't know what LGBTQ+ people go through and wouldn't be a real representative. ENVI stated that somebody who is a member of the LGBTQ+ community can still not know everything and still be bigoted in some ways. The last point of the debate was a direct response of LIBE II to ECON, stating that eventhough maths and english is important to teach in schools it is also important to learn about other thing to do with society. We thought this would be the last point of this round but it unleashed a typhoon if direct responses. First from ECON, defending their original point that school is for not for learning about LGBTQ+ topics. Two other direct responses agreed with LIBE II that learning about your fellow human is very inmportant. The CULT committee agreed with these points in their response to this round of debate. 

The third round and final round of open debate started with a direct response from FEMM, asking how the CULT committee would deal with parents who object to schools teaching LGBTQ+ topics. ECON made the point that religion shouldn't be an obstacle, to which DROI directly responded to say that they agreed but that in reality it often is. LIBE II agreed with past points about school being a place to learn about life and that LGBTQ+ topics are a part of life too. After a viscious battle for the last point, ENVI came out on top. They stated that the schoolbooks should not be written by the government as it can be biased.

In the unprepared summation speech a few points were clarified. They wanted to start a movement in which people can identify eachother and feel less alone. The prepared summation shocked us with the extremely high suicide rates amongst people in the LGBTQ+ community in the netherlands alone, a relatively accepting country. The speech called out for people to treat everyone with respect and as normal human beings, no matter how they identify.

It has turned out to be BYP: the musical. Choreography, singing and puns! My favourite combination of things! It must have been CULT's favourite combination too, because we were happy to anounce that their resolution had passed!

Fourth Debate: LIBE II

 We've passed the halfway point and have reached the next proposing committee: LIBE II, the committee on civil liberties, justice and home affairs II. The reading out of the OC's was as per usual followed by the Defense Speech. This speech gave us an insight into the horrible things refugees and migrants go through. LIBE II eloquently explained why their solutions would work and summed it up with the very catchy slogan "immigration, legislation, integration". 

The first attack speech was by ENVI and commented on the risk of moving things along too fast, which would create even more problems. Their were very constructive and advised LIBE II to take thinks slow, focussing on education and intergration first. The second attack speech was deliverd by ECON. They pointed out that there are developmental differences between the countries in the EU and that an equal distribution of migrants would neither be fair to the countries nor the migrants. 

Going into the first round of open debate the first point made was immediately followed by a direct response by the proposing committee. As is well know we very much appreciate those. DROI agreed with the earlier point made in the second attack speech, using Geramny and Slovakia as examples. This point was followed by two direct responses from ECON and then DROI. This was a good round of debate and the proposing committee was able to summarise al the point and respond to them in a very punctual fashion.

After a minute of deliberation amongst the delegates, the second round of open debate started with the opening point being made by ITRE. This point got a direct response from ENVI and the from LIBE II. These three points dealt with using vacant houses to house migrants and refugees. CULT touched on the way that distributing refugees is a way of dehumasizing them, which will only do harm to their integration. DROI proposed that we should raise awareness and acceptance in the community instead of in schools as to better help the intergration of migrants. A good round, but we could have used more direct responses :).

After LIBE II responded to the last round of open debate, the third and final round of this debate. Starting off strong with a direct response from CULT

Third Debate: ITRE

 After a short break, the delegates resumed debating with renewed spirits (fueled by roze koeken). Onto ITRE, the committee on Industry, Reseach and Technology. Operative Clauses were read out and the defense speech was delivererd. The defense speech touched on reasons why people are afraid of nuclear power and that those fears have halted research into nuclear power which is keeping the world from cleaner and more sustanable energy. This was a very balanced and perfectly timed speech that put the risks and rewards of nuclear power into perspective

The attack speeches were delivered by DROI and CULT respectively. Both committees did not think that the positives were worth the risk of possible accidents and weaponization. These speeches were immediately followed by the first round of open debate. The dangers of nuclear power were brought up again. CULT made the point that past accidents would not happenwith the technology we have today, which caused an explosion of direct responses. FEMM, ENVI, CULT, LIBE, ENVI again, ECON! Very lively and engaging.

This gave the proposing committee enough material to respond to. They did this in a systematic and factual manner. Opening the second round of open debate was DROI. They touched on the waste that nuclear power produces. This point was added to by ECON. CULT made a very constructive point about investing more in the research of other sustainable modes of generating power. LIBE II also made a similar point and spoke about nuclear fusion being a safer way of producing nuclear energy. ECON stated that nuclear plans are a long term solution to something that requiers a short term one as well, climate change. Another diverse round of debate, which gave the proposing committe a difficult task to respond to them all. Luckily they handled it very well.

The third and final round of open debate started of strong with a direct response from ECON. The point that ENVI made about human error in nuclear powerplants was answered by a direct response from FEMM, who advocated for stricter safety protocols to take away the room for mistakes. A few of the committees also asked the ITRE how they would counter the possible weaponization of nuclear power. The last point of the debate was made by FEMM adressing the dangers of giving nuclear power over to the free market, which got two direct responses. One from ITRE, saying that there would of course be regulations, and one from CULT saying that even with regulations private investors would have too much power. 

This signaled the end of this explosive debate. The unprepared summation speech made by ITRE stressed the safety of power plants with modern technology. The prepared summation proposed spreading awareness about nuclear power to take away the fear that exist in society. They were both very articulate and informational speeches. 

Voting turned into a full blown musical with Queen, the YMCA and ABBA. This musical atmosphere fit perfectly with the fact that this resolution has passed!

Second debate: ECON

 Next up: ECON, the committee on economic and monetary affairs. The reading out of the operative clauses was swiftly followed by a poised, practical and professional defense speech. In this speech the investing in companies such as zoom to make working from home more attractive. They also advocated for subsidizing sustainable companies. 

FEMM delivered the first attack speech. They suggested instating a EU wide pandemic response plan, to avoid future detriment to the economy in case there is another pandemic. They criticized investing in a multi-national like Zoom as they have enough money already. The second attack speech was delivered by ITRE which, among other things, critized the promoting of local businessses. 

Going into the first round of open debate we already had a two direct responses by LIBE and CULT about the availability of digital devices to people who can't afford to go to their far away jobs and have to use Zoom. A great start to a great debate. The increase of mental health problems because of the pandemic was brought up numerous times, as the other committees did not think it was properly adressed in the resolution of ECON. At the end of this first round we had already had 5 direct responses and a large amount of varying points. A very good round indeed!

After a charismatic and concise response of ECON to the points made in the debate, the second round commenced. Starting with a point by DROI, immediately followed by a direct response from ENVI about the hierarchy that could form between people who have a lot of monitors to work with and those who don't. The quality of the points made was very high this round.

The response from ECON was promptly followed by tweo direct responses by ENVI and FEMM. Points were being made at the speed of lighting. Mental health issues because of the working environment and global pandemic were brought up again in this round. ITRE made a point about not only rewarding sustainable companies but also penalizing the ones that are not. LIBE II pointed out that there are better places to invest EU money than Zoom and that the money would be better spend on making other companies more suatainable. After a tough battle of merciless plancard shaking the last two point of the third and last round of open debate went to CULT and FEMM. Well fought soldiers!

The unprepared summation speech spoke of giving people the opportunity to work at home and stressed the importance of investing in healthcare. The prepared summation speech was a passionate about the healthcare workers who have been through so much this past two years and urged the opposing committees to vote in favor of their resolution.

After some creative voting procedures (Mama Mia might have been involved), we are sad to anounce that with 14 votes in favor and 37 against this resolution has not passed.

First debate: DROI

 After a very enlightening Mock Debate, showing us the do's and don'ts of GA, the very first committee of the day was: DROI, the committee on human rights. After the operative clauses were read out, the Defense Speech was delivered by Quinten Wurbain. The arguments were delivererd in a calm and clear manner, so that everyone could clearly understand the importance of spreading awareness and doing something about statelessness in the EU. 

Following this speech came two Attacks Speeches from two of the opposing committees. Were they critisized some of the Operative Clauses proposed by DROI. Mainly the points of spreading awareness and public schooling for stateless children.

Going into the first round of open debate the theme of public schooling for stateless children being atainable or not remained a throughline. The fact that not all stateless people were acounted for in the resolution was also brought up multiple times. We also had the first direct response by the committee of ENVI, making this a very lively round of open debate. 

The committee of DROI responded to the points made in the debate and in the attack speeches. After which the second round of open debate commenced. With two other direct responses within the first minute, which is always much appreciated. Allowing stateless children to attend public schools remaind a hotly debated topic. Points were made about the discrimination those children might face and the probable influx of refugees when public schooling would become readily available to them.

The DROI committee defended their public schooling point once more. They stated that they didn't want separate schools to prevent any further segragation and that schooling would help stateless children learn the language and integrate into society.

In the third of open debate further points were made about the schooling. The issues people might face when trying to apply for a public school, which can be very difficult, were brought up. LIBE defended the public schooling OC which was followed by a direct response from CULT, keeping up the lively and invested spirit we have seen so far in this debate. 

After another direct response by ECON, DROI responded to the points raised during this round. They stated that raising awareness is imperative, as many people have no clue about the state of stateless people.

In the fourth and final round of open debate a lot of plancards went up. The issue of not only children but also adults was raised by CULT. After a point made by ITRE, ECON made a direct response and after that ITRE made a direct response to the direct response. We love to see it! ITRE used both of their direct responses in this round! The focus on stateless children was critisized by a number of committees by saying that stateless adults are often not recognized or don't speak the language. A "separate but together" schooling program for stateless children within public schools was proposed and debated during this round.

After two more direct responses DROI gave their unprepared and prepared summation speeches. In the unprepared the highly debated points of public schooling were adressed once more in a very clear and concise manner. The prepared summation was a passionate plea for the recognision of stateless persons fundamental human rights.

With 41 votes in favor and 10 votes against the resolution of the committee on human rights has passed!

Alwins speech

 BYP 2022

Dear Barlaeans, delegates, officials, members of the board, Margriet and Reinier,

I would like to express my profound gratitude for the invitation to open the Barlaeus Youth Parliament 2022. Today your general assembly will debate about a number of resolutions in which you address the cultural integration of people with a migratory background, the usage of nuclear power and plastic waste polluting the ocean to mention just a few of the wide range of topics which you will be discussing. I thought it might be fitting to open this edition of the BYP by taking you from Athens to Brussels, from the cradle of democracy to the office buildings of the European Union.

But let me start on a more personal note. When I was 21, I wrote a column entitled “A green Leviathan” in the student magazine of which I was editor at the time. The title of the piece referred to the famous book by the great English philosopher Thomas Hobbes, in which he defended the absolute monarchy of his days. I used his theory to defend the institution of an international organisation with absolute powers to implement the necessary measures to prevent environmental disaster. It was 1990, I was young and the piece was written in black and white. In the next issue of the magazine, I was rightly castigated by a fellow student and a researcher, the one arguing that my reasoning was deeply flawed and inconsistent, the other that I should at least allow citizens the right to collectively choose their own extinction. I had to think about this youthful indiscretion when I was preparing for today: not so much because of the topic under discussion, but because it illustrates a very understandable – all too human - desire for simple solutions. For me, it was a quick fix for our environment, written in black and white. But democracy at its best is grey. Let me explain.

Thé founding statement on political democracy is probably the funeral speech that the Greek statesman Pericles held when he mourned the soldiers who had died in the war of Athens against the Spartans. In the funeral speech, he famously describes what made Athens a democracy:

“Our form of government” he said, “is called a democracy because its administration is in the hands, not of a few, but of the whole people. (…) Election to public office is made on the basis of ability, not on the basis of membership to a particular class.” But, democracy for Pericles was not only a form of government, it was also – and more importantly - a way of life. “[N]ot only in our public life are we free and open” said Pericles, “but a sense of freedom also regulates our day-to-day life with each other. We do not flare up in anger at our neighbour if he does what he likes. And we do not show the kind of silent disapproval that causes pain in others, even though it is not a direct accusation. In our private affairs, then, we are tolerant and avoid giving offense.”

The most disturbing feature of recent political debate for me is the fact that it is exactly this way of life that is under fire. There has of course always been debate about the future of the European Union. And at the core of its very existence is a constant and perpetual tug of war between federalists who want a more unified Europe with a political, social and military agenda of its own and nationalists who want to keep Europe as small as possible and who strive to restrict its operations to the economic realm. That debate was always part and parcel of the European tradition as it evolved from the 1950s onwards.

After Brexit, the increasing divide between East and West is a new and major challenge for the EU. There is a growing number of conflicts about the core values of the EU and the most fundamental principles of our modern democracy. Conflicts that are raised not by some totalitarian or authoritarian state somewhere on the other side of the globe but by member states of the EU. Membership is no longer the self-evident background against which countries and political parties deliberate about Europe. The conviction that a unified Europe was important, maybe even necessary for peace and prosperity no longer stands as an undisputed truth. The debate about the future of Europe is no longer about its direction – federalist or nationalist - but has become one about its very existence.

Political parties are increasingly extreme in their opinions. Black-and-white is no longer the language of youthful indiscretion, but has more and more become the new political standard. The European Union is one of the most conspicuous victims of this development. The EU has often been seen by its critics as the embodiment of the failure of our democracy. It is by them regarded as the pinnacle of bureaucracy, symbolised best maybe by the large glass office buildings in which the European Union resides in Brussels. But most of all – the European Union is grey: there are no easy solutions in Brussels, a depressing number of rules and regulations and even more civil servants.

I would think that grey needs a revaluation. Not grey as in mediocrity, but grey as a sign of humanity, grey as in “one question means more, than ten opinions”. I am convinced that an open and inclusive society in which grey trumps black-and-white remains the best defence against bigotry and fanaticism. I would like to invite you to take a stance against black-and-white thinking and to promote grey. Now, you might think: you were 21 and black-and-white, why would we be grey at our age? First, at your age there’s nothing really wrong with black-and–white. But, I have high hopes for you. The researcher who responded in grey to my black-and-white column was an old Barlaean and has since become professor of history. It might just be that a Barlaean education inoculates against black-and-white thinking. For today I invite and challenge you to be grey. Thank you and enjoy! 

(we'll miss you Alwin :))

Good morning!

 The officials are awake and trying to lighten the mood of the tired faces we see on the second floor. The first delegates have cleaned up their rooms and went downstairs to have a much needed breakfast. Let's see if they've had enough sleep to power through today's GA. 

zaterdag 29 januari 2022

Just dance 2.0!

 With the delegates working themselves to the bone we thought it would be fun to organise a just dance competition between de officials and delegates! photo's will be up shortly.

GA prep

 As some of you may have already guessed a GA isn't set up without preparation. At the time that we are writing this the delegates are in their committee rooms listening with open ears to what the chairs have to say about the GA. The delegates haven't got any clues yet as to what a defence speech is or what kind of rules they must follow. Let's hope the chairs give them the proper explanation (guess we'll find out tomorrow). 

Food! Glorious food!

 BYP provides you with a lot of food for thought. But what would those clever minds be worth without some actual food? The Orga team absolutely knocked it out of the park tonight with their delectable chilli sin carne. After a dessert consiting of raketjes (oh sorry, "ruimte ijsjes") and perenijsjes, the delegates return to their classrooms for some GA (General Assembly) prep. They have a loooong night of speech writing, stress and zero sleep ahead of them.

Committeework and laughs

Between all the work the journo's have been doing, making sure your kids have the best possible pictures of themselves and posting on the blog, we've found some time to give a more personal view in what is happening behind those mysterious doors. 

The first committee we visited was ITRE chaired by Sudenaz and Jeroen. Whilst listening to the great ideas being spoken about Ömer our president this weekend came in to play the chicken game. this fun and exciting game made the kids laugh at the top of their lungs. This fun little break gave the kids enough energy to continue pushing through with the last bits of committee work. 

The second committee we visited was LIBE II chaired by Marit and Bebel. When we came inside the committee was heavily debating about their own tactics for tomorrow's GA. These subjects aren't easy and the ease which with the delegates pick them up is incredible. 

The third committee we visited was CULT chaired by Raven and Marijn. When we came inside they were just starting an energiser to get their focus levels sky-high. Right after they continued their work on the OC's. 

The fourth and final committee we visited was FEMM chaired by Jason, Radoua and Elodie. when we came inside they were heavily discussing about which solutions they should choose for their problems.  

Just Dance

After committee work, the children finally got a breather in the form of some good ol'  Just Dance. They got to stretch their stiff limbs and have a lot of fun. But nothing is as fun as committee work, which they got right back to doing afterwards. Good luck!

Lunch time

 The kids have finished their first committee work (they're still enjoying it for now...). Lunch break has started and everyone is munching on pancakes, krentenbollen and fruit, thanks to the amazing orga's for taking such good care of our delegates! In a few minutes they will continue their committee work and we hope that they've finished their resolutions on time so they can get as much sleep as possible tonight, which is much needed for the GA (general assembly) tomorrow. 


 As is tradition, the delegates and officials of BYP 2022 have gone outside and amazed the bystanders as they were screaming their chants and running around like loose chickens. The already big smiles have become even bigger and this trip outside has raised their spirits for the upcoming committee work, which they are starting with right now! Let their brains be heard throughout the whole school as they crack on with this years resolutions. 


With the first coffee break already around the corner and the committees well underway with their icebreakers, the spirits are way up high! What started out as little frightened faces, not sure what to expect this weekend, has turned into smiling faces and kids eager to debate. 

The grand opening!

 What a tremendous start to the weekend! We rode on big fat ponies, the wizards defeated the giants and there was cheerleading galore. After these games the ice was most certainly broken and the committees each retired to their respective classrooms. 

Ready, set, go!

The delegates have arrived and it's time for a thrilling weekend! Even though its still early in the morning, everyone seems excited and ready to debate their hearts out. But first, the "the run of the mill" stick in the nose we've become so accustomed to to make sure that this weekend will stay entirely safe of any alphabetically named Greek viruses. After that, we will kick things off in the gymnastic hall for the grand opening.    

vrijdag 28 januari 2022

One more night...

The officials have arrived, the icebreakers have begun, Margriet and Reinier have set up their tents, orga's have prepared the breakfast and everyone is waiting in anticipation for the delegates to arrive! This promises to become a great and exciting weekend. Let's hope the delegates have their English up to date (packing tip: bring a dictionary ;)). 


Twenty-two blue Appiekratjes, six huge bags of vegetables & fruit, thirty-two bottles of soda. Let's say the delivery man was rather happy that we helped carry everything inside...

donderdag 27 januari 2022

One day!

One day, two nights...food's been ordered, placards have been made, rooms have been allocated, officials are packing their bags to arrive at the Barlaeus at 20.00 tomorrow to prepare the building for you...actually, all we're waiting for is delegates! Prepare like mad for one more day and please remember to bring your deodorants, because it's going to be sweaty...

maandag 24 januari 2022

Five more days

Only five more days and BYP will be off and running...time to get your engines started, practise your English, research your own and other resolutions, find your suit, sharpen your pencils & your tongue and in general, prepare yourself for one of the most fatiguing, educating, stimulating, frustrating, communicating and exhilarating weekends of your life.

The officials’ team is looking forward to organizing, boarding, jurying, chairing and journoing for you: now it is up to you to make it worth our while!

Five more days. Get ready.

Margriet & Rein