An amazing day, amazing delegates, amazing officials: BYP 2024, the shortened version, was amazing! Thanks to all former students who cleaned out their diaries to be here for the Barlaeanen and to help Reinier and me create a social and learning experience without equal.
To all good things come an end; congratulations to Djem, Alexandria, Elvira, Valerie, Kai, Hannah, Tyrell & Kiki, who will represent het Barlaeus in the European Youth Parliament!
LIBE
Defense Speech
Valerie Swirc starts with a story about her grandma who used unreliable advice on the internet to solve a problem, resulting in danger for her health. She believes the European Commission needs to provide information with. Label. Companies that spread fake news need to be punished and those who don’t deserve to be rewarded. Lastly awareness is very important. In the future Valerie hopes her grandma will no longer have to be the victim of fake news.
Attack speech FEMM
.. thinks it is dangerous for one organization to have the power to decide what is real and what is fake. This undermines our democratic right of freedom of speech.
Attack speech ENVI I
Declan is concerned about the increasing spread o fake news. Penalizing organizations is not that simple. Organizations are not in control of what people post. Therefore Declan recommends the solution of mandating filtering regulations of information to decrease the spread of fake news. This will be a much more effective and fair solution.
First round of open debate
CULT: Is it necessary to make such an organization, should the responsibility not fall on the companies?
FEMM: Djem is concerned that the label might not prevent fake news sources from creating fake news in the future.
Direct Response LIBE: There will be an online group of people t check these sources.
CULT: What is the line between fake news and real news and who draws this? When does it become censorship?
ENVI I: These plans wil cost money and require people.
ENVI II: Likes LIBE’s point but is concerned thoe who are not in educational subjects will not get educated.
Direct Response LIBE: The information will also be spread on television, etc.
FEMM: This problem has gotten so big it is hardly still within our control.
LiBES response
We want to preserve freedom of speech s therefore we do not plan to censor. We disagree that companies are responsible, but we do want to work together to take down fake news. We plan to create an online algorithm to make sure the news is verified.
Direct Response
ENVI I: How will we get an unbiased party?
FEMM: Labels could cause a blind trust in potentially foraged news.
ENVI I: thousands of posts are made on social media platforms daily, so much so it is hard to process it all.
LIBE’s response
Wikipedia uses volunteers, but also AI. Ai can excellently recognize fake news sources and is very reliable. In addition to this a human will also check every post that is made on the internet.
Direct Response ENVI I: Who says these volunteers won’t just be people spreading fake news?
FEMM: News companies with labels can get hacked and will then no longer provide real news.
ENVI I: Followers may be angry at the government for cancelling their favorite influencers.
This last debate has been excellent and heated! The Direct Responses just keep on coming (even when they have already used them all). A great end to an amazing day.
Summation Speech:
Barbara recaps this amazing debate to finish the day off strong. The point is not to censor but to warn people news may be censored. They will accomplish this by using unbiased filters such as AI.
Summation Speech:
Marijn Rijpkema tells us the importance of how easily fake news spreads and that it is hard to differentiate from real stories. With their solutions this can be prevented. Those who are easily influenced will be supported, this way everyone’s grandparents can stay safe from misinformation.
Now the votes will be counted.
!9 votes against the resolution and 12 in favor. The resolution of the last debate has not passed.
After hours of debate the delegates are famished. Time for dinner!
Defence Speech
The delegate held an excellent speech on the horrors of female exploitations. She tells an emotional story about a girl being trafficked, even though this heartbreaking scene is from a movie these situations are occurring in real life. She provides the solution of spreading awareness.
LIBES’s attack speech
Responds to the first OC 3 about data identifying victims claiming this will not solve the problem.
Attack speech
The delegate believes the resolution doesn’t hit the mark. The third point is redundant since criminal profiling is already a thing. In addition victims don’t want to relive trauma. There was already an antitrafficking directive in 2011 which did the same thing but failed. So why do it again?
First debate round
CULT: The OC’s don’t represent action taking, but only implies waiting.
LIBE: Victims don’t want to relive traumatic parts of their lives. We should go to society and not only to the victims.
ENVI: Where and how can we find victims of human trafficking?
FEMM’s response
Victims want to prevent human trafficking from happening again so they will speak up. About the failed initiative in criminal profiling, we don’t have enough information.
Direct response:
A delegate from ENVII says it will cost a lot of money to spread awareness.
Direct Response FEMM:
Telling women how to avoid dangerous situations would solve the problem.
CULT: There is no specification about the difference between raising awareness and actual protection.
DIRECT RESPONSE LIBE:
The third clause actually calls for understanding, which is required to take action.
Things are getting exciting and plaques are vigorously waved in the air. Who will it be?
ENVI I: Aren’t most victims to scared and ashamed.
ENVI II: In the overview FEMM said if people are traumatized they most literally quiver in fear.
FEMM’s response:
If we create awareness, victims will step up and help each other. If it is told in the news it will not cost money in educational campaigns.
Last round:
LIBE: Barbara says why should women have to change their behaviors when human traffickers are in the wrong.
Direct Response FEMM: Awareness will cause people on the streets to recognize and stop human trafficking.
CULT, with a beautiful FOXY sign gets the (almost) last point:
What are FEMM’s takes on gender equality?
LIBE: Doesn’t education about the dangers on the street make women afraid of every man they see on the street?
Direct Response ENVI I: It is a realistic problem, women are already afraid. Fear is not a reason to not raise awareness.
Summation speech
The delegate speaks very well about the importance of working together in order to stop human trafficking. We need to find the victims before we can find the traffickers.
Summation Speech 2
The delegate wants to emphasize that their solution is right. After observing the lack of awareness they feel the need to spread more awareness by utilizing more data. Furthermore, the EU needs to collaborate with victims so people can confidently take about their problems.
The speech ends with a last cry: “VOTE FOR FEMM!”
….
With 20 votes against and 10 in favor the resolution has not passed.
In the new round, we discuss environmental issues again. We now look at the loss of biodiversity caused by human pollution. We hear a strong defense speech laying out the package of policies proposed by the committee.
In the first attack speech, we are taught about the financial impact of limiting areas for fishing and agriculture.
In the next speech we are told that there have been many attempts to subsidize already, and that it might be more effective to focus on restrictions.
The parliament seems eager to point out mistakes in this committee's resolution. In the first round of debate a delegate questions how the committee plans to select the types of farms that should be restricted. Immediately we see a direct response from the defending committee, pointing out that it aims to restrict only the unsustainable monofarming.
The committee responses:
On the question of how to combat overfishing and overuse of land, the committee answers that we must limit consumption.
open round 2
Again, many good points were raised in this debate. One delegate wonders why the committee still doesn't completely eliminate monofarming. Also, a delegate is worried about the incomes that are dependent on the types of agriculture the committee wants to combat.
The committee answers with an original solution. Vertical expansion will not lead to more land useage, but it can still provide for more output. Also they state that incomes are not in danger for farmers who are willing to switch to more sustainable methods.
3
In the third round, an unprecedented chain of direct responses occurs. A delegate from ENVI I states that pesticides will always kill animals, so they limit diversity by nature. Direct response from the defending committee: natural pesticides kill only some insects and are far less harmful than artificial pesticides. Again there is a direct response: a delegate from FEMM fears that the natural pesticides are not affordable for all farmers. A fourth comment: natural pesticides can lead to healthier crops and therefore healthier citizens.
Summation speech
The delegate summarizes some of the concerns. Although trees take long to grow, we must be patient if we want to restore biodiversity. Also, the costs of certain taxes, are balanced by subsidies. The delegate reminds us that our current way of living is destroying biodiversity. We must fight overfishing, if we want to ensure food safety. With persuasive words, we are called upon to vote in favor of their resolution.
With great pleasure the board anounces that with 22 votes in favor, the resolution has passed!
The attack speech by Isabel deals with the complex dilemma of wanting to protect and emancipate people from the LGBTQ community, while not making them look like a special case. Eventually we want to normalize the LGBTQ community, and get rid of stigma’s.
First round of debate
Two issues seem to return. Firstly some delegates are worried that individual students will be graded on whether they are LGBTQ. Secondly the parliament is worried that progressive measures will not be accepted in conservative member states.
Tyrell represents his committee and states that the grading system of education is meant for the schools. He specifically mentions that the students will not be graded differently.
Second round
A delegate questions the financial background, fearing that subsidies for NGO’s will cost too much. The direct response from CULT is that they propose a progressive system of giving less to the low scoring institutions, and use that money to give more to the LGBTQ tolerant NGO’s.
Delegates express their concern that progressive measures will upset conservative countries, so that they become less tolerant of LGBTQ people.
We hear the response from Kiki: we cannot accept that the conservatives, stay conservative. Instead we must show them that it is safe to belong to the LGBTQ community. Also there is a clarification that teachers will be re-educated, but it will not take place in the classroom.
Last up is the summation speech.
Myrthe summarizes clashes and gives some clarification. The old school grading system will not be abolished, they will only introduce the new factor of LGBTQ tolerance.
In the second summation speech the little boy from the beginning returns. Lan expresses the hope that after the resolution is passed, the boy can finally feel safe.
The board announces that the resolution has passed and the ovation begins!
The first debate starts off with a solid defense speech by Mayka, introducing the concept of a circular economy. She argues the benefits of waste recycling and proposes the measures that her committee produced.
The resolution is first attacked by Maria, who points out that there is no need for new expert research, due to the much good work that has already been done.
Next up is Tyrell who feels certain liberties of member states and citizens are at stake, when the EU decides to tax unsustainable products.
In the first round of open debate, the committees still seem slightly hesitant to make their points. Nevertheless, the parliament's debate touches upon the effectiveness of the measures and the affordability of transportation. ENVI I in turn provides feedback on the issues that were raised. Most notably Noah explains how subsidies are intended to encourage people to live more sustainably.
In the second round, there is clearly more venom, as committees are all fighting to make their point. We hear a delegate raise the issue of a lack of waste management factories. A delegate from CULT asks for some clarification on which products are considered unsustainable. And what happens if EU citizens are not as eager to recycle as some of the delegates present?
The proposing committee responds to the many arguments. Among other things, Isabel says that the committee will make citizens more eager through the usage of media campaigns. Furthermore, the sustainability of a product can be measured by the type of packaging, which can be plastic or paper.
In the last round of debate, there is a refutation of the idea that packaging should determine if a product is sustainable. Meat for example could be packaged sustainably, while still costing much water, causing CO2 emissions, and more.
Finally, we hear the very well-spoken Alexandria, who gives a summation speech. She again urges the parliament to consider the idea that we need to encourage expert research. We must also make it easier for member states to transition to a greener future.
Next up is Pomclashes who summarizes the clashes of this debate. While many opponents say that there are big costs involved in these measures, the burdens from climate pollution are far worse.
Unfortunately the resolution is not passed, as 12 are in favor, but 19 are against.
According to old traditions, the president delivers a speech capable of inspiring all. He emphasizes our strong unity in vision, originating from our common history. Out of conflict arose the need for a unified Europe, an idea we can only agree with.
We hope that besides this sweet talk, the debate will also allow for some sharp clashes. The committees worked long and hard on these resolutions, and they seem ready to defend them passionately.
The delegates have been working hard all morning preparing for the GA. So brace yourselves, because the committee work is where the magic happens!
One day, one night...food's been ordered, placards have been made, committee rooms have been allocated, officials are packing their bags to arrive at the Barlaeus at 20.00 tonight to prepare the building for you. Actually, all we're waiting for is delegates! Prepare like mad for one more night and please remember to bring your deodorants, because it's going to be sweaty...
We cannot wait!
