Sara Dal Monico e Filippo Schena

Apr 29, 2020

This is not supposed to be neither one of those articles describing the simulation, or the skills of the participants. With ‘this is not supposed to’ we don’t want to employ the negative connotation of the term, at all. Because it suggests the idea of underestimating the noun it is linked to. We just want to give you another viewpoint, a deeper one, from the backstage of the simulation: what happens before, during, and after the simulation… basically, what the staff does. From the selection of the proposals, to the participants’ selection; from the budget, to the final reception: all the things that nobody knows, apart from the organizers (and not even all of them). This is a journey in the MEU, a closer look at it: we wanna spill the beans, to provide you with a more comprehensive view; but also, we wanna make clear that we take all our decisions thoughtfully and faithfully. We take care of the participants, of the staff, of the simulation; we want everybody to carry the as best as possible memories about that, to grow, both as students and humans; we want to raise awareness about all this, and spur to make the difference.

We were both in the staff of VeUMEU 2017, the first ever in Venice, and VeUMEU 2018. In the first edition, we were the European Commissioners, the pioneers of that role. We did our best to understand and shape it with the precious guidelines of BETA Italia. Then, in the second edition, Director General and Event Coordinator/Legal Advisor – literally in charge of the creation of the event itself, who also take on every responsibility.

The loads of work requires a high commitment, not easy to assure, because we are students too. However, it is extremely gratifying. We always do our best so that the simulation could be as enriching for the participants as it was to us. All the night up to review the amendments or reschedule, the whole days before the simulation with the mobile ringing every 5 minutes, running across the bridges and sailing back and forth from the Venice International University, or undertaking the delicate agreements with the partners. You can truly say that every single moment was really worth it if even only one participant at the San Servolo vaporetto stops to say “thank you for everything”, or the simple text message of a member of the staff thanking for the ‘unforgettable experience’.

We were talking about BETA Italia, the organization who granted us the format of the MEU twice. They also helped to educate the staff and plan the whole event. During the simulation, a supervisor from BETA Italia is sent and spends the entire simulation with us, day and night together on San Servolo Island. At the VeUMEU 2017, Marco Gerbaudo, former President of BETA Italia, has been the one who supported us: we were beginner MEUers, though learnt, not yet completely aware of what that simulation meant. On the other hand, this year Nadia Paleari, current Vice President of BETA Italia, sided us in the nearly unbelievable quick but intense organization of the VeUMEU 2018, though successfully carried out eventually. They truly meant a lot to us, especially in the most hectic and challenging moments of the Model, when pressure escalates higher and higher, when you gradually got aware about what is at stake.

Now it’s the Proposals’ turn: the very engine of every simulation because they both give the content structure to the simulation and ignite the discussion in the committees. When you face the choice of proposals, nothing can be overlooked. Each topic the European Union is trying to face could deserve our attention: but only a couple of them can fit each simulation. The choice can never be completely right, fair, or wrong. Here comes the essential role that our first supporter, Professor Sara De Vido, plays: her advising and supervising is beyond doubt fundamental for us. The criteria behind our choices were fairly pragmatic: proposals are not supposed to be an exaggerated burden for Ministers, MEPs and Journalists because the Model and classes happen contemporarily; also, we have always to take into consideration the fact that usually students have a part-time or weekend job, or they are interning (as we actually do by the way). In front of 108 participants, it’s impossible to satisfy the interests of each and everyone. We have to concern about the actual European situation, the proposals that are easier to discuss and to find amendments possibly: however, nothing is guaranteed with certainty. Latest news are our first source, with special attention on the themes of which most of the students commonly know. Our goal, within the simulation and as VDSers too, is raising awareness about daily issues surrounding us, more or less with a direct impact.

And now the toughest part: the choice of the participants. Wow. A very intense but enriching moment: the words of some motivational letters still engraved in our minds, since it is not easy to process how a person can get right to the point in only 250 words. We are thrilled every time when the applications exceed two times the available places, as it seems that the event, you are trying so hard to plan, has a wide resonance; and then comes the bitter moment, when you realize that this means that you will have to choose, just a limited number of participants, after having pondered and pondered. We rely on objective parameters, we try to figure out who is more fitted for that one role instead of the other, but we will never be entirely sure to have taken the right decision.

This is our last point, before drawing conclusions: it’s a promise. The workshop. It’s the first meeting with the participants; it’s the first time participants get to know you (now they can link name and face, concrete body, and not just the picture they saw on the study guide). Impressions matter? Well, they do. Are we supposed to behave formally? Informally? Are they going to consider you seriously? What’s supposed to be the right outfit? What’s the right timetable? Continuously and constantly, new questions pop up in mind. We are always in the quest of new and suitable methods to easily teach RoP, more or less interactive devices: Power Point or not? Should have we sent the files earlier? A candy for your answer? Split into groups? Maybe in smaller groups they might be more prone to speaking… and understand more easily. The closer the workshop is, the harder is the search for solutions. However, only that day you will precisely realize whether your plan works or not: before, uncertainty rules. Dulcis in fundo, the Study Guide: potentially pages and pages might be written about it (but we don’t dare). Articulation of the content basing on the proposals, providing with more or less information, when to send it to the participants, more or less explicit RoP, attached or not. Review, review, review: endlessly. Everybody makes mistakes, and sometimes you don’t notice them due to the other thousand duties to supervise. Humanly understandable, of course, but you always scare judgments of all those who will read it.

Right or wrong choices: nobody can foresee them all, unfortunately. We always take decisions based on facts, on situations, with objective criteria. Faithfully, we do our best to go for the first ones and avoid the rest. This is really what we have always tried to do: no tricks, no disrespect, no damage. With a full commitment, we aim to satisfy ‘all’, realistically talking, and square up. We honestly hope that all we have said was clear, and that ‘our’ participants since 2017 got it. Moreover, we care especially about the value of this event, the enrichment they could give and the impact it might have in thousands diverse ways on both the academic path and career. Our last concern is that the article made it clear enough.