Follow us:
#MEUS2015
Strasbourg Snitcher
Model European Union Strasbourg 2015 Daily News of Model European Union Strasbourg 2015
Tuesday, 14. April 2015
Issue No 03/15
THE MAN BEHIND “THE HANDS”
Daniela Prugger After an invidious ‘mishap’ at yesterday’s newscast of the Strasbourg Snitcher, the audience was left with one big question: who is the man behind the hands? The answer is MEP Donald de Vinck de Winnezeele, faction leader of the EFDD. One wouldn’t exactly describe him as a particularly ‘fiery’ kind of person. Usually, at the Parliament, his speeches do not stand out content-wise, but due to the polemical language he adopts, his allegations and hyperboles. For this, the EFDD rewards the tall, curly head with lots of applause. However, de Vinck de Winnezeele is not ‘universally’ popular. Alex Petkov from ALDE think, that the EFDD has no business in the Parliament at all, “because they are Eurosceptics and populists – that is all. But unfortunately, people seem to like them
or at least vote for them. Obviously, they are good with words, but they don’t act, don’t take decisions and certainly are not constructive.” On the other hand, all that de Vinck de Winnezeele, whose faction consists amongst others, of parties such as Ukip, Swedendemocrats and Movimento 5 Stelle, can show the EPP, S&D and ALDE is denigration. “These factions simply point out the general party line and do not necessarily pay attention to individual opinions. Because their members also come from different countries and hence have diverse perspectives on topics”, said de Vinck de Winnezeele earlier this day. Confronted with these allegations, EPP faction leader Francesca Risso responds with a great big laugh and states: “Of course they say something like that. Every party member of the EPP is allowed to have a personal opinion. But of course, they all follow the same ideological line.” Still, Risso
seems to be opportunistic: “If the situation forces us to do so, we would work together with the EFDD.” From the perspective of the right wing the European Union, the liberals, socialists and the EPP “agree on everything. They just keep on censoring and federalising the Union. Every single one of them thinks the same.” The EFDD wants all of this to stop. In the eyes of de Vinck de Winnezeele the debates on the Data Protection Regulation would result in a big, fat compromise. He thinks that EPPs and S&Ds are a bunch of yes men. “We are improving the situation by working on both, the Data Protection Regulation and Banking Union. It is all about improving European cooperation”, ensures Petkov. His faction’s leader, Pascal Nohl-Deryk, adds: “On the opposite: EFDD is a group of ‘nosayers’. General refusal does not bring us any further.”
IN THIS ISSUE EFDD : A WAVE OF SCEPTICISM IN THE EP ?
We met with the UK Minister to ask where he feels there was a wave of scepticism in the EP this week? Page 3
EBU IRON ARM
UK vs. Germany: is there a light at the end of the tunnel? Page 4 STRASBOURG: NOT JUST A PRETTY CITY
Recap of last night’s events and suggestions for what to do on your MEU-free night. Page 6
2 | Tuesday, 14. April 2015
— Strasbourg Snitcher . Daily News —
Issue No 03/15
Too High a Burden on ‘the Backbone of Our Economy’? Alexandra van Walraven Today’s discussion hugely involved what rules would apply to Small to Medium sized Enterprises (SME). In the regulation proposed by the European Commission, SMEs are subjected to largely the same rules as multinational enterprises: they are expected to have a Data Protection Officer if the main work is processing data and they are subjected to sanctions in case on non-compliance.
The combination of these rules is feared to form an impossible burden on SMEs. The ECR, the EFDD and the EPP agree that having a data protection officer will add to the costs of companies.Felix Fehling, ECR’s faction leader, calls the proposal “unfeasible, because even if the company does not make a profit, it is still obliged to have one.” Administrative costs will be unfairly added, he explains, and this has not been addressed. Mr. Fehling does not understand the use of a Data Protection Officer as “they simply occupy a communication position. There are many parts of legisla-
tion in place to ensure data protection. There are even sanctions to ensure the data will not be misused.” Francesca Risso from the EPP argues that having a data protection officer requires additional education, which is not beneficial for SMEs. Donald de Vinck de Winnezeele, faction leader of the EFDD, calls the proposal “completely stupid and useless, because the company can simply not pay for that.” A shared fear is that if SMEs have to hire a Data Protection Officer, the companies will not be able to bear the costs. There is no option to allo-
for a company of five employees would be redundant and therefore proposes funds from the European Data Protection Board which could subsequently assess case-by-case if the requested data protection measures would severely harm the SMEs economic success. He additionally suggested Data Protection Officers working for several SMEs. Mr. De Vinck de Winnezeele disagrees with this idea. He fears overregulation of the economy and believes that companies should have the right to decide such
give away 5% of their global turnover.” Ms. Risso seems to have a more moderate view, asking for higher sanctions for bigger companies and lower for SMEs. “Equal entities should be treated equally, whereas similar entities should be treated only similarly not equally,” she claims. Mr. Fehling looks at the consequences the increase of sanctions could have and fears that this will punish the information industry: “Our small advantage in this market will be taken away and we will lose competitiveness over other countries.”
cate these expenses to the customers. As Mr. Fehling points out, “customers will not use a SME’s services if they end up paying more.”
matters of cooperation by themselves. Ms. Risso is less strong in her opinion, arguing that there is still room for compromise for this suggestion.
Niko Wolf, faction leader from GUE/ NGL, takes the opposite position: “Citizens are at the centre of all our decisions. In data regulation, a citizen is usually up against companies. We, therefore, need to protect them.” Wolf is in favour of economic growth and companies’ successes, but not at the cost of citizens’ fundamental rights. He agrees, however, with the opposed parties that one Data Protection Officer
A second point of contention is the sanctions on SMEs. Mr. Wolf argues that the protection of citizens should be above enterprises’ economic growth. “If enterprises should fail, which I hardly doubt, a human right is always more important than a successful company.” Mr. De Vinck de Winnezeele criticises the far Left for wanting to raise the sanctions to 5%. “Exceptions will have to be made for SMEs as they are simply incapable to
At all costs, the Right parties do not want to overburden the SMEs as they are, ‘the backbone of the economy,’ according to all action leaders. Mr. Fehling argues that SMEs are currently responsible for the majority of economic growth, which is what we now desperately need. The Left parties see the citizens’ rights in the centre of their political agenda, even if, according to Mr. Wolf, this is at the companies’ expense. Compromises will be hard to find.
Issue No 03/15
— Strasbourg Snitcher . Daily News —
Tuesday, 14. April 2015 | 3
European Banking (Dis)Union? Francisco Daniel Garcés The European Union has set up an infrastructure to supervise the financial sector and to improve the resolution of any banking crises by establishing a uniform response in all Member States. This coordinated action aims to prevent crises from escalating to a financial crisis and endangering the entire European Union, with the 2008 credit crunch as proof of said dangers. Nevertheless, there is still no unanimous agreement to pass the normative, as was seen yesterday at the European Parliament. After two years of discussion, Minis-
ters of the 28 EU countries are meeting in Strasbourg to refloat the project of Banking Union. According to sources close to the European Council, the main obstacles are found in the failure to deal the evident separation of Europe in two differentiated blocs; countries which are not part of the Eurozone –formed by France, Italy and Spain, among others- and those which are part of the Eurozone: the United Kingdom, Sweden and many others. The question remains, could a European Banking Disunion be established if there is no wish to reach an agreement? The problem falls on one main pillar: the rising power of the European
Central Bank –that administers the monetary policy in the Euro Area– and the creation of a common monitoring mechanism. As non-Eurozone Ministers criticize, the construction of this government around the ECB excludes them all of decision-making processes. In this case, the supervisory authority will be formed by representatives of the National Banking Supervisor of each state of the Euro Area, four members of the European Central Bank and a Vice President and President will also be integrated into the governing body of the ECB. Combined with this is reluctance to undermine the independence of national banks, which is supported by
neo-liberals and banks around Europe, as they consider it an unacceptable interference. Through amendments, it is not unusual to come to an agreement before the final voting –which is expected to be held in Strasbourg on Friday–, since most deputies agree that a new regulation is needed to prevent schemes as banking rescues in Spain and Ireland. As Strasbourg Snitcher knows, the United Kingdom and Sweden would be open to pass the initiative should both countries have voting power on the new supervisory authority and are also included in the Stability Mechanism.
United Kingdom, EFDD : a Wave of Scepticism in the EP ? Anouk Heili “The debates in the Council are totally unproductive” said Dominik Hüller, the British Minister yesterday at the press conference. “The financial system will be an additional monetary instrument; the EBU is only about trying to get a grip on the banking section which should be regulated by the banking market. We are strongly against the proposal”. The Ministers support the decentralization of the economical structures and think it should be left to national authorities. It seems, therefore, like the United Kingdom will not let the proposal on Banking Union pass: “the commission’s proposal lacks a lot, and we have to ex-
clude a lot of things because we don’t want to centralize ECB…we saw that the ECB failed, it has not been able to deal with the economic crisis within the Euro Zone”.
the EFDD. “Nobody ever listens to what EFDD says whereas we protect democratic values” said faction leader Donald de Vinck de Winnezeele yesterday at the press conference.
The UK is attached to its economical independence and is not ready to give it up. Even if Dominik Hüller says he is ready to “make compromises” with the other member states to find a solution on the EBU, these have to be realistic and to be made with “economical consciousness” for the UK to agree, according to Mr Hüller.
“There is no legal basis for the proposal” he also said, in reference to the Data Protection Regulation. The EFDD is thus blocking any amendments from the other factions and its leader did not hesitate to show his disapproval towards the S&D and the EPP’s ideas about the regulation. The EFDD believe, Data Protection should be left to National States who could deal with it at their level: “We are defending democratic values by defending the National States interests” EFDD’s member Moritz Rehm told us today.
Moreover, the United-Kingdom is not the only adept at scepticism this week: a faction of the parliament has also shown a real disagreement yesterday in the EP:
The Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy is comprised of many independent or nationalist parties like the UK Independence Party or the Five Star Movement (Italy). Criticizing the European Union and opposing the process of political integration, it seems like those sceptic parties play an increasingly significant role at the national level but also here in the European Parliament. A large number of euro sceptic MEPs were elected last April, especially in France. These issues raise new questions: Does the EFDD really defend democratic values? If so, can the other parties agree with it on common legislation? This week’s fight between the Euro Sceptics and the pro-EU is going to be an interesting.
4 | Tuesday, 14. April 2015
— Strasbourg Snitcher . Daily News —
Issue No 03/15
EBU IRON ARM A WORD FROM OUR EDITOR... By Sian Morgan Isotta Rossoni Welcome to our third issue of the Strasbourg Snitcher, despite it only being day two here at the European Parliament there have been lots of new developments. The discussion on raising sanctions from 2% to 5% continues to be a hot topic amongst our MEPs, as was the breakdown of what could have been a great alliance between the S&Ds and the Greens in reference to the DPR. We introduce you to ‘The Man behind the Hands’ from yesterday’s newscast. Finally, we wonder why you guys don’t like us/run away from us – we just want to be loved.
Maria Salomé Fernandes It is not uncommon for the UK and Germany to disagree on the future of the European Union. So it didn’t come as a surprise that Ministers representing the two countries disagreed on the usefulness of yesterday’s debates on the European Banking Union. However, recent statements indicate that their views on the majority of topics that are being discussed are quite similar. Therefore, the question we should ask ourselves today is: how did the rivalry turn into an alliance? Only yesterday UK Minister Domi Hueller said that “only Germany [was] to blame”, in that it was hindering the advancement of negotiations in Council. There were two main blocs fighting each other in the negotiations. On
one side, the UK and Denmark. On the other side, Germany and France. Yet today, German Minister Lisa Wienberger claimed that Germany and the UK “ are both in the same page”. This sudden change of heart has a lot to do with the current focus on small and medium banks. Both countries believe that excluding these banks from the system would enhance the competitiveness of market; therefore they both argue in favour of introducing this amendment. At the moment, all banks are included in the project, which means that the whole banking system supervisory tasks would be under the competence of the ECB. And when it comes to this, neither the UK, nor Germany, or even France, agree on the efficiency and legitimacy of the ECB. In fact, as Domi Hueller states, he is willing to transfer “as little as (he) can” of the national au-
tonomy to this European organization. Mainly, this is due to the lack of nonEurozone states’ influence on the ECB. This is where things get complicated. According to the Minister of Belgium there are Member States, which do not want to compromise on the possibility of non-Eurozone countries getting voting power. Lisa Weinberger clarifies it is mainly Germany that is opposed. You may well ask about the position of other countries, but the whole matter is shrouded in mystery. The Strasbourg Snitcher was only able to discover that some southern countries are also in the ‘no’ camp. The UK and Germany agree that if power cannot remain ‘national’, then an independent institution to rule on these matters should be created. However, the alliance between the two countries seems to rest on unstable ground at best.
A Short Affair to Remember explained: “We were thinking that we could agree on 2% for SME’s for leaving the fine as it is in the Commission proposal for small and medium enterprises, but to raise it for any other enterprise”. Semerák, on the other hand, claims that it is ALDE who is not sticking to its initial bargain. For the S&D, the most important thing is to introduce so-called Data Protection Officers in all companies, whether they are SMEs or a large multinational corporations:
Impressum Editors Sian Morgan Isotta Rossoni
Journalists
Francisco Daniel Garcés Maria Salomé Fernandes Anouk Heili Rikke Mathiassen Daniela Prugger Alessandra Sinno Diana Tavares Alexandra van Walraven
Photographers Marlene Stocker Petar Georgiev Santiago de la Presilla Follow us: /user/MEUStrasbourg /modeleu /beta_europe
Rikke Matthiessen There was indeed drama right before the curtain fell this morning, as factions had to submit their amendments on the Data Protection Regulation. Only yesterday, the faction leader of ALDE, Pascal Nohl-Deryk, offered The Strasbourg Snitcher an exclusive interview announcing a broad alliance between this party and the S&D and the EPP on the Data Protection Regulation. Just 12 hours later, however, a disappointed Mr. Nohl-Deryk met us - alone:
this morning’s events. He claimed that he was also taken by surprise by the outcome of the factions’ meetings, as it turned out that Francesca Risso, faction leader of EPP hadn’t managed to gain the necessary backing from her group to go through with the cooperation. “It is not that we are somehow running away – we were left behind – we were really thinking we were having a deal between them (the EPP) and ALDE”, he claims: “It was really a last minute joint amendment between us, the Greens and GUI.”
“I would not want to insult them, but they made a deal: Now they are just ripping off their values completely just for a deal about another amendment with the Green Party”, he said following interfaction discussions on the amendments this morning, where he was informed that S&Ds were pulling out of the coalition.
The EPP pulling out of the three-party flirt wasn’t however the only deal breaker between The Alliance of Liberals and Democrats and the Socialists and Democrats. The question of whether to differentiate the sanctions for the companies breaking the Data Protection Regulation was crucial according to the ALDE faction:
Ondřej Semerák, faction leader of S&D, however, did not agree completely with Nohl-Deryk’s interpretation of
“Yesterday they said they want to protect small and medium enterprises very clearly in the Parliament”, Nohl-Deryk
“We were willing to give them the 5% and 2% because that is not our focal point, but as they are not willing to give us what we need, then there is no deal for us”, he said. Finally, the ALDE faction ended up submitting a joint amendment on the Data Protection regulation with the EPP. This afternoon, however, when The Strasbourg Snitcher caught up with ALDE and S&D faction leaders again, Nohl-Deryk claimed that a deal with the Socialists and Democrats wasn’t – totally – out of the question: “We are still negotiating, and maybe there will be a solution in the afternoon”, he told us on his way to lunch. Meanwhile, Semerák appeared less optimistic: “The only possibility for us to giving them the 2% and 5 %, would still be if they give us what we need, and that is the Data Protection officers in every single company”, the S&D faction leader said.
— Strasbourg Snitcher . Daily News —
Issue No 03/15
Tuesday, 14. April 2015 | 5
Lobbyists Want Proposals to be Precise Diana Tavares The European Banking Union is being discussed in the Council of Ministers this week and today they listened to the input of Lobbyists and Commissioners on the matter. The general opinion from the Lobbyists was positive, but there are still points to consider, and every representative is concerned about something different. The European Banking Union is a proposal that aims to make sure the economic crisis that hit Europe in 2008 never happens again. It’s based on a Single Rule Book made up of three pillars – the Single Supervisory Mechanism, the Single Resolution Mechanism, and Deposit Guarantee Schemes. The first will place the European Central Bank as the Central Supervisor for Europe as well as countries that choose to join. The second assists banks that have failed, through a Single Resolution Board and Fund, and the third will reimburse a limited amount of deposits to depositors, to avoid panic withdrawals. Olav Mydland, lobbyist for the Association for Financial Markets in Europe, is in favour of the European Banking Union, for it would, not just secure savings, but also boost European finances. Mydland argues for a longer transitional period and 5 years of banking supervision. Cristina Pricop, representative of DeutchBank on this matter, is pro EBU
and it would like to see the proposal pass, but expressed concerns about the role of the ECB. As for the Network of Economic Financial Institutions for SMEs, Lois McLatchie states that she is pleased, supporting namely SSM and SRM, but would like to see SMEs more represented in the proposal, because it is an important issue for citizens. Michael Stockhammer, lobbying for the ELEC, specifies that Single Supervisory Mechanism should be extended for trading, with less capital requirements and more loans. Iona Pavlickova, representing Finance Watch on this proposal, considers the EBU good, but not enough. The lobbyist explains that there is no separation in the money used by banks between investment banking and trading retail banking, which makes tax payers cover losses when something goes wrong. Natalia Garcia, lobbying for Barclays, shares the agreement of her colleagues over EBU, namely the Single Resolution Mechanism and Deposit Guarantee Schemes, her concern being that all banks should have the same restrictions and be supervised in the same way. Additionally, the Facebook spokesperson in the parliament defended the need to preserve the nature of the social network’s business. As for the Data Protection Regulation, the lobbyists are united in the belief that there is a lack of communication between their group and the MEPs, regarding the need for the sanctions. The
parliament expressed a want to raise sanctions from 2% to 5%, whereas the Lobbyists suggest starting at 1%, and potentially raising the percentage in the future. In the plenary session, Olav Mydland expressed the need to make the regula-
tion as clear as possible, he mentioned that if it is done “you might not need the sanctions”. Furthermore, McLatchie pointed out the need to examine other aspects of the regulation, namely the privacy of religious clauses on the internet.
Journalists: Bad Guys and Bloodhounds? Isotta Rossoni Democracy is all about freedom, transparency and accountability. Western citizens elect their leaders; if they’re unhappy with them they can make their voices heard; campaign; protest. If Prime Ministers fail their electorates altogether, they might even acknowledge their ‘delegitimation’ and voluntarily resign. Bigheads like Berlusconi excluded, of course. The media play a big role in enhancing democracies’ legitimacy. Scarred by the experience of censorship under Communism or Fascism, western states have come to recognize the importance of freedom of expression, necessary to ‘govern by consent’. Citizens should be able to access information, read, watch, and learn. Yet the growth of tabloids, hungry for gossip and scoop, as well as incidents such as the News
of the World scandal, have given rise to widespread scepticism about media ethics. Public figures and common folk alike tend to blame the media for exaggerating and occasionally even distorting information. Hard-pressed for juicy stories, they often cunningly ‘twist’ reality to suit their purposes. But are we right to be so wary of journalists? Are they really just good at sensationalizing facts? Put simply: Are journalists the bad guys? In the past couple of days here in Strasbourg, whilst chatting to people during coffee breaks, at lunch and social events, I got the impression that distrust, or at least ambivalence, is more the norm than the exception. Last night, one of my colleagues was given the cold shoulder by a Member of Council, merely because of her profession. More generally, people seem to love cracking jokes about media
bias, labelling journalists as troublemakers and ‘bloodhounds’. It may well be all fun and games, and perhaps we shouldn’t take all this too seriously. I felt however, that it was time to let the cat out of the bag. I approached several MEPs and tried to elicit their views on the press. Raphael Belzon of the GUE/NGL faction was quick to voice his disappointment. ‘Journalists make up sentences we didn’t say (…)’, he complained; when asked whether he had any praise for the media at all, he replied: ‘Journalists can do good, but most of them don’t’. Mr Fehling, faction leader of the ECR expressed similar concerns: ‘The press is most interested in the most outrageous, the most extreme statements. So I personally have a feeling that this leads to the public opinion being influenced by extreme, dangerous opinions’. Francesca Risso of the EPP admit-
ted that she tends to be careful around journalists, and claimed that there’s nothing strange about that, it’s just common sense, really. But perhaps most illuminating is the opinion expressed by an MEP representing the EPP, who prefers to remain anonymous. ‘Yes, I am cautious with the press. That’s just general knowledge. But you’re better than lobbyists!’ He then stopped, looking somewhat confused and added: ‘ But you have democracy, freedom of speech and that’s really good’. Perhaps, there is some truth to both these views and the contradiction will never be resolved, but let me try to debunk the general distrust. We journalists don’t bite, we are quite friendly and we don’t necessarily have a hidden agenda. And if we do, well, in that we’re no different from many others. We’re not the (only) bad guys!
6 | Tuesday, 14. April 2015
— Strasbourg Snitcher . Daily News —
Issue No 03/15
What is the relationship between politics and interpreting? Alessandra Sinno After yesterday, my attention was completely absorbed by interpreters’ outstanding and far-reaching capabilities, such as their perfect intonation and their sophisticated choice of words, always in line with the MEPs and Ministers’ speeches. For an instant, I forgot that they sit in separate and isolated rooms and I remembered that their role is particularly important in political questions, even if you cannot really grasp their personal views.
when there are opinions and beliefs you really disagree with. It is possible that you involuntarily “show that something is going wrong”, for example. Clearly, it is not a general rule; it depends mostly on the topics themselves. It could seem like interpreters’ professional ethics implies very strict restrictions with regards to politics, which prevents them from expressing their personal points of view, due to principles such as total impartiality and absence of personal participation.
On the other hand, it is clear that to permit a neutral and politically impartial form of communication between different language speakers guarantees crucial conditions like the possibility of a free and a productive dialogue, a fundamental pillar of every democratic society. Miss Alexandra Soòs, Hungarian interpreter, shares the same opinion: indeed, she affirmed that interpreters are the ones “who make possible that everyone understands each other”, the first condition to establish good rela-
tions. From this perspective, interpreting has a political value, even if, as Soos remarked, “you cannot really express our opinions, you cannot express what you really think about the subjects you are translating, you cannot make any comments. This is why Miss Lucile Fayard, interpreter from English and Spanish into French, thinks that her role is more linked to diplomacy than politics, because it helps negotiations to run smoothly, avoiding all kinds of dangerous misunderstandings.
Indeed, “when you are an interpreter, you are inside the body of the speaker, you are the speaker in another language”, said Miss Francesca Carbonara, Italian interpreter from English, German and French. “You have to understand his feelings, his thoughts; you have to be him, just have to be him”, she continued. You have to set yourself one main goal, which is to understand really “the deep sense of the message”. M. Krzysztof Kieronski, from Poland, agrees with this argument. He claimed: “I try to not to think too carefully of what I am interpreting, I just try to give the message, so everybody will understand me”. But how do you feel when you are translating something you do not agree with? Mr. Kieronski had to admit that it sometimes can be quite difficult, especially
Strasbourg: Not Just a Pretty City Sian Maria Morgan Last night we ventured out on our first BIG night out in Strasbourg; after a great restaurant (well, let’s be honest, after the huge jugs of beer) people were ready to get to Le Vog to dance away the stress of the day. Alcohol was flowing, dance moves were outrageous and classic tunes were playing - making the majority of us feel like we were seventeen again. However, I think I speak on behalf of most people (unless you’re one of those weird ‘morning people’) when I say having to wake up at 7am today was not fun. Not even a bit. So while we try to power through the debates, interviews, ministering, interpreting or lobbying until we get our next fix of coffee we can all look forward to that fact that tonight is our night off. We have the chance to do whatever we please; I understand that many of us will just go back to our hotels, full of good intentions to get started on that looming
Coursework deadline or to revise for exams, but will inevitably just collapse and fall asleep. However, if you are going to use your free time to explore Strasbourg then I hope this article will help you feel less like a tourist and more like the chic, highly informed, Strasbourgien(ne) person we all have the potential to be. First things first: a brief history lesson for you to casually show off your superior knowledge to all the other tourists. Strasbourg has always occupied a highly strategic position in Europe, hence why it’s been dubbed as the ‘town at the crossroads’. From the Roman era when Strasbourg, a once Roman camp called Argentoratum served as a defensive fort on a marshy island on the River Ill to the great city of Strasbourg that we know and have probably fallen in love with. King Louis XV was the first to realise how important Strasbourg’s strategic position was in 1681. He thus decided to annex it to France. Since that moment,
Strasbourg has been stuck in a perpetual game of tennis; constantly being passed over to France or Germany. Luckily from 1944 onwards, Strasbourg finally was able to put down some roots and attempt to fix its inevitable identity crisis and thus, became a symbol of reconciliation between France and Germany. Now for the fun bit: The top museums in Strasbourg. Of course, if you love museums and have the time/energy to go to the Museum of Modern and Contemporary Art by all means do – just don’t count me in. The museum is an immense glass building situated on the banks of the River Ill and has collections of paintings, sculptures and various artefacts. But seeing as we’ve been wearing formal and smidge-uncomfortable-after-threehours outfits for the past two days, we ought to unwind – relax – chill and ride the Carousel in the Place Gutenberg. Not only is the ‘Place’ beautiful, with lots of cafes and shops, but they’ve not
put an age limit for who can ride the Carousel. Who says it’s only meant for children?! Go for it! You ride that fake horse into the sunset! The Petite France quarter is also a definite must-see; the most picturesque district of old Strasbourg. A great way to enjoy this fairy-tale place on our night off is to go with friends, find a cheap bar, get some beers or wine or whatever you like, find a seat by the canal, sit, turn off your Wi-Fi, watch the sunset and enjoy having no schedule, no obligations and no MEU Participants Facebook notifications. All those options seem really appealing to me right now but I have a sneaking suspicion that I’m going to fall asleep on the tram on my way back to the hotel and end up in Australia. Whatever you end up doing, whether it be sleeping, partying, drinking, working or Skyping worried mothers, I hope you have a fantastic time.