What are the duties of a Member of the European Parliament? How can you influence the European decision-making process? How can the European Parliament cooperate with the Council of the European Union in the legislative process? Furthermore, what are the most important skills and competences that an MEP can have?

These were some of the questions I was able to answer at the Model European Union simulation event in Erfurt, Thuringia, Germany, from 4 to 9 May. During the pre-event registration process, there were four roles to choose from, from MEP to minister, lobbyist or journalist, for nearly a week. I was most interested in the role of MEP, firstly because I had already had the pleasure of visiting the European Parliament in Strasbourg and Brussels, and secondly because I think that this is the role where a law student can best develop his negotiating skills, for example during an informal meeting between political groups. The nomination process mainly involved answering questions about the history of the European Union, its legislation and current affairs in EU public life, and of course what I would change first as an MEP to make the EU work.

Following my successful application, I was drawn into the Greens/European Free Alliance Group, and within it the Irish Green Party (Irish: Comhaontas Glas), so I had to play politics with the values and interests of this political community throughout the simulation, and the organizers then announced which two legislative proposals initiated by the European Commission, which exist in reality, we would have to discuss in plenary. Finally, they chose the proposals for Directives on Improving working conditions in platform work and on Corporate due diligence for sustainability and amending Directive (EU) 2019/1937. In the weeks leading up to the challenge, I had to prepare a position paper on both proposals, in which I had to give a factual and evidence-based opinion on the Commission's presentation, in line with my role.

The first day was spent not in the Thuringian legislature but on the campus of the University of Erfurt, mainly listening to workshops on the legislative proposals, clarification of the rules and the simulation process from experts with EU experience, and the first group meeting to discuss with my fellow Members the strategy for the coming days. In addition, during the second half of the day we had the opportunity to ask German MEP candidates about the future of the European Union in a panel discussion.

We started the second day early in the morning at the parliament of the federal state of Thuringia, where we were welcomed by Diana Lehmann, vice-president of the federal parliament. Then we got down to the real parliamentary work, as the first substantive day was the presentation of our platform proposal to the EP. It's a particularly exciting legislative proposal because almost anyone can come into contact with the employees of a giant digital platform every day, whether it's food ordering (e.g. Wolt, Foodora) or passenger transport (e.g. Bolt, Uber). The first day brought a lively debate, especially after the lobbyists' presentation, with the S&D (Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats) and EPP (European People's Party) groups going head-to-head. Thanks to frequent informal talks, my team and I were able to form a bridge between the two huge groups, but we still received nearly 20 amendments by the 6pm deadline.

We have started the second day of the debate with the debate on the tabling of amendments, where we Greens also had the opportunity to express our position on the three amendments we tabled, two of which we managed to get through the Parliament, which is a big deal because our three-strong group dwarfed the EPP, S&D and Renew Europe groups, which also had a significant presence. In the second half of the day, following the vote on the referrals, the two 'chambers', the Council and the European Parliament, swapped draft directives, and the proposal for a directive on corporate sustainability screening was then put before us. Here again the agenda was similar to that for the draft on platform work, with a presentation by the Commissioner, a presentation by lobbyists and a general debate, but perhaps learning from the heated debates of the previous day, there were more and more 10-15 minute informal discussions where the leaders of the political groups clashed. By the end of the day, significantly fewer amendments had been tabled by the political groups than for the other draft legislation. I believe that this was due to the fact that all the political groups were ready to compromise and also because of the political nature of the proposal for a directive on corporate sustainability due diligence, which is an issue that is much less encountered in everyday life.

The third and final day of the debate began with a minute's silence, commemorating the end of the fighting in the European part in the Second World War. This day brought another heated debate, with some groups complaining that the content of the submissions did not reflect the agreements reached in the informal discussions. As a result, when it came to the vote, it was often down to the vote of one MEP to decide whether a particular proposal would be adopted by the European Parliament. Somewhat disappointingly, at the end of the day, the Council made a number of important changes to the EP's proposal before the final vote, but fortunately still included an amendment tabled by the Green Group, which was then retained by both institutions in the final vote.

The competition was not only attended by students from the European Union, but also by students from Kazakhstan, Moldova, Georgia, Armenia and Thailand, among others. In addition to the official programme, it is important to mention the importance of the personal conversations, as I came to Germany with the main aim of promoting Hungary and the University of Szeged. Almost all of the participants had been to Hungary before, but none of the students had ever been to any other Hungarian town than Budapest, so I tried to convey the important message that Hungary is not only our beautiful capital, but much more than that. I think that my main message hit the target, as at the end of the last day everyone was able to write some personal messages on the name tags of the other MEPs. Almost all of them wrote that they were very much in the mood to visit our country and some of them also mentioned Szeged. I think that this alone was worth the trip to Germany, where it was a great honour to represent Szeged and Hungary at such a prestigious and well-organised event.

Csanád Medgyesi