See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273961508

Teaching the European Union: a

Simulation of Council’s Negotiations

Article in European Political Science · March 2015

Impact Factor: 0.2 · DOI: 10.1057/eps.2014.34

CITATION READS

1 88

2 authors, including:

Pierpaolo Settembri
Sciences Po Paris
12 PUBLICATIONS 93 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate, Available from: Marco Brunazzo
letting you access and read them immediately. Retrieved on: 29 May 2016
 TEACHING AND TRAINING
teaching the european union: a
simulation of council’s
negotiations
marco brunazzoa,* and pierpaolo settembri b
a
Department of Sociology and Social Research, University of Trento, Via Verdi,
Trento 26 - 38122, Italy
E-mail: marco.brunazzo@unitn.it
b
European Commission, Rue de la Loi, Bruxelles 200 - 1049, Belgium
E-mail: pierpaolo.settembri@ec.europa.eu

*Corresponding author.

advance online publication, 31 October 2014; doi:10.1057/eps.2014.34

Abstract
Simulations can be extremely successful in acquainting participants with a
negotiation’s logic and process, especially in those political systems in
which negotiations are prominent, such as the European Union (EU). After
a brief introduction on the simulations in teaching the European integration,
in this article we present, step-by-step, a simulation game on the adoption
of a real piece of European legislation: the regulation that implemented the
European Citizens’ Initiative, one of the main innovations of the Lisbon
Treaty. Special attention is devoted to the different phases of a simulation
design, from the choice of the topic, the choice and allocation of roles, the
preparation of all the necessary documentation, to the debriefing and
assessment phases. The article originates from a 4-year long study with
undergraduate students from two Italian universities.

Keywords simulations; European Union; EU Council; EU negotiations;

European citizens’ initiative

verything in the European Union process in which numerous actors repre-

E (EU) points up the central impor-

tance of negotiations: every deci-
sion in the EU is the outcome of a (more or
less) long and (more or less) formalised
senting different institutions and interests
interact in order to reach an agreement
that satisfies the largest possible number
of negotiators. Several authors illustrate

european political science: 2014 1

(1 – 14) & 2014 European Consortium for Political Research. 1680-4333/14 www.palgrave-journals.com/eps
 this specific feature of the EU. Wallace
(1996: 32) for example, writes that ‘…
[t]he European policy process has been
peculiarly dependent on negotiation as a
predominant mode of reaching agree-
ments on policy and of implementing
policies once reached’; Bal (1995: 1)
describes the EU as a ‘… permanent nego-
tiation institute’; Jachtenfuchs and
Kohler-Koch (1995: 21–22) consider the
EU a ‘… negotiated order’; Grande (1996:
325) defines the EU as an ‘… integrated
system of multi-level bargaining’; and
Cede (2004: 2) considers it a ‘… negotiat-
ing system in action’. As a consequence,
the EU is a particularly suitable field of
study for negotiation theories (Meerts
and Cede, 2004; Elgström and Jönsson,
2005; Dür et al, 2010), and simulations
are particularly powerful in acquainting
participants with a negotiation’s logic and
process (Usherwood, 2009; Butcher,
2012; Schnurr et al, 2013). For this rea-
son, simulations can be a privileged
instrument to teach how the EU actually
works (Zeff, 2003; Jones, 2008).
In this article, we develop, step-by-step,
a simulation related to the functioning of
the Council of the Union and concerning a
real piece of European legislation: the
regulation implementing the European
Citizens’ Initiative, one of the main inno-
vations of the Lisbon treaty.1
2 european political science: 2014 teaching the european union
The description of this example will aim
not only at suggesting a possible exercise,
but also at illustrating a framework for
different simulations related to the Coun-
cil’s negotiations that can be successfully
applied to other topics. For example,
we have applied this framework to the
regulation establishing a facility for rapid
response to soaring food prices in devel-
oping countries,2 and to the Proposal for a
Directive of the European Parliament (EP)
and of the Council on improving the
gender balance among non-executive
directors of companies listed on stock
exchanges and related measures.3 In
total, we have used the same framework
at least five different times bringing
together in each occasion about 40 stu-
dents from two undergraduate courses of
European Politics at the LUISS University
of Rome and at the University of Trento.
Students were all enrolled in a BA pro-
gramme of Political Science. They were
mainly Italian, with the exception of few
Erasmus students. The working language
was Italian, even if most of the documents
provided were written in English. If, in
reality, EU negotiations are multi-linguis-
tic, on the other side, the use of the
participants’ mother tongue reinforced
the comprehension of the issues at stakes
and of the negotiation dynamics. The
simulation was not part of the formal
curriculum and did not contribute to the
general assessment of the students. As a
consequence, only particularly motivated
students participated in the exercise.
Moreover, with this article we also aim
at contributing to the growing debate
about the effectiveness of instruments
adopted to teach the functioning of the EU
(Brunazzo and Settembri, 2012; Lightfoot
and Maurer, 2013), in which special atten-
tion has been devoted to the use of
Facebook and other social network, the
webinars (Lieberman, 2013; Mihai, 2013),
the study visits to Brussels (Roder, 2013),
and the simulations (Usherwood, 2013).
In this article, we use a simulation of the
decision-making in the Council giving, at
the same time, some tips on how to fully
exploit the potential of the simulations as
a learning tool. After a discussion on the
literature concerning the use of simula-
tions for teaching EU negotiations, the
article presents the steps we followed to
organise the proposed exercise, from its
preparation to its assessment.
BENEFITS AND LIMITS OF EU
SIMULATIONS4
As Zeff (2003: 266–267) points out,
simulations in EU studies are relatively
new if compared to the simulations in
International Relations (IR) courses.
If simulations in IR started with the end of
the Second World War and have become
very popular, it was only by the end of the
1980s that they were developed in
the context of EU studies, adapting the
experience accumulated and the con-
cepts used in the IR simulations to the
EU institutional framework and dynamics
(Andrews, 1993). However, more recently,
simulations on the EU have received a
growing attention by lecturers willing to
adopt an approach based on active learn-
ing (Lightfoot and Maurer, 2013). Authors
have utilised simulations to explain to
their students the functioning of the EP
marco brunazzo and pierpaolo settembri
(Jozwiak, 2013), of the European Council
or Council of the Union (Jozwiak, 2013;
Kaunert, 2009; Zeff, 2003; Galatas,
2006), of the Council Presidency (Elias,
2013), of the Commission’s staff
(Giacomello, 2012), or of some specific
features of the EU decision-making
(Switky, 2004; Bursens and Van Loon,
2007; Van Dyke et al, 2000). Most of the
simulations concerning the EU look at the
negotiations within a unique institution.
This is mainly related to the fact that a
reproduction of the complexity of the EU
policy process and decision-making is
very difficult, if not impossible. However,
simulations can present different degrees
of complexity, even when they deal with
the same institution: for instance, Galatas
(2006) presents a simplified model of the
negotiations in the Council, while Bobot
and Goergen (2010) illustrate a more
highly complex exercise. At the same
time, as explained below, different strate-
gies can be implemented in order to
give at least an idea of the institutional
dynamics behind every EU negotiation.
Simplification is just one of the inevita-
ble characteristic of EU simulations.
Among the many possible, considered
here are four additional limitations with
which simulations have to deal, such as
timespan, socialisation, contingencies,
and complexity. First of all, the duration
of a simulation is limited to a few weeks at
most. Real negotiations rarely last less
than 1 year and often last more than 2
(Versluis et al, 2011). The difference is
not so much in the amount of time taken
by Coreper and Council to discuss an
issue, which is limited in both cases, as in
the time taken by the issue to be debated
at technical level and, crucially, addressed
between meetings (Chaltiel, 2006). In a
simulation, the negotiation must necessa-
rily proceed through a dense sequence of
meetings concentrated into a few days
or weeks. There is little or no time for
national positions to be properly articu-
lated, for contacts to be established, for
european political science: 2014 3
 like-minded delegations to recognise each
other, for the Presidency and the Commis-
sion to learn to work together, etc. In
simulation exercises, issues are inevitably
dealt with more superficially than in real
negotiations.
A related issue is socialisation. Whereas
the participants in a simulation play their
roles for a limited number of days and
have little time to familiarise themselves
with each other’s preferences, skills,
and attitudes, EU negotiators get to
know each other relatively well (van
Schendelen, 2004). A specific feature of
EU negotiations, in fact, is their atmo-
sphere of informality and familiarity.
In some cases, negotiators are required
to meet several times a week. They learn
to cooperate, to understand difficulties, to
accommodate preferences and, most
importantly, to build and sustain trust in
their counterparts. Commission, Council
and EP officials, national diplomats, mem-
bers of the EP, and even ministers, oper-
ate in small circles or communities that
develop not only specific codes of beha-
viour but also a genuine mutual under-
standing. Simulations do not allow this.
Real negotiations, moreover, do not
happen in a vacuum: they are embedded
in a specific context that determines their
pace, their development, and their out-
come. These factors cannot be fully repro-
duced in a simulation: the imminent
elections of the EP may cause the negotia-
tion to be concluded ahead of schedule;
a recalcitrant Presidency of the Council
may delay the conclusion of a delicate file
until the following semester; budgetary
reasons may compel negotiators to con-
clude within a certain deadline. Exoge-
nous pressures may be equally powerful:
an international crisis, the threat of a
pandemic, the imminence of an interna-
tional conference, or the sudden fall
of a national government may have a
decisive impact on a negotiation. Simula-
tions can cope with these contingencies
only badly.
4 european political science: 2014 teaching the european union
In a simulation, the
negotiation must
necessarily proceed
through a dense
sequence of meetings
concentrated into a few
days or weeks.
‘… an international crisis,
the threat of a pandemic,
the imminence of an
international conference,
or the sudden fall of a
national government
may have a decisive
impact on a negotiation’.
Finally, real negotiations are inevitably
more complex than simulations, even if
they are based largely on the same doc-
umentation. Simulations usually take
place in one language (like in our exam-
ple), whereas real negotiations are multi-
lingual. Simulations cannot focus on
highly technical issues impenetrable to
non-experts. On the contrary, real nego-
tiations can be painfully complex and
require experts to fly to Brussels and dis-
cuss the details of certain provisions over
several weeks. Whereas the participants
in a simulation are alone, a national nego-
tiator can and does draw on a huge body
of expertise available at various levels of
the public administration. Whereas simu-
lations are, by definition, concerned with a
single issue, real negotiations rarely are
so: concessions are sometimes made and
compromises reached across procedures,
and not necessarily at the same time
(Kardasheva, 2013). In fact, one of the
peculiarities of EU negotiations is that
they are ‘repeated negotiations’, that is
consist of several rounds in which no actor
is systematically on the losing side
(Elgström and Jönsson, 2005). This
dynamic can be replicated in simulations
to only a very limited extent.
The scientific literature is divided on the
efficacy of simulations. Some authors are
enthusiastic: they only see the positive
effect of simulations (for example, Zeff,
2003; Lantis, 1998). Others are more
critical: they consider the traditional
approach more useful and regard simula-
tion as some sort of trivialisation of the
lecturer’s activity (for a discussion of the
myths about simulations, see Di Camillo
and Gradwell, 2013). Our position is mid-
way between these two (Raymond and
Usherwood, 2013). Simulation games
can be effective if they are well-organised
and if they go together with other forma-
tive opportunities. In other words, simu-
lation games demonstrate their potential
only if they are included in a teaching
course structured into different learning
opportunities and based on ‘traditional’
and ‘innovative’ methods at the same
time. It is likely that not all the students
will react positively to the simulation,
given that they also react differently to
more traditional classes. However, our
experience is that simulations motivate
students to learn more about the EU.
PREPARING FOR THE
SIMULATION
As Usherwood (2013) has recently
emphasised, building an effective simula-
tion requires a clear identification of the
pedagogical purposes the lecturer aims to
achieve. Simulations are useful to con-
sider decision outcomes, the dynamics of
negotiation, and the institutional dynamics
of a political system. They are also good
for developing group identity. Clearly,
when a lecturer is preparing for the simu-
lation, she can bear in mind all these
goals. However, focusing on one of them
can be particularly important because it
marco brunazzo and pierpaolo settembri
will help the instructor decide what ele-
ment of the simulation requires greater
attention. An instructor can decide to
use the simulation to make students more
aware of the institutional dynamics:
in this case, the topic can be decided
accordingly to the representativeness of
the EU actors involved. Alternatively, she
can privilege a more engaging and com-
pelling topic if the final aim is the creation
of a group affiliation. In any case, the
lecturer should consider that a simulation
is inevitably a simplification of reality, and
having in mind a privileged pedagogical
outcome will help the instructor to decide
what element of reality should be simpli-
fied (or even over-simplified) and what
element should remain as close as pos-
sible to the reality.
Moreover, the choice of one pedagogical
purpose is important because it helps
the instructor in preparing the students
before the simulation. A simulation that
aims at developing knowledge about
the institutional system of the EU will
require at least some introductory remarks
on the institutional system itself. On the con-
trary, a simulation proposed in the frame-
work of a course on negotiation theories
implies a specific student’s preparation on
the negotiation models. Finally, simula-
tions used to illustrate more deeply a
specific topic or piece of legislation will
require a deeper knowledge by the
students on the specific positions and
interests of the actors involved in the ‘real’
world.
As a consequence, the choice of the
topic is decisive for a successful simula-
tion. The topic should be sufficiently
accessible for an audience of non-experts,
it should be able to mobilise students and
generate debate, it should be suitable for
a simulation exercise given the con-
straints (time available, participants,
etc.), there should be a balance bet-
ween the possible arguments within the
negotiation (e.g. in favour or against a
certain course of action), and, finally,
european political science: 2014 5
 sources of information should be accessi-
ble so that students can prepare them-
selves properly. All these factors were
present in the topics chosen for our
simulations and, more specifically, for
the simulation presented here in greater
detail related to the regulation that imple-
mented the European Citizens’ Initiative.
Moreover, this topic presented the indis-
putable advantage of the possible use of
the original documentation: the Commis-
sion’s proposal, the prior green paper, the
contributions to the public consultation,
the report from the EP committees, the
opinions of the Committee of the Regions,
and of the European Economic and Social
Committee, and others, are all available
on the internet site of the EU. Participants
had the possibility to contact experts
and inquire about the procedure, they
could easily obtain information about the
issues at stake from various sources
and found the real positions of NGOs and
other stakeholders. In doing so, partici-
pants acquired familiarity with the original
documents, understood the relationships
among them, and learnt how to search in
the appropriate databases.
Moreover, the dossier concerning the
European Citizens’ Initiative has attracted
significant media attention, entailing the
availability of documents, press releases,
position papers, and other materials on
the Internet. This not only reinforced the
motivation of the students but also helped
them prepare their positions and find new
arguments to defend them. Finally, the
European Citizens’ Initiative was suitable
for simulations also because it was a self-
standing issue, that is an issue addressed
for the first time and by a single Commis-
sion’s proposal. If, on the contrary, the
chosen procedure relates to previous
initiatives, or to other procedures running
in parallel, students may miss the rele-
vant information to fully understand the
topic under discussion.
The main purpose of our exercise was
that of transmitting knowledge of the way
6 european political science: 2014 teaching the european union
the Council takes decisions. For this rea-
son, we have tailored our simulation on
the Council’s negotiations, simplifying its
relations with the EP and the European
Commission. More specifically, we have
decided to simulate the major steps
of decision-making associated to the
selected regulation. However, we have
also decided to give a sense of the com-
plexity of the all EU policy-making. As a
consequence, before the simulation of the
Council, students were required to pre-
sent brief position papers at the public
consultation on the Green Paper on a
European Citizens’ Initiative proposed by
the European Commission playing the role
of one of the public bodies, associations,
NGOs, or private citizens involved.5 This
part (four meetings of about 2 h each) was
not strictu sensu a simulation, but just an
occasion to make them familiar with the
dossier. Council’s simulation was the core
of the second part of the exercise (two
meetings, each of about three and a
half hours duration), where students
simulated a COREPER II and a General
Affairs Council meeting, interpreting the
national permanent representatives and
the national foreign ministers, respectively.
At least approximately 12–15 partici-
pants are necessary for a simulation to
reproduce the realistic dynamics of the EU
decision-making within the framework of
an ordinary legislative procedure (OLP).
We decided to involve about 40 students,
with some delegations and actors formed
by couple of students who were required
to work in team.
CARRYING OUT THE
SIMULATION
As said before, our simulation was orga-
nised in two parts. In the first part, stu-
dents were required to react to the Green
Paper on a European Citizens’ Initiative
proposed by the European Commission in
the framework of a public consultation
playing the role of one of the public
bodies, associations, NGOs, or private
citizens involved. In the first meeting, we
introduced the simulation and the logic
behind it, the dossier and the main
sources of information. At the end of the
meeting, we provided a list of actors that,
in the ‘real’ consultation, presented a con-
tribution to the European Commission.
Students autonomously decided which
actor to play. They were subsequently
required to write a 2–3-page long posi-
tion paper to present in the next two
meetings, as an occasion to make them
familiar with the dossier.5 Even though
many of the ‘real’ position papers were
available online, we did not suggest the
students where to find them. We pre-
ferred to give them only two documents:
an introduction to the simulation (pre-
pared by ourselves), and the Commission
Green Paper on a European Citizens’
Initiative.6
In the second and third meeting, stu-
dents presented their position papers.
Simulated consultations were organised
like the ‘real’ ones: the first meeting
started with a brief presentation of the
Green Paper by the Commission, with a
specific emphasis on the most divisive
issues and on the importance of the sug-
gestions hopefully coming from the civil
society. The European Commission also
suggested the order the actors had to
follow in their presentations. Presenters
were allowed to use slides or other instru-
ments to make their statements clearer to
the audience. Position papers were made
available on a specific internet site
and were freely downloadable. The third
meeting ended with the Commission
thanking all the participants for their
contributions.
During the fourth meeting, we asked
the students to share a first impression
on the dossier, on the difficulties they
faced in presenting their contributions, in
finding the materials, in speaking in
public. As instructors, we also pointed out
marco brunazzo and pierpaolo settembri
‘Allocating the roles –
finding the right person
for the role – was a
delicate task …’
some of the dynamics we observed,
underlying, for example, the characteris-
tics of the most incisive discourses, the
richness of the positions expressed,
and the differences of the viewpoints
expressed by all the actors.
We ended the fourth meeting by pre-
senting the subsequent steps of the exer-
cise and the documents to be used during
the Council’s simulation: the Commis-
sion’s proposal (original document);7 the
report drawn up by the responsible EP
committee (original document);8 the
press release of the Commission announ-
cing the adoption of the proposal;9 the
opinions of the Committee of the Regions
and of the European Economic and Social
Committee;10 the report from a Council
preparatory body to the higher level
(prepared by ourselves); the relevant
articles of the Treaty of Lisbon applicable
to the procedure (notably, articles 293
and 294 for the ordinary legislative proce-
dure). Roles for the Council’s simulation
were finally assigned.
Actors that were represented in the
second part of the exercise were the
European Commission, the Presidency of
the Council, and some members of the
Council. When choosing the national dele-
gations present in the Council, we paid
attention to the range of viewpoints that
would be represented. There were no a
priori rules as regards the delegations to
be selected: we chose them in such a way
as to reflect the variety of viewpoints in
the real negotiation. We made sure to
reach a balanced number of ‘big’ and
‘small’ states, as well as of ‘old’ and ‘new’
member states, supporting or opposing
the regulation.
Allocating the roles – finding the
right person for the role – was a delicate
european political science: 2014 7
 task: although all roles were important, and
although all roles allowed a good negotiator
to shine, they did not necessarily entail the
same skills. Since we knew the participants
in advance, we allocated the most sensible
roles by ourselves. We have chosen, as the
Commission’s representatives, students
able to speak in public, to digest a signifi-
cant amount of information in short time, to
justify and defend the proposal while
answering questions, and countering
objections from the national delegations,
rapidly to understand whether suggestions
for amendment are acceptable and, if not,
why. As the President of the Council or as
the chair of the Coreper II, we have
selected participants with a consensual atti-
tude, good at listening, calm and balanced
but also with the right mix of political intui-
tion and charisma to imagine a viable com-
promise and persuade the delegations to
accept it. For the role of members of the EP,
we selected students familiar with bold
rhetoric and possessing political intuition
and advanced negotiating skills. We allo-
cated all other roles at random.
The day after the conclusion of the first
part of the exercise and some days before
the beginning of the Council’s simulation,
we sent confidential or guiding instruc-
tions for each player (prepared by our-
selves) about the tasks that she was
supposed to perform. Even if in real nego-
tiations such guidelines may not always
exist, at least not in written form, we
considered these instructions essential:
it helped us to reproduce the richness of
the positions expressed in the ‘real’ nego-
tiations, helping at the same time the
students to dress the part of the national
delegations.
The following are the examples of
instructions for different roles in the simu-
lation exercise concerning the European
Citizens’ Initiative.
Country X (broadly favourable)
You are a supporter of the Commis-
sion’s proposal, even if you consider it
8 european political science: 2014 teaching the european union
too conservative in some respects.
Regarding the minimum number of sig-
natures, you consider that requiring a
minimum percentage of signatories in
each of the Member States involved
would be unsatisfactory. The existence
of a European public sphere means
that, by definition, all citizens can par-
ticipate, not so much on the basis of
their nationality, but simply by virtue
of the fact that they are European
citizens.
At the same time, you flirt with the idea
of setting the minimum age required to
sign an initiative at 16 years in all coun-
tries, regardless of the age required for
the European elections.
You consider it essential to multiply the
opportunities for citizens to propose
and support an initiative. Of course, the
possibility of collecting signatures via
the Internet should be ensured.
You are concerned by the provision in
the proposal requiring all signatories in
Europe to prove their identity (with a
document) in order to sign an initiative
and establish the country where the
signature is collected. You believe that
a much preferable approach would be to
use the address of permanent residence
as the criterion with which to deter-
mine where the signatures come from.
In the case of signatories resident in
third countries, the criterion of citizen-
ship should apply.
The transparency of funding is a key
element that you intend to promote.
Any information about public funding
must be constantly updated.
Lobbies cannot fund European citizens’
initiatives.
Finally, you maintain that it should be
possible to resubmit a citizens’ initiative
on an issue on which European citizens
have already expressed themselves.
You believe, however, that this should
be allowed at least two years after the
first initiative.
[You cast xx votes in Council.]
Country Y (strongly against)
You are strongly opposed to the
Commission’s proposal and seek the
support of those countries that are only
moderately favorable or otherwise
unhappy.
You are not convinced that the citizens’
initiative could be an effective tool with
which to influence the European Com-
mission’s legislative agenda.
EU decision-making rules are clear and
you care little that many EU states have
provisions within their constitutional
arrangements for certain forms of direct
democracy: the EU is not a state. That
said, you obviously cannot boycott
the adoption of a proposal designed
to implement a provision and one of
the main innovations of the Treaty of
Lisbon. You can, however, make the use
of this instrument so complicated and
cumbersome that its effectiveness
would be impaired.
You think that the minimum number of
countries from which the statements of
support come should be raised to a half
of the Member States plus one. You also
believe that a million signatures are too
few: it is not representative of the Eur-
opean population. You want to prevent
legislative initiatives with little rele-
vance from emerging. The age at which
a citizen can support an initiative should
be 21 years, because only adults can
understand the political implications of
the initiatives proposed.
You do not mind if initiatives are
financed by lobbies and interest groups,
as long as their contributions are made
public. In your opinion, the idea that
lobbying is always a bad thing is defi-
nitely exaggerated in the EU.
marco brunazzo and pierpaolo settembri
You believe that the Commission can
take up to two years to follow up on an
initiative on which enough signatures
have been collected.
[You cast xx votes in Council.]
The ‘instructions’ for institutional actors
(Presidency of the Council, Representa-
tives of the Commission, and of the EP)
were straightforward: they were not so
much related to the content of the simula-
tion as to the role that they are required to
play by the treaties. The Presidency were
required to reach an agreement, ideally
by consensus, if necessary by a qualified
majority, and to be, and appear to be, a
diplomatic president, respectful of all
positions, but at the same time pragmatic
and resolute. The Representatives of the
Commission had the task of obtaining
the approval of the proposals preserving
as much as possible its original con-
tent. The Commission had to defend its
choices, based on the arguments put for-
ward during the preparatory stages and
building on the views expressed by the
stakeholders in the context of the public
consultation. Finally, the EP had to speak
for the majority of its members defending
the draft report adopted by the Commit-
tee on Constitutional Affairs and other
committees.
We made clear to participants that,
especially in the case of the confidential
instructions given to national delegates
represented in the Council, they were not
a mere script to be read out. They set out
the overall position of the government as
regards the proposal and entrusted the
representative with the responsibility to
obtain as much as possible and to lose as
little as possible in the negotiation.
Preparing the national instructions was
perhaps the most delicate and time-
consuming task in the organisation of the
simulation. If these instructions were not
realistic, participants would encounter
confusing discrepancies between the
instructions that they had received and
european political science: 2014 9
 the information that they obtained from
real sources (e.g. the national press). The
idea, on the contrary, was that they could
complement the information that they
received with what they could find them-
selves. If the instructions were deliber-
ately polarised and caricatured in order to
create a more lively debate, there was
a high risk that the negotiation in the
simulation would depart from the real
negotiation, and that what the partici-
pants had experienced would bear little
resemblance to what EU negotiators actu-
ally did.
In the second part of the simulation
(two meetings, each of about three and a
half hours duration), students have simu-
lated a COREPER II and a General Affairs
Council meeting, interpreting the national
permanent representatives and the
national foreign ministers, respectively.
With a limited number of participants,
it was difficult to fully and realistically
integrate the EP into the simulation. In
one case, we opted for the creation of a
small delegation of EP representatives,
including the rapporteur and two repre-
sentatives from two other EP political
groups (the shadow rapporteurs). The
role of the EP’s delegation was to repre-
sent the Parliament in trilogue meetings
with the Presidency and the Commission
in order to exchange views on the posi-
tions emerging in the respective institu-
tions. In another case, we chose a
procedure that takes place only within
the Council. In this case, we invented the
position of the EP, so that we could foresee
an imaginary trilogue meeting between
the meeting of Coreper and Council whose
outcome – prepared by the instructors
and reflecting the position of the EP – was
announced by the Presidency at the
beginning of the subsequent meeting.
In every simulation, the lecturer should
be fully aware of her delicate role as the
‘discreet engine’ behind the exercise. The
lecturer should carefully find an inter-
mediate point between being a passive
10 european political science: 2014 teaching the european union
observer and the deus ex machine (pre)
determining the course of the exercise
from A to Z. The lecturer should always
be present, although not always visible or
in the front line. In our exercise, we
played different roles. In the first part,
we have played the role of the Commis-
sion Secretariat, in the second one that
one of the Council General Secretariat. In
both cases, we have tried to be discreet
actor, yet close enough to the Presidency
to steer the negotiation if necessary.
ASSESSING THE
SIMULATION
At the end of the simulation, the feedback
session (one meeting of about one and a
half hours duration) enabled us to focus
the attention of participants on key
aspects of the simulation and thereby
show them the most important lessons to
be learned. At this point, we also helped
participants understand what they did
wrong and what they would do differently
if they were given a second chance
(Dochy and McDowell, 1997: 279–298;
Elias, 2013). Feedback from students
was equally important for us to under-
stand how the exercise had been per-
ceived and, if necessary, how it could be
improved in the future.
Our experience show that feedback
should be collective: the success of a
simulation does not spring from individual
performances but is a collective endea-
vour to be measured in terms of the
quality of the outcome and of the negotia-
tions that produced it. As a conse-
quence, the feedback session focused on
group dynamics rather than on single
interventions.
The feedback session was used to illus-
trate the critical junctures of the simula-
tion, that is the turning points where the
negotiation could have taken a different
course. In this regard, the role of players
acting in particular moments had to be
underlined: the Commission presenting
its proposal, replying to questions, and
explaining the reasons for not accepting
an amendment; a delegation supporting
the point made by a previous speaker,
followed by several other manifestations
of support for the same proposal; the
Presidency deciding on the right time to
table a compromise proposal; the nego-
tiators finding compromises within trilo-
gue meetings, etc.
However, the first question we asked
our participants was not, quite trivially,
whether they liked the simulation game
or if they benefited from it. We asked
them to share their feelings about what
they had just experienced, ideally by
mentioning the adjective(s) that describe
them best. Usual inputs include terms like
‘surprised’, ‘excited’, but also ‘frustrated’
and ‘confused’. We used each of the
inputs received to shed light on selected
aspects of the simulation game (e.g. key
moments in the negotiation) or some
important elements of the EU decision-
making process (e.g. the role of the rotat-
ing Presidency, the informal negotiations,
the voting rules, etc.).
At the end of this rather informal
exchange of views, we usually made sure
that the following aspects have been
included in our debriefing:
● Highlight the role of institutional actors,
particularly the Presidency and the
Commission, as well as the representa-
tives of the EP when applicable.
● Underline the importance of informal
arenas: some of the crucial decisions
and of most significant progress in the
negotiation are often made outside the
formal meetings.
● Explain the difference between the
simulation and the real negotiation:
usually the real negotiation takes place
over a longer period of time, involving
more actors, speaking more languages
and addressing more issues at the same
time.
marco brunazzo and pierpaolo settembri
‘We asked them to
share their feelings
about what they had just
experienced, …’
● Emphasise the influence of personal-
ities: one of the most interesting
features of simulation games is that
exactly the same exercise played by a
different group of participants leads to
very different dynamics and outcomes.
A couple of examples would suffice to
convince them that the outcome was in
large part determined by the influence
(ability, knowledge, character, attitude,
etc.) of some actors.
● Explain the missing parts of the process.
Our simulation, for example, did not
reproduce entirely the role of the EP,
mainly for logistical reasons (i.e. we did
not have enough participants to repre-
sent both the Member States in the
Council and a sufficient number of poli-
tical groups in the EP). Yet, participants
needed to be aware of the full role the
EP played under ordinary legislative
procedure.
Comparison with the actual outcome of
the negotiation was an enriching exercise.
For this reason, we invited an expert who
has taken part in the negotiation or knew
the substance of it. Differences in the
process were more important to underline
than differences in the outcome, because
they could contribute to shedding light on
those dynamics that simulations could
not fully replicate. Students were also
required to complete an online anonymous
poll explain the major strengths and weak-
nesses of their performances, of the simu-
lation and of the organisational aspects.
CONCLUSION
In this article, we have explained how we
conceived and organised a simulation
european political science: 2014 11
 game on the EU, building on an example
concerning the Regulation establishing
the European Citizens’ Initiative. We con-
sider simulations to be an important
instrument with which to supply the new
skills required by the emergence of a
global knowledge society: simulations
may be useful in equipping students not
only with specific knowledge about the EU
but also with a number of ‘higher order’
skills like comprehension of the complex-
ity of the ‘real’ world.
For the students, simulation games are
powerful tools with which to learn politics.
They enable them effectively to experi-
ence how politicians decide, how intricate
decision-making can be, and how differ-
ent the points of view of political actors
may be. For lecturers, simulation games
are useful instruments with which to make
their classes more participatory and colla-
borative, so that students become the
protagonists of their learning. In other
words, a student learns if and when
she interacts with colleagues and with the
lecturer. This interaction emphasises the
social dimension of knowledge: the mean-
ings and purposes are socially con-
structed, and so are the behaviours. We
think that, together with good know-
ledge of the topics, this is an important
life-lesson for students.
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to the two anon-
ymous referees for reviewing the manu-
script and for their valuable comments.
Pierpaolo Settembri is an official of the
European Commission. His views are
expressed in a personal capacity and may
not in any circumstances be regarded as
stating an official position of the European
Commission. This article briefly illustrates
what is broadly developed in Brunazzo
and Settembri (2012).

Notes

1 More specifically, this simulation is related to the adoption of the Regulation (EU) No. 211/2011 of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on the citizens’ initiative.
2 Regulation (EC) No 1337/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008
establishing a facility for rapid response to soaring food prices in developing countries.
3 Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on improving the gender balance
among non-executive directors of companies listed on stock exchanges and related measures /* COM/
2012/0614 final – 2012/0299 (COD) */.
4 An excellent source of articles on the use of simulations is the following: https://sites.google.com/site/
psatlg/Home/resources/journal-articles/simulate.
5 Alternatively, instructors may ask students to prepare a report for a client as if they were consultants
hired for a specific purpose. The clients would be the actors that take part in the negotiation (mainly
national governments and political groups in the European Parliament) and they would ask the consultants
to prepare for them a position paper (2–3 pages maximum) describing their main stakes in the
negotiation. Such reports, which should be realistic and based on real information, could be then used by
instructors to prepare the confidential instructions. In fact, each position paper could also be distributed to
the participants together with the confidential instructions. It is suggested that the student who has
prepared the position paper for a given client/country should not be asked to play that role in the
simulation exercise.
6 This document is available at http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/secretariat_general/citizens_initiative/docs/
com_2009_622_en.pdf.
7 This document is available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2010:
0119:FIN:EN:PDF.
8 This document is available at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT
&mode=XML&reference=A7-2010-350&language=EN.

12 european political science: 2014 teaching the european union

9 This press release is available at http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-10-397_en.htm?locale=en.
10 Respectively available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2010:
267:0057:0063:EN:PDF and http://www.eesc.europa.eu/?i=portal.en.institutional-reform-opinions-
resolutions-opinions.10571

References

Andrews, W.G. (1993) The Model European Community Simulation Exercise, Brockport: The New York
Consortium for Model European Community Simulations, Department of Political Science, State
University of New York.
Bal, L.J. (1995) Decision-making and Negotiations in the European Union, University of Leicester, Centre
for the Study of Diplomacy, Discussion Paper, 7.
Bobot, L. and Goergen, A. (2010) ‘Case study: Teaching European negotiations: The EU chocolate
directive simulation’, International Negotiation 15(2): 301–323.
Brunazzo, M. and Settembri, P. (2012) Experiencing the European Union: Learning How EU Negotiations
Work through Simulation Games, Soveria Mannelli: Rubbettino.
Bursens, P. and Van Loon, C. (2007) Multilevel simulation games in EU studies: Powerful learning
environments in Political Science? Paper presented at the EUSA 10th Biennial International
conference, Montreal, 17–19 May.
Butcher, C. (2012) ‘Teaching foreign policy decision-making processes using role-playing simulations:
The case of US-Iranian relations’, International Studies Perspectives 13(2): 176–194.
Cede, F. (2004) ‘Introduction’, in P.W. Meerts and F. Cede (eds.) Negotiating European Union, London:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Chaltiel, F. (2006) Le processus de décision dans l’Union européenne, Paris: La Documentation française.
Di Camillo, L. and Gradwell, J.M. (2013) ‘To simulate or not to simulate? Investigating myths about social
studies simulations’, The Social Studies 104(4): 155–160.
Dochy, F. and McDowell, L. (1997) ‘Introduction: Assessment as a tool for learning’, Studies in Educational
Evaluation 23(4): 279–298.
Dür, A., Mateo, G. and Thomas, D.C. (2010) ‘Negotiation theory and the EU: The state of the art’, Journal
of European Public Policy 17(5): 613–618.
Elgström, O. and Jönsson, C. (eds.) (2005) European Union Negotiations: Processes, Networks and
Institutions, London: Routledge.
Elias, A. (2013) ‘Simulating the European Union: Reflections on module design’, International Studies
Perspectives, online publication 15 April, doi:10.1111/insp.12009.
Galatas, S. (2006) ‘A simulation of the council of the European Union: Assessment of the impact on
student learning’, PS: Political Science and Politics 39(1): 147–151.
Giacomello, G. (2012) ‘In Brussels: Teaching policy-making in the EU’, European Political Science
11(3): 378–393.
Grande, E. (1996) ‘The state and interest groups in a framework of multi-level decision-making: The case
of the European Union’, Journal of European Public Policy 3(3): 318–338.
Jachtenfuchs, M. and Kohler-Koch, B. (1995) The transformation of governance in the European Union.
Paper presented at the Fourth Biennial Conference of the European Community Studies Association,
Charleston, 11–14 May.
Jones, R. (2008) ‘Evaluating a cross-continent EU simulation’, Journal of Political Science Education
4(4): 404–434.
Jozwiak, J. (2013) ‘ “Vegelate” and Greece: Teaching the EU through simulations’, European Political
Science 12(2): 215–230.
Kardasheva, R. (2013) ‘Package deals in EU legislative politics’, American Journal of Political Science
57(4): 858–874.
Kaunert, C. (2009) ‘The European Union simulation: From problem-based learning (PBL) to student
interest’, European Political Science 8(2): 254–265.
Lantis, J. (1998) ‘Simulations and experiential learning in the international relations classroom’,
International Negotiation 3(1): 39–57.
Lieberman, S. (2013) ‘Using Facebook as an interactive learning environment in European political
studies’, European Political Science 13(1): 23–31.
Lightfoot, S. and Maurer, H. (2013) ‘Introduction: Teaching European studies – Old and new tools for
student engagement’, European Political Science 13(1): 1–3.

marco brunazzo and pierpaolo settembri european political science: 2014 13

 Meerts, P.W. and Cede, F. (eds.) (2004) Negotiating European Union, London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Mihai, A. (2013) ‘The virtual classroom: Teaching European studies through webinars’, European Political
Science 13(1): 4–11.
Raymond, C. and Usherwood, S. (2013) ‘Assessment in simulations’, Journal of Political Science Education
9(2): 157–167.
Roder, K. (2013) ‘Teaching European studies: Field trips to Brussels – An under utilised resource’,
European Political Science 13(1): 43–52.
Schnurr, M.A., De Santo, E. and Craig, R. (2013) ‘Using a blended learning approach to simulate
the negotiation of a multilateral environmental agreement’, International Studies Perspectives
14(2): 109–120.
Switky, B. (2004) ‘The importance of voting in international organizations: Simulating the case of the
European Union’, International Studies Perspectives 5(1): 40–49.
Usherwood, S. (2009) ‘Enhancing student immersion in negotiation-based learning environments’,
International Journal of Learning 16(7): 607–614.
Usherwood, S. (2013) ‘Constructing effective simulations of the European Union for teaching: Realising
the potential’, European Political Science 13(1): 53–60.
Van Dyke, G.J., De Clair, E.e. and Loedel, P.H. (2000) ‘Stimulating simulations: Making the European
Union a classroom reality’, International Studies Perspectives 1(2): 145–159.
van Schendelen, R. (2004) ‘The EU as Negotiations Arena: Diplomats, Experts, and PAM Professionals’,
in P.W. Meerts and F. Cede (eds.) Negotiating European Union, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan,
pp. 17–34.
Versluis, E., van Keulen, M. and Stephenson, P. (2011) Analyzing the European Union Policy Process,
Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
Wallace, H. (1996) ‘Politics and Policy in the EU: The Challenge of Governance’, in H. Wallace and
W. Wallace (eds.) Policy-making in the European Union, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 3–36.
Zeff, E.E. (2003) ‘Negotiating in the European Council: A model European Union format for individual
classes’, International Studies Perspectives 4(3): 265–274.

About the Authors

Marco Brunazzo holds a Jean Monnet Chair and is Academic Coordinator of the Jean Monnet
European Centre of Excellence at the University of Trento. He has published three books and
several articles on different topics related to EU politics.

Pierpaolo Settembri has been an official of the European Union since 2007, and is currently
working in the Secretariat-General of the European Commission. He has published two books
and several articles on EU-related topics and has carried out teaching activities at LUISS
Guido Carli in Rome, at Sciences Po in Paris and for the College of Europe in Bruges.

14 european political science: 2014 teaching the european union