The Jean Monnet House is well worth the visit; in fact, I would urge everybody to go and see it. Exceptionally, however, it will be closed to the public on Thursday 30 and Friday 31 January. This is why.
In his formal message to the European citizens, which was published simultaneously in all 28 member states on 5 March and entitled “A European Renaissance”, President Macron wrote: ‘’European humanism demands action. And everywhere, the people are standing up to be part of that change. So by the end of the year, let’s set up, with the representatives of the European institutions and the member states, a Conference on Europe in order to propose all the changes our political project needs, with an open mind, even to amending the treaties. This conference will need to engage with citizens’ panels and hear academics, business and labour representatives, and religious and spiritual leaders. It will define a roadmap for the European Union that translates these key priorities into concrete actions’ (see EUROPE 12207/13). Thus was the Conference on the Future of Europe, on which the institutions of the EU will be focusing their attentions this week, born.
The idea was not included among the Conclusions of the European Council which finally succeeded, on 2 July, in agreeing on the key senior Union posts. However, after this extraordinary meeting, Mr Macron announced to the press that this conference would be held, with a view to an in-depth reform of the working methods on appointments and democratic renewal (see EUROPE 12287/1). Observers interpreted it as both a consolation prize for Guy Verhofstadt and a way of formalising the principle of transnational lists for forthcoming European elections, or the Spitzenkandidaten procedure.
On 16 July, in her first speech before the European Parliament, the President elect, Ursula von der Leyen, took up the idea and ran with it: ‘I want [European citizens] to have their say at a Conference on the Future of Europe, to start in 2020 and run for two years. The Conference should bring together citizens, including a significant role for young people, civil society and European institutions as equal partners. The Conference should be well prepared with a clear scope and clear objectives, agreed between the Parliament, the Council and the Commission. I am ready to follow up on what is agreed, including by legislative action if appropriate. I am also open to Treaty change’. Her words went unchallenged (see EUROPE 12297/1).
In late November, Paris and Berlin adopted a joint document, which laid emphasis on the need for a Conference in two stages: first improving democratic functioning with regard to future elections and appointments (by summer 2020!), then identifying subsequent political priorities. This text, which aimed to win over the other members of the Council, went down well with the Parliament, particularly as it did not rule out Treaty change (see EUROPE 12377/3).
Since then, the MEPs have been falling over themselves to position their institution as the lead in the process and define the Conference’s architecture, but not without a certain amount of tension over the individuals who would be called upon to take a leading role. An ad hoc working group was set up, whilst the committee on constitutional affairs continued its deliberations. A decision was reached on 15 January: the plenary session of the Parliament adopted a resolution on the organisation of the Conference by a sizeable majority (494 votes in favour, 197 against and 49 abstentions) (see EUROPE 12404/1).
By means of this important act, the EP made a case to start the Conference on 9 May of this year (the 70th anniversary of the Schuman declaration), with citizens’ participation on a bottom-up basis, at least on the European values, freedoms and fundamental rights, democratic and institutional aspects of the EU, environmental matters and the climate crisis, social justice and equality, economic issues, including taxation, the digital transformation as well as security and the role of the EU in the wider world.
The organs of the Conference will be as follows: a plenary assembly, citizens’ agoras, ‘youth’ agoras, a steering committee and an administrative and coordination council. The citizens’ agoras will be permanent and with separate themes, each made up of a maximum of 200 to 300 citizens (with a minimum of three from each member state). The selection process will be random.
The plenary assembly will consist of MEPs (up to 135), members of the Council (27), national Members of Parliament (2 to 4 for each member state), members of the Commission (3), members of the European Economic and Social Committee (4) and of the European Committee of the Regions (4), plus representatives of employers’ organisations (2) and union organisations (2) at EU level.
As for the steering committee, this will be made up of representatives of the EP, the six-monthly Presidencies of the Council of the EU and the Commission. Its job will be to prepare the plenary sessions and agoras and to supervise their activities. Finally, the administrative and coordination council, which will be represented on the steering committee, will comprise representatives of the three principal institutions, under the leadership of the EP. It will be responsible for the day-to-day organisation of the process which will, moreover, be entirely transparent (Internet broadcasts, etc.).
This architecture already has its detractors and opponents, who consider it to be unnecessarily complex.
Following the vote, the conference of the political groups awarded the EP’s three seats to representatives of the largest political groupings: EPP, Renew Europe and S&D. Renew’s seat went immediately to Guy Verhofstadt, whom many consider to be the de facto President of the Conference already (see EUROPE 12405/1).
All of this will happen if the other two institutions rubber-stamp the agreement. But we’re still waiting for that to happen! (To be continued).
Renaud Denuit