On 22 January, the Commission showed its hand with a fairly general text (see EUROPE 12409/2), placing the emphasis on quality of communication with as many citizens as possible and on specific responses to be made to the conclusions of the Conference, on pain of disappointing its world. The Commission backs the Parliament on the launch date of the Conference (9 May), to be held in Dubrovnik, as Croatia holds the rotating Presidency of the Council. The major themes it wishes to deal with by reiterating its own priorities and those of the European Council largely intersect with those of the Parliament.
Contrary to the Franco-German document, the Commission is not proposing that institutional questions and political priorities be addressed one at a time; it would rather progress the areas in parallel to each other. It certainly does not give its blessing to the architecture adopted by the EP, but nor does it put forward its own alternative. Having weighed in on all forms of dialogue with citizens already carried out, it calls for maximum use to be made of existing tools (European Citizens’ Initiative, DiscoverEU, European Solidarity Corps, Erasmus, information bureaux and Commissioners’ visits to member states, etc.) and also ‘new forms of participation’, based on a multilingual digital platform and a variety of initiatives, at local and regional level. Strangely, it makes no mention of the Eurobarometer, even though it is its own creation and provides a regular insight into the concerns of Europeans and their opinions on the political priorities they wish to see tackled by the EU.
Furthermore, the more the Commission insists on the institutions’ firm engagements to take account of the citizens’ wishes as expressed in the course of the exercise, the further it drifts from President von der Leyen’s keynote speech – and from the Franco-German declaration – on one important point, the possibility of Treaty change: deafening silence. It also declines to be drawn on the details for putting together citizens’ panels or agoras. And so, despite its references to making the choices of future Commission Presidents more democratic and the possibility of creating transnational lists for future rounds of European elections, it was a disappointment to MEPs.
At this point in time, the Council of the EU has the least specific position of the three institutions. Its capacity for imagination was delineated by the European Council at its meeting on 12 December, the first one chaired by Charles Michel, pro-European and ‘Macronian’ though he is. According to the official conclusions, the Conference should ‘contribute to the development of our policies’, there being no need to redefine the priorities, as they are set out in the strategic agenda of June 2019. Admittedly, a broad consultation of the citizens will be necessary during this process, but the Conference also needs to ‘involve the Council, the European Parliament and the Commission, in full respect of the inter-institutional balance in their respective roles as defined in the Treaties’. All member states should be involved on an equal footing. ‘There should be shared ownership by EU institutions and member states, including their parliaments’. The Croatian Presidency is called upon to ‘work towards defining a Council position on the content, scope, composition and functioning of such a conference and to engage, on this basis, with the European Parliament and the Commission’.
Croatia took up the Presidency of the Council on 1 January of this year. It declares that it attaches importance to the Conference and hopes that it will produce tangible results. In a document submitted to the Council at its meeting of 22 January, it painstakingly lists the demands of the European Council concerning respect for the member states, while stressing the need for equality between institutions at all levels, respecting the competencies of each institution, efficiency and the need to avoid needless bureaucratic burdens (see EUROPE 12410/9). The document found favour with the ministers, but contains a thinly-failed criticism of the conference architecture adopted by the Parliament.
The European affairs ministers met on Tuesday 28 January with just one point on their agenda: the Conference on the Future of Europe. At the level of their ambassadors, the member states will try next week to agree on the governance of the Conference and the institutional scope of its future work and conclusions (see EUROPE B 12411A15), to put themselves into the position to be able to negotiate with the Parliament and Commission on all aspects (see other article).
This has become a matter of urgency because the Presidents of the EP, European Council and Commission are to meet this Thursday in the Jean Monnet House, at Bazoches-sur-Guyonne, now in the ownership of the Parliament, to discuss the subject. A lady and two gentlemen on its soil! It could be something out of a play, under the thatched roof and looking out over the gently sloping lawn.
Some places – as was the case with the island of Ventotene – are chosen for their supposed powers of inspiration. Obviously, it is hoped that it will bear fruit. However, the documents on the table are so varied that an agreement hardly seems within reach. And the Croatian Presidency will not be represented.
In particular, the initial idea of allowing as many citizens as possible to have their say seems to be fading away, replaced by an inter-institutional race round a closed circuit. The ongoing lack of specifics concerning exactly how the grassroots will be heard is not a good sign: this is what the brain cells should be working on and generating a little creativity.
And what if, in Bazoches, they should talk about people’s day-to-day lives, the threats facing Europe, the present and future legitimacy of those who make the decisions, the whole story of the future of the EU? Is the desire for it flagging already? How many glasses of Jean Monnet cognac will it take to free up the imagination and cast off inhibitions?
Renaud Denuit