In a bizarre paradox, the Conference on the Future of Europe is starting to look like an “old story”.
In his book “Revolution”, which was published in November 2016, Emanuel Macron proposed that as soon as the German elections of autumn 2017 were over, a debate of democratic conventions be launched in every member state of the European Union. This would be a European debate on the content of European action and the European Union, with the governments and communities of each to decide on exactly how it would be arranged. On the basis of these debates, a “project for Europe” would be defined by the governments, then approved democratically, with simultaneous referendums to be held in all countries in which this is a requirement. This, he argued, would allow Europe to regain its legitimacy. This proposal followed a description of the ills suffered by a Europe that enfeebled by a lack of sense of responsibility and preceded some scathing criticism of the way the European Council works and the excessive size of the Commission, which, in his view, prevents it from working.
In the English translation of the book, the chapter on the subject is entitled “A New Europe”, but the French version called it “Refonder l’Europe”; ‘refonder’ is usually translated as ‘to reform’, but it literally means ‘to give new foundations to something’. This lexical choice always struck me as odd, even though it is in line with French ambition. Even during the referendum campaign on the European Constitutional Treaty, well-intentioned intellectuals made an ardent case for voting no with a view to in-depth reform. What happened next showed that the French “no” vote did not lead to any reforms at all. The word ‘refonder’ is relatively new to the French language; it is absent from the 1995 edition of my Petit Robert dictionary; these days, on the Internet, the Larousse French dictionary defines it as: “To rebuild on new foundations and values, particularly in the field of politics” (our translation). Basically, it means chipping away at existing foundations to produce new ones. In the history of European integration, only the treaties of Paris, Rome and Maastricht are described as “founding” treaties. The constitutional treaty could have joined them. Giving Europe new foundations therefore means to produce a new founding treaty.
Under the title “Redonner la parole au peuple” (‘Giving the people a say’), the idea brought forth in the book re-emerged in Macron’s candidacy manifesto. On 26 September 2017, as the newly elected President of the Republic, he gave an important speech at the Sorbonne, stressing that “the only way that will assure our future is to create a new foundation for a sovereign, united and democratic Europe” and announcing that in 2018, along with all countries choosing to go down the same path, there would be a semester of “democratic conventions” and the constitution of a “European reform group” (see EUROPE 11870/1).
The “Gilets jaunes” crisis would change priorities somewhat. The President did not lose interest in seeking support from Germany, as shown in the joint declaration of Meseberg of 19 June 2018 (“In reforming Europe we should listen to the voices of our citizens”). It would very soon become clear that this “listening” would be done in the framework of the European election campaign. However, Macron’s list announced in its manifesto that “We will organise a Conference on Europe that will bring together European leaders, citizens drawn by lot and specialists in key areas (…). It will be the first act in the Renaissance of Europe”. Nowhere in the manifestoes of the other European parties was this same pledge to be found.
In a formal message broadcast simultaneously throughout the EU on 5 March 2019, the French President relaunched his idea, proposing that the conference get underway before the end of the year, to make the necessary changes, “with nothing off the table, not even treaty reform” (see EUROPE 12207/13). And yet the capitals were unmoved. After the European elections and the great furore caused by the decision to abandon the dogma of the Spitzenkandidaten procedure and the adoption by the European Council on 2 July of a package of nominations that is now common knowledge, Macron was the only one who went before the press and presented the Conference as the panacea to Parliament’s frustrations (see EUROPE 12287/1) and indicated that in this framework, Guy Verhofstadt (who was rather hoping for the top job in the new assembly) would have a particular role to play.
In her first speech before the members of the European Parliament on 16 July, the President designate of the new Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, firmly took position in favour of the Conference, identifying its actors, emphasising its preparations and ambitions, specifying the year in which it would start (2020) and its duration (two years) (see EUROPE 12297/1). On 16 October, at the Parliament, the Conference of the Presidents of the political groups set up a working group to define the institution’s approach and make sure it was first to the starting grid.
The Franco-German axis finally showed its hand on 26 November, with a joint “non-paper”, which was fairly ambitious as to the content and process of the Conference and which, as it did not rule out Treaty change, went down very well with the MEPs (see EUROPE 12377/3). There would still be the small matter of winning over the other 25 member states, who put all their muscle into reducing the Conference’s mandate at the European Council session on 12 December. The Conference had to involve the principal EU institutions and all member states on an equal footing, including their respective parliaments, with a greatly reduced role for the citizens.
2020 dawned. January was the only month in which anything of relevance to our story occurred. The Parliament won a great coup on the 15th, with its adoption, by a strong majority, of a highly detailed resolution on the organisation Conference, with an unwieldy and complex structure, although based on logic and democratically inspired (see EUROPE 12404/1 and EUROPE 12412A1). Right at the top would be a steering committee, the Parliament’s three seats on which would be reserved for the three principal political families. The group Renew Europe immediately appointed Guy Verhofstadt, who was from then on seen as the real captain of the future ship (see EUROPE 12405/1).
The EP’s position eclipsed the Commission’s communication, which was published eight days later: it was a fairly consensual document that laid emphasis on dialogue with the citizens, but said nothing about institutional matters or the structure of the organisation (see EUROPE 12409/2). All eyes then turned to the Council of the EU, then held by a Croatian Presidency that was faithfully translating the European Council’s guidelines and confirming its willingness for Dubrovnik to host the launch session of the conference on 9 May 2020.
Then began 40 days and 40 nights in the wilderness for the project. (To be continued)
Renaud Denuit