The composition of the executive committee responsible for steering the day-to-day work of the Conference on the Future of Europe, in particular the question of the representation of the European Parliament’s political groups on this committee, appears to be the last political obstacle to the adoption of a joint declaration which will enable this initiative of reflection involving European citizens to get off the ground on 9 May in Strasbourg.
The agreement on Wednesday 3 February on a revised position of the Council of the EU broke the deadlock by putting forward the idea of a tripartite presidency— with some people referring to patronage—of the Conference to be held by the Presidents of the European Parliament and the European Commission and the leader of the country holding the rotating Presidency of the Council (see EUROPE 12650/22).
Negotiations are now focusing on the composition of the executive committee, which, according to member states, should be made up of representatives of the institutional trio—up to three people per institution—acting on an equal footing and deciding by consensus. Other actors, such as the Conference of European Affairs Committees of National Parliaments (COSAC), the European Economic and Social Committee or the European Committee of the Regions could be invited as observers.
If this configuration were adopted, Parliament would appoint up to three representatives, presumably from the main political groups: EPP, S&D and Renew Europe.
The Christian Democrat group seems to have come to terms with this. “The health crisis shows us that debating the future of Europe is crucial to prepare us for the challenges that lie ahead. This is why we should finally get started on the Conference on the Future of Europe”, said its leader, Germany’s Manfred Weber.
Contacted on Friday 5 February by EUROPE, Paulo Rangel (EPP, Portugal) was more nuanced. According to him, the important thing is to quickly reach an interinstitutional declaration that will allow “a solution to be found to all expectations” and will reflect the position of the institutional trio. “The Council’s position is not the final position”, he stressed, convinced of the need to give citizens the opportunity to set the agenda for discussions and to explore institutional developments for the EU, an element that the Council of the EU is reluctant to address.
As articulated by the Member States, the configuration of the Executive Committee would sideline the Greens/EFA and GUE/NGL groups, which are numerically smaller but very involved, because they are pro-European, in the setting up of the Conference.
“This is a bad signal”, said Helmut Scholz (GUE/NGL, Germany), co-author of a paper on citizen participation in the Conference. “If they go in that direction, they will increase frustration” and give credence to anti-democratic parties about the fact that the reflection is being monopolised by the big political forces, he added.
According to one Parliamentary source, one solution could be to appoint a single representative for the Parliament, in this case Guy Verhofstadt (Renew Europe, Belgium), and to place the other groups on an equal footing by giving them an observer seat on the executive committee. “It is clear that extreme groups should not be excluded”, she said. But the EU Council and the Commission should send only one representative.
On Thursday, the governance of the Conference was briefly discussed at the Conference of Presidents of Political Groups (CoP). The Greens/EFA group has requested that all political groups be represented on the executive committee. On Thursday 11 February, the CoP will again address the issue, while interinstitutional discussions are underway at the level of the ‘sherpas’ of the presidents of the institutional trio.
On behalf of European federalists, Sandro Gozi MEP (Renew Europe, Italy) criticised the provisions of the EU Council’s revised position on governance, the functioning of the Conference and the participation of European citizens. The Parliament representative on the executive committee should be the one to “steer” the work, he said in a statement.
Damian Boeselager (Greens/EFA, Germany) proposed holding six three-month discussion rounds on European issues to be defined. According to him, these thematic reflections should not be precluded in terms of institutional review. (Original version in French by Mathieu Bion)