Emmanuel Macron likes to consult the citizens. When he stood for the French Presidency for the first time in 2017, he proposed democratic conventions for a European debate in each member state (‘Revolution’, p. 240). To appease the Yellow Vests movement, he launched a ‘major national debate’ to run from January to March 2019. This was followed by a ‘national climate convention’, bringing together 150 citizens selected at random. These initiatives led to proposals that went down very well with the public, but which have been implemented to fairly varying degrees. In the run-up to the European elections, only the programme of Macron’s ‘Renaissance’ list referred to the concept of a Conference on the Future of Europe.
Addressing the European Parliament on 16 July 2019, Ursula von der Leyen made President Macron’s idea her own (she certainly owed him that) and announced that it would start in 2020 and continue for two years (see EUROPE B12646 A1). The members of the European Parliament were the only ones immediately to grasp the fact that the provisions to make this project a reality should involve giving citizens a say. But matters were held up at the Council of the EU under the Croatian and German Presidencies. In fact, most of the member states were distinctly lacking in enthusiasm for the process and all of them wished to take control of it. The Parliament took matters into its own hands and ended up streets ahead with the organisation, taking the view that the chairmanship should be shared between the major political groups.
Finally, in early 2021, an agreement was fashioned on a three-way Presidency between the Parliament, Commission and Council (see EUROPE 12647/1). On top of pressure from the Parliament came pressure from Paris, which was determined for the round to last a year, so that it would end under the French Presidency of the Council. On 10 March, the joint declaration of the three institutions was signed. The institutions would also be represented in the joint secretariat and on the executive board of the Conference, on which seats would also be held by observers from the national parliaments (COSAC), the European Committee of the Regions, the European Economic and Social Committee and the social partners. Finally, a plenary assembly would be responsible for compiling the ideas fed in and summarising them.
The Conference was launched in Strasbourg on 9 May 2021 (see EUROPE 12716/1). The citizens’ contributions could be made in a number of forms: a multilingual digital platform, four panels of European citizens, European events, panels of national citizens and national events. For the last two of these, the member states would be in charge.
Just a small majority of them, six out of 27, decided to hold national panels: Germany, Belgium, France, Italy and the Netherlands – five founding states – plus Lithuania. This is an important lesson. Unsurprisingly, France did the most: 18 panels, 700 citizens, 1301 specific proposals divided up into 14 priority recommendations. For Germany: an online panel of 100 citizens, eight recommendations. For Belgium: a panel of 50 citizens, 115 recommendations. For Italy: an online panel of 55 citizens, 58 recommendations. For the Netherlands: 4000 citizens filling in an online questionnaire, 30 recommendations. For Lithuania: an online panel of 25 citizens, 21 recommendations. In all cases, the citizens were selected randomly, in some cases attempting to ensure a broad range of participants in terms of sex, age, place of residence and social and professional backgrounds. The Conference had nine themes and it is worth noting that only France and the Netherlands covered them all, the others going for a more selective approach: five for Belgium, four for Germany and two each for Italy and Lithuania. Although these consultations followed the same principles of good deliberation as the European panels, the broadness of composition of the national panels is striking. And although the results came from just six member states, their recommendations will be fed right up to the plenary assembly of the Conference.
As for the national events, the final report lists them, taking each state one by one. There is little by way of figures. They come from Germany (350), Denmark (180), Spain (27) and Hungary (800). All others use vague expressions (several events/activities, numerous events, a decentralised approach, etc.) or refer to debates, online consultations, surveys, etc.
The initiatives taken at European level seem, by way of comparison, considerably more fruitful in terms of impact, be it the digital platform, panels of European citizens or events carried out.
The design of the platform is pretty ingenious: it allowed everybody to make a contribution and also to discuss or support those of others, with availability in all 24 official languages by means of automated translation. Everything was public and provided a venue for the first-ever broad pan-European debate of its kind. It provided a range of additional information, listed events taking place or organised them itself. It had a team of moderators working 24/7. Several results were provided, the most recent of which fed into the final result of the Conference, but an additional report is still underway, dealing with the final contributions received (up to 9 May).
The figures already collected speak volumes. As of 22 April, nearly 5 million people had visited the platform, over 52,000 of them participating actively; more than 17,600 ideas had been debated and more than 6000 events registered. Of the nine themes proposed for debate, ‘European democracy’ received the highest number of contributions, followed by ‘Climate change and environment’, then the ‘Other ideas’ section. These were followed by ‘Values and rights, rule of law, security’ and ‘A stronger economy, social justice and employment’. As nearly 27% of contributions came from participants who had not specified their country of residence, it is hard to carry out a precise geographical distribution between contributors, but on the basis of the data available, participation seems to have been unequal between member states with varying socio-demographic profiles of participants, which comes as no real surprise. (To be continued)
Renaud Denuit