The ‘panels of European citizens’ were so called because they were created and arranged not by the member states, but by the institutional trio of the EU, with the support of a consortium of external service-providers and national opinion polling institutes: in this process, 800 people were selected following telephone screening calls, ensuring a balance of sex, geographical origin, level of education, socio-economic background and age, with the priority on getting young people involved (those aged between 16 and 24 made up one third of the total).
The system was based on 4 panels of 200 members, each with its ‘thematic package’: (1) economy, social justice, employment, education, culture, youth, sport, digital; (2) European democracy, values and rights, the rule of law, security; (3) climate change, environment and health; (4) the EU in the world, migrations. Three series of panel sessions took place: one weekend event in Strasbourg, an online session in the course of the month of November 2021, weekend sessions in four other cities (Dublin, Florence, Warsaw/Natolin and Maastricht), where participants were hosted by higher education establishments. In all, these panels adopted 178 recommendations receiving at least 70% of the votes. The process was transparent and the highly motivated members did an incredible job of work. These panels might be considered a kind of ‘reactor core’. Representatives of the panels were interviewed by the plenary assembly in January and March 2022.
As for the European events, apart from the inauguration and closing sessions, allow us to flag up the huge gathering of 10,000 young Europeans (8-9 October 2021) online and at the European Parliament in Strasbourg, the many initiatives of the European Economic and Social Committee (75 events) and the European Committee of the Regions (140), not to mention all the online debates. In March 2022, a European Summit of Regions and Cities published a highly regarded report. The Civil Society Convention on the Future of Europe also originated many events and contributions. Finally, more than 2000 events can be attributed to the representations of the Commission and the offices of the EP in the member states.
It was the task of the plenary assembly of the Conference to monitor the incoming contributions from the panels and the digital platform, to debate these, to summarise them and, finally, to make proposals to the executive committee. It was a parliament-sized undertaking: 108 representatives of the EP, the same number of national parliamentarians and the same number again of citizens (including 80 representatives of the European panels), giving a total of 324, plus 54 representatives of the Council of the EU and three from the Commission. Representatives of the CoR, the EESC, regional and local authorities, the social partners and civil society were invited to attend in a consultative capacity. The seventh meeting of the assembly (29-30 April 2022) approved 49 proposals, which were subsequently validated by the executive committee. They were fed into the final report of the Conference (see EUROPE 12947/18).
It is important to note that the representatives of the Council forbore to comment on the substance of these proposals, taking instead the role of supporting a process of citizens’ participation, which was obviously quite unprecedented in its scale, energy and relevance.
The proposals were presented under four different chapters: climate change and environment (6 proposals), health (4), a stronger economy, social justice and employment (6), the EU in the world (8), values and rights, the rule of law, security (6), the digital transformation (5), European democracy (5), migrations (5), education, culture, youth and sport (4). Each proposal defined an objective, then set out a variable number of specific measures. There are too many to examine here.
A few critical comments seem justified. We are no longer talking about ‘Europe’ as per the title, but the European Union. The Council of Europe is not mentioned. This Union is spoken of without any reference to its historical roots, or its progression over time: it is set out before the contributors as it is, in the here and now. Obviously, the aim was to look to the future, but the geographical prospect is unclear: where will the final external borders of the EU be? Radio silence. What about our relations with democratic European countries which are not EU member states, what is the future of our neighbourhood policy? Radio silence. The most it does in this direction is to propose that the EU should ‘offer a credible accession perspective for candidate and potential candidate countries’ (see proposal 24). Should the unanimous agreement of all current member states be required to agree to an accession? No consensus on that point.
The euro is one of the greatest achievements of the EU. All countries newly joining must pledge to adopt it one day. Should they be given a reminder of this? Does the extension of the Eurozone still have a future? Radio silence. It just says, in proposal 12 on the EU’s competitiveness and further deepening the single market, that the EU should ‘[consolidate] what has been done in terms of the single currency’. The Schengen zone for the free movement of people? Ignored. Another example: space policy is an important aspect of our future and deserved a closer look. There are just two tiny references to the ‘strategic’ nature of space (see proposals 12 and 23). Major institutions are overlooked: the European Council, the Court of Justice of the EU, the European Central Bank. In the part on communication and citizens’ participation, not a single word about the resources generated by the Eurobarometer surveys.
Obviously, the contributors, whose imaginations are certainly not in question, did not start their work by sitting down and reading through the treaties; instead, they developed ideas by looking at what is not working in the world in which they live. These proposals therefore set out measures to ensure that in the future, our societies are in a better place, which is a noble undertaking. These measures can be executed at national or European level or a bit of both. The objectives of the proposals are in fact already on the agendas of the institutions: in very many cases, it is simply about ‘reinforcing’ them. Between the proposals, redundancies and repetitions abound and some go by the same title. But let us be quite right about it: on the subjects that are of the greatest concern to them – food, biodiversity, climate, energy, packaging, health, the digital economy, wages, employment, family rights, energy dependency, the protection of personal data, disinformation, cyber-security, discrimination, connection with the citizens, asylum and immigration, education and culture – the panels dug deep and took them in interesting directions, right down to the technical details, which the European Commission, as it has promised to do, will not fail to examine methodically: look out for the state of the union speech in September. As for the external policy of the EU, its commercial dimension was what came in for most praise.
Observers were interested to hear what the Conference would have to say about the matter of treaty change. It expressly called for health to be included among the shared competences by means of a modification of article 4 TFEU (proposals 8 and 10) and for the inclusion of the protocol on social progress (proposals 13 and 14). Additionally, ‘any necessary legal avenues, including Treaty changes, should be considered to punish breaches of the rule of law’ (proposal 25).
It is on the subject of democracy and elections that things get bit harder. The possibility of calling a referendum throughout the EU by initiative of the EP (proposal 38.2) would seem to need to be based on primary law. The same is true in point 38.4, regarding which the Council considers that the proposal is not based on a citizens’ recommendation and is not in keeping with the method agreed. But look what it says: ‘European citizens should have a greater say in who is elected as President of the Commission. This can be achieved either by the direct election of the Commission President or a lead candidate system. The European Parliament should have the right of legislative initiative, in order to propose topics to be discussed and, subsequently, adopt the necessary text to follow up on the recommendations that emerge from deliberations. The European Parliament should decide on the budget of the EU as it is the right of Parliament at the national level’. On this last point, the representatives of the panels expressed their disagreement, as they did not originate the idea. As for the rights of legislative initiative, the sentence is ambiguous to the point of incomprehensibility. Such a right, whole and entire, would be tantamount to lobbing a cluster bomb into the institutional triangle. In any case, these proposals would require treaty reform and therefore a Convention.
When the results of the Conference were officially handed over on 9 May, President von der Leyen lent her backing to Parliament’s request to convene a Convention and President Macron gave his enthusiastic blessing to the proposed changes. The response was not long in coming: on the same day, 13 member states pointed out that treaty change had never been one of the Conference’s aims and criticised ill thought-out and premature attempts in that direction (see EUROPE 12948/1). The French Presidency of the Council would have done better to contain its excitement and formally ask the 26 other ministers to respond in writing to a simple question, along the lines of ‘what response does your government consider appropriate to the results of the Conference on the Future of Europe?’
The Conference has been a fantastic democratic firework display and it is important not to disappoint the countless citizens who took part in it, with honesty and creativity. It deserves a serious follow-up. In the meantime, it remains a French initiative which the Parliament eagerly seized upon to push forward its own objectives and the Commission followed up, doing its duty, but the idea has never created that much of a stir in the other capitals.
In June, European Council is to debate the subject; in the event of a lack of consensus, it might look more like a funeral than a debate, with the customary diplomatic formalities.
Renaud Denuit