Conference on the Future of Europe

A room in Dublin Castle, 26 February 2022

The facilitator was doing his best to contain his frustration. ‘It’s a bit of an echo chamber in here’ he quipped. The joke didn’t quite land, failing to make its way through simultaneous interpretation into the six languages shared by the fifteen citizens around the table in Dublin Castle. The facilitator was fiddling with his headset – hearing his own voice at a three-second delay was making his job difficult. The room was hot, and people were in a post-lunch lull. Any grumblings were largely drowned out by episodic feedback and the sounds of hungry seagulls and weekend revellers outside. At last, a breakthrough. Composing himself, the facilitator began: ‘Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to our fourth breakout session of this [Conference on the Future of Europe] citizens’ panel in Dublin’. Unfortunately, he spoke too soon. The Bulgarians weren’t hearing anything and one of the Finns needed the code for the Wi-Fi.

The Conference on the future of Europe (COFE) came to Dublin between 25-27 February 2022 for the European Citizens’ Panel 1. This third and final meeting of the Panel was hosted in Dublin Castle and brought together 200 citizens from every Member State in the EU. The citizens considered topics including “stronger economy, social justice, jobs, education, youth, culture, sport and digital transformation”. Ultimately this would produce 48 recommendations which were sent to the Conference Plenary in Strasbourg held on 11-12 March 2022 to ultimately be voted upon.

Some recommendations from the Dublin session include: the introduction of a European-wide minimum wage, the further harmonisation of EU fiscal and taxation policies, encouraging increased birth rates through the provision of greater childcare provision, targeted support for social housing programmes, common certified minimum standards for schools, and the regulation of the internet.

At the time of writing, what exactly happens next remains somewhat unclear. Many members of the European Parliament (MEPs) have embraced the recommendations, and the deliberative process through which the Conference did its work, Meanwhile, several Member States have been vocal in their opposition. This comes as little surprise as many of the recommendations call for ‘more Europe’ and would erode often jealously-held national competences.

Notably, national differences and personal passions were made clear over the course of the weekend. Referring to poor rates of pay in Southern Europe, a Danish participant remarked ‘I don’t know if you have unions, but that might help’ while a Finn, during a discussion about housing benefits said that ‘everything is pretty good in Finland, actually’ before tactfully asking ‘how can we make it better elsewhere?’. During a discussion about access to digital services for older people, a French participant shared their fears that ‘those who are in charge want to make us all digital’ while an Irish participant asserted that building wind turbines can ‘generate ill will’ when built in beautiful places.

Notwithstanding the uncertainty regarding the citizens’ findings, this exercise – the biggest of its kind in European history – sets out the vision of what a diverse group of Europeans think the EU can and should be. At this moment of trauma for Europe, amid Russia’s war of aggression in Ukraine, the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, and the lingering consequences of the economic and social crises of a decade ago, the challenges associated with migration, and the UK’s protracted withdrawal and much besides, this vision by itself is of significant value for the EU and its future.

Below are four lessons that can be taken from observing the citizens’ panel in Dublin, and COFE in general.

Technology – Mixing Old and New

Much of the work of the Conference seemed somewhat improvised and ad-hoc. This is perhaps inevitable given the peripatetic nature of the meetings, being only in Dublin for a few days. Participants put colour coded stickers on handmade signs and sometimes self-consciously made hand signals and gestures to register preferences during meetings, while post-it notes festooned flipcharts and desks during breakout sessions. It felt part high-level conference and part Irish primary school art class. Alongside these traditional means of working, COFE in Dublin also made good use of modern technology notwithstanding occasional hiccups and delays. The citizens in Dublin interacted through the help of interpreters based remotely in Brussels and open-source translation software. This blend of the traditional and the modern felt authentic and is a nod to the impact that the pandemic has had on the ways we work, study, and interact.

Phone an Expert?

The role of experts in the COFE exercise will continue to be debated. It’s quite clear that some participants didn’t know what was happening for at least part of the time during the Conference. There is clear scope for experts to play a role and to demystify the often complex and esoteric ways that the EU does its business. However, the point of the Conference was not to seek expert advice on the legal intricacies of treaty reform or of the hallowed mysteries of the clause passerelle, but rather to find out what ordinary people from Finland to Portugal, Romania to Ireland, and everywhere in between, want the EU to be about. Experts helped to refine the citizens’ choices but did not speak in the individual working group sessions unless specifically called upon. For any future ventures of this kind, it is clear that there could be a more proactive role played by experts to inform discussions – and to identify the extent to which proposals and ideas fall within or without the realms of EU law and competence.

The Format – Little and Often?

The Citizens’ Panels embarked on an ambitious format to do its work. This Citizens’ Panel group met three times over 2021-2022, once each in person in Dublin and Strasbourg, as well as once online. It’s a big commitment by citizens, who invested significant time and energy, sacrificing weekends and evenings to participate and prepare. A future edition of the Conference, if there is one, could be a more streamlined and concentrated affair with fewer topics up for discussion and shorter meetings, perhaps meeting more frequently online, further leveraging the opportunities afforded by new technologies to reduce the need for the citizens to travel.

A Vision for Europe and Expectation Management

Put simply, many of the things the citizens’ sought, including as regards EU-enforced rent freezes, subsidised housing and free tuition fees, lie largely or entirely beyond the scope of the EU’s current suite of competences. While acknowledging, this, one of the architects of the exercise believes strongly that ‘this is ok’ as ‘it’s not only about what can happen – it’s about what people’s vision for Europe is like and about the things they see as important in their own lives’. While true, and any exercise on this scale should be ambitious, it might also be important to manage expectations to avoid sowing discord and disappointment among the citizenry.

Conclusion

Despite any misgivings, pessimism and scepticism around the idea of a European-wide citizens’ assembly-like exercise, the Conference on the Future of Europe still worked, at least on its own terms. There were some set-backs, delays and technical difficulties, not to mention a pandemic, but it came together with humour, confusion, and no small amount of patience from the citizen participants.

Whether any of the citizens’ demands bear fruit remains an open question. The Parliament is openly gung-ho about responding meaningfully to the citizens’ wishes, while the Member States are less convinced and are split over the need to open up the possibility of potentially rancorous treaty negotiations. What is clear from the Conference on the Future of Europe exercise is that the vast majority of the citizen participants seem to want more Europe, which may well mean less room for manoeuvre for the national governments.