The Europeans Citizens Consultations is a series of national online forums, set up to allow the public to discuss “What can the EU do to shape our social future in a globalised world?”.
Citizens debate the issues
After a series of national debates a series of 15 of the most popular resolutions were sent to Brussels, along with 150 randomly chosen people from every EU nation, to discuss their recommendations with senior figures in the EU institutions.
The first day was dedicated to discussing the resolutions, on subjects including global warming, health, immigration and transparency. Participants were put in groups of a dozen and given some resolutions to discuss, specifically why each resolution was important and what practical steps they wanted put in action. Given the chance to express themselves the delegates worked diligently as the team of editors worked frantically to keep up with the stream of ideas flowing from the debates that were to be discussed by senior EU figures the next day. One of the experts, brought in to advise the groups explained, “If you take people seriously, they will respond seriously. Their recommendations are not superficial”. Jackie Davis from the European Policy Centre, one of the editing team said, “I’m impressed by the quality of the debate and it’s hard to keep up with them”.
By the end of the day many participants were pleased but exhausted although some were cautious about what would happen the next day, when the politicians were wheeled out. “I don’t know if they’re really going to listen to us or ignore us”, said one delegate.
The second day began with some introductory speakers then the first panel consisting of Wilfred Martens, President European People’s Party, Annemie Neyts-Uyttebroeck, President, European Liberal Democrat and Reform Party, Poul Rasmussen, President, European Socialist Party and Philippe Lamberts, President, European Green Party. The moderator was Pat Cox, President of the European Movement. The organisers were asked why the Independence and Democracy group were not involved and they responded that they’re were invited. However, their story changed when it was pointed out that they had not been invited. The organiser then said that they couldn’t invite them as they didn’t have a president who could speak for the whole group. When they were told that the Ind/Dem group in fact had two presidents, the story changed again to “they wouldn’t be able to come as they’re all canvassing”, then the organiser shuffled off to find a spokesman from the European movement to explain the situation. It has to be said that this spokesman proved to be as elusive as the Higgs Boson and has yet to be discovered.
Panel moderator, Pat Cox
Suspicions of political meddling increased when delegates saw the edited version of their discussions. “I don’t recognise this” and “this isn’t the debate I remember” were just two comments. The document reduced the citizens voices to a single paragraph for each of the 15 items, sometimes excluding all of their recommendations, others left out important and sometimes controversial suggestions.
Listening, but not hearing
The panel quickly descended into political point scoring and electioneering until one of the delegates spoke up and said “Excuse me, but we’re not here to listening to you squabbling with each other, but to discuss our recommendations, could we please do that?” The panel then started competing for how many of the points were already in their programmes. This was won by Lamberts (Green) who said “I’m almost embarrassed to say that 13 of the 15 points are in our manifesto”. not embarrassed enough to blush, instead he sat back with a smug grin. Eventually the debate finished as the speakers had to go electioneering elsewhere.
The final discussion had Hans-Gert Pöttering, President, European Parliament, José Manuel Barroso, President, European Commission and Mario Sepi, President European Economic and Social Committee. This debate centred around Pöttering and Barroso arguing that the EU is already doing what the delegates were asking for. Barroso said “It’s clear that most of you want a bigger Europe”. Is it clear? Not to many participants.
Finally Margot Wallström, Vice-President, European Commission gave the closing address where she said that “public support for Europe depends on lively and open debate” and that this was not a one-off event but part of a longer process that must continue putting on pressure to develop tools for democracy and close the democratic deficit.
As the delegates filed out a few were heard to complain that the event had been “hijacked” by the politicians. One said that “We’ve been steamrollered”. Was that going to stop him continuing in the consultations? “No, they’re not going to stop me, I’m more determined than ever”. The event is going to be followed up by smaller meetings and a further round with newly elected MEP’s and in future, the citizens are going to be increasingly assertive, something that must be good for democracy and the future of Europe.
Dear Andy,
Thanks a lot for reporting on the European Citzens’ Summit and for your interview with vice-president Wallström. Highly appreciated!
Just two comments. We consider the 15 recommendations as the key outcome of the ECC. They have been voted on by all participants of the 27 consultations, and therefore can be considered as the most “legitimate” result of the process. This is the reason why the final report presents essentially the 15 recommendations and includes only a (too) brief summary of the discussions of the first day, instead of long list of individual opinions expressed by the participants.
I hoped with you that there would have been more interaction with the policy-makers and the participants during the final debate. The ECC want to contribute to an open and frank public debate on EU affairs. We don’t want to steer the outcomes of the process in any direction.
Gerrit Rauws, project leader ECC
Hi Gerrit,
Thank you for your comments. I agree with what you said but thought the conclusions were too compressed. I’d like to meet up with you for a chat, please drop me an email via my contact page. I think this event should be viewed as only one step in a process and it has the potential to be something remarkable. All the signs point to people learning from this event and I expect the next one to be improved.