Youth Forum Council of Members, 27 April 2002

On why we need the Convention:

Enlargement represents a historical chance to reunite Europe, for the first time by political agreement. By 2004-5 we will welcome our first accession countries. What became clear in this process is that enlargement and the launch of monetary union were going to modify Europe considerably, and grant it a different dimension and size. We were therefore faced with a new institutional challenge: to maintain a level of efficiency in the decision-making process, and to prevent enlargement coming to a standstill. This enlargement also has a political dimension that the other enlargements did not have – this has a much stronger political dimension in the sense of reunifying Europe. It will also have to operate in a different global context than in the past, post-Cold War world. The globalisation process has imposed new challenges on us and on the EU. An integrated Europe taking a single stand would be a power at world level. The EU has a social and economic model different from those implemented in the US and therefore we need to play our specific part in the world. Citizens are more aware of this than politicians. Citizens expect politicians to provide internal security, and to play a role in the Balkan states and the Middle East – these are areas where we are not sufficiently able to act. As Tony Blair said, the aim of Europe is not only to make sure that peace is maintained, our main goal is for us to be at world level a power which has to be taken on board in any kind of policy. This is only possible if we act together.

The traditional method of the intergovernmental conference is not able to define this leap forward that we need. We need to build a new Europe that can build a role in the 21st Century at world level and with citizens. The classical IGCs were unable to find the relevant answers. This is the reason for the establishment of the Convention, with the Charter on Fundamental Rights as the inspiration.

On the challenges facing the Convention:

There is a danger in the hope that the second one will be as successful as the first one. The first one was successful as the mandate was quite limited, to the codification of rights already existing, rather than going much further. Its success was due to it respecting that mandate. This Convention needs a wider mandate than the four provisions of Nice, and Laeken grants a wide mandate to the Convention. This is good, but it is a challenge, as the Convention’s mandate is less clearly defined, and the members have to find their way amidst a maze of problems.

On the goals of the Convention:

The results of the Convention are not defined. The Laeken Declaration allows for it to produce options or a single proposal. I am often asked the question of what will be a failure or a success. I expect the result will be the middle way. A failure would be if ten to fifteen proposals are put forward. This would not be useful. Another possibility, perhaps a utopian idea, would be for us to finalise the process through a consensus – which is not automatically unanimity – on a draft constitutional treaty. The two elements are important – a basic treaty merging the different treaties and integrating the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and the text is also important, because the previous Convention has had an impact because it formed the Charter in the form of a legal text. We knew it would not be taken up in the treaties immediately but we worked in a way to make sure that it would be integrated at some point. By doing it in legal terms we were sure it would be taken on board by the Court of Justice, as it has been on several occasions. The time has now come to integrate it in the texts we are now working on. That is, not to reopen the debate on the Charter, which would lead to consensus disappearing. This Charter has already been approved by the Council, the European Parliament, the Commission, and can be incorporated as it stands. This would be a step forward. It could then be updated in the next phases, but we first have to take this step – better to be safe than sorry.

If we fulfil both conditions we will have genuine influence on the IGC which will follow – the closer we get to this ideal solution the stronger our influence afterwards. This treaty should define the final goal of the EU, without limiting our different competences. Listing competences is meaningless, we have to organise them better and define better the instruments for implementation. Our aim is not to monopolise or centralise: the EU has to maintain its diversity. There is no contradiction between the strengthening of competences and the decentralisation which is under way in some countries. This is the principle of subsidiarity at all levels. What we can do together better at the European level should be done at the European level.

On the candidate countries:

The decision was taken to enable pre-accession countries, as future members, to participate. They will join the EU on the basis of the Nice mechanisms, but the EU for efficiency also needs agreements on new elements. New members cannot be taken by surprise – to increase their confidence and avoid misunderstandings they need to participate. I was very happy to hear Hungarian delegate Martonyi say, “I attend the Convention as if I were already a member, we have to be involved just as any other member. “ We will have to involve them to be successful in IGC.

Applicant countries are members of the Convention just like member states, they are not disadvantaged. There is one sentence in the Laeken declaration which states that applicant countries cannot break consensus among member states. I hope that we will reach a consensus among 15 member states, but it is not so obvious. If there is, and if it became clear that the applicant countries are at odds with the 15, then we have a problem and will have to be aware of it. However I believe personally that if applicant countries are really involved in the debate and in the Convention I ca not really imagine that there wouldn’t be the same consensus shared by these countries. We have to state it loud and clear in the outcomes and conclusions that they should also welcome the participation of the applicant countries as well as the member states. I am in favour of making no distinction between them, and would encourage you to participate as if you were member states. This is the only way to achieve positive results with the Convention.

On how the Convention works:

The Convention does not work behind closed doors. It has to be systematically and permanently linked with civil society, which has to be informed and linked with what the Convention is doing. Civil society should have the possibility to put forward different ideas to the members of the Convention. We are trying to stimulate civil society to contribute and to follow our work. This should be throughout our work, not only at the beginning. We have been trying to do this at different levels, at national level, through NGOs. I would like to add that when it comes to young people, President Giscard d’Estaing has launched a youth initiative which will take place in July where each member of the Convention will be represented by a young person which will produce something which will be handed over to the Convention afterwards. This is an opportunity for young people to be spokespeople in their countries.

With the backing of civil society in their countries, I hope that the Convention will be a success, because enlargement and monetary union might come to a standstill if we do not manage to improve the situation. We are responsible for this success and we have an important responsibility regarding you, because the framework which we are defining and within which we are operating is one in which you will be operating later on. We have to make sure that Europe is better able to defend its values and its model in the world by being more integrated.

On contact with civil society:

The Civil Society Forum is not a venue, it’s not an organisation. It is a multidimensional organisation, with many different forms and structures. There is a distinction between the debate via the internet, where everyone has access, and the national debates. To underline it, we have invited all the delegates of member states and candidate countries to organise national debates. We are not going to organise national debates: we are ready to participate in and help these debates at national level, but it is up to states to organise their own national debates. It is up to you also to organise a debate for young people at the national level, to make sure that the ideas you defend here are expressed and passed on to the national level, and then we might have some feedback from national debates.

We are organising meetings among European NGOs at the moment. We are trying to gather some of them to have an efficient work. At the moment we are in contact with the social partners, the Economic and Social Committee, with the Council of the Regions. The ESC has organised a meeting of NGOs, and the Convention took a commitment to have regular meetings, or regular exchanges of information, because this is absolutely fundamental. We did exactly the same with study groups at the European level, with universities. I believe that you may play this role as well, you represent the Youth Forum, recognised by the European institutions, I would have no problem to propose to the Convention to listen to the feedback of young people represented by you. We could imagine that some members of the presidium could attend one of your meetings to listen to your contribution. It will be an interesting step when the Convention needs to tackle content. This will be a time for feedback, an exchange of information. We could imagine that, delegating presidium members to one of your meetings.

Let’s be clear on one thing, that the members of the Convention are in charge of producing something, its up to them to do that, to come up with the structures, the methodology, but at the end of the day they will have to draft the document, listening to civil society, consulting civil society. We have to be realistic, to gather a number of organisations. Our final goal is to produce a document. Of course we need feedback, let’s not forget that we have to be realistic, our time management has to be realistic. It is true that in this sense we will not be able to reply positively to all the invitations from civil society. We will do our best but there will always be criticisms.

On the Youth Convention:

The Youth Convention will be a transitional measure. I am fully aware of the gaps that it will have and I would like to submit to you a proposal, to suggest to you to be an ongoing contact point with Europeans. There has been a decision not to over organise the Youth Convention. I do appreciate your organisations, I am a product of one myself, but the Youth Convention should also try to open up to the external world. Therefore the selection process should not be as structured or as organised as you would like it to be. I fully understand your criticisms but there are other factors which explain why we have decided to do it this way. As national movements and organisations you may also have contacts with your national delegates, you can also put pressure on their shoulders, it is up to you to organise that kind of lobbying approach. You can also contact your national MEPs, they have to select delegates, you can put pressure on them to consult you. It is another way of having influence. You will not change the structure of it, you can issue a press release saying you are disappointed, but even if you boycott it, it will still exist. So let’s adopt a more positive approach, please try to find other channels of communication. It is true that there is an element of visibility in the proposal for the Youth Convention, a kind of PR exercise at the European level. I am convinced that the European Convention and the Youth Convention is a major event at the European level, but also that we need to keep permanent contact with you through the European Youth Forum. The Youth Convention should not be the final goal, the end of everything. We have to give young people the opportunity to have their voices heard.

We have to organise and structure it but it should not be overly restrictive, they should have some space to express their ideas. You might call it a ‘happening’ within the Convention, a special event, but I still believe it is an important step and that the message that will come out of it will be a major one. But more importantly we should make sure that there will be an ongoing dialogue between Europe and young people. I think this is extremely important. I was asked to facilitate this forum of civil society. What I do not want to see is a kind of hearing where people can just take the floor for three minutes and that is it. We need more visibility, better input, better linkage between the Convention and civil society, and to find channels of communication which might remain open constantly.

[Transcribed by Alison Weston]