Original in German

- Mrs Sigmund, The ECOSOC has observer status in the European Convention. What do you see as its role in the debate on the Future of Europe? How does the ECSOSC follow the Convention practically?

We currently have 3 observers and 3 substitutes who follow the Convention. We have established a sub-committee within the ECOSOC consisting of one representative from each member state. Each of the members of this body has different competences and responsibilities. Generally speaking they are following and supporting the observers in their work. One part of the committee is dealing with research to find out which documents have been issued by the ECOSOC on the Convention in order to facilitate the internal work. Two colleagues are mainly dealing with the contacts to current EU member states and applicant countries respectively. We also use our contacts to candidate countries that are established so far to organise local events. This has been already the case in Poland, Hungary and Slovakia, and in Slovenia next week. Another member is responsible is for the contact to national economic and social committees as far as they are established. One leading committee is the French one at the moment which has just issued a very interesting research proposal on the inclusion of the Charter of Fundamental Rights in the current treaties and connected juridical questions. One member of the committee is dealing with the interests of the European Social Partners, which proves to be the most difficult aspect at the moment. The 3 social partners represented in the Convention naturally try to promote their respective interests in the first place whereas we in the ECOSOC are interested in a consensus between all partners. This is a relatively difficult situation which we are still confident to solve. Another aspect of our work, and I would say the most promising one is the contact to various NGOs.

- The ECOSOC often claims to represent the organised Civil Society. Nevertheless, its structures do not reflect the whole spectrum. Are meetings such as the last session on the European Convention with European wide acting NGOs an approach to overcome this deficit?

With these meetings we try to co-operate with as many organisations that are not members of the ECOSOC as possible in this debate. This is our approach to involve the civil society into the debate. Firstly one has to define of course what is meant by civil society. There are purists who consider everything as part of the civil society that is not an actor in the free market. I do not believe in this division of state, market and civil society, as actors of the civil society are also automatically actors in the open market. Therefore I agree very much with the definition that the ECOSOC has established, considering everybody part of the civil society who feels bound to the public interest. Entrepreneurs who are solely interested in maximising their profits are therefore not part of the civil society. This is how we try to find a dividing line. Social partners on the other hand are therefore crucial actors within the civil society. The main problem we face at the moment is the fact that our official partners of civil society are appointed by the member states. This system is absolutely correct according to our principle of subsidiarity. The member states are asked to nominate a representative range of organisations from the civil society, but in fact this is often not the case. The ECOSOC is unfortunately not considered as important enough by some of the member states to take this nomination process serious. At the moment we cannot see any real innovative process in nominating member organisations. We can only change this by convincing them of the importance of our work. For example it could be worthwhile questioning whether we actually need so many organisations representing employees and entrepreneurs, or if it could be more important to enlarge the range and variety of member organisations. I find it rather problematic that we claim to represent the civil society on the one hand but have only one organisation involved in environmental issues out of 222 members at the moment. We have to admit this and should think about this weakness. This was actually one of the reasons why we have decided to open another channel of civil society contact by offering the European-wide NGOs an opportunity to co-operate. I am determined to institutionalise this co-operation in the next years in case I should be re-elected as the chair of Group III of the ECOSOC. This is the only way for us to represent the Civil Society in a credible way.

- What role can civil society play in the work of the European Convention?

At a certain moment the representatives of Civil Society will have to define what to ask exactly from the Convention. Here the key issues will be surely be the question of participation. I personally disagree here with the European Commission’s strategy to see the involvement of NGOs purely in a consultative way. Participation and Consultation are two completely different approaches. In one weeks time the Commission will issue a paper as a follow up of the white book on European Governance explaining the harmonisation of the consultative mechanisms. This is not what we should ask from the Convention. This is not our model of participation in a future democratic model. Still, we need to define our model. NGOs taking part in the contact groups established at the Convention also should not have the impression that they are going to discuss issues such as culture or human rights in itself. The key question in this Convention is the distribution of competencies and we risk discussing exactly the same issues in different contact groups. We have also established an e-mail service to show to the NGOs how the Convention and the contact groups are going to work exactly, which is absolutely crucial in preparing the meetings, and I would like to invite NGOs to subscribe to this information service.

- How do you see the role of the ECOSOC after this convention?

I expect clarifications. Clarifications and an open discussion. At the moment there are different approaches on the table ranging from abolishing the ECOSOC to changing it into the second chamber. We certainly have to reconsider our role. I wish to strengthen the participative element, which is also in the interest of the EU’s credibility. We should understand our main goal as to develop the dialogue with the civil society and actually to practise and to co-ordinate it. This should not be mixed up with the dialogue with the social partners. The goal of this co-operation is to find binding decisions. This can not and should not be the case with the dialogue with civil society. This dialogue is an approach to participation which Habermas describes as public discourse. I would wish this Convention to institutionalise this participation by civil society by adding a protocol on these issues to the current treaties. I prefer to achieve a broad co-operation that is not binding rather than just an alibi article in the treaties, which cannot help anybody. Too many NGOs still demand the integration of this dialogue in the treaties, I am afraid.

The system of social partners on the other hand is already established at the European level, and it is rather the fault of the respective organisations that is not practised sufficiently. It is purely in the hand of the social partners themselves to establish a model of social partnership in Europe. Therefore I also do not see the differences and tensions between the ECOSOC and the social partners.

- What outcome would you consider as a success?

A disappointment would be just cosmetic corrections and alibis. A success would be at least the establishment of a treaty with a constitutional character so that it is clear and understandable for the citizens. This is the key question if we want to overcome the passivity of many citizens when it comes to European issues. It is much more difficult to overcome ignorance than negative attitudes towards the EU. Therefore we need clear regulations that are close to the citizens. Coming to the question of a European Federation or Confederation I follow very much the line of Jaques Delors who described the future model as a federation of nation-states. One has to be realistic, Delors is not only a visionary but also pragmatic. The time is simply not ready for more yet. The federal element is much more than a question of political mentality.

- Can you describe your personal experiences during the Convention meetings?

Unfortunately I have to say that we feel very much a top-down approach in the Convention. We have to see how the co-operation develops once the work is getting more concrete. At the moment there are four categories in the Convention, firstly the presidium, than after a long gap the Convention members, then the members from candidate countries, and finally the nobodies. We consider ourselves as nobodies. For the moment we are not treated as individuals but as observers as such. For the moment we are all exchangeable, which is shown by small symbols such as the fact that we still do not have name plates at the Convention. It is absolutely clear to us that we do not have the right to co-decide, but we should have the right to discuss at least. If the Convention wants to show closeness to the citizens than they have to accept us as a first step.

- How did you follow the establishment of the Youth Convention?

We have proposed several times to the Secretariat of the Convention to be involved together with the European Youth Forum in the development of preparatory documents. My personal fear is that expectations are created among young people, which than later on cannot be fulfilled, because participants neither had enough time nor sufficient material to prepare themselves. Also an appropriate follow up of the Youth Convention would be extremely important. At the moment I see therefore quite many deficits that could have been avoided when preparing the meeting. I am very much afraid that especially participants who are not involved in youth organisations and therefore have not yet experienced the typical working methods and communication styles might feel lost during the meeting. I also fear that the approach is slightly wrong. What we need is not necessarily input from young people in such a way, but what we depend on is having these people as multipliers. At the same time the question of active participation and the involvement of citizens should have been tackled much more than it is foreseen in the current working groups, in the Youth Convention as much as in the European Convention. This is exactly what at the end this debate on the future of Europe is about.

Interview conducted by Niki Klesl and Marianne Bonnard, JEF European Secretariat.
mailto:secretariat@jef-europe.net