“The public debate on the future of Europe in general and the work of the Convention in particular, has been going on for some time in the media, in conferences and debates organised by governmental and non-governmental organisations, among politicians and simple citizens. It is sometimes highly optimistic, sometimes critical, sometimes pessimistic or just negative. The fact is, that it is always a reaction on an event that already has taken place, an analysis of decisions already made.

But how would you behave on the place of the real Convention members at the time of real Convention meeting? Would you be able to reach a compromise facing 104 different positions of other individuals with their own experience and perspective of the world? Would you be able to realise your own ideas? The simulation game on the European Convention gave 105 young people from 10 European countries the possibility to enter the situation and find it out.”

On a nice and sunny March weekend in Vienna 105 participants from 10 European countries, JEF delegates outnumbering all other delegations (which you face as a reality with long tradition) came together in order to discuss the future of Europe following the procedures of the European convention. Their task wasn’t the easiest one - they needed not only excellent knowledge of European Institutions and processes within the Convention, which they certainly had, but also some acting talent, since their aim was to represent the opinion of certain Convention member, which meant that sometimes the fiercest federalists following their roles had to find arguments for the confederation of national states, unanimity in all questions and turning Europe back to De Gaulle times.

The chance to have deeper insight into constitution-making was given to young people by UEF Vienna, which together with Info Point Europe proposed and realised this idea as a part of transnational project “The Future of Europe-Our Opinion Counts” (www.citizens.eu.org)

The game included documents given in advance - feedback paper, which included an overview of a current procedures in FCSP and ESDP, and functions of the institutions, as well as description of problems in questions concerned. We were following the logics that before deciding on institutional changes the current situation should be explained. The rules of procedure, or rules of the game, included the procedural questions, as well as was giving some guidelines how to defend your point of view and rule discussion. The mandates for each of working groups-“External Action” (questions on decision-making process, the role of High Representative, Representation of the EU in international organisations), “Defence” (exclusive or inclusive policy?, decision-making and constructive abstention, Petersberg tasks, financing, cooperation on armaments) “External Economic Relations” (representation in IMF, World Bank, G8, WTO) were shortened versions of those from the Convention. The mandate of the working group External Economic Relations included questions discussed in the WG External Action of the Convention.

Each participant on the spot received a role containing the position of the Convention member on Common Foreign and Security Policy, European Security and Defence Policy as well as external economic relations of the Union, together with his/her CV. The role was a result of an analysis of the contributions, speeches and amendments of the draft documents made by the members of the Convention, as well as some answers to short questionnaires sent to them (unfortunately less than 15% of the members replied to us). We as well had some problems to analyse the statements and proposals of some Convention members who didn’t reply to us, since even hardly trying we didn’t find any.

The aim of the participants was to achieve inclusion of their position in the final paper of the working group, which afterwards was discussed at the plenary. Since “newly born” members of the Convention took their roles seriously, we had some really exciting debates especially concerning the relationship between EU and NATO, decision-making in all questions, Defence clause and the role of national states, as well as some participants practiced political skills, sometimes even accusing others in conspiracy.

Actually one proof that the roles were played very well is the fact that final papers didn’t go further than the ones of the real Convention, giving enough space for any interpretation. Intergovernmental level with some federal points was a slight compromise which wasn’t very big step forward, but still a move. Some progress, though, was achieved in the demand to strengthen the role of Parliament in all spheres, common defence budget, HR as a leading power in Foreign Policy, supervising the national representatives of each EU countries.

In this situation we learned that you cannot actually accuse the real Convention in the lack of coherence and unwillingness to compromise. There is nothing you can do if the perception of the world of one member as a result of his life experience completely opposes the one of the other conventioneer. Probably the convention as a weekend debate including all the members should be obligatory practice for all parliamentarians and commissioners for some ten years, before they will be able to learn from each other and reform by compromise.

In conclusion I would like to thank once more all the participants for excellent work and especially the chairs of the Working Groups, Marko Mravljak, Karoly Vegh and Sipan Sedeek, who did their best in order to lead this pilot project to the happy end.

Polina Mosheva, UEF - Vienna