We initiated our session with an ice breaking game as usual and after that all the members of our workshop gave the reasons why they joined this group. Afterwards there followed a general discussion about whether or not the Charter of Fundamental Rights should be part of the Constitution on the grounds that the C.F.R would be the cornerstone of the E.U. Historical needs call for that. Moreover we have to keep in mind that it would constitute a guideline for the under accession countries as well as for the member-states. If the Charter is not included the role of E.U would be downplayed as the U.N cannot applied efficiently. The opposite side expressed the idea that the C.F.R is a huge text which may confuse people, who will possibly get tired and disappointed with all those details which exist in C.F.R. Finally we concluded that there is a need for a reference to the human rights embodied to the Constitution.
Then, it was clarified that there exist different aspects concerning the human rights, when are they respected and when are they limited. And for this reason social policy is different from country to country. Also, there was expressed the aspect that in the Constitution the social policy must be the first step and then the state must develop its own system, based on the welfare state rules though. Constitution must not be restraining and must pose some minimum standards. The opposite side claimed that the Constitution must drastically limit the competences and the activities of the state. Generally it was claimed that the Constitution should not be flexible, not overloaded with details, but written in a general way, realistic, reflecting our actual needs, and not mixing institutions with policies.
In our second session we discussed citizenship and we all agreed that the citizenship is different to residentship. Then many different approaches followed on that issue. Some people were of the opinion that the european identity is an artificial one, as the national identity is still highly respected, despite the fact that it is losing some of its power due to the existence of the european one. In general it was accepted that the matter of the european identity is not of major importance at the moment, as it has only to do with practical issues (e.g passports). If we want to conciliate the people we have to mak the citizens come closer in lower levels ( schools for instance ). Furthermore some members of the working group seemed to be persuaded that the identity depends on the place one is found, and it changes from place to place. Closing the session we concluded that the european identity cannot be obtained fast because of the national identity, but they can potentially co-exist.Some other people were convinced that by forgetting the issue of the identity in general we may help us solve the problem of different identities, as the identity is a way of socializing oneself and being self-determined. On the whole we should keep in mind that the european identity should not be related to the E.U. countries. We must regard it as a whole.
As far as the ratification process is concerned, it was mentioned that the Constitution should be ratified either by the governments or by the national parliaments, while some othe people stressed the opinion that referenda would be the most appropriate solution because parliaments are distant in front of the eyes of lots of people.
In the very end we all agreed that problems will appear unless some countries ratify the Constitution.