“Conference on the future of Europe: a sham of participatory democracy?”

Rodrigo Ballester directs the Center for European Studies at the Mathias Corvinus Collegium (MCC) in Budapest.

A former European civil servant from the College of Europe, he was notably a member of the cabinet of the Commissioner for Education and Culture from 2009 to 2014. He is also a teacher at Sciences Po.

If there is one lesson to be learned from the Conference on the Future of Europe which has just concluded, it is that, whatever the circumstances (wars, health crises, economic slumps or calamitous precedents), there will always be a handful of die-hards for whom the salvation of the continent depends only on a long and winding reform of the treaties.

When, moreover, these diehards concoct and steer a tailor-made consultation by draping it in the tinsel of a vast “citizen consultation” which (oh surprise!) endorses their political objectives, then we are bordering on deception.

And we run the risk of bogging down Europe in Byzantine debates and endless ratifications at the most inopportune moment possible.

Through communicative sleight of hand, this Conference is now presented as a cry from the heart of European citizens which resulted in a clear mandate to reform Europe from top to bottom and integrate it further.

When in fact it is not.

From the outset, this consultation almost did not see the light of day.

Originally, this idea was pushed relentlessly by Guy Verhofstadt, former Belgian Prime Minister and avowed federalist.

Him and his band (

, where the members of the Republic on the Move also sit) made it one of the conditions for the election of Ursula von der Leyen, and she acceded to it, between the annoyance and the indifference of the States members.

A few months later, the Covid reshuffled all the cards and this conference, contrary to the emergencies and the needs of the crisis, lost all its interest... except for the Parliament which did not budge.

The compromise was therefore to launch a one-year consultation open to all Europeans and whose contributions would be channeled through a virtual platform and citizens' groups.

The intention was commendable but, as might be expected, this process did not enthrall the crowds and struggled to mobilize beyond the very restricted circles of insiders in European affairs.

Rodrigo Ballester

In itself, the intention was laudable but, as one might expect, this process did not enthrall the crowds and struggled to mobilize beyond the very restricted circles of insiders in European affairs.

All this, in the general (and very logical) indifference of citizens suffering the full brunt of the health and economic crisis, and whose priorities were (and remain!) at the antipodes of the institutional questions which fascinate the Brussels circles.

In the end, a very disappointing result with figures that deceive: five million visitors to the platform, 53,000 active visitors, 18,000 suggestions sent and 6,600 debates organized in one year.

Data processed by an algorithm assigning the same statistical weight to a "

than at an event of a hundred participants and which attempted to identify major trends in opinion from a very limited sample and often sprinkled with the most absurd ideas.

For example, the most popular suggestion in the Rights and Values ​​category (with an astonishing score of 915 “

”) is to recognize Catalan among the official languages ​​of the EU.

In addition to this platform, several citizen panels have been set up.

At the national level, only Germany, Belgium, France, Italy, Lithuania and the Netherlands have achieved this.

Europe-wide, 800 people were randomly selected and divided into three-time groups;

a meeting of young Europeans (10,000 online participants, according to the organisers) as well as other events organized by “

” also took place.

A few hundred Europeans meeting on rare occasions to represent a general sentiment is in itself a huge shortcut.

But where the shoe pinches is that these citizens' debates, and the results to which they led, were overseen by "

" composed of "

" and other "

", coordinated by "

", therefore, by MEPs, Commission officials and national diplomats.

How many citizens among them?

Of the eight hundred supposed to represent the 450 million Europeans, only eighty "

and twenty-seven national representatives were an integral part of the discussions.

The results of these exchanges were discussed in plenary assemblies before being presented to an executive council headed by Clément Beaune (during the French presidency), the Croatian Commissioner Dubravka Suica and Guy Verhofstadt, of course, the main promoter of the Conference.

This is what is called drowning the fish, however citizen he may be, and fueling the suspicion that their well-controlled presence was above all an alibi.

Using a tiny handful of citizens as an alibi to force through a political agenda that is as minority as it is maximalist is a coup de force that is akin to anything but what it claimed to be: a democratic exercise.

Rodrigo Ballester

In order to guide the debates?

Judging by the final results, the question is worth asking.

Admittedly, a large part of the final recommendations (such as fair access to health care, the environment, purchasing power or energy dependence) reflect the priorities of citizens (even if they sometimes fall outside the competences of the EU ).

But can the same be said of the application of the cross-compliance regulation

», the right of initiative of the European Parliament or the generalization of the qualified majority, among other pearls?

That such technical subjects, totally unknown to the general public but so dear to the European Parliament and to the federalists, are taken up in chorus, like citizens' demands, leaves you speechless, the maneuver is so crude.

That none of the 49 proposals once mention "

(while some citizen panels were talking about it), or that border control is dispatched in a single very timid paragraph is also surprising.

We will be less surprised by the final result knowing that the last minute debates between observers, experts and citizens were bitter and that the latter sometimes had to fight tooth and nail so that their conclusions are not distorted or circumvented in the final report. .

Admittedly, this document is not definitive.

Strictly speaking, it is only a proposal submitted to the EU institutions which are free to follow it up or not.

But let's not be naive, it will be brandished by Parliament as a fait accompli, as a new testament adopted with the anointing of European citizens that national governments cannot contradict.

” roadmap

.

So far, 13 governments have opposed an overhaul of the treaties.

Others will probably follow and wisely recall that in times of crisis or war, the last priority is to embark on a marathon of ratifications, referendums and endless talks.

Let us remember the Danish "

" in 1992 and the Irish in 2001 which blocked the EU until it said "

in a second referendum.

Let us remember above all the European Constitution and its groomed adoption in the form of the Lisbon Treaty which the French and the Dutch had to accept without their knowledge and which left a bitter aftertaste of democratic denial.

While it is stringing together repeated crises, while its citizens will be facing the economic (or even military?) consequences of the war from the fall, what need for the EU to embark on an adventure that would only weaken, block and divide it in the middle of a storm?

None, unless the majority of its citizens decide otherwise.

But in the meantime, using a tiny handful of them as an alibi to force through a political agenda that is as minority as it is maximalist is a coup de force that is akin to anything but what