Analytics, EU – Baltic States, Forum, Legislation, Modern EU

The suggested EU-wide public consultation is part of the broader “Future of Europe” debate, which started practically by the Commission's White Paper in March 2017. Starting the online consultations, the Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker underlined that facing the European elections in 2019 it would be vital to show the people what kind of the European Union they wanted. The EU, he argued, “must be a Europe built by Europeans”. This is theoretically true, but practically it’s a “play with democracy”, where the appeal to citizens (or people, which is not the same) is hiding the inadequate political and economic trends in European integration in which all strategic decisions are taken by the states with the EU institutions.  

The consultations will run until May 2019, almost up to the European Parliament elections, probably to assist the EU’s electorate in finding answers to pressing issues and challenges. The Baltic States and the EU in general are in the same direction of resolving common problems, though the essential positions and priorities are strikingly different.

Short “dialogue’s history”

In March 2017, at the 60^th anniversary of European integration, the Commission published five possible scenarios to “make a better Union”. Members  of  the  Commission  have  been  travelling  across  Europe  and  listening  to  citizens' views on the different scenarios put forward, giving everyone a chance to contribute to shaping the Union.

http://www.baltic-course.com/eng/editors_note/?doc=17714

These were “appeals”, generally, to the member states with the expected effect that up to the end of 2017 the states would come up with their suggestions on 5 scenarios for the EU’s future. However, not much positive has come out of the idea: the EU states have been widely different as to the future of European integration and the states’ role in it.

Then came another idea: the Commission convened a “Citizens’ Panel” on 5-6 May 2018 to draft a public consultation, i.e. addressing people directly over the states authorities’ competences. About a hundred of Europeans worked together in Brussels to compose an online survey of 12 questions. This “unique exercise in participative democracy”, according to the Commission, was supposed to mean that citizens are at the heart of the conversation on the Europe’s future. Actually, according to the Treaties, the citizens can express their opinions even without any surveys: they have just to collect about 1 million votes, which would be enough for the Commission to start elaborating necessary proposals.

The online consultation will run in parallel to the ongoing Citizens' Dialogues being organised in the EU states. Almost 700 of these interactive public debates have been held in 160 cities since 2012; the Commission intends to activate the debates up to the European elections in June 2019, with a target of organising 500 more events.

The consultations, dialogue and debates will run until the “EU future-summit” in May 2019; the Commission will present an interim report to the EU states at the end of 2018. A final report will then be presented at the first EU-27 Summit in Romania, on 9 May 2019, just a few weeks ahead of the European elections.

Citizens’ dialogue: pros and cons

The Commission’s “appeal to citizens” on Europe’s future started some six years ago, when the Commission organised some town-hall meetings, known as “Citizens’ Dialogues” among the EU states. These events brought together members of the European Commission and representatives at national, local and regional authorities to discuss European policies with citizens.

According to the Commission, over 88,000 people of all backgrounds took part in these meetings so far (a very small fraction out of over 500 million people in the present EU).

Citizens’ dialogues have been regarded as “instrumental in bringing new voices into the debate on the future of the Union”, argued the Commission. To my mind, such dialogues have been rather superfluous, as the only directly elected EU institutions, i.e. the European Parliament with about 800 people can easily provide “new voices” for the EU’s future; the MEPs know exactly what the people in their countries wish and want!

Suffice it to mention another citizens’ representative dialogue organised under J-M. Barroso’s Commission during 2014-15 to draft the “EU narrative”, which also ended up without any avail.  However, it is good that the European Commission is encouraging the EU states to “cooperate” in deciding the EU’s future with citizens/people with adequate information on the Union’s achievements, challenges and future options before they go to vote in June 2019 at the European elections. See more in:

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/dialogue-with-citizens-ahead-european-elections_en.pdf

At the EU “future-summit” in Romania on 9 May 2019, and the European elections to follow in June 2019, the member states’ leaders would agree on pressing issues and challenges with the needed decisions and solutions.

On Citizens' Dialogues and participation in other debates organised in EU states, consult: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/consultation-future-europe_en

Questioning the “future of Europe”

A dozen of most important for the EU’s future questions was prepared by a panel of 96 citizens from 27 EU states: about 3 people from each state plus representatives from the EU bodies. The number of issues formulated in these questions to the “fellow Europeans”, were supposed to serve as an indication of strong importance for both the EU in general and the Baltic States in particular.

Among the questions to people in Europe (interesting that “people” and “citizens” are used in the “dialogue” as synonymous, which is quite dubious) are questions of so-called general EU’s nature, like what “future people want for themselves and for the Union”, and more specific, like that of reducing inequalities, “problematic” immigration in Europe, priorities in environmental protection, “universal” healthcare, etc.

To my mind, some questions would be quite difficult for citizens to answer: e.g. such as “what decisions taken at the European Union level would make you prouder of belonging to the Union”, or “what kind of harmonisation among the EU states people want”?  

Other questions would need additional knowledge about the EU, such as: improved education and training policies, making life safer for the citizens, technology’s biggest impact in Europe, economic security, main risks/threats for the EU in the coming years, future of some economic sectors, like agriculture, fishery and food production in Europe. There are still other quite difficult questions, like that of improve access to healthcare for all Europeans, and the “ideal future for the European Union” (?!)

More on questions in:

https://ec.europa.eu/consultation/runner/Future-of-Europe?surveylanguage=en

Possible “perspectives” in answers…

The Commission’s 96 experts are quite aware of difficulties in answers and providing the public with some tips for answers or “supporting advices” but only to a few questions in the dialogue.

Thus, EU citizens are having some experts’ tips only in the so-called most vital issues, e.g. such as “the ideal future for the European Union”. Here the citizens are having the following ten “choices”: increased use of renewable energies and organic agriculture, reduction in food waste, gender equality, high level of security, equal wages for the same job in the EU, a minimum level of guaranteed healthcare in all EU states, a “real government” for the entire EU-27 and fair and equal access to education for all across Europe. However, participants in the “dialogue’ can choose only three options to answer on “ideal future”: I personally would hesitate to name which three are most important for me!  

In the environmental policy there are eight possible choices: increasing recycling and waste sorting, dealing with technological and electronic waste (e.g. electronic devices), reduction of energy consumption, protecting the biosphere, investing in “clean transport”, setting stricter eco-norms for industrial sector, preserving natural resources, developing renewable energies and reducing food waste (the latter was already included in the first question). Here people can people can choose only 3choices, not more…

In improving access to health care in the EU-27, six options were provided (people can take only two?!): more research on health, more medical establishments, more affordable medical treatments, more money allocated to healthcare, more medical staff in rural areas and more doctors.

In the issues of European citizens’ economic security, seven “choices” are available (but only two can be chosen!): stimulating economic growth (who would deny!), combat corruption, increase benefits for low wages, jobs for everyone (how genuine!), harmonise social rights, create a universal basic income (Fins have experimented for two years and gave up!), and a guaranteed “fair level” of state pensions (this is generally “hot air” as e.g. “fair level” in Denmark is about ten times higher than in Latvia!).  

Another interesting “set of hints” from the Commission’s experts is in the question of “risks/threats for the EU in the coming years” people can use even five expert “advises” to choose from 14 possible: threats from outside the EU, countries leaving and/or joining the EU, disagreements among the EU states, brain drain, political extremism, terrorist attacks, diseases and epidemics, poor management of migration issues, pollution, “armed conflicts in the EU” (is that possible at all?!), declining birth rate and aging population.

The examples can go on…

Note: all data from: https://ec.europa.eu/consultation/runner/Future-of-Europe?surveylanguage=en

Definitely, some solutions for further optimal European integration are urgently needed: the dialogue and consultation are vital for both the EU and the Baltic States, though in slightly different priorities. Besides, it is obvious that peoples’ opinion in the countries can only “materialize” through “mediation” in the national democratic procedures and decision-making, Then, on behalf of the people, the member states would present the “peoples’ choice” to the decision-making structures among the seven EU institutions; this is the essence of a representative democracy. Seemingly “democratic” online consultation with the direct appeal to citizens would hardly be a right step though definitely in the right direction.       

More information in the following links: - Online: Consultation on the Future of Europe; - Factsheet: Dialogue with Citizens ahead of the European elections; - Brochure: Citizens' dialogues on the Future of Europe; - White Paper on the Future of Europe. See also the

The European Commission press release at: 

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-18-3706_en.htm?locale=en; Latvian version at:

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-18-3706_lv.htm