II. Activities

1.      Public Competition

The idea of this action was to motivate citizens in the partner countries to think over a common Europe of 25 member states. The call for proposals/ideas on the “Future of Europe – Our Opinion Counts” took place from November 2002 until February 2003 and was open to any sort of creativity. The public competition was published via Internet, posters and daily newspapers. Although the public competition was not addressed to a specific target group nearly all contributions were done by young people between 16 and 25 years old, exceptionally the winner of the Czech Republic, who was 31 years old. The national winners were selected directly by each project partner where the public competition was carried out:

The winners of the Public Competition were invited to a study visit to Brussels in July 2003. For details please see activity 6.

2.      Survey

    The survey on key issues of the Future of Europe debate was carried out by all partner countries, based on interviews with personalities from public life. It concentrated on opinion leaders from different social groups (elected representatives, journalists, academics, youth leaders, social partners, NGO representatives, etc.).

Approximately 300 persons have been questioned. Therefore this report cannot be considered as representative but should be understood as a collection of atmospheric descriptions from each of the countries.

The questionaire was elaborated by the Austrian Society for European Politics, which is an expert in Austria on carrying out surveys on European topics. The questionnaire was distributed to all partners in the participating countries, who made the interviews. They returned the results to the Austrian Society for European Politics, which made the final report by evaluating the results and summarizing the national reports.

Survey carried out in Austria, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Romania, the Slovak Republic and Slovenia

Representation by EU institutions 

Although answers to the question “To which extent do you feel represented by the EU institutions” were very different from country to country one could conclude that people felt most represented by the European Parliament (EP) and the European Court of Justice. The Council of Ministers, the European Council and the European Central Bank were mostly found at the end of this list.

Equal decision rights for the EP

Ranging from a relative majority to over 80% people in the survey supported that the EP should have equal decision rights with the Council on all legislative matters.

Presidency of the Council 

A majority of countries favoured maintaining the present rotation system and supported changes in terms of the duration of the presidency and in the number of countries carrying out the presidency (“team presidency”).

In Bulgaria, Poland and Slovakia a majority ranging from 60 to 90% supported maintaining the present presidency system.

Council as exclusive legislative body 

The sample’s opinion was very unclear about the question whether the Council should give up its executive functions and be solely a legislative body. Whereas the samples in Slovenia, Poland, Bulgaria and Romania stood for the preservation of the status quo (60-71%), the Czech, Austrian, Italian and Slovak sample wanted the Council to become solely a legislative body (63,3-66,7%). In Hungary only a close majority wanted the Council to give up its executive functions.

Publicity of Council meetings 

In contrast to the previous question, the samples of all surveyed countries clearly supported (63-86,7%) that the meetings of the Council should become public.

Unanimity 

Again, in the question of unanimity the samples in the countries expressed a clear opinion in favour of reducing the number of cases where unanimity is applied (44-86,7%). The biggest group of those who wanted unanimity to be abolished at all could be found in Italy (50%) and Poland (42%). Maintenance of the present unanimity situation was supported mostly in Slovakia (40%) and the least in Austria (0%).

Commission as exclusive executive body 

The idea of the Commission becoming the EU´s exclusive executive body was supported in the Czech Republic, Romania, Austria, Italy, Hungary, Bulgaria and Slovakia (majorities ranged from 43-86,7%). Samples in Poland (56%) and Slovenia (60%) were against this idea.

Number of Commissioners 

A majority of countries wanted that the Commission will have one member per country also after enlargement. Majorities in these countries ranged from 41-93%. Only in Slovenia a majority supported less than one Commissioner per country, according to a rotation principle based on equality. The group which supported this option was also very big in Austria (41%).

Appointment of the President of the Commission 

There was no doubt that the President of the Commission in the future should be elected by the EP. Only in Poland a majority supported a direct election by the citizens.

Appointment of the Commissioners 

All country samples supported the appointment of the individual Commissioners by the President of the Commission with a later approval by the EP.

Role of the European Council 

Again, each surveyed country supported the idea that the European Council should become the collective head of the Union holding general discussions on the overall development of the integration process, but refrain from interfering in the Union’s daily business or any legislative procedures (majorities ranged from 53-76%).

Economic and social cohesion 

An overwhelming majority in all questioned countries stood for a policy aiming at economic and social cohesion between the member states for the EU.

Harmonisation of taxation policies 

Between 64 and 100% in the country samples wanted the EU to have the competence for the harmonisation of member states taxation policies.

European tax 

Except the case of Hungary (56% “no”), each country wanted an “EU tax” to replace the national contributions to the EU budget (“yes” majorities ranged from 52% in Austria to 90% in Poland). Slovenia was undecided.

Agriculture 

Whereas the samples in Bulgaria, Slovenia, the Czech Republic, Romania, Austria, Italy, Hungary and Greece were in favour of the Common Agricultural Policy to remain an exclusive European competence, the Polish sample was divided (40 “yes”, 40 “no”).

EU´s role in certain policy areas 

In contrast to the very diverse answers regarding the Union’s influence in certain policy areas, it was clear for each country that the Commission should be the most important player in all this policies. It could be concluded, however, that people wished a strong EU influence in Environmental policy, Justice and Home Affairs. Economic, Employment and Social policy were the areas where the questioned people wished a weak EU influence.

EU´s foreign policy 

Whereas the Czech sample thought that the EU´s foreign policy should be conducted by the Commission and the Hungarian sample couldn’t decide for one option, all other country samples supported the claim that this policy should be carried out by the Council and the Commission together.

Following the opinion of all, apart from one country sample, a future EU Foreign Minister should be a member of the Commission. Only the

Romanian sample favoured him to be a member of the Council. Hungary was again undecided.

A clear majority ranging from 76,5% in Austria to 100% in Slovenia was in favour of the EP´s involvement in defining the EU´s foreign policy priorities.

    EU´s defence policy     

A diverse opinion was found on the question of who should conduct EU´s defence policy. The Czech sample favoured the Council, the Slovenian the Commission and Poland, Romania, Austria, Italy, Hungary, Bulgaria and Slovakia wanted both institutions to carry out the defence policy.

A European Defence Minister was only rejected in Slovenia and Poland. Whereas the samples in Romania wanted this future minister to be a member of the Council, the Czech, Austrian, Italian, Hungarian, Bulgarian and Slovak sample wanted him to be a member of the Commission.

As in the case of foreign policy, people overwhelmingly wished the EP to be also involved in defining the EU´s defence policy priorities.

    European Army 

A European Army was only rejected in Poland with 70% of the sample. The support in the other surveyed countries ranged from 60% in Slovenia to 82% in Austria.

    European Court of Justice 

There’s no doubt in any of the questioned sample that the ECJ should remain the body which handles disputes regarding the distribution of competencies between the EU and the Member States.

Charter of Fundamental Rights (CFR) 

All but one country wished the CFR to become a legally binding part of a future European “constitution”. A 57% majority in Romania rejected this idea. The supporter’s percentage reached from 79% in Bulgaria to 100% in Slovenia, Austria and Italy.

All countries, except Bulgaria and the Czech Republic, wished the CFR to become a preamble to a future European “constitution”.

    Structure of the treaties 

Very big majorities ranging from 70% in Slovakia to 100% in Greece supported the idea to merge the different treaties establishing the Communities and the Union.

European “constitution”        

An overwhelming majority supported the creation of a future European “constitution” (from 73% in Slovenia to 86% in Romania, Austria and Slovakia, 87% in Bulgaria and 88% in Hungary).

Decision making 

All but one country wanted the community method to become the only decision making modus in the future constitutional treaty (from 60% in Slovenia to 90% in Poland). Only in Romania a majority of 57% supported the three pillar structure for the future. Hungary was again undecided.

Further Enlargement after 2007        

All country samples supported further enlargement after the supposed accession of Romania and Bulgaria in 2007. The biggest support could be seen in Greece and Hungary (80%), the least in Slovenia (53, 3%). The largest group of opponents was seen in Slovakia (37%) and Austria (30%).

EU-membership of Turkey and Russia        

Membership of Turkey was favoured in Hungary (44%), Slovenia (46%), Bulgaria (54%), Poland (70%), Romania (67%), Austria (64%) and Italy. It was rejected, however, in Greece (65%) and Slovakia (100%).

The EU-membership of Russia was only favoured in Italy and Romania. Biggest opponents were Slovakia (95%) and Poland (80%). 

Ratification of the constitutional treaty 

All samples except Slovak and Polish wanted that a future European “constitution” would be ratified by all Member States in order to become effective. 60% of the sample in Slovakia and 40% in Poland thought that the ratification by two thirds of the Member States would be enough.

Europe-wide constitutional referendum 

A Europe-wide constitutional referendum was rejected in Hungary (64%), Austria (53%) and Slovakia (57%). In Greece and Slovenia the opinion is precisely balanced. With 80% Romania showed the strongest support for such a referendum.

Future of the convention method 

The idea of a convention conducting further changes to a European “constitution” was only rejected in Slovakia. In Poland the percentage was 50/50.

3.      Workshops

In order to discuss the main issues of the Future of Europe workshops on specific EU-topics were organised in all participating countries. The aim was to prepare the Final Conference in Vienna and select key topics by giving an overview on those problems and questions which arose most during the debates. Workshops taking place after the Conference were considered as a follow up by deepening their conclusions.

Experts were invited to introduce the subject of the single workshop followed by a discussion with the audience. 15-30 participants from different target groups like young people, opinion leaders, ambassadors, representatives of public administration and institutions as well as generally EU-interested people joined each workshop. The single local co-ordinators suggested the topic, organised the premises, invited the audience and promoted the single seminar.

The Workshops dealt with EU-issues mainly based on the national survey reports carried out within the framework of the project. They focused on the challenges of an enlarged European Union considering the main subjects of the Constitutional Convention:

*   A Europe of Values - Contributions to the Constitutional Convention

*   The role of civil society in the process of the EU-reform

*   The Constitutional Convention – Institutional treaty

*   Tripartite – New dimension of the co-operation between  all levels of governance

*    The expansion of EU

*    EU-pro and contra

*    Romania’s real chance to join the EU in 2007

*    Possibilities of Youth participation in the EU of 25

*    Poland – European Values and national Identity

*    The European Convention versus a European   Constitution

*    The European Convention – Institutional reforms and Deficit of Democracy

*    Exercises of Democracy

*    The Future of Europe

4.      Final Conference in Vienna

The Final Conference which was organised by the Info Point Europe Vienna took place from March 28^th until March 29^th 2003 in the premises of the Viennese City Hall (“Wappensaal”). The Conference was attended by more than 150 international participants. Each partner country sent a delegation of 15 people to the Conference of whom nearly the half of it was young people. In addition to that local partners from the larger Vienna Region as well as young people from all over Austria joined the Conference.

The debate was based on the outcome of workshops in the participating countries, the Convention Simulation by young people from all participating countries and the survey conducted in parallel in the ten participating countries.

The Conference was held in English, German translation was provided due to the fact, that the Conference place was Vienna.

The Conference led to a Central European Declaration on the Future of Europe. An overview on the conference as well as the Central European Declaration was published and available via Internet, a leaflet with a brief project summary advertising the project results was produced and distributed in all languages of the participating countries in order to reach a wider public and to guarantee sustainability.

The opening session of the Final Conference was held after the final plenary meeting of the Simulation Game.

All speeches of the welcoming addresses were emphasised the importance of the upcoming enlargement of the European Union in all terms: political stability, economic prosperity, cultural enrichment and ecological progress.

Mr. Rudolf Schicker, City of Vienna, declared this enlargement to be important and logical step in the history of the EU. He also made the thought-provoking statement that from the Viennese point of view this enlargement cannot be considered as an enlargement towards the East as, for instance, both Prague and Ljubljana are capitals situated West of Vienna.

Mr. Christos Alexandris, Ambassador of Greece in Austria, however, informed the audience about the position of Greece, the country holding the Presidency of the Council at that time, within the “Future of Europe” debate and reviewed the tasks of the Greek Presidency regarding the enlargement underlining that the Accession Treaty would have been signed on April 16^th 2003.

Ms Monika Kaschnitz, Head of the European Department of the Vienna Business Agency, pointed out the importance of carrying out transnational

EU-projects for improving co-operation and networking between different countries in order to live the European dimension as a big step towards a common Europe of 25 without frontiers.

The welcoming addresses were followed by the presentation of the project “The Future of Europe – Our Opinion Counts”.

First Mr. Philipp Agathonos, Vice President of the Union of European Federalists,  addressed the audience underlining the importance of the transnational project in the process of the enlargement and the unification of Europe.

Mr. Christian Lettner, Austrian Society for European Politics, reviewed the results of the survey conducted within the framework of the project and cited some of the highlights of the survey.

Ms Alexandra Schantl, Head of the Info Point Europe Vienna, outlined the project and the actions that made part of it.

Ms Bettina Kölbl, the nominated President of the Convention Simulation, presented a conclusion of the final document of the Convention Simulation.

As a closure of the opening session of the Conference, Mr. Karl Doutlik, Head of the EC Representation in Austria, made a key note speech on “Enlargement AND Deepening Europe”. He listed the possible benefits of the enlargement such as peace and security, higher standard of living, better economic situation, a new impulse for the economy and the enterprises, bigger role of the EU in the world, etc. He underlined, however, that the real benefits would not appear together with the enlargement but because of it: for the candidate countries because they have achieved a lot of progress thanks to the enormous efforts carried out during their preparation process, and for the EU because it could not put off any longer its structural reforms as such a large-scale widening would not be possible without deepening.

The panel sessions of the Final Conference were held on Saturday, 29 March 2003 from 9:30 until 17:30 under the chair of Mr. Philipp Agathonos, Vice President of UEF.

The topics of the panel session were:

*  “Europe’s role in a unipolar World”

*  “Economic Governance and Monetary Union”

*  “European Citizenship and cultural Identity”

*  “From the constitutional Convention to a European  Federal Constitution”

The experts joining the Conference agreed that today’s world has changed because of the terrorist-attacks of September 11 2001. It dramatically shifted priorities on the world-agenda. Countries cherishing common values as democracy, law and protection of human-rights had suddenly realised the need to be more united. To promote peace, security and prosperity and to speed up the construction of the enlarged European Union their efforts had to be joined. In an extended “European family”, the choice of democratic values and the concept of a civil society already had been made. The hope was stretched that the European spirit would prevail in the Conventions work, thus continuing to contribute to greater citizen’s interest and involvement in the process of shaping a common future of shared values.

The Union should remain one of the main pillars of democracy, freedom and save-guard, of liberty on protection in the world. The Charta of fundamental rights as a milestone of democratic and humanistic values should be fully incorporated into the constitution.

The European Constitution should be approved by the Member states according to the current national constitutions. The Experts hoped to find the majority of the people in the Member-states to adopt the European-constitution.

It was generally agreed upon, that it would be important to define the area of competences in the Union, on the European level and on the level of the Member-States. Therefore it was considered essential to preserve in the final-text of the future constitutional treaty the formulation of an even closer Union. This even closer Union was seen to be essential for the development of Europe. The experts reminded that this opinion was already shared by the founding fathers and has inspired many Europeans in their efforts to create a more coherent and efficient Union. They also expressed their hope that the European spirit will prevail in the Conventions work, thus continuing to contribute to greater citizen’s interest and involvement in the process of shaping our future of shared values.

It was proposed to have a joined security-network throughout the European continent, in compassing not only the political but also the economic, social and regional dimension of security. The enlarged EU should implement a comprehensive security-policy. The participants also talked about a greater coherence in the common foreign and security policy to ensure the Unions leading role in the international affairs.

As the Union enlarges and its borders move further to the east, attention should be paid to the external dimension, especially also in the field of justice and home-affairs-policy. The round agreed that such an approach is absolutely needed to be able to face the new challenges and threats of the temporary world.

Importance has been given to the creation of a European Army to protect Europe and its Member states. 

The EU is a form of diversity Union, so the differences have to be encouraged, but the new Europe also has to achieve a certain basis on common views and policies. Solidarity should become the guiding principle of policy orientation. It should be the major characteristic of the integration-process.  

Europe is integrating into a future and deeper Union. The social economic cohesion should remain one of the primary goals. The EU should enhance also full safety to counteract diplomatic change, to fight poverty and create new jobs. Not only the member-states, but also the candidate-states should work hard to achieve this goal.

It was highlighted, that the European Unions major task remains the reinforcement of the political dimension of enlargement. Most participants would like to see a broader public debate on the Future of Europe. It is expected that the enlargement will again prove to be the driving force of new European policy-initiatives in response to the particular needs of the citizens. This new arrangements would make the Union more democratic, efficient and closer to its citizens and open to the outside world. The European citizens should be determined to make the most of this opportunity.  

There was no doubt among the participants, that the Union needs one legal-personality.  

The opinions on the Stability-Growth-Pact were diverse. The question was, if we need something like a Stability-Growth-Pact. “Do we need it right now? What could be changed?” The main outcome was:” We need something like a Stability-Growth-Pact, but not precisely this one, which we have in place. As long as we do not have a federal or political Union, we need a regime of monetary dominance.” 

It was mentioned that the physical presence of the Euro acts as a symbol of real community. The Euro-stability is until now not guaranteed. In the absence of a European tax the EU is only playing a supporting role to national interests. The Euro underlines the structural differences between Europe’s global monetary ambitions and there is still a low level of organisation of development in its economic institutional foundations. So a coherent financial framework and common economic vision are urgently needed to back the new monetary Union.  

The question arose, if the candidate-countries should join the Euro quickly? It showed that the answer is not easy. There is still a long way to go just in the development-process. The candidate-countries will have a problem of catching up with Western-Europe in a relatively short time. The general opinion was that it is not such a good idea for the candidate countries to join the Monetary-Union too quickly. They are not mature enough yet, to do so. 

Participants from the candidate-countries expressed their hopes for the New United Europe: “We expect the EU to enhance the democratic-political-process, and to improve the citizen’s participation. This is the last chance for us to decide between one of the two main approaches of the European Integration, the community approach or the intergovernmental approach.” 

As conclusion of the single panel discussions the participating experts as well as the audience underlined that the chance to “create a common European building, with nice and comfortable apartments for the European countries and their citizens” should be taken and that all means to build an independent, strong and powerful European external policy should be provided. Furthermore they expressed their hope to find the majority of the people in the Member-states to adopt the European Constitution, generating the European Union as the real global power in all points of view. Last but least they underlined the importance to make the EU more democratic and transparent bringing common European issues closer to their citizens. All this aims should be achieved by the end of this decade.

5.      Simulation Game on the Constitutional Convention

The Simulation Game on the Constitutional Convention was elaborated and organised by the Young European Federalists (JEF) of Vienna.

The participants were previously notified in which way they have to prepare for the participation in the Simulation Game. Useful links, working group mandates, working methods (rules of the game), feedback paper which included basic information about the topics to be discussed in the game, were sent via Internet. The brochures of the European Commission on these topics were given on the spot. This insured a fruitful, interesting and detailed debate.

The plenary sessions took place in the Viennese City Hall (“Gemeinderatssaal”, “Wappensaal”). The working groups were organised in the premises of the Info Point Europe Vienna, Rathausplatz 2, 1010 Vienna. It focused on the discussion on Europe’s role (political, military and economic) in the world.

Three working groups were created:

*   WG1 “External Action” – chaired by Mr. Sipan Sedeek (Austria)

*   WG2 “Defence” – chaired by Mr. Károly Végh (Hungary)

*  WG 3 “External Economic Relations” – chaired by Mr. Marko Mravljak (Slovenia)

Each working group received a mandate based on the real mandates of the Convention Working groups. The mandate of WG 3 included questions discussed in WG 1.  

The game began with the registration of the participants where each participant received his/her role and got to know which working group he/she would make part of.  

The role contained the position of the single Convention members 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 returned the questionnaire.  

In parallel with the registration the meeting of the Presidium took place in order to clarify the role and the tasks of the Chairs within the working groups, and the rules of the game.

The opening plenary meeting took place after the registration.

The meeting began with a welcoming speech by Mr. Andreas Schieder, Member of the Viennese Parliament and Chairman of the European Affairs Committee. Then Ms Alexandra Schantl, Head of the Info Point Europe Vienna, made a brief presentation of the transnational project “The Future of Europe - Our Opinion Counts”. Mr. Philipp Agathonos, Vice President of the Union of European Federalists, introduced the simulation game reviewing the role of the Convention and emphasising the importance of the youth in a united Europe.

Mr. Caspar Einem, Member of the Austrian Parliament and of the Convention, made a key note speech on the work of the Constitutional Convention and on the Future of Europe Debate.

The session was concluded by the presentation of the Presidium, who introduced themselves and welcomed the participants.

The work of the WG took part according to the following schedule:

1rst WG Meeting (Thursday, March 27, 14:00-16:00)

*  Introduction by an expert of the matter

*  Definition of the main questions to be discussed based on the mandates and of the items on the agenda

*  Debate about the items on the agenda – Part I

2^nd WG Meeting (Thursday, March 27, 16:30-18:30)

*  Debate about the items on the agenda – Part II

3^rd WG Meeting (Friday 28, 9:00 – 10:30)

*  Discussion and approval of the draft report to be presented at the plenary session.

The work of each WG was assisted by an expert:

*  WG 1: Mr. Werner Almhofer, Austrian Ministry for Foreign Affairs

*  WG 2: Mr. Rüdiger Stix, Austrian Ministry of Defence

*  WG 3: Mr. Harald Stieber, Austrian Ministry of Finances

On March 28, the plenary meetings were held based on the following timetable:

1rst plenary session (11:00 – 12:30)

*        Discussion of the draft report presented by WG1

*        Adoption of the final report on External Action

Evaluation of the WG External Action, made by Mr. Sipan Seedek

The Convention’s plenary debate on external action confirmed that the EU had much to gain from acting collectively on the international scene. Only a strong and united Union can protect its political and economic interests and defend the values, which are at the heart of the Union itself: The challenge of globalisation requires that the Union fulfil its international role by using effectively and coherently all the resources at its disposal. The Union as international player has come a long way and over the years its role has been increasingly recognised on the global stage. We need to look how the Union can be made a stronger and more effective international player. The present paper aims at briefly explaining the background of these questions and proposes some avenues for discussion.

This faces us with two main challenges:

How can we best identify and prioritise common interests?

How can we effectively encourage convergence of views between Member States which would lead to more solidarity and political will to defend common interests?

Decision-making process 

The European Council has a key role in setting principles and general orientations in foreign policy. In the field of community action the Commission plays a central role deriving from its right of initiative while in CFSP proposals can be put forward by more than an actor. The Working Group could look into mechanisms that would help the different actors to collectively identify EU interests and to agree on a strategic approach to defend these interests. Exchange of information, joint policy assessments and other ways of co-operation encourage convergence of views. The Working Group could examine ways to strengthen existing mechanisms and possibly propose new ones.  

It is important for the EU to have a dynamic foreign policy that is capable of responding to international developments. Many feel that the current need for unanimity in CFSP restricts the Union’s capacity to act and that it favours a policy dictated by the least ambitious position. The absence of an EU position undermines the credibility of the Union as an international player. It has been mentioned that the use of “enhanced co-operation “and “constructive abstention” could be possible solutions to ensure that the EU can be present on the international scene when needed.

The Working Group could look into the possibility of extending the use of QMV, of “enhanced co-operation” (a group of Member States could take forward an initiative on behalf of the EU) or of “constructive abstention” (Member States, which do not necessarily want to join an EU initiative but do not want to block it either) 

All agree that it is necessary to co-ordinate the use of all instruments in the decision-making process: The different policies and instruments are interlinked: for example, a decision related to humanitarian aid can have an important impact on foreign policy and vice versa. The current arrangements within the EU should be improved in order to allow better co-ordination and encourage a coherent and credible approach in decision making. The Working Group should examine ways of improving internal co-ordination of policies and actions that are relevant for the EU’s international relations.

The High Representative 

Since the creation of the post of HR in 1998, there is a general acknowledgment that the HR has helped greatly to put the EU on the map by maintaining a presence in conflict areas and keeping contact with main international partners. The Working Group could consider how the EU could further maximise the benefit driving from the function of HR (i.e. by strengthening his role in the decision making process and /or increasing the resources at his disposal). It would be as well useful to consider what resources, human and financial, would be appropriate to match the scale of the HR’s task. The Working Group could look into how one can ensure that the necessary budget is available.

Representation of the EU in international organizations 

Some have pointed out that the external representation of the EU lacks clarity and that a single representation would improve the Union’s capacity to act effectively on the international scene. The Working Group could consider what changes in external representation arrangements might help to exercise more influence within the relevant international organisations (UN. OSCE…). In addition, the Working Group could examine ways to improve mechanisms that lead to the formulation of more common EU positions within these international organisations (single message). It could be useful to examine possible changes in the current arrangements for political dialogue meetings with a view on injecting more clarity and continuity in representation. It would be worth looking into ways to improve synergy between the EU institutions and the network of diplomatic representations to ensure that they co-operate for the common EU interest.  

2^nd Plenary session (13:30-15:00)

*   Discussion of the draft report presented by WG 2

*   Adoption of the final report on Defence 

The Working Group Defence conducted its proceedings on the basis of the mandate given by the Presidium of the Convention. The WG discussed four main fields of European Common Security and Defence Policy and reached the following statements by consensus.

Role and scope of ESDP and its future tasks 

Delegates agreed that there is an urgent need to update and enlarge Petersberg Tasks according to the terrorist attacks of 11th September 2001 especially to hold actions like:

*  military advices

*  support

*  stabilization

*  post-conflict peace-building

*  fight against terrorism

*  actions against proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

It was also stressed that the EU has to focus on military defence of its own borders. 

The great debate arose concerning the form and level of the EU-NATO relationship. There was consensus on the enhanced cooperation between these two organizations, however it was stated that the relationship between the both organizations should be balanced. The Members of the Convention emphasized that the EU should reach a common position regarding the fields of cooperation with NATO.

2. Institutional structure and decision-making process within the ESDP 

The discussion concentrated on the role of the European Parliament in the decision-making process and strengthening the role of the High Representative for CFSP. Reached consensus regarded that the role of the European Parliament in the process of creation (legislative initiative), execution and control over the common defence policy should be strengthened.  

There was proposal to establish the European Armaments Agency with the following tasks:

*   conducting research and development

*   working on creation of the common defence market

Concerning the decision-making process there was no consensus on the method of adopting decisions in the frame of the ESDP. There were three main options among the deputies: unanimity, consensus and Qualified Majority Voting.

However the delegates agreed that the constructive abstention have to be a part of this process. 

There was the consensus that there is no urgent need to create the European Military Treaty with the clause of Common Defence.

3. Mechanisms and institutions to enhance the military capabilities of the EU 

Delegates agreed that the EU should establish the European defence budget. All of the member states should pay the part of their national expenditures on the common defence policy. The members of the Working Group decided that all decisions concerning the armaments policy should be adopted on the intergovernmental level.

4. Institutionalized cooperation in ESDP among member states able and willing to (Euro-Zone in ESDP?) 

Members agreed that there can be an enhanced cooperation among a group of states that are engaged in specific fields or events. 

But it was generally accepted that there should not be an institutionalized cooperation among member states because it has the threat of deepening the division inside the EU. 

However it was also stated that an abstention of some member states of operations can make the action of the EU ineffective.  

The members of the working group generally stated that in the near future it is not possible to reach consensus in all the questions of ESDP.

The members of the Convention should consider ways and methods to make ESDP more effective against the different security interests of the member states.

Evaluation of the Working Group “Defence”, made by Mr. Károly Végh

(Hungary) 

I was given the role of the Chairman of the Working Group „Defence” (Mr. Michel Barnier) and the task to chair the debate and keep it constructive. The participants of the Working Group (from almost ten countries) had a very hard task, especially since they had chosen one of the much debated issue of the EU – the common security and defence policy. I would like to state that each of the participants managed this job in an excellent way and made a very useful contribution. 

The Rapporteur of the Group (this role was given to Magda Gora /Poland/), in her turn, provided an outstanding useful help to put down and finalize the consensus reached in the debate.  

In the course of the work the topics of the mandate were taken one by one and we tried to reach the consensus , basing on proposals of the members.I have to admit that nonetheless the participants were young students, they were absolutely not frightened of those really challenging questions. 

Every beginning is hard (generally) – but not in the Working Group „Defence”, because there was always someone to make an opening proposal and give an impulse to the debate. After the first proposal my task was getting easier – there was never a lack of answers and reactions. Moreover, at some of the topics of the mandate, I had to pay special attention to make the participants keep themselves to the „Speaker’s List”. 

To be honest, it wasn’t easy at some moments, though. Sometimes the debate was becoming really hot, especially when we touched the question of the EU-NATO relationship. Looking back to the whole of the debate, this was the most argued issue, the one with no appropriate consensus in the end. 

Nevertheless the members had the opportunity to argue and reach consensus in an „open debate” as well, I had the thankless job to restrict the debate for the sake of parliamentarism and constructiveness. 

Concerning other parts of the mandate the members of the Group reached consensus really fast except the questions of EU-NATO relationship and the issue of an inner defence union inside the EU. The participants could not reach consensus in the last question, whether there was a need for such an inner union or would it lead to a deeper division among the members of the EU. This question remained unclosed, consensus was not reached. 

Of course the participants were not bound strictly to their roles and expressed their own opinions as well. But I have to state that they never did it at the expense of the professional level. Most of the participants kept their roles precisely until the end of the game. 

Summarizing my own observations I can state that the Working Group „Defence” had a very exhausting and complicated job and the participants solved all of the problems excellently. Each member gave his/her best knowledge and best spirit of contribution. 

I am proud for having worked with these young people and I hope that everybody has good memories from that sunny spring afternoon.

I think that the most valuable result of our work was not (only) the Final Report we created but (also) the friendships we made and the amazing experience to become acquainted with people with whom we live in a common Europe.

3^rd Plenary session (15:30 – 17:00)

*  Discussion of the draft report presented by WG 3

*  Adoption of the final report on External Economic Relations

Evaluation of the Working Group External Economic Relations, by Mr. Marko Mravljak, Slovenia 

Chairing a Working Group in the European Convention Simulation was a valuable experience. It presented a great opportunity to learn about the work of the European Convention and its meaning for the future of Europe. But it also showed how difficult it can sometimes be to unite opposing views into a common solution. 

The method chosen (simulating firstly the working groups and afterwards the plenary sessions) was in my opinion very suitable for the simulation game. It gave the participants the possibility to work in smaller groups, thus offering everybody a chance to express his opinions. Although in some way the pressure to act was bigger in a smaller group, on the other hand it presented a considerable chance for succeeding in implementing own ideas in the final report or resolution. If the simulation had covered only the plenary part of the Convention, some delegates would not have participated as actively as they did. 

The main problem that the participants faced during the game was in my opinion the lack of time to prepare thoroughly for their roles. Therefore some of the delegates did not really succeed to follow the interests of their roles, but rather expressed their own opinions about the topics in question. This fact sometimes caused a general inequality of the represented interests. Therefore I think that it would have been better if all participants had received their roles some days in advance.  

In the Working group External Economic Relations there were not any dominant delegate, but it could nevertheless be seen that most of the time one and the same people participated in the debates. It was very interesting that the only point, where the group was not able to reach consensus, was the question of representation of EU in the G-8 meetings.  

If we take into account that in the field of IMF and WTO considerable changes could be introduced, it was surprising that the delegates were not able to agree on the cooperation in an international organization of an informal nature, that does not take any binding decisions. 

We can explain this partly by the sequence of the topics on the agenda.  

During the discussion about the first agenda item the participants were starting to understand the methods and procedures in a working group. This could be seen as a kind of preparatory phase.  

After the debate about the agenda item two started, they were already acquainted with the procedures and were more willing to participate. In that way some of them were trying to implement their positions at any cost.  

The result was that no consensus could be reached on the question of G-8 representation.  

During the discussion of the third item, most of the delegates were too tired to fully participate in the debate. That is why far reaching changes were accepted without any delegation trying to prevent them.  

Some participants also had problems to fully participate in the debates, because they did not have enough self-confidence to express their opinions. This was in my opinion mainly due to the complexity of the problems discussed.  

Connected with these problems was also the selection of the rapporteur. The Chairman had to choose someone to take this role. I decided to choose a very capable rapporteur, which proved to have some advantages but also some drawbacks.  

In this way it was easier for the Chairman to prepare a good report and include all the aspects that were expressed during the debates.  

On the other hand in this way a valuable member of the group was lost, because he did not have the possibility to fully participate in the debates.  

It might have been better if somebody else had been chosen, because the current rapporteur could, due to his abilities, contribute considerably to the quality of the debates.

Another problem of the game was the time schedule of the simulation, particularly of the plenary session.  

The intervals between each Working Group presentation were often too long and a lot of participants were too tired to fully participate. This could be seen in the number of delegates attending the last part of the plenary that dropped considerably comparing to the beginning of the session. 

In this way the last group (External Economic Relations) did not have the same chance to debate among the participants as the previous two.

Final Plenary Meeting (17:00 -17:30) 

Following the three plenary sessions the Presidium of the Convention Simulation evaluated the game by summarizing the results of the simulation. In spite of some problems due to the very strict time schedule and the complexity of the contents, the general impression was excellent. It proved a great success, because it offered the students a possibility to feel how the future of Europe will be shaped. They realized that finding a consensus out of the diversity of opinions is often very difficult and does not meet the expected solutions. Furthermore it gave the participants the possibility to “live” the procedure of decision making processes.  

Apart from the “working sessions” the evening programme offered numerous possibilities to get to know each other in a formal and informal way and contributed to intercultural learning, giving the participants the chance to communicate with people from different cultural backgrounds, overcome prejudices and become good friends.

6.      Public actions around the Europe Day 2003

The public actions around Europe Day 2003 consisted of information stalls in the participating countries. Apart from information material of the European Institutions the project’s free card, the survey on the future of Europe and the Central European Declaration of the Final Conference in Vienna were distributed. Young people from all participating countries with European experience informed citizens on the Future of Europe and discussed questions out of the future of Europe debate.

a) Austria – Public Action in the Vienna Region

The EU-department of The Viennese Business Agency provides comprehensive information to the citizens of Vienna. Every year, the EU department is organising a bus tour throughout the Vienna region in order to ensure a direct flow of information about the actual facts in the EU to the people.

This year, as every year before, the team of the EU-service also set off to meet the people of Vienna in a face to face tour. For two weeks the people of Vienna had the opportunity to obtain information on the EU. The EU-experts could be asked any question on the EU and provided the public with a large number of information sheets and brochures.

The range of topics varied from basis EU questions to very specific financial und funding matters. The enlargement process turned out to be the focus of this year’s tour. Along with that the project „The Future of Europe – Our Opinion counts“ was presented to the public by offering the promotion material of the project, the survey carried out within the framework of the transnational project and showing huge posters on the bus. Especially, young people received this project rather enthusiastically.

This year’s tour was as successful as anyone before. In fact, it is becoming more popular and is attracting more attention every year. Almost 1000 people visited the information bus during the five days of the tour.  There has been a lot of discussion and many a misunderstanding about the European Union could be cleared up.

b) Bulgaria – Public actions in Velko Turnovo and Sofia

Veliko Turnovo is a small city in the east of Bulgaria, close to the Black sea. In spite of the size of the city, Velko Turnovo hosts one of the leading Bulgarian universities. That is why a lot of students visited our information stalls.

As in any small city, where there are not that many public events happening on the streets, inhabitants were quite eager to come up and see what’s going on at this stand, full of colourful brochures and decorated with European flags. In addition, our stand was located in the centre of the city, which allowed contacting a huge number of the inhabitants. Since the level of information they already had was quite poor, we were mostly explaining the basic facts. However, there were also lots of those already informed on the issues discussed at the information stalls. They came to the stand to exchange opinions, express their point of view and to get some new brochures. The discussions were always interesting. The students coming to the information stand showed a mere scientific interest, they needed info for further diploma and course works, and, of course, student exchange programs were on the top of their interest.

In Sofia we started our work quite early in the morning. At first, we attracted the attention of some students, who curiously came to us to see what was going on.  Youngsters were positive to the idea of uniting Europe and were eager to find out more about the possibilities the Union offers, such as Youth programme, Erasmus, Leonardo – work in EU institutions.

The range of people coming to us was quite different, but the questions usually covered the same area – if Bulgaria joins the Union, what will happen to salaries, pensions, and the independence of the country, language and culture. An old soldier expressed his fear to fight wars just because some western countries want it to do so. 

Most people did not know that there is a Convention on the Future of Europe going on, due to the fact that the perspective of joining the EU was still quite far from their everyday life. Some interested and informed - usually those working in administration, public sector or businessmen - stated, that being not directly involved and just watching the main issues in the news, the following of the process and forming own opinion on the issue resulted very difficult to them.

In addition to the information stands a public debate on the 9th of May, with a panel consisting of prominent Bulgarian politicians and members of European NGO was organised.

As the venue where the debate took place normally is quite crowded, we decided to organise the info stand some days before the event, in order to achieve bigger publicity. Actually few of the people, who visited the info stand, came to us after the debate and thanked for the invitation, telling, that he liked the discussion a lot and that they also would like to be informed about similar activities in the future.

The debate itself was a very interesting and efficient discussion, which mostly concentrated on the Convention on the future of Europe and it’s mostly argued topics, i.e. Foreign Security and Defence policy. It was also emphasized on the situation of Bulgaria in this renewed and changed union, on questions whether if the EU would take over the new policies and roles, it would suit Bulgaria. The survey on the future of Europe carried out within the framework of the transnational was a good basis for the debate.

A part of the event was an exhibition of works made by young Bulgarians in the framework of the project’s public competition, aimed at showing their visions of the future of Europe.  We had to admit, that it was a hard choice to select the winner, since any work had something special in it, but in the end the jury decided to give the prize to Galina Georgieva from Rousse with her essay “Europe of tomorrow”.

c) Czech Republic – Information stands in Mlada Boleslav and Prague

Although the membership of the Czech Republic in the EU was the near future for every Czech citizen, the knowledge of the basic facts concerning the structure and functions of the EU was still lacking. Therefore we equipped our stand with two sorts of information material – basic facts for those who did not have any basic EU-information, and specific information on the European Convention and current institutional changes for those being on ‘intermediate” level, thus being able to reach the population with different informational needs. Of course, we had also some maps and stickers for children.

We started our public action in Mlada Bolesla, a city with around 45 thousands inhabitants, situated in Bohemia. The city is an industrial centre that manufactures automobiles, tractors, and agricultural machinery.

There was a big interest in our event; we managed to reach different groups of the society – youngsters, pensioners, even local government representatives. Although everybody had different question, problems and statements, they all had something in common – real concern about their destiny and the future of the country within the European Union. We had detailed debates with some businessmen about the competition situation in the further common market. Although their position was quite critical, there was no lack of optimism, since the Czech Republic already has good experiences of cooperation with EU member states.  

In Prague the information stand was situated in the heart of the city, between Vaclavska namesti and the old town square.  As the place was quite crowded a lot of people came by and showed their interest on the information stand.  A discussion with some law students interested in politics and the current Convention took place by showing them the survey of the project.

Other people expressed their wish for more social security and values, being afraid that the Union based of neo liberalist values and market economy will endanger the state of disadvantaged and disabled. In any case, people were mostly positive talking about the enlargement; some of them were as well in favour of introducing Euro on the Czech market. 

Some told us their experience with European funding programs, such as structural funds, Youth and Erasmus programs.

Of course, there were some critical opinions, telling that voting for the Union in the old shape people might find themselves in a completely different political system after the end of the Convention. People of the older generation were afraid that their country might lose its independence, culture and language might be endangered. This point was very important for them, since they were living in an independent country just for twelve years so far.

d) Greece – Public Action in Athens and Komotini

The public action around Europe day 2003 was organised by the Info Point Europe Komotini with three information stands in Komotini and by

JEF ATHENS, who organised a series of info-stalls in many places in the city of Athens for a whole week time.  

The goal in Athens was to maximize the impact of the action by organising three info-stands inside the universities and three others in different places in Athens. So, one of them was close to the official celebration of the 9^th of May from the Representation of European Commission and the Prefecture of Athens, another one was at the entrance of an exhibition on the Enlargement the municipality of Athens had for more than one week and the last one was in a square close to the centre.

The people discussed the big reforms of the EU and debated the draft of a European Constitution, the need for more action in the field of CFSP, etc. Another point that was stressed out by many of the citizens who visited the stands was their worries about the unification process, especially now that the new countries are about to enter the Union.

During the street referendums that we had –about whether citizens are in favour or not for a European Constitution- more than 83% vote in favour, but many of them argued that the text of the constitution is also important.

At the same time with the debate and the distribution of information, the chance was taken to get closer with younger people –pupils mainly- who are really interested on the European integration especially when they found out the similarities among youngsters all over the Continent and the chances they had –through youth exchanges- to meet other cultures and make new friends around Europe.

e) Hungary – Public Actions in Budapest and Pecs

The info stand in Budapest was equipped with all possible information materials on EU matters. Because of good weather conditions a big number of people on the streets could be reached.  Firstly the information stand was observed from the distance by a couple of school kids, being interested in the preparations. Afterwards they found some courage to come and ask what was going on. They got some balloons and maps of the EU, which made them completely happy – lately they brought some friends as well. People were sometimes afraid to come and start a dialogue or to take a brochure. That is why active information work was done by contacting them directly and handing out leaflets. Some passers-by were provokingly asking the own decision of the EU-informers at the referendum.  

In Pecs the information stand was located in front of the city hall, thus as many people as possible could be reached, trying to find out their opinion on the EU, as well as what would be their arguments to vote for or against the EU membership in the referendum.

Some people working in public administration were pointing out that together with the membership there will be many good and well-paid working places in European institutions, which they would be happy to receive. Even though they would have then to work in another country, in Brussels or Strasbourg, it didn’t make them less looking forward for it.

The young people, of course, were happy to receive more information on youth programmes, Erasmus and Socrates, as well as some brochures to use for diploma and course works – as they pointed out, to write their thesis on the EU is quite topical at the moment.   

f) Italy – Public Action in Modena

To celebrate the 9^th of May 2003, Info Point Europe of Modena organised the following events within the framework of the transantional project “The Future of Europe Our opinion counts”

*  Meeting with students

10.30 at the LA TENDA, youth centre, the Town Councillor for Education Mrs. Morena Manfredini, awarded the winners of the local competition “la strada per l’Europa” targeted to schools and promoted by the City of Modena.

The students, guided by Mr Andrea Lucchetta - ex Volleyball world champion and leader of the Italian Team – presented their works.

Sponsor: Banca Popolare dell’Emilia Romagna

Participants: the 3 Principals of awarded schools, 25 Teachers and 300 students.

* Opening of the exhibition “la strada per l’Europa”

12.30 at LA TENDA, youth centre Mr. Andrea Lucchetta opened officially the exhibition of students works. “Texts, games, pictures to understand how the students in Modena look at the Future of Europe”

Art director: Prof. Luigi Cappelli of the Arts Institute A. Venturi in Modena

The exhibition lasts the 30 of May – guided visits organised via IPE Modena.

* EUREKA concert

22.00 at the Caffè Concerto -  Piazza Grande

The concert is a long trip inside the culture and traditions of the Europe's people.

The ABBAZIA DE' FOLLI group will lead the audience, through the music and poetry, to the discovery of the Europe's culture and traditions. The show, with music, pictures, and texts, tells about a long trip inside the European land, showing facts, situations and persons that it's always possible to meet or live during a routing experience.

Every scene shows the typical situation of the site visited: you may be in a tavern in Lisbon's barrio, in a gypsy camp in Romania or in the Berlin tube, meeting different kind of people.

In this way the audience may receive a specific message related to Europe: a land lived by different people with different traditions joined in a common culture, the European culture. The objective of this event is to show that the European Union is joined not only in the market or in the currency, but also its own common cultural roots.

Participants: almost 300 people

g) Poland – Public Actions in Wroclaw and Warsaw

Number of people contacted: around 300

Booklets, cards, posters, maps, EU-flags and balloons received from European Commission Delegation, results of the survey on the institutional changes of the EU, conducted in the framework of the project

The information stand was situated in front of the town hall. Besides many tourists there were also many locals around and the discussion with them was very detailed and exciting. On the one hand, they were enthusiastic about the accession to the Union, because they put their hope for the better future of the county in it. On the other hand, there were some who were pretty aware of the fact that the situation in the country is still not very good. Unemployment and unstable economics in the country were depressing the citizens and they knew that it will be very hard for EU to change the situation.

Of course, structural funds available for the development, would surely make it easier for those who would like to bring in life own projects. The situation of farmers and changing of the structure in the sphere of agriculture was the question especially worrying the citizens.

In Warsaw 350-400 people visited the information stand. The information material distributed to the people was similar to that in Wroclaw.

At the beginning people didn’t pay big interest to the stand, thus the people were contacted directly by inviting them to have a look in the information material available.

Booklets were handed out and long conversations with some pensioners, wishing to know whether they will receive bigger pensions after the enlargements and whether the perspectives for their children and grandchildren to receive good and well-paid jobs will be higher, took place. There were also people worrying that after the enlargement the EU will use Poland’s territory for building factories, which will spoil the environment of the country, and do everything they are not allowed on the territory of the present EU member states.

Some people involved the Informers into detailed discussion on the quotas and subsidies on the agricultural sector after joining the EU, which, by their opinion, could destroy the current agricultural system in the country. They were not very keen of broadening the mandate of the EU in the security and defence sphere, assuring that the NATO is taking good care of its role. This opinion was faced also before – the EU is still regarded as just economical Union, while NATO is overtaking the defence functions.

h) Romania – Public Actions in Odorheiu Secuiesc and Sovata

With the occasion of our 10^th year anniversary a conference was organized called Regional cooperation in South Eastern Europe just on the weekend of Europe Day. Taking into account that over 200 people were invited one of the 2 information stalls was set up there, at Sovata which is approximately 50 km away from Odorheiu Secuiesc.

The second information stall was set up in Odorheiu Secuiesc during the Students Days in Odorheiu Secuiesc Town,  which was a couple day long event organized by the local youth forum. So thanks to this event a lot of students, young people were wondering around all weekend. 4 students from the local Collage of Modern Business Studies, who had already acquired basic knowledge about the European Union, its institutions, their purpose informed the people passing by. So besides handing out postcards they were able to make short conversations with persons interested in issues related to the EU. The students asked questions like: Will Romania join the EU in 2007? Is it a good or a bad thing for Romania to be part of the European Community? What will be different when Romania will become a member of the EU?

Most of the people believe that in spite of the fact that Romania needs to improve its legal system, to really confront corrupcy, to deal with environmental issues it will be given the opportunity to join the European Community in 2007. Those ones who answered to these questions believe that being part of the EU can only be a positive thing for Romania and they hope that membership will bring better opportunities and better life for Romanian inhabitants.

i) Slovakia – Public Action in  Bratislava

The aim of the street action was to inform people about the historical importance of the Europe day, the European Union, its structure and the current dialogue within the framework of the Convention, as well as the enlargement of the EU. The passers-by were either very curios and interested, or untrusting. That is why it was tried to speak to the people to wake their interest and involve them into discussion, coming to them and handing out the brochures. Many of them denied the discussion, but the brochures were accepted.

The great majority was surprised that their attention was drawn to the historical date of the emergence of the Coal and Steel treaty. Most of them did not know what actually happened 53 years ago and why the 9^th of May is the Europe Day. A short historical outline of the main development stages of the EU was given, which made the people interested and opened them the new horizons in the EU. Very important was to outline that there is not only economical interest in the platform of the EU, but the fundamental values such as democracy, human rights, and one of the main prerogatives of the development is the creation of the social union.

We managed to reach not only citizens of Bratislava, but also tourists from the whole Europe.

Many people were afraid of the enlargement of the EU, but were not closing the eyes on the future. They were ready and glad to involve themselves into discussion and get more information about the current processes in the EU. There were very comprehensive discussions about the candidates for enlargement and the risks that might occur.

The tourists were also thankful for the action and emphasized that they are happy to get an insight to Slovakia as a future member of the EU.

j) Slovenia – Public Actions in Koper, Celje, Ljubljana and Maribor

On the 9th of May, Mladi evroski federealisti (JEF Slovenia) organized four info stands in various cities around Slovenia. We received information materials, posters and cards from the Delegation of the European Commission in Ljubljana. On all stands we also had flags (European, Federalists’ and Slovenian), postcards of the project and special T-shirts to make ourselves more visible. We tried to attract as many people as possible, without being annoying of course, and present them the historical reason for the celebrations on the 9th of May, the work of the European Convention on the Future of Europe and the current debate about the reform of the European Union. Most of the passers where interested and also listened to our ideas and thoughts, but also many sceptics approached us and gave their views and opinions. Both types of discussions where pleasant and made our day on the stands really enjoyable.

We placed one stand in Koper, the largest city on the Slovenian coast. We decided to put the stand at the entrance of the main shopping centre called “Supernova”, since we knew that on Fridays this is the most crowded place in town. The stand became “operational” already in the morning (around 9) and was closed around 6 o’clock in the evening. During these 9 hours we spoke to more than 200 people and gave away a lot of promotional and information materials. To those interested we also presented the results of the survey we conducted in December and January. The only missing thing perhaps was young people, but the day was sunny and there is no one who can blame them for having spent the Europe’s day on the beach.

The second stand was situated in Celje on its main square (Trg Celjskih knezov) just in front of the City hall. Again, the stand was set up in the early morning and it was full of various information materials about the 9th of May and the EU in general. The info stand turned out to be perfectly placed in the walking zone and a lot of people devoted a couple of minutes of their time to discuss Europe with us. By the end of the day we spoke with approximately 150 people of different age groups.

The third stand was placed in the capital Ljubljana. We decided to set it up in the park called “Zvezda” (the star), which is one of the most frequented places in Ljubljana. Since there are many schools and faculties nearby, we had pleasant company throughout the day. In a few cases we ended up in heated debate on the Future of the EU presidency, on Slovenia’s “weight” in the future Union policies and the changes after the enlargement. Despite this exception however, the work on the Convention was known to a very few people, so we spent most of out time explaining what this new model of discussing the “Future of Europe” brings, who is involved and what should we expect from the final result. Not surprisingly the fist question that many brought up was the possibility to influence this process. We were glad to explain that for the first time such a body works in a truly transparent way and is accessible to the public. To most of the passers this was a surprise.

Our last stand was placed more on the East, in Slovenia’s second biggest town, Maribor. We set it up in the shopping centre called (cot a coincidence) “Europark”. Most of the people we spoke to did not know about the 9th of May celebrities all around Europe, so we first explained them the reasons that lay behind the event and then introduced them the 9^th of May activities in the framework of JEF and a transnational project “The Future of Europe – Our Opinion counts”. Judging by their reactions some of them were a bit sceptical about celebrating such a complex “monster” as the European Union. But our aim is to simplify it! 

To sum it up, we spoke to almost 1000 people in four different places in Slovenia. Their reactions showed us that there is still, even after the referendum on the accession, the will to learn and discover new things about the EU: The work of the Convention gets a lot of attention in the Slovenian media, but the institution itself perhaps seems to abstract to ordinary citizens. For one day we tried to bring it closer to them. Will the Union do so with herself after the Convention proceedings are over?

 

7. Study trip to Brussels for the Winners of the Public Competition

Due to the fact, that most of the winners were students, the trip to Brussels could not take place in June 2003 as foreseen in the project application to the Commission. It had to be forwarded to the month of July 2003 in order to give all the winners the opportunity to join the trip.

The trip was organised from the 10th until the 13th of July 2003. With this trip the winners of the Public Competition visited Brussels should get an idea of the working procedures of the EU-Institutions.

program of the Study Visit to Brussels 10 – 13. July 2003

Date              Morning                                           Afternoon               Evening

The stay in Brussels began with an invitation to the European Parliament. The offices of the Mr. Ozan Ceyhun, German MEP of the SPD/SPE-Group and Mr. Hannes Swoboda, Austrian MEP of the SPÖ/SPE-Group had invited them.

In the official speeches the experts explained the exciting day- to day work in the office of an MEP and the complicating procedures in the working methods of such an international place. After that the group was shown around in the Parliament. The winners of the competition were offered the opportunity to see the facilities of the EP, rooms for the parliamentary-meetings, plenary-sessions, the parliamentary-groups, the committee-meetings, and the offices of the MEP. At the coffee-break in one of the many coffee-bars in the EP building, the group could ask questions on the EU. They showed the highest interest in the working procedures of the EU-Institutions and in the opportunities to get a job within the Institutions. Most of the winners have the strong wish to find a position within the heart of Europe one day. 

On Friday, the group was invited to the premises of the Special-Coordinator of the Stability-Pact for South Eastern Europe, Dr. Erhard Busek.

The Stability-Pact is the first promising attempt by the international community to set up a long-term conflict prevention strategy in South Eastern Europe and the replace the former intervention policy.

This item on the agenda was, above all, very much appreciated by the group. Mainly, because most of the winners themselves come from countries which not long ago had similar problems to those benefiting from the stability-pact-programme right now. 

Gregor Kössler, Head of Cabinet, held a speech on the work of the office in a very nice and private atmosphere. He gave a comprehensive report on his former duties, among others on his experience in Kosovo, before relocating to Brussels.

After a short visit to the Brussels-office of the Vienna Business-Agency at the “Wien Haus”, the group was invited at the cabinet of the EU-Commissioner for Enlargement, Günter Verheugen. Mr. Christian Danielsson, Deputy Head of Cabinet held the speech. This visit as every one before showed the winners’ enthusiasm and interest in Europe by asking many questions and full concentration during the lectures. 

On Saturday the tight schedule gave way to a lighter programme, “tour de ville” in the morning and a short trip to the chocolate-factory in the afternoon. Every one in this group got on with each other very well and fell very sad when the few days in Brussels ended. Most of them exchanged their addresses and promised to stay in touch and call on each other whenever possible. 

Finally, it has to be said, that the main goals of the project were met. It proved to be a meeting-point for young people and a chance to tear down personal and national boundaries.-The Future of Europe.