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
2nd WG Meeting (Thursday, March 27, 16:30-18:30)
* Debate about the items on the agenda – Part II
3rd 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.
2nd 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.
3rd 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.
