Evaluation Paper

of the Working Group “Defence”

            The most exciting part of the conference “The Future of Europe – Our Opinion Counts” was the Simulation Game, the participants of which modelled the work of the European Convention in three Working Groups (External Action, Defence and External Economic Relations).

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. (Hereby many thanks for her help. – K. V.)

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. (Especially thanks for the participants from Italy. – K. V. 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.

                                                                                          Károly Végh

                                                                                        (Hungary)

                                                                                       Chairman of

                                                                                       the Working Group “Defence”