Conference on the Future of Europe

Conference on the Future of Europe
Name	Conference on the Future of Europe
Type	Multilevel participatory initiative
Started	2021
Location	Brussels, Strasbourg
Organizers	European Commission, European Parliament, Council of the European Union

Contents

Conference on the Future of Europe The Conference on the Future of Europe was a pan‑European multi‑institutional initiative launched to solicit ideas from citizens across Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Poland, Netherlands, Sweden, Greece, Portugal, Hungary, Romania, Czech Republic, Austria, Bulgaria, Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Slovakia, Croatia and other member states, alongside representatives from European Economic and Social Committee, Committee of the Regions, Council of Europe, Organisation for Economic Co‑operation and Development, and civil society actors. The initiative was hosted by the joint secretariat of the European Commission, European Parliament and Council of the European Union and culminated in a series of citizens' proposals, institutional debates and plenary meetings held in Brussels and Strasbourg.

Background and Origins

The idea drew on earlier transnational consultative exercises such as the Convention on the Future of Europe, the European Citizens' Initiative, the European Convention that produced the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe, and reflections following the United Kingdom withdrawal from the European Union and the 2019 European Parliament election. Prominent EU figures including Ursula von der Leyen, David Sassoli, Charles Michel, and advisors from Jean‑Claude Juncker's cabinet promoted a participatory approach akin to initiatives by Emmanuel Macron and deliberative forums modeled on the Irish Constitutional Convention, the Citizens' Assembly (Iceland), and the Scottish Citizens' Assembly. The initiative referenced experiences from World Economic Forum panels, G20 stakeholder consultations, and consultations organized around the European Green Deal and the NextGenerationEU recovery package.

The Secretariat combined officials from the European Commission, European Parliament and the Council of the European Union and coordinated with national parliaments such as the Bundestag, Assemblée nationale (France), Camera dei Deputati, Congreso de los Diputados, Sejm, and Oireachtas. Governance included a Plenary chaired by representatives of European Parliament, Council of the European Union presidency holders (for example Portugal's presidency, Slovenia's presidency), and Commissioners including Frans Timmermans and Maroš Šefčovič. A multilingual digital platform managed by IT teams drew on standards from European Data Protection Supervisor guidance, interoperability frameworks used by Europol, and accessibility rules from European Accessibility Act. Administrative support incorporated methodologies from the OECD and facilitation techniques used in UN consultations and World Bank stakeholder engagement.

The process featured deliberative panels composed using sortition drawing on statistical models from Eurostat and recruitment practices inspired by Irish Citizens' Assembly and Citizens' Assembly of France. Panels convened in Strasbourg and Brussels and were facilitated by moderation teams with experience from Rudolf Steiner School‑style consensus techniques and training from institutions like European University Institute and College of Europe. Participants included representatives of trade unions such as European Trade Union Confederation, NGOs like Greenpeace, Amnesty International, International Rescue Committee, and academic contributors from London School of Economics, Hertie School, Université libre de Bruxelles, Universität Heidelberg, Universitat de Barcelona, and Università di Bologna. The digital platform combined crowdsourcing tools similar to those used by Change.org and deliberation software piloted in Estonia’s e‑governance projects.

Panels and the Plenary addressed topics intersecting with initiatives such as the European Green Deal, Digital Services Act, Digital Markets Act, Schengen Area, Common Security and Defence Policy, Migration and Asylum Pact, Multiannual Financial Framework, and reform of instruments like the Stability and Growth Pact. Recommendations touched on strengthening the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, enhancing rights upheld by Court of Justice of the European Union, expanding mechanisms linked to European Central Bank policies, and reforming electoral processes inspired by practices from the European Parliament's Spitzenkandidaten debates and proposals linked to transnational lists. Other outputs addressed health policy coordination referencing European Medicines Agency and European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, education proposals connecting to Erasmus+ and European University Institute, as well as climate adaptation measures referencing Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports.

The institutional response involved commitments by the European Commission to assess recommendations and propose legislative or policy follow‑up, drawing parallels with post‑Convention processes used to negotiate the Treaty of Lisbon. The European Parliament adopted resolutions to track proposals and tasked committees such as the Committee on Constitutional Affairs and Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs to scrutinize options. Member state governments engaged through their Permanent Representatives Committee (COREPER), national parliaments including Bundesrat and Senate (France), and presidencies of the Council of the European Union to integrate feasible elements into work programmes. Monitoring drew on evaluation methodologies common to the European Court of Auditors and impact assessments aligned with Better Regulation guidelines.

Reactions ranged from praise by civil society organizations including European Youth Forum, Civic Europe, and Friends of the Earth Europe for participatory innovation, to scepticism voiced by political parties such as European People's Party, Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats, Renew Europe, Identity and Democracy (political group in the European Parliament), and commentators in media outlets like Politico Europe, Euractiv, and Financial Times. Critics cited concerns raised by constitutional scholars at Cambridge University, Université Paris 1 Panthéon‑Sorbonne, and Harvard Law School about legal effects compared to treaties like the Treaty on European Union and suggested that uptake depended on political will from leaders exemplified by Emmanuel Macron and Angela Merkel during their tenures. Administrative critiques referenced transparency debates involving European Ombudsman inquiries and comparisons with deliberative failures observed in other forums such as post‑referendum processes in Greece and constitutional negotiations in Iceland.