 Good afternoon everybody and my name is Michael Collins. I'm the Director General of the Institute of International and European Affairs here in Dublin. I'm so pleased to welcome you to this webinar this afternoon which is co-organized by ourselves at the IEEEA and the European Parliament Liaison Office here in Ireland. The Conference on the Future of Europe is a momentous continent-wide exercise in citizens' engagement on behalf of the European Parliament, the Council, the Commission and Member States, which aims to open a new space for citizens' dialogue and participation on the future of the EU as well as on the key policy questions facing our Union. Before we begin and I introduce our panelists, let me briefly run through today's running order. I will first introduce each of our panelists before we move on to Mr. Giver Hofstad. He had his address which will be followed by a brief Q&A with him before he has to leave us at 1.45. We will then move on to our panel discussion for their observation and thoughts followed by Q&A with them. I would ask you please to submit your questions in writing via Zoom's Q&A function throughout the session as these questions occur to you and we will come to as many as we can in the time available. With that, let me briefly introduce today's speakers. We have on the panel, we have Dürer Klune, who is an MEP of course, and Senator Alice Mary Higgins of Channaderne and Professor Jane Souter of DCU and as a speaker before the panel, Mr. Giver Hofstad MEP. Mr. Hofstad, as you may know, is the co-chair of the conference on the future of Europe, representing the European Parliament. And he's been, of course, an MEP and very well known to many of us since 2009, serving on the Committee on Constitutional Affairs and was chair of the European Parliament Brexit Steering Group and a former president of the Liberal Alde Group. Before joining the European Parliament, he was, of course, Prime Minister of Belgium between 1999 and 2008 and has also served as Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Budget in Belgium. I reminded that today's address, Mr. Hofstad's address, the discussions, both the panel discussion and our discussion with him and the Q&A are all on the record. And please feel free to join the discussion on Twitter using the handle at IEEA or the panel, the handle at EEP in Ireland, that's European Parliament in Ireland, at EEP in Ireland. We're also live streaming today's discussion, so a very warm welcome to all of you who are joining us through that medium, through the medium of YouTube. As I said, we will first hear from Mr. Giver Hofstad before he must take leave of us in about three quarters of an hour, and then we will go to the panel discussion. But for now, Mr. Giver Hofstad, you're very, very welcome to Dublin virtually. The floor is yours. Just unmute there. Unmute. Unmute me. I hope that you hear me now. Thank you. Thank you very much for the invitation. And it's a pity that we cannot organise this in Dublin itself, naturally, because of the COVID situation in Europe. Because this conversation was in fact organised as a start, an introduction towards a very important citizens panel that would have taken place this weekend in Dublin. And unfortunately, together with the Irish authorities, we decided to postpone the citizens panel that was foreseen for Dublin to a later date. It will happen now in the first weekend of February. But nevertheless, I'm very pleased to be here in this debate, in this conversation, and want to explain, in fact, what we as European Parliament expect from this conference and why we were together with the Council and the Commission, we organise it. We aim to organise a conference on the future of Europe, and the request to have this conference is a request that was already formulated years ago by the European Parliament, because in our point of view, the new world order that is emerging needs a European Union that is different from the European Union we know today. This new world order, we all know it, will be dominated by superpowers like China, like the West, maybe India, and others like Russia. And in such a world order, it's not longer national sovereignty that can defend our interests and our lifestyle, but we will need a shared sovereignty on the European level to defend our interests, our values and our way of life. And the European Parliament is already a majority in the European Parliament, a huge majority in the European Parliament is already for a number of years of the opinion that therefore it's absolutely key to prepare a number of reforms in the European Union. And the fact that Brexit happened, so I will not talk a lot of Brexit of this sad story, but the fact that Brexit happened was an additional argument to organise it. If a big country like the UK is leaving the European Union, it's very difficult to say, oh, fantastic, it goes very well with the European Union. There is a big member state leaving it, the European Union. So in one way or another, the exit of the UK is a proof of the fact that there is a fundamental problem or there are fundamental problems in the Union and there is a need for reform. So I don't like Brexit, but Brexit was a wake up call certainly for a lot of people to give up their resistance against this conference for the future of Europe, because there was resistance and maybe there is still resistance. So many people were saying, yeah, but we did the convention so many years ago, and I remember me it very well because I was in the chair of the European Council when we launched the process with the declaration of luck and we launched the convention. And yeah, that out of this convention came then the Lisbon Treaty and that we faced a lot of difficulties to prove all this. So why now starting again? Search an exercise with this conference. Well, as I explained, the reason is that on the level of the institutions for the first time, the three institutions are organizing this conference. That's the first novelty of this conference. So the convention, you remember that, that was an initiative of the European Council to which other institutions and other people were invited. So Parliament was invited. National Parliaments were invited. This time is different. This is a common exercise of the three institutions. What is not a given, what is not easy, because therefore we have three co-chairs, everything has to be prepared by the three institutions before we could launch the conference. But it has the advantage, the fact that the three institutions are involved that will be difficult later on to say, oh, the conference have this and that conclusions. That's not our stuff. We were not involved in this. No, it's a common exercise of the three institutions to which on an equal footing. Also, the National Parliaments are involved through a real important participation because there are 108 MEPs in the plenary. There are 56 representatives of the member states of the council in the plenary. There is a commission in the plenary, but there are also 108 representatives of the National Parliaments because we believe that reforming the Union can only be done in a common exercise between European level and the level of national democracies. And that doesn't make any sense to talk about the future of the European Union when we don't do it together. So that are the four components and conclusions of the conference will need the consensus of these four components. I represent the member states commission, the European Parliament and the National Parliaments who have organized themselves through the normal channel that we know the Cossack format, what they are using to express their opinions and to participate in the conference. And the second big novelty is as you already indicated is naturally this participation, active participation of citizens in total 800 that have been randomly selected with an over representation of young people and that's also for a good reason because young people in our population represent one third of the population. So we thought, okay, then we need to give to the young people there, 16 to 25, also one third of the seats because they are speaking for the young part of the population. So therefore this over representation of 1625 youngsters in the conference. And these 800 people will define and that is if we are in the middle of the process, their recommendations, their proposals for the reform of the Union. It's an experience on the European level. I know that in Ireland we were already, there were already similar experiences. There is in France the experience with on the climate agenda. But this is for the first time on the European level, a pan-European transnational active participation of citizens, not as a listening exercise because we are not only listening to the citizens. To know what the citizens want, we have the Euro barometer, we have the surveys, all this we know. What is more important in this conference is the active participation of citizens, not only in formulating their recommendations, but also in shaping the response to these recommendations, in formulating the proposals for reform. So it is in a certain way, for the first time certainly on the European level, a combination I should say of representative democracy with participatory democracy, what we want to achieve. And the reason for that is not that we don't have any trust anymore in representative democracy, but we think that in the future liberal democracy will only have the chance to prosper and survive if we add a participatory element into our democratic practices. And so one of the ideas that we are looking for is already today to say that maybe it's necessary that this type of citizens conventions we organize and the active participation of the representatives of the citizens panels into the decision making process of the union, maybe that needs to become a permanent tool, a permanent instrument in the near future. So but the second big novelty of this conference is this permanent involvement from day one until the last day of the conference of the representatives of the citizens and the citizens panels. There will be there, there will be present in the room, there will give their opinion when the representatives of the European Parliament, National Parliament, Commission and Council will formulate the conclusions of the conference. And that is absolute unique experience that we never did on the level of the European Union. So, as you know, the basis for the discussions in the citizens panels is not a white page, a white paper, there is a digital platform that has been launched, four million, nearly four million visitors have already visited that digital platform. And nearly between 35,000 and 40,000 citizens have opened their own account on the digital platform to participate in the debate. So also an individual citizen can add his ideas, his ideas, his opinions, his views towards the whole process. Yeah, I think it's a little bit too early now already to say, yeah, what will come out of the citizens panels first of all, and the conference plenary in the course of next year. But what we expect is that because of the active involvement of citizens in the whole process afterwards, when it comes to implement the conclusions of the conference, it will be very difficult to neglect the conclusions of the conference. Because I cannot see, I don't see the possibility, for example, member states to say, oh, look, our citizens asked for that, but we don't want to do it. So it's what we hope that this conference will create is an additional pressure for reform in the three institutions of the Union. In the Commission, in the European Parliament, but certainly also in the European Council. And the list of items that have been already formulated by the citizens in their panels is a long list. It's a list going from institutional issues like end of unanimity, transnational lists, avoiding a suffrage, going to more in-depth changes in policies, in-depth changes of policies like defence policy, foreign policy, digital, the values of the European Union. So migration and so on. So they are for the moment discussing in the citizens panel, I should say, every topic that they find important and that they think that there is a fundamental need for in-depth reform. So that's my introduction and I'm very pleased to participate for a short time in the debate and to answer the questions if there are questions naturally. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Verhofstadt. Really appreciate that. Could I just maybe begin with a question? I was reading in one of your recent article by you, it was political, and you mentioned, I think, rather emphatically, that the Merkel break is off, you said. And just a question, the Merkel break was off. I mean, the Angela Merkel break was off. What exactly, what is the extent, in your opinion, of Mrs. Merkel being kind of an inhibitor or being a disabler, was she really holding the process back to that extent? Well, so I have an enormous esteem for the former Chancellor of Germany for Mrs. Merkel, but the reality, the last 20 years in Europe is very clear. We have, since the reunification of Germany, we have seen a German position in most of the issues at stake on the European level. It was quite, I should say, conservative, not ready to reform, even when we got this enormous migration crisis, with all these refugees coming from Syria a few years ago. The reaction of Germany was, okay, we are chaffing thus. We're going to do it ourselves. It was not a European answer. It was a national answer to a European problem. No, and it's not new at all. It's since the reunification of Germany, that Germany has become the biggest country of the Union and is reacting a little bit, I should say, like the French in the past. So in a certain way, with the election of Mr. Macron as the French president, the French became Germans in their approach of Europe and the Germans became French in their approach from Europe. That's the image that I always use. The French speak still French, and the Germans speak still German, so that's no doubt about it. But their vision about the European Union has shifted since the reunification. And because the French in the past was very clear what is good for France is good for Europe. And that is a little bit the European approach of the French that changed dramatically with the new French president with Mr. Macron. But in the opposite direction, in Germany, they were very pro-communitarian, even a federal view on Europe, and that changed dramatically since the reunification and also with Merkel. And what will happen now, so we have a new situation with the new German government arriving. You have seen the new German government, you have seen the agreement in the new German government. For the first time, in my opinion, is the most federalist agreement that I have ever read, written by a government in the European Union. So for the first time, France and Germany are speaking again the same language on Europe. And so that's a huge opportunity for the conference also to go forward with ideas who are stuck in this, I should say, relationship between France and Germany. That said, it's not enough to have an agreement between France and Germany to change something on the European level. And there are other players, and a small and medium-sized country, certainly, who are also co-founders of this union and other players. But it is a fundamental shift, I think, that what we have witnessed the last days and the last weeks. Yeah, and there's a little bit of an echo there, sorry, but obviously we have the French elections in the spring of next year, in 2022. Obviously, from what you're talking about there, it would be based to some extent on Mr Macron being re-elected as President of France. To what extent is the agenda and the program for the conference in the future of Europe, has that been delayed or has that been affected by COVID or are we on target? What is the target in terms of? Well, I have to tell you that to launch the conference we were usually affected by COVID. And then COVID plays again a role in our calendar as we discussed a few moments ago by delaying the panel in Dublin. But our goal is that we deliver, at the latest in May, a first batch of conclusions towards the French presidency of the European Council. That continues to be the goal we have. So that means that after the citizens panel generally in the beginning of February, we have February, March, April and the beginning of May to conclude. And some people are saying to me, yeah, it's very short. Is that enough time? And I'm always saying, look in politics, that's not a problem on the country. If you give to a politician too much time, he will wait until the end. I'm talking about, I'm speaking with a little bit of experience in my political life and I've always seen the same thing. If you give politicians too much time, well, yeah, they will wait until the last week, the last two weeks and then start to formulate compromises. So to have not a lot of time in this conference, maybe it could be an asset and not a liability. So that will create pressure to the institutions and to national parliaments to formulate there. Because look to have conclusions of this conference who are reading like conclusions of the European Council, that cannot be the goal. It's certainly not my goal. But to have beautiful conclusions with paragraphs and chapters and phrases who are very well formulated in compromises who are in fact saying nothing. That's not the purpose of the conference. And therefore, therefore the participation of the citizens is crucial. I can tell you, these citizens representatives, they don't accept the way, this way of working. They want clear conclusions, clear proposals, comprehensive, not complicated and certainly not formulated in a way that nobody understands them anymore. Good. Can I maybe just come to a few questions from our audience. There's a question in here from Jane Morris, who is the is a former deputy speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly. And she's the honorary president of the European movement in Northern Ireland and a former vice president of the European Economic and Social Committee. And her question is, is the EESC, the Economic and Social Committee, not representative of citizens and what role does Mr Verhofstadt see for the EESC in the conference. The Social Economic Committee, the Committee of the Regents, the social partners who are also all of them are representative of the civil society organizations are them all, they are all involved in the conference. So and they participate in the plenary and they participate in the working groups of the plenary and they have full right to intervene in the plenary. Moreover, the chair of the Social Economic Committee as the also the chair of the of the Committee of the Regents and of the social partners are our member of the executive board organizing the the conference. So there is a full a full involvement of them. Okay, I think you also said in your remarks that one third of the citizens were youth were from the youth sector, which is obviously very, very good. There's a question here from Mark McNulty from the National Youth Council of Ireland. And he's a representative of the European Youth Forum. He wants to know following concerns from youth delegates across Europe. How does Mr Verhofstadt believe we can further meaningfully involve youth participation throughout the conference and in all future EU decision making. Yeah, so, like I said, these 800 people have been selected randomly through the whole population in in in Europe. And so they are not representing an organization, these 800 people, I can tell you that this so every citizen's panel is 200 people. In every of the citizens, more than 190 of these people of the citizens have never been in contact with politics have never participated to an experience as this have no political link or whatever. So what we the selection has been done in a in a in a random way, so that we have really represented the old citizens and one third of them are younger than than 25. So as I explained it over a representation. The second is that we have put into the conference also the possibility for the for the European youth event that we have organized. We have organized a few weeks ago in the beginning of October European youth event where, yeah, but nearly I think also remotely nearly 10,000 young people have participated in it. And the conclusions of the European youth event are one of the sources of the reflection in the citizens panels and in the conference. And thirdly, if it depends for me, I would make such a conference and these citizens panels a permanent do in union with a permanent active participation of the young, the young people and not to do that. I should say every day but I think one or two times in a legislative period of five years that would not be a stupid idea to organize such a permanent active participation of citizens. Last last point is that the chair of the European youth forum. It's also very much involved in the executive board and so on and she's leading one of the nine working groups in the plenary so we we have given a special losses to the chair of European youth forum in the whole exercise. Yeah, inevitably, you know the youth and maybe the citizens panel maybe will be on the very ambitious side. I suspect of the future of Europe, to what extent would you be a little bit concerned that, depending on what happens of course and it's right that there should be ambition but if this ambition is not prioritized, you know, if it is frustrated, could that turn into something that would be very negative in terms of the kind of the permanent tool that this, you know, the citizens panels and maybe the youth involvement may in other words could turn into a negative thing if there's a level of frustration in the end. I agree with you. That's, but that's exactly the argument I want and that we need to use towards those who are reluctant in saying, yeah, okay, if citizens show ambition and courage in formulating their proposals, it's now your time to show courage and ambition in formulating your answers to this recommendations of the citizens. I know that is a that is a danger, but it's also an opportunity, an opportunity to push. Yeah, I should say the institutions and the stakeholders of the union in a direction that they were never ready to do so. I look, let me give me one example. Unanimity decision making in the in the union as I think still a huge obstacle in the union. So you see that in migration policy where the council decided that everything would be decided by unanimity. You see that on the economic field. You see that certainly geopolitically. Every time when there is a crisis in our neighborhood, we are not capable to to respond immediately to it. It takes weeks, months from time to time to to react with with sanctions, for example, in one or other case. And that is that is weakening the union. So if now citizens are asking to delete and to abolish it. Well, it will be very difficult now from now on to say, no, no, no, no, no, no, we're going to keep it. So European Parliament is asking for European Commission is asking for national parliament. So say yes, not a bad idea. And the car and that based on a recommendation of citizens, what will then member states say now we continue like in the past. So it's it's a threat. It's a danger that exists. What you what you describe, but at the same time, it will create pressure to do things that were impossible in the past. A question here from Peter gunning who's a member of our Institute and the former indeed Irish ambassador he wants to know or yes the question. Would it not be better be a better use of EU time resources and political effort to focus on maximizing the use of the existing potential of the unused provisions of the Lisbon Treaty. Given the busy EU schedule work schedule between now and 2025 for example in the area of qualified voting or defense and security. I suppose the point is, are there not sufficient provisions there already within the maybe that haven't been fully exploited or fully fully developed. They are never used. That's the reality. So let's take the example of the passerelle. The passerelle is the possibility to go from unanimity decision making to qualified majority decision making. It has never been used. I remember that I think it was in Nice, some words at four o'clock in the morning that we decided to agree on this on passerelles and it has been taken on both also in the in the convention. The passerelle as the way to solve that but it has never been used. Every time when a proposal is made to use the passerelle it disappears and there is no will to use the passerelle. So okay that's a potential of the existing treaties but in the reality it's not. So we need to put again the question on the table. So to say simply oh the problem of the unanimity while you have the passerelle use the passerelle while you see for more than a decade that it is never used. The opposite is happening. Migration for example in the treaties is qualified majority while the council decided to go to unanimity decision making in migration. The reason why we have still no migration policy after more than two decades we decided that this was a European matter. So instead of using the passerelle in one way we are using the passerelle today the other way going from qualified majority to unanimity. That is happening in practice. So saying that there is a lot of potential in the existing treaties is a very theoretical assumption but without any practical consequences. The reality is no we don't use them. I have a question here from a gentleman from the Netherlands René de Kézier from the Bergen-Schott Consulting Group in the Netherlands. He wants to know what is Mr Verhaustad's opinion about the EU's future strategic autonomy. And I know you referred to I think your first remarks were that we there's a new world order there and we need a new EU to deal with this new reality these new global strategic reality. And to what extent do you think that that is something where Europe can begin to better organize itself and its ambition to be more autonomous, strategically autonomous can be realized. Yeah, I think that will be one of the key issues during the conference that we will discuss. It's already the case by the by in the two first rounds of the citizens panels. We have seen that they are talking very intensively about about that the geopolitical weakness of Europe, the strategic autonomy of Europe. And put a lot of questions on our plate naturally the question of decision making in foreign policy. So we are again back to unanimity here. Secondly, the whole issue of defence and the new world order in my opinion creates a situation in which we have we need to have the ambition and the courage to talk about defence on the European level. Look, when Joe Biden came to the NATO headquarters a few weeks ago to the NATO headquarters in Brussels a few weeks ago, what was he talking about? He said he talked about China when he came to the NATO headquarters. In my opinion, if I'm not mistaken, China lies in the South Pacific, not in the North Atlantic. It's South Pacific territory, not North Atlantic. But nevertheless, he comes to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and he talks about the South Pacific, about China. And that is proof of the fact that the world order is completely different today than the one when we started when we founded the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. There is an absolute lead, I think, for a world treaty organization in which liberal democracies, countries with liberal democracies defend themselves on a world level and not only on a North Atlantic level. And that puts the question forward, don't we need to organise our defence in a totally other way? Still inside the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, but with a European defence that is more enhanced than we have today, because let's not fool the people. We spend a lot of money on defence. We spend around 250 billion dollars every year in Europe on defence. And I don't talk about the budget of the UK. That's four times more than the Russians. We spend four times more than the Russians on defence in Europe. But we are not capable when they come this way to stop them without the American help. So there is an enormous waste of money. I'm always saying the biggest waste of money in the European Union, you know what it is? Defence, because we are duplicating every day 28 times the same thing. So that will be one of the issues on the table, because you cannot talk about strategic autonomy worldwide if you have not the guts to talk about the hardware too, about defence. Thank you. Just before, we have about five or six minutes left if we may. And I want to just make sure that just to offer our panellists, Jane and Deirdre and Alice Mary, if they want to jump in at this stage maybe to say anything to you. And before we bid you a good day, please, Jane and Deirdre, Alice Mary, if you want to talk directly to us. So maybe Deirdre, if you've got anything to suggest. No, I agree a lot with what Guy has said, because what I wanted, what we want to do and one of the criticisms that we had in the last The working group meetings was that those two politicians were too eager to speak. So we really want to keep this at arm's length. That's what citizens have to say, because we have something to say every day of the week. But just let's keep it, see what comes from the citizens and maybe some of it will be already there or maybe it'll be new. But then, you know, when we get into the discussions and the deliberations, I think that's going to be the very interesting thing. So from my point of view at this stage just want to hear exactly what comes from the citizens' panels. I think it's very interesting. And we've had experience of similar with our citizens' assembly in Ireland, people from all walks of life drawn on a well chosen on a random basis. So I think it'll be exciting and I already see some of the themes coming through that you've covered there, you know, like strategic autonomy, defence, defence moving to cyber security, making sure that Europe is invested enough in innovation and research and education so that we have those strengths. And I think the most importantly for all of us from a political point of view is to listen and to see what comes from those citizens' assemblies and then engage. Yeah, Alice Mary, do you want to just come in at the stage? Yeah, so I've loads of thoughts. I won't go back on them. First of all, I mean, I think the discussion on defence, we need to be really clear, there's a problem where we just speak about defence and we don't speak about peace-building and to be honest, peace-building is a piece that is not strong enough within the discussion of the context of future Europe. You know, for example, money went to the European Defence Fund, but it didn't go to the strategic, it was taken away from some of the social coherence funding, which is actually social cohesion funding, which is actually what has contributed to our security. And of course, defence is a little bit of an out from to the room on the climate emissions too. So I think we need to be really careful in this. And I perhaps, I really appreciate the passion that Mr Verhaustat has had for this process. I think I liked a lot of what he was saying, but I don't have the same maybe skepticism about that we are in a new order of superpowers. I actually think that's still a debate because we are in a position now where is it a politics of superpowers for the future, or is it a politics of principle? And the multilateral institutions that we created coming out of World War II, it's really important that that multilateralism, that idea of principles, and for example, acting in favour of our interests is not always the same as acting in favour of values. And the interests of, for example, commercial parties may not always be the same as the interests of citizens. And what's really struck me for what citizens have been saying is the rights frame. That values frame is the rights frame has come through so strongly in what citizens have been saying in the plenaries coming out of assemblies in the digital plan. And I think that's where Europe needs to really be quite strong and actually having a common rights frame, distributively, and holding each other to account on it is the kind of thing that builds credibility. I think there's lots of things on the process. I'm sure I'll have opportunities to engage with Mr Verhastad on that in the future. But I do think we do need to have maybe even more of an active outreach. And I think it's really important separate to this process. One of the things we've seen is people are concerned about corporate lobbyists, for example, undermining civil society. And the citizens assembly is a great thing, you know, short term or permanent. Also making sure that civil societies and the alarm bells they bring up are heard in the kinds of discussions that are still happening right now on fit for 55 on the digital platform. It's really important people don't feel there's a whole separate process of the real decisions. And lastly on that, I think the economic governance review that the European Commission are doing at the moment. I think it's really important that that doesn't end up straightjacketing the kind of transformative proposals that might come out of the future of your process. Thank you, Alice Mary, maybe Jane, if you want to come in and then we'll ask you to wrap up. Okay. Yeah, sure. So thanks very much. I'll be quick because I know, I know the key has to leave now in a minute. So I thought it was interesting. One of the things that I've been trying to reflect on is the balance of the balance between the three institutions and the three co-chairs. And, you know, as Guy was reflecting there, there's a difference in the objectives and people who would like this to be as strong as possible, and others who would prefer it to be a talking shop. And he talked there about the number of proposals. It struck me, you know, when we had our first Constitution Convention, we put a lot of things into it. And then when we reflected on it, we realized that actually it was too much. So by the time we had our third, we just did gender equality. And I wonder whether the number of proposals in there is in some way strategic, which will allow a kind of a cherry picking of, you know, which ones are going to be chosen and which ones aren't and how he would reflect on that. Okay, so I got to ask you to wrap up if I may, just reflecting on some. Maybe I can limit myself to the questions that were linked and remarks that have been made linked to the organization of the, because when we have to talk about the fence and geopolitical weakness, we can continue, I think, for a few weeks on this certainly new situation worldwide. But on this, first, it's true that, as my colleague in European Parliament has said, there was too much classical reaction by politicians in the working group starting to overshadow the citizens. So we have made now a few recommendations to the chairs of the working groups to avoid that. We want that every time a working group starts with a report by the citizens representatives on where they are in the panels. And there will be also a reporting to the plenary, not only by the chair of the working group, but also by a representative of the citizens panel. So that it is a common reporting and not a unilateral reporting by the politician, if I can say that. I am myself a politician. And then secondly, there are certainly different expectations by the three institutions. But what is important is that all three have recognized the absolutely prioritization of the way we do it. That's that it are the citizens panels themselves who decide what the items are. It's not we, we don't, we didn't say, oh, you have to reflect on unanimity. You have to reflect on defense. You have to reflect on so far. We didn't do that. They have, in the first round of the panels, defined themselves what the items are. And I have to tell you, those who are the consortium, as we call them, who are organizing this and helping the citizens panels have done a good job in the sense that they have limited the number of streams. And that will limit the number or so of proposals that will go to the to the plenary because it's true. The professor said it has no, it has no sense to make a catalog of the of the 100 200 300 ideas that are flowing on the digital platform and in the citizens panels. What we need from the citizens panels are clear recommendations. And yeah, that can be limited. And that's it. That's the way they are working on naturally the third round. So the final round where they formulate the recommendations only starts not now in Dublin next weekend, but a week after the weekend after in Florence. The goal is to limit it to for every panel. Something I don't know. I don't want to put a finger on it, but it will be certainly around 15 proposal or something like that. Recommendations, not more than that. Okay, well, listen, we're going to we're going to say thank you to you. And just to say, we very much appreciate your you're taking the time out we wish we had been seeing you in Dublin this weekend as you know it's not quite to be but first weekend in February we certainly look forward to. With the idea forward also to our participation support of the initiative in the first weekend in February so thank you very much indeed I think Alice Mary said you are you speak with passion, you certainly do you're there's no lack of passion there and we very much appreciate your involvement so we're going to continue the conversation now, but we will. Thank you. Thank you very much. So we can now turn. Obviously we've heard from Mr Rob stat, and we just now turn to the panel for their comments maybe their observations and maybe critique as well critiques as well of the conference and just let me introduce again. We have bearded clone MEP represents Ireland south for Fina Gale in the European Parliament, and is the is the Fina Gale representative on the to the conference she currently serves on the committee on the internal market and consumer protection, as well as the delegations for relations with the countries of Central America and to the Euro Latin America parliamentary assembly before joining the European Parliament she served as Lord Mayor of Cork of course as TD for Cork south central and as a senator in Shannon Aaron and Senator Alice Mary Higgins is an independent senator in Shannon Aaron where she leads the civil engagement group and as a member of the committees on environment and climate action, finance and public expenditure and reform, and on disability matters before the election to the Shannon she was a policy coordinator at the National Women's Council of Ireland member of the executive of the European Women's Lobby in Brussels and worked for the older and bolder alliance trokra, co love NGOs on home care, climate change, peace building and anti racism issues and then finally we have of course a Jane Souter, a professor in the School of Communications at Dublin City University DCU and issues the director of the DCU Institute for future media democracy and society and on the information environment in the public sphere, scaling up the liberation and tackling disinformation she's a she's a senior research fellow on the Irish Citizens Assembly on gender equality, a founding member of we the citizens, Ireland's first deliberative experiment, and a member of the stewarding group on the Scottish Citizens Assembly and of the OECD's future democracy network. Professor Souter was named the Irish Research Council's researcher of the year in 2020 so just a reminder to everybody that the address and the contributions are all on the record as is the q&a so and to continue joining us on Twitter as you're using the IEA handle at IEA and at EP in Ireland so maybe I could just get the conversation going maybe to you first Deirdre if I may and you spoke there about, we were talking about strategic autonomy, what changes does the European Parliament want to see come out of the conference and indeed I suppose looking at it from and indeed is institutional reform likely or possible, and you know you from a party political point of view I suppose have any particular priorities that you want to see addressed and indeed delivered on as well. Thanks Michael. No, I don't think I've any particular priorities. Number one, what I want and I hope from it is that we'll get more engagement and discussion on Europe and create a better understanding because it is a difficult concept to understand and I know this, the three institutions and how decisions are made. But to have have more engagement. I think, you know, as the opening point that he made there when he was addressing about the fact that we are now post phrases and and that is it that is a different Europe to different Europe for us in Ireland. I think the statistics won't have heard statistic at the time that when the UK United populations United Kingdom was equivalent to the note the smaller 19 member states, if you can understand where I'm going that that's how significant and what's very strong economy. 56 maybe, I'm not sure it is now in terms of in the world, strongest economy so it's had a major impact. It's changing now that Europe is more and we see the dynamics changing that center gravity shifted more to the east. And one of the issues that came up and I'm on the working group democracy and that's much so it's how you in the world. And there was a strong desire there to see that Western Balkans would be included in the deliberation process now, and because they potentially become members of the of the European Union so. My point is we really we need in Ireland, particularly is to create more awareness and awareness of the issues that are going on in the way the dynamic of Europe is changing and it's changing for all of us and we were part of the decision making process in terms of our elected representatives are for government. And I am always conscious that we hear this, oh, Europe we don't understand what's going on there's a, is there a democratic deficit, either European partners, the forum that's directly elected by the people. But I mean, you know, you take it that it is a difficult it is difficult to, to communicate and get the message across as hard to try people, people individuals, and they don't know or they say they, you know, there's two, two, it's too, it's difficult to get the concept. And so I'd like to see certainly more awareness I think the opening point in the with the citizens panel where the rest, you know, pitch yourself to 2050. That's not today, but 2050 in a world that will have changed, you China will be stronger the US with India as well and where do you see Europe in that we've only maybe 5% of world population and population that goes to 9.89 point, maybe billion people, Europe's population will be 5% there where do we want that Europe to be. And I think the fact that there's so many young people involved that the proportion of young people involved is very worthwhile very important in those decisions because it is their future. So I don't know if I've answered your question, but what I want, I mean, I try not, I don't think you're being part of any concrete expectations in terms of policy, but certainly want more engagement and engagement with citizens and feel systems are rather than bringing Europe to the citizens now we're bringing the citizens to Europe. And do you think just that, you know, I mean, obviously we see the Euro barometer pulling on support for Europe in Ireland, which is extraordinarily high in fact I think it's probably the highest in Europe. And I mean, are we living in a kind of, are we deluding ourselves a little bit in thinking that, you know, the, you know, that that this support will be carried forward through thick and 10 regardless of almost what Europe does I mean there's a level of support here, and how such that we can carry almost any amendments in Europe or any future Europe that the, the, the, at the conference might envisage. And no I don't think so I wouldn't take for granted the level of support for Europe at all I think, but we, yes you're right from your barometer point of view we're doing, we're doing over very popular Europe, Europe is very popular in Ireland, and I get that and I don't, I think I don't need the Euro barometer to tell me that, but you know we're coming probably at the moment from post COVID where we see the value of Europe in terms of purchasing vaccines in terms of organizing travel certs, they were important concrete steps that people could see the value of being a small country member of a bigger block and what it brought to us. So, but I mean that can shift that can change this. I mean, we can come out of this. Maybe we're happy with the decision making that it's unanimous maybe we want we're happy with that maybe some decisions might come out that they won't be popular. And maybe there would be treaty change proposals. Who knows. I mean I think keep it. You know, our government probably wouldn't want to see a treaty change our proposals and that but I think we should keep it just see see how it goes and put everything that comes, and that is deemed to be of issue of concern to the to the in the final document. And but you know we've had we've had difficult to reference in Ireland and people have voted probably, you know, things that weren't relevant to the, to the, to the referendum but you know that's good I think it's good we've had discussed we've had good discussions in Ireland on Europe and our membership there and what it involves. And when you look at happened in Brexit, the UK, they didn't they didn't have those kinds of engaging discussions the way past I think they've been to our benefit discussions. If I come to you obviously from the perspective of the National Parliament. You're coming at it from obviously within that that parliament from the Charlotte. And you know to what extent do you think you know Irish priorities and issues are being addressed or have been addressed are included in the kind of the the conference program as outlined. So first of all, from the National Parliament perspective. It's, I think it's important we almost segue away. There's a couple of issues that I think our Irish priorities but in general I think that we don't see that we're thinking of Irish priorities what it really is that there's a number of really important choices about Europe, and what position will Ireland take in relation to those choices. So, you know that's one of the things I think sometimes when we've had almost a transactional and a transactional understanding of the relationship with Europe, you know we support your sports us, rather than that kind of almost transformative moment that we're at now which is, you know, what is Europe, and like the really big debates that are happening in Europe, the conference in the future of Europe is really important. I was kind of, I'll say it slower now, but what I was saying, there is, there's also a number of discussions happening that are continuing and being negotiated in parallel with this future of your process. So there's the really big discussions about climate there's probably going to be more climate legislation in, you know, the next 12 months, then in a very long period of time. There will be a fit for 55 package from the year which is lots of legislation, lots of which will. Ireland will need to input in relation to that EU legislation on climate, but also Ireland then we'll need to decide how it's going to transpose it so one thing that I think we need to do as an actual parameters really get into that two way process that we don't know. So for example, that we're giving input early into the process of discussions and policy, and then something you'll be maybe aware of you know the Shannon is looking at the moment to play a much harder a stronger role, where you directives are being dominated by statutory instrument that we would really engage into with that and we would get screened. So there's, there's those processes, there's the debate on defense there's a debate on climate. There's a really big debate on digitalization are we going with an empowerment frame, a rights based frame. Are we going to let a cybersecurity defense frame dominate our defense, our policies are let industry, because I think we've got something right with GDPR. So I would say their priorities for Irish citizens, if you know what I mean their priorities for the people who talk to me. And what I'm trying to encourage people I really encourage everybody is to engage with the digital platform and let the ideas are not solely Irish priorities, but they're your views as an EU citizen on decisions that are genuinely being made in the next 12 months to 24 months. I would say two things that are important from the Irish priorities however one specific issue is, as I mentioned, the peace building component has not been a strong, you know peace and security kind of got pushed together. But the fact is, and we know this very well in Ireland, peace building and security are not exactly the same thing. They're both important but they take different work. And I think that peace building piece isn't, hasn't been put into the frame as much as it should. So that's one issue that I think we definitely need to highlight more. And that's going to be important in terms of unanimity voting in terms of policies, you know that is something we're going to have to be very careful on that we offer something different in that discussion. And there's lots of other priorities, maybe one last thing I would just say on civil society, because I represent the, you know, I'm the leader of the civil engagement group at the Charlotte, and civil society in Ireland we actually a really strong civil society actress Ireland, who are part of this process. What's really important is that we do strengthen the listening to civil society within all these other decision making spaces, and that we don't have them aligned, whereby you almost have citizens talking in the future of Europe process, and then the same voices as usual getting listened to in terms of hard decision making, including the economic governance decision making. Okay. Okay. And maybe just if I could come to you Jane on the just how would you rate I mean how do you think the the conference is doing in terms of how does it compare to our own experience. In terms of the the Irish constitutional consultative exercises like the, the citizens assembly or indeed the constitutional convention. Have they got the formula. And I'm sure they looked at the way we did things and have been doing things to very, very good effect. But are they getting a right I mean it's a structure pretty good. Well I think you're right I think they learned a lot from us in fact I think you know the very fact that Ireland had the constitution convention and citizen assembly was, you know, key for the French assemblies the German ones and then for the discussion and the conference for future of Europe. I think obviously it's much more difficult because you know, you've got the, you know, as he was talking about there that, you know, the three different elements that three co chairs and trying to do the parliament is obviously a strong supporter. But there's, you know, a lot more division in the council as I, as I understand it, you know, there's parts of the commission, different agendas. And then just the logistical thing about about trying to do it on the on the time frame so I think it's really ambitious. I mean, it's probably best to see it as a as a really good pilot project to see, you know, how can this work. And you could even hear key when he was talking there about, you know, they learned in the beginning that when the citizens went into the first country, it became almost like a kind of committee of the parliament, you know, the citizens didn't really have their, their voice there so now they're going to learn and it'll be a little bit different in, in Florence next week. And then you have the whole thing, you know, in, in Ireland we spend a long time thinking about, you know, who exactly are the experts who are going to be brought in. Are they going to be balanced what you know what are the different ones where, whereas it's kind of, I suppose with COVID and things here, you know, it's a bit more about who's available and you know who, who do you know. So again, I think they're kind of learning about that. So even when you look at the unity kind of debates, you know, there haven't been the same number of voices who maybe have brought up about, but what's the perspective of small countries within that debate. You know, so it's the commission that's looking at the, or it's the organizers who are kind of looking at the, at the experts whereas in Ireland. We'd have an academic panel who'd be proposing the experts in the different areas and then the citizens would would be okay in it. So I think it's a really good process I think it's really ambitious. But I think we should see it as a pilot as a pilot process and you know when you look at the, the new program for government in Germany you can see that the, the three parties there are talking about, you know, institutionalizing it the way that he was talking you know, making it more permanent. I think that's a really interesting proposal. And then in that, I think, you know, to talk to people like, like Catherine Day, you know, who who have been kind of running ours to understand the kind of, or what are the, the kind of real building blocks that we need in there to, to carry it on to ensure the kind of quality. And there's a lot of people observing it, you know, I've colleagues all over Europe and universities all over Europe who are observing different projects every weekend and I think to really look at those kind of observations and build it in. So I think I think it's great but it's so challenging on some, you know, such a huge agenda and the multi lingual thing that the different platforms. I think civil society is in it to a much greater extent than actually we have. So, you know, civil society tends to be giving evidence in the Irish processes, whereas here they're actually in. And that's a power imbalance with citizens. So there's a, there's a lot to learn. And so I think it's really exciting and I'm really enjoying watching it. But I think it's, it's nice to see it as like a really interesting pilot project. And then to think strategically about how we carry it on afterwards. Yeah, I mean, the decision making processes in Europe are really pretty complex and indeed convoluted labyrinthine indeed. I mean, is that the whole citizen dimension important in all as it is. Is it just going to add another layer of complexity to the whole, to that whole already very complex process. No, I think it's really important. So I think like we understand the importance of, of deliberation and you can look at this globally and the importance of actually properly actually listening to citizens voices. And, you know, asking people's top of the head opinions in Euro barometer is very different to understanding well, you know, what is people's considered opinion when they've actually heard the pros and cons of arguments when they've been given the time and space to deliver with it. And I think that that's it's really important in terms of delivering increased legitimacy for for decision making. And you can see how this is becoming more accepted, you know, Paris had its very first meeting of 100 randomly selected citizens just this week. You know, so they actually have a permanent citizen assembly in Paris now, which, which is really interesting. You can see how this has happened in, you know, parts of the Belgium Parliament which have gone like this, where there's a permanent citizen assembly and the German speaking part of Belgium. And, you know, it's it's more part of the German Parliament. So I think we can see that, you know, politicians and decision makers are increasingly seeing the kind of threat from creeping authoritarianism in in other parts of the world. You can see the threat from populism. And this is certainly a kind of a legitimacy building exercise that that can help counter that. So I think it's really important to include. Okay, and back to you if I may. So, I mean, we would all like to believe I mean and there is this obviously very important citizen dimension to this but in terms of broader awareness of the initiative, would you be, would you be in any way confident or that that you know people have a general awareness that this initiative is underway. And what can we do better I suppose to make people aware that are promoted as something that is a very important kind of initiative in the context of the future of Europe. Yeah, no, I wouldn't be very happy really that there is a broad awareness of it. I'm very happy with the citizens panels and I think the way they have been chosen and their participation I think that's an excellent process. I don't know how well it worked here as James has said so I'm very happy with that side of it but if you look at the portal whereby you can people can put in their comments and just respond. And I don't think that's been very strong and I think you actually read some of the comments, going back to the citizens panel those who were chosen didn't know anything about it when they got the phone call, could would they like to participate they didn't know about it. I think it's it's a challenge to communicate that this is happening. I know there's some events planned in Ireland as well to communicate that and to try and get to get to get the message out there and to get away from from civil society just get to regular people if regular people if we can people is, you know, sitting around the kitchen table bring in a few neighbors have a say or if you're a member of a club, you know, football club whatever hockey club, GA, whatever just that you would maybe, if we could get to that level where people would discuss it and I know that's a big leap. But that's what we want to do but I do think there is a lot we need to do a lot more in terms of building awareness around us and saying you know this is going on have your say, because it is your future. You can have a say, even in, you know, if you're part of an organization, if you're just a small group, you can, you can have your just give a comment you don't necessarily have to prepare a document. Or you can just give a few sentences and what you think you can look at what's going on. You can tune into all the events so I think the platform is really really interesting. Unfortunately, maybe COVID too hasn't hasn't helped us absolutely I mean if we had the citizens panel in Ireland, if it was live and if it wasn't an in person event now this weekend. I think there would have been a lot of media coverage around it. Particularly if he was in Dublin, I think that would have been, you know, created more awareness and would have got more coverage so you know we need to try and do more whatever we can in just in terms of getting into the media and reaching out and try and get as many voices as possible. So, you know, I'm not saying I don't think it's it's there is an awareness that they should be the same level of awareness that I would like anyway at this point. Well, maybe Alice Mary we're coming towards the end here and maybe just one final question to you and then maybe back to Jane. Are we ready for I mean Giver Hofstra speaks in rather ambitious I mean he's he obviously is as you described him as a man of some passion and all of this is easy way out ahead is he way beyond what is likely to be kind of the end product of all this I mean he doesn't lack ambition. He doesn't like passion as you say but it is this really is York ready for this kind of level of ambition. I think the important thing to remember is decisions are being made decisions are being made and they're being made all the time. And I always say about policy. In the end all policies just decisions we make about how we live, how we want to live together, be that at local level, be it at national be it at EU level and that's where I would just really echo what Dirdre was saying. We've had a view on how we should be living together in their own place or their own town or community should definitely try to engage with that digital platform. We don't have enough women engaging there and give those views because those views are relevant to how we live together in Europe. So the way I would say it's not necessarily about a level of the level of ambition that the fact is really big decisions will be made. The future of Europe process will either be an effective way for citizens to influence those decisions or it won't. There's going to be really big decisions on climate and I mentioned the economic governance, the European Commission I don't think it's necessarily the life ideal, but in a parallel. They're doing a review on you know what comes after the suspension of this rules, you know what comes next bear. And that we know that you know Brexit was mentioned as a game changer. The other big game changer was 10 years of austerity across Europe, which really did lead to a lot of dissociation from people so. There's an acknowledgement the transformation is needed. Big decisions will be made. It's going to be really important about whether they're, you know, we go back to very short term thinking you know we're making the kind of a covert is almost emergency bridging. And for those who say we have to kind of shift the roses. This is now the transformation discussion, and it's on digital it's on rights and it's on environment. So, there is going to be outcomes are going to be potentially significant. And this is where it's up to really citizens to try and influence and input and make sure that they have a say in that they shape, they shape how the decisions are being made. I would say, the rights piece, because I said I'm on the, I'm on the rights working group, the rights and values working group of this whole future of your process and the national national parliamentarian on that. I think that that's going to be really fundamental. And I worry a little bit that we hear a lot about the interest, the big blocks, but that question when you actually talk to citizens about. If it's just about getting legitimacy for a centralization of power, then you may risk a future alienation, whereas if it's something like a green on values and rights, and having those distributively owned by people across Europe. That's going to be a more robust outcome in the long term and that is important. I can't really finish if you talk on coverage without mentioning the trips waiver, which is an example where citizens are well ahead of the commission and indeed European Parliament are actually ahead of the mission in terms of saying, that's an example whereby how Europeans want to identify themselves is as having rights and supporting rights. So again, I'm saying this thing's not as an add on, but because I think they're key to whether this is successful. And, Jen, I'm going to give the last word to you. I mean, this obviously is quite an ambitious project. I mean, are, and as you say, involving, as Guy said, involving a considerable level of youth participation. I think the figure is one third, 33% involves you. I mean, is there just to come back to the question I asked him, is there the potential here. And maybe there wasn't our own conventions as well of setting ourselves up, particularly our young people up to experience this process and end up deeply frustrated at the end of it. Well, that's obviously the issue. So that's why, like, not just for young people, but for citizens overall. So, you know, the really important thing is, you know, to say very clearly where any recommendations are going to go. And this is why we need to be clear about, you know, are there's there's so many here is is this a kind of a pilot or is this something that the council is going to do or is it just going to note the recommendations, you know, it's quite possible that you just get that. You know, the council has noted the recommendations and then we move on. And then that's obviously going to be very difficult in terms of communicating and so as people go again. But I think if we kind of talk about, well, look, this is what's had these are the kind of things that people did. And maybe actually, if there's some sort of recommendation for, you know, should there be a permanent citizen assembly. And then that can be something that's taken on rather than the specifics of, you know, what could be at least 50 policy proposals across four different areas, you know, you mean say you're talking about 200 different things. You know, how are you even going to measure what's been, what's been taken on there. But I think it is really, I think it is really good that there's an overrepresentation of youth. The Scottish did that in their in their climate assembly. And hopefully it's something that we'll think about in our own citizens assemblies going forward, you know, but I think that's going to be the really that kind of communication that I suppose Deirdre and Alice Mary and others would have to do this afterwards is about, well, what did this decide what are the important things, you know, which are the bits that the politicians are actually going to drive forward and are going to try to make sure are implemented. So it's not entirely forgotten about. So we're on time now, and I'm going to draw proceedings to an end. I just want to thank Deirdre, Alice Mary and Eugene, just for, and of course, earlier on for what is really only I suppose a preliminary discussion. I mean, there's lots more issues that we could, and we'd like to come back to the later date as well. We will I say look forward to being a host for the event, which is now being rescheduled at the citizen panel in the first weekend in February, I think he said, we look forward to that, but the huge amount of debate and to the extent that the IAA can contribute to this with your support and with your involvement. We're very much committed to doing that. So thank you, Jane. Thank you, Alice Mary and thank you, Deirdre. Thank you for your participation today.