THE STATE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION REPORT. Europe in a period of transition

THE STATE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION 18 of this traumatic experience of disintegration (Guinea, 2021a: 13-14). Two of these directly relate to the demo- cratic quality of the European governance model. Brexit has revealed the fragility of a political institution with which citizens are unfamiliar, which has shallow roots, and which is thus vulnerable to misinformation or politi- cal manipulation. The other key weakness regarding the democratic model is the perceived distance of citizens from the political system, constituted by democratic elites and in which participation is difficult (Guinea 2021a: 14). Brexit has shown us that the EU is facing a crisis of legit- imacy and, ultimately, of democracy (Barnard 2021: 44). For this reason, it makes perfect sense that the confer- ence should seek to address this dual problem: it is an opportunity to generate news and discussion of the EU and to make citizens aware of it, and it is an initiative that seeks to involve as many citizens as possible in defining the future of the EU. The conference, delayed by the pandemic and by disagreements between institutions, will only last for one year, as it must present its results by spring 2022 (European Parliament, European Council and European Commission, 2021). It has a mixed character, simulta- neously an ad hoc body and a decentralised debating forum. It is directed by a joint presidency, backed by the presidents of the three institutions, and an executive committee, which includes representatives of states and of the institutions. The body of the conference, which is very numerous and will be responsible for drafting the conclusions, includes representatives of institutions, of Member states, of European civil society, and of the Citi- zens’ Panels. And conference will incorporate the results of the discussions of the four Citizens’ Panels, which will be held in parallel. The decentralised aspect lies in the aim to promote —in Member states, regions or with the support of civil society— numerous events to discuss the challenges of the future of Europe with the conti- nent’s citizens. A multilingual platform has been created to channel citizens’ proposals to the body, to publicise events and to create a transnational discussion space for stakeholders. It seems, then, that the dual requirement of bringing Europe closer to its citizens and informing them about how it operates, while also incorporating their demands within the European political system could be achieved. However, the first two months do not provide grounds for optimism, in the opinion of many analysts. The con- ference has been completely ignored in Member states: it has not been covered in the media and national insti- tutions are not generating any kind of national debate around the issues. The sensation is, rather, one of reluc- tantly fulfilling a requirement. The conference, analysed in terms both of its found- ing principles and its aims, seeks to introduce elements of deliberative democracy alongside representative de- mocracy in the process of establishing the future path of the EU. Following Dahl, it would serve to incorporate citizens in the process of defining the strategic priorities of the EU, currently the exclusive reserve of the European Council. This is not the first time this has been done: the Convention of 2002 was also preceded by citizens’ debate in Member states, although this went largely un- noticed (Guinea, 2020a: 143). It is important to note that its sponsors —the Euro- pean institutions— have very different perceptions of it. Although nine issues are identified in the mandate, the institutions differ with regard to the scope and ambition of proposals that can be made, and the ambiguity of the Declaration does not help. The Parliament openly seeks to prepare reform of the Treaties (European Parliament, 2020: 1), the Commission believes it should focus on defining the direction of its policies but does not exclude the possibility of proposing Treaty reform (Von der Leyen, 2019: 21; European Commission, 2020: 7). While for its part, the Council opposes this, making it clear that this exercise is not related to article 48 of the TEU (Council of the EU, 2020: 7). There is no doubt that the limited impact of the conference to date, a situation that we hope may be remedied, is a result of the low expectations of it with regard to its success and the likelihood of its recommendations being implemented. And the reason for this lies in the scepticism of the Council and the fact