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

THE STATE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION 32 delayed by a few months, more because the European Parliament picked Guy Verhofstadt to preside over the Conference, which was not popular among some Govern- ments due to his explicit defence of European federalism. In the end, the problem was resolved by accepting the proposal from the Portuguese presidency for there to be a tripartite presidency between the three institutions, although mistrust remains between them, as both the declaration and the procedure rules endlessly reiterate the equal distribution of functions between the three parties, even down to the tiniest details, such as how the secretariat works. In this way, in my opinion, the idea of “equal foot- ing” raised, as we mentioned, by President Von der Leyen in her inaugural speech has been distorted; in many ways it is very different to the original. Now the idea of equal footing is repeated in terms of the weight of the three institutions, when the initial sense referred to citizens, organised social society and the institutions. One good example is reflected in the actual Interin- stitutional Declaration of 10 March which states that “the Conference is a joint undertaking of the European Parliament, the Council and the European Commission, acting as equal partners with the Member States of the European Union.” This Interinstitutional Declaration determines the aims, the structure, the scope and the calendar that we will analyse later. However, it does not outline whether the call is going to be hybrid or concurrent, meaning on-line and/or in-person, or its definitive composition, a question that has been resolved in the various meetings of the Conference Executive Board and, specifically, the meeting held on 26 May which determined the CoFoE procedure rules, incidentally, almost three weeks after a meeting of the CoFoE Executive Board on 9 May, With this declaration and these procedure rules, we might ask: has the Conference on the Future of Europe been altered? In the Interinstitutional Declaration, none of the following aspects were clear: participation of or- ganised civil society, the important participation of young people or the reform of the Treaties. It must be highlighted that the CoFoE rules of pro- cedure were greatly delayed and, specifically, important decisions were made both in April and actually on 9 May, hours before the inauguration. These decisions made on 9 May were compiled definitively in the rules of proce- dure on 26 May 2021.The composition was improved by including 80 citizens from the panels in the Conference Plenary who will be chosen by random lottery; 27 citizens from national events and the president of the European Youth Forum. Furthermore, participation from civil socie- ty, although increased, accounts for just 8 places, along with the same number for social partners and 18 for the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of Regions respectively. The full extent of citizen participation remains un- known, but we already know who the civil society dele- gates are plus the representatives from the 27 national events, mainly representatives from national civil society. However, there is still time to recover the initial sense of the Conference with the current Declaration from 10 March and the rules of procedure from 26 May. The fact that none of these points are compiled clearly does not mean that in subsequent developments or in the national events, that must take place in person, the following might be clarified through executive measures: participation of civil society; the important participation of young people; the possibility of reforming the Treaties, as this possibility is not excluded as if it occurred in pre- vious documents; improving the decision, meaning that it is not just by consensus; and, finally, the guarantee of democratic participation of citizens that differentiates the CoFoE from a European Convention whose structure is already regulated in article 48 of the Treaty. Federal progress as a consequence of covid-19 during 2020 and 2021 To understand the federal progress that has been set in motion as a consequence of Covid-19, we must at least remind ourselves of the changes brought about by the