The European Union (EU) organized this Conference to discuss the future of Europe between April 2021 and May 2022. Making use of multiple deliberation mechanisms, 9 main topics were debated and deliberated regarding which direction should take the future of Europe.
Brief Description
The European Union (EU) through its three main organs, the European Parliament (EP); the European Council and the European Commission organized this Conference to discuss the future of Europe between April 2021 and May 2022.
Making use of multiple deliberation mechanisms, 9 main topics were debated and deliberated regarding which direction should take the future of Europe, these deliberation mechanisms included innovative tools - among them, the creation of a multilingual digital platform for the exchange of ideas that was considered the main hub of interactions - along with citizens' panels at the European and national levels, national events and finally, conferences that included representatives of the European institutions, national parliaments, civil society organizations and representatives of the former mentioned citizens' panels.
According to its organizers, this deliberative democracy exercise was the first of its kind due to its transnational, multilingual and interinstitutional character. [1] The result of these deliberations, a total of 49 proposals, must be reviewed by the three aforementioned bodies, who based on these, will try to apply them in the creation of new European public policies.
Problems and Purpose
Starting from the idea that deliberative processes are in principle defined as a decision-making procedure through which we assume that it is possible to reach a rational agreement based on the best argument [2], the Conference on the Future of Europe was established as a democratic deliberative exercise with the aim of allowing European citizens share their opinions and expectations about the future of the Union and in the same way, that based on these opinions, the European institutions examine the proposals and according to their competences, try to adapt them and follow them up in accordance with the principles, guidelines and treaties of the institution. [3]
This deliberative exercise can be considered an attempt to involve European citizens in the revival of the European project which has been affected in recent decades by multiple economic, political and social crises. [4] This series of crises has caused a rise in Euroscepticism among European citizens, making this type of approach necessary to generate legitimacy and greater awareness of the role of the European Union in the lives of its citizens. Along with the participation of European citizens, the Conference included political actors, national institutions, representatives of civil society and key stakeholders. [5]
The main issues discussed include: A stronger economy, social justice and jobs; Education, culture, youth and sport; digital transformation; European democracy; Values and rights, rule of law, security; Climate change, environment; Health; US in the world; and Migration. [6]
Background History and Context
Starting from the idea that deliberative processes are in principle defined as a decision-making procedure through which we assume that it is possible to reach a rational agreement based on the best argument [7], the Conference on the Future of Europe was established as a democratic deliberative exercise with the aim of allowing European citizens share their opinions and expectations about the future of the Union and in the same way, that based on these opinions, the European institutions examine the proposals and according to their competences, try to adapt them and follow them up in accordance with the principles, guidelines and treaties of the institution. [8]
Initially, it was planned to start between 2019 and 2020, however, due to the Covid-19 pandemic, it was delayed until March 2021 when EP President David Sassoli, Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, and Portuguese Prime Minister Antonio Costa in representation of the Council, signed the Joint Declaration on the Conference on the Future of Europe which advocated for greater involvement of citizens to build a Europe with greater capacity to tackle the complex challenges it faces. According to Fabrinni, the conference combines features of bottom-up participatory democracy with elements of top-down elite decision making.[9]
The Conference, as previously mentioned, finds its justification in the current circumstances of uncertainty about the viability of the European project after events such as the decision in 2016 of the United Kingdom to leave the organization; the migratory crises caused by different conflicts and the Covid-19 pandemic. These events have highlighted some existing structural weaknesses in the European project and the Conference was considered a mechanism to address these challenges, lead the change "towards more efficient decision-making processes" and the strengthening of European democracy. [10]
Organizing, Supporting, and Funding Entities
The Conference, as we have already mentioned, was organized and promoted by the European Union; however, based on the principles of the joint declaration, the member states could also organize events according to their own national or institutional realities. This particularity, together with the establishment of the multilingual digital platform, allowed the Conference and its related events to have more than 650,000 participants according to the figures given in the final report. [11] The conference was particularly focused on the inclusion of European youth, with a third of the participants being between 16 and 24 years old in most events and the inclusion of an European Youth Event. [12] The events of the conference also include EU-wide citizens’ panels, national citizens’ panels and transnational events, particularly between border countries. All the process was overseen by an Executive Board, co-chaired by representatives of the three EU institutions. [13]
In relation to the support received by the participants, the online platform had a team of moderators to ensure compliance with the rules of procedure and the principles for good deliberation, based on the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) deliberation principles that guided all the events. [14] The citizens' assemblies were supported by a consortium of external service providers composed of a mix of experts in deliberative democracy an a logistical support team. [15] The plenary Conferences were chaired jointly by the Co-Chairs of the Conference.[16]
Participant Recruitment and Selection
Participation in the Multilingual Digital Platform was open to any EU citizen, the platform was specifically designed for the conference through an open-source software for citizen participation called Decidim. In terms of scope, this was a pioneer at a European level allowing interaction between the 24 official languages of the organization. The use of automatic analytical tools designed for the platform allowed coherence around the debates and an in-depth analysis of them. [17]
Anyone could contribute or support ideas around 10 main themes: 'Climate change and the environment', 'Health', 'A stronger economy, social justice and jobs', 'EU in the World', 'Values and rights, rule of law, security', 'Digital transformation', 'European democracy', 'Migration', 'Education, culture, youth and sport', and 'Other ideas'. The platform allowed the organization of events (hybrid, virtual or in-person) by individuals; the outcomes of these meetings were later linked through reports with the discussions on the platform. [18]
In terms of the European Citizens' Panels, these brought together more than 800 citizens from all over Europe, the participants were chosen in the 27 countries of the EU through telephonic random selection, this selection was carried out by the market research company Kantar Public. [19] To be as diverse as possible, the candidates were considered based on 5 criteria: gender, age, geographic origin (nationality as well as urban/rural), socio-economic background and level of education. [20] The number of citizens per Member State was calculated according to the degressive proportionality principle applied to the composition of the European Parliament, taking into consideration that each Panel should include at least one female and one male citizen per Member State. Similarly, as the Conference focused on European youth, a third of the participants were between 16 and 24 years old. A total of 200 candidates were selected as a reserve. [21]
The National Citizens' Panels were organized in six different countries - Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, Lithuania and the Netherlands. In most cases, the participating citizens were chosen randomly [22] and debated under the same guidelines established for citizens' panels at the European level. More than 900 individuals participated across all the National Panels.
The events of a national nature were marked by the emphasis on the participation of youth and various sectors of the population with less knowledge or interest in European institutions. These events included the participation of multiple actors and depending on the state, a centralized or more independent approach was taken. [23]
Lastly, the Conference Plenary had a unique composition as it included, for the first time, citizens representing European and National Citizens’ Panels and events alongside representatives of EU institutions and advisory bodies, elected representatives at national, regional and local levels, as well as representatives of civil society and social partners. The Conference Plenary was composed of 449 representatives, 80 of whom were selected from the European Citizens’ Panels. The 20 representatives of each Panel to the Conference Plenary were selected by a draw, from a pool of citizens volunteering. [24]
Figure 1. [25]
Methods and Tools Used
The main deliberative methods applied were the citizens' panels and the citizens' assembly method used in the Conference Plenary. According to the final report of the Conference, the multilingual digital platform played a fundamental role in the access to information of all the mechanisms of the conference, its use is considered an innovative tool that, thanks to its technological functions, allowed the deliberation of more than 50,000 people despite linguistic differences. Its contributions were reflected in reports made by an external provider whose main objective was to provide qualitative analyses that summarize the diversity and scope of the debates and proposals of the platform and events. These reports were presented to the Citizens’ Panels before the start of their sessions. [26] All the deliberations were carried out under the Good Practice Principles for Deliberative Processes for Public Decision Making published by the OECD. [27]
What Went On: Process, Interaction, and Participation
Under the supervision of the executing directive and the support of external service providers, 4 panels of European citizens were organized based on the topics previously discussed through the digital multilingual platform, each panel had three sessions to discuss the following topics over three weeks:
· A Stronger economy, social justice, jobs/education, youth, culture, sport/digital transformation.
· European democracy/values and rights, rule of law, security
· Climate change, environment/health
· EU in the world/migration. [28]
The first sessions were held in Strasbourg and their main objective was to define the agenda for the deliberations. Based on the topics previously discussed on the digital multilingual platform, the panellists began the identification of the topics to discuss. These discussions and the collective work were divided into two formats across all sessions:
· Subgroups: Each subgroup was made up of between 12 and 14 citizens, who had the opportunity to express themselves in their own language. These subgroups were guided by the professional facilitators selected through the external provider.
· Plenary: The plenary sessions were led by two main moderators. The priority topics as a result of the previous discussions were organized according to topics called ‘streams’ (i.e. headline topics) and ‘substreams’ and served as a basis for the second sessions. The participants received basic information about the topics and the outcome of the discussions. This information included the first report on the digital platform and presentations by high-level experts. [29]
In the second sessions, with the support of experts and fact-checkers, citizens identified and discussed specific issues, drawing up "guidelines" for each of the issues. The organizers put special emphasis on ensuring the heterogeneity of the groups. The use of briefings contributed to maintaining the objectivity of the debates. These “orientations” were drafted to generate recommendations in the third discussion sessions. [30]
In the third sessions, previously produced orientations were examined through an "open forum" setting. Citizens prioritized up to 10 orientations per topic. Once this process was finished, the citizens returned to their sub-groups and debated the results.
The orientations were converted into recommendations. For this purpose, according to the organizers, "a 'knowledge and information corner' was used. This system centralized on-site all requests for information and fact-checking and sent experts' and fact-checkers' short and factual answers to the subgroups." [31] During the work of the subgroups, feedback sessions were allowed between them in order to enhance the recommendations.
Each recommendation was voted on by all panel participants through an online form on the last day of the session. Before the vote, citizens received material explaining the draft recommendations in their own language. This process was supervised by two of the participants themselves who volunteered for it.
Those recommendations with an approval greater than 70% were adopted by the panel. Those that did not were discarded. In total, the European Citizens' Panels endorsed a total of 178 recommendations. [32]
Figure 2. [33]
The 6 national panels had to follow the same deliberation guidelines as their European counterparts, however, some experts consider that there was a systematic disconnection between the national and European debates. Due to the freedom granted to each state and the absence of a common methodological framework, the comparison between them becomes, according to these experts, impossible and their impact questionable. [34]
Finally, the Plenary Conference aimed to debate the recommendations reached by the national and European panels. It is important to highlight that these debates began without a predetermined outcome and without limiting the scope to predefined policy areas. [35] The recommendations were presented and discussed by the citizens in seven meetings. After being approved on a consensual basis, they were put forward to the Executive Board. Due to health and safety regulations, 5 of these meetings were held in a hybrid format and the last two were in person. The Plenaries were broadcast live and all the documents emanating from the meetings are available on the digital platform. The Conferences also had 9 working groups that provided inputs to prepare the debates and proposals for the Plenary Conference. [36]
Influence, Outcomes, and Effects
The proposals, as we have previously commented, resulted in 49 different policy objectives. The report of the final result was presented to the European institutions at the European Parliament in Strasbourg on May 9, 2022. [37]
Among the main proposals presented are:
· Change the voting system to a qualified majority in most decisions at the European level, including those related to taxation, foreign policy and security.
· Make the European decision-making process less complicated and take greater account of regional and national parliaments.
· Establish the regular use of Citizens' Assemblies to make them part of the European decision-making process and in exceptional cases, the use of referendums.
· Harmonize the election rules for the European Parliament in all states.
· Greater involvement of citizens in the election of the President of the European Commission.
· New measures to punish those breaking the law by the Member States.
· Improve the effectiveness of the common security and defence policy, ensuring greater defensive capabilities through mechanisms such as "mutual assistance" in the event of armed aggression against one of the member states.
· Expand the ethical dimension of the Union's foreign trade, imposing trade restrictions on countries that allow, for example, forced labour and child labour.
· Harmonize tax evasion prevention policies.
· Increase the speed of the process of transition to green energies and the reduction of external energy dependence.
· Full implementation of the European Pillar of Social Rights.
· Establish minimum standards in European health care services.
· Establish a European education area and strengthen cooperation and recognition of national education systems.
· Reform the European asylum system, establishing common rules of procedure and responsibility. [38]
About the influence that the Conference was able to generate, the participants were highly motivated during the events, allowing them to expand their perspectives and generate a positive impression about the exercise, hence, the capacity building of the Conference can be considered successful. [39] However, some experts have criticized the scope of the exercise, due to the lack of linkage between the aforementioned national and European debates; the large number of topics covered; and the ambiguity of the objectives to be achieved. Furthermore, these experts argued that the interest and participation in the digital platform could have been better and did not have the expected reach due to its lack of promotion. [40]
Most of the effects of the Conference on the creation and implementation of new European public policies are yet to be determined. The joint declaration does not establish any mechanism or obligation in the application of the proposals, however, understanding the expectations regarding the legitimacy and democratic impulse that the Conference generated, its impact will depend largely on the political will and legal inventiveness capacity of its members and their European institutions, [41] in the case that the proposals are not transferred to concrete policies and changes, the disconnection between the citizens and the European project could intensify and further undermine the foundations of European democracies. [42]
Analysis and Lessons Learned
Smith has argued that deliberative exercises have been considered "marginal forms" of democratic practice. This lack of attention to these practices has caused the absence of a theoretical framework for their study and comparison, resulting in a divorce between normative theoretical frameworks and empirical political analysis. [43] In order to make this comparative assessment and evaluation of different democratic innovations possible, Smith has developed an analytical framework based on the qualities or "goods" that are expected from these democratic innovations. [44] These "goods" or qualities are defined by Smith in terms of inclusiveness, popular control, considered judgment, transparency, efficiency, and transferability.
Inclusiveness: The inclusiveness of the process was relatively successful due to the multiple tools and mechanisms used, however, some observers criticized the final sample of citizens participating in the European panels, arguing that there was a low representation of minority groups and an excessive representation of well-educated people. [47] These criticisms of the sample may come from the very design of the panels because, according to the information found, no quota was used to ensure the presence of minority groups in the discussions. [48]
Similarly, despite the fact that the organizers provided all the relevant actors with information about the role that each one should have played during the process, in practice, the contributions of the experts and the fact-checkers were considered marginal and sometimes insufficient during the events. The possibility of the participants to express themselves in their own languages can be considered a positive point of the implementation of technological tools that facilitated the citizens to express their ideas freely.
All this, added to the fact that the expectations of the impact that these deliberations will really have on practical decision-making has not been clarified [49]; makes the impact of the Conference limited in terms of its inclusiveness.
Popular control: Even though the definition of the agenda and the topics to be discussed were in the hands of the citizens, the use of an external provider to prepare the summaries of the proposals and the lack of clear mechanisms to transfer these proposals to the practical field, entail that the capacities of popular control over the conference were limited. As a proposal for improvement, it is important to consider what procedures can be established to ensure that the recommendations are taken into account and have weight in decision-making.
Considered judgement: Carrying out such an exercise entails enormous logistical difficulties. Although, as we have previously commented, the Conference allowed, according to the participants, an expansion in their understanding of the topics dealt with and exposure to other perspectives, the large number and extension of the topics to be discussed generated difficulties. The knowledge of the participants about the functioning of the European institutions was from the star point deficient, resulting in many of the exchanges between the participants not generating an informed deliberation process that resulted in thought-through opinions and judgments. [50]
The information provided by the experts and the reports made were not always objective or sufficient. The deliberations in the subgroups were marked by the absence in most cases of these experts, which could greatly have affected the quality of these debates. The main controversies, challenges, opportunities, ongoing initiatives or existing policies in each area received little coverage. [51]
Transparency: The transparency of the process can be considered questionable. One of the main criticisms comes from the citizens' lack of knowledge about the destiny of their recommendations. This can considerably undermine the legitimacy of the exercise and the political capital the organization can gain from it.
Similarly, concerning to the internal transparency of the exercise, the organizers considered that the process was carried out in a totally transparent manner due to the possibility of accessing the documents of the discussions and all the related information through the digital platform. However, experts have exposed drawbacks that we have previously discussed, including the lack of coordination and communication between the different panels, the lack of knowledge about the EU institutions, etc. Similarly, the rules of procedure of the Conference did not establish the role of each of the different Plenary Members. [52]
Efficiency: In terms of efficiency, it is too early to determine the scope of the deliberative exercise in Europe's future. The ambiguity around the objectives of the Conference and how these will affect future EU decisions remains to be determined and will largely depend on the inventiveness of the organization and the political will of its members.
The sheer number of topics and citizens' lack of knowledge of the EU decision-making process detracted from the richness of the exercise, as did the disconnect between transnational and national debates.
Transferability: We can argue that the transferability of the Plenary Conference and the European citizens’ panels is limited, starting from the basis that it is the first deliberative exercise of these dimensions. In the first place, the European Union is the most developed international organization according to the parameters of economic and political integration between States, which provides the necessary material and technological bases for an exercise of this type.
An example of this is are the European citizens' panels. The ability to mobilize 200 citizens to different geographical locations in various countries will hardly have the logistical, political and economic support of other regional organizations with less development or resources, both material and logistical and technological.
On the other hand, it can be considered that the use of the digital platform together with advanced translation tools could be applied to other scenarios and regions with fewer economic and logistical resources, allowing the language barrier to be overcome and, consequently, greatly facilitating deliberations.
Overall, the Conference is considered an innovative deliberative process that through various tools and approaches in principle achieved its goal of "listening" to European citizens and their perspectives on the future. However, what will determine that it really meets the objective of reinvigorating the European democratic project will be the ability of politicians to translate the 49 recommendations into concrete public policies.
What has been demonstrated is that European citizens are willing to participate in the process of formation and discussion of public policies and that to avoid further distancing between the rulers and the ruled, the deliberative mechanisms must be institutionalized.
See Also
https://participedia.net/method/4258
References
[1] European Union. (2022, 05 06). Report of the final outcome. Retrieved from Conference on the Future of Europe: https://futureu.europa.eu/pages/reporting?locale=en. p.5
[2] Landemore, H. (2013). Reason: Politics, Collective Intelligence, and the Rule of the Many. Princeton University Press. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1r2gf0. p. 92
[3] European Union. (2022, 05 06). Report of the final outcome. Retrieved from Conference on the Future of Europe: https://futureu.europa.eu/pages/reporting?locale=en. p.5
[4] Fabbrini, F. (2021). The Conference on the Future of Europe: Process an prospects. European Law Journal, 401-414. Retrieved from doi:10.1111/eulj.12401. p.402
[5] ] European Union. (2022, 05 06). Report of the final outcome. Retrieved from Conference on the Future of Europe: https://futureu.europa.eu/pages/reporting?locale=en. p.5
[6] European Union. (2022, 05 06). Report of the final outcome. Retrieved from Conference on the Future of Europe: https://futureu.europa.eu/pages/reporting?locale=en. p.5
[7] Smith, G. (2019). Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p.76
[8] Fabbrini, F. (2021). The Conference on the Future of Europe: Process and prospects. European Law Journal, 401-414. Retrieved from doi:10.1111/eulj.12401. p.402
[9] Fabbrini, F. (2021). The Conference on the Future of Europe: Process and prospects. European Law Journal, 401-414. Retrieved from doi:10.1111/eulj.12401. p.402
[10 Fabbrini, F. (2021). The Conference on the Future of Europe: Process and prospects. European Law Journal, 401-414. Retrieved from doi:10.1111/eulj.12401. p.404
[11] European Union. (2022, 05 06). Report of the final outcome. Retrieved from Conference on the Future of Europe: https://futureu.europa.eu/pages/reporting?locale=en. p.8
[12] European Union. (2022, 05 06). Report of the final outcome. Retrieved from Conference on the Future of Europe: https://futureu.europa.eu/pages/reporting?locale=en. p.5
[13] Fella, S. (2022). The Conference on the Future of Europe: proposals and next steps. The House of Commons Library. Retrieved from https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9551/
[14] European Union. (2022, 05 06). Report of the final outcome. Retrieved from Conference on the Future of Europe: https://futureu.europa.eu/pages/reporting?locale=en.
[15] European Union. (2022, 05 06). Report of the final outcome. Retrieved from Conference on the Future of Europe: https://futureu.europa.eu/pages/reporting?locale=en. p.15
[16] European Union. (2022, 05 06). Report of the final outcome. Retrieved from Conference on the Future of Europe: https://futureu.europa.eu/pages/reporting?locale=en. p.35
[17] European Union. (2022, 05 06). Report of the final outcome. Retrieved from Conference on the Future of Europe: https://futureu.europa.eu/pages/reporting?locale=en. p.11
[18] European Union. (2022, 05 06). Report of the final outcome. Retrieved from Conference on the Future of Europe: https://futureu.europa.eu/pages/reporting?locale=en. p.11
[19] European Union. (2022, 05 06). Report of the final outcome. Retrieved from Conference on the Future of Europe: https://futureu.europa.eu/pages/reporting?locale=en. p.15
[20] European Union. (2022, 05 06). Report of the final outcome. Retrieved from Conference on the Future of Europe: https://futureu.europa.eu/pages/reporting?locale=en. p.15
[21] European Union. (2022, 05 06). Report of the final outcome. Retrieved from Conference on the Future of Europe: https://futureu.europa.eu/pages/reporting?locale=en. p.15
[22] European Union. (2022, 05 06). Report of the final outcome. Retrieved from Conference on the Future of Europe: https://futureu.europa.eu/pages/reporting?locale=en. p.15
[23] European Union. (2022, 05 06). Report of the final outcome. Retrieved from Conference on the Future of Europe: https://futureu.europa.eu/pages/reporting?locale=en.
[24] European Union. (2022, 05 06). Report of the final outcome. Retrieved from Conference on the Future of Europe: https://futureu.europa.eu/pages/reporting?locale=en. p.35
[25] High Level Advisory Group. (2022). Future of Europe: What Worked, what now, what next? Conference on the Future of Europe Observatory. Retrieved from https://conference-observatory.eu/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/High_Level_Advisory_Group_Report.pdf. p.6
[26] European Union. (2022, 05 06). Report of the final outcome. Retrieved from Conference on the Future of Europe: https://futureu.europa.eu/pages/reporting?locale=en. p.35
[27] OECD. (2020). Innovative Citizen Participation and New Democratic Institutions. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
[28] European Union. (2022, 05 06). Report of the final outcome. Retrieved from Conference on the Future of Europe: https://futureu.europa.eu/pages/reporting?locale=en. p.15
[29] European Union. (2022, 05 06). Report of the final outcome. Retrieved from Conference on the Future of Europe: https://futureu.europa.eu/pages/reporting?locale=en. p.16
[30] European Union. (2022, 05 06). Report of the final outcome. Retrieved from Conference on the Future of Europe: https://futureu.europa.eu/pages/reporting?locale=en. p.16
[31] European Union. (2022, 05 06). Report of the final outcome. Retrieved from Conference on the Future of Europe: https://futureu.europa.eu/pages/reporting?locale=en. p.18
[32] European Union. (2022, 05 06). Report of the final outcome. Retrieved from Conference on the Future of Europe: https://futureu.europa.eu/pages/reporting?locale=en. p.18
[33] High Level Advisory Group. (2022). Future of Europe: What Worked, what now, what next? Conference on the Future of Europe Observatory. Retrieved from https://conference-observatory.eu/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/High_Level_Advisory_Group_Report.pdf. p.4
[34] High Level Advisory Group. (2022). Future of Europe: What Worked, what now, what next? Conference on the Future of Europe Observatory. Retrieved from https://conference-observatory.eu/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/High_Level_Advisory_Group_Report.pdf. p.6
[35] European Union. (2022, 05 06). Report of the final outcome. Retrieved from Conference on the Future of Europe: https://futureu.europa.eu/pages/reporting?locale=en. p.35
[36] European Union. (2022, 05 06). Report of the final outcome. Retrieved from Conference on the Future of Europe: https://futureu.europa.eu/pages/reporting?locale=en. p.36
[37] Fella, S. (2022). The Conference on the Future of Europe: proposals and next steps. The House of Commons Library. Retrieved from https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9551/. p.5
[38] Fella, S. (2022). The Conference on the Future of Europe: proposals and next steps. The House of Commons Library. Retrieved from https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9551/. p.6
[39] High Level Advisory Group. (2022). Future of Europe: What Worked, what now, what next? Conference on the Future of Europe Observatory. Retrieved from https://conference-observatory.eu/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/High_Level_Advisory_Group_Report.pdf. p.5
[40] High Level Advisory Group. (2022). Future of Europe: What Worked, what now, what next? Conference on the Future of Europe Observatory. Retrieved from https://conference-observatory.eu/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/High_Level_Advisory_Group_Report.pdf. p.7
[41] Fabbrini, F. (2021). The Conference on the Future of Europe: Process and prospects. European Law Journal, 401-414. Retrieved from doi:10.1111/eulj.12401. p.411
[42] High Level Advisory Group. (2022). Future of Europe: What Worked, what now, what next? Conference on the Future of Europe Observatory. Retrieved from https://conference-observatory.eu/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/High_Level_Advisory_Group_Report.pdf
[43] Smith, G. (2019). Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p.8-9
[44] Smith, G. (2019). Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p.12
[45] Smith, G. (2019). Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p.21
[46] Smith, G. (2019). Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p.22
[47] High Level Advisory Group. (2022). Future of Europe: What Worked, what now, what next? Conference on the Future of Europe Observatory. Retrieved from https://conference-observatory.eu/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/High_Level_Advisory_Group_Report.pdf. p4
[48] Smith, G. (2019). Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p.81
[49] High Level Advisory Group. (2022). Future of Europe: What Worked, what now, what next? Conference on the Future of Europe Observatory. Retrieved from https://conference-observatory.eu/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/High_Level_Advisory_Group_Report.pdf.
[50] High Level Advisory Group. (2022). Future of Europe: What Worked, what now, what next? Conference on the Future of Europe Observatory. Retrieved from https://conference-observatory.eu/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/High_Level_Advisory_Group_Report.pdf. p.5-6
[51] High Level Advisory Group. (2022). Future of Europe: What Worked, what now, what next? Conference on the Future of Europe Observatory. Retrieved from https://conference-observatory.eu/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/High_Level_Advisory_Group_Report.pdf. p.6
[52] High Level Advisory Group. (2022). Future of Europe: What Worked, what now, what next? Conference on the Future of Europe Observatory. Retrieved from https://conference-observatory.eu/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/High_Level_Advisory_Group_Report.pdf. p.9