(1) Purpose of the Convention Process (with excerpts of the Laeken European Council Declaration)
(2) The Intergovernmental Conference (Simulation assumptions)
(3) Simulation Conference Agenda
(4) Simulation Conference Rules

(1) PURPOSE OF THE CONVENTION PROCESS
At the Laeken European Council in December 2001, it was decided to convene a Convention in order to pave the way for the next Intergovernmental Conference. In the declaration it was said:
 

Fifty years on, however, the Union stands at a crossroad, a defining moment in its existence. The unification of Europe is near. The Union is about to expand to bring in more than ten new Member States, predominantly Central and Eastern European, thereby finally closing one of the darkest chapters in European history: the Second World War and the ensuing artificial division of Europe. At long last, Europe is on its way to becoming one big family, without bloodshed, a real transformation clearly calling for a different approach from fifty years ago, when six countries first took the lead.

The democratic challenge facing Europe
At the same time, the Union faces twin challenges, one within and the other beyond its borders.
Within the Union, the European institutions must be brought closer to its citizens. Citizens undoubtedly support the Union's broad aims, but they do not always see a connection between those goals and the Union's everyday action. They want the European institutions to be less unwieldy and rigid and, above all, more efficient and open. Many also feel that the Union should involve itself more with their particular concerns, instead of intervening, in every detail, in matters by their nature better left to Member States' and regions' elected representatives. This is even perceived by some as a threat to their identity. More importantly, however, they feel that deals are all too often cut out of their sight and they want better democratic scrutiny.

Europe's new role in a globalised world
Beyond its borders, in turn, the European Union is confronted with a fast-changing, globalised world. Following the fall of the Berlin Wall, it looked briefly as though we would for a long while be living in a stable world order, free from conflict, founded upon human rights. Just a few years later, however, there is no such certainty. The eleventh of September has brought a rude awakening. The opposing forces have not gone away: religious fanaticism, ethnic nationalism, racism and terrorism are on the increase, and regional conflicts, poverty and underdevelopment still provide a constant seedbed for them.

What is Europe's role in this changed world? Does Europe not, now that is finally unified, have a leading role to play in a new world order, that of a power able both to play a stabilising role worldwide and to point the way ahead for many countries and peoples? Europe as the continent of humane values, the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, the French Revolution and the fall of the Berlin Wall; the continent of liberty, solidarity and above all diversity, meaning respect for others' languages, cultures and traditions. The European Union's one boundary is democracy and human rights. The Union is open only to countries which uphold basic values such as free elections, respect for minorities and respect for the rule of law.

Among the many themes introduced in the Laeken declaration, the institutional structure should be the object of deliberation in this simulation exercise:

More democracy, transparency and efficiency in the European Union
The European Union derives its legitimacy from the democratic values it projects, the aims it pursues and the powers and instruments it possesses. However, the European project also derives its legitimacy from democratic, transparent and efficient institutions. The national parliaments also contribute towards the legitimacy of the European project. The declaration on the future of the Union, annexed to the Treaty of Nice, stressed the need to examine their role in European integration. More generally, the question arises as to what initiatives we can take to develop a European public area.

The first question is thus how we can increase the democratic legitimacy and transparency of the present institutions, a question which is valid for the three institutions.

How can the authority and efficiency of the European Commission be enhanced? How should the President of the Commission be appointed: by the European Council, by the European Parliament or should he be directly elected by the citizens? Should the role of the European Parliament be strengthened? Should we extend the right of co-decision or not? Should the way in which we elect the members of the European Parliament be reviewed? Should a European electoral constituency be created, or should constituencies continue to be determined nationally? Can the two systems be combined? Should the role of the Council be strengthened? Should the Council act in the same manner in its legislative and its executive capacities? With a view to greater transparency, should the meetings of the Council, at least in its legislative capacity, be public? Should citizens have more access to Council documents? How, finally, should the balance and reciprocal control between the institutions be ensured?

A second question, which also relates to democratic legitimacy, involves the role of national parliaments. Should they be represented in a new institution, alongside the Council and the European Parliament? Should they have a role in areas of European action in which the European Parliament has no competence? Should they focus on the division of competence between Union and Member States, for example through preliminary checking of compliance with the principle of subsidiarity?

The third question concerns how we can improve the efficiency of decision-making and the workings of the institutions in a Union of some thirty Member States. How could the Union set its objectives and priorities more effectively and ensure better implementation? Is there a need for more decisions by a qualified majority? How is the co-decision procedure between the Council and the European Parliament to be simplified and speeded up? What of the six-monthly rotation of the Presidency of the Union? What is the future role of the European Parliament? What of the future role and structure of the various Council formations? How should the coherence of European foreign policy be enhanced? How is synergy between the High Representative and the competent Commissioner to be reinforced? Should the external representation of the Union in international fora be extended further?

Simulation assumptions
Within the context of the simulation exercise, the following assumption is made: At the end of the Convention in Thessaloniki in June 2003, the Convention was unable to reach a consensual result. The disagreement between the participants was too strong to bridge. Therefore, different versions of many of the articles of the draft constitutional treaty were presented to the European Council and to the general public, and the negotiations were to be continued in the Intergovenmental Conference. The input to the Intergovernmental conference are the discussions in the plenary meetings and the reports of the working groups and other statements and documents presented to the Convention.
 

(3) 2004 CONFERENCE AGENDA: THE FUTURE GOVERNMENT OF EUROPE
This Simulation plays a Ministerial Meeting taking place in Dublin on March 8th, 2004. At this meeting four sets of questions remain to be negotiated, all related to the institutional structure of the European Union:

1. The Presidency of the European Council and the Council of Ministers. (articles 15 bis and 17 bis)*

2. The composition and attributions of the Commission (article 18) and The President of the Commission (article 18 bis)*

3. The involvement of national parliaments in the European Union policy-making*
- A European Congress (article 19)*
- National parliament participation in the monitoring of the principle of subsidiarity (article 8)*

4. Union membership rules: Enhanced  cooperation (article 32), Constructive abstention (article 37) and Withdrawal from the Union (article 46)*

(* ) The article numbers refer to the Draft Constitutional Treaty, presented by Giscard d’Estaing-, President of the Convention, in October 2002.
 

(4) Simulation Conference Rules
The conference observes the following rules:

• The conference is an  intergovernmental conference based on unanimity
• No formal votes are taken
• The aim is to reach agreements by consensus. It is important during the conference to identify areas of agreement,  to disaggregate areas of conflict, and to work towards an expansion of the areas of agreement, even if no comprehensive solutions seem obtainable at a particular moment in time.
• It is to be noted that every negotiating minister has the right to present drafts to, or prior to, the conference.
• The aim of the negotiation in terms of output is some form of written agreement. It may be in the form of draft articles to be included in the Constitutional treaty, it may also be in the form of political summaries by the Presidency to be used in connection with further negotiations.
• The language of the conference is English.