National Report CITIZENS' DIALOGUES ON THE FUTURE OF EUROPE. SPAIN 2018 - Ministerio de Asuntos Exteriores
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
CITIZENS’ DIALOGUES
ON THE FUTURE
OF EUROPE.
SPAIN 2018
National Report
GOBIERNO MINISTERIO
DE ESPAÑA DE ASUNTOS EXTERIORES, UNIÓN EUROPEA
Y COOPERACIÓN
I. A PANORAMIC VIEW: DO CITIZENS WANT MORE EUROPE?........................................................................ 5
I.1. Citizens across the EU........................................................................................................................................6
I.2. Citizens of Spain.................................................................................................................................................. 7
II.
METHODOLOGY AND CALENDAR.........................................................................................................................9
II.1. The organisers ..................................................................................................................................................10
1.a. Creation of a steering group................................................................................................................ 11
i) Transparency and publicity.....................................................................................................12
ii) Pluralism......................................................................................................................................12
iii) Regional Administration responsible ..................................................................................13
1.b. Group of European institutions in Spain..........................................................................................13
i) Offices of the European Parliament and Representations of the
European Commis sion in Spain............................................................................................13
ii) Citizens panel and online consultation ..............................................................................14
1.c. Volunteer group......................................................................................................................................14
II.2. Characteristics of citizens’ consultations in Spain..................................................................................14
2.a. How many consultations?...................................................................................................................14
2.b. When and where?..................................................................................................................................15
2.c. How many participants, and who?....................................................................................................16
2.d. What were the consultations like?.................................................................................................... 17
III. EUROPEAN DIALOGUES: QUESTIONS POSED BY THE CITIZENS................................................................21
IV. FOCUS GROUPS: ISSUES DISCUSSED (AND RAISED) BY THE CITIZENS.................................................. 24
IV.1. The challenge of talking about Europe..................................................................................................... 25
1.a. Are we ready to talk about the European Union?......................................................................... 25
1.b. Discursive positions on the EU: blocs, fractions and nuclei........................................................27
IV.2. Issues that arose spontaneously................................................................................................................27
2.a. Immigration: perplexity, lack of criteria and confusion................................................................27
2.b. The demographic question................................................................................................................. 29
2.c. Current principal EU conflicts............................................................................................................ 30
IV.3. Suggested topics (not spontaneous)........................................................................................................31
3.a. The different Europes that we perceive...........................................................................................31
3.b. The economic and financial future of the European Union........................................................ 32
3.c. Cultural diversity................................................................................................................................... 34
3.d. Religious diversity................................................................................................................................. 34
3.e. The European Union as an international power........................................................................... 35
3.f. Terrorism.................................................................................................................................................. 35
IV.4. Consensus subjects...................................................................................................................................... 36
4.a. Unanimous successes.......................................................................................................................... 36
4.b. Improvable achievements................................................................................................................... 38
4.c. Failures and weaknesses......................................................................................................................41
V. LET’S TALK ABOUT EUROPE: CITIZENS’ PROPOSALS.................................................................................. 43
VI. OTHER (FURTHER COMMENTS ON AND/OR EVALUATION OF THE EXPERIENCE).............................. 52
ANNEX I. COMPLETE SCHEDULE..................................................................................................................... 52
ANNEX II. LIST OF SPEAKERS............................................................................................................................. 55
ANNEX III. DECALOGUE OF BEST PRACTICES................................................................................................. 59
ANNEX IV. COMPOSITION OF THE FOCUS GROUPS......................................................................................61
I
EXECUTIVE REPORT
A panoramic
view:
do citizens
want more
Europe?
5
EXECUTIVE REPORT
I.1. Citizens across the EU want less, is due to the drop in the number of tho-
se who, in 2016, believed that no changes were
If we analyse the results of a recent study by the necessary. In other words, the majority of those
European Parliament (Eurobarometer Survey Europeans who, 2 years ago, were not asking Eu-
89.2) the most striking conclusion is that in 2016 rope to change direction, and who now are asking
10 DELIVERING ON EUROPE: CITIZENS’ VIEWS ON CURRENT AND FUTURE EU ACTION
the majority of European citizens wanted the EU for this, are inclined towards “less Europe” rather
to play a more important role, and this opinion than more.
held steady in 2018. At least half of EU citizens
favour greater influence in nearly every area men- The shift of people from the conformist group to
tioned on the questionnaire, and in many areas the Eurosceptic group, although not alarming in
this proportion topped 70%. Compared with terms of size for the short term, does indicate the
This
2016,chapter shall illustrate
this support recededthe oncombined analysis
only a single issue,of ‘delivery assessment’
beginning and future
of a trend. expectations
This shift, althoughon the
tentati-
top items most cited by respondents. The fight against terrorism, the fight against unemployment and thein
but it was significant one: combating terrorism. ve, can be seen in 10 of the 15 areas included
the European Parliament’s Eurobarometer survey:
protection of the environment are the three policy areas where, on EU average, more than three-quarters
A more detailed reading of the survey results These include combating unemployment, border
of respondents
brings us to a call
secondfor more EU intervention
conclusion: the percenta-in the future. Compared
protection, to 2016 noterrorism,
immigration, significantand
change in
comba-
ge of Europeans
expectations whoregistered,
can be want the with
EU to play
the a less
slight tingoftax
exception thefraud. For example,
fight against terrorismas regards external
(-3 percentage
important role has doubled in most areas since border protection, in 2016, 16% of EU citizens
points since 2016), making these the citizens’ top priorities for the years to come.
2016. Just 2 years ago, only a minority of Euro- did not think that it was necessary to make any
peans
The did not change,
important want Europe to play
however, a more
comes intoimpor- changes,atfalling
play when looking to 10% in 2018.
the respondents’ At theofsame
evaluation time
current
tant role; however, today, in 2018, we could consi- that the percentage of Europeans who believe
EU action in these areas. 32% of respondents, a significant increase of 9 percentage points compared
der this a significant minority (figure 1). that the EU should play a less important role has
to 2016, see the EU’s fight against terrorism as adequate. 29%
risen of respondents
6 points (from 7%say the same
in 2016 about
to 13% the
in 2018),
Therefore,
fight againstalthough the immense
unemployment, majority
an equally conti- increase
significant thoseof 6who want it to
percentage play At
points. a more important
the same time, therole
nues to ask for more Europe, a growing minority remains almost the same (with a slight dip of 2
number of respondents assessing the EU’s fight against terrorism as insufficient went down to 57% by 12
is asking for less. The explanation for this appa- points compared to 2016).
percentage
rent paradox points.
can For
be the fight
found in against unemployment,
an increased po- a decrease of 10 percentage points from 69% to
larization
59% in 2018with regard to European issues. Both
registers. In other areas, this shift in opinion is more divided
the increase in the percentage of Europeans who between Europeanists and Eurosceptics, althou-
want more Europe, and (above all) of those who gh the greater part have moved towards the lat-
Q Expectations for future intervention of EU action:
Evolution from 2016 to 2018
Figure 1. Europeans’ expectations for future EU action: evolution from 2016 to 2018
Source:
Source:Eurobarometer
Eurobarometer85.185.1.
(‘Europeans in 2016’in
(‘Europeans , June 2016)
2016’, and2016)
June Eurobarometer 89.2 (‘One Year
and Eurobarometer before
89.2. the Year
(‘One European Elections’
before , April 2018)
the European Elections’, April 2018).
6
EXECUTIVE REPORT
ter. First of all, there is a striking drop, compared 2016 and in 2018, we can see how the percentage
to 2016, in the group of conformists in areas such of Spaniards calling for more Europe is much more
as industrial policy (-13 points); agricultural poli- pronounced than in the EU as a whole:
cy (-13); foreign policy (-14); economic policy (-12)
and security and defence (-8). This decline in the • The areas that saw the largest increase in de-
number of conformists resulted both in an increa- mand for Europe to play a greater role, compared
se in the Europeanist group and in the Eurosceptic to 2016 (columns 7-9, table 1) are: energy supply
group, with slightly more moving into the latter. (+14); equality between men and women (+13);
industrial policy (+13); agricultural policy (+11);
The transfer from the conformist group to the foreign policy (+11) and health and social policy
Europeanist group has a more positive slant in (+10).
two areas: environmental protection and energy
supply. In fact, as we will see below, during the • With less intensity, other noteworthy areas of
citizens’ consultations, environmental protection demand for a stronger EU role are (columns 7-9,
was one of the EU achievements most easily iden- table 1): environment (+8); border protection
tifiable among the participants. (+7); security and defence (+7); economic policy
(+7); immigration (+6); promoting democracy and
Lastly, there seemed to be no difference in the di- peace (+6), and combating terrorism (+3).
rection of desired change in the following areas:
equality between men and women, promoting • Lastly, amongst all of the areas in which Spa-
democratic values, and health and social security. niards considered the EU to be playing an insuffi-
cient role (columns 4-6, table 1), two stand out:
combating unemployment and tax fraud. Com-
I.2. Citizens of Spain paratively speaking, Spain ranks second among
Member States (after Portugal) with 75% of Spa-
niards believing that the EU is playing an insuffi-
If we focus on data regarding Spain, the general cient role in combating tax fraud. As to combating
outlook is more positive for the EU. Over the past unemployment, Spain ranks fourth (after Greece,
2 years, Spanish citizens’ demands for more Euro- Portugal, and Cyprus), with 80% of Spaniards be-
pe have grown in nearly every area. Indeed, as we lieving that the EU is playing an insufficient role
can see in table 1, comparing Spaniards’ opinions in in this area.
Table 1. Spanish citizens’ expectations for future EU action: evolution from 2016 to 2018
Source: Eurobarometer 85.1. (‘Europeans in 2016’, June 2016) and Eurobarometer 89.2. (‘One Year before the European Elections’, April 2018).
7
DELIVERING ON EUROPE: CITIZENS’ VIEWS ON CURRENT AND FUTURE EU ACTION EXECUTIVE REPORT 17 Figure 2. Opinion that EU action in the fight against unemployment is insufficient Q The fight against tax fraud: Citizens’ perception as adequate vs. insufficient Source: Eurobarometer 89.2 (‘One Year before the European Elections’, April 2018) Figure 3. Opinion that EU action in the fight against tax fraud is insufficient Source: Eurobarometer 89.2. (‘One Year before the European Elections’, April 2018). Source: Eurobarometer 89.2 (‘One Year before the European Elections’, April 2018) 8
II
EXECUTIVE REPORT
Methology
and schedule
9EXECUTIVE REPORT
In December 2017, the European Council set, as extent, not reflecting particular aspects of the citi-
one of its priorities for 2018, getting an in-depth zens’ consultations conducted in Spain. In order to
look at the opinion of European citizens with an obtain more in-depth information on the principal
eye to defining the major challenges facing the EU aspects agreed—questions, debates, and propo-
in the next few years. At the initiative of the Pre- sals on the EU—we have divided into three major
sident of France, Emmanuel Macron, the Member blocs the different kinds of consultations conduc-
States of the EU—with the exception of the United ted, according to their capacity to cover each of
Kingdom—accepted the invitation to conduct a these three aspects:
join citizens’ consultation process on the future of
Europe. Spain’s State Secretariat for the European • To learn about major questions and concer-
Union (SEUE), part of its Ministry of Foreign Affairs, ns regarding the European Union, we analysed
the European Union and Cooperation (MAEUC), the citizens’ consultations conducted by the Eu-
was designated as responsible for promoting citi- ropean institutions in Spain, especially the Cafés
zens’ consultations in Spain from May to October sobre Europa (Café Talks on Europe) and the Diá-
2018. logos Ciudadanos (Citizens’ Dialogues) organised
by the Representation of the European Commis-
The SEUE decided to give civil society pride of pla- sion in Spain. These events’ main purpose was to
ce in conducting the different consultations. To systematically collate those issues about which
this end, a public call was made offering grants to citizens demanded more information, or had the
carrying out processes aimed at learning Spanish most doubts. Moreover, the people who usually
citizens’ opinions on EU-related issues. Then, the attended these events belonged to a wide range
principal EU representations in Spain were contac- of groups within the general public: young people
ted for their collaboration. Lastly, Spain’s regional and secondary school students; pensioners and
and local administrations were invited, along with members of local community groups. These Ca-
different institutions and associations, to carry out fés and Diálogos were generally held in small and
citizens’ consultations, always leaving the door mid-sized towns, making them very useful to rea-
open to any interested stakeholders to participate. ching a part of the general public that does not ne-
These three channels for selecting the organisers cessarily have ties to European affairs, and which
of the consultations led to the informal creation it is more difficult to access.
of three groups: a steering group (comprising
beneficiaries of the grants), a group comprising • To identify not only what were their principal
European institutions in Spain, and a group of vo- issues of interest, but also what debates arose
lunteers. The following pages will provide details from them, we analysed a series of focus groups,
on the characteristics and composition of each of putting the spotlight on different positions and
these groups. major themes. Specifically, in July a total of 15 fo-
cus groups were organised in nine Spanish cities
This process resulted in 100 citizens’ consultations by two think tanks in the steering group: the El-
being carried out, and another hundred proposals cano Royal Institute and FAES. These institutions
were received. The consultations, as mentioned had expert external advice from consulting servi-
above, were characterised by providing their or- ces and sociologists specialised in conducting this
ganisers with autonomy, whilst also guaranteeing kind of research.
minimal common operational standards. From the
beginning, we were aware of the challenges invol- • Lastly, to specify a list of proposals, the main
ved in decentralising the organization of the citi- source of information was the greater part of the
zens’ consultations, with more than 30 different citizens’ consultations carried out by the other
collectives and institutions; in using different for- steering group members, which are described in
mats for participation; in opening up many com- more detail below.
munication channels; and in including groups with
opposing interests, goals, and motivations—as
well as trying to systematically collate all of this II.1. The organisers
data from different sources.
Lastly, with a view to drafting this report, the Throughout this process, we have enjoyed the
structure agreed amongst the different Member inestimable collaboration of 35 organizations and
States has been carefully followed at all times— collectives. Overall, the stakeholders who partici-
even though prioritising the possibility of compa- pated in the citizens’ consultations can be divided
rability with other countries meant, to a certain into three major groups: a steering group (22), a
10EXECUTIVE REPORT
In December 2017, the European Council set forth the need to
launch a dialogue process with its citizens on the future of Europe.
In January 2018, the President of France sent a letter to the Pre-
sident of the Government of Spain informing him of the proposed
initiative for citizens’ consultations, and the Government of Spain
BACKGROUND responded that it was committed to participating.
The Council of Ministers of 13 April 2018 approved Spain’s participa-
tion in the citizens’ consultations on the future of Europe.
The SEUE, on 23 April 2018, published the recipients of
grants for conducting the citizens’ consultations.
Spain’s Minister of Foreign Affairs participated in an event on 7 May
in the Senate, launching the citizens’ consultations.
Steering group European Volunteers’ group
METHODOLOGY
institutions
USED IN SPAIN in Spain
Citizens’ panel and online consultation
Presentation of results
The Member States deliver a standardised final report with the
results of the consultations in their respective countries.
RESULTS
AND COORDINATION Drafting of a comprehensive final report and preparation for deba-
AMONG MEMBER ting it at the last European Council of 2018.
STATES
The European Council of December of 2018 debates the conclusions
of these citizens’ consultations
group comprising the principal Representations 1.a. Creation of a steering group
of European institutions in Spain (4), and a group
of volunteers (9). These are described below.
The steering group led the launch of these citi-
zens’ consultations, under the aegis of the Habla-
mos de Europa (Talking About Europe) project.
11EXECUTIVE REPORT
By steering group, we mean those stakeholders grant award process complied with the principles
who received a grant from the SEUE to conduct of transparency and publicity.
citizens’ consultations. The steering group was,
therefore, in charge of directly reaching out to ii) Pluralism
interest groups. However, the steering group has
not spoken with a single voice; rather, each of its The 25 projects belonged to 22 diverse groups, but
component organizations has had the possibi- all of them included in the category of professio-
lity of coordinating with other organizations, or nal stakeholders: associations (10), foundations
to work individually. The process of creating this (8), universities (2), NGOs (1), and trade unions (1).
steering group was based on the following prin- The areas of activity and interests of the different
ciples: transparency and publicity, pluralism, and groups could be divided into: building Europe and
accountable autonomy. European integration (9); analysis and study of so-
cial reality (6); higher education and training (4);
i) Transparency and publicity information and communication (2), and, lastly,
labour relations and working conditions (1). The
On 9 February 2018, the SEUE announced a final combination sought to represent a diversity
grants call to promote, as part of the Hablamos of positions and interests:
de Europa initiative, citizens’ debates aimed at
identifying their priorities, concerns, and pro- - Groups whose interests are oriented towards
posals within the European Union. The call was building Europe and European integration repre-
open to all individuals or legal persons who were sent different branches: the European Movement
not part of the public sector, and were not-for- (represented by Spain’s federal council and three
profit. The grants were awarded on the basis of regional councils); the European League for Eco-
competitive tendering, a process in which the nomic Cooperation; the Young European Federa-
applications submitted were compared. The crite- lists; and, lastly, Helsinki España, an NGO aimed at
ria for evaluating the projects, as set forth in the promoting the principles of the Human Dimension
call, were as follows: of the OSCE’s Helsinki Final Act.
• Clear and precise formulation of goals. - The groups dedicated to the analysis and study
of social reality include foundations and associa-
• Quality and innovativeness of the project or ac- tions that represent different currents of political
tivity. thought: liberal-conservative (FAES), progressive
(Alternativas Foundation), left-wing (FEC), hu-
• Impact and repercussion of the activity to be manist (Carlos de Amberes Foundation), and two
carried out: Approximate number of attendees independent groups (Royal Elcano Institute Foun-
and their social, cultural and geographic origins; dation, and Politikon).
renown of the planned speakers or participants;
duration of the activity and resources utilised to Groups focusing on higher education and training
disseminate the activity and its outcomes. consisted of two university centres with a specific
interest in European studies (IE University, and the
• Persons responsible for organising the activi- University Institute for European Studies of the
ty and their dedication (activities carried out in CEU San Pablo University), and two foundations
the past 3 years in the sphere of the European aiming to develop training programmes in non-hi-
Union). gher education (EDE Foundation, and San Patricio
Foundation).
A total of 123 projects were submitted to the call,
of which 25 were ultimately selected. The selec- - In the field of communication and information,
ted projects envisaged different goals, and the we have two expert groups on international rela-
budget was distributed accordingly, and in line tions and foreign policy: Europa en Suma, and Es-
with the impact foreseen. The total initial bud- global.
get allocation was €279,540: 30% of said budget
was distributed among 16 minor projects (from - Trade unions are represented by UGT (General
€1,000 to €11,000), another 30% was allocated Workers’ Union), and, especially, its youth branch
to four intermediate projects (from €14,000 to RUGE (UGT Revolution). Other trade unions atten-
€26,000), and the remaining 40% was assigned ded as participants in many other meetings.
to two projects with ambitious and wide-ranging
goals (€52,000 and €64,000, respectively). The The stakeholders in the steering group have a pro-
12EXECUTIVE REPORT
file that is known in participation and public de- II.1.b. Group of European
liberation literature as professional and lay stake- institutions in Spain
holders. Following the classification by Archon
Fung (2006), the steering group would be made up
of this type of stakeholders. Most of the members At the beginning of the process, the different
of the steering group would choose the form of representations of the European institutions in
mini-publics, in the broad definition given by Fung Spain were contacted so as to build bridges be-
(2006), as the principal participatory format1. Each tween the different projects aimed at recording
of those mini-publics would be made up of a di- Spaniards’ opinions about the European Union’s
versity of actors (ranging from political representa- priority issues. Specifically, we have collaborated
tives and senior officials in the public administra- with the Madrid and Barcelona headquarters of
tion to individual citizens and civil society groups), the Office of the European Parliament and the Eu-
selected in different ways (e.g. in an open call or ropean Commission Delegation.
through more selective recruitment).
i) Offices of the European Parliament
iii) Accountable autonomy and Representations of the European
Commission in Spain
It was decided that the members of the steering
group would be autonomous to decide the de- The Office of the European Parliament in Spain
sign of citizens’ consultations, as long as certain has been conducting, inter alia, two participative
requirements were met. Firstly, each group was processes known as Terraza de Europa [Europe’s
responsible for drafting a document detailing the Terrace] and Europa en mi ciudad [Europe in my
characteristics of the consultation, as well as its city]. For its part, its Barcelona headquarters ca-
outcomes. Secondly, they were given a code of rries out different debate cycles on current Euro-
best practices when organising a consultation pean affairs. The Representation of the European
(see Annex III). Ultimately, the aim of accounta- Commission in Spain conducts sessions known
ble autonomy (Fung, 20012) is to decentralize the as Café con Europa [Coffee with Europe], which
citizens’ consultation process and guarantee the have been especially useful to identify the prin-
steering group’s autonomy by providing it with cipal EU-related issues about which citizens are
the necessary resources, while at the same time requesting more information. Likewise, its Barce-
each member of the steering group undertakes to lona headquarters is carrying out a cycle of parti-
draft a report describing the evolution and outco- cipatory processes in different towns in Catalonia
mes of the citizens’ consultations. and the Balearic Islands, with a comprehensive
approach, called Diálogos ciudadanos sobre el fu-
turo de Europa [Citizens’ dialogues on the future
Figure 4. Participant Selection Methods (Fung, of Europe].
2006:68)
ii) Citizens’ panel and online
consultation
The European Commission has carried out an on-
line consultation open to all citizens. The ques-
tionnaire was drafted in a participatory manner
through a novel methodology consisting of the
creation of a panel of 100 citizens, selected ran-
domly in order to reflect the socio-economic di-
versity of each of the 27 countries. The SEUE pla-
yed an active role in disseminating this survey.
As a result, Spain is the fourth country in terms
1
Archon Fung uses the term mini-publics in its broadest sense, including within it mechanisms that envisage a randomization sys-
tem when selecting participants, as well as those open to the entire population, or the group formed by professional stakeholders
and lay stakeholders”. See Fung, A. (2006). Varieties of participation in complex governance. Public Administration Review, 66,
66-75.
2
Fung, A. (2001). Accountable autonomy: Toward empowered deliberation in Chicago schools and policing. Politics & Society, 29
(1), 73-103.
13EXECUTIVE REPORT
of absolute number of responses, with a total of • The regional Government of Valencia
4,827; i.e., 7.4% of the European total. And Spain
is the ninth country, together with Portugal, if we
consider the number of responses per 1 million
inhabitants3.
II.2. Characteristics
of citizen’s consultations
1.c. Volunteers’ group in Spain
2.a. How many consultations?
In addition to the steering group and the group
made up of European institutions in Spain, there
is a third group, called the volunteers’ group. This In total, we have recorded approximately 100 ci-
group was created with the aim of offering anyo- tizens’ consultations as part of the Hablamos de
ne who wished to organize a citizens’ consultation Europa project. This number, while being very clo-
the possibility to do so. The main reason for this se to reality, must be considered as the minimum
was that participation should be open to everyo- number of consultations carried out, because
ne, without budgetary restrictions preventing the other consultations may have been carried out
participation of those who wished to do so. Even unbeknownst to us. In any event, the number is
though incentives for participation are greater a good indicator of the diversity of all of the citi-
when there are financial resources, a lack of such zens’ consultations about the EU that may have
resources should not be an excuse for being de- taken place from May to October 2018. Figure 5
nied the opportunity to participate. shows the distribution of the number of consul-
tations made by the three groups of organisers.
To publicize the citizens’ consultation process, the
SEUE has carried out several dissemination cam-
paigns through press releases and letters to mu- Figure 5. Distribution of citizens’ consulta-
nicipal councils, the Federation of Municipalities tions, by organising group
and Provinces, the regional administrations, and
the Conference of Rectors of Spanish Universities, Volunteer Group
among others. To date, the volunteers’ group has
included:
8%
• Menéndez Pelayo International University
• Complutense University of Madrid
• Rey Juan Carlos University
44% 48%
• The European Documentation Centre of the Uni- EU Steering
versity of Cordoba Group Group
• The European Information Network of Andalusia
(Secretariat-General for External Action of the re-
gional Government of Andalusia)
• The Con Copia a Europa Association
Figure 5. Distribution of citizens’ consultations, by organising
• Casa del Mediterráneo group4
• Spanish Confederation of Employers’ Organiza-
tions (CEOE)
3
Figures updated on 9 November 2018.
4
Note: The total number of citizens’ consultations varies throughout the document because we do not have the same degree of
detail of information for all of them.
14EXECUTIVE REPORT
Figure 6. Distribution of the consultations, from May to November
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Steering Group EU Group Volunteer Group
Nota: Número total de consultas ciudadanas = 100
2.b. When and where? Another important factor when conducting citi-
zens’ consultations has been the aim to reach as
many locations as possible. To this end, particu-
As for the calendar distribution, as can be seen lar efforts have been made not to only focus on
in figure 6, in the months of May to July and Oc- major cities. Even though Madrid and Barcelona
tober an average of 15 consultations per month have hosted the most consultations, as can be
were recorded. September was the month with seen in Table 2, consultations have been held in
the greatest intensity, with 30 recorded consul- most of Spain’s Autonomous Communities, and in
tations. As planned, the steering group’s activity 25 towns with a population of under 60,000.
concluded in December. The group comprising
the European institutions continued to carry out
consultations in the following months. The exact
dates of each consultation, as well as its title and
the city in which it took place, can be found in
Annex I.
15EXECUTIVE REPORT
Table 2. Cities in which citizens’ consultations were conducted
ANDALUSIA 8 AUTONOMOUS COMMUNITY OF MADRID 27
Baena (Jaén) 1 Alcalá de Henares (Madrid) 1
Cádiz 1 Getafe (Madrid) 1
Jerez de la Frontera (Cádiz) 1 Madrid 25
Sevilla 4 VALENCIAN COMMUNITY 6
Córdoba 1 Valencia 3
ARAGON 10 Alicante 1
Alcañiz (Teruel) 2 Castellón 1
Calatayud (Zaragoza) 2 Quart de Poblet (Valencia) 1
Jaca (Huesca) 2 EXTREMADURA 1
Zaragoza 4 Plasencia (Cáceres) 1
CANARY ISLANDS 2 GALICIA 6
Santa Cruz de Tenerife 1 Monforte de Lemos (Lugo) 2
Las Palmas de Gran Canaria 1 Pontearas (Pontevedra) 2
CANTABRIA 3 Riveira (A Coruña) 2
Santander 3 BALEARIC ISLANDS 5
CASTILLA Y LEÓN 6 Calvià (Mallorca) 1
Aranda de Duero (Burgos) 2 Formentera (Baleares) 1
Valladolid 1 Mahón (Menorca) 1
Arévalo (Ávila) 1 Palma de Mallorca 1
Zamora 1 Sant Eulari des Riu (Ibiza) 1
Cuéllar (Segovia) 1 LA RIOJA 1
CATALONIA 16 Haro (La Rioja) 1
Gavà (Barcelona) 1 BASQUE COUNTRY 6
Barcelona 9 Bilbao 6
Campdevánol (Girona) 1 PRINCIPALITY OF ASTURIAS 6
Gironella (Barcelona) 1 Avilés 1
Hospitalet de Llobregat (Barcelona) 1 Langreo 1
L’Ampolla (Tarragona) 1 Oviedo 2
Olesa de Montserrat (Barcelona) 1 Villaviciosa 1
Santa Coloma de Gramanet (Barcelona) 1 Boal 1
2.c. How many and who? As to which main interest groups were covered,
the most prominent were, in the following order:
Approximately 6,000 people attended. Figure 7 • Members of the academic community (stu-
shows the distribution of events by number of dents, teachers, and researchers);
participants. In approximately two out of every
three consultations held, the number of partici- • Europeanist civil society organizations;
pants has varied from 15 to 60, with approxima-
tely 35 being the most usual number. Moreover, • Opinion leaders, such as journalists and politi-
some consultations have been much more widely cal commentators;
attended, with up to approximately 350 people.
• Diplomats, representatives and civil servants of
European institutions;
16EXECUTIVE REPORT
Figure 7. Distribution of the consultations by number of participants
18
16
14
10
8
6
4
2
0
15-30 31-45 45-60 61-75 76-100 101-200 >200
Total number of citizens’ consultations = 67. Approximate number of participants = 6,000
2.d. What were the
• Secondary school students;
consultations like?
• Trade unions and employers’ organizations;
• Representatives of political parties and of local The formats of the citizens’ consultations varied
and regional governments; a great deal. We have classified the different for-
mats into four major groups, taking into account,
• Representatives of associations and NGOs; mainly, how the debates were conducted. Never-
theless, each group has a wide variety of mem-
• Representatives of the justice system and state bers.
security forces;
In the format used most extensively, first, one or
• Farmers and rural entrepreneurs; more experts in EU issues made a more or less
brief presentation, followed by a question-and-
• Representatives from the world of culture. answer session. Within this category, we find
consultations that opted for a more conventional
Many individuals have also collaborated with the model, being held in such spaces as auditoriums.
process, sharing their knowledge on the EU’s cu- However, within this group we also find a large
rrent situation and its future. According to the number of consultations which, although main-
data collected, active participants from universi- taining the format of presentations followed by
ties, political institutions and civil society totalled question-and-answer session, opted for more in-
approximately 150 people. A list of those who par- formal venues, such as cafés.
ticipated actively in the citizens’ consultations in
Spain can be found in Annex II. Figure 8 shows Another format for consultations was a more ho-
the distribution of consultations by the number rizontal dialogue, in which the presence of the ex-
of people who participated in them as speakers. perts, although obvious, was not the focal point.
Two aspects stand out: firstly, some speakers The main characteristic of these consultations
were involved in a number of consultations; and was a fluid debate in which the audience inter-
secondly, approximately 35% were women. vened throughout the consultation, not just after
the experts had their turn to speak. Together with
17EXECUTIVE REPORT
Figure 8. Distribution of the consultations, by number of speakers
25
20
15
10
5
0
1 2 3 4 5 a 10 11 a 20 >20
Total number of citizens’ consultations = 67. Approximately number of speakers =142
this group, other noteworthy formats were those
in which the debate was also horizontal, but had Figure 9. Distribution of events, by format
an experienced moderator (e.g. design thinking used
workshops, idea labs, mock European Parliament,
online platforms).5 Presentation &
Horizontal Dialogue
Lastly, as mentioned above, 15 focus groups were
conducted by two members of the steering group. 17%
This research technique has been especially use- Workshops, 17%
ful because, although it did not seek the probabi- participatory Focus
listic representativeness of a formal survey, it did techniques, etc Groups
make it possible to achieve a degree of structural
representativeness. The focus groups conducted
11%
are a cornerstone of the Citizens’ consultations
on the future of Europe carried out in Spain. This
research technique offers us the possibility explo-
ring more in depth—from a structural perspecti- 55%
ve—the major issues concerning Spanish citizens Presentation +
about the future of Europe. In Annex IV we pro- Questions time
vide details on the composition of the 15 focus
groups, focusing on gender, age, education, em-
ployment situation, and city of residence.
One data point that enables us to image how Number of citizens’ consultations = 88
the citizens’ consultations were conducted is
their duration. As shown in Figure 10, duration
was consistent with the type of debate format day-long formats divided between a morning and
used. Most of the consultations lasted from 1.5 an afternoon session, giving participants more
to 2 hours. Having said this, it can be clearly seen opportunities to socialize and enabling a more
that many of the consultations were quite long. fluid dialogue. Lastly, according to the design of
A high number of the consultations last lasted day-long sessions just described, there have also
from 2 to 6 hours were conducted using different been several consultations held over two days.
5
www.masdemocraciaeneuropa.org
18EXECUTIVE REPORT
Figure 10. Duration of the events
11%
10% < 2 hours 4-6 hours
2-3 hours > 6 hours
8% 46% 3-4 hours
Total number of citizens’ consultations = 63 (not including the 15
focus groups)
25%
Figure 11. Percentage of time devoted to information and to debate, by consultation (n=33)
33
31
29
27
25
23
21
19
17
15
13
11
7
5
3
1
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
% presentation % debate
Total number of citizens’ consultations = 33 (not including the 15 focus groups)
19EXECUTIVE REPORT Fundación Ramón Areces Another factor we considered important when evaluating the citizens’ consultations was the time devoted to the informative and/or dissemi- nation phase involving expert presentations, and the time devoted the discussion and/or question- and-answer phase (Figure 10). Taking as our star- ting point the number of consultations regarding which this information was available (n=33), the results are quite positive. This is mainly due to the fact that a format based on a presentation followed by a question-and-answer session (the most common, as we have seen) is not at odds with devoting more time to the latter. In fact, many of the consultations, despite not achieving a horizontal, multilateral debate, did indeed place more emphasis on question-and-answer phase. 20
III
EXECUTIVE REPORT
European
dialogues:
questions
posed
by the citizens
21EXECUTIVE REPORT
Which questions concern Spanish citizens regar- • What is the EU’s plan regarding the trade res-
ding the future of the EU? About which issues did trictions announced by President Trump?
they ask for more information? One of the many
possible ways of learning about citizens’ real con- • How does the EU defend the different designa-
cerns is to reach those areas that are usually left tions of origin in free trade agreements?
outside the political spotlight. This has been the
main purpose of the different consultations ca- • How is the EU dealing with the interests of
rried out in 2018 by the different Representations transnational companies?
of the European Commission and the Offices of
the Parliament in Spain. These bodies are carr- • What progress has been made on the Fiscal
ying out many initiatives to take the pulse of the Union?
citizenry, such as the Cafés con Europa (Coffee
with Europe), the Diálogos Ciudadanos (Citizens’ Nor are they unaware of the political instability
Dialogues), Terraza de Europa (European Café), that seems to have been taking root in the EU
Conecta con Europa (Connect with Europe), and in recent years. Most of their questions revolved
Europa en mi Ciudad (Europe in My City). around the wave of Euroscepticism and factions
break with EU rules and principles:
Thanks to these consultations the European ins-
titutions have been able to reach places that are • Why are we seeing a wave of far-right and popu-
often forgotten by supra-local institutions. The list movements?
result has been the organization of more than
40 debates, between May and October, with re- • What is the EU’s analysis of this rise in Euros-
sidents of townshaving less than 10,000 people, ceptic movements and parties?
including Campdevánol, L’Ampolla, Gironella, Aré-
valo, and Cuellar; between 10,000 and 25,000, • How can Members States be forced to comply
such as Jaca, Monforte de Lemos, Calatayud, with European directives?
Olesa de Mostserrat, Pontearas, and Quart de Po-
blet; and between 25,000 and 65,000, including • How to generate a political alternative within
Riveira, Mahón, Aranda de Duero, Sant Eulari des the EU to strengthen the Union?
Riu, Plasencia, Gavá, Calvià, and Zamora. In all of
these places, citizens presented their concerns, The visible disagreement on migration and asylum
as well as asking for more information about is- issues are also among the main concerns behind
sues regarding the EU. We believe that it is a good some of the questions asked, in these terms:
starting point to examine what questions citizens
asked in these towns, in order to correct the • What are the EU’s priorities regarding migration
over-representation that big cities tend to have in policy?
setting the political agenda. Below is a summary
of the questions principally asked by citizens du- • Is the European migration policy endangered by
ring the events and debates held in their towns. the Lega and M5S government in Italy?
At first glance, we might think that citizens living • Why are some Member States not meeting their
in small towns and rural areas are only concer- quota for accepting refugees?
ned with those EU issues that directly affect their
area, of an exclusively local nature. However, in all Environmental protection was also a subject of
of the consultations we have seen a high level of many questions over the course of the citizens’
interest and concern regarding aspects of econo- consultations; the frequently asked were:
mic and international policy which, although the-
se people might initially seem far removed from • What is the EU doing to combat depopulation?
them, actually incite interest due to recognition
of the real impact they can have on citizens’ daily • How is the EU promoting renewable energy?
lives, and on their pocketbooks:
• What is the EU doing to protect the environ-
• How will Brexit affect the European budget for ment from plastic pollution?
the Common Agricultural Policy? And Spain’s tra-
de balance? The main questions regarding education revolved
around mobility and vocational training program-
mes, as well as first-time job seekers:
22EXECUTIVE REPORT
Real Instituto Elcano / ESGLOBAL / Fundación Carlos de Amberes
• What opportunities does the EU offer young the Representations of the principal European
people? institutions in Spain as part of their attempt to
reach the general public. The following sections
• What support programmes for entrepreneurs examine how the citizens themselves, as well as
does the EU have? civil society, have their own answers and opinions
regarding these and many other questions.
• How does the Erasmus programme work?
• What is the role of vocational training in the EU?
• Is it compatible to demand impartiality in edu-
cational contents while also designing campaigns
to improve the EU’s image?
A last set of questions, although not as frequent
as the others, revolved around European policies
aimed at overcoming different kinds of inequali-
ties and obstacles:
• What is the EU doing to integrate people with
functional diversity?
• What is the EU doing to integrate ethnic minori-
ties, such as the Roma population?
• What measures have been taken to close the
digital divide?
These were the questions most often repeated
during the different consultations organised by
23IV EXECUTIVE REPORT Focus group issues discussed (and raised) by the citizens 24
EXECUTIVE REPORT
To identify the principal issues that are of concern sh citizens had a great deal to say regarding the
to Spaniards, and what their positions are, we Europe they want to see in coming decades. In
analysed the 15 focus groups described earlier in future citizens’ consultations, discussion topics
the section on methodology. This qualitative so- should be defined in advance as much as possi-
cial research technique made it possible, on the ble. If not, the picture obtained will be one of citi-
one hand, to analyse citizens’ reactions when pre- zens who see themselves as incapable of talking
sented with the challenge of talking about the fu- about, and expressing opinions about, Europe.
ture of Europe, and, on the other, to identify their
main positions regarding topics that at times Lastly, and irrespective of how secure they feel
arose spontaneously, and at others were brought talking about Europe, all of the groups expres-
up directly by the organisers of the consultations. sed feeling uncertain about their information, in
Details about the members of the focus groups the sense of lacking media sources offering relia-
can be found in Annex IV. It is important to bear in ble reporting. This uncertainty can be seen both
mind that the participants’ statements and opi- in the lack of clarity when trying to identify the
nions included in this section do not aim to repre- EU’s common problems and when assessing the
sent Spanish society as a whole. impact of the political situation of other States
on the EU as a whole. A clear example is the fo-
llowing quote about Brexit:
IV.1. The Callenge of -But wait, I’m getting really confused, here. Is
talking about Europe it true that the English are going to leave the
European Union?
-I don’t believe it. I mean, if they have such
1.a. Are we, as Spaniards,
an important market here, and by “here” I
ready to talk about the Euro- mean the continent of Europe, where are
pean Union? they going to go...?
-It’s true, they’ve left the EU.
-Well, I’m telling you they haven’t.
One of the first reactions when we are asked to (Group 3. Middle class, Balearic Islands)
discuss aspects regarding the European Union
is to question our capacity to talk about it, and
to make clear that it is a subject that surpasses How is this feeling of incapability in talking about
our usual range of knowledge. Faced with such an the EU mainly expressed? The difficulty in unders-
open subject, a pattern often seen in focus groups tand what the EU is and how it works appears to
was to get off track, talking about issues as they be the main source of this feeling of incapability.
arose spontaneously, linking one to another, and It often leads to mistrust and scepticism towards
getting farther away from the initial issue. European institutions and their representatives.
In other words, not knowing how the EU works
In the case of the focus groups analysed in this favours negative attitudes and opinions about it,
section, such a pattern of getting off track has weakening the ties between these institutions
rarely occurred. In the beginning, participants and the citizens.
seemed to have been reticent to speak when con-
fronted with the apparent challenge of talking -As for me, I don’t understand anything about
about the European Union in general terms. La- the European Union, not a single thing... I
ter, thanks to the role of the moderator, who su- don’t know how it works, how many people
ggested specific topics, participants began to ex- work there, what they do... I have no idea,
press their opinions on most of these. They made least of all how much money they make and
it obvious that they did indeed have opinions, why... no idea.
more or less solidly evidence-based, on the major (Group 6. Madrid)
problems affecting the European Union.
-The truth is, nobody understands how this
Having said this, it is important to note the fo- European Union stuff works, who obeys who,
llowing: Talking about, and expressing opinions what’s the point of people voting or not...
about, European Union was not, at first, an easy Who are these people to tell us what we can
task for Spaniards. However, when we facilitated and cannot do?
discussion through asking specific questions that -Okay, I agree with you, I don’t know how it
were interesting to them, we found that Spani- works, but we’re there because they help us
25EXECUTIVE REPORT
with a lot of things. ble to discuss the European Union. However, in
(Group 5. Barcelona) practice this is not entirely true, as we will see in
this section. Before moving forward, we will brie-
fly describe the main causes of this feeling of not
The lack of knowledge regarding the EU’s institu- being equipped to talk about Europe.
tional architecture prevents linking mechanisms
from being promoted, and particularly prevents One of the main reasons that citizens perceive
feelings of belonging from being promoted. The themselves as unprepared to discuss Europe rela-
main aspects in those who identify a lack of tes to individual socioeconomic factors. In analy-
knowledge are: the total composition of Member sis of the discussion groups we can see how some
States, the variety of existing bodies, and lastly, sectors of the population tend to take refuge in a
how the states and bodies relate to each other. lack of information to avoid participation in the
discussions. Specifically, the most socioeconomi-
- Now, if you asked me to list each of the 27, cally vulnerable sector tend to cultivate a narrati-
the truth is I’d get lost, I don’t think I could ve in which they blame their lack of information
name them all. on the media, the institutions and the govern-
- I don’t think I could either, but, well… I do ments. In their version of events, there is an ins-
know that there are countries that I didn’t titutional framework focused on creating an ove-
even know were countries, I thought they rall situation of a lack of information, in order to
were regions of other countries. evade accountability and to water down political
(Group 3. Palma de Mallorca) responsibility for any decisions made.
- You can’t say you know, because the media
Of all of the institutions, the European Parliament lies systematically and always has lied to us,
was the most easily recognised. However, parti- and the people in Europe, the Parliament
cipants stated that they did not know whether and all of them, they’re all layabouts… that’s
there are mechanisms for citizens to monitor and what I think of Europe… we don’t know and
control the parliament’s actions. They perceive they don’t want us to.
the vertical and horizontal accountability systems (Group 5. Employees, Barcelona)
between the different bodies and roles as com-
pletely opaque. Participants do not clearly see a -Well, I don’t think we’re uninformed just be-
hierarchal pyramid that helps them to identify cause… we’re uninformed because it isn’t in
the position or body that is responsible for each the politicians’ interest for us to understand
matter: anything’.
(Group 10. Older people, Valladolid)
- The idea they give you in the master’s degree
is that it is all important and that each body is -You’re right, I agree with her, if we don’t
good, really good for each thing, even if it isn’t know it’s because there’s a lot of interest in
for another. Okay. But I want to know who’s in us not knowing.
charge, who makes the final decision. (Group 3. Workers, Palma de Mallorca)
(Group 4. Bilbao)
In contrast, the sectors of society that are best
In short, there is a marked perception of a lack of positioned in the social structure associate their
information about the EU, resulting in a feeling of lack of information with individual factors—pri-
being unable to talk about the Union, strengthe- marily a lack of time—but also with greater trust
ning the perception of a lack of knowledge, and in European institutions and their representati-
consequentially weakening citizens’ links with ves.
the Europe and specifically their feeling of belon-
ging. -Well, my ignorance about everything that
might be discussed here tonight is almost to-
The perception described above is known as in- tal, let’s make that clear, but since I’m all for
ternal political effectiveness, and consists of the representative democracy, I think the people
perception that we have of ourselves in relation who do need to know are all the men and wo-
to our capacity to understand politics. The discus- men in Brussels who are there to represent
sion groups that were analysed show that Spa- us all.
nish citizens initially considered themselves una- (Group 8. Older people, upper class, Seville)
26You can also read
