National Report CITIZENS DIALOGUES ON THE FUTURE OF EUROPE. SPAIN 2018 GOBIERNO DE ESPAÑA

Transcription

1 CITIZENS DIALOGUES ON THE FUTURE OF EUROPE. SPAIN 2018 National Report GOBIERNO DE ESPAÑA MINISTERIO DE ASUNTOS EXTERIORES, UNIÓN EUROPEA Y COOPERACIÓN

2

3 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 a. Creation of a steering group i) Transparency and publicity...12 ii) Pluralism...12 iii) Regional Administration responsible 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 c. Volunteer group...14 II.2. Characteristics of citizens consultations in Spain a. How many consultations? b. When and where? c. How many participants, and who? d. What were the consultations like? III. EUROPEAN DIALOGUES: QUESTIONS POSED BY THE CITIZENS...21 IV. FOCUS GROUPS: ISSUES DISCUSSED (AND RAISED) BY THE CITIZENS IV.1. The challenge of talking about Europe a. Are we ready to talk about the European Union? b. Discursive positions on the EU: blocs, fractions and nuclei...27 IV.2. Issues that arose spontaneously a. Immigration: perplexity, lack of criteria and confusion b. The demographic question c. Current principal EU conflicts IV.3. Suggested topics (not spontaneous) a. The different Europes that we perceive b. The economic and financial future of the European Union c. Cultural diversity d. Religious diversity e. The European Union as an international power f. Terrorism IV.4. Consensus subjects a. Unanimous successes b. Improvable achievements c. Failures and weaknesses...41 V. LET S TALK ABOUT EUROPE: CITIZENS PROPOSALS VI. OTHER (FURTHER COMMENTS ON AND/OR EVALUATION OF THE EXPERIENCE) ANNEX I. COMPLETE SCHEDULE ANNEX II. LIST OF SPEAKERS ANNEX III. DECALOGUE OF BEST PRACTICES ANNEX IV. COMPOSITION OF THE FOCUS GROUPS...61

4

5 I A panoramic view: do citizens want more Europe? 5

6 I.1. Citizens across the EU If we analyse the results of a recent study by the European Parliament (Eurobarometer Survey 89.2) the most striking conclusion is that in 2016 the majority of European citizens wanted the EU to play a more important role, and this opinion held steady in At least half of EU citizens favour greater influence in nearly every area mentioned on the questionnaire, and in many areas this proportion topped 70%. Compared with 2016, this support receded on only a single issue, but it was significant one: combating terrorism. A more detailed reading of the survey results brings us to a second conclusion: the percentage of Europeans who want the EU to play a less important role has doubled in most areas since Just 2 years ago, only a minority of Europeans did not want Europe to play a more important role; however, today, in 2018, we could consider this a significant minority (figure 1). Therefore, although the immense majority continues to ask for more Europe, a growing minority is asking for less. The explanation for this apparent paradox can be found in an increased polarization with regard to European issues. Both the increase in the percentage of Europeans who want more Europe, and (above all) of those who want less, is due to the drop in the number of those who, in 2016, believed that no changes were necessary. In other words, the majority of those Europeans who, 2 years ago, were not asking Europe to change direction, and who now are asking for this, are inclined towards less Europe rather than more. The shift of people from the conformist group to the Eurosceptic group, although not alarming in terms of size for the short term, does indicate the beginning of a trend. This shift, although tentative, can be seen in 10 of the 15 areas included in the European Parliament s Eurobarometer survey: These include combating unemployment, border protection, immigration, terrorism, and combating tax fraud. For example, as regards external border protection, in 2016, 16% of EU citizens did not think that it was necessary to make any changes, falling to 10% in At the same time that the percentage of Europeans who believe that the EU should play a less important role has risen 6 points (from 7% in 2016 to 13% in 2018), those who want it to play a more important role remains almost the same (with a slight dip of 2 points compared to 2016). In other areas, this shift in opinion is more divided between Europeanists and Eurosceptics, although the greater part have moved towards the lat- Figure 1. Europeans expectations for future EU action: evolution from 2016 to 2018 Source: Eurobarometer ( Europeans in 2016, June 2016) and Eurobarometer ( One Year before the European Elections, April 2018). 6

7 ter. First of all, there is a striking drop, compared to 2016, in the group of conformists in areas such as industrial policy (-13 points); agricultural policy (-13); foreign policy (-14); economic policy (-12) and security and defence (-8). This decline in the number of conformists resulted both in an increase in the Europeanist group and in the Eurosceptic group, with slightly more moving into the latter. The transfer from the conformist group to the Europeanist group has a more positive slant in two areas: environmental protection and energy supply. In fact, as we will see below, during the citizens consultations, environmental protection was one of the EU achievements most easily identifiable among the participants. Lastly, there seemed to be no difference in the direction of desired change in the following areas: equality between men and women, promoting democratic values, and health and social security. I.2. Citizens of Spain If we focus on data regarding Spain, the general outlook is more positive for the EU. Over the past 2 years, Spanish citizens demands for more Europe have grown in nearly every area. Indeed, as we can see in table 1, comparing Spaniards opinions in 2016 and in 2018, we can see how the percentage of Spaniards calling for more Europe is much more pronounced than in the EU as a whole: The areas that saw the largest increase in demand for Europe to play a greater role, compared to 2016 (columns 7-9, table 1) are: energy supply (+14); equality between men and women (+13); industrial policy (+13); agricultural policy (+11); foreign policy (+11) and health and social policy (+10). With less intensity, other noteworthy areas of demand for a stronger EU role are (columns 7-9, table 1): environment (+8); border protection (+7); security and defence (+7); economic policy (+7); immigration (+6); promoting democracy and peace (+6), and combating terrorism (+3). Lastly, amongst all of the areas in which Spaniards considered the EU to be playing an insufficient role (columns 4-6, table 1), two stand out: combating unemployment and tax fraud. Comparatively speaking, Spain ranks second among Member States (after Portugal) with 75% of Spaniards believing that the EU is playing an insufficient role in combating tax fraud. As to combating unemployment, Spain ranks fourth (after Greece, Portugal, and Cyprus), with 80% of Spaniards believing that the EU is playing an insufficient role in this area. Table 1. Spanish citizens expectations for future EU action: evolution from 2016 to 2018 Source: Eurobarometer ( Europeans in 2016, June 2016) and Eurobarometer ( One Year before the European Elections, April 2018). 7

8 Figure 2. Opinion that EU action in the fight against unemployment is insufficient Figure 3. Opinion that EU action in the fight against tax fraud is insufficient Source: Eurobarometer ( One Year before the European Elections, April 2018). 8

9 II Methology and schedule 9

10 In December 2017, the European Council set, as one of its priorities for 2018, getting an in-depth look at the opinion of European citizens with an eye to defining the major challenges facing the EU in the next few years. At the initiative of the President of France, Emmanuel Macron, the Member States of the EU with the exception of the United Kingdom accepted the invitation to conduct a join citizens consultation process on the future of Europe. Spain s State Secretariat for the European Union (SEUE), part of its Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the European Union and Cooperation (MAEUC), was designated as responsible for promoting citizens consultations in Spain from May to October The SEUE decided to give civil society pride of place in conducting the different consultations. To this end, a public call was made offering grants to carrying out processes aimed at learning Spanish citizens opinions on EU-related issues. Then, the principal EU representations in Spain were contacted for their collaboration. Lastly, Spain s regional and local administrations were invited, along with different institutions and associations, to carry out citizens consultations, always leaving the door open to any interested stakeholders to participate. These three channels for selecting the organisers of the consultations led to the informal creation of three groups: a steering group (comprising beneficiaries of the grants), a group comprising European institutions in Spain, and a group of volunteers. The following pages will provide details on the characteristics and composition of each of these groups. This process resulted in 100 citizens consultations being carried out, and another hundred proposals were received. The consultations, as mentioned above, were characterised by providing their organisers with autonomy, whilst also guaranteeing minimal common operational standards. From the beginning, we were aware of the challenges involved in decentralising the organization of the citizens consultations, with more than 30 different collectives and institutions; in using different formats for participation; in opening up many communication channels; and in including groups with opposing interests, goals, and motivations as well as trying to systematically collate all of this data from different sources. Lastly, with a view to drafting this report, the structure agreed amongst the different Member States has been carefully followed at all times even though prioritising the possibility of comparability with other countries meant, to a certain extent, not reflecting particular aspects of the citizens consultations conducted in Spain. In order to obtain more in-depth information on the principal aspects agreed questions, debates, and proposals on the EU we have divided into three major blocs the different kinds of consultations conducted, according to their capacity to cover each of these three aspects: To learn about major questions and concerns regarding the European Union, we analysed the citizens consultations conducted by the European institutions in Spain, especially the Cafés sobre Europa (Café Talks on Europe) and the Diálogos Ciudadanos (Citizens Dialogues) organised by the Representation of the European Commission in Spain. These events main purpose was to systematically collate those issues about which citizens demanded more information, or had the most doubts. Moreover, the people who usually attended these events belonged to a wide range of groups within the general public: young people and secondary school students; pensioners and members of local community groups. These Cafés and Diálogos were generally held in small and mid-sized towns, making them very useful to reaching a part of the general public that does not necessarily have ties to European affairs, and which it is more difficult to access. To identify not only what were their principal issues of interest, but also what debates arose from them, we analysed a series of focus groups, putting the spotlight on different positions and major themes. Specifically, in July a total of 15 focus groups were organised in nine Spanish cities by two think tanks in the steering group: the Elcano Royal Institute and FAES. These institutions had expert external advice from consulting services and sociologists specialised in conducting this kind of research. Lastly, to specify a list of proposals, the main source of information was the greater part of the citizens consultations carried out by the other steering group members, which are described in more detail below. II.1. The organisers Throughout this process, we have enjoyed the inestimable collaboration of 35 organizations and collectives. Overall, the stakeholders who participated in the citizens consultations can be divided into three major groups: a steering group (22), a 10

11 In December 2017, the European Council set forth the need to launch a dialogue process with its citizens on the future of Europe. BACKGROUND In January 2018, the President of France sent a letter to the President of the Government of Spain informing him of the proposed initiative for citizens consultations, and the Government of Spain responded that it was committed to participating. The Council of Ministers of 13 April 2018 approved Spain s participation 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. METHODOLOGY USED IN SPAIN Steering group European institutions in Spain Volunteers group 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 AMONG MEMBER STATES Drafting of a comprehensive final report and preparation for debating it at the last European Council of The European Council of December of 2018 debates the conclusions of these citizens consultations group comprising the principal Representations of European institutions in Spain (4), and a group of volunteers (9). These are described below. 1.a. Creation of a steering group The steering group led the launch of these citizens consultations, under the aegis of the Hablamos de Europa (Talking About Europe) project. 11

12 By steering group, we mean those stakeholders who received a grant from the SEUE to conduct citizens consultations. The steering group was, therefore, in charge of directly reaching out to interest groups. However, the steering group has not spoken with a single voice; rather, each of its component organizations has had the possibility of coordinating with other organizations, or to work individually. The process of creating this steering group was based on the following principles: transparency and publicity, pluralism, and accountable autonomy. i) Transparency and publicity On 9 February 2018, the SEUE announced a grants call to promote, as part of the Hablamos de Europa initiative, citizens debates aimed at identifying their priorities, concerns, and proposals within the European Union. The call was open to all individuals or legal persons who were not part of the public sector, and were not-forprofit. The grants were awarded on the basis of competitive tendering, a process in which the applications submitted were compared. The criteria for evaluating the projects, as set forth in the call, were as follows: Clear and precise formulation of goals. Quality and innovativeness of the project or activity. Impact and repercussion of the activity to be carried out: Approximate number of attendees and their social, cultural and geographic origins; renown of the planned speakers or participants; duration of the activity and resources utilised to disseminate the activity and its outcomes. Persons responsible for organising the activity and their dedication (activities carried out in the past 3 years in the sphere of the European Union). A total of 123 projects were submitted to the call, of which 25 were ultimately selected. The selected projects envisaged different goals, and the budget was distributed accordingly, and in line with the impact foreseen. The total initial budget allocation was 279,540: 30% of said budget was distributed among 16 minor projects (from 1,000 to 11,000), another 30% was allocated to four intermediate projects (from 14,000 to 26,000), and the remaining 40% was assigned to two projects with ambitious and wide-ranging goals ( 52,000 and 64,000, respectively). The grant award process complied with the principles of transparency and publicity. ii) Pluralism The 25 projects belonged to 22 diverse groups, but all of them included in the category of professional stakeholders: associations (10), foundations (8), universities (2), NGOs (1), and trade unions (1). The areas of activity and interests of the different groups could be divided into: building Europe and European integration (9); analysis and study of social reality (6); higher education and training (4); information and communication (2), and, lastly, labour relations and working conditions (1). The final combination sought to represent a diversity of positions and interests: - Groups whose interests are oriented towards building Europe and European integration represent different branches: the European Movement (represented by Spain s federal council and three regional councils); the European League for Economic Cooperation; the Young European Federalists; and, lastly, Helsinki España, an NGO aimed at promoting the principles of the Human Dimension of the OSCE s Helsinki Final Act. - The groups dedicated to the analysis and study of social reality include foundations and associations that represent different currents of political thought: liberal-conservative (FAES), progressive (Alternativas Foundation), left-wing (FEC), humanist (Carlos de Amberes Foundation), and two independent groups (Royal Elcano Institute Foundation, and Politikon). Groups focusing on higher education and training consisted of two university centres with a specific interest in European studies (IE University, and the University Institute for European Studies of the CEU San Pablo University), and two foundations aiming to develop training programmes in non-higher education (EDE Foundation, and San Patricio Foundation). - In the field of communication and information, we have two expert groups on international relations and foreign policy: Europa en Suma, and Esglobal. - Trade unions are represented by UGT (General Workers Union), and, especially, its youth branch RUGE (UGT Revolution). Other trade unions attended as participants in many other meetings. The stakeholders in the steering group have a pro- 12

13 file that is known in participation and public deliberation literature as professional and lay stakeholders. Following the classification by Archon Fung (2006), the steering group would be made up of this type of stakeholders. Most of the members of the steering group would choose the form of mini-publics, in the broad definition given by Fung (2006), as the principal participatory format 1. Each of those mini-publics would be made up of a diversity of actors (ranging from political representatives and senior officials in the public administration to individual citizens and civil society groups), selected in different ways (e.g. in an open call or through more selective recruitment). iii) Accountable autonomy It was decided that the members of the steering group would be autonomous to decide the design of citizens consultations, as long as certain requirements were met. Firstly, each group was responsible for drafting a document detailing the characteristics of the consultation, as well as its outcomes. Secondly, they were given a code of best practices when organising a consultation (see Annex III). Ultimately, the aim of accountable autonomy (Fung, ) is to decentralize the citizens consultation process and guarantee the steering group s autonomy by providing it with the necessary resources, while at the same time each member of the steering group undertakes to draft a report describing the evolution and outcomes of the citizens consultations. Figure 4. Participant Selection Methods (Fung, 2006:68) II.1.b. Group of European institutions in Spain At the beginning of the process, the different representations of the European institutions in Spain were contacted so as to build bridges between the different projects aimed at recording Spaniards opinions about the European Union s priority issues. Specifically, we have collaborated with the Madrid and Barcelona headquarters of the Office of the European Parliament and the European Commission Delegation. i) Offices of the European Parliament and Representations of the European Commission in Spain The Office of the European Parliament in Spain has been conducting, inter alia, two participative processes known as Terraza de Europa [Europe s Terrace] and Europa en mi ciudad [Europe in my city]. For its part, its Barcelona headquarters carries out different debate cycles on current European affairs. The Representation of the European Commission in Spain conducts sessions known as Café con Europa [Coffee with Europe], which have been especially useful to identify the principal EU-related issues about which citizens are requesting more information. Likewise, its Barcelona headquarters is carrying out a cycle of participatory processes in different towns in Catalonia and the Balearic Islands, with a comprehensive approach, called Diálogos ciudadanos sobre el futuro de Europa [Citizens dialogues on the future of Europe]. ii) Citizens panel and online consultation The European Commission has carried out an online consultation open to all citizens. The questionnaire was drafted in a participatory manner through a novel methodology consisting of the creation of a panel of 100 citizens, selected randomly in order to reflect the socio-economic diversity of each of the 27 countries. The SEUE played 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 system 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, Fung, A. (2001). Accountable autonomy: Toward empowered deliberation in Chicago schools and policing. Politics & Society, 29 (1),

14 of absolute number of responses, with a total of 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 inhabitants 3. 1.c. Volunteers group 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 group was created with the aim of offering anyone who wished to organize a citizens consultation the possibility to do so. The main reason for this was that participation should be open to everyone, without budgetary restrictions preventing the participation of those who wished to do so. Even though incentives for participation are greater when there are financial resources, a lack of such resources should not be an excuse for being denied the opportunity to participate. To publicize the citizens consultation process, the SEUE has carried out several dissemination campaigns through press releases and letters to municipal councils, the Federation of Municipalities and Provinces, the regional administrations, and the Conference of Rectors of Spanish Universities, among others. To date, the volunteers group has included: The regional Government of Valencia II.2. Characteristics of citizen s consultations in Spain 2.a. How many consultations? In total, we have recorded approximately 100 citizens consultations as part of the Hablamos de Europa project. This number, while being very close to reality, must be considered as the minimum number of consultations carried out, because other consultations may have been carried out unbeknownst to us. In any event, the number is a good indicator of the diversity of all of the citizens consultations about the EU that may have taken place from May to October Figure 5 shows the distribution of the number of consultations made by the three groups of organisers. Figure 5. Distribution of citizens consultations, by organising group Volunteer Group 8% Menéndez Pelayo International University Complutense University of Madrid Rey Juan Carlos University The European Documentation Centre of the University of Cordoba 44% EU Group 48% Steering Group The European Information Network of Andalusia (Secretariat-General for External Action of the regional Government of Andalusia) The Con Copia a Europa Association Casa del Mediterráneo Figure 5. Distribution of citizens consultations, by organising group 4 Spanish Confederation of Employers Organizations (CEOE) 3 Figures updated on 9 November 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. 14

15 Figure 6. Distribution of the consultations, from May to November Steering Group EU Group Volunteer Group Nota: Número total de consultas ciudadanas = b. When and where? As for the calendar distribution, as can be seen in figure 6, in the months of May to July and October an average of 15 consultations per month were recorded. September was the month with the greatest intensity, with 30 recorded consultations. As planned, the steering group s activity 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. Another important factor when conducting citizens consultations has been the aim to reach as many locations as possible. To this end, particular efforts have been made not to only focus on major cities. Even though Madrid and Barcelona have hosted the most consultations, as can be seen in Table 2, consultations have been held in most of Spain s Autonomous Communities, and in 25 towns with a population of under 60,

16 Table 2. Cities in which citizens consultations were conducted ANDALUSIA 8 Baena (Jaén) 1 Cádiz 1 Jerez de la Frontera (Cádiz) 1 Sevilla 4 Córdoba 1 ARAGON 10 Alcañiz (Teruel) 2 Calatayud (Zaragoza) 2 Jaca (Huesca) 2 Zaragoza 4 CANARY ISLANDS 2 Santa Cruz de Tenerife 1 Las Palmas de Gran Canaria 1 CANTABRIA 3 Santander 3 CASTILLA Y LEÓN 6 Aranda de Duero (Burgos) 2 Valladolid 1 Arévalo (Ávila) 1 Zamora 1 Cuéllar (Segovia) 1 CATALONIA 16 Gavà (Barcelona) 1 Barcelona 9 Campdevánol (Girona) 1 Gironella (Barcelona) 1 Hospitalet de Llobregat (Barcelona) 1 L Ampolla (Tarragona) 1 Olesa de Montserrat (Barcelona) 1 Santa Coloma de Gramanet (Barcelona) 1 AUTONOMOUS COMMUNITY OF MADRID 27 Alcalá de Henares (Madrid) 1 Getafe (Madrid) 1 Madrid 25 VALENCIAN COMMUNITY 6 Valencia 3 Alicante 1 Castellón 1 Quart de Poblet (Valencia) 1 EXTREMADURA 1 Plasencia (Cáceres) 1 GALICIA 6 Monforte de Lemos (Lugo) 2 Pontearas (Pontevedra) 2 Riveira (A Coruña) 2 BALEARIC ISLANDS 5 Calvià (Mallorca) 1 Formentera (Baleares) 1 Mahón (Menorca) 1 Palma de Mallorca 1 Sant Eulari des Riu (Ibiza) 1 LA RIOJA 1 Haro (La Rioja) 1 BASQUE COUNTRY 6 Bilbao 6 PRINCIPALITY OF ASTURIAS 6 Avilés 1 Langreo 1 Oviedo 2 Villaviciosa 1 Boal 1 2.c. How many and who? Approximately 6,000 people attended. Figure 7 shows the distribution of events by number of participants. In approximately two out of every three consultations held, the number of participants has varied from 15 to 60, with approximately 35 being the most usual number. Moreover, some consultations have been much more widely attended, with up to approximately 350 people. As to which main interest groups were covered, the most prominent were, in the following order: Members of the academic community (students, teachers, and researchers); Europeanist civil society organizations; Opinion leaders, such as journalists and political commentators; Diplomats, representatives and civil servants of European institutions; 16

17 Figure 7. Distribution of the consultations by number of participants >200 Total number of citizens consultations = 67. Approximate number of participants = 6,000 Secondary school students; Trade unions and employers organizations; Representatives of political parties and of local and regional governments; Representatives of associations and NGOs; Representatives of the justice system and state security forces; Farmers and rural entrepreneurs; Representatives from the world of culture. Many individuals have also collaborated with the process, sharing their knowledge on the EU s current situation and its future. According to the data collected, active participants from universities, political institutions and civil society totalled approximately 150 people. A list of those who participated actively in the citizens consultations in Spain can be found in Annex II. Figure 8 shows the distribution of consultations by the number of people who participated in them as speakers. Two aspects stand out: firstly, some speakers were involved in a number of consultations; and secondly, approximately 35% were women. 2.d. What were the consultations like? The formats of the citizens consultations varied a great deal. We have classified the different formats into four major groups, taking into account, mainly, how the debates were conducted. Nevertheless, each group has a wide variety of members. In the format used most extensively, first, one or more experts in EU issues made a more or less brief presentation, followed by a question-andanswer session. Within this category, we find consultations that opted for a more conventional model, being held in such spaces as auditoriums. However, within this group we also find a large number of consultations which, although maintaining the format of presentations followed by question-and-answer session, opted for more informal venues, such as cafés. Another format for consultations was a more horizontal dialogue, in which the presence of the experts, although obvious, was not the focal point. The main characteristic of these consultations was a fluid debate in which the audience intervened throughout the consultation, not just after the experts had their turn to speak. Together with 17

18 Figure 8. Distribution of the consultations, by number of speakers a 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 an experienced moderator (e.g. design thinking workshops, idea labs, mock European Parliament, online platforms). 5 Lastly, as mentioned above, 15 focus groups were conducted by two members of the steering group. This research technique has been especially useful because, although it did not seek the probabilistic representativeness of a formal survey, it did make it possible to achieve a degree of structural representativeness. The focus groups conducted are a cornerstone of the Citizens consultations on the future of Europe carried out in Spain. This research technique offers us the possibility exploring more in depth from a structural perspective the major issues concerning Spanish citizens about the future of Europe. In Annex IV we provide details on the composition of the 15 focus groups, focusing on gender, age, education, employment situation, and city of residence. One data point that enables us to image how the citizens consultations were conducted is their duration. As shown in Figure 10, duration was consistent with the type of debate format used. Most of the consultations lasted from 1.5 to 2 hours. Having said this, it can be clearly seen that many of the consultations were quite long. A high number of the consultations last lasted from 2 to 6 hours were conducted using different Figure 9. Distribution of events, by format used 17% Workshops, participatory techniques, etc 55% Presentation + Questions time Number of citizens consultations = 88 17% Focus Groups Presentation & Horizontal Dialogue 11% day-long formats divided between a morning and an afternoon session, giving participants more opportunities to socialize and enabling a more fluid dialogue. Lastly, according to the design of day-long sessions just described, there have also been several consultations held over two days

19 Figure 10. Duration of the events 11% 10% < 2 hours 2-3 hours 4-6 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) % 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% % presentation % debate Total number of citizens consultations = 33 (not including the 15 focus groups) 19

20 Fundación Ramón Areces Another factor we considered important when evaluating the citizens consultations was the time devoted to the informative and/or dissemination phase involving expert presentations, and the time devoted the discussion and/or questionand-answer phase (Figure 10). Taking as our starting 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

21 III European dialogues: questions posed by the citizens 21

22 Which questions concern Spanish citizens regarding the future of the EU? About which issues did they ask for more information? One of the many possible ways of learning about citizens real concerns is to reach those areas that are usually left outside the political spotlight. This has been the main purpose of the different consultations carried out in 2018 by the different Representations of the European Commission and the Offices of the Parliament in Spain. These bodies are carrying out many initiatives to take the pulse of the citizenry, such as the Cafés con Europa (Coffee with Europe), the Diálogos Ciudadanos (Citizens Dialogues), Terraza de Europa (European Café), Conecta con Europa (Connect with Europe), and Europa en mi Ciudad (Europe in My City). Thanks to these consultations the European institutions have been able to reach places that are often forgotten by supra-local institutions. The result has been the organization of more than 40 debates, between May and October, with residents of townshaving less than 10,000 people, including Campdevánol, L Ampolla, Gironella, Arévalo, and Cuellar; between 10,000 and 25,000, such as Jaca, Monforte de Lemos, Calatayud, Olesa de Mostserrat, Pontearas, and Quart de Poblet; and between 25,000 and 65,000, including Riveira, Mahón, Aranda de Duero, Sant Eulari des Riu, Plasencia, Gavá, Calvià, and Zamora. In all of these places, citizens presented their concerns, as well as asking for more information about issues regarding the EU. We believe that it is a good starting point to examine what questions citizens asked in these towns, in order to correct the over-representation that big cities tend to have in setting the political agenda. Below is a summary of the questions principally asked by citizens during the events and debates held in their towns. At first glance, we might think that citizens living in small towns and rural areas are only concerned with those EU issues that directly affect their area, of an exclusively local nature. However, in all of the consultations we have seen a high level of interest and concern regarding aspects of economic and international policy which, although these people might initially seem far removed from them, actually incite interest due to recognition of the real impact they can have on citizens daily lives, and on their pocketbooks: How will Brexit affect the European budget for the Common Agricultural Policy? And Spain s trade balance? What is the EU s plan regarding the trade restrictions announced by President Trump? How does the EU defend the different designations of origin in free trade agreements? How is the EU dealing with the interests of transnational companies? What progress has been made on the Fiscal Union? Nor are they unaware of the political instability that seems to have been taking root in the EU in recent years. Most of their questions revolved around the wave of Euroscepticism and factions break with EU rules and principles: Why are we seeing a wave of far-right and populist movements? What is the EU s analysis of this rise in Eurosceptic movements and parties? How can Members States be forced to comply with European directives? How to generate a political alternative within the EU to strengthen the Union? The visible disagreement on migration and asylum issues are also among the main concerns behind some of the questions asked, in these terms: What are the EU s priorities regarding migration policy? Is the European migration policy endangered by the Lega and M5S government in Italy? Why are some Member States not meeting their quota for accepting refugees? Environmental protection was also a subject of many questions over the course of the citizens consultations; the frequently asked were: What is the EU doing to combat depopulation? How is the EU promoting renewable energy? What is the EU doing to protect the environment from plastic pollution? The main questions regarding education revolved around mobility and vocational training programmes, as well as first-time job seekers: 22

23 Real Instituto Elcano / ESGLOBAL / Fundación Carlos de Amberes What opportunities does the EU offer young people? What support programmes for entrepreneurs does the EU have? How does the Erasmus programme work? the Representations of the principal European institutions in Spain as part of their attempt to reach the general public. The following sections examine how the citizens themselves, as well as civil society, have their own answers and opinions regarding these and many other questions. What is the role of vocational training in the EU? Is it compatible to demand impartiality in educational 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 inequalities and obstacles: What is the EU doing to integrate people with functional diversity? What is the EU doing to integrate ethnic minorities, 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 23

24 IV Focus group issues discussed (and raised) by the citizens 24

25 To identify the principal issues that are of concern to Spaniards, and what their positions are, we analysed the 15 focus groups described earlier in the section on methodology. This qualitative social research technique made it possible, on the one hand, to analyse citizens reactions when presented with the challenge of talking about the future of Europe, and, on the other, to identify their main positions regarding topics that at times arose spontaneously, and at others were brought up directly by the organisers of the consultations. Details about the members of the focus groups can be found in Annex IV. It is important to bear in mind that the participants statements and opinions included in this section do not aim to represent Spanish society as a whole. IV.1. The Callenge of talking about Europe 1.a. Are we, as Spaniards, ready to talk about the European Union? One of the first reactions when we are asked to 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 our usual range of knowledge. Faced with such an open subject, a pattern often seen in focus groups was to get off track, talking about issues as they arose spontaneously, linking one to another, and getting farther away from the initial issue. In the case of the focus groups analysed in this section, such a pattern of getting off track has rarely occurred. In the beginning, participants seemed to have been reticent to speak when confronted with the apparent challenge of talking about the European Union in general terms. Later, thanks to the role of the moderator, who suggested specific topics, participants began to express their opinions on most of these. They made it obvious that they did indeed have opinions, more or less solidly evidence-based, on the major problems affecting the European Union. Having said this, it is important to note the following: Talking about, and expressing opinions about, European Union was not, at first, an easy task for Spaniards. However, when we facilitated discussion through asking specific questions that were interesting to them, we found that Spanish citizens had a great deal to say regarding the Europe they want to see in coming decades. In future citizens consultations, discussion topics should be defined in advance as much as possible. If not, the picture obtained will be one of citizens who see themselves as incapable of talking about, and expressing opinions about, Europe. Lastly, and irrespective of how secure they feel talking about Europe, all of the groups expressed feeling uncertain about their information, in the sense of lacking media sources offering reliable reporting. This uncertainty can be seen both in the lack of clarity when trying to identify the EU s common problems and when assessing the impact of the political situation of other States on the EU as a whole. A clear example is the following quote about Brexit: -But wait, I m getting really confused, here. Is it true that the English are going to leave the European Union? -I don t believe it. I mean, if they have such an important market here, and by here I mean the continent of Europe, where are they going to go...? -It s true, they ve left the EU. -Well, I m telling you they haven t. (Group 3. Middle class, Balearic Islands) How is this feeling of incapability in talking about the EU mainly expressed? The difficulty in understand what the EU is and how it works appears to be the main source of this feeling of incapability. It often leads to mistrust and scepticism towards European institutions and their representatives. In other words, not knowing how the EU works favours negative attitudes and opinions about it, weakening the ties between these institutions and the citizens. -As for me, I don t understand anything about the European Union, not a single thing... I don t know how it works, how many people work there, what they do... I have no idea, least of all how much money they make and why... no idea. (Group 6. Madrid) -The truth is, nobody understands how this European Union stuff works, who obeys who, what s the point of people voting or not... Who are these people to tell us what we can and cannot do? -Okay, I agree with you, I don t know how it works, but we re there because they help us 25

26 with a lot of things. (Group 5. Barcelona) The lack of knowledge regarding the EU s institutional architecture prevents linking mechanisms from being promoted, and particularly prevents feelings of belonging from being promoted. The main aspects in those who identify a lack of knowledge are: the total composition of Member States, the variety of existing bodies, and lastly, how the states and bodies relate to each other. - Now, if you asked me to list each of the 27, the truth is I d get lost, I don t think I could name them all. - I don t think I could either, but, well I do know that there are countries that I didn t even know were countries, I thought they were regions of other countries. (Group 3. Palma de Mallorca) Of all of the institutions, the European Parliament was the most easily recognised. However, participants stated that they did not know whether there are mechanisms for citizens to monitor and control the parliament s actions. They perceive the vertical and horizontal accountability systems between the different bodies and roles as completely opaque. Participants do not clearly see a hierarchal pyramid that helps them to identify the position or body that is responsible for each matter: - The idea they give you in the master s degree is that it is all important and that each body is good, really good for each thing, even if it isn t for another. Okay. But I want to know who s in charge, who makes the final decision. (Group 4. Bilbao) In short, there is a marked perception of a lack of information about the EU, resulting in a feeling of being unable to talk about the Union, strengthening the perception of a lack of knowledge, and consequentially weakening citizens links with the Europe and specifically their feeling of belonging. The perception described above is known as internal political effectiveness, and consists of the perception that we have of ourselves in relation to our capacity to understand politics. The discussion groups that were analysed show that Spanish citizens initially considered themselves unable to discuss the European Union. However, in practice this is not entirely true, as we will see in this section. Before moving forward, we will briefly describe the main causes of this feeling of not being equipped to talk about Europe. One of the main reasons that citizens perceive themselves as unprepared to discuss Europe relates to individual socioeconomic factors. In analysis of the discussion groups we can see how some sectors of the population tend to take refuge in a lack of information to avoid participation in the discussions. Specifically, the most socioeconomically vulnerable sector tend to cultivate a narrative in which they blame their lack of information on the media, the institutions and the governments. In their version of events, there is an institutional framework focused on creating an overall situation of a lack of information, in order to evade accountability and to water down political responsibility for any decisions made. - You can t say you know, because the media lies systematically and always has lied to us, and the people in Europe, the Parliament and all of them, they re all layabouts that s what I think of Europe we don t know and they don t want us to. (Group 5. Employees, Barcelona) -Well, I don t think we re uninformed just because we re uninformed because it isn t in the politicians interest for us to understand anything. (Group 10. Older people, Valladolid) -You re right, I agree with her, if we don t know it s because there s a lot of interest in us not knowing. (Group 3. Workers, Palma de Mallorca) In contrast, the sectors of society that are best positioned in the social structure associate their lack of information with individual factors primarily a lack of time but also with greater trust in European institutions and their representatives. -Well, my ignorance about everything that might be discussed here tonight is almost total, let s make that clear, but since I m all for representative democracy, I think the people who do need to know are all the men and women in Brussels who are there to represent us all. (Group 8. Older people, upper class, Seville) 26

27 Differences are also observed in the way that Europe is discussed according to gender, age and job security: Women, despite apparently having the same level of information on the European Union as men, tend to be more reserved about expressing a position on a variety of European affairs. Meanwhile, men seem to feel obliged to appear convincing. Younger people appear more insecure about their opinions, without any observed lower level of information on Europe than older sectors. Older people, in contrast, are among those who are most enthusiastic and defend the importance of the EU most strongly. This segment is predisposed to involvement in initiatives that promote the European project of integration and the defence of their values. The segments with the greatest job security and integration offer sounder, more credible narratives and arguments. They have knowledge of the European legislation that affects them most significantly, resulting in less emotional narratives. 1.b. Discursive positions on the EU: blocs, fractions and nuclei Majority bloc: There is a clearly larger bloc that expresses fear towards the vision of a divided world that offers no certainty because of the establishment of the idea of a lack of truth. This bloc feels very uncertain about the issues that most concern them. Their concerns reflect a significant underlying insecurity, which is often non-specific, which they feel is overwhelming. Intermediate fractions: There are two fractions, which are smaller than the above bloc, but which have a considerable capacity for argumentation. We have called them the belligerent fraction and the alarmist fraction. The issues that are of most concern to these fractions do not differ greatly from those that concern the majority bloc, but they have the gift of eloquence. A trend is thus generated whereby the narratives of the more radical fractions (which are smaller in size) assert themselves over the majority bloc. The belligerent fraction (a minority and homogeneous) defends its Spanishness and its European identity against those it considers enemies: Spanish separatists and immigrants. This is a very militant group, with a more concrete and identifiable discourse than the majority bloc. The alarmist fraction tends towards a sort of depressive fatalism as regards the same issues, but, far from opting for belligerence, falls into a form of alarmism and apocalyptic attitude whenever they feel threatened from outside of Spain, or from within by separatists or secessionists. Small nuclei: There are two nuclei of resistance: pro-openness and authoritarian. The former group promotes positions characterised by clearly progressive ethical and civic principles. The latter group, at the opposite pole, prefers authoritarian figures at the national level who will restore order, faced with what they consider to be a current chaotic situation. However, in many cases these people were loose cannons at both extremes who did not receive widespread support from the rest. IV.2. Issues that arose spontaneously Below are the key results of the debates on the issues that arose spontaneously in the discussion groups. Most of the issues are current, and therefore dominate the participants short-term memory. 2.a. Immigration: perplexity, lack of criteria and confusion Immigration was the subject that was debated spontaneously most frequently. With the exception of highly-educated adults, and young people who belong to different youth associations or NGOs, the underlying feeling in most citizens is deep-seated confusion as to the difference between migrants and refugees, both of which are most frequently amalgamated into the term immigrants. A similar thing occurs with the EU s reception policies. The idea tends to prevail that the arrival of migrants is a conflict that the countries of Southern Europe (Spain, Italy and Greece) are facing without the support of other Member States or of the EU. - I think the European Union is there when it suits it, and if it doesn t it just turns a blind eye because you can t say it can t do 27

28 anything same as they sent people to Yugoslavia years ago during the war, they ought to send people to defend us, and I don t mean just us Spaniards, also the Greeks and the Italians. - Since we re here, right next to the border, we have to deal with the whole mess ourselves. - It can t go on I don t know how many hundreds of thousands there are here, not to mention those who are on the way. Group 6. Madrid With the exception of a few particular sectors, the majority are unaware of the figures for migrants and asylum seekers, and downplay the effect on other European countries or exaggerating them in the case of Spain. Normally, the sectors that have experienced the situation in other EU countries directly, or that have personal links with people from other countries acknowledge that it is a problem throughout the EU, and one on which EU institutions have been working for some time, attempting to promote solidarity and viability in decision-making and resolutions. - I don t know how many thousands and thousands of refugees there are in Spain, because it isn t just the government, the regions given refuge to a lot of people here in Valencia, it s madness, I don t know how many people have been given residence but definitely thousands. - And in all of Spain, millions. (Group 1. Valencia) Broadly speaking, there appear to be three main positions on flows of migrants and refugees: humanitarian emergency, conflict of interest and social fear. 1) One position apparently represents the sectors that are most receptive to receiving migrants and refugees, but who are opposed to accepting the complexity of the phenomenon. They refer to the immigrant crisis by placing emphasis on the humanitarian emergency. -Sorry, but you and I, even if it s a job for three months, at least I, I have a bed to sleep in, a shower and food on the table, but those people have nothing, nothing at all and if we are human beings, we have to behave like them. (Group 3. Valencia) 2) Another position seemingly mirrors the sectors for whom the migration phenomenon represents a conflict of interest, representing the complexity of the demand from refugees and migrants in societies that are attempting to recover from a decade-long economic crisis. - It s a full-blown conflict, because of course, if you have to leave Syria, well, obviously, in the middle of a war like the one we had here, you leave because you have no other option, but I imagine you also think that you re coming to a top-notch continent, which is swimming in riches where people are good and charitable - Lots of people are good and charitable - I m not saying they aren t, what I mean is that it doesn t depend on people, it depends on other things like the economy, like the politics of each country, no matter what the European Union says. You know? It s a conflict because you can t make something out of nothing - And also because it s all about political extremism and uncertainty nowadays - Of course, you see it from both points of view, and I think that what is happening to the immigrants is a priority. (Group 4. Bilbao) 3) A third position illustrates social fear, caused by the enduring crisis for many segments of society, deregulation of integration into the labour market, various international divisions and a long list of other factors, whereby the migration phenomenon becomes a threat. - What are we going to do with so many refugees, immigrants or whatever they re called, if there s no work here for us, what are we going to give them? - No, what will happen is that the idiots, who are actually sharp as a tack, and sharper than all of us, will choose them because they can pay them peanuts and have them sleep on a mattress outside the plant, not even inside. - And the businessmen delighted with it all. - Until they start to burgle their houses, rape their daughters (Group 1. Valencia) 28

29 2.b. The demographic question One issue that is closely linked to immigration is the demographic characteristics of European society. Unlike other issues, such as financial policy, or the future of the single currency, when considered the demographic question Spanish citizens have more marked positions and share the same conclusions: 1) European societies are seen as peoples in decline (falling birth rates), with very worrying ageing, and ones that are undergoing a transition towards an older population structure. The situation is considered particularly alarming in the case of Spain. 2) In most of the discussion groups, a link was formed between demographics and economic growth. In fact, among the proposals the need for stable jobs and improved work-life balance stood out. Access to housing not necessarily involving a purchase is considered another of the key causes of the fall in the birth rate, at least in Spain. - The crisis of the past few years has also been a blow to young people deciding to have children. - How are they going to have children, if they can t find work, a home, or even make plans? - Well, when we had our children it wasn t much better, we complained, of course, because you have to, but we were able to make plans. (Group 9. Barcelona) 3) Rural depopulation appears to be the most dramatic facet of demographic alarm. A special section has been dedicated to this question, in view of the extremely serious situation in some regions of Spain. Although there is widespread consensus on the conclusions, the main disagreements arise when considering the migration flows into Europe as a possible means to resolving the demographic problem. The fraction that favours receiving migrants and asylum seekers, and the fraction that does not, agree in underscoring the complexity of the conflict, which highlights the paradox of the need for population growth and the simultaneous fear of others. - Well, if you listen to each other, if we listen to the whole problem we re describing, I don t understand why we don t ask for it to be easier for people to come from other countries, from Africa, even the Syrians I don t know, all over. - It isn t going to be fixed like this. - And it won t be fixed if we do nothing, I don t understand it: we complain about the ageing of Spain, of Europe and there are people who have to leave their homes because they ve got nothing to eat, or even worse, they re in the middle of never-ending wars, and we don t want to let them in. What s that about? (Group 3. Balearic Islands) For every argument that proposes a well-meant solution to the migration phenomenon, often connected to the demographic question, a counter-argument is then put forward by another fraction, which ends up dominating: 1) For the proposal to implement more development and cooperation policies in the migrants countries of origin, the following counter-arguments arise: Most of the countries of origin have unreliable and unstable governments. High levels of corruption in the countries receiving investment. Competing interests within the EU when deciding where to invest. - Invest in those countries? That s just throwing money way, all that happens is that three guys from the ministry of whatever line their pockets and nothing is done; the people still don t have any jobs, any hospitals, nothing that s been done more than once and it s come to nothing - Careful! On top of that more than likely they ll call you a colonialist it s not the time for - That s it look what happened to the energy companies in Latin America, they ve had their fair share of problems. (Group 9. Bilbao) 2) For the proposal to enhance border controls to promote controlled and orderly migration, the counter-arguments put forward are: - The perception that border controls are ineffec- 29

30 tive, given the repeated failures that form part of the collective imagination of much of the population on this matter (climbing the fences, arrivals from the sea, etc.). - The existence of mafias that profit from the distress of migrants and refugees. - The southern border of Europe has been forgotten. 3) For the proposal to develop integration and inclusion policies in the host countries to prevent cultural conflicts, the main counter-arguments are: - The effects of the economic crisis make it impossible to be altruistic towards the conflicts of people from other countries. - Disbelief that the rest of the Member States would also opt for inclusion and integration. - The so-called pull effect. - The social conflicts that the processes of inserting and integrating migrant segments entail Although the economic arguments to defend positions in favour of receiving migrants and refugees (ageing population, weakening pension and social security system, etc.) prove effective when rationally refuting xenophobic visions, such arguments are weakened by the counter-arguments, based primarily on political mistrust and disparagement of institutions. 2.c. Current principal EU conflicts This second bloc of subjects on which Spaniards spontaneously expressed concerned includes issues that are the focus of the media. Notably, of the 11 subjects or news items, only one was viewed in a positive light. This does not mean that the participants believe that the UE is responsible for the barrage of bad news, but in recent years in the EU citizens have been referring to negative news more frequently when they discuss Europe. i) Uncertainty over the outcome of Brexit All of the groups expressed confusion over the consequences of Brexit, for the Union as a whole, and for Spain. They considered it a symbolic blow that could open the way for more withdrawals. In short, the break-up of the EU, which seemed unthinkable until the Brexit experience, does not seem as unlikely now. ii) Fear in response to the current Italian government s threats of leaving the EU. There was a fear that the positions of the new Italian government could favour a feeling of vulnerability in an institution such as the European Union, which until now seemed unquestionably robust, and above all irreversible. In addition, the image of Italy among Spaniards may be undergoing a change as a result of the Italian government s refusal to accept the Aquarius. Some participants began to include that country in a political space similar to those of the countries of Eastern and Central Europe with populist right-wing governments. iii) Aquarius One of the main news items mentioned was the Italian government s refusal to accept the Aquarius vessel, carrying immigrants from Libya. From more clearly pro-european positions there was criticism of the EU allowing Italy to accept the boat, without any consequences. This tended to be the anecdote that gave rise to a preventive discourse as regards immigration and the limits of European human rights policies. 30

31 iv) Image of the crisis and difficulties in forming a government in Germany Participants gave Germany a prominence all of its own, as there are no other countries that approach its capacity for leadership. Although no names other than those of Chancellor Angela Merkel stood out or were identified, the groups were aware of the difficulties and that complex negotiations had to take place to achieve a consensus to form governments and that they had fallen through various times. v) Misinformation about the governments of Poland and Hungary The countries that belong to the bloc known as the Visegrád Group were seen as another factor destabilising the European Union, although none of the discussion groups were able to identify or name the current conflicts. Unfamiliarity with these countries and a lack of information resulted in odd arguments based on prejudices and stereotypes of Poland and Hungary and very muddled impressions of the recent history of these countries. vi) Lack of leadership The lack of leaders they can identify with is another factor that the groups identify as a hurdle to forming emotional links with the EU. Following years of symbolic dominance by leaders (e.g., Felipe González, François Mitterrand and Helmut Kohl), the current period appears to lack figures with the capacity to lead and above all, the capacity to organise points of view that allow positions to be adopted, either through acceptance or rejection. vii) Separatist nationalism Most of the groups referred to the pro-independence movement in Catalonia and understood that it was an inauspicious issue for the European Union. In contrast, some groups denied that it was a European dispute. However, the European Union appeared to have transmitted an image of strength and control in response to the plans for independence in various countries. Only some pro-independence sectors, in the case of Catalonia, considered the European Union s actions in a negative light. viii) The rise of Eurosceptic parties Passing references were made over the course of the debates to different parties spearheading severe criticism of the EU and even calling for it to be broken up. There appear to be two types: a) xenophobic parties linked to certain countries of Central and Eastern Europe; b) parties linked to economic matters, such as some Greek parties. These parties were included in the same area of tension as Brexit, painting a panorama for Europe of a fight for individual interests, with no collective spirit. ix) Russian electoral interventionism Another subject that arose spontaneously, but more tangentially, concerns the information that has appeared regarding alleged Russian interference in the elections of other countries through social networks. This news item, even when presented as an unsubstantiated rumour, leaves a certain trace of uncertainty and reinforces the feeling of a conflictive and unstable international situation. x) Guarantee of net neutrality The vote in which Brussels guaranteed net neutrality in Europe, as opposed to the elimination by the US, is almost the only news item that arose spontaneously with a positive focus on the EU. It entails a view of the EU as a defender of its citizens rights as consumers. This item of news was contributed in groups by the younger members, in line with their marked optimism and their familiarity with technological issues. IV.3. Suggested topics (not spontaneous) Some important topics with considerable media coverage did not arise spontaneously within the discussion groups, and therefore had to be suggested by the moderators. We will now focus on the subjects that gave rise to the most discussion: The different Europes that we, as Spaniards, perceive; the economic and financial future of the European Union; Cultural and religious diversity; The EU as an international power, and terrorism. 3.a. The different Europes that we perceive The different groups largely agreed on clearly differentiating between five large regions, which 31

32 reflect the different Europes that exist: Northern Europe; Southern Europe; Central Europe, Anglo-Saxon Europe, and Eastern Europe. To determine these five regions, the participants primarily relied on the following factors: An economic factor: differences in purchasing power, industrial capacity and labour market indicators (unemployment, insecurity, etc.). Following rules: differences according to respect for set of shared rules to prevent disputes between Member States. Culture and customs: different work habits, attitudes towards making friends and personal relationships with neighbours, and other forms of socialising. Institutions and democratic conscience: acceptance or rejection of institutionalised corruption and the extent of administrative attitudes and forms of authoritarianism, racism, etc. These five Europes were situated in three geographical axes: Northern Europe vs. Southern Europe: this is first of the axes that usually appear, concentrating many of the appraisals of the differences between economies, customs and fulfilment of rules. Citizens appear to place the Scandinavian countries and Central European countries at the northern end (specifically in the case of the latter Germany, Austria, Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands). Spain, Portugal, Italy and Greece are placed at the southern point. Occasionally, this axis was used to establish a classification as regards compliance with rules: spontaneous compliance (internalised rules) in Scandinavian countries; compliance through effective application of the law in Central Europe; and difficulties in compliance in southern countries. Anglo-Saxon Europe vs. the rest: in all groups the United Kingdom was considered a distinct reality, which has always kept a certain distance from the EU. While in the rest of the cases difficulties with integration are usually attributed to contextual or structural conditions, in the case of the United Kingdom they are linked to the attitudes of British governments, which are reluctant to fully integrate into the European institutions. The United Kingdom represents the position of opportunist use of relations with the EU as a whole. On numerous occasions the UK appeared as part of the origin of Europe s current problems, as an example of an EU agreement that is merely instrumental and selfish, based on economic advantages. In any case, the United Kingdom was also described as an economic and cultural hub in Europe, which acts as a pole, drawing citizens from around the world. Eastern Europe vs. the rest: the countries of the East are currently the other major source of tension as regards European cohesion, according to most participants. The determining factors in this regard are the same ones as for Southern Europe (economy and culture), but with a differentiating characteristic: the tendency of some of these countries to adopt policies that are seen as authoritarian and racist. The participants agreed that the eastern countries are the ones of which there is the least knowledge, with the exception of Romania, probably due to Romanian immigration into Spain, which gives rise to comparisons. They were sometimes referred to as the countries that have put the EU s capacity to achieve internal cohesion to the test. They are also considered as the substitutes of the southern countries in terms of assistance awarded. In any case, the understanding is that the standard of living in eastern countries is lower than in the southern countries, and in some cases it is mentioned that the prices of certain products can even be similar to those of Spanish products, even with lower salaries. 3.b. The economic and financial future of the European Union In the midst of uncertainties and certainties, participants in the different groups underscored the current and future importance of the euro. Although hesitant or adverse nuclei always emerged at every meeting, all of the groups express an expectation and hope that the euro would remain as the currency of the European Union countries, irrespective of its current difficulties. This sensation was present in all of the groups, which argued not based on economic or financial analysis, but rather based on emotions. The consistency of the euro and its implausible fall are directly linked with the implausibility of the disappearance of the European Union. -The euro will be around for a while, we mustn t let them scare us even if the EU were to have problems and six or seven countries were left, the euro would still exist. -But it wouldn t be the same euro 32

33 -Yes and no, because when a currency leaves an important mark and has stood its ground for 20, 30 years against the best of them, well (Group 7. La Rioja) The voices that are most critical or adverse towards the single currency emerged from two positions that, strangely, are equidistant. From segments of the Catalan secessionist left, which expresses a sort of reproach of the lack of support for the procés from the authorities of the European Union, and therefore by extension condemn the euro - We believe that the EU is destined for failure, simply because they don t have a plan. There s no path for us to be freer in Europe, to allow us to decide in each region what we really want to do. Obviously, that won t be allowed. - When you say we, who are you talking about, because there are people here who are making gestures to show that they don t agree with you (moderator). - That s what left-wing people in Catalonia think: The heck with Europe, it never gave us anything, except the euro, of course. - I don t agree with you and I consider myself to be left-wing, but not a secessionist, and I think Europe has given us a lot and has supported us tremendously and is still if you travel around a bit, you can see how many projects are co-funded by the European Union (Group 5. Barcelona) and from right-wing positions, which were more emotional than political, without any capacity for argument or separation of subjects, but also without reservations or embarrassment in expressing opinions, even though they are aware they are in the minority: -In my view, not the view of other Spaniards of course, what we ought to do is bring back the passbook my grandparents had, but with mobile phones -No, not that -Yes, of course, that would be best and we wouldn t have to put up with people from outside giving us orders, or having a foreign currency. -But the euro isn t foreign. -Of course it s foreign, it isn t Spanish. -But it is Spanish -No. If they d asked the people of Spain if they wanted to drop the peseta for the euro, they d have said no. Right? People got it wrong with the referendum on the Constitution. (Group 1. Valencia) Outside these extreme nuclei, the participants found it impossible to imagine a future in which there was a return to national currencies. However, even the most pro-european segments considered it a very remote possibility that the European Union could be governed and controlled in economic matters by a single financial decision-making body to which all of the countries would be subordinate. They find it difficult to imagine because they are aware of the disagreements, of the asymmetry between countries, and above all, of the existing suspicion and resentment among Member States. Similarly, they cannot picture the image of an EU government with sufficient capacity and authority to develop economic policies aimed at neutralising the differences between States and promoting greater economic convergence. - I can t imagine someone from say Portugal, for example, or Spain, wherever giving orders to the Finance Minister of Germany or France - That would be very strange, especially there must be distrust and there must be so many prejudices between the different countries - These things, if they ever happen, need a lot more time we won t see it ourselves (Group 2. Madrid) And finally, the major expectation is to glimpse the implementation of a true, single Fiscal Union and a banking system that replaces the systems of the different States, although the very people who suggest this see it as very distant and currently unlikely. - I think at some point, quite a long time in the future I don t know if we ll see it ourselves, as this lady says, I don t know if we will but the right thing would be one single fiscal union for everyone - And a unified banking system, which they re trying to make, but there s a lot of resistance - Yes, that has to happen at some point, but we can t be so demanding. We mustn t forget 33

34 that the monetary union isn t even 20 years old, and in the grand scheme of things that s very little but it must happen at some point, it must. (Group 7. La Rioja) - Maybe in Europe very favourable opportunities were missed, when all of the countries were more in favour of establishing a fiscal union, and I don t know why they didn t. - It can t be easy to get so many countries with so many parties to agree, with so many differences between the countries - But when the Eastern European countries joined, when the [Berlin] wall fell, maybe it could have been done, making it a condition - Those who were in hadn t even agreed on having the same currency, because the British never dropped the pound - Yes I don t know subjects like this go over my head, I don t know anything about them. - Most of us don t. (Group 2. Madrid) 3.c. Cultural diversity The cultural diversity of Europe is the (tangible and intangible) heritage that is most frequently mentioned and most highly valued in the image of Europe and the EU. Everyone agreed that the concept of cultural diversity includes the key aspects that have given the continent its important position. If Europe can be said to have its own form of wealth, a historical wealth, that is its cultural diversity, which is recognised by Europeans and by the rest of the world. - The impressive thing about Europe is that, unlike the Americas, and with more variety than the United States, Japan or even China, Europe has cultural diversity within a distance of 100 km. - If you travel from the region of Holland to the Netherlands region, which used to be the same thing, now it s something different. - Well, here [in Spain] you go from Navarre to Aragon, or to La Rioja and in a very small area you ve got three cultures, two accents, even two different languages, histories - Food, wine, art, music (Group 7. La Rioja) This cultural wealth ranges from the invention of democracy to the construction of satellites, from the great creators of artistic canons to the most diverse of links with local identity through work, the ways of forming homes, of passing on traditions, of creating cuisines, of weaving folklore, etc. As we previously indicated, satisfaction is drawn not only from different nationalities, but also the diverse local and regional cultures, which are a crucial part of Europe s considerable appeal. However, when reference is made to cultures arriving from other continents, or from outside the EU, disagreements reigned once more, and only minority segments were receptive and open to these varieties, as well as defending openness to migration and refugees in the face of the demographic conflict. Nonetheless, in all cases these are the most markedly minority positions. Therefore, the image of cultural diversity tends to allude primarily to the variety of Europe, rather than co-existence with other cultural identities. 3.d. Religious diversity Europe is seen as one of the places where the separation of Church and State has been implemented most satisfactorily. This aspect serves to clearly differentiate Europe from the Arab world. The consolidated image that emerged in all of the discussion groups was one, in the context of the EU, of all religions have been domesticated despite the dramas of recent history with secularised forms of public life, a facet which is unfamiliar and unknown to many segments of the migration population, especially sectors linked to Islamic fundamentalism. Religious diversity seems to encompass the true conflict arising from the migration situation and asylum policies. More than cultures, religions emerged as the axis concentrating the violence that is feared and rejected. In contrast, at no time did the religious differences within Europe appear as a conflict, but rather as part of the enriching differences that make the EU a civilised amalgam of nuances, beliefs, and faiths, capable of existing alongside each other in peace. The basis of the arguments that are most opposed to openness to migration focuses on the threat from certain fundamentalist sectors, and this is also the focus of the resistance to others. - The attacks aren t because there are immi- 34

35 grants, sorry - No, it isn t related, but they take advantage of the fact that there are Maghrebi and Sub-Saharan Africans in all of these European countries to get through unseen but that s not the immigrants fault. (Group 4. Bilbao) However, it must be noted that the main conflict that is of concern to Spaniards as regards migration, which causes them to consider it a threat, is the force of the migratory flow and its capacity to compete in areas of current interest such as employment and access to public services. is, really they re representing a first-class economic power: with terrific industries. -With an unbeatable capacity for consumer demand, because it is one of the regions of the world with the highest and mostly evenly distributed purchasing power. -Exactly in finance the same thing. -And I think, as I said, that there s too much political do-goodism. -That excessive do-goodism, combined with the importance of the European Union, that s my biggest complaint. - I agree completely. - We all do. (Group 8. Seville) 3.e. The European Union as an international power With the exception of several isolated nuclei that see international isolationism as a form of self-affirmation, the majority of participants in these citizens consultations acknowledged that the European Union s most prominent strength is its capacity to meet (or confront) other international powers as an equal. - I can t imagine what would have happened to Spain without all these years in the European Union, and I can t imagine a Europe that isn t united on economic and political fronts. That s why I can t understand why the Hungarians and the Poland keep taking the piss excuse my language you feel like saying: outside the European Union you wouldn t even exist! - That s true, we might complain about a lot of things, but being part of a power, it really makes you feel safe. (Group 2. Madrid) Participants did not have any doubts about the EU s economic outlook and its position as a conciliatory international power (comparing it to China, Russia and the United States), but they appeared more critical of its capacity for political impact at the international level, where some sectors accused it of weakness, caused by an excess of political do-goodism. it s as if those in charge in the European Union, now, then and further back, all of them, it s as if they have no idea what Europe 3.f. Terrorism This is a concept to which all participants expressed their opposition, without any nuances. In addition, despite attributing certain criminal activities or terrorist activities to specific national identities, paradoxically, the groups did not seem to associate terrorism with the migration phenomenon (and rarely with refugees). In fact, there appears to be a separation between the perceptions of the problems of the two phenomena: while migration entails social and cultural conflicts, fear of an excess workforce competing with each country s workforce, an increase in demand for services (social, health and education services ) that take resources and preference away from the native-born, threats of different kinds, such as terrorism, did not appear to be linked to the migration experience, but rather with the development of a world that is both global and divided. - People think believe they want, and of course I think these terrorist people think that we re the unbelievers, you know, that Europe is unbelieving and immoral and it s very difficult to convince them that it s not like that, because with the corruption, the more liberal societies and the fact that coming from feudal societies it all seems immoral to them the most shocking thing is that they believe they re doing good - But what we were saying is very important, not all immigrants from Islamic countries are like that - Of course not, and here in La Rioja there are some great examples of very hard-working people, very good people, who also make an 35

36 effort to integrate and you don t always let them, you know? Don t forget that. (Group 7. La Rioja) In addition there were many more expressions of the forms of terrorism and its potential expressions. Notably, a long list of terrorist threats was given by participants: Islamic terrorism; opportunist terrorists; chemical and bacteriological threats; deadly gases; newly created viruses, and technological threats. -But it s as if only a few Muslims were terrorists, you re forgetting what the Russians are doing in England and what the State itself has done with chemical warfare, to do in its own people --Yes, that s true, the Russians and the Georgians too (Group 10. Balearic Islands) -They re the ones that worry me those most, because they re morons, but morons who don t care whether they live or die are dangerous you don t know whether they re going to get out a knife on a bus, wrap themselves in dynamite, it s a menace. (Group 6. Madrid) -Imagine you go outside without a care, you think you re breathing fresh air and in fact some people have decided to poison part of the population. That could easily happen. -Or in your house what do you think of chilling out in your house and in fact someone s killing you. (Group 1. Valencia) -They can kill you with a virus, mad cow disease, those resistant flus, what s that all about? That s people with financial interests, who want to sell you the latest antibiotic afterwards, and to do that they re prepared to do terrorist stuff, because that s what it is these are terrible dangers facing Europe because, on top of that, we re always the testing ground for other people s crazy ideas. (Group 8. Seville) IV.4. Consensus subjects The discussion groups revealed unanimity in considering a number of EU measures and actions to be successes. Other measures and actions, in contrast, were more controversial, with calls for reformulation. Lastly, a number of aspects were also identified that were considered by the majority to be the EU s key failures or weaknesses. 4.a. Unanimous successes i) Free movement of people The vast majority of participants had lived in or visited different EU countries, without having to use passports or visas. The elimination of borders, despite this entailing unwanted collateral effects in some cases (primarily the perception of more drug smuggling and an increase in international crime), continues to be perceived and considered one of the most noteworthy successes arising from membership of the EU. The influence on the younger segments is particularly notable, as they have been able to experience immersion in other cultures of the European Union. - My daughter lives in Germany, the crisis drove her north, of course she studied engineering, and there wasn t any work here, and she s been living in Hamburg for 4 years. And I have a German granddaughter, well she s Spanish, but she was born there what I mean is she s a truly European girl, born in one place, nationality of another, but that doesn t matter, the girl is European for all intents and purposes, and that s what I think is marvellous. - When we used to have to go to work on the grape harvest in France, if you didn t get a visa, you couldn t cross the border. - The border is a thing of the past in Europe, and that s brilliant, a brilliant thing about the European Union. (Group 10. Valladolid) ii) The single currency The euro was identified as one of the successes, which, despite structural differences between the member countries, has provided impulse and inspired confidence, marking a milestone in the 36

37 history of the EU. Not only did participants underscore the benefits of circulation of a single currency in terms of movement of people, goods and capital, they also highlighted the achievement of being one of the world s three main currencies. The euro is a clear sign in daily life, of a citizen belonging to a political and economic space that extends well beyond national borders. - It s a truly international currency, that s highly valued in all the major countries - And in the small ones, because in Mexico and countries with weaker economies, too you arrive with your euros, or you have to negotiate electricity, for example in my job, and you say, well in euros, I don t care what the dollar s trading at or in Japan, forget the yen, I want to know how the euro s doing - With pesetas that would never have happened. (Group 4. Bilbao) iii) The EU as a mark of quality Health-related controls on food: The participants had a clear conviction that if a food product is approved under EU rules on production, handling and distribution, it is immediately accepted as genuine and proper. - I remember when those rules didn t exist. - What happened with the rape-seed oil. [A 1981 case of food poisoning in Spain, with hundreds of fatalities.] - That s just one, and with other products. - With shellfish, with everything. - The truth is that it gives you peace of mind when you see on the packaging that it meets the European Union rules. - I pay a lot of attention to that. - Of course, but if it does, if it complies with the rules, that s enough for me I don t need to know anything else. (Group 6. Madrid) Rules on medicine controls: This area was specifically identified, particularly by women, as one in which EU rules have been especially significant in establishing a framework of quality and trust for the wide range of products, their specifications, their expiries, and the adverse effects that each of them can have. Service quality rules: In all kinds of services, those that are rendered to populations in general or services that are taken on at the individual level: laws for the operations of service companies, for the portfolio of services they offer consumers. The elimination of roaming charges was highlighted as a success by users of mobile phone users from all EU countries, in favour of protecting and defending consumer rights. - Possibly one of the very important things for working people not just in Spain but in Europe. For me it s extremely important. - And for me, although I m sure I don t travel as much as you but even if you go on holiday for a few days, this August we re going to northern Italy and, well, being able to call my family in Malaga, with the peace of mind that you re not being bled dry by the phone companies, that s appreciated. - With things like these we forget how important the European Union government is, but they ve given us quality in our day-to-day lives in many areas just like we were saying with medicines, food, all of that is regulated by Europe. (Group 8. Seville) iv) The Erasmus programme A true metaphor for the best of the EU. The Erasmus programme was valued very positively by all of the groups, including those that had not participated in Erasmus or did not have close acquaintances who had. For many of the participants the programme is a true space to nurture Europeans who are open to the variety of countries and cultures, as well as enabling new languages to be learnt. - This is brilliant, man it s the best thing they ve thought of. - I wish there d have been a plan like that when I was studying. - In my case, they sent me to an Irish family straight out of the 19th century, but, well, all of my children have gone on Erasmus, even my youngest who s a real mummy s girl and didn t want to, and in the end she had a wonderful time. - That s how you really build Europe, it s not just what you learn at university, it s life in another culture, being immersed in that, 37

38 that s invaluable. - And also kids come from all sorts of different sectors the son of one of the people we have at home too, and I think that s amazing. (Group 8. Seville) v) Structural Funds The regional development funds are possibly the ones that are best known by everyone, since they have been used widely in all of Spain s Autonomous Communities. Participants referred to them as funds with a significant present in the past, which were very effective in supporting development of Spain s Autonomous Communities and of the region of Europe as a whole. - Well, here, thanks to the ERDF funds a lot has been done and is done, that s true - But also in La Rioja, they re really widespread, in Cameros, here in Haro, the winemaking centre. - In the mushroom business too. - In my area, where there s a lot of organic farming, without the ERDF I don t think we could have done it. - Those funds are highly valued throughout La Rioja. (Group 7. La Rioja) - I think the European Union is doing the most to defend the environment, well what we really ought to call the ecological disaster we re heading for - I agree, the thing is there are times it seems its calls fall on deaf ears, because with the Paris agreement, Trump and friends have already said they won t follow it, and if they don t you can forget the Chinese and those are two extremely important regions of the world. - But here there s more and more awareness: companies, hydroelectric plants, even oil firms we have to change the system because if we don t tackle the sustainable side, you tell me - For that, you have to take your hat off to the European Union. (Group 2. Madrid) 4.b. Improvable achievements Below are a number of subjects that the participants unreservedly classified as achievements, but for which they called for reformulated strategies and/or procedures. i) The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) vi) Caring for the environment This is another of the achievements that participants attributed to the EU; above all, in relation to the importance of achieving awareness that the responsibility lies with all sectors of society, from citizens and companies to national governments. Participants highlighted the proactive attitude and initiative of the EU in reaching international agreements to protect the environment. The first achievement that was attributed to the EU is having raised widespread awareness of the levels of vulnerability that have been reached, as a result of a lack of care in a situation of exponential growth, in response to which sustainable growth mechanisms must be urgently developed. The second is the willingness to implement drastic measures to halt the environmental decline, an undertaking in which they contrast European society with other powers, and especially with the United States and China. Not only was this policy received with interest by the participants who are most closely involved with agriculture, it was also well received by most of the segments consulted. However, they called for the policy s ambitions to be redefined, with new more daring and strategic approaches, relating to an idea of Europe that combines sustainable development, working cultures, demographic growth, redistribution of the population, opening up of new life and work opportunities, and even, for certain ideological outlooks, a way of containing and giving meaning to the migration flows. - A new CAP has to be put together, taking into account the new problems we ve been talking about. We have to stop the countryside from emptying, and to do that we have to design a CAP that is able to attract people, to give a new meaning to life in rural areas. (Group 7. La Rioja) - What I don t understand is my son, who s 20, 38

39 wanting to go to a farm outside Copenhagen, to an ecological rural development plan, and him not having the chance to do that here, when Teruel is empty, the centre of Girona is empty I mean there are towns where they are closing schools and health centres because there are no people. Doesn t the European Union realize that s where investment is needed? (Group 9. Barcelona) ii) Subsidization policies The participants considered that when subsidies pass through Spanish institutions they tend to lose force. The participants had not doubts over the importance of many of the subsidies received from Europe, of the various bodies that manage funds and of the good ideas they encompass. However, they were of the opinion that the mechanisms for requesting, and above all managing, subsidies should be revised. They expressed a range of attitudes ranging from suspicion about the Spanish administrations poor means of awarding subsidies at the local, regional and central government levels, to a lack of criteria and appropriate distribution when deciding who to award them to. -It s true that there are places that need them, that s true, but if you look at Vizcaya there people doing things, I m not saying they aren t, but receiving a subsidy for the third or fourth year in a row, I don t think that s right. (Group 4. Bilbao) - Here grants have been awarded to re-municipalize the water. That s unheard of! the water was always municipal, what was private was the management, but not the water and they gave that to the previous government, not this one, - That can t go on. Cereals on the other hand, since it isn t a priority region (Group 10. Valladolid) iii) Bologna Process - Universities Young people and professionals who have had the experience of university education under the Bologna Process agreements noted the absurdity of some of the contents and, above all, the stifling paperwork involved. Those who criticized the process did, at the same time, appreciate the boldness of its design. However, even though the proposal is praiseworthy and its goals are defensible, they believed that it needs to be reviewed in order to make it an instrument of knowledge and not of form-filling. -You could spend your whole time at university filling in forms. It s unbelievable; in the end you re not sure what you re studying or what you should be focusing on. The truth is that it s a bit sad how much time you have to waste, and not only you, but the administrative staff, the teachers, everyone... It seems that what matters is knowing how to fill in forms instead of knowing about physics. (Group 2. Madrid) iv) New rules on data protection Given that this citizens consultation has practically coincided with the entry into force, on 25 May, of the GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation), the participants were very aware of it, as well as of all the criticism of it. The most disproportionate impact has been that all the institutions, companies, forums, media, brands in general, etc. with which they interact, even if only occasionally, have asked them for authorization to save their address in order to get in touch with them; therefore, there is a significant underlying feeling of harassment. Even though the Regulation protects users interests, the EU has not communicated it well, and neither have national governments, at least in Spain. It is an example of how an EU initiative is perceived as negative and is criticised, not for its content, but for the lack of communication. v) The different EU enlargements The initial phases of the creation of the EU already saw tensions, resulting from the incorporation of the United Kingdom under conditions different 39

40 from those of the other countries. These profiles perceived this as the seed of the evil that has spread throughout the EU in recent years, namely the attempt to have an excessively self-interested relation with the EU, for one s one profit; i.e., an instrumental relationship, to the detriment of efforts being made to deliver benefits to the entire community. The participants distinguished two phases in the subsequent expansion of the EU: one, with the accession of Spain and Portugal, and the other, leading to the current 28 members. The first phase was usually defined as a success in terms of integration, although it gave Spain a second-rate position on the EU s political and economic map, and sometimes one even lower than that. Secondly, for the sectors most critical with the European project s evolution and current situation, the leap to 28 countries, with the incorporation of Eastern European countries and several of the former Soviet Union republics, was seen as a critical moment for EU integration difficulties and, therefore, constitutes a challenge in terms of excessive diversity and differences. Moratoriums for countries such as Romania and Bulgaria at times confirmed that image of forced integration. There is probably a mental dissonance with the underlying notion of Europe as limited to Western Europe. -I think there was greater stability before the latest countries joined, I mean, when we went from a Europe of 12 to a Europe of 20-whatever. I think there was greater equality, it was more integrated, and now, as a matter of fact, many of the countries that joined afterwards, like Poland, for example, have not even joined the Monetary Union. In Poland, price tags already had the equivalent in euros 10 years ago, and they still haven t joined the euro, I mean, there has really been... (Group 15. Zaragoza) As a backdrop for forecasts, we find the applications for accession by countries such as Turkey and even Morocco. In general, the scenario was assessed as negative (except among younger Spaniards), and represents a challenge for the EU s integration capacity, one that is unsurmountable for most of the participants. These countries culture is very different from Europe s, especially because they do not have something which for the participants is a hallmark of Europe: separation between religion and State, and equal rights for men and women. vi) Management of the 2008 crisis For those having the lowest level of material and educational resources (position in the labour market and years in school), the economic crisis and the subsequent public debt crisis were the turning point that illustrated the breakdown of the idea of integration, balance and solidarity within the EU. For them, the crisis revealed that national and/or European institutions are no longer capable of meeting the demands of their citizens; and the action of the Troika and diplomatic conflicts between countries, especially with Greece, highlighted the differences between regions in terms of their development, capacities and financial stability. An anti-european discourse can be glimpsed in the profiles with the lowest qualifications. The EU was blamed for not having been more flexible with Spain s public debt, and a feeling of humiliation can be felt, almost leading to a demand to exit the EU. Other groups referred to the case of Greece to assert that the EU did not take in to account special situations and the harm that the measures applied could do to the population, while, at the same time, it is allowing countries like Italy to violate agreements on immigration. Therefore, the 2008 crisis appears in debates as marking a before and after in the EU s capacity to make taking the step from values to rights feasible. The crisis entailed internal conflicts in a considerable number of countries and among countries, as well as responses by the EU (Troika), which for many were proof of the existence of a multi-speed Europe. Among the most vulnerable sectors (for example, unskilled young people), leaving their own country to try their luck in a northern European country was seen as making the best of a bad situation, even when they were aware of the danger of precarious jobs and poor working conditions poor: -For me Europe is a place where I ll have to go to find work. Right now I m training to be a carpenter because books aren t my thing; I ve been a bad student since I was a kid, I m better at using my hands... but I heard that in Denmark there s farm work going, and even if you don t get paid, you get fed and you can learn English. I might stay out there if I don t think that this country (Spain) is 40

41 going anywhere or that we could live better there. Here, it s either become a waiter or nothing, because you can t even be a bullfighter any more... So I might learn English and see what s out there; at least it ll be one less mouth for my family to feed. (Group 1. Valencia) 4.c. Failures and weaknesses We will now list what the participants consider to be the principal failures and weaknesses in the implementation of the European project. In no way is this meant to be an in-depth description, and even less so a judgement about the importance of these issues, giving them priority over others that have not been mentioned or simply not identified. In other words, this is what the groups, during the debates, have identified as possibly being considered failures of the EU, from their own viewpoints. i) The European Constitution The immense majority of participants consider the lack of agreement on the Constitution a failure of a symbolic nature. Before this failure, Europe already had a flag and an anthem that was accepted by the majority of Europeans, but it was lacking a Magna Carta, which never reached approval, and left a vacuum that in the interlocutors minds has not been disguised with subsequent agreements, such as the Lisbon Treaty, or with other achievements. This constitutional vacuum the details of which are not recalled by the participants is noted as an important failure, especially by the groups who show the greatest Europeanist spirit. -But, for example, they didn t manage to pass the Constitution, and back then, it naturally gave us all some pause for thought. -The thing is, a Union of States that does not have a constitution, is basically just administrative. -No, and moreover, they are left with no power over the other governments, because each one of these is sovereign, and if there are no laws giving Europe authority, then there s nothing at all. (Group 9. Barcelona) ii) Lack of democratic transparency This is not only a matter of not understanding the EU s institutional architecture, but of not being sure of the extent to which and the manner in which democratic procedures are guaranteed in this institutional morass. Only the European Parliament seems to be governed by criteria of links to social majorities; however, there are also opinions stating the opaque nature of the MEPs work. -There is no democratic transparency, and if there is, you can t see it, you can t understand what the people there are doing. -And, most of all, you don t know how those people were chosen. -I really like that Draghi guy and I want him to stay. But what can I do to say so. -Of course, it s impossible. -But the question is: Who elected him? And the truth is, I m glad he was elected, but I don t know how he got there. -Well, you speak when you vote. -But I didn t vote for Draghi. I would, but I can vote for the PSC, for Ezquerra. For Ciutadans or for the PP, which I don t think I will, but not for Draghi... And I don t know how he got there, and I m talking about him because I like him. -The thing is, Europe s administrations are obscure. -They re obscure and inaccessible. (Group 9. Barcelona) iii) Soft leadership inside and outside the EU There is an image of an institutional framework of representatives that do not represent anything, and who, moreover, despite flaunting their Europeanness (in the face of the USA, China, Turkey, Israel, and even the United Kingdom), appear as having weak positions and no potential international leadership. However, the figure of the EU always stands out as an international moral leader in spheres such as human rights, the welfare state, environmental protection, and web neutrality. In the EU, this lack of authority can be seen in the manner in which sanctions or warnings against those who violate guidelines, agreements, etc. are enforced. The case of the ship Aquarius and Italy s standoff with the EU, by preventing migrants from 41

42 ESGLOBAL / ECFR disembarking, reveals that the EU s authority is limited and that it is not always equally applied. I don t know what the problem is, whether there is one or more than one problem, but it is clear that the Polish and the Hungarians are doing their own thing and ignoring everything that the EU and other European countries are telling them... What I can t understand is why there aren t any mechanisms to demand that if they want to be here, they have to stay through thick and thin, and if they don t, we can show them the door. (Group 6. Madrid) Therefore, it is not only a matter of lack of leadership on the international scale vis-à-vis the other major powers, but also of a lack of authority with regard to EU Member States with which there are clear conflicts. This image fractures the European Union s image and strengthens the idea of a structural weakness that is difficult to conceal and that consolidates doubts and questioning. The EU s incapacity to speak with a single voice does not help overcome the asymmetry between Member States; to the contrary, it only increases inequality and consolidates the hegemony of some over the others. iv) Poor control of funds This weakness has been identified, in particular, among the business and professional sectors most closely linked to the management of structural assistance funds. Also among certain segments working in specific sectors such as the automobile industry, products derived from ecological crops, etc. This appears as the other side of the excess paperwork coin, but both factors count towards the image of a diversification of bodies that only leads to lack of control and ineffective management. -It s what this lady s saying... they have so many bodies to control the same thing that nobody is doing anything. -That s the way it is, it s a shame, but that s the way it is... it turns out there are no inspections, and if there are, they re carried out by the Junta [Regional Government] and of course, since they know you work hard and give jobs to lots of people, well there s no inspection. On our lands we ve never had any inspection, and we did ask for grants... well, we ve never had any, and I mean for years. (Group 8. Seville) v) The image of the Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) There is a generalised feeling that being an MEP is a prize awarded by the different countries political parties to their oldest figures in exchange for doing nothing. -MEPs? That s a prize that political parties give to their own for their services. It s plain to see they don t do a thing. -They spend their whole time flying first class like the jet set and couldn t care less about Europe, their countries or anything... -It does seem like a prize they get so they can have a paid vacation. -That s what it is. -You re saying that we all vote for MEPs, well yes and no... because we all know that when parties want to get someone out of the way they send them to Brussels as an MEP. -It s a prize, they are awarded with time to rest in Brussels. Why? What do they do there? -They don t do a thing all day, all they do is travel and enjoy the good life. (Group 6. Madrid) 42

43 V Hablamos de Europa Consultations: citizen s proposals 43

44 To take the leap from debating to making proposals, our principal instrument have been the citizens consultations carried out by the steering group. Most of these events have been an opportunity for experts, and civil society groups with a European vocation, together with the general public, to meet. The sharing of ideas among these three types of participants has resulted in proposals organised around the principal areas or sectors. During the Hablamos de Europa [Talking about Europe] project, we paid special attention to the drafting of proposals. Participative processes very often exhaust all their efforts and energies in the prior communication phase and in the dynamics that take place during the participation itself, and forget the importance of identifying a list of proposals stemming from those processes. Therefore, we now present 100 proposals that originated in the debates during these months, distributed in 13 areas. However, before listing each one of the proposals, it is necessary to clarify certain aspects about the procedure we followed when drafting this list. 1. As we mentioned in the methodology, the principle of accountable autonomy has been the backbone of the entire process. The members of the steering group, as well as the volunteers group and the collaborating European institutions, have been responsible for submitting a report on the results of the survey, using a standard form. Each one of those reports has been the essential ingredient for drafting the list of proposals. But they have not been the only ingredient. We have also used our own observations, personally attending a significant number of consultations in order to get a clearer picture of them. 2. The information generated has been steadily recorded in a database. This has made it possible to match different information in order to learn about details of the context in which those proposals have originated. Table 2 is an approximation to the description of the framework in which the list of proposals originated. For example, the column number of citizens consultations (No. CC) lists the number of events where these ideas have been suggested. The other columns provide information about the total number (and range) of participants, as well as the duration and location of the consultations. Noteworthy here is the information about the percentage of time dedicated to presentations by experts, and the time dedicated to debate or to Q&A. 3. The proposals have been classified into different areas. Obviously, a proposal may belong to more than one area. In this case, we have chosen the area we consider to be principal. For example, the proposal make paternity leave and maternity leave equal involves gender and equality policies just as much as it does the development of the social pillar. It was decided to include it in the area of gender and equality. This has also occurred with many other proposals. 4. Once the proposals were classified, the next step has been to draft each proposal in a more concise manner. For example, one of the outputs of one consultation was: A true European public opinion can only be such with regard to decisions made directly by the citizens about major European projects. This output was reworded as follows: Foster decisions made directly by citizens about major European projects. 5. At times, the same proposal may have been mentioned in several consultations. This is the case, for example, of the creation of transnational lists of candidates for the European elections. In such cases we have emphasised their importance in the summary made for each bloc of proposals, without discarding the possibility that in the future more sophisticated systems could be used for selecting proposals, e.g. through voting systems. Moreover, on the one hand, it must be taken into account that the drafted list of proposals may include ideas that are contradictory or even mutually exclusive (this is a common dilemma in citizen participation) (Fernández-Martínez et al., ), and, on the other, even if we know that a proposal occurred in a specific consultation, we cannot guarantee that said proposal represents the majority opinion of Spaniards. 6. Lastly, we are aware that such a large number of proposals may, at times, lead to the temptation of randomly choosing among them. Therefore, and given other limitations that we have mentioned, it seems advisable to develop a participatory process in which a maximum of 15 proposals are prioritised. 6 Fernández-Martínez, J. L., López-Sánchez, M., Aguilar, J. A. R., Rubio, D. S., & Nemegyei, B. Z. (2018). Co-Designing Participatory Tools for a New Age: A Proposal for Combining Collective and Artificial Intelligences. International Journal of Public Administration in the Digital Age (IJPADA), 5(4),

45 Table 2. Characteristics of the framework in which the proposals have been made Area No. Cities Total Principal interest groups present at the events Average % time CC no. of duration presenta participant (range) tion vs. (range) debate Communica- 5 Madrid (x2), 331 Academic community, Europeanist organizations, 3,9h 40 / 60 tion Zaragoza, Getafe y (20-160) trade unions, associations and NGOs, and (2h-9h) Baena secondary school students Culture 3 Madrid 308 Representatives from the sphere of culture, 7,5h 43 / 57 (60-160) academic community, and Europeanist (6h-9h) organizations Education 4 Madrid 498 Europeanist organizations and academic 4,5h 51 / 49 (50-225) community (2h-9h) Gender and 3 Madrid(x2) y 80 Justice professionals, local and regional political 4h 51 / 49 equality Getafe (20-30) parties and representatives (1.5h- 8.5h) European 5 Madrid (x4), 573 Europeanist organizations, trade unions, 4.5h 34 / 66 identity Getafe y Baena (15-225) academic community, associations and NGOs, (2-9) secondary school students, media, and diplomats Immigration 11 Madrid (x 6), Jerez, 823 Journalists, Europeanist organizations, academic 3h 30 / 70 Barcelona, Baena, (43-300) community, pensioners, national police, trade (1.5h- Cádiz, Santa Cruz unions, diplomats, local and regional political 8h) de Tenerife y las parties and representatives, and immigrants Palmas. groups and associations Environment 5 Madrid (x2), 194 Academic community, pensioners, trade unions, 2.5h 20 / 80 Getafe, Boal y (20-70) associations and NGOs, and secondary school (2h-2.5h) Baena students Economy 6 Madrid 158 Academic community, Confederation of 1.5h 37 / 63 (45-63) Employers Organizations (CEOE), journalists, (1h-2h) political scientists, and Europeanist organizations Institutional 9 Madrid (x6), 1163 Journalists, Europeanist organizations, diplomats, 3.5h No info architecture Zaragoza, (45-300) and academic community (2h-9h) Santander y Barcelona (x2) Political 6 Madrid (x3), Baena 323 Trade unions, Europeanist organizations, 3.5h 43 / 57 participation y Getafe (20-110) academic community, secondary school students, (2h-6h) and journalists Social pillar 7 Madrid (x4), 537 Trade unions, academic community, diplomats, 3.5h 35 /65 Getafe, Zaragoza (20-300) journalists, political scientists, and Europeanist (3h-8.5) y Cádiz organizations Fiscal policy 5 Madrid (x3), Cádiz 187 Academic community, trade unions, Europeanist 2h 26 / 75 y Getafe (20-50) organizations, and justice professionals (1.5h-2h) Security 5 Madrid (x2), 178 National police, academic community, pensioners, 4.5h 24 /76 Barcelona, Baena, (22-90) Europeanist organizations, diplomats, and (2h-8h) Santa Cruz de secondary school students Tenerife y las Palmas 45

46 Communication Proposals on communication mainly focused on the following three aspects: guarantee the presence of content about the European Union in the media; include the European political agenda in national political debates; and, thirdly, improve the manner in which institutional information about the European Union is conveyed. Proposals: 1. Establish quotas for the creation of sections on European news in private media and in the public administrations 2. Increase the dissemination of TV programmes dedicated to European public debates 3. Encourage the media to strengthen information on the European Union 4. Promote open broadcasts by the EURONEWS TV channel to make it easier for citizens to learn about the EU 5. Entreat politicians to talk about Europe in their speeches 6. Foster European debate in local, regional and national elections 7. Improve the information system for citizens about the reality of the European Union 8. Better explain the EU s economic contribution to territories 9. Better disseminate information on the financial funds available in the European Union, so that EU financing instruments are really comprehensible and accessible to citizens Culture Proposals relating to culture involve promoting macro-events at the EU level and supporting the cultural industry both in its budget and in monitoring grants. A novel way of promoting cultural education could be through the creation of vouchers which would serve to exchange points obtained by taking part in cultural training activities for tickets or discounts to shows (see Proposal 15). Proposals: 10. Increase and enhance major European cultural events 11. Foster European cultural industries 12. Better allocate grants aimed at the world of culture 13. Harmonize copyright protection in the EU 14. Creation of a common cultural card providing access to all European entities 15. Creation of a cultural voucher recognising extra-academic skills, exchangeable for one year for activities promoting the cultural growth of young people (discounts at theatres, cinemas, museums, etc.) Education A great many proposals on education involve the idea of mainstreaming content about the European Union in every stage of the educational system, paying particular attention to compulsory education. They also underline the need to train teachers on European affairs. Proposals: 16. Greater presence in the syllabus of European culture and contributions 17. Improve teacher training on the EU 18. Extend Erasmus to secondary education and vocational training 19. Increase collaboration between universities and the public and private sectors Gender and equality Proposals relating both to equality between men and women and to including the gender perspective mainly addressed two issues. Firstly, they highlighted the need to give greater visibility to structural inequalities between men and women in the institutions daily practice, especially as re- 46

47 gards spaces of influence. Secondly, and in close relation to the social pillar and labour rights, the focus was placed on issues relating to maternity and paternity leave, as well as on the need to advance in policies for work-life balance. Proposals: 20. Eliminate the unconscious gender bias from institutional practice 21. Improve transparency in decision-making, to make the gender gap visible 22. Protect women s labour rights as regards maternity, including the granting of financial assistance 23. Improve work-life balance 24. Make maternity leave and paternity leave equal European identity One of the main issues that arose during the consultations was the need to intensify the sentiment of European identity. The proposals that addressed this issue most directly ranged from those that emphasised the need to hold commemorative events to foster European sentiment, to those focusing on aspects that could facilitate relations between the EU administration and its citizens. Proposals: 25. Increase the presence and significance of common European symbols (commemorations, anthems, etc.) 26. Declare Europe Day an EU-wide holiday 27. Streamline the EU administration to prevent citizen disaffection 28. Foster cultural and sectoral (for professional groups and civil servants) exchange programmes to create a European identity and share know-how and working styles 29. Creation of a single European passport 30. Approve an EU Citizens Charter as an expression of this society s values, which would reflect citizens rights, non-discrimination on the grounds of sex, race, religion, and sexuality, and any other rights that could pertain to the citizens of the European Union. 31. Inform Spaniards that they can communicate with the EU institutions in their own language, either in Spanish or in any other of Spain s languages. Immigration As expected, immigration was one of the most recurrent issues during the citizens consultations. The proposals were organised around four themes: i) greater investment in funds aimed both at cooperation and development policies in the countries of origin, and at policies for reception, integration and inclusion in the territory of the European Union; ii) advancement towards common migration legislation, with particular emphasis on administrative procedures regulating the granting of asylum and different types of visas; iii) addressing border management as an EU issue; and iv) for the media to be careful in addressing the migration phenomenon. Proposals: 32. Greater investment in cooperation and development, prioritising the opening up of trade relations with migrants countries of origin 33. Initiate a Marshall Plan for Africa so that it may manage its own development 34. Increase Europe s existing integration funds for foreigners 35. Accompany the arrival of migrants with a hiring policy that will enable collecting more Social Security contributions 36. Create common legislation on migration issues 37. Reform the Common European Asylum System to respond to the increasing number of migrants 38. Improve the administrative procedures for granting visas and international protection 47

48 39. Improve the regulations so that foreigners in an irregular situation who cannot return to their countries of origin may become settled in this country 40. Respect the distribution of quotas for accepting migrants 41. Establish direct and legal migration routes with the African countries of origin as a measure to counter irregular migration 42. Create coordination institutions in Europe for border management, and strengthen Frontex 43. Improve identification systems 44. Create quotas to foster and organize regular migration 45. Determine the European Union s co-responsibility regarding the arrival of migrants in Andalusia, which is a European border 46. Design a best practices guide for the media to address migratory issues 47. Implement immigration policies using inclusive language 48. Resolve the question of stateless persons in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania Environment The EU s stance on environmental policy is viewed favourably. However, it is considered to be insufficient and lacking in well-defined, long-term road maps. The proposals addressed two main issues: Energy transition and rural depopulation. In the case of Spain, rural depopulation is an extremely serious issue requiring urgent measures. Emphasis was placed on increasing penalties for Member States that fail to meet the agreed objectives, and on the need to direct aid towards small-scale activities with strong roots in rural areas. Finally, although the Common Agricultural Policy was considered positively in the majority of consultations, there are minority sectors with a great capacity for influencing public opinion that call for its budget to be reduced (see proposal 56). Proposals: 49. Ensure that the CAP plays a strategic role as regards the environment, primarily to mitigate the severe rural depopulation of two Spanish regions: the Celtiberian range and the area bordering Portugal (affecting the provinces of Salamanca, Zamora and León). 50. Change the unit of measurement for analysing depopulation. Stop measuring depopulation by province or by autonomous community, and group municipalities together as recommended by the European Commission. 51. Ensure that broadband internet access is available in every corner of Spain. 52. Immediately begin an energy transition towards renewable energies, ensuring that workers who lose their jobs in this transition process receive assistance and work opportunities in the emerging sector. 53. Improve environmental taxation. 54. Impose greater control over the funds allocated to rural development, prioritising the allocation of funds to those who carry out ongoing initiatives to conserve the territory. 55. Favour small-scale undertakings utilising traditional skills and practices. 56. Reconsider the obligation to digitize public services in the case of small municipalities: the Administration cannot place the same administrative requirements on small municipalities as on large cities. 57. Invest in rural areas to foment European growth through grants aimed at the digital economy and infrastructure to prevent depopulation. 58. Reduce the EU budget allocated to agriculture, given that it represents approximately 30% of the total budget, and only 7% of the European labour force works in agriculture. Economic, trade and financial model The proposals regarding economic and monetary matters focused on two principal issues: changing the productive model and creating new financial 48

49 tools and institutions. As regards the first issue, the aim of all the proposals is the same: to commit to an economic model in which innovation, knowledge and energy transition are key features. On the other hand, those best acquainted with the functioning of the Economic and Monetary Union call for a strengthening of the financial policy through tools such as European deposit guarantee schemes, the issue of Eurobonds, the Banking Union and a European Monetary Fund. Proposals: 59. A comprehensive industrial policy anchored in innovation, technological development and digitalization, to make the European Union more attractive to potential investors and avoid the risk of businesses being relocated outside the EU 60. Promote a circular economy model in which recycling, the design of zero waste products, the fight against climate change, and the promotion of renewable energies are key aspects 61. Redirect European investment in physical capital (such as infrastructure) towards investment in human capital (such as education) 62. Foster links between the academic world and the private sector and the public administration to promote a shift in productive model and ensure that knowledge generates prosperity 63. A realistic Multiannual Financial Framework for that is able to meet the current and future challenges, in particular as regards revenue, and with the strategic goal of generating a more competitive European business environment 64. A full Banking Union which provides for a European deposit guarantee scheme 65. An open trade policy, which highlights the advantages of opening up new international markets on the basis of revised rules, commonly shared on a global scale. 66. Introduction of Eurobonds Institutional architecture It is interesting to hear the proposals put forward by civil society groups whose interests relate to the project of building Europe. These groups have reflected extensively on the organization and structure of the European Union and frequently present proposals which, at minimum, could shape European public opinion. Unquestionably, one of the proposals repeated most frequently during the consultations is the possibility of establishing transnational lists for the European elections. This proposal is in line with other ideas, such as that of a single constituency, and those related to the political participation of European citizens, which we shall address in the following point. One proposal worth mentioning is for the creation of an institutional architecture based on concentric circles, which to a certain extent is in line with the two-speed Europe debate, but formulated in less exclusive terms. Proposals: 68. Initiate a public debate on transnational electoral lists 69. Create a single constituency for the European Parliament, sometimes referred to as a Pan-European District 70. Create a eurozone Parliament 71. Empower the European Parliament to propose new legislation 72. Increase the executive capacity of the European Commission to ensure it is more than a mere hotchpotch of representatives from different political parties, thereby preventing it from fully exercising a governance role 73. Design a concentric circles institutional architecture, through enhanced cooperation. The eurozone countries would occupy the main circle. The single market and the customs union would occupy the second largest circle. Associations within a preferential political and trade framework would occupy the third 67. Constitution of a European Monetary Fund 49

50 Political participation Pillar of social rights Proposals: There are numerous ways to strengthen and improve political participation by citizens. From those aimed at increasing the political influence of citizens through the direct election without intermediaries of the principal representatives of European institutions, to those aimed at listening more closely and more consistently to the voice of the citizens. In short, the goal is to create a European public opinion, with debate on relevant issues, and this requires the establishment of mechanisms for citizen participation. 74. Direct election by the citizenry of a large number of representatives in different institutions 75. Direct election by the citizenry of the President of the European Council 76. Establish forums for discussion that transcend national borders, and develop web platforms in which community representatives can debate specific proposals with citizens (e.g., Parlement & Citoyens in France) 77. Promote direct decision-making by citizens on major European projects to generate a European public opinion 78. The Parliament s working committees should include representatives from the citizenry or from civil society, depending on the issues to be addressed, in preference over institutionalised political stakeholders 79. Creation of a European Youth Council 80. Ensure that the general public has access to the EU s existing tools of participation and debate. 81. There is no European Electoral Law that standardises criteria such as the age at which people can stand for election, constituencies, electoral thresholds, or the requisites for new parties 82. Advance towards an open and electronic governance model that allows for fluid campaigns for citizen consultation and participation Proposals relating to what is known as the European pillar of social rights are habitually perceived as a solution for curbing the rise of Euroscepticism. Among the proposals most frequently repeated throughout the consultations, that of implementing a European unemployment insurance scheme is of particular interest. Moreover, there is a perception of a huge power imbalance between the different economic players at the European level, and the positions of the different trade unions are practically invisible beyond national borders. Proposals: 83. Establish a European unemployment insurance scheme 84. Establish a European minimum wage and minimum pension 85. Be unafraid to increase the trade unions capacity for influence 86. Favour transnational trade unionism 87. Create a true common framework for basic labour rights 88. Strengthen sector-specific collective bargaining agreements that are framework agreements for specific groups 89. Promote a European labour strategy that avoids policies fomenting competition between Member States Fiscal policy One of the most frequently recurring proposals in this area is aimed at improving tax harmonization to prevent unfair competitive practices between countries, which also favour intra-eu tax havens. Proposals: 90. Increase environmental taxes 91. Advance in tax harmonization in different areas, such as corporate tax and personal income tax, to prevent the existence of in- 50

51 tra-eu tax havens such as Luxembourg or Ireland 92. Progressively increase the budget of the Economic and Monetary Union to 7% of the European GDP 93. Introduce a European tranche into the personal income tax structure Security and defence The debate focused on the situation of the different State security forces, primarily that of the National Police. In general, citizens are more in favour of strengthening and improving coordination on specific issues than of creating a European police force, due to the diverse situations that arise in each Member State. Proposals: 94. Increase the security budget to strengthen EUROPOL as an office for coordination 95. Regulate and define the competencies of the different police forces at the European level to avoid duplications and gaps in the law 96. Increase controls in incidents of cybercrime at the European level, providing the police with greater access to information 97. Develop specific legislation to protect users from cyberattacks 98. Improve the Witness Protection Act, allocating more resources to witness protection 99. Increase security initiatives on the ground in the immigrants countries of origin 100. Ensure collaboration between the United Kingdom and the European Union in areas relating to external security 51

52 ANNEX I. Complete schedule DATE EVENT NAME CITY 03/05/2018 Citizens consultations on the future of Europe Madrid 04/05/2018 European citizenship and democracy: The path towards a federal Europe? Madrid 04/05/2018 The EU and Spain on electoral reform: transnational lists Madrid 07/05/2018 Citizens Dialogue Aranda de Duero 07/05/2018 Café con Europa Aranda de Duero 08/05/2018 Cybersecurity in the EU: regulation and perspectives Barcelona 08/05/2018 Meeting with Tajani. European Year of Cultural Heritage Madrid 08/05/2018 Progress and challenges since the Treaty of Rome Oviedo 09/05/ May, Europe Day Bilbao 12/05/2018 The future of Europe: non-formal education Bilbao 18/05/2018 Europe is the message: keys for effective communication Madrid 19/05/2018 Political, economic and social challenges for the future of the EU Bilbao 23/05/2018 Keys to understanding the new politics in Italy Madrid 24/05/2018 Citizens Dialogue Alcañiz 24/05/2018 Cross-border citizens dialogue Alcañiz 28/05/2018 Citizens consultations on the future of Europe Avilés 01/06/2018 Healthcare research in Europe Barcelona 08/06/2018 Corruption in Spain and Europe Barcelona 08/06/2018 Citizens consultations on the future of Europe Bilbao 11/06/2018 Diversity, equality and inclusion in the EU Bilbao 11/06/2018 Café con Europa Calatayud 11/06/2018 Citizens Dialogue Calatayud 18/06/2018 Thinking about Europe in the academic community Madrid 18/06/2018 Café con Europa Jaca 18/06/2018 Citizens Dialogue Jaca 18/06/2018 Priorities for a more transparent Europe Madrid 21/06/2018 Growth and inequality in Europe Madrid 27/06/2018 Challenges and opportunities arising from migration policy in Europe Madrid 28/06/2018 Provide a space for dialogue, making proposals and having more influence in the EU Madrid 02/07/2018 Debates on the future of Europe: Youth on the Move Madrid 02/07/2018 Café con Europa Monforte de Lemos 52

53 02/07/2018 Citizens Dialogue Monforte de Lemos 03/07/2018 Café con Europa Riveira 03/07/2018 Citizens Dialogue Riveira 04/07/2018 Café con Europa Pontearas 04/07/2018 Citizens Dialogue Pontearas 05/07/2018 Nation Lab: Let s talk about Europe Madrid 05/07/2018 Migration, the challenge of the EU. The Canary Islands, successful laboratories Sta. Cruz y las Palmas 23/07/2018 Rewriting the European social contract Santander 09/08/2018 Losers of globalization and the extreme right Jerez de la Frontera 31/08/2018 European social policies to strengthen the EU Santander 06/09/2018 Refugees: solutions for people seeking protection Madrid 13/09/2018 Can European values overcome nationalism? Barcelona 13/09/2018 What can the EU do for our production framework? Barcelona 13/09/2018 The new labour markets and the fear of robotization Sevilla 14/09/2018 Gender equality, reconciliation and domestic violence Sevilla 18/09/2018 Economic growth, employment and investment in Europe Zaragoza 19/09/2018 Citizens dialogue on Social Europe Getafe 19/09/2018 CEOE s European Union Commission on the future of Europe Madrid 19/09/2018 Gender gaps in the EU: Policies and strategies Madrid 19/09/2018 Free trade versus protectionism in the EU Valencia 20/09/2018 Citizens dialogue on environmental Europe Madrid 21/09/2018 Citizens Dialogue Arévalo 21/09/2018 Café con Europa Arévalo 21/09/2018 Debate on free trade agreements Barcelona 21/09/2018 Citizens dialogues on the future of Europe L Ampolla 21/09/2018 We want more of Europe. We want a better Europe: Proposals for the future of the EU Madrid 21/09/2018 Café con Europa Quart de Poblet 21/09/2018 Citizens Dialogue Quart de Poblet 21/09/2018 European identity and citizenship Sevilla 24/09/2018 Forum on the future of the EU Baena 24/09/2018 Citizens dialogue on security in Europe Madrid 25/09/2018 European citizenship, identity and values Madrid 26/09/2018 University debates on the future of Europe Madrid 26/09/2018 Model of the European Parliament: Conversations with young peoplemadrid 26/09/2018 From citizens consultations to proposals for action Madrid 26/09/2018 You are European! Your opinion counts in Europe Villaviciosa 27/09/2018 A more participative democracy in a federal Europe Alcalá de Henares 27/09/2018 Citizens dialogue on Social Europe Cádiz 27/09/2018 Challenges for the 2019 European elections Madrid 28/09/2018 Design Thinking workshop on European identity Madrid 28/09/2018 Debates on the future of Europe: Democracy and participation Madrid 29/09/2018 Sustainability of Asturias in Europe Boal 02/10/2018 Citizens dialogues on the future of Europe Santa Coloma de Gramanet 08/10/2018 Café con Europa Plasencia 08/10/2018 Citizens Dialogue Plasencia 15/10/2018 Citizens Dialogue Cuellar 53

54 Consejo Canario del Movimiento Europeo 15/10/2018 Café con Europa Cuellar 19/10/2018 The European Union s problems Oviedo 19/10/2018 The environment and new types of clean energy in the EU Santander 24/10/2018 Citizens consultations on the future of Europe Madrid 25/10/2018 Europeanization and international profile of the European Union Córdoba 26/10/2018 Citizens consultations on the future of Europe Alicante 26/10/2018 Depopulation and regional funds Zamora 29/10/2018 Citizens dialogues on the future of Europe Gironella 06/11/2018 Citizens dialogues on the future of Europe Gavà 06/11/2018 The major challenges for a more social Europe Castellón 08/11/2018 Citizens dialogues on the future of Europe Campdevánol 15/11/2018 Citizens dialogues on the future of Europe Olesa de Montserrat 16/11/2018 Radicalization, deradicalization and public safety and security in the EU Barcelona 22/11/2018 Citizens dialogues on the future of Europe Mahón 23/11/2018 Disinformation and European elections Barcelona 27/11/2018 Citizens dialogues on the future of Europe Hospitalet de Llobregat 54

55 ANNEX II. List of speakers Adrián Vidales, Con Copia a Europa Association Adriana Maldonado, specialist consultant on international economics Agustín Barroso Núñez, Head of Operations at FRONTEX in the Canary Islands Alejandro Fernández, Spokesperson for the Partido Popular in the Catalan Regional Parliament Alejandro Peinado, Young European Federalists of Spain Alex López, Kiribil network Alicia Torrego, Fundación Conama Álvaro de la Cruz, European Institute of Innovation & Technology Ana Alonso, El Independiente digital newspaper Ana Enguídanos, Europe Direct Ana Isabel González, University of Oviedo Ana Mar Fernández Pasarín, Jean Monnet Chair in European Policies Ana Moreno, Helsinki España Ana Nieto, Helsinki España Andrea Rizzi, El País daily newspaper Ángel Luis Sánchez Muñoz, Regional Government of Andalusia Antonio Acín, Doctor in Theoretical Physics Antonio Najarro, Director of the Spanish National Ballet Antonio Tajani, President of the European Parliament Ascensión Ortega Reyes, Association for the Development of Guadajoz and the rural eastern area of Cordoba (ADEGUA) Bartolomé Martínez, representative of the Ombudsman. Belén Becerril, Paneuropa España Belén Carreño, journalist specialising in economic affairs Carlos Carnero, Fundación Alternativas Carlos Poza, Education Officer of the Erasmus Student Network Spain Carlos Trias Pinto, European Economic and Social Committee Carlos Uriarte Sánchez, Rey Juan Carlos University and Paneuropean Union Carolina Darias San Sebastián, Speaker of the Regional Parliament of the Canary Islands Constantino Méndez, former Secretary of State for Defence Consuelo Laiz, Complutense University of Madrid Cristina Manzano, esglobal digital newspaper Cristina Mazas, former Head of the Department of Economy and European Affairs of the Regional Government of Cantabria Cristina Monge, sociology professor at the University of Zaragoza 55

56 Daniel Sarmiento, lawyer and professor at Complutense University of Madrid Diego López Garrido, Fundación Alternativas Dimitri Barua, European Commission Dolores Muñoz Dueñas, University of Cordoba Elena Costas, Autonomous University of Barcelona Elena Sánchez-Montijano, Barcelona Centre for International Affairs (CIDOB) Enrique Baron, Union of European Federalists - Spain European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (OSHA) Europe Direct Bizkaia Esther Lynch, Secretariat of the European Trade Union Confederation Eugenio Nasarre Goicoechea, Spanish Federal Council of the European Movement Félix García-Moriyón, Autonomous University of Madrid Fermín Rodríguez Gutiérrez, Centro de Servicios Universitarios de Avilés Fernando Llagas Gelo, University of Córdoba Fernando Maura, Spanish MP Fernando Rocha, Fundación 1º de Mayo. Francisco Aldecoa, Spanish Federal Council of the European Movement Francisco Conde, Regional Government of Galicia Francisco Fonseca, European Commission Francisco Pérez-Bes, General Secretary of the Spanish National Cybersecurity Institute (INCIBE) Gema Sánchez Medero, Complutense University of Madrid Helen Darbishire, Access Info Europe Hugo Cuello, cc/europa Inmaculada Valencia, Cantabria Regional Representation Office in Brussels Irene Bello Quintana, Alianza por la solidaridad Canary Islands Isabel Benjumea, Red Floridablanca Isabel Rodero, Fundación 1 de Mayo Israel Alonso, University of the Basque Country Janis A. Emmanouilidis, European Policy Centre Javier Zarzalejos, Foundation for Analysis and Social Studies Jesús Cimarro, Academy of the Performing Arts Jesús Gallego, UGT International Policy Secretary Jesús Orcaray, Guadalquivir rural development groups Jesús Rojano Aguilera, Mayor of Baena and Chair of the Association for the Development of Guadajoz and the rural eastern area of Córdoba (ADEGUA) Jonás Fernández, MEP Jorge Martín Frías, publisher of Red Floridablanca Jorge Toledo, former Secretary of State for European Affairs José Alba Alonso, Asturian Council of the European Movement José Antonio Barrientos, Mayor of Boal José Luis Pardo, philosopher and essayist José Luis Pontijas Calderón, CESEDEN analyst José Luis Ruiz de Munain, Foro Impacto José María Larrea, Chair of VOLT España José Moisés Martín, economist and editor of Agenda Pública José Rafael Martos, association of municipalities of Guadajoz José Ruiz Vicioso, Red Floridablanca José Vicente González, Confederation of Employers and Industries of Spain (CEOE) Josep Borrell, Minister of Foreign Affairs, the European Union and Cooperation 56

57 Juan Antonio Falcón, Aragonese Council of the European Movement Juan Carlos García Suso, Mayor of Alcañiz Juan Carlos Lorenzo, Spanish Commission for Refugees (CEAR) - Canary Islands Juan Cuesta, Europa en Suma Juan M. Ramírez-Cendrero, Complutense University of Madrid Laura Gómez Urquijo, Jean Monnet Chair, University of Deusto Leopoldo Tolivar Alas, Asturian Council of the European Movement Lucas González Ojeda, European Commission in Spain Luis Caballero, Instituto de la Juventud (INJUVE) Luis Marco Aguiriano, Secretary of State for the European Union, MAEUEC Magdalena Reifs López, European Documentation Centre, University of Córdoba Manuel Muñiz Villa, IE School of Global Affairs Maria Andrés Marín, Office of the European Parliament in Madrid María Bustelo, Complutense University of Madrid María Ramos, University Carlos III of Madrid and Politikon Mariano Abad Fernández, Jean Monnet Chair Mario Regidor Arenales, Union of European Federalists - Canary Islands Miguel Ángel Benedicto, Secretary-General of the Spanish Federal Council of the European Movement Miguel Ángel Estevan, Senator for Teruel Miguel Ángel Lucía, Aragonese Council of the European Movement Miriam Tey, Catalan civil society Mónica Frassoni, former MEP Montserrat Hinarejos, University of Alcalá de Henares Nathalie Loiseau, French Minister of European Affairs Nicolás Sartorius, Fundación Alternativas Núria González Campaña, Club Tocqueville Oliver Soto, Union of European Federalists of Madrid and Complutense University of Madrid Olivier Longué, Action Against Hunger Spain Pablo Faura, Union of European Federalists of Madrid Pablo Simón, Carlos III University of Madrid and Politikon Paloma López Bermejo, MEP Paola del Vecchio, Il Messaggero and Il Mattino newspapers Pascual Navarro, Director-General for Coordination of the Internal Market Patricia Gabaldón, IE Business School Patricia Manrique, Pasaje Seguro (immigration activist group) Patxi Aldecoa, Vice-President of the European Movement in Spain Pedro Pereira, European Commission Ramón Cosío Bustillo, Unified Police Union (SUP) Raquel González, Mayor of Aranda de Duero Rogelio Pérez Bustamante, Jean Monnet Chair Rosa Quintana, Regional Government of Galicia Santiago García Granda, University of Oviedo Saya Sauliere, Medialab-Prado Sergio Gutiérrez, MEP Silvia Clavería, Carlos III University of Madrid Silvia Escobar, former Human Rights Ambassador for Spain Steve Purser, Head of Core Operations of ENISA Susi Denison, European Council on Foreign Relations Teófilo Rodríguez, Asturian Council of the European Movement 57

58 Universidad de Córdoba: Centro de Documentación Europea de la Universidad de Córdoba Teresa Benítez, Local rural development group for the mountainous region of south-western Seville Teresa Freixes, Autonomous University of Barcelona Teresa Frontán, European Commission s Representation in Spain Tom Morgan, European Parliament Office in Spain Toni Roldán, European Council Foreign Relations Víctor Lapuente, University of Gothenburg Vidal Galicia, Mayor of Arévalo Xavier Prats Monné, Director-General for Health and Food Safety EC Xosé Represas, Mayor of Ponteareas 58