Before EU leaders can start talks on the future direction of the bloc, they need to figure out what they actually want to talk about.

The new European Commission has proposed a two-year consultation involving citizens, civil society and EU institutions — dubbed the Conference on the Future of Europe — as a priority, with President Ursula von der Leyen writing in her political guidelines that she wants “citizens to have their say” on where the EU is heading.

She added that the conference “should be well prepared with a clear scope and clear objectives.”

But that’s easier said than done. Member states hold divergent positions on the scope of the conference and diplomats have a host of concerns over potential outcomes, such as what to do if citizens and governments end up disagreeing over fundamental issues.

In an attempt to find common ground, leaders will ask Croatia — which will take over the rotating presidency of the Council of the EU in the new year — to define the member states’ joint position on the scope of the Conference on the Future of Europe, a leaked document seen by POLITICO shows.

The draft text, which leaders will approve at a summit next week, states that “the European Council discussed the idea of a Conference on the Future of Europe starting in 2020 and ending in 2022” and that leaders would ask “the incoming Council Presidency to work towards defining a Council position on the content, scope, composition and functioning of such a conference and to engage, on this basis, with the European Parliament and the Commission.”

Ambassadors discussed the draft text on Wednesday afternoon and “were more or less happy with the wording,” according to one diplomat, leaving the text mostly unchanged for the leaders to sign off.

Disagreements

Croatia will have its work cut out for it.

France and Germany have put forward a proposal for the conference that does not rule out treaty changes and calls for allowing “a broad consultation and participation of experts/civil society (academia, think tanks, professional unions and organisations etc.) and citizens.”

EU ambassadors at an informal breakfast last week discussed the Franco-German proposal and, although no one was against it, many called for caution — as, for example, there’s little appetite for treaty change. (Von der Leyen, in her political guidelines, said she is “open to Treaty change.”)

Many diplomats also worry about the exact scope, content and functioning of the planned conference, and the dilemmas that might emerge from it.

“What happens if by consulting citizens, we find out that they don’t want more Europe or that they don’t even want this Europe?” wondered one diplomat.

Another diplomat asked: “Let’s say that it turns out that citizens want treaty changes, but we member states don’t. What do we do?”

Among the open questions are whether the findings of the discussions with civil society should be binding, and who should chair the conference.

On the latter issue, one EU official said, “It seems it was promised to [former Belgian Prime Minister Guy] Verhofstadt, but it seems difficult,” referring to the federalist credo of the Belgian politician and what the official called Verhofstadt’s “pretty divisive attitude.”

Some of the diplomats also said there is no need for the conference to have a wide scope, as the EU has just agreed a strategic agenda for the next five years.

That point is reflected also in the draft Council text, which states that “the European Council recalls that priority should be given to implementing the Strategic Agenda agreed in June, and to delivering concrete results for the benefit of our citizens,” adding that the Conference “should focus on the development of our policies in the medium and long term so that we can better tackle current and future challenges.”

Another point of contention that emerged during last week’s discussion between ambassadors was the degree of involvement of the three EU institutions — the Council, the Commission and the European Parliament — and national parliaments in the conference. (The draft Council text states that “there should be shared ownership by European institutions and Member States, including their parliaments.”)

But the many disagreements and concerns at least served to reinforce the view among diplomats that such a conference is sorely needed. “What happens if one day we find out that we cannot make decisions anymore? And we’re really already getting there,” one of the diplomats said.

Click Here: All Blacks Rugby Jersey