Counting the votes in the parliamentary elections by country must be taken from several objective European citizens with the ultimate aim of avoiding fraud in all EU Member States.

Democratic values should be shared across all levels of the education system, from child to university.

My idea is that in the EU, the European Commissioner should be elected by direct choice then he/she could select Commissioners as a team of one Commissioner, who would be able to create campaign parties/movements across Europe from all Member States (27 candidatures for Commissioners + 1 for the European Commissioner/President). Candidates at European level would have to work more together = more Europeans would join together

The President of the European Commission and the President of the Council should be directly elected by the citizens of the European Union by universal suffrage (similar to that of the European Parliament). This would lead to a greater involvement of citizens in EU policies. The

veto for the nation states should be removed. It shall be possible for decisions of the Council to be taken by a majority.

It’s necessary to give the EU parliament more power. The status quo making the EU inefficient and fuels an unhealthy Distrust in Brussels because of the lack of hasty decisions in times of instability.

Please, look what is happening in my country. Politically unstable, economically — disaster, Naturally — being ruined!

Greater respect for the sovereignty of each Member State. Support for peoples who prefer to separate them from their motherlands if the majority of that region so wish and who then automatically join the EU (Scotland, Flanders, etc.).

Making rapid progress towards a federal state by electing parliament, presidency and government by universal suffrage and where states do not have the right to veto, will make the European Union the inspiration for all countries to become more democratic, as we will not have states out of all of our human rights as ever before.

Referendum on the Swiss model on major issues (eg enlargement of the Union) with the required double majority of voters and national states. Same rules of course also for signatures with a necessary number to be collected in each state

After a record of more than worrisome abstention in regional/departmental elections in France. We found that politics and interest in citizens are weaker. Compared to other EU countries where there is much more voting and democratic life. Europeans should be reminded of the chance to have these rights and duties! Keep them, highlight them and in some countries make them more present or mandatory in the worst case.

Introduce leninism into Poland and ultimately the EU. And for the EU to recognise Crimea as Russia.

Young people need to start by informing them about their rights, via social campaigns on Instagram and Tik TOK.
We use social media better to inform and incuriosise the new generation about democracy and our rights that many do not know. Sponsored Instagram
stories and Tik TOK can be our battle horse.
I would be very happy to help you create this kind of content, I would be very happy to do this first if I agree.
I look forward to your reply. yours sincerely,

The European Union should be replaced by the Greater Universal Catholic Empire (Great Universal Catholic Empire), as there is currently no candidate for the troubles of the United Nations, the authorities will hold a quasi-parliament composed of all the European Kardinals, generals of the three largest orders, the commander of the United Europe Armed Forces, the Chief of Staff of the United Nations Armed Forces, the Chief of the Armed Forces of Europe, the Deputy Chief of the Police Staff of the United Europe Armed Forces, the Chief of the Armed Forces of Europe, the Chief of the Armed Forces of the United Nations, the Chief of the Armed Forces of the United Europe, the Deputy Chief of the Armed Forces of the United Europe and the Chief of the Armed Forces of the United Europe.

A European Parliament in which parliamentarians have parliamentary initiative and the revision of the legis procedure to give more powers to the European Parliament

(1) unanimity in the European Council needs to be exceeded. The European Union’s immobilism on certain issues depends very much on this. The role of the European Council should be reduced, while the committee and parliament should gain more competences and autonomy. A second parliamentary chamber of national representation could be set up in order to ensure representativeness of the countries’ bodies, with the capacity to take a co-decision role on certain issues. On the other hand, the main chamber could be partly elected with transnational lists.
(2) the European institutions must be better equipped to protect the rule of law within the Union.
(3) it is time to move the parliament permanently and permanently from Strasbourg to Brussels.

More power for the European Parliament. It is the only democratically elected body directly elected to European citizens. It should therefore be the only one to legislate.

More power for the European Parliament. It is the only democratically elected body directly elected to European citizens. It should therefore be the only one to legislate.

Elect the European executive through an election rather than through the arrangement between Member States.

Standardise the voting system for the European Parliament in all Member States.

Set up a specific association for people in great distress, war, health, isolation and connect them with friends partner associations with the GEM in order to integrate socially and professionally. This means that there is a strong link between humanitarian asso such as the GEM and very sensitive issues with migrants at risk.

We often admit democracies where there is greater participation. A democracy is really a country where you vote only once every 4 years and then we sit to wait without almost being able to act?

Recently, in California, popular action has resulted in the current Governor of State Gavin Newsom coming back to elections on 14 September this year as there is great dissatisfaction with a large part of Californians.
We do not know
yet whether it will win or not, but it matters little to those on the other side of the ocean, which, if we matter, is to see how people can get their leaders out if they feel they are not doing the right thing.
In
most countries of the European Union, and particularly in Spain, my country, making this type of popular action to take up the position of a leader, is simply unthinkable, there are no real democratic instruments for this kind of action and I believe that it should be improved if we are to achieve a more real democracy in which citizens have real power to change things or at least to replace leaders who, according to their opinion, have not been sufficiently competent.
I would
therefore like the European Union to facilitate this type of action generally in all EU countries.

It would be good to enforce the basic rights of my country’s constitution and to review those articles that are outdated or unfair.

Be able to strengthen the power and range of initiatives of the European institutions in the face of democratic threats such as Victor Orban

Europe can only work if everyone identifies itself. In this region of the world, national ties are still very strong, which is not surprising in the light of our history, and European integration is not sufficiently present on a daily basis for all of them to be attached to it. We need a stronger collective imagination, a greater presence of Europe in our lives. But on the other hand, Europe must play this role as a common foundation for all, without being a single decision-making body. It has this reputation (although often false), and in order to combat this, powers must be decentralised. Europe must be able to fight legally against countries that do not respect the rule of law (cf. Hungary), while defending undisputed values (such as human rights), and impose on states a decentralised and direct democracy.

To make the Union more democratic, it would be further European integration so that the Union’s institutions are even closer to citizens (e.g. commissioners from different sectors closer to the local community, organising thematic events) – citizens will be able to feel more familiar with the Union and be more involved in elections or topics of interest to the Union as a whole.

It shall be carried out directly by telephone applications.

Copy of Romania and Bulgaria in the Shengen area

The introduction of elections and positions in the European Commission, not just for the European Parliament, against the background of the conditions for standing for any position in the European Parliament, the European Commission or the job of EU citizens for any EU citizen.

The EU is not a democratic creation and is a defeat of democracy – it is not the slide of the new MEMBERS, but the decision-making process is franchise and non-democratic in this undemocratic way to safeguard its own interests at the expense of other countries. If democracy were to exist even in the EU’s Members’ laws, the verbatim of Polish, Czech or Hungarian possessions would not be closed and conclusions would be drawn: unfortunately, the EU is sacrificed by unreformable politicians, detached from real life and far away from the needs of the community.Why certain countries are strongly keen to lamate citizens’ rights on the basis of rumours and bled domniems to promote the state of play and only a specific point in other countries, citizens’ rights are clearly not taken up by the EU, and in other countries, the glossu bedac slepymi is not taken up by the EU. On this point, I wrote several times to Guy Vrerhofstadt’s famous and clandestine faiths without a natural reply. A Member of the EU is, or should at least be, a social good open to discussion and open to criticism, but regrettably, they have been present in the law of the EU as a Parliament as inviolable.

Ilininia. No painful, respectful not intringa, development of a mastic that is not marked independently of the orange. We do not potato silver from zitia. We do not play a chess or pastille with others

Equal treatment of Member States, regardless of the policy option in each country.

The need to introduce at least one EU high-level post (e.g.: EU President) with direct elections by all EU citizens.
Candidates could be selected for this position either from individual parties of the Union Parliament or from outside the relevant conditions. However, they would be elected not as currently by parliamentarians but directly by citizens, which would require a pan-European election campaign of these candidates (debates, organisation of visits to each Member State, etc.)
The main competence of this position could be, for example, the foreign policy of the European Union as a whole and highlighting the desire to be a global power 1 in the world.
The introduction of this would, in my view, contribute to a greater focus and sense of influence on EU citizens. At present, the system for selecting the EU’s higher authorities is unclear for the average citizen and the social mandate of such authorities is not strong enough and appears to be insufficiently democratic.

Limiting the influence of Asian and US states on democratic elections (including financial.EU citizens’ purchasing choices – which drains $’s portfolios and capitals of Europeans). This is ultra-dangerous

New RELATIONS REQUIRED NEW DEPARTAMENTS

The European Commission is organised internally in Directorates-General, Agencies and other departments that develop very specific areas of work. New departments need to be set up to strengthen European action to promote democratic transparency and the truthful health check. DG COM’s Strategic

Plan 2020-2024 underlines its commitment against disinformation. In particular, its action in this area will range from publishing dissemination content to improving and strengthening the EC’s work in this field. As there is still a lot of work to be done, it would be appropriate to have work teams dedicated exclusively to working on it. Of course, this work is not intended to be an attack on freedom of expression, nor an impediment to political campaigns or partisan advertising. The aim is to address the need to check that citizens’ information is clean and that their access is easy, free and transparent. It is also a matter of eradicating disinformation and bulls, uncertain and misrepresented messages for political purposes, detecting false content deliberately promoted. in order to address this problem, it is considered desirable for the European Union to have this much needed civil service in order to dedicate its daily work activity to the defence of democratic transparency and to ensure that citizens have access to truthful information. The greatest possible diligence to effectively put an end to these democratic contradictions would take place if this civil servant team worked in complementarity with the EC’s Directorate-General for Communication, sharing methodology and resources where necessary, as this DG is the expert in communicating.

Proposal
for the establishment of Verification and Transparency Departments or Transparency and Verification Departments (TVD), to be integrated into each of the Directorates-General of the EU. These departments will refer to the Code of Conduct on Disinformation and other ethical pillars of the EU on democratic transparency such as Article 15 TFEU. In
particular, the following tasks will be carried out by these departments:
— Continuous update of the ‘Transparency Portal’ section. There will be a section dedicated to the publication of the content of each DG on the website of each Directorate-General. This content will inform the transparency of this Directorate: Budget granted, in what form the expenditure has materialised, who makes up the Directorate’s work team... among others.
— deny false content disclosed about your field of work. See an example: If Fake News on climate change is widely disseminated, DG Climate Action’s DVT will be responsible for publishing on its website the corresponding verification of content that denies it publicly.
— Inquiries into the origin, cause and financing of disinformation cases. Each DVT may conduct independent investigations initiated on its own initiative, in order to study the provenance, funding and motivation of cases of disinformation of its content. The lifecycle of investigations will be like that of OLAF.
— Cooperation of the High-Level Group on Online Disinformation. The High Level Expert Group on Disinformation set up in 2018 by the European Commission will be able to assist all DVTs on the working methodology in verifying and denying content.

This proposal has been set up in the framework of the Forum x the Future of the European Union, a Team Europe initiative.

By a European public television

, national newspapers devote relatively little space to explain developments related to the EU and national politicians take EU action as their own, which makes it very difficult for citizens to gain a real and clear picture of the impact of Community measures on the lives of European citizens. It is therefore essential to be able to have a public news channel dedicated to EU policies, the various institutions and agencies.

EUatHome, as a public channel, would be broadcast on the televisions of all households in Europe. In pursuing a general European interest in the field of information, it could have access to framework partnership agreements and grants awarded by the European Union. Member States should also recognise it as a public service, in order to be able to receive direct funding from each State and to ensure the transmission of the channel across all networks. Its management should be coordinated by the DG for Communications Networks, Content and Technology, in collaboration with national public channels: The DG provides guidance on the content to ensure homogeneity but leaves the national sections free to determine the distribution of content on the basis of time differences, cultural issues and applicable legislation in each state, for example on time for children’s content.
EUatHome should have:
— News and Events Section of the European Union.
— talent programmes with citizens from all 27 Member States (such as Got Talent, Voz) and Eurovision.
— cooking programmes, culture, traditional music, coverage of Erasmus experiences.
— Details of drawings, series, films and documentaries.
— Interviews of MEPs and the candidates for chairing the Commission.

This proposal has been set up in the framework of the Forum x the Future of the European Union, a Team Europe initiative.

Safe and respectful political advertising

. it is necessary to create an online political advertising regulation, as the explosion of the internet in all aspects of life has had a huge impact on democracy and its main actors. It is necessary to harmonise the various regulations of the Member States and to ensure that the content will always respect the fundamental values of the European Union (EU).

The regulation should include:
— Definition of what political advertising is: Same definition for all platforms. Focus on the type of content to be able to go beyond political actors and identify bots and chain messages.
— Definition of who can buy political advertising, how much can be bought by each advertiser, what kind of content and message is acceptable, what kind of segmentation can be made.
— Establishment of a European Political Advertising Committee as an independent enforcement body. Body tasked with working with the rRs to strengthen its internal control mechanisms for political advertising and disinformation.
— Verification of content and advertisers before publication.
— Regulation of microsegmentation: When it can be used, what type of message is presented and what data has been used to design the campaign (regular access to personal data). The General Data Protection Regulation does not include the microsegmentation technique.
— Establishment of a period before the elections during which it cannot be advertised (electoral silence): Common regulation is necessary.
— including fines or other sanctions in case of non-compliance with any of the above elements, mandatory for all platforms.

This proposal has been set up in the framework of the Forum x the Future of the European Union, a Team Europe initiative.

Fact-checking mobile application as a tool to counter disinformation

. despite the action taken to counter disinformation at European level, such as the verification of fake news and balls, it is difficult for the European citizen to access this information. There is no web page or other communication tool, such as a mobile application where all available information is grouped together. In addition, there is a need to give visibility to the verification content of disinformation, fake news and fake news that may harm European democracy, because it is essential to be able to inform or keep citizens informed and thus to protect the European project of external and internal threats.
This
is why we are proposing the creation of a mobile fact-checking application to fight disinformation. Nowadays, more and more news is being consulted on your mobile or social media. It is therefore necessary to create an easily accessible tool such as a mobile app (and a web page to complement the app) in order to be able to verify the information.
The mobile
app and the web must be user-friendly, intuitive and dynamic for use by all citizens.
The aim is to collect all the information and data available thanks to the action of the EEAS, projects funded by European funds, associations, researchers, and journalists on fake news, disinformation, and bulls, and their facts checking.
Shape: An interactive map of the European Union. By clicking in a Member State, we could see news that has been checked in each country in response to fake news, bulls or disinformation that may harm the European Union and its democratic balance.
Duties:
— Fact-finding finder. If a citizen has a doubt about the news they are reading on their mobile phone, or that they are leaving their social media feed, they can search directly with the news link if there is a fact checking available in the application.
— Sign a news, a hall or a misinformation and ask for its verification. If a citizen does not find the fact checking of a news item through the app, he/she could flag it and ask for its verification directly. This function would make it possible to find fake news or balls that go unnoticed from traditional news verification channels and that are widely shared on social media.
Read a news from another point of view. With the desire to promote the critical spirit of citizens, the app would make it easier to read the same news through different sources and with other points of view. In order to ensure democracy and pluralism of opinions, it is important to be able to share different ideas and be able to coincide.

This proposal has been set up in the framework of the Forum x the Future of the European Union, a Team Europe initiative.

Europeans educated in cyber and media literacy

Media literacy and the promotion of critical thinking are key to the sustainability of European democracy. The Report on Public Consultation for the European Democracy Action Plan, carried out between 15 July 2020 and 18 September 2020, highlights the importance of “empowering citizens to make an informed decision”. Furthermore, empowering European citizens to recognise fake news and fake news and so be able to act as a ‘filter’ in their use of social media, i.e. to have critical thinking before sharing news on social media, is necessary for the European Union in its fight against disinformation. This is

why we propose the creation of a civic education and media literacy programme to promote critical thinking among young people and media awareness in the labour force and older people. This proposal can be implemented through workshops and talks. The

aim would be to promote the code of good practice in disinformation, fact-checking tools and the development of practical cases to be able to identify fake news and bulls, to talk about the importance of information through various sources and views. It is also important to develop during these workshops and discuss what may be behind a social media publication. Raising awareness of funding for private companies, political parties and understanding private interests behind a publication or news uploaded or shared on online platforms is a real challenge to foster the critical spirit of European citizens.

These workshops and talks could be carried out through European funds, such as the Creative Europe programme, through civil society organisations and journalists. They could also be dispensed through programmes such as European Parliament Ambassador Schools, or through the Joint Programme of the Council of Europe and the European Commission Democratic and Inclusive School Culture in Operation (DISCO) for example.

This proposal has been set up in the framework of the Forum x the Future of the European Union, a Team Europe initiative.

With trained MAN AND MEJOR PERIODISTS, EUROPA GANA IN VERACITY

Disinformation, viral spread of fake news, bullet chains, bots on social media... are some of the main phenomena that have germinated with the advent of new technologies and digital platforms. This is a recent case that only a few decades ago did not happen, but has developed at a rapid pace in recent years. For this reason, even though journalists enrolled out decades of experience in the field of communication, many of them do not have the digital skills needed to develop this new — and important — branch of work in contemporary journalism. The

aim of this proposal is to offer high-quality training to present and future journalists on a subject that is necessary in the current journalistic context, without reaching out to the educational competence of the Member States. We

therefore propose that the European Journalistic Digital Skills Summit be organised annually by the EC at the headquarters of DG COM (Brussels). A total of 500 journalists should be able to attend. It will be an intensive, voluntary training that will address:
What digital tools exist today
— how and when information handlers act
— what to do with a viral case of disinformation

In terms of training for journalism students, the EU Disinformation Summer Workshop, similar to Youth4Regions, will be delivered. It will consist of bringing together annually a group of 500 students or recent journalism graduates in the Communication Offices in Brussels. While Youth4Regions attempts to train journalism more generally, the difference with the proposed event is that, operating in the same way, it will focus exclusively on disinformation training, delivered by experts in the field chosen by the programme’s organising committee.

This proposal has been set up in the framework of the Forum x the Future of the European Union, a Team Europe initiative.

Cooperation for transparency on online platforms

The European Union is a forerunner in the process of establishing comprehensive regulation of the digital sector. But it needs to be more efficient and faster in setting up its legislation and its amendments to keep pace with the pace of society and digital services.

This is why we propose cooperation for the transparency of the actions of censors on online platforms. Social media must be more responsible. They cannot be allowed to be partial and to seek silence of opinions. The conditions of use should be detailed and easy to understand. Withdrawals or suspensions from account of VIPs present in the political debate will have to be justified, with reference to those conditions of use, in a fair and equitable manner. Platforms are a very important tool, used by all, and it is not in the interest of anyone that platforms are accused of censorship or of not doing enough to combat hate speech.

The aim is not, in the long term, to curb freedom of expression, but to ensure the adoption of a common language that guarantees pluralism of opinions and public debate on social media. Cooperation between social media censors and the European Union is necessary to ensure compliance with this common language. The European Union also needs to ensure the transparency of this cooperation by engaging online platforms, for example by creating criminal liability of online platforms if they do not comply with the requirements. Transparency, trust and credibility are key elements to be able to fight disinformation in a sustainable way

This proposal has been set up in the framework of the Forum x the Future of the European Union, a Team Europe initiative.

Effective funding for civil society organisations

The Action Plan for European Democracy (PADE) never mentions the deterioration of EU civic spaces in recent years. 48 civil society organisations highlight, in a report responding to the PADE, the increasing challenges to democracy in Europe observed in recent years: Political polarisation, closure of democratic spaces, growing control of the population and disillusionment of the population with democratic politicians and institutions. It is therefore essential to strengthen the EU’s commitment to democracy and to ensure spaces for participation for citizens. Although civil society organisations do receive funding (through the system of co-financing with the EU), access to these funds is often a complex and overly bureaucratic process, which has been remarked by both the European Economic and Social Committee and the 48 civil organisations report. In addition, there is a lack of transparency in the allocation of resources and control of the funds granted. Steps need to be taken to ensure that these organisations can continue to fight for democracy and citizens’ participation.

We propose:
— Create a team of professionals specialising in various subjects and speaking different languages to support organisations whose language is an impediment to transnational projects.
— making aid conditional on respect for the rule of law and the values of the Union: Democratic and inclusive participation in the organisation, gender balance, plurality of social origin, etc.
— Regular monitoring to detect non-compliance by the European Court of Auditors or national audit bodies such as the IGAE in Spain. Create a web platform to disseminate EU values and how they can be implemented through actions of civil society organisations.
— Adaptation of the co-financing requirement according to the resources of each organisation and project, which may be reduced to below 20 % but not less than 5 %.
— Identification of the bodies responsible for managing the funds in each Member State and of experts at municipal/provincial/regional level. Creation of a web platform to address concerns of organisations, where national fund management experts can solve questions and advise on the administrative and financial consequences of accessing these resources.

This proposal has been set up in the framework of the Forum x the Future of the European Union, a Team Europe initiative.

European democracy must be guaranteed in all Member States. The fact that Romania is not at European level because of the corrupt system in all sectors shows that the role of the European Union is not strong in all Member States.

PROGRESSIVE INTEGRATION OF PAN-EUROPEAN PARTIES

INTRODUCTION

The European electoral system has certain aspects that lack unity and consistency in the exercise of the right to vote, including electoral lists. From outside, the European elections represent a pool of national narratives, with 27 elections that are completely different and which apparently jointly elect the representatives of the Chamber. In this regard, the survival of the current system contributes to the pursuit of national interests and constitutes a risk to citizen participation and European democracy itself. This is why it is proposed to gradually integrate pan-European parties, divided into sections and with common names, logos and electoral programmes.

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROBLEM

As we know, the process of electing MEPs does not correspond to the representativeness of European citizens. By contrast, it is the sum of the various national candidates who apply for the appointment. In the current context, this means that the interaction of different electoral systems does not translate into a harmonious and inclusive outcome. On the contrary, it does call into question the very concept of representative democracy and citizenship.

According to Germany, the European integration process should serve as a lesson in finding that those who make decisions with a transnational impact must emerge from a transnational electoral process. In a union made up of citizens and states, decisions makers must therefore represent both.

The establishment of national lists for elections to the European Parliament poses political challenges, in relation to alliances and the pursuit of national interests, while limiting citizen participation. As regards the latter, the lack of electoral harmonisation hampers participatory processes in the different Member States by presenting an apparently common model, but with 27 different lists.

PROPOSAL

With the exception of some lines of discussion that are specifically presented, we find the same model in most national systems based on right-wing or conservative matches; left or Socialist; centre-right or liberal, centre-left or progressive; green; far right or nationalists; and far left or communist/anarchist. In order to provide political space and inclusion, the category “Not registered” will also be added in order to accommodate any candidate who is not identified within these families. An inclusive process of pan-European parties, divided into national (and in turn local) sections, with a common name and logo, is proposed.

Parties shall be established which, although previously national, serve common European interests and present themselves with the same list for elections. While issues of national relevance will remain, this new model would increase the coherence of the system and help promote citizen participation in elections.

This new party system will require primarals, with the aim of formations presenting their work streams, electoral proposals and lists. The electoral list, which is unique for all European citizens, shall be drawn up from a minimum of candidates per State plus a number proportional to their population.

The holding of this first round will serve to give parties a voice and vote when electing leading candidates and will pave the way for the final vote, where the electoral candidates will be voted legitimately and directly. The consolidation of this primary process and the election would help to promote civic participation as the profiles of the candidates during the campaign would be clearly known.

Finally, the statutes of the European parties will be amended as they are so far not defined as such, but as coalitions of national parties. It will also incorporate the concept of cross-border elections, the holding of general assemblies, the financing of parties and sections, and the establishment of mechanisms for scrutiny and accountability to the institutions.

These proposals have been set up in the framework of the Forum x the Future of the European Union, a Team Europe initiative.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Garcia García, M. J. (2019). The European electoral system: where the whole does not equate to the sum of the shares. Magazine of European Studies, 74: 3-29.
Germany, A. (2019). Europe’s Democracy Challenge: Citizen Participation in and Beyond Elections. German Law Journal, 21 (1): 171-178. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/glj.2019.92
Drounau, L. (translated by Weber, L.). (2020). European democracy is achieved with transnational parties, not transnational lists. [online] Europeanist. Available under: https://bit.ly/3q0tMFA [consultation: 5 February 2021].
The total number of candidates should be smaller than the number of MEPs currently allocated.
Regulation (EU, EURATOM) No 1141/2014 of 22 October 2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the statute and funding of European political parties and European political foundations. Official Journal of the European Union, No. L114I of 4 May 2018, p. 7.

A MIGITAL

INTRODUCTION CITICIPATION PARTICIPATION

European citizenship has various mechanisms for participating in the political life of the Union. The diversity of these tools is found both administratively, through open petitions to the European Parliament, and in the European Union’s own setting agenda, with the Commission’s European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI). While these mechanisms offer immense opportunities for citizens to play an active role in the democratic life of the EU, they also have a completely different nature, requirements and functionalities which, if not clear, hamper their employment and success.

It is of great interest to both the public and the institutions to facilitate the accessibility and use of these mechanisms through a digital platform, with the aim of enriching the democratic participation of European citizens and ensuring the value and outcome of the various participation mechanisms.

Description OF THE

PROBLEMA Citizens’ participation mechanisms fall within what German refers to as the EU Participatory Toolbox, a concept that encompasses different levels and contribution mechanisms. In this way, two levels of direct citizen participation are identified: Administrative and monitoring actions, issued through open petitions (or complaints) to the European Parliament, and the ECI, which is submitted to the Commission and influences the EU’s political agenda. On the one

hand, there is a general lack of knowledge about the functionality of open petitions; On the other hand, the challenges of the ECI and the low probability that the Commission will promote a law or regulate the matter in question.

There are problems related to lack of knowledge of information, lack of skills filters when formulating and presenting initiatives, timeliness and clarity in sending and responding processes, and reduced accessibility to documents, petitions or initiatives in the different EU languages.

Proposal

The challenges posed by participation mechanisms put at risk the effectiveness and representativeness of European citizens’ participation. The Commission and the European Parliament are therefore called upon to launch a digital and collaborative platform, building on the one already mandated for the Conference on the Future of Europe, which will remain in time, offer multilingual service, collect and facilitate direct citizen participation and in turn offer:

● Guides on the various mechanisms for direct citizen participation, which also explain the differences between open petitions and the ECI, their usefulness and effect, the institutions to which they are addressed, and the different skills filters presented by each of them.

● Interface to upload petitions or initiatives in test format and to facilitate the verification of documents and filters needed to submit them. An application will also make it possible to ascertain whether the matter falls within the competence of the EU, whether any initiative/consultation on the matter has already been regulated or submitted and which institution is responsible for examining it and, therefore, whether it is appropriate to submit an ECI or an open petition.

● Interface to ensure that the fitness filters are checked and that the petition or initiative is translated into all 24 EU languages, so that a larger number of citizens can be reached.

● Joint database, containing all open petitions and ICES, processing procedures and, in the case of initiatives, providing a button for the collection of electronic signatures.

● Interface for assistance, dissemination and activities related to ongoing initiatives or requests. This section of the platform will be coordinated by the Economic and Social Committee, which currently plays a key role in promoting initiatives. It is proposed that a Participatory Grid be set up to bring citizens, civil society organisations, lobbies and institutions into contact. This grid will provide conferences, forums, webinars, workshops and activities related to communication and dissemination of initiatives/requests, as well as the provision of assistive services, and administrative and legal support through the actors involved in the process.

These proposals have been created in the framework of the Forum x the Future of the European Union, a Team Europe initiative.

German

bibliography, A. (2018). Beyond Consultations: Restoring EU Participatory Democracy. Carnegie Europe, Reshaping European Democracy. Available at: Https://bit.ly/3eBonBU European
Parliament. The right to petition. [online] European Parliament. Available at: Https://bit.ly/3euNCFZ [accessed: 3 March 2021] European
Parliament. The European Citizens’ Initiative. [online] European Parliament. Available at: Https://bit.ly/2OMsznx [accessed: 3 March 2021]
German, A. (2020). Europe’s Democracy Challenge: Citizen Participation in and Beyond Elections. German Law Journal, 21 (1), 171-178. DOI: 10.1017/glj.2019.92
European Anti-Poverty Network. (2014). Civil society involvement in the EU. [online] EAPN. Available at: Https://bit.ly/2OLAfGB [accessed: 3 March 2021]

A SINGLE CHOICE FOR A SINGLE EUROPE: European

elections held every five years since 1979 are a direct and democratic expression of European citizens about who they want to represent them in the European Parliament. The lack of a uniform process in this regard is sadly at the expense of these rights and the equal treatment of European citizens.

Even, in many cases, this lack of harmonisation is directly about the political rights of Europeans. European electoral law leaves it to the Member States to regulate at national level the extension of certain fundamental rights in respect of elections to the European Parliament.

Description OF THE

PROBLEMA The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union makes clear reference in Article 223 to the creation of a uniform electoral process for the election of Members of the European Parliament. It is ironic that an objective which, by establishing a uniform and comprehensible process, would contribute to reducing the democratic deficit in the European Union without fundamentally changing the balance and institutional design (while bringing the Union closer to the citizens) has not yet taken place.

Similarly, fundamental differences between states affecting citizens’ rights for the same election (including basic issues such as the minimum age for voting or candidate candidates in European elections, conditions for standing, early or postal voting, compulsory voting, etc.) only increase the gap between Europeans, who see how some of their fellow citizens have different status and feel that their rights are not equally recognised throughout the Union.

In the

light of the above, we propose:

● to equalise the minimum age for voting in the European elections to 16, to give a critical voice to European youth on their future.
● Establishing a voluntary vote for the European elections throughout the Union, thus recognising the non-exercise of the right to vote as a legitimate election choice, and strengthening the concept of citizens’ right — which should not be — to elect their representatives.
● to equalise the minimum age for candidates for European elections, this being equally indispensable to EU values. We therefore propose that a common minimum age, preferably at 18 years, should be agreed for all Member States in order to stand as a candidate.
● Enable postal voting, as well as early voting, from any country in all constituencies. This process would be managed by the previous proposed Single European Electoral Authority. The European Parliament should set out the requirements and deadlines for requesting one of the two options. Member States shall make available to the Single European Electoral Authority the necessary resources and assistance to take the necessary steps.
● to match the requirements for standing as candidates for the European elections. The European Parliament shall draft a harmonisation of requirements, taking into account the multitude of different rules in each Member State.
● The confirmation of the elected MEPs is carried out by the European Parliament (in the form of lawyers or a standing committee), not by the Member States.
● Strengthen the immunity of MEPs — attached only to topics related to parliamentary activity — and transparency in lifting it, given the importance of the mandate and its importance and effects.

We also propose that these provisions apply only to elections to the European Parliament, differentiating and thus respecting the sovereignty of each Member State to decide on its electoral processes in view of national elections, always in accordance with common democratic principles.

This proposal has been set up in the framework of the Forum x the Future of the European Union, a Team Europe initiative.

Literature

Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, 2012.
Alonso de León, S., 2017. Four decades of the European Electoral Act: A Look Back and a Look Ahead to an Unfullated Ambition. European Law Review, [online] (42) I3). Available at: < https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317937230_Four_decades_of_the_European_electoral_act_A_look_back_and_a_look_ahead_to_an_unfulfilled_ambition >[accessed 12 March 2021].
Duff, A., 2011. Report on a proposal for a modification of the Act concerning the election of the members of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage of 20 September 1976. [online] p.Annex V. Available at: < https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-7-2011-0176_EN.html >[accessed 12 March 2021].
Sokolska, I., 2020. The European Parliament: Modalities of election. Fact Sheets on the European Union, [online] Available at: < https://www.europarl.europa.eu/factsheets/es/sheet/21/el-parlamento-europeo-modalidades-de-eleccion >[accessed 13 March 2021].

INCREASED EUROPEAN ELECTORAL COMMUNICATION

INTRODUCTION

Since 1994, less than half of European citizens go to the polls to vote in the European elections. This puts the European Union at risk by questioning its legitimacy, undoubtedly driven by Eurosceptic political sectors.

Such a lack of awareness may be due to a mere lack of interest or a lack of information about political parties, their electoral programmes and candidates. It must therefore be ensured that they have the necessary information and that European election campaigns are not a mere extension of national political debates, but an opportunity to put forward programmes and arguments concerning the issues to be addressed by the EU executive.

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROBLEM

According to data from a 2019 YouGov survey, in 14 Member States more than half of Europeans do not vote that they do not know who and how it works. Some specialists, MEPs and even candidates for the post of President of the European Commission acknowledge that the communication has failed.

This is not necessarily due to a lack of information but, despite existing communication tools, there is still a general lack of awareness among the European population. For example, an opinion study reveals that only 35 % of the population are safe to go to vote, but even among this small group, 70 % have not yet been decided by any party.

The main problem cannot be expected to be resolved by means of specific communication campaigns close to the elections. To this end, with the aim of facilitating and bringing information closer to the public, beyond presenting it on webpages, we propose a change of approach to the European Union’s communication model.

PROPOSAL

It is proposed to create a long-term, permanent communication plan or strategy, which in turn complements the various campaigns launched in connection with the European elections, such as forums, talks or debates involving citizens. The communication campaign would be more effective if it were done continuously and not only in election times, increasing citizens’ knowledge of the democratic life of the European Union in order to keep citizens informed and incentivised to participate in elections and political life. In turn, the importance of voting at European level, the functioning of elections and the role of citizens in these processes would be stressed.

This communication campaign should focus on several fronts. First, it is necessary to define what you want to communicate. Taking into account the problem described above and the figures in the YouGov survey, it is clear that there is a general lack of knowledge about the EU’s political apparatus. It is therefore necessary to begin by explaining how this apparatus works, what is the role of the citizen in voting, how his or her vote influences and how he can choose the candidates to vote.

Following this, and with the work streams delimited, it is important to study and listen to the target audience. We therefore propose that different target groups be identified with the aim of identifying which social media or channels are mostly consumed and how information can be disseminated or public participation invited. In this way, it is recommended to subsidise or invest in campaigns led by European influencers through networks closer to the population such as YouTube or Twitch.

Finally, we consider it important to devise a cross-cutting, pan-European strategy, easily adaptable for each Member State and contributing to the common good of citizens and the European Union itself.

This proposal has been set up in the framework of the Forum x the Future of the European Union, a Team Europe initiative.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Voter turnout – Results of the 2019 European elections – European Parliament (2019). European Parliament. [online] Results of the 2019 European elections. Available under: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/election-results-2019/es/participacion/
Leonard, M. (2019). Even days to save the European Union. [online] ECFR. Available under: https://ecfr.eu/article/commentary_seven_days_to_save_the_european_union/
Beswick, E. (2019). Why is participation in European elections so low? [online] Euronews. Available under: https://es.euronews.com/2019/05/20/por-que-la-participacion-en-las-elecciones-europeas-es-tan-baja
MeseguerBarcelona, M. (2019). More than half of Europeans do not vote because they don’t know to whom. [online] La Vanguardia. Available under: https://www.lavanguardia.com/internacional/20190418/461716355585/elecciones-a-quien-votar-desconocimiento-encuestas-dudas.html

THE SPITZENKANDIDATEN AS A DEMOCRATIC REINFORCEMENT

INTRODUCTION

The Spitzenkandidaten system, or Spitzenkandidaten, proposes to give an indirect voice to the citizens of the European Union to decide on the election of the leader of the European Commission, who is not elected by universal suffrage, in order to improve its democratic legitimacy.

Through this institutional process, each of the six main European political families of the European Parliament presents its leading candidates, linking this figure to the electoral outcome of all EU citizens. In addition, the candidacy of the group with the highest representation in Parliament will have to be approved by the Council of the European Union, composed of the Presidents of the Member States, as well as by a majority in the Parliament itself.

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROBLEM

With the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, the 2014 elections were intended to be a change in the procedure for the appointment of the President of the Commission. This was not a sudden and abrupt change, but rather the result of a gradual process of adaptation dating back to the 1996 Intergovernmental Conference when the synchronisation of the terms of office of the Parliament and the European Commission was introduced.

In particular, Article 17(7) of the Treaty on European Union stipulates that the Council, acting by qualified majority, shall propose for Parliament’s consent a President of the Commission “taking into account the elections of the European Parliament”. The ambiguity of that paragraph makes it possible to interpret it in different ways: Parliament sees it as a successful and democratic method worthy of official validation in the Electoral Law, and the Council sees it as a non-essential or non-binding process. This is why the Spitzenkandidaten process failed in the 2019 elections with Ursula von der Leyen’s election as President, which could mean that he will never return or perhaps not take seriously those standing for the next elections in 2024.

PROPOSAL

In a Union made up of states and citizens, decision-makers must represent both. Precisely, the Spitzenkandidaten process creates a broader platform for debate among candidates, which not only increases transparency and political legitimacy for the role of President of the Commission, but also increases the participation and awareness of EU citizens in the process. Compared to 2019, there was an increase in European voter turnout from 42.61 % to 50.99 %, although this could also be due to the historical importance of the 2019 elections and the polarisation of the recent electoral context. Therefore, we also believe that if Spitzenkandidaten were known among the European population, it would increase citizens’ participation in voting as a more democratic process.

Certainly, it could be said that 2014 was the “first step” to improve the EU’s democratic credentials, leaving room for improvement in the future. To move away again from the idea of secret in camera voting by national leaders to nominate the candidate, it is crucial that the process is made binding through the Treaties or, through a pact on the part of the political parties to commit to vote only in favour of those who have the candidacy as lead candidates for the election of the President of the Commission.

The fact that the European Parliament takes the lead of the European Council in the election of the President of the Commission initially strengthens the Parliament, but above all empowers the Commission by increasing its legitimacy and giving it greater independence from the Member States.

This proposal has been set up in the framework of the Forum x the Future of the European Union, a Team Europe initiative.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

West European Politics. (2016). After the Spitzenkandidaten: fundamental change in the EU’s political system? Available under: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01402382.2016.1184414
Christiansen, T. (2016). After the Spitzenkandidaten: fundamental change in the EU’s political system? West European Politics, 39 (5), pp. 992 – 1010. Available under: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/01402382.2016.1184414
Dinan, Desmond (1997). ‘The Commission and the Reform Process’, in Geoffrey Edwards and Alfred Pijpers (eds.), The Politics of European Treaty Reform. London: Pinter, 188 – 11.
Germany, A. (2020). Europe’s Democracy Challenge: Citizen Participation in and Beyond Elections. German Law Journal, [online] 21 (1), pp. 35 – 40. Available under: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/german-law-journal/article/europes-democracy-challenge-citizen-participation-in-and-beyond-elections/EC4783F856EDF8D9DEA275B9BB4FFC8F
Tilindyte, L. (2019). EPRS BRIEFING. Election of the President of the European Commission. Understanding the Spitzenkandidaten process. The European Parliamentary Research Service. [online]. Available under: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2018/630264/EPRS_BRI (2018) 630264_EN.pdf.
Kotanidis, S. (2019). EPRS BRIEFING. European Union electoral law. Current situation and historical background. The European Parliamentary Research Service. [online]. Available under: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2019/642250/EPRS_BRI (2019) 642250_EN.pdf

Several ideas to strengthen democracy and the interest of Europeans, to make sure that the Europe conceived by Jacques Delors can come.
The first idea would be to put in place the majority court in order to ensure a better representativeness of voters’ votes in the European elections. —’ https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jugement_majoritaire

— A further idea, which should be clarified in a European context, would be to allow for a recall referendum for elected representatives of Parliament, for example, to show the way to national representatives in the face of growing mistrust of the institutions in Europe.

This digital democracy should also be based on the fact that the EU listens not only to all the helicopters and its party partners for what it does to punish and punish countries that have a different point of view because, unfortunately, every country in the EU has a government elected by democratic elections, but unfortunately also has an opposition that tries to move to power by all possible means and unfortunately not too democratic!!!!!!!! Quite the hay and the arbitrary choices you make in your party!!!!!!! If the EU is unfortunately the majority of Poles not!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Frexit

I would like to see more implications from the EU in Romania’s political projects that are not anything for the people and only for them and this inclusion laws that they give to protect topics and we’t do anything about it.

I believe that every citizen of the European Union can have a say in the Parliament and take any proposal the European Union is all.

The EU countries should introduce direct democracy: Every act can be overturn and any official recalled from his post by the vote of the majority that the act/official changes. This should include policemen, prosecutors, judges, deputies, senators, ministers, presidents.

Return to direct democratisation. Direct voting for elected persons. Ending the vote on party lists.

It is true that we are continually receiving information online and it is disturbing, if not dangerous, part of what we really think to be fake news.
Disinformation creates deadlocks, but research carried out by our classmates 1 in 2 students believes that it has heard fake news and even on a serious issue. We
want the EU to create online legislation that prevents the spread of fake news, because there will be laws and accountability for anyone who uses fake news and is known, and indeed the responsibilities should be commensurate with the damage caused.

I agree that in the digital age the institution of e-democracy should be considered. But to ensure inclusiveness, everyone must have access to the internet and the necessary digital skills. Otherwise groups will be created who are not involved in decision-making and this is not a Republic of Cyprus.

Husband democracy a funnier subject. We should have more debates inaugurated of only examination.

To safe guard democratic it is importing to normalise the use of freedom of speech in our countries and not let the “sccel culture” hinders and limits the freedom of speech. So TEACH the youth how they can use and what they can say, at the same time TEACH they are entitled to say things according to law of freedom of gambling.
Then it is an importer for other EU countries to defend other European countries attacked by authoritarian states.