Dr. Stephen Coutts:

Professor Laffan has touched on some of the points I wanted to make so my comments will be brief. I wrote down that it will be a two-level process. Individual member states will draw on their democratic experiences and mechanisms and do things their own particular way. There will be a pan-European or transnational dimension as well. Why I believe that is important is precisely because of the issues listed by Senator Chambers.

There are all these different issues and member states will have different opinions, and not just the Governments of the member states but also the populations of the member states. Consider taxation, for example. Ireland is almost totemic in that we have to maintain our sovereignty regarding corporate taxation in particular. The completely opposite point of view is present in a lot of other member states and among their populations. It is important to have at European level a pan-European transnational citizens' assembly so that citizens can come together and recognise that compromise will probably be necessary in particular policy areas, and that national interests will have to be reconciled. This is why there are benefits at a national level, precisely because that is where democracy takes place and it is where debate typically takes place. Member states have their own mechanisms and histories in how they involve citizens in decision making. The pan-European dimension will also be really important precisely to bring out the fact that in policy areas reconciliation will have to take place. That is the purpose of deliberative democracy: that people can hear the point of view of other people, can be informed about it in a reflective and proper way, and can come to more considered opinions having taken into account the views of others. If that takes place at a European level it can be really beneficial as well.

On the agenda and who controls it, I believe this is a key point that needs to be worked out. Obviously, a certain amount of issues need to be put on the table but I would hope there is some scope for citizens to bring other things to the table that are important to them, and that nothing is really excluded that is a priority. In a context where citizens are made aware of where the powers are to do particular things and how it would take place, Noelle made an interesting point about having to explain the competencies of the Union. I will come back to the example of the ECI, the European citizens' initiative. A number of these have failed simply because they proposed things that the Union does not have competence to do. That is very frustrating for the people who have signed up to these initiatives. It seems as though their ideas are being rejected on a technical issue but it is actually very important. It is important that there is some agenda control on the part of the citizens' initiatives but how that happens has to be very transparent. What the outcome will be must also be considered and I note there are some differences between the different institutions on precisely how they foresee the outcomes of these deliberations. Again, I would not say they should lead to directly binding legal proposals in any way. That would not fit within the Union's legislative structure. There should, however, be some commitment to a proper consideration of the outcomes and a response to them, absolutely.

My final point is on the budget and the current issues around the multiannual financial framework, MFF. I would echo absolutely everything Professor Laffan has said. I believe this has gone on for far too long. This is a long problem now and there have been problems in dealing with it due to the political system in the EU. From a lawyer's perspective, the European Court of Justice has taken a number of actions against Poland in particular, and the Commission has taken the infringement actions, but that route is very limited. It is limited in the legitimacy it has in the affected member states and they are also very discrete actions. While it is very important that the European Court of Justice underlined why this is very damaging from a constitutional perspective and to the Union's legal order, it is limited in what it can do. There absolutely needs to be a political response. The article 7 procedure is fatally undermined by the requirement for unanimity where there are two states willing to support each other.

The financial conditionality is a really important tool. As has been pointed out, these states are huge beneficiaries of the EU budget. Of the parties concerned, EuropeFides is a huge beneficiary also of the EU budget. That is the lever the EU has. The EU does not need a police force and it does not need an armed force. It dispenses huge amounts of money and that is a huge opportunity for leverage. It is precisely the kind of tool that is necessary to address this matter. It is long overdue that a way be found to push forward with this . As was pointed out, it is a cancer and it needs to be dealt with head on.