The IGC 2004 A Simulation Game objectives - roles & rules of the game CoWaS – Be a European...

The IGC 2004 A Simulation Game

objectives - roles &

rules of the game

CoWaS – Be a European Decision Maker

Brussels, 22/23.03.2004

Bruno Scholl, University of Cologne

Overview• Session I - today

– Introduction of the “game”• What is an IGC?• The subjects • Distribution of roles

• Session II- tomorrow– The objectives and tasks of a Simulation

Game• Research (Documents and Literature)• Positions papers• Communication

– TacticsBruno Scholl, University of Cologne

Introduction of the game: What are you doing??

Art. 48 TEUThe government of any Member State or the Commission may submit to the

Council proposals for the amendment of the Treaties on which the Union is founded.

If the Council, after consulting the European Parliament and, where appropriate, the Commission, delivers an opinion in favour of calling a conference of representatives of the governments of the Member States, the conference shall be convened by the President of the Council for the purpose of determining by common accord the amendments to be made to those Treaties. The European Central Bank shall also be consulted in the case of institutional changes in the monetary area.

The amendments shall enter into force after being ratified by all the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.

thus, only an IGC can change the treaties And you are the masters of the treaties – Heads of States, Prime

Ministers, Foreign Affairs Ministers, Commissioners and European Parliamentarians


What is the IGC - 2004

• Post-Nice Process• Laeken declaration• Convention• Draft treaty establishing a

‘European Constitution’• Call of IGC in October 2003


The issues at stake:

- already achieved (you are not negotiating in a vacuum):

- Draft Constitutional treaty consensually adopted by European Convention:

- new structure- incorporation of Charta of fundamental rights- distribution of competences- deal on institutional reform

- However!!!: Draft Constitutional Treaty only a ‘good basis’ for the work of the Convention


Still / again to be settled!!

- not everybody happy with Convention results

- your targets: 1) Reform of the institutions (European

Council; Council; European Commission, EP;)

2) Role of national parliaments

3) Division of Competences


And now…to the game - You are performing a role reflecting the ‘real’ composition of the IGC 2004

- Your position is ruffly explained to you in your negotiation dossier (handed out in a minute)

- We are following the official rules of the IGC:

- high level negotiations (each team at least two members)

- unanimity (final result has to be reached consensually)

- EP / Commission participation (they can speak but cannot vote)


Who participates in the IGC?

• Presidency (2)• Council Secretariat (2)• Member States (Head of State / Prime

Minister, Foreign Minister per Country)

• European Commission (2)• European Parliament (2)


1) Presidency (Ireland)

• Small member state • truthful agent and mediator• Most successful process of cohesion policy • afraid of giving-up national sovereignty

Special tasks and rights • The presidency is running the show

– decide on negotiation objectives – Chairing the negotiation sessions (determining the agenda)– Allocating speaking time – call of informal sessions, distribution of ‘non-papers’

• coalition building between allies and partners• Major aim: ‘getting to yes’• Relies on support of secretariat (very close co-operation)


2) Council Secretariat

• Crucial role• Formally: simply support of presidency

– minutes / synthesis report – together with presidium – Collecting written interventions– Timing of the meetings

• But: Power of drafters– Importance of the first text– can help to build informal compromise (in mission of

presidency?)

• tension between member states interest and EU interests

• own interests


3) European Commission

• Formal role in IGC used to be limited • This time fully involved (exempt voting) • administration or government• proposals by the Commission are based

on current institutional framework • Role of mediator between member

states (any result better than no result)


4) European Parliament

• Formally no role in an IGC• However: this time fully included in

negotiations (no voting right) • Neo-federalist position• relationship to national parliaments and

national parliamentarians • Aims to increase its position within the

institutional architecture


As to the member states: 3) Germany

- federal state

- size of the country

- relationship to other larges countries

- geographical circumstances (stressing enlargement)

- current economic problems

- German elections in 2002

- Pro-integrationist attitude


4) France

• relationship of French president and prime minister

• strong role of government / weak role of assemblée

• centralized state

• “Grande nation”

• elections in 2002

• European cleavage in party system?

• combination of supranational and intergovernmental politics


5) United Kingdom

• no written constitution

• devolution process

• opting out EMU

• Eurosceptical people / public opinion

• Thatcher: family of nations concept


• Change or continuity with New Labour

• fear of a European super-state


6) Italy

• Berlusconi government

• unstable party system

• pro EU politics / linked to long-term federalist approaches

• Italian regions with merely consultative character

• stresses the reduction of the legitimacy deficit

• emphasizes importance of CFSP


7) Spain

• absolutely majority for Aznar government

• stressing the importance of cohesion funds

• high support of population for EU

• asymmetrical regionalisation

• problem of terrorism (ETA)

• still problems with UK concerning Gibraltar

• promising economic situation


8) The Netherlands

• Consensus model

• Euro-skeptical people



9) Sweden

• long tradition of neutrality

• Importance of welfare state

• Consensus / negotiation model

• open access to the public state

• recent changes / erosion of specific swedish model


10) Denmark

• basically against a constitution

• role of a referendum

• Eurosceptical people and

• new government (Anders Fogh Rasmussen)• Strong role of Danish parliament in EU questions



11) Poland

• importance of agriculture

• size of the country

• new constitution of May 1997

• heavy problems in administration building


12) Hungary

• elections in 2002

• increased economic growth

• reduced unemployment

• problems with reform of public administration

• people are very much in favor of application


Estonia


Slovenia


Part II: Simulation Games- Overview

• What are Simulation Games?– Functions– Objectives– Structure of a Simulation

• Acting in Simulations– Preparing Negotiations– Actor Analysis– Tactics


Simulation Games

• ... can show and explain complex and even unknown structures

• ... can develop "soft skills" of participants – observing, negotiation and moderation skills

• ... can show and explain social and intercultural behaviour:– connected to everyday experiences – build-up a knowledge base of behavioural skills

• ...can be easily used by actors with different cultural background: – it confronts and addresses prejudices – and stereotypes of other cultures


Objectives I - Research

– on the current constitutional debate in the EU

– on general background of the institutional architecture

– on specific interests of country or institution represented by the team


Objectives II – soft skills

• Improvement and grounded experience of EU negotiations

• Improvement of communication skills • Improving drafting capabilities (position

papers/ treaty text) • Complexity of Multi-lateral bargaining

and the art of arguing


Deliverables - The Position Papers

• Important deliverable (for each group)• Maximum paper

– Contains your positions (as shown to the others)– Indicate some room of manoeuvre – Indicate possible allies (to make your position stronger)

• Precise language / short (3 pages)• Should help to guide you through the negotiations• Minimum Paper

– Define your fall-back positions– Only to be shown to the teaching staff


Sample Assessment Sheet

• factual knowledge• research skills• presentation skills• communication skills• negotiation skills• position papers • Academic papers


Before you start working: Strategies and Tactics

Constitution?- between dynamics and status quo- are you dying for change or dying for Nice?

- Good negotiation position anyway?

Avoiding conflicts?- starting with identifying controversial issues or searching for consensus

Cleavages?- national vs. European level - federal / parliamentary vs. Intergovernmental approach- smaller vs. larger member states

Preparing negotiation

• Set goals– identify obstacles, and fix a time line

start by clearly stating the goal you hope to achieve– Try to get deals done even before the negotiations start

• Fix sub-goals – Identify smaller obstacles that could stop you from

reaching the main goal– Give them numbers until a deadline– or fix a sub-goals set-out from the start to the end


Actor analysis

• Culture:– Research the cultures of those with whom you

are negotiating

• Personality– Research the personality and likely approach

they will take


Tactics

• "it ‘s not me"

• warning of consequences

• good & bad guy/girl (cop)

• risk of the rival

• fictional deadline

• done deal

• win-win


Tactics I

• "it‘s not me" – claim that you are not responsible for the decision. If faced

with this, always try to go to the one who is responsible! – NB: if you use this, it risks undermining your authority as a

negotiator

• warning of consequences – "if you do not do x, then y will happen". – Dangerous: the claim is likely to become public some day,

and may actually provoke y! Alternatively, they may call your bluff, and if nothing happens, your credibility is damaged


Tactics II

• good & bad guy/girl – one person plays tough, the other is conciliatory. – Especially when you are negotiating on two levels

• risk of the rival – "if you do not do this deal with me, I will go to your

rival„

• fictional deadlines – "we have to do this before x date, as otherwise y".


Tactics III

• done deal – the issue is solved before the meeting starts by

the assistants or juniors

• win-win – identify those issues where both sides gain

from a deal: preferably the low cost, high value


Methods I

• Official framework set by the presidency– Time table

– Rules of procedure

– Request for official papers

– Presenting compromises or first txt

• You can get active as well– Start initiatives

– Get active with possible allies

– Distribute ‘press releases’

Methods II

• How can you do that?– Use Email (we’ll set up a mailing list)– Use the Internet (you might want to create a

website)

• Important:– first consult in your group– Then go outside

Expected Results

1) Do a better Job!!! Negotiate and draft those parts of the European “Constitution“ where the December European Council failed

2) Play your role reasonably There should be no result which is obviously

running in total contrast to your original position !


Date post:	19-Dec-2015
Category:	Documents
View:	213 times
Download:	0 times