Last summer, in a unique and innovative exercise of democracy, 210 young citizens met in Brussels to make their voices heard and to contribute towards...

Last summer, in a unique and innovative exercise of democracy, 210 young citizens met in Brussels to make their voices heard and to contribute towards the building of Europe. We came from a vast range of backgrounds: From Ireland in the west to Turkey in the East; from Spanish communists to far-right xenophobic Danes, from pupil and student organisations, trade unions and scouts; from organisations of the disabled to those of ethnic minorities, to name a few.
We were faced with a difficult task: Under an extreme time-constraint, to overcome our differences and produce a strong statement, an answer to the question, "what do young people want for the Europe of tomorrow?" It had to be strong and concrete enough to make an impression on the senior Convention and the general public, and rich enough to reflect the diversity and breadth of the Youth Convention.
Obviously we would disagree on many points. Some wanted the Tobin tax and a fight against global capitalism, others wanted to ban abortion and pre-marital sex. Some wanted Europe to be a security and defence superpower, others wanted a European welfare state. Despite these differences we were united by one thing: a demand for democracy. Regardless of political colour, regardless of whether you usually fight for the environment or for rights of the disabled, we all saw that our work can only bear fruit if there are democratic institutions, where we can support the politicians we like and work to throw out those who disappoint us. A democratic Europe, a federal Europe, was therefore a basic structure we could agree on, and the citizens can later work to put in it what they choose, be it a welfare state model, be it a beacon for free trade in the world or for global environmentalism.
A minute minority among the delegates had the (in my view outdated) position that democracy can only exist within the borders of the nation state, and that the democratic process is reserved for ethnically homogenous groups within the "vaterland" (sic). These forces constituted a very small part of the Youth Convention, and could not, even with the concerted support of the Danish MEP Jens Peter Bonde's party machinery, disrupt the proceedings or control the final text.
Instead, the Youth Convention produced a strong result, demanding a European Federal Constitution. We want a European Government, accountable to the Parliament, consisting of a Chamber of the Citizens (EP) and a Chamber of the States (Council). Their powers and their relation to each other and to the national level must be clearly defined in the Constitution on the basis of subsidiarity, transparency and accountability.
We would not have reached such a strong and coherent result, without the sacrifice and tremendous work done by the chair, Giacomo Filibeck, the Presidium, and the three rapporteurs. We must also acknowledge the work done by the European Youth Forum in preparing and organising the event. Finally, we as Jeffers should recognize that the impact we made on the proceedings and the final text is to a large extent a result of long term networking and contact-building, in addition to the effort put down by JEF and allies during the Youth Convention.
We can be proud of our result, but the fight for the Europe we want is far from over. We must keep telling the senior Convention that we, the young people of Europe, are watching them and that the only way forward is to build a federal democratic and united Europe. Until we meet again to remind the senior Convention of our demands, good luck.