Event report

Reporting form Local Citizen Agoras Part 1: summary of turnout and demographics Please write the date and place of the event. Lisboa/Cascais (even online) 19.Fev.2022 What was the title of the event? Agora-Projecto Meet Portugal-Democracia na Europa What was the duration of the event? 15h-19h How many participants showed up for the event? How many citizens registered? 20 How were citizens selected? What was the basis of the selection (demographic stratification of the member state/region/city)? In case of citizens’ lottery: how many citizens were part of the pool of potential participants? Specialized company made the selection with age, gender, regional representation How was the group constituted, in terms of the core and additional demographic characteristics outlined in the methodological template? Please complete the table: Core demographic characteristics Selected Participated on the day Gender 9 male 11 female 9 male 11 female Age 5 under 30 7 30-50 8 above 50 5 under 30 7 30-50 8 above 50 Social diversity indicator(s) – please provide details of which indicators were applied and how 6 elementar education 8 highschool 6 university degree       Additional demographic characteristics (please complete as appropriate) 6 North 4 South       5 Center             5 Lisboa             Did participants receive any compensation or assistance (e.g. childcare costs)? If yes, please provide details. Yes, 50 euros (payed by the company that made the selection) Part 2: Topics and discussion What was the topic? Democracy in Europa How was the deliberative process organised? Please attach the agenda of the event. 15h Welcome (both groups, Democracy and Environment) By Carlos Coelho former MEP and President of Nossa Europa – What is MEET project, how we are going to work 15h15 Working Group Democracy – speach and Q&A with MEP Carlos Zorrinho 15h45 Working Group Democracy – Moderated by Prof. Miguel Poiares Maduro 17h30 Plenary (both groups, Democracy and Environment) Moderated by Prof. Raquel Vaz Pinto (Fund. Gulbenkian and Nossa Europa) 19h End of works a. How many plenaries did you have? 2 b. How many group work sessions did you have? 1 How long did each session last? 4 h What was discussed in each session? Please provide a short summary of each plenary and each working group session. This group was about Democracy in Europe, European citizenship and information and comunication What was the result of each plenary and working group session? List all the opinions or recommendations from citizens, if any. Where applicable, please mention how decisions were taken. The discussion was oriented to allow consensus. The recomendations are in the following answer What was the overall result? List all the opinions or recommendations from citizens. 1 More transparency in the way european funds are being used (fight against corruption) 2. European institutions should comunicate with citizens using less tecnocratic and more simple and friendly vocabulary 3. Support young people trying to find their first job and help job stability 4. Create an european TV chanel like the portuguese parliament chanel 5. Better interaction with MEPs using new technologies 6. Create MyEUApp to be able to ask questions about the EU, to comunicate with MEPs and to find more about european funds and how they are being granted 7. Bigger budget to the EU 8. Fight the tax heavens and provide an european tax harmonization 9. More funds to Health and Educations and less to roads and other infrastructures 10. Education and training should be european priority 11. Fight against fake news and desinformation Did citizens find it easy or difficult to come up with ideas? Did they reach consensus (if that was the goal)? Was the consensus reached easily? It was not dificult How engaged were the underrepresented groups? Did their proposals or contributions differ from the rest of participants in any way? Opinions were presented in diferent ways but in the same lenght What was the role of the MEP in the process? How long did he/she stay during the event? MEP made an Introduction, answered questions and stayed with us for 30/40 mins For online/hybrid events, were there any major difficulties due to the online/hybrid setting of the deliberation? We tried to buil consensus In case of both online and offline events, was there a major difference between the debates held online and those held in person/hybrid events? It was only online How were the facilitators chosen? Choosen by Nossa Europa How many of them were there? One Were facilitators briefed in advance? If yes, what did this briefing include? Yes, Prof. Poiares Maduro is a member of Nossa Europa Part 3: Aspects of the general mood in the room Were participants enthusiastic, or did the exercise in general fail to excite? How would you describe the discussions (e.g. lively, dull, contentious)? Lively and showing the will for participation Were responses balanced, or did they tend towards certain political viewpoints? Sometimes centred in local problems (like how courts work in Portugal) Was opinion frequently split along any of the demographic criteria described above? Mostly on ages diferences more than gender or location If there were any incidents, such as disruptions, filibustering or other attempts to hijack discussions, please give details. No, orderly and pleasent