Ms BRYNJÓLFSDÓTTIR shared Mr COTTIER’s question on direct democracy, and an eagerness for decisions to be taken more quickly. Ms GYLFADÓTTIR said that most questions from the previous round shared something in common. They were about ensuring that regular human beings saw the benefits in the fact that the values would be cherished for them, and reflected on what the Council of Europe could do. For example, in Iceland, it had the same flag and the same song, and people did not understand the two, especially as they maintained they did not “belong to the EU”. She said the European Convention on Human Rights was its best-known brand, since people broadly knew individual cases could be brought to the court, and understood the court. That was part of the engagement. She understood that she was privileged in power, but she was also 35 and not middle-aged just yet. She said her generation was told this would probably not be a problem, but she was surrounded by older individuals, and who discussed values and the tools to cherish them. She said it was not enough, indeed, for politicians and leaders to agree on something. The general public had to relate to institutions and understand why these, and democracy, were important. She agreed that young people could be impatient and considered that she, too, was impatient, but it was dangerous to run faster. They had to find other ways to do that through democracy, in co-operation with different actors: the private sector, elected officials, NGOs. People also had to listen more to what others were saying and have a dialogue and a common understanding, though it was a cliché to say this, it sounded simple, and was difficult. She said it was the only way to do things, to a small round of applause. Ms BRYNJÓLFSDÓTTIR asked about the reinforced co-operation between the UN and the Council of Europe. Ms BERMANN recalled that there was already a cooperation between the Council of Europe and the United Nations. She asserted that everybody knew the Council of Europe in the Russian civil society and regretted the consequences of the expulsion of the Russian Federation, although it was obvious and there was no other choice. According to her, when an instrument was useful and at the service of the people, it was known and appreciated. She specified that for the United Nations, that was also concerning countries in the process of democratisation, all the work that was done by the Venice Commission – which was very important – as well as all the existing conventions and the action was carried out. Insofar as the United nations was called upon to pronounce on the law, with binding Resolutions, she said that the relationship between the two was obvious. Ms BRYNJÓLFSDÓTTIR asked what their reflection would be on convincing others, with a magic wand, of the profits of democratic participation. Ms BERGHOLTZ would change how political participation was categorised, since young people were unorganised by any measures, and lacked an affiliation to be organised with. She said it was not that they did not care, and the doors to defenders of democracy were being closed to participate, like the gigantic network of Fridays for Future. They had a huge challenge to be included in formal settings. It was outdated and ridiculous and needed changing. Ms BERMANN explained that there were rules, and that these rules must be respected, especially and at least by those who had signed them. She concluded by saying that some States were indeed reluctant, but others were signatories and did not respect them either. Ms GYLFADÓTTIR said if she had to choose one, she would safeguard individual freedom. Mr KOX said as they all realised, they were in dangerous times, they did not know the answers that they had to find. However, they did know it would be necessary to do something. He referred to the lesson learned that morning from the first democratically elected woman in the world, Ms Vigdís FINNBOGADÓTTIR, after whom the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and the Government of Iceland named their new Women’s Empowerment Prize. All social processes to change that seemed to be unchangeable went in three stages: first, it was unthinkable; then, it was impossible; and in the end, it was inevitable to restore and strengthen the system of multilateralism to prevent the world from going in the wrong direction. He thanked Ms FINNBOGADÓTTIR and said they would remember her words: “unthinkable”, “impossible”, “inevitable”. Ms BRYNJÓLFSDÓTTIR thanked the panel and announced a 15-minute coffee break.

20 DE JULHO DE 2023 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

23