Conference on the
Future of Europe
REPORT ON THE FINAL OUTCOME
May 2022

The futureis in your hands

2Conference on the Future of Europe | REPORT ON THE FINAL OUTCOME

Contents
Introduction  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 5I. The architecture of the Conference  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 6II. Contributions to the Conference: citizens’ input .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 10
(A) Multilingual Digital Platform  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 11
(B) Citizens’ Panels  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 15
1. European Citizens’ Panels  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 15
2. National Citizens’ Panels  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 22
(C) Events organised in the framework of the Conference .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 26
1. National events  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 26
2. European Youth Event (EYE)  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 32
3. Other events  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 32
III. The Conference Plenary .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 34
(A) Composition, role and functioning  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 35
(B) Working Groups  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 36
(C) Chronological summary  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 37
IV. The Plenary proposals  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 42
Final considerations of the Executive Board . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
Annexes  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 100
I — Recommendations of the four European Citizens’ Panels
II — Recommendations of the National Citizens’ Panels
III — References to the results of national events
IV — Reference to the report from the Multilingual Digital Platform
V—C
 o-Chairs of the Conference on the Future of Europe and Members of
the Common Secretariat

3

Conference on the Future of Europe | REPORT ON THE FINAL OUTCOME

Introduction
On 10 March 2021, European Parliament
President David Sassoli, Prime Minister ofPortugal António Costa, on behalf of theCouncil of the EU, and European Commission
President Ursula von der Leyen signed the Joint
Declaration on the Conference on the Future ofEurope. Their pledge was simple: to allow, by
way of a citizens-focused, bottom-up exercise,
all Europeans to have a say on what they expectfrom the European Union and have a greaterrole in shaping the future of the Union. Theirtask was, by contrast, immensely challenging:the organisation, for the first time, of atransnational, multilingual and interinstitutional
exercise of deliberative democracy, involving
thousands of European citizens as well as
political actors, social partners, civil society
representatives and key stakeholders inaccordance with article 16 of the Conference
Rules of Procedure.
On 9 May 2022, after months of intense
deliberations, the Conference concluded its
work, putting forward a report on the final
outcome that includes 49 proposals to thethree EU Institutions. The proposals reflect
the expectations of European citizens on nine
topics: A stronger economy, social justiceand jobs; Education, culture, youth and sport;
Digital transformation; European democracy;
Values and rights, rule of law, security; Climatechange, environment; Health; EU in the world;and Migration. All of them are presented inthis final report, which also aims to provide an
overview of the various activities undertakenin the context of the unique process that theConference on the Future of Europe has been.

– and driven by an Executive Board (consistingof an equal representation of the three
Institutions as well as observers from key
stakeholders), the Conference has constituted
an unprecedented experience of transnational
deliberative democracy. It has also provenits historical relevance and importance inthe context of the COVID-19 pandemic andthe Russian aggression of Ukraine. The
Conference on the Future of Europe involved
the establishment of the Conference’s Rules ofProcedure on 9 May 2021, the setting up of aMultilingual Digital Platform allowing European
citizens to contribute in 24 EU languages,
and the organisation of four European
Citizens’ Panels, six National Citizens’ Panels,
thousands of national and local events as well
as seven Conference Plenaries. It is the resultof unparalleled determination from the EU
institutions, the Member States, but also andabove all from European citizens, to debate theEuropean Union’s challenges and priorities andto introduce a new approach to the European
project.
But this is only the beginning. In line with thefounding text of the Conference, the three
Institutions will now examine swiftly how
to follow up effectively on this report, each
within the framework of their competences
and in accordance with the Treaties. The three
Institutions’ commitment in this regard isparamount.

Steered by three Co-Chairs – Guy Verhofstadt
for the European Parliament, Ana Paula
Zacarias, Gašper Dovžan and Clément Beaune
successively for the Council of the EU, andDubravka Šuica for the European Commission

5

I.	
The architectureof the Conference
The Conference on the Future of EuropeI was anovel and innovative process which has opened
up a new space for debate with citizens toaddress Europe’s challenges and priorities, witha view to underpinning the democratic legitimacyof the European project and to upholding citizens’
support for our common goals and values. It
was a citizens-focused, bottom-up exercise forEuropeans to have their say on what they expectfrom the European Union. The Conference was a
joint undertaking of the European Parliament, theCouncil and the European Commission, acting as
equal partners together with the Member Statesof the European Union.

I6

https://futureu.europa.eu/

Conference on the Future of Europe | REPORT ON THE FINAL OUTCOME

1. Joint Declaration
On 10 March 2021, the Joint Declaration on
the Conference on the Future of Europe (Joint
Declaration) was signed by late European
Parliament President David Sassoli, Portuguese
Prime Minister António Costa, on behalf of theCouncil of the EU, and Commission President
Ursula von der Leyen. It paved the way for thisunprecedented, open and inclusive European
democratic exercise, which places citizens at
its very heart.

J

The Conference was placed under the authorityof the Presidents of the three institutions, acting
as its Joint Presidency. The Joint Presidency
was supported by an Executive Board, which
was co-chaired by a member from each of thethree EU institutions.
In accordance with the Joint Declaration, thefollowing structures were set up:J

IIan Executive Board, which oversaw
the organisation of the Conference. It
included representatives from the three
EU institutions (three members each andfour observers), as well as observers fromthe presidential Troika of the Conferenceof Parliamentary Committees for Union
Affairs of Parliaments of the European
Union (COSAC). The Committee of theRegions, the European Economic and Social
Committee, and social partners were invited
as observers.

J

a Common Secretariat ensuring equal
representation of the three institutions,which assisted the work of the Executive
Board. In particular, the team – led bythree co-heads from the three institutions– oversaw the set-up and preparations of
the Executive Board meetings, Conference
Plenaries and the European Citizens’ Panels.
In cooperation with service providers, it was
responsible for managing the multilingual
digital platform and reporting on milestones
throughout the process. The uniquecomposition of the team allowed for thecontinuous collegiality of the work andensured synergies and efficiencies acrossthe board.
a Conference Plenary (see Chapter III for
more information), which ensured that therecommendations from the National andEuropean Citizens’ Panels, grouped bythemes, were debated in full respect of the
EU’s values and the Conference CharterII,
without a predetermined outcome andwithout limiting the scope to predefinedpolicy areas. The input gathered from theMultilingual Digital Platform was also
discussed when relevant. Nine thematic
Working Groups were established to give
input to prepare the debates and the
proposals of the Plenary.

Conference Charter7

2. Rules of Procedure
On 9 May 2021, the Executive Board endorsed
the Rules of Procedure of the Conference,
established in accordance with the Joint
Declaration on the Conference on the Future ofEurope and laying down the foundations andprinciples of the Conference.
The Rules of Procedure provided the framework
for the work of the different Conference
structures and their interaction.

3. Conference events
According to the Joint Declaration, each EU
Member State and Institution could organise
events under the umbrella of the Conference,in line with their own national or institutional
specificities, and make further contributions
to the Conference (see Chapter II.C for more
information).
EU institutions and bodies, Member States,
regional and local authorities, organised
civil society, social partners and citizens
were therefore invited to organise events inpartnership with civil society and stakeholders
at European, national, regional and local level,
in a wide variety of formats across Europe, andto report the outcome of those events on thedigital platform. Several thousand such events
took place involving some 650 000 participants.

4. Establishment of
the Multilingual Digital
Platform
The multilingual digital platform (see Chapter
II.A for more information) was set up as theplace for citizens to share their ideas andsend online submissions, in line with the Joint
Declaration. It was the main hub for citizens’
contributions and information on the different
parts of the Conference and an interactive
tool to share and debate ideas and input fromthe multitude of events taking place under
the umbrella of the Conference. The Platform

8

Conference on the Future of Europe | REPORT ON THE FINAL OUTCOME

was launched on 19 April 2021. Over 17 000
ideas were put on the platform. Throughout
the Conference, reports were drawn up on thecontributions submitted on the platform.

6. National Citizens’
PanelsContributions gathered through the platform
were taken on board by the European Citizens’
Panels and debated and discussed in the
Conference Plenary.

According to the Joint Declaration, Member
States could organise National Panels. To
assist Member States intending to organise
National Citizens’ Panels, guidance wasapproved by the Co-Chairs and sent to the
Executive Board on 26 May 2021 to ensure that
National Panels were organised under the same
principles as the European Citizens’ Panels.
The guidance includes principles for good
deliberation, based on the OECD principlesIII.
Each Member State could decide whether toorganise a National Citizens’ Panel. Overall, six
Member States organised one (Belgium, France,
Germany, Italy, Lithuania and the Netherlands).

5. European Citizens’
PanelsIn accordance with the Joint Declaration, acentral and particularly innovative feature of
the Conference was the European Citizens’
Panels (see Chapter II.B for more information),organised on the main topics of the Conference.
A total of 800 randomly selected citizens,
representative of the EU’s sociologicaland geographical diversity, organised
into four Panels of 200 citizens, met forthree deliberative sessions each. The
European Citizens’ Panels came up withrecommendations that fed into the overall
Conference deliberations, in particular, into theConference Plenaries.

In accordance with the Joint Declaration, therecommendations of National Citizens’ Panels
were presented and debated in Conference
Plenaries, alongside the recommendations of
the European Citizens’ Panels.

The Co-Chairs of the Executive Board jointly
established the practical arrangements for theorganisation of the European Citizens’ Panels,in accordance with the Joint Declarationand the Rules of Procedure, and informed inadvance the Executive Board.
The Executive Board was regularly informedof developments related to the creation andorganisation of the European Citizens’ Panels.

IIIOECD, Innovative Citizen Participation and New Democratic Institutions, 2020 https://www.oecd.org/gov/open-government/innovativecitizen-participation-new-democratic-institutions-catching-the-deliberative-wave-highlights.pdf

9

II.	
Contributions to
the Conference:
citizens’ input

10Conference on the Future of Europe | REPORT ON THE FINAL OUTCOME(A) Multilingual Digital Platform
The Multilingual Digital Platform was launchedon 19 April 2021 and served as the main hub of
the Conference. It was the place that allowed
everyone to participate in the Conference – allcitizens across the EU and beyond, as well ascivil society, social partners and various otherstakeholders.
The platform was specifically developed for
the Conference using European open-source
software for citizens’ participation called
Decidim. This was pioneering at European but
also global level in terms of scale, interactivity
and multilingualism. All contributions weremade available in the 24 official EU languages
thanks to machine translation. The debate wasorganised around ten topics: ‘Climate change
and the environment’, ‘Health’, ‘A stronger
economy, social justice and jobs’, ‘EU in theWorld’, ‘Values and rights, rule of law, security’,‘Digital transformation’, ‘European democracy’,‘Migration’, ‘Education, culture, youth and sport’,and ‘Other ideas’.
Participation on the platform could take various
forms.
Anybody could share their ideas under oneof the ten topics. It was also possible tocomment on other people’s ideas. The platform
thus offered the possibility of a genuine panEuropean debate among citizens. Participants
could also endorse ideas, indicating that they
supported another user’s contribution.
Another important way of contributing to theConference was to organise events (virtual,in-person or hybrid), announce them on theplatform, report on their outcome and link themwith ideas. Guides and information materials
were made available on the platform fororganisers, helping to ensure that the eventswould be participatory and inclusive.
The platform played a fundamental role in
the transparency of the overall process andthe access to information. It was the place
where everyone could find information on the
Conference process itself (Conference Plenary
and Plenary Working Groups, the European
Citizens’ Panels, National Panels and eventsand the Executive Board). Plenary debates
and Working Group meetings were webstreamed on the platform, as were the plenary
meetings of the European Citizens’ Panels. All
this information will remain accessible on theplatform.
Throughout the process, the platform wascontinuously improved wherever possible,
for example by adding functionalities orvisual materials. Over time, the platform wasalso made more accessible to people withdisabilities.
All contributions on the platform were
publicly accessible, as were the open data
files related to the digital platform, ensuring
full transparency. In order to facilitate thecollection and analysis of the contributions,the Commission’s Joint Research Centre
developed an automated text analysis tool andan analytics platform that allowed multilingual
sense-making and in-depth analysis of thecontent on the platform. The analytics platform
was an essential tool to provide regular
reporting with a uniform level of quality acrosslanguages. In addition, a datathon held in March2022 by the European Commission encouraged
new approaches to analysing the open data
set and supported the transparency of the data
analysis process.
In order to provide an overview of thecontributions on the platform, an external
service provider prepared reports, which were
published on the platform itself. A first interim
report was published in September covering
contributions collected up until 2 August 2021.
In mid-October 2021, the second interim report
was published, covering contributions up until
7 September 2021. The third interim report
was published in December 2021, covering
contributions up until 3 November 2021.
With the work on the Conference entering its
last phase, the last report feeding into theConference Plenaries was published in midMarch 2022, taking into account contributions
published on the digital platform up until
20 February 2022. This timeline was well
advertised on the platform and elsewhere,

11

leading to a surge in contributions in January
and February 2022. The contributions
submitted until 9 May will be covered in the
additional report. Supplementary reports oncontributions on the platform per Member State
were also made available at the same time as
the reports in September and December 2021
and in March 2022.
The main focus of these reports was aqualitative analysis of the contributions on theplatform, in order to provide a general overview
of the breadth and diversity of ideas proposedon the platform and discussed at events.
To this end, a manual textual analysis andclustering of the contributions was performed
by a research team, aided by the analytical tools
provided by the Commission’s Joint ResearchCentre. This allowed for the identification

12of common themes and subthemes, whichwere described in detail under each topic
and summarised in mind maps for a quick
overview. To complement this qualitative
approach with quantitative elements, themes,
subthemes or ideas that often recurred or hada high number of endorsements or comments
were indicated in the text of each report.
The aim behind this was to reflect the stateof play at a given stage of the Conference,
including a high level of interest in or debate
on certain issues. The reports also provided
an overview of the socio-demographic dataof participants. Although contributors wereasked to provide information on their countryof residence, educational background, age,gender and employment status on a voluntarily
basis, there are limitations on the insights that
could be provided. For example, 26.9% of allcontributions came from participants who did
not disclose their country of residence.
Since the launch of the platform, the topic of‘European democracy’ has recorded the highest
level of contributions (ideas, comments andevents). ‘Climate change and the environment’ranked second. Contributions under ‘Other
ideas’ were in third place, followed by ‘Values
and rights, rule of law, security’ and ‘A stronger
economy, social justice and jobs’.
The reports on contributions on the platform,
including the mind maps, provided valuableConference on the Future of Europe | REPORT ON THE FINAL OUTCOME

input for the work of the European Citizens’
Panels. At the beginning of each of their three
sessions, the Panels were presented with themain findings of the reports and the mind maps
and received links to the full reports. Many
ideas on the Platform are therefore reflected in
the recommendations of the European Citizens’
Panels.
The reports were also discussed at theConference Plenaries, starting with the Plenary
on 23 October 2021, and in the preceding
Working Groups meetings. The input from the
Platform therefore continued to enrich theproposals developed in the Conference Plenary.
By 20 April 2022 close to 5 million uniquevisitors had visited the Multilingual Digital
Platform and there were over 50.000 active
participants, 17.000 ideas debated, and over
6,000 events registered on the platform. Behindthese numbers are thousands of engaged
citizens, sharing and debating numerous ideas
and organising a multitude of original andinnovative events in the various Member States.
IIn order to ensure that the platform would
be a space where citizens from every walk oflife and all corners of Europe feel comfortable
and welcome to contribute to the debate,
everyone using the platform needed to commit
to the Conference Charter and the Rules ofParticipation. A moderation team was put inplace, working under the supervision of theCommon Secretariat on behalf of the Executive
Board throughout the Conference to ensure that
the Charter and the rules of participation wererespected. No prior moderation took place.
When a contribution was hidden, the users
received a message from the moderation team
explaining the reason for this action. Details
on the moderation principles and process
were made available in the Frequently Asked
Questions section of the platform.
Between 19 April 2021 and 20 April 2022,
430 ideas (2,4%), 312 comments (1,4%) and
396 events (6,0%) were hidden. About 71% ofideas were hidden for reasons such as lackof proposal, spam, user request, containing
personal information or an inadequate
related image. About 17% of hidden ideas
are duplicates. Only 11% of the ideas are
hidden for reasons of offensive content. The
vast majority of events, 76%, were hidden forreasons of duplicate posting or incomplete
event information, per organisers’ requests
or because they were not related to theConference.
The possibility to make contributions on theplatform remained open until 9 May 2022. An
additional report is foreseen after its closing
in order to complete the overview of allcontributions received during the Conference.

What is happening at the Conference on the Future of Europe?

52,346

652,532

17,671

Platform participants

Event participantsIdeas

21,877

6,465

72,528Comments

EventsEndorsements

State of participation on 20 April 2022 (source: Conference on the Future of Europe (europa.eu))
13Participation on the platform continued
to increase throughout the Conference, itremained however uneven across Member
States and across socio-demographic profile ofthe contributors. Overall, the platform provided
an innovative deliberative space, which allowed

14

many thousands of citizens and various
stakeholders from all over Europe and beyond
to engage in a multilingual online debate acrossMember States on European issues. It therefore
proved itself to be valuable tool of deliberative
democracy at EU level.

Conference on the Future of Europe | REPORT ON THE FINAL OUTCOME(B) Citizens’ Panels
1. European Citizens’ Panels
The European Citizens’ Panels were one of themain pillars of the Conference, together with
the National Panels, the Multilingual Digital
Platform and the Conference Plenary. They lie
at the heart of the Conference on the Futureof Europe and brought together around 800
citizens from all backgrounds and corners of
the European Union. If the concept of Citizens’
Panels or assemblies has been used for
decades by municipalities and is increasingly
visible at national and regional level, the panEuropean dimension was essentially uncharted.
The European Citizens’ Panels were the firsttransnational and multilingual experience of
this scale and with this level of ambition. The
remarkable interpretation set-up accompanying
the process allowed for inclusive, respectfuland efficient dialogue between the panellists,
thereby ensuring the respect of multilingualism.
The European Citizens’ Panels were organisedby the three Institutions on the basis of the
Joint Declaration, the Rules of Procedureand the modalities established by the CoChairs, under the supervision of the Executive
Board. They were supported by a consortiumof external service providers composed ofa mix of experts in deliberative democracy
and a logistical support team. The Executive
Board was kept informed of the Panels’ work,
it received updated practical modalities andadjusted the provisional calendar of theEuropean Citizens’ Panel sessions during theprocess as needed.
The participants of the European Citizens’
Panels were selected in summer 2021.
European Union citizens were randomly
selected (random telephone calling was themain method used by 27 national polling
institutes coordinated by an external service
provider), with the aim of setting up ‘Panels’
which were representative of the EU’s diversity
on the basis of five criteria: gender, age,geographic origin (nationality as well asurban/rural), socio-economic background andlevel of education. The number of citizens

per Member State was calculated according
to the degressive proportionality principle
applied to the composition of the European
Parliament, taking into consideration that each
Panel should include at least one female andone male citizen per Member State. As theConference had a specific focus on youth, one
third of the citizens composing a Citizens’ Panelwas between 16 and 24 years old. For eachgroup of 200 persons, an additional 50 citizens
were selected as a reserve.
Four European Citizens’ Panels were organised.
The topics for discussion for each of the four
Panels were based on the themes from theMultilingual Digital Platform and clustered in
the following way:(1)Stronger economy, social justice, jobs/
education, youth, culture, sport/digitaltransformation;(2)European democracy/values and rights, ruleof law, security;(3) Climate change, environment/health;(4) EU in the world/migration.
Each Panel met over three weekends. The firstsessions were held in Strasbourg, the second
online and the third in four cities (Dublin,
Florence, Warsaw/Natolin and Maastricht),
hosted by public higher education institutes andwith the support of the local municipalities.
FIRST PANEL SESSIONS
The first session of each Panel was held in
person in Strasbourg. The objective of thesession was to define the agenda for the
deliberations. The citizens participating in the
Panels started by reflecting upon and building
their vision for Europe, starting from a blank
page, and identifying the issues to be debated,within the framework of the Panel’s main
themes. They then prioritised the topics which
they wanted to concentrate on more deeply inorder to generate specific recommendations for
the European Union institutions to follow up on.

15

The discussions and collective work were in two
formats:J

J

In subgroups composed of 12 to 14 citizens.
Four to five languages were spoken in eachsubgroup, each citizen being able to speakin his/her own language. Subgroup work
was guided by professional facilitators
selected by the consortium of external
service providers.
In plenary, with all participants. Plenary
sessions were led by two main moderators.
The priority topics resulting from thediscussions were organised in so-called‘streams’ (i.e. headline topics) and‘substreams’ and served as a basis forthe second sessions. To this end, theparticipants received basic information
about the topics, and the relevant input,
including analysis and mind maps, from thefirst interim report of the Multilingual Digital
Platform and presentations from high-level
external experts.

During the first sessions, the 20 representativesof each Panel to the Conference Plenary wereselected by a draw, from a pool of citizens
volunteering.
SECOND PANEL SESSIONSThe European Citizens’ Panels continued theirwork by convening online throughout the monthof November. For this purpose, a special set-

up was prepared, involving a studio in Brussels
hosting the main moderation and the Plenaries
and a system allowing connection with theparticipating citizens from all over the EU andinterpretation.
In the second sessions, with the supportof experts and fact-checkers, the citizens
identified and discussed specific issues anddrafted ‘orientations’ for each of the thematic
streams they had identified during the firstsession. Particular attention was paid toensuring balanced groups of experts in terms ofgender and geographical diversity and balanced
inputs from each them, via extensive briefings
providing citizens with facts and/or the stateof play of the debate while avoiding sharing
personal opinions. They were also provided with
the interim reports of the Multilingual Digital
Platform.
With the support of experts’ input on the topics,
citizens’ own knowledge and experiences,and through deliberations during the second
sessions, citizens identified and discussed
issues related to the topics allocated to them.
Issues were defined as problems that needed
solutions or situations that needed to change.
Citizens then addressed the issues by draftingorientations. Orientations represented the firststep towards producing recommendations,which was the objective of Session 3.
Additionally, citizens were asked to formulate

SESION 2

DAY 1
Reconnecting as a Panel andgetting ready for the weekend

DAY 2

DAY 3

Expert input

Finalizing orientations

Identifying issues

Closing remarks

Producing orientations

Expert input on substreams

More expert input

Produce orientations

Finalize orientations

WelcomeFloor to citizens
Ambassadors share feedback
Platform update
AgendaSharing of some orientations

Methodology

Closing words
Plenary

16

Stream Plenary

Subgroup Session

Conference on the Future of Europe | REPORT ON THE FINAL OUTCOME

justifications for those orientations.
Discussions and collective work were carriedout in three formats:
JJJ

In subgroups. Each of the 15 subgroups
was composed of 12 to 14 citizens. Four tofive languages were used in each subgroupto allow citizens to express themselves intheir own language or in a language in which
they felt comfortable. Each subgroup was
led by a professional facilitator from theconsortium of external service providers.

1 (A stronger economy, social justice andjobs / Education, culture, youth and sport /Digital transformation) and Panel 4 (EU in theworld / Migration) had to be postponed until
February 2022, in consultation with the national
authorities and associated partners.
Discussions and collective work were in thefollowing formats:J

In ‘stream plenaries’. Stream plenaries
gathered together the subgroups working
within the same thematic stream. The
stream plenaries were moderated byprofessional facilitators, with interpretation
covering all the languages needed for theparticipants.

J

In plenary, with all of the participating
citizens, to introduce and wrap up thesession. Plenary sessions were led by two
main moderators from the consortium, withinterpretation in 24 languages.

THIRD PANEL SESSIONSThe third and final Panel sessions took placein person in educational institutions in four
Member States. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic
and associated measures in Ireland and in
the Netherlands, the third sessions of Panel

In plenary with all of the participants atthe start of the session to introduce theprogramme and at the end of the session,
as explained below. Plenary sessions
were led by two main moderators from thedeliberation group, with interpretation in the
24 official EU languages.
Citizens started by examining all of theorientations produced by the Panel during
Session 2 in an ‘open forum’ setting. Eachcitizen then prioritised up to ten orientations
per stream. Once prioritisation at Panel level
was completed, citizens joined the same
subgroups they worked in during Session
2 and collectively acknowledged – andconfronted with their own assessment –which of their group’s orientations had beenprioritised by the rest of the Panel. For thedevelopment of recommendations, eachsubgroup was given an indicative range forthe number of recommendations to draft,

SESION 3
DAY 1

DAY 2

DAY 3

Reconnect, prioritize, andget started

Make orientations into final
recommendations

Vote on final
recommendations

Welcome and objectives forthe weekend

Make orientations into
recommendations

Vote on final
recommendations

Open ForumFeedback to other groups

Read and prioritizeorientations

Finalise recommendations

Make orienttions into
recommendations

Plenary

Open forum

Subgroup work17

namely between one and three, with amaximum of five.
J

In each of the 15 subgroups, work was
carried out to develop orientations into
recommendations. Citizens discussed theorientations that had received the most
support (in order of rank) and started theprocess of drafting the recommendations.

In the third sessions, expertise/information was
not provided through direct interaction with thecitizens but through a specifically designed
system – a ‘knowledge and information corner’.
This system centralised on-site all requests
for information and fact-checking and sent
experts’ and fact-checkers’ short and factual
answers to the subgroups. It was devised toensure that the expert and fact-checking input
was prepared in a way that ensured the highest
quality standards and avoided any undue
influence at this stage of the process. Citizens
were also provided with the interim reports of
the Multilingual Digital Platform.
During the work in subgroups, inter-subgroupfeedback sessions were held in order to help
participants understand the work carried out
in the other subgroups and to enhance theirrecommendations.
The recommendations from each subgroupwere then voted on by the Panel on thelast day of the session. Before the vote, allparticipants received a document with all of
the draft recommendations generated the day
before so that they could read them in theirown language (automatically translated fromEnglish). Each recommendation was read out
in English in plenary to allow the citizens tohear the interpretation simultaneously. The
recommendations were voted on one by one by
all participants via an online form. According to
the results of the final votes, recommendations
were classified as follows:
Recommendations reaching the threshold of
70% or more of the votes cast were adopted
by the Panel. Recommendations failing topass the threshold were considered not tohave been validated by the Panel. In total theEuropean citizens panels endorsed a total of
178 recommendations.
The voting procedure was supervised by avoting committee including two citizens who

18

had volunteered for that task.
EUROPEAN CITIZENS’ PANELSREPRESENTATIVES IN THE PLENARY
The recommendations adopted by the four
European Citizens’ Panels were subsequently
presented and debated by the 80 European
Citizens’ Panels’ Representatives in the
Conference Plenary and Working Groups on 21
and 22 January 2022 (Panels 2 and 3) and on
11 and 12 March 2022 (Panels 1 and 4). The
80 European Citizens’ Panels’ Representatives(with an average of 70 on-site and 10 online)
then continued promoting and explaining theEuropean Citizens’ Panels’ recommendations
both in the Plenary sessions and Working
Groups during three consecutive meetings(25-26 March, 8-9 April and 29-30 April). They
also exchanged views regularly in ‘citizens’
component’ meetings (preparatory online
meetings and during Plenaries on-site) witheach other and with the 27 representativesof national events/panels. On 23 April, theEuropean Citizens’ Panels’ Representatives met
online with all their fellow panellists to explain
how the recommendations had been debatedand had made their way into the Plenary
proposals, and to receive feedback fromtheir fellow panellists. A group composed ofmembers of the Common Secretariat and of theconsortium supported the citizens’ component
in the Plenary.
TRANSPARENCY OF THE PROCESSThe overall process was handled in fulltransparency. The Plenary meetings of theEuropean Citizens’ Panels were live-streamed,while the documents of their discussions anddeliberations were made publicly available on
the Multilingual Digital Platform. The output
report of each of the Panel sessions is available
on the Platform, as are the recommendations.
Output reports also contain information on all
experts who supported the work of the Panels.
As a true democratic innovation, the European
Citizens’ Panels attracted a lot of attention fromthe research community. Researchers were able
to be present at the European Citizens’ Panelsand observe the proceedings, while respecting
certain rules and the work and privacy of theparticipants.

Conference on the Future of Europe | REPORT ON THE FINAL OUTCOME

19

Panel 1‘A stronger economy, social justice, jobs/
Education, culture, youth, sport/ Digitaltransformation’The first Panel session on ‘A stronger economy,social justice, jobs/ Education, culture, youth,
sport/ Digital transformation’ took place from17 to19 September 2021 in Strasbourg. This
Panel addressed the future of our economy andjobs, especially after the pandemic, paying due
attention to related issues of social justice. It
also tackled the opportunities and challenges
of digital transformation – one of the biggest
future-oriented topics under debate. The Panelalso addressed the future of Europe in theareas of youth, sport, culture and education.
The participating citizens were welcomed by
Co-Chair Guy Verhofstadt. The work of the firstsession concluded with the endorsement of thefive streams: ‘Working in Europe’; ‘An economy
for the future’; ‘A just society’; ‘Learningin Europe’ and ‘An ethical and safe digitaltransformation’.
From 5 to 7 November 2021, Panel 1 met forthe second time – this time in a virtual format,
and continued the deliberations of the firstsession. During this second session, panellists
drafted ‘orientations’ to prepare concrete
recommendations (in their third session) for
each of the five streams they had identified
during the first session. In total, citizens from
Panel 1 produced 142 groups of orientations.
From 25 to 27 February 2022, citizens from
Panel 1 met for the third time, continuing the

Photo: European Citizens’ Panel 1

20

deliberations that took place during Sessions
1 and 2. For this final session, participants inPanel 1 were hosted at Dublin Castle by theInstitute of International and European Affairs(IIEA), with the possibility of participating
online. Using the orientations they had
developed during Session 2 as the basis of theirwork, citizens produced and endorsed 48 final
recommendations.
Panel 2‘European democracy/ Values and rights, ruleof law, security’
Session 1 of the Panel on ‘European
democracy/ Values and rights, rule of law,
security’ took place from 24 to 26 Septemberin Strasbourg. The Panel addressed topics
related to democracy, such as elections,participation outside election periods,
perceived distance between the people andtheir elected representatives, media freedom
and disinformation. The Panel also addressedissues related to fundamental rights and values,
the rule of law and the fight against all formsof discrimination. At the same time, the Paneladdressed the internal security of the EU, suchas the protection of Europeans from acts ofterrorism and other crimes. The panellists
were welcomed by Co-Chair Gašper Dovžan.
The work of the first session concluded withthe endorsement of the five streams: ‘Ensuring
rights and non-discrimination’; ‘Protecting
democracy and the rule of law’; ‘Reforming

Photo: European Citizens’ Panel 2

Conference on the Future of Europe | REPORT ON THE FINAL OUTCOME

the EU’; ‘Building European identity’; and‘Strengthening citizens’ participation’.
From 12 to 14 November, Panel 2 met forthe second time – in a virtual format – andcontinued the deliberations of the firstsession. During this second session, they
drafted ‘orientations’ to prepare concrete
recommendations (in their third session) for
each of the five streams they had identified
during the first session. In total, citizens from
Panel 2 produced 124 groups of orientations.

Panel 3 produced 130 groups of orientations.
From 7 to 9 January 2022, citizens from Panel
3 met for their final session hosted at theCollege of Europe in Natolin, and at the Palaceof Culture and Science, with support from theCity of Warsaw. There was the possibility ofparticipating online. Using the orientations they
had developed during Session 2 as the basis
for their work, citizens produced and endorsed
51 final recommendationsPa

From 10 to 12 December 2021, citizens from
Panel 2 met for their final session hosted at theEuropean University Institute in Florence, withthe possibility of participating online. Using theorientations they had developed during Session
2 as the basis of their work, citizens produced
and endorsed 39 final recommendations.

Panel 3‘Climate change and the environment/Health’
The Panel on ‘Climate change and theenvironment/Health’ held its first session from
1 to 3 October in Strasbourg. It addressed theeffects of climate change, environmental issues
and new health challenges for the European
Union. The Panels also addressed the EU’s
objectives and strategies such as agriculture,transport and mobility, energy and the transition
to post-carbon societies, research, healthcare
systems, responses to health crises, prevention
and healthy lifestyles. The work of the firstsession concluded with the endorsement of thefive streams: ‘Better Ways of Living’; ‘Protecting
our environment and our health’; ‘Redirecting
our economy and consumption’; ‘Towards asustainable society’; and ‘Caring for all’. The
output report of the session can be found on
the Multilingual Digital Platform.
From 19 to 21 November 2021, Panel 3 met
for the second time – this time in a virtual
format – to continue the deliberations of thefirst session. During this second session,
they drafted ‘orientations’ to prepare concrete
recommendations (in their third session) for
each of the five streams they had identified
during the first session. In total, citizens from

Photo: European Citizens’ Panel 3

Panel 4
‘EU in the world / Migration’The fourth Panel on ‘EU in the world / Migration’met for the first time from 15 to 17 October inStrasbourg, where they discussed, in particular,
the global role of the EU. That included
objectives and strategies for the EU’s security,
defence, trade policy, humanitarian aid anddevelopment cooperation, foreign policy, EU
neighbourhood policy and enlargement, as
well as how the EU should deal with migration.
The citizens were welcomed by Co-Chair
Dubravka Šuica. The work of the first session
concluded with the endorsement of the fivestreams: ‘Self-reliance and stability’; ‘The EU
as an international partner’; ‘A strong EU ina peaceful world’; ‘Migration from a humanperspective’; and ‘Responsibility and solidarity
across the EU’. The output report of the session
is available on the Multilingual Digital Platform.

21second session, they drafted ‘orientations’ toprepare concrete recommendations (in their
third session) for each of the five streams they
had identified during the first session. In total,
citizens from Panel 4 produced 95 groups oforientations.

Photo: European Citizens’ Panel 4

From 16 to 28 November 2021, Panel 4 held
their second session online, based on thework done in the first session. During thisFrom 11 to 13 February 2022, citizens from
Panel 4 met for their final session hosted at
the Maastricht Exhibition and ConferenceCentre (MECC) by Studio Europa Maastricht
in cooperation with Maastricht University andthe European Institute of Public Administration(EIPA). There was the possibility of participating
online. Using the orientations they had
developed during Session 2 as the basis of theirwork, citizens produced and endorsed 40 final
recommendations.

2. National Citizens’ Panels
In accordance with the Joint Declaration,
recommendations from the National andEuropean Citizens’ Panels were debated by
the Conference Plenary, grouped by theme. To
assist Member States intending to organise
National Citizens’ Panels, guidance wasapproved by the Co-Chairs and sent to the
Executive Board on 26 May 2021. This was
based on the same principles as the European
Citizens’ Panels and included principles forgood deliberation, based on an OECD reportIV.

1) BELGIUM
In October 2021, a Citizens’ Panel wasorganised in which 50 randomly selected
citizens, representative of the general
population, came together over three weekends
to discuss the topic of ‘European democracy’and how citizens could be more involved in EU
affairs.

Six Member States – Belgium, Germany, France,
Italy, Lithuania and the Netherlands – haveorganised National Citizens’ Panels fulfilling
the principles of the abovementioned guidance.
The recommendations of those National
Citizens’ Panels were presented and debated in
the January and March Plenaries, as well as in
the Plenary Working Groups, together with therecommendations of the European Citizens’
Panels on the same topics.

Photo: Belgium National Citizens' PanelIV

22

OECD, Innovative Citizen Participation and New Democratic Institutions, 2020 https://www.oecd.org/gov/open-government/innovativecitizen-participation-new-democratic-institutions-catching-the-deliberative-wave-highlights.pdf

Conference on the Future of Europe | REPORT ON THE FINAL OUTCOME

The Panel was organised under the auspicesof Belgian Deputy Prime Minister and Ministerof External and European Affairs, Ms Sophie
Wilmès.
The citizens made recommendations on five
topics of their choice, namely:JJ

improving communication about theEuropean Union;
identifying and combating disinformation
about the EU;

J

citizens’ panels as a tool for participation;J

referendums on EU affairs;J

improving existing participatory instrumentsin the European Union.

The Belgian Citizens’ Panel resulted in 115
recommendations prepared, discussed andvoted on by the 50 randomly selected Belgian
citizens.
2) GERMANY
In January 2022, the German Federal Foreign
Office organised a National Citizens’ Panel.
In this Panel, 100 randomly selected citizens,
representative of the population, participatedonline.
On 5 and 8 January 2022, five online launchworkshops were organised, each with 20
participants discussing the following topics:
J

Europe’s role in the world;

J

Climate and environment;

J

Rule of law and values;J

A stronger economy and social justice.

Photo: German National Citizens' Panel

3) FRANCE
Citizens’ Panels were organised in France by the
French Ministry for Europe and Foreign Affairs
with the support of the Ministry responsible
for Relations with Parliament and Citizen
Participation.
18 Citizens’ Panels were organised in
September and early October 2021 in all
metropolitan and overseas regions of France.
Each Citizens’ Panel brought together between
30 and 50 randomly selected citizens,
representative of the diversity of the regional
population. In total, more than 700 citizens
participated in the Panels. The outcome of theregional Panels was a list of 101 aspirations,with 515 amendments and 1 301 specificproposals.

The randomly selected 100 citizens met on
15 and 16 January 2022 to discuss related
challenges and possible solutions, and adopted
their recommendations. The participants
developed two specific proposals under each of
the abovementioned topics.
The results were presented on 16 January ata final online conference attended by German
Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock andMinister of State for Europe and Climate Anna
Lührmann.

Photo: French National Citizens' Panel23

A total of 100 citizens representing the Panels
met in Paris on 16 and 17 October 2021 during
the national summary conference (‘Conférence
nationale de synthèse’) in order to draft andadopt the recommendations. In total, 14 priority
recommendations were identified in thisprocess. The recommendations, covering thenine topics of the Conference, were submitted
to the French government, including State
Secretary Clément Beaune, and were the Frenchgovernment’s contribution to the Conference.

of the recommendations drawn up during thefirst phase of the work.
5) LITHUANIA
On behalf of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, aNational Citizens’ Panel was organised by anindependent third party in January 2022.
A total of 25 randomly selected citizens, aged
between 18 and 65 and representative of thedifferent socio-economic groups and regions ofLithuania, participated in the Panel.

4) ITALY
A Citizens’ Panel was organised in March2022 by an independent third party under
the supervision of the Italian Department for
European Policies of the Presidency of theCouncil of Ministers.
A total of 55 randomly selected citizens,
representative of Italian society and its regions,participated in the Panel. The participants
were randomly selected to ensure thepresence of people of different genders, ages,social backgrounds, places of residence andemployment status.
The citizens met online on 11 and 12 March2022 to discuss two topics of the Conference:J

A stronger economy, social justice and jobs;

J

Europe in the world.

On 12 March 2022, the Panel adopted a total of
58 recommendations – 33 were on a stronger
economy, social justice and jobs and 25 wereon Europe in the world. On the last day, theparticipants verified and validated the first draft

Photo: Lithuanian National Citizens' Panel

On 4 January 2022, an online opening session
was organised and citizens discussed two
topics:The EU’s role and powers in foreign policy;J

The economic role of the EU.

On 15 January 2022, the participants met inperson to formulate the main conclusions of
their discussions. On 25 January 2022, they
adopted 21 recommendations in a virtual
session, 10 of which were on the EU’s roleand powers in foreign policy and 11 on theeconomic role of the EU.

Photo: Italian National Citizens' Panel24

Conference on the Future of Europe | REPORT ON THE FINAL OUTCOME

6) THE NETHERLANDSThe Citizens’ Panel was organised by anindependent third party, as the ‘Visions ofEurope’ dialogues started on 1 September. They
consisted of several parts.
On 1 September 2021, the online part was
launched, consisting of a questionnaire anda simplified selection tool where citizens
could give their preferences, wishes andrecommendations on the nine Conference
topics. The questionnaire was distributed to aselected representative and inclusive group of
4 000 citizens.
In October and November 2021, in-depth
online and offline debates were organised withcitizens, also to reach young people and hardto-reach target groups.

Dutch National Citizens' Panel

Two reports entitled ‘Our vision of Europe;
opinions, ideas and recommendations’(‘Onze kijk op Europa; meningen, ideeën enaanbevelingen’) were published, which gathered
the citizens’ 30 recommendations on the nine
Conference topics.

25

(C) Events organised in theframework of the Conference
1. National events
Member States contributed to the Conference
through a wide range of events and initiatives.
These events reached many thousands ofcitizens from all across the EU. A dedicatedsection on the multilingual digital platform
gives an overview of the main activities that
Member States’ authorities have organisedor supported. The events were presented at
the Conference Plenaries on 23 October 2021
and 25 March 2022 by the representativesof national events and/or National Citizens’
Panels and also fed into the Conference
through platform reports, enriching the debate
at European level.
The main objective of these events andinitiatives was to listen to citizens and to
involve them in debates on the European Union.
Inclusivity and reaching out to citizens was alsoa priority, with efforts made to include those
who are not usually involved in EU issues.
Different types of events took place, witha mixture of centralised and decentralised
approaches, including various forms of
support for bottom-up initiatives. Activities
and events in the Member States wereorganised by different institutions andstakeholders, including national, regional andlocal authorities, civil society organisations,social partners, associations and citizens. In
some cases, non-governmental organisations,cultural institutions, think tanks, universities
and research institutes also actively engaged
in organising events about the Conference. In
many of these activities and events, special
importance was given to the involvement of theyounger generation.

26

Conference on the Future of Europe | REPORT ON THE FINAL OUTCOME

Overview of main events and initiatives
in Member States:
1

4

Belgium

Denmark

Several events were organised by the federal
and regional authorities. Several debateswith citizens took place, for instance on the
EU in the world and on climate change andthe environment. A structured dialogue withcitizens was held on ‘Living in a border region’,as well as a hackathon on ‘the impact of healthy
lifestyles and climate change on the qualityof life’ and ‘barriers for young people in thelabour market’. In addition, an event was heldon digitalisation and a sustainable economy,
and a series of debates on the theme of ‘Europe
is listening’ were conducted between young
people and politicians.

A broad and inclusive national debate wasorganised, where civil society and other nongovernmental actors played a central role. A
designated pool of public funds was granted
to a diverse group of organisations, including
NGOs, media, youth organisations, cultural
institutions, think tanks and research institutes,
to support debates and initiatives hosted by
non-governmental organisations. More than
180 debates were held, with approximately halfof them specifically targeted at young people.
In addition, the government and parliament
organised a series of official events, such as
citizens’ consultations and debates.

2

5

Bulgaria

Germany

The Bulgarian exercise was launched in a
ceremony entitled ‘How to hear the voiceof citizens through the Conference on the
Future of Europe?’ with public authorities andcitizen representatives. As part of the events
organised, a citizens’ dialogue on demography
and democracy was organised. Several local
events were held in large university cities,
organised with the assistance of Europe Direct
centres.

Events organised in Germany involved theFederal Government, Bundestag, federal states
and civil society. In addition to the events
held by the Federal Government, more than
50 regional events were organised by the 16
federal states of Germany and about 300
events by civil society. Cross-border events andstudent and youth dialogues were a central
element of many initiatives, putting young
people at the forefront of the discussions toshape the future of Europe.

3
Czechia
The Czech Republic organised discussions
at central level with the general public
and awareness-raising events forrelevant stakeholders. These events werecomplemented by events for young people
and events with international participation. In
particular, a transnational event with German
and Czech citizens was organised. Several
regional debates took place throughout thecountry, as well as regional seminars forsecondary school students on the theme‘Decide on Europe’.

6
Estonia
Various events, seminars and debates wereorganised by the government office together
with the European Commission Representationin Estonia, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, andother ministries as well as by civil society,youth organisations and others. In particular,a discussion was organised for high school
students on key questions regarding climatechange, energy policies, and the Conference ingeneral. A discussion on ‘Estonian diplomacy inthe service of achieving the climate goals’ wasalso organised.

27

7

10

IrelandFranceInclusivity and reaching out to all sectors of
the community, particularly young people, wasthe central theme for Ireland’s activities. In
cooperation with European Movement Ireland(EMI), a programme of regional and sectoral
engagements ran across 2021 and 2022. The
first phase of regional meetings was held in
June and July as virtual consultations. The
second phase of the regional events wasorganised as in-person town-hall meetings
during early 2022. From July, a programme ofgovernment-led events took place.

The French government conducted a large
online consultation for young people from
May to July 2021. 50 000 young French people
expressed their views, endorsing 16 main ideas
for the future of Europe. The outcome of thisexercise was compiled in a final report, together
with the outcome of the French Citizens’ Panel,and constitutes France’s contribution to theConference. The French government also
encouraged all French actors who wished to
do so – associations, local authorities, elected
representatives, civil society representatives –to organise events.

8
GreeceThe Foreign Ministry was in charge of
coordinating the national dialogue. Central andlocal government agencies and civil society
were strongly encouraged to hold discussions
and other events. For instance, events took
place on Euro-Mediterranean cooperation, theWestern Balkans, the demographic challenge,
migration and democracy, involving citizens anddifferent stakeholders.
9
Spain
The Spanish framework included six events
at national level (for instance a consultationof Spanish citizens on the future of Europe)and about 20 at regional level. An event wasalso organised with Portuguese and Spanish
citizens, to discuss key themes relevant to the
future of their regions and to the EU. At regional
and local level, events were organised by theauthorities on several themes, for instancecross-border cooperation, the impact ofdemographic changes, sustainable transportand mobility, climate change, migration and thefuture of outermost regions.

28

11
Croatia
A task force for the coordination of activities
was established and compiled ideas andplans for conducting national activities. The
ministries, central state offices, regional
development agencies, universities, NGOs
and institutes organised events in the formof conferences, citizens’ dialogues anddebates with citizens, public discussions
and educational workshops, with a special
emphasis on young people. The themes
covered included migration, demography,
climate neutrality, and the circular economy.
Some events were held with other Member
States and non-EU neighbouring countries.
12
Italy
Several events, with a special focus on young
people, were set up in order to reach as many
citizens as possible, with the active supportof local authorities. A media campaign was
launched to raise as much awareness as
possible. Activities included the EU-Balkan
Youth Forum organised with young people fromthe Western Balkans, the Med Dialogues Youth
Forum with young people from the Southern
Neighbourhood, as well as competitions forsecondary school students and university
students entitled ‘Europe is in your hands’.

Conference on the Future of Europe | REPORT ON THE FINAL OUTCOME

13

16

CyprusLuxembourg

Several activities were held, which included
many stakeholders, focusing on young
people. A launch event was organised, with a
discussion with the younger generation on its
expectations, concerns and vision for Europe
and Cyprus within the EU. An open dialogue
was also organised on young people’s rolein the debate on Europe and the problems
they face at national and European level. An
event also took place to discuss the future ofEuropean security and defence.

A number of events were organised at national
level in an open, inclusive and transparent
approach. For instance, the parliament
organised a number of events using new
formats such as ‘bistro talks’. A hackathon forstudents and young entrepreneurs was alsoorganised, to discuss the Digital Compass andthe EU industrial strategy. In addition, there wasa trinational exchange between German, Frenchand Luxembourg high school students.

14
LatviaVarious events were organised, including anationwide online discussion with students
called ‘the future is in your hands’, tackling
economic, social and security issues. A
nationwide poll and focus-group discussions
were organised to collect public-opinionpoll data on citizens’ perspectives on the
future priorities of the European Union for all
themes of the Conference. Regional in-person
discussions were held to raise awareness of
the Conference among people older than 55, as
well as in-person discussions with pupils fromsecondary schools.
15
Lithuania
Events were mainly organised with adecentralised approach, and the main focus
was on the regions of Lithuania and on young
people (for instance, with the Baltic States
Youth Debate). A series of citizens’ dialogues(on democracy, digitalisation, climate changeetc.), transnational dialogues (for instance withFrance, Ireland, and Italy respectively), and civilsociety-driven events took place. In addition,schools were encouraged to discuss the futureof Europe.

17
Hungary
A broad variety of events in the society (morethan 800) have been organised. Institutional
events included high-level international
conferences organised by several ministries(for instance on enlargement and the EU’s
digital strategy) and of roundtable discussions
with students and youth organisations (forexample on European integration). A Several
organisations held Panels to discuss EU
institutions; a stronger economy, social justiceand jobs, digital transformation, education,
culture, youth and sport; values and rights,
rule of law and security; NGOs; migration; anddemography, family, health, climate change andthe environment.
18
Malta
Following a launch event, a national
coordinating committee was set up to promote
the initiative on different communication
channels and steered the debate throughnational and local events. Themed publicdialogues (for instance on health, European
values, and the future of work for a fair society),press conferences, consultations with sectoral
stakeholders and interactive sessions withchildren and students were held in either
physical or hybrid format.

29

19
Netherlands
The Netherlands focused on organising its
National Citizens’ Panel ‘Visions of Europe - Kijk
op Europa’, which was carried out both online
and in person. It was organised in two phases:
firstly gathering people’s thoughts and opinions
on ‘what’ they expect and want, followed up by
a second phase focused on understanding theirunderlying opinions (‘why’ and ‘how’) throughgroup dialogues.
20
Austria
Debates took place in various formats, atfederal, regional and local level. ‘Future labs’and ‘future dialogues’ presented in-depth
exchanges with high-level experts on different
topics and sought holistic solutions for the
future. Furthermore, a number of eventswere organised by and for the ‘Austrian Local
Councillors for Europe. Several events were
aimed directly at young people and pupils.
21
PolandEvents were mainly organised with adecentralised approached. At the regional level,
the Regional Centres for International Debateorganised public events in all 16 Polish regions
in both physical and virtual format. The topics
of discussions covered the thematic areasof the Conference, e.g. solidarity in times ofcrises, agriculture, and new technologies. A
national debate was also organised on climate,
digitalisation, the internal market, health, the EU
in the world, and migration.
22
Portugal
Following the first citizens’ event in Lisbon
which kicked off citizens’ participation in the
Conference, many events were organised inpartnership with local authorities, universities,
schools, social partners, youth organisations,
local civil society organisations, among others.
For instance, a transnational event was heldwith Spain, to discuss key themes relevant to30

the future of the two countries’ regions andto the EU. In addition, national decentralised
events were organised on different topics suchas migration and international partnerships,
the future of European democracy, and digitaltransformation.
23
Romania
Events were mainly hosted or co-hosted by theadministration and specific institutes, with theactive participation of civil society and youth
organisations. Debates covered a wide range of
topics, such as digitalisation, education, health,the environment, sustainable development, theeconomy, agriculture, and the EU’s strategic
partnerships. Events were organised in thecapital and at local level, with all age groups
participating.
24
Slovenia
The overall vision was to encourage a broad
debate with civil society playing a central roleand participation by young people especiallyencouraged. The government organised a
kick-off event, which was followed by several
initiatives, for instance the Bled Strategic Forum
where the main topic was the Future of Europe,with a specific focus on EU enlargement andthe Western Balkans. Other events covered
topics such as monetary policy, climate
neutrality, youth, and the role of the EU in a
multipolar international environment.
25
Slovakia
Events were organised under two main pillars.
The first was the ‘WeAreEU’ project focusedon the broad public, including discussions
with students and public consultations, witha series of regional events organised underthe ‘WeAreEU Road Show’. The second pillar
consisted of the National Convention on
the EU, focused on expert and analytical
input on themes such as the single market,
disinformation and populism, and the digitaland green transitions.

Conference on the Future of Europe | REPORT ON THE FINAL OUTCOME

26

27

FinlandSwedenA series of regional consultations, including
the ‘most northern Conference event of the EU’,
were organised by the government on different
topics, for instance on sustainable growth,education, and the rule of law. A poll was also
set up to feed into the discussion. Events wereorganised by the government in cooperation
with cities, local authorities, universities, NGOs
and the Finnish youth organisation as wellas with the Finnish parliament, the European
Parliament and European Commission
information offices in Finland.27

Events were mainly organised with adecentralised approach as a joint exercise
between the government office, national
parliament, political parties, social partners,
local and regional representatives, civilsociety organisations and other relevantsocietal stakeholders. For instance, Sweden’s
EU minister discussed Europe’s future withstudents in different schools, and participatedin town square meetings to discuss the futureof Europe and democracy with citizens. Digital
media were also used to engage in citizens'
dialogues through, for instance, Q&A sessions.
The above-mentioned descriptions are notexhaustive. More information on national
events is available on a dedicated section on
the multilingual digital platform.

312. European Youth Event (EYE)
The European Youth Event (EYE2021) took
place on 8-9 October 2021 and brought together
10 000 young people online and in the European
Parliament in Strasbourg to shape and share
their ideas for the future of Europe. EYE was aunique opportunity for 16 to 30–year-olds tointeract in person and online, inspire each otherand exchange their views with experts, activists,
influencers and decision-makers, right in theheart of European democracy.
From May 2021, in collaboration with panEuropean youth organisations, more than 2000 proposals from young citizens aroundthe European Union were collected online.
In addition, several sessions were organised
focusing on the Conference on the Futureof Europe, both online ahead of the eventand during the EYE in Strasbourg. After the
event, the 20 most prominent ideas among
participants, two per Conference topic, werecollected in the Youth Ideas report for the
Conference on the Future of Europe, publishedin 23 languages.
V

32

The Youth Ideas report was presented to theConference Plenary on 23 October by young
participants from the European Citizens’
Panels who had also taken part in EYE2021.
All the ideas collected are available on
searchyouthideas.eu.

3. Other events
In addition to the above events, many otherinstitutions and stakeholders gathered EU
citizens to discuss the future of EuropeV.
Throughout the entire Conference on the Futureof Europe, the European Economic and Social
Committee (EESC) was committed to raisingawareness about it and to helping its vast
network of civil society organisations in theMember States organise national consultations.
In total, it supported the roll-out of 75 events,of which 33 at national level, and 42 at centrallevel. 60 % of these events produced reports on
the Conference platform and those 45 events
alone gathered more than 7 300 participants.
In particular, the EESC kicked off its activities inJune 2021 with a major conference – ‘Bringing
the European project back to citizens’, andConsult the Digital Multilingual Platform to access information about all events.	

Conference on the Future of Europe | REPORT ON THE FINAL OUTCOME

organised a ‘Connecting EU seminar’ in Lisbon
in November 2021 as well as ‘Shaping Europe
together’, a high-level event in Brussels in
February 2022. The Committee also promoted
the use of the online platform, where it
uploaded 60 new ideas, and launched a vastcommunication campaign on social media, with32 million people of potential reach on Twitter
only, promoting national events in English andin the local language and reaching out before
and after every Plenary and Conference-related
meeting.
The European Committee of the Regions (CoR)
organised thematic debates in its commissions
and plenaries as well as 140 local, cross-borderand inter-regional events involving 10 000
citizens and 200 local politicians. Moreover,the first-ever survey polling the 1.2 million
local politicians in the EU-27 about their views
on Europe’s future was published in October
2021. In addition, the CoR proposed 44 ideas
via the multilingual digital platform. In early
2022, an independent High Level Group on
European Democracy put forward ideas on how
to improve democracy in the EU. A resolution
outlining proposals for the final Conference
report was adopted by the CoR and a 12-point
manifesto on behalf of the one million local
and regional politicians in the EU was endorsedat the European Summit of regions andcities in March 2022. A report ‘Citizens, local
politicians and the future of Europe’ (March
2022) summarises all CoR activities for the
Conference.
The three employers’ organisations in the EU’s
social partnership, BusinessEurope, SGI Europe
and SMEunited, all published their priorities
and contributions on the digital platform
and presented them in the relevant Working
Groups and at Plenary level. Furthermore, they
all promoted the Conference both internallyand with external stakeholders and organised
events and engaged with stakeholders
across different fora. The European Trade
Union Confederation (ETUC) mobilised tocontribute to the Conference and participatedin Plenary and Working Group meetings. The
ETUC defined trade union proposals for afairer future for Europe and included themon the online platform (amongst the mostsupported proposals). The ETUC and its
affiliates organised events and communication
activities to present and discuss the trade union
proposals.
The civil society component – composed of
the Civil Society Convention for the Conference
on the Future of Europe and the European
Movement International – held many events
across Europe and was vocal at the Plenary
level. It engaged hundreds of civil society
organisations, in a bottom-up approachthrough thematic clusters, to draft joint andcomprehensive proposals on a variety ofpolicy areas covered by the Conference.
The ideas were fed into the Conference
through the platform, the Working Groups, thePlenary sessions and in direct contact with
the Executive Board, the Co-Chairs and theCommon Secretariat.
The European Commission Representationsin the Member States, Europe Direct Centres,
European Documentation Centres, as wellas the European Parliament Liaison Offices
were very active in communicating about andinforming citizens on the Conference on the
Future of Europe. The European Commission
Representations have reported 1400 activities
that helped to communicate and implement
the Conference all over Europe. They haveorganised or actively participated in more than
850 events, of which about 65% were targeted
to young people and women to encourage
their wider participation in the Conference. The
European Parliament Liaison Offices organisedover 1300 promotional activities across all theMember States. Thematic workshops on the
different main topics of the Conference, with
MEPs, citizens and stakeholder organisations,
national authorities and regional and local
media were organised to broaden the outreachof the Conference. The Europe Direct Centres
reported about more than 1000 thematic
events on the Conference and more than 600
promotional activities, involving a wide rangeof target groups and youth organisations.
European Documentations Centres reported
over 120 actions related to the communicationof the Conference.

33

III.
The Conference
Plenary34

Conference on the Future of Europe | REPORT ON THE FINAL OUTCOME(A) Composition, role and functioning
A Conference Plenary was set up to debate
the recommendations from the National andEuropean Citizens’ Panels, grouped by themes,
without a predetermined outcome and without
limiting the scope to predefined policy areas.
Input gathered from the Multilingual Platform
was also debated when relevant. The Plenary
had a unique composition as it included, forthe first time, citizens representing European
and National Citizens’ Panels and events
alongside representatives of EU institutions
and advisory bodies, elected representatives
at national, regional and local levels, as well
as representatives of civil society and social
partners. After the recommendations were
presented by and discussed with citizens, thePlenary had to put forward its proposals on aconsensual basisVI to the Executive Board. The
Conference Plenary met seven times from June
2021 to April 2022.
The Conference Plenary was composed of 108
representatives from the European Parliament,
54 from the Council and 3 from the European
CommissionVII, as well as 108 representatives
from all national parliaments on an equal
footing, and citizens. 80 representatives
from European Citizens’ Panels, of which
at least one third was younger than 25, thePresident of the European Youth Forum and27 representativesVIII of national events and/or National Citizens’ Panels participated.
18 representatives from the Committee of
the Regions and 18 from the Economic andSocial Committee, 6 elected representatives
from regional authorities and 6 elected
representatives from local authorities, 12
representatives of the social partners, and8 from civil society also participated. The
High Representative of the Union for Foreign
Affairs and Security Policy was invited when
the international role of the EU was discussed.
Representatives of key stakeholders, suchas representatives from the Western Balkans
partners, Ukraine, churches, religious
associations or communities, philosophicaland non-confessional organisations were also
invited.
The meetings of the Conference Plenaries
were chaired jointly by the Co-Chairs of
the Conference. The Conference Plenaries
took place in the premises of the European
Parliament in Strasbourg. Due to the applicablehealth and safety regulations in place, thefirst five Conference Plenaries took place inhybrid format, whereas the last two took placein person. The Conference Plenaries were
live-streamed and all the documents from themeetings were made publicly available on theMultilingual Digital Platform.

Consensus had to be found at least between the representatives of the European Parliament, the Council, the European Commission
and representatives from national Parliaments, on an equal footing. If there was a clear diverging position from representatives ofcitizens from national events and/or European or National Citizens’ Panels, this had to be expressed in this report.	
VII
Other members of the European Commission were invited to the Plenary, notably where matters relevant to their portfolio were to be
discussed.	
VIII
One per Member State.	
VI

35

(B) Working Groups
In accordance with the Rules of Procedureof the Conference, the Co-Chairs proposedto the Conference Plenary that nine thematic
Working Groups be established, according to
the themes of the Multilingual Digital Platform,in order to give input to prepare the debates
and the proposals of the Conference Plenary,
within the parameters of the Joint Declaration.
In October 2021, the Co-Chairs agreed on theTerms of Reference applicable to the Working
Groups. The Working Groups respectively
covered: Climate change and the environment;
Health; A stronger economy, social justice andjobs; EU in the world; Values and rights, rule oflaw, security; Digital transformation; European
Democracy; Migration; and Education, culture,
Youth, Sport.
The Working Groups put forward their input
to the Conference Plenary by discussing therecommendations from the respective National
and European Citizens’ Panels as well as
the contributions on the Multilingual Digital
Platform related to the nine topics gathered in
the framework of the Conference. Members of
the Conference Plenary were distributed in thefollowing way among the 9 Working Groups: 12
members per Working Group for the European
Parliament and the national parliaments,
6 for the Council, 3 for the representatives
from National Citizens’ Panels or events, 2each for the Committee of Regions and theEconomic and Social Committee, 1 or 2 forthe social partners, 1 for civil society, and 1
for elected members of local and regional
authorities, as well as representatives of the36

European Citizens’ Panels. Representatives of
the European Citizens’ Panels participated in
the relevant Working Group for their Panel. In
addition, specific provision was made to allow
members of the college of Commissioners toparticipate in Working Groups according to theirportfolio responsibilities.
The Working Groups held lively debates andworked on draft proposals prepared under theauthority of the Chair and the Spokesperson,
selected from among the representativesof the European Citizens’ Panels within the
Working Group, with the assistance of theCommon Secretariat. The Working Groups
had to work on the basis of consensus asdefined in Article 17 of the Conference Rulesof Procedure. The Chair and the Spokespersonthen gave presentations of the outcome of theWorking Group to the Plenary. The Chair of theWorking Group was assisted by the Common
Secretariat. The Common Secretariat of theConference prepared the summary recordsof each Working Group meeting under theguidance of the Chair and in consultation withthe members of the Working Group.
The Working Groups met in the margins of theConference Plenaries from October 2021 until 8
April 2022, as well as online in December 2021.
Some Working Groups had additional meetings.
Working Group meetings were live-streamed
as of 20 January 2022. Their summary records
were duly made available in the Plenary sectionof the Multilingual Digital Platform.

Conference on the Future of Europe | REPORT ON THE FINAL OUTCOME(C) Chronological summary
INAUGURAL CONFERENCE PLENARY, 19
JUNE 2021
The inaugural Conference Plenary took place
on 19 June 2021 in hybrid formatIX. It allowed
the members of the Plenary to listen to apresentation and to have a general discussion
on the purpose of and expectations for the
Conference. The Co-Chairs underlined theunprecedented nature of this deliberative
democracy exercise at EU level, which
reinforced representative democracy, bybringing citizens to the heart of policymaking
in the European Union. The Co-Chairs also
outlined how the three pillars of the Conference– the Multilingual Digital Platform, the European
and National Citizens’ Panels and the Plenary –would work.
In addition, the members of the Plenary
were informed of the intention to set up ninethematic Working Groups and of the calendarof the Conference. In the debate that followed,
in which over 150 participants spoke, a wide
variety of topics were addressed. As theselection of the participants for the European
Citizens’ Panels had not been completed yet,the President of the European Youth Forum and27 representatives of national events and/or
National Citizens’ Panels participated as part ofthe citizens component.
SECOND CONFERENCE PLENARY, 22-23
OCTOBER 2021
The second Conference Plenary took place
on 22-23 October 2021 in hybrid format, withrepresentatives of the European Citizens’
Panels participating for the first time.
Members of the Plenary were able to listen
to a presentation on the state of play of thefour European Citizens’ Panels and to hold adiscussion. In addition, the representativesof the national events and Panels were able
to present the events being held at national
level. Furthermore, the Conference Plenary waspresented with a report on the European Youth
Event (EYE), which provided the members withIX

an overview of the 20 tangible ideas selectedby the young citizens participating in the
EYE. In the further discussion, the innovative
nature of the Multilingual Digital Platform wasemphasised, which gave a voice to citizens anda place to debate in all EU official languages.
This discussion was based on the second
interim report on the Platform. The Western
Balkans partners were invited to participate inthis Plenary meeting as key stakeholders.
THIRD CONFERENCE PLENARY, 21-22
JANUARY 2022
The third Plenary of the Conference, taking
place on 21 and 22 January 2022, was the firstto be dedicated to the official presentation ofrecommendations stemming from the European
Citizens’ Panels, as well as the related National
Citizens’ Panels. This Plenary was indeed thefirst to take place after some European Citizens’
Panels had finalised their recommendations,
namely: European Citizens’ Panels 2 (European
democracy / Values and rights, rule of law,
security) and 3 (Climate change and theenvironment/health). The Plenary took place ina hybrid format, with more than 400 Conference
Plenary members participating either on-site or
remotely.
This Plenary was also marked by the recent
passing away of the European Parliament’s
President David Maria Sassoli. The Co-Chairs
paid tribute to his memory at the opening of the
Plenary.
The debates of this Plenary were organisedby theme, on the topics covered by European
Citizens’ Panel 2 and European Citizens’ Panel
3.
Discussions took place in an innovativeinteractive format, including time allocatedfor citizens’ feedback and a special ‘bluecard’ question system that allowed for
spontaneous and lively exchanges on citizens’
recommendations.

On 17 June 2021, a first European Citizens’ event took place in Lisbon in a hybrid format, ahead of the inaugural Plenary of 19 June, tokick off the citizens’ participation in the Conference.	

37

FOURTH CONFERENCE PLENARY, 11-12
MARCH 2022
The fourth Plenary of the Conference wasalso dedicated to the presentation of therecommendations stemming from theEuropean Citizens’ Panels, as well as therelated National Citizens’ Panels. This
Plenary took place after the remaining two
European Citizens’ Panels had finalised theirrecommendations, namely: European Citizens’
Panels 1 (A stronger economy, social justiceand jobs / Education, culture, youth and sport /Digital transformation) and 4 (EU in the world /Migration).
Similarly to the January Plenary, the debatesof this Plenary were organised by theme.
The topics covered, this time, were those ofEuropean Citizens’ Panel 1 and European
Citizens’ Panel 4. Discussions on citizens’
recommendations again resulted in lively,
in-depth exchanges, aided by an innovativeinteractive format.
FIFTH CONFERENCE PLENARY, 25-26
MARCH
The fifth Plenary marked the entry of theConference into its next stages, with the
beginning of the process of shaping Plenary
proposals based on citizens’ recommendations.
Therefore, the Plenary members, after preparing
in the smaller thematic setting of Working
Groups, held, for the first time, debates on
all nine topics of the Conference: A stronger
economy, social justice and jobs / Education,
culture, youth and sport / Digital transformation/ European democracy / Values and rights,
rule of law, security / Climate change andthe environment / Health / EU in the world /Migration. This Plenary was also a chancefor the representatives of national events,organised across the 27 EU Member States, topresent the results of their undertakings.
SIXTH CONFERENCE PLENARY, 8-9 APRIL
2022
The sixth Conference Plenary saw thefinalisation of the draft Plenary proposals.
After the last meetings of the thematic
Working Groups had taken place, by way ofnine substance-focused debates, all Plenary
members expressed their final views andcomments on the draft proposals they had

38

been shaping over the past months. This
exchange also gave them an opportunity toreflect on the unique process of elaborationof Plenary proposals, based on citizens’
recommendations, and the work achieved sincethose recommendations were formulated.
Citizens in particular stressed the uniquehuman experience and added value of this
deliberation process, which bound them
together around this common project. Thisdebate fed into the final draft proposals thatwould be submitted to the very last Conference
Plenary.
SEVENTH AND FINAL CONFERENCE
PLENARY, 29-30 APRIL 2022
The seventh and last Plenary of the Conference
on the Future of Europe was a milestone,
closing a months-long process of intense
deliberations with the formulation of 49
proposals.
The 49 proposals were put forward andformulated by the Conference Plenary to
the Executive Board on a consensual basis.
Such consensus was found between the
representatives of the European Parliament,
the Council, the European Commission andNational Parliaments.
The representatives of the Committee of theRegions and the European Economic and Social
Committee, elected representatives at regional
and local level as well as representatives ofsocial partners and civil society also expressed
themselves favourably on the process, and gave
their support to the proposals.
The citizens’ component presented its final
opinion on the proposals (see key messages
below).

Conference on the Future of Europe | REPORT ON THE FINAL OUTCOME

During the closing Plenary (29-30 April 2022), the 108 citizens members of the citizens’ component
presented their final position on the Plenary proposals. Their presentation was designed collectively
and presented by 17 of them at the final debate. The text below is a summary of the key messages
from their interventions.
**
We start by thanking the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission for theopportunity to help shape the future of Europe. We met fellow Europeans from all over the Union,from different panels and events, with politicians and social actors, and broadened our horizons.
We grew as Europeans. For this to happen, we all made sacrifices: we were thrown out of our daily
life, took days off work, and spent, for the European Citizens’ Panels members, nine weekends
away from our families. But we lived an incredible and unique experience. For us, it was not awaste of time.
There were ups and downs along the way. We did not always get an answer to our questions. We
know that it will take time for the proposals to be implemented. But we are confident that you will
do what it takes to make it happen, out of respect for our joint work. If we, the citizens, were able
to get past our differences, the language barriers, to work together and grow to your level, so canyou.
**
We all came a long way and now that our work in the Plenary is done, we can be proud of it. We
see 8 cross-cutting topics that give a clear and strong mandate for the Future of Europe.
First, a European Union based on solidarity, social justice and equality. Indeed, a great concern
for the citizens is to find equal conditions and rights in different areas: healthcare, social services,education and life-long learning, equal opportunities for inhabitants of rural and urban areas, totake account of demographic considerations. In the future, Europeans, across Member States
and regions, should no longer face discrimination due to their age, residency, nationality, gender,
religion, or political preferences. They should be offered decent living standards, wages andworking conditions. The EU needs to be more than an economic union. Member States needto show more solidarity towards one another. We are a family and should behave as such insituations of crisis.
Second, the EU needs to be bold and act fast to become an environment and climate leader, bymaking the transition to green energy faster, improving its railway network, encourage sustainabletransport and a truly circular economy. There is no time to lose. The EU needs to lead the change
in many policy areas: agriculture, biodiversity, economy, energy, transport, education, health, digitaltransformation and climate diplomacy. We have research capacities, economic strength andgeopolitical leverage to do it. If we make climate a priority, we can look forward to a prosperous
future.
Third, Europe needs a more democratic Union. European citizens love the EU, but let’s face it: it
is not always easy. You called on us to help you and asked us: How should European democracy
look like in the Future? And we answered to you: We citizens want a Europe in which decisions are
made transparently and quickly, where the unanimity principle is reconsidered and in which we
citizens are regularly and seriously involved.
Fourth, the EU needs more harmonisation in some fields, and to grow closer together as a Union.
War is knocking on our Eastern doors, and this calls on us to be more unified than ever, and to
grant the EU more competence on foreign affairs. This Conference can be the foundation for thecreation of a more united and politically cohesive Europe. It all boils down to this word: Union. We
cannot describe ourselves as such if we do not achieve the collaboration that this Conference
exemplified.
Fifth, the EU needs to grow in autonomy and secure its global competitiveness. Throughout thisprocess, we talked about reaching this goal in key strategic sectors: agriculture, energy, industry,39

health. We need to avoid being dependent on third countries for many sensitive products. We need
to bet on the talent of our labour force, prevent brain drain and provide training in the right skills tocitizens at all stages of their lives, and no matter where they live in the EU. We cannot have huge
disparities within the EU and young people with no prospect in one country, forced to move toanother.
Sixth, the future of the EU is one based on its values. These have guided our work. When we
started, no one could have imagined that a war would break out on our continent. This fight for
freedom makes us realise how lucky we are to live in a peaceful union. Behind all our proposals,
these values are being expressed: a human and dignified reception of migrants, equal access tohealth, the fight against corruption, the call for the protection of nature and biodiversity, and for amore democratic Union.
Seventh, in the Future, citizens should feel more European and know more about the EU. This wasa transversal issue that underpinned the work of all panels. Digital transformation, education,
mobility, and exchanges can give substance to this European identity, which complements,
without challenging, our national identities. Many of us did not feel European before thisConference: it emerged here, slowly, by exchanging with one another. We were lucky to have thisopportunity, but many do not. Therefore information, communication and awareness raising are
so important.
Finally, an eighth cross-cutting topic that is extremely important for us is education and theempowerment of citizens overall. For this Conference, you decided to invite citizens as young as
16. We are grateful because, more than ever, it is necessary to empower young people. The highyouth abstention rate shows us that the link between youth and politics needs to be reunited.
Empower them economically and socially too: it is still too hard to enter the job market, to claim
their social rights. During the - Covid-19 pandemic, they felt abandoned and many still suffer theconsequences on their mental health. But all Europeans need to be empowered, not only young
people: through mobility programmes and life-long learning, we need to open the horizons of all
Europeans. We need also to educate citizens in democracy, civic participation and media literacy.
We need a truly holistic approach.
**No one knew what the result would be. 27 countries, 24 languages, different ages. And yet, when
we worked together, we felt connected: our brains, thoughts, experiences. We are not expertson the EU or any of the topics of the Conference, but we are experts in real life, and we have ourstories. We go to work, we live in the countryside and suburbs, we work nightshifts, we study, we
have children, we take public transport. We have our diversity to rely on. Consensus was foundon the proposals between the four different components, and within the citizens’ component. We
agree and support all proposals now in your hands. We express a diverging position on measure
38.4, third bullet since it originated neither from the European nor the National Panels and was not
sufficiently discussed in the Plenary Working Group. That is why we do not express ourselves on
the substance nor the relevance of this measure. With this in mind, we call on you to look at these
proposals as a whole, to implement them, and not just the ones that suit you the most and areeasily implemented. Do it transparently. We worked on them with dedication and passion, we areproud of our work: please respect it.
The Conference on the Future of Europe has gone through a pandemic and witnessed a war in
Europe, demonstrating full solidarity with the Ukrainian people. It has been a turbulent year forthe participants, and it has been a turbulent year for all Europeans. But the Conference continued
its work, against all odds. On behalf of the citizens of the Conference, let us now conclude byaddressing you with a simple message: we feel European, we feel engaged and listened to in theprocess of democratisation, we believe in the EU and we want to keep believing. So, from thebottom of our hearts, read the proposals well and implement them, for the sake of Europe’s future.

40

Conference on the Future of Europe | REPORT ON THE FINAL OUTCOME

The representatives of the Council componentof the Conference Plenary did not commenton the substance of the proposals but
instead supported and encouraged theactivities of the citizens and took note of theirrecommendations. After 9 May 2022, theCouncil will determine how to follow up on the
results of the Conference, within its own sphereof competences and in accordance with theTreaties.

The Executive Board of the Conference on the
Future of Europe takes note of the proposals
put forward by the Conference Plenary andpresents them as the final outcome of theConference. Providing guidance on the futureof Europe, these proposals were achieved afteralmost a year of deliberations, in the frameworkof the Joint Declaration and the Rules ofProcedure of the Conference.

41

IV.	
The Plenary
proposals

Conference on the Future of Europe | REPORT ON THE FINAL OUTCOME"Climate change and the environment"
1. Proposal: agriculture, food production, biodiversity andecosystems, pollution
Objective: Safe, sustainable, just, climate responsible, and affordable production of food,respecting sustainability principles, the environment, safeguarding biodiversity and ecosystems,
while ensuring food security:
Measures:1.	 Bring the concept of green and blue
economy to the fore, by promoting
effective environmentally and climate
friendly agriculture and fishery in the EU
and worldwide, including organic farming
as well as other forms of innovative andsustainable farming, such as vertical
farming, that allow to produce more foodwith less input whilst reducing emissions
and environmental impact but still
guaranteeing productivity and food security(Panel 3 – recommendation 1, 2 and 10;
Panel 2 – recommendation 4)
2.	 Redirect subsidies and strengthen
incentives towards organic farming andsustainable agriculture which comply withclear environmental standards and help
achieving the global climate goals (Panel 3– recommendations 1, 12)
3.	 Apply circular economy principles inagriculture and promote measures against
food waste (WG debate, Multilingual Digital
Platform (MDP))
4.	 Significantly reduce the use chemical
pesticides and fertilizers, in line with theexisting targets, while still ensuring foodsecurity, and support for research todevelop more sustainable and natural basedalternatives (Panel 3 – recommendation 10,
WG debate)

5.	 Introduce a certification of carbon removals,
based on robust, solid and transparent
carbon accounting (Plenary discussion)
6.	 More research and innovations, including
in technological solutions for sustainableproduction, plant resistance, and precision
farming, and more communication, advisorysystems, and training for and from farmers(Panel 3- recommendation 10, WG debate,
Plenary discussion)
7.	 Eliminate social dumping and enhancea just and green transition to better jobs,
with high quality safety, health and working
conditions, in the agriculture sector (WG
debate)
8.	 Address aspects such as plastic use inagricultural films and ways to reduce water
consumption in agriculture (MDP)
9.	 Reasoned breeding and meat production
with a focus on animal welfare andsustainability, using measures such as
clear labelling, high standard and common
norms for animal farming and transport,
strengthening the link between breeding andfeeding (Panel 3- recommendation 16 and30)

43

2. Proposal: agriculture, food production, biodiversity andecosystems, pollution
Objective: Protect and restore biodiversity, the landscape and oceans, and eliminate pollution
Measures:1.	 Create, restore, better manage, and extend
protected areas – for the conservation of
biodiversity (FR recommendation, Panel 3 –recommendation 11)
2.	 Have in place a coercion and reward
system to tackle pollution applying thepolluter pays principle, which should
also be embedded in taxation measures,combined with increasing awareness andincentives (Panel 3 – recommendation 32,
FR recommendation, Plenary discussion)
3.	 Enhance the role of municipalities inurban planning and construction of
new buildings supporting blue-green
infrastructure, avoid and stop further
sealing of land and obligatory green
spaces of new constructions, in order topromote biodiversity and urban forests(Panel 3 - recommendation 5, Panel 1recommendation 18, FR recommendation)
4.	 Protect insects, in particular indigenous
and pollinating insects, including throughprotection against invasive species andbetter enforcement of existing regulation(Panel 1 – recommendation 18)

44

5.	 Support reforestation, afforestation,
including forests lost by fire, enforcementof responsible forest management, andsupport better use of wood replacing
other materials. Setting binding nationaltargets across the EU Member States
for reforestation of native trees andlocal flora, taking into account different
national situations and specificities(Panel 3 – recommendation 14, Panel 1 –recommendation 18)
6.	 Enforce and extend the ban on single use
plastics (MDP)
7.	 Protect water sources and combat riverand ocean pollution, including throughresearching and fighting microplastic
pollution, and promoting of environmentallyfriendly shipping by using best available
technologies and establishing EU research
and funding for alternative maritime fuels
and technologies (MDP, WG debate)
8.	 Limit light pollution (WG debate)Conference on the Future of Europe | REPORT ON THE FINAL OUTCOME

3. Proposal: climate change, energy, transport
Objective: Enhance European energy security, and achieve the EU’s energy independence while
ensuring a just transition, and providing Europeans with sufficient, affordable and sustainableenergy. Tackle climate change, with the EU playing a role of global leader in sustainable energy
policy, and respecting the global climate goals:
Measures:
1.	 Accomplish and whenever possible speed
up the green transition, in particular throughmore investments in renewable energy, inorder to reduce external energy dependency,
recognizing also the role of local andregional authorities in the green transition(WG debate)
2.	 Consider within energy policies thegeopolitical and security implications,
including human rights, ecological aspectand good governance and rule of law, of all
third country energy suppliers (WG debate)
3.	 Reduce dependencies from oil and gas
imports through energy efficiency projects,
support of affordable public transport,
high-speed rail and freight network,
expansion of clean and renewable energy
provision (Panel 4 – recommendation 2,
Panel 1 – recommendation 10, FR, DE
recommendations)
4.	 Improve quality and interconnectivity,
ensure maintenance, and transform theelectrical infrastructure and electricalgrids in order to enhance safety and toenable the transition to renewable energy
sources (Panel 1 – recommendation 10, WG
discussion)
5.	 Invest in technologies to produce renewableenergy, such as efficient production anduse of green hydrogen, especially in sectors
which are difficult to electrify (Panel 3 –recommendation 31, WG debate)
6.	 Invest in the exploration of new eco-friendly
sources of energy and storage methods
and, until tangible solution are found,
additional investment into existing optimal

solutions of energy production and storage(Panel 3 – recommendations 9 and 31)
7.	 Make CO2 filters mandatory for fossil fuels
power plants, and provide financial aid toMember States that do not have financial
resources to implement the CO2 filters.
(Panel 3 – recommendation 29)
8.	 Ensure a just transition, protecting workers
and jobs, through adequate funding for thetransition and further research, throughreform of the tax system with fairer taxation
and anti-tax fraud measures, and throughensuring inclusive governance approach inpolicy making at all levels (e.g. ambitious
measures to reskill/upskills, strong social
protection, keeping public service in public
hands, safeguarding occupational healthand safety rules) (Plenary discussion, WG
debate, MDP)
9.	 Introduce an investment package
for climate-friendly technologies andinnovations, which should be financed
through climate-related import tariffs andclimate related carbon adjustment levies(DE recommendation)
10.	After a transition period, fossil fuels should
no longer be subsidized and there should be
no funding for traditional gas infrastructure(WG debate)
11.	Increase EU’s leadership and taking astronger role and responsibility to promoteambitious climate action, a just transition,and support to address the loss anddamages, in the international frameworkwith the United Nations at the centre (NL
recommendation, WG debate).

45

4. Proposal: climate change, energy, transport
Objective: Provide high quality, modern, green, and safe infrastructure, ensuring connectivity,
including of rural and island regions, in particular through affordable public transport:
Measures:1.	 Support public transport and develop a
European public transportation network
especially in rural and island regions, whichis efficient, reliable and affordable, withextra incentives for public transportation
usage (Panel 3 – recommendation 36, Panel
4 – recommendation 2)
2.	 Invest in high-speed and night trains, andset single standard of railroad eco-friendly
technology in Europe, to provide a credible
alternative and facilitate the possibility
to replace and discourage short distance
flights (WG debate, MDP)
3.	 Promote the purchase, bearing in mind
the affordability for households, andpromote (shared) use of electric vehicles
complying with good standard of battery
life, as well as investments in the necessary
recharging infrastructure, and investmentsin the development of other non-polluting
technologies for those vehicles whose
electrification is difficult to achieve (Panel
3 – recommendation 38).

46

4.	 Develop high speed internet and mobile
network connectivity in rural and island
regions (Panel 3 – recommendation 36)
5.	 Improve existing transportation
infrastructure from an ecological point ofview (Panel 3- recommendation 37)
6.	 Require urban development programs for“greener” cities with lower emissions, withdedicated car-free zones in cities, withoutharming commercial areas (Panel 3 recommendation 6)
7.	 Improve infrastructure for cycling, and givefurther rights and enhanced legal protection
to cyclists and pedestrians including incase of accidents with motorised vehicles,
guaranteeing road safety and providing
training on road traffic rules (Panel 3 –recommendation 4).
8.	 Regulate the mining of cryptocurrencies,
which are using an enormous amount ofelectricity (MDP)Conference on the Future of Europe | REPORT ON THE FINAL OUTCOME

5. Proposal: sustainable consumption, packaging and production
Objective: Enhance the use and management of materials within the EU in order to become
more circular, more autonomous, and less dependent. Build a circular economy by promoting
sustainable EU products and production. Ensure all products placed on the EU market comply
with common EU environmental standards:
Measures:1.	 Stricter and harmonised production
standards within the EU and a transparent
labelling system for all products sold on the
EU market regarding their sustainability/
environmental footprint, as well as
longevity, using a QR-code and eco-score,or the Digital Product Passport (Panel 3– recommendations 8, 13, 20, 21, P1 - 16,
Panel 4 - recommendation 13)
2.	 Review global supply chains, including in
agricultural production, in order to reduce
dependency of the EU and shorten the
chains (MDP)
3.	 Further avoid waste by setting prevention
and reuse targets and setting quality
standards for waste sorting systems (WG
debate, FR recommendation)
4.	 Phase-out non-sustainable form of
packaging, regulate environmentally-safe
packaging, and avoid wasting of material
in packaging, through financial incentives
and penalties, and investing in research into
alternatives (Panel 3 – recommendations
15, 25, Panel 1 – recommendation 12, Panel
4 – recommendation 16)
5.	 Introduce EU wide packaging deposit
return scheme and advanced standards forcontainers (Panel 3 – recommendations 22,
23, MDP)
6.	 Launch an EU knowledge platform on how
to ensure long-term and sustainable use
and how to “repair” products, including
the available information from consumer
associations (Panel 3 – recommendation
20)

and accessibility of compatible spareparts (Panel 3 – recommendation 20,
FR and DE recommendations, Panel 1 –recommendation 14)
8.	 Establish a secondary raw materials
market, also by considering requirementsfor percentages of recycled content andencouraging less use of primary materials(WG discussion)
9.	 Rapid implementation of an ambitious
sustainable textile strategy and setting up
a mechanism ensuring consumers canbe aware the product meets sustainable
criteria (Panel 3 - recommendation 28, WG
debate)10.	Take EU actions that enable and incentivize
consumers to use products longer (Panel 3 recommendation 20)
11.	Increase environmental standards, andenforce compliance, related to exportof waste both within the EU and to third
countries (Panel 4 - recommendation 15,
MDP)
12.	Introduce measures to limit advertisingof products that are environmentally
damaging, introducing a mandatory
disclaimer for products that are particularly
harmful for the environment (Panel 3 recommendation 22)
13.	Stricter manufacturing standards andfair working conditions throughout the
production and entire value chain (Panel 3 recommendation 21)

7.	 Introduce measures to tackle early, or premature (including planned) obsolescence,
ensure longer warranties, promote aright to repair, and ensure availability

47

6. Proposal: information, awareness, dialogue and life-style
Objective: Foster knowledge, awareness, education, and dialogues on environment, climatechange, energy use, and sustainability:
Measures:1.	 Create an interactive fact-checked
information platform, with regularly updated
and diverse scientific environmental
information (Panel 3 - recommendation 33)
2.	 Support information campaigns on ecoawareness, including a long-term EU
campaign for sustainable consumption andlifestyle. (DE, NL and FR recommendations,
Panel 3 – recommendation 7)
3.	 Promote and facilitate dialogue andconsultations between all levels ofdecision making, especially withyouth and at the local level (DE, NL
and FR recommendations, Panel 3– recommendations 27, 35, Plenary
discussion)
4.	 The development by the EU, with assistanceof Member States, of a common European
charter targeting environmental issues andfostering environmental awareness among
all citizens (Panel 3 - recommendation 7).
5.	 Provide educational courses and teachingmaterials for all, in order to increase climate
and sustainability literacy and to enable
lifelong learning on environmental topics(Panel 1 – recommendations 15, 35, Panel48

3 - recommendation 24, WG debate)
6.	 Include food production and biodiversity
protection as part of education, including
the advantage of unprocessed overprocessed food, and promoting school
gardens, subsidizing urban gardening
projects and vertical farming. Consider
making biodiversity a mandatory subject
in schools and raise awareness forbiodiversity through the use of media
campaigns and incentivised ‘competitions’across the EU (local community scalecompetitions) (Panel 3 – recommendation
5, Panel 1 – recommendation 18)
7.	 Strengthen the role and action of the EU
in the area of environment and education,
by extending the EU’s competence in thearea of education in the area of climatechange and environment and extending theuse of qualified majority decision-making
on topics identified as being of ‘European
interest’, such as environment (NL, FR
recommendations)
8.	 Promote a plant-based diet on the groundsof climate protection and the preservationof the environment (MDP)Conference on the Future of Europe | REPORT ON THE FINAL OUTCOME

9.	

"Health"
7. Proposal - Healthy food and healthy lifestyle1
Objective: Ensure that all Europeans have access to education on healthy food and access tohealthy and affordable food, as a building block of a healthy lifestyle, in particular by:
Measures:1.	 Setting minimum standards for food quality,
as well as food traceability, including bylimiting the use of antibiotics and otheranimal medicinal products to what is
absolutely necessary to protect the healthand well-being of animals instead of use ina preventive way and by making sure that
controls are tightened in that respect. [# 3,#17]
2.	 Educating people about healthy habits froman early age, and encouraging them to makesafe and healthy choices, through taxationof non-healthy processed food and by
making information on the health propertiesof food readily available; for that purpose,
establishing a European-wide evaluation
system for processed food based upon
independent and scientific expertise,
and a label covering the use of hormonal
substances and endocrine disruptors in the
production of food. In this regard, reinforce
monitoring and enforcement of existing
rules and consider strengthening them.
[#18, #19, WG]

3.	 Encouraging dialogue with the foodchain actors from production to sales forcorporate social responsibility regarding
healthy food. [#19, WG]
4.	 Supporting at EU level the provision ofhealthy, varied and affordable food inestablishments servicing the public, suchas school canteens, hospitals, or nursing
homes, including through dedicatedfunding. [#3, Plenary, WG]
5.	 Investing in research on the impact of
the use of antibiotics and the effects
of hormonal substances and endocrine
disruptors in human health. [#17, #18] 2

49

8. Proposal – Reinforce the healthcare system3
Objective: Reinforce the resilience and quality of our healthcare systems, in particular through:Measures:1.	 The creation of a European health data
space, which would facilitate exchangeof health data; individual medical records
could be made available – on a voluntarybasis – through an EU individual electronic
health passport, in compliance with dataprotection rules. [#41, WG]
2.	 Adequate working conditions, in particularthrough strong collective bargaining,
including in terms of wages and working
arrangements, and harmonisation oftraining and certification standards forhealth professionals; networking andexchange programmes should be developed
such as an Erasmus for medical schools,
contributing notably to skills development.
In order to ensure talent retention, young
professionals’ knowledge and working
experiences, EU exchange programmes
need to be established to motivate our bestminds in Life Sciences not to be drained bythird countries. [#39, WG]
3.	 Ensuring strategic autonomy at EU levelto avoid dependency on third countries[NL2]4 for medicines (in particular
active ingredients) and medical devices(including raw materials); in particular,a list of essential and priority, but alsoinnovative medicines and treatments (suchas biotechnology solutions) should beestablished at EU level relying on existing
European agencies and HERA, to guarantee
their availability for citizens. Consider
organising coordinated strategic stockpilingthroughout the EU. In order to achieve thenecessary coordinated, long-term action atUnion level, include health and healthcare
among the shared competencies between
the EU and the EU Member States byamending Article 4 TFUE. [#40, #49, Plenary,
WG]
4.	 Further developing, coordinating
and funding existing health researchand innovation programmes without

50

undermining other health-related
programmes, including for European
Reference Networks as they constitutethe basis of the development of networksof medical care for highly specialised andcomplex treatments. [#42, #43, WG]
5.	 Investing in the health systems, in particularpublic and non-for profit, infrastructure anddigital health and ensuring that healthcare
providers respect the principles of fullaccessibility, affordability and quality ofservices, hence ensuring that resources
are not drained by profit-oriented healthoperators with little to no regard for thegeneral interest. [#51, WG]
6.	 Issuing strong recommendations to theMember States to invest in effective,
accessible, affordable, high-quality andresilient health systems, notably in thecontext of the European Semester. The
impact of the war in Ukraine on publichealth demonstrates the need to further
develop resilient health systems andsolidarity mechanisms. [#51, WG]

Conference on the Future of Europe | REPORT ON THE FINAL OUTCOME

9. Proposal – A broader understanding of Health5
Objective: Adopt a holistic approach to health, addressing, beyond diseases and cures, healthliteracy and prevention, and fostering a shared understanding of the challenges faced by those
who are ill or disabled, in line with the “One Health Approach”, which should be emphasized as ahorizontal and fundamental principle encompassing all EU policies.
Measures:1.	 Improve understanding of mental healthissues and ways of addressing them,including from early childhood and early
diagnostics, building on good practices
developed throughout the EU, whichshould be made readily accessible throughthe Public Health Best Practice Portal.
To raise awareness, EU institutions andrelevant stakeholders should organise bestpractices exchange events and help theirmembers disseminate them in their own
constituencies. An EU Action Plan on mental
health should be developed, that would
provide long term Mental Health Strategy,
including on research and also tackle
the issue of availability of professionals,
including for minors and the setting up in
the near future of a dedicated European
Year of Mental Health. [#44, #47, WG]
2.	 Develop at EU level a standard educational
programme on healthy lifestyles, covering
also sexual education. It should also
encompass actions targeting both healthy
lifestyle and environmental protection andhow they can help prevent many diseases,
such as for instance bicycling as a healthymean for everyday mobility. It would beavailable free of charge to Member Statesand schools to use in their curricula, as
appropriate. Such a programme would
address stereotypes on those who are ill or
disabled. [#46, WG]

3.	 Develop first aid courses – including apractical component – that would be madeavailable to all citizens free of charge andconsider regular courses as standardpractice for students and in workplaces.
There should also be a minimum number ofdefibrillators available in public places in all
Member States. [#50]
4.	 Expanding the health week initiative, which
would take place across the entire EU in thesame week, when all health issues would
be covered and discussed. Also consider
health year initiatives, starting with the year
on mental health. [#44, WG]
5.	 Recognise as regular medical treatment
in terms of taxation the hormonal
contraception products used for
medical reasons, such as in the cases offibromyalgia and endometriosis, as well as
female sanitary products. Ensure access to
reproductive treatments for all individuals
suffering fertility problems. [#45, WG]

51

10. Proposal – Equal access to health for all6
Objective: Establish a “right to health” by guaranteeing all Europeans have equal and universal
access to affordable, preventive, curative and quality health care:
Measures:1.	 Establish common minimum healthcare
standards at EU level, covering also
prevention and accessibility as well as
proximity of care, and provide support toachieve these standards. [#39, WG]
2.	 Recognising the need to take full accountof the principle of subsidiarity and the keyrole of local, regional and national players
in health matter [NL3], ensure there is theability to act at EU level when the right tohealth is best addressed there. To allow
faster and stronger decision-making on key
subjects and to improve the effectivenessof European governance towards thedevelopment of the European Health Union(such as, for example, in the event of apandemic or for rare diseases). [#49, FR
wish11, Digital Platform]
3.	 Enhance the European Health Union using
the full potential of the current frameworkand include health and healthcare among
the shared competencies between the EU
and the EU Member States by amending
Article 4 TFUE. [#49, FRwish11, Digital
Platform, WG]7
4.	 Make sure anyone can access existingtreatments, wherever first available in theEU; to that purpose, facilitate cross-bordercooperation, notably on rare diseases,
cancer, cardiovascular diseases and highly
specialised treatments, such as organtransplants and the treatments of severeburns. A European network for transplants
and organ donations should be put in place
for the benefit of all European patients inneed of a transplant. [Plenary and WG]

52

5.	 Ensure affordability of care, throughstronger investment in healthcare,in particular of dental care including
prophylaxis, and ensure affordable dental
care is available to everyone within 15 to 20
years. [#48, WG]
6.	 Ensure that treatments and medicines
across the EU are of equal quality and offair local cost, including through tacklingexisting fragmentation of the InternalMarket. [#40, NL3, WG, Plenary]
7.	 Fight health poverty by encouraging free ofcharge dental care for children, low-income
groups and other vulnerable groups, such as
for instance the disabled. Also consider the
impact of poor-quality housing on health.
[#48, WG]
8.	 Consider the international dimension to
health and recognise that medicines should
be universally available, including in poorer
countries. [NL2]Conference on the Future of Europe | REPORT ON THE FINAL OUTCOME"A stronger economy, social justice and jobs"
Introduction
We are living in extraordinary times and the EU will be judged on its efforts to emerge from thecurrent crises stronger, with a more sustainable, inclusive, competitive and resilient growth model.
The invasion of Ukraine by Russia and the COVID-19 pandemic have changed the face of the EU.
The Conference will also need to address the social and economic consequences of this war in an
already very demanding post-pandemic context. At the same time, climate change still represents
a continuous threat to humanity and will have a dramatic impact on the economy and on oursocieties. From the recommendations received, it is clear that citizens are calling for stronger
EU action. Outstanding transnational challenges, such as inequalities, competitiveness, health,climate change, migration, digitalisation or fair taxation, call for proper European solutions. From
the recommendations and discussions, it is also clear that we need a comprehensive strategy
to ensure better wellbeing for the European citizens in the different aspect of their lives. Someelements of this strategy can be found in already existing policies and can be achieved by making
full use of the existing institutional framework at European and national level; others will require
new policies and, in some cases, treaty changes. However, new policies and treaty changes should
be seen as means to achieve better wellbeing and not as ends in themselves. It is both possible
and necessary to reshape the EU in a way that will guarantee its strategic autonomy, sustainablegrowth, improvement of living and working conditions and human progress, without depleting anddestroying our planet in the framework of a renewed Social Contract. These recommendations areintended to achieve these goals. The proposals below should be read while taking into accountthat citizens all over Europe have formulated a diversity of views and recommendations. It is thisdiversity of views that is one of Europe’s unique strengths.

53

11. Proposal: Sustainable Growth and innovation8
Objective: We propose that the EU supports the shift to a sustainable and resilient growthmodel, considering the green and digital transitions with a strong social dimension in theEuropean Semester, and empowering citizens, trade unions and businesses. The conventional
macroeconomic indicators and the GDP could be complemented with new indicators in orderto address the new European priorities such as the European Green Deal or the European Pillarof Social Rights and to better reflect the ecological and digital transitions and the wellbeing ofpeople. This objective could be achieved by:
Measures:
1.	 Promoting greener production processes
by companies and supporting companies
to identify the best solutions and providing
positive and negative incentives (ECP 11 &
12), and by increasing local production andconsumption; (discussions)

7.	 Addressing the sustainability, affordability
and accessibility of energy, considering
energy poverty and the dependence on
non-EU states, by increasing the share ofsustainably sourced energy; (ECP 10, LT 3, IT
1.1)

2.	 Working towards a more sustainable andcircular economy by addressing the issueof planned obsolescence and ensuring theright of repair; (ECP14)

8.	 Raising awareness among both companies
and citizens how to behave in a moresustainable manner, and guarantee justtransition, based on social dialogue andquality jobs; (ECP 12 & online platform)

3.	 Reviewing the EU's economic governanceand the European Semester in order toensure that the green and digital transitions,social justice and social progress go handin-hand with economic competitiveness,without ignoring the economic and fiscal
nature of the European Semester. In
addition, there is a need to better involvesocial partners and the local and regional
authorities in the implementation of theEuropean Semester in order to improve
its application and accountability; (online
platform, discussions)
4.	 Tackling the use of single use plastic
packaging/containers; (ECP 12)
5.	 Expanding the use of European technology
and make it a viable alternative to foreigntechnology; (discussions)
6.	 Promoting research into new materials andtechnologies, as well as the innovative useof existing materials, while ensuring that
research efforts are not duplicated; (ECP 9,
NL 1)

54

9.	 Including ambitious social, labour andhealth standards, including occupational
health and safety, in new EU trade
agreements; (LT8)Conference on the Future of Europe | REPORT ON THE FINAL OUTCOME

12. Proposal: Enhancing EU’s competitiveness and further
deepening the Single Market9
Objective: We propose strengthening the competitiveness and resilience of the European Union’s
economy, single market, industry and addressing strategic dependencies. We need to promote
an entrepreneurial culture in the EU, where innovative businesses of all sizes, and in particular
Micro-, Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (MSMEs) , as well as start-ups are encouraged andcan thrive in order to contribute to more resilient and cohesive societies. There is a need for astrong functioning market economy in order to facilitate the vision of a more social Europe. Thisobjective could be achieved by:
Measures:1.	 Developing a clear vision for the European
economy and playing to Europe's strengths,
quality and diversity while taking into
account of economic and other differences
between Member States, and promoting
cooperation and competition between
businesses; (NL 1 & 2)
2.	 Consolidating what has been done interms of the single currency and theinterconnection of payment systems andtelecommunications; (IT 4.a.2)
3.	 Reducing the standardisation of products
and recognising local and regional culturaland production peculiarities (respect for
production traditions); (IT 2.2)
4.	 Enhancing upward social and economic
convergence in the Single Market, bycompleting existing initiatives, such as the
Banking Union and the Capital Markets
Union, and implementing a forward- looking
reform of our Economic and Monetary
Union; (discussions)5.	 Promoting policies for a strong industrial
base and innovation in key enabling
technologies, and a forward-looking
climate policy coupled with industrial
competitiveness with a strong social
dimension, based on social dialogue
and well-functioning industrial relations;(discussions)
6.	 Giving special attention in all new initiatives
to SMEs, the backbone of our economy.
The “Think Small First” principle must be
respected in all EU’s legislative proposals
and a SME test should be reinforced in

the Commission's impact assessment inaccordance with clear principles while
fully respecting social an environmental
standards and consumer rights;(discussions)
7.	 Ensuring the participation of SMEs in
funding applications, tenders and networks
with as little administrative effort as
possible. Access to finance for SMEs
with high-risk innovation projects should
be further developed by entities such as
the European Innovation Council and theEuropean Investment Bank; (discussions)
8.	 Creating a better framework for investments
in R&I aimed at a more sustainable andbiodiverse business models. (ECP 10, 11 &14) Focusing on technology and innovation
as drivers of growth; (IT 1.3)
9.	 Promoting collective economic performancethrough autonomous, competitive industry;(FR3)
10.	Identifying and developing strategic sectors,
including space, robotics and AI; (FR 3 & 9)
11.	Investing in an economy based on tourism
and culture, including the many small
destinations in Europe; (IT 1.2)
12.	Addressing the security of supply by
diversifying input sources/raw materials andincreasing the manufacture of key goodsin Europe, such as health, food, energy,
defence and transport; (FR 9, LT 1, IT 1.4)
13.	Promoting the digitalisation of European
businesses, for instance through a specificscoreboard allowing businesses to compare55their degree of digitalisation, with the overall
aim of increasing competitiveness; (DE 2.1)
14.	Promoting digital cohesion to contribute toeconomic, social and territorial cohesion as
defined in the Treaty on the Functioning of
the European Union; (discussions)
15.	Strengthening cross-border cooperation inorder to enhance cohesion and resilience
within and beyond regions, by fostering theEuropean Cross Border Mechanism andsimilar tools; (discussions)
16.	Enhancing and promoting the possibilities
for cross-border training in order to upskill
the European workforce and increase
competitiveness, while at the same time
boosting citizens' economic literacy; (DE2.2, LT7). Promoting exchanges between
workers in Europe through a European Job
Centre. (IT 6.1) Encouraging young people tostudy science subjects; (IT 1.5)
17.	Reducing, where non-essential, bureaucracy(permits, certifications); (IT 2.1)
18.	Combating counterfeiting and unfair
competition; (IT 2.4)
19.	Ensuring greater participation of startups and SMEs in innovation projects as
this increases their innovative strength,competitiveness and networking. (online
platform, discussions)56

20.	Consolidating and protecting the Single
Market should remain a priority; measuresand initiatives at EU and national levelshould not be detrimental to the Single
Market and should contribute to the freeflow of people, goods, services, and capital;(discussions)21.	New EU policy initiatives should undergoa “competitiveness check” to analyse
their impact on companies and theirbusiness environment (cost of doing
business, capacity to innovate, international
competitiveness, level playing field, etc).
Such check shall be in accordance with,
the Paris Agreement, the Sustainable
Development Goals, including genderequality, and shall not undermine theprotection of human, social and workers'
rights nor environmental and consumer
protection standards. To this effect, we also
propose the establishment of a European
Advisory Competitiveness Body whichshould monitor how the competitivenesscheck is performed and in particular assess
the cumulative impact of legislation, as
well as put forward proposals to improve
the right framework conditions forcompetitiveness of EU companies. Suchbody should include organised civil society
and the social partners in its governance;(discussions)Conference on the Future of Europe | REPORT ON THE FINAL OUTCOME

13. Proposal: Inclusive labour markets10
Objective: We propose to improve the functioning of labour markets so that they ensure fairer
working conditions and promote gender equality, employment, including that of young people
and vulnerable groups. The EU, Member States and social partners need to work to end in-workpoverty, address the rights of platform workers, ban un-paid internships and ensure fair labour
mobility in the EU. We must promote social dialogue and collective bargaining. We need to ensure
the full implementation of the European Pillar of Social Rights, including its relevant headline
targets for 2030, at EU, national, regional and local level in the areas of “equal opportunities andaccess to the labour market” and “fair working conditions”, while respecting competences andthe principles of subsidiarity and proportionality and to include a Social Progress Protocol in theTreaties. While doing so, there should be a respect of national traditions and the autonomy ofsocial partners and a cooperation with civil society. This objective could be achieved by:
Measures:1.	 Ensuring that statutory minimum wages
guarantee that each worker can earn adecent and similar quality of living acrossall Member States. Clear criteria (e.g. living
costs , inflation, above the poverty line,
the average and median wage at national
level) to be taken into account whensetting minimum wages level should be
set up. The levels of statutory minimum
wages should be regularly reviewed inlight of these criteria in order to ensure
their adequacy. Special attention shouldbe put on effective implementation ofthese rules and monitoring and tracking
improvement in the standard of living. At thesame time, collective bargaining should be
strengthened and promoted throughout theEU; (ECP1 & 30; DE 4.2; online platform).
2.	 Taking stock and more strongly enforcing
the implementation of the Working Time
Directive (Directive 2003/88/EC) and otherrelevant legislation that ensures healthy
work life balance while looking at new
national policies in this domain; (ECP2)
3.	 Introducing or reinforcing existinglegislation that regulates so-called 'smart
working' and incentivising companies topromote it. (ECP 7) The EU should ensure
the right to disconnect, do more to address
the digital divide at the workplace andassess the implications of remote workon health, working time and companies
performance. There is a need to guarantee
fair digitalisation based on human rights,

improved working conditions and collective
bargaining; (discussions).
4.	 Having integrated employment policies
at an EU level where active labour market
policies remain central and increasingly
coordinated (IT 6.2) while Member States
focus on continuing their reform efforts tocreate favourable conditions for quality job
creation. (discussions)
5.	 Taking steps to ensure that social rights are
fully protected and safeguarded in case of
conflict with economic freedoms including
via the introduction of a social progress
protocol in the Treaties. (online platform,
discussions)
6.	 Ensuring gender equality, in line with 20202025 EU Gender Equality Strategy. The EUshould continue measuring the genderequality through a gender equality index(i.e. attitudes, salary gap, employment,
leadership, etc.), monitor the strategy yearlyand be transparent with the achievements;and encourage the sharing of expertiseand best practices and set up a possible
direct citizen-feedback mechanism (e.g.
an Ombudsperson); (ECP28; IT 5.a.1).
There is a need to address gender pay gap
and introduce quotas in senior positions.
There should be more support for women
entrepreneurs in the business environment
and women in STEM (discussions).
7.	 Promoting youth employment, for example
through financial assistance for companies,
but also by giving employers and workers

57additional support (NL 4) and support
to young entrepreneurs and young selfemployed professionals for example
through educational tools and courses(discussions);
8.	 Promoting employment of disadvantaged
groups (NL 4), in particular among people
with disabilities (online platform);
9.	 Promoting employment and social mobility
and, therefore, to have a full chance ofself-realisation and self-determination.
(IT 5.a.4 & IT 6.1) There could be a longterm strategy to ensure everyone in oursocieties has the right skills to find a job andbring their talents to fruition, in particular
the young generation (discussions). It is
important to invest in people’s skills adapted
to the changing labour market needs andpromoting life-long learning through among
others exchange programme at all stages oflife and ensure the right to lifelong learningand the right to training. (FR 6; DE 4.1) To
this end, there is a need to strengthen thecooperation between businesses, tradeunions and vocational, education andtraining providers (discussions).

14. Proposal: Stronger social policies 11
Objective: We propose to reduce inequalities, fight social exclusion and tackle poverty. We
need to put in place a comprehensive anti-poverty strategy that could include, among other, areinforced Child Guarantee and Youth Guarantee, the introduction of minimum wages, a common
EU framework for minimum income schemes and decent social housing. We need to ensure thefull implementation of the European Pillar of Social Rights, including its relevant headline targets
for 2030, at EU, national, regional and local level in the area of “social protection and inclusion”
with due regard for respective competences and the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality
and to include a Social Progress Protocol in the Treaties. This objective could be achieved by:
Measures:1.	 Reinforcing the competences of the EU insocial policies and proposing legislation topromote social policies and ensure equalityof rights, including health, harmonised forthe entire EU, which take into considerationagreed regulations and the minimum
requirements throughout the territory.
(ECP 19 & 21) The EU could support andcomplement the policies of Members Stateby among others proposing a common
framework for minimum incomes to ensurethat nobody is left behind; These actions
should be carried in the framework of
the full implementation of the European
Pillar of Social Rights and its Action Plan;(discussions)
2.	 Not compromising on welfare rights (publichealth, public education, labour policies); (IT4.a.1)
3.	 Promoting research in social matters and58

health in the EU, following priority lines thatare considered to be of public interest andagreed on by the member countries, andproviding the appropriate funding. This
could be achieved in part by reinforcing
collaboration across fields of expertise,
across countries, centres of studies(universities, etc.); (ECP 20)
4.	 Granting access to medical services to all
persons below 16 years old across the EU incase these services are not available in thenational context; (discussions)
5.	 Ensuring that the EU, together with social
partners and national governments,
supports targeted access to decent social
housing for citizens, according to their
specific needs financial effort should beshared among private funders, landlords,
housing beneficiaries, Member State
governments at central and local levels, andConference on the Future of Europe | REPORT ON THE FINAL OUTCOME

the European Union. (ECP25)

15. Proposal: Demographic transition12
Objective: We propose to address the challenges arising from the demographic transition, asa critical ingredient of Europe’s overall resilience, in particular low birth rates and a steadily
ageing population, by ensuring support to people throughout the lifecycle. This should involve
comprehensive action aimed at all generations, from children and young people, to families, tothe working-age population, to older persons who are still prepared to work as well as those inretirement or need of care. This objective could be achieved by:
Measures:1.	 Ensuring quality, affordable and accessible
childcare across the EU, so that mothers andfathers can confidently reconcile their workand family life. Where appropriate this could
include childcare opportunities at or near
the workplace. In some Member States also
overnight care is available, which should
serve as an example. Additionally, this could
be flanked by supportive measures such as
reduced VAT rates on equipment needed forchildren. It is essential to prevent poverty
and social exclusion of children; (ECP 22& 26) Reinforcing the Child Guarantee,
guaranteeing access of children in needto services such as education and care,healthcare, nutrition and housing, could
be an instrument to achieve this (online
platform, discussions).
2.	 Introducing specific support and protectionof work for young people. Such measures
towards the working-age population should
include access to knowledge for mothers
and fathers about their return to work. (ECP
22) Reinforcing the Youth Guarantee could
be an instrument to improve the access ofyoung people under the age of 30 to goodquality offers of employment, continued
education, apprenticeships or traineeships;(discussions)
3.	 Promoting the right to free movementof education within the Union, among
others, through mutual recognition ofdegrees, grades, skills and qualifications;(discussions)
4.	 Improving legislation and implementation
thereof to ensure support of families acrossall Member States, for instance with regard
to parental leave as well as childbirth andchildcare allowances. (ECP 26 & IT 5.a.1)
Housing plays a crucial role in supporting
families and should be addressed (online
platform, discussions);
5.	 Taking action to guarantee that all families
enjoy equal family rights in all Member
States. This should include the right tomarriage and adoption; (ECP 27)
6.	 Promoting flexible retirement ages by taking
account of the specific situation of older
persons. When determining the retirementage, there should be a differentiation
depending on the profession, and thereby
factoring in particularly demanding work,
both mentally and physically; (ECP 21 & IT
5.a.1)
7.	 Preventing old age poverty by introducing
minimum pensions. Such minimum levels
would need to take account of the living
standard, the poverty line and purchasepower in the respective Member State; (ECP
21)
8.	 Guaranteeing appropriate social and healthcare to older persons. In doing so, it isimportant to address both communitybased as well as residential care. Equally,measures need to take account of both carereceivers and care givers; (ECP 23)
9.	 Ensuring the sustainable development andthe demographic resilience of the regionsthat are lagging behind in order to makethem more vibrant and attractive, including
through the cohesion policy; (online

59

platform & discussions)
10.	Taking coordinated action at the European
level for collecting data disaggregatedby factors such as gender and analysing
demographic trends, sharing best practices

and knowledge and supporting Member
States in shaping and implementing
adequate policies including by establishinga specialized EU body in this area. (online
platform & discussions)16. Proposal: Fiscal and tax policies13
Objective: We propose that the EU promotes future-oriented investments focused on the green
and digital transitions with a strong social and gender dimension, taking also into account theexamples of the Next Generation EU and the SURE instrument. The EU needs to take into accountthe social and economic impact of the war against Ukraine and the link between the EU economic
governance with the new geopolitical context and by strengthening its own budget throughnew own resources. Citizens want to move away taxation from people and SMEs and target tax
evaders, big polluters and by taxing the digital giants while at the same time they want to see theEU supporting Member States' and local authorities' ability to finance themselves and as well as
in using EU funds. This objective should be achieved by:
Measures:1.	 Harmonizing and coordinating tax policies
within the Member States of the EU inorder to prevent tax evasion and avoidance,
avoiding tax havens within the EU andtargeting offshoring within Europe, including
by ensuring that decisions on tax matterscan be taken by qualified majority in theCouncil of the EU. On the other hand, there
are recommendations from citizens' panels
that state that taxation is a matter forindividual countries, which have their own
objectives and circumstances; (ECP 13 & 31,
IT 4.b.3, NL2.3)
2.	 Promoting cooperation between EU Member
States to ensure that all companies in the
EU pay their fair share of taxes; Introducing
a common corporate tax base or a minimum
effective rate (NL3)
3.	 Ensuring that companies pay taxes where
profits are made; (ECP 13)
4.	 Ensuring that tax policy support European
industry and prevents job losses in Europe;(ECP 13 & 31)

60

5.	 Give further consideration to common
borrowing at EU level, with a view to creating
more favourable borrowing conditions, while
maintaining responsible fiscal policies at
Member State level; (LT 9)
6.	 Strengthening oversight of the absorption
and use of EU funds, including at local andmunicipal level. (LT 10)

Conference on the Future of Europe | REPORT ON THE FINAL OUTCOME"EU in the world"
17. Proposal: Reducing dependency of EU from foreign actors ineconomically strategic sectors
Objective: We propose that the EU take measures to strengthen its autonomy in key strategic
sectors such as agricultural products, strategic economic goods, semiconductors, medical
products, innovative digital and environmental technologies and energy, through:Measures:1.	 boosting research, development andinnovation activities and collaboration onthat between public and private partners
2.	 maintaining an ambitious trade negotiation
agenda that can contribute to building
resilience and diversification of supply
chains, in particular for raw materials, while
also sharing the benefits of trade moreequally and with more partners, thereby
limiting our exposure and dependency on asmall number of potentially risky suppliers14.
3.	 increasing the resilience of EU supply chainsthrough fostering investment in strategic
sectors in the EU, stockpiling criticalproductions and devices and diversifying
the supply sources of critical raw materials;
4.	 investing further in the completion of theinternal market, creating a level-playing field
to make it more attractive to produce andbuy these items in the European Union.

5.	 support to keep such products available
and affordable to European consumers
and reduce dependencies from outside,
for example through the use of structuraland regional policies, tax breaks, subsidies,infrastructure and research investments,
boosting the competitiveness of SMEs aswell as education programmes to keep
related qualifications and jobs in Europe thatare relevant to secure basic needs15.
6.	 European-wide programme to support small
local producers from strategic sectors
across all Member States16, making greateruse of the EU programmes and financial
instruments, such as InvestEU.
7.	 better cooperation between Member Statesto handle the management of supply chain
risks1761

18. Proposal: Reducing dependency of EU from foreign actors inenergyObjective: We propose that the EU reach more autonomy in the field of energy production andsupply, in the context of the ongoing green transition by:
Measures:1.	 adopting a strategy to be more autonomousin its energy production. A European bodyshould integrate the existing European
energy agencies and should coordinate thedevelopment of renewable energies andpromote knowledge sharing18
2.	 actively supporting public transport andenergy efficiency projects, a pan-European
high-speed rail and freight network, theexpansion of clean and renewable energy
provision (in particular in solar and wind)
and alternative technologies (such ashydrogen or waste-to-energy), as well as
cultural change in urban settings from theindividual car towards public transport, e-car
sharing and biking19.
3.	 ensuring a just and fair transition,
supporting in particular vulnerable citizens,
who face the greatest challenges intransitioning towards climate neutrality
and who are already suffering fromincreasing energy prices because of energy
dependency and the recent tripling of energy
prices.

62

4.	 increased collaboration around theassessment of the use of nuclear energy inthe ongoing green transition to renewableenergy in Europe, examining the collective
issues that it could solve or create, giventhat it is still being used by many member
states20.
5.	 engaging with international partners,
committing them in attaining more
ambitious goals to address climate change
at different international fora, including G7
and G20.
6.	 Linking foreign trade with climate policy
measures (e.g. by launching an investment
package for climate-friendly technologies
and innovations, including funding
programmes)21
7.	 pursuing common purchases of imported
energy and sustainable energy partnerships
in order to reduce European energy importdependencies, specifically in the area of gas
and oil and developing EU domestic sourcesof energy.

Conference on the Future of Europe | REPORT ON THE FINAL OUTCOME

19. Proposal: Defining standards within and outside the EU in tradeand investment relations
Objective: We propose that the EU strengthen the ethical dimension of its trade and investment
relations through:Measures:1.	 preserving and reforming our multilateralrules-based international trade architecture,and partnership with like-mindeddemocracies
2.	 effective and proportionate EU legislation
to ensure that decent work standards
are fully applied along the global value
chains, including EU production and supply
processes and that goods which areimported comply with qualitative ethicalstandards, sustainable development, andhuman rights standards including workers’
and trade union rights, offering certification
for products abiding by this EU legislation22
and engage in an EU wide dialogue processthat seeks to inform and educate on theenvironmental and ethical effects of policychanges in international trade
3.	 restrictions on the import and sale ofproducts from countries that allow forced

and child lbour, a periodically updated
blacklist of companies, and promoting
consumer awareness on child labour
through information made by official EU
channels23.
4.	 following up and enforcing Trade
Sustainable Development chapters (TSD) in
EU Free Trade Agreements (FTA) including
the possibility of a sanctions-based
mechanism as a last resort.
5.	 reforming the EU’s Generalised Schemeof Preferences (GSP) to include strong
conditionality provisions and effective
and appropriate monitoring, reporting anddialogue processes in order to improve theimpact GSP can have on trade, human rights
and development in partner countries withtrade preferences to be withdrawn in case ofnon-compliance.

6320. Proposal: Defining standards within and outside the EU inenvironmental policies
Objective: We propose that the EU strengthen the environmental dimension of its trade relations
through:
Measures:1.	 harmonising and strengthening eco-labellingand introducing a mandatory eco-score to
be displayed on all products that can bebought by the consumer. The eco-score
would be calculated according to emissions
from production and transportation, as
well as harmful content, based on a list ofhazardous products. The eco-score should
be managed and monitored by an EU
authority24.
2.	 strengthen environmental standards for theexport of waste and more stringent controls
and sanctions to stop illegal exports. The
EU should incentivise the Member States torecycle their own waste and use it for energy
production25.

packaging by promoting less packaging or
more environmentally-friendly packaging26.establishing partnerships with developing
countries, supporting their infrastructure
and with mutually favourable trade deals
to aid them in the transition towards green
energy sources27.
4.	 rewarding countries that apply highsustainability standards by offering
them further access to the EU market
for their sustainable goods and services,
either unilaterally through the General
System of Preferences GSP+, bilaterally
through negotiated trade agreements, or
multilaterally through initiatives in the World
Trade Organisation

3.	 setting a goal of eliminating polluting

21. Proposal: Decision making and cohesion within the Union
Objective: We propose that the EU improve its capacity to take speedy and effective decisions,notably in Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), speaking with one voice and acting as atruly global player, projecting a positive role in the world and making a difference in response to
any crisis, notably through:Measures:1.	 in particular in the area of the CFSP, issues
that are currently decided by way ofunanimity to be changed, normally to be
decided by way of a qualified majority28.
2.	 basing cooperation in security and defense
policy on the recently endorsed Strategic
Compass and making use of the European
Peace Facility29
3.	 strengthening the role of the High
Representative to ensure that the EU speaks

64

with one voice30.
4.	 agreeing on a strong vision and a common
strategy to consolidate the unity anddecision taking capacity of the EU in orderto prepare the EU for further enlargement31.
5.	 ratifying recently concluded trade
agreements more promptly without
precluding proper examination anddiscussion.

Conference on the Future of Europe | REPORT ON THE FINAL OUTCOME

22. Proposal: Transparency of the EU and its relations with thecitizens
Objective: We propose that the EU, in particular in its actions at the international level, including
trade negotiations, improve its accessibility for citizens through better information, education,
citizen participation, and transparency of its action, notably by:
Measures:1.	 strengthening links with citizens andlocal institutions to improve transparency,
reach the citizens and communicate andconsult better with them about concrete EU
initiatives and at the international level32.
2.	 stronger citizen participation in the
EU’s internationalpolitics and direct
citizens’ involvement events, similar to
the Conference on the Future of Europe,organised on a national, local and European
level33 and with the active participation oforganised civil society34.
3.	 full support by all relevant stakeholders
to citizens who choose to get involved inorganised civil society organisations, as
they did with COVID-19 and Ukraine.
4.	 Allocating a specific budget to develop

educational programmes on the functioningof the EU and its values that it could
propose to the Member States that wish,
so that they can integrate them into theircurricula (primary, secondary schools,
and universities). In addition, a specificcourse on the EU and its functioning could
be offered to students wishing to study
in another European country through theErasmus programme. Students choosing
this course would be given priority in the
allocation of said Erasmus programmes.
5.	 improving its media strategy bystrengthening its visibility on social media
and actively promote its content andencouraging innovation by promoting anaccessible European social media35.

23. Proposal: The EU as a strong actor on the world scene in peaceand security
Objective: We propose that the EU continue to act to promote dialogue and guarantee peace and arules-based international order36, strengthening multilateralism and building on long standing EU
peace initiatives which contributed to its award of the Nobel Prize in 2012, while strengthening its
common security through 37:
Measures:1.	 Its joint armed forces that shall be used
for self-defence purposes and preclude
aggressive military action of any kind, witha capacity to provide support in timesof crises including natural catastrophes.
Outside European borders it could be
deployed in exceptional circumstances
preferably under a legal mandate from the
UN Security Council and thus in compliancewith international law38, and withoutcompeting with or duplicating NATO andrespecting different national relationships
with NATO and undertaking an assessmentof EU relations with NATO in the context ofthe debate on the EU’s strategic autonomy.
2.	 Playing a leading role in building the world
security order after the war in Ukraine
building on the recently adopted EU

65

strategic compass.
3.	 Protecting its strategic research and its
capacity in priority sectors such as thespace sector, cybersecurity, the medical
sector and the environment39.
4.	 Strengthening the operational capabilities
necessary to ensure the effectiveness ofthe mutual assistance clause of Art. 42.7of the Treaty on European Union, providing
adequate EU protection to any member
state under attack by a third country.
5.	 Reflect on how to counter disinformationand propaganda in an objective and factualway

24. Proposal: The EU as a strong actor on the world scene in
relationship building
Objective: We propose that the EU should, in its relations with third countries:
Measures:1.	 make greater use of its collective politicaland economic weight, speaking with one
voice and acting in a unified way, without
individual Member States dividing the Union
through inappropriate bilateral responses40.
2.	 strengthen its ability to sanction
States, governments, entities, groups
or organisations as well as individuals
that do not comply with its fundamental
principles, agreements and laws andensuring that sanctions that already exist
are quickly implemented and enforced.
Sanctions against third countries should
be proportional to the action that triggered
them and be effective and applied in due
time41.
3.	 promote sustainable and rules-based trade
while opening new trade and investment
opportunities for European companies.
While bilateral trade and investment
agreements are key to promote European
competitiveness, standards and rules areneeded to ensure a level playing field. The
EU needs to remain an active and reliable
partner by negotiating, concluding andimplementing trade agreements that also
set high sustainability standards
4.	 conclude major international cooperationagreements as the EU rather than as
individual countries42.

66

5.	 reform EU trade and investment policy
to relaunch global multilateralism withas objectives the creation of decent jobs
and the protection of fundamental humanrights, including workers’ and trade union
rights; the preservation of the environmentand biodiversity and the conformity with
the Paris Agreement on climate change;
the safeguarding of high-quality public
services; and the strengthening of Europe’s
industrial basis. The EU should contribute toa relaunch of global multilateralism, througha profound reform based on democracy andpeace, solidarity and respect for human,social and environmental rights and areinforced role for the ILO.
6.	 include in cooperation and investment
agreement with third countries the fightagainst human trafficking and illegal
immigration and cooperation with reference
to any appropriate repatriations.
7.	 establish partnerships with developing
countries, supporting their infrastructure
and with mutually favourable trade deals
to aid them in the transition towards green
energy sources43.
8.	 develop a more effective and unified policy
towards autocratic and hybrid regimes
and develop partnerships with civil society
organisations in such countries.

Conference on the Future of Europe | REPORT ON THE FINAL OUTCOME

9.	 increase the resources of EU electoral
observation missions.
10.	offer a credible accession perspective forcandidate and potential candidate countries
to foster peace and stability in Europe andbring prosperity to millions of Europeans44.

NOTE: Several members of the WG considered that Proposals “Reducing dependency of EU
from foreign actors in energy” and “Transparency of the EU and its relations with the citizens”
in particular were matters for other WGs. Some members wished to draw attention to otheralternatives to unanimity in the Council besides QMV, such as variable geometry, opt-outs andenhanced cooperation. Some WG members advocated using the term "sustainable" insteadof "ethical" in Proposal “Defining standards within and outside the EU in trade and investment
relations”. There was a difference of views as to whether accession of new Member States should
continue to require the unanimous agreement of all current Member States. There was a rangeof views as to the extent to which there should be joint armed forces. Two members mentioned
the prospect of Irish unity in the event of Northern Ireland voting for it in accordance with theprovisions of the Good Friday Agreement, and for the EU to be prepared for such an eventuality.

67

"Values and rights, rule of law, security"
25. Proposal: Rule of Law, Democratic values and European
identity45
Objective: Systematically uphold the rule of Law across all Member States, in particular by:
Measures:1.	 Ensuring that the values and principles
enshrined in the EU Treaties and in the
EU Charter of Fundamental Rights are
non-negotiable, irreversible and sinequa non conditions for EU membershipand accession. EU values must be fully
upheld in all Member States also so they
can act as an international standard andpole of attraction through diplomacy anddialogue. Enlargement of the EU should notundermine the EU acquis with relation to
fundamental values and citizens’ rights;46
2.	 Making European values tangible for
EU citizens, especially through moreinteractive and direct involvement. To
this end, the European citizenship should
be strengthened for instance through aEuropean citizenship statute providing
citizen-specific rights and freedoms, aswell as a statute for European cross-borderassociations and non-profit organisations.
European values should also be promoted
through an “onboarding package” providing
didactic elements and information material
to citizens. Finally, a European public sphereincluding audiovisual and online media
outlets should be developed by further
EU investment, existing EU media hubs
improved, and the over 500 local European
liaison offices further supported;47

68

3.	 The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights
should be made universally applicableand enforceable. In addition, annual
conferences on the rule of law (following
the Commission’ Rule of law Report)with delegations from all Member States
involving randomly selected and diverse
citizens, civil servants, parliamentarians,
local authorities, social partners and civilsociety should be organised. Organisations,
including civil society, which promote therule of law on the ground should also be
further supported;48
4.	 Effectively applying and evaluating thescope of the ‘Conditionality Regulation’and other rule of law instruments, andconsidering extensions to new areas
regardless of their relevance for the EU
budget. Any necessary legal avenues,
including Treaty changes, should beconsidered to punish breaches of the rule oflaw;495.	 Fostering educational and media
programmes that make EU values partof migrants’ integration process andencourage interactions between migrants
and EU citizens, with a view to ensuring theirsuccessful integration within EU societies
and to create awareness among EU citizens
about migration-related issues.50

Conference on the Future of Europe | REPORT ON THE FINAL OUTCOME

26. Proposal: Data Protection51
Objective: Guarantee a more protective and citizen-oriented data treatment policy, in particularby:
Measures:1.	 Implementing in full the existing data
privacy legislation and reviewing it toevaluate, if necessary, the establishmentof stronger enforcement mechanisms forentities processing personal data, currently
under competence of independent national
data protection authorities respecting
the principle of subsidiarity. Such entities
should be sanctioned in a stricter way
than in the current implementation of theregulation, in proportion to their annual
turnover (up to 4%), also possibly througha ban on their activities, and be subject toannual independent audit;52 53
2.	 Giving more effect to the principle of privacy
by design and default, e.g. by evaluating
and introducing easily understandable,
concise and user-friendly harmonised dataprocessing consent forms that clearly
indicate what is necessary and what not.
Users must be able to give or withdraw theirconsent to data processing in an easy, fastand permanent manner; 54 55
3.	 Evaluating and introducing clearer andmore protective rules about the processingof minors’ data, possibly in the EU GDPR,
including through the creation of a special
category for sensitive minors' data and theharmonization of age consent thresholdwithin the EU Member States. While thebulk of privacy rules implementation andawareness raising should remain within
Member States’ remit, including throughhigher investment and further resources
at national level, the EU should also
have stronger role e.g. by creating EU
competences on civic education concerning
data protection; 56
4.	 Better enforcing eligibility criteria for theEuropean and national Data Protection
Authorities, in terms of qualifications andsuitability, to ensure the highest level of
independence of their members.57 58

69

27. Proposal: Media, Fake news, Disinformation, Fact-checking,Cybersecurity59
Objective: Tackle disinformation by further promoting media independence and pluralism as wellas media literacy, in particular by:
Measures:1.	 Introducing a legislation addressing threats
to media independence through EU-wide
minimum standards, including a review ofthe media business model to ensure theintegrity and independence of the EU media
market; 60
2.	 Strictly enforcing EU competition rules in the
media sector, in order to prevent large media
monopolies and ensure media pluralism
and independence from undue political,
corporate and/or foreign interference.
Quality journalism, with established highethical and self-regulatory standards, should
also be promoted;61
3.	 Setting up an EU body in charge ofaddressing and tackling targeted
disinformation and interference, increasing
situational awareness and strengthening
fact-checking organisations as well as
independent media. ‘Hotlines’ and websites,such as Europe Direct, where citizens aswell as national media can request and be

70

provided with fact-checked information on
European politics and policies, should also
be further supported and promoted more
actively; 62 63
4.	 Promoting citizens’ media literacy andawareness about disinformation andunintentional dissemination of fake news,
including through mandatory school
trainings. Member States should also be
encouraged to provide adequate human andfinancial resources to this end; 64
5.	 Building on existing initiatives, such as theCode of Practice on Disinformation andthe European Digital Media Observatory(EDMO), to require online platforms to issue
clear statements about the algorithms theyuse (leaving users to decide whether theyconsent to be subjected to them) and thedisinformation risks users are exposed to,while safeguarding the right for legal freespeech and right to privacy. 65 66

Conference on the Future of Europe | REPORT ON THE FINAL OUTCOME

28. Proposal: Media, Fake news, Disinformation, Fact-checking,Cybersecurity (bis)Objective: A stronger role for the EU in countering cybersecurity threats, in particular by:
Measures:1.	 Reinforcing the EU agency for cybersecurity(ENISA) in order to further protect
individuals, organisations and institutions
against cybersecurity breaches and theuse of artificial intelligence for criminal
purposes. Data privacy and protection of
personal data should, at the same time, besafeguarded;67 68
2.	 Enhancing the coordination of national
cybersecurity authorities and making
additional efforts in ensuring that EU-level
rules are well implemented at national level.
69 70

29. Proposal: Anti-discrimination, Equality and Quality of life71
Objective: Take action to harmonize living conditions across the EU and improve EU citizens’socio-economic quality of life, in particular by:
Measures:1.	 In consultation with experts and social
partners, developing transparent quality oflife indicators including economic, socialand rule of law criteria , in order to establish
a clear and realistic timeline for raisingsocial standards and achieving a common
EU socio-economic structure, including
through implementation of the European
Pillar of Social Rights. These should be
integrated in the economic governanceframework and the European semester
process; 72 73
2.	 Increasing and facilitating direct public
investment in education, health, housing,physical infrastructures, care for the elderly
and people with disabilities. Additional
investment should also aim to guarantee
appropriate work/life balance for citizens.
Such investment should be carried out in a
fully transparent manner, allowing to trackthe entire process; 74
3.	 Encouraging taxing large corporations,fighting access to tax havens andeliminating their existence in the EU witha view to increasing public investmentin priority areas such as education(scholarships, Erasmus) and research.
EU-wide fight against tax evasion shouldbe also a way to raise funds for publicallyfinanced initiatives; 75 76
4.	 Providing EU-wide criteria on antidiscrimination in the labour market andincentivizing the hiring by private companiesof people that are usually most subject todiscrimination (e.g. youth, elders, women,
minorities), including through subsidies, and,as a second step, temporary quotas. Social
partners should be closely associated in thisregard. Discrimination outside the labour
market should also be prevented by law, andequality promoted; 77
5.	 Ensuring the creation and facilitation ofaffordable kindergartens, both public andin the private sector, and free childcare forthose in need of it. 78

71

30. Proposal: Animal rights, Agriculture79
Objective: Take decisive measures to promote and guarantee a more ecological and climateoriented agriculture, in particular by:
Measures:1.	 Setting detailed, measurable and timebound minimum criteria for the protectionof farming animals, with a view to ensuring
higher animal wellbeing standards in linewith the introduction of sustainability
objectives and on the basis of an integrated
food system approach; 80 81
2.	 Introducing financial penalties for negative
externalities of agricultural activity(e.g. greenhouse gas emissions, useof pesticides, water overuse, long-haultransport, etc.) based on their environmental

72

impact. Agricultural goods imported into
the EU should also be gauged on that basis,including through custom duties, as a way toiron out any competitive advantage arisingfrom lower environmental standards;82
3.	 Reducing subsidies for agricultural mass
production where it does not contribute toa sustainable transition and redirect thoseresources to support an environmentally
sustainable agriculture, whilst ensuring
affordable food products. 83 84

Conference on the Future of Europe | REPORT ON THE FINAL OUTCOME"Digital Transformation"
Europe must become a world leader and standard setter in digital transformation and chartera European way to build an ethical, human-centred, transparent and safe digital society. Europe
needs to be ambitious in its approach and fully use the opportunities digitalisation offers, while atthe same time managing the risks and challenges brought about by digitalisation. Digitalisation
touches on and must be given consideration in all areas of our society. Reference was made inthis context to the European Declaration on Digital Rights and Principles for the Digital Decade andsuggestions were made to consider a possible future Charter of Digital Rights.
The Russian aggression in Ukraine has only reinforced many of the points addressed in the
proposals, such as the need for digital sovereignty, an increased focus on cyber defence andprotection against disinformation. It has also made it evident that conflicts nowadays haveconsequences in the digital sphere, raising new issues like the long-term consequences of theseizure of personal information and the illegitimate use of that data in the future.

31. Proposal: Access to digital infrastructure85
Objective: Equal access to the internet is a fundamental right of every European citizen. We
propose that everyone in Europe should in practice have access to the internet and to digital
services, and that the sovereignty of the EU’s digital infrastructure is enhanced through:Measures:1.	 Investing in high-quality and innovative
European digital infrastructures (including
5G and 6G being developed in Europe);(ECP1 recommendation number 40 and 47,
Dutch NCP 1)
2.	 Ensuring fast, affordable, secure andstable internet access everywhere in theEU, including for roaming, with a priority tobring internet connection to ‘white zones/
dead zones’, rural areas and remote andperipheral regions in order to address thedigital divide between and within Member
States and make sure that no one gets left
behind; (ECP1 recommendation number 17,
47 and Dutch NCP 1)
3.	 Advance the deployment of digital andelectrical infrastructure both in public andprivate spaces to enable use of electric andautonomous vehicles; (WG debate)86

4.	 Taking measures to ensure there is fair andopen competition and prevent monopolies,
vendor lock-in, data concentration anddependence on third countries in relation
to infrastructure and services, improving
markets from the perspective of consumers;(ECP1 recommendation number 17)
5.	 Making children, families, elder people
as well as vulnerable groups, a priority
when it comes to access to internet andhardware, particularly in view of accessto education, public services, and health;(ECP1 recommendation number 17 and WG
debate)
6.	 Improving digital access to and accessibilityof essential public and private services for
citizens and businesses, for example whenit comes to administrative procedures, andensure inclusive access and support suchas through help desks in relation to these
services; (WG debate, Multilingual Digital
Platform)73

7.	 Harmonising high quality digital standards
and improving secure mobility of data tofacilitate cross-border interoperability; (WG
debate, Multilingual Digital Platform)
8.	 Considering environmental impacts ofdigital infrastructure and digitalisationin order to make digital transformation
sustainable and strive for a green digitalsociety. (WG debate, Multilingual Digital
Platform).

32. Proposal: Digital literacy and skills that empower people87
Objective: We propose that the EU ensures that all European citizens can benefit fromdigitalisation, by empowering them with the necessary digital skills and opportunities, through:Measures:1.	 Ensuring access to formal and non-formal
digital literacy and skills training andeducation, including in school curricula,during all stages of life by building on
existing initiatives at European level, withspecial focus on the inclusion of vulnerable
groups and elderly, enhancing digital skillsof children in a manner that is compatible
with their healthy development and tackling
digital inequalities, including the digital
gender gap; (ECP1 recommendation number
8, Italian NCP 5.2, WG debate)
2.	 Ensuring a healthy use of the internet byencouraging Member States to implement
digital skills training for all age-groups withstandard programmes and curricula set at
European level concerning e.g. the risks
and opportunities of the internet, online
rights of users and the netiquette; (ECP1
recommendation number 47, WG debate)
3.	 Taking all the necessary measures to ensurethat the digitalisation of society does notleave out older people and that technology
is accessible to them by fostering programs
and initiatives, for instance in the formof classes tailored to their needs. At

74

the same time it should be ensured thatessential services can also be accessedin person and by non-digital means; (ECP1
recommendation number 34 and 47)
4.	 The introduction of an EU certification
relating to digital skills in schools that will
prepare young people for the future job
market; (ECP1 recommendation number 8)
5.	 Develop training initiatives coordinated at
EU level to retrain and upskill workers toremain competitive in the job market, taking
especially also account of competences
and skills needed in small and medium
sized enterprises and to train digital experts;(ECP1 recommendation number 8 and WG
debate)
6.	 Awareness raising about existing digitalplatforms that connect people to employers
and help in finding jobs in the EU, such as
EURES; (ECP1 recommendation number 8)
7.	 Increasing investments and efforts to boost
digitalisation of education, including higher
education. (WG debate, Multilingual Digital
Platform)

Conference on the Future of Europe | REPORT ON THE FINAL OUTCOME

33. Proposal: Safe and trustworthy digital society – cyber security
and disinformation88
Objective: We propose that in order to have a safe, resilient and trustworthy digital society the EUshould ensure effective and swift implementation of existing legislation and have more powers toenhance cyber security, deal with illegal content and cyber criminality, counter and recover fromcyber threats from non-state actors and authoritarian states, and address disinformation through:Measures:1.	 Strengthening capacities of Europol/
European Cybercrime Center in terms offinancial and human resources, allowing fora more proactive approach in combatting
cybercrime and building up joint European
cyber defense capabilities against large
scale attacks, including through better
cooperation; (ECP1 recommendation
number 39, Lithuanian NCP 2.6, Dutch NCP
1, WG debate)
2.	 Taking necessary measures to beprepared for and to recover swiftly fromany large scale attacks and black-outs,
by for example ensuring the existenceof resilient infrastructure and alternative
communication channels; (WG debate)
3.	 Ensuring similar sanctions and quick andeffective enforcement in Member Statesin case of cybercrime through better
coordination of local, regional and national
cybersecurity centres and authorities; (ECP1
recommendation number 39)
4.	 Enhancing digital literacy and criticalthinking as a way to counter disinformation,
online threats and hate speech, as well as
dark patterns and preferential pricing; (WG
debate)

5.	 Countering disinformation by legislation andguidelines for online platforms and social
media companies to address disinformation
vulnerabilities and implementing
transparency measures, including forexample AI based algorithms that canhighlight the trustworthiness of information
on social media and new media, providing
the user with sources of fact-checked
information. When using algorithms,
human beings should remain in ultimate
control of decision making processes;(ECP1 recommendation number 46 and WG
debate)
6.	 Supporting digital platforms that provide formedia pluralism and provide resources andinitiatives to assess the trustworthiness andimpartiality of information from traditional
media (e.g. television, printed press, radio)
and other media in full respect of theprinciple of media freedom and provide
citizens with information about the qualityof the news. (ECP1 recommendation
number 46)

75

34. Proposal: Safe and trustworthy digital society – dataprotection89
Objective: We promote data sovereignty of individuals, better awareness and more efficient
implementation and enforcement of existing data protection rules (GDPR) to enhance personal
control of own data and limit misuse of data through:Measures:1.	 Better explaining data protection rules(GDPR), increasing transparency andimproving communication by creating
guidance on informed consent texts
that use simple and clear language
understandable by everyone, including morevisual ways to provide consent to data use,
accompanied by an information campaign
and ensuring needed skills for those
processing data and advising those whoneed assistance; (ECP1 recommendation
number 42, 45 and Dutch NCP 2)
2.	 Ensuring that the existing prohibition ofdefault consent on re-use or reselling ofdata is applied; (ECP1 recommendation
number 42)
3.	 Ensuring that requests of users forpermanent data deletion are followed
up on in a specific timeframe; (ECP1
recommendation number 42)
4.	 Providing clear and as short as possible
information to users on how and by whomdata will be used; (ECP1 recommendation
number 42)
5.	 Ensuring compliance of non-European
companies with European data protection
rules; (ECP1 recommendation number 42
and 43)76

6.	 Encouraging a certification system at EU
level that reflects compliance with GDPR
in an accessible, clear and simple way,and visible on websites and platforms
and should be issued by an independentcertifier at European level. It should not
create disproportionate burdens for small
and medium sized companies; (ECP1
recommendation number 44, WG debate)
7.	 Ensure that citizens are efficiently andswiftly helped when encountering issues
with opt outs or revoking consent. To thisend intrusive behavior needs to be better
defined and guidelines and mechanisms for
opt out and revoking data and to identify andsanction fraudsters should be developedat European level; (ECP1 recommendation
number 43, and WG debate)
8.	 Providing for sanctions including a fine
proportional to the companies’ turnoverand limitations of companies’ operations,such as imposing temporary or definitivebans on unwanted data processing andsupporting its enforcement by the European
Data Protection Supervisor and national
agencies. (ECP1 recommendation number
42, 43, and WG debate)Conference on the Future of Europe | REPORT ON THE FINAL OUTCOME

35. Proposal: Digital innovation to strengthen the social andsustainable economy90
Objective: We propose that the EU promotes digitalisation measures which strengthen theeconomy and the single market in a fair and sustainable way, increase European competitivenessin technology and innovation, enhance the digital single market for companies of all sizes andmake Europe a world leader in digital transformation and in human centric digitalisation, through:Measures:1.	 The introduction or reinforcement oflegislation that regulates (human-centric)‘smart working’, taking into account the
impact on workers’ physical and mental
health for example by ensuring a right todisconnect. A ‘human centric’ approachshould incorporate the ‘human in control’
principle; (ECP1 recommendation number 7
and WG debate)91
2.	 EU legislation that incentivises companies
to be socially responsible and to keep highquality ‘smart working’ jobs within Europe
and thus avoiding the relocation of suchjobs to lower cost countries. Incentives may
be financial and/or reputational and shouldtake into account internationally recognised
environmental, social and governance(ESG) criteria. To this end, the EU should set
up a working group composed of experts
from all relevant stakeholders to examineand strengthen this legislation; (ECP1
recommendation number 7)
3.	 Ensuring human oversight of decisionmaking processes involving artificial
intelligence in the work place andtransparency of algorithms used; giving
consideration to negative impacts ofillimited digital surveillance in the workplace;
informing and consulting workers prior
to the introduction of digital technologies
that impact working conditions; ensuringthat new forms of work, such as platform
work, respect worker rights and provide
appropriate working conditions; (WG
debate)4.	 Taking initiatives to help support remote
working, such as office spaces with accessto a reliable, fast internet connection anddigital training and providing resources forergonomic equipment for home offices;(ECP1 recommendation number 17 and WG
debate)
5.	 Introducing a publicly accessible digitalscore board, creating a ranking system thatindicates and compares the current levelof digitalisation of EU businesses; (German
NCP)
6.	 Achieving a strong and competitive digital
economy and spread the benefits of digitaltransformation equitably across Europe byfocusing on technology and innovation as
drivers of growth, by driving world classtransformative research and making room
for innovation ecosystems throughout
all regions by improving the operating
environment of SMEs and start-ups andfair access to funding and by doing awaywith legal or other burdens hindering crossboarder activities. (Italian NCP 1.3, WG
debate and Multilingual Digital Platform)
7.	 Building a data infrastructure based on
European values; implement the ‘digital first’and ‘once only’ principle and facilitate digitaland secure access to data for innovation
and business; encouraging the digitalisationof public services. (WG debate andMultilingual Digital Platform)
8.	 Fully utilize the potential of trustworthy andresponsible use of artificial intelligence,
use the potential of blockchain technology
and cloud services, setting safeguards
and standards that ensure transparency,
interoperability, generate trust, enhanceease of use and avoiding any discriminatory
or biased algorithms; (WG debate andMultilingual Digital Platform)

779.	 Promoting open source software and its use
in education and training and free access topublicly funded research and software; (WG
debate and Multilingual Digital Platform)
10.	Introducing a European common digital
identity to facilitate cross-border digitaltransactions and services, with a frameworkof European standards and guidelines
providing the necessary safeguards; (WG
debate and Multilingual Digital Platform)

78

11.	Assess the feasibility of digitalisation of
product information for consumption andnutrition products through a standardised
European app which would allow for moreuser-friendly access and would provide
additional information on products andproduction chain. (ECP1 recommendation
number 16)

Conference on the Future of Europe | REPORT ON THE FINAL OUTCOME"European democracy"
36. Proposal: Citizens information, participation and youth
Objective: Increase citizens’ participation and youth involvement in the democracy at theEuropean Union level to develop a ‘full civic experience’ for Europeans, ensure that their voice
is heard also in between elections, and that the participation is effective. That is why the mostappropriate form of participation should be considered for each topic, for example by:
1.	 Improving the effectiveness of existingand developing new citizens' participation
mechanisms, in line with EU acquis, by
better informing on them. Ideally, all theinformation about the participatory spaces
should be summarized92 in an integrated
official website with different features.93
A mechanism should be devised tomonitor policy and legislative initiatives,
which have emerged from participatory
democracy processes;94 Participatory
mechanisms should be inclusive and theircommunication able to reach a diverse
public. Attention should be paid to content
material, topics and moderators’ skills. They
should include an analysis on the impact ofthe policies discussed on, inter alia, womenand vulnerable persons.95
2.	 Increasing the frequency of online andoffline interactions between EU institutions
and its citizens through different means ofinteraction in order to ensure that citizens
can participate in the EU policy-making
process to voice their opinions and to get
feedback, and creating a charter for EU
officials on citizens’ participation;96
3.	 Offering a user-friendly digital platform
where citizens can share ideas, put
forward questions to the representativesof EU institutions and express their views
on important EU matters and legislative
proposals, in particular youth. The platform
should also allow for online polls;97
4.	 Improving and streamlining existingmechanisms at the European, national,
and local level, to make them more secure,accessible, visible and inclusive;98
5.	 Include organised civil society and regional

and local authorities and existing structures
such as the European Economic and Social
Committee (EESC) and the Committeeof the Regions (CoR)99 in the citizens’
participation process;100
6.	 Create a system of local EU Councillors, as away to reduce the distance between the EU
institutions and European citizens;101
7.	 Holding Citizens’ assemblies periodically,on the basis of legally binding EU law.
Participants must be selected randomly,
with representativeness criteria, andparticipation should be incentivized. Ifneeded, there will be support of experts
so that assembly members have enoughinformation for deliberation. If the outcomesare not taken on board by the institutions,this should be duly justified;102 Participationand prior involvement of citizens andcivil society is an important basis forpolitical decisions to be taken by elected
representatives. The EU is founded on
representative democracy: with European
elections, citizens give a clear mandate totheir representatives and indirectly express
themselves on EU policies;103
8.	 Provide enhanced structural support,
financial and otherwise, for civil society,especially for youth civil society and support
local authorities in setting up local youth
councils;104 this could be achieved througha specific pillar in the European Democracy
Action Plan for involvement of civil society
and social partners, and a dedicated civilsociety strategy;105
9.	 Introduce a “Youth-check” of legislation,
including both an impact assessment
and a consultation mechanism with79

representatives of young people, when
legislation is deemed to have an impact on
young people;106
10.	Strengthening cooperation between EU
legislators and civil society organisations toutilise the link between decision-makers andcitizens which civil society organisations
constitute;107
11.	Summarize elements of citizens’
participation in an EU Charter for the
involvement of citizens in EU-affairs.

37. Proposal: Citizens information, participation and youth (bis)Objective : Make the European Union more understandable and accessible and strengthen108 acommon European identity, in particular by:
1.	 Guaranteeing a minimum level of educationon the EU and especially its democratic
processes, including the history of European
integration and European citizenship.
People of all ages should be able to benefit
from such programmes, which should
be designed in an engaging and age
appropriate manner, for instance throughthe development of specific programmes
and educational material for children andschools;109 and civil society organisations
active in the field of non-formal education;110
2.	 Making reliable information on the EU
easily accessible in an inclusive mannerto all citizens. EU institutions should use
more accessible language and avoid using
bureaucratic terms in their communication,
while at the same time maintaining
the quality and expertise of the given
information and adapting the information
to different communication channels andaudience profiles.111 It should consider,for instance, creating a mobile application
where information concerning EU policies ispresented in a clear language.112 A special
effort should be made to reach out toyoung people through digital media, youth
movements and various ‘ambassadors’(organisations and individuals) explaining113
the EU project;114
3.	 Making a greater use of artificial
intelligence and translation technologies tocircumvent115 language barriers,116 ensuring
the accessibility and usability of all the80

digital tools for people with disabilities;117
4.	 Defending and supporting free, pluralistic
and independent media, and encouraging
media outlets, including public broadcasters
and public news agencies and European
media, to cover European affairs moreregularly while respecting their freedom
and independence, to ensure regularand comprehensive coverage across the
EU Member States;118 stepping up thefight against disinformation and foreigninterferences, and ensure the protection ofjournalists;119
5.	 Bringing Europe closer to citizens byimproving120 contact points and dedicatedhubs, or “Houses of Europe”, at local level toprovide resources, information and advice tocitizens on EU matters, as well as listen to
their concerns and engage in debates withassociations to help spread citizens’ views
at European level;121
6.	 Taking further steps to strengthen common
identity among Europeans, for instancethrough an EU fund for supporting online
and offline interactions (i.e. exchanges
programmes, panels, meetings) of both
short and longer duration between EU
citizens, creating common sports eventsand teams, or making Europe Day (9 May)an additional122 European public holiday for
all EU citizens.123

Conference on the Future of Europe | REPORT ON THE FINAL OUTCOME

38. Proposal: Democracy and elections
Objective: Strengthen European democracy by bolstering its foundations, boosting participationin European Parliament elections, fostering transnational debate on European issues andensuring a strong link between citizens and their elected representatives, in particular by:
1.	 Ensuring the protection of EU values laid
down in the treaties, including the rule oflaw and a strong social model,124 which areat the core of the European democracy. In
its relationship with external countries, theEuropean Union should firstly strengthencommon democratic values in its borders.
Only after achieving this, the European Union
can be an ambassador of our democraticmodel in the countries that are ready andwilling to implement it, through diplomacy
and dialogue;1252.	 Conceiving a EU wide referendum, to be
triggered by the European Parliament, in
exceptional cases on matters particularly
important to all European citizens;126
3.	 Amending EU electoral law to harmoniseelectoral conditions (voting age, election
date, requirements for electoral districts,
candidates, political parties and theirfinancing) for the European Parliamentelections, as well as moving towards votingfor Union-wide lists, or ‘transnational lists’,Xwith candidates from multiple Member
States, having taken127 into account theviews expressed among citizens across the
EU Member States on this issue.128
J

Some of the Members of the European
Parliament should be elected through aEuropean Union-wide list, the rest being
elected within the Members’ States;129

J

This reform should also aim at facilitating
digital voting possibilities130 andguaranteeing effective voting rights for
persons with disabilities,131

4.	 Strengthening links between citizens
and their elected representatives, taking
into account national specificities andcitizens’ desire to be closer to them andhave a feeling that their concerns lead to
specific action by elected representatives
in the European Parliament and national
parliaments.132 This is a universal issue andpeople of all ages should be engaged;133
J

J

J

J

European citizens should have a greater
say on who is elected as President of theCommission. This could be achieved either
by the direct election of the Commission
President134 or a lead candidate system;XIThe European Parliament should have theright of legislative initiative, in order topropose135 the topics to be discussed and,
subsequently, adopt the necessary texts
to follow up on the recommendations thatemerge from deliberations;136
European Parliament should decide on
the budget of the EU as it is the right ofparliaments at the national level;XII137
Political parties, civil society organisations,trade unions should be more lively andaccessible in order for citizens to be

X

European Commission representatives explained it should be implemented after a transition period, not to rush things through.

XIEP position: the lead candidate of the European political party that has obtained the highest share of votes at European elections, whois able to be supported by a majority of European Parliament’s Members, shall be elected President of the European Commission.
In case a coalition majority cannot be reached, the task should be assigned to the next lead candidate. To this end, European
political parties may nominate candidates to run for the Commission President’s post. Mr Paulo Rangel: in order to reinforce the leadcandidate process the positions of the European Parliament and the European Council should be reversed and this implies a treatychange: the Parliament would propose and the Council would approve the President of the Commission. MDP (Final Kantar Report:“Group of contributions discusses the election of the Commission President and appointment of commissioners, including theSpitzenkandidaten system). EYE, pag. 23: “The can-didates for the President of the Commission should not be elect¬ed in backroom
negotiations among winning parties. We should enforce the so-called “Spitzenkandidaten” system, where each party announces theircandidate for the President of the Commission before the election campaign in the case that this party gains a majority. Throughactive par¬ticipation in the campaign and direct interaction with the citizens, the fu¬ture President could become more closely
connected to the European population.” , and discussion WG.

XII he Council does not consider that this proposal is based on a recommendation from the citizens. It is therefore not in line with theTagreed methodology. See also Citizen component’s position expressed on page 40.

81

more involved and engaged in European
democracy.138 This would also contribute tostimulate the inclusion of EU topics in publicdebates via political parties, organised civilsociety and social partners, not only during
European elections but ahead of national,

82

regional and local elections as well;139
Democracy is embodied in the institutions
and in society at large, including in theworkplace through the role of social
partners.140

Conference on the Future of Europe | REPORT ON THE FINAL OUTCOME

39. Proposal: EU decision making process
Objective: Improve the EU’s decision-making process in order to ensure the EU’s capability to act,
while taking into account the interests of all Member States and guaranteeing a transparent andunderstandable process for the citizens, in particular by
1.	 Reassessing decision-making and voting
rules in the EU institutions, focusing on theissue of unanimous voting, which makes
it very difficult to reach agreement, while
ensuring a fair calculation of voting 'weights'
so that small countries' interests areprotected;141J

All issues decided by way of unanimity
should be decided by way of a qualified
majority. The only exceptions should be theadmission of new membership to the EU
and changes to the fundamental principlesof the EU as stated in Art. 2 TEU and theCharter of Fundamental Rights of theEuropean Union.142

2.	 Ensuring transparency of decision-making
by allowing independent citizens’ observers
to closely follow the decision-making
process, guaranteeing broader143 rightof access to documents, and develop on
this basis stronger links and an enhanced
dialogue between citizens and the EU
institutions;144
J

J

The EU needs to improve the transparencyof its decision-making process andinstitutions. For instance, the meetings of
the Council and the European Parliament,
including its votes, should be broadcasted
online in the same way. This would allow
interested citizens to follow EU policymaking, and hold politicians and policymakers accountable;145 the European
Parliament’s right of inquiry should be
strengthened;146
EU decision-making process should befurther developed so that national, regional,
local representatives, social partners andorganised civil society are more involved.147
Inter-parliamentary cooperation anddialogue should be strengthened. National
parliaments should also be closer involvedin the legislative procedure by the European
Parliament, e.g. by way of participation inhearings.148 In addition, a better involvementof the subnational level and of theCommittee of the Regions helps to takebetter into account the experiences gainedwith the implementation of EU law.149
3.	 Considering changing the names of EU
institutions to clarify their functions andrespective role in the EU decision-making
process for citizens;150
JJ

The EU decision making process
should be based on a clearer and more
understandable structure, resembling
national systems,151 explicitly reflecting
the division of competences between theEuropean institutions and the Member
States;152
For example, the Council of the EU could
be called the Senate of the EU and theEuropean Commission could be called the
Executive Commission of the EU.153

4.	 Enhance the European Union’s delivery
capacities in key important areas; 154
5.	 Ensure proper civil and social dialoguemechanisms and processes at every stepof the EU decision-making process, from
impact assessment to policy design andimplementation.155
6.	 Reform the way the European Union works
by better involving social partners andorganised civil society. Strengthening theexisting structures in order to better reflect
the needs and expectations of EU citizens
in the decision-making process, given theirimportance in the European democratic
life. Within this framework, enhance theinstitutional role of the EESC and empower it
as facilitator and guarantor of participatory
democracy activities like structured dialogue
with civil society organisations and Citizens’
panels. A lively civil society is crucial for the
democratic life of the European Union.156
7.	 Reopening the discussion about the83constitution, where applicable, to help usalign better on our values. A constitution
may help to be more precise as well as

involve citizens and agree on the rules of thedecision-making process;157

40. Proposal: Subsidiarity
1.	 Active subsidiarity and multilevelgovernance are key principles andfundamental features for the EU functioning
and democratic accountability;158

dialogue for regions as well as cities andmunicipalities, giving it an enhanced role160in the institutional architecture, if matterswith a territorial impact are concerned;161

2.	 The EU should review the mechanism
allowing national Parliaments to assess
whether new legislative proposals at theEuropean level do not intrude on theirlegal competences and to be granted thepossibility to suggest a legislative initiative
to the European level. Such mechanisms
should also be enlarged to all regional
parliaments within the EU that havelegislative power;159

4.	 Systematic use of a subsidiarity definitioncommonly agreed by all EU institutions
could help to clarify whether decisions haveto be taken at European, national or regional
level.162

3.	 Reform the Committee of Regions
to encompass adequate channels of

5.	 Social partners and organised civil society
should be better included in the decisionmaking process, given their importancein the European democratic life. A lively
society is crucial for the democratic life of
the European Union.163

We call on European Union institutions to make the conclusions of this working group a reality
and effectively implement them. This could be realised through the possibilities the Lisbon
Treaty already provides and, when necessary, by triggering the request of launching a European
Convention.164

84

Conference on the Future of Europe | REPORT ON THE FINAL OUTCOME"Migration"
41. Proposal: Legal Migration165
Objective: Strengthen the EU’s role on legal migration:
Measures:1.	 Launching a communication campaign ata cross European level in order for EURES(European Employment Services), theEU Immigration Portal and the EU Skills
Profile Tool for Third Country Nationals
to be better known by European citizens
and more frequently accessed andused by EU companies when recruiting(recommendation 6).
2.	 Creating a European entity for migrants'
access to the EU labour market oralternatively widening the powers of
the European Cooperation Network of
Employment Services (EURES) for example
improving the Talent Partnership projects(recommendation 7 and WG debate), withthe possibility of online matching of supply
and demand of skills, in the country ofdeparture, on the basis of assessment
criteria (recommendation 9 and WG debate).
The EU should encourage Member States
to simplify the process of reception andintegration of legal migrants and theiraccess to the EU labour market through abetter interoperability amongst the different
relevant administrations (WG debate).

3.	 Improving the functioning andimplementation of the "blue card" directive
to attract relevant qualifications that the EU
economy needs (recommendation 7 and WG
debate), taking into consideration the risk ofbrain drain (as in measure 1 proposal 42).
4.	 Promoting upwards convergence on
working conditions harmoniously
throughout the Union to combat inequalities
of working conditions and to ensure an
efficient EU labour migration policy andworkers’ rights. In this context, reinforce
the role of trade unions at national andtransnational level (recommendation 28 and
WG debate), in cooperation with employers’organisations (Plenary discussion).
5.	 Increasing efforts to inform and educate
citizens of the Member States about
the topics related to migration andintegration (recommendation 30 and LT
recommendation 9 and WG debate).

8542. Proposal: Irregular migration166
Objective: Strengthen the EU’s role in tackling all forms of irregular migration and strengthen theprotection of the European Union's external borders, while respecting human rights:
Measures:
1.	 Participating actively, for example throughPartnership Agreements, in the economic
and social development of countries
outside the European Union and from
where there is a high outflux of migrants
to tackle migration at its root causes,
including climate change. These actions
should be transparent and have tangible
results with measurable effects, whichshould be clearly communicated to EU
citizens (recommendation 27 and NL
recommendation 3 and WG debate).

2.	 Ensuring the protection of all externalborders, by improving transparency
and accountability of Frontex and bystrengthening its role (recommendation 8
and WG debate) and adapting EU legislation
to further address the present challengesof irregular migration, such as humansmuggling, human trafficking, sexual
exploitation, hybrid attacks by countries
instrumentalising migrants and violation ofhuman rights (LT recommendation 10 and
WG debate).

43. Proposal: irregular migration167 (bis)Objective: Apply common rules uniformly in all Member States on the first reception of migrants:
Measures:1.	 Developing EU-wide measures to guarantee
the safety and health of all migrants, inparticular pregnant women, children,
unaccompanied minors and all vulnerable
people (recommendations 10 and 38 and
WG debate).

86

2.	 Increasing EU financial, logistical andoperational support, also for local
authorities, regional governments and civilsociety organisations, for the managementof the first reception which would lead to apossible integration of refugees and regularmigrants in the EU or repatriation of irregularmigrants (recommendation 35 and WG
debate).

Conference on the Future of Europe | REPORT ON THE FINAL OUTCOME

44. Proposal: Asylum, integration168
Objective: Strengthen the EU’s role and reform the European asylum system based on theprinciples of solidarity and fair share of responsibility:
Measures:
1.	 Adopting EU common rules concerning
procedures for the examination of claims forinternational protection in Member States,
applied uniformly to all asylum seekers.
These procedures will have to be respectfulof human dignity and internationallaw (recommendation 29 and IT
recommendations 3.8 and 4.4 p.15 and WG
debate). As the reception of asylum seekers
involves different actors at a national level,
the EU should encourage Member States
to simplify and speed up this process
through a better interoperability amongst
the different relevant administrations, and to
set up a unique desk (one stop-shop or entry
point) for asylum seekers to streamline
national administrative procedures(recommendation 37 and WG debate).
2.	 Revisiting the Dublin system in order toguarantee solidarity and fair sharing of
responsibility including the redistribution of
migrants among Member States; additional
forms of support could also be envisaged(recommendations, 33, 36, 37, 40; LT

recommendations 2; IT recommendations
3.8 (p.15) and NL recommendation 2 andWG debate and Plenary discussion).
3.	 Enhance the minimum standards forthe reception of asylum seekers laid
down in directive 2013/33/EU throughstronger legislative measures to improve
reception facilities and accommodation.
(ECP recommendation 31 and IT
recommendations 5.6 (p.11) and WG
debate)
4.	 Special attention should be given to
pregnant women, children, and particularly
unaccompanied minors (recommendation
38 and WG debate).
5.	 Strengthening and increasing financial andhuman resources as well as management
capacities of the EU Agency for Asylum
to coordinate and manage the relocationof asylum seekers within the EU Member
States to achieve a fair distribution(recommendations 36, 37 and LT
recommendation 3 and WG debate).

45. Proposal: Asylum, integration169 (bis)Objective: Improve integration policies in all Member States:
Measures:1.	 EU ensures, also with the involvementof local and regional authorities and thecontribution of civil society organisations,that every asylum seeker and refugee,during the process of the residence
procedure, attends language, integration
courses, professional training, andactivities (recommendation 32 and FR
recommendation 13 and WG debate andPlenary discussion).
2.	 Asylum seekers with relevant qualifications
should be given access to the labour
market, when possible with the aim tostrengthen their self-reliance, all over the EU(recommendation 7 and WG debate).

87

"Education, culture, youth and sport"
46. Proposal: Education
Objective: The EU and its Member states should seek to establish by 2025 an inclusive European
Education Area within which all citizens have equal access to quality education and life-longlearning, including those in rural and remote areas. To this aim, the European Union and its
Member states should in particular:
Measures:1.	 Coordinate the level of all different
education programmes in the European
Union with acceptance of the national,
regional and local contents, and create
closer links between the education systems,
including via organising equivalence ofdiplomas.170 A certified minimum standardof education in core subjects should
be adopted commencing in primaryschool.171 Shared competences in thefield of education should be introduced,
at a minimum in the field of citizenshipeducation and the exercise of thatcompetence by the EU shall not resultin Member States being prevented fromexercising theirs. Professional degrees andtraining should be validated and mutually
recognised in all EU Member States.172 The
European Union should also champion therecognition of non-formal and informal
learning173 and the youth organisations
that provide it, as well as learning periods
abroad.
2.	 Develop future-proof education and life-longlearning in Europe -in accordance with theright to free training in the workplace for allfocusing on the following subjects:− Civic education about democratic
processes, as well as EU values and historyof Europe.174 This should be developed
as a common module to be taught in all
Member States. Economic literacy should
also be improved as an aspect of better
understanding the European integration
process.175

88− Digital skills.176− STEAM177− Entrepreneurship and research− Improving critical thinking. Media
literacy should be enhanced in order toensure online safety, and empower citizensin every Member State to independently
evaluate whether a piece of information istrustworthy or not, and identify fake news,
but at the same time to benefit from theopportunities that the Internet offers. Thisshould be implemented in basic education
as a specific class and also be offered inother public spaces for citizens of all ages
under the guidance of an EU-establisheddedicated organisation, drawing on bestpractices across the Member States.
The EU should ensure that the dedicatedfunding is used by the Member States forthe intended purposes.178− Integrating soft skills in all the courses in
the curricula in schools. By soft skills one
means: listening to each other, encouraging
dialogue, resilience, understanding,respect and appreciation for others, criticalthinking, self-study, remaining curious,
result-oriented.179− Enabling everyone to learn about
environmental sustainability and its
connection to health. Biodiversity should
be made as a mandatory subject at school.
This education should start at school withspecific subjects addressing all ecologicalissues, and include field trips to show
relevant real life examples, that should beConference on the Future of Europe | REPORT ON THE FINAL OUTCOME

supported by a funding programme.180− Combating bullying and racism.
3.	 Support the training of teachers181, tolearn from best practices and use up todate innovative and creative teaching
techniques that reflect the evolution ofteaching methods, including practicalactivities, building also on the lessons tobe drawn from the COVID-19 pandemic andother kinds of crises, as well as promote
opportunities for mobility.182
4.	 In order to meet the educational needs of
all children and families, prioritise accessto hardware and efficient broadband
connectivity.183

5.	 Set up an information platform for an
EU-wide exchange of knowledge andexperiences, pooling information ontransnational education and training
courses in the EU, showcasing bestpractice examples and offering citizens
the opportunity to present new ideas forcross-border exchange. It should offer
teaching material about climate change,sustainability, environmental issues anddigitisation and provide information on
existing specialised forums on key topics.184- It could be made available together witha funding program to support the usage of,and implementation, of the information on
the platform.

47. Proposal: European youth issues
Objective: The EU and its Member States have to focus on the specific needs of young people
across all relevant policies, including the European Union’s regional policy in order to offer them
the best possible conditions for study and work and starting an independent life, while engaging
them in the democratic life and decision making processes, including at European level. Youthorganisations have a crucial role to play. To achieve this objective, we propose to:
Measures:1.	 Offer young people more possibilities
and champion existing programmes forparticipation and representation in the
democratic and decision making processes
at all levels, including by organising citizens'
panels also with children (e.g. 10 to 16 years
old) in schools. European representatives
could meet schoolchildren in their schools
in order to strengthen citizens’ closeness toand understanding of Europe from an earlyage.185 To ensure that all policy making at
EU level is seen through a youth lens, an EU‘Youth Test’ should be developed so that
all new legislation and policy is subject
to a youth focused impact assessment,
including a consultation with young people.
2.	 Voting at European Parliament elections
from the age of 16 should be discussed andconsidered, in parallel to an enhancementof citizenship education and education
about the EU. National political parties

should ensure that younger candidates arealso put on their lists for the elections to theEuropean Parliament.186
3.	 To better prepare young people for entering
working life, give high school students (from12 years old on) the opportunity to have highquality observatory visits in profit and nonprofit organisations, in close cooperation
between schools, local governments and theorganisations and companies concerned,.187
These visits should be seen as part ofa broader career guidance process informal education to allow young people
to have a first contact with a professional
work environment so they can obtain aprofessional orientation and or consider
becoming an entrepreneur.
4.	 More significant EU financing under
NextGenerationEU should also be devoted
to the implementation of the reinforced
European Youth Guarantee, including more89

commitment, better outreach, improvementsin the quality of the offer, funding and action
by all Member States, and the relevant
levels of authorities involved . Given youth
organisations expertise in the needs ofyoung people, national governments shouldcollaborate in close dialogue with theseorganisations to ensure the most effective
delivery of the Guarantee.
5.	 Ensure that young people’s internships
and jobs adhere to quality standards,
including on remuneration, putting an end
to youth minimum wages and any otherdiscriminatory labour law provisions specificto young people, as well as banning througha legal instrument unpaid internships on
the labour market and outside formal
education.188

7.	 Specific policies are needed to avoid
a brain drain from some regions andcountries within the EU due to insufficient
opportunities being available for young
people, while making Europe more attractive
to prevent the drain of European talents andworkforce to third countries to prevent thehampering of territorial cohesion particularly
as regards those areas which have an acuteloss of young talent including through EU
funding.190
8.	 In case of a serious crisis (e.g. health crisis,war) well prepared plans with detailed
scenarios should be ready to deploy in a
flexible way to minimise the impact on
young people in their studies, vocational
training, transition to the labour market andmental wellbeing.191

6.	 Ensure reasonable living standards foryoung people including access to social
protection and housing. Young people
should have access to social protection,equal to other age groups. Access toaffordable housing for young people,
including through EU funding, should also be
facilitated.189

48. Proposal: Culture and exchanges
Objective: In order to promote a culture of exchange and foster European identity and European
diversity across different areas, the Member States, with the support of the European Union,
should:192
Measures:
1.	 Promote European exchanges in different
fields, both physically and digitally, including
educational exchanges, twinning, traveland professional mobility (including forteachers and local elected politicians). Suchexchanges should be made accessible
across Member States for all, regardlessof their age, level of education, backgroundand financial means.193 With this overall
aim, the EU should inter alia strengthen
existing EU level exchange and mobility
programmes, such as the European
Solidarity Corps, Erasmus+ and DiscoverEU,

90

and ensure more widespread and diverse
participation in these programmes andconsider adding also new elements, suchas an additional objective of civic service
fostered through volunteering (for theEuropean Solidarity Corps) and ‘cultural
passes’ (for DiscoverEU). The local andregional authorities, under the auspices of
the Committee of the Regions have a keyrole to play in this matter.
2.	 Promote multilingualism as a bridge toother cultures from an early age. Minority

Conference on the Future of Europe | REPORT ON THE FINAL OUTCOME

and regional languages require additional
protection, taking note of the Council ofEurope Convention on Minority Languages
and the Framework Convention for theProtection of National Minorities. The EUshould consider setting up an institution
promoting language diversity at theEuropean level. From elementary school
onwards, it should be mandatory thatchildren reach competence in an active EU
language other than their own to the highest
possible level. In order to facilitate the abilityof European citizens to communicate withwider groups of their fellow Europeans
and as a factor of European cohesion,
learning of the language of the immediateneighbouring EU Member States in crossborder areas and reaching a certifiable
standard in English should be encouraged
by Member States.194
3.	 Create opportunities to share European
cultures, bring people together and movethem towards a common European identity,

for instance through events and gatherings
involving all target groups and taking
place in various locations. Some specificexamples include holding World Art days195
a European Expo including educational
events, or making Europe Day (9 May) aEuropean public holiday for all EU citizens.196
4.	 Protect European cultural heritage andculture197, including through recognisinglocal and regional cultural and production
peculiarities198, new initiatives to safeguardand celebrate it, mobility to promote cultural
heritage exchange, and the promotionof existing measures such as Creative
Europe, the New European Bauhaus, Sister
City Programmes and European Capitalsof Culture in line with the Sustainable
Development Goals.
5.	 Take steps to ensure that culturalprofessionals are sufficiently protected at
EU level, particularly in any future crises, byadopting a legal statute at European level.

49. Proposal: Sport
Objective: Sport is crucial for our societies - in order to defend our values, ensure healthy lifestyleand ageing, promote a culture of exchanges and also celebrate the diversity of European heritage.
For this reason, the Member States, with the support of the European Union, should aim to:
Measures:
1.	 Put emphasis on values, especially genderequality, fairness and inclusiveness thatcan be concretely reflected through sport
practice throughout education.
2.	 Raise awareness about health benefits ofsport and physical activity.199
3.	 Include sport activities among EU levelexchange and mobility programmes.200
4.	 Improve attention given not just to
professional and commercial sports but
also to local and traditional sport, as an
aspect of European Cultural Diversity andcultural heritage promotion, and champion
support for sports in a non-professionalsetting.

5.	 At the same time, encourage theshowcasing of European identity byorganising more inter-EU sports events,
creating EU sports teams, or displaying
EU flags or symbols at European sporting
events.
6.	 Invest more in communication efforts suchas the European Week of Sports to ensurethat citizens from across the EU can benefit
from flagship opportunities together.

91

Finalconsiderationsof the Executive
Board

Conference on the Future of Europe | REPORT ON THE FINAL OUTCOME

The overarching purpose of the Conference on
the Future of Europe was to make the European
Union fit for present and future challenges
by providing an opportunity for citizens toarticulate their concerns and ambitions and,
together with representatives of the three
Institutions, national parliaments and otherstakeholders, to provide guidance for the future.
To achieve this objective, the Conference had
to be a citizens-focused, bottom-up exercise,creating a new space to debate Europe’s
challenges and priorities and to develop an
overview of what citizens expect from theEuropean Union.
The Conference has indeed played this role.
European citizens from all walks of life andcorners of the Union participated in the
Conference and produced Citizens’ Panels’
recommendations as well as, together withthe subsequent Plenary including members
from the European Parliament, the Council,
and the European Commission, as well as
representatives from all national parliaments,
the Committee of the Regions, regional
and local elected representatives, theEuropean Economic and Social Committee,social partners, civil society and other key
stakeholders, proposals for the future ofEurope. The tools and methodology developed
for this process provided a unique set ofresources that could form the basis for
future exercises in citizen engagement anddeliberative democracy at EU level.
Through a multitude of events and debates
organised across the Union, the interactive

multilingual digital platform, the European andNational Citizens’ Panels, and the Conference
Plenary, the Conference has now delivered a
final report, including an overview of this yearlong intensive work, as well as the proposals
formulated by the Plenary for the future ofEurope. These proposals make very clear that
the EU must act to achieve the green and digitaltransitions, strengthen Europe’s resilienceand its social contract, while addressing
inequalities and ensuring that the European
Union is a fair, sustainable, innovative andcompetitive economy that leaves no one
behind. The geopolitical developments during
the Conference, and especially the Russian warof aggression against Ukraine, have also shownthat the EU needs to be more assertive, taking aleading global role in promoting its values andstandards in a world increasingly in turmoil.
The Conference has provided a clear directionin these areas and the three EU Institutions
now need to examine how to follow up on theconcerns, ambitions, and ideas expressed. The
next step in this process is to come up withconcrete EU action building on the outcome of
the Conference, contained in this final report.
EU institutions will now therefore examine
this report and its follow-up, each within
the framework of their competences and inaccordance with the Treaties. A feedback event
will take place to update citizens in autumn
2022 on how the Institutions will live up to theircommitment to ensure that European citizens
are listened to and hold, in their hands, thefuture of Europe.

93Endnotes
1

Citizens’ recommendations on which the proposal is mainly based: #3, #17, #18, #19

2# = European Citizens’ Panel’s Recommendation

3

Citizens’ recommendations on which the proposal is mainly based: #39, #40, #41, #42, #43, #49, NL1, NL2, #51

4

National Citizens’ Panel’s Recommendation

5

Citizens’ recommendations on which the proposal is mainly based: #44, #45, #46, #47, #50

6

Citizens’ recommendations on which the proposal is mainly based: #39, #40, #45, #48, #49, #50, #51, FRchange8, FRwish11, NL2, NL3

Dutch citizens’ panel recommendations differ from the European citizen’s panel recommendations, stating that health and healthcare
should be primarily a national responsibility [NL3].	

7

8

Citizens’ recommendations on which the proposal is mainly based: European Citizens’ Panel 1: 9, 10, 11, 12, 14; The Netherlands: 1;
Italy: 1.1,; Lithuania: 3, 8.	

9Citizens’ recommendations on which the proposal is mainly based: European Citizens’ Panel 1: 10, 11 & 14; Germany: 2.1, 2.2; The
Netherlands: 1, 2; France: 3, 9; Italy: 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 4.a.2, 6.1; Lithuania: 1, 7.	

10

Citizens’ recommendations on which the proposal is mainly based: European Citizens’ Panel 1: 1, 2, 7, 28, 30; Germany: 4.1, 4.2; The
Netherlands: 4; France: 6; Italy: 5.a.1, 5.a.4, 6.1, 6.2.

11

Citizens’ recommendations on which the proposal is mainly based: European Citizens’ Panel 1: 19, 20, 21, 25; Italy: 4.a.1.

12

Citizens’ recommendations on which the proposal is mainly based: European Citizens’ Panel 1: 21, 22, 23, 26, 27; Italy: 5.a.1.
Citizens’ recommendations on which the proposal is mainly based: European Citizens’ Panel 1: 13, 31; The Netherlands: 2.3; Italy:
4.b.3, 4.b.6; Lithuania: 9, 10.	

13 

94

14

From debates in Working Group and Plenary

15

See Recommendation 1 from ECP4, Recommendation 2 from NCP Germany Panel 1 “EU in the World”, and NCP Italy Cluster 2, Rec1,
further developed in WG

16

See Recommendation 4 from ECP4 and NCP Italy Cluster 2, Recs 5 and 6, further developed in WG

17

See Digital Platform and NCP Italy Cluster 2, Recs 2 and 3, further developed in WG

18

See Recommendation 14 from ECP4, further developed in WG

19

See Recommendation 2 from ECP4 and NCP Italy Cluster 2, Rec4, further developed in WG

20

See Recommendation 17 from ECP4 and NCP Italy Cluster 2, Rec4, further developed in WG

21

See Recommendation 1 NCP Germany, Panel 1 “EU in the World”, further developed in WG

22

See Recommendation 3 from ECP4, further developed in WG

23

See Recommendation 11 from ECP4, further developed in WG

24

See Recommendation 13 from ECP4, further developed in WG

25

See Recommendation 15 from ECP4, further developed in WG

26

See Recommendation 16 from ECP4, further developed in WG

27

See Recommendation 12 from ECP4, further developed in WG

28

See Recommendation 21 from ECP4, further developed in WG

29

See Digital Platform, further developed in WG

30

See Digital Platform, further developed in WG

31

See Recommendation 26 from ECP4, further developed in WG

32

See Recommendation 18 from ECP4, further developed in WG

33

See Recommendation 19 from ECP4, further developed in WG

34

See Recommendation 19 from ECP4, further developed in WG

35

See Recommendation 25 from ECP436

From debate in Working Group and Plenary

37

See Change 2 from the French national panel/events

38

See Recommendation 20 from ECP4 and NCP Italy Cluster 2, Rec 7, further developed in WG

39

See Change 2 from French National Citizens’ Panel40

See Recommendation 24 from ECP4 and NCP Italy Cluster 2, Rec 7, further developed in WG

41

See Recommendation 22 from ECP4, further developed in WG

Conference on the Future of Europe | REPORT ON THE FINAL OUTCOME

42

See Recommendation 1 on EU in World from Dutch National Citizens’ Panel, further developed in WG

43

See Digital Platform and Plenary Debates, further developed in WG

44

See Digital Platform, further developed in WG

45

Citizens’ recommendations on which the proposal is mainly based: European Citizens’ Panel 2 (ECP2): 10, 11, 14, 30; Belgium National
Citizens’ Panel (NCP): 1.3.1, 1.4.2, 1.4.3; Germany NCP: 5.1, 5.2; The Netherlands NCP: 1.2.	

46

ECP2 recommendation number 14. Belgian NCP recommendation number 1.3.1, 1.4.2, 1.4.3. Dutch NCP recommendation 1.2.	

47

ECP2 recommendation number 11. German NCP recommendation number 5.1, 5.2. WG debate.	

48

ECP2 recommendation number 11. WG debate. Plenary debate.	

49

ECP2 recommendation number 10.

50

ECP2 recommendation number 30

51

Citizens’ recommendations on which the proposal is mainly based: ECP2: 7, 8, 9; The Netherlands NCP: 1.3, 4.3.	

52

ECP2 recommendation number 7. WG debate.	

53

Issue also covered by the Working Group on Digital Transformation

54

ECP2 recommendation number 9

55

Issue also covered by the Working Group on Digital Transformation

56

ECP2 recommendation number 8. Dutch NCP recommendation number 1.3, 4.3.	

57

ECP2 recommendation number 7, 8

58

Issue also covered by the Working Group on Digital Transformation

59

Citizens’ recommendations on which the proposal is mainly based: ECP2: 5, 12, 13, 17, 28; Belgium NCP: 1.5.1, 2.1.1 up to 2.4.3; The
Netherlands NCP: 3.1

60

ECP2 recommendation number 5. Belgian NCP recommendation number 2.1.1. Dutch NCP recommendation 3.1

61

ECP2 recommendation number 12. Belgian NCP recommendation 2.1.4.	

62

ECP2 recommendation number 17 and 28. Belgian NCP recommendation number 1.5.1, 2.1.3, 2.2.1., 2.2.2

63

Issue also covered by the Working Group on Digital Transformation

64

ECP2 recommendation number 5 and 28. Belgian NCP recommendation 2.3.2, 2.3.3

65

ECP 2 recommendation number 28. Belgian NPC recommendation 2.3.1., 2.4.1., 2.4.2

66

Issue also covered by the Working Group on Digital Transformation

67

ECP2 recommendation number 13

68

Issue also covered by the Working Group on Digital Transformation

69

ECP2 recommendation number 13

70

Issue also covered by the Working Group on Digital Transformation

71

Citizens’ recommendations on which the proposal is mainly based: ECP2: 1, 2, 21, 22, 23; The Netherlands NCP: 1.1

72

ECP2 recommendation number 22. WG debate

73

Issue also covered by the Working Group on Stronger economy, social justice and jobs

74

ECP2 recommendation number 21. Dutch NCP recommendation number 1.1.	

75

ECP2 recommendation number 23

76

Issue also covered by the Working Group on Stronger economy, social justice and jobs

77

ECP2 recommendation number 1. WG debate

78

ECP2 recommendation number 2. WG debate

79

Citizens’ recommendations on which the proposal is mainly based: ECP2: 3, 4, 6

80

ECP2 recommendation number 3

81

Issue also covered by the Working Group on Climate change and the environment

82

ECP2 recommendation number 4

83

ECP2 recommendation number 6

84

Issue also covered by the Working Group on Climate change and the environment

85

Citizens’ recommendations on which the proposal is mainly based: European Citizens’ Panel 1 (ECP1): 17, 40, 47; National Citizens
Panels (NCP) The Netherlands 1

95

96

86

See link to ECP 3, Rec 38 in relation to infrastructure for electrical vehicles

87

Citizens’ recommendations on which the proposal is mainly based: European Citizens’ Panel 1 (ECP1): 8, 34, 47, National Citizens
Panels (NCP) Italy 5.2

88Citizens’ recommendations on which the proposal is mainly based: European Citizens’ Panel 1 (ECP1): 39, 46, National Citizens Panels(NCP) Lithuania 2.6, The Netherlands 1

89

National Citizens Panels (NCP) The Netherlands 2

90

Citizens’ recommendations on which the proposal is mainly based: European Citizens’ Panel 1 (ECP1): 7, 16, 17, National Citizens
Panels (NCP) Germany and Italy 1.3

91

See link with Working Group on Stronger Economy

92

Changes WG 3A and 3B

93

ECP2 Recommendation 32, 37, BE, FR and NL National Panels

94

FR National Panel

95

Change WG 8, shorter formulation

96

ECP2 Recommendation 29

97

ECP2 Recommendation 19, 32, BE, FR National Panels and DK representative of national events98

BE National panel

99

Change WG 7B

100

BE National panel

101

Final Kantar Report, pag. 85

102

ECP2 Recommendation 39, BE National Panel 3

103

Change WG 10A, shorter formulation

104

DK representative of national events

105

Change WG 54C

106

DK representative of national events

107

DK representative of national events

108

Change WG 15 A, compromise formulation

109

ECP2 Recommendation 24, 36, 38, BE National Panel

110

Change WG 16 C

111

ECP2 33, BE FR and NL National panels)

112

ECP2 26

113

Change WG 17

114

BE National Panel

115

Change WG 18A

116

ECP2 Recommendation 25

117

Change WG 18B

118

ECP2 Recommendation 31, BE and NL National Panels

119

Changes 19A to 19A, reformulation to fit text

120

Change WG 21, compromise121

BE and FR National Panels

122

Change WG 23B

123

ECP2 Recommendation 27, BE National Panel

124

Change WG 25C125

ECP Recommendations 14

126

ECP Recommendation 18; N.B. citizens representatives explained it should be carefully implemented and used

127

Changes WG 28 E,G,H

128

ECP2 Recommendation 16, NL National Panel 20, National Panel was divided on “ transnational lists”

129

Based on ECP2 Recommendation 16, Discussion in WG

Conference on the Future of Europe | REPORT ON THE FINAL OUTCOME

130

ECP2 Recommendation 19 and MDP

131

European Economic and Social Committee

132

Change WG 32B

133

ECP2 Recommendation 36, BE and FR National Panels

134

FR National Panel (“electing the President of the European Commission by universal suffrage”), MDP (Final Kantar Report: Group ofcontributions discusses the direct election of the Commission President by citizens)

135

Change WG 34C

136

BE National Panel (3.2), FR National Panel (11),- MDP (Final Kantar Report: “Regarding the European Parliament, contributors mostoften call for it to be granted real powers of legislative initiative”)

137

MDP (Final Kantar Report: “Regarding the European Parliament, (…) There are also calls for it to be granted fiscal powers”)

138

MDP (Final Kantar Report: “According to another contribution, parties should become more accessible to people from different
cultural or socioeconomic backgrounds”)

139

Committee of the Regions in WG

140

Change WG 38, compromise formulation

141

ECP2 Recommendation 20

142

ECP4 Recommendation 21

143

Change WG 43

144

ECP2 Recommendation 34, NL National Panel

145

Discussion in WG based ECP2 Recommendation 34, NL National Panel, MPD (Final Kantar Report: “Increased transparency andgreater involvement of the citizens is supported” in EU decision-making process is also supported

146

Change WG 44A.	

147

WG discussion(presentation by National Parliaments and Committee of the Regions)

148

Change WG 45C

149

Change WG 46B

150

ECP2 Recommendation 15

151

Discussion WG based on need expressed in ECP2 15 to “clarify EU institutions functions”, MDP (Final Kantar Report: “There are also(…) suggestions to deepen the bicameral legislature in the EU”

152

Change WG 48B

153

ECP2 recommendation 15

154

Discussions in the WG

155

Change WG 52A

156

EESC, compromise formulation

157

ECP Recommendation 35, FR National Panel, plus changes WG combined 51C,D

158

Change WG 53D

159

Discussion in WG, National Parliaments

160

Discussion in WG, CoR and EESC; Final Kantar Report, pag. 85

161

Change WG 58B

162

Change WG 59B

163

Discussion in the WG, Social partners and several other members

164

Change WG 63A, compromise formulation

165

Citizens’ recommendations in which the proposal is mainly based: European Citizens’ Panel 4 (ECP4) 6, 7, 9, 28, 30; Lithuania 9166

Citizens’ recommendations on which the proposal is mainly based : European Citizens’ Panel 4 (ECP 4) 8, 27, Lithuania 10, The
Netherlands 3

167

Citizens’ recommendations on which the proposal is mainly based: European Citizens’ Panel 4 (ECP 4) 10, 35, 38

168

Citizens’ recommendations on which the proposal is mainly based: European Citizens’ Panel 4 (ECP 4) 29, 31, 33, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40;
Italy 3.8 and 4.4 (p.15) and 5.6 (p.11), Lithuania 2 and 3, The Netherlands 1 and 2.	

169

Citizens’ recommendations on which the proposal is mainly based: European Citizens’ Panel 4 (ECP 4) 7 and 32, France Change 13.

170

French NCP Change 6.	

171

ECP 1 recommendation no 37.	

97

98

172

ECP recommendations no 3. French NCP Change 6.	

173

ECP 1 recommendation no 41.	

174

Covered in more detail by WG on European democracy. See ECP 2 recommendation no 24, Belgian NCP recommendation no 1.1, 1.2
and 2.12 and Italian NCP recommendation on “inclusion policies”.	

175

Italian NCP recommendation-on “inclusion policies”.	

176

Covered in more detail by WG on Digital Transformation. See ECP 1 recommendations no 8 and 34.	

177

Italian NCP recommendation on “Encouraging young people to study science subjects”.	

178

ECP 1 recommendations no 33 and 48. Covered also by WG on Digital Transformation. See ECP 1 recommendation no 47 on healthy
use of internet.	

179

ECP 1 recommendation no 5.	

180

ECP 1 recommendation no 15 and 18.	

181

Italian NCP recommendation on “Europe in the world”

182

ECP 1 recommendations no 18 and 41 and Italian NCP recommendation on 'Investing in the training of trainers'.	

183

ECP 1 recommendation no 17, allocated as a whole to the WG on digital.	

184

ECP 1 recommendation no 15. German NCP recommendation on 'Information platform for an EU-wide exchange of knowledge andexperiences'.	

185

Belgian NCP, recommendations 6.1. French NCP, Change 7.	

186

Belgian NCP, recommendation 7.2.	

187

ECP 1 recommendation no 4.	

188Suggestion to complement ECP 1 recommendations no 1 and 30 covered by the WG on Stronger Economy, Social Justice andJobs.	

189

Suggestion to complement ECP 1 recommendation no 25 covered by the WG on Stronger Economy, Social Justice and Jobs.	

190

ECP 4 recommendation no 28. Dutch NCP (‘Our vision of culture, youth and sport’), recommendation no 1. French NCP, Change 6.	

191

ECP 1 recommendation no 6.	

192

Dutch NCP (‘Our vision of culture, youth and sport’), recommendation no 2.	

193

ECP 1 recommendation no 36. French NCP, Change 6. Belgian NCP, recommendations no 2.10 and 2.11. German NCP, ‘Creating moreexchange opportunities for students in Europe’. Dutch NCP (‘Our vision of culture, youth and sport’), recommendations no 1 and 3.
Italian NCP, recommendation on 'Acting as a confluence between East and West, promoting cultural exchanges and joint cultural
initiatives'

194

ECP 1 recommendations no 32 and 38. Dutch NCP (‘Our vision of culture, youth and sport’), recommendation no 3

195

Italian NCP recommendation on “Europe in the World"196

French NCP, Change 7. Belgian NCP, recommendations no 2.5, 6.1 and 8.7. Italian NCP, recommendation on 'Enhancement ofEuropean values, cultural traits as well as regional specificities'.		

197

Dutch NCP (‘Our vision of culture, youth and sport’), recommendation no 2.	

198

Italian NCP recommendation on “overcoming the 20th century production model”

199

ECP 1 recommendation no 29.

200

ECP 1 recommendation no 36.

Conference on the Future of Europe | REPORT ON THE FINAL OUTCOME

99

Annexes

ANNEXES
I - Recommendations of the four European Citizens’ Panels

Conference on the
Future of Europe
European Citizens’ Panel 1: “Stronger economy,social justice and jobs / Education, culture,
youth and sport / Digital transformation”
Recommendations

101

Conference on the Future of Europe
European Citizens’ Panel 1:“Stronger economy, social justice and jobs / Education, culture, youth and sport /Digital transformation”
RECOMMENDATIONS ADOPTED BY THE PANEL (TO BE TAKEN FORWARD TO THE
PLENARY)

Stream 1: Working in Europe
Substream 1.1 Labour Market
1. We recommend the introduction of a minimum wage to ensure similar quality ofliving across all Member States. We acknowledge the existing efforts in the EU
directive COM(2020) 682 to standardise the way of living. The minimum wage needs
to secure a minimum net income to achieve an essential objective: everyone in needshould have more money to spend. The minimum wage should take into
consideration the following aspects:● The EU should ensure the effective implementation because currently not all
Member States apply worker protection adequately.
● Special attention should be put on monitoring and tracking improvement in
the standard of living.
● The minimum wage must factor in the purchasing power in different
countries. A regular review cycle is necessary to adjust for the changing costof living (e.g. by inflation).
We recommend this because a minimum wage enhances social justice in the labour
market and improves the concrete living conditions of employees in all Member
States. This is especially important in the context of a fast changing working
environment, e.g. by digitalisation.
2. There is already an EU regulation (EU´s Working Time Directive - 2003/88/EC) in
place. However, it is not sufficient to ensure a healthy work life balance. As a firststep, we recommend that the existing framework needs a review if it is adequate
for the current circumstances. Secondly, the EU should establish a stricter
monitoring mechanism to ensure implementation in all Member States. Special
attention needs to be paid to different sectors that have different levels of stressand burdens, both psychologically and physically. However, at the same time, othersectors rely on more flexibility from their employees to adjust for specific corporateneeds.

102

We recommend this because an improved work-life balance is important because itenhances social cohesion and contributes to a level playing field among employees.
Also, it positively affects the individual well-being of employees.
Substream 1.2 Youth and Employment
3. We recommend the harmonisation of the level of all different education programsin the EU with acceptance of the national content. Accordingly, we recommend thatthe professional degrees are validated and mutually recognised in all EU Member
States.
We recommend this because we want to facilitate European labour mobility andreduce the administrative burden.
4. We recommend that high school students (from 12 years old on) should have an
insight into their future labour market by giving them the opportunity to haveseveral high quality observatory visits in profit and non-profit organisations. We
propose to encourage companies to accept observing students by granting themsubsidies. In remote areas where there is less opportunity, local schools,
governments, organisations and companies must work closely together to realisethat those observatory visits are also effective.
We recommend this because we want youngsters to gain insight into the different
possibilities in the labour market so that they can make a better choice for theirstudies and their professional future and understand the importance of the rightstudy. It also teaches them what responsibility is and that they should have respect
for the labour market. It will help youngsters with the integration in the labour
market. It is a win-win situation for both sites.
5. We recommend that practising soft skills should be integrated in all the courses in
the curricula in schools. By soft skills we mean: listening to each other, encouraging
dialogue, resilience, understanding, respect and appreciation for others, criticalthinking, self-study, remaining curious, result-oriented. Teachers should be trainedin the transmission of these skills by collaborating closely with social workers
and/or psychologists. Other suggestions for execution: organise exchange programsfor students between schools, organise participation in sports and cultural events
cross-schools etc.

103

We recommend this because soft skills are basic skills needed, which are lost in thedigital age and are absolutely necessary in the future life of our youth. Therefore we
stress bringing them in the curriculum so it helps them to be resilient and helps themto avoid and overcome mental issues they might experience in their future life. Social
skills strengthen inter-human relations and therefore help people find their place insociety.
6. We recommend that in case of a serious crisis (e.g. health crisis, war, etc.) well
prepared plans with detailed scenarios are ready to deploy in a flexible way tominimise the impact on our youngsters in their studies, vocational training, mental
wellbeing etc. By impact we mean: higher cost of studying or training, obliged
prolongation of studies, internships that could not be carried out, increase ofmental health problems. The scripts have to be rolled out to minimise the impact
on youngsters and their transition to the labour market.
We recommend this because the position of the youngsters is very vulnerable in timesof crisis.
Substream 1.3 Digitalization at Work
7. We recommend that the EU introduces or reinforces existing legislation that
regulates so-called 'smart working' [= working online and remotely, e.g. home officeor from another location connected online]. Further, we recommend that the EU
legislates to incentivise companies to be socially responsible and to keep highquality 'smart working' jobs within the EU. The incentives can be financial and/or
reputational, and should take into account existing internationally recognised
Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) criteria. For this to happen, the EUshould set up a working group composed of experts from all interested stakeholders
to explore and strengthen such legislation.
We recommend this because we need to promote high quality 'smart working' jobs
and avoid their relocation to lower-cost, non-EU countries. The Covid-19 pandemic
and the global economic trends increase the urgency to protect jobs in the EU andregulate ‘smart working’.

104

8. We recommend that the EU guarantees the right to digital training for all EU
citizens. In particular, young people’s digital skills could be boosted with theintroduction of an EU certification in schools that would prepare them for the future
job market. We also recommend specific training at the EU level to re-train and upskill workers to remain competitive in the job market. Lastly, we recommend the
EU raises more awareness about existing digital platforms that connect people toemployers and to help them find jobs in the EU, e.g. EURES.
We recommend this because certified digital skills are fundamental for people toenter the job market and for workers to re-skill and stay competitive.

Stream 2: An Economy for the Future
Substream 2.1 Innovation and European Competitiveness9. We recommend that the EU creates opportunities for different entities (universities,
corporations, research institutes, etc.) to invest in research and innovation aiming
to develop:● new materials, intended to serve as more sustainable and biodiverse
alternatives to those currently in use,
● innovative uses of existing materials (also based on recycling and state-ofthe-art techniques which have the smallest environmental footprint).
We recommend this to be an ongoing, long-term commitment from the EU (at least
until 2050).
We recommend this because we live on a planet with finite resources. If we want tohave a future, we need to protect the climate and look for planet-friendly alternatives.
We also want the EU to become a leader in this field with a strong, competitive
advantage in the international arena. The intention of the recommendation is to
produce innovative results that can be applied broadly and implemented acrossvarious fields and countries. It would also positively impact the economy and thelabour market by creating new job opportunities in the field of sustainable innovation.
It could contribute to combating social injustices by replacing current, exploitative
production means with new, more ethical ones.

10510. We recommend that the EU makes a long term, ongoing commitment to largely
increase its share of sustainably sourced energy, using a diverse range of renewablesources that have the lowest environmental footprint (based on a holistic life-cycle
assessment). Furthermore, the EU should invest in improving and maintaining thequality of electrical infrastructure and the electrical grid. We also recommend thataccess to energy and energy affordability are recognised as a basic right of citizens.
We recommend this because:● Diversifying energy sources (including solar, wind, hydrogen, seawater, or any
future sustainable methods) would make the EU more energy-independent,● it would lower electricity costs for EU citizens,● it would create jobs and restructure the energy market (especially in regionsthat were thus far dependent on fossil fuels),● it could encourage scientific development of innovative techniques of energy
sourcing,● the quality of the electric infrastructure and the electrical grid are as importantas energy sources, allowing for smooth, efficient, and affordable distribution
and transport of energy.
11. We recommend that the EU actively promotes greener production processes,
through subsidising or otherwise rewarding companies that invest in lowering theenvironmental costs of their production. Furthermore, we require an effort torecultivate post-industrial sites and establish protected green zones around existingsites. Companies should be required to finance these efforts, at least in part, fromtheir own pocket.
We recommend this because production processes are an important element in the
supply chain. Making them more environmentally friendly could greatly reduce ourclimate impact. We believe companies and industries should be held accountable for
how they produce their products (including recultivation and environmental
protection measures). Making production processes greener also prepares
companies for the future and makes them more resilient (which protects jobs).

106

Substream 2.2 Sustainable Economy / Substream 2.3 Taxation
12. We recommend that plastic containers are abandoned and to generalise reusable
ones. There should be incentives for consumers and companies, so it will not be
more expensive to buy goods in bulk ("en vrac" in French or "sfuso" in Italian) for a
consumer as opposed to packaged ones. Companies contributing to this transition
should have fiscal benefits and those that do not should pay more taxes. For those
products that cannot be reused, they should be recyclable and/or biodegradable. A
public or oversight institution to monitor everything is required, to set the rules andto share them with everyone. It is recommended to educate, communicate - also
through social media - about these actions to both companies and consumers tochange their behaviours in the long term. Companies should be encouraged andhelped to find the best solutions with their own waste (construction companies forexample).
We recommend this because we all have to be responsible for our actions. So we haveto rethink all production processes. Recycling requires a lot of resources (water,energy), so it cannot be the only answer. This is why we propose to commercialisebulk goods. Recycling should only be used for easily recyclable materials. And weknow with the Finnish example that it is possible to recycle a very large part.
13. We recommend having the same fiscal rules in Europe and harmonising fiscal policy
across all the EU. Tax harmonisation should allow leeway for individual Member
States to set their own tax rules but still prevent tax evasion. It will end harmful
fiscal practices and tax competition. Taxes should concern commercial transactionsin the location where they occur. When a company sells in a country they should
pay taxes in this particular country. These new rules would aim to prevent
delocalisation and ensure that the transactions and production take place between
European countries.
We recommend this to protect and develop jobs, economic activities in Europe andwith equity between the Member States. It will bring a common understanding within
Europe of the fiscal system. It intends to end the absurd monopoly situation of giant
companies who do not pay enough taxes compared to smaller companies. It will also
bring the money where commercial activities are carried out.

107

14. We recommend getting rid of the system of planned obsolescence of all electronic
devices. Change should happen both on an individual and commercial level, toguarantee that we can own, repair, and upgrade in the long term. We recommend
the promotion of refurbished devices. Through regulation, it would be compulsory
for companies to guarantee the right to repair, including upgrades and software
updates, and to recycle all devices in the long term. It is also recommended thatevery company should use standardised connectors.
We recommend this because in the modern world, products tend to last 2 years, wewant them to have a much longer lifespan of about 10 years. This proposition will
have a positive impact on climate change and ecology. It will also reduce costs for
consumers and reduce consumerism.
15. We recommend helping everyone to learn about our environment and its
connection to everyone’s individual health through education. Educational courses
will help everyone to define their own personal strategies to integrate these topics
into their lives. This education should start at school with specific subjects
addressing all ecological issues, and we should continue to be educated throughout
our entire lives (at work for instance). It will contribute to reducing waste andprotecting the environment and human health. This education will promote local
consumption of healthy and non processed products, sourced from local producers.
Those who do not act to reduce waste will have to take a free training course on
these issues. To enable this lifestyle adaptation, prices need to be fair for the
producer and the consumer. Consequently, we propose that small, local andenvironmentally friendly producers will have tax exemptions.
We recommend this because we believe that many people do not yet feel concernedby these issues. This is why we need education about this for everyone. Furthermore,
local and healthy products tend to be unaffordable for many. We have to ensure that
locally made products are more widely available to all.

108

Substream 2.4 Agriculture / Substream 2.5 Digital Infrastructure
16. We recommend the implementation of a common European easy-to-understandlabelling system for consumption and nutrition products (the information would
contain allergens, country of origin, etc), transparency about ongoing approval
processes, digitalisation of product information through a standardised European
app which would allow for more user friendly access and would provide additional
information on products and production chain. We also see the need for a truly
independent body that regulates food standards across the EU, that has legislative
powers, so as to be able to apply sanctions.
We recommend this because EU citizens should expect the same standard of food.
The integrity of food products is a necessity to ensure the safety of citizens. These
recommendations have been made to enhance the approval monitoring andtransparency of food production in a harmonised way.
17. We recommend infrastructure to be a state asset to prevent the rise of
telecommunications and internet service monopolies. It should be a right to haveaccess to the internet, it should be a priority to bring internet connection to‘whitezones / dead zones’ (areas with no internet access). Children and families area priority when it comes to accessing the internet and hardware, particularly interms of education, and especially in times of a pandemic. An initiative is needed tohelp support remote working, such as office spaces with access to a reliable, fastinternet connection and digital training.
We recommend this because we must ensure that the digital transformation is donein an equitable manner. Access to the internet is fundamental to democracy and is aright of all European citizens.
18. We recommend local insects to be respected and protected against invasive species.
We also propose to incentivise and advocate for new construction developments tohave obligatory green spaces. We call for the introduction of biodiversity as amandatory subject in schools through the use of curricular activities, e.g. throughpractical activities. It is important to highlight awareness for biodiversity throughthe use of media campaigns and incentivised ‘competitions’ across the EU (local
community scale competitions). We recommend the establishment of binding
national targets across the EU Member States for reforestation of native trees andlocal flora.

109

We recommend this because biodiversity is key for the environment, the quality oflife and to combat climate change.

Stream 3: A Just Society
Substream 3.1 Social Security
19. We recommend promoting social policies and equality of rights, including health,harmonised for the entire EU, which take into consideration agreed regulations andthe minimum requirements throughout the territory.
We recommend this because there are big disparities between Member States
regarding social policies that need to be reduced to achieve a decent life for all
citizens, and to carry out the care and support needed by vulnerable people forvarious reasons (health, age, sexual orientation, etc.).
20. We recommend promoting research in social matters and health in the EU,
following priority lines that are considered to be of public interest and agreed on by
the Member States, and providing the appropriate funding. We need to reinforce
collaboration across fields of expertise, across countries, centres of studies(universities, etc.).
We recommend this because there are many areas in which we need to advance anddeepen our knowledge. The pandemic experience shows us an example in which
research is essential to improve life and in which public-private and government-togovernment collaboration is essential and financial support is necessary.
21. We recommend the EU should have stronger competences in social policies toharmonise and establish minimum rules and pension benefits across the EU basedon a thorough diagnosis. Minimum pension needs to be above the poverty line of
the country. The retirement age should differ based on categorisation of professions
with mentally and physically demanding professions being able to retire earlier. At
the same time, there should be a guaranteed right to work for the elderly who wish
to continue working on a volunteer basis.

110

We recommend this because life expectancy is increasing and the natality is reducing.
The European population is ageing which is why we need to take further measures toavoid the risk of marginalisation of elderly and ensure their decent life.
22. We recommend a set of agreed measures to encourage an increase in the birth rate
as well as to ensure appropriate childcare. These measures include, among others,
affordable and accessible childcare (at the workplace, overnight, reducing the VAT
on child equipment), housing, stable work, supporting motherhood, specificsupport and protection of work for young people and parents and supporting
mothers and fathers with access to knowledge at the return to work.
We recommend this because the low birth rates in the EU stand out which further
contributes to the ageing of the European population and on which immediate
measures should be taken. The proposed set of measures aims to ensure stability foryoung families necessary to provide for children.
23. We recommend to guarantee social and health care for the elderly at home as wellas in nursing homes. In addition, there is a need for improved support for those whotake care of elderly (relatives).
We recommend this because life expectancy is increasing and the natality is reducing,the European population is ageing which is why we need to take further measures toavoid the risk of marginalisation of elderly and ensure their decent life.
24. We recommend the EU should support palliative care and assisted death[euthanasia] following a concrete set of rules and regulations.
We recommend this because it would reduce the pain of the patients and families
and it would ensure a decent end of life.

111

Substream 3.2 Equal Rights
25. We recommend the EU to support targeted access to decent social housing for
citizens, according to their specific needs. Financial effort should be shared among
private funders, landlords, housing beneficiaries, Member State governments at
central and local levels, and the European Union. The aim should be to facilitate theconstruction/repairing of the existing social housing stock, including by cooperative
association, rental, and purchase. The support should be granted based on clear
criteria (e.g., the max. surface/person to be subsidised, incomes of the beneficiariesetc.).
We recommend this because improved housing access would ensure that EU citizens
benefit from tangible equal rights. It would help to ease social tensions. While the EU
is mainly called upon to oversee the support mechanism, national and local
authorities should more actively solve the housing problems.
26. We recommend that the EU improves the regulation and uniform implementationof support measures for families with children in all Member States. Such measures
include: increasing the length of parental leave, childbirth and childcare allowances.
We recommend this because we think that the measures would alleviate thedemographic problem that the EU is facing. They would also improve gender equality
between parents.
27. We recommend that the EU takes action to guarantee that all families enjoy equalfamily rights in all Member States. Such rights include the right to marriage andadoption.
We recommend this because we think all EU citizens should enjoy equal rights,
including family rights. The family is the basic form of social organisation. A happy
family contributes to a healthy society. The recommendation aims to ensure that all
citizens enjoy family rights regardless of their gender, adult age, ethnicity, or physicalhealth condition.

112

Substream 3.3 Fairness / Substream 3.4 Access to Sports
28. We recommend that the 2020-2025 EU Gender Equality Strategy is strongly
prioritised and incentivised as an urgent matter that is effectively addressed by
Member States. The EU should (a) define indicators (i.e. attitudes, salary gap,
employment, leadership, etc.), monitor the strategy yearly and be transparent withthe achievements; and (b) put an Ombudsman in place to get feedback directly fromcitizens.
We recommend this because we think that gender equality is far from what we would
like to see in the EU. There should be harmony in gender equality and civil rights at
European level, so that they are achieved in all countries, and not only in the ones
with a stronger compromise with the topic. We value the presence and contributionof women in power positions, and in any kind of profession, in order to have a diverseand fulfilling EU. Women are disadvantaged in many situations (even in the case they
have good/ higher education or other privileges), so such a strategy is strongly
needed.
29. We recommend that the EU promotes and raises awareness of sports and physicalactivity in all Member States due to its health benefits. Sport and physical activity
should be included within social, physical and mental health, education and labour
policies (i.e. promote sports and/or physical prescription by doctors and, when
done, guarantee access to sports facilities; 1 hour of working time/week for physicalactivity, etc.).
We recommend this because it is an investment in the long term. Investing in sportand physical activity reduces costs and burdens to health services. For example, sportand physical activity as a health intervention would shorten treatment periods andmake the treatment more effective. This is already being implemented successfully insome countries like Germany. Sports are a way to build values like commitment,
effort, self-esteem, respect or companionship. Sedentary lifestyles are now morecommon than previous generations due to more desk jobs, and/or change habits inleisure among others.

11330. We recommend that the EU should obligate every Member State to have a definedminimum wage related to the cost of living in that state and is considered a fairsalary that can allow minimum life conditions, over the poverty line. Each Member
State must monitor this.
We recommend this because it is not fair that you cannot reach the end of the month
if you are working. Fair salaries should contribute to life quality at a social level. Unfair
wages have a high cost for the states (security, tax avoidance, higher social costs, etc.).
31. We recommend tax harmonisation in the Member States within the EU (to avoid
tax havens within EU, and to target offshoring within Europe), and a tax incentive
to discourage offshoring of jobs outside of Europe.
We recommend this because we are worried about the impact of offshoring jobs
outside of Europe, and this would prevent tax competition between Member Statesof the EU.

Stream 4: Learning in Europe
Substream 4.1 European Identity / Substream 4.2 Digital Education
32. We recommend promoting multilingualism from an early age, for example, startingin kindergarten. From elementary school onwards, it should be mandatory thatchildren reach a C1 level in a second active EU language other than their own.
We recommend this because multilingualism is a tool that connects people and is abridge to other cultures, as it makes other countries and their cultures moreaccessible. It strengthens European identity and intercultural exchange. It is
important to get to know the other cultures in the context of the European Union.
Therefore, being able to converse in two languages at a great level would help create
a common European identity and understanding of other European cultures. The EU
must ensure that there is close cooperation between itself and educational
institutions to develop successful educational outcomes. In addition, there needs tobe a dedicated program (e.g. digital platforms, expanded Erasmus+ programs, etc.) to
exclusively promote multilingualism. The current European Schools can serve as amodel in this regard. The EU should establish more such schools and actively promote
them.

114

33. We recommend that the EU raises more awareness about the dangers of theinternet and digitalisation for young people through the creation of a mandatory
subject in elementary school. The EU should create tools and establish common
training spaces for young people to learn together.
We recommend this because the current initiatives or programs in this area are notsufficient. Moreover, many EU citizens are not aware of existing EU initiatives in theseareas. Children are not sufficiently aware of the dangers of the Internet, so we should
do much more to promote and raise awareness amongst the younger generation.
34. We recommend that the EU put effort into making technology more accessible tothe older generation by fostering programs and initiatives, for instance in the formof classes tailored to their needs. The EU should guarantee the right to use
digitalisation for those who wish it and propose alternatives for those who do not.
We recommend this because the EU should ensure that older people can participate
in the digital world and that no one is discriminated against. Simplified tools should
be introduced for generations that are not as experienced with the use of certain
technologies in order to integrate them into today's world. We recommend that
initiatives that already exist be better promoted, so that citizens are aware of thoseopportunities. The EU should not discriminate against the older generations
concerning the use of computer tools. (As a side note, this means that citizens shouldbe able to live their lives without being obligated to go through an internet network).
The EU should organise and make free permanent assistance available to older
generations to facilitate access to digital tools.
Substream 4.3 Cultural Exchange / Substream 4.4 Environmental Education
35. We recommend that the EU creates a platform on which teaching material aboutclimate change, sustainability, and environmental issues will be made available foreducational purposes. This information should be fact-based, checked by experts,
and tailored to every Member State. The platform:● Should include lessons for multiple target groups; for example people wholive in an urban or a rural context, for all age groups, and for all levels of priorknowledge,● Must be available to all Member States and should be easily accessible,● In its implementation it should include a plan for promotion; this should bedone in collaboration with relevant companies,

115● Could be made available together with a funding program to support theusage of, and implementation, of the information on the platform. This
funding should also provide support for field trips to show relevant real life
examples.
We recommend this because people of all ages need access to fact-based information
on how to address climate change, sustainability, and environmental issues.
Important concepts, e.g. the ecological footprint, must be understood by everyone,
particularly young people, since what we learn as children is used throughout ourlives. These topics are complex and misinformation is widespread. We need a sourcethat is trustworthy and the EU has the credibility and resources to provide this. Thisis also important because knowledge levels and easy access to credible informationdiffers across Member States.
36. We recommend that the EU prioritise making exchange programs accessible for all(age groups, Member States, levels of education, and people with different financial
capabilities) and allow for exchanges or internships between sectors, countries,
educational institutions, cities, and companies. The EU should be responsible for
initiating, mediating, and funding cultural and social exchanges across the EU - both
physically and digitally. The EU must actively promote these initiatives and target
people who are not already aware of cultural and social exchange programs. The
Conference on the Future of Europe, in which people were randomly selected, is theperfect example of a European exchange. We want more of this - but also initiativesof a smaller scale, as well as exchanges within sports, music, (social) internships,
etc.
We recommend this because it is important to create a feeling of togetherness andcohesion, and to advance tolerance for all our beautiful differences/different
perspectives, as well as for the development of individual skills. In the process this will
enable the development of friendships, mutual understanding, and critical thinking.
We would like to promote the engagement of all members of our communities, eventhose that have not been involved in such initiatives to date.

116

Substream 4.5 Quality, Finance and Access to Education / Substream 4.6
Harmonisation of Education
37. We recommend that all Member States agree and adopt a certified minimum
standard of education in core subjects commencing in primary school. This is toensure that all citizens have equal access to a standard quality of education,
ensuring fairness and equality.
We recommend this because:● The presence of a minimum standard would give parents, teachers andstudents greater confidence in their education systems while leaving capacity
for initiative and diversity.
● If implemented our recommendation would reinforce and strengthen acommon European identity, fostering togetherness, unity and sense of
belonging.
● Implementation of this recommendation would generate greater cooperationand exchange between schools across the EU and this would improve relations
between teaching staff and pupils and assist greatly with exchange
programmes.
38. We recommend that English is taught, to a certifiable standard, as a core subject inprimary schools across all EU Member States in order to facilitate and strengthen
theabilityofEuropeancitizens
tocommunicate
effectively.
We recommend this because:● This would provide greater unity and equality through increasing citizens'
abilities to communicate with each other and support a stronger common
European identity.
● This would allow for a broader, flexible and more accessible labour market
allowing citizens the confidence to work and communicate in all other Member
States providing greater personal and professional opportunities.
● A commonly held European language could be achieved in a very short periodof time were this to be implemented.
● The use of a common language expedites information sharing which would
benefit cooperation, reacting to crises together, aid humanitarian efforts andbring Europe and Europeans closer.

117

Stream 5: An Ethical and Safe Digital Transformation
Substream 5.1 Democratisation of Digitalisation / Substream 5.2 Cyber Security
39. We recommend that the EU should have more powers to deal with illegal content
and cyber criminality. We recommend the strengthening of capacities in
Europol/the European Cybercrime Centre including:● Increased financial resources and manpower● Ensuring punishment in similar ways in each country● Ensuring that enforcement should be quick and effective
We recommend this to guarantee freedom on the Internet, while ensuring that
discrimination, abuse and harassment are punished. We support the idea of having a
European public body because we do not want to leave the regulation of online
platforms solely to private companies. Online platforms have to take responsibility
for the content that is distributed, but we want to make sure that their interests do
not come first. The regulation of content and the prosecution of those responsible
must be effective and swift, so that it also has a deterrent effect on the criminals.
40. We recommend that the EU should invest in high-quality and innovative digital
infrastructures (such as 5G being developed in Europe) in order to ensure Europe’s
autonomy and prevent dependence on other countries or private companies. The
EU should also pay attention to investment in underdeveloped regions of the EU.
We recommend this because digital infrastructure plays a vital role in Europe’s
economy and in facilitating everyday life in Europe. Europe therefore needs highquality digital infrastructure. If Europe is dependent on others it may be vulnerable tonegative influences by private companies or foreign countries. Europe should
therefore invest in digital infrastructures to improve its autonomy. It is also important
to ensure digital inclusion by making sure that less digitally developed regions receive
investment.
41. We recommend that the EU promotes education on fake news, disinformation, andonline safety across Europe's schools. It should draw on examples of best practices
from across the EU. The EU should establish an organisation specifically to promote
this work and to provide recommendations to education systems. It should also
promote non-formal education as well as innovative and creative teaching
techniques (e.g. participative games).

118

We recommend this because introducing lessons on online safety and digital safety
literacy (dealing with online scams, false information etc.) at school are important togive everyone the tools to protect themselves from online threats. It is important totarget the younger generation as they are very exposed to online threats. Schools canalso communicate with parents to promote good practices. This course can draw fromexamples of best practice across Europe (e.g. such as Finland) while also being
adaptable for each country’s needs.
Substream 5.3 Data Protection
42. We recommend further limiting the misuse of data by 'data giants' through better
enforcement of GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation) and creating more
standardised mechanisms throughout the EU and by ensuring that even nonEuropean companies that operate in the EU comply with it. The improvement
should require clear and short explanation of terms of use to avoid ambiguity,
provide more information on how and by whom it will be used, avoiding default
consent to re-use and resell of data. It should ensure that data is permanently
deleted when a citizen requests it. It also should improve enforcement of consistentcompliance around profiling of individuals based on their online activities. We
propose two types of sanction: a fine proportional to the company's turnover,limitations of company’s operations.
We recommend this because currently there is very limited transparency on whatkind of data is collected, how it is processed, and to whom it is sold to. We need tofurther limit the abuse of power by data giants and make sure that consent citizens
give for data processing is well-informed.
43. We recommend creating an independent pan-EU agency that would have to clearly
define intrusive behaviour (e.g. spam) and create guidelines and mechanisms for
how citizens can opt-out and revoke data, especially from third parties. It must havea mandate to identify and sanction fraudsters and non-compliant organisations. It
should work on ensuring compliance with the EU regulations for non-EU based
entities operating in the EU. It would be funded by the EU institutions andcomposed of a mixed council of independent bodies (i.e. experts from universities
and entities representing professionals). It should have a rotation praesidium. We
propose two types of sanctions: a fine proportional to the companies’ turnover,limitations of companies’ operations.

119

We recommend this because there is no central agency with a strong mandate that
can help citizens especially when they have an issue and need help, advising, or
support. There are no clear and mandatory rules for companies to follow andsanctions are either not enforced or negligible for the companies.
44. We recommend creating an EU certification system that would reflect compliancewith GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation) in a transparent way and it should
ensure that information on data protection is presented in an accessible, clear, andsimple way. This certificate would be mandatory and visible on websites andplatforms. This certificate should be issued by an independent certifier at European
level, possibly existing or specially created, which is not linked to national
governments or the private sector.
We recommend this because there is currently no or little transparency about how
well data is protected by each company and users / customers cannot make informed
choices.
45. We recommend better explaining GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation) and
improving communication around it by creating standard text on compliance thatuses simple and clear language understandable by everyone. This text shouldpresent a core message and/or core principles. The process of providing consent
should be more visual (i.e. like an App that asks explicit permission for access on thephone). It should be accompanied by an information campaign (including on TV)
and consistently providing mandatory courses (at least those who work with data)
and advising those who need assistance.
We recommend this because at the moment, the language of GDPR is too vague andtechnical, the amount of information is overwhelming, and is not accessible foreveryone. The communication is also not similar across different countries and it
often excludes different cohorts mainly elderly people and non-digital natives.

120

Substream 5.4 Healthy Digitalisation
46. We recommend that the EU addresses the problem of ‘fake news’ through twomeans:● Legislation for social media companies to implement machine-learningalgorithms that can highlight the trustworthiness of information on social
media and new media, providing the user with sources of fact-checked
information. We recommend that the algorithms are kept in check by experts
to ensure their well-functioning;● The implementation of a digital platform that rates the information fromtraditional media (e.g. television, printed press, radio) independently frompolitical and economic interests, and informs citizens about the quality of thenews without applying any kind of censorship. The platform should be open
to public scrutiny and adhere to the highest standards of transparency, andthe EU should ensure that the dedicated funding is used for the intended
purposes.
We recommend this because different types of media need to be addressed and webelieve that sanctions or removing content could lead to censorship and infringe on
freedom of expression and freedom of the press. We recommend that experts checkand monitor the proper functioning of the algorithm to ensure its proper working.
Finally, we recommend that the platform should be apolitical and independent toensure transparency and freedom of expression. Furthermore, since it is impossible
to completely get rid of fake news, providing these tools to citizens will help todiminish their effects in Europe.
47. We recommend that the EU implements different actions in order to ensure ahealthy use of internet:● First of all, the EU must address the lack of infrastructures and devices thatprevents citizens from accessing the Internet.
● Then, we also recommend that the EU encourages the Member States toimplement training about the internet and its risks for all age-groups. This
could be done by introducing classes in schools for children and young people,
and creating different programs and curricula to reach adult and elder
citizens. The content of these classes should be decided at the European levelby a group of independent experts.
● Finally, we demand that the EU takes all the necessary measures to ensurethat the digitalisation of society does not leave out older people, ensuringthat essential services can also be accessed in person.

121

● The EU should ensure that the dedicated funding is used by the Member
States for the intended purposes.
We recommend this because there is a lack of infrastructure and hardware (e.g.
devices) in some places in Europe, and connection needs to be ensured before
educating citizens, as we know there are certain regions and profiles that have
limitations on internet access. We recommend classes in order to help children
achieve digital literacy, to include other programs to help older generations in this
digital transformation and to take the needed measures to reassure that elderly
population’s rights are not diminished by the digital transformation.
48. We recommend that the European Union promotes the education of citizens inevery Member State to improve critical thinking, scepticism and fact-checking inorder to teach them how to evaluate independently whether a piece of informationis trustworthy or not. This should be implemented in basic education as a specificclass and it should also be offered in other public spaces for citizens of all ages thatwillingly want to profit from this training. The EU should ensure that the dedicatedfunding is used by the Member States for the intended purposes.
We recommend this because we think that it is impossible to completely get rid of
fake news, so this training will help the citizens to recognise them by themselves. By
doing so, the effects of fake news on society and on the citizens themselves will belessened. This would also give the individuals more agency, rather than depending on
the institutions to acquire reliable information.

122

Annex: OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WERE CONSIDERED BY THE PANEL AND
NOT ADOPTED

Stream 3: A Just Society
Substream 3.2 Equal Rights
We recommend that the EU creates a mechanism to ensure the monitoring and enforcement ofminority rights (e.g., a portal or office where people might lodge complaints).
We recommend this because we believe that every individual can express their opinion and has theright to seek and receive help. Such an office is necessary in order to reduce the tension between
minorities and the majority.

Substream 3.3 Fairness / Substream 3.4 Access to Sports
We recommend that the EU should raise awareness of physical activity by "role modelling"
through public figures (e.g. Parliament events should include some form of physical activity or
gesture for a few seconds like stretching, walk the talk or jumping).
We recommend this because engagement from public figures on physical activity will raiseawareness.

Stream 5: An Ethical and Safe Digital Transformation
Substream 5.3 Data Protection
We recommend creating a Web ID that will store personal and sensitive data but will make itavailable only to the authorities and the police. Online platforms and sellers will use online code
associated with a Web ID and the data that is relevant for a given activity. The default setting fordata sharing through this ID should be non-consent. The data should be only given to the parties
directly involved and not a 3rd party. If the data is given to a 3rd party a citizen should be able toeasily opt out. The data should be available only for a limited time or a specific transaction. The
authorisation to use data should have expiration or clear definition on what actions that can betaken by a company with this data.
We recommend this because at the moment companies can harvest all the data including personaland sensitive data and can use it for many purposes without disclosing how and why exactly. So, theactors get more information than they actually need to provide us with services and then can re-sellor re-use other data without our consent. At the same time it will guarantee accountability ofinternet users while preserving their relative anonymity.

123

Conference on the
Future of Europe

European Citizens’ Panel 2: “European
democracy / Values and rights, rule of law,
security”
Recommendations
Photo © Union européenne, 2021 – EP/Kenton Thatcher

124

Conference on the Future of Europe
European Citizens’ Panel 2:“European democracy / Values and rights, rule of law, security”
RECOMMENDATIONS ADOPTED BY THE PANEL (TO BE TAKEN FORWARD TO THE
PLENARY)
Stream 1 Ensuring rights and non-discrimination
Substream 1.1 Non-discrimination / Substream 1.2 Gender equality
1. “We recommend that the EU provides criteria on anti-discrimination in the labour
market (quotas for youth, elders, women, minorities). If companies fulfil thecriteria, they get subsidies or tax breaks”.
We recommend enhancing employee's awareness about:● supranational and national institutions (e.g. trade unions).
● mechanisms which ensure companies respect existing rules on nondiscrimination in the workplace.
● qualification programmes for social groups that suffer discrimination in thejob market (youth, elders, women, minorities).
We recommend the adoption of a two-stage EU law. First, provide subsidies to hire
employees from certain categories susceptible to discrimination. Second, the law
should oblige employers to employ such groups for a minimum period.”This is because the EU is responsible for maintaining a balance between free market
interests and the protection of vulnerable categories, which should be legallysafeguarded. Heterogeneous groups are desirable for companies as they offer diverse
qualifications. Subsidies are an additional incentive to be provided to companies.
2. “We recommend the EU creates an incentive programme that facilitates thecreation of affordable kindergartens and playgrounds in big and small companies.
Shared facilities are also a viable option for smaller firms to get the subsidy.
We recommend the EU forces companies to create kindergartens in a manner
proportional to the number of employees.”
We recommend this because uniting family life and professional life improves job
performances, reduces unemployment, and brings parents, especially women, in asituation that enables them to continue their career. Stressing the social dimension,
the proposed solution guarantees the safety of the children and reduces parental
anxieties.

125Substream 1.3 Protecting human rights and the rights of nature and animals
3. “We recommend to safeguard animals' wellbeing and sustainability in farming by
amending directive 98/58 EC concerning the protection of animals kept for farming
purposes. More detailed minimum criteria must be defined. It should be specific,
measurable, and time bound. The minimum criteria should be set in a way that
leads to higher animal wellbeing standards and at the same time enables atransition towards a climate and environmental sustainability and ecologicalagriculture”.
We, as citizens, believe that it is important to have stronger minimum standards tobe harmonized within the EU regarding animal farming. We are aware that thetransition might pose problems in some agricultural sectors that benefit fromsubsidies, and for those are in transition to ecological and sustainable farming.
However we find it very important to ensure that this transition happens.
4. “We recommend to promote more environment and climate-friendly agriculture
in Europe and world-wide by taxing all negative emissions, pesticides and extreme
use of water, etc... , based on their environmental burden. Custom duties on all
agricultural goods that are imported into the EU must eliminate competitive
advantages of third countries without the same standards as the EU. To promoteanimal-friendly agriculture, we recommend that emissions caused by long range
transport of animals should be taxed”.
By establishing such a system we believe it is possible to support the transition
towards a climate and environmental-friendly agriculture.
5. “In the actual context of many fake news, we recommend to promote more
independent, objective and balanced media coverage by: 1. Developing at EU levela minimum standards directive for media independence. 2. Promoting at EU level
the development of media competences for every citizen”.
The EU must produce a directive to ensure the independence of the media andfreedom of speech.
6. “We recommend to stop subsidising agricultural mass-production if it does notlead to a transition towards a climate, environmentally sustainable and ecologicalagriculture. Instead we recommend to redirect the subsidies to support asustainable transition”.

126Instead of subsidising the agricultural sector of mass farming, the subsidies should be
redirected to farms that are in transition to comply with the new minimum standards
for animal welfare.
Substream 1.4 Right to privacy
7. “We recommend that entities that process personal data shall be licensed at EU
level. These entities shall also be subject to independent, external annual dataprotection audit. These entities shall be punished for data protection violations
proportionally to their annual turnover in a stricter way than under the current
regulation. The license should be lifted after two consecutive violations, andimmediately
afteraseriousviolation”.
We recommend all this because current regulations (GDPR) are not sufficient andentities need to be better monitored and sanctioned to make sure they do not violate
data protection and the right to privacy.
8. “We recommend strengthening the EU competence in: 1) data protection
education, 2) data protection raising awareness and 3) protecting personal data ofminors. We recommend providing clearer and stricter rules about processing dataof minors in the GDPR, including consent rules, age verification and control by legal
guardians. We also recommend to introduce in the GDPR a special category forsensitive minors' data (e.g. criminal record, health information, nudity) so thatminors are protected from any form of abuse and discrimination”.
This recommendation is needed because minors are especially vulnerable to dataprotection and privacy violations and currently there is no sufficient data protection
awareness among the general population, especially minors, teachers and legal
guardians. They all need to learn how to use online and offline data related services
and how to protect childrens' privacy rights. Moreover, legal guardians often may
consent to the processing of children's data without being fully aware or informed
and children may fake parental consent. Last but not least, this recommendation isneeded because a proper EU-wide data protection awareness campaign targeted
specifically to minors, legal guardians and teachers does not exist, despite its crucial
importance.

127

9. “We recommend introducing standardized privacy policies and easily
understandable, concise and user-friendly consent forms that clearly indicate what
data processing is strictly necessary and what is optional. We recommend thatremoving consent should be easy, fast and permanent. We recommend forbidding
entities to limit their services more than necessary if there is no consent to optional
data processing”.
We recommend this because current EU rules are not precise enough, withdrawal
from consent is lengthy, temporary and complex, and because entities do not haveinterest in offering their services to citizens who reclaim their data protection rights.
Stream 2: Protecting democracy and the rule of law
Substream 2.1 Protecting rule of law
10. “We recommend that the conditionality regulation (2020/2092, adopted on 16
December 2020) is amended so that it applies to all breaches of the rule of law
ratherthan
onlyto
breaches
affectingtheEUbudget”.
The conditionality regulation allows for the suspension of EU funds to Member States
breaching the rule of law. However, under the current formulation it only applies tobreaches that affect, or risk affecting, the EU budget. Furthermore, the current
phrasing of the conditionality regulation is self-protective of the EU’s budget and of
the EU’s institutions rather than the citizens of the Member States concerned.
Therefore, we recommend changing the current text of the regulation so that itcovers all violations of the rule of law.
11. “We recommend that the EU organises annual conferences on the rule of law
following the publication of the annual Rule of Law Report (the Commission’s
mechanism for monitoring compliance with the rule of law by the Member States).
Member States should be obligated to send socially diverse national delegations tothe conference that include both citizens and civil servants”.
This conference would foster dialogue among EU citizens on rule of law issues as well
as dialogue between citizens and experts drafting the annual Rule of Law Reports.
We believe that in an atmosphere of mutual appreciation and sharing the participants
can take best practices and ideas back to their home countries. Furthermore, theconference would bring awareness and understanding to the principle of the rule oflaw and to the findings and process behind the annual Rule of Law Report. It would
also capture the attention of the media, as well as allow citizens to share theirexperiences and compare them against the findings in the Report.

128

Substream 2.2 Protecting and strengthening democracy / Substream 2.4 Media anddisinformation
12. “We recommend that the EU enforces its competition rules in the media sector
more strictly to ensure that media pluralism is protected in all Member States. The
EU should prevent large media monopolies and political appointment processes formedia outlet boards. We also recommend that the upcoming EU Media Freedom
act entails rules on preventing politicians from owning media outlets or having astrong influence on their content”.
We recommend this because enforcing EU competition rules fosters a pluralist media
landscape where citizens have a choice. Since the Commission is currently developinga law (Media Freedom Act) for the integrity of the EU media market, this law should
also reflect that media outlets should not be owned or influenced by politicians.
Substream 2.3 Security
13. “We recommend the EU institutions to play a stronger role with all the tools attheir disposal, including national centres for cybersecurity and the European Union
Agency for Cybersecurity (ENISA), to protect individuals, organizations andinstitutions against new threats coming from cybersecurity breaches and the use of
Artificial intelligence for criminal purposes. We further recommend that thedirectives coming from Europe and its agencies are correctly implemented anddisseminated in all Member States”.
We recommend this because citizens feel helpless and are not aware of what is doneby the European Union to combat these threats. We recommend this because thesethreats are a serious national and European security concern. We recommend thisbecause Europe should be a true innovator in this field.
14. “We recommend that, in its relationship with external countries, the European
Union should firstly strengthen common democratic values in its borders. We
recommend that only after achieving this, the European Union can be anambassador of our democratic model in the countries that are ready and willing to
implement it, through diplomacy and dialogue”.
We recommend this because we have to look inwards before looking outwards.
Because Europe can and should support Member States to strengthen theirdemocracies. Because it is also by leading by example and supporting externalcountries' efforts towards democracy that we protect ourselves.

129

Stream 3: Reforming the EU
Substream 3.1 Institutional reform
15. “We recommend changing the names of EU institutions to clarify their functions.
For example, the Council of the European Union could be called the Senate of theEuropean Union. The European Commission could be called the Executive
Commission of the European Union”.
We recommend this because it is currently hard for citizens to understand the roles
and functions of each institution of the European Union. Their names do not reflect
their functions. Citizens cannot be expected to distinguish the Council of the European
Union, the European Council and the Council of Europe. It is important to avoid
overlap.
16. “We recommend adopting an election law for the European Parliament that
harmonizes electoral conditions (voting age, election date, requirements forelectoral districts, candidates, political parties and their financing). European
citizens should have the right to vote for different European Union level parties thateach consist of candidates from multiple Member States. During a sufficienttransition period, citizens could still vote for both national and transnational
parties”.
We recommend this because the European Union needs to build a sense of unity,
which could be achieved by a truly unified election of the European Parliament. This
common election will hold accountable the Members of the European Parliament andto focus the election campaign on shared European topics.
Substream 3.2 Decision-making
17. “We recommend to create an online platform where citizens can find andrequest fact-checked information. The platform should be clearly associated withEU institutions, should be structured by topics and should be easily accessible (e.g.,
including a telephone hotline). Citizens should be able to ask critical questions toexperts (e.g., academics, journalists) and get factual answers with sources”.
Free access to factual information is of highest value for our society, so as citizens arewell informed and protected against fake news and disinformation. We need acredible and independent source of information that is not influenced by political,
economic and national interests. Moreover, the platform can establish a bridge (i.e.,a direct relationship) between citizens and the EU.

130

18. “We recommend that there should be an EU-wide referendum in exceptional
cases on extremely important matters to all European citizens. The referendum
should be triggered by the European Parliament and should be legally binding”.
There should be more direct influence of EU citizens on important decisions on EUwide matters. However, referendums should only be held in exceptional
circumstances because the costs are too high to hold them regularly. We are awarethat this recommendation might require a treaty change and the adaptation ofnational constitutions.
19. “We recommend creating a multifunctional digital platform where citizens canvote in online elections and polls. Citizens should be able to give their reasoning
behind their vote on important issues and legislative proposals coming from
European institutions. The platform should be secure, widely accessible and highly
visible to each and every citizen”.
The objective of this platform is to increase participation in European politics andfacilitate citizens' access to consultation and voting processes. Existing tools andprocesses are not visible enough, and this is why we need a new integrated tool forthese different functions. More participation leads to better decisions, more trust
among European citizens, and to a better functioning of the European Union overall.
20. “We recommend that the voting systems in the EU institutions should bereassessed focusing on the issue of unanimous voting. Voting 'weight' should be
calculated fairly, so that small countries' interests are protected”.
Unanimous voting poses a significant challenge to decision making in the EU. The
large number of member states makes it very difficult to reach agreement. If
necessary, European treaties should change to address the issue of unanimity.

131

Substream 3.3 Closer integration
21. “We recommend the EU to make public investments which lead to the creationof appropriate jobs and to the improvement and harmonisation of quality of life
across the EU, between Member States, and within Member States (i.e. at theregional level). There is a need to ensure supervision, transparency and effective
communication towards citizens in the implementation of public investments andto allow citizens to track the entire process of investment. Investments into qualityof life include education, health, housing, physical infrastructures, care for theelderly and people with disabilities, taking into account the needs of every Member
State. Additional investments should strive to establish a good balance between
appropriate work and personal life in order to allow a healthy lifestyle”.
We recommend this because harmonising the level of life across the EU will improve
economic progress across the EU, which will lead towards a unified EU. This is afundamental indicator towards further integration of the EU. Although some of thesemechanisms are already in place, we feel there is still room for further improvement.
22. “We recommend establishing a common basis, according to a set of economic
indicators and indicators on quality of life, for all Member States, with the same
opportunities and with everyone being at the same level to reach a common
economic structure. It is important that the establishment of a common basis
follows a clear and realistic timeline set by institutions at the recommendation ofexperts. Experts should also be consulted on how such a common economic
structure should look like. It is also important that indicators defining the common
basis are further defined with help of experts”.
We recommend this because if we have a just EU, we will have a more united Europe.
To be just, we need to offer equal opportunities and a common basis to all of the EU.
A common economic structure can only be reached once a common basis isestablished.
23. “We recommend taxing big corporations and income from big corporations tocontribute to public investments, and to use the taxation to invest into educationand development of each country (R&D, scholarships - Erasmus etc.). It is also
important to focus on eliminating the existence of tax havens in the EU”.
We recommend this because it will help to prevent tax evasion and creation of tax
havens and to help with compliance of legislation.

132

Stream 4: Building European identity
Substream 4.1 Education on democracy
24. “We recommend that education on democracy in the European Union should
strive to improve and achieve a minimum standard of knowledge across all Member
States. This education should include, but not be confined to, democratic processes
and general information on the EU which should be taught in all EU Member States.
This education should be further enriched by a set of differing concepts teaching the
democratic process, which should be engaging and age appropriate”.
This recommendation and the reasons which justify it are important because, if
implemented, it will lead towards a more harmonious and democratic life in theEuropean Union. The justifications are as follows: young people would be educatedon democratic processes; this education could limit populism and disinformation in
public debate; lead to less discrimination; and finally educate and involve citizens indemocracy beyond just their duty to vote.
25. “We recommend that existing and emerging translation technologies such as
artificial intelligence are further developed, improved and made more accessible so
as to reduce language barriers and strengthen common identity and democracy in
the European Union”.
This recommendation and the reasons which justify it are important because, if
implemented, it will help to build a common European identity by improving
communication between citizens of all Member States.
26. “We recommend that verifiable information be made easily accessible, inunderstandable terms, to citizens via a mobile device application in order toimprove transparency, public deliberation and democracy. This app could
disseminate information regarding, for example, legislation, discussions within theEU, treaty changes etc”.
This recommendation and the reasons which justify it are important because, if
implemented, it will facilitate communication in terms of more informed deliberation
between citizens of the respective Member States, via an app which could have manydifferent functions. This app should be designed to be relevant to all, as well as tostimulate further curiosity and make technical information more accessible andengaging. The app should be understood as a supplementary source, which
disseminates information officially verified directly by the EU to improve trust,transparency in public debate and to help to build a common European identity.

133

Substream 4.2 European values and identity
27. “We recommend that the EU creates a special fund for online and offline
interactions (i.e. exchanges programmes, panels, meetings) of both short andlonger duration between EU citizens, in order to strengthen the European identity.
The participants should be representative of the society from within EU that would
include targeted groups based on various criteria, ie. demographic, socio-economic
and occupation criteria. The goals of this fund need to be clearly specified in orderto stimulate the European identity and the fund needs to be evaluated on a regularbasis”.
We recommend this because these kinds of interactions enable citizens to shareideas, and longer exchanges enable them to understand the different cultures and toshare experiences, including professional practices. An EU fund is needed because it
is important that everyone can participate, including those who generally do notparticipate.
28. “We recommend that the EU invests in countering disinformation swiftly, by
supporting existing organisations and initiatives, such as the Code of Practice on
Disinformation and the European Digital Media Observatory, and similar initiatives
in the Member States. The counter-measures could include fact-checking, creatingawareness about disinformation, providing easily accessible statistics,
appropriately sanctioning those who spread disinformation based on a legal
framework, and tackling the sources of disinformation”.
This recommendation is important because misinformation and disinformation,
coming from within and outside of the EU, create conflicts among EU citizens, polarise
the society, put democracy at risk and damage the economy. Given the complexity ofthe topic, significant human and financial resources are needed.

13429. “We recommend 1) to increase the frequency of online and offline interactions
between the EU and its citizens (ie. by asking citizens directly about EU matters andby creating an user-friendly platform to ensure that every citizen can interact withEU institutions and EU officials), and 2) in order to ensure that citizens canparticipate in the EU policy-making process, to voice their opinions and to get
feedbacks, we recommend to create a charter or a code of conduct or guidelines
for EU officials. Different means of interactions should exist so that every citizen
can participate”.
We recommend this because several means to reach EU institutions exist (online
platforms, representatives bodies), but they are not known, not effective and nottransparent. There are huge differences in accessibility between countries. Morefrequent and better quality interactions will lead to a sense of ownership of EU
citizenship.
30. “We recommend that European identity and values (ie. rule of law, democracy
and solidarity) should receive a special place within the migrants' integration
process. Possible measures could include creating programmes or supporting
already existing (local) programmes, to encourage social interactions between
migrants and EU citizens or involving companies in the programmes supporting the
integration of migrants. At the same time, similar programmes should be initiatedin order to create awareness among EU citizens about migration-related issues”.
This recommendation is important because social interaction programmes can
support migrants in their new life and enable non-migrants to have insight in the daily
life of migrants. If migrants live in ghettos, there is no possibility to integrate theminto the society of the country and of the EU. A common policy is needed because
once migrants enter EU territory, they can go to every country within the EU. Local
initiatives should be supported because local governments will use the funds more
effectively in comparison to national level.
Substream 4.3 Information about EU
31. “We recommend that the EU provides more information and news to European
citizens. It should use any means that are necessary while respecting freedom andindependence of the media. It should provide media outlets with resources as well
as a broad and reliable information about EU activities and policies. The EU should
guarantee that the information is broadcasted evenly across all Member States by
National and European media and should ensure that Member States encourage
public broadcasters and public news agencies to cover European affairs”.

135

We recommend this because based on our personal experience and based on thedata from Eurobarometer, the majority of European citizens are informed throughthe traditional media (press, radio and television) and the information currently
offered in these channels about the EU is very scarce. The media, particularly the
public, have a public service function, so reporting on EU issues that affect theEuropean population is essential and indispensable to fulfill that function. We
recommend that the information issued in the different Member States about the EU
be the same in order to promote integration and avoid different information ondifferent issues in each country. Using the already existing media channels is morefeasible, and less expensive than creating a new channel and achieves the sameoutcome. The pre-existing channels also have the advantage that they are alreadyknown by citizens. No citizen should need to choose between different channels tobe able to access different (national or European) content.
32. “We recommend the EU to create and advertise multilingual online forums andoffline meetings where citizens can launch discussions with EU representatives, nomatter the topic and no matter the geographical scope of the issue raised. Thoseonline forums and offline meetings should have a defined short-term time limit inwhich responses to the questions are received. All the information about thesespaces should be centralized in an integrated official website with different
features; such as a frequently asked questions space, the possibility to share ideas,
proposals or concerns with other citizens and with a mechanism to identify themost supported ones. In any case, access to it should be easy and a nonbureaucratic language should be used”.
We recommend this because it will create a direct channel between European citizens
and European representatives to talk and engage together, giving the citizens an easy
access to information about the EU and making them more aware of the existing
information. It will create a more transparent and open EU and will help citizens toshare their problems and thoughts, receive answers and policy solutions and allow
them to engage and share perspectives and experiences with other citizens.

13633. “We recommend the EU institutions and representatives to use a moreaccessible language and avoid using bureaucratic terms in their communications
while, at the same time, maintaining the quality and expertise of the given
information. The EU should also adapt the information it provides to citizens withdifferent communication channels and audience profiles (e.g. newspapers,
television, social media). The EU should make a special effort to adapt
communication to digital media in order to increase its outreach capacity to young
people”.
We recommend this because having understandable information will allow the EU toreach more European citizens and not only the engaged ones. By having specific new
and modern tools to target specific audiences, citizens will better understand EU
activities and policies, particularly the young people who are not feeling close or
attached to the EU.
Stream 5: Strengthening citizen participation
Substream 5.1 Citizen participation
34. “We recommend that independent citizen observers should be present during
all EU decision making processes. There should be a forum or permanent body ofcitizens representatives in order to carry out the function of broadcasting relevant
and important information to all EU citizens as defined EU citizens. Those citizens
would engage with all other European citizens in the spirit of top-down / bottomup connection, which would further develop the dialogue between citizens and theinstitutions of the EU”.
Because it is obvious that citizens deserve to be kept informed about any and allissues, and to make sure that politicians cannot not hide certain issues from citizens
that they would rather they did not know. This would bridge the divide between
citizens and elected representatives by establishing new avenues of trust.

13735. “We recommend that the EU reopens the discussion about the constitution ofEurope with a view to creating a constitution informed by the citizens of the EU.
Citizens should be able to vote in the creation of such a constitution. This
constitution in order to avoid conflict with the member states should prioritize theinclusion of human rights and democracy values. The creation of such a constitution
should consider previous efforts that never materialized to a constitution”.
Because this constitution would engage young people with politics at the EU level andcounteract increasing forces of nationalism. Because it would provide a common
definition of what is meant by democracy in Europe, and make sure that this is
implemented in an equal way amongst all member states. Because the EU has sharedvalues regarding democracy and human rights. Because this would enable citizens to
be included in the decision making process, and allow citizens to identify more as
being from the EU - having participated in the process.
36. “We recommend that politicians are more responsible in representing thecitizens that they are elected to represent. Young people in particular are speciallyalienated from politics and are not taken seriously whenever they are included. But
alienation is a universal issue and people of all ages should be engaged more thanwhat they currently are”.
Because the definition of what democracy is needs to be refreshed. We need toremind ourselves what democracy really is. Democracy is about representing thepeople (EU citizens). Because young people are fed up and disillusioned with
politicians who they view as elites who do not share their views. That is why people
should be included more than they currently are in novel and engaging ways. The
education system, then social media, and all other forms of media could carry out thisrole throughout the lifecycle and in all languages.

138

Substream 5.2 Citizen participation
37. “We recommend that the EU should be closer to citizens in a more assertive
way, which means involving the Member States in the promotion of citizens'participation in the EU. The EU should promote the use of the mechanisms of
citizens' participation, by developing marketing and publicity campaigns. The
national and local governments should be obliged to be involved in this process.
The EU should guarantee the effectiveness of participative democracy platforms”.
We recommend this because the platform that already exists needs to be madestronger and efficient: there needs to be more feedback to the EU from the citizens
and vice versa. There is not enough debate within the EU, both between the citizens
and governments. Because the citizens do not engage in submitting petitions either
because they do not know that the process exists or they do not believe in the successof such a petition.
38. “We recommend that the EU creates and implements programmes for schools
about what is being done in the EU in terms of the existing mechanisms ofparticipation. These programmes should be included in the school curricula about
European citizenship and ethics with content adequate to the age. There should
also be programmes for adults. There should be lifelong learning programmes
available to citizens to further their knowledge about the possibilities of EU citizen
participation”.
We recommend this, because it is important for the future of our children. The
citizens want to know how to express their voice. It is important that they know theexact mechanisms and how they can be used, so that their voice is heard by the EU.
It is important for the equal inclusion of all European citizens. As European citizens,
we need to know how to use our rights. By virtue of being European citizens, we areentitled to this knowledge.

139Substream 5.3 Citizen participation
39. “We recommend that the European Union holds Citizen’s Assemblies. We
strongly recommend that they are developed through a legally binding andcompulsory law or regulation. The citizens' assemblies should be held every 12-18
months. Participation of the citizens should not be mandatory but incentivised,
while organised on the basis of limited mandates. Participants must be selected
randomly, with representativity criteria, also not representing any organisation of
any kind, nor being called to participate because of their professional role whenbeing assembly members. If needed, there will be support of experts so that
assembly members have enough information for deliberation. Decision-making will
be in the hands of citizens. The EU must ensure the commitment of politicians tocitizens' decisions taken in Citizens’ Assemblies. In case citizens' proposals are
ignored or explicitly rejected, EU institutions must be accountable for it, justifying
the reasons why this decision was made”.
We recommend the implementation of Citizens’ Assemblies because we want thatcitizens feel closer to EU institutions and that they contribute directly to decisionmaking hand to hand with politicians, increasing the feeling of belonging and direct
efficacy. Furthermore, we want political parties and their electoral programs to beaccountable to citizens.

140

Annex: OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WERE CONSIDERED BY THE PANEL AND
NOT ADOPTED
Stream 1 Ensuring rights and non-discrimination
Substream 1.1 Non-discrimination / Substream 1.2 Gender equality“We recommend the EU to actively include minorities in policy-making regarding
key aspects of state institutions (e.g. police and NGOs). We recommend the EUshould establish an advisory board, directly elected by minorities. The composition
should be predominately by minority representatives with NGOs also present. It
should have a formative role in training civil servants to care for the needs ofminorities. This body should have a veto right on minority issues”.
We recommend this because the voices of minorities are not heard enough. They
should speak on their own behalf, self-determined and at a professional level which
is why we combined representation by voting and expertise.
Stream 2: Protecting democracy and the rule of law
Substream 2.2 Protecting and strengthening democracy / Substream 2.4 Media anddisinformation“We recommend establishing an agency for monitoring audiovisual media, printand digital media at the European level. This agency should monitor that national
media outlets follow an impartial and objective process in the production of theircontent. To prevent disinformation, the agency should provide a scoring system on
the reliability of national media outlets. This scoring system should be easy tounderstand for citizens”.
We recommend this because we need evaluation of the media and their reliability,
but also media diversity in EU countries. An EU agency would be most objective inensuring this. Moreover, a scoring system enables citizens to make informed choices
and incentivises media outlets to provide reliable news. If the scoring system proves
insufficient for ensuring the reliability of media outlets, the agency should also obtainthe competence of imposing sanctions.

141

Stream 5: Strengthening citizen participation
Substream 5.1 Citizen participation“We recommend that there should be a citizen's representative body created to
discuss and inform decision-making in a significant way - whenever there is an issue
being decided upon at EU level which is of major significance to European citizens(as decided by citizens - potentially via survey). This should be a diverse group of
approximately 100 citizens from all EU countries with equal representation for eachcountry. This should be a revolving group where members are periodicallychanged”.
Because it is important to avoid issues such as corruption that may arise from apermanent representative body, and that it is vital such a body has equal
representation from all countries to avoid unfair decision-making power. Because
operating in this way would avoid challenges associated with constantly assemblingor using technology from afar.

142

Conference on the
Future of Europe
European Citizens’ Panel 3: “Climate change andthe environment / Health”
Recommendations
Photo © Union européenne, 2021 – EP/Kenton Thatcher

143

Conference on the Future of Europe
European Citizens’ Panel 3:“Climate change and the environment / Health”
RECOMMENDATIONS ADOPTED BY THE PANEL (TO BE TAKEN FORWARD TO THE
PLENARY)

Stream 1: Better ways of living
Substream 1.1 Healthy lifestyles
1. We recommend that the EU provides subsidies for organic farming, including
incentives for organic pesticides, to make organic goods more affordable.
Furthermore, education for farmers in organic and sustainable farming needs to besupported by the EU and mono-culture farming should be avoided. Small organic
farms, non-intensive farms and those with short supply chains should be given
support to become more competitive.
Subsidising organic products would improve their affordability. We should help
supermarkets with shorter supply chains and support smaller farmers with
opportunities to sell their products. This enables access to fresher produce.
Furthermore, the low prices of non-organic products do not reflect their harm.
2. We recommend that innovation in vertical farming be supported by investmentsfrom the EU.
Vertical farming allows us to save land space, which could be used for forestry instead.
It also does not require pesticides, allowing us to produce more organic food.
Furthermore, it is not impacted by bad weather conditions, which is increasingly
common as a result of climate change, and allows for shorter supply chains.

144

3. The EU should set minimum standards for food quality, as well as food traceability
and the use of seasonal food in school canteens. Healthy ingredients for school
canteens should therefore be subsidised to ensure affordable, high-quality food for
pupils.
We form habits at a young age, which shape our attitudes towards health, good habits
should be encouraged in schools and pupils can bring these teachings home. This isalso a question of social-justice: everyone in the EU should have the right to good
food in schools.
4. We recommend investing in new bike lanes and in improving existing ones to makecycling safe and attractive. Ensure that training on road traffic rules for all age
groups is widely available across Europe, especially for e-bikes and for those
without drivers’ licenses. The producers of e-bikes should be required to provide
information about the use and risks of e-biking. Give legal protection to cyclists incase of accidents with vehicles (see Dutch regulation). We support dedicated carfree zones in cities (without harming commercial areas). Overall, give priority andfurther rights to cyclists and pedestrians over motorized vehicles while
guaranteeing road safety and accordance with traffic rules.
This is important because cycling has benefits for individual and public health, air
quality, noise levels, climate and inner city traffic. Cyclists and pedestrians need tofeel safe, taking risks from the increased use of e-bikes into account. Bike lanes are
sometimes lacking or in bad quality.
5. We recommend making the production of food part of public education. Subsidize
and support the creation of gardens in schools, if feasible, and urban gardening
projects for public and private spaces. The need for space, water and support
infrastructure needs to be part of urban planning frameworks. For example, former
parking lots could be used for greening, vertical gardening on buildings, or there
could be mandates to include green spaces for receiving building permits. Shareinnovative and best practices across all member states.
Gardening projects promote the resilience of cities and inhabitants, bringing together
people of different ages and social groups. More green space improves quality of life,
air quality, mental and physical health and the environment.

145

Substream 1.2 Environmental education
6. We recommend that the EU adopts a directive requiring urban development
programmes to fulfill specific environmental requirements, with the aim to makecities greener. The directive must apply to private and public property and spaces,such as new buildings being developed. The directive must impose minimum
standards to ensure buildings and spaces are as green as possible. "Green", here,
refers to the use of renewable energy sources, reduced energy consumption, lowlevels of CO2 emissions and the inclusion of plants in architectural projects.
Greener cities actively contribute to reducing the impacts of climate change andreducing emissions, such as CO2 and ozone, which negatively affect citizens' health.
Investing in greener cities contributes to the sustainable development ofcommunities which has long-term economic and social benefits.
7. We recommend that the EU, with the assistance of the member states, develops,
adopts and implements a common European charter targeting environmental
issues, in their complexity. The charter will provide a framework for member states
to develop regular information and training campaigns, disseminated across all
available media channels and a new dedicated information portal. These campaigns
should be held across the EU and at all levels to foster environmental awarenessamong all citizens.
A lack of coordination between member states is hindering the effectiveness ofexisting campaigns and slowing efforts to fight the global challenge that is climatechange. A common charter will foster synergies between member states’ action plans
ensuring efforts are more impactful. In addition, it would ensure coherent andconsistent information is communicated to citizens about the impact of daily actions
such as their chosen means of transportation and waste treatment.

146

Stream 2: Protecting our environment and our health
Substream 2.1 Healthy natural environment
8. We recommend a graded unified labelling system showing the entire ecologicalfootprint for every available product purchased within the EU. Products fromoutside the EU need to respect this labelling system in a transparent manner. The
system should be based on clear labelling criteria on the products themselves anduse, for example, a QR code that gives more in-depth information about the
product.
This information about the lifecycle of the product is fundamental for all citizens
within the EU to empower consumers in their purchasing actions. In consequence,
EU citizens will be taking responsible decisions to contribute to the protection of theirenvironment.
9. We recommend that more financial investment should be made to explore new
eco-friendly sources of energy and until then additional investment into existing
optimal solutions of energy production. We also recommend informing andeducating the European public about specific sources of energy in full transparency.
We strongly recommend considering the entire ecological and social impacts of theenergy production process for current and future generations.
We have very high levels of carbon emissions and other toxic substances from energy
production that degrades the climate and air quality. To be in line with the European
directives and the recommendations of the IPCC reports and the COP 26 goals, more
research and investment are needed to achieve climate-neutral energy production.

147

Substream 2.2 Protecting our biodiversity
10.We recommend a drastic reduction of chemical pesticides and fertilizers in all types
of farms, by enforcing the application of higher common standards, by accelerating
the research on the natural alternatives and by supporting the adoption of the new
solutions, including the training for farmers.
Although progress has been made in alternative fertilizers and pesticides, most ofthem are not yet usable by big farms. Therefore a more consistent effort is necessary
to generate new solutions. The research should be encouraged by both public
expenditures and by higher standards in the use of pesticides and fertilizers. The
results of the research need rapid diffusion at EU scale.
11.We recommend the extension of the protected areas for the conservation of
biodiversity (including mammals, birds, insects and plants), and enhancing the ruleof law regarding human intervention in these areas. The protected areas will beseen not only as islands, but as a continuum with greener urban areas, following
harmonised EU standards.
Because of deforestation, biodiversity is being heavily affected. One of the main waysof protecting land biodiversity is by creating protected areas. However, it is difficult
to maintain protected areas near polluted cities, or to avoid human interference
when the surroundings are not nature friendly. We need to make the living areas
greener and integrated with their surrounding nature.
12.We recommend redirecting the generic subsidies for agriculture mainly towards
projects related to the development of sustainable agriculture, including therespect for nature and the workers. The beneficiaries should comply with clear
environmental standards, and be strictly monitored.
We believe that only sustainable agriculture should be encouraged, which means
redirecting the funds now used for generic subsidies. Moreover, the efficiency of thefunds used can be increased by focusing on transformational projects and innovative
solutions, rather than on annual payments. The ecological impact of agriculture
activities and the projects should be better monitored. The human rights of thelabour workers also need to be considered as part of sustainability.

148

13.We recommend that the EU ensures a loyal competition for environment-friendly
agricultural products by establishing stricter standards for both EU and theimported products, by ensuring their traceability, labelling and quality control.
The lower productivity of the sustainable agricultural products affects their costcompetitiveness. The imported products should comply with the same strict
standards regarding the ecological impact of their production. We need authorities
capable of ensuring the traceability of the imported agricultural products.
14.We recommend rapid and massive reforestation and afforestation in the EU, bymaximizing the use of land. A special focus should be given to the reforestation of
exploited or destroyed forests and the afforestation of the areas with degraded soil.
New more responsible solutions should be promoted for a better utilization of thewood, e.g. replacing plastics and other chemical materials, ensuring higher energy
efficiency from biomass, recycling of wood products.
Reforestation has a clear positive impact on the environment and the biodiversity atlarge. At the same time, we need to use less wood for fire, but for high added value
products, as for instance the replacements for plastics the use of wood is principal.
Substream 2.3 Safe and healthy food
15.We recommend the swift and progressive elimination of non-sustainable forms offood packaging, including plastic packaging and those of other non-biodegradable
materials. We propose achieving this through providing financial incentives tocompanies which change to fully biodegradable forms of packaging, investing inresearch into alternatives and introducing penalties for companies that do not use
biodegradable packaging.
Plastic waste, particularly microplastics, is increasingly abundant and degrades
slowly. Its consumption harms the quality and safety of food while endangering thehealth of humans and animals. Moreover, existing European law aimed at reducing
non-biodegradable packaging is insufficient.

149

16.We recommend that intensive animal farming is phased out gradually, including theelimination of disrespectful living conditions of animals. We propose introducing
common norms for animal farming (e.g. maximum number of animals, appropriate
outside space) and stronger investment into non-intensive methods (extensive andsustainable farming) by providing financial incentives and training to farms to
support this change.
Phasing out intensive farming will reduce levels of environmental pollution andenhance natural preservation. Furthermore, phasing out intensive animal farming will
reduce the amount of medicine necessary to tackle animal diseases and increase thequality of our food. Intensive animal farming also fails to respect the well-being ofanimals but more sustainable forms of farming exist, such as extensive farming. andsubsidies are necessary to help farmers pursue these forms.

17.We recommend tightening controls on the prohibition of the unnecessary use ofantibiotics and other animal drugs in feed additives for animals: make it a reality!
We propose that the use of antibiotics is only authorised in farming when absolutely
necessary to protect the health and well-being of animals, instead of in a preventive
way. In addition, it is necessary to invest further into research for more efficientantibiotics, developing alternatives while building upon existing research into
antibiotics.
Human resistance to antibiotics is decreased as a result of eating food from animals
that have been given antibiotics. Furthermore, time is needed to create suitable
alternatives to existing antibiotics and to ensure that farmers are aware and ready touse them. We recognise that European Directives exist on antibiotics but these havenot been implemented in the same way across member states. Lastly, animal drugs
are misused for doping purposes and so stronger legislation on the topic will increaseanimal well-being and boost their quality of life.

150

18.We recommend that European legislation requires declarations on the use ofhormonal substances and endocrine disruptors in the production of food: the type,
quantity and exposure of the final product used. All food products including thesesubstances must have detailed labels on their packaging displaying this informationand the reasons for their use. Additionally, we have to accelerate research into theeffects of hormonal substances and endocrine disruptors on human health.
Food products currently lack traceability, particularly with respect to hormonal
substances and endocrine disruptors. We think that transparency is necessary in foodproduction to ensure accountability. Also, consumers should know the full contentsof their food and be able to choose freely what they eat. In addition to that, there isinsufficient research into the impact on humans (and the potential risks) of theconsumption of food products with hormonal substances and endocrine disruptors.
19.We recommend discouraging the consumption of processed foods by taxing
unhealthy food and investing the funds raised into healthy food. We propose
introducing a European-wide scoring system for healthy food based upon bestpractices in member states to label food and inform consumers of the healthproperties of food.
In this way, the funds raised can be used as a resource to develop awareness-raisingmeasures and promotional campaigns, prioritise healthy food in education and makeunhealthy food less visible in supermarkets. Also, investing in healthy food increases
the general health of the population, therefore reducing levels of public spending
needed to tackle health issues resulting from unhealthy eating. Moreover, we thinktaxation and subsidies will incentivise the production of healthier food products fromcompanies.

151

Stream 3: Redirecting our economy and consumption
Substream 3.1 Regulating overproduction and overconsumption
20.We recommend that the EU takes more actions that enable and incentivise
consumers to use products longer. The EU should combat planned obsolescence bylengthening products’ warranty and setting a maximum price for spare parts after
the warranty period. All member states should introduce a tax break on repair
services as is the case in Sweden. Manufacturers should be required to declare theexpected lifespan of their products. The EU should provide information on how to
re-use and repair products on an internet platform and through education.
Our throw-away and single-use based society is not sustainable because it generates
too much waste. By implementing the proposed measures we will move towards asociety that reuses, repairs and reduces the products it consumes, thereby reducing
overconsumption
21.We recommend that the EU enforces stricter environmental manufacturing
standards and ensures fair working conditions throughout the entire production
chain. The EU’s production standards should be more sustainable, harmonised
across member states, and applied to imported goods. These should also include
social standards, like a living wage for workers producing the goods and goodworking standards in factories. Products that do not comply with these standards
should face consequences.
It is important to establish homogenous environmental and social manufacturing
standards in Europe to ensure that all products offered are produced in a sustainable
way. These measures are crucial to redirect our economy and change the production
patterns of companies.

152

22.We recommend that the EU and member states introduce measures to limit
advertising for products that damage the environment. Products with a low
sustainability score should have a mandatory disclaimer in all forms of advertisingthat shows that they are harmful for the environment. For products that are notsustainable at all the EU should ban advertising.
Advertisements promote consumption, products that harm the environment should
not be promoted. In that way people will be less inclined to buy environmentally
harmful products.
23.We recommend that the EU puts in place and expands the infrastructure of depositreturn schemes for all primary packaging made of glass, plastic, aluminium, etcetera in a homogenous way across the EU. Whenever possible, manufacturers
should re-use the returned containers by sterilizing them, rather than just recycling
the material. In addition to food and drink containers, the scheme should also
include other kinds of bottles and containers, like shampoo bottles.
At the moment consumers throw away too much packaging that pollutes anddestroys our eco-systems. Deposit-return schemes help to reduce waste by
motivating citizens to bring packages back instead of throwing them away. By
expanding the scheme we use less resources and reduce the amount of waste we
produce.
Substream 3.2 Reducing waste
24.We recommend that an enhanced implementation of circular economy policies is
promoted at the European level, targeting both corporations and citizens, in theform of financial incentives for those that comply with it.
Because in case production companies reduce their personnel or even default/close
down, lots of people will end up unemployed. By retraining the unemployed, we will
be promoting environmentally safe practices whilst also curbing unemployment andpromoting the modernisation of a diversified economy.

153

25.We recommend that the EU regulates the use of environmentally-safe packaging(i.e., packaging made out of biodegradable or recyclable products, or more
endurable products, where possible) and/or the use of packaging that takes up lessspace, which will also contain in the form of a QR-code the information pertinent
to the packages’ recycling and/or disposal process once it has been used.
Because this recommendation will lead to less packaging, less production of waste
and hence less pollution, therefore cleaner environment and ultimately a reduced
carbon footprint. Additionally, the tax burden on producers will be reduced.
Substream 3.3 Fair products, equal access, and just consumption
26.We recommend the European Union to establish a legal framework to ensure
affordable, and better access to local and quality food products for all European
consumers.
Because currently there is no shared understanding, at the EU level, of what is local
and quality food. This gap needs to be filled.
Importation of low quality products has a direct negative impact on the environment.
In order to tackle climate change, we need to fight all of its causes, including
importation of low quality products: there is a need to reduce transportation
distance, and favour seasonal products.
This recommendation is promising because it could also apply to non-alimentary
products.
27.We recommend the European Union to encourage research and development, withfunding schemes, in order to introduce more sustainable and affordable products
within the European market. Also, the European Union must organise consultations
with citizens, at all decision-making levels including the local level, in order to
identify their needs regarding sustainable products.
We consider there is a lack of research for sustainable products, and there is an urgent
need to have more funds allocated to research, to allow Europeans to have access tosustainable and more affordable sustainable products.
Citizens must participate in the decision-making process. The agenda of research andinnovation actions must be defined together with citizens.
Citizens need to be informed on the follow-up and receive feedbacks.

15428.We recommend the European Union to find a regulation mechanism for fashion
products entering the common market. This mechanism would aim at encouraging
better consumption thanks to an indicator guaranteeing that the product meetssustainable criteria.
The fashion sector, which is overproducing low quality products outside the European
borders, does not follow ethical norms, and is not sustainable.
We need to find a fair mechanism which will allow better consumption for consumers.
Yet, it is important not to increase taxes, which will have negative impacts on
European consumers, reducing their purchasing power.
The consumer should know in the conditions in which the products they purchase are
made, and if they meet sustainable quality norms.

Stream 4: Towards a sustainable society
Substream 4.1 Renewable energy now
29.We recommend that the EU takes measures to make CO2 filters mandatory,
especially for the coal plants, in a transition period, as long as we still depend on
conventional energy. In addition, we recommend that the EU provides financial aid
to member states that do not have financial resources to implement CO2 filters. The
support is conditional on compliance to EU climate policies connected to the Paris
Agreement, the Green Deal and any new climate law.
This is a concrete step to take alongside continued investment in research of thesafe energy production and to support EU Member States to progressively achievealready adopted common reduction goals.
We know that the use of combustible fuels creates greenhouse gasses, and the EU
Member States must reduce this type of energy to comply with the Paris Agreement.
Since we cannot stop CO2 emissions right away, and since we still depend on coal, we
have to take both short-term and long-term measures.
Because CO2 reduction is a common interest that affects all citizens, both in theMember States and beyond the EU, the EU as an institution has its own
responsibilities, and the institution makes recommendations and enables solutions
as Member States cannot achieve the goals alone.

155

30.We recommend reducing the intensive industrial breeding of animals to reduce theproduction of methane as well as water pollution. For that purpose, the EU reviews
its common Agricultural Policy to direct its subsidies towards sustainable and locally
based agriculture, among others supported by a labelling scheme for consumers torecognize sustainable meat products. In addition, we encourage the EU to invest inmethods to re-use waste material from animal production and other industries.
Population is increasing, which means more demand on meat in the future.
Therefore, we need to reduce meat consumption.
We believe that since methane makes greenhouse gasses, animal farming is the mostobvious place to start reducing.
We all know that it is necessary to consume less meat, and therefore a consequenceis that we reduce the number of cattle.
31.We recommend that although it is a cost-intensive process to generate greenhydrogen, as 75% energy should be produced in order to get 25% hydrogen, there
are multiple positive sides to this type of energy. The best solution can be to
produce energy without CO2 while we develop green hydrogen. Wind energy
should be used for the production of green hydrogen and the EU should make moreinvestments and increase the production of wind energy, as well as storing theenergy for future purposes.
Green hydrogen is flexible and we can store it, and when there is a demand we canuse that energy. Because there is no CO2 pollution.

156

Substream 4.2 Supporting change
32.We recommend that the EU sets up a coercion and reward system to tackle
pollution like water, soil, air, and radiation. Issuing fines for polluters, in
combination with the mandatory support of an expert organisation, specificallydesigned to help entities to eliminate pollution and restore the ecosystem. This
expert organisation should have a leading role in preventing and controlling thelevel of pollution.
Because it is important to emphasize the responsibilities of the polluters andstimulate entities to reduce pollution with a strive for zero pollution. It is crucial tohave a healthy planet since it is directly linked to our well-being and our future
existence.
33.We recommend the EU to set up a special website/platform verified by multiple
experts -with regularly updated and diverse scientific environmental informationthat is easily accessible and transparent to all citizens. This website/platform islinked to a forum where citizens and experts can interact. We also strongly advise
to initiate a media campaign to promote this website/platform (for instancethrough social media such as YouTube, TikTok, LinkedIn).
All citizens must have independent scientific-based sources of information tounderstand climate change issues (its consequences and needed steps to reverse it),as well as to cope with fake news. The media campaign will make them aware that
this platform/website exists. It is also important that the information provided by thewebsite/platform is understandable for all citizens, with access to the source material
for those who want to dig into the topic.
34.We recommend that the EU reduces the amount of imported goods that don't meet
EU standards in terms of ecological footprint.
Because, in doing so, we make sure that goods imported in the EU have a greener
footprint. The aim is to decrease global pollution. It is also important to showcountries what standards should be met if they want to export goods to the EU.

157

35.We recommend that the EU encourages, promotes and facilitates dialogue on
climate change between all levels of decision-making, from the very local level(citizens) to the global level (national, international and intercontinental), to satisfy
concerns of all involved parties.
Because dialogue and consensus are the optimal way to cope with the climate change
challenges: if the parties understand each other, there is more willingness to find acommon ground.
Substream 4.3 Environmentally friendly transport
36.We recommend that the EU financially supports European member states in orderto improve the connectivity of rural areas. It should be done by developing a
European public transportation network based on affordable prices (prioritisingrailways) and with incentives for public transportation usage. To this end, internet
connectivity within a short and realistic time frame should also be developed inrural areas.
We recommend that because there is no access equality to public transportation andinternet connectivity between rural and urban areas. A common European project
would be strengthened as all citizens would feel they have the same rights. Enhanced
public transportation network and internet connectivity would trigger population tosettle in rural areas. This process would reduce pollution as less people would live incrowded cities.
37.We recommend the improvement of existing transportation infrastructures that
may be in disuse or those that can still be improved from an ecological point of view(to implement electric trains). Such process should be done with the intention of
not damaging environmentally protected areas.
Improving existing infrastructure would avoid spending too many resources andcause damage to protected areas important for biodiversity conservation. Having
more railway infrastructure would trigger a reduction in CO2 emissions and anincrease in population mobility from urban to rural areas.

158

38.We recommend that the EU promotes the purchase of electric vehicles complying
with good standards regarding battery life. It could be done by EU incentives
applying to all EU member states and by improving electric infrastructures. At thesame time, it should invest in the development of other non-polluting technologies,
such as biofuels and hydrogen for those vehicles whose electrification is difficult toachieve, such as boats and lorries.
We recommend it because electricity is the fastest way to reduce emissions ofvehicles, accompanied by other energy sources such as hydrogen and biofuels.
Indeed, the fastest, economic and feasible solution is electricity, followed by biofuels.
In the longer-term green hydrogen should play a complementary role to covertransport modes that can not be electrified.

Stream 5: Caring for all
Substream 5.1 Reinforce the healthcare system
39.We recommend that the European Union safeguards common health standards, butalso pushes for decent minimum wages, a maximum number of working hours andsame training standards, for the same certifications, for healthcare professionals
across the European Union.
If we do not have common healthcare standards, common wages and common
training for healthcare workers, differences between the Member States could leadto unbalanced situations across the European Union. Standardization of healthcare
could help in having a stronger, more efficient and more resilient system (i.e. Covid
crisis example about stability of our systems). It would also facilitate knowledge andinformation sharing in the healthcare professional sector.

159

40.We recommend that the European Union ensures that treatments across the EU areof equal quality and of fair local cost. This could be ensured, for instance thanks toan extension of the competences of the European Medicines Agency (EMA), or thecreation of a new specialized European procurement agency, which would becompetent to negotiate and obtain more suitable prices for medicines for all theMembers States. The risk of pharmaceutical industry monopolies must be
minimized.
Equal medical provisions and treatments guarantee equal rights of all European
citizens in the EU in health matters. Enlarged purchase capacities ensure better
procurement deals. Nevertheless, this must not lead to monopoly structures andpharmaceutical lobbying. A Covid crisis management has been a good example ofcollaborative health management by the European Union as a whole.
41.We recommend the creation of a European healthcare database, in which medical
records would be made available in cases of emergencies or illnesses. Participation
should be optional, and personal data protection must be ensured.
Access to data and data use permit prompt response to life threatening situations.
Hacking or misuse are major threats of such a European healthcare database system,
hence the data needs to be secured, while participation remains optional, andsecurity-related threats obviously need to be prevented.
42.We recommend that the European Union further develops and synchronizes
already existing health research and innovation programs, as it is done in theframework of the existing Horizon Europe program. Academic outcomes and results
should be made freely available in all member states.
The EU-level scientific cooperation could enrich scientific capacities and knowledgeof individual researchers. Knowledge sharing could, for example, lead to early
diagnosis and better treatments reducing severe and fatal illnesses across Europe. It
would also foster European self-sufficiency in terms of medication and equipment.

160

43.We recommend that the European Union increases its budget dedicated for joint
research and innovation projects in the area of health (without budget cuts in other
EU health-related programs). This would also strengthen European scientific andresearch institutions overall.
Health-related research and investments will in the long-run strengthen preventive
medicine and decrease health-related costs. More funding could prevent theEuropean brain drain to other developed countries with higher R&D health-specificbudgets. This funding should not be coming from already existing healthcare financial
resources.
Substream 5.2 A broader understanding of health44.We recommend that a health week be established as a European Union initiativeacross all Member States, on the same week, on all health issues with a special focus
on mental health. During this week, all main topics on mental health will becollectively covered and promoted, together with other already existing initiatives,
such as those from the Mental Health Europe organization.
We recommend this because all European citizens should feel accepted and included,
especially if they suffer from mental health issues. Moreover, there is need tonormalize and improve awareness of mental health conditions, and also to prevent
related-social issues such as discrimination. Furthermore, as mental health issues
have increased with the pandemic and are likely to continue, this initiative becomeseven more important.

161

45.We recommend that female sanitary products stop being considered as luxury
products when it comes to taxation, as they are essential products. We also
recommend that hormonal contraception products used for medical reasons, suchas in the cases of fibromyalgia and endometriosis, get taxed as a regular medical
treatment. We also recommend that the European Union encourages the
harmonisation of medically assisted reproductive treatments for all women (single
or married) across all Member States.
In certain European countries sanitary female products are taxed as luxury products,
and that is unfair. Certain hormonal contraceptives are used for medical purposes
and therefore should be taxed accordingly. Because women's reproduction
treatments, such as In Vitro Fertilization and egg freezing methods, have different
eligibility conditions in different Member States, and the European Union must makean effort to harmonise it.
46.We recommend that the European Union takes a strong stance in influencing all
Member States to include in their school curricula, as appropriate, issues on mental
health and sexual education. To help Member States adopt such issues in school
curricula, the European Union should developed and make available a standard
program on mental health and sexual issues.
There is a need to decrease discrimination and taboos regarding mental health issues.
There is also a need to avoid misinformation and unscientific approaches.
Furthermore, sexual education is fundamental for a healthy life and community, andprevents problems such as teenager pregnancies.
47.We recommend that the European Union develops a better communication systemof all its initiatives on mental health, namely the Public Health Portal on goodpractices, within Member States and for all citizens. Members of the European
Parliament could present these good practices to each other, in order to make thembetter known across Member States.
Citizens are not well informed about the European Union's initiatives, and becausewith the sharing of good practices we can learn from each other.

162

Substream 5.3 Equal access to health for all
48.We recommend that the EU sets and promotes minimum standards for quality
dental care, including prophylaxis, for all EU Member States. Free of charge dental
care should be available for children, low-income groups and other vulnerable
groups. In 15-20 years time, the EU should guarantee that affordable dental care isavailable to everyone.
We recommend this because currently dental care is not affordable to many people
living in the EU. Lack of dental care and dental prophylaxis harms their health and life
prospects. The EU should start by setting a minimum standard for dental care and byrequiring free of charge dental care to children and low-income groups. Eventually,
everyone should be entitled to quality dental health care.
49.We recommend to include Health and Healthcare among the shared competencies
between the EU and the EU Member States. In order to include this new sharedcompetence, there is a need to amend Article 4 of the Treaty on the Functioning of
the European Union (TFEU).
We recommend this because currently the European Union does not have enoughcompetencies to legislate on healthcare. Covid-19 pandemic has proven the necessityof a stronger EU presence in health policies. This Treaty change will allow the EU to
do more to guarantee healthcare for all EU citizens and to issue binding regulations
and decisions.
50.We recommend that the EU makes courses on providing first aid available to all EU
citizens free of charge. The EU could consider making such courses obligatory forstudents and for workplaces (both in public and in the private sector). These courses
also need to be practical, recurrent and adapted to students' age. There should also
be a minimum number of defibrillators available in public places in all EU Member
States.
We recommend this because many people in the European Union are not preparedto act when a person needs help and they do not know first aid techniques. That is
why many lives are lost. In some public places defibrillators are not available.

163

51.We recommend that the European Union ensures that private health care providers
do not unfairly benefit from public funds and do not drain resources from publichealth systems. The European Union should issue strong recommendations toMember States to increase funding to public healthcare.
We recommend this because the European Union and the European Union Member
States have an obligation to guarantee access to healthcare to all their citizens.
Besides, a stronger public healthcare system also means being better prepared for
future pandemics.

164

Annex: OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WERE CONSIDERED BY THE PANEL AND
NOT ADOPTED

Stream 1: Better ways of living
Substream 1.1 Healthy lifestyles
We recommend that the EU issues a recommendation to all member states about
best practices on banning or restricting alcohol and tobacco advertising in all formsof media for all age groups, but with an emphasis on young audiences. The EUshould ensure enforcement of laws that restrict sale of these products to minors.
All member states should implement laws, with penalties, relating to smoking inpublic areas, especially educational facilities, and create designated smoking areas.
Unhealthy lifestyles cannot appear in advertising and should be less visible in publiclife. Furthermore, alcohol and tobacco are some of the most used harmful substances
and this recommendation will prevent abusive consumption of these substances.
We recommend that the EU supports member states in including lessons on cooking
in a sustainable, healthy and tasty manner in national curriculums. The EU can
support this through healthy cooking guides both online and in print. This should be
advertised proactively on traditional and social media in order to reach a young
audience. We should also educate parents so that they learn what the best way is
to use food in order to adopt a healthy lifestyle. There should be stimulating andenriching research in this field.
Cooking and nutrition courses in school would improve the health of youth anddiscourage fast-food consumption. Education of children allows them to bring what
they have learned back to their parents. Furthermore, educating parents on healthy
lifestyles would set a good precedent for children.

165

We recommend intensifying the European Commission’s public campaign“HealthyLifestyle4All” about healthy lifestyles, and the benefits of social activity
with concrete examples and using a holistic approach. Information campaigns
should be defined on well structured target groups, and appropriate means ofcommunication should be chosen for each of the targeted groups. It is important tofurthermore provide rewards and incentive systems to promote positive behaviour.
The campaigns should include influencers, celebrities or authorities. They shallhighlight the double benefits on both health, and the environment and climate.
Furthermore, subsidies for free public sport should be available in all member
states.
Healthier lifestyles have a positive effect on the healthcare system by reducing healthproblems. Physical health has an impact on mental health and happiness. Current
campaigns are not known enough. The inclusion of role models and influencers makeit more effective and more motivating.
We recommend an information campaign about healthy food and nutrition. The EUshould promote higher taxes for meat and sugar to be adopted in member states.
It should explore options to differentiate healthy from unhealthy food and put it indifferent VAT brackets. We recommend putting very clear warning signs on very
unhealthy foods (such as tobacco products). In addition, we recommend a
European-wide nutrition score, with relevant information and a QR code for
consumers to make better-informed decisions. Explore options to make healthy
food cheaper than junk food and to make it more attractive for farmers to produce
healthy products.
Healthy food is the basis for healthy living. Both production and consumer sides need
to be addressed. Production of healthy products also has positive effects on theenvironment and can help support local farmers. If there is more production ofhealthy food, prices will decrease, demand increase.
Substream 1.2 Environmental Education
We recommend that the EU establishes a funding scheme to incentivise theinclusion of a long-term environmental education programme in national education
systems for children in elementary and secondary school. This funding scheme
should include funds earmarked for parents in need of financial assistance.

166Current educational systems do not contain enough practical elements promoting
direct and profound interactions between children and the environment. Existing
programmes, elaborated from a short-term perspective, are heterogeneous and failto promote the needed change in attitudes. Parents should be aided to ensure all
children can equally benefit from the programme and none are excluded for financial
reasons.

Stream 2: Protecting our environment and our health
Substream 2.1 Healthy natural environment
We recommend instantly implementing the highest possible standard of water
quality in the whole of the EU. To save water, we suggest a reward system that will
be based on pricing water in a way that encourages and gives incentives to lessconsumption, e.g.: (1) by creating a dynamic system encouraging consumers to stayunder the average amount of water consumption (i.e. an increase in water
consumption by 10% will increase the price by 11%), (2) by creating an allowances’market system for water polluted by manufacturing companies, which is a similarsystem to the carbon permits market already in place.
This recommendation is justified by the fact that increasing prices are an incentive
for all users to make more conscious decisions regarding their consumption.
Considering the different realities of EU countries and aiming to have a socially fairsystem, we can support poorer populations in water management by co-investing inwater infrastructure and research.

Stream 3: Redirecting our economy and consumption
Substream 3.1 Regulating overproduction and overconsumption
We recommend that the EU imposes fines on companies that dispose of unsold
products generated by overproduction.
In some cases companies find it more profitable to throw away unsold products rather
than recycling or reusing them. It is therefore important to discourage overproduction
through fines so that this practice is no longer profitable for producers.

167

Substream 3.2 Reducing waste
We recommend that the EU develops and implements a waste-management policy
for households/citizens, focusing on the actual amount of waste they generate,complemented by measures necessary for raising citizens’ awareness about thebenefits of reducing generation of waste and separate waste-collection. Measurestargeting socially disadvantaged families (e.g. young families with children, elderly
people, etc.) are to be implemented as well, in agreement with the 'no one is left
behind' principle.
It aims at developing a unified approach to waste management in households, it also
facilitates the protection of the environment through waste-reduction, it further
stimulates circular economy and increases waste-collection efficiency. Last but notleast, it raises people's awareness and their sense of environmental responsibility.
We recommend that the EU promotes free-market competition and stimulates theprivate sector to become more actively involved in the treatment of waste,
including waste-waters, and the upcycling and recycling activities.
The EU is the right level to implement this recommendation because it complements
the Waste Framework Directive and the Circular Economy Action Plan. Moreover, theimplementation of the recommendation will increase innovative solutions in waste
management and enhance the quality of waste management as well as the volumeof treated waste because more companies will participate in these activities.
Substream 3.3 Fair products, equal access, and just consumption
We recommend relocating industries inside the European Union in order to provide
high-quality fair products and tackle climate issues.
The European Union has a know-how that has to be promoted on its own market.
Because of delocalisation of industries outside the EU, notably in Asia, some
professional competences are also delocalised. This recommendation entails theprofessional training of European workers.
We insist on the need to avoid delocalisation between different Member States, inorder to avoid unfair competition.
We observed that massive delocalisation of industries over the world affects
European industries. Thus, local production will lead to healthier citizens andenvironment.

168

Stream 4: Towards a sustainable society
Substream 4.3 Environmentally friendly transport
We recommend that big cities receive sanctions or subsidies depending on theirperformance on their public transportation with regards to the environment andpollution (electric vehicles, green public transport, pedestrianization, encouraging
bike use, etc.). Penalties or subsidies that target local authorities, should beparticularly applied based on changes implemented by cities on ecologicaltransportation taking into account what their starting point is. It is the European
Union, by means of its legislation, who should establish some performanceindicators with regards to pollution measures and the proportional reduction. Itshould be done taking into account the starting points of each city.
We recommend this because cities have been affected by air pollution, which has
raised some health issues. Developing green transportation would improve people's
lives and health and reduce the greenhouse effect. Subsidies and sanctions are
effective measures to promote changes and help adapt to different situations existingin different cities.
We recommend that EU legislation limits and regulates the use of short distance
flights and cruise ships. Ecological alternatives to people when it comes to transport
must be provided. One of such alternatives should be the standardisation of railway
tracks in order to connect the European capitals. We also recommend the EU to give
subsidies to change the transport of goods to make them more environmentallyfriendly, such as transport by train and boat (in short distance trips).
We recommend this because short distance trips are too frequent, polluting and easy
to be substituted. Cruise ship limitation would reduce maritime pollution (a criticalenvironmental problem) and the negative impact in coastal cities. Hence, we need tocreate more affordable alternatives compared to more polluting ones. Having thesame railway track width would improve railways connections between European
capitals.

169

Stream 5: Caring for all
Substream 5.2 A broader understanding of health
We recommend that the European Union, in line with its HealthyLife4All campaign
also promotes initiatives such as sportive social events, sport activities in schools,
bi-annual Olympiads open to all ages groups, and to all sports [not for
professionals]. We also recommend the development of a free European sport app
to incentivize collective sport activities. This app should help people connectingwith each other through sports. Furthermore, these initiatives should be widely
publicized and communicated.
In order to have a healthier European population, the European Union must promote
sport and healthy lifestyles. Furthermore, very often the population is not aware of
the relation between sport and a healthy life. The app is important because people
are more prone to do sport if they do it collectively.

170

Conference on the
Future of Europe
European Citizens’ Panel 4: “EU in the World /Migration”
Recommendations
Photo © Union européenne, 2021 – EP/Kenton Thatcher

171

Conference on the Future of Europe
European Citizens’ Panel 4:“EU in the World / Migration”
RECOMMENDATIONS ADOPTED BY THE PANEL (TO BE TAKEN FORWARD TO THE
PLENARY)

Stream 1 Self-reliance and Stability
Substream 1.1 Autonomy of the EU
1. We recommend that strategic products from European fabrication (such as
agricultural products, semiconductors, medical products, innovative digital andenvironmental technologies) should be better promoted and financially supported
to keep them available and affordable to European consumers and reduce
dependencies from outside Europe to the largest possible extent. This support could
include structural and regional policies, support to keep industries and supply
chains within the EU, tax breaks, subsidies, an active SME policy as well as education
programs to keep related qualifications and jobs in Europe. However, active
industrial policy should be selective and focused on innovative products or thosethat are relevant to secure basic needs and services.
We recommend this because Europe has entered too many dependencies fromoutside Europe in key areas that have potential for diplomatic conflicts and could
result in shortcomings of basic or strategically relevant products or services. As
production costs in the EU are often higher than in other parts of the world, more
active promotion and support of these products will enable and incentivise Europeans
to buy competitive European products. It will also strengthen European
competitiveness and keep future-oriented industries and jobs in Europe. Stronger
regionalisation of production will also reduce transport costs and environmental
damages.
2. We recommend that the EU reduce dependencies from oil and gas imports. Thisshould be done by actively supporting public transport and energy efficiency
projects, a Europe wide high speed rail and freight network, the expansion of clean
and renewable energy provision (in particular in solar and wind) and alternativetechnologies (such as hydrogen or waste-to-energy). The EU should also promote
the cultural change from the individual car towards public transport, e-car sharing
and biking.

172

We recommend this because it creates a win-win situation both for the autonomy ofEurope from external dependencies as well as ambitious climate and CO2 reduction
targets. It will also allow for Europe to become a strong player in future-oriented
technologies, strengthen its economy and create jobs.
3. We recommend a law is passed at EU level in order to ensure that all EU production
and supply processes and the goods which are imported, comply with qualitative,
ethical, sustainable and all applicable human rights European standards; offeringcertification for products abiding by this law.
We recommend this as it helps both consumers and traders to be able to easily accessinformation about the products they are buying/trading. This is achieved throughchecking the certification system; certification also helps to reduce the gap between
cheap and expensive products available on the market. The cheap products will notmeet the required standard and therefore cannot pass as being of good quality.
Qualification for this certification would serve to protect the environment, saving
resources and promoting responsible consumption.
4. We recommend the implementation of a European-wide programme to support
small local producers from strategic sectors across all Member States. These
producers would be professionally trained, financially supported through subsidies
and encouraged to produce (where raw materials are available in the EU) moregoods fulfilling requirements at the expense of imports.
We recommend this because by supporting EU based producers in strategic sectors,
the EU can reach economic autonomy across these sectors. This could only serveto strengthen the entire production process thus promoting innovation. This would
lead to more sustainable production of raw materials in the EU, reducing transport
costs and serving to protect the environment.
5. We recommend to improve the implementation of human rights at a European level
through: Raising awareness in countries that do not comply, at the required extent,with ECHR (European Convention of Human Rights) or the Convention for theProtection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms; a strict control,
coordinated by the EU and the Justice Scoreboard, of the extent to which humanrights are respected among Member States and a strong enforcement of compliancethrough different types of sanctions.

173

We recommend this because human rights have already been agreed upon by theMember States when ratifying the European Convention of Human Rights, now being
necessary to increase the acceptance in each individual state in order to make surehuman rights are actively known and implemented in these Member States.
6. We recommend a revision and an intense communication campaign at a crossEuropean level to be initiated in order for EURES (European Employment Services),the EU Immigration Portal and the EU Skills Profile Tool for Third Country Nationals
to be better known by European citizens and more frequently accessed by EU
companies in order to advertise and publicise their vacancies.
We recommend to not create a new online platform advertising job opportunities for
European youth. There are more than enough similar initiatives which already exist
at a European level. We believe enhancing what already exists is the key to promoting
the existing workforce and employment opportunities at a European level.
Substream 1.2 Borders
7. We recommend that a system for labour migration into the EU that is based on thereal needs of the European labour markets is created. There should be a unified
recognition system of professional and academic diplomas from outside and within
the EU. There should be professional qualification offers as well as cultural andlinguistic integration offers for qualified migrants. Asylum seekers with relevant
qualifications should be given access to the labour market. There should be an
integrated agency for which the European Cooperation Network of Employment
Services could be the basis.
We recommend this because Europe needs qualified labour in certain areas thatcannot be fully covered internally. Currently, there are not enough viable ways tolegally apply for a work permit in the EU. A European wide recognition system forprofessional and academic diplomas will facilitate covering these needs and enable
more simplified labour migration within and from outside the EU. Employment gaps
could be filled more effectively and uncontrolled migration better managed. Opening
the system of labour migration to asylum seekers could help accelerate theirintegration into European economies and societies.

1748. We recommend that the European Union expands its legislation to assign more
power and independence to Frontex. This enables them to intervene in all Member
States so that they can ensure the protection of all external borders of the EU.
However, the EU should organise process audits on the organisation of Frontex, as
full transparency is needed in the functioning of Frontex to avoid all kinds of abuses.
We recommend this because we find it unacceptable that Frontex can be denied
access to the borders, particularly in situations where human rights are violated. We
want to ensure that Frontex implements European legislation. Frontex itself must be
controlled and checked to prevent inappropriate behaviour within the organisation.
9. We recommend that the European Union organises, specifically for economic
migrants, the possibility of screening citizens (on proven skills, background, etc.) in
the country of departure; this is to determine who is eligible to come and work in
the EU, depending on the economic needs/vacancies of the host country. These
screening criteria must be public and consultable by everyone. This can be realised
by creating an (online) European Agency for Immigration.
We recommend this because in this way people do not have to cross the borderillegally. There would be a controlled flow of people who enter the EU, which results
in a decrease in the pressure at the borders. At the same time, this facilitates thefulfilment of job vacancies in the host countries.
10.We recommend that the European Union ensures that the welcoming policy andfacilities at each border are the same, respecting human rights and guaranteeing
the safety and health of all migrants (for example pregnant women and children).
We recommend this because we highly value the fair and equal treatment of migrants
at all borders. We want to prevent migrants from staying too long at the borders andMember States becoming overwhelmed with the inflow of migrants. Member States
must all be well-equipped to welcome them.

175

Stream 2: The EU as an International Partner
Substream 2.1 Trade and Relations in an Ethical Perspective
11.We recommend that the EU enforces restrictions on the import of products fromcountries that allow child labour. This should be done through a blacklist ofcompanies that is periodically updated according to current conditions. We
furthermore recommend to ensure gradual access to schooling for children leaving
the workforce and to promote consumer awareness on child labour throughinformation made by official EU channels, e.g. campaigns and storytelling.
We recommend this because we recognize the link between the lack of access toschooling and the presence of child labour. Through this recommendation we wantto raise awareness of the consumers, to reduce the demand for products made bychild labour, so that the practice can eventually be abolished.
12.We recommend that the EU establishes partnerships with developing countries,
supporting their infrastructure and sharing competences in exchange for mutually
favourable trade deals to aid them in the transition towards green energy sources.
We recommend this in order to facilitate the transition to renewable energy sourcesin developing countries through trade partnerships and diplomatic agreements. This
would establish good long-term relationships between the EU and developing
countries, and it would contribute to the fight against climate change.
13.We recommend that the EU introduces a mandatory eco-score to be displayed on
the front of all products that can be bought by the general consumer. The eco-score
would be calculated according to emissions from production and transportation, as
well as harmful content, based on a list of hazardous products. The eco-score should
be managed and monitored by an EU authority.
We recommend this in order to make the EU consumer more aware of theenvironmental footprint of the products they buy. The eco-score would be an EUwide scaling method, to easily show how eco-friendly a product is. The eco-score
should include a QR code on the back of a product, providing further information on
its environmental footprint.

176

Substream 2.2 International Climate Action
14.We recommend that the European Union adopts a strategy in order to be moreautonomous in its energy production. A European body integrating the existing
European energy institutions should coordinate the development of renewableenergies depending on the needs, capacity and resources of Member States while
respecting their sovereignty. The institutions would promote knowledge sharing
between them to implement this strategy.
We recommend it because the current dependency makes us vulnerable in situationsof political tensions with countries we import from. We see it with the current
electricity crisis. However, this coordination should respect every country's
sovereignty.
15.We recommend higher environmental standards for the export of waste inside andoutside of the EU and more stringent controls and sanctions to stop illegal exports.
The EU should incentivise the Member States more to recycle their own waste anduse it for energy production.
We recommend it in order to stop environmental damage when some countries get
rid of their waste at the expense of others, especially when this is done outside of any
environmental standards.
16.We recommend that the EU encourages the ongoing environmental transition in astronger way by setting a goal of eliminating polluting packaging. This would involve
promoting less packaging or more environmentally-friendly packaging. To ensurethat smaller companies can adapt, help and adjustments should be provided.
We recommend it because we need to reduce the use of natural resources, especially
raw materials from outside the EU. We also need to reduce the harm done by
Europeans to our planet and its climate. Increased support to small companies iscritical to ensure they can adapt without increasing their prices.

177

17.We recommend that countries of the European Union, together, look into thequestion of nuclear energy more seriously. There should be increased collaboration
around the assessment of the use of nuclear power and its role in the transition that
Europe needs to achieve towards green energy.
We recommend it because the nuclear question cannot be solved by one country.
There are currently over a hundred reactors in half of the Member States, and moreare under construction. Since we share a common electricity grid, the low-carbon
electricity they produce benefits all Europeans and increases our continent's energy
autonomy. In addition, exposed nuclear waste or an accident would affect several
countries. No matter what choice is made on whether to use nuclear energy or not,Europeans should discuss it together and build more converging strategies while
respecting national sovereignties.
Substream 2.3 Promotion of European Values
18.The EU should be closer to the citizens. We recommend that the EU creates andstrengthens links with citizens and local institutions, such as local governments,
schools, and municipalities. This should be done in order to improve transparency,
reach the citizens and communicate better with them about concrete EU initiatives
and general EU information.
We recommend this because current EU information is not accessible enough to allgroups in society and does not reach ordinary citizens. It is often boring, difficult tounderstand and not user-friendly. This must change to ensure that citizens have aclear vision of the EU’s role and actions. To spark interest, EU information needs tobe easier to find, motivating, exciting and in everyday language. Our suggestions are:School visits by EU politicians, radio, podcasts, direct post, press, bus campaigns,
social media, local citizen assemblies and creating a special task force to improve EU
communication. These measures will allow the citizens to get EU information that is
not filtered through national media.

178

19.We recommend stronger citizen participation in EU politics. We propose direct
citizens’ involvement events, similar to the Conference on the Future of Europe.
They should be organised on a national, local and European level. The EU should
provide a coherent strategy and central directions for these events.
We recommend this because such participatory democracy events will provide
correct information about the EU, as well as improve the quality of EU policies. The
events should be organised in order to promote core values of the EU - democracy
and citizen participation. These events would provide an opportunity for thepoliticians to show the citizens that they find it important that citizens are aware ofcurrent events and should be involved in shaping them. Centralised guidelines will
give the national and local Conferences a coherent and uniform shape.

Stream 3: A Strong EU in a Peaceful World
Substream 3.1 Security and Defence
20.We recommend that a future ‘Joint Armed Forces of the European Union’ shallpredominantly be used for self-defence purposes. Aggressive military action of any
kind is precluded. Within Europe, this would entail a capacity to provide support intimes of crises such as in the case of natural catastrophes. Outside European borders
this would provide the capacity to be deployed in territories in exceptional
circumstances and exclusively under a respective legal mandate from the United
Nations Security Council and thus in compliance with international law.
Were this recommendation implemented it would allow the European Union to beperceived as a credible, responsible, strong and peaceful partner on the international
stage. Its enhanced capacity to respond to critical situations both internally andexternally is thus expected to protect its fundamental values.
Substream 3.2 Decision-making and EU Foreign Policy

179

21.We recommend that all issues decided by way of unanimity are changed to be
decided by way of a qualified majority. The only exceptions should be the admissionof new membership to the EU and changes to the fundamental principles of the EU
as stated in Art. 2 of the Lisbon Treaty and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of theEuropean Union.
This will consolidate the position of the EU in the world by presenting a united front
towards third countries and agilise its response in general and in particular in crisis
situations.
22.We recommend that the European Union strengthen its ability to sanction Member
States, governments, entities, groups or organisations as well as individuals that do
not comply with its fundamental principles, agreements and laws. It is imperative
to make sure that the sanctions that already exist are quickly implemented andenforced. Sanctions against third countries should be proportional to the action thattriggered it and be effective and applied in due time.
In order for the EU to be credible and reliable, it has to apply sanctions to those who
infringe upon its principles. These sanctions should be readily and actively enforced
and verified.
Substream 3.3 Neighbouring Countries and Enlargement
23.We recommend that the European Union allocate a specific budget to develop
educational programmes on the functioning of the EU and its values. Then it will be
proposed to the Member States that wish that they can integrate them into theirschool curricula (primary, secondary schools, and universities). In addition, a
specific course on the EU and its functioning could be offered to students wishing
to study in another European country through the Erasmus programme. Students
choosing this course would be given priority in the allocation of said Erasmus
programmes.
We recommend this to strengthen the sense of belonging to the EU. This will enablecitizens to better identify with the EU and transmit its values. Moreover, it will also
improve transparency regarding the functioning of the EU, the benefits of being partof it, and the fight against anti-European movements. This should act as a deterrent
to Member States leaving the EU.

180

24.We recommend that the EU makes greater use of its political and economic weightin its relations with other countries to prevent certain Member States fromundergoing bilateral economic, political and social pressures.
We recommend this for three reasons. Firstly, this will reinforce the feeling of unity
within the EU. Secondly, a unilateral response will provide a clear, strong, and fasteranswer in order to avoid any attempt by other countries to intimidate and engender
repressive politics against EU members. Thirdly, this will reinforce the security of theUnion and make sure that no Member States feel left out or ignored. Bilateral
responses divide the EU and this is a weakness used by third countries against us.
25.We recommend that the European Union improve its media strategy. On the one
hand, the EU should strengthen its visibility on social media and actively promote
its content. On the other hand, the EU should continue to organise conferences suchas Conference on the Future of Europe on an annual in person basis. In addition, we
also recommend that the EU further encourage innovation through promoting anaccessible European social media platform.
We recommend the above as it could not only reach younger people, but also
generate more interest and involvement among European citizens through a moreengaging and effective tool of communication. These events like the Conference on
the Future of Europe should allow citizens to be more involved in the decision-making
process and make certain that their voice is heard.
26.We recommend that Member States agree on a strong vision and a common
strategy in order to harmonise and consolidate the identity and the unity of the EU
before allowing the accession to other countries.
We recommend this because we believe it is essential to both strengthen the EU andconsolidate the relationship between Member States before considering the
integration of other countries. The more states integrate into the EU, the more
complicated the decision-making process will become within the EU; hence theimportance of reviewing these decision-making processes that are voted through theprocess of unanimity.

181

Stream 4: Migration from a Human Point of View
Substream 4.1 Remedy causes of migration
27.We recommend that the European Union should participate actively in theeconomic development of countries outside the European Union and from where
there is a high outflux of migrants. The EU, with the help of the relevant bodies (forexample local NGOs, local politicians, field-workers, experts, etc.), should look forways to peacefully intervene efficiently and actively in countries with importantmigration outflux that have previously agreed with the exact terms of cooperation
with local authorities. These interventions should have tangible results withmeasurable effects. At the same time, these tangible results and effects should beclearly outlined in order for EU citizens to understand the development aid policy
undertaken by the Union. In this sense, EU development aid actions should become
more visible.
We recommend this because, even though the EU is working on international
development, it needs to keep doing so and invest in transparency and visibility in thepolicy and actions that it undertakes.
28.We recommend having a common European labour framework, thus harmonising
working conditions throughout the Union (ex. minimum salary, working times, etc.).
The EU should try to create basic common standards on labour to prevent migrationfrom citizens that leave their countries of origin seeking better working conditions.
As part of these standards, the EU should reinforce the role of trade unions at thetransnational level. By doing so, the EU would be considering internal economic
migration (EU citizens' migration) as a critical issue.
We recommend this because we have identified that a lot of people within the EU
migrate due to economic reasons, since there is a disparity between the working
conditions of European Member States. This leads to a brain-drain effect in countries
which should be avoided in order for Member States to keep talent and workforce.
Even though we support free movement of citizens, we think that EU citizens'
migration between EU Member States, when happening involuntarily, is due toeconomic reasons. That's why it is important to establish a common labour
framework.

182

Substream 4.2 Human Consideration
29.We recommend the implementation of a joint and collective migration policy in the
EU based on the principle of solidarity. We want to focus on the problem in regards
to the refugees. A common procedure in all the Member States of the Union should
be based on the best practice and customs that seemed to be successful in all thecountries of the Union. This procedure should be pro-active and actively being
executed both by the national authorities and the administration of the EU.
The problem in regards to the refugees concerns all the countries in the EU. Currently,
the practices in the states are too diversified which has negative consequences forboth refugees and the citizens of the Union. Therefore a coherent and consistent
approach is required.
30.We recommend that the EU increases its efforts to inform and educate citizens of
the Member States about the topics related to migration. This aim should beachieved by educating children, as early as possible, from the beginning of primaryschool on the subjects such as migration and integration. If we combine this earlyeducation with the activities of NGOs and youth organisations as well as widereaching media campaigns, we could fully reach our goal. Additionally, a wide rangeof communication channels should be used, from leaflets to television and social
media.
It is important to show the people that migration also has many positive aspects suchas additional work force. We want to emphasize the importance of raising awarenesson both processes, so that people understand the reasons and consequences of
migration to abolish the stigma which comes from the fact of being perceived as a
migrant.

183

Substream 4.3 Integration
31.We recommend that the Directive 2013/33/EU on minimum standards for the
reception of asylum seekers in Member States be replaced by a compulsory EU
regulation, which will be uniformly applicable in all Member States. A priority
should be that reception facilities and accommodation be improved. We
recommend the creation of a specific monitoring body from the EU for the
implementation of the regulation.
As the existent directive is not implemented in a uniform way in all Member States.
Conditions such as the Moria refugee camps have to be avoided. Therefore, therecommended regulation should be implemented and have compulsory sanctions. As
for the monitoring body, it should be strong and reliable.
32.We recommend that the EU ensures that every asylum seeker and refugee, during
the process of the residence procedure, attends language and integration courses.
The courses should be mandatory, free of charge and include personal assistancefor the initial integration. They should start within two weeks after the submissionof the residency application. Additionally, incentives and sanctions mechanisms
should be established.
Learning the language as well as understanding the culture, history and ethics of thecountry of arrival is a key step to integration. The lengthy wait for the initialintegration process has a negative impact on the migrants’ social assimilation.
Sanction mechanisms can help identify a migrants’ willingness to integrate.

Stream 5: Responsibility and Solidarity across the EU
Substream 5.1 Distributing Migration
33.We recommend replacing the Dublin System with a legally-binding treaty to ensure
just, balanced and proportionate distribution of asylum seekers in the EU on thebasis of solidarity and justice. Currently, refugees are required to put forward theirasylum requests in the EU Member State they first arrive in. This system transition
should be as swift as possible. The EU Commission's proposal for a New EU Pact on
Migration and Asylum from 2020 is a good start and should be put into legal form,
since it includes quotas on distribution of refugees among EU Member States.
We recommend this because the current Dublin System does not respect the
principles of solidarity and justice. It puts a heavy burden on the countries at the184border of the EU, where most asylum seekers first enter EU territory. All Member
States have to take responsibility to manage refugee flows into the EU. The EU is acommunity of shared values and should act accordingly.
34.We recommend the EU provide support to the EU Member States in order toprocess asylum requests both at a faster pace and according to joint standards. In
addition, humanitarian accommodation should be provided for refugees. To takeburden off the arrival countries, we recommend that refugees be relocated within
the EU quickly and efficiently after their first arrival into the EU so that their asylum
request can be processed elsewhere within the EU. For this, financial support fromthe EU as well as organisational support through the EU Asylum Agency is needed.
People whose asylum requests were denied must be sent back to their countries oforigin in an efficient manner — as long as their country of origin is considered safe.
We recommend this because asylum procedures currently take too much time, andthey may differ from one Member State to another. By speeding up asylum processes
refugees spend less time waiting for their final asylum decision in temporary
accommodation facilities. Asylum seekers who are admitted can be integrated more
quickly into their final country of destination.
35.We recommend strong EU financial, logistical and operational support for the
management of the first reception which would lead to a possible integration or
repatriation of irregular migrants. Beneficiaries of such support shall be the EU
border states who carry the burden of the migration influx.
We recommend strong support because some EU border states bear the greatest
burden from the migrant influx due to their geographical location.
36.We recommend that the mandate of the EU Agency for Asylum shall bestrengthened to coordinate and manage the distribution of asylum seekers within
the EU Member States to achieve a fair distribution. A fair distribution requires totake into account the needs of the asylum seekers as well as logistical andeconomical capacities of EU Member States and their needs in terms of labour
market.
We recommend this because a centralised coordination and management of the
distribution of asylum seekers which is regarded as fair, by Member States as well as
their citizens, prevents chaotic situations and social tensions, thus contributing togreater solidarity between EU Member States.

185

Substream 5.2 Common Approach to Asylum
37.We recommend either creating an overarching EU institution or strengthening the
EU Asylum Agency to process and decide upon asylum requests for the whole
European Union based on uniform standards. It should also be in charge of a justdistribution of refugees. This institution should also define which countries of origin
are safe and which are not, and should be responsible for sending back rejectedasylum seekers.
We recommend this because the current asylum policy is characterised by unclear
responsibilities and different standards between EU Member States. This leads toinconsistent handling of asylum procedures across the EU. Furthermore, the EU
Asylum Agency currently only possesses "soft" power. It can only advise Member
States on asylum issues.
38.We recommend the establishment, without delay, of dedicated asylum centres forunaccompanied minors across all EU Member States. This should be done in orderto accommodate and provide care to the minors according to their particular needs,
at the earliest opportunity.
We recommend this because:
1) Many minors are likely to be traumatised (coming from areas of conflict).
2) Different children will have differing needs (according to age, health, etc.).
3) Were this recommendation implemented, it would ensure that vulnerable andtraumatised minors would receive all necessary care at the earliest possible
opportunity.
4) As minors are future European citizens and as such, if treated appropriately, should
contribute positively to the future of Europe.

186

39.We recommend the establishment of a common, transparent system for dealing
with the expeditious processing of asylum seekers. This process should provide fora minimum standard and should be applied across all Member States equally.
We recommend this because:
1) Were this recommendation implemented, it would lead to a faster and moretransparent way of dealing with asylum claims.
2) A failure to expedite the asylum process leads to illegality and criminality.
3) Minimum standards as referred to in our recommendation should encompass
respect for human rights, health and the educational needs of asylum seekers.
4) Implementing this recommendation would lead to access to employment and selfsufficiency, allowing a positive contribution to EU society. Regularising employment
status prevents abuses of asylum seekers in the working environment. This could only
benefit a more successful integration of all affected.
5) Extended stays in asylum centres have negative consequences in terms of themental health and well-being of the occupants.
40.We strongly recommend a complete overhaul of all agreements and legislation
governing asylum and immigration in Europe. We further recommend that an ‘all ofEurope’ approach be adopted.
We recommend this because:
1) All current agreements are unworkable, impractical, and no longer fit for purpose
since 2015 and up to the present day.
2) The EU should be the first "agency" that manages all other agencies and NGOs
directly dealing with asylum issues.
3) The Member States affected are the ones that are left largely alone to deal withthis issue. The ‘à la carte’ attitude of some Member States reflects poorly on the unityof the EU.
4) New targeted legislation would allow for a better future for all asylum seekers andlead to a more unified Europe.
5) Gaps in the current legislation are giving rise to conflicts and disharmony acrossEurope and are causing increased intolerance amongst European citizens towards
migrants.
6) Stronger, relevant legislation would lead to a reduction in crime and abuses of thecurrent asylum system.

187

Annex: OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WERE CONSIDERED BY THE PANEL AND
NOT ADOPTED

Stream 1 Self-reliance and Stability
Substream 1.1 Autonomy of the EU
We recommend, where the developing countries request it, intervention
programmes for economic development based on partnerships adapted to eachstate's needs and/or commercial agreements, after an initial study of theireconomic potential and thereafter granting economical support and ensuring
professional training.
We recommend this because this leads to the development of industrial
independence, creating workplaces which improve the overall migration
situation/status; this can also serve to aid better commercial agreements indeveloping countries.

Stream 2: The EU as an International Partner
Substream 2.1 Trade and Relations in an Ethical Perspective
We recommend that the EU includes regulations that oblige companies to control
their supply chain by periodically providing a full (auditing) report, and set
conditions that reward and restrict import in accordance with ethical criteria.
Depending on the size, the company should provide an internal and/or external
audit report.
We recommend this in order to extend the ethical perspective when trading with the
EU through monitoring of company activity in the supply chain across countries,
incentivizing companies to behave in accordance to ethical criteria such as the use of
dangerous products, labour rights and conditions, possible use of child labour, andenvironmental protection. This recommendation would not apply to online productsbought directly by the consumer.

188

Stream 3: A Strong EU in a Peaceful World
Substream 3.1 Security and Defence
We recommend that the present European security architecture is reconceptualized as a more efficient, effective, and capable supranational structure.
This will ultimately result in the creation of the ‘Joint Armed Forces of the European
Union’. This development shall entail the gradual integration and subsequentconversion of national armed forces. This unification of military capacities andcapabilities across the European Union is also supposed to foster an enduring
European integration. The creation of the Joint Armed Forces of the European Union
would also require a new cooperation agreement with NATO as well as nonEuropean NATO Member States.
Following this recommendation, we expect military structures within the European
Union to be more cost-efficient and capable of responding and acting where
necessary. As a consequence of this integrated approach, the European Union should
be better placed to act decisively in a coordinated manner in critical situations.

Stream 4: Migration from a Human Point of View
Substream 4.1 Remedy Causes of Migration
We recommend that the EU creates a protocol for action regarding the upcoming
refugee crisis that will arise from the climate crisis. As part of this protocol, the EU
must expand the definition of refugees and asylum seekers to be comprehensive
and include the people affected by climate change. Since a lot of migrants will nothave the chance to go back to their countries of origin due to its uninhabitability,
another part of the protocol should make sure that institutions find new usages forareas affected by climate change in order to support the migrants that have leftthese territories. For example, flooded zones could be used to create wind energy
farms.
We recommend this because we are all responsible for the climate crisis. Hence, wehave a responsibility towards those who are most affected. Even though we haveneither predictions nor concrete data about future climate refugees, climate change
is something that will for certain affect millions of people's lives.

189

Substream 4.2 Human Considerations
We recommend the immediate enhancement and funding of legal, humanitarianroads and means of transport for refugees from crisis areas in an organised manner.
The special system of Safety European Roads (SER) should be established andregulated by the special body created specifically for this purpose. This agency
constituted by means of the legislative procedure would be empowered with its
own
specialcompetencies
enshrined
in
its
rule
of procedure.
Human trafficking and smuggling are serious issues that need to be dealt with. Our
recommendation would certainly lead to the reduction of these concerns.
Substream 4.3 Integration
We recommend the introduction of a European directive which should ensure thateach living area in every Member State cannot have more than 30% of inhabitantsfrom third countries. This goal should be achieved by 2030 and European Member
States must get support for the implementation of this.
We recommend this because a more even geographical distribution will lead to abetter acceptance of migrants from the local population and therefore an
improved integration. The percentage was inspired by a new political agreement in
Denmark.

190

II — Recommendations of the National Citizens’ Panels

This document presents a series of recommendations put forward by the 50 Belgian citizens part ofthe citizens’ panels held in Brussels from October till December 2021. These panels were organised
under the auspices of Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs and European Affairs,
Ms Sophie Wilmès, as the contribution of the Belgian federal government to the Conference on the
Future of Europe. The topic of this panel was ‘How to closer involve citizens in European democracy’.

To reflect the entirety of the citizens’ input, this report puts forward all recommendations, including
those that did not gain a simple majority during the concluding voting session on all
recommendations. They are clearly recognizable thanks to the mention of the percentage in red
and bold. While some recommendations contradict each other, with citizens remaining inconclusive
about them, these recommendations are always in italics. For one single recommendation, thedivide was so clear that the vote ended in an ex aequo. This is shown in orange and bold . The
citizens’ intention is to share the fact that opinions on these recommendations were divided. They
therefore propose that the CoFE bodies and the EU institutions be vigilant in the implementation ofthese specific recommendations, as there is a form of divide based on the vote.

191

1. Communication
Issues

1. Communication on the
EU is not satisfactory.

2. The European projectremains alien to citizens.

Recommendations
1.1 We propose that lessons on the European Union be
integrated into the school curriculum from the third
cycle of primary school. The aim is to reach all citizens
and to improve knowledge of the European Union.
1.2 The European Union, and especially theCommission, should provide educational material on
the functioning of Europe to the Ministries of Educationof the member states. In addition to explaining thefunctioning, composition and powers of the institutions,this training should also include a brief overview of thehistory of European integration. Particular attention
should be paid to the use of clear, understandable andaccessible language, as well as to educational tools suchas documentaries, clips or school TV programmes, in all
24 languages.
2.1 We propose that the European institutions ensurethat their communication better explains what is within
the EU's competences, but also what is not within its
competences.
2.2 The European Union should incorporate familiar
examples from the daily lives of Europeans into its
communication. These explanations should be spreadwithin the Member States through agreements
between the European institutions and national public
television channels so as to reach a wide audience.
2.3 In addition, nationals of all Member States should be
regularly informed about the role of the European Union
in the other Member States – through video clips, forexample. The advantages and disadvantages of Europe
would thereby be better put into perspective in thedebates on the future of Europe.
2.4 In order to strengthen European identity, we proposethat information be made available and regularly
communicated on what Europeans’ life would be like
without the EU and its concrete achievements.
2.5 We also propose that Europe Day (9 May) be made aEuropean public holiday for all EU citizens.

Supported by
(%)

88.4%

95.0%

97.6%

80.5%

85.7%

92.7%

81.4%

192

3. European legislation is
not applied in the same
way across Member
States.

4. European democracy isthreatened.

2.6 We recommend that the European institutions payeven more attention to the simplification,
comprehensibility, and accessibility of information onpriority topics dealt with at European level.
2.7 We recommend that the European Union provide adashboard showing the resources allocated by the EU per
country and priority topic. All this information should beavailable on the EU websites.
2.8 We recommend that the EU provide a clear
presentation of legislative work in progress. All thisinformation should be available on the EU websites.
2.9 We want the European institutions to be moreaccessible to Europeans. Their participation in debates
during sessions of the European Parliament should befacilitated.
2.10 We recommend that participation in the Erasmus
programme be extended to all students regardless of
their educational background (vocational and technicaltraining, work-study). Everybody should be able toparticipate in European exchanges.
2.11 We recommend that the working population shouldbe able to benefit from European exchange programmes,
regardless of sector of activity, also for local businesses.
Everybody should be able to participate in European
exchanges.
2.12 We recommend creating European citizenshipcourses for all European citizens.
3.1 We recommend that the European Union make more
frequent use of legislation that is directly applicable inthe member states. This would reduce national
differences in the implementation of European
legislation, which undermines the European project. In
this way, the EU will be better able to safeguard andpromote the integrity of the achievements such as theinternal market, the euro and the Schengen area.
4.1 We recommend that communication from the EU on
European democracy constantly and unambiguously
recall what Europe means for Europeans.
4.2 The values and principles of the EU-Treaties, to which
the Member States subscribed on accession, areirreversible. Their protection must continue to beensured.
4.3 The protection of the values and principles of theTreaties is ensured by the European Court and cannot becalled into questions by the Member States.

97.6%

93.0%

90.7%

79.0%

79.5%

83.7%

83.7%

81.4%

78.0%

81.0%

81.0%

193

5.1 We recommend strengthening fact-checking on
5. Information on the EU is European issues. This information, disseminated andnot easily accessible andverified by the institutions, should be easily accessible tounderstandable.
the European public and to the national media in eachmember state.
6.1 The EU must also be more present in the everyday
lives of Europeans by communicating more proactively.
6. National media often(For example, by sponsoring events, particularly culturalconveys a negative image events, which bring citizens together and make themof the EU.
proud to be EU citizens. The production of reports andteasers would also allow Europeans to have access tocontextualised information on the EU).
7.1 We recommend MEPs make themselves better
known in their home countries, especially outside ofelection periods. They must be more accessible. The
motivations for their votes in the European Parliament
7. Citizens do not know
should be made more easily accessible to European
the people who represent
citizens on the European Parliament's website.
them in the European
7.2 We recommend that national political parties ensure
Parliament.
that younger candidates are also put on their lists for theelections of the European Parliament. Such a mandate
should not be seen as a reward for good and loyal service
in national politics.
8.1 To address a sufficiently broad and varied audience,
we recommend that the EU take into account theeducational level of the target group and any disabilities
they may have, by means of inclusive communication,from the design stage. Furthermore, we also recommendthat people and organisations (street educators,
8. Communication fromneighbourhood agents, social workers, civil society) are
the EU is too uniform; itdoes not take into account involved in the transmission of this communication.
the diversity of the
8.2 To reach the working population, we recommend
population
investing more in the use of existing communication
channels to regularly provide appropriate information
about the EU, for example through explanatory
programmes. Furthermore, we recommend relying on
ambassadors (both individuals and organisations) who
promote the EU project.

83,3%

85.7%

92.7%

74.4%

73.2%

83.7%

194

8.3 To reach young people and students, we recommend
that, in addition to existing channels such as education
and relevant youth movements, ambassadors should be
used, in particular to target influencers who can reachyoung people through social media. Anotherrecommendation would be to organise a pan-European
competition to create a cartoon character that appeals toyoung people and brings European messages to them.
8.4 For seniors, we recommend using the same channels
as those proposed for the working- population. In
addition, we recommend finding the right balance
between digital and non-digital communication (print,
radio, face-to-face events) to meet the needs ofeveryone, including those who are less comfortable in adigital environment as well as those who are less mobile
in society.
8.5 We recommend that through the integration coursesthat already exist in many member states, the EU shouldcommit itself to including “new Europeans” (people who
through one or another legal immigration procedure
reside in the EU) and should make them aware of theother traditional channels through which the EU
communicates. Finally, we also recommend that a role begiven to local associations.
8.6 Furthermore, we recommend taking the EU to thestreets with inclusive communication. For example,(digital) billboards could be used, as well as traditionaland new means of communication like QR codes.
8.7 Other recommendations would be to make the EU
more visual (through short films or infographics), thecreation of a European sports movement to create abond/sense of belonging, and to make the European
anthem better known.

69.8%

85.7%

76.7%

62.8%

68.2%

2. Disinformation

IssuesRecommendations

1.1 We recommend a review of the media funding model,
1. The risk ofincluding mandatory publication of revenue sources, in adisinformation isclear and accessible way. The funding model of the media
increasingly present in theleads it to sensationalise information, taking it out ofmedia.
context and transforming it into disinformation.

Supported by
(%)

73.8%

195

1.2 We recommend that media outlets be obliged to cite
their sources and provide links to verify them. Otherwise,
information should be labelled as unverified.

90.2%

1.3 We recommend that the European regulator in chargeof the fight against disinformation (see point 2) should
also be in charge of accrediting fact-checking
organisations.

85.4%

1.4 We recommend the establishment of an independent
authority in each member state to monitor media
neutrality. This authority should be financed andcontrolled by the European Union.

75.6%

1.5 We recommend disseminating information about the
URLs of the official websites of the EU to reassure citizens
about the origin of the information.

90.2%

2.1 We recommend that a European regulator in chargeof fighting disinformation be created. This regulator’s
mission would be to set the criteria for a ‘neutrality label’
and to establish, if necessary, a system of sanctions or
incentives linked to compliance with neutrality standards.
Alternatively, adherence to an ethical charter could be
2. Many citizens doubt the considered. The label would be granted by the
independent national authority and would take into
neutrality of the media.
account the measures applied by the media to combat
disinformation.

87.5%

3. Citizens are not awareof the risks of
disinformation to which
they are exposed.

2.2 We recommend the installation of a European‘hotline’ allowing citizens to report any disinformation
concerning European political and economic
competences.

82.1%

3.1 We recommend that platforms be required to publish
clear and understandable information about the risks of
disinformation to which their users are exposed. This
information should be automatically communicated whenan account is opened.

85.7%

3.2 We recommend mandatory media literacy training,
starting at an early age and adapted to the different
levels of the education system.

74.4%

196

3.3 We recommend that the European Union launch
repeated campaigns on disinformation. These campaigns
could be identified by a logo or a mascot. The EU could
oblige social networks to relay them by broadcasting
advertisements.

87.5%

4.1 We recommend that clear and easy-to understandinformation be published about the algorithms organising
the messages received by users of social media platforms.

83.3%

4.2 We recommend that users have a simple way todisable algorithms that reinforce behavioural biases. The
obligation to provide users with access to other sourcesthat present different views on the same topic could also
be considered.

80.0%

4.3 We recommend that the European Union support thecreation of a social media platform that meets its own
standards of neutrality and tackles disinformation.
Alternatively, new functionalities could be added to themultilingual digital platform created to support theConference on the Future of Europe.

56.4%

Recommendations

Supported by(%)

1.1 We recommend following what the most recent
scientific work on deliberative democracy suggests interms of sampling, design and scientific validation of theselection method to ensure the best possible
representativeness.

89.7%

1. The difficulty of ensuring
1.2 We recommend that there be enough people aroundthe representativeness of athe table to ensure a diversity of opinions and profiles,
citizens' panel. In the end,
including – but not limited to – people who are directly
only a small part of theconcerned with the topic.
population is involved.

90.2%

1.3 We recommend adding the criterion of parenthood(i.e. does the person have children or not?) to thegovernmental sampling criteria, in addition to more
traditional criteria such as gender, age, place of residenceor level of education.

33.3%

4. The means to fightdisinformation are
insufficient.

3. Citizens’ panels
Issues197

1.4 We recommend establishing quotas by geographicalarea, i.e. specifying that a European citizens’ panel must
be made up of x people per European geographical area
(to be determined) in order for this panel to be truly
qualified as European and to deliberate legitimately.

73.2%

1.5 We recommend using population registries (or theirequivalent, depending on the country) as the main
database for sortition to give everyone an equal
opportunity to be selected, and to generate interest in a
topic among the population.

70.0%

1.6 We recommend that participants be compensated torecognise the value of their investment and to attract
people who would not participate if they were notcompensated.

87.5%

1.7 We recommend informing participants in advancethrough presentations by experts - in a relatively minimal
way without too much information or too muchcomplicated information - to ensure that even those
without prior knowledge feel comfortable participating in
the discussions.

82.9%

1.7.2. We recommend that the theme of the citizens’
panel be communicated in advance so that people knowwhat topic they will be discussing.

78.6%

1.8 We recommend that citizens not be obliged toparticipate.

97.6%

2.1 We recommend that the European citizens’ panel
meetings be held in a hybrid format (face-to-face/virtual).
This would allow people who cannot physically travel toparticipate.

70.0%

2.
The
difficultyof 2.2 We recommend that the EU, for greater ease of accessorganising panels at the and organisation, delegate the organisation of citizens’
European level.
panels on European issues to the national level.

69.0%

2.3 We recommend that a single topic be chosen for eachpanel organised at the European level. This way, allparticipants can discuss the same topic, no matter where
they come from in Europe.

80.5%

3.1 We recommend that any citizen should be able to
3. Preventing the citizens' submit a topic for discussion, and therefore that this rightpanel from being used for should not be reserved for politicians or lobbyists.

82.1%

198

purposes other than those 3.2 We recommend that the right of initiative belong to
declared.
the European Parliament, so that it defines the topic to be
discussed and subsequently adopts the necessary texts tofollow up on the recommendations that emerge fromdeliberations.

63.4%

4.1.1 We recommend setting up one or more permanent
European citizens' panel(s), which would take on specifictasks alongside Parliament. The panel(s) would be
renewed regularly. This would make it possible to bring
citizens together over the long term and to take the timenecessary for such debates to take place. This time allows
for nuanced debates and consensus-building. Alongside
4. The difficulty in deciding this permanent panel, ad hoc citizens' panels would
how best to organise the debate topics chosen by the permanent panel. We
process to best represent propose following the model of the German-speaking
community of Belgium.
citizens.

54.8%

4.1.2 We recommend setting up one or more nonpermanent European citizens’ panel(s), which would only
meet to discuss a specific topic for a set period of time.

58.5%

4.2 We recommend not organising European citizens’
panels for urgent issues, as sufficient time is needed toensure the quality of debates.

63.4%

5. Too often, citizens who 5.1 We recommend giving feedback to citizens on theparticipate in participatory follow-up given (or not given) to the recommendations
democracy initiatives such issued after European citizens’ panels. If theas citizens’ panels do not recommendations are not followed up, the relevant
receive feedback on the European institutions should give reasons for theirfollow-up given to their decision (e.g. lack of competences). To this end, wework, in the short or the recommend that regular summaries be drafted
long term.
throughout the process following a panel.

97.5%

6.1 We recommend organising citizens' panels also withchildren from a young age (e.g. 10 to 16 years old) to raise
their awareness of participation and debate. This can beorganised in schools.

59.5%

199

4. Referenda
IssuesRecommendations

Supported by(%)

0.1 We recommend that it should be possible to organisereferenda at European level on European issues.

73.3%

1.1 We recommend commissioning research on how tocreate a common referendum culture in Europe.

70.7%

1. Referendum culture
varies strongly from one
1.2 We recommend that an independent panel examine
Member State to another.
whether it is appropriate to hold a European referendum
on a specific issue.
2.1 We recommend the creation of a scientific committeethat would be in charge of determining how to ask thequestions that would be the subject of a European
referendum in the most neutral way possible.
2.2 We recommend asking multiple choice questions,going beyond the simple alternative of ‘yes’ or ‘no’ toprovide nuance, even attaching conditions to both ‘yes’
2. The wording of the and ‘no’ (i.e. ‘yes if…’, ‘no if…’).
question asked in areferendum can have a 2.3 We recommend that blank votes not be included in thenegative impact, as can the calculation of any majority, whether a simple or absolute
fact that the answer is only majority. There must nonetheless be enough votes (the‘yes’ or ‘no’, which often quorum must be respected).
polarises debates andsocieties. The choice of 2.4.1 We recommend that a question asked in a European
referendum can be on any subject within the competences
subject is also sensitive.
of the European Union.

77.5%

87.2%

65.0%

75.0%

87.5%

2.4.2 We recommend excluding subjects that could be asource of conflict between member states.

39.0%

2.5 We recommend that technical and difficult questions
can also be asked, worded clearly, because people havethe capacity to be sufficiently informed.

77.5%

200

3.1 We recommend that the European Parliament havethe right of initiative to organise European referenda, andthat it should then be able to implement the results (theEuropean Commission and the Council should follow,
without the possibility of blocking it).

3. Referenda are not ademocratic tool if only the 3.2 We recommend that the initiative to organise apolitical sphere can decide referendum can also come from the citizens themselves
to organise one.
(following, for example, similar rules as the European
Citizens’ Initiative).

67.5%

77.5%

3.3 We recommend that the practical organisation of aEuropean referendum be the responsibility of a neutral
body.

75.0%

4.1.1 We recommend that the result of a European
referendum should only be binding if certain conditions
are fulfilled in terms of rate of participation.

92.7%

4.1.2 We recommend that the results of a referendum
should only be binding if certain majorities are reached(51/49, 70/30). These conditions should be determined
before each referendum.

72.5%

4. The binding or nonbinding nature of a 4.2 We recommend that the result of a European
referendum must be clearly referendum should be binding if the initiative to organise
it was taken by citizens (who would have managed todefined.
collect a certain number of signatures for this purpose)but non-binding if the initiative was taken by a politicalinstitution.
4.3 We recommend that the result of a European
referendum be binding only for certain issues, but not for
those where the consequences of the vote could be very
serious.
5. The public is often poorly 5.1 We recommend that before any European
informed before being referendum, the population be clearly informed on theasked to vote in a impact of the result of the vote on their daily lives throughreferendum. At the same pamphlets, as is done in Switzerland, and/or throughtime, it is important to information sessions
control the information
provided to avoid negative 5.2 We recommend that a scientific committee be
influences (domestic or created for each European referendum to guarantee theneutrality of the information provided.
foreign) on the vote.

47.5%

40.0%

97.5%

87.2%

201

6.1.1 We recommend that voting in a European referendum
be mandatory.
6. Although a referendum
6.1.2 We recommend that voting in a European referendum
invitesthewhole
be voluntary.
population to directly
participate (in contrast to 6.2 To reduce the number of non-voting people, we
a citizens’ panel), there is recommend allowing electronic voting in addition to paper
alwaysacertain voting (or even in addition to other means of voting, suchproportion of people who as postal voting). Electronic voting is particularly interesting
do not vote.
for people going on holiday, and it also encourages people

43.6%
52.5%

90.0%

who are less interested in voting because the constraint oftravelling to the voting location is removed.

7. Too often, citizens who
participate in participatory
democracy initiatives such
7.1 We recommend giving feedback to citizens on theas referenda do notfollow-up given (or not given) to the decision taken byreceive feedback on the
citizens in a European referendum.
follow-up given to theirwork, in the short or thelong term.

5.

Existing instruments
5.1

Issues92.5%

Elections

Recommendations

1.1 We propose that voting be compulsory for theelections of the European Parliament, but with sufficient
1. Different rules exist
information for citizens to understand the reasons.
between the different
1.2 Our recommendation is to make the rules for elections
member states.
of the European Parliament as uniform as possible in all
countries, including the minimum age.

Supported by (%)
50.0%
87.2%

202

2.1.1 We propose that MEPs should be of all ages andbackgrounds
2.1.2 We propose that MEPs should deliberately choose aEuropean career, and not just because they are at the endof their career.
2. There is no sufficient 2.1.3 We propose to strive for balanced gender
diversity of MEP's for distribution, for example by alternating genders on thecriteria such as age, origin, electoral lists. The EU must establish these criteria andgender.
respect them in the composition according to the quota.
If a candidate refuses their mandate, the following
candidate by preference and with the same gender takes
over the mandate.
2.1.4 We recommend that candidates on European lists
exercise their mandate if elected.
3.1 We propose that there should be a treaty change
whereby the largest party group in the European
3. We vote for the European Parliament can appoint the President of the European
Parliament and have no say Commission.
in the composition of the 3.2 We recommend that the composition of the European
Commission
Commission be made more transparent, according tosome basic rules, so that the composition reflects citizens'
voice and citizens know how the selection was made.
4. There is a lack of 4.1 We propose that the European candidates should
knowledgeofthe present themselves, their objectives and theircandidates for the European programme in a more concrete way locally and throughelections, nor of their different channels of communication.
program or the politicalgroup they'll be part of in
the European Parliament

82.1%
82.5%

82.5%

89.2%
48.6%

88.9%

84.2%

203

5.2

European Ombudsman

IssuesRecommendations

Supported by (%)

1. The non-English webpage 1.1 We propose to put information on the homepage
only contains information in in all European languages and, if it translation is not
English on the first two pages. possible, to post news in English elsewhere on theThis causes an obstacle tosite.
citizens who are notproficient in English.

89.2%

2. The Ombudsman is not
involved in the sanction andpossible damages for thecomplainant.

2.1 We propose that the Ombudsman should be partof the process of finding and implementing thesolution, sanction or compensation, and should havea voice in the process.

71.1%

3. The delay to validate thesubscription to the website
can be very high. This cantake up to 24 hours,
discouraging the citizen who
does not pursue further.

3.1 We propose installing a system for immediate
validation.
47.4%

4. When a complaint is filed 4.1 We propose to include a link to a simple
the question is asked
presentation or explanation of the other procedures.
whether all possible
procedures have been tried.
The citizen does not know allof them and cannot respondto the question.

89.5%

5. The website of the
5.1 We propose to revise the website's graphic
Ombudsman is well made but design and to bring it more in line with that of thedoes not have a proper
EU. A first tip would be to raise the European flag toEuropean 'image', what raises the top of the page. It must be clear at the firstquestions with the citizen"click" that the citizen is on the site of the(am I in the right place, is this Ombudsman.
website credible?).

78.4%

204

5.3
IssuesPublic consultation
Recommendations

1. The consultation website
has changed, and the citizen
is sent in first instance to an
outdated site. You have to 1.1 We propose to delete the old site and reference theundertake a search to find new site first.
the URL of the new site.
2.1 We strongly recommend that the roadmap betranslated into the language of the citizen. Having the
2. The roadmap (English)
roadmap only available in English blocks any citizen who
and advices (language of thedoes not speak English from participating.
'citizen editor') of aconsultationarenot
2.2 We propose to put a tab or icon "Automatictranslated into the languagetranslation" on each individual submission, which wouldof the citizen reading
link to an open-source translation engine such as Google
Translate or DeepL.
3. You have to subscribe to 3.1 We propose to send the follow-up of the process
receive information on the automatically to every person who responds, with thefollow-up of the process.
possibility to unsubscribe.
4. We don't know whether 4.1 We recommend providing clear information on thethe number of opinions in subject on the website.
one direction influences thecommission, or if they are 4.2 If the number of opinions in one direction has anperceived as on point of impact, we recommend that a system is put in place toview (weighted or not). If filter out lobbyists, activists or big business so that they
the number of opinions in are not given undue weight.
one direction is being
accumulated,weareworried that the weight oflobbyists/activists/big
enterprises
intheconsultation
andthus 4.3 We recommend the creation of artificial intelligence
actions undertaken by the software that classifies the different opinions and counts
EU compared by the voice of the opposing or favourable opinions.
citizens/NGO's.

Supported by
(%)

81.6%

81.6%

65.8%

89.5%

81.6%

60.5%

47.4%

205

4.4 We propose to organise meetings between
citizens and (activist) associations: places where
citizens can express their opinions, in the form of"Europe Houses" that can help spread citizens' views
at European level. These should exist at different
locations and at the local level.

62.2%

5. The opinion form is unclear: 5.1. This information should be clarified on thethere are both an open website.
question and a questionnaire.
What is the role of eachdocument, what has to becompleted?

81.6%

6. There are too many levels 6.1 We propose the creation of a dispatching centre toof competences for what direct requests to the appropriate level of authority.
concerns the instruments.

78.9%

5.4

European Citizens’ Initiative

IssuesRecommendations

Supportedby (%)

1.1 We suggest that local authorities or libraries,
which are independent of government, could be
involved in the dissemination of initiatives and1. Citizens without internet
collection of signatures, both electronically and on
are harder to reach.
paper. The EU should draw up an inventory of thisnetwork per country and make it available to thecitizens starting the ECI.

71.1%

2.1 We propose to raise the number of countries
2. The number of countries to from which signatures are collected to 13 in orderparticipate is too low to create to have more support for the proposal. The
sufficient support.
number of signatures should be respected inproportion to the number of inhabitants.

64.9%

3.1 We propose that there should be EU funding
to support these initiatives.

71.1%

3.2 We propose that a body be set up to facilitate
coordination between countries.

75.7%

4. The procedure is complex 4.1 We propose the creation of a helpdesk to assist
for citizens.
citizens in completing the procedures.

83.8%

3. The cost and effort togather the signatures is high.

206

5.1 We propose that the European Commission should be
obliged to discuss and work on the follow-up to the
proposal, not simply respond and acknowledge receipt. If
the Commission decides to not act on the proposal, it
must justify this.

5. It is unclear what theresult of a citizens' initiative 5.2 We propose to organise a citizens' consultation whena European Citizens' Initiative is received to ask for theiris.
opinion on it before the Commission follows it up. This
would avoid having only extreme opinions or votes andinclude the opinion of people who did not sign the ECI. In
addition, if all citizens give their opinion, the suggestion
will have more weight at EU level and in its follow-up.
5.5
Issues100.0%

55.3%

Right to petition
Recommendations

Supported by
(%)

1.
The
European 1.1 We propose that the European Parliament's
Commission takes the final recommendation be followed up by the Commission.
decision, no certainty on theoutcome.

81.1%

2. There is a lack of 2.1 We propose that the person who submits the petitiontransparency on the process be kept informed about the progress and decisions atand motivation for the regular intervals. Reasons should also be given for thedecision
final conclusion.

94.4%

3. It is hard for citizens to 3.1 Our recommendation is that a petition should also be
address the need for new used as a tool to demonstrate the need for new
legislation.
legislation.

78.4%

207

208

Contents
Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................... 210
Presentation of the main results ........................................................................................................................... 214
Presentation of the regional conference panels .................................................................................................... 216
Commitments and methodological approach....................................................................................................... 218
Part 1: presentation of the outcome of the regional conferences on the future of Europe ................................... 226
Part 2: presentation of the outcome of the ‘Parole aux Jeunes’ (‘Young People Have Their Say’) consultation 244
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................................... 248

209Introduction
The Conference on the Future of Europe is an unprecedented exercise in citizen participation,
providing an opportunity to consult the citizens of the 27 Member States of the European Union inorder to put them back at the centre of the decisions being made for the years and decades to come.
In this way, EU citizens are invited to make their voices heard, by proposing changes and specificactions that will enable Europe to define a new ambition and address the global challenges it faces
today.
The French government supports the initiatives of the three-presidency team of the Conference on
the Future of Europe, in particular by encouraging its citizens to make a substantial contribution tothe online platform and to organise events throughout the country.
In parallel with these European initiatives, the government wanted to carry out a participatory exercise
at national level.
With the support of the Ministry with responsibility for Relations with Parliament and Citizen
Participation (MRPC) and the expertise of the Interministerial Centre for Citizen Participation(CIPC), the Ministry for Europe and Foreign Affairs (MEAE) organised a citizen-focused exercise
based on strong methodological approaches (see ‘Commitments and methodological approaches’
below). To implement the programme, the MEAE used a consortium comprised of Roland Berger,
Wavestone, Missions Publiques and Harris Interactive. The regional prefectures also played a keyrole in organising the 18 conferences throughout the country.
The participants in the consultation were asked a single question: ‘As French citizens, what changes
do you want for Europe?’ (see Annex IV ‘Mandate for participation’).

210

This national exercise took the form of 18 regional conferences in the 13 metropolitan regions andthe five French overseas regions, held over three weekends in September and October 2021 and eachinvolving between 30 and 50 randomly selected citizens (746 in total). A summary of these18 regional panels was then produced at a national conference held on 15 to 17 October 2021 at the
Economic, Social and Environmental Council (ESEC) in Paris, involving 98 volunteers from among
the citizens who had participated in the regional conferences.
In addition, in order to highlight the views of young French people ahead of the European Year ofYouth in 2022, an online consultation entitled ‘Parole aux Jeunes’ (‘Young People Have Their Say’)
was organised by the MEAE in partnership with Make.org. More than 50 000 young people aged 15
to 35 shared their ideas and priorities for Europe in 2035.
This report sets out the main results of the two consultations carried out by the government.
Methodology of the consultation
The recruitment of citizens to take part in the regional conferences combined a random selection ofparticipants by drawing lots from their telephone numbers, and targeted selection from among certain
groups in order to ensure the panel was as representative as possible of the diversity of each area.
At the regional panels, the participants shared their views by alternating group work, with tables ofsix to eight citizens assisted by a facilitator, and presentations in plenary. Experts were present during
the discussion time to answer citizens’ questions and provide clarification, while making sure to
maintain a neutral stance.

211

Citizens were first invited to discuss their current perception of Europe. They then shared their
aspirations for Europe in 2035, in their groups and afterwards in plenary. These discussions madeit possible to identify between three and eight aspirations per region. For each of these aspirations,the citizens then outlined the changes that they thought were needed to achieve this vision for Europe,
accompanied by specific proposals to be implemented. The process resulted in a total of 515 changes
and 1 301 specific proposals at national level.
A regional summary report was produced for each regional conference and provided to all participantsahead of the national conference.
The national summary conference involved 98 citizens drawn by lot from among the participants in
the 18 regional conferences. In order to ensure diversity on the national panel, six citizens were drawn
by lot from among the volunteers from the regional conferences in metropolitan France and Réunion,and four citizens from the overseas conferences, with each regional draw making sure to maintain agender balance and include a range of ages (see Annex II).
In preparation for the national conference, the 515 changes identified at the regional conferences wereanalysed and combined when the underlying intention appeared to be similar or related, so as to form
14 groups of changes reflecting a common aspiration for Europe (see part 6). These 14 aspirations
for Europe served as the basis for the work of the 98 participants in the national conference, whose
task was to build on the work done in the regions and compare the aspirations for Europe, the changes
and the proposals with the help of some twenty experts, in order to arrive at a list of priority changes.
Finally, each group selected three key changes, the first of which was voted on by all 98 citizens,
establishing a final ranking of the 14 priority changes. A summary report consolidates all of the work
done at this conference.

212

The online consultation for young people (‘Parole aux Jeunes’) took place from May to July 2021
with the support of Make.org. More than 50 000 participants took part and submitted almost 3 000
proposals for Europe. Based on all the young citizens’ reactions, 35 main ideas were identified, of
which 22 were widely favoured and 13 gave rise to controversy among the participants (see Part 11
below).
Starting point and duty to follow up
This report will be submitted to the Government by the citizens on 29 November 2021, in the presenceof the French elected representatives who are members of the Plenary of the Conference on the Futureof Europe. It will be submitted to the three-presidency team of the Conference during the French
Presidency of the Council of the European Union.
At the end of the national synthesis conference at the Economic, Social and Environmental Council(ESEC), and in order to meet the high expectations of the randomly selected citizens, a citizens’
follow-up committee was set up to represent the participants’ right to follow up. This committee,
composed of 15 members — 14 representatives of the regional conferences and one representative ofthe ‘Parole aux Jeunes’ consultation — will be tasked with informing citizens about the outcome of
their proposals. At each meeting of the Conference Plenary, one or more of the members of theFollow-up Committee will participate as a representative of the French exercise to highlight the
proposals set out in this report, while building a common position with all the European citizens
represented.
All of the documents from the French consultation — mandate for participation, regional summaries,
national summary, guarantors’ report and final report — will be public and accessible to everyone on
the French State’s platform for citizen participation:

213

Presentation of the main results

214

215

Presentation of the regional conference panels

216

217

Commitments and methodological approach218

a. State commitments on participatory democracy
The French component of the Conference on the Future of Europe is underpinned by the commitments
the State has signed up to on participatory democracy, which are based on three principles:transparency, neutrality and the duty to follow up.
A participatory approach requires the organiser to adhere to a rigorous methodology. The method of
citizen participation should enable citizens to participate under the best possible conditions and to
express their views in a free and reasoned manner.
Transparency
The team organising the conference undertook to make all the information relating to the consultation— listed below — accessible to citizens:•

The framework for consultation;•

The commitments made vis-à-vis citizens;•

The purposes of the consultation;•

The results of the consultation.

The methodology of the Conference on the Future of Europe was thus established with the constantobjective of ensuring transparency for citizens. The methodology for recruiting randomly selected
citizens, the methodological approach and the handling of citizens’ views were clearly set out.
Participants also received a summary of their regional conference by email at the end of theconference. In addition, all working documents and proceedings will be made public at the end of theforum on the State Citizen Participation Platform 1.

1

www.participation-citoyenne.gouv.fr
219

Neutrality
During a consultation, the organising team must ensure it remains neutral when facilitating exchanges
and drafting summaries of the results. Stakeholders — moderators, facilitators, experts — should not
express their own views or try to steer the debate in a subjective way.
The objective of neutrality was pursued at all preparatory stages of this consultation, for instance byensuring absence of bias in selecting participants, total freedom of expression during discussions, andcitizens’ input being free of influence from the sponsor or stakeholders. This need for neutrality wasreflected in an objective and transparent process to recruit participants, consistent methodologicalapproach (reverse expertise, no thematic framework for debates) with special attention being paid tothe attitude of the various stakeholders (moderators, facilitators, experts). Lastly, the organising teammade sure that all contributions were taken into account and that there was no screening of citizens’
proposals.
A panel of 3 guarantors, appointed by the Presidents of the National Assembly and the European
Parliament and by the Government, also ensured that all opinions expressed were respected and taken
into account.
Duty to follow up
Citizens, irrespective of whether or not they participated in the consultation, have the right to be
informed of what has been adopted from their proposals and their opinions, and for what reasons.
This is known as the duty to follow up.

220

It is defined by the Interministerial Centre for Citizen Participation (CIPC) and the Interministerial
Directorate for Public Transformation (DITP) as the public decision-maker’s commitment to provide
citizens with a clear and comprehensible response to the planned follow-up to the consultation. In
practical terms, the duty to follow up means providing feedback to citizens to explain how theircontributions are taken into account and have an impact on the administration’s decisions andpractices.
The Government took up this duty to follow up at the Conference on the Future of Europe andannounced an ambitious follow-up mechanism at the end of the national conference; this is describedin the following section of this report (see ‘Methodological approach’).

221b. Methodological approaches
These three State commitments were reflected in the consultation methodology in the form of sevenstrongly-focused methodological approaches.
1. Territorialisation and proximity to citizens
The national component of the Conference on the Future of Europe took the form of 18 regional conferences,in the 13 metropolitan regions and the five French overseas regions, followed by a national conference in Paris.
The aim of organising these panels at local level was to be as close to citizens as possible to gather theirviews. This approach also enriched the consultation by revealing the lines of consensus and disagreement
among the regions on different issues.
2. Diversity of citizen profiles and random selection
A recruitment target of 50 citizens per regional conference was set ahead of the process, with the exception of
the overseas conferences of Martinique, Mayotte, Guadeloupe and Guyana, for which the target was 30 to 40
citizens, and the conference of the Grand Est region, at which five German citizens from the three bordering
Länder were also present. The citizens invited to participate in the regional conferences were drawn by lot
through random selection of telephone numbers.
In order to be eligible, the randomly selected citizens had to be over 18 and either French or permanent legal
residents in France. Each regional citizens’ panel needed to be representative of the diversity of the regional
population and to bring together a variety of views on Europe. The details of the methodology used for the
recruitment by random selection are set out in Annex II.
3. Transparency of the process
A panel of three guarantors, appointed by the Minister of State for European Affairs, the President of the
National Assembly and the President of the European Parliament, monitored the entire process to ensure that
it was neutral and conducted properly. In particular, the guarantors: verified that citizens were genuinely being
recruited by random selection; made recommendations regarding the choice of experts; and ensured, throughon-the-spot visits, that the discussions were being conducted well. At the end of the programme, the guarantors
will publish their opinion on the consultation. This document will be made available online on the state citizen
participation platform.
The following will also be published on the State citizen participation platform: summaries of the 18 regional
conferences; the document summarising all of the changes outlined during the regional conferences; thesummary of the national conference; and lastly the final report submitted to the government.

222

4. An open discussion with no fixed agenda
A single question was put to the citizens participating in the national consultation: ‘As French citizens, whatchanges do you want for Europe? ’.
The approach taken and the methodology put in place allowed citizens to decide for themselves on tabling thedesired changes, without being constrained by a specific subject or a predetermined normative framework.
The aim was to thus allow the citizens at the regional conferences to enjoy total freedom as regards the subjects
they wished to discuss. For the national component of the Conference on the Future of Europe, the MEAE
therefore chose to develop an approach that would complement the European exercise, which is structured
around nine topics: climate change and the environment; health; a stronger economy, social justice and jobs;
EU in the world; values and rights, rule of law, security; digital transformation; European democracy;
migration; education, culture, youth and sport; other ideas 2.
The discussion topics for the regional conferences were therefore determined by the citizens themselves, notby the sponsor of the exercise.
5. Reverse expertise
In order to minimise any influence on participants in the process of identifying their aspirations for Europe,
the decision was made not to provide any information or expertise in advance (for example, on the current
EU project, its competencies or the functioning of the institutions), but to take questions raised by the citizens
themselves as the starting point. This methodological approach is based on the principle of ‘reverse expertise’,according to which collective reflection takes place on the basis of the experiences and opinions of citizens,
who then question experts in order to support their discussions and consolidate their working hypotheses.
To achieve this objective, experts were mobilised in the various regions (three, on average), including fromacademia and from the Europe Direct Information Centres in the areas concerned. They were present on the
Saturday and Sunday of each weekend to answer citizens’ questions, speaking only at their request. Factcheckers were also contactable to quickly check any factual questions from citizens.
During the national summary conference at the CESE, 19 high-level experts from academia, think-tanks andthe diplomatic corps were present in the working groups. These experts each accompanied a group throughout
the weekend, allowing them to examine the changes outlined by the regions in more depth.

223

6. Collegiality and responsive governance
The whole process was co-developed by the Ministry for Europe and Foreign Affairs (MEAE), supported by
the participative strategy of the Interministerial Centre for Citizen Participation (CIPC) within theInterministerial Directorate for Public Transformation (DITP) and the Ministry with responsibility for
Relations with Parliament and Citizen Participation (MRPC). The process was implemented by a consortium
comprised of Roland Berger, Wavestone, Missions Publiques and Harris Interactive, which was responsible
for steering the process, organising the conferences, drawing lots to select the citizens, and drafting the reports
and summaries, working together with the regional prefectures on the local arrangements for the regional
conferences.
Specific governance was put in place in the form of a project team headed by the MEAE and comprising theCIPC, the MRPC and the consortium.
7. Duty to follow up and link with the European exercise

At the national conference, it was announced that there were several components of the French
institutions’ duty to follow up once the exercise for the Conference on the Future of Europe had been
conducted, including:-publishing all the information on the process, this document, and the summary reports fromthe regional and national conferences, in a transparent and fully accessible manner, on the
new citizen participation platform launched upon presentation of the final report to thegovernment;-

organising an event to present the government with the final report from the national
component of the Conference on the Future of Europe in November 2021;-

establishing a citizens’ follow-up committee to ensure that the proposals made during theprocess are followed up. This committee will be made up of 15 citizens, including
14 participants from the regional conferences and one participant in the ‘Parole aux Jeunes’
online consultation;-

submitting the French contribution to the Conference on the Future of Europe to theEuropean institutions in January 2022.

224

The French citizens’ proposals will be put forward for discussion by all the Member States and theEuropean institutions. As the country holding the presidency of the Council of the European Union
in the first half of 2022, it will be incumbent on France to be the voice of its citizens while also
seeking to establish a common European position.

225

Part 1: presentation of the outcome of the regional conferenceson the future of Europe
At each of the 18 regional conferences, citizens described their aspirations for Europe in 2035,
individually and then in groups. Three to eight groups of aspirations emerged in each region, totaling
101 visions for Europe across the whole of France. The citizens then outlined changes that they
thought were needed to achieve this vision for Europe, accompanied by specific actions. The process
resulted in a total of 515 changes and 1 301 specific actions for the whole of France.
In the weeks between the regional conferences and the national conference, the project team worked
on arranging the 515 changes into cohesive groups. All of the changes put forward by the regions
were subject to a lexicological analysis, and combined when the underlying intention seemed similaror related, so that working groups with a common aspiration for Europe could be established for thenational conference. Finally, the changes identified by the regions were grouped into 14 separate
aspirations for Europe.

226

(a) Ranking of the 14 aspirations for Europe
At the end of each regional conference, the participating citizens voted to express their support forthe changes identified by the different working groups.
On the basis of the groups established prior to the national summary conference, it was possible todetermine – as a result of the votes on the changes in each region – which aspirations for Europe werethe most popular among the citizens. For example, ‘a Europe which puts education at the forefront’and ‘a closer and more accessible Europe’ were widely favoured, with changes that were supported
by an average of 56 % of citizens at the regional conferences.

Aspirations for Europe ranked by popularity

227

(b) Presentation of the 14 priority changes from the national conference
At the national summary conference, the 100 citizens taking part each worked on one of the 14 groupsof aspirations. At the end of the discussions, each group selected one priority change to be madeby 2035 which reflected their aspiration for Europe. The 14 priority changes were then voted on by
the 100 citizens on the last day of the national conference. The result of the vote is set out below, indescending order of the number of votes received for each change.
The most popular change among the 100 citizens at the national conference was ‘Encourage energy
restraint, consuming less and eliminating excess’.

228For each priority change, the citizens of the group concerned gave a definition of the change, proposed
specific actions to implement that change and set out the criteria for success by 2035.

229

Change 1 – Promote energy restraint, consuming less and eliminating excess
Associatedaspiration

for

Europe:A

Europecommitted

totackling

theenvironmental and climate challenge

What does this change cover?
Key words: Development of renewable energy sources, reduction in energy consumption
The aim of this change is to encourage a reduction in energy consumption in Europe and thedevelopment of renewable energies. Its prioritisation by citizens expresses their desire for Europe andits inhabitants to take resolute action in the face of the environmental and climate challenge.
What are the key stages and criteria for success?
This change consists in the development of ambitious research programmes on renewable energy
sources and the deployment of European investment funds taking direct shareholdings incompanies in the sector.
For citizens, this change would be successful if it resulted in binding targets for lower energy
consumption and key indicators of moderation, such as a reduction in the EU car fleet or in meat
consumption. The ambition is also to successfully establish consumption quotas per sector, taking
account of fluctuations in the consumption of businesses and respecting the confidentiality of their
data.

230

Change 2 – Strengthen the European Union’s common defence and security
Associated aspiration for Europe: A powerful Europe in the world

What does this change cover?
Key words: European army, strategic autonomy
This change is in line with citizens’ unanimous desire to achieve autonomy in the area of defence
and security in Europe, so as not to depend on foreign powers.
What are the key stages and criteria for success?
For citizens, the success of this change would be reflected above all in the appointment of a European
Commissioner for Defence and Security.
In the field of defence, the creation of a permanent army, which is responsive and can be deployedthroughout the world, would enable Europe to protect its borders and intervene, if necessary, at therequest of third countries.
As regards security, citizens consider that Europe should guarantee security of supply and protect its
strategic research, in priority sectors such as the space sector, cybersecurity, the medical sector andthe environment. Better protection of the external borders should also help to curb illegal
immigration and trafficking.

231

Change 3 – Promote collective economic performance through autonomous,competitive industry developed and promoted by the EU
Associated aspiration for Europe: A Europe which defends its interests

What does this change cover?
Key words: European preference, protection of know-how, development of European champions
This change aims to achieve three objectives: strengthening a policy of a ‘European preference’within the Union, ensuring the protection of essential goods and know-how, and creating‘European champions’.
What are the key stages and criteria for success?
Achieving these objectives, first of all, means implementing a policy of a ‘European preference’ inthe context of calls for tender, and the introduction of a carbon tax on imports.
The protection of know-how would result in increased control of takeovers and foreign investment,
and the expansion of relocation aid.
Finally, the creation of ‘European champions’ means encouraging European industrial alliances instrategic sectors and boosting public venture capital investment.
Citizens see the criteria for the success of this change as the development of European industrial alliances in
key sectors, increasing the number of business relocations and improving Europe’s trade balance.

232Change 4 – Establish citizen power at several levels: participation, decisionmaking, control.
Associated aspiration for Europe: A more democratic Europe

What does this change cover?
Key words: increase voter turnout, a European satisfaction barometer, mainstream citizen
consultations
Through this change, citizens propose to develop a ‘full civic experience’ for Europeans, byincreasing their involvement at all stages of the decision-making process. This change reflects
citizens’ desire to make their voices heard and to influence public policies affecting their daily lives.
What are the key stages and criteria for success?
For citizens, the main task is to develop and perpetuate citizens’ participation initiatives. To this end, action
can be taken on several fronts: the constitution of a permanent consultative assembly, enshrining citizen
power in the European treaties and the creation of a label certifying laws which have emerged from citizen
consultation.

The criteria for the success of this change would be upward movement in indicators such as voter
turnout, interest and trust expressed in the European Union and the use of European websites. An
increase in the number of decisions taken following a citizens’ consultation and the increased use ofEuropean Citizens’ Initiatives (ECIs) also emerge as hallmarks of success.

233

Change 5 – Move towards a federation of European states with strong powers incommon areas of interest
Associated aspiration for Europe: a more united Europe

What does this change cover?
Key words: unified institutions, elected President, strengthening EU competences
This change reflects the desire of our citizens to unify European political institutions. Envisaged is afederation of states with the aim of strengthening the shared or exclusive competences of theEuropean Union, without, however, moving towards a federal state.
What are the key stages and criteria for success?
Internally, this change could involve increasing civic participation, creating European ministries
within the Member States and, in the longer term, electing the President of the European Commission
by universal suffrage.
Externally, the strengthening of Europe's voice abroad would be embodied by a single
representative of Europe on the global stage.
This federation of states would also benefit from an increased European budget, with the aim to reach 10 %of GDP (currently 2 %).

234

Change 6 – Offer exchange programmes at all stages of life
Associated aspiration for Europe: a Europe which puts education at the forefront
What does this change cover?
Key words: educational exchanges, Erasmus
This change is broadly supported and reflects the importance for citizens of encounters andexperiences abroad as a powerful source of European sentiment. The aim is to move from “academic
knowledge to an approach to Europe based on lived and felt experience” and to understandeducation in the broad sense as life-long learning.
What are the key stages and criteria for success?
The success of such a change depends primarily on the introduction of wider mobility opportunities,
including, inter alia, educational exchanges, twinning, travel and professional mobility. Citizens consider thatthese opportunities must be accessible to all, especially people with low incomes or disabilities. For example,
the Erasmus programme could include all Europeans, regardless of age or income. These programmes should be
devised so as to be diverse, inclusive and accessible, with simplified administrative procedures.

Beyond mobility, the importance of encouraging closer links between education systems (diploma
equivalence, etc.) and of making Europe more attractive to prevent the drain of talent to third countries was
also mentioned.

235Change 7 – Share European cultures through gatherings and events that bringpeople together
Associated aspiration for Europe: a Europe with shared cultures and identities
What does this change cover?
Key words: European festival, European public holiday, European Expo
The aim of this change is to create and maintain a European spirit through common experiences,
events and festivities.
What are the key stages and criteria for success?
Citizens envisage fun, unifying and popular events that can be shared by as many people as possible.
To this end, they should involve all target groups (including children, school children, young people
and Erasmus students) and take place in various locations (retirement homes, schools, public
administrations, prisons, etc.).
In particular, two events were envisaged to bring Europeans together: a European Expo to represent all
Member States and a revamp of Europe Day on 9 May, including an educational event “so that we do notforget the peace linked to Europe and its values”. At the same time, European representatives could meet thecontinent’s schoolchildren in their schools in order to strengthen citizens’ closeness to and understanding ofEurope from an early age.

236

Change 8 – Harmonise healthcare and make it accessible to all Europeans througha common healthcare policy
Associated aspiration for Europe: a Europe of solidarity which protects
What does this change cover?
Key words: universal health coverage, harmonisation of care services, a fundamental right to health
To ensure access to healthcare for all Europeans and meet the “need for protection and solidarity”, asupranational healthcare system was unanimously proposed. It would be based on fair funding
between Member States and draw on the best EU schemes. Such a change reflects the desire of
citizens to see Europe take a more active role in the protection of its inhabitants, especially in thefield of health, where action so far is considered too timid.
What are the key stages and criteria for success?
To implement this change, the principle of universal European social security was approved by amajority. However, it was not possible to decide how this system would be implemented. While someargue for ‘a centralisation of data allowing [European] healthcare workers to access a patient’s
entire medical history’, others perceive that measure as ‘a further loss of liberty, and a means ofcontrol’.
However, transparency and the harmonisation of regulatory requirements across the continent in this field,
as well as a European Healthcare Plan, were identified as prerequisites for any significant change.

237

Change 9 – Develop and oversee strategic sectors at European level to ensure oursovereignty
Associated aspiration for Europe: A competitive and innovative Europe
What does this change cover?
Key words: development of European champions, control of foreign investment, digital and energy
autonomy
Oversight at European level of sectors considered strategic, such as health, food, energy, digital,
defence, transport and new materials, meets the need for sovereignty identified by citizens. Suchoversight would limit competition between European companies, encourage the emergence ofcontinental champions and reindustrialise Europe by means of a European preference.
What are the key stages and criteria for success?
In order to achieve this sovereignty, a European authority could be tasked with overseeing these
sectors by issuing authorisations for takeovers of European companies by foreign competitors and by
ensuring that imported products meet the same standards as EU products. In the medium term, 30 %to 50 % of what is consumed in Europe in these strategic sectors should be produced in Europe,and up to

70 % in the long term. Meeting these criteria would ensure self-sufficiency andinternational influence and even lead to the export of the European industrial model.

238

Change 10 – Improve the protection of ecosystems and environments and create
protected areas at the heart of urban, peri-urban and rural areas
Associated aspiration for Europe: A Europe which promotes sustainable development
What does this change cover?
Key words: environmentally sustainable urbanisation, respect for and conservation of soil
The aim is to limit the negative impact of urbanisation on soil. Far-reaching action would limit
disasters linked to soil degradation such as landslides and improve the quality of life in urban
areas, including by planting trees.
What are the key stages and criteria for success?
The proposed action is twofold: first of all reverse the trend of new builds to slow down the paceof soil sealing, and secondly, encourage soil restoration to give back to nature what belongs to it.

239

Change 11 – Set up local European contact points to consult with and advise
citizens
Associated aspiration for Europe: A closer and more accessible Europe
What does this change cover?
Key words: Houses of Europe, local contact point for Europe, better access to information
The aim of this change is to provide concrete responses to the fact that the European Union is not
felt to be present in everyday life, as highlighted by many participants, and to work to bring Europe
and its citizens closer to one another.
What are the key stages and criteria for success?
To close the gap between the EU and citizens, a specialised contact point could be appointed in each town
hall with the role of listening to and advising citizens. The information provided by this report could be of asocio-economic nature, focusing on accessing European aid or information, for instance on the role oflobbyists. The information provided would be addressed to both the general public and professionals, inparticular to advise SMEs and help project owners to access EU funds. In the long term, this change could leadto the creation of dedicated Europe hubs, similar to the existing Houses of Europe, but at local level, for
optimal regional coverage.
This change would be seen as successful if every citizen instantly recognises this contact point and dedicatedhub, which would provide resources, information and advice about Europe and where citizens would belistened to.

240Change 12 – Standardise elections to the European Parliament in the 27 Member
States and bring the EU closer to citizens by replacing the current voting methodwith uninominal voting at regional level
Associated aspiration for Europe: A Europe with more efficient governance
What does this change cover?
Key words: Institutional change, citizens monitor activity throughout the term of officeThis change reflects citizens’ desire to be closer to elected representatives and to follow theiractivity throughout their term of office. It addresses the widely shared finding that citizens’ concerns
do not lead to specific action by elected representatives in the European Parliament.
What are the key stages and criteria for success?
The change in the election method would consist of a unified voting system at European level andthe transition from national constituencies to regional constituencies, which is considered possible by
2035.

241

Change 13 – Establish a common policy to offer a better reception to and improve
the social and professional integration of migrants (including irregular migrants)
Associated aspiration for Europe: A Europe which guarantees respect for fundamental rights
What does this change cover?
Key words: European migration office, guaranteeing a decent reception everywhere in Europe
The aim of this change is to improve the reception of migrants in the European Union, a problem
which citizens unanimously identify as an emergency. In contrast to the current situation, theestablishment of a common, concerted and solidarity-based immigration policy appears as a major
contributor to peace.
What are the key stages and criteria for success?
The gradual implementation of a common policy on the reception of migrants would make this change
a success.
A citizens’ initiative should submit this change to the Commission and, in the medium term, enable
the adoption of a common standard defining a framework for the reception and social integration of
migrants. In the long term, this standard would be supported by the creation of a specialised
European immigration office and the recognition of migration policy as a European Union
competence.

242

Change 14 – Preserve the specific characteristics (food labels, craft products,
traditions) of the different European regions to prevent the homogenisation ofways of life and ensure product traceability and quality
Associated aspiration for Europe: A Europe where the interests of each state take priority
What does this change cover?
Key words: European labels, promoting diversity of cultures and traditions
The aim of this change is to preserve the diversity of European traditions and products and toprevent the homogenisation of ways of life – a criticism often levelled at the European Union.
What are the key stages and criteria for success?
From the point of the view of the citizens, it is mainly a question of making the existing database of
the different European and national labels more accessible. To this end, it was proposed that a
website be created that follows the three-click principle: one click to access the site, a second to
display a map of the regions of the European Union, and a third to bring up a description of eachregion’s labels.
Success with regard to this change would take the form of enhanced communication about existing practices,
resulting in citizens’ having a better knowledge of the diversity of European cultures.

243

Part 2: presentation of the outcome of the ‘Parole aux Jeunes’(‘Young People Have Their Say’) consultation
Dates of the consultation
09/05/2021 to 18/07/2021
Turnout figures
50 008 participants
2 918 proposals
338 330 votes
The ‘Parole aux Jeunes’ consultation was launched on the initiative of the Minister of State forEuropean Affairs. This consultation forms part of the Conference on the Future of Europe, an
unprecedented exercise in participatory democracy conducted by the European institutions, the aimof which is to give all European citizens the opportunity to voice their views on what they expectfrom the European Union. The consultation’s findings will inform the work of the Conference on the
Future of Europe and of the French Presidency of the European Union.
4 main outcomes
1. A massive mobilisation of young people: over 50 000 young French citizens, across all theregions, took part in the consultation.
2. The most significant points of consensus concern European policies to combat climatechange, relocating production to Europe, revitalising European democracy, and the EU’s
global influence (economy, research, human rights, diplomacy).

244

3. The idea of a more powerful and united Europe runs through the entire consultation,and there is consensus on several points:-

A Europe that stronger economically (particularly as a result of relocation) to contend with
China and the United States-

A diplomatic Europe with more clout on the international stage-

A Europe that is a world leader in the fight against climate change-

A Europe brought together by its young people-

A Europe united in research and innovation

4. Four ideas supplementing those generated by the citizens’ panels were also endorsed by
the young participants:-

A European economy that is environmentally and socially responsible-

A Europe that is geographically more connected by rail-

A fairer Europe in terms of taxation-

Strong EU action to promote women’s rights245

22 popular ideas and 13 controversial ideas divided among the nine topics of the Conference
on the Future of Europe
The popular ideas are based on proposals supported by a majority of the participants in the
consultation. Popular proposals are those that garner the most support, with an average of 79 % ofvotes in favour.
The controversial ideas are based on the proposals that provoked the most debate among theparticipants in the consultation, with a balance between votes for and votes against. Controversial
proposals are those most hotly debated during the consultation, with an average of 40 % of votes infavour and 38 % of votes against.
Analysis of these proposals led to the identification of 22 popular ideas and 13 controversial ideas.
These 22 popular ideas and 13 controversial ideas were divided up into nine categories corresponding
to the main topics of the Conference on the Future of Europe.

246Summary of the popular and controversial ideas

247

Conclusion‘For you, in one word, Europe in 2035 should be...’:

Response from citizens participating in the national conference to the final question:‘For you, in one word, Europe in 2035 should be...’248

National Citizens’ Panel on the future of Europe in Berlin-

Citizens’ recommendations -Germany held its National Citizens’ Panel on the Future of Europe on 5, 8, 15 and 16 January.
The process of selecting citizens followed the stratified random selection of participants for theEuropean Citizens’ Panels. 12,000 citizens in Germany were invited to participate; out of the
respondents, approximately 100 were selected, taking into account the current census data of
the Federal Republic of Germany to reflect the diversity of German society and the population asa whole. During the National Citizens’ Panel, the participants discussed five topics: The Role of
the EU in the world, A Stronger Economy, Climate and Environment, Social Justice, European
Values and the Rule of Law. They then developed concrete recommendations under theseheadlines that were adopted in the final plenary session on 16 January:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=cefqmarZXzY

249

Table 1:
Linking foreign trade interests with climate policy measures
We recommend that the EU (particularly the EU Commission) launch an investment package forclimate-friendly technologies and innovations, including funding programmes. This package
should be financed through climate-related import tariffs which would be earmarked andpassed on as monetary compensation for the climate damage caused. In this context, a pointsbased system to rate sustainability would be introduced for certain products. A clear EU position
and a strong and innovative Europe would be helpful inreaching global climate targets. This
would help consolidate the role of the European Union as a responsible, global pioneer andmodel which secures wealth and can bring aboutsustainable global changes. Those goals areimportant to us because the EU is making an enduring contribution in the fight against climatechange which in the long term could make an important contribution to consolidating world
peace.

Table 2:Creating incentives for production to be based in the EU, especially the production of basic
supplies
In order to facilitate the production of basic supplies in the EU, we recommend accelerating andstandardising approval procedures, reducing bureaucracy and offering subsidies to companies
that relocate to the EU and/or develop production sites in the EU. The EU should promoterenewable energy on a massive scale in order to reduce energy costs.
Through these measures, we want to shorten supply chains and make them more climate
friendly, help strengthen the EU and create jobs in which human rights are respected.
Those goals are important to us because relocating production to the EU would make the EUinternationally more autonomous and politically less vulnerable.

250

Table 1:
Digi-Score – points for a strong EU-wide digital economy
We propose introducing a publicly accessible digital score board, Digi-Score, run by theEuropean Commission (DG Connect). This is a detailed ranking system that indicates andcompares the current level of digitisation of EU businesses. With this proposal, we aim to create
an incentive to increase digitisation across Europe. Businesses with a low digital score would beentitled to receive targeted support to help them catch up.
This goal is important to us because it would help pave the way for increasing productivity,
efficiency and sales and thereby strengthen Europe as a manufacturing base.

Table 2:
Information platform for an EU-wide exchange of knowledge and experiences
We recommend that the EU set up an information platform serving as an EU-wide exchange ofknowledge and experiences. Our goal is to pool information on transnational education andtraining courses in the EU, showcase best practice examples and offer citizens the opportunity
to present new ideas for cross-border exchange. In addition, further information could be
provided on the technical expert fora available (e.g. on energy, environment,digitisation).
We deem this important because citizens need transparency about the cross-border training
and education courses that are available. They should receive better guidance at EU level on
what fora and platforms exist.

251

Table 1:
Regulation on guaranteed product life
We recommend that the EU introduce legislation to ensure a product-specific, extended,guaranteed lifetime for products manufactured and sold in the EU and make it transparent for
consumers.
Resources are finite and could be saved through this measure, as well as waste be avoided,
which would benefit the environment, the climate and consumers.
In this way, we want to encourage manufacturers to bring products on to the market thatare
more durable and repairable.

Table 2:Long-term EU campaign for sustainable consumption and lifestyle
We recommend that a European body, including branches in EU countries, be provided with its
own resources and lead the campaign.
We aim to ensure that all people in the EU have a common identity, become more mindfulof
the need for sustainable consumption and lifestyle and adopt this way of life.
These goals are important to us because we want to generate an intrinsic motivation forsustainable living.

252

Table 1:
Creating more exchange opportunities for students in Europe

We recommend that the European Union adopt - in addition to the existing ERASMUS
programme - a regulation on an exchange programme for students between the ages of 14 and25 - irrespective of background, gender and level of education. This exchange programmeshould be systematically established and communicated by local schools. Every student shouldhave the possibility to make use of the exchange programme at any time during his or her school
career. To this end, the European Commission should submit a proposal to the European
Parliament and the European Council
Our aim is for students, irrespective of school performance and financial support by theirparents, to have the possibility to take part in exchange programmes throughout Europe. A
culture of European exchange should be fostered from school age. Above all, it is important thatexchange programmes are low-threshold and free of red tape. Through the exchange
programme, we want to establish European solidarity and reduce language barriers. This shouldtake place with educational justice and educational participation in mind in order to enhanceintercultural and communicative competences.
These goals are important to us since they can help promote European cohesion, strengthen
respect and cooperation and impart European values from a young age, so that Europe’s
diversity can be perceived as a chance.

Table 2:Introducing a basic job-specific salary
We recommend that the EU Commissioner for Jobs and Social Rights submit to the European
Parliament a proposal for the introduction of a basic job-specific salary in all Member States.
This basic salary should be composed of a minimum wage sufficient to secure a livelihood, anda job-specific supplement.
Our aim is for working performances and wages to be comparable within the EU in order tostrengthen social justice. This goal is important to us to ensure that the basic principle of the EU
is reflected in the labour market: comparable living and working conditions, irrespective of one’s
place of residence and profession.

253

Table 1:
Embodying European values and communicating them emotionally
We recommend that European values be made more tangible and communicated in a more
emotional way. We could achieve this, for example, through an "onboarding" package,comprising media, interactive elements and greater involvement of citizens.
Our goal is for every single person living in the EU to know about the common values andidentify with them.
This goal is important to us because it forms the basis of our co-existence in our community ofvalues. There is far too little awareness of these values because the personal connection is
missing. We need to establish this connection.

Table 2:
“EU Life”
We recommend that the EU establish its own educational and informative television
programme in order to strengthen awareness among all EU citizens of our common values andensure that there is easy, barrier-free access for all. These goals are important to us because wewish to gain an insight into public opinion in all EU countries. In this way, we want to strengthencommon ground and help bring people together in order to promote more solidarity and train
people in the rule of law in order to safeguard democracy.

254

Citizens' panel to formulate recommendations for
the Conference on the Future of Europe, 11-12
March 2022

Summary Report
Rome, 16 March 2022

255

Table of Contents
Table of Contents...................................................................................................................... 256
1.

Guiding Principles of the Panel Organisation Process ................................................... 257

2.

Participants' Selection and Engagement Procedures ..................................................... 258

3.

Panel Organisation ............................................................................................................ 261

4.

The Work Agenda .............................................................................................................. 261

5.

Recommendations Collected ............................................................................................ 263
A Stronger Economy, Social Justice, and Jobs .................................................................. 263

1. Overcoming the 20th Century Production Model .................................................................. 263
2. Generative and Inclusive Productive Regulations ................................................................ 264
3. Measuring Growth in People's Happiness and Not in the Quantity of Products .................... 264
4. Greater Integration Amongst States ..................................................................................... 265
5. Inclusion Policies ................................................................................................................. 266
6. Employment ......................................................................................................................... 267
Europe in the World .............................................................................................................. 268
1. Strengthening the European Identity .................................................................................... 268
2. Strengthening the Economy and Institutions ........................................................................ 269
3. Cooperation and Partnerships ............................................................................................. 270
4. Political and Cultural Reference Point .................................................................................. 271
6.

Final Evaluation by Participants ....................................................................................... 271

256

1. Guiding Principles of the Panel Organisation Process
The whole process of panel implementation was designed to comply with the indications of the
Guidance for National Citizens’ Panels in the context of the Conference on the Future of Europe.
Specifically:
•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Purpose:All those invited to take part in the panel filled in a participation questionnaire indicating theobjectives and aims of the project, with specific references to the Conference on the Futureof Europe, the topics covered and the methods of engagement.
Transparency:
All materials for the presentation of the initiative were made available to participants througha variety of means, always referring to the official website of the Conference and emailingthe materials to all participants.
Inclusiveness:
The invitation to participate was conveyed in a variety of ways, such as: an email invitation
to members of the SWG Community as well as the dissemination of links to fill in theapplication form via Twitter and Linkedin. This generated a total of over 400 accesses to theapplication form and 245 applications. The selection of participants (based on randomness)
was carried out in such a way as to ensure the presence of people of different genders, ages,social backgrounds, places of residence and employment status.
Representativeness:
Although the size of the sample is not representative in the statistical sense, the mechanism
for constructing the sample was designed to achieve maximum heterogeneity amongst theparticipants in order to reproduce a microcosm of the target audience.
Information:
All participants were provided with an extensive set of information about both the Conference
and the topics discussed during the panel. In the introductory section, the objectives andmodalities of the project were reiterated according to the principles of neutrality andcompleteness. All participants were given the opportunity to ask for more information anddetails about the event through the direct telephone numbers of SWG's project managers.
Deliberation Groups:
The key objective of the entire process was the formulation of concrete recommendations
addressed to the European Union, broadly shared by the participants. The working approachand the way the groups were led resulted in a process centred on the collection ofparticipants' indications, their elaboration and synthesis as well as their verification andvalidation by the groups themselves through a subsequent working session.
Timing:A relaxed atmosphere was created during the working sessions, giving the participants plentyof time to explore the issues on which they were asked to deliberate, express their opinions
and listen to those of others. For the same reason, it was decided to divide the two maingroups into two subgroups. The work was also spread over two days so as to allow a proper
sedimentation of the considerations that emerged.

257

•

•

•

•

Follow up:
The last day of work saw all the panels engaged in a verification and validation process ofthe first draft of the recommendations elaborated during the first phase of the work. Once thereport on the results had been delivered to the Department for European Policies of the
Presidency of the Council of Ministers, and the relevant authorisation had been received, thefinal version of the recommendations was shared with all the panel participants. In all cases,
participants were invited to continue to follow the activities of the Conference through thewebsite and the updates that will be published.
Integrity:
The entire work process was conducted in full autonomy by SWG, according to theassignment received. The Department for European Policies of the Presidency of the Councilof Ministers was constantly informed about the different steps of the initiative and the resultsthat were being achieved.
Privacy:
The privacy of participants was fully guaranteed. In order to be admitted to the panel, allcandidates had to sign the informed consent required by law.
Assessment:
At the end of the process, a questionnaire was administered to all participants to evaluate
their experience, the results of which are summarised in this report.

2. Participants' Selection and Engagement Procedures
The Selection
The aim of the pre-event communication phase was to recruit at least 50 Italian citizens interested
in participating in the initiative.
To this end, a short self-application form was set up: a questionnaire to be filled in online on SWG's
proprietary platform, in which all those interested in participating in the initiative could apply byindicating the minimum data necessary for their placement in the clusters from which participants
were randomly drawn. The necessary conditions for participation were the availability of an internet
connection, a device equipped with a microphone and video camera as well as the signing of theConference Charter.
The application form was disseminated through social networks from SWG's accounts. To this end,
6 posts were made on Twitter and 1 on Linkedin with the following results:
Social network

Twitter
LinkedinDates

Number of views

Access to theapplication link

6 posts
between 8 and 10 March

889

31

410

25

1 poston 8 MarchAt the same time, members of the SWG Community were invited to apply, according to an invitation
strategy aimed at guaranteeing maximum representation of the Italian population, not only in termsof socio-anagraphical characteristics, but also in terms of ideas, cultural orientations and values.

258

Applications were held between 8 a.m. on 8 March and 4 p.m. on 10 March 2022, resulting in a totalof 420 accesses to the application form and 225 completed applications.
A total of 140 people were actually eligible, from which 70 were selected according to a criterion
aimed at ensuring a balanced presence of subjects in terms of gender, geographical distribution,
age and educational qualifications.
In the candidate selection procedure, particular care was paid to operating according to a principleof fair probability for selection amongst participants, with procedures based on a criterion of
conditional randomness.
The randomness of the draw was a central element of the project to ensure fairness in the accessprocess. However, in the spirit of the initiative, it seemed important to put in place a strategy not only
to involve the maximum number of subjects possible, but also to ensure maximum heterogeneity ofthe selected subjects in order to promote maximum inclusiveness.
In summary, the distribution of those eligible to participate was as follows:

Distribution of eligible candidates

140
L evel of E ducation

G ender

76

64

Low

27

18-34 years

961735-64 years
65-75 anni

11

L ower s econdary s chool diploma,
vocational s chool diploma

A ge G roups
Medium

A rea of R es idence

56

North
E as t26

North
W es tC entre39

35

Upper s econdary s chool diploma

High

73

Bachelor's degree, Master's degree or higher

South andIs lands

40

T utti i diritti ris ervati

3

Once the 70 candidates had been drawn and, on the morning of the event, telephone calls weremade to those identified to confirm their participation. The recall was carried out by SWG's
proprietary CATI Contact Centre. Overall, at the end of this phase, 59 subjects were registered andconfirmed their participation. Of these, 55 took an active part in the panel.
The social and age composition of the panel was as follows:259

Distribution of actual participants55
L evel of E ducation

G ender

26

29

Low

18-34 years

341335-64 years
65-75 years

5

L ower s econdary s chool diploma,
vocational s chool diploma

A ge G roups

8

A rea of R es idence

Medium24

North
E as t8
12North
W es tC entre16

Upper s econdary s chool diploma

High

16

Bachelor's degree, Master's degree or higher

S outh andIs lands

19

T utti i diritti ris ervati

4

T utti i diritti ris ervati

1

At a glance, these are the results of the recruitment process:The application process flow

420
225
140
70
55

260

Communication Materials
To ensure a high level of motivation and participation from the very first engagement, the following
materials were made available to all participants:••••

The presentation sheets of the Conference on the Future of Europe and of thenational panels.
The Future of Europe Conference Charter.
The themes of the topics that would be discussed during the panels.
The technical and organisational information required for participation.

3. Panel Organisation
In order to maximise the participation of people with work commitments, the panel was structured on
two consecutive half-days, including a public holiday, according to the following schedule:• Friday 11 March from 4 p.m. to 8 p.m.
• Saturday 12 March from 10 a.m. to 12 p.m.
On the one hand, this decision was intended to facilitate workers' participation in the initiative and,on the other hand, break up the commitment to participation by encouraging greater attention andinvolvement, with also greater deliberation on the issues and proposals presented.
The panel participants accessed the two working sessions through the GoToMeeting platform andwere divided into 4 groups (two for each thematic area), led by a SWG moderator and with thepresence of a transcriber to take the minutes of the interventions. The moderators led the groups
through two different discussion tracks (one for each thematic area), aiming to involve all participants
as much as possible and ensuring an approach based on maximum inclusion and neutrality.

4. The Work Agenda
First Session (Friday 11 March 2022)
•
•
•
•
•

3:00 p.m.- Opening of the connection and opportunity for participants to connect to theplatform as well as check the functioning of their audio and video systems.
4.00 p.m. - Introduction by the Moderator: illustration of the reasons behind the initiative andthe structure of the work.
4:15 p.m.- Breakdown of participants into groups based on the preferences indicated in theapplication phase.
4:20 p.m. - Start of group discussion.
8:00 p.m.- End of session.

261

Second Session (Saturday, 12 March 2022)•••

10.00 - Resumption of work with reading of the results of the first day's work.
10.15 - Continuation of the discussion, insights and comments from the participants.
12.00 - End of work.

262

5. Recommendations Collected
A Stronger Economy, Social Justice, and Jobs
1. Overcoming the 20th Century Production Model
The perception of the panel participants is that the latest world events (the Covid-19 pandemic andthe conflict between Russia and Ukraine) have forcefully shown the limits of the current European
productive model and have highlighted the need to revise an approach that many describe as being''twentieth century''.
The evidence of Europe's dependence on energy and food purchased from countries outside of theEuropean Union, as well as the discovery (during the pandemic) that we are not able to produce thequantity of medical devices and vaccines needed to combat the advance of the virus on our own,
have led to the perception of a fundamental weakness in our economic system linked to a lack ofself-sufficiency.
At the same time, there is a clear perception that a stronger economy, capable of creating jobs in acontext of social justice, must have strong assets in terms of technology. In order to do this, it isessential to support an education system that is increasingly focused on STEM subjects.
Technological innovation, sustainable energy, but also tourism and culture appear to be threefundamental directions for the development of the European economy of the future, with a specificfocus on maintaining basic production to avoid the risk of excessive dependence on non-EU
countries for the supply of essential products and raw materials.

RECOMMENDATIONS AT A GLANCE
1. Tackling climate change and alternative energies effectively.
2. Investing in an economy based on tourism and culture, including the manysmall destinations in Europe.
3. Focusing on technology and innovation as drivers of growth.
4. Reducing dependence on other countries for raw materials, energy sources
and agriculture.
5. Encouraging young people to study science subjects.

263

2. Generative and Inclusive Productive Regulations
Overcoming the economic organisation of the twentieth century also requires a review of the rules
and procedures for regulating business activity. There are four recommendations in this direction,
which share a common logic: on the one hand, simplifying the rules and, on the other hand,maintaining a high level of vigilance against misconduct (particularly with regard to counterfeiting
and unfair competition).
Great attention is paid to the need for economic rules to be generative first and foremost, reducing
as far as possible those choices that impose a standardisation of production processes (jeopardising
specific local products with deep cultural roots), but also the destruction of agricultural assets due tothe need to maintain predefined production quantities.

RECOMMENDATIONS AT A GLANCE
1.
2.

3.
4.

Reducing bureaucracy (permits, certifications).
Reducing the standardisation of products and recognising local andregional cultural and production peculiarities (respect for production
traditions).
Overcoming the logic of "fixed quotas" in agricultural production, with therelative destruction of excess produce.
Combating counterfeiting and unfair competition.

3. Measuring Growth in People's Happiness and Not in the Quantity of
Products
Overcoming the twentieth-century production model does not only mean changing production
methods, but also entering into a new culture in which growth indicators are not just centred on thequantity of goods produced, but on the ability to ensure that citizens achieve a goal of happiness. In
the new economy, the key subject around which to judge impact and investment cannot be goods
but must be people. This implies the need to move from a system of indicators based on the quantityof goods produced (GDP) to a system capable of measuring the well-being produced on people(GDH - gross domestic happiness).

RECOMMENDATION AT A GLANCE
1.

Developing an economy centred more on the production of happiness(Gross Domestic Happiness) than on goods (Gross Domestic Product).

264

4. Greater Integration Amongst States
What is clear to everyone, even to those who are less satisfied with the current set-up and the results
achieved so far by the European Union, is that monetary union is not enough, and that Europe must
be able to move with increasing strength as a cohesive political entity, able to negotiate externallywith one voice and to act with greater solidarity internally. Greater union is a key aspect of increasing
the political, commercial and productive strength of the European Union: homogeneity offundamental laws as well as an integrated and cohesive system of taxation of businesses andcitizens, where wages and services to citizens are aligned. Only in this way will we have a Europe
capable of reducing social differences and promoting quality of life.
This means not moving backwards on the achievements of recent years and preserving the conceptof welfare, indicated by the participants in the panel as the most advanced in the world and the mostcareful to guarantee equal opportunities and social justice to its citizens.

RECOMMENDATIONS AT A GLANCE
1. Do not compromise on welfare rights (public health, public education,
labour policies).
2. Consolidate what has been done in terms of the single currency and theinterconnection of payment systems and telecommunications.
Today, however, all that has been done in the past no longer seems sufficient, and the Europe ofthe future needs to make a definitive leap forward in terms of integration amongst Member States,
according to an internal vision that is no longer based on competition, but on cooperation, which puts
every European citizen in a position to have the same systems of guarantees and opportunities inall the Member States of the Union.

RECOMMENDATIONS AT A GLANCE
1. Overcoming the self-interest of individual States and the tendency to seek
individual advantages to the detriment of others.
2. Establishing a system that provides for the same laws, taxation systems,rights and duties in all countries.
3. Coordinating tax regimes amongst the different States, especiallyconcerning companies (no free zones or low taxation).
4. Coherent prices of products and a guarantee of equal purchasing power
across the different States.
5. Reducing wage disparities across the different States and the geographicalregions within them.
6. Making the public debt of various Member States a common responsibility.

2655. Inclusion Policies
A Europe that is fair and capable of offering happiness to its citizens is an inclusive Europe, which
always maintains a high level of attention to combating inequalities. The recommendations set a
course for achieving long-cherished goals (such as gender equality), and mark out new requirements
linked to the cultural transformations of contemporary societies (digital inequalities and the right tolive in a healthy environment).

RECOMMENDATIONS AT A GLANCE
1. Achieving full gender equality, including by strengthening paternal parental
leave and childcare facilities.
2. Tackling digital inequalities.
3. Ensuring that all European citizens can live in a healthy and sustainable
environment.
4. Ensuring the opportunity of social mobility and, therefore, to have a fullchance of self-realisation and self-determination.
5. Promoting generational change at all levels.
6. Managing the reception of refugees and migrants in a balanced way acrossthe different States.
Once again, the role of schools and educational policies appears to be central, not only to provide
young people with the skills they need to enter the labour market, but also to build a European
culture. After building a Europe of institutions, it is essential to build a Europe of peoples. From thispoint of view, the centrality of a common language is emphasised to enable dialogue between
citizens of different countries and equal access to services. The dream of Esperanto having
collapsed, the UK's departure from the European Union has raised doubts about the possibility of
adopting English as a shared language, a key idiom in international relations as well as within thescientific and economic system.

RECOMMENDATIONS AT A GLANCE
1. Promoting the adoption of a common language.
2. Investing in schools and the teaching the history of Europe rather than ofindividual nations as well as political economy and civic education.
3. Access to culture, education and exchanges between students and citizensof the different Member States

266

Inclusion policies have an essential component in guaranteeing access to opportunities for citizens.
The participants in the panel, from this point of view, underlined how Italy has often been unable touse the European funds made available for this purpose. Inclusion and accessibility mean that
European institutions are closer to their citizens, and more information and awareness about therights that European citizens have as such. From this point of view, the importance of a direct
relationship between the Union's institutions and citizens emerged, without necessarily being
mediated by the Member States.

RECOMMENDATIONS AT A GLANCE
1. Promoting the use of European funds for reducing inequalities.
2. Accessibility and proximity of European institutions to citizens.
3. Encouraging direct access by citizens as well as communicating theirrights and opportunities clearly.

6. Employment
The issue of employment consistently emerged as a cross-cutting element and a direct effect of theEuropean Union's ability to follow through on its recommendations. In the debate amongst
participants, it was clear that the issue of employment was central to people's lives, but that it could
not be pursued without strengthening economic and social justice issues. The strong expectation isfor a European Union in which active labour policies remain central and increasingly coordinated.

RECOMMENDATIONS AT A GLANCE
1. Promoting exchanges between workers in Europe through a European Job
Centre.
2. Having integrated employment policies at an EU level.
3. Providing incentives for companies that offer employment.

267

Europe in the World
Recent international events and, particularly, the war between Russia and Ukraine, have had aprofound impact on the perception of the role that Europe should play internationally.
The recommendations collected essentially focused on an axis that aims to strengthen the Union(both in terms of identity and as an economic force) and position it as a model of reference andstimulus in its relations with other countries.

Strengthening

Strengthening the

Cooperation

Political andthe European

Economy and Institutions

and Partnerships

Cultural

1. Strengthening the European Identity
In order to be recognised outside of its borders, the European Union must first of all be internallycohesive, not only economically and financially, but also in terms of identity and values. An identitythat is not created through homologation, but through the enhancement of local specificities within aframework of shared essential values.
In this respect, there is also a consideration of a potential enlargement of the Union's perimeter
which, according to some of the panel participants, should not be done in an indiscriminate manner,
but instead focus on mutual cultural and value recognition rather than on economic standards.

RECOMMENDATIONS AT A GLANCE
1. Enhancement of European values, cultural traits as well as regional
specificities.
2. Creation of an institute for European culture to foster a culture of respect
and cross-fertilisation between citizens of different States.
3. Redefinition of the principles of belonging for new candidate countries, witha strengthening of factors such as cultural identity and values.

268

2. Strengthening the Economy and Institutions
The Europe of the future is called upon to play a leading role at international level, and this role canonly be taken on when the Union is strong and independent of other countries. There is widespreadawareness that the countries of the Union are poor in raw materials, but it seems essential that theUnion should be able to guarantee greater independence in terms of energy supplies, agriculture
and technological products.
This requires precise investments to catch up in areas such as technology (where the European
Union does not currently seem to have a leading role), but also in the food and energy sectors.
The war between Russia and Ukraine has also brought back to the centre of the debate theimportance of an integrated European defence policy, with a specific identity and greater autonomy
with respect to NATO, whose membership is not in question.
Finally, it entails precise choices for the future, with a strong investment in science and research toincrease the skills of young Europeans.

RECOMMENDATIONS AT A GLANCE
1. Strengthening domestic production capacity: food chain (especially wheat)and technology (microchips).
2. Enhancing typical regional and European products.
3. Strengthening European industrial clusters (e.g. steel).
4. Strengthening local energy production from a green perspective (gas,solar, wind).
5. Developing aerospace technologies.
6. Creating European scientific laboratories (European Virus Bank).
7. Creating a common European Army acting within the framework of NATO,but also helping to go beyond it.
8. Investing in the training of trainers (European exchanges for teachers,
Erasmus for teachers).
9. Increasing the mobility of European researchers by developing new
Community scientific institutions.
10. Promoting the emergence of innovative start-ups.

269

3. Cooperation and Partnerships
The Europe of the future is not seen as a fortress defending its wealth, but as a protagonist on theinternational stage which is capable of dialogue with all the countries of the world. A dialogue thatstarts from a commercial power and should aim at economic leadership, which can be consolidated
through the building of partnerships and projects of great international scope.
All this with a view to cooperation and attention to less secure areas of the world, with ad hoc projects
to promote the poorest countries, as well as cultural and economic exchange with the countries of
the East.
Specific attention is also paid to the issue of migration, with greater coordination across the different
states and using shared procedures for managing requests and people.

RECOMMENDATIONS AT A GLANCE
1. Boosting exports.
2. Promoting transnational European tourist routes.
3. Developing a commercial system of negotiations at a European level (notas individual States or companies, but as a Union) to have greaterbargaining power, but with also constraints linked to the respect of humanrights.
4. Carrying out major international projects such as the International Space
Station.
5. Financing projects in Africa to build schools and hospitals without acolonial attitude and instead aiming at respect for European rights andvalues.
6. Investing in on-site training (especially for women) in the poorest countries.
7. Promoting exchanges of technicians and trainers.
8. Building a system of common rules for the access of migrants, withdifferent processes between humanitarian and economic migrations andfair distribution across the different States with common rules (census andcontrol of behaviour and employment).

2704. Political and Cultural Reference Point
In the scenario outlined above, Europe is called upon to represent a clear political and culturalreference point at world level from the point of view of rights and ethics, setting an example by making
decisions aimed at guaranteeing a healthy environment, respect for people's rights and dialogue
between East and West.

RECOMMENDATIONS AT A GLANCE
1. Leading the way as a green continent, achieving zero emissions before
others and increasing clean energy production (wind and solar).
2. Exporting technologies to produce zero-impact goods.
3. Acting as a confluence (a public place, an agora) between East and West,promoting cultural exchanges and joint cultural initiatives (such as theWorld Art Days, to be held in rotation in the various European capitals andwith an artistic programme that includes Western and Eastern artists).
4. Creating a European ethical model to manage migration processes whichis to be shared internationally.

6. Final Evaluation by Participants
At the end of the two days of work, all participants were invited to fill in a short questionnaire to evaluate
their experience. The evaluation questionnaire was sent out two days after the end of the panel togive all participants time to digest the experience and give balanced feedback.
The results collected show a particularly high level of satisfaction, both in terms of interest and fromthe point of view of ease of participation and the perception of listening and inclusion.

271

SATISFACTION FOR PARTICIPATING IN THE PANEL

9,5

Overall satisfaction with the experience

9,0Quality of participants' contributions
Coherence between the recommendations produced and thedebate9,1
9,3

User-friendliness of the platform

9,6

Respect for the pluralism of opinions
Ability of the moderators to give the floor and listen toparticipants' interventions

9,7
9,8

Interest in the topics discussed

Although starting from different experiences, skills and motivations, the participants felt strongly
involved: 98% of the respondents to the evaluation questionnaire felt that they had participatedactively and made a positive contribution to the debate.
In general, there was a very strong perception of the usefulness of this experience, which wasperceived above all as an opportunity for active participation and produced a sense of greatercloseness to the Community institutions. This led to almost all the respondents to ask for this type of
initiative to be repeated over time.

ASSESSMENT OF THE RELEVANCE OF THE "ITALIAN PANEL FOR THE CONFERENCE ON
THE FUTURE OF EUROPE"
It should be scheduled more often

86

10 2 2

It is useful to bring the voice of citizens to theEuropean Institutions81

15

It can contribute positively to improving thefuture of Europe

68

It brings the European institutions closer tothe citizens

68

It was a waste of time
Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

5 2 10Neither agree nor disagree

27

25

2

2

5 2

83
Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

All participants indicated that if such an initiative were to be organised again, they would not only
participate willingly, but also recommend their friends to participate.

272

Lithuanian Citizens’ Panel on the Future of Europe
ReportThis report is divided into four parts. The first briefly presents how the event was organised. The
second sets out the recommendations for EU and Lithuanian national policies formulated by the
Citizens’ Panel participants. The third provides a brief analysis of the groups’ discussions and themain outcomes of the panel. The fourth compares the outcomes of the Citizens’ Panel with theresults of surveys of Lithuanian citizens on the state and future of Europe.

1.

Organisation of the National Citizens’ Panel

Following the Conference on the Future of Europe guidance for organising National Citizens’ Panels,
in December 2021, the Lithuanian branch of research agency Kantar TNS, on behalf of the Ministryof Foreign Affairs, developed a methodology for the random, stratified and representative selectionof Lithuanian citizens, on the basis of which Kantar TNS selected 25 Lithuanian citizens aged
between 18 and 65, representing different socio-economic groups and all the geographic regions ofLithuania 3.
On 4 January, the selected citizens were invited to a virtual opening session, during which the idea
behind the National Citizens’ Panel was presented and the topics most relevant to the future ofEurope were discussed. After the event, the participants received a document describing the issues
discussed in more detail and providing sources of information.
On 15 January, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs hosted the National Citizens’ Panel on the Future ofEurope. The event was organised by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Eastern European Studies
Centre (EESC) and Kantar TNS research agency. The 25 selected citizens participated in person.
The panel participants discussed two EU policy issues: what the EU’s role and powers in foreign
policy should be, and what its economic role should be. During the event, a separate session wasdedicated to each of these topics, at the beginning of which EU policy experts Linas Kojala (EESC)
and Prof. Ramūnas Vilpišauskas (University of Vilnius) briefly familiarised the citizens withinformation and issues relevant to the subject of the session. The citizens could ask questions andshare their views. After the introduction from the expert, the participants were divided into threesmaller groups that each formed a representative sample, and each group had to consider a different
question related to the topic of the session. In the session on foreign policy, the following questions
were discussed:
1.1. Is there a need for an autonomous EU defence and foreign policy?
1.2.
What sort of relationship should the EU have with its neighbours in Eastern Europe,with North Africa and with Turkey?
1.3.
What kind of migration policy should the EU have?
In the session on the economic role of the EU, the following questions were addressed:
2.1.
Is there a need for greater redistribution of funds under the EU budget, and forcommon EU borrowing?
2.2. Should social standards be regulated at EU level?
2.3. How can the EU’s economy be strengthened?

Citizens representing the cities of Vilnius, Kaunas, Klaipėda, Šiauliai and Panevėžys and the counties of Vilnius,
Kaunas, Klaipėda, Šiauliai, Panevėžys, Alytus, Marijampolė, Tauragė, Telšiai and Utena were selected, according to datafrom the Lithuanian Department of Statistics.

3273

At the end of the session, each group had to formulate the main conclusions of their discussion, in
the form of statements of principle or more concrete proposals regarding current EU policy issues.
Then, during the general discussion, a representative from each group presented those conclusions
to the other panel participants, and the participants from the other groups could ask questions andoffer suggestions to complement the proposals. After the presentations and discussions, the citizens
voted individually in favour of two conclusions: the proposal or statement that was most importantfor strengthening Lithuania’s role in the EU and for the success of the EU itself across Europe; andthe statement or proposal that seemed most important for the personal well-being of the participant
as a resident of the EU. The vote was followed by a discussion summarising the main ideas raised
during the National Citizens’ Panel.
In the week following the event, the experts examined the content of the discussions and refined theideas put forward by citizens. On 25 January, a virtual summary session was held during whichcitizens were presented with the recommendations that had emerged from the content of their
discussions. The citizens had the opportunity to state whether they supported the recommendations,to supplement their content and to rank them. This opportunity was open to all participants for one
week after the summary session, during which they could send their views and comments in writing
to the panel organisers.

2.

Outcomes of the National Citizens’ Panel

This part of the report presents the outcomes of the National Citizens’ Panel, i.e. therecommendations and statements formulated by the working groups on the role of the EU in foreign
policy and the economy.
First session: The EU’s role and powers in foreign policy
1. We invite the EU to develop a more effective policy towards China. Stronger support for
Lithuania is needed, but Lithuania should also better align its position with its EU partners.
In order to ensure a more effective alignment of interests within the EU and a unified policy
on China, as well as on other foreign policy issues, we recommend that consideration be
given to the possibility of creating an EU Minister for Foreign Affairs.
2. We recommend returning, at EU level, to the question of establishing a quota system for
migrants.
3. We recommend that a commission dedicated to dealing with migration challenges be set up
at EU level, to ensure a quicker response to migration crises, to guarantee Member States’
right to explain and defend their national interests, and to draw up and implement common
guidelines for migration management.
4. We recommend strengthening economic and humanitarian ties with North African countries,
keeping their political situations in mind, in particular with a view to reducing the influence ofChina, Russia and other countries on the region.
5. We recommend strengthening ties with Eastern Europe, promoting economic measuresthat reach individuals.
6. We call for EU sanctions against foreign entities to be stricter, more targeted and to include
key individuals from the sanctioned state (e.g. political leaders).
7. We call for the EU’s common foreign and security policy to be based on the fundamental
principle of solidarity between different EU Member States, European regions and societies.
8. We recommend that the EU review its hitherto open migration policy, which is causing
security problems, driving up crime and creating closed communities within society.
9. We invite Lithuania to speak up more actively on migration policy issues and initiate
discussions about migration challenges.
10. We recommend that the EU pursue an active and rigorous policy towards states that use
migratory flows as a tool for hybrid attacks, by unanimously applying stricter sanctions while
also talking to them with a view to de-escalating the situation.

274

Second session: The economic role of the EU

1. We recommend that the EU take various measures to enhance the security of supply ofimportant goods: prioritising intra-EU trade, promoting the manufacture of high-tech products
and further diversifying import sources. We also recommend continuing to look for new export
markets.
2. We recommend reviewing the approach to natural gas contracts, to pursue both long- andshort-term contracts. We recommend further diversifying energy supply sources.
3. We recommend assessing the measures of the European Green Deal and theirimplementation, taking into account possible negative socio-economic consequences. In
working towards the objectives of the Green Deal, we recommend using energy from nuclear
and natural gas in addition to renewable energy sources.
4. We stress that it is essential for all Member States to respect the primacy of EU law. We callfor Lithuania to take a clear and principled position in this regard.
5. We recommend that Lithuania make greater use of best practices in EU countries, to achieve
its goals of higher social standards, business development and balanced and sustainable
development.
6. We recommend that greater emphasis be placed on enhancing cybersecurity, including data
infrastructure protection.
7. We recommend that the EU and its Member States prioritise the promotion of economic
literacy among citizens, education and the dissemination of information.
8. We recommend that new EU trade agreements include ambitious social, labour and healthstandards. We recommend setting guidelines at EU level as to what social media platforms
are required to do and what they may not do in their management of user information andpersonal data.
9. We recommend that further consideration be given to common borrowing at EU level, with aview to creating more favourable borrowing conditions. We also recommend developing
financially sustainable and responsible policies that reduce Member States’ need to borrow.
10. We recommend strengthening oversight of the absorption and use of EU funds, startingwith municipalities, and consolidating the current practice of adjusting the use of funds.
Since the objective circumstances of the beneficiaries of EU funding can change, it is very
important to balance the need for transparency with the need for flexibility.
11. We recommend that Lithuania continue to actively promote business development andinvestment in its regions.

3. Analysis of the discussions and outcomes of the National
Citizens’ Panel

Participants in the National Citizens’ Panel considered the most important issues currently relevant
to Lithuania (ones which are widely debated in national politics and the media) and their possible
solutions. The vote on the panel’s most important conclusions showed that almost 45 % of the total
votes in both sessions were given to proposals on two topics: relations with China and managementof migration flows (see table below). The issue of energy policy also received a great deal ofattention: although there was only one proposal on this subject, it received almost 10 % of all theparticipants’ votes. These voting results suggest that citizens’ perception of the future of Europe may
be determined by existing (national) political problems and current affairs.

275

Recommendation
First session: The EU’s role and powers in foreign policy
1. We invite the EU to develop a more effective policy towards China.
The support Lithuania is currently receiving is insufficient, but Lithuania
has also not sufficiently aligned its position with its EU partners. In
order to ensure a more effective alignment of interests within the EU
and a unified policy on China, as well as on other foreign policy issues,
we recommend that consideration be given to the possibility of creating
an EU Minister for Foreign Affairs.
2. We recommend returning, at EU level, to the question of establishing aquota system for migrants.
3. We recommend that a commission dedicated to dealing with migration
challenges be set up at EU level, to ensure a quicker response tomigration crises, to guarantee Member States’ right to explain anddefend their national interests, and to develop and implement common
guidelines for management of migrants.
4. We recommend strengthening economic and humanitarian ties with
North African countries, keeping their political situations in mind, inparticular with a view to reducing the influence of China, Russia andother countries on the region.
5. We recommend strengthening ties with Eastern Europe, taking
economic measures that reach individuals.
Second session: The economic role of the EU
1. We recommend that the EU take a range of steps to enhance thesecurity of supply of important goods: prioritising intra-EU trade,
promoting the manufacture of high-tech products within the EU andfurther diversifying import sources. We also recommend exploring newexport markets.
2. We recommend reviewing the approach to natural gas contracts, topursue both long- and short-term contracts. We recommend further
diversifying energy supply sources.
3. We recommend assessing the measures of the European Green Dealand their implementation, taking into account possible negative socioeconomic consequences. In working towards the objectives of theGreen Deal, we recommend using energy from nuclear and natural
gas in addition to renewable energy sources.
4. We stress that it is important for all Member States to respect the
primacy of EU law. We call for Lithuania to take a clear and principled
position in this regard.

Votes
11 (22.9 %)8 important for
Europe as a whole,
3 personally
9 (18.8 %)9 important for
Europe as a whole
7 (14.6 %)3 important for
Europe as a whole,
4 personally
6 (12.5 %)6 important
personally
5 (10.4 %)5 important
personally
9 (19.6 %)3 important for
Europe as a whole,
6 personally
9 (19.6 %)9 important for
Europe as a whole
6 (13 %)
6 important
personally
4 (8.7 %)2 important for
Europe as a whole,2 personallyMoreover, the issues that matter most to citizens – relations with China, migration and energy – arenot of an ad hoc nature: how they are resolved will have a big impact on Europe’s long-term future.
Accordingly, the fact that current affairs are likely to be at the forefront of citizens’ minds when they
think about the future is not problematic. As the future is built in many small steps starting today,
understanding citizens’ basic expectations in the short term is a prerequisite for being able tomanage long-term processes and solve problems in a sustainable way. This reasoning underpins
the below analysis of the main outcomes of the National Citizens’ Panel.

276

The highest total number of votes (11, or close to 12 %) went to the statement that the EU needs amore effective policy towards China. This overall conclusion encompassed a number of more
specific statements. Firstly, participants stressed that the EU support provided thus far to Lithuania
in the face of economic pressure from China had been insufficient. Secondly, the representatives of
the group that delivered the conclusion stressed that Lithuania also needed to step up its
coordination of its policy towards China with its EU partners, especially because trade with China
remained important for the EU as a whole. Thirdly, citizens put forward the idea that establishing thepost of an EU Minister for Foreign Affairs could help to coordinate positions and shape common
policies on China and other issues more effectively. Eight participants identified this conclusion as
particularly important for Europe as a whole and three as important for themselves personally.
The issue of relations with China is closely linked to two other proposals that received a high numberof citizens’ votes. Nine participants voted in favour of the conclusion drawn during the second
session that the EU needs to strengthen security of supply (three participants indicated that thiswas of great importance for Europe as a whole and six others that it was personally important forthem). This conclusion, too, encompassed several facets. Firstly, citizens stressed the need toprioritise EU markets, which were characterised by reliable suppliers and higher product standards.
Secondly, participants stressed the need to promote high-tech production capacities within Europe
itself. Thirdly, citizens were in favour of further diversifying import sources. In formulating theserecommendations, those taking part in the discussion continually referred to China as a factor:
security threats associated with Chinese products, dependence on the supply of raw materials from
China for manufacturing high-tech products, and China’s practice of copying or stealing technologies
from Western companies operating in its market. A further six votes (‘personally important’) went to
the proposal to develop the EU’s economic and humanitarian cooperation with North Africancountries, because it was important to reduce the influence of China, as well as Russia and otherunfriendly states, in those countries.
The results of the voting also revealed citizens’ concerns about migration issues. In the area of
foreign policy, two of the three conclusions that received the most votes centred on migration. Nine
participants voted in favour of the proposal that the EU should revisit the possibility of setting up
a system of compulsory migrant quotas for Member States (they all stressed the particularimportance of this proposal for the whole of Europe). The participants who formulated the conclusion
were in favour of basing national quotas on population and allocating EU co-financing to provide forthe migrants distributed according to the quotas. A further seven participants voted in favour of the
proposal to set up a permanent functional commission at EU level to address migration issues,
to which representatives of the Member States would be delegated (three considered the
proposal of particular importance for Europe as a whole and four personally important for them).
Participants stressed that such an body could speed up the EU’s response to migration crises, while
ensuring an appropriate balance between respect for common EU principles and the right of Member
States to defend their national interests and security.
During their discussions on migration policy, participants discussed two different crises in the
management of migration flows: the 2016 Mediterranean migration crisis and the 2021 Belarusianhybrid attack on Lithuania, Latvia and Poland, when Minsk exploited flows of migrants from theMiddle East and Africa. A number of panel participants said that the 2016 crisis had seemed distantand irrelevant, both for them and for Lithuania as a whole, and that the proposal first put forward atthat time to set up a migrant quota system had not seemed appropriate. According to the participants,
the experience of a hybrid attack had brought migration in Eastern Europe into focus and led to a
fresh assessment of quotas as an appropriate, effective and solidarity-based migration policy
instrument. Several participants stressed that when confronted with the 2021 crisis it became difficult
to distinguish between refugees, migrants and persons posing security threats entering the country’s
territory. All participants in the debate agreed that the current ‘open’ EU migration policy did not
sufficiently take into account the threats posed by migration, the national interests of the Member
States, the capacity to integrate migrants, etc. The citizens also criticised the EU for its slow ornegative response to Lithuania’s needs, including its refusal to finance the construction of a barrierat the external border.

277

In conclusion, the two most prominent policy issues for Lithuania in 2021 – relations with China andthe management of migration flows – are prompting Lithuanian citizens to demand greater EU
involvement and more effective common policy. Citizens are concerned about China’s policy and its
growing influence in Europe and the EU’s neighbourhood. It must be acknowledged that China’s
economic influence compels Europe to seek appropriate balanced policy measures. The main
solution, according to the citizens, is to strengthen common EU foreign policy instruments, industrial
policy and cooperation with neighbours. Similarly, citizens identified united action at EU level,
including a possible new quota system for migrants, as probably the most appropriate way to avoid
the security threats posed by migration and to manage migration flows to Europe quickly andeffectively. The participants in the Citizen’s Panel took the view that a stronger and more closely
coordinated common EU policy would be the best response to the increasing pressure from China
and the hybrid attack by Belarus.
The panel participants’ views on these crises can be compared with their proposals on energy andclimate policy issues. At the end of 2021, many Lithuanian citizens were directly confronted with thechallenge of rising heating costs, and the energy price crisis quickly became one of Lithuania’s mostimportant current issues. Concerns about energy prices were also reflected in how the panel
participants voted: nine citizens even voted in favour of the conclusion that this was the mostimportant topic for Europe as a whole. The participants’ main recommendation was to review
Member States’ current practices in concluding energy supply contracts with different
suppliers with a view to concluding both long-term and short-term contracts. In other words,
citizens supported a policy of energy diversification, but did not make any recommendations for acommon EU policy and did not recommend further integration of energy policy.
As regards climate policy, citizens recommended evaluating the measures of the European
Green Deal in terms of their expected socio-economic impact and ambition. Six participants
voted in favour of that proposal, all of them classing it as personally important. Some participants
worried that the ‘green transition’ was being carried out too quickly and argued that Lithuania needed
to assess more carefully whether such policies might be detrimental to the needs of the country andits citizens. The need to use nuclear energy and natural gas alongside renewable energy sources
was also raised by several participants. In support of their position, they referred to Germany’s
decision to continue using natural gas and tap the potential of the new generation of so-called
modular nuclear power plants. In their discussions of climate policy, the panel participants thus
prioritised Member States’ policies designed to meet national needs, rather than an ambitious
common EU climate governance policy.
Given the relatively small number of participants in the panel and the citizens’ different responses(more united action or more flexibility) to different types of crises, it would not be appropriate here toconsider generalised and more widely applied measures. However, this trend in opinions may yieldinteresting topics for further research into the attitudes of Lithuanian citizens to EU integration issues,
which should take into account changes and differences in citizens’ attitudes towards autonomous
EU policies and institutional measures.

278

4. Outcomes of the Citizens’ Panel in the broader context ofLithuanian public opinion

To put the outcomes of the National Citizen’s Panel in context, this last section of the reportcompares them briefly with the results of two relevant public opinion polls and the interim results ofother preparatory activities for the Conference on the Future of Europe. The first opinion poll
examined in this part of the report is a survey of citizens carried out by Eurobarometer in Octoberand November 2020 on the Conference on the Future of Europe. The second is the most recent
Standard Eurobarometer survey, conducted in summer 2021. As parts of these surveys focused onother policy matters and on citizens’ expectations of the conference itself, the following comparisons
are made in respect of the topical issues covered by the panel. The analysis of the preparatory
activities for the Conference on the Future of Europe is based on an initial report on those activities
by the EESC, which sets out the views of the participating citizens on a wide range of EU policy
issues.
The results of the Eurobarometer surveys suggest that the discussions and voting patterns of the
Citizens’ Panel participants are a fair reflection of the views prevailing in Lithuanian society. The
panel participants’ recommendations to strengthen common foreign and migration policy and somedecision-making at EU level are in line with the wider public opinion polls:- Lithuanian citizens are more supportive of a common EU defence policy than the EU average(90 % and 78 %, respectively);- Lithuanian citizens are more supportive of a common EU migration policy than the EU
average (76 % and 71 %; a possible margin of error should be indicated with this difference);- Lithuanian citizens see migration as one of the two main challenges for the EU;- Lithuanian citizens are more favourable to solutions at EU level (49 % as compared to 42 %).
Lithuanian citizens who participated in the preparatory events for the Conference on the Future ofEurope also highlighted the importance of defence cooperation, common EU migration policy andEU foreign policy as areas in which Lithuania would be interested in seeing greater EU involvement.
The data from the Eurobarometer surveys may explain the panel participants’ views on relations with
China and energy prices: Lithuanians were more concerned than the EU average about deteriorating
relations between the world’s countries and the resulting geopolitical tensions (33 % as compared
to 18 %). The panel participants’ conclusions on the need to develop a more ambitious common
policy towards China are in line with both these findings and the abovementioned support for
decision-making at EU level and for a common EU defence policy. On the other hand, the panel
participants’ concerns about finding various solutions to reduce energy prices may be linked to thefact that Lithuanians are much more concerned than the EU average about rising inflation and rising
prices (53 % and 23 %). Sensitivity to rising inflation makes containing price increases seem more
important than developing common EU policies or other policy objectives.
The Eurobarometer data also reveal an interesting change in Lithuanian citizens’ attitudes towards
migration as a political problem. In the 2020 survey, fewer Lithuanians than the EU average identified
migration as the most important challenge for the future of the EU (16 % versus 27 %); but in the2021 survey, the proportion of Lithuanian respondents identifying migration as the main problem for
the EU had increased to 32 % (EU average: 25 %). While such a shift in opinion may be attributable
to differences in the wording of the question, it is also in line with the insights that the participants in
the Citizens’ Panel discussions shared into how their views on migration issues had developed.

279

In addition, a comparison of the outcomes of the Citizens’ Panel and data from the Eurobarometer
survey reveals a difference between the rather cautious attitude of the panel participants to EU
climate policy and the concerns of Lithuanian citizens about climate change. While the panel
participants called for an assessment of whether the European Green Deal is too ambitious andcould harm Lithuania’s interests, Lithuanians have consistently cited climate change as one of themost important challenges for the EU, according to the Eurobarometer surveys. In the 2020 survey,
47 % of Lithuanian respondents named the climate as the main global challenge for the future of the
EU (EU average: 45 %); in the 2021 survey the figure was 28 % of Lithuanian respondents (EUaverage: 25 %). It should be stressed that citizens who participated in the other preparatory events
for the Conference on the Future of Europe also referred to climate policy as one of the areas where
Lithuania should be most interested in greater EU involvement. This difference may well be
explained by the panel participants’ motivation for voting: all those who voted for therecommendation to re-examine the European Green Deal measures indicated that the topic wasimportant to them personally. This means that personal opposition may not be incompatible with theview that climate change is one of the most important policy challenges facing the EU.

280

Our vision of Europe
Opinions, ideas and recommendations
TopicsValues and rights, rule of law, security
A stronger economy, social justice and jobs
European democracy
Digital transformation
Education, culture, youth and sport
3 December 2021
This document is a translation of the report entitled ‘Onze kijk op Europa; meningen, ideeën en aanbevelingen’,
the Dutch-language version of which was published on 3 December 2021 at www.kijkopeuropa.nl. Thistranslation is a simplified version in which the original layout (illustrations and other stylistic elements) has been
removed for translation purposes.

281

Our vision of ...
Report summary: all recommendations one by one
Through the citizens’ dialogue ‘Visions of Europe’, we have gathered the opinions and ideas of Dutch citizens on
the future of Europe. This has led to the following recommendations being made to the European Union on thefirst five topics.

Values and rights, rule of law, security
It is important that the EU protects the rule of law. At the same time, Dutch citizens think that account should betaken of the different traditions and cultures within Europe. While cooperation within the EU can have a numberof different benefits, it should bring added value for all stakeholders. This also applies to the sharing of security
information. Sharing everything with everyone would soon make cooperation rather inefficient.
Ensure that everyone can feel free and safe
Enlarge the EU only if it brings added value
Work together, in particular to combat international crime and terrorism

A stronger economy, social justice and jobs
The Dutch see many opportunities for strengthening Europe’s economy. However, it is not always possible tocompare one country with another. In particular, the tax system should be fairer and clearer. And we, as Europe,
should focus more on our strengths, such as quality and diversity. In that context, EU member states can work
together to ensure equal opportunities on the European labour market.
1. Take account of similarities and differences
2. Play to Europe’s strengths
3. Develop a tax system that is fair and clear
4. Ensure that no-one is left behind

European democracy
While the Dutch do not need to know every single thing about the EU, they do want more transparency andunderstanding. For example, the perspectives of other EU member states can help paint a broader picture. In
addition, the Dutch believe that the EU should engage in dialogue with citizens more often, and then preferably
on an ongoing basis. It is important not only to take account of different interests, but also to ensure thatdecisions are taken more quickly than at present.
1. Provide a broader perspective on Europe
2. Find new and ongoing ways in which to listen to citizens
3. Be clearer and more transparent about decisions
4. Ensure that problems can be resolved more quickly

Digital transformation
Society is becoming increasingly dependent on the internet, and Big Tech is becoming more and more powerful.
This is sometimes a source of concern for Dutch people. It would therefore be helpful if the EU could draw up
European (privacy) rules and standards. Those rules and standards should then be comprehensible and workablefor everyone. Dutch people prefer to get support and information from their national government, in their own
language.

282

1. Ensure a fast, secure and stable internet connection everywhere
2. Lay down clear rules and standards for internet companies
3. Combine privacy rules with practical implementation and explanation

Education, culture, youth and sport
Young people studying abroad could learn more about their host country than they do at present. And countries
with lower levels of knowledge should not let all their talent go abroad in a brain drain. Dutch people see topics
such as culture and unethical practices in sport as a matter more for the member states themselves. And theyplace a high value on citizens being able to communicate in their own national languages. In general, and above
all else, everyone in Europe should feel free to be themselves.
1. Do encourage students to study abroad but go about it sensibly
2. Leave matters such as culture and sport primarily to the member states
3. Ensure that Europeans get to know and respect one another better

283

Introduction
Between 1 September and mid-November, the citizens’ dialogue ‘Visions of Europe’ enabled all Dutch people toshare their opinions and ideas on the future of Europe. The Netherlands is putting the recommendations thatcame out of this dialogue, together with the opinions and ideas gathered, to the European Union (EU). This
report focuses on the first five topics. The other four topics will be addressed in a follow-up report at the
beginning of 2022.

About ‘Visions of Europe’
The EU wants to know what its inhabitants think about Europe. The EU is therefore organising the Conference on
the Future of Europe. The opinions and ideas of inhabitants throughout the EU will eventually feed into the
future plans for Europe. As part of that Conference, the Netherlands is organising the national citizens’ dialogue‘Visions of Europe’.
‘Visions of Europe’ was launched on 1 September with the online gathering of opinions and ideas by means of asurvey involving a representative panel. In order to gain a deeper understanding of the initial insights gained
from the panel survey and formulate specific recommendations, we organised topic-based dialogues online. The
dialogues were open to anyone who wanted to get involved. We also criss-crossed the country to talk to young
people and other (harder-to-reach) groups.

From schoolgoers, students in senior secondary vocational education (MBO) and university students tofarmers, migrants and the Minister himself.
In October and November, a total of eight online topic-based dialogues took place with an average of
30 participants at each meeting. We also organised one online topic-based dialogue and seven on-site topicbased dialogues with various groups of Dutch people. For example, we talked to the Turkish community in
Schiedam and were hosted by volunteers from the Piëzo Foundation in Zoetermeer. There, we were also joinedby the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Knapen. The Minister discussed the dialogue and the opinions on the
future of Europe with the participants. Finally, we organised six meetings with various groups of young people.
For example, we were hosted by a secondary school in Helmond, an MBO institute in Doetinchem and the
University of Leiden.

‘I’m always happy to speak my mind at the water cooler. That’s why I felt I had to get
involved in this.’
Participant in a topic-based dialogue

About this report
Based on the opinions and ideas we have gathered over the past few months, the EU has been presented withrecommendations from Dutch people. The conversations which took place between Dutch people gave rise tointeresting discussions and innovative ideas. Suggestions were also made through the panel survey and open
research. Some of those ideas are included in this report. The content of this report thus reflects the voice of theNetherlands: our vision of Europe.
Of course, just as there are differences between European countries and citizens, we in the Netherlands do notalways see eye to eye with one another. But it is precisely those differences that are worth so much and an
important feature of a democracy. The recommendations stem from the most prevalent opinions and ideas
voiced by participants in ‘Visions of Europe’. We also describe the concerns, thoughts and feelings which are lesscommon, but struck us during the dialogues and in the online research.

284

‘It was great to be able to discuss things with people with opposing views (for and against)
in small groups. Very different from the way in which things are often discussed on social
media.’
Participant in a topic-based dialogue

Nine topics have been identified for the Conference on the Future of Europe. Those topics are also at the heartof the Dutch citizens’ dialogue ‘Visions of Europe’. In October, we published an interim report containing initialinsights and follow-up questions based on the panel survey. In the second report, we describe the opinions,
ideas and recommendations on the first five topics for the Conference Plenary in December. The next report,
covering the remaining four topics, will be published in mid-January.

Current report - December 2021
Values and rights, rule of law, security
A stronger economy, social justice and jobs
European democracy
Digital transformation
Education, culture, youth and sport
Next report - January 2022

Climate change and environment
Migration
Health
EU in the world

What happens next?
The Conference on the Future of Europe brings together the ideas, opinions and recommendations of all the
EU’s inhabitants. The meetings will discuss not only the results of all the national citizens’ dialogues, but also theoutcome of other initiatives from the Conference. For example, there are also European Citizens’ Panels, and all
EU citizens (including Dutch citizens) can access a European Digital Platform.

‘It’s good that the EU is taking this initiative. I also hope that something will actually bedone with the results.’
Participant in a topic-based dialogue

The Conference will close in the spring of 2022. The Netherlands will then draw up a final report on the citizens’
dialogue: a compilation of this report and the next report (covering the remaining topics). The Conference willproduce recommendations for its Presidency: the Presidents of the European Parliament, the Council of
Ministers and the European Commission. They have committed to explore ways in which to follow up on therecommendations. For the Netherlands Government, the results also constitute a valuable contribution in termsof shaping the country’s EU policy.
The process in the run-up to the spring of 2022 can be summarised as follows:285

Timeline
Visions of Europe
1
12 OctSept

22/23 Oct

15 Nov 17/18 Dec

21/22 Jan

22/24 Apr

Gathering ideas online
Topic-based dialogues
Interim results (interim
report)↓Conference meeting

Interim report on
the topics of
economy anddemocracy

Interim report on ‘Our vision of
the topics ofEurope’ final
climate and EU in report
the world↓↓

Conference
meeting

Conference
meeting↑↑↓
End ofConference→

Recommendations
for Presidents
EuropeanParliament
EuropeanCommission
Council of
Ministers↑

More opinions and ideas on the future of Europe:
Citizens’ dialogues

European Citizens’ Panels

European Digital Platform (incl. for Dutch
citizens)

Structure of this report
This report focuses on five topics. For each of the topics we describe the following:
Recommendations based on all strands of the citizens’ dialogue
Impressions of the opinions, ideas and discussions raised in the (online and physical) topic-based dialogues andsuggestions from the online research, in words and images.
A statement of accountability appears at the end of the report.

286

Values and rights, rule of law, security
The EU monitors the rule of law in all EU countries, and seeks to stem inequality in the EU. It also strives toprotect all Europeans from terrorism and crime. To achieve this, the EU adopts measures and rules, and EU
countries work closely together.
How does the Netherlands view this?

Recommendations - Our view on security and the rule of law
68 % of Dutch people find security and the rule of law important and think that the EU should tackle these issues.

1. Make sure that everyone can feel free and safe
78 % of Dutch people think it's important for the EU to protect the rule of law and our fundamental rights andfreedoms. We also find the protection of consumer rights important: a large majority are happy that the EU
makes manufacturers put the same information on packaging in all countries. Many Dutch people also think,however, that the EU should take account of differences in traditions and (governance) cultures in Europe. Also
because otherwise it is difficult to work together efficiently. Above all, we think it's important for everyone inEurope to feel free and safe. This includes having a roof over your head, and access to education and care. As
well as knowing that products in European shops are always safe.

2. Only expand the EU if enlargement brings added value
44% of Dutch people think that the EU should not take in more countries. 25%, on the other hand, are in favourof enlargement. The existing member states already have their differences as it is. Many Dutch people think that
we should sort this out first. And, if new countries do join, they must also genuinely be able to meet ourconditions. Both now and in the future. A lot of Dutch people think enlargement should also bring added value
for the existing member states. What's more we think that there are also other ways of nations working
together on security and stability. For example, we are sometimes worried about Russia’s influence on countries
on the EU’s eastern border. It is important for the EU to address this.

‘Enlargement should not be about costs and benefits, but about a vision of stability.’
3. Working together above all to fight international crime and terrorism
68 % of Dutch people think that EU countries’ security services should share their information with each other.
But we also think it's important for countries to retain the right to decide what information they do/do not want
to share. Sharing everything with everyone would soon make cooperation rather inefficient. And now that the
EU is so big, we must remain critical when deciding when it is/is not appropriate to share sensitive information.
We want to remain confident that our privacy is being protected. We think that most of all it makes sense towork together in fighting serious and international crime such as cybercrime, drug trafficking and terrorism.

‘If you drive through a red light in the Netherlands, they really don't need to know about it
in Spain.’287

Discussions and ideas online and in person‘When you punish a country that doesn’t follow the rules, it’s the poorest people in that country who are the firstto suffer. That is why I think talking is better than doling out punishments.’‘Let's first make sure the current club is stable. And only then start thinking about enlarging.’‘We can also be critical of our own rule of law. That is not perfect either.’
IDEA: ‘Set strict rules on integrity for politicians throughout Europe to prevent them from being too easily
influenced.’
IDEA: ‘Increase cooperation between the police and the judiciary in EU countries.’

MBO college students in Doetinchem: ‘If you want to be in the EU you must obey the rules’
At Graafschap College in Doetinchem about 20 nursing students discussed what they consider the biggest
benefits of the EU: the free market, a common currency - the euro - and that, as a European, you can easily live
and work in other EU countries. ‘And that EU countries can support each other. Together you’re stronger ’, said
one of the students. The importance of rules was also discussed. If countries don’t obey the rules, it is often
difficult to punish them severely. According to the students, this could be made a little easier. One of thestudents mentioned the deterrent effect. ‘If penalties are severe, other countries also see what can happen if
you don’t play by the rules.’The Indo-Surinamese in Utrecht: ‘Trust in the rule of law is sometimes lacking’Stichting Asha is an Indo-Surinamese voluntary organisation in Utrecht. One discussion participants had in the
topic-based dialogue was the importance of citizens’ rights: the right to a roof over your head, but also, forexample, the right not to be discriminated against. The volunteers who took part said that there should be rules
to protect the rights of all European citizens. Right now, it is not always clear what is decided in the Netherlands
and what is decided at European level. That sometimes makes it difficult to have trust in public authorities. Also
because now and again the public authorities do get it wrong. ‘You could say that the state ought to defend me,
but sometimes they mess up, like in the child benefits scandal’, said one of the participants. ‘The EU should see
to it that the rules are actually respected,’ said another.

288

A stronger economy, social justice and jobs
Small- and medium-sized businesses are the backbone of the European economy. The EU therefore wants EU
countries to work together on recovery plans so that we can emerge economically stronger from the pandemic.
In the long term, the EU’s goal is to make the European economy healthier, greener and more digital. How does
the Netherlands view this?

Recommendations - Our vision of the economy and jobs
61 % of Dutch people find the economy and jobs important and think that the EU should deal with these issues.

1. Take account of similarities and differences
71 % of Dutch people think that the EU should make sure that businesses work together more to make theEuropean economy stronger. But only a few of them think that more EU money should go to businesses. Above
all, we think cooperation could be more efficient. Different companies are investing in the same new technology,
sometimes also with public money. If we had a European vision of the economy, we could spend that money
more efficiently. Of course, the differences between countries should still be taken into account.

‘The agricultural sector in the Netherlands is so modern. It 's not really comparable toagriculture in other countries.’
2. Play to Europe’s strengths
Dutch people believe that there are many opportunities for strengthening Europe’s economy, but that choices
have to be made. That is why we think that the EU should mainly focus on playing to its strengths. We think, forexample, that Europe is good at digitalisation, sustainability and infrastructure. And, perhaps more importantly:
quality and diversity are synonymous with Europe. It is precisely because we are a diverse continent, withdifferent opinions and ideas, that we should tap into much more than the economic benefits. That is how Europe
can set itself apart from the Chinese economy, for instance.

3. Develop a tax system that is fair and clear
82 % of Dutch people think that EU countries should work together to make sure that all businesses in the EU
pay their fair share of taxes. Including the very big companies. Some of them move to other countries justbecause they can pay less tax there. The EU should do something about this, for instance, have a minimum rate
for all countries. On the other hand, we think that taxation is a matter for individual countries, which have theirown objectives and circumstances. All in all, we find taxation a complicated issue. And that is why we would liketo see a better tax system that is fair and clear for everyone in Europe.

289

‘Cucumbers should be straight everywhere, but tax rules can differ. Isn't that crazy?’
4. Ensure that no-one is left behind
71 % of Dutch people think that the EU should help create more jobs. We think that certain groups deserve
special attention, such as young people and people who are not in the labour market. That could be done
through grants for companies, but also by giving employers and workers extra support. We are thinking, forinstance, of advice or simply very practical things. Sometimes such support can be more efficiently organisedfrom within the EU, and sometimes it is more a matter for the member states themselves. EU countries should
ultimately ensure equal opportunities on the European labour market together.

Discussions and ideas online and in person‘Speed up automation in Europe so that goods now coming in from China are made here again.’‘Take the bitcoin revolution and other cryptocurrencies seriously. People dealing in them are dismissed as tax
evaders, even though blockchain technologies like this are the future.’‘Shareholders are not the only stakeholders in the European economy. You can’t do anything without workers.’‘Europe needs to do more for people with disabilities. At the moment, it's much too hard for them to find suitablejobs.’‘Lots of European rules are complicated and constantly changing. That makes it hard for businesses to innovate.’‘When I was having building work done for my company, my local contractor could have easily got started on thejob much sooner. But first I had to put the contract out for European tender. Such a rigmarole.’

Participants in the online dialogue: ‘What do we think of big business?’
The increasing power of big business was discussed at one of the topic-based dialogues. Some participants
would like to see the EU taking a harder line on this - because businesses sometimes make massive profits but
pay little tax on them thanks to clever tax constructs. Other participants pointed to the ‘bigger picture’: thesecompanies create lots of jobs and are good for the national economy. ‘You shouldn’t chase them away’,someone said. 'EU countries should put their heads together on this', said another. ‘Big companies can playcountries off against each other. That is why we, as the EU, must form a more united front.’

Nature-inclusive farmers: ‘Set targets instead of limits’
BoerenNatuur is an association of agricultural collectives. One of the things discussed by a group of members
was European regulations for farmers. On the one hand, they think that the EU is a good thing, such as making it
easy to export to other countries. On the other hand, they think that policy could often be clearer. ‘But we are
increasingly all on the same page,’ someone said. In particular, there is still room for improvement inprocedures: they are often still very bureaucratic and time-consuming. One of the participants said that
regulations should, above all, not be too detailed. ‘Set clear targets instead, such as clean water. Then we candecide for ourselves how wide the sluices should be.’290

European democracy
The EU encourages Europeans to vote and also wants to involve EU citizens in European decision-making andpolicy outside the electoral period. The EU is also taking initiatives to strengthen democracy, such as an action
plan focusing on free and fair elections and a free press. How does the Netherlands view this?

Recommendations - Our vision of European democracy
60 % of Dutch citizens find European democracy an important topic and think that the EU should play its part.

1 Give a broader view of Europe
Dutch people have noticed that when the media cover Europe, it is often when there’s a crisis. We don't hearmuch about the daily decisions. As citizens, we do not need to know everything, but getting a clearer overall
picture would help us form sound opinions. It would be interesting, for instance, to hear other countries’ viewson the EU more often. The media and education can play an important role here. That said, the media must still
be able to make their own choices, as Dutch people place a high value on press freedom in our democracy.

‘We often only hear about the EU when there’s a crisis. This is stoking negative perceptionsof Europe.’
2 Find new and ongoing ways of listening to citizens
51 % of Dutch people think the EU is not sufficiently in touch with society. To improve this, the EU should engage
in dialogue with citizens more often, and preferably on an ongoing basis. That's why Dutch people find theConference on the Future of Europe a good initiative. Referendums can also be a valuable tool, but Dutch people
have differing views on this. Some topics may require specialist knowledge. Talking to citizens should never be abox-ticking exercise. We find it important that we are taken seriously.

3 Be clearer and more transparent about decisions
Dutch people sometimes find Europe very complicated. People don’t have the same level of backgroundknowledge. The EU should take this into account more. We want the EU to become more transparent and for it
to be easier to keep up with developments. The Netherlands government also has a role to play here. Many
Dutch people are interested in European decisions but find the official channels too difficult to access or too
complicated. Also, everyone has different interests and needs. So you should also be able to choose which topics
you wish to hear more about. Young people are often interested in Europe, but don't see much about it on theirsocial media accounts, for instance.

‘While, on holiday in Hungary I saw a large notice near a newly planted wood: ‘Made
possible by the EU.’ I’m sceptical about Europe, but actually felt some pride then.’291

4 Solve problems more quickly
Dutch people find it very difficult to understand how European democracy works, but EU decision-making does
often seem to be very slow. In European elections we mostly see alliances between national parties. Perhaps
there are other ways of addressing European interests? Roughly one third of Dutch people think that it should
be possible to vote for foreign candidates in the European Parliament elections. Roughly the same number ofDutch people disagree. The most important thing is to take sufficient account of different interests. And solve
problems more quickly than we currently do.

‘In elections I like to be able to identify with someone and know what he or she stands for.
The person doesn’t need to be Dutch.’
Discussions and ideas online and in person‘Get rid of countries’ veto rights. The majority should decide.’‘Set up citizens’ focus groups for important decisions, perhaps even on a mandatory or semi-mandatory basis,
like juries in the US.’
‘Ensure that EU politicians and civil servants regularly touch base with the ‘grassroots’ and do not just stay in theBrussels bubble.’
IDEA: ‘I think every news bulletin should devote a few minutes to European matters. Or why not start a daily or
weekly news programme about Europe?’
IDEA: ‘Maybe European politicians should appear more on TV shows.’‘As a young person I hardly ever read anything about Europe. I’m curious about Europe but don’t want to spend
much time on it.’

Young people from ‘Coalitie-Y’ in Utrecht: Discussion about holding referendums
Members of Coalitie-Y - a group of youth organisations - held a lively discussion on the use of referendums.
Opponents mentioned the danger of simple 'yes' or 'no' questions, since the issues are often much more
complex. One of the participants said: ‘We can vote for the EU and stand as candidates. With referendums you
weaken those options.’ Supporters of referendums said it was a good thing to know what citizens think: this canprovide guidance. Referendums could also contribute to general awareness about the EU: what proposals are on
the agenda and what choices should be made.

Civil society volunteers: ‘Countries need to understand each other better.’
The Piëzo Foundation in Zoetermeer brings together volunteers who contribute to society in different ways. The
participants in the topic-based dialogue expressed their concern about the growing divide in Europe. That
applies to countries’ views on the LGBTIQ community, for instance. When countries do not understand eachother’s views, cooperation is difficult. ‘All the more reason to get to know each other better’, said one
participant. ‘We simply don’t know nowadays how people are thinking in other countries. We don’t understandeach other’s cultures and backgrounds sufficiently. That’s necessary if we are to take good decisions together.’292

Digital transformation
In our online world increasingly high demands are being set for internet connections, safety and privacy. The EU
feels some responsibility in this area and is committed to ensuring that no-one is left behind in the digitalsociety. The EU is also investing in digital solutions to social issues. How does the Netherlands view this?

Recommendations - Our vision of the online world
45 % of Dutch citizens see the online world as an important issue and one that the EU should address.

1 Ensure a fast, secure and stable internet connection everywhere
61 % of Dutch people think the EU should ensure that everyone in Europe has access to a fast and stable internet
connection. We are all aware that the internet is playing an ever-increasing role in our lives. Our children are
growing up with digital education. Both national and international communication are increasingly online. Theinternet’s considerable autonomy sometimes worries us. As a result, many Dutch people think the EU should
invest in this area, providing the investment is efficient. Protection against online crime is, in our view, the mostimportant issue to be tackled at European level. However, it is also good to focus on combating internet crime atnational level.

‘If I imagine a cyber attack on our flood defences, I feel very vulnerable.’
2 Lay down clear rules and standards for internet companies
75 % of Dutch people think the EU should ensure that internet purchases are equally secure in all EU countries.
Almost all of us are buying more things abroad and share sensitive data when doing so, which sometimes feels
unsafe. It’s hard to know which websites you can trust. It would be good for the EU to draw up European privacy
rules and standards that everyone could understand. The power of large internet companies often worries us
too. We feel we have some responsibility ourselves for handling our data sensibly, though we also think the EU
can play a role in this area. EU countries need to work together to ensure that companies such as Google andFacebook do not get too much power.

‘There’s not much we can do as a small country against a ‘global player’ like Facebook.’
3 Combine privacy rules with practical implementation and explanation
Following the adoption of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), Dutch citizens know that all countries
must comply with the same privacy laws and regulations. We are pleased we can count on this legislation, since
our privacy is important to us. Some Dutch people find the rules sometimes go too far or are illogical. Besides,
the legislation can generate a lot of work for employers. We also think that more attention needs to be paid tothe practical implementation of the privacy legislation, with more support and guidance for both citizens andbusinesses. Here we think the main role is for the member states. Problems or questions relating to privacy are
best addressed with our national authorities and in our own language.

Discussions and ideas online and in person
IDEA: ‘Set tougher requirements for programmers and businesses and ban insecure programming languages.’293‘Provide free European antivirus software to create a European firewall.’‘When I cross the border into Germany my mobile phone suddenly loses its coverage. Surely that shouldn’t
happen any more?’‘With our iPhones we can be tracked anywhere. That’s also our own fault.’‘It’s not convenient to have to fill in a different type of privacy form in each country.’
IDEA: ‘Establish European internet policing. That’s an obvious area for EU action.’

Participants in the online dialogue: ‘Good internet access everywhere is in our own interest’
There was an interesting discussion in one of the topic-based dialogues on the EU’s role in the online world. All
the participants agreed that it was important to have good internet connections throughout Europe. But should
this be a matter for the EU? Several participants felt this was mainly a task for individual Member States.
Another participant pointed out that good and stable internet connections abroad would also benefit theNetherlands: ‘We earn billions in trade with other EU countries. So it’s in our own interest that these countries
operate well.’School pupils in Helmond: ‘Same rules and penalties for internet criminals’
In the Dr. Knippenbergcollege in Helmond, 15- and 16-year-old pupils discussed the problem of online crime.
They regularly hear about this in the news: for example, that there’s been a data breach in a company, or that acountry such as Russia or China is trying to steal data. As internet criminals often work across borders, they findit logical for European countries to cooperate on this. That means setting rules, but also penalties, they think. ‘Ifhackers from Russia are trying to invade our space, the EU must retaliate.’294

Education, culture, youth and sport
EU countries are responsible themselves for the areas of education, culture, youth and sport. The EU can anddoes provide support by, for example, promoting quality education and multilingualism, protecting cultural
heritage and supporting cultural and sporting sectors. How does the Netherlands view this?

Recommendations — Our vision of education, culture, youth and sport
45 % of Dutch people consider education an important issue and think that the EU should deal with these issues.
For youth, culture and sport, the figures are 39 %, 23 % and 19 % respectively.

1 Do encourage students to study abroad but go about it sensibly
Many Dutch people consider that studying abroad has a positive impact on young people. It contributes topersonal development. What's more, studying abroad can help Europeans to better understand each other. It
can also contribute to better integration. Many Dutch people therefore consider it a good thing that there is an
Erasmus programme that encourages study abroad. But we are also pleased that the EU is keeping a critical eyeon this. In practice, for example, international students tend to stick together and do not always learn muchabout the country in which they are studying. The EU also needs to avoid a situation in which countries withlower levels of knowledge end up with a brain drain with all their best talent studying abroad.

‘Vocational-level exchange programmes should also be developed.’
2 Leave issues such as culture and sport to the Member States
58 % of Dutch people think that the EU should do more to protect Europe’s cultural heritage. Like the temples in
Greece, for example. On the other hand, we think that local culture is primarily the responsibility of thecountries themselves. The same applies, for example, to problems in sport. This is an important issue, but it
cannot be one of the EU's core tasks. Basically, Europe needs to prioritise and a lot of money is needed for otherthings. Sometimes financial contributions are what's needed, but there are other ways of working together too,for example by sharing knowledge and ideas.

‘Protection of culture is a matter for the countries themselves. But if world heritage is being
neglected, then I definitely think the EU should intervene.’
3 Ensure that Europeans get to know each other better and respect each other more
Dutch people like it when other Europeans speak English well. It makes life easier when we are abroad. And if,
for example, we want to communicate with migrant workers in the Netherlands. At the same time, many Dutch
people consider it very important that we continue to speak and value our own language. We also want torespect other differences within Europe. Whether it is culture, education or sport, everyone should feel free tobe themselves. Differences can sometimes be a source of conflict, but they are also precisely what makes Europe
such a rich continent. Many Dutch people therefore think that countries should take the time to become familiar
with each other’s customs and ideas.

‘I see the EU as a group of friends. We respect our differences and I can appeal to them forhelp if I need to.’295

Discussions and ideas online and in person
IDEA: ‘Alongside the local curriculum, introduce a shared European curriculum at all levels of education.’
IDEA: ‘In addition to a Capital of Culture, there should also be an educational, youth and sports capital (orcountry) each year.’‘What connects us in the EU is precisely the fact that we all have our own country’s culture. And so we are notdefined by a single culture.’‘Instead of highlighting the negative things, we should try to promote sport more.’‘I am integrated here, I pay taxes, but I am and remain Latin American. I cherish my language, music and food.
These are not issues for Europe.’‘There is too much talk about the economy in Europe. And too little about well-being.’

Students at the University of Leiden: ‘Language is important, but must remain a free choice’
At the University of Leiden, history students discussed this. They consider it important for people to speak morethan one language. For them, knowing more languages is fantastic for one’s personal development, good for
trade and for political relations in the EU. They think that languages should be offered at school but should not
be made compulsory. Similarly, the students consider that a second language does not necessarily have to be aEuropean language. ‘If you live in Eastern Europe and choose to learn Russian, then you're entitled to’, said oneof the participants.

Turkish community in Schiedam: ‘Ensure fair job opportunities for all young people’
At Stichting Hakder in Schiedam, one of the things the local Turkish community spoke about was the importanceof fair employment opportunities for everyone. All those present agreed that the EU should require companies
to offer traineeships or jobs to young people with few opportunities. They reported that young migrants inparticular have difficulties finding traineeships and jobs. ‘Some of them do not even go to the doctor because
they are afraid that they will have to pay for it themselves. So they are very unlikely to apply for a traineeship ora job’, one of the participants said. ‘Businesses need to do more about this and the EU should encourage that.’

296

Statement of accountability
Visions of Europe is made up of different, interlinked dialogue formats that gather Dutch citizens’ views andideas on the future of Europe and the EU. This section provides evidence of the way in which the interlinked
dialogue formats comply with the guidelines applicable to national Citizens’ Panels in the context of theConference on the Future of Europe.

Design of interlinked dialogue formats
The following forms of dialogue have been used:
1. Panel survey
Survey of a representative cross-section of the Dutch population.
2. In-depth online topic-based dialogues
Dialogues in which the results of the first interim report ‘Our vision of Europe: initial insights and follow-up
questions (8 October 2021)’ are explored more with a group of Dutch people.
3. Dialogues with specific groups
Meetings with Dutch people who are not accustomed to participating in (online) surveys and panels.
4. Dialogues with young people
Meetings focusing on the European topics that are most relevant to young people.
5. Online open research: Questionnaire and ‘Swipe to the future’
The panel survey questionnaire could also be completed by all Dutch nationals, including those resident
abroad. This questionnaire was open from 1 September 2021 to 14 November 2021. In addition, during thesame period, every Dutch person was able to participate through the ‘Swipe to the future’ tool, an online toolwith 20 statements.

1 Panel survey
The Dutch citizens’ dialogue Visions of Europe (Kijk op Europa) was launched on 1 September 2021 with a panel
survey. In this statement of accountability we briefly describe the design and implementation of this panel study.

Goal and target population
Visions of Europe was launched with an online questionnaire exploring how Dutch people feel about the futureof Europe. The questionnaire was presented to a representative panel and made accessible to all Dutch people(including those living abroad). In addition, the online tool ‘Swipe to the future’, which featured 20 statementsthat people could give their views on, was also available to everyone. The results of the panel survey provided
input for the various topic-based dialogues in the follow-up to the Visions of Europe citizen dialogue.
The target population for the panel survey consists of all Dutch citizens aged 18 or over and registered (from thetime the field work began) as Dutch residents in the municipal Personal Records Database. According to
Statistics Netherlands (CBS), on 1 January 2021 this target group numbered 14 million 190 874 people. The lower
limit of 18 years is in line with the voting age. This is the population identified for the panel survey.

297

Field work
To obtain a statistical picture of ‘the Dutch’, a survey was conducted of a nationwide panel of over 100 000
members (ISO-certified, Research Keurmerk group, Dutch Market Research Association). These members have
all registered for the survey panel and regularly give their opinions on a range of topics. In addition to theirpersonal motivation for providing input, they are also paid for filling in the surveys. Various scientific studies
have shown that respondents who receive financial compensation for filling in surveys do not give significantly
different answers from those who do not (source: Does use of survey incentives degrade data quality? Cole, J. S.,
Sarraf, S. A., Wang, X., 2015).
Field work started on 11 August 2021 and ended on 19 September 2021. A single data-collection method wasused: internet research. The members of the survey panel each received an email containing a personalised linkto the online questionnaire. After two weeks the panel participants received a reminder email. Invitations toparticipate were sent in batches and in stratified form (with due regard to equal distribution among
subpopulations) until the required number of respondents had been reached.

Sampling and distribution
The guiding principle for the study’s design was that a minimum of 3 600 respondents would have to participate
in order to achieve good statistical reliability. This number also provided a good distribution across various
background characteristics in the population. Dutch people do not come in one shape or size. For this reason the
study ensured in advance that the sample was properly distributed to factor in a number of characteristics. The
Netherlands is a relatively small country, but regional opinions can differ. A person’s attitude to the relative
importance they attach to a topic may (also) be determined by where they live. For example, people who live inrural areas may feel differently about security to urban dwellers. In addition, studies by the Netherlands Institutefor Social Research (SCP) have shown that more educated people generally support the EU more than lesseducated people, and that young people are more often pro-EU than older people (source: ‘Wat willen
Nederlanders van de Europese Unie?’ (What do the Dutch want from the European Union? Netherlands Institutefor Social Research, The Hague, 2019).
To address this, we assigned quotas in advance across the following characteristics, to ensure a representative
sample distribution: (1) region (using COROP regions), (2) age and (3) level of education. [note: a COROP region
is a division of the Netherlands used for statistical purposes.] In addition, the sample reflects the following
background characteristics: sex, origin, primary day-to-day activity and political leanings.
The COROP regions were developed using the nodal principle (population centres which provide services or
which serve a regional function) on the basis of commuter flows. Here and there, the nodal principle has beenabandoned in favour of provincial boundaries. After a redrawing of municipal boundaries crossed the COROP
boundaries, these regions were adjusted (source: CBS). Within the COROP regions, we ensure a good
distribution across the following age groups: 18-34; 35-54; 55-75 and over 75.
Finally, we also ensured a representative distribution across levels of education. The sample distribution of
respondents is in line with the national distribution of the highest level of education attained, which is asfollows:

298

Highest level of education attained
Low: primary education, pre-vocational secondary education (VMBO), senior
general secondary education (HAVO) or pre-university education (VWO) (years 1-3),
senior secondary vocational education (MBO) (year 1)

32.1 %

Medium: senior general secondary education (HAVO) or pre-university education(VWO) (years 4-6), senior secondary vocational education (MBO) (years 2-4)

44.6 %

High: higher professional or university education

22.9 %

Unknown

0.4 %Response
In total, 4 086 respondents took part in the panel survey. The target of 3 600 fully completed questionnaires wasmet.
Response by COROP region and age group18-34 years

35-54 years

55-75 years

75+ years

North Drenthe

11

14

17

5

South-East Drenthe

10

12

14

4

South-West Drenthe

7

10

11

3

Flevoland

29

33

28

6

North Friesland

20

22

25

8

South-East Friesland

12

13

14

3

South-West Friesland

8

11

11

4

Achterhoek

22

27

34

11

Arnhem/Nijmegen

52

53

55

15

Veluwe

44

48

51

17

South-West Gelderland

16

18

20

5

Greater Delfzijl

2

4

5

1

East Groningen

7

10

12

3

Rest of Groningen

36

26

28

8

Mid Limburg

13

17

21

7

North Limburg

17

20

23

7

299

South Limburg

38

40

52

17

Mid-North Brabant

34

35

35

11

North-East North Brabant

41

43

51

14

West North Brabant

40

47

49

15

South-East North Brabant

55

56

58

18

Greater Haarlem

13

18

18

7

Greater Alkmaar

14

19

19

6

Greater Amsterdam

116

104

88

23

Het Gooi & Vechtstreek

13

21

19

7

IJmond

12

14

15

4

Top of North Holland

22

27

30

9

Zaanstreek

11

13

12

3

North Overijssel

25

28

25

8

Twente

41

44

46

14

South-West Overijssel

10

11

12

3

Utrecht

96

100

89

27

Rest of Zeeland

16

21

23

8

Zeelandic Flanders

6

8

9

3

Greater Leiden & Bollenstreek

30

31

31

10

Greater The Hague

63

70

57

18

Delft & Westland

19

15

15

4

Greater Rijnmond

103

107

99

31

East South Holland

22

24

25

8

South-East South Holland

24

26

26

9

300

Response by level of education
Low

1 382

34 %

Medium

1 747

43 %

High

915

22 %

Unknown

42

1%

Reliability and representativenessWith 4 086 respondents, it is possible to make observations about the population with 95 % reliability and a
1.53 % margin of error. The reliability and margin of error of the results depend on the size of the sample. The
larger the sample, the more reliably and/or accurately the results can be extrapolated to the population as awhole.
The reliability level is defined as 1 (100 %) minus the significance level. It is normal to assume a significance levelof 5 %, which means a reliability level of 95 %. This means that, if the study were to be repeated in the samemanner and under the same conditions, the results would give the same picture in 95 % of cases.
The accuracy level (expressed as the margin of error) indicates the range of values within which the actual value
in the population lies or, in other words, how far the results from the sample might deviate from the results thatwould be obtained if the entire population were to complete the survey. A margin of error of 1.53 % means thatthe actual value in the total population may be up to 1.53 % higher or lower than the value in the sample. In
practice, this means that, if a survey result from the sample indicates that 50 % of respondents find a particular
topic important, the actual percentage may be up to 1.53 % lower or higher than 50 % (i.e. between 48.47 % and51.53 %). A margin of error of up to 5 % is common and generally accepted in (statistical) quantitative research.
Besides reliability, the representativeness of the sample is also important. Since the invitations to participate in
the survey were sent in batches and stratified, the results are representative in terms of COROP regions and age
groups within each COROP region. The response is also in line with the national distribution of the highest levelof education attained.

Other background characteristics
The respondents in the panel survey were asked a number of extra background questions. The questions
covered gender, views on the EU, origin, primary day-to-day activity and which political party they would votefor if an election were to be held now.
49 % of respondents were male, 50 % were female and 1 % preferred not to answer this question.
51 % of respondents thought it was a good thing that the Netherlands is a member of the EU, 13 % thought it
was a bad thing, and 36 % saw it as neutral or did not have an opinion.

301

95 % of respondents were born in the Netherlands. For 89 % of respondents, both parents were born in the
Netherlands. For 5 % of respondents, both parents were born abroad.

Respondents’ current political leanings
Party

%

People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD)

14 %Party for Freedom (PVV)

13 %Socialist Party (SP)8%

Democrats 66 (D66)

6%

Christian Democratic Appeal (CDA)

6%

Labour Party (PvdA)

6%

Party for the Animals

4%

GreenLeft (GroenLinks)

4%

Christian Union

3%

JA21

3%

Farmer-Citizen Movement (BoerBurgerBeweging)2%

Forum for Democracy

2%

Reformed Political Party (SGP)

2%

Volt

2%

DENK (THINK)

1%

Van Haga Group

1%

BIJ1

1%

Den Haan party

0%

Other

2%

Blank ballot

3%

Prefer not to say

13 %

302

Would not vote

5%

What is your main day-to-day activity at the moment?
Occupation%

Pupil/student

6%Part-time employee

16 %Full-time employee

31 %Self-employed3%

Homemaker

5%

Jobseeker

2%

Volunteer2%

Unfit for work

6%

Retired

27 %

Other

1%

Prefer not to say

1%

Questionnaire
The questionnaire and this report were commissioned by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and drawn up by anindependent external organisation. The questionnaire has a modular structure and comprises the following
sections, which correspond to the topics identified for the Conference on the Future of Europe:
key topics and Europe’s role
climate change and the environment
healththe economy and jobs
the European Union’s role in the world
security and the rule of law
the online world
European democracy
migration and refugees
education, culture, youth and sport
When developing the questionnaire, close attention was paid to the quality, reliability and validity of thephrasing of the questions. The aim was to ensure neutral, non-leading wording of questions, statements andchoices. In addition, the questions were reviewed to ensure that they were written in plain language (B1 level).

303

The questionnaire was tested qualitatively in a face-to-face setting with test respondents belonging to the target
group, to see how the questions came across to different types of respondent. The wording was adjusted
wherever it proved to be too complex.

Methods of analysis
Two methods of analysis were used in this study:

Univariate analysis
In univariate analysis, descriptive statistics are used to describe variables in a study. In this study, frequencies
and averages have been used.

Bivariate analysis
Bivariate analysis looks at the relationship between two variables, in this case the relationship between theimportance of the various topics and whether or not the EU should deal with them on the one hand, and thebackground characteristic of age on the other. Significance testing was used to determine whether different age
groups attach different degrees of importance to a given topic, and think differently about whether or not these
are topics the EU should deal with.

Reporting and completenessThis report includes (visual) representations of the results of all questions put to the survey panel respondents.
For some questions, respondents were able to give ‘open’ answers (as opposed to choosing from a set of
multiple-choice answers). These open answers were then categorised and incorporated into the report. Ideas
that respondents shared in the free comment fields serve as input for the various topic-based dialogues in thefollow-up to the Visions of Europe citizens’ dialogue.

2. In-depth online topic-based dialogues
The key topics of the Conference on the Future or Europe were discussed in more depth in eight online topicbased dialogues. The aim of the dialogues was to find out why people think the way they do, and theirunderlying reasons and feelings. What concerns them and what opportunities do they see? During the dialogue
sessions, participants were also given a chance to contribute suggestions and ideas about the topics. They werealso able to raise issues that are not part of the Conference but that are important to them.
The topic-based dialogues took place on 12 and 14 October and on 9 and 11 November. In October, there werefour online topic-based dialogues on topics in the Economy and Democracy cluster. In November, there werefour online topic-based dialogues on topics in the Climate and EU in the World cluster. An average of 29 people
participated in each dialogue session (231 in total). Participants were recruited from the panel members (see 1)
and through social media.

3. Dialogues with specific groups
We know that certain groups of Dutch people are less used to taking part in (online) surveys and panels. To gaina representative picture of the ‘voice of the Netherlands’ it was important to let them express their ideas andopinions too. That is why we also organised some in-person dialogues for Visions of Europe. The opinions andideas we gathered through them have been used as one of the bases for the recommendations.

304

Target groups
There is no clear definition of target groups which are difficult to reach. Research and experience have shownthat Dutch people from non-Western backgrounds are significantly less likely to participate in surveys anddiscussions voluntarily. Since they form a large group (14 % of Dutch people), they were selected to participate
in the Visions of Europe dialogue. The same weightings have been applied as for people with low levels ofliteracy. That is also a large group (2.5 million Dutch people), which partly overlaps with the group of migrants(39 %). Finally, a dialogue was conducted with a group which rarely appears in surveys and discussions, and iscritical of Europe but has a lot of professional dealings with it. Businesses in the agricultural sector wereselected to take part.
The above groups were approached through organisations they belong to, such as migrant associations, interest
groups and professional organisations. Because we limited the number of dialogues to eight, we could not cover
everyone. That makes the choice of participants somewhat arbitrary. When selecting participants, we also
mainly looked for people who were enthusiastic about taking part and helping mobilise the grassroots, as well asat practical issues such as availability for dates and locations.
On-location dialogues were held with members of the following organisations:
Stichting Hakder, Alevi community, Schiedam
Stichting Asha, Hindustani community, Utrecht (2 dialogue sessions)Piëzo, civil-society organisation, Zoetermeer
Taal doet Meer, literacy organisation, Utrecht
BoerenNatuur, association of agricultural cooperatives
Marokkanen Dialoog Overvecht (Overvecht Morroccan Dialogue), Moroccan community, Utrecht
Femmes for Freedom, interest group for women from a migrant background, The Hague
A total of 110 people took part in these dialogue meetings.

4. Dialogues with young people
Young people are a priority target group for the Conference on the Future of Europe. To actively encourage their
participation in the Visions of Europe citizens’ dialogue, and to give the opinions and ideas of this group extra
weight, five in-person dialogue meetings were organised especially for young people. A planned sixth meetingwith young people had to be cancelled due to Covid restrictions.
Meetings were held at the following institutions:
Studievereniging Geschiedenis, history students’ association, Leiden University
Dr. Knippenbergcollege, secondary school, HelmondCoalitie-Y, Socio-Economic Council (SER) youth association
Graafschap College, MBO institute, Doetinchem
CSG Jan Arentsz, STEM secondary school (technasium), Alkmaar
A total of 95 young people took place in the dialogue meetings.

Discussion techniques used
The Socratic method was used for the online topic-based dialogues, the dialogues with specific groups and the
dialogues with young people. This method has been used for years in the Netherlands for our ‘Dialogue Day’,
when people across the Netherlands speak to each other about issues that concern them. In the Socratic
method, the moderator applies the following principles:305

Let everyone tell their story
Don’t immediately tell a counter-story
Treat each other with respect
Speak for yourself (‘I think’ instead of ‘they say’)Ask for explanations if nothing but generalisations come up
Don't judge, investigate opinions instead
Allow silence if people need time to think
The dialogues follow this pattern: divergence - convergence - divergence. The starting point is that first you haveto diverge (make room for individual feelings and opinions) before you can converge (discuss possible directions)and finally diverge again (e.g. gather individual recommendations). Theory and practice show that this pattern
ensures a smooth dialogue.
All dialogues were led by professional facilitators.

5. Online open survey: Questionnaire and ‘Swipe to the future’
The panel survey questionnaire was also open to all Dutch citizens, including those resident abroad. It was openfrom 1 September 2021 to 14 November 2021. In addition, during the same period, every Dutch person was able
to participate through the ‘Swipe to the future’ tool, an online tool with 20 statements.

Response and implementation
In total, 1 967 respondents filled in the questionnaire and 6 968 fully completed the swipe tool. The
questionnaire and swipe tool were open to all; there were no prior conditions or selection criteria for taking
part. Questions in the questionnaire could be skipped (there were no mandatory questions) to maximise
response. Participants answered ‘I would rather not say’ much more often in the questionnaire than in the
representative panel survey.
The backgrounds of participants in the open questionnaire and swipe tool differed from those of the participantsin the representative panel survey in a number of ways. The results of the open questionnaire and the swipe tool
are not representative, unlike those of the panel survey. The results of the online open survey were used tosupplement the panel survey. They give an insight into prevailing feelings and ideas in the Netherlands. The
suggestions for improvement given in the free-text fields were used in the
sub-topic ‘Discussions and ideas online and in person’. The swipe tool was used to gain an insight into someprevailing feelings in the Netherlands. The results were taken into account when preparing therecommendations. Since representativeness is a requirement, this report only takes limited account of theresults of the online open survey.

This is a publication of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
www.kijkopeuropa.nl306

National government

Our vision of Europe
Opinions, ideas and recommendations

TopicsClimate Change and Environment
Migration
Health
EU in the world
14 January 2022
This document is a translation of the report entitled ‘Onze kijk op Europa; meningen, ideeën en aanbevelingen’,
the Dutch-language version of which was published on 14 January 2022 at www.kijkopeuropa.nl. This translation
is a simplified version in which the original layout (illustrations and other stylistic elements) has been removed
for translation purposes.

307

Our vision of ...
Report summary: all recommendations one by one
Through the citizens’ dialogue ‘Visions of Europe’, we have gathered the opinions and ideas of Dutch citizens on
the future of Europe. This has led to the following recommendations being made to the European Union on thelast four topics (out of a total of nine).

Climate Change and Environment
Provide a clear direction for Europe’s approach to climate change
Ensure that countries and undertakings cooperate more closely on targeted solutions
Introduce a fair and practicable CO2 system
Communicate more clearly and more positively on climate challenges
Dutch people think that the EU should take the lead when it comes to combating climate change. While member
states should be able to make their own choices, they must work towards the same goals. Instead of pointing
fingers at one another, EU countries should make more of an effort to exchange knowledge and identify
common solutions. A CO2 taxation system may well be effective, but it must be fair, practical and clear. In
general, Dutch people think that the EU should communicate more clearly and more positively on the subject of
the climate.

Migration
1. Prevent the debate about refugees from losing sight of the finer points
2. Ensure that refugees are distributed fairly and sensibly
3. Use knowledge and experience to help refugees' regions of origin
Dutch people think it is important to distinguish between people fleeing from unsafe areas and economic
refugees. Discussions nowadays about migration and integration often lose sight of the finer points. To ensure afair distribution of refugees across Europe, the EU should agree on clear criteria which do justice to both themember states and the people who have fled their countries. Finally, Dutch people suggest that the EU should
provide regions hosting refugees not only with financial support, but also with know-how.

Health
1. Be more proactive in the face of a pandemic
2. Provide affordable and reliable medicines for everyone
3. Countries must act individually to make their healthcare systems fairer and more effective
Dutch people take the view that EU countries should cooperate more closely when combating a pandemic. In
the case of the approach to COVID-19, the policy is sometimes confusing. While the rules need not be the same
everywhere, they should at least be compatible. As regards vaccines or medicines, Dutch people want the costs
to be kept as low as possible while ensuring reliable quality and responsible production. Moreover, we think it isimportant that large undertakings should not abuse their power; healthcare should primarily be a national
responsibility.

308

EU’s role in the world
1. Take advantage of the EU’s strength, in particular on major international issues
2. Encourage cooperation, not conflict, both inside and outside Europe
3. Take a considered approach when offering to help resolve conflicts
Dutch people think that European cooperation should be directed primarily at major issues of common interest.
This should also be the focus of the EU’s cooperation with third countries. In addition to climate change and thecoronavirus pandemic, such issues also include international security and protecting the European economy
from unfair trade. Both inside and outside Europe, Dutch people prefer cooperation to conflict. In addition, in
terms of an approach to conflict, an effort should always be made to seek a non-violent resolution.

Introduction
Between 1 September and mid-November, the citizens’ dialogue ‘Visions of Europe’ enabled all Dutch people toshare their opinions and ideas on the future of Europe. The Netherlands is putting the recommendations thatcame out of this dialogue, together with the opinions and ideas gathered, to the European Union (EU). This
report focuses on the last four topics (out of a total of nine). The first five topics have already been addressed ina report published on 3 December 2021.

About ‘Visions of Europe’
The EU wants to know what its inhabitants think about Europe. The EU is therefore organising the Conference on
the Future of Europe. The opinions and ideas of inhabitants throughout the EU will eventually feed into the
future plans for Europe. As part of that Conference, the Netherlands is organising the national citizens’ dialogue‘Visions of Europe’.
‘Visions of Europe’ was launched on 1 September with the online gathering of opinions and ideas by means of asurvey involving a representative panel. In order to gain a deeper understanding of the initial insights gained
from the panel survey and formulate specific recommendations, we organised topic-based dialogues online. The
dialogues were open to anyone who wanted to get involved. We also criss-crossed the country to talk to young
people and other (harder-to-reach) groups.

From schoolgoers, students in senior secondary vocational education (MBO) and university students tofarmers, migrants and the Minister himself
In October and November, a total of eight online topic-based dialogues took place, with an average of
30 participants at each meeting. We also organised one online topic-based dialogue and seven on-site topicbased dialogues with various groups of Dutch people. For example, we talked to the Turkish community in
Schiedam and were hosted by volunteers from the Piëzo Foundation in Zoetermeer. There, we were also joinedby the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Knapen. The Minister discussed the dialogue and the opinions on the
future of Europe with the participants. Finally, we organised six meetings with various groups of young people.
For example, we were hosted by a secondary school in Helmond, an MBO institute in Doetinchem and the
University of Leiden.

‘It’s about our children’s future. That’s why I think it’s important to get involved in this.’
Participant in a topic-based dialogue309

About this report
Based on the opinions and ideas we have gathered over the past few months, the EU has been presented withrecommendations from Dutch people. The conversations which took place between Dutch people gave rise tointeresting discussions and innovative ideas and suggestions. Some of those ideas and suggestions are includedin this report. The content of this report thus reflects the voice of the Netherlands: our vision of Europe.
Of course, just as there are differences between European countries and citizens, we in the Netherlands do notalways see eye to eye with one another. But it is precisely those differences that are worth so much and an
important feature of a democracy. The recommendations stem from the most prevalent opinions and ideas
voiced by participants in ‘Visions of Europe’. We also describe the concerns, thoughts and feelings which are lesscommon, but struck us during the dialogues and in the online research.

‘It was nice to be able to express my views about matters which are important to me, andto feel that my voice is being heard.’
Participant in a topic-based dialogue

Nine topics have been identified for the Conference on the Future of Europe. Those topics are also at the heartof the Dutch citizens’ dialogue ‘Visions of Europe’. In October, we published an interim report containing initialinsights and follow-up questions based on the panel survey. At the beginning of December, another report
appeared describing the opinions, ideas and recommendations on the first five topics. The present report covers
the remaining four topics.

Previous report - December 2021
Values and rights, rule of law, security
A stronger economy, social justice and jobs
European democracy
Digital transformation
Education, culture, youth and sport

Current report - January 2022
Climate Change and Environment
Migration
Health
EU in the world

What happens next?
The Conference on the Future of Europe brings together the ideas, opinions and recommendations of all the
EU’s inhabitants. The meetings will discuss not only the results of all the national citizens’ dialogues, but also theoutcome of other initiatives from the Conference. For example, there are also European Citizens’ Panels, and all
EU citizens (including Dutch citizens) can access a European Digital Platform.

310‘I hope that those in charge of the EU take my views on board, and that this helps themmake the right choices.’
Participant in a topic-based dialogue

The Conference will close in the spring of 2022. The Netherlands will then draw up a final report on the citizens’
dialogue: a compilation of this report and the previous report, containing the recommendations on all nine
topics. The Conference will produce recommendations for its Presidency: the Presidents of the European
Parliament, the Council of Ministers and the European Commission. They have committed to explore ways inwhich to follow up on the recommendations. For the Netherlands Government, the results also constitute avaluable contribution in terms of shaping the country’s EU policy.
The process in the run-up to the spring of 2022 can be summarised as follows:311

Timeline
Visions of Europe
1
Sept

12 Oct22-23 Oct

15 3 Dec
Nov

14 Jan21-22 JanFeb

18- 19 Feb

11-12 Mar↓↓

22-24 Apr

Gathering ideas online
Topic-based dialogues
Interimresults(interim
report)InterimInterimreport on the report
topics ofon theeconomy and topics ofdemocracy
climateand EUin theworld‘Our visionof Europe’
final report↓↓

Conference
meeting

Conference
meeting↑↓

Conference (possible) Final event ofmeeting
Conference themeeting
Conference↑→ Recommendat
ions
for Presidents
EuropeanParliamentEuropeanCommissionCouncil of
Ministers↑

More opinions and ideas on the future of Europe:
Citizens’
dialogues

European Citizens’
PanelsEuropean Digital Platform (incl. for Dutch
citizens)

Structure of this report
This report focuses on four topics. For each of the topics we describe the following:
Recommendations based on all strands of the citizens’ dialogue
Discussions and ideas online and in person: impressions of the opinions, ideas and discussions raised in the(online and physical) topic-based dialogues
A statement of accountability appears at the end of the report.

312

Climate Change and Environment
Recommendations - Our view on climate change and the environment
71 % of Dutch people see climate change and the environment as important issues and think the EU shouldtackle them.

1. Choose a clear direction for the European approach on climate change
68 % of Dutch people think that the EU should take a leading role in the fight against climate change. Global
warming is a problem that no single country can solve on its own. Although Dutch people do not all see alike on
climate change, we think the EU needs, in any event, to develop a clearer vision of the future. Despite the Green
Deal, it is noticeable that member states' views often differ. While countries should still be able to make theirown choices, they must work towards the same goals. We also think we have our own responsibility as citizens,which includes adapting our behaviour as consumers.

‘The Netherlands wants to get rid of natural gas, but it’s being promoted in Germany. I findthat rather hard to understand.’
2. Ensure that countries and undertakings work together better on the solutions aimed at
Dutch people have the impression that countries often play the blame game on climate change and theenvironment. The main focus is on differences, for example between poor and rich countries in the EU, or
between those with more or less industry. We would prefer them to look for agreements. Similar companies indifferent countries can exchange their knowledge, for instance, and work out solutions together. Poorer
countries can also be more involved in this type of cooperation on tackling climate change. They can help design
and also benefit from joint solutions.

‘Tackling climate change should not be about competition but cooperation.’
3. Introduce a fair and practicable CO2 system
In tackling climate change the EU has put great emphasis on reducing CO2 emissions. Dutch people think weneed a better system, which penalises both producers and users fairly. They disagree on whether countries withlarger populations should be allowed to emit more CO2. Some countries have highly polluting industries, forinstance, whilst others simply have a lot of potential to produce green energy. These differences need to betaken into account, though without making things too complicated, as everyone needs to understand thesystem.

‘Industrial countries export a lot. Does that mean they should be the only ones to pay theCO2 tax? I think the users should also contribute.’
4. Communicate more clearly and more positively on climate challenges
Dutch people hear and read a lot about climate change. However, for many people it is still an abstract andcomplex notion. It is often seen as something that costs a huge amount of money, though tackling climatechange provides opportunities too, for instance to promote local food production and develop new, sustainable
technology. The EU can tell that story better and more often. We also think the leaders of member states could
set a better example themselves. Less travel – for example between Brussels and Strasbourg – and more online
meetings can be ways of supporting sustainability.

313

‘Sustainability is still perceived too much as a cost; it should be seen as an opportunity
rather than a threat.’
Discussions and ideas online and in person‘We shouldn’t see CO2 emissions as a right, but as a troublesome side effect.’‘I have the impression that more is being said than done in Europe on climate change.’‘Stronger climate rules can benefit us over time; as a trading continent we should look for the opportunities here.’‘We cannot wait for other continents – there’s no time for that.’
IDEA: ‘Reward countries financially when their natural environment and biodiversity flourish.’
IDEA: ‘Promote ecofriendly tourism in the EU’s poor regions.’

MBO college students in Doetinchem: ‘Long-distance travel should remain open to anyone’
It was suggested to students in the Graafschap College in Doetinchem that flying within the EU should
become more expensive. Some students agreed, as more expensive tickets encourage people to look
for more sustainable alternatives. It was stressed, however, that the EU should ensure there were
better, climate-friendly options, such as better train connections. Other participants said they did notsupport more expensive flight tickets. ‘Rich people fly the most now and can easily pay’, said someone.
‘They’ll carry on doing so with higher prices, but long-distance holidays will then become impossible forordinary people.’

Nature-inclusive farmers: ‘The EU can help spread knowledge about sustainable solutions’
BoerenNatuur is an association of agricultural collectives. The topical dialogue included a discussion on
climate change and the environment. The participants felt that implementation of EU laws andregulations by individual countries could be improved, taking the nitrogen legislation as an example.
‘EU legislation only states that nature areas should ‘not deteriorate’, but that requirement is treatedquite differently in Southern Europe to the Netherlands.’ Most participants agree that Europe shouldtake the lead in combating climate change. The farmers believe words are not enough; they should
lead to results, above all through knowledge-sharing. ‘In the agricultural sector we are working on ways
to achieve cleaner farming. The EU should help spread the relevant knowledge quickly.’314

Migration(Migration and refugees)
The borders between EU countries are open. So countries work together in the EU, e.g. on managing theexternal borders and combating migrant smuggling. The fair distribution of refugees among EU countries is also
under discussion. How does the Netherlands view this?

Recommendations - Our view on migration and refugees
65 % of Dutch people find migration and refugees important and think that the EU should tackle these issues.

1. Stop the debate about refugees from losing sight of the finer points
70 % of Dutch people think that the borders on the fringes of Europe need better protection. And 72 % of thosewould still think that way even if it meant that more refugees would be sent back to unsafe countries. Dutch
people think that more attention should be paid to the reasons why people flee unsafe countries. In some cases
climate change is the reason, in others it is war. Often the underlying reasons are only discussed to a limited
extent when talking about refugees. And the added value refugees can bring to a country often only gets limited
mention. Lastly, we think that the EU should draw a greater distinction between people from unsafe regions
who are at the borders and economic refugees. To summarise, we think that the debate about migration andrefugees often ignores the underlying reasons and lacks nuance. European politicians ought to be able to dosomething about this by setting a good example.

‘We should see refugees as fellow human beings. Because not many of us would stand by
and let someone in need die.’
2. Ensure that refugees are distributed fairly and sensibly
A European immigration service ought to be able to ensure that refugees are distributed fairly among EU
countries. However, Dutch people think that there should be clear criteria for determining what is fair. A goodsocial and welfare system can make a country attractive to refugees, for instance, but there are other factors ofimportance to both the refugee and the country concerned. In the Netherlands, for instance, we have a housing
shortage. And some countries or sectors actually need more migrant workers. We think it is important for the EU
to take this into account when distributing refugees. Clear agreements not only mean clarity, they also mean lessdiscussion. Ultimately, that is a good thing for everyone concerned.

‘Refugees must be allowed to use their talents in the country of destination too.’
3. Use knowledge and experience to help refugees' regions of origin
67 % of Dutch people think that the EU should give more help to unsafe regions to prevent flows of refugees. We
realise that refugees do not choose to leave their home countries just like that. That is why we should address
the causes, such as climate change or conflicts, which make regions unsafe or unviable. Support from the EU toregions of origin of refugees could be in the form of knowledge, not just financial assistance. For instance, in the
Netherlands we know a lot about agriculture. We can help other countries deal with drought and erosion better
through modern farming methods. And people who have fled to Europe can do some training in a European
country and then provide help in their countries of origin themselves.

315

Discussions and ideas online and in person‘The EU should make provision for faster asylum procedures. Then there would be more room for people who
really need it.’
‘I know a lot of young people near me who want to buy a house but cannot find anything affordable. And in themeantime, refugees are given housing. I find that tough.’‘Climate change will continue to force people to flee their countries. You can’t stop it, but perhaps you canregulate it better.’‘I live in Betuwe. We really need a lot of migrant workers here during the pear and apple season.’‘Unsafe regions are not unsafe for no reason; governments there are often corrupt. How do we know what
happens to our help and money?’
IDEA: ‘Also think about local strategies, such as citizen participation in the local reception of refugees, andfinancing local integration initiatives.’
IDEA: ‘Build ‘tiny houses’ in cities where refugees can live to start with. Then you would relieve the pressure on
the housing market and increase support for taking people in.’

Volunteers who were refugees themselves: ‘People keep their distance in Europe.’
Taal Doet Meer is a voluntary association which helps people who are new to Utrecht and speak a foreign
language get involved in the community. In the topical discussions with this association, it was not just migration
but particularly integration that was talked about. Some participants came to the Netherlands as refugees
themselves, including someone from Syria. ‘After seven years I still don’t feel Dutch. I still haven’t found a job,even though I have a master’s degree. I have noticed that European countries are mainly preoccupied withthemselves and are not fully open to other countries and cultures.’ Another participant said that Europeans often
keep their distance from each other too. ‘Most people are on their own; everyone does their own thing. Whereas I
think we should talk to each other and learn from each other.’Young people from the Nationale Jeugdraad (National Youth Council): ‘Only let people in if you can take good careof them.’
In Utrecht members of the various working parties of the Nationale Jeugdraad (NJR) spoke to each other. The
participants (between 16 and 23 years old) think that various aspects should be taken into account when
distributing refugees across Europe, such as a country’s population size, surface area, welfare and the number ofreception centres. ‘You should only let refugees into your country if you can take good care of them’, said one ofthe participants. Young people also think that there should be consequences if a country does not live up toagreements on taking in refugees. They should be made to pay a fine, for instance. ‘And refugees themselves
should also have a say in where they go’, one participant said. ‘For instance, if they have family somewhere, you
can’t have them sent somewhere else.’

316

Health(Healthcare)
Although healthcare is mainly run by individual countries, European policy can support and strengthen it. For
instance, when tackling the coronavirus crisis or other (future) health crises. Or by joint research into serious
illnesses. How does the Netherlands view this?

Recommendations - Our vision of healthcare
64 % of Dutch people consider healthcare an important issue and think that the EU should deal with it.

1. Take greater control of pandemic-countering measures
83 % of Dutch people think that countries in the EU should work together more to prevent infectious diseases
from spreading across the world. Because viruses do not stop at borders. We have seen this now during thecoronavirus pandemic. Policy in the EU can be confusing. That is not good for compliance with the rules. We
think that measures to prevent viruses spreading in Europe should be better coordinated, but without the rules
having to be the same everywhere. There should be room to make choices at local level. Not only because
infection rates can vary, but also because Europe is made up of different cultures. Some measures work better in
one country than in another.

‘I live in the Netherlands near the German border. The different Covid rules in the twocountries are driving me crazy.’
2. Provide affordable and reliable medicines for everyone
71 % of Dutch people think that the EU should make us less reliant on countries outside the EU for thedevelopment, production and supply of medicines. But if that would mean people having to wait longer for
medicines as a result, opinions differ. Dutch people think that this would make the production and distributionof medicines complicated. On the one hand, the Netherlands is facing soaring care costs, and we think it isimportant to keep costs down for as long as possible. On the other hand, we want to be able to trust in
medicines even if they come from far away. This is not just a question of quality, but also sustainable and ethicalproduction. Generally we think that important medicines should be universally available, including in poorer
countries.

‘Care costs are almost unaffordable nowadays. So we should try and buy new medicines ascheaply as possible.’
3. Countries must act individually to make their healthcare systems fairer and more effective
Dutch people are worried about healthcare, and those concerns reach beyond the impact of the COVID-19
pandemic. For instance, we are facing structural capacity problems in hospitals. Some Dutch people do not takea positive view of the effects of the market on healthcare. We understand that pharmaceutical companies haveto earn back their investments and that health insurance companies want to buy care cheaply, but big
companies should not abuse their power. The EU should do something about this through regulation. Otherwise,
we regard healthcare as primarily a national matter. After all, countries themselves know best what the local
problems and priorities are. We do, however, think it is important for European countries to learn from eachother to improve healthcare.

317

Discussions and ideas online and in person‘We should be a bit more careful where the availability of medicines in Europe is concerned. We are giving too
much away at the moment.’‘It’s good that Germany has been taking COVID-19 patients from the Netherlands. I would like to see more of thatsort of solidarity in Europe.’‘Wherever you live in the EU and whether you are rich or poor, everyone has the right to good healthcare.’‘When buying medicines don’t just look at the price, but at the ethics too. That means no child labour, forinstance.'
IDEA: ‘Improve Europeans’ health by making sure they have less stress. Reduce the number of working hours in a
week, for instance.’
IDEA: ‘Use serious games or augmented reality to help young people make healthier choices.’

People from Utrecht with a Moroccan background: ‘Health comes at a price’
The association Marokkaans Dialoog Overvecht (MDO) fosters the participation of the Moroccan
community in the Overvecht neighbourhood of Utrecht. It encourages dialogue in the neighbourhoodin order to mitigate disadvantages. Participants in the topical dialogue for Visions of Europe think that
European cooperation has many benefits. However, some participants think that the Netherlands issometimes too dependent on other countries. The COVID-19 pandemic has been given as an example.
The participants think that the lengthy deliberations in Europe meant that the Netherlands was too latein getting started with vaccinations. ‘Maybe it would be more expensive if the Netherlands wanted totake more decisions for itself’, one participant said. ‘But this is about health, and health comes at a
price.’

School pupils in Helmond: ‘Better to be smart and copy from each other than all take the same
approach’
In the Dr. Knippenbergcollege in Helmond, 15- and 16-year-old pupils discussed the way Europe has
handled the pandemic. Some pupils think that the EU Member States should have set the vaccination
programme together. Most participants think that each individual country has a better idea of what isnecessary and what works there and so is in a better position to determine what is best for the
population. For instance, they know which sectors need to be vaccinated first and which sectors canwait. ‘Of course it’s a good thing to discuss this internationally’, said one of the pupils. ‘When different
countries have their own different approaches, they can watch and learn from each other.’

318

The EU’s role in the world
The world is facing enormous challenges. The EU is convinced that issues such as climate change and pandemics
can only be addressed by global cooperation. And the EU wants its voice to be clearly heard on the world stage,alongside the United States and China, for instance. How does the Netherlands view this?

Recommendations - Our vision of the EU’s role in the world
56 % of Dutch people consider the role of the EU in the world an important issue and one that the EU should
address.

1. Take advantage of the EU’s strength, in particular on major international issues
The creation of the EU is one of the reasons Europeans have lived in peace for more than 75 years; many Dutch
people see this as the greatest achievement of the EU. Apart from that, Dutch people think that the EU’s
strength lies in tackling big, international challenges together. For example, climate change, the pandemic andthe refugee crisis. Member states can also have a greater impact vis-à-vis countries outside the EU by concludinginternational agreements jointly as the EU. We think the Netherlands is too small to make a difference to theseissues on our own. Then again, Dutch people want our country to be able to continue making our own decisions,in line with our culture and our own interests. Cooperation in Europe should therefore be mainly about ensuring
efficiency and impact.

‘It is easier to conclude international cooperation agreements as the EU than as anindividual country.’
2. Encourage cooperation, not conflict, both inside and outside Europe
66 % of Dutch people think that the EU should form a stronger bloc against other international blocs of power.
We think that there is less and less of a balance in the world. Countries such as China and Russia are acquiring
more and more power in different domains. This is something we are quite concerned about. The EU should
therefore address issues such as international security and protecting the European economy from unfair trade.
We think that it is important for member states to agree a single approach more often and more quickly. Then
we could make our voice heard more clearly. The fact that, as European countries, we are stronger together
does not mean that we want to engage in conflict more often. Above all, we want to work together well withcountries outside Europe too whenever we can.

‘If we reduce internal differences and conflict, the visibility and impact of the EU on theworld stage will grow.’
3. Take a considered approach when offering to help resolve conflicts
With the EU’s role in the world growing, 50 % of Dutch people think that the approach to conflicts in the world is
an important issue. We find it hard to say what the best way of tackling conflicts is. Past experience has shownthat military intervention does not always end well. It can generate unexpectedly high costs and extra flows ofrefugees. Countries should be allowed to decide for themselves whether they want to join a war, given the local
impact. We generally see greater cooperation between European armies as a good thing: we think it is importantfor Europe to be able to defend itself properly. But our preference is always to solve conflicts without resortingto violence.

319

‘During the evacuation from Afghanistan each country came up with its own plan. Surelythat could have been done better?’
Discussions and ideas online and in person‘The EU should put its own house in order before telling others what to do.’‘By buying Chinese products in great quantities, we Europeans are giving China a leg up.’
‘The US is still hugely important to European defence.’‘Being a member of the EU means that you have a seat at the negotiating table too. So you can have your say inimportant decisions.’‘The EU has to stop seeing itself as a separate entity, because it is not. It is a cooperative association of European
member states and should behave accordingly.’
IDEA: ‘Just like the regular international climate summits, there should be a regular conference on human rights.’
IDEA: ‘Make European armies more efficient by, for instance, buying equipment together.’

Moroccan-Dutch women: ‘Stand up for human rights’Femmes for Freedom is a Dutch association that campaigns against forced marriages, sexual repression andfinancial abuse of girls and women from a bicultural background. A meeting with a group of Moroccan-Dutch
women was organised with the association. The participants think that the EU is currently too dependent on
Russia and China. ‘You can tell that the EU simply doesn’t dare do anything because it is scared of sanctions’, one
participant said. As an example they mentioned the manufacture of medicines, which can be far from cheap. ‘Ifthere is a conflict, China can simply turn off the tap and we will be left with nothing’, said another participant. The
subject of human rights was also raised. ‘We pretend to find this really important but we turn a blind eye to what
China is doing to the Uyghurs’, another participant said.

Pupils from Alkmaar STEM secondary school (‘technasium’): ‘No joint army’During their topical dialogue, pupils from the Jan Arentsz STEM secondary school in Alkmaar spoke about the pros
and cons of a joint European army. The participants made it clear that they were not in favour. ‘If a country in the
EU had a problem with a country from outside the EU we would automatically have to join a war. I think countries
should be able to decide that for themselves’, said a participant. The possibility of a third world war was also
discussed. The pupils did not think it was very likely to happen, but if it did come to that, they thought that asolution could still be found quickly. ‘Armies can work well together too. As far as I’m concerned, there doesn’t
have to be a European army.’

320

Statement of accountability
Visions of Europe is made up of different, interlinked dialogue formats that gather Dutch citizens’ views andideas on the future of Europe and the EU. This section provides evidence of the way in which the interlinked
dialogue formats comply with the guidelines applicable to national Citizens’ Panels in the context of theConference on the Future of Europe.

Design of interlinked dialogue formats
The following forms of dialogue have been used:
1. Panel survey
Online survey of a representative cross-section of the Dutch population.
2. In-depth online topic-based dialogues
Dialogues in which the results of the first interim report ‘Our vision of Europe: initial insights and follow-up
questions (8 October 2021)’ are explored more with a group of Dutch people.
3. Dialogues with specific groups
Meetings with Dutch people who are not accustomed to participating in (online) surveys and panels.
4. Dialogues with young people
Meetings focusing on the European topics that are most relevant to young people.
5. Online open research: Questionnaire and ‘Swipe to the future’
The panel survey questionnaire could also be completed by all Dutch nationals, including those resident
abroad. It was open from 1 September 2021 to 14 November 2021. In addition, during the same period,
every Dutch person was able to participate through the ‘Swipe to the future’ tool, an online tool with 20
statements.

1. Panel survey
The Dutch citizens’ dialogue Visions of Europe (Kijk op Europa) was launched on 1 September 2021 with a panel
survey. In this statement of accountability we briefly describe the design and implementation of this panel study.

Goal and target population
Visions of Europe was launched with an online questionnaire exploring how Dutch people feel about the futureof Europe. The questionnaire was presented to a representative panel and made accessible to all Dutch people(including those living abroad). In addition, the online tool ‘Swipe to the future’, which featured 20 statementsthat people could give their views on, was also available to everyone. The results of the panel survey provided
input for the various topic-based dialogues in the follow-up to the Visions of Europe citizen dialogue.
The target population for the panel survey consists of all Dutch citizens aged 18 or over and registered (from thetime the field work began) as Dutch residents in the municipal Personal Records Database. According to
Statistics Netherlands (CBS), on 1 January 2021 this target group numbered 14 190 874 people. The lower limitof 18 years is in line with the voting age. This is the population identified for the panel survey.

321

Field work
To obtain a statistical picture of ‘the Dutch’, a survey was conducted of a nationwide panel of over 100 000
members (ISO-certified, Research Keurmerk group, Dutch Market Research Association). These members have
all registered for the survey panel and regularly give their opinions on a range of topics. In addition to theirpersonal motivation for providing input, they are also paid for filling in the surveys. Various scientific studies
have shown that respondents who receive financial compensation for filling in surveys do not give significantly
different answers from those who do not (source: Does use of survey incentives degrade data quality? Cole, J.
S., Sarraf, S. A., Wang, X., 2015).
Field work started on 11 August 2021 and ended on 19 September 2021. A single data-collection method wasused: internet research. The members of the survey panel each received an email containing a personalised linkto the online questionnaire. After two weeks the panel participants received a reminder email. Invitations toparticipate were sent in batches and in stratified form (with due regard to equal distribution among
subpopulations) until the required number of respondents had been reached.

Sampling and distribution
The guiding principle for the study’s design was that a minimum of 3 600 respondents would have to participate
in order to achieve good statistical reliability. This number also provided a good distribution across various
background characteristics in the population. Dutch people do not come in one shape or size. For this reason the
study ensured in advance that the sample was properly distributed to factor in a number of characteristics. The
Netherlands is a relatively small country, but regional opinions can differ. A person’s attitude to the relative
importance they attach to a topic may (also) be determined by where they live. For example, people who live inrural areas may feel differently about security to urban dwellers. In addition, studies by the Netherlands Institutefor Social Research (SCP) have shown that more educated people generally support the EU more than lesseducated people, and that young people are more often pro-EU than older people (source: ‘Wat willen
Nederlanders van de Europese Unie?’ (What do the Dutch want from the European Union? Netherlands Institutefor Social Research, The Hague, 2019).
To address this, we assigned quotas in advance across the following characteristics, to ensure a representative
sample distribution: (1) region (using COROP regions), (2) age and (3) level of education. In addition, the sample
reflects the following background characteristics: sex, origin, primary day-to-day activity and political leanings.
The COROP regions were developed using the nodal principle (population centres which provide services or
which serve a regional function) on the basis of commuter flows. Here and there, the nodal principle has beenabandoned in favour of provincial boundaries. After a redrawing of municipal boundaries crossed the COROP
boundaries, these regions were adjusted (source: CBS). Within the COROP regions, we ensure a good
distribution across the following age groups: 18-34; 35-54; 55-75 and over 75.
Finally, we also ensured a representative distribution across levels of education. The sample distribution of
respondents is in line with the national distribution of the highest level of education attained, which is asfollows:

322

Highest level of education attained
Low: primary education, pre-vocational secondary education (VMBO), senior
general secondary education (HAVO) or pre-university education (VWO) (years 1-3),
senior secondary vocational education (MBO) (year 1)

32.1%

Medium: senior general secondary education (HAVO) or pre-university education(VWO) (years 4-6), senior secondary vocational education (MBO) (years 2-4)

44.6%

High: higher professional or university education

22.9%

Unknown

0.4%

Response
In total, 4 086 respondents took part in the panel survey. The target of 3 600 fully completed questionnaires wasmet.
Response by COROP region and age group18-34 years

35-54 years

55-75 years

75+ years

North Drenthe

11

14

17

5

South-East Drenthe

10

12

14

4

South-West Drenthe

7

10

11

3

Flevoland

29

33

28

6

North Friesland

20

22

25

8

South-East Friesland

12

13

14

3

South-West Friesland

8

11

11

4

Achterhoek

22

27

34

11

Arnhem/Nijmegen

52

53

55

15

Veluwe

44

48

51

17

South-West Gelderland

16

18

20

5

Greater Delfzijl

2

4

5

1

East Groningen

7

10

12

3

Rest of Groningen

36

26

28

8

323

Mid Limburg

13

17

21

7

North Limburg

17

20

23

7

South Limburg

38

40

52

17

Mid-North Brabant

34

35

35

11

North-East North Brabant

41

43

51

14

West North Brabant

40

47

49

15

South-East North Brabant

55

56

58

18

Greater Haarlem

13

18

18

7

Greater Alkmaar

14

19

19

6

Greater Amsterdam

116

104

88

23

Het Gooi & Vechtstreek

13

21

19

7

IJmond

12

14

15

4

Top of North Holland

22

27

30

9

Zaanstreek

11

13

12

3

North Overijssel

25

28

25

8

Twente

41

44

46

14

South-West Overijssel

10

11

12

3

Utrecht

96

100

89

27

Rest of Zeeland

16

21

23

8

Zeelandic Flanders

6

8

9

3

Greater Leiden & Bollenstreek

30

31

31

10

Greater The Hague

63

70

57

18

Delft & Westland

19

15

15

4

Greater Rijnmond

103

107

99

31

East South Holland

22

24

25

8

South-East South Holland

24

26

26

9

324

Response by level of education
Low

1382

34%

Medium

1747

43%

High

915

22%

Unknown

42

1%

Reliability and representativenessWith 4 086 respondents, it is possible to make observations about the population with 95 % reliability and a
1.53 % margin of error. The reliability and margin of error of the results depend on the size of the sample. The
larger the sample, the more reliably and/or accurately the results can be extrapolated to the population as awhole.
The reliability level is defined as 1 (100 %) minus the significance level. It is normal to assume a significance levelof 5 %, which means a reliability level of 95 %. This means that, if the study were to be repeated in the samemanner and under the same conditions, the results would give the same picture in 95 % of cases.
The accuracy level (expressed as the margin of error) indicates the range of values within which the actual value
in the population lies or, in other words, how far the results from the sample might deviate from the results thatwould be obtained if the entire population were to complete the survey. A margin of error of 1.53 % means thatthe actual value in the total population may be up to 1.53 % higher or lower than the value in the sample. In
practice, this means that, if a survey result from the sample indicates that 50 % of respondents find a particular
topic important, the actual percentage may be up to 1.53 % lower or higher than 50 % (i.e. between 48.47 % and51.53 %). A margin of error of up to 5 % is common and generally accepted in (statistical) quantitative research.
Besides reliability, the representativeness of the sample is also important. Since the invitations to participate in
the survey were sent in batches and stratified, the results are representative in terms of COROP regions and age
groups within each COROP region. The response is also in line with the national distribution of the highest levelof education attained.

Other background characteristics
The respondents in the panel survey were asked a number of extra background questions. The questions
covered gender, views on the EU, origin, primary day-to-day activity and which political party they would votefor if an election were to be held now.
49 % of respondents were male, 50 % were female and 1 % preferred not to answer this question.
51 % of respondents thought it was a good thing that the Netherlands is a member of the EU, 13 % thought it
was a bad thing, and 36 % saw it as neutral or did not have an opinion.

325

95 % of respondents were born in the Netherlands. For 89 % of respondents, both parents were born in the
Netherlands. For 5 % of respondents, both parents were born abroad.

Respondents’ current political leanings
Party

%

VVD

14%

PVV

13%

SP

8%

D66

6%

CDA

6%

Labour Party (PvdA)

6%

Party for the Animals

4%

GreenLeft (GroenLinks)

4%

Christian Union

3%

JA21

3%

Farmer-Citizen Movement (BoerBurgerBeweging)2%

Forum for Democracy

2%

Reformed Political Party (SGP)

2%

Volt

2%

DENK (THINK)

1%

Van Haga Group

1%

BIJ1

1%

Den Haan party

0%

Other

2%

Blank ballot

3%

326

Prefer not to say

13%

Would not vote

5%

What is your main day-to-day activity at the moment?
Occupation%

Pupil/student

6%Part-time employee

16%

Full-time employee

31%

Self-employed3%

Homemaker

5%

Jobseeker

2%

Volunteer2%

Unfit for work

6%

Retired

27%

Other

1%

Prefer not to say

1%

Questionnaire
The questionnaire and this report were commissioned by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and drawn up by anindependent external organisation. The questionnaire has a modular structure and comprises the following
sections, which correspond to the topics identified for the Conference on the Future of Europe:
key topics and Europe’s role
climate change and environment
healththe economy and jobs
the European Union’s role in the world
security and the rule of law
the online world
European democracy
migration and refugees
education, culture, youth and sport

327

When developing the questionnaire, close attention was paid to the quality, reliability and validity of thephrasing of the questions. The aim was to ensure neutral, non-leading wording of questions, statements andchoices. In addition, the questions were reviewed to ensure that they were written in plain language (B1 level).
The questionnaire was tested qualitatively in a face-to-face setting with test respondents belonging to the target
group, to see how the questions came across to different types of respondent. The wording was adjusted
wherever it proved to be too complex.

Methods of analysis
Two methods of analysis were used in this study:

Univariate analysis
In univariate analysis, descriptive statistics are used to describe variables in a study. In this study, frequencies
and averages have been used.

Bivariate analysis
Bivariate analysis looks at the relationship between two variables, in this case the relationship between theimportance of the various topics and whether or not the EU should deal with them on the one hand, and thebackground characteristic of age on the other. Significance testing was used to determine whether different age
groups attach different degrees of importance to a given topic, and think differently about whether or not these
are topics the EU should deal with.

Reporting and completenessThis report analyses the results of all questions put to the survey panel respondents. For some questions,
respondents were able to give ‘open’ answers (as opposed to choosing from a set of multiple-choice answers).
These open answers were then categorised and incorporated into the report. Ideas that respondents shared in
the free comment fields serve as input for the various topic-based dialogues in the follow-up to the Visions ofEurope citizens’ dialogue.

2. In-depth online topic-based dialogues
The key topics of the Conference on the Future or Europe were discussed in more depth in eight online topicbased dialogues. The aim of the dialogues was to find out why people think the way they do, and theirunderlying reasons and feelings. What concerns them and what opportunities do they see? During the dialogue
sessions, participants were also given a chance to contribute suggestions and ideas about the topics. They werealso able to raise issues that are not part of the Conference but that are important to them.
The topic-based dialogues took place on 12 and 14 October and on 9 and 11 November. In October, there werefour online topic-based dialogues on topics in the Economy and Democracy cluster. In November, there werefour online topic-based dialogues on topics in the Climate and EU in the World cluster. An average of 29 people
participated in each dialogue session (231 in total). Participants were recruited from the panel members (see 1)
and through social media.

328

3. Dialogues with specific groups
We know that certain groups of Dutch people are less used to taking part in (online) surveys and panels. To gaina representative picture of the ‘voice of the Netherlands’ it was important to let them express their ideas andopinions too. That is why we also organised some in-person dialogues for Visions of Europe. The opinions andideas we gathered through them have been used as one of the bases for the recommendations.

Target groups
There is no clear definition of target groups which are difficult to reach. Research and experience have shownthat Dutch people from non-Western backgrounds are significantly less likely to participate in surveys anddiscussions voluntarily. Since they form a large group (14 % of Dutch people1), they were selected to participate
in the Visions of Europe dialogue. The same weightings have been applied as for people with low levels ofliteracy. That is also a large group (2.5 million Dutch people2), which partly overlaps with the group of migrants(39 %). Finally, a dialogue was conducted with a group which rarely appears in surveys and discussions, and iscritical of Europe but has a lot of professional dealings with it. Businesses in the agricultural sector wereselected to take part.
The above groups were approached through organisations they belong to, such as migrant associations, interest
groups and professional organisations. Because we limited the number of dialogues to eight, we could not cover
everyone. That makes the choice of participants somewhat arbitrary. When selecting participants, we also
mainly looked for people who were enthusiastic about taking part and helping mobilise the grass roots, as well
as at practical issues such as availability for dates and locations.
On-location dialogues were held with members of the following organisations:
Stichting Hakder, Alevi community, Schiedam
Stichting Asha, Hindustani community, Utrecht (2 dialogue sessions)Piëzo, civil-society organisation, Zoetermeer
Taal doet Meer, literacy organisation, Utrecht
BoerenNatuur, association of agricultural cooperatives
Marokkanen Dialoog Overvecht (Overvecht Moroccan Dialogue), Moroccan community, Utrecht
Femmes for Freedom, interest group for women from a migrant background, The Hague
A total of 110 people took part in these dialogue meetings.

4. Dialogues with young people
Young people are a priority target group for the Conference on the Future of Europe. To actively encourage their
participation in the Visions of Europe citizens’ dialogue, and to give the opinions and ideas of this group extra
weight, six in-person dialogue meetings were organised especially for young people.
Meetings were held at the following institutions:
Studievereniging Geschiedenis, history students’ association, Leiden University
Dr. Knippenbergcollege, secondary school, HelmondCoalitie-Y, Socio-Economic Council (SER) youth association
Graafschap College, MBO institute, Doetinchem
CSG Jan Arentsz, STEM secondary school (technasium), Alkmaar
National Youth Council (meeting took place at an external location)329

A total of 110 young people took place in the dialogue meetings.

Discussion techniques used
The Socratic method was used for the online topic-based dialogues, the dialogues with specific groups and the
dialogues with young people. This method has been used for years in the Netherlands for our ‘Dialogue Day’,
when people across the Netherlands speak to each other about issues that concern them. In the Socratic
method, the moderator applies the following principles:
Let everyone tell their story
Don’t immediately tell a counter-story
Treat each other with respect
Speak for yourself (‘I think’ instead of ‘they say’)Ask for explanations if nothing but generalisations come up
Don't judge, investigate opinions instead
Allow silence if people need time to think
The dialogues follow this pattern: divergence - convergence - divergence. The starting point is that first you haveto diverge (make room for individual feelings and opinions) before you can converge (discuss possible directions)and finally diverge again (e.g. gather individual recommendations). Theory and practice show that this pattern
ensures a smooth dialogue.
All dialogues were led by professional facilitators.

5. Online open research: Questionnaire and ‘Swipe to the future’
The panel survey questionnaire was also open to all Dutch citizens, including those resident abroad. It was openfrom 1 September 2021 to 14 November 2021. In addition, during the same period, every Dutch person was able
to participate through the ‘Swipe to the future’ tool, an online tool with 20 statements.

Response and implementation
In total, 1 967 respondents filled in the questionnaire and 6 968 fully completed the swipe tool. The
questionnaire and swipe tool were open to all; there were no prior conditions or selection criteria for taking
part. Questions in the questionnaire could be skipped (there were no mandatory questions) to maximise
response. Participants answered ‘I would rather not say’ much more often in the questionnaire than in the
representative panel survey.
The backgrounds of participants in the open questionnaire and swipe tool differed from those of the participantsin the representative panel survey in a number of ways. The results of the open questionnaire and the swipe tool
are not representative, unlike those of the panel survey. The results of the online open survey were used tosupplement the panel survey. They give an insight into prevailing feelings and ideas in the Netherlands. The
suggestions for improvement given in the free-text fields were used in the sub-topic ‘Discussions and ideas
online and in person’. The swipe tool was used to gain an insight into some prevailing feelings in the
Netherlands. The results were taken into account when preparing the recommendations. Since
representativeness is a requirement, this report only takes limited account of the results of the online open
survey.
This is a publication of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
www.kijkopeuropa.nl

330III — References to the results of national events
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Belgium
Bulgaria
Czechia
Denmark
Germany
Estonia
Ireland
GreeceSpain
FranceCroatia
Italy
Cyprus
LatviaLithuania
Luxembourg
Hungary
Malta
Netherlands
Austria
PolandPortugal
Romania
Slovenia
Slovakia
FinlandSweden331

IV – Reference to the report from the Multilingual Digital Platform
Multilingual Digital Platform of the Conference on the Future of Europe - Report February2022_________________________

332

V — Co-Chairs of the Conference on the Future of Europe andMembers of the Common Secretariat
European Parliament

Council of the EU

European Commission

Co-Chairs of the Conference on the Future of Europe
VERHOFSTADT Guy

BEAUNE Clément

ŠUICA Dubravka(January-June 2022)DOVŽAN Gašper(July-December 2021)
ZACARIAS Ana Paula(March-June 2021)
Members of the Common Secretariat
MCLAUGHLIN Guillaume(Co-Head)

ARPIO Marta (Co-Head)SCICLUNA Colin (Co-Head)

CORBETT Richard

ELBELTAGY Dalia

BUSIA ClayEVSTATIEVA-SHORE Vesela

JAANSALU Liis

DE’ GRASSI Mattia

HOFKAMP Jelmer

RHLALOU Rebecca

GYORFI Izabella

PIEROT Rémi

RICEPUTI Matteo

HOEKE Susanne

PIORUN Magdalena

STOYANOV Miroslav

NOWACZEK Krzysztof

RECHARD Danièle

VAN LAMSWEERDE MarieCharlotte

PALOTAI Viktoria

RUHRMANN Katrin (former
Co-Head)RICARD-NIHOUL Gaëtane
BEREMLIYSKY Anguel(former member)

POPTCHEVA Eva-Maria(former member)

333

ISBN 978-92-846-9844-8

doi:10.2861/616603

QA-04-22-145-EN-C© European Union, 2022
Reuse is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.