Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the "Communication from the Commission: Strategic Objectives 2000-2005 — Shaping the New Europe"
Date: 2000-10-19
Institutions: Provisional data
Subjects: European Union, economic policy, social policy

16.1.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 14/133

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Communication from the Commission:
Strategic Objectives 2000-2005 — “Shaping the New Europe”’

(2001/C 14/25)

At its plenary session of 2 March 2000, the Economic and Social Committee decided, under Rule 23(3)
of its Rules of Procedure, to draw up an opinion on the above-mentioned communication.

In accordance with Rules 11(4) and 19(1) of its Rules of Procedure, the Committee set up a sub-
committee to prepare its work on this subject.

The sub-committee adopted its draft opinion on 30 August 2000. The sub-committee instructed Mr Gafo
Ferna´ndez to submit the draft opinion to the plenary session.

At its 376th plenary session held on 19 October 2000 the Economic and Social Committee adopted the
following opinion by 59 votes to seven with one abstention.

1.

Introduction

1.1.
In presenting the Commission’s strategic objectives for
2000-2005 to the European Parliament on 15 February 2000,
President Prodi told the House that the Commission intended
to publish a White Paper on governance by July 2001. This
White Paper will explore two main avenues:

— decentralising responsibility within the EU, and

valuable contribution through exploratory opinions, hearings
or other means. In this context the Committee would refer to
its opinions on civil society organisations and on the partner-
ship between the Commission and NGOs and the possibility
of creating an observatory within the Committee.

2.

The Commission proposals

— modernising the work of the Commission and re-estab-

lishing consistency.

2.1. Strategic objectives 2000-2005

In view of the importance of this subject and having consider-
ation to its role in the European Union, the Committee would,
as a matter of principle, wish to be involved from the beginning
in the conceptual formulation of this document.

The Committee proposes that the White Paper highlight
relations between Community institutions and bodies and civil
society organisations, as well as framing future political issues
and improving decision-making procedures to make them
more participatory. It is also time to launch a debate on how
civil dialogue should be structured so as to include all interest
groups while avoiding confusion with social dialogue. In this
context the Committee would draw attention to its own way
of managing conflicting interests, relying on dialogue and
expertise to find a compromise.

The Commission paper setting out

2.1.1.
its strategic
objectives is intended as a strategic policy document which
aims to identify what it sees as the main challenges for the
immediate future and the areas in which it seeks to achieve
substantial changes. It deliberately does not concern itself with
the methodology by which these changes will be brought
about. This will be the subject of a series of annual communi-
cations which will deal with matters of operational modality
within the framework of the five-year plan.

2.1.2.
The Commission aims to achieve an ever closer
union between peoples, based on shared values and common
objectives. It is pushing forward with political integration by
establishing an area of freedom, security and justice and by
developing common foreign, security and defence policies. It
has a vision of a Europe which can show genuine leadership
on the world stage.

1.2.
Highlighting its own specific remit, the Committee
wishes to be consulted on the problems which the Commission
is currently seeking to address in the course of drawing up the
White Paper and on which the Committee could make a

2.1.2.1.
It believes that Europe will need strong institutions
which answer to new forms of democratic governance. To this
end, it will seek a new synergy between all of the European
Union’s democratic bodies as part of a broader improvement
of European governance. It wishes to strike a new balance

C 14/134

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

16.1.2001

between action by the Commission, the other institutions, the
Member States and Civil Society. To ensure success, it intends
to work in close partnership with the other European insti-
tutions and through a careful division of labour with the
Member States.

2.1.3.
in the period under review:

The Commission will pursue four strategic objectives

— Promoting new forms of European governance

— A stable Europe with a stronger voice in the world

— A new economic and social agenda

— A better quality of life for its citizens

The complex challenges which lie ahead call for new
2.1.4.
forms of European governance.
It sees this as being the
responsibility not only of the European institutions but of
Member State governments and parliaments and regional and
local authorities.

2.1.4.1.
Authorities in the Member States are part and
parcel of European governance but this is not perceived by the
people, who have little sense of ownership over the structures
which govern their lives. Few people distinguish between the
institutions and most believe that European and national
policies are worlds apart.

To manage European governance will require
2.1.4.2.
strong institutions, a collective vision and a driving force but
it also calls for democratic control and the full involvement of
citizens. It sees itself as providing the vision and the driving
force.

2.1.4.3.
The Commission pledges itself to providing open
government and accountability. It believes that civil society
has a crucial role to play in this context. The delegation and
decentralisation of day-to-day executive tasks will be a key
feature of the new form of European governance.

European stability and prosperity. To this end, it will pursue
its enlargement strategy; this inevitably has major implications
for European institutions and policies.

2.1.5.2.
The Commission also sees a need to establish
genuine strategic partnerships with the countries on the
periphery of the enlarged Europe. At the same time, it feels
that Europe must enhance its role as a partner in solidarity
with the developing countries and refocus its activities to
combat poverty not only within the EU but also in those
countries.

The weakness of the international system,

the
2.1.5.3.
increasing poverty and the
escalating number of conflicts,
spread of organised crime are all seen as demanding decisive
action from the EU. The Commission’s objective is to make
Europe a global actor with a political weight commensurate
with its economic strength. This will
inter alia,
developing a genuine common foreign policy and civilian and
military capabilities in a common defence and security policy.

involve,

The Commission confirms its strategic interest in
2.1.5.4.
the reactivation of the Millennium Round and the reform of
the World Trade Organisation.
It aims to maximise the
potential and minimise the undesirable side-effects of globalisa-
tion.

2.1.6.
Europe must become a globally competitive econ-
omy built on knowledge and innovation and on a strategy
of sustainable development. It sees the under-utilisation of
resources as Europe’s greatest weakness and feels that its
potential needs to be released; nowhere is this more evident
than in the field of employment.

2.1.6.1.
The Union needs a new economic and social
agenda in order to build a competitive and inclusive know-
ledge-based economy which promotes strong and sustained
growth, full employment and social cohesion.

2.1.6.2.
for coordinated action at European and Member State level:

The Commission sets out the following priorities

— to aim for full employment;

European governance must provide the EU with the
2.1.5.
means to assert
itself with a single voice in the world,
notwithstanding its institutional arrangements and three-pillar
structure.

— to create a new economic dynamism by economic reform
in the labour, product and capital markets aimed at
stimulating innovation and entrepreneurship;

2.1.5.1.
Europe is seen as the focus of geopolitical shifts
which are, at once, a threat and an opportunity. The Com-
mission’s objective is to stabilise the continent and share
the fundamental European values; its ambition is to export

— to make pensions safe and sustainable through a combi-
nation of employment-generating reforms, increasing the
revenue base and reviewing retirement systems in the
light of the new demographic and health situation in
Europe;

16.1.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 14/135

— to develop a European strategy for

fighting social
exclusion, reducing poverty and the disparities between
Europe’s regions and territories;

— to review the quality of public expenditure and the long-

term sustainability of public finances;

3.1.1.1.
The European Union has been a successful endeav-
our, built on the vision of those who took the first steps in the
early 1950’s. Critical to that success has been the continuous
evolution of the strategies and policies which have taken the
European Union through the second half of the 20th century
and into a new millennium.

— to stimulate European research;

— to encourage investment in human capital;

— to develop and strengthen the European model of agri-
culture in order to increase the competitiveness of this
sector, secure its sustainability and promote vital rural
areas.

2.1.7.
The Commission believes that the EU must speed up
the process of establishing an area of freedom, security and
justice. It points out that problems of crime and personal
safety no longer stop at national borders and that the people
of Europe expect their rights to be protected and enforced
wherever they are in the Union.

2.1.7.1.
The Commission sees a need for a decisive collec-
tion reaction to the ongoing degradation of the environment.
It considers that this calls for a sustainable development
strategy reconciling environmental development, social pro-
gress and sustainable economic growth.

2.1.7.2.
The Commission notes that European citizens are
insisting on higher food safety standards. It intends to take
forward the proposals in its White Paper on Food Safety and
on the creation of a European Food Authority. It will also seek
to bolster public and consumer confidence in electronic
commerce.

2.1.7.3.
The Commission intends to propose the creation
of a truly integrated European transport area through the
creation of a single airspace and the development of trans-
it will exploit new tech-
European networks. To this end,
nologies to further development of an intelligent and multi-
modal transport system. It will also propose the setting up of
a European Air Safety Agency and improve safety standards
and training in the maritime sector.

3. General comments

3.1. Strategic objectives 2000-2005

3.1.1.
The Economic and Social Committee welcomes the
Commission’s initiative to shape up to the challenges of taking
the Union into the twenty-first century and equipping it to
counter the threats and exploit the opportunities with which
it will be confronted in the years ahead.

3.1.1.2.
The aspirations for the European Union continue
to advance. The Committee therefore welcomes the formal
statement of Strategic Priorities for the New Europe in the next
five years as an introduction to the longer term perspective.

3.1.1.3.
Having set the strategic priorities, this naturally
leads into a consideration of the framework of governance
which will facilitate their achievement. Much of the remainder
of this Opinion tries to anticipate how the governance of the
European Union needs to adapt, change and improve.

3.1.1.4.
The form of European Union governance must
naturally, or as naturally as possible, relate to the functions
which apply to the whole Community and be closely linked to
the other aspects of governance at national and regional levels.

The development of new forms of European
3.1.1.5.
governance is therefore a derivative of the acceptance of
agreed objectives on what that governance, at different levels
(Community, Member State, and provincial, regional and local
level) is expected to achieve. It also interacts with the degree of
the respective functional
subsidiarity or centralisation of
responsibilities. The debate about European governance is,
therefore, much broader than a debate about the role of the
Community institutions.

3.1.1.6.
create the focus for the discussion on governance.

In this setting, the other three strategic objectives

3.1.1.7.
The Committee welcomes these more ambitious
aspirations with their implications for all the citizens of
Europe. They set a challenge, of achievement, integration and
co-ordination around common goals, for all of the institutions
and agencies at every level.

3.1.1.8.
The (second) strategic objective is variously stated
as either ‘A stable Europe with a stronger voice in the world’
or ‘Stabilising our continent and boosting Europe’s voice in
the world’. Neither of these phrases adequately conveys the
important conclusion that Europe, (meaning in this case the
Community, its Member States and all the wider institutions),
has a responsibility to use the strength of its position and
resources to take a global view of the issues affecting the lives
of citizens both in Europe and elsewhere. The issues are much
more significant than the ‘stabilising of our continent’ or
‘having a stronger voice’.

C 14/136

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

16.1.2001

3.1.1.9.
This strategic objective is misleadingly described.
As a result the issues identified as a focus for the next five
years, whilst they are necessary and acceptable, are somewhat
too restrictive.

elections in some countries and the emergence of extreme
right-wing political parties whose racist agenda masquerades
under the banner of patriotism.

The other (third and fourth) strategic objectives
3.1.1.10.
can be seen as focused on the agenda as it may directly affect
citizens within Europe. The Committee see them as being
interdependent, one on the other.

As the Commission itself has acknowledged (1), the
3.1.4.
European Union today is in crisis and that crisis is one of
relationships between institutions and citizens. There is a need
now to tackle this problem constructively and efficiently. The
people of Europe are fundamentally in favour of the European
ideal but they are concerned that Europe has lost its ability to
deliver the benefits which they desire.

3.1.1.11.
Because of the risk of confusion arising from any
ambiguity, the Commission might have made an explicit
reference in the description of these two strategic objectives to
the distinction between the setting of
the many policy
objectives, which are identified and for which there would be
agreed aspirations regardless of questions of competence and
subsidiarity, and the operational mechanisms, which will
require different degrees of harmonisation and co-ordination
within the multiple levels of the framework of governance.

3.1.4.1.
These benefits include sustained economic growth,
full employment, a just political agenda which will promote
the objectives of economic development and social cohesion,
protection from criminal activity, security from external attack,
peace and prosperity in the neighbouring countries, a clear
and forceful role for Europe as an economic power in the
process of globalisation, a coherent and effective foreign policy
and a pivotal role in developing the less-advantaged nations of
the world.

3.1.1.12.
For example, and as one of many that might be
quoted, the objective of making ’pensions safe and sustainable’
is laudable and critically important. It is, however, an aspiration
for the setting of European standards which is an operational
responsibility of the Member States. Similarly, the integration
of the ‘new’ economic agenda calls in a larger part for European
Union developments which must be related to the evolving
social agenda, which lies more heavily (but not only) with
Member States.

3.1.1.13.
Setting the strategic priorities for Europe needs
explicit clarity on how the priorities become objectives and
within which institutional setting.

The ESC agrees with the Commission that

3.1.2.
the
reform of the relationships between the institutions must be
accompanied by a courageous administrative reform of the
institutions themselves. The EEC was conceived as an associ-
ation of relatively wealthy Western-European states, commit-
ted to democratic principles, and the Treaty of Rome was
drawn up in that context. The challenge of adapting to the
admission of a large number of much less wealthy countries,
many of which have been subjected to totalitarian regimes
for the last half-century, will require major alterations to
Community rules and regulations.

3.1.3.
The Committee endorses the Commission’s view that
one of the greatest, most urgent, most compelling and most
difficult challenges is to overcome the disenchantment of
European citizens with the European project, a reaction which
is manifested both in the disappointing turnout at European

It

the European Union;

is the case that European citizens do not
3.1.4.2.
understand the mechanisms of
the
process of European legislation is highly complex and needs
greater transparency. In the absence of this transparency, an
atmosphere of distrust has arisen which must be dispelled. In
the twenty-first century, the electorate is no longer prepared
to put a blind trust in the ability or the good faith of decision-
makers at any level, whether it be global, European, national
or even local. The majority of people have no problem with
Europe; they have simply turned their backs on its institutional
face.

In the introduction the Commission states that it
3.1.4.3.
wants to ‘go further and find a new synergy between all the
European Union’s democratic bodies, as part of a broader
improvement of European governance’. The Committee con-
siders that its own potential — which derives from the fact
that it has its finger on the pulse of peoples’ needs as economic
players and members of society — is still not used adequately
and early enough in the Commission’s socio-economic initiat-
ives.

3.1.5.
Another reason for popular unease is that many
people feel disquiet about the pace of the changes occurring in
society. These changes require political leaders to take decisions
which the current institutional set-up makes it extremely
difficult to take with the requisite speed. Moreover, the public
is not always able to understand and accept the changes.
European citizens are united by common aspirations and
ideals, including a desire for closer cooperation, but they are
divided by different national traditions, customs and cultural
heritage. Progress towards political union can only be made if

(1) CdP (99) 750.

16.1.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 14/137

it takes proper account of national differences. The problem is
less one of anti-Europeanism than of Europeans with very
different visions of the future. In evolving a European strategy
it is essential to take account of the fact that Europe’s diversity
of peoples and cultures is a source of richness and strength
rather than of division and mistrust.

There is a general wish in Europe for democratisation
3.1.6.
of the decision-making processes, the transparency of public
administration and the involvement of the Civil Society. A
European Civil Society is undoubtedly emerging and is in the
process of organising itself at a European level, even if it is at
present largely unstructured and unfocused. The problem with
the emergence of this Civil Society is that it has no institutional
rooting. The other elements of organised Civil Society need to
take their place alongside the established organisms of the civil
dialogue, such as the economic and social partners.

The challenge must be to secure the effective
3.1.6.1.
participation of this Civil Society in the governance of Europe.
Europe functions according to a pyramidal system which
creates, among other things, a top-down approach. There is a
need to integrate the Community processes into the European
society of the twenty-first century rather than, as at present,
attempting to integrate organised Civil Society into the Com-
munity process. The institutionalised process of decision
making must be shared both with the social and economic
actors and with the other members of organised Civil Society.
The process of dialogue between the governors and the
governed must become bottom-up rather than top-down.
There is a need for a renewal of the methods and tools of
democracy.

The Committee is ready and able — drawing on its
3.1.6.2.
long experience and in cooperation with major civil society
organisations — to frame and present to the Commission
proposals for effective forms and methods of participation.

It must also be recognised that there is an uneasy
3.1.7.
division of power and responsibility between European insti-
tutions, particularly the Commission, and the Member States.
The Commission document makes clear its determination to
set the agenda for the political future of Europe but the
ultimate legislative power in Europe resides mainly in the
Council, which is composed of representatives of the Member
States, which may have different priorities for the European
project. The extension of Qualified Majority Voting (QMV)
and full application of the co-decision process between the
European Parliament and the Council would alleviate this
problem to an extent.

3.1.7.1.
The Commission has said that its document is
strategic in nature, deliberately eschewing any discussion of
implement the policy
the methodology by which it will
objectives which it has set out; this will be the subject of a
series of annual documents dealing with the operational
implementation of its five-year plan. The ESC respects this
position and will not seek to comment on matters of
methodology in advance of the publication of these annual
documents. The ESC would expect to be asked for an opinion
on these annual documents when they are published and
would welcome being consulted in the course of their prep-
aration; it also declares itself available to issue own-initiative
opinions on their subject matter.

3.1.8.
From whatever perspective one views the current
situation, it is manifest that there is an urgent need to rebuild
the confidence of the citizens of Europe in the processes by
which they are governed. One way of achieving this is by
involving organised Civil Society more closely in the decision-
making process. Another essential element is for Europe to be
seen to be delivering tangible benefits to its citizens. Moreover,
it is necessary that these benefits should be relevant to the
concerns and preoccupations of the citizens themselves.

It

3.1.9.
is necessary to view the European Union as
resting on three pillars; the economic pillar, the political and
administrative pillar and the pillar of Civil Society. The
economic pillar is the foundation on which the other pillars
rest because, without economic prosperity, Europe will not
have the wherewithal to develop the policies and to create the
structures which it needs or to fulfil the objectives which the
Commission has set for itself. The political and administrative
pillar consists of the European institutions and the Member
State authorities on national, regional and local levels. The
Civil Society comprises all the elements of society as defined
in the ESC opinion of 22 September 1999 (1).

(1) ‘Civil society is a collective term for all types of social action, by
individuals or groups, that do not emanate from the state and are
not run by it. (...)
Civil society organisations include:
— the so-called labour-market players, i.e. the social partners;
— organisations representing social and economic players, which

are not social partners in the strict sense of the term;

— NGOs (non-governmental organisations) which bring people
together in a common cause, such as environmental organis-
ations, human rights organisations, consumer associations,
charitable organisations, educational and training organis-
ations, etc.;

— CBOs (community-based organisations, i.e. organisations set
up within society at grassroots level which pursue member-
oriented objectives), e.g. youth organisations, family associ-
ations and all organisations through which citizens participate
in local and municipal life;

— religious communities. OJ 329 of 17.11.1999, point 5.1 and

8.1.’

C 14/138

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

16.1.2001

3.1.10.
The ESC recognises the need for it, in common
with other European institutions, to adapt to the challenges
which Europe is now facing. It is aware that this will require
changes within the Committee as well as a reorientation of its
relationships with the other institutions. The Committee
recently adopted an opinion (1) which mooted the possible
establishment, within the ESC, of a ’Civil society observatory’
to introduce initiatives for developing the civil dialogue and
enhancing the Committee’s role as a forum for developing the
participation of organised Civil Society representatives in the
democratic process.

4.1.3.1.
The opinion also posited the need for a new
paradigm for government itself, stating that, ‘The classical view
that the State is sovereign as a service provider must be
superseded by a cooperative relationship between the State
and Society. The public expects from the State not only that
rules and regulations are observed but also that services are
provided properly and efficiently.’ It held that a modernising
policy by the State must be focused more on decentralised
cooperation networks and give greater prominence to econ-
omic efficiency and efficacy, including greater efficiency in
administrative implementation and weighing the economic
case for alternative methods of application.

4.

Specific comments

4.1.3.2.
Lisbon Summit:

The opinion proposed the following agenda for the

4.1. Strategic objectives 2000-2005

— adapt the social model(s) to the new paradigm;

4.1.1.
The Committee sees the Presidency Conclusions of
the Lisbon European Council as being a development of the
Commission’s strategic objectives in setting the agenda for
transition to a competitive, dynamic and knowledge-based
economy, modernising the European social model and over-
coming social exclusion.

4.1.2.
The Committee notes with particular interest the
‘new open method of coordination’ and the appeal made to
the social partners and the rest of organised civil society to
take part in implementation of the policies through different
forms of partnership formulated in Lisbon.

4.1.3.
In its opinion on ‘Employment, economic reform
and social cohesion — towards a Europe of innovation and
knowledge’ (2) the ESC developed the idea of a ‘new paradigm’
for achieving growth without inflation through:

— maximising economic development while minimising

social exclusion and conflict;

— providing a competitive economy while sustaining a

competitive social model;

— optimising the utilisation of new technologies in a
strategy which is sustainable for the social and natural
environment and resources;

— securing sustainability with the development of a partici-
patory culture and an appropriate corporate culture based
upon a creative approach to life-long learning and
solidarity.

(1) OJ C 268 of 19.9.2000.
(2) OJ C 117 of 26.4.2000.

— achieve mass training in information society technologies;

— popularise and facilitate the growth of the enterprise

culture;

— help established companies to convert to the new para-

digm;

— adapt education and training to the new paradigm;

— harness sustainable development

for innovation and

growth.

4.1.4.
To a large extent, the Lisbon Summit dealt with these
issues and in a manner consistent with the Committee’s
opinion. In doing so, it took the proposals contained in the
Commissions document on its strategic objectives 2000-2005
to a new level. In the process, it marked a completely new and
fresh approach to policy-making in Europe, with the European
Council
It showed governments taking
responsibility for the formulation of economic policy.

taking the lead.

4.1.4.1.
The Commission document makes it plain that the
Commission sees itself as the source of Europe’s collective
vision and the driving force for change, as well as its executive
arm. However, the recent Lisbon European Council exercised
its role to the full setting the political agenda.

4.1.4.2.
The European Council’s new prominence reflects
the determination of the governments to remain sovereign in
matters of policy. In this context, the Lisbon decision to
institute regular European Council meetings each Spring to
oversee the political strategy is especially significant. Even if

16.1.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 14/139

the performance of other institutions improves as a result of
the changes which the Commission is proposing, European
Councils are likely to play a greater role in future.

4.1.4.3.
This begs the question of the role of the European
Parliament (EP), which is a European institution composed of
directly-elected members but with limited legislative powers.
Whether the EP is constitutionally or functionally capable at
present of taking the role of shaping the direction of European
policy is open to question but, if it is not, then it is at least
arguable that this function should reside with the Council
rather than the Commission and the events in Lisbon suggest
that the Council is prepared to shoulder this responsibility.

be improved but that is a matter for the Member States and, in
the view of the Committee, should remain so. The ESC would
welcome proposals from the Member States to improve the
representation of organised Civil Society within its member-
ship but stresses that the tripartite nature of the Committee is
an essential feature which must be preserved. The Committee
would then serve as a forum through which the participation
of organised Civil Society in the European legislative process
can be given real meaning. The ESC could also exercise
the role of regulating consultation processes, channelling
information up from organised Civil Society to the institutions
and in the reverse direction.

4.1.5.
As the European Commission’s Forward Studies Unit
has recognised (1), decision-making at the European level is a
labyrinthine and confusing process which even experts struggle
to comprehend. The fact
there may be democratic
that
representation at the stage of formal decision (the Council) is
seen to be inadequate where there are problems with both the
earlier and the later stages of the process — stages which are
increasingly understood to be equally determinant of eventual
outcomes.

4.1.7.
The European project has followed a trajectory from
negative integration to positive (1) integration. At the outset,
the project was concerned with the removal of barriers to, for
example, the Single Market, and to guarantee the four free-
doms; this was negative integration. As the project progressed.
However, it became clear that the completion of a genuine
European Union required active intervention in more and
more policy areas not strictly necessary to the first stage of
European integration, centred as it was on the construction of
a common economic area.

4.1.5.1.
To tackle the problem of the ‘democratic deficit’,
reforms are required which do not aim to achieve legitimacy
by focusing on the moment of decision-making but by
enhancing participation at every stage of the process.

4.1.5.2.
The incorporation of organised Civil Society into
the decision-making process is a vital component of participa-
tive democracy according to the European democratic model.
It would not suffice for the Commission to consult with a few
representative civil society organisations of its choosing. Nor
would it improve the situation if the ‘consultation’ were to
consist of canvassing support for already-established positions.
For true transparency to exist, organised Civil Society must
have not only the opportunity to participate but the means to
measure the effectiveness of its participation. This involves a
duty on the Commission to explain to those bodies which
have made representations on legislative proposals how their
representations have influenced the proposals or why they
have not been taken up.

4.1.6.
The ESC has a particular interest in this issue because
it is the only European institution which is composed of
representatives of organisations drawn from organised Civil
Society. It is conscious of the fact that its representativity could

(1) CdP (99) 750.

4.1.7.1.
This raises an issue which the Commission docu-
ment does not address, that of subsidiarity. On the one hand,
Member States recognise the advantages in sharing sovereignty
in areas where there is already significant inter-dependence.
But, in the context of positive integration across a growing
range of policy areas, the vertical structure, faces an account-
ability gap that can no longer be defended on the grounds of
the over-riding demands of the European project. On the other
hand, in areas where there is a public demand for European
action — that is, where it is readily understood to be necessary
and, therefore, legitimate — the EU is perceived to be weak. In
such areas as common foreign and security policy coordinated
action is seen to be necessary and desirable but the EU appears
to find this extremely difficult to deliver (1).

4.1.7.2.
The President of the European Commission, Mr
Prodi has identified the next tasks of the European Union as
moving from a single market and a single currency towards a
single economy and a single political structure. Such a move
can be characterised as involving further progress along the
trajectory of positive integration. This may be difficult for
many of the candidate countries to achieve and even within
the existing Member States there are some which might find
this process to be politically unacceptable from a national
standpoint. This raises the prospect of a ‘two-tier Europe’ with
different groups of countries advancing at different speeds.
There must be a question-mark over the risks and challenges
raised by such a scenario.

C 14/140

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

16.1.2001

4.1.8.
In order for European integration to succeed, it is
essential to put the European citizen at the centre of the stage.
One of the Commission’s declared aims is to improve the
quality of life. The key to this is that it must be a better quality
of life for all and in every aspect, food quality, the environment,
protection from crime, employment, standard of living, pro-
moting integration between the ethnic groups of Europe and
the prevention of discrimination and social exclusion. As Mr
Prodi has said,
‘Europe must be built by the citizens for
the citizens’ and this must be reflected in all Commission
documents. The Committee regrets that the Commission only
touches on the problems in this target area, but does not really
propose a strategy for action. This suggests that it (still) does
not have a coherent blueprint for relations with European
citizens. The Committee is ready and expects to be involved at
an early stage in drawing up such a blueprint for a dialogue
with citizens and cooperation with organised civil society, so
that it can contribute its ideas.

4.1.8.1.
The Commission document makes much of the
need to talk to Europe’s citizens but it is equally important to
listen to them. The Commission’s watchword should be ‘To
govern is to serve’. In a democratic society, the government is
the servant of the people and is accountable to them for the

way in which it exercises its stewardship; the people are not
subservient to the State. The process of governance must be
decentralised as far as possible. At every institutional level
there are specific responsibilities and powers, which must be
subject to suitable arrangements to allow for dialogue with
citizens and their participation. In the organisational structure
of European governance, the various levels of power are
required to co-operate for the greater interest of European
citizens, failing which, European integration would have no
added value for democracy.

The ESC agrees with the Commission’s identification
4.1.9.
of the major challenges which Europe faces at this juncture.
However, certain problems of a significant nature, such as the
demographic situation, are barely mentioned.

4.1.10.
The Commission declares its intention to make
Europe a global actor with a political weight commensurate
with its economic strength; if this is its objective then its first
priority should be to increase that economic strength to the
maximum extent. Globalisation is an opportunity but an
opportunity which is not seized becomes a threat. Europe does
not need dreams — it needs vision.

Brussels, 19 October 2000.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Göke FRERICHS