Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the  Reflection period: structure, items and framework for appraisal of the debate on the European Union
Date: 2005-10-26
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: European Constitution, European Union, European citizenship, European integration, ratification of an agreement

C 28/42

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

3.2.2006

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Reflection period: structure,
items and framework for appraisal of the debate on the European Union’

(2006/C 28/08)

On 6 September 2005, the European Parliament decided to consult the European Economic and Social
Committee, under Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the Reflection period:
structure, items and framework for appraisal of the debate on the European Union.

Under Rule 19, paragraph 1 of its Rules of Procedure, the Committee decided to establish a subcommittee
to prepare its work on the matter.

The Subcommittee on Reflection: debate on the European Union, which was responsible for preparing the
Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 13 October 2005. The rapporteur was Ms Jillian
van Turnhout.

At its 421st plenary session held on 26 and 27 October 2005 (meeting of 26 October), the European
Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 130 votes to 3 with 3 abstentions.

1. The underlying logic and analyses remain the same

1.1
The logic and analyses that led the EESC to adopt, with
a very large majority its opinion in favour of the Constitutional
Treaty (28 October 2004) have not changed, and nor therefore
have the arguments and recommendations developed. Indeed,
in the Committee's opinion the vagaries of the ratification
process of the Constitutional Treaty confirm the validity of the
positions it has taken.

1.2
For example, the referendum results in France and the
Netherlands not only demonstrate the failure of the Member
States and the European institutions to communicate to the
public what Europe is actually about and how it reaches agree-
ments but, they also reveal the gulf separating the public from
the European project.
It must be said that this gulf is not
unique to those countries and is not simply the result of poor
communication or the current economic situation, but it does
call into question the nature of the agreement itself and thus
the way in which it was reached.

1.3
It is worthwhile recalling the ‘clear messages’ which, in
the Committee's October 2004 opinion, it believed should be
got across to civil society:

— the use of

the instrument of

the ‘Convention’, a ‘step
forward in the process of democratising the European
venture’;

Despite a series of shortcomings in the Constitutional
1.4
it argued
Treaty which the Committee also highlighted,
strongly for European civil society to be rallied behind the
achievements of the Constitutional Treaty in order to overcome
these shortcomings.

Those

1.5
following:

identified by the Committee

included the

— the lack of adequate operational provisions for imple-

menting the principle of participatory democracy;

— the absence of provisions acknowledging the role played by
organised civil society in implementing the subsidiarity
principle;

— the weakness of EU governance as regards economic and
employment policy and the absence of rules providing for
consultation of the European Parliament and the EESC in
these areas, which concern civil society players most of all.

In the Committee's opinion, all of these observations
1.6
remain pertinent and valid. In its October 2004 opinion, the
Committee argued strongly not only in favour of the ratifica-
tion of the Constitutional Treaty, but also that EU citizens
needed to be made aware of the democratic progress achieved
by the draft Constitution and of its advantages.

— the establishment of a Constitution as a ‘revolutionary’ step

in the history of the European venture;

— the establishment of a more democratic Union which
would recognise that the interests of the people are para-
mount in the building of Europe;

1.7
The debates which took place around the ratification
process demonstrated yet again that one of the major chal-
lenges facing the European Union is the question of how to
preserve and guarantee growth,
jobs and prosperity for the
current and future generations. As the latest Eurobarometer
survey (Eurobarometer 63, September 2005) shows, this ques-
tion is at the heart of European citizens' concerns.

— the establishment of a Union which would afford better
protection of the fundamental rights of European citizens;

— the establishment of a Union which would be capable of
meeting the aspirations of its citizens by virtue of the Com-
munity method and Community policies.

1.8
A vital element in the response to that challenge is to be
found in the objectives set out in the Lisbon Strategy, as identi-
fied by the Heads of State or Government in 2000, a Strategy
which offers a concrete vision of
the future of European
society.

3.2.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 28/43

1.9
It is necessary to recognise however that, despite five
years of intense debates and activities at European level, the
results so far have been disappointing and the implementation
of the Strategy has been found wanting.

1.10
‘Alongside undeniable progress, there are shortcomings and
obvious delays’ reported the European Council in March 2005.
There may be many reasons for these shortcomings and the
delay, but most would agree on the following two observa-
tions:

— the Strategy is too abstract. There are no visible conse-
quences for people and businesses. Public opinion does not
make a distinction between the effects of globalisation, EU
policy and national policy on their living and working
conditions;

— the Strategy remains a top-down process. There has been
too little involvement on the part of organised civil society.
In some Member States the Strategy is more or
less
the concerned stakeholders. No
unknown to many of
genuine consultation seems to have taken place, not least
within the open method of coordination for research and
education.

Thus

1.11
the March 2005 European Council notably
underlined the need for civil society to appropriate and partici-
pate actively in achieving the aims of the Lisbon Strategy.

It is particularly clear in this context that the future of
1.12
the European model of society,
including its social model,
which is a fundamental part of the collective identity of Euro-
pean citizens and with which they strongly identify, will
depend on the realisation of the Lisbon Strategy's objectives.
Thus, the challenge is not so much about the future of the
Constitutional Treaty,
is, but about
creating the conditions which will enable European citizens to
reappropriate the European project on the basis of a global
shared vision about the sort of society they desire.

though it

important

That

is why,

1.13
the
Committee also established a link between the Constitutional
Treaty and the Lisbon Strategy, arguing that:

in its October 2004 Opinion,

‘The Lisbon Strategy should be introduced into the debate since it
maps out a vision of the future for all citizens of the EU marked
by: competitiveness, full employment, shared knowledge; invest-
ment
in human resources; and growth, whilst preserving the
living environment and the quality of life through sustainable
development …’

2. Getting back on the tracks — a shared vision through

participatory democracy

2.1
To master the challenges facing the European Union,
the European integration process must be ‘re-legitimised’, based
on a new conception of democratic action which bestows a
determining role on civil society and its representative institu-
tions.

To that end, the participation of civil society in the
2.2
public decision-making process is an essential
instrument in
reinforcing the democratic legitimacy of the European institu-
tions and European action. It is an even more essential element
in encouraging the emergence of a shared view about the
purpose and the direction of
‘Europe’ and thus a new
consensus, on the basis of which it should be possible to
pursue the European integration process and to define and
implement a project for the Europe of tomorrow which will
respond more fully to the expectations of its citizens.

The European Union's institutions and the Member State
2.3
governments must encourage a genuine subsidiarity culture
that embraces not only the different levels of authority but also
the different component elements of society, in such a way as
to demonstrate to the European citizen that the EU will act
only where there is clear added value and in respect of the
principle of better lawmaking.

According to the latest Eurobarometer findings, 53 per
2.4
cent of those questioned believed their voice didn't count in the
European Union. Only 38 per cent believed the opposite.

Such findings demonstrate the need to build and to use
2.5
tools which will enable European citizens to be genuinely
involved in the exercise of defining a project for the enlarged
Europe, a project which should be equipped with true content
and which will encourage them to support and identify with
the European integration process.

2.6
In this context it should be emphasised that the demo-
cratic legitimacy of the European Union reposes not only on a
clear definition of the powers and responsibilities of its institu-
tions. It also implies that:

— those institutions enjoy public confidence and can rely on a
strong commitment by citizens in favour of the European
project,

— the active participation of citizens in the democratic life of

the European Union is fully guaranteed and

— specific features of European citizenship, which are more
than the mere sum of national citizenships, are sought (1).

In the Committee's opinion, the currently suspended, or
2.7
ratification process on the Constitutional Treaty
delayed,
contains an essential
irony: the absence of the Constitution,
and in particular the absence of the provisions in Title VI on
the democratic life of the European Union, further underlines
the need for the Constitution. A fundamental challenge facing
the Union is therefore how to get that basic message across.

In the Committee's opinion, the logic behind the Consti-
2.8
tution's provisions
for participatory democracy and civil
dialogue remains entirely valid. The European institutions must
therefore invest fully in the logic of the Constitution Treaty and
establish an authentic participatory democracy.

(1) EESC Opinion SOC/203 ‘Active citizenship action programme’.

C 28/44

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

3.2.2006

2.9
The need to enhance participation is all the more urgent
given that, notwithstanding everything that has occurred in the
recent past, the European Union's citizens expect much of it.
indicated
The same Eurobarometer survey, cited previously,
that some 60 per cent of European Union citizens favour
increased integration within the Union (various other opinion
polls produce similar findings). The results also indicate that, in
the face of urgent challenges such as the fights against unem-
ployment, poverty and social exclusion, Europe's citizens would
like to see the Union's role reinforced.

Already, in October 2004, the Committee argued that,
2.10
in order to overcome the Treaty's shortcomings and also in
order to ensure its ratification through the rallying of civil
society, a number of measures could be taken to build on the
proposed institutional
through
operational measures. In particular, the Committee argued that:

framework and improve it

— the provisions on participatory democracy should be made
the subject of a series of communications defining the
consultation procedures and the role of the EESC;

— civil society should be consulted on the content of the
European law defining the procedures for implementing the
right of citizens'
initiative. The EESC could be asked to
deliver an exploratory opinion on this subject;

principles on which the success of the European Union's poli-
cies and therefore of its future depend.

2.16
It is therefore indispensable to involve civil society as
broadly as possible, at national, regional and local level, in all
future debates and discussions, to encourage the Union's citi-
zens to express their concrete expectations and, in order to do
this, to put in place a genuine strategy of listening and of
dialogue about the Union's policies and about the vision they
have of their shared future.

2.17
In this context the Committee will closely examine the
European Commission's ‘Plan D’, all the more so because it is
convinced that, to date, no real debate has taken place and that
the method, timetable and resources planned for stimulating
the debate — not only in all the accession countries but also at
intra-Community level — will be crucial. The EESC welcomes
the views repeatedly expressed by European Commission Vice-
President Margot Wallström that communication is a two-way
process and that ‘Europe’ must listen more. In the Committee's
understanding, ‘listening’ does not necessarily mean ‘following’,
but
it does mean ‘involving’ and it should mean ‘under-
standing’.

— the principle of participatory democracy should be applied
to the EU's key strategies for promoting growth, employ-
ment and sustainable development.

3.

‘Communicating Europe’

2.11
In this way the Committee has sought to convince EU
governments and institutions of the vital need to rally civil
society and civil society organisations behind the spirit, as
much as the letter, of the Constitution.

2.12
The Committee notes that the ‘broad debate’ envisaged
by the Heads of State or Government in their June declaration
is not currently occurring. The Committee feels that such a
broad debate should be relaunched as
soon as possible.
However, the Committee also feels that such a debate would be
counter-productive unless public opinion is somehow reassured
about the nature of the European integration process and, in
particular, about the democratic aspects of that process.

2.13
The reflection period decided upon by the Heads of
State or Government of the Member States in June should natu-
rally be used to consider ways of overcoming the political and
institutional situation which has resulted from the referendum
results in France and the Netherlands.

2.14
But in the Committee's opinion the reflection period
should above all be exploited to help establish the foundations
of a popular shared vision about the future of Europe and of a
new social contract between Europe and its citizens, of a new
consensus which would also establish the framework within
which the policies necessary to guarantee growth, employment
and prosperity can be placed. In this context, Member State
governments should ‘take home the EU’.

2.15
It is vital to demonstrate that ‘participatory democracy’
and ‘civil dialogue’ are not empty slogans but, rather, essential

3.1 More generally, the Committee has welcomed the emer-
ging understanding that the European Union should equip itself
with a genuine communication strategy and that it should over-
haul and enhance its communication tools. The Committee
welcomed the European Parliament's 26 April 2005 report on
the implementation of the European Union's information and
communication strategy, and welcomed the European Commis-
sion's 20 July 2005 adoption of an action plan to improve
communicating Europe by the European Commission.

3.2
The Committee has itself adopted and regularly revised a
strategic communication plan. In addition, in December 2004
the Committee's Bureau approved an overall strategic approach
to the challenge of ‘Communicating Europe’. In both contexts
the Committee has sought to enhance the bridging function of
its members and of
the organisations they represent. The
Committee was a committed participant in the 2004 so-called
‘Wicklow initiative’, notably tabling a strategic document, ‘Brid-
ging the Gap’, at the Amsterdam informal ministerial meeting
on how organised civil society in general and the Committee in
particular should be more fully involved in the communication
process.

3.3
The Committee welcomed the November 2004 Euro-
pean Council's request to the European Commission to elabo-
rate a coherent communication strategy for the Union. The
Committee, in close cooperation with the European Commis-
sion, is organising a stakeholders' forum on the communica-
tions challenge designed to enable civil society organisations to
feed their views into the reflection process currently under way
and which the European Commission may also consider when
drafting its expected consultative White Paper on the commu-
nications challenge.

3.2.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 28/45

3.4
The Committee, which organised a similar stakeholders'
forum to address the policy issue of sustainable development in
April 2005,
is ready and willing to organise similar such
consultative and listening exercises on major policy issues, thus
enhancing organised civil society's voice and helping ‘Brussels’
better to listen.

3.5
In this context, the Committee emphasises the central
role it hopes the European Parliament will continue to play as
the first, and most vital, element in the democratic bridging
exercise. The Committee is ready to act as a partner o the Euro-
pean Parliament, as it did during the Convention process, orga-
nising hearings and forums of its own initiative or on those
issues where the Parliament wishes particularly to consult with
organised civil society.

3.6
Such considerations lead the Committee to emphasise
two fundamental considerations. First, whilst the Committee
welcomes the increasing emphasis on communications strate-
gies and communications tools, it should be recalled that any
communications approach can only be as good as the content
of the message it contains. Thus, communication is a comple-
mentary mechanism and not an end in itself. Second, whilst the
Committee is fully committed to the twin processes of estab-
lishing a European-level communication strategy and enhan-
cing communication tools, Union-level activity must be seen as
complementary to the communications processes taking place
within the Member States. Thus, such a European-level strategy
is vitally necessary but it is far from sufficient.

3.7
In this context, the role of representative and consulta-
tive institutions at Member State level — national parliaments
and national economic and social councils notably among
them — as well as at regional and local
level should be
stressed.

4. Recommendations

Start making participatory democracy a reality now!

4.1
The reasons and the logic which led the Committee to
vote in favour of the Constitutional Treaty by such a large
majority — particularly its provisions on the democratic life of
the Union — remain the same. The Committee continues to
believe firmly that the best way to guarantee the Union's demo-
cratic life is to anchor such provisions in a fixed constitutional
settlement. However, the current period of uncertainty should
not prevent all of the European Union's actors from taking
measures as of now to start making participatory democracy a
reality. All of the Union's institutions should therefore reflect
actively on how they can:

— carry out broad consultations with parties concerned in
order to ensure that the Union's actions are coherent and
transparent.

In addition, the European Commission should consider antici-
pating the provisions of Article I-47 (4) of the Constitutional
Treaty by consulting civil society on the content of the Euro-
pean law defining the procedures for implementing the right of
citizens'
initiative (the EESC could be asked to deliver an
exploratory opinion on this subject).

For

its part,

4.2
the European Economic and Social
Committee reasserts its determination to play an important, if
complementary, role in enhancing civil dialogue not only
through traditional consultative mechanisms but also through
its bridging function between Europe and organised civil
society. The Committee draws attention in this context to the
need for fresh thinking about ways of interacting with orga-
nised civil society. The Committee is ready, willing and able to
act as a full partner in all activities designed to enhance civil
dialogue.

Capture public imagination and deliver on the Lisbon Strategy!

European economic conditions are a key factor in deter-
4.3
the European integration
towards
mining public attitudes
process. The European Economic and Social Committee reaf-
firms its support for the Lisbon Strategy but insists that the
Union and its member states must be seen to be delivering on
their commitments. The Committee is convinced that
the
Lisbon Strategy is the best possible guarantee of the Union's
future economic prosperity and social, environmental and
cultural well-being, yet it has singularly failed to capture the
public imagination in the way that, for example, the ‘1992’
campaign to create the Single Market managed to do. The
Member States must accept and honour their responsibilities in
this context. The Strategy must be rendered less abstract and its
aims (if not its title) introduced into domestic political parlance.
Civil society and civil society organisations must be involved

For

its part,

4.4
the European Economic and Social
Committee will continue to work under the mandate granted it
by the 22-23 March European Council, ‘to set up with Member
States' economic and social committees and other partner orga-
nisations an interactive network of civil society initiatives
aimed at promoting the implementation of
the strategy’.
(Doc. 7619/1/05/ rev. 1 Council, paragraph 9).

Bridge the gap — enhance communication

— give citizens and representative associations the opportunity
to make known and publicly exchange their views in all
areas of Union action;

— maintain an open, transparent and regular dialogue with

representative associations and civil society;

4.5
The Committee has consistently argued the need for
enhanced communication between the European Union and
the citizens on whose behalf
to work. The
Committee recognises that a lot of work has recently taken
place at the level of the EU's institutions, both individually and
to cite but two recent examples, the complete
collectively;
the European Parliament's website and the
restructuring of

it purports

C 28/46

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

3.2.2006

European Commission's Europe Direct service. The Committee
favours close inter-institutional cooperation in the field of
communication. It notes the Commission's ‘Plan D’ and also its
intention of launching a White Paper in the near future. It is
fully committed to playing a supporting role wherever it can in
bridging the gap, as evidenced by its 7-8 November stake-
holders' forum on that theme.

However, the Committee believes that communication
4.6
can only be as good as the message it contains. Referring back
to its views on the Lisbon Strategy, it believes that the Euro-
pean institutions but, above all, the member states, need to
reflect further on how they communicate Europe. Much has
already been said about halting the ‘blame game’, but it is clear
that ‘Europe’ is too often perceived as negative or defensive,
and that insufficient effort is made to ‘sell’ the positive aspects
of the integration process.

of

context

In the

enhancing

coordination,

the
4.7
Committee calls for the so-called ‘Wicklow initiative’ (informal
meetings of European affairs ministers) to be re-activated, but
to be given a specific and permanent mandate to examine ways
in which Europe can be better communicated and to provide
member states with an informal context in which to take stock
of public opinion and to exchange best practices. At the inter-
institutional level, the Committee calls for the Inter-Institutional
Group to be similarly mandated to meet at more regular and
more frequent intervals to discuss communication issues. Such
mechanisms are particularly important given the rapid rate of
technological development (for example, mobile phones, broad
band) and the rapid development of new communication tech-
niques to exploit these.

4.8
The Committee underlines its belief that communication
must be a permanent concern and not the subject of an occa-
sional campaign on a specific issue.

Recognise where the primary responsibility lies

4.9
The European Union's institutions must guard against a
false, if clearly well-intentioned, belief that the current ‘discon-
nect’ can be solved from the central
In
the European institutions do in the field of
reality, what
communications can only be complementary. The main
responsibility lies elsewhere. The outcome of the elections to
the European Parliament and the results of the French and

‘Brussels’.

level of

Brussels, 26 October 2005

Dutch referendums on the Constitutional Treaty show clearly
that many European citizens view Europe sceptically. This
regards above all the effects of European legislation on their
living and working conditions. It is down to the Member States
to explain to their citizens the meaning of the EU and the
necessity of specific European legislation and to communicate
the resulting effects to each respective national sphere.

civil

Public opinion,

4.10
society, will be
including
convinced of the legitimacy and the common future of the
European Union only if there is perceived credibility, trust, a
transparent legislative process and a well-functioning rule of
law. In the first instance, these have to be safeguarded by the
governments of the member states. Governments have to act as
real co-owners of the Union and abstain from the ‘we-they’
model and the constant double talk that this model involves.

As the role of the Irish National Forum on Europe
4.11
demonstrated, civil society organisations can sometimes make
decisive contributions. It is essential to enhance communication
at a relevant level (local, professional, etc.) and to explain the
success stories of the European policy or legislative process in
relevant and accessible terms at that level. Civil society organi-
sations are well placed to do this. The EESC is thus determined
to help and encourage civil society organisations within the
Member States, particularly through the bridging function of its
the European
members. Moreover,
project and about European policies is indeed to be launched,
then it must begin at the lower levels of civil society within the
member states. A Europe-wide forum will only make sense if it
allows for the expression of these views reported back up and
also down. Indeed, what is needed is not so much a top-down
or a bottom-up approach, but a bottom-down approach.

if a wide debate about

4.12
This opinion has deliberately eschewed much discus-
sion about the future of the Constitutional Treaty and the
options open to the European Union. Clearly, a permanent
return to the status quo ante of the Nice Treaty cannot be an
option. But perhaps the broad debate envisaged by the Heads
of State or Government could help illumine the best way
forward. However, the Committee notes with some alarm that
such broad debate is largely absent in most of the Member
States. In the absence of such debate, it is difficult to see how
genuine progress can be made.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND