Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the  Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing for the period 2007-2013 the programme  Citizens for Europe  to promote active European citizenship (COM(2005) 116 final — 2005/0041 (COD))
Date: 2005-10-26
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EU programme, European citizenship

3.2.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 28/29

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Decision of the
European Parliament and of the Council establishing for the period 2007-2013 the programme
“Citizens for Europe” to promote active European citizenship’

(COM(2005) 116 final — 2005/0041 (COD))

(2006/C 28/06)

On 11 May 2005, the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under
Articles 151, 305 and 251 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned
proposal.

The Section for Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship, which was responsible for preparing the
Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 5 October 2005. The rapporteur was
Mr Le Scornet.

At its 421st plenary session held on 26 and 27 October 2005 (meeting of 26 October 2005), the European
Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by a majority of 125 votes with 6 absten-
tions.

1. Introduction

1.1
The programme is designed to encourage cooperation
between citizens and their organisations from different coun-
tries so that they can meet, act together and develop their own
ideas in a European environment that goes beyond a national
vision and respects their diversity. Mutual understanding, soli-
darity and a sense of belonging to Europe are the building
blocks for the involvement of citizens.

1.2
the
The programme both ensures the continuity of
current civic participation programme and opens the way to
new activities, while providing a degree of flexibility in order to
be adaptable to future developments.

The overall aim of the programme, reprising the terms

1.3
used in the proposal, is to help to:

— make the idea of Europe more tangible for its citizens by
promoting and celebrating Europe's values and achieve-
ments, while preserving the memory of its past;

— encourage the balanced integration of citizens and civil
society organisations from all Member States, contributing
to intercultural dialogue and bringing to the fore both
Europe's diversity and its unity, and paying particular atten-
tion to activities with Member States that have recently
joined the European Union.

1.5
Three types of action are proposed: Action 1 — Active
citizens for Europe (Town twinning, Citizens' projects and
support measures); Action 2 — Active civil society in Europe
(Structural support for European public policy research organi-
sations, Structural support for civil society organisations at
European level, Support for projects initiated by civil society
organisations); Action 3 — Together for Europe (High-visibility
events, Studies, Information and dissemination tools).

— give citizens the opportunity to interact and participate in
building an ever closer Europe, united in and enriched by
its cultural diversity;

2. Context

— forge a European identity based on recognised common

values, history and culture;

— enhance mutual understanding between European citizens,
respecting and celebrating cultural diversity, while also
contributing to intercultural dialogue.

1.4
Taking into account the current situation and the identi-
fied needs, the Commission proposes the following specific
objectives, to be implemented on a transnational basis:

2.1
The Commission proposes to make developing Euro-
pean citizenship a ‘main priority’ for EU action (1). The EESC
sees this not just as appropriate but also urgent or even crucial
to continued European integration. The low turnout in the last
European Parliament elections, highlighted in the preamble to
the programme, is not the only sign of this urgency. The vicis-
situdes of the ratification of the European Constitutional Treaty
show that the consequences of a failure to involve European
citizens actively in European integration are public mistrust of
the union's institutions, perhaps even leading to an attitude of
rejection.

— bring together people from local communities across
Europe to share and exchange experiences, opinions and
values, to learn from history and to build for the future;

2.2
This situation is common, albeit to varying degrees, in
all the Member States and affects or will affect the candidate
countries. Given this, it is positive that the programme puts all
of them on the same footing.

— foster action, debate and reflection related to European citi-
zenship through cooperation between civil society organisa-
tions at European level;

(1) Communication on Building our common Future: Policy challenges
and Budgetary means of the Enlarged Union 2007-2013 (COM
(2004) 101 of 10.2.2004.

C 28/30

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

3.2.2006

2.3
For while this weak connection with what is already a
European reality is not expressed exactly identically in every
Member State — not least because of the different ratification
methods chosen by each country — and while it cannot, conse-
quently, be seen to the same extent everywhere, it does never-
theless seem to exist to differing degrees in all the Member
States.

Even where a sometimes intense, unprecedented Euro-
2.4
pean debate exists, particularly in the countries that chose or
were able to ratify the European Constitutional Treaty by refer-
endum, the debate turns more around national identity and citi-
zenship (and safeguarding them in an often defensive, even
than on the actual achievements and
‘nationalistic’ way)
progress proposed in the Constitutional Treaty. This is particu-
larly the case as regards social policies (rightly perceived as a
key indicator of citizenship), and democratic policies (‘scup-
pered’ by a prejudice that is almost universal yet largely unmer-
ited of an anti-democratic, technocratic Europe that almost
wilfully keeps citizens out of the decision-making process).

2.5
Although it covers the period 2007-2013, and is thus
outside the period when all Member States will have proceeded
in their different ways with the ratification (or not) of the
Constitutional Treaty, the proposed programme, its discussion
and its approval in the current context cannot fail to have an
immediate impact on the key issue of European citizenship that
is so dramatically in the ‘here and now’. However, the 2007-
2013 programme shadows the Council's 2004 decision too
closely (2). It has few resources, and while the methods envi-
saged are tried and tested, they are insufficiently innovative to
deal with the challenges of which we are even more acutely
aware today. The fact is that there is a problem here and now;
children born today will be 8 years old in 2013 and their
mental outlook as future citizens is already partly formed.

2.6
The EESC is convinced that the current context and the
debate on a new ‘Citizens for Europe’ programme for the
period 2007-2013 are, paradoxically, highly favourable to at
last turning the spotlight on the question of European citizen-
ship; to moving on from a somewhat hackneyed notion of
unity in diversity which, in reality — and if we are not careful
— might only promote diversity or even a compartmentalised
society. It therefore endorses the proposal to extend the 2004-
2006 programme without waiting for the external evaluation
report scheduled for the end of 2006 at the latest (and which
must still go ahead). The EESC wants to be a major player, a
focal point for the importance invested in this programme.
While it fully understands that a programme such as this must
ensure
civic participation
current
it fully endorses the strong criticism Parliament
programme,
that
society organisations have made of
and some civil
programme's lack of ambition. Its proposals therefore aim to

continuity with the

(2) OJ L 30, 2.2.2004, p. 6.

ensure that
reworking of the current programme

the 2007-2013 programme will not be just a

It

that

is clear

2.7
the programme's extreme financial
modesty means that it cannot cover all European citizenship
issues, as its vast array of objectives and actions might lead to
believe. It is, however, a key link in the chain: that of ‘active
European citizenship’, defined as the ability of citizens to orga-
nise independently and exert power and responsibility in public
policy, in order to defend the common good and ensure its
development (3). The EESC therefore insists that the allocated
budget (EUR 235 million over 7 years!) must be ringfenced,
whatever the final conclusions of the debate on the financial
perspective of the European Union might be.

2.8 While it is true that the context requires a qualitative
leap forward, it also makes it possible. From this point of view,
the EESC would like to see the Union press ahead with a study
into the extent to which citizens currently feel a connection
with the European Union — or at least pool available studies
to enable a sufficiently accurate diagnosis to be made.

2.9
The Committee believes that the fact that ‘European citi-
zens seem to have developed a certain distance towards the
European institutions and to have difficulties in identifying
themselves within the process of European integration’ (4) is, in
addition to genuine ignorance and incomprehension of the way
the Community operates and of the logic behind it, and the
undeniable nationalist and protectionist attitudes linked to
various objective and subjective risks and fears generated by
globalisation, a result of the lack of recognition of existing
European citizenship, in particular in its more active, organised
forms.

2.10
From this point of view, one could argue that the
considerable synchronisation, the different forms of mobility
(admittedly well below the potential opened by European inte-
gration), the physical and material removal of borders, the
common currency and the single market have not been suffi-
‘a common European identity is not
ciently highlighted:
perceived because it has not been stated’ (5); However,
it is
increasingly evident
that when Europe is viewed from the
outside, e.g. when travelling or residing outside its borders, a
real ‘European way of life’ is everywhere apparent and attrac-
tive.

2.11
Consequently, the current fixation with an entrenched
national identity must not be allowed to mask the consistency
and quality of the European lifestyle, of its democratic forms of
participation. A more ambitious programme of ‘active Euro-
pean citizenship’ could reduce, alleviate and transform these
entrenched positions.

(3) Manuale di Cittadinanza Attiva, Giovanni Moro, Carocci Editore,

1998.

(4) Introduction to COM (2005) 116 final.
(5) TNS-Sofres 2005 survey of the 10 countries accounting for 85 % of

the EU 25 population on common European values.

3.2.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 28/31

and whatever

In any event,

2.12
the difficulties or
temporary deadlock that might ensue from the current debates
surrounding the ratification of the Constitutional Treaty and
the necessarily agitated period for European integration, the
EESC believes that the context lends itself well to the issue of
active European citizenship. It considers that the 2007-2013
programme must be seen — and if possible enhanced —
against a background in which citizens are once more
concerned — whatever their stance — with Europe, with their
ability to intervene both directly and through their chosen
organisations in the European decision-making process.

belonging — i.e. European identity — are part of a whole.
However, while the Commission programme speaks of comple-
mentarity with other Community programmes and instru-
ments, it remains vague on this fundamental question and has
nothing to say about the kind of arrangements that would
ensure that action is consistent with the objectives. An
approach that fails to bring together these three aspects will
find it hard to reverse the current significant decline in the way
citizens connect with the EU and European identity.

The EESC therefore calls for an open symposium so
2.13
that
the whole notion of European citizenship can be
approached in this new context, and to get to grips with the
issue in its entirety rather than just firing off responses in a
multitude of
that are insufficiently
comprehensible or operational. The EESC could organise this
symposium. The Committee is delighted that the Commission
takes a positive view of such an initiative (6).

separate programmes

The EESC would like to be sure that

3.4
this specific
programme will be accompanied by a robust information and
communication campaign to inform citizens about the institu-
tions and their rights. This must include information about the
existence and the specific role of the EESC itself, which is
under-publicised in the communication policy of the other
European institutions. The EESC also need to radically rethink
its communication policy which does not live up to the role
that it claims to play in bringing about an active European citi-
zenship, as its most eminent representative.

3. General comments

3.1 While the EESC, a European institution representing
organised civil society and explicitly referred to in the Treaties,
appreciates the fact that it has been asked to deliver an opinion
on the programme (referral not being mandatory in this case),
it feels that the proposal submitted to the Council and to the
European Parliament would have benefited from being referred
the
to the Committee an even earlier
programme was the subject of a major on-line consultation
between December 2004 and February 2005 (receiving 1,000
answers) and of a consultative forum (bringing together 350
participants) on 3 and 4 February 2005. But providing more
scope for consultation of the European Economic and Social
Committee from the outset — instead of merely requesting for
an opinion ‘ex-post’ — would offer a way of tackling the
numerous reasons why European citizens feel disconnected
from their ability to really count in EU decision-making, both
as individuals and through their chosen organisations.

stage. Admittedly,

The EESC regrets to see that the programme, which
3.2
refers to the Commission's identification of
three types of
response to the problem of why citizens feel removed from the
European institutions, does not seem able to address the issue
holistically. Although the EESC is keen to see specific responses
it would suggest that the three types of
to specific topics,
response
an umbrella
programme, making it possible to deal with all aspects of the
issue and to work on common objectives, on areas of
commonality and complementarity.

also brought under

should be

3.5
Although the programme appears to appreciate the
disconnection citizens feel with regard to the European institu-
tions and their difficulty in being part of the European integra-
tion process,
it does not seem to face up to all the conse-
quences. This can be seen in the words and expressions that it
uses, whereas merely referring to this crisis of identification
and participation could play an important role in overcoming
it. Consequently it hardly seems
to present a
programme of such modest financial means as the way to put
‘citizens at the centre’ of the European integration process.
Who can believe it? Similarly, and even more so given the
stakes (amply highlighted in the preamble to the programme),
it is hard to find any major innovations which can really help
to change the current situation, other than some significant
advances (multi-annual projects, pooling experience, opening
up to new partners, removal of some constraints for benefici-
aries and support for major events, notably in the context of
intercultural dialogue).

credible

The overall impression is one of too much continuity
3.6
with the 2004-2006 programme. The structural support once
again granted to a certain number of organisations that the
programme mentions as appearing to pursue an objective of
general European interest should be replaced with an open
funding access procedure, based on clear transparent criteria.
What constitutes a ‘general European objective’ also needs to
be clarified if it is to be workable.

Public information about

3.3
the European institutions,
communication campaigns on European issues, an awareness
of the rights conferred by European citizenship and a feeling of

(6) Declaration by Commissioner Jan Figel at the EESC SOC Section

meeting of 21 June 2005.

3.7
The EESC is fully aware that the programme is more
specifically open to associations and NGOs, which — unlike
other civil society organisations, e.g. the social partners — do
not have access to other programmes and other arrangements
that enable them to make a meaningful contribution towards
extending active European citizenship.

C 28/32

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

3.2.2006

However, if it is to be able to identify clearly the express wish
of the social partners and other civil society organisations,
mutuals and cooperatives to play a specific, visible role in this
process, the programme must be open to them both in theory
and in practice.
the social partners need to be
prepared to work more closely with the associations and NGOs
on other budget headings.

In return,

As on several previous occasions,

3.8
the EESC would
reiterate the urgent need to define an open European citizen-
ship, containing specific rights and open to all regularly settled
or long-term residents of the European Union (7). The inclusion
of the Charter of Fundamental Rights in the European Constitu-
tional Treaty and the fact that the European Union is a signa-
tory to the European Convention for the Protection of Human
Rights and Fundamental Freedoms requires the recognition of a
‘civic’ citizenship that is relatively independent of a European
citizenship that can currently only be acquired through
national citizenship of one of the Member States. This first step
towards participative citizenship for all persons residing stably
in the European Union should be ‘made legal’ if we really want
to achieve a European identity and a specific European citizen-
ship, and if we genuinely want this citizenship to do more than
just superimpose some abstract European citizenship onto the
national citizenship of the Member States.

3.9
The EESC takes the view that it will remain difficult to
make any real progress in this crucial area without any progres-
sive build-up of solid material support for European citizen-
ship. Such support cannot come from national citizenship
alone and the rights conferred by this European citizenship
which unites us must be accompanied by a number of duties.
Consequently, the failure to use a legislative instrument to
promote citizen participation, whilst understandable given the
lack of specific material support for European citizenship,
is
questionable if we are aiming, albeit gradually, to attach specific
rights and duties to this citizenship. The EESC considers that
we must make progress in these areas, regardless of the mate-
rial or symbolic support chosen. In addition to the European
non-military service for young people already proposed by the
Commission, other options could be a personal contribution —
however small — to the European budget (admittedly a thorny
question), and/or election of the representatives of the people
on the same day in all countries, i.e. an election that would
involve all EU Member States.

4. Individual comments on the actions of the programme

4.1 Action 1: Active citizens for Europe

part of twinning arrangements, should be a priority for this
type of action. With regard to citizen projects, the document's
extreme vagueness on this point makes it difficult to grasp
their potential. One might wonder why 40 % of an already
considerably restricted budget is earmarked for type 1 actions
— notably town-twinning — when this instrument does not
appear to be the most appropriate to achieve the programme's
objectives. All the more so when the programme does little to
encourage current innovations in this area, in particular the so-
called three-pronged twinning arrangements in which two
European local authorities agree to build lasting relations with
some other world communities. Yet these innovations are a
sign of opening up to the world, which could be seen as one of
the features of European citizenship, particularly for and
through young people. In any event, and regardless of the type
of twinning arrangement, it is important to inform citizens that
the EU provides direct support for this method of promoting
active European citizenship. Those interested in such a scheme
are often unaware of this.

4.2 Action 2: Active civil society in Europe

4.2.1
The EESC considers that this part of the programme
could be developed much further. Meeting and acting together
at trans-national level is the cornerstone of European citizen-
ship. The EESC therefore believes that, while this programme
does not address the problem of a statute for European associa-
tions, mutual societies and foundations, a definitive solution
should be found as a support measure in order to develop soli-
darity and mutual action, particularly as part of a voluntary
framework.

rather

The EESC takes the view that strengthening European
4.2.2
networks is,
in accordance with the programme, a crucial
element. However, the EESC would again insist that all Euro-
pean networks should have the same access to this structural
than some organisations having priority,
support,
although the Commission does take steps to ensure that there
is no ‘carte blanche’ and that the projects must be quantifiable.
Moreover, funding for projects — even small ones — is crucial
as it enables national and local organisations, which are in
direct contact with citizens, to take on a European dimension
and help to bridge the gap between citizens and the European
institutions. The EESC also welcomes the fact that, in providing
funding for small projects,
the programme enables trans-
national initiatives to grow out of national networks, even if
the initiatives do not cover all Member States.

The EESC is naturally keen to encourage town-twinning, since
it fosters mutual understanding and citizen mobility in Europe,
which, it must be said, is still far too infrequent. Encouraging
original forms of participation at local level, with exchanges as

The EESC is extremely concerned that a Commission
4.2.3
proposal such as that from DG Justice, Freedom and Security (8)
could lead,
in the name of security and the fight against
terrorism, to NGOs and associations being generally viewed
with suspicion. This is because they could, by their very nature,

(7) EESC Opinion on Access to European Union citizenship (OJ C 208 of
3.9.2003, rapporteur: Mr Pariza Castaños) and on Immigration, inte-
(OJ C 80 of 30.9.2004, rapporteur: Mr
gration and employment
Pariza Castaños).

(8) Draft Recommendation to Member States regarding a code of
conduct for non-profit organisations to promote transparency and
accountability best practices, 22 July 2005.

3.2.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 28/33

be an entry point for such phenomena, and the associations
could be forced,
to
assume the burden of proof in the matter.
If this were to
happen, it would run against the spirit and the letter of the
programme.

through over-bureaucratic procedures,

these high-profile events are to encourage a sense of belonging
and shore up a European identity, it is essential that citizens
and their organisations should be very closely involved in plan-
ning and implementation, or better still, come forward with
ideas themselves, as they are best placed to identify the key
features and symbols of an identity that
their
everyday lives.

is part of

The EESC believes

4.2.4
it — together with the
that
Committee of the Regions and with the agreement of the Euro-
pean Parliament — should be specifically tasked with coordi-
nating consultations with the social organisations and local
authorities; with distilling their opinions and communicating
them to the other Community institutions; and with ensuring
the latter are well-informed upstream. The European Parliament
should formally consult the EESC and the CoR on this subject
on a regular basis.

A formal partnership (9) rather than a case-by-case
4.2.5
role,
one, based on equality notwithstanding diversity of
between the EP and organised civil
society as expressed
through its European institutions, becomes crucial, despite the
fact that this is still far from happening or even being consid-
ered. The active European citizenship programme should work
to eliminate all traces of any hierarchical vision of the Euro-
pean authorities, since European culture is also one of sharing
power and authority.

4.3 Action 3: Together for Europe

4.3.1
The EESC believes that focusing on intra-European
intercultural dialogue should be the main objective of this
programme. The current debate on the Constitutional Treaty
has shown that ignorance of intra-European cultural differences
has been underestimated, as have deep-rooted stereotypes, the
sometimes contrary nature of the most fundamental elements
— particularly legal and constitutional — which determine the
way each Member State views the world. Equally underesti-
mated are convergence in lifestyle, values, worldview,
the
conviction that homo europeus is different in terms of his citi-
zenship from all other citizens of the planet. ‘Homo europeus’ is
the result of the concrete implementation of the Union's moral
and spiritual heritage, which is founded on the universal, unas-
sailable values of human dignity, freedom, equality and soli-
darity. It is underpinned by the principles of democracy and
the rule of law. It puts the citizen at the heart of its work by
creating EU citizenship and an area of freedom, security and
justice. High-profile events,
information and dissemination
tools, studies recognising not just real differences (instead of
clichéd ones) but also — perhaps primarily — a ‘European way
life’ must therefore be promoted energetically. European
of
culture does not rest on inherited values alone; it also ensues
from the construction of the European Union itself: its single
market,
its common currency, a Europe reunited with itself
(enlargement to the countries of Eastern Europe). However, if

(9) The European Parliament suggested this type of formal partnership
in a report on Participation of citizens and social players in the
Union's institutional system – 1996, Rapporteur: Philippe Herzog.

The EESC believes that, within the confines of

4.3.2
its
remit, its contribution towards promoting the social dimension
of culture and organising a permanent, able partnership with
the European Parliament in this area is crucial to identifying
and continuously honing a common cultural identity for Euro-
identity cannot be achieved by
pean citizens. This cultural
merely safeguarding a cultural heritage that
is often less
‘common’ than we might want to admit. A common European
citizenship is a highly contemporary issue. It will be forged
through the decision to link the countries of Europe — of all
Europe — ever more closely through the difficult but essential
sharing of sovereignty. For, as Claude Lévi-Strauss puts it,
‘I
knew a time when national identity was the only conceivable principle
in relations between States. We now know the disasters that resulted’.
A culture of shared sovereignty — not abandonment of sover-
eignty — this is the culture and identity of the European
citizen of today, and of tomorrow even more so.

5. Conclusions and proposals

5.1
European citizenship is at the heart of the recent crisis
following the rejection by some countries of the European
Constitutional Treaty. Reconnecting citizens with the institu-
tions of the Union must therefore, more than ever, be at the
in particular
heart of Commission concerns and policy,
through the promotion of active European citizenship. A
comprehensive debate of this issue thus needs to be organised
with all stakeholders before the new programme for the period
2007-2013 is approved.

This debate could be organised within the framework of the
symposium referred to in point 2.11 above, and the EESC
could be tasked with preparing it.

The symposium should openly discuss active European
5.2
citizenship, defining the rights and responsibilities of European
citizens as opposed to those conferred by citizenship of indivi-
dual Member States.

The option to define and trial economic, social, political, envir-
onmental and other rights that are specific to active European
citizenship, particularly as regards solidarity and security (civil
protection is one that springs to mind), should be discussed
and put to the vote in a single European poll by universal
suffrage.

C 28/34

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

3.2.2006

The EESC believes

5.3
that, despite the real problems
involved, it is now crucial to deliver a European Association
Statute, if we are to endow active European citizenship with an
appropriate framework that goes beyond a simple — and
contentious — ‘safe’ code of conduct.

especially the playful,

potential,
interactive, participatory
features (perhaps even setting up a psychological evaluation
unit for each new citizen support). The suggestion and propo-
sals are consistent with the Comenius programme, whose
objectives are:

In any event, and whatever the outcome of the EU
5.4
budget negotiations, the EESC calls for the budget
for the
programme to be ringfenced, as it constitutes a minor outlay
for a major plank in developing European citizenship, which
the Commission rightly sees as a fundamental priority for EU
action. Moreover, the EESC recommends not keeping to the
announced per capita budget of EUR 0.55 for 6 years, but
rather cultivating all possible synergies between the various
Directorates-General in order to pool objectives and resources
on this issue which concerns all
the European institutions
because of its central importance for the future. In this connec-
tion, European Union policy on active citizenship should be
drawn up by a permanent
inter-institutional unit, bringing
together all stakeholder Directorates-General and representa-
tives from all the other EU institutions.

5.5
The EESC suggests that primary education — rather
than only lifelong learning programmes — is the time and
place to teach European citizenship as a stand-alone subject
rather than applying a merely cosmetic approach (colours,
stickers, caps, festivals, etc.) Citizenship is not just a matter for
active age brackets.

Following this line, the Commission could ask the Member
States to include in their school syllabuses an EU knowledge
component and questions that are specific to European citizen-
ship. A primary level ‘Erasmus’ programme adapted to this age
bracket should be envisaged, going well beyond traditional
language exchange programmes.

We need to leave behind the static, unappealing European
‘sites’ that are currently available and harness all the new ICT

Brussels, 26 October 2005.

1. to make young people and educators more aware of the

diversity and value of European cultures;

2. to help young people get the basic qualifications and skills
future

they need for their personal development,
working lives and active European citizenship.

their

5.6 With regard to specific actions, all
levels must be
promoted together, without eliminating the micro-projects —
where citizens are the protagonists and which help to promote
European identity at local or national
level — in favour of
support granted to European networks. The only criterion for
distributing funds to various types of action must be their
impact on active European citizenship and involvement of citi-
zens in the European project and in shaping and implementing
EU policies.

The EESC fully endorses the Commission's proposals
5.7
which, from a technical standpoint, aim to simplify procedures
radically in an area (direct, active citizen participation) that is
much less able to cope with bureaucratic hurdles.

The EESC is convinced that the ‘invention’ of specific
5.8
features of European citizenship, which are more than the
mere sum of national citizenships (whether these features be of
a symbolic, economic, socio-political, cultural or legal nature),
is now an absolute priority for the European Union, and that
the promotion of active citizenship can make a significant
contribution here. The Committee is prepared to play its part
in this ‘invention’ by coordinating the consultation of civil
society organisations and by encouraging the other Community
institutions to listen to their views and take them on board.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND