Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on Making European citizenship visible and effective
Date: 2006-09-14
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: European Union membership, European citizenship, European identity

23.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 318/163

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on Making European citizenship visible
and effective

(2006/C 318/28)

On 19 January 2006 the European Economic and Social Committee decided, in accordance with Rule 29(2)
of its Rules of Procedure, to draw up opinion on Making European citizenship visible and effective.

The Section for Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship, which was responsible for preparing the EESC's
work on the matter, adopted its opinion on 13 July 2006 (rapporteur: Mr Vever).

At its 429th plenary session of 13 and 14 September 2006 (meeting of 14 September 2006), the European
Economic and Social Committee adopted this opinion by 111 votes for, 22 votes against and 13 absten-
tions.

1. Summary

Secondly, the EESC proposes to develop a more citizen-

1.4
oriented governance of the Union, i.e.:

The formal

1.1
inclusion of European citizenship rights in
the recent treaties has not been enough to stop the rise of euro-
scepticism in public opinion. Europe suffers from an accumula-
tion of defects in the way that Europeans themselves perceive it:
defects as regards visibility, appropriation, information, dialogue
and effectiveness are the main ones in an over-long list. All in
all, there is a lack of confidence. The process of ratifying the
constitutional treaty has paid the penalty, and this logjam is
itself likely to fuel this euro-scepticism even further.

1.2
It is therefore urgent to react; the priority now must be
not so much issuing new declarations of rights, but taking
concrete steps to enable this European citizenship to be used
fully. This will require a militant and ‘re-tempered’ commitment
in this direction from the Commission, a code of conduct for
better governance from the institutions, an end to the growing
gap between the ambitions placed in Europe and the limited
resources provided, more cooperation between states that are
ready to move forward together, and more pressure and initia-
tives from stakeholders in civil society.

— put right

the media's failure to make people aware of
Europe by encouraging best practices, with the support of a
European audiovisual agency;

— upgrade the consultation phase in preparing projects, by

ensuring they have more added value for citizens;

— identify and justify publicly the reasons

for proposals
concerning European citizens' rights being blocked at the
Council or withdrawn by the Commission;

— promote socio-professional self-regulation and co-regulation

in all areas of direct relevance to civil society;

— set out the ground rules, in liaison with the various single
market support agencies, for a concept of European public
service, ultimately including a Europeanised customs service
at the EU's external frontiers;

— develop more interactive methods of providing information

Firstly, the EESC proposes to put right particularly unjus-

1.3
tified deficiencies in Europe, i.e.:

about Europe;

— re-start work on and adopt rapidly a European statute for

Structural Funds on the ground.

associations;

— involve socio-professional players in the interventions of the

— do the same as regards a European statute for mutual socie-

ties;

— create a simplified European statute open to SMEs;

Finally, the EESC proposes to promote joint initiatives

1.5
with a strong identity content, such as:

— giving greater priority to EU budget funding of particularly
(trans-European

projects
significant major
networks, research, advanced technology);

European

— implement

the Community patent between the Member

States which have ratified it;

— remove all double taxation, at least in the eurozone;

— investing in ambitious European education and training
programmes, not least in the field of languages, including a
European non-military voluntary service scheme that
is
attractive to young people;

— ensure non-discriminatory portability of

social

security

— getting celebrities to talk about their sense of having a ‘Euro-

benefits.

pean’ identity;

C 318/164

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

23.12.2006

— investing in equally ambitious European cultural and media
programmes, with a common statute for foundations and
sponsors;

— making particular progress in economic and social integra-

tion in the eurozone;

— adopting decisions of major political significance, such as
electing the European Parliament on the same day, making 9
May a European public holiday and bringing forward a Euro-
pean right of popular initiative.

All

in all, the EESC is convinced that such initiatives
1.6
would enable Europeans to feel
their EU citizenship more
deeply, exercise the freedoms that this gives them more effec-
tively and thus give Europe the renewed identity, dynamism,
competitiveness and cohesion that
the Member States are
having trouble providing today.

1.7
To help achieve this objective, the EESC should set up a
permanent ‘Active European Citizenship Group’ and organise a
symposium on this theme soon.

2. Introduction

other things, gave the Charter the force of law by incorporating
it into the Treaty). The preparatory Convention on the Constitu-
tional Treaty, which was truly innovative in that it included
members of parliament and was opened up to civil society,
worked to consolidate these rights
in the political, civil,
economic and social fields. The European Economic and Social
Committee, in addition to its participation in the Convention,
has not let up at all in recent years in its efforts to push for full
recognition of European citizens' rights and get their concerns
taken into account. But it must be admitted that the formal
incorporation of such rights into the treaties has hardly been
enough to stop the rise of euro-scepticism in public opinion.
Jean Monnet's words that ‘we are not merging states, we are
uniting peoples’ are hardly felt today as being the dominating
feature of the EU's way of operating.

There is now a risk, for a number of reasons, that these

2.5
concerns of public opinion will grow even stronger:

2.5.1
The non-ratification of the Constitutional Treaty will
place a severe strain on the operations of the EU: the unwieldi-
ness and complexity of the Nice Treaty, which the new treaty
was intended to correct, will quickly have a negative impact.

Despite a prevailing euro-scepticism, Europeans are
2.1
deeply attached to the essential achievements of European inte-
gration, which they regard as both natural and irreversible:

— peace and cooperation between the Member States;

2.5.2
The gap between Europe's ambitions and the weakness
of its management resources is growing, both in the political
field (i.e. the difficulties of 27 members coming to a decision)
and in budgetary matters (low level of the resources planned for
2007-2013).

— the full exercise of their democratic rights;

— freedom of movement and trade; and the

— will to unite to face world challenges.

2.2
Europeans also have expectations of European integra-
tion. They expect it to provide a real added value, and in par-
ticular:

— better political, civil, participatory, economic and social

rights;

— better support for their identity and quality of life as they

undergo major changes;

— more growth, jobs and economic and social development;

— more effective promotion of their common interests in the

world.

For many Europeans, these expectations are far from
2.3
being met today, as regards their everyday concerns and the
future. The double ‘no’ vote on the draft Constitutional Treaty
by the French and Dutch voters was symptomatic of this unease
and soul-searching, even if reasons other than European ones
probably came into play also.

2.4
However, real progress on European citizenship rights,
inaugurated by the Maastricht Treaty, has been made in the
recent treaties (cf. Amsterdam, Nice), the Charter of Funda-
mental Rights and in the Constitutional Treaty (which, among

2.5.3
The new rights of European citizens set out in the
Constitutional Treaty, which incorporates the Charter of Funda-
mental Rights, cannot be made official.

This unfavourable context may very well prevent the
2.5.4
situation from improving, and confirm Europe in the highly
damaging role of scapegoat that too many of its citizens are
already giving it.

2.6
As the EESC has already emphasised in its contribution
to the European Council of 15 and 16 June 2006 (1), the pause
for reflection decided upon following the current blockage of
the Constitutional Treaty should not be used as an excuse to
adopt a wait-and-see policy as regards getting people more
involved in Europe. On the contrary, there is an urgent need to
boost Europe's image in the eyes of public opinion; otherwise
there is a danger of getting dragged into a downward spiral of
suspicion, giving up and blocking moves forward, which would
have incalculable repercussions. Moreover, it would be complete
nonsense to claim, in any way, that the current failure to ratify
the Constitutional Treaty can be sorted out without first trying
to get Europeans to feel more strongly that Europe belongs to
them. This means analysing right now where and why today's
Europe is lacking in visibility and attractiveness for too many
Europeans.

(1) EESC opinion: Contribution to the European Council of 15 and 16 June

2006 — Period of reflection (rapporteur: Mr Malosse).

23.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 318/165

3. Lack of appreciation of European citizenship

Europeans who are more familiar with the way Europe
3.2
operates, because of their contacts, their jobs and their journeys,
are not only aware of these same four areas, but feel there are
others that are just as noticeable:

People feel they are citizens intuitively and even emotion-
3.1
ally before they start thinking in terms of rights and duties.
‘European’ citizenship should itself be seen as an added value,
enriching national citizenship without suppressing it, and as a
‘new frontier’, opening up more rights, more freedoms and
more responsibilities. In all these areas, and despite real progress
on the trade front, European citizenship has a long way to go to
prove its worth. One even has the impression sometimes that
almost everything has been done to discourage it. We need only
look at a few simple cases. For all Europeans, starting with ‘the
European man in the street’, Europe clearly lacks four things:

3.2.1
There is a lack of cohesion, which has inevitably
increased with the enlargements: administrative, cultural and
social disparities have greatly increased and differences in devel-
opment have sometimes trebled; there are also disparities in
economic and monetary integration, with a eurozone currently
limited to twelve members.

3.1.1
There is a lack of visibility: today it is not clear what
the objectives of European integration are and what form they
should have,
(which
including in the geopolitical
borders?); this is due both to political differences over the very
aim of integration and a lack of clear criteria for continuing the
apparently permanent enlargement process.

sense

3.2.2
There is a lack of completion in the operating of the
single market, where there is still considerable compartmentali-
sation in the services sector (which accounts for 2/3 of GDP),
public purchasing (16 % of GDP) and taxation, as well as the
freedom of movement of citizens of the new Member States,
which is still subject to transitional restrictions: at best, the
single market is only running at half speed.

3.1.2
There is a lack of closeness and proximity: despite free-
doms and acquired rights, Europe seems to be as a business
primarily for politicians, diplomats and experts, citizen involve-
ment is only secondary and very limited; national and local
administrations themselves have not got away from this idea of
Europe being something ‘out there’, often perceived as foreign.

There is a lack of simplification, which is obvious to all
3.2.3
European citizens in their capacity as users of regulations: all
too often,
the EU directives and other provisions that are
supposed to simplify their lives are superimposed on to ever-
increasing national rules.

3.1.3
There is a lack of information and dialogue: Europeans
know little about their rights, their freedoms, and the way their
common market works; their questions about Europe are them-
selves often badly perceived, badly dealt with and badly
answered; governments, for their part, tend to present an image
of Europe which suits them and to denounce or conceal those
things which place constraints on them, even at the risk of
endangering Europe's credibility; the major media (radio, TV),
which are primarily national, give the distinct impression that
they are not very familiar with such things, which are consid-
ered complex by the journalists themselves due to their lack of
training in this field; they provide hardly any information about
them, except for one-off items that are often summarised and
frequently inaccurate; the absence of any ‘European’ opinion
other than an awkward lumping-together of national opinions
does not make it any easier to develop European media and vice
versa.

3.1.4
There is a lack of economic and social effectiveness:
faced with globalisation, Europe is felt by many to be neither an
effective motor, because of
its inadequate results as regards
growth and jobs, including in terms of quality, nor an effective
protection against increased external competition, which is often
felt to be excessive or even unfair, and relocation (with tensions
also being heightened by the unprecedented increase in the
production costs differential within the enlarged EU).

There is a lack of resources, together with a lack of
3.2.4
general interest and European public authority, which is just as
clear to all observers: in the area of finance, the EU budget —
which is approximately 1 % of GDP (compared with the figure
of 20 % for the USA's federal budget in an admittedly very
different context) and which at the time of its most recent plan-
ning for the years 2007-2013 was the subject of protracted and
conflict-ridden negotiations — is hardly up to handling all the
extra tasks assigned to Europe; at institutional level, it is gener-
ally difficult to reach decisions because of the number of part-
in many cases, the persistence of require-
ners involved and,
ments or practices that requiring the unanimous agreement of
the Member States.

3.2.5
Coupled with the lack of budgetary resources, there is a
lack of trans-national infrastructure (transport, energy, telecom-
munications): the agreement of December 2005 in the European
Council even reduced by half the envelope proposed by the
Commission for 2007-2013 (barely 2 % of the budget, instead
of almost 4 %) even if later talks with the European Parliament
have led to these restrictions being moderated slightly.

Commission reports show that

3.2.6
too many Member
States lack discipline in transposing EU directives and punishing
infringements of EU law.

C 318/166

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

23.12.2006

Lastly, to complete the list, let us add a lack of commu-
3.2.7
nication about and implementation of the Lisbon strategy: far
from triggering renewed European investment
in
research, innovation, joint infrastructure networks and training,
this strategy has in fact fallen far short of the mobilisation
required and the objectives pursued (a classic example here has
been the planning of
for 2007-2013, which is
restrictive in all these areas).

the budget

renewal

3.3
Finally, for many EU citizens, a feeling emerges which is
rather logical in view of this impressive accumulation of short-
comings noted in the operation of Europe: a lack of confidence.
To put this right, there has to be a determined attack on all the
cases of malfunctioning that have been noted. To help achieve
this, it is no longer the time to carry on amending a list of Euro-
pean rights which, while being remarkable in its content, is little
known and badly implemented. The thing to do now is to
clarify and simplify the way that Europeans approach Europe,
by giving them the keys to a more visible and effective common
citizenship.

3.4
initial
It will not be possible to achieve significant
progress unless the main players in Europe give this approach
better support. This will require:

3.4.1
a militant and ‘re-tempered’ — i.e. more daring or even
more intransigent — commitment around these demands by
the European Commission, in particular through its power to
make proposals and its methods of consultation;

improved functioning of

the European institutions
3.4.2
through a genuine commitment to serve citizens, such as a code
of conduct for better governance and a willingness to acknowl-
edge that Europeans themselves should have more responsibil-
ities in matters that concern them directly;

3.4.3
language that is more complimentary towards Europe
from political leaders, who should stop projecting an unnecessa-
rily sacrificial or wrongly technocratic vision of Europe while
unilaterally attributing the best role to themselves — which
would also mean the media playing more of an educational
role;

3.4.4
an equally responsible attitude by these leaders, who
should agree to give Europe — which they are building together
— the minimum resources it needs (in terms of decisions,
budgets and discipline) to measure up at last to the hopes offi-
cially placed in it;

3.4.5
‘enhanced cooperation’ between states that are ready to
move forward with each other to provide a way forward —
under conditions that do not call into question the primacy of
the Community method — when the unanimity requirement is
too big an obstacle to progress that is considered essential by
Europeans;

3.4.6 more pressure and initiatives from the social partners
and other civil society players: without their active and constant
assistance, there would be no point in envisaging the develop-
ment of a visible and effective European citizenship.

3.5
As the EESC stressed in its opinion on the Active citizen-
ship action programme (2), the ‘Citizens for Europe’ programme
(2007-2013) presented by the Commission is handicapped by
the extreme modesty of its field of intervention and its budget
(EUR 235 million cut back in the meantime to EUR 190 million,
i.e. less than half a euro per person for this period). Despite its
laudable intentions, it has no means of achieving its objective of
ensuring ‘a central place for citizens’ in European integration. At
best, it will only be able to play an accompanying role.

The priority now must be not so much issuing new
3.6
declarations of rights or granting a few one-off subsidies, but
taking specific steps to allow this European citizenship to be
exercised fully. To move forward along this road, the European
Economic and Social Committee proposes the development of
new initiatives in three areas:

— put right particularly unjustified inadequacies in Europe;

— develop a more citizen-based governance for the Union;

— promote joint initiatives with a strong identity content.

4. Putting right particularly unjustified inadequacies in

Europe

4.1
The citizens of Europe can justifiably be amazed at the
absence of common tools and European freedoms in key areas
that should, on the contrary, illustrate their membership of the
Union. This particularly applies to the particularly unjustified
lack of a European statute for associations, mutual societies and
small firms, a single Community patent, or European tax protec-
tion against all cases of double taxation, including social security
benefits and pension schemes. These various inadequacies are
gone into later.

4.2
It is a paradox that, half a century after the creation of
the Common Market, the thousands of associations that were
set up to defend the European interests of their members do not
have a legal status in European law, and are forced to opt for
the national law of their place of establishment, which is gener-
ally Belgian law.

(2) EESC opinion of 26.10.2005 on the Proposal for a Decision of the Euro-
pean Parliament and of the Council establishing for the period 2007-2013
the programme ‘Citizens for Europe’ to promote active European citizenship,
rapporteur: Mr Le Scornet (OJ C 28 of 3.2.2006).

23.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 318/167

The draft text proposing such a European statute was
4.2.1
withdrawn by the Commission in October 2005, along with
about sixty other texts, on the grounds that this would simplify
regulation or that there was little prospect of the texts being
adopted. By withdrawing this draft statute without consulting
the interests concerned, the Commission unfortunately ‘put the
kibosh on it’.

The first thing that the Commission needs to do to
4.2.2
mollify the citizens of Europe would be to admit its error and
re-submit
its draft. Obviously, Parliament and the Council
should undertake to adopt it quickly after explaining, or even
justifying, the reasons for the hold-up.

4.3
The same approach should also be followed as regards a
European statute for mutual societies, the draft of which has
also wrongly been withdrawn by the European Commission.
Such a statute would, however, help to promote new European
initiatives, while consolidating recognition of
the variety of
entrepreneurs in Europe.

4.4
Another paradox is the absence of a unified and simpli-
fied legal European statute to facilitate the life of small and
medium-sized enterprises, when multi-annual programmes,
declarations and even a SMEs Charter have been piling up
without producing any noticeable changes for entrepreneurs.

4.4.1
In 2002 the EESC unanimously adopted recommenda-
tions calling for just such a statute (3). Up to now there has been
no Commission proposal to follow them up. Although one offi-
cial statement has followed another, calling more a more enter-
prising and competitive Europe, this situation is becoming more
and more unjustifiable with each passing day.

have ratified it, using effective, simple and competitive proce-
dures.

The elimination of double taxation between Member
4.6
States is still managed by a complex and incomplete tangle of
hundreds of bilateral conventions between states,
leaving the
citizens subject to the discretion of the tax authorities, who
themselves are often not very well-informed as regards the
provisions applicable.

The draft

4.6.1
for a single and simplified regulation
submitted by the Commission to settle this problem was unsuc-
cessful, due to the lack of unanimous agreement between the
states.

4.6.2
It would be a useful step forward if these provisions
were approved now and implemented by those Member States
in a position to do so. It would be particularly logical if all the
Member States of the eurozone agreed to adopt the text.

4.6.3
The EESC would also stress the need to ensure effective
portability of social security benefits, without tax discrimination,
as part of intra-Community mobility. The EESC would particu-
larly recall its recent opinion on the Portability of supplementary
pension rights (4) calling for a harmonisation of the tax rules on
supplementary schemes, which is missing from the draft Direc-
tive: differences between the tax rules applied in the Member
States represents a serious obstacle to mobility, as workers may
be subject to double taxation on contributions and on benefits.

4.4.2
The EESC therefore repeats its request to the Commis-
sion to submit a draft regulation for such a statute as quickly as
possible.

5. Developing a more citizen-based governance for the

Union

4.5
One particularly symbolic failure has been that of the
Community patent, which has still not been ratified by all the
Member States since it was signed in 1975.

The repeated calls from the European Council to the
4.5.1
Member States — i.e. to itself — to come up with a solution at
last have been in vain. European inventors are still subject to a
complex and expensive system to protect their rights on an
effective scale. For a European Union that has set itself the
objective of becoming the most dynamic and the most competi-
tive knowledge-based economy in the world by 2010,
this
blockage is an illustration of a deplorable impotence.

4.5.2
If a unanimous agreement should still prove to be out
of reach, the EESC suggests that this Community patent should
be implemented already between those Member States which

5.1
European integration is still too often seen as a matter
for states, where citizens only have a secondary role. To put this
right, a more citizen-based governance for the Union should be
developed,
i.e. the way the EU operates needs to be tailored
more overtly to the service of its citizens: it should promote a
more European approach in the media, analyse the impact of
projects on citizens more fully, make better use of dialogue and
consultation procedures, set out the reasons for blocking or
withdrawing proposals, promote self-regulation and co-regu-
lation more, encourage the development of cross-frontier collec-
implement a
tive negotiations between the social partners,
concept of European public service supporting the single market
with a Europeanised customs service at the EU's external fron-
tiers, develop more interactive European information,
involve
the social partners and other representative civil society stake-
holders on the ground in the implementation of programmes
receiving EU aid. These various demands are expanded on
below.

(3) EESC opinion of 21 March 2002 on a European Company Statute for

SMEs, rapporteur: Mr Malosse (OJ C 125 of 27.5.2002, p. 100).

(4) EESC opinion of 20.4.2006 on the Proposal for a Directive of the European
Parliament and of the Council on improving the portability of supplementary
pension rights, rapporteur: Ms Engelen-Kefer.

C 318/168

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

23.12.2006

5.2 While the media today are treated as a ‘fourth power’
it is
alongside the legislature, the executive and the judiciary,
noticeably unaffected by the European dimension of
issues,
unlike the other three, although it is the most visible and most
familiar ‘power’ of all. There are no big radio or TV stations that
are European in nature and scope, and multilingualism is still a
poor relation in the media. There are comparatively few Euro-
pean political programmes and debates in the media. There is
hardly any comment on the business of the EU institutions,
except for the odd event such as summits, crises and new
confidential. For
members
example, a recent Eurobarometer reported that barely 30 % of
the people who said they were interested in European affairs (so
the figure would be much lower for EU citizens as a whole)
would be able to give three correct answers to three basic ques-
tions (number of Member States, whether MEPs were elected or
appointed, whether all nationalities were represented in the
Commission or not). Steps should therefore be taken to put
right this chronic disinformation, such as:

joining, and coverage remains

5.2.1
emulating the national media on European issues, with
incentives to make more room for information on the EU poli-
tics; and

5.2.2
promoting and coordinating such initiatives in the
media; support could be provided by a European audiovisual
agency operating with similar bodies that might exist in the
Member States.

As regards the operations of

the EU institutions, the
5.3
most recent treaties have been more concerned with co-decision
procedures — which rightly give increased powers to the Euro-
pean Parliament — than with consultation methods, where
many improvements could be made.

In practice, and in particular following the White Paper
5.3.1
on better European governance submitted by the Commission
in 2002, real progress has already started to be made: there is
more use of Green Papers, public consultations on the Internet
(even if their operational scope remains unequal) and requests
for exploratory opinions sent more upstream to the EESC.

Among the steps which still need to be taken, one
5.3.2
worth mentioning is the more systematic use of preliminary
analyses of the impact of drafts prepared by the Commission;
these should focus on whether the drafts add value and mean
real simplification for citizens and users and on whether it is
feasible to adopt alternative approaches to traditional regula-
tions, with these approaches always being submitted along with
the drafts. In particular, there cannot be effective simplification
are
of
involved
simplification
and
upstream,
programmes at national level.

regulations unless users'
there

representatives
parallel

unless

are

Steps should also be taken to improve the quality of
5.3.3
consultations: in particular, the Commission should justify the
action taken to follow up debates and give the reasons why
certain options and arguments were adopted in preference to
others. In any event, the consultation phase should remain quite
distinct from the decision or co-decision phase, which is often
far from being the case. Apart from the case of the exploratory
opinions previously mentioned,
the
Economic and Social Committee's consultations is too often
hampered by parallel and simultaneous referrals from the deci-
sion-making bodies.

effectiveness of

the

5.3.4
The European Council of March 2006, quite perti-
nently, asked that the social partners and other civil society
players directly concerned by the Lisbon strategy should have
more control over the process. The EESC is also pleased that the
European Council renewed its mandate to contribute, along
with the Committee of the Regions, towards evaluating and
promoting implementation of
strategy. The exchange
networks that the EESC has developed for this purpose with
economic and social councils or similar representative bodies in
the Member States are making a useful contribution towards
this more citizen-based governance of the EU.

this

5.3.5
At national level, governments and parliaments should
consult the social partners systematically before the autumn and
spring European Councils, so as to involve them in the broad
economic policy guidelines, the guidelines for employment and
the implementation of the Lisbon strategy. The national reports
of the Member States should be based explicitly on these consul-
tations.

The European institutions should not only feel respon-
5.4
sible for carrying out appropriate consultation of citizens and
their representative organisations before adopting proposals or
guidelines concerning them. They should act in the same way if
a proposal
is persistently blocked or withdrawn, so that it is
possible to:

— know the exact reasons, arguments and responsibilities for a
blockage within the Council or a withdrawal by the
Commission;

— sound out the views of civil society representatives on the
prospects of an alternative approach to remedy the most
negative consequences of such a blockage or withdrawal.

5.5
One major step towards a visible and effective European
citizenship would be to promote co-regulation and self-regu-
lation more, whereby the socio-professional actors themselves
are not only consulted but are actually involved in defining
economic or social rules which concern them directly.

23.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 318/169

and sectoral

It was not until the Maastricht Treaty of 1992 that the
5.5.1
ability of the European social partners to conclude contracts
within the framework of an autonomous dialogue, both at inter-
professional
recognised officially.
Another decade was necessary before a European inter-institu-
tional agreement, concluded in December 2003 between Parlia-
ment, the Council and the Commission, gave full recognition to
self-regulation and co-regulation involving civil society players
and other areas, and laid down definitions and procedures.

level, was

5.5.2
These practices have already developed significantly,
especially as regards, in addition to the social dialogue, technical
standards, professional rules, social dialogue, services, consu-
mers, energy saving and the environment (5). However, they still
need to be developed much more, even if all EU citizens are
already concerned by them in one way or another.

It would be particularly useful, in order to support the
5.5.3
best possible exercising of European citizenship in border
regions, to promote the development of cross-border collective
bargaining, as envisaged by the Commission in its communica-
tion of 2005 on the social agenda.

5.5.4
In particular, the development of self-regulation and
co-regulation should make it possible, as a complement to legis-
lators' actions, and if necessary under their control, to promote
Europe and the rights of European citizenship in a very large
number of areas, for instance:

— many aspects of work relationships

that may concern
employment, working conditions, initial and ongoing voca-
tional training, participation and social protection;

— the creation of a genuine European market in services;

— the strengthening of consumers' rights in the single market;

— improvement of the environment.

for

The EESC,

its part, has adopted a systematic
5.5.5
approach of compiling and encouraging alternative regulation
practices,
the settlement of disputes, particularly
through its hearings and its modernised PRISM 2 database,
which is the main reference work on the state of self-regulation
in Europe.

such as

the single market should set

themselves
the functioning of
genuine ‘European public service missions’ when performing
their duties, to help the single market to operate better. Such
guidelines could play a useful role in the debate on opening up
public services in Europe. They would help outflank the opposi-
tion made up of those who conceive public service only in
national terms and those who automatically equate the opening-
up of Europe with more privatisation.

5.6.2
Similarly, the external frontiers of the EU should even-
tually be managed by an EU customs administration, with an
identical visual symbol, rather than by national administrations.
A first step would be to create, in cooperation with the Euro-
pean Border Control Agency, a body of European inspectors
and border guards, while ensuring that all customs officers
followed a common basic training course, and by developing
mutual exchanges more, which at the moment are too irregular.
Offences and sanctions should also be harmonised, and Member
States should recognise and enforce decisions taken by each
other's courts, as well as administrative decisions.

Europe should also equip itself with a mobile and effi-
5.6.3
cient common civil protection body for providing the Member
States and their peoples with rapid and effective support in the
event of natural disasters or acts of terrorism.

too often non-existent — about

5.6.4
As regards informing citizens about their rights and
the opportunities within the single market, steps should be
taken in all the Member States to provide information — which
currently is all
the Solvit
Centres and other contact points on Europe, which were set up
the
in all
problems that they can still encounter in their trade. The Euro-
pean agencies mentioned previously themselves have hardly
made themselves known to the public since they were set up.
Information campaigns should put this right.

the Member States to help citizens to sort out

5.6
Both traditional European regulation (directives, regula-
tions) and co-regulation and self-regulation should contribute
towards consolidating the single market and improving the way
it operates. European citizens should be able to treat this single
market as a natural dimension of their initiatives and activities.

5.6.1 While being a natural framework for emulation and
competition for economic operators, the single market should
not be placed in direct and systematic opposition with concepts
of public service and general interest, which also deserve to be
developed at European level. The various European agencies that
were set up in various Member States to help several aspects of

(5) See the information report on the Current state of co-regulation and self-
regulation in the Single Market adopted on 11 January 2005 by the
Section for the Single Market, Production and Consumption, rappor-
teur: Mr Vever.

Information on the operation of Europe and the single
5.6.5
market, like that on the rights and freedoms of citizens on this
scale, should also be suitably adapted to the expectations and
language of interlocutors. It is often necessary to start from the
questions and aspirations of the latter, particularly when young
people are concerned, rather than provide them with ready-
made answers ‘handed down from on high’. The development
of contact and information points on Europe should thus go
hand in hand with a real capacity to incorporate fully the
language, approach and viewpoint of interlocutors through an
interactive dialogue allowing better appropriation of European
information according to the
everyone
involved. Using the Internet fits in nicely with these specifica-
tions and should be utilised fully, both by the EU institutions
to make European citizenship
and civil society associations,
more effective.

characteristics of

C 318/170

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

23.12.2006

In addition, there is still a lot to do to involve European
5.7
citizens in the interventions of the Structural Funds. Although
the provisions governing EU aid for the ACP countries in Africa,
the Caribbean and the Pacific expressly prescribe the close invol-
vement of civil society (cf. the Cotonou Agreement), paradoxi-
cally there is no such thing about the involvement of the social
partners and other players representing organised European civil
society in EU cohesion policy.

5.7.1
The strategic guidelines proposed by the Commission
for 2007-2013 make only an informal reference to such invol-
vement and consultation, without laying down explicit provi-
sions in the texts proposed, whether these be guidelines or regu-
lations concerning the Structural Funds.

5.7.2
This should be put right and these texts should stipu-
late such an involvement, with provisions that are directly
applicable by the EU institutions and by the Member States.

6. Promoting joint

initiatives with a strong identity

content

6.1
The citizens of Europe, who expect Europe to add value
to their national, regional and local identities, have too often
noted that this added value is modest, if not superficial. Admit-
tedly, significant and increasingly important steps forward have
gradually been decided by those who govern Europe: a Euro-
pean anthem and flag, a European passport, mutual assistance
between embassies and consulates and, of course, a single
currency, with the euro already being used in twelve Member
States.

6.1.1
However, such advances have only been made very
gradually and are accompanied by series delays as regards a
common identity in other, often closely related, fields. To put
this right, the subsidiarity concept should be defined not in a
is
systematically downward graduation, but
adapted to the case under consideration, which may often call
for European intervention.

in a way that

6.1.2
In this spirit, initiatives with a strong identity content
should be promoted, such as: giving priority to the financing of
investing in ambitious European
major European projects,
education and training programmes,
including a non-military
European voluntary service scheme for young people, getting
celebrities to talk about their sense of having a ‘European’ iden-
tity,
investing too in ambitious European cultural and media
programmes, with a common statute for foundations and spon-
sors, pursuing particular progress in economic and social inte-
gration on the scale of the eurozone. Decisions of major poli-
tical significance should also be adopted, such as holding the
European Parliament elections on the same day, having official
celebrations to mark Europe Day or implementing right now
the European right of popular initiative. These various recom-
mendations are developed below.

The paucity of European budget resources should be one
6.2
more reason to devote a bigger share to financing authentic
European projects.

6.2.1
frontier
Such financing should particularly benefit
regions, which are the ‘glue that binds Europe’ and which, more
than any others, have their cohesion affected by the lack of
harmonisation between Member States. Socio-professional inter-
ests in these cross-border regions should themselves be given a
key
in designing and operating such cross-border
programmes. They should be given a significant percentage of
the EU budget, which should be increased over several years. In
particular, the EURES programme should be given increased
budgetary appropriations and its activities should be reported in
regional publications and by regional radio and TV stations.

role

(transport, energy,

6.2.2
Such EU funding, with effective support from public/
private partnerships, should also promote the development of
trans-European networks
telecommunica-
tions) to serve a more efficient and better connected Europe.
However, the current trend is against this, such as shown by the
decision of the European Council of December 2005 to cut by
half the 2007-2013 envelope initially proposed by the Commis-
sion for such networks, although these cuts were offset slightly
by a later arrangement with the European Parliament.

6.2.3 More major
industrial and technological European
projects should be developed through the Community budget or
with special contributions from the Member States wishing to
take part in them. The successes already achieved in the aero-
space industry show the way ahead. Such successes consolidate
the image of Europe and a common sense of belonging a great
deal
in public opinion, while at the same time strengthening
competitiveness. There is still huge scope for industrial and tech-
nological
integration and cooperation, particularly in the
defence and security sector.

Ambitious

6.3
consolidate
training, not least about Europe.

initiatives

should also be undertaken to
European citizenship through education and

A common European core should be ensured at all
6.3.1
levels of education: primary, secondary and university. The
learning of
languages should be strongly encouraged, on the
basis of a common reference of acquisition levels (cf. general-
ising the Council of Europe initiative setting up a European
languages ‘portfolio’). Making people more aware of Europe
should be done not through lectures but through exchanges,
training periods and life experience stays. European twinning
schemes and school and university courses should be given
priority. Courses in journalism should themselves include a
substantial European element.

23.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 318/171

Young people should be able to carry out a period of
6.3.2
attractive and educational non-military European voluntary
service on a much broader scale than the initial experiments,
which to date have concerned only a few thousand people. Such
an opportunity would be a useful complement to the Erasmus
and Leonardo student exchange schemes, which have already
achieved real success, with several million beneficiaries.

6.3.3
To promote a sense of European identity, celebrities
from the world of sport or the arts could be presented in infor-
mation campaigns as authentic ‘Europeans’, using their person-
ality to highlight this expression of identity.

6.4
Similarly, one should also promote ambitious initiatives
to develop European culture and promote its dissemination in
the media.

6.4.1
Better use should be made of the richness of European
culture to emphasise both the strength of its common core and
the great diversity of ways to express it. The use of subtitled
original versions of films, works and broadcasts from other
Member States should be promoted, as this would make it easier
for Europeans
to acquire and maintain a knowledge of
languages other than their own.

(in the IMF, G7, etc.) to provide greater weight vis-à-vis the
dollar in particular? Why have the euro states not already
started close mutual cooperation on their respective budgets?

6.5.2
As the need for a more effective and convergent imple-
mentation of the Lisbon strategy is growing, why is the Euro-
limited to the ministers for economic affairs and
group still
finance, and why has it not created an equivalent for social
affairs ministers? With such a dual structure economy-finance
and social affairs, to which the ministers for industry could also
be added, could the Eurogroup not develop more effective
approaches on economic and social reforms, set an example in
promoting research and implementing the Community patent,
and submit a joint report on the implementation of the Lisbon
strategy in addition to the national reports?

6.5.3
The citizens of the eurozone states should be consulted
and closely involved in such choices, particularly through their
representative associations. They should also be encouraged to
develop their own initiatives on a eurozone scale. By doing so,
the eurozone, as a laboratory for greater economic and social
integration, would also become the laboratory for a more
concrete European citizenship.

6.4.2
The European Union should encourage the setting-up
of a European film school and promote its own prizes, like the
Oscars, to reward its best creative people and artists.

6.5.4
Obviously, at the same time care should be taken not
to harm EU cohesion as a whole: those states which do not use
the euro should be properly informed, consulted and, as far as
possible, involved in this increased cooperation, which they will
have to practise fully in any case as soon as they adopt the euro.

The

success of

6.4.3
an ambitious European cultural
programme with many economic and social effects itself would
itself be greatly facilitated by a joint promotion of foundations
and sponsoring. The development of an attractive European
statute in these areas would contribute directly towards intensi-
fying such cooperation.

6.6
At the purely political level, certain measures would defi-
nitely help moves towards a more visible and effective European
citizenship, such as:

6.5
Finally, special thought should be given to the euro. At
the moment the states which have adopted the euro seem to
feel that they have arrived somewhere, rather than that they
have started out on something. Citizens in the eurozone could
ask themselves questions about such an attitude.

6.6.1
choosing the same day for the direct elections to the
European Parliament: the genuine European electoral evening
which would follow would give a whole new dimension to the
debates, remarks and comments which would be made; it would
place political issues in their true European context, instead of
limiting them, completely wrongly, to their national context,
which is largely the case at the moment;

6.5.1
In the economic field, just what are these states waiting
for to consolidate their integration, step up financial trade and
start moving towards better tax harmonisation? Why is the
Eurogroup, which brings together the twelve finance ministers,
still so far today from setting up an embryonic economic
government of the eurozone vis-à-vis an already federal Euro-
pean Central Bank? Why is no thought being given to having a
single economic and financial representation of the euro states

6.6.2
holding dazzling official celebrations to mark Europe
Day on 9 May, which would be worth making a public holiday
throughout Europe; if the Member States so chose, this could
replace another date that had hitherto been a public holiday; it
should be marked by cultural and other events and programmes
with a distinctly European theme;

C 318/172

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

23.12.2006

enacting a European right of popular initiative pending
6.6.3
fulfilment of the provisions laid down in the Constitutional
Treaty (one million signatures gathered in several Member
States); the European Commission could pledge right now to
examine and,
initiative
proposal that had achieved such a threshold; it could also under-
take to explain publicly exactly why it might decide not to
follow up such an initiative.

if necessary, pass on any popular

7. Conclusions

7.1 When all is said and done, after all the declarations and
charters, a more visible and effective European citizenship is not
laid down by decree. It is deserved and it is exercised. It evolves
and is a driving force. It will only be consolidated by standing
up for itself. And it is only by developing a ‘horizontal’ partici-
patory dimension to European integration that European citi-
zenship will ensure that the ‘vertical’ dimension of this construc-
tion is fully accepted and will last.

Such an active European citizenship today needs tools
7.2
that are operational, and not simply empty words; up to now,

such tools have too often been lacking. Europeans should now
be given the tools that they expect and which they will be able
to put to good use. No-one doubts that they will then manage
to give Europe a new identity, a new dynamism, competitiveness
and cohesion that the Member States are struggling to provide it
with today.

7.3
To follow up these recommendations and help promote
real progress for EU citizens, the EESC should set up a perma-
nent ‘Active European Citizenship’ group. The key aims of this
group should be to:

— follow the development of progress and delays in this field;

— promote public dialogue with civil society players; and

— encourage initiatives and best practices and make them

better known.

7.4
To mark and direct the launch of such a follow-up, a
symposium on active European citizenship will be organised by
the EESC, as already envisaged by it in its previous opinion on
the Active citizenship action programme (6).

Brussels, 14 September 2006.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND

(6) EESC opinion of 26.10.2005 on the Proposal for a Decision of the Euro-
pean Parliament and of the Council establishing for the period 2007-2013
the programme ‘Citizens for Europe’ to promote active European citizenship,
rapporteur: Mr Le Scornet (OJ C 28 of 3.2.2006).