Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on Reconciling the national and European dimensions of communicating Europe
Date: 2008-07-10
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: ESC opinion, European citizenship, European cultural event, citizens' Europe, civics, dissemination of EU information, participatory democracy

C 27/152

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

3.2.2009

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Reconciling the national and
European dimensions of communicating Europe’

(2009/C 27/30)

By letter of 25 October 2007, the forthcoming French presidency of the Council decided to consult the
European Economic and Social Committee on the following subject:

Reconciling the national and European dimensions of communicating Europe.

Acting under Rule 20 of its Rules of Procedure, the European Economic and Social Committee appointed
Ms Ouin as rapporteur-general.

The opinion also reflects the ideas put forward in the Commission's communication Debate Europe —
building on the experience of Plan D for Democracy, Dialogue and Debate, adopted by the Commission on 2 April
2008 (1).

At its 446th plenary session, held on 9 and 10 July 2008 (meeting of 10 July), the European Economic and
Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 115 votes, with two abstentions.

1. Conclusions and recommendations

The EESC recommends the following:

It

1.1
is important
European integration process,
terms that even children can understand.

to explain what

its values and goals,

is special about

the
in simple

in Member

1.2
At European level, a common core of knowledge should
be provided for European civic education (based on what is
already happening
the use of
schoolchildren, translated into the 22 official languages of the
EU. This could be approved by the European Parliament. It will
be included into school curricula, and will also make it possible
to provide priority training for multipliers such as teachers,
elected politicians and journalists. Organisation of such training
will be a national responsibility.

States)

for

1.5
At national level, civil society players and local elected
politicians should act as the driving force in European participa-
tory democracy: together, they should sound out citizens on
European projects. Elected local politicians are best placed to
draw the attention of the local press, which is the most widely
read. If they debate Europe, the press will report on it. Everyone
with a European mandate should report on their activities once
a year to the citizens they represent. At local level, a directory
should be compiled of people with European experience who
could give presentations to schools, associations, assemblies, etc.

journalists,

1.6
The European level must provide them (elected local poli-
teachers, members of national ESCs and
ticians,
other representatives of civil society) with up-to-date databases
and with comparisons between different EU Member States on
all subjects. Such information could, for example, be passed on
to the numerous civil society media.

1.3
All the institutions should formulate and implement a
common communication policy. The proposals to this effect set
out in the Debate Europe communication are encouraging, but
do not go far enough. Such communication should avoid ‘euro-
speak’, which is commonly used in Brussels, and facilitate a
debate on social issues for European citizens.

At national level, meetings and direct exchanges between
1.7
citizens should be promoted:
twinning programmes, sports
events, and participation by representatives from other Member
States in training courses with a European dimension, by
providing simple and decentralised access to funding for travel
to complement
expenses (a European communication fund)
existing mobility programmes.

This common communication policy must be predicated
1.4
on the political
leaders of the European institutions, and on
politicians from national governments who take decisions at
meetings of the Council of Ministers and who are well-known
to
in their home
495 million Europeans from Brussels, communication should
focus on multipliers (representatives of civil society, local elected
politicians,
for example by giving
teachers, etc.),
them a short and easily understandable summary of the results
of European Council meetings.

to reach out

journalists,

In order

countries.

(1) Brussels, 2.4.2008, COM(2008) 158 final.

1.8
Better use should be made of existing resources, in par-
ticular of translated documents, which are currently too often
only used as working documents for members of the institu-
tions, and efforts should be made to promote multilingualism as
a prerequisite for communication among Europeans (2).

(2) EESC opinion of 26 October 2006 on the Communication from the
Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European
Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions —
rapporteur:
A New Framework Strategy
Ms Le Nouail Marliere (OJ C 324, 30.12.2006), exploratory opinion
SOC 306 on Multilingualism, debated in July 2008, rapporteur:
Ms Le Nouail Marliere, and the proposals of the Amin Maalouf Group.

for Multilingualism;

3.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 27/153

1.9 Member States should be urged to create fully fledged
European affairs ministers. Foreign affairs refer to countries
outside the EU's borders, whereas European affairs are part of
domestic — not foreign — policy. This also applies to organisa-
tions and the media.

communicating that project, an area for which political authori-
ties are responsible, and providing the requisite information on
what the institutions do, which is a matter for the individual
institutions themselves and is targeted at the relevant sections of
the public.

At national level, good use should be made of events
1.10
such as European and international sporting competitions, elec-
tions to the European Parliament, Europe Day and anniversaries
(such as that of the fall of the Berlin Wall), and events should
also be organised at which Europe can be discussed using
European symbols and the European anthem and flag.

2. Explanatory statement

2.1 Reconciling the national and European dimensions of communi-

cating Europe

2.1.1
the draft
Since the French and Dutch rejection of
constitutional treaty, everyone agrees on the need to communi-
cate Europe more effectively, and the result of the Irish refer-
endum shows that this willingness has yet to be translated into
effective measures at national or European level.

2.1.2
The Commission has produced numerous texts which
have already been discussed and the EESC has adopted some
excellent opinions on this issue, the content of which need not
be repeated here. The White Paper on a European communica-
tion policy (EESC opinion: CESE 972/2006 (3)) urges ‘national
public authorities, civil society and the European Union institutions
[…] to work together to develop Europe's place in the public sphere’.
The present document does not seek to put forward new propo-
sals but to set out existing ones in an orderly fashion, making
clear who is responsible in each case — national public authori-
ties, civil society and the EU institutions — and identifying
which measures should be given priority.

2.2 Communicating Europe: a complex task

2.2.1
Inevitably, communicating Europe is a complex task:
the European project has always had its detractors — either
those who want less Europe, those who want more, or those
who want things to move forward faster. It is thus a struggle to
communicate Europe in a balanced and understandable way.
The aim is not to ‘sell Europe’, but to enable citizens to live in
the European environment and to take part, with full knowledge
of the facts, in the choices that determine the future direction of
the European Union.

Communicating Europe is about conveying a political
2.2.2
in the history of mankind,
set-up which is without parallel
and presenting a project. A balance must be struck between

(3) OJ C 309, 16.12.2006, pp. 115-119.

2.2.3
The original vision is in need of renewal. Explaining
that ‘Europe means peace’ is hardly credible to generations who
did not grow up in the aftermath of the Second World War and
who only began to take an interest in the world when the
bombs were falling on Sarajevo. Those born since the 1970s
may feel that Europe has been imposed on them and that it
failed to prevent a war on their doorstep or to protect them
from what some perceive as the excesses of globalisation. They
do not realise that the rights and freedoms they enjoy are the
fruits of the European venture.

2.2.4
A more motivating approach might be to explain that
‘Europe broadens horizons’ by dismantling borders, to show
how, step-by-step, obstacles are being removed to mutual under-
standing, dialogue, movement, trade, employment and migration
to other countries, etc., and to demonstrate that Europe opens
up new possibilities for Europeans by giving them more space,
open to other cultures,
in which to live. The tangible value
Europe brings can also be demonstrated by making clear how,
by facilitating comparisons between different systems, Europe
makes it possible to develop what is best in each of them.

The point can also be made that we need to work
2.2.5
together in order to combat climate change, protect the environ-
ment, ensure food safety, defend consumer rights, etc. Europe
needs simple concepts like those in place in its Member States.
Children can easily understand that you need roads and railways
to travel, that everyone has to learn to read in order to under-
stand the world, that those who harm others or the group must
be punished, that the State provides the services that everyone
needs such as spatial planning, education and justice, and that
the State exists to preserve health, security and solidarity. The
fact that Europe is a recent development and is misunderstood
in some quarters makes it more difficult to explain what it is
about and why it is necessary and useful. That it is about
opening up more living space and joining forces to become
stronger and more creative through strength of numbers should
be simple enough to explain both to children and to their
parents.

2.2.6
Although it does not concern all the Member States,
the euro is an achievement that could be better brought to the
fore, in that it symbolises the dismantling of borders, promotes
a feeling of ‘belonging’ to Europe and helps us grow stronger by
joining forces.

2.2.7
Powerful and universally familiar emblematic figures
and symbols such as the European flag are also a means of
promoting identification with Europe.

C 27/154

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

3.2.2009

3. General comments

3.1 Political communication and institutional communication

It should be noted that all European institutions —
3.1.1
rightly — devote considerable resources to explaining what they
do, through communication departments with numerous skilled
staff, websites, publications, videos, etc. Members of the public
who visit the institutions are showered with a range of pretty
documents, but none of this ensures that they understand what
is going on, or that they take on board how that affects their
daily lives. Rather, the proliferation of such documents gives the
impression of complexity or even cacophony. What is needed is
not more, but better communication. Resources are not lacking,
but they need to be reallocated. Existing communication tools
are not
they do lack coherence and a
long-term approach. These tools are badly targeted, both in
terms of content and of
the individuals and institutions to
which they are sent. There are too many brochures.

substandard, but

3.1.2
The crisis in confidence over the European Union's
ability to communicate effectively to its citizens calls for a step
change in communication culture. At present, European efforts
are, at best, inadequate in terms of reaching people who have
no notion about the EU (and that makes up the majority of
EU citizens) and, at worst, they can be counterproductive. This
is because there is a lack of ‘joined-up thinking’ in information
strategies between the EU institutions and the Member States.

3.1.3
All in all, large amounts of money are spent on institu-
tional communication that would be better spent on communi-
cating policies. It would be interesting to carry out a survey of
the budgets given over to communication by each institution
and by Member States and to identify who, specifically, is in
charge of them.

it

is only the individual

There is a consensus that communication on Europe is
3.1.4
only a means to an end and that good communication is only
possible if the venture itself is worthwhile. However the diffi-
culty is not only the value or otherwise of the venture itself, it is
also the fact that the necessary tools to promote the venture are
institutions that have the
lacking;
resources. The European venture itself has to be ‘carried’ first
and foremost by top-level political
the president-in-
office (and future president provided for in the Lisbon Treaty) of
the European Union, heads of state or government, and the
Commission president. Ministers participating in Councils are
best placed to explain their collective decisions in their own
countries.

leaders:

Communication by individual

those institutions do. However,

3.1.5
institutions is straight-
forward, most of the time, because its purpose is to publicise
what
communicating the
European venture has, by its very nature, always been subject to
criticism. The lack of specific resources, exposure to criticisms
on all fronts, plus the fact that politicians — whose are rarely
well known outside their own countries — are more often

concerned with their image at national level (from which they
derive legitimacy), are all factors which explain why European
political communication is so weak and inaudible.

3.1.6
Through political and institutional communication, the
EU and national institutions can, together, succeed in pursuing
the new common communication policy. This is an EU chal-
lenge for the 21st century, as, united in diversity, it faces up to
more homogeneous entities in other parts of the world. Henry
Kissinger's comment that Europe has no telephone number still
holds true.

3.1.7
It is necessary to create a common communication
policy, which would bind the EU institutions and the Member
States into a common set of basic principles governing EU
communication and information strategy. This policy would
support the various efforts of governmental and non-govern-
mental organisations to increase European awareness at
the
local level in each country

3.1.8
Such a policy would also be an important way to
ensure all EU institutions are ‘singing from the same song-sheet’.
A situation where the separate institutions actually compete
against each other is nothing short of ludicrous. They naturally
have different information needs and requirements to accommo-
date but they are essentially working towards the same goal and
this appears to have been lost in the rush for self-justification or
ego management.

3.1.9
It is time that the European Union invest in one of the
most important challenges it faces over the next decade —
giving its citizens a real sense of belonging to a worthwhile
endeavour, the only one of its kind in the world.

3.2 Targeted communication

3.2.1
communicate Europe to 495 million citizens from Brussels.

Even with the help of the Internet, it is impossible to

3.2.2
Institutional communication must be targeted, and not
be aimed at wide swathes of the general public, but at those
who have the skills to take early action on projects in their
specialised fields and who can use the subsequently adopted
texts in order to apply them and/or raise awareness of them
among stakeholders. It is these multipliers who are best placed
to explain the past and present achievements of the European
integration process. From this perspective, the EESC is undoubt-
edly a relevant multiplier, because it brings together representa-
tives from all components of society.

Before producing a document, whether in paper or
3.2.3
electronic form, questions must be asked as to who it
is
intended for, given that the language and images used differ for
different targets. Too few documents reach their targets, given
that, in appearance, they are designed to appeal to the general
public whereas their content is more of interest to a highly
specialised audience.

3.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 27/155

3.2.4
Communication should be aimed at an audience of
multipliers specialising in particular fields. In that sense, the
EESC's initiative of electronic ‘e-bridge’ newsletters tailored to
each member and targeted at multipliers is a model of good
practice. As with the European Parliament's project to create a
network linking MEPs and members of Member State parlia-
ments, these representatives can work together to reach a large
number of multipliers exercising considerable influence in their
home countries.

3.3.4
Every year, representatives of Member States, ministers,
MEPs, members of the EESC and the Committee of the Regions,
the social partners, representatives of NGOs, and national civil
servants on programme committees should report on their
experiences in Brussels to their voters or the groups they repre-
sent (annual reports and meetings on home ground). Acting in
Brussels is not enough to build Europe; all involved have a role
to play in explaining the decisions made in Brussels to those
they represent. The ‘back to school’ initiative must be continued.

Information must be specifically targeted at elected
3.2.5
journalists and
representatives, members of national ESCs,
teachers;
in doing so, one should ask what information they
need to propagate the European message and promote the
European Union's achievements. The focus should be on their
institutions to
needs rather than on the needs of individual
publicise their activities.

3.2.6
they are.
communication must choose the appropriate media.

It is also important to meet the opinion formers where
‘Social media’ are increasing in importance and any

3.3 The role of elected representatives in participatory democracy

3.3.1
Political communication should reach 495 million
Europeans. The subject of this communication is the European
venture — explaining what the EU has done, is doing and plans
to do, how it brings added value and the areas in which it is
helping — and why. Such communication is the responsibility
of Member States — especially ministers who participate in the
Council and are best
its decisions — political
leaders and members of civil society, who can interact with the
public in their own language and are sufficiently close to grass-
roots concerns and well-known enough to attract people's atten-
tion. Although the overall achievements of Europe may be the
same for all Europeans, the benefits for individuals and coun-
tries must be explained in different ways for
instance to
Bulgarians, Estonians and Swedes.

informed of

3.3.2
Such communication on the European venture must be
participatory, and take into account the needs, aspirations and
opinions of the public. This means that those responsible need
to be able to listen. It is impossible to achieve such consultation
from Brussels or Strasbourg. Citizens' panels can help to sound
out public opinion, but they are not enough to give people the
feeling that their voices are being heard.

3.4 Common European civic education

its values and its goals.

At European level a common core of knowledge
3.4.1
should be provided for schoolchildren, in language accessible to
everyone, on the history of the European integration process,
information on how it works,
It is
important for all young Europeans to share the same core of
knowledge, which should be approved by the European
Parliament. In order for children to be taught this knowledge, it
should also be passed on to local elected politicians, as the
public representatives closest
to grassroots concerns. This
common core of knowledge will have to be set out in a simple
document.
It should include the European flag, a map of
Europe, and a ‘European Citizens' Charter’ including sections on
the venture (history and values) and on
the purpose of
European policies and their
impact on people's daily lives
(dismantling borders, the euro, the Structural Funds, mobility
programmes,
the Charter of Fundamental Rights, etc.). This
document would embody the unity which makes sense of diver-
sity, and it would be available in the 22 EU languages. It should
be given to each European citizen together with their passports.

3.4.2
Education on Europe is the first challenge which needs
to be met. Each country should make efforts to introduce this
common core of knowledge at all possible levels: there should
be educational programmes, civic education textbooks and
training on European issues not only for schools, but also for
teachers, civil servants, journalists, civil society players, elected
politicians, and everyone involved in the numerous bodies
engaged in consultation, coordination and decision-making in
Brussels. Employees could also be trained as part of ongoing
vocational training.

3.4.3
The knowledge acquired should be tested by means of
questions on Europe in final examinations, in selection proce-
dures for teachers and civil servants, and in journalism schools.
There should be networking between teachers disseminating
knowledge on Europe.

Local elected representatives, whose legitimacy derives
3.3.3
from representative democracy and who are close to voters, are
in a much better position than pollsters to sound out members
of the public on European projects. Equally, civil society players
must consult those they represent on matters dealt with at
European level in their specialised field. If elected politicians are
discussing Europe, the press will report on it. This is how to
ensure extensive coverage of Europe in the media (local press,
TV and radio) and in blogs written by elected politicians.

The common core of knowledge comprises the values
3.4.4
adopted by the European Union, which, taken as a whole, distin-
guish it from the other parts of the world:

— Respect

for human dignity, reflected in the abolition of
capital punishment and application of decisions by the
Strasbourg Court of Human Rights, respect for privacy, and
solidarity between the generations.

C 27/156

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

3.2.2009

— Respect for cultural diversity, not by means of segregating
communities
right. Racism,
an
anti-Semitism and homophobia are punishable under crim-
inal law.

individual

but

as

— Social rights, social dialogue and equal opportunities, as

enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

— ‘Trans-national rule of law’: in the European Union, the rule
of law has replaced the law of the strongest. This is true not
only within Member States, but also the EU as a whole.
Under both national and European law, every European
citizen can exercise his/her rights outside the borders of
his/her country of origin.

— Europe as an area of trans-national, regional, inter-genera-
tional and social solidarity, as reflected in the various
European funds.

3.5 Providing information about Europe

Intermediary bodies

3.5.1
in
informing and raising awareness among the various components
of society; they should be given the means to step up such
activity.

already play a key role

society organisations — trade
Newsletters of civil
3.5.2
societies,
employers' organisations, mutual benefit
unions,
farmers' associations, NGOs, etc. — are a particularly effective
means of disseminating information. Besides providing informa-
tion on European projects in their own relevant field, such
media could make comparisons with what
is happening in
other European countries the norm in their discussions of a par-
ticular subject. Such comparisons provide input for national
debates on the necessary reforms.

The EU could provide databases in all languages for use
3.5.3
by such publications, which are close to their readers but lack
resources.

3.6 Promoting meetings and exchanges

As exchange programmes

3.6.1
such as Erasmus have
shown, nothing can beat direct contact between Europeans to
create a feeling of belonging to Europe. School trips, company
trips, and twinning programmes involving towns, educational
institutions, retirement homes, social and humanitarian associa-
tions, etc. are an excellent means of promoting mutual under-
standing. However, other measures could be taken, for example,
deciding to invite someone from another Member State to
attend courses organised by trade unions, employers' organisa-
tions and associations. Similarly, each local council could invite
a local elected politician from another European country at least
once a year. A European voluntary service would enable young
volunteers
in another
European country.

to acquire professional

experience

3.6.2
Twinning schemes between local children's' councils,
third-age universities, and choirs, together with sporting events,
are all ways of enabling people to meet and find out about one

another. If the obstacle of travelling expenses were removed,
such meetings would soon come about naturally.

travelling

expenditure by participants

3.6.3
Organising more frequent thematic meetings between
nationals from different Member States will require funding to
cover
from other
European countries. DG Education and Culture's ‘golden star
initiative’ to encourage meetings of twinning committees and
local initiatives is a step in the right direction. A simple and
decentralised system is needed to manage such funding; the
sums involved would be relatively modest, for a very substantial
return. Money saved by cutting the number of brochures could
be put into a decentralised fund to help European counterparts
take part in activities by trade unions, federations of municipali-
ties, industrial federations, twinning committees, etc. In order to
encourage grassroots participation,
this money would only
cover travelling expenses and would be distributed promptly
and with a minimum of red tape through local representatives
such as the Europe Direct or Europe Houses networks. Local
European players would be consulted on how to allocate this
money, through a directory of all grassroots players participating
in coordinating and decision-making bodies in Brussels and else-
where (European works councils, university exchanges, etc.).

One possibility would be to promote the idea that
3.6.4
every European should seek to visit Brussels, Strasbourg and
Luxembourg once in his or her lifetime to see the institutions
and gain a better understanding of how Europe works.

It would be useful

3.6.5
communication projects
co-financed by the institutions, as provided for in the Commis-
sion's Debate Europe communication on Plan D, to include an
element of cross-border initiatives.

for

3.7 Making better use of existing resources

3.7.1
EESC opinions are useful not only in terms of content
— in that they summarise issues, are accessible to all, discuss
legislative texts (referrals) or citizens' concerns (own-initiative
opinions) — but also because a single text is translated into all
EU languages and can therefore serve as a common basis for
discussion.

3.7.2
European media are necessary if people are to be
informed of what is happening elsewhere. Dismantling borders
also means learning how Estonians get rid of waste, what kind
of heating people in Barcelona use, how many days of maternity
leave Irish mothers get, and how salaries are determined in
Romania. If people realise that local issues are the same even
hundreds of kilometres away, and learn about how other people
find solutions, it will help everybody to feel that they belong to
one and the same Europe.

3.7.3
Trans-national audiovisual media such as Euronews
have a key role to play in providing pictures and reports.
Coverage of European affairs must be explicitly included in the
obligations of audiovisual public service providers at national
level, and a European audiovisual public service must be
developed.

3.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 27/157

3.7.4
Greater use could be made of Eurovision in order to
highlight the celebrations of certain events and get people used
to the idea of Europe; for example, broadcasting New Year greet-
ings from the Commission president in all languages, European
sports contests, etc.

3.8 Europe is not a foreign country

3.8.1
In too many Member State governments, European
affairs are the responsibility of foreign affairs ministries. Too
many media outlets still report on Europe as ‘foreign news’, and
too many organisations make European issues the remit of inter-
national departments. However, given that European directives
are handled by national parliaments and concern all sectors of
society, European developments are of ‘domestic’ rather than
‘foreign’ relevance. European issues impact on all domestic poli-
cies in the Member States. Member States should create fully
fledged European affairs ministers, with their own departments
to carry out analysis, forecasting and communications activities
and to provide support for civil society.

At the same time, whenever an issue is discussed, its
3.8.2
European dimension should be mentioned, and consideration
should be given to how a problem is dealt with in other
Member States.

‘Foreign’ countries are those outside EU borders, not
3.8.3
national borders. The attractiveness of
the ‘European model’
from the perspective of countries outside the EU can help us to
understand the benefits of the European integration process,
whether the issue is creating a big internal market or developing
a trans-national democratic model to manage diversity.

3.8.4
Organising information meetings for managers from
other continents to explain how the EU was created and how it

Brussels, 10 July 2008.

works could boost its image both inside and outside Europe and
foster European values in the rest of the world.

3.9 Organising events

As all communication specialists know, to gain publi-
3.9.1
city and communicate,
it is essential to organise appropriate
activities and capitalise on planned events. For example, during
international sporting events, might it not be a good idea to
raise the European flag together with national
flags when
champions are presented with medals? Participants might also
display the European flag in addition to the national flag on
their shirts. Another idea would be to keep tally of European
medals at the Olympic Games.

3.9.2
The European elections and the anniversary of the fall
of the Berlin Wall also offer opportunities that are not to be
missed. In addition, Europe Day on 9 May should be made a
public holiday, possibly instead of another holiday. At the same
time, European events should become less Brussels-centric and a
European dimension should also usefully be given to countries'
national holidays.

4. Recalling the Committee's previous recommendations

on the European Union (CESE 1249/2005 (4)),

4.1
The Committee recalls its previous recommendations to
the Commission in the context of communications: those set
out in the appendix to its October 2005 opinion on The Reflec-
tion Period: structure, themes and framework for an evaluation of the
debate
its
December 2005 opinion on The Commission's contribution to
the period of reflection and beyond: Plan D for Democracy, Dialogue
and Debate (CESE 1499/2005 (5)),
its July 2006 opinion on
The White
policy
communication
Paper
(CESE 972/2006 (6)) and the opinion adopted in April 2008 on
Communicating Europe in Partnership (CESE 774/2008).

European

on

a

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Dimitris DIMITRIADIS

(4) OJ C 28, 3.2.2006, pp. 42-46.
(5) OJ C 65, 17.3.2006, pp. 92-93.
(6) OJ C 309, 16.12.2006, pp. 115-119.