Præsidiet åbnede en større debat, hvor medlemmerne understregede følgende aspekter: Det er mere det indhold, der skal kommunikeres, end kommunikationsformerne, som volder problemer, ligesom det var tilfældet med Lissabon-strategien (Henri Malosse); tomme ord i institutionernes budskaber skal undgås, og desuden skal medlemsstaterne tage deres del af ansvaret (Joost van Iersel); EØSU bør støttes af Kommissionen i sin formidlingsopgave, og medlemmerne bør imødegå den utilfredshed, der hersker blandt deres medborgere med så direkte kontakter som muligt (Joseph Ewert); medlemsstaterne lever ikke i praksis op til deres ansvar, hvilket gør det svært for EØSU at ”bygge bro” (Derek Hunter); EØSU’s udtalelser er dets bedste kommunikationsredskab, og EØSU skal kunne ”sælge” dem (Dana Stechová); det er vigtigt, at der frem for alt er enighed om, hvad man forstår ved ”Europa” (Janos Tóth); budskaber skal være seriøse og troværdige; de skal henvende sig separat til de forskellige sektorer og udnytte alle de kommunikationskanaler og –teknologier, der står til rådighed (Grace Attard); det kan betale sig at lytte til de unge, der kræver mere demokrati og endda en styrkelse af Europa-Parlamentet til fordel for deres nationale regeringer (Alexander Graf von Schwerin); det er ikke tilstrækkeligt at lytte til andre, eftersom enhver har ret til at have en anden mening; man skal derimod udnytte den fælles historie og minde europæerne om, at EU er en garanti for fred (John Donnelly); den eneste mulighed for at blive hørt er at henvende sig til offentligheden på en følelsesbetonet måde (Johannes Kleemann); man skal bekæmpe den nuværende tendens til at gøre Bruxelles til syndebuk for økonomiske problemer, som EU ikke er ansvarlig for, og i stedet forsøge at sætte tingene i perspektiv (Demetris Kittenis).
The Bureau embarked on a wide-ranging debate, in which the members stressed the following points: the problem in question was less about the methods of communication and more about the contents to be communicated, as would be the case with the Lisbon Strategy (Mr Malosse); it was important to avoid using "empty" phrases in the messages sent out by the institutions and, moreover, to urge the Member States to assume their responsibilities in this respect (Mr Van Iersel); the Committee should be supported by the Commission in its intermediary role and EESC members should try and overcome the existing malaise among their co-citizens through contact that was as direct as possible (Mr Ewert); the Member States did not appear to be effectively assuming their responsibilities in this field, which made the EESC’s ‘bridging’ role difficult (Mr Hunter); the EESC’s opinions were its best communication tool and one had to know how to ‘sell’ them (Ms Štechová); above all, it was important to reach a consensus regarding what everyone understood by ‘Europe’ (Mr Tóth); the messages sent out had to be credible and serious, and individually address various sections of society by making use of all the available channels and technologies of communication (Ms Attard); it was a good idea to listen to the opinions of young people, who were demanding more democracy and even envisaging strengthening the role of the European Parliament at the expense of the national parliaments (Mr Graf von Schwerin); it was not sufficient to just listen to one another, since everybody was free to have a different opinion; on the contrary, one had to draw on Europe’s common history and remind Europeans that the EU was a guarantor of peace on the continent (Mr Donnelly); the only way of making one’s voice heard was to adopt a sensitive, even emotional, approach to the public (Mr Kleemann); one had to fight against the tendency of making Brussels a scapegoat for economic problems for which it was not responsible and to try and put everything into perspective (Mr Kittenis).