PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

Europaudvalget 2005-06, Det Udenrigspolitiske Nævn 2005-06, Forsvarsudvalget 2005-06, Udenrigsudvalget 2005-06
Det Europæiske Råd 15/6-16/6 06 Bilag 7, UPN Alm.del Bilag 120, FOU Alm.del Bilag 172, URU Alm.del Bilag 206
Offentligt

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

Brussels, 10.5.2006

COM(2006) 212 final

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION

TO THE EUROPEAN COUNCIL

The Period of reflection and Plan D

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION

TO THE EUROPEAN COUNCIL

The Period of reflection and Plan D

*****

Introduction

Recent years have seen a new debate on the future of Europe. This has been sparked by

Europeans themselves, but the European Union has sought to give direction and focus. In

December 2001, a year after the Treaty of Nice, the European Council adopted a Declaration

on the future of the European Union, committing the Union to becoming more democratic,

more transparent and more effective.

This “Laeken Declaration” held out the prospect of a Constitution for Europe, and set up a

Convention bringing together representatives from governments and parliaments across

Europe, as well as the EU institutions. It agreed a draft Treaty establishing a Constitution for

Europe. This was the basis for the text adopted in October 2004, signed in Rome by the Heads

of State and government of all the Member States

Last spring, whilst ten Member States had already approved the Constitution, the citizens of

France and the Netherlands rejected it. Though the reasons behind this vote are necessarily

complex, opinion polls shed some light on what prompted voters’ choices and their attitude to

European integration

. What influenced the choice of “no” voters in both countries the most

were the concerns about the country’s economic and social situation. In France, “no” voters

referred first and foremost to socioeconomic aspects to explain their choice: fear of the

harmful effect on jobs, the present economic and labour market situation, the impression that

the Constitution leant too much towards the liberal or not enough towards the social. In the

Netherlands, it appears that many “no” votes were also motivated by inadequate

understanding of the real impact and meaning of the Constitution, followed by fears of a loss

of sovereignty. But this did not suggest a drop in support for the Union as a whole: 88% of the

French and 82% of the Dutch still had positive perceptions of the Union.

Following the negative referenda, the European Council adopted a declaration on

the ratification of the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe, by which the Heads of

States and Government called for a period of reflection, during which a broad debate should

take place in each country. This debate would involve citizens, civil society, social partners,

national Parliaments and political parties. European institutions, and the Commission in

particular, were invited to contribute to this debate.

At the same time, the ratification process continued in several Member States. Since June

2005, five countries have approved the Constitution, with the final opinion of the Finnish

Parliament expected in the coming months. This could soon lead to a total of 16 ratifications.

Flash Eurobarometer 171 and 172 – European Constitution: post-referendum survey in France and in

The Netherlands.

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

In October 2005, the Commission presented a “Plan D”, where D stands for Democracy,

Dialogue and Debate

. This gave new impetus to the debate on the future of Europe by

encouraging new ways to draw citizens into the debate.

Plan D was triggered by the French and Dutch referenda, but it is not a rescue operation for

the Constitution, nor is it limited in time to the reflection period: it is a starting point for a

long term democratic reform process. The political thrust is to create a citizens’ ownership of

EU policies, to make them understandable and relevant, and to make EU Institutions

accountable and reliable to those they serve. This process will take time if tangible and lasting

results are to be achieved, and it will require a genuine commitment primarily by the Member

States, but also by the EU Institutions. The success will ultimately be measured by the EU’s

capacity and willingness to listen, to process the feedback, and to subsequently deliver policy

results.

It should be recalled that Member States remain primarily responsible for the organisation of

debates at national, regional and local levels. The role of the Commission in the framework of

Plan D is to help structure the debate, if necessary providing Member States with financial

and organisational support. A comprehensive stocktaking of the Plan D actions implemented

by the Commission between October 2005 and April 2006 is presented in Annex 1.

The intensity of the debate on the future of Europe has varied considerably from one Member

State to another. At least in part, this is a natural reaction to the different stages Member

States have reached with ratification – Member States which have ratified have already had a

debate. They will understandably be less ready to launch new initiatives, and their citizens

less curious about the next steps.

The period of reflection allowed for an overall assessment of the national debates to be made

in June 2006. This Communication provides a synthesis of the debates, with particular

reference to the lessons that can be learnt from Plan D. It also includes details from a special

Eurobarometer

survey on the Future of Europe. These conclusions accompany “A Citizens’

Agenda - Delivering Results for Europe” as the Commission’s contribution to the European

Council on the future of Europe

Issues raised in the debates

2.1. The economic and social development of Europe

The Eurobarometer survey included questions designed to assess the general mood amongst

Europeans. It suggested that

Europeans were generally happy to live in their respective

countries,

and were in the main pleased with both their family life and their occupation. But

they had a generally

pessimistic vision of the future,

and this was dominated by concerns

about economic and social prospects.

Unemployment,

especially amongst young people,

remained a core concern.

The Commission’s contribution to the period of reflection and beyond: Plan D for Democracy,

Dialogue and Debate - COM(2005) 494.

Eurobarometer 65.1 on the Future of Europe - May 2006.

COM(2006) 211, 10.5.2006.

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

The impact of

globalisation

was a key issue in all national debates and on line discussions.

Questions raised pointed to the effect on employment and prosperity, and to the need to be

more competitive and more productive in an ageing society.

Elements of the media, trade unions, young people and the non-governmental sector pointed

to an association between the European Union and

globalisation.

This was linked to fears that

globalisation could have a negative impact on social protection and increase wealth

disparities. However, Eurobarometer showed a balance in the attitudes towards globalisation,

though those considering it is a good opportunity for national companies (37%) were

outnumbered by those considering it as a threat to employment and enterprises (47%). A lack

of dynamism in the European economy was strongly criticised in several countries.

Concerns about

social protection

focused on pension reforms, social security or health

systems. Despite its prominence in European politics, the liberalisation of services had less

prominence. In general, citizens tend to consider that the European Union could use the

European social model to help protect against

negative side-effects from globalisation,

but see

few concrete actions taking place.

Freedom of movement for workers

was a sensitive issue in almost all national debates. In

some old Member States, fears remained of job losses and downward pressure on wages

resulting from opening the labour market for workers of the new Member States. At the same

time, the remaining restrictions to free movement of labour continue to be perceived as a

denial of the Union’s basic freedoms by citizens in the new Member States.

In the new Member States, there were two additional themes of significance. Firstly, the

prospects for joining the

Eurozone

were an important goal for most citizens. Secondly, the

application of the Schengen system

was a source of concern, on the grounds that it might set

up new barriers for Member States’ neighbours.

2.2. The European Union and its role

National debates tended to confirm polling evidence that

membership

of the European Union

is globally perceived as positive. Nevertheless, opinion polls show a decreasing support in a

majority of Member States over the past few months, with particularly drops in support in

Austria, Finland and the United Kingdom.

Several new Member States saw citizens questioning the role of their country in the European

Union, as well as the relations between old and new Member States.

EU funding

and the availability of

structural and cohesion funds

were frequently raised in

the debates. These were mainly seen as a positive opportunity, with some criticism of

cumbersome procedures. The reduction of EU funding is of particular concern in Spain,

where there is a perception of “losing out” with the most recent enlargement. At the same

time, citizens in countries like Sweden and the United Kingdom are critical about what they

see as an unfair burden.

Peace amongst the Member States and the single market are recognized as the two most

positive achievements of European construction.

Opinion polls also point to a favourable

assessment of the Union’s efforts to foster cooperation in the field of research and innovation

and to promote equal treatment of men and women. In addition, issues linked to safety, such

as environmental safety, food safety, transport safety and passenger rights, energy supply,

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

were outlined in several debates, with a

largely positive perception of the Union’s work

–

particularly strong in some Member States. Occasionally, the need for a common policy on

immigration and asylum, taxation reform, education, European identity and cultural diversity

were debated, as well as consumer rights and the future of the agricultural sector.

Citizens are

more critical

towards what they perceive as an

over-regulation,

excessively

detailed legislation and bureaucracy. The image of a remote EU needlessly interfering

remains strong. In many countries, other critical comments focussed both on the

democratic

deficit

and the lack of transparency of European institutions. There were many calls for a

greater involvement by citizens in the decision making process.

In addition, there is a perception in several countries that the Commission does not apply the

same treatment to all Member States.

This perception is felt most strongly in small

countries, with a sense that rules on excessive deficits or competition decisions are not applied

fairly. The same perception is true with respect to the enforcement of Community law.

Opinion polls demonstrated a very

weak knowledge and understanding of the functioning

of the Union,

its institutions and their role. Nevertheless, demand exists, and over recent

months the Commission’s Representations in the Member States have noted a rise in requests

from students for information about European institutions and about studies and exchanges

programmes in other Member States.

The

language issue

appeared not to feature strongly in national debates but clearly emerged

as a central issue on the “Debate Europe” forum, where people are directly confronted with

the challenge to communicate with citizens from other cultural backgrounds. In this

discussion, most participants called for a common second language for all EU citizens.

The debates showed how particular issues played strongly in some Member States and

were of limited interest elsewhere:

Austrians discussed access of foreign students to

Austrian universities as well as Alpine transit, whilst the subsidiarity issue was raised on

many occasions in regional German debates. In Denmark, citizens are discussing the possible

abolition of Danish opt-outs. The reaction of the EU towards the Mohammed cartoon issue is

also at the centre of debates, with diverging perceptions of the European Union’s reaction.

Finally, the approach to Turkey was of particular importance in Cyprus.

2.3. The borders of Europe and its role in the world

Enlargement

remains one of the most widely discussed subjects in the debates. On average,

55% of Europeans consider the enlargement of the EU to be positive. But 63% fear that a new

enlargement would increase difficulties in national job markets. In the EU-15, those

expressing doubts sometimes considered that past enlargements had gone too far and too

quickly, as well as questioning further enlargement in general, and the accession of Turkey in

particular. These citizens seem to fear a loss of identity within a Europe with unclear borders

and increased cultural differences.

The nature of the debates varied from one country to another, with in some cases a strong

reluctance to further enlargement and in other cases a more positive attitude (Slovenia, United

Kingdom). Historical and geographical perspectives tend to influence citizens’ opinions on

this issue. Some countries are more favourable to Croatia and Western Balkans than to

Turkey.

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

In several countries, citizens refer to the need for a strong Europe, with

common initiatives

in foreign policy

and a further development of defence and security policy, whilst efforts in

promoting peace and democracy in the world are quite broadly recognized. More particularly,

Finns and Latvians expressed the need for more cooperation between the European Union and

Russia. Improvement of EU capabilities for crisis management, as well as the intensification

of transatlantic relations, were occasionally raised.

2.4. The way the Union works: "Concrete actions, less words"

There was a strong sense that EU action was essential, with

strong expectations.

The idea of

Europe as a political project for peace and solidarity and as a place where freedom and justice

are shared is accepted by the vast majority of citizens. For them, the European Union is well

placed to defend the European model in the world, to fight terrorism and to tackle other

security challenges.

Environment, food safety or energy are issues citizens feel concerned about and for which

they perceive the positive aspects of Community integration. In areas where the EU has good

records, European public opinion considers that it should continue its work and see its power

reinforced. This is particularly true for the promotion of democracy and peace in the world,

cooperation in research and innovation and protecting the environment.

But there is also a perception that the way the Union works can get in the way of policy

delivery. Citizens are more critical on the way in which the European Union acts than on the

policies followed, and wish to be more involved in Community decision-making. There was a

wish for EU action to be translated into tangible results in areas where there was a recognition

of real value added.

In the debates, citizens tend to consider

institutional questions

abstract and complex and to

show more interest in concrete policies affecting their daily life, such as employment,

environment or energy. However, the constitutional dilemma and the role of European

institutions were an important issue for the “Debate Europe” forum, with a mix of positive

and critical contributions. European public opinion also gave support (25%) to the view that a

Constitution would be of benefit for the future of Europe, after comparable living standards

and the introduction of the Euro in all Member States.

Conclusion

The Commission’s commitment to democracy, dialogue and debate will not end with the

conclusion of the period of reflection. The Commission will continue to implement the 13

actions decided in Plan D in October 2005, and is open to introducing new actions, wherever

and whenever that is deemed appropriate. In so doing, it will depend on a continued close co-

operation with the EU Institutions and the Member States, as well as improved efforts and

involvement from some of them.

The reflection period so far has taught us a few valuable lessons. On the positive side it is

worth noting the apparent appetite for debate on where Europe should act, clearly showed by

very constructive and forward looking initiatives taken by some Member States; public

debates and fora, an active outreach to national parliaments, to regions and to the local level.

The EU would clearly benefit from more such initiatives being taken by more Member States.

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

From the EU Institutions’ side, the interparliamentary forum organised by the European

Parliament and the Austrian Parliament on 8 and 9 May, as well as a number of praiseworthy

European Parliament committee initiatives, have clearly paved the way for the necessary

broad discussion and involvement at the parliamentary level, thus further connecting the

European project with people and their elected representatives.

In the same way the Committee of the Regions and the European Economic and Social

Committee have set up structures ensuring that regions and social partners not only are

involved, but that their voices are heard, and that their views are taken into account in

formulating EU policies.

However, it should be underlined that there is still a need for seeing these initiatives as more

of a permanent function in developing European affairs, and to subsequently ensuring

structures – at European, national, regional and local level – for allowing a continuous

feedback from the citizens. It is particularly important to involve young people, as they are

clearly determined to play a bigger part in the development of the European Union and thus

develop their active European citizenship

The period of reflection has shown that the citizens have a fairly low knowledge and interest

in how the EU Institutions operate. On the same time they have high expectations on delivery

and policy content. This puts important demands on the EU Institutions to better involve

citizens in the policy process at all levels.

The Commission will play a special role in this regard, and will – with Member States and EU

Institutions as vital contributors – have to ensure that the feedback process is taken seriously,

and that listening is followed up by concrete action. The Commission will consider how to

respond to this feed-back and to initiatives coming from citizens, in the process of policy

formulation.

The Commission stands ready to supplying the Council with further data, analysis and

stocktaking of its continued efforts in this regard.

« Youth takes the floor » Young Europeans’ concerns and expectations as to the development of the

European Union, analysis from Standard Eurobarometer 63, publication December 2005.

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

ANNEX

Plan D – comprehensive stocktaking of the actions implemented by the Commission

October 2005 – April 2006

In addition to hundreds of visits to Member States, including over 100 visits by the President

and Members of the Commission to national parliaments, the Commission has organised a

series of special, high profile visits as part of its Plan D programme to engage in real debate

with Europe’s citizens. Some of these activities are described below.

Examples of actions implemented since October 2005

Stimulating a wider public debate

–

Visits by Commissioners to Member States: In addition to the normal range of

Commissioner visits, five specially-designed Plan D visits have taken place

involving President Barroso, Vice-President Wallström, Vice-President Barrot

and Commissioners Špidla, Ferrero-Waldner, Figel and Potočnik. These visits

offered a unique mix of meetings, including national and local government,

national parliaments, the media, representative organisations and the general

public, to allow for an exchange with a genuinely comprehensive cross-section

of society.

The next Plan D visits in Denmark on 18/19 May and in Latvia and Lithuania

in June will take the total to eight

Plan D visits

by the time of the European

Council.

Commissioners’ availability to National Parliaments: In 2005, almost 100

contacts or visits by Commissioners to national parliaments took place. By

April 2006, Plan D had added more than 40 Commissioner visits to National

Parliaments, covering almost all Member States. Some of these meetings were

the first time that national parliaments had received the Commission President

or Commissioners in plenary session.

Representations open to the public & Europe Direct centres: All Commission

Representations in Member States organise monthly or weekly “open door

days” for conferences, press briefings and thematic presentations.

–

Promoting citizens’ participation in the democratic process

–

Promoting more effective consultation: The White Paper on a European

communication policy adopted by the Commission on 1 February 2006

will

lead to a more concrete action plan after the six months consultation period,

during which all interested European citizens and stakeholders are invited to

express their views (over 500 contributions had been registered by the

beginning of May 2006)

COM(2006) 35.

http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/communication_white_paper/charter_code/index_en.htm

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

–

Support for European citizens’ projects: On 17 March 2006, the Commission

launched a € 2 million call for proposals to provide financial support to

projects aiming to organise trans-national citizens’ events

(i.e. involving at

least 4-5 Member States per project). Projects are currently being selected. This

call for proposal aims to encourage European organisations’ initiatives

promoting public participation in debates on topics regarding the EU, as

described in Plan D.

Greater openness: The Commission welcomed the Council’s 21 December

2005 conclusions, which committed the Council to an increasing number of

public sessions, thus improving openness and transparency. In addition, it has

set up a public register of the expert groups

that helps the Commission in

preparing legislative proposals and policy initiatives, accessible on line since

November 2005. Also, as part of the European Transparency Initiative

launched in November 2005, on 3 May 2006 the Commission adopted a Green

Paper to launch a debate on lobbying and on the introduction of legal

obligations for Member States to publish information about the beneficiaries of

funds under shared management, as well as on the Commission’s consultation

practices.

–

Tools to generate a dialogue on European policies

–

Specific Eurobarometer on the Future of Europe: A quantitative and qualitative

survey took place in all 25 Member States in February-March 2006.

Internet: The Commission launched the on-line discussion forum “Debate

Europe” in 20 languages on 27 March 2006

. On 4 May 2006, 5 354

contributions had been posted by citizens.

Targeted focus groups: “Spring

Day Europe 2006”,

launched in January 2006

(thus celebrating its 5

anniversary), is an initiative created and organised –

with the active participation of Commissioners – to stimulate interest and

debates about Europe among young people. On 4 May 2006, 7 354 schools had

participated in Spring Day.

–

Partnership with the European institutions and bodies

Smooth cooperation and synergies were at the heart of the Inter-institutional Group

on Information (IGI) meeting on 17 January 2006. The meeting allowed translating

this partnership into practical and concrete actions. As a result, members and

collaborators of EU Institutions and bodies took part in, for example, visits to the

Member States, and contributed to the “Debate Europe” on-line forum. They also

promoted and participated in activities with schools through the Spring Day

initiative. Many 9 May events foreseen in the Member States were organised jointly

by the Commission’s Representations and the European Parliament offices, while the

interparliamentary forum with National Parliaments was organised in Brussels by the

European Parliament and the Austrian Parliament. Furthermore, the Committee of

http://europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/communication/grants/index_en.htm

http://europa.eu.int/comm/secretariat_general/regexp/

http://europa.eu.int/debateeurope/

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

the Regions and the European Economic and Social Committee have been strong

partners in the implementation of Plan D, making full use of their capacity to link at

the local/regional level and with the social actors.

Strengthened relations with the national parliaments

Further efforts will be made in close co-operation with the European Parliament and

the national parliaments, for example in exploring ways for ensuring proper

information on the Annual Policy Strategy, as well as the Annual Work and

Legislative Programme. The Commission also stands open to receive input from the

national parliaments to initiatives at the pre-legislative stage, based on the provisions

of the current Treaties.

Assessment

Plan D is not a rescue operation for the Constitution

Plan D aims "to

encourage a wide-ranging discussion between the EU institutions and

citizens".

It intends to set up a method by which citizens can be involved in the European

decision-making process. Contents of debates generated within the framework of Plan D can

bring on the stage ideas both on policy substance but also on new instruments and tools, some

of which are linked to an effective and accountable decision making.

A necessary involvement by Member States

The Commission sees itself mainly as a facilitator. Six months after the adoption of Plan D, it

must be pointed out that the involvement of the Member States in the launch of national

debates remains uneven.

A long-term exercise

The Plan D activities started to taking off in the first half of 2006, and it is therefore too early

to draw any substantial conclusions. Plan D is part of a long-term exercise, using new

methods related to the communication with citizens. Setting up a constructive dialogue cannot

be done from one day to the other. Furthermore, such a dialogue can not be carried out only at

the initiative of the EU Institutions and/or from Brussels. It needs to go local and have the

active support and involvement of the Member States.

Multilingualism

From the Commission’s part, Plan D actions are undertaken in all the official languages of the

EU (on-line discussion forum; Spring Day Europe), while initiatives carried out at the

national, regional and local levels by the Commission’s Representations in Member States are

undertaken in the respective language of the country. In this context, it must be stressed that

multilingualism is a vital tool for enhancing a true dialogue with citizens. For this reason, the

Commission and its institutional partners are striving to provide information on the web

aimed at the general public in as many languages as possible.