Final report

1. 
   Which of the five scenarios set out by the White Paper best meets, from your perspective, the internal and external challenges facing the EU, and why? Would another scenario, not mentioned, be possible and preferable? If so, why?
   

There was a convergence of views among participants, representatives of the social partners and other civil society organisations in Greece, in relation to the starting point: the structure of Europe is currently experiencing strong shock waves and the progress of European unification is at a critical crossroads. The challenges, both internal and external, which the EU faces, are numerous, significant and known to many. Some of the issues mentioned were the economic crisis, which is leaving in its wake an increase in economic and social inequalities and a widening of the north-south gulf, doubts on the part of a large section of the European population - including the Greek people - regarding the democratic and popular legitimacy, as well as the administrative effectiveness and ability to solve problems of the European institutions, the refugee/immigration issue, regional conflicts, terrorism and political extremism. Among the scenarios put forward by the White Paper, Greek civil society is almost entirely in favour of scenario 5: "Doing much more together". This seems to be the only scenario which creates the pre-conditions for tackling the above challenges and gets the plan of European integration moving forward again. Europe and Greece, within a globalised environment, can only benefit from the further completion of the single market, greater coordination on economic, social and taxation issues, enhanced cooperation on issues of foreign policy, defence, security, management of borders and political asylum, and the fastest and most efficient decision-making and implementation possible, with a thorough examination of the institutional framework. It was pointed out, however, that the answer to the question cannot be a response with just one meaning, or just one word. Scenario 5 constitutes a sufficient basis and starting point for speculation about how to shape the Europe we want to see in the future. However, it should, de facto, be added to, perhaps with details from Scenario 3, "Those who want more do more", since Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) is a sufficient example of differentiated integration within the EU. The prospect of a multi-speed Europe in the imminent future prompts concern among the majority of the participants. A large number of speakers also emphasised the need for greater reference to the development of Europe’s social dimension, a clearer inclusion of the environmental pillar and further work on the governance model, in the direction of greater participation, representativeness, transparency and accountability, in the spirit of the UN's 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. In this regard, there were many references to a sixth scenario, based on the fifth, but bolder, sensitively enhanced and enriched so as to contain all the above elements, and others too.

2. 
   How do you see trust and confidence being fostered within the Union?
   

There was a consensus among participants regarding an admission that the EU is undergoing a serious crisis of confidence. A large number of citizens throughout Europe, and a particularly high number in Greece, which has been hit very hard by the economic crisis and the way it has been handled, has ceased to see the EU as an opportunity for improving their standards of living. On the contrary, they perceive it as a threat to their prosperity, both individually and collectively. European citizens have seen their expectations about the benefits from European unification being frustrated and there is a widespread impression that it is only the political and financial elite among the Member States who benefit, or, again, that it is the centre of the EU which is strong, at the expense of the regions. The increasing inequalities, as well as the inability of the EU to manage crises promptly and efficiently, have undermined citizens' faith in a united Europe. They have seen it retreat from the fundamental European values of solidarity, understanding, cooperation, social justice, cohesion and respect for human rights. The results of the above have been euro-scepticism, xenophobia, the calling into question of Europe's future and common journey, and the return of nationalism and populism. In order for the EU to once again become attractive to its citizens, there must now be, finally, an exit from the prolonged economic and social crisis and Europe, together with its Member States, must embark on the path to growth and prosperity once again. The EU must demonstrate in practice its dedication to its founding principles and values, and must stop blaming or isolating some of its Member States or treating them as pariahs. Emphasis must also be placed on developing European awareness and identity, going beyond national defences, interests and self-interests, and education could and should play an important role in this respect. Finally, it is necessary for political leaders in the Member States to stop ascribing all the difficult decisions, with political costs, to "Brussels", while at the same time taking the political credit for major European achievements.

3. 
   Is more visibility of, and better communication on, the European Union required, and how?
   

All the views which were heard on this subject confirm that, without a doubt, there is a lack of information and communication in relation to the role which a united Europe has played over the last 60 years in maintaining peace, in the individual and collective prosperity and in the development of its Member States, and in relation to the specific, numerous and multi-levelled benefits which individuals and groups have received and continue to receive within the European area from the European unification project. These issues had not been sufficiently emphasised, and had not been collectively understood, with Greece being no exception to the rule. The result, today, in the midst of the crisis, can be seen in the older generations' "historical amnesia", and the younger generations turning their backs on Europe, ignorant, to a great extent, of its history. It was proposed that more successful provision of information to the public could be attempted using comparisons of what the levels of prosperity and enjoyment of citizens' rights would be without the EU, and what are they today, thanks to the EU. The institutional bodies within each Member State, such as the social partners and local administrations, have a key role to play in publicising the benefits which each nation, including Greece, has derived from membership of Europe. The European bodies too must, as they are doing with this current initiative, seek in a systematic and organised manner to work together with Member States' civil societies, so that citizens can feel themselves to be participating in the decision-making process on matters that affect them. Several of those present mentioned the European Parliament within this context. It does not seem, to date, to have fully carried out its institutional mission, which consists in bringing the EU genuinely closer to its citizens. This still remains a proposal for the future.

4. 
   Are the policy areas referred to sufficiently comprehensive and illustrative? How would you rank them in a scale of importance? Is there a major policy area not mentioned or insufficiently highlighted? If so, which one and which of the five scenarios would best suit its development?
   

In ranking the policy areas, only one employers' organisation took action (in order of priority: EMU-foreign policy and defence-Schengen, immigration and security-single market and trade-EU budget-ability to meet obligations), indicating, however, that the differences between the level of their importance were small. Moreover, there was a consensus that missing from these policy areas, or at least not given the importance required, was the most important area in times of crisis, namely employment, workers' relations and social issues. The initiative for the creation of a European Social Rights Pillar was welcomed as significant. However, this needs to be further strengthened, taking into account the particular features of each Member State, and in light of demographic and technological developments. It was pointed out that, in their current form, the Treaties provide many opportunities for the development of the social policy sector, such as through the use of the social clause, referred to in Article 9 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. These opportunities have not, however, been made use of, because of the political trade-offs in Europe.

5. 
   Regarding the way ahead, how should the "Future of Europe Debates across Europe's national Parliaments, cities and regions" be structured? What role should organised civil society play in the "way ahead" and how?
   

A suggestion which was put forward consists of the simultaneous conduct of dialogue at four levels: national, regional, sectoral and professional, with genuine involvement from the social partners and increasing and promoting social dialogue. Civil society should closely monitor the agenda as it is being shaped at European level, and can and should play a significant role in addressing the lack of information and confidence referred to above, as a channel for communication between the EU and its citizens.

6. 
   What are your particular expectations as regards the outcome of the consultation?
   

An expectation was expressed that there will be an imminent assurance that Europe, recognising the mistakes of the past, will continue confidently and dynamically to moved forward, creating a new dynamic and writing a new page on the improvement of the prosperity of its peoples. Along the same lines, many expressed the hope that the current political situation, with the election of Mr Trump to the Presidency of the United States, Brexit approaching and the worsening of relations with Russia, among other issues, will serve to rally and unify the EU, and that pro-EU political powers, spearheaded by France's new leadership, will together fight to re-establish the foundations of the European project and to deepen it, giving a vision and a future to European citizens for more and better Europe. On the other hand, there were negative comments about the fact that this consultation is being conducted in a fragmented and isolated manner, since the European Commission's working documents on the main issues were not available at the outset, but were only made public in stages. Others did not hide their scepticism or pessimism regarding whether the results of the consultation will have any real impact in the decision-making centres of Brussels, and whether it will be possible to avoid another gulf being created between the results of this EU initiative and the expectations of its citizens and societies and, more generally, whether an about-turn and a change of course are really possible for Europe.

7. 
   How can the citizen be more empowered in shaping the future of Europe?
   

Undoubtedly, the participation of citizens is required in shaping Europe's future and, as stated above, civil society must play a significant role in achieving this. More generally, more participative forms of decision-making are required, but without placing upon citizens divisive dilemmas which divide societies and turn them away from politics. What is needed is a more genuine form of dialogue and more systematic contact by the EU, through its bodies and its institutional representatives, with Member State citizens, through the various structures in which these are organised.

EN European Economic and Social Committee

_______________