EESC debate with organised civil society on the future of Europe

Poland, Warsaw, 23 May 2017

REPORT

Moderators: Mr Pilawski (Gr. I), Mr Krzaklewski (Gr. II), Mr Balon (Gr. III)

Presentation of the White Paper on the future of Europe: Dr Marek Prawda, Director of the European Commission's Representation in Poland

Number of participants: 31

Answers given during the debate

  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?

indicative vote:

Scenario 1:1

Scenario 2:0

Scenario 3:1

Scenario 4:2

Scenario 5:17

Another scenario or a mixed scenario (6):10

most participants were of the view that we must do more together (scenario 5), however, the correct identification of what needs to be done was given some consideration. Scenario5 would seem the most forward-looking for Poland, but some participants expressed their doubts as to the feasibility of its implementation;

some pointed out that Scenario 2 is the least desirable. While the single market is attractive, social standards must be developed. According to the participants, Scenario 2 was a good starting point but we should go further;

some stated that the EU is de facto implementing Scenario 3 with a multispeed Europe. Others highlighted that a multispeed Europe had existed from the outset and that the same policies give different results in different Member States. The Schengen zone and the European social pillar were quoted as evidence of the principle "those who want more, do more";

it was argued that it was unclear what priorities would be set in Scenario 4, and whether it would be favourable for Poland;

a large number of votes cast in favour of Scenario 6 could mean that the right solution is yet to be found. This may be a sign that looking for a new direction has become very attractive.

  1. a) Would another scenario, not mentioned, be possible and preferable? If so, why?

the efficiency element from Scenario 4 was a recurrent motive in discussions on another potential scenario (a combination of existing ones);

a number of participants claimed the best solution would be a combination of Scenarios5 and 3, with the efficiency element from Scenario 4;

Scenario 1 +4 was another proposed solution: to continue common actions jointly, but more efficiently. The combination of continuation with a greater focus on areas that need attention is the key to this scenario;

others opted for a combination of Scenario 5 with concepts of greater efficiency and persistence;

Some argued for Scenario 5 combined with democratisation (increased participation of society), levelling out inequalities and environmental issues (climate);

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

better involve civil society organisations and NGOs with large capacities to engage with the citizens. Their contacts with unorganised society should be facilitated, as they have more potential than politicians or institutions to communicate with the citizens;

use means of communication that are sector-specific orthat come from local and regional authorities rather than more political communication;

it was noted that governments often use the EU as a scapegoat for various failures – the European institutions should properly inform the citizens about which decisions are taken by governments and which are taken by the EU;

give more time for consultation – civil society organisations often do not have the opportunity to take part in a thorough debate;

react to widespread anecdotes about alleged EU absurdities (such as the permitted curve of bananas) – better communicate to the citizens why certain decisions are taken and what are their implied benefits;

bring back the concept of a European identity by reinforcing the presence of EU symbols in public life (the flag, the anthem), highlighting common values; the dynamic development of social media should be better used in this respect;

  1. 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?

lack of any clear mention of social policy in the White Paper was recurrently highlighted. Studies show that 25% of the EU population is still at risk of poverty – social protection must be given consideration;

the social partners are not mentioned;

the following issues have not been highlighted sufficiently:

Strengthening social dialogue, enhancing cohesion policy, energy sector innovations, energy cohesion, democratisingthe EU and the rule of law, strengtheningEuropean identity;

the White Paper fails to discuss controversial issues such as migration, women's rights or the LGBT community.

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

Since a lack of communication and dialogue leads to disinformation, information about the EU must be improved, through:

better communication policy, and thus a greater engagement of the citizens. They should be involved at every stage, so that they have an impact on the EU's actions and are aware of this fact;

better quality of communication - simple messages, clear documents. The aim is to reach the ordinary citizen, not an expert;

the clear communication obligation should not fall on the EU institutions only - the Member States should have their own specialised agencies for communication on European topics;

some participants also expressed a view that civil society organisations should have a more active attitude towards the EU and be more involved in communication on EU topics. They should inform and educate their members, actively involving them in various projects;

it was also noted that the existing non-governmental structures in Brussels could be much better used to improve communication with citizens;

many participants stressed the important role of education, starting at primary level, building the European identity at this stage. Insufficient presence of EU matters in school curricula was noted;

An enhanced reflection on "what if the EU did not exist?" was suggested, as well as the better promotion of the greatest EU success: long-lasting peace.

  1. 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?

some noted that support for European matters was uneven and quite shallow, and that there was a need to translate ideas into concrete actions;

it was suggested that debates on the future of Europe be held in Economic and Social Councils and similar organisations and that these bodies communicate their positions;

it was suggested that the Commission organise a debate at the regional organisation level (e.g. the Visegrad Group);

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

it was noted that there are mechanisms to involve society but they are not sufficiently used;

there is a need for better use of the social partners (43 Social Dialogue Committees in the EU);

it was suggested that the use of referendums and other commitment instruments be increased in order to empower citizens;

attention was drawn to the need for closer examination of political innovations, such as new approaches, innovative formats, improvements in public initiatives;

it was suggested that the Citizens' Initiative be used more efficiently;

once again, the need for an EU identity and shared ownership was emphasised.

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

greater attention should be paid in the final document to non-economic policies;

as a result of the consultation, the document will be less bureaucratic;

civil society organisations should be encouraged to organise debates internally and to communicate their conclusions.

Concluding remarks:

  • Scenario 5 was the most popular, although it should be enhanced by the efficiency aspect and careful selection of priority areas;
  • There is insufficient focus on social policy;
  • Civil society organisations have to play a bigger role in communicating on EU topics, and by doing so, in increasing public confidence;
  • School education has an important role to play in the development of a European identity;
  • Civil society organisations must be used more effectively to engage citizens.

*

**

N.B. Appendices overleaf.

Appendix I – Programme

The debate on the White Paper on the future of Europe

Zielna Conference Centre, ul. Zielna 37, 00-108 Warsaw

23 May 2017

Programme

11 a.m. – 11.15 a.m. / Welcome speechesby members of the EESC delegation hosting the debate: Mr Lech Pilawski (Employers ‘Group), Mr Marian Krzaklewski (Workers' Group), Mr Krzysztof Balon (Various Interests Group)
11.15 a.m. – 11.30 a.m. / Introduction
The presentation of the White paper on the future of Europe
Dr Marek Prawda, Director of the European Commission's Representation in Poland
11.30 a.m. – 2.10 p.m. / Open debate
Answers to the 7 questions drawn up by the EESC
(Moderators: Mr Pilawski, Mr Krzaklewski, Mr Balon (alternately))
2.10 p.m. – 2.30 p.m. / Conclusion
Members of the EESC delegation hosting the debate

*

**

Appendix II - Participants list

The EESC (moderators)

1. Pilawski Lech

2.Krzaklewski Marian

3. Balon Krzysztof

The European Commission

4. Prawda Marek

5. Otachel Bartosz

PARTICIPANTS

6. Aniszczyk Bohdan(St. Brother Albert Aid Society)

7. Bartkiewicz Katarzyna("Solidarność")

8. Biskupska Ewa(Polish Craft Association)

9. Bonikowska Małgorzata(Centre for International Relations)

10. Doboszyńska Edyta(Polish Craft Association)

11. Dyba Łukasz(Polish Confederation Lewiatan)

12. Frączak Piotr(Social Dialog Association)

13. Hejducka Iwona(holds occupational therapy workshops in Miejska Górka)

14. Hejducka Anna(Welfare and Disabled Persons Association in Miejska Górka)

15. Lisicki Robert(Polish Confederation Lewiatan)

16. Jeleński Maciej(Polish Confederation Lewiatan)

17. Mańkiewicz-Cudny Ewa(Polish Federation of Engineering Associations, FSNT-NOT)

18. Michałek Witold(Business Centre Club)

19. Mizerski Cezary(Public Benefit Council of the Republic of Poland, RDPP)

20. Niemkiewicz Adam(Morena Association/Scouting Association of the Republic (ZHR); RDPP)

21. Olechnowicz Marek(Pomeranian Council for NGOs)

22. Olszewski Dariusz Jacek(Employers of Poland)

23. Opęchowska Izabela(Polish Craft Association)

24. Ostrowski Krzysztof(Business Centre Club, member of the EESC)

25. Pietkiewicz Janusz(Employers of Poland, member of the EESC)

26. Płowiec Kamila(The Working Community of Associations of Social NGOs, WRZOS)

27. Męcina Jacek(University of Warsaw, Polish Confederation Lewiatan)

28. Sinica Małgorzata(Polish Scouting and Guiding Association)

29. Skotnicka-Illasiewicz Elżbieta(Team Europe)

30. Szumlewicz Piotr(All-Poland Alliance of Trade Unions)

31. Zarębski Maciej(Świętokrzyskie Regional Society)

______

EESC-2017-02682-00-00-ADMIN-TRA (PL) 1/6