Raport Conferinta Privind Viitorul Europei

Conference on the
Future of Europe
REPORT ON THE FINAL OUTCOME
May 2022
The future
is in your hands
2
Conference on the Future of Europe | REPORT ON THE FINAL OUTCOME
Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
I. The architecture of the Conference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
II. Contributions to the Conference: citizens’ input . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
(A) Multilingual Digital Platform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
(B) Citizens’ Panels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1. European Citizens’ Panels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2. National Citizens’ Panels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
(C) Events organised in the framework of the Conference . . . . . . . . . . 26
1. National events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
2. European Youth Event (EYE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
3. Other events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
III. The Conference Plenary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
(A) Composition, role and functioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
(B) Working Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
(C) Chronological summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
IV. The Plenary proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Final considerations of the Executive Board . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
Annexes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
I — Recommendations of the four European Citizens’ Panels
II — Recommendations of the National Citizens’ Panels
III — References to the results of national events
IV – Reference to the report from the Multilingual Digital Platform
3
Introduction
On 10 March 2021, European Parliament – and driven by an Executive Board (consisting

President David Sassoli, Prime Minister of of an equal representation of the three
Portugal António Costa, on behalf of the Institutions as well as observers from key
Council of the EU, and European Commission stakeholders), the Conference has constituted
President Ursula von der Leyen signed the Joint an unprecedented experience of transnational
Declaration on the Conference on the Future of deliberative democracy. It has also proven
Europe. Their pledge was simple: to allow, by its historical relevance and importance in
way of a citizens-focused, bottom-up exercise, the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and
all Europeans to have a say on what they expect the Russian aggression of Ukraine. The
from the European Union and have a greater Conference on the Future of Europe involved
role in shaping the future of the Union. Their the establishment of the Conference’s Rules of
task was, by contrast, immensely challenging: Procedure on 9 May 2021, the setting up of a
the organisation, for the first time, of a Multilingual Digital Platform allowing European
transnational, multilingual and interinstitutional citizens to contribute in 24 EU languages,
exercise of deliberative democracy, involving and the organisation of four European
thousands of European citizens as well as Citizens’ Panels, six National Citizens’ Panels,
political actors, social partners, civil society thousands of national and local events as well
representatives and key stakeholders in as seven Conference Plenaries. It is the result
accordance with article 16 of the Conference of unparalleled determination from the EU
Rules of Procedure. institutions, the Member States, but also and
above all from European citizens, to debate the
On 9 May 2022, after months of intense
European Union’s challenges and priorities and
deliberations, the Conference concluded its
to introduce a new approach to the European
work, putting forward a report on the final
project.
outcome that includes 49 proposals to the
three EU Institutions. The proposals reflect But this is only the beginning. In line with the
the expectations of European citizens on nine founding text of the Conference, the three
topics: A stronger economy, social justice Institutions will now examine swiftly how
and jobs; Education, culture, youth and sport; to follow up effectively on this report, each
Digital transformation; European democracy; within the framework of their competences
Values and rights, rule of law, security; Climate and in accordance with the Treaties. The three
change, environment; Health; EU in the world; Institutions’ commitment in this regard is
and Migration. All of them are presented in paramount.
this final report, which also aims to provide an
overview of the various activities undertaken
in the context of the unique process that the
Conference on the Future of Europe has been.
Steered by three Co-Chairs – Guy Verhofstadt
for the European Parliament, Ana Paula
Zacarias, Gašper Dovžan and Clément Beaune
successively for the Council of the EU, and
Dubravka Šuica for the European Commission
5
I.
The architecture
of the Conference
The Conference on the Future of EuropeI was a
novel and innovative process which has opened
up a new space for debate with citizens to
address Europe’s challenges and priorities, with
a view to underpinning the democratic legitimacy
of the European project and to upholding citizens’
support for our common goals and values. It
was a citizens-focused, bottom-up exercise for
Europeans to have their say on what they expect
from the European Union. The Conference was a
joint undertaking of the European Parliament, the
Council and the European Commission, acting as
equal partners together with the Member States
of the European Union.
I
https://futureu.europa.eu/
6
1. Joint Declaration
On 10 March 2021, the Joint Declaration on J

a Common Secretariat ensuring equal
the Conference on the Future of Europe (Joint representation of the three institutions,
Declaration) was signed by late European which assisted the work of the Executive
Parliament President David Sassoli, Portuguese Board. In particular, the team – led by
Prime Minister António Costa, on behalf of the three co-heads from the three institutions
Council of the EU, and Commission President – oversaw the set-up and preparations of
Ursula von der Leyen. It paved the way for this the Executive Board meetings, Conference
unprecedented, open and inclusive European Plenaries and the European Citizens’ Panels.
democratic exercise, which places citizens at In cooperation with service providers, it was
its very heart. responsible for managing the multilingual
digital platform and reporting on milestones
The Conference was placed under the authority
throughout the process. The unique
of the Presidents of the three institutions, acting
composition of the team allowed for the
as its Joint Presidency. The Joint Presidency
continuous collegiality of the work and
was supported by an Executive Board, which
ensured synergies and efficiencies across
was co-chaired by a member from each of the
the board.
three EU institutions.
J
a Conference Plenary (see Chapter III.B
In accordance with the Joint Declaration, the
for more information), which ensured that
following structures were set up:
the recommendations from the National
J
an Executive Board, which oversaw and European Citizens’ Panels, grouped by
the organisation of the Conference. It themes, were debated in full respect of the
included representatives from the three EU’s values and the Conference CharterII,
EU institutions (three members each and without a predetermined outcome and
four observers), as well as observers from without limiting the scope to predefined
the presidential Troika of the Conference policy areas. The input gathered from the
of Parliamentary Committees for Union Multilingual Digital Platform was also
Affairs of Parliaments of the European discussed when relevant. Nine thematic
Union (COSAC). The Committee of the Working Groups were established to give
Regions, the European Economic and Social input to prepare the debates and the
Committee, and social partners were invited proposals of the Plenary.
as observers.
II
Conference Charter
7
2. Rules of Procedure
On 9 May 2021, the Executive Board endorsed
the Rules of Procedure of the Conference,
established in accordance with the Joint
Declaration on the Conference on the Future of
Europe and laying down the foundations and
principles of the Conference.
The Rules of Procedure provided the framework
for the work of the different Conference
structures and their interaction.
3. Conference events
According to the Joint Declaration, each EU
Member State and Institution could organise
events under the umbrella of the Conference,
in line with their own national or institutional
specificities, and make further contributions
to the Conference (see Chapter II.C for more
information).
EU institutions and bodies, Member States,
regional and local authorities, organised
civil society, social partners and citizens
were therefore invited to organise events in
partnership with civil society and stakeholders
at European, national, regional and local level,
in a wide variety of formats across Europe, and
to report the outcome of those events on the
digital platform. Several thousand such events
took place involving some 650 000 participants.
4. Establishment of
the Multilingual Digital
Platform
The multilingual digital platform (see Chapter
II.A for more information) was set up as the
place for citizens to share their ideas and
send online submissions, in line with the Joint
Declaration. It was the main hub for citizens’
contributions and information on the different
parts of the Conference and an interactive
tool to share and debate ideas and input from
the multitude of events taking place under
the umbrella of the Conference. The Platform
8
was launched on 19 April 2021. Over 17 000

ideas were put on the platform. Throughout 6. National Citizens’
the Conference, reports were drawn up on the
contributions submitted on the platform. Panels
Contributions gathered through the platform According to the Joint Declaration, Member
were taken on board by the European Citizens’ States could organise National Panels. To
Panels and debated and discussed in the assist Member States intending to organise
Conference Plenary. National Citizens’ Panels, guidance was
approved by the Co-Chairs and sent to the
Executive Board on 26 May 2021 to ensure that
5. European Citizens’ National Panels were organised under the same
principles as the European Citizens’ Panels.
Panels The guidance includes principles for good
deliberation, based on the OECD principlesIII.
In accordance with the Joint Declaration, a Each Member State could decide whether to
central and particularly innovative feature of organise a National Citizens’ Panel. Overall, six
the Conference was the European Citizens’ Member States organised one (Belgium, France,
Panels (see Chapter II.B for more information), Germany, Italy, Lithuania and the Netherlands).
organised on the main topics of the Conference. In accordance with the Joint Declaration, the
A total of 800 randomly selected citizens, recommendations of National Citizens’ Panels
representative of the EU’s sociological were presented and debated in Conference
and geographical diversity, organised Plenaries, alongside the recommendations of
into four Panels of 200 citizens, met for the European Citizens’ Panels.
three deliberative sessions each. The
European Citizens’ Panels came up with
recommendations that fed into the overall
Conference deliberations, in particular, into the
Conference Plenaries.
The Co-Chairs of the Executive Board jointly
established the practical arrangements for the
organisation of the European Citizens’ Panels,
in accordance with the Joint Declaration
and the Rules of Procedure, and informed in
advance the Executive Board.
The Executive Board was regularly informed
of developments related to the creation and
organisation of the European Citizens’ Panels.
III
OECD, Innovative Citizen Participation and New Democratic Institutions, 2020 https://www.oecd.org/gov/open-government/innovative-
citizen-participation-new-democratic-institutions-catching-the-deliberative-wave-highlights.pdf
9
II.
Contributions to
the Conference:
citizens’ input
10
(A) Multilingual Digital Platform
The Multilingual Digital Platform was launched and the Executive Board). Plenary debates
on 19 April 2021 and served as the main hub of and Working Group meetings were web-
the Conference. It was the place that allowed streamed on the platform, as were the plenary
everyone to participate in the Conference – all meetings of the European Citizens’ Panels. All
citizens across the EU and beyond, as well as this information will remain accessible on the
civil society, social partners and various other platform.
stakeholders.
Throughout the process, the platform was
The platform was specifically developed for continuously improved wherever possible,
the Conference using European open-source for example by adding functionalities or
software for citizens’ participation called visual materials. Over time, the platform was
Decidim. This was pioneering at European but also made more accessible to people with
also global level in terms of scale, interactivity disabilities.
and multilingualism. All contributions were
All contributions on the platform were
made available in the 24 official EU languages
publicly accessible, as were the open data
thanks to machine translation. The debate was
files related to the digital platform, ensuring
organised around ten topics: ‘Climate change
full transparency. In order to facilitate the
and the environment’, ‘Health’, ‘A stronger
collection and analysis of the contributions,
economy, social justice and jobs’, ‘EU in the
the Commission’s Joint Research Centre
World’, ‘Values and rights, rule of law, security’,
developed an automated text analysis tool and
‘Digital transformation’, ‘European democracy’,
an analytics platform that allowed multilingual
‘Migration’, ‘Education, culture, youth and sport’,
sense-making and in-depth analysis of the
and ‘Other ideas’.
content on the platform. The analytics platform
Participation on the platform could take various was an essential tool to provide regular
forms. reporting with a uniform level of quality across
languages. In addition, a datathon held in March
Anybody could share their ideas under one
2022 by the European Commission encouraged
of the ten topics. It was also possible to
new approaches to analysing the open data
comment on other people’s ideas. The platform
set and supported the transparency of the data
thus offered the possibility of a genuine pan-
analysis process.
European debate among citizens. Participants
could also endorse ideas, indicating that they In order to provide an overview of the
supported another user’s contribution. contributions on the platform, an external
service provider prepared reports, which were
Another important way of contributing to the
published on the platform itself. A first interim
Conference was to organise events (virtual,
report was published in September covering
in-person or hybrid), announce them on the
contributions collected up until 2 August 2021.
platform, report on their outcome and link them
In mid-October 2021, the second interim report
with ideas. Guides and information materials
was published, covering contributions up until 7
were made available on the platform for
September 2021. The third interim report was
organisers, helping to ensure that the events
published in December 2021, covering
would be participatory and inclusive.
contributions up until 3 November 2021. With
The platform played a fundamental role in the work on the Conference entering its last
the transparency of the overall process and phase, the last report feeding into the
the access to information. It was the place Conference Plenaries was published in mid-
where everyone could find information on the March 2022, taking into account contributions
Conference process itself (Conference Plenary published on the digital platform up until 20
and Plenary Working Groups, the European February 2022. This timeline was well
Citizens’ Panels, National Panels and events advertised on the platform and elsewhere,
11
leading to a surge in contributions in January of common themes and subthemes, which
were described in detail under each topic
and summarised in mind maps for a quick
overview. To complement this qualitative
approach with quantitative elements, themes,
subthemes or ideas that often recurred or had
a high number of endorsements or comments
were indicated in the text of each report.
The aim behind this was to reflect the state
of play at a given stage of the Conference,
including a high level of interest in or debate
on certain issues. The reports also provided
an overview of the socio-demographic data
of participants. Although contributors were
and February 2022. The contributions asked to provide information on their country
submitted until 9 May will be covered in the of residence, educational background, age,
additional report. Supplementary reports on gender and employment status on a voluntarily
contributions on the platform per Member State basis, there are limitations on the insights that
were also made available at the same time as could be provided. For example, 26.9% of all
the reports in September and December 2021 contributions came from participants who did
and in March 2022. not disclose their country of residence.
The main focus of these reports was a Since the launch of the platform, the topic of
qualitative analysis of the contributions on the ‘European democracy’ has recorded the highest
platform, in order to provide a general overview level of contributions (ideas, comments and
of the breadth and diversity of ideas proposed events). ‘Climate change and the environment’
on the platform and discussed at events. ranked second. Contributions under ‘Other
To this end, a manual textual analysis and ideas’ were in third place, followed by ‘Values
clustering of the contributions was performed and rights, rule of law, security’ and ‘A stronger
by a research team, aided by the analytical tools economy, social justice and jobs’.
provided by the Commission’s Joint Research
The reports on contributions on the platform,
Centre. This allowed for the identification
including the mind maps, provided valuable
12
input for the work of the European Citizens’ place, working under the supervision of the
Panels. At the beginning of each of their three Common Secretariat on behalf of the Executive
sessions, the Panels were presented with the Board throughout the Conference to ensure that
main findings of the reports and the mind maps the Charter and the rules of participation were
and received links to the full reports. Many respected. No prior moderation took place.
ideas on the Platform are therefore reflected in When a contribution was hidden, the users
the recommendations of the European Citizens’ received a message from the moderation team
Panels. explaining the reason for this action. Details
on the moderation principles and process
The reports were also discussed at the
were made available in the Frequently Asked
Conference Plenaries, starting with the Plenary
Questions section of the platform.
on 23 October 2021, and in the preceding
Working Groups meetings. The input from the Between 19 April 2021 and 20 April 2022,
Platform therefore continued to enrich the 430 ideas (2,4%), 312 comments (1,4%) and
proposals developed in the Conference Plenary. 396 events (6,0%) were hidden. About 71% of
ideas were hidden for reasons such as lack
By 20 April 2022 close to 5 million unique
of proposal, spam, user request, containing
visitors had visited the Multilingual Digital
personal information or an inadequate
Platform and there were over 50.000 active
related image. About 17% of hidden ideas
participants, 17.000 ideas debated, and over
are duplicates. Only 11% of the ideas are
6,000 events registered on the platform. Behind
hidden for reasons of offensive content. The
these numbers are thousands of engaged
vast majority of events, 76%, were hidden for
citizens, sharing and debating numerous ideas
reasons of duplicate posting or incomplete
and organising a multitude of original and
event information, per organisers’ requests
innovative events in the various Member States.
or because they were not related to the
IIn order to ensure that the platform would Conference.
be a space where citizens from every walk of
The possibility to make contributions on the
life and all corners of Europe feel comfortable
platform remained open until 9 May 2022. An
and welcome to contribute to the debate,
additional report is foreseen after its closing
everyone using the platform needed to commit
in order to complete the overview of all
to the Conference Charter and the Rules of
contributions received during the Conference.
Participation. A moderation team was put in
What is happening at the Conference on the Future of Europe?
52,346 652,532 17,671

Platform participants Event participants Ideas
21,877 6,465 72,528

Comments Events Endorsements
State of participation on 20 April 2022 (source: Conference on the Future of Europe (europa.eu))
13
Participation on the platform continued many thousands of citizens and various
to increase throughout the Conference, it stakeholders from all over Europe and beyond
remained however uneven across Member to engage in a multilingual online debate across
States and across socio-demographic profile of Member States on European issues. It therefore
the contributors. Overall, the platform provided proved itself to be valuable tool of deliberative
an innovative deliberative space, which allowed democracy at EU level.
14
(B) Citizens’ Panels
1. European Citizens’ Panels

The European Citizens’ Panels were one of the per Member State was calculated according
main pillars of the Conference, together with to the degressive proportionality principle
the National Panels, the Multilingual Digital applied to the composition of the European
Platform and the Conference Plenary. They lie Parliament, taking into consideration that each
at the heart of the Conference on the Future Panel should include at least one female and
of Europe and brought together around 800 one male citizen per Member State. As the
citizens from all backgrounds and corners of Conference had a specific focus on youth, one
the European Union. If the concept of Citizens’ third of the citizens composing a Citizens’ Panel
Panels or assemblies has been used for was between 16 and 24 years old. For each
decades by municipalities and is increasingly group of 200 persons, an additional 50 citizens
visible at national and regional level, the pan- were selected as a reserve.
European dimension was essentially uncharted.
Four European Citizens’ Panels were organised.
The European Citizens’ Panels were the first
The topics for discussion for each of the four
transnational and multilingual experience of
Panels were based on the themes from the
this scale and with this level of ambition. The
Multilingual Digital Platform and clustered in
remarkable interpretation set-up accompanying
the following way:
the process allowed for inclusive, respectful
and efficient dialogue between the panellists, (1)Stronger economy, social justice, jobs/
thereby ensuring the respect of multilingualism. education, youth, culture, sport/digital
transformation;
The European Citizens’ Panels were organised
by the three Institutions on the basis of the (2)European democracy/values and rights, rule
Joint Declaration, the Rules of Procedure of law, security;
and the modalities established by the Co- (3) Climate change, environment/health;
Chairs, under the supervision of the Executive
Board. They were supported by a consortium (4) EU in the world/migration.
of external service providers composed of Each Panel met over three weekends. The first
a mix of experts in deliberative democracy sessions were held in Strasbourg, the second
and a logistical support team. The Executive online and the third in four cities (Dublin,
Board was kept informed of the Panels’ work, Florence, Warsaw/Natolin and Maastricht),
it received updated practical modalities and hosted by public higher education institutes and
adjusted the provisional calendar of the with the support of the local municipalities.
European Citizens’ Panel sessions during the
process as needed. FIRST PANEL SESSIONS
The participants of the European Citizens’ The first session of each Panel was held in
Panels were selected in summer 2021. person in Strasbourg. The objective of the
European Union citizens were randomly session was to define the agenda for the
selected (random telephone calling was the deliberations. The citizens participating in the
main method used by 27 national polling Panels started by reflecting upon and building
institutes coordinated by an external service their vision for Europe, starting from a blank
provider), with the aim of setting up ‘Panels’ page, and identifying the issues to be debated,
which were representative of the EU’s diversity within the framework of the Panel’s main
on the basis of five criteria: gender, age, themes. They then prioritised the topics which
geographic origin (nationality as well as they wanted to concentrate on more deeply in
urban/rural), socio-economic background and order to generate specific recommendations for
level of education. The number of citizens the European Union institutions to follow up on.
15
The discussions and collective work were in two up was prepared, involving a studio in Brussels
formats: hosting the main moderation and the Plenaries
and a system allowing connection with the
J
In subgroups composed of 12 to 14 citizens.
participating citizens from all over the EU and
Four to five languages were spoken in each
interpretation.
subgroup, each citizen being able to speak
in his/her own language. Subgroup work In the second sessions, with the support
was guided by professional facilitators of experts and fact-checkers, the citizens
selected by the consortium of external identified and discussed specific issues and
service providers. drafted ‘orientations’ for each of the thematic
streams they had identified during the first
J
In plenary, with all participants. Plenary
session. Particular attention was paid to
sessions were led by two main moderators.
ensuring balanced groups of experts in terms of
The priority topics resulting from the
gender and geographical diversity and balanced
discussions were organised in so-called
inputs from each them, via extensive briefings
‘streams’ (i.e. headline topics) and
providing citizens with facts and/or the state
‘substreams’ and served as a basis for
of play of the debate while avoiding sharing
the second sessions. To this end, the
personal opinions. They were also provided with
participants received basic information
the interim reports of the Multilingual Digital
about the topics, and the relevant input,
Platform.
including analysis and mind maps, from the
first interim report of the Multilingual Digital With the support of experts’ input on the topics,
Platform and presentations from high-level citizens’ own knowledge and experiences,
external experts. and through deliberations during the second
sessions, citizens identified and discussed
During the first sessions, the 20 representatives
issues related to the topics allocated to them.
of each Panel to the Conference Plenary were
Issues were defined as problems that needed
selected by a draw, from a pool of citizens
solutions or situations that needed to change.
volunteering.
Citizens then addressed the issues by drafting
SECOND PANEL SESSIONS orientations. Orientations represented the first
The European Citizens’ Panels continued their step towards producing recommendations,
work by convening online throughout the month which was the objective of Session 3.
of November. For this purpose, a special set- Additionally, citizens were asked to formulate
SESION 2
DAY 2
DAY 1 DAY 3
Expert input
Reconnecting as a Panel and Finalizing orientations
Identifying issues
getting ready for the weekend Closing remarks
Producing orientations
Expert input on substreams More expert input
Welcome
Fllor to citizens Produce orientations Finalize orientations
Ambassadors share feedback
Platform update
Agenda Sharing of some orientations
Closing words
Plenary Stream Plenary Subgroup Session
16
justifications for those orientations. 1 (A stronger economy, social justice and

jobs / Education, culture, youth and sport /
Discussions and collective work were carried
Digital transformation) and Panel 4 (EU in the
out in three formats:
world / Migration) had to be postponed until
J
In subgroups. Each of the 15 subgroups February 2022, in consultation with the national
was composed of 12 to 14 citizens. Four to authorities and associated partners.
five languages were used in each subgroup
Discussions and collective work were in the
to allow citizens to express themselves in
following formats:
their own language or in a language in which
they felt comfortable. Each subgroup was
led by a professional facilitator from the J
In plenary with all of the participants at
consortium of external service providers.
the start of the session to introduce the
J
In ‘stream plenaries’. Stream plenaries programme and at the end of the session,
gathered together the subgroups working as explained below. Plenary sessions
within the same thematic stream. The were led by two main moderators from the
stream plenaries were moderated by deliberation group, with interpretation in the
professional facilitators, with interpretation 24 official EU languages.
covering all the languages needed for the J
Citizens started by examining all of the
participants.
orientations produced by the Panel during
J
In plenary, with all of the participating Session 2 in an ‘open forum’ setting. Each
citizens, to introduce and wrap up the citizen then prioritised up to ten orientations
session. Plenary sessions were led by two per stream. Once prioritisation at Panel level
main moderators from the consortium, with was completed, citizens joined the same
interpretation in 24 languages. subgroups they worked in during Session
2 and collectively acknowledged – and
THIRD PANEL SESSIONS confronted with their own assessment –
The third and final Panel sessions took place which of their group’s orientations had been
in person in educational institutions in four prioritised by the rest of the Panel. For the
Member States. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic development of recommendations, each
and associated measures in Ireland and in subgroup was given an indicative range for
the Netherlands, the third sessions of Panel the number of recommendations to draft,
SESION 3
DAY 1 DAY 2 DAY 3

Reconnect, prioritize, and Make orientations into final Vote on final
get started recommendations recommendations
Welcome and objectives for Make orientations into Vote on final

the weekend recommendations recommendations
Open Forum Feedback to other groups

Read and prioritize Finalise recommendations
orientations
Make orienttions into

recommendations
Plenary Open forum Subgroup work
17
namely between one and three, with a had volunteered for that task.
maximum of five.
EUROPEAN CITIZENS’ PANELS
J
In each of the 15 subgroups, work was REPRESENTATIVES IN THE PLENARY
carried out to develop orientations into
recommendations. Citizens discussed the The recommendations adopted by the four
orientations that had received the most European Citizens’ Panels were subsequently
support (in order of rank) and started the presented and debated by the 80 European
process of drafting the recommendations. Citizens’ Panels’ Representatives in the
Conference Plenary and Working Groups on 21
In the third sessions, expertise/information was and 22 January 2022 (Panels 2 and 3) and on
not provided through direct interaction with the 11 and 12 March 2022 (Panels 1 and 4). The
citizens but through a specifically designed 80 European Citizens’ Panels’ Representatives
system – a ‘knowledge and information corner’. (with an average of 70 on-site and 10 online)
This system centralised on-site all requests then continued promoting and explaining the
for information and fact-checking and sent European Citizens’ Panels’ recommendations
experts’ and fact-checkers’ short and factual both in the Plenary sessions and Working
answers to the subgroups. It was devised to Groups during three consecutive meetings
ensure that the expert and fact-checking input (25-26 March, 8-9 April and 29-30 April). They
was prepared in a way that ensured the highest also exchanged views regularly in ‘citizens’
quality standards and avoided any undue component’ meetings (preparatory online
influence at this stage of the process. Citizens meetings and during Plenaries on-site) with
were also provided with the interim reports of each other and with the 27 representatives
the Multilingual Digital Platform. of national events/panels. On 23 April, the
During the work in subgroups, inter-subgroup European Citizens’ Panels’ Representatives met
feedback sessions were held in order to help online with all their fellow panellists to explain
participants understand the work carried out how the recommendations had been debated
in the other subgroups and to enhance their and had made their way into the Plenary
recommendations. proposals, and to receive feedback from
their fellow panellists. A group composed of
The recommendations from each subgroup members of the Common Secretariat and of the
were then voted on by the Panel on the consortium supported the citizens’ component
last day of the session. Before the vote, all in the Plenary.
participants received a document with all of
the draft recommendations generated the day TRANSPARENCY OF THE PROCESS
before so that they could read them in their
The overall process was handled in full
own language (automatically translated from
transparency. The Plenary meetings of the
English). Each recommendation was read out
European Citizens’ Panels were live-streamed,
in English in plenary to allow the citizens to
while the documents of their discussions and
hear the interpretation simultaneously. The
deliberations were made publicly available on
recommendations were voted on one by one by
the Multilingual Digital Platform. The output
all participants via an online form. According to
report of each of the Panel sessions is available
the results of the final votes, recommendations
on the Platform, as are the recommendations.
were classified as follows:
Output reports also contain information on all
Recommendations reaching the threshold of experts who supported the work of the Panels.
70% or more of the votes cast were adopted
As a true democratic innovation, the European
by the Panel. Recommendations failing to
Citizens’ Panels attracted a lot of attention from
pass the threshold were considered not to
the research community. Researchers were able
have been validated by the Panel. In total the
to be present at the European Citizens’ Panels
European citizens panels endorsed a total of
and observe the proceedings, while respecting
178 recommendations.
certain rules and the work and privacy of the
The voting procedure was supervised by a participants.
voting committee including two citizens who
18
19
Panel 1 deliberations that took place during Sessions
1 and 2. For this final session, participants in
‘A stronger economy, social justice, jobs/ Panel 1 were hosted at Dublin Castle by the
Education, culture, youth, sport/ Digital Institute of International and European Affairs
transformation’ (IIEA), with the possibility of participating
The first Panel session on ‘A stronger economy, online. Using the orientations they had
social justice, jobs/ Education, culture, youth, developed during Session 2 as the basis of their
sport/ Digital transformation’ took place from work, citizens produced and endorsed 48 final
17 to19 September 2021 in Strasbourg. This recommendations.
Panel addressed the future of our economy and
jobs, especially after the pandemic, paying due
attention to related issues of social justice. It Panel 2
also tackled the opportunities and challenges
of digital transformation – one of the biggest ‘European democracy/ Values and rights, rule
future-oriented topics under debate. The Panel of law, security’
also addressed the future of Europe in the Session 1 of the Panel on ‘European
areas of youth, sport, culture and education. democracy/ Values and rights, rule of law,
The participating citizens were welcomed by security’ took place from 24 to 26 September
Co-Chair Guy Verhofstadt. The work of the first in Strasbourg. The Panel addressed topics
session concluded with the endorsement of the related to democracy, such as elections,
five streams: ‘Working in Europe’; ‘An economy participation outside election periods,
for the future’; ‘A just society’; ‘Learning perceived distance between the people and
in Europe’ and ‘An ethical and safe digital their elected representatives, media freedom
transformation’. and disinformation. The Panel also addressed
From 5 to 7 November 2021, Panel 1 met for issues related to fundamental rights and values,
the second time – this time in a virtual format, the rule of law and the fight against all forms
and continued the deliberations of the first of discrimination. At the same time, the Panel
session. During this second session, panellists addressed the internal security of the EU, such
drafted ‘orientations’ to prepare concrete as the protection of Europeans from acts of
recommendations (in their third session) for terrorism and other crimes. The panellists
each of the five streams they had identified were welcomed by Co-Chair Gašper Dovžan.
during the first session. In total, citizens from The work of the first session concluded with
Panel 1 produced 142 groups of orientations. the endorsement of the five streams: ‘Ensuring
rights and non-discrimination’; ‘Protecting
From 25 to 27 February 2022, citizens from democracy and the rule of law’; ‘Reforming
Panel 1 met for the third time, continuing the
Photo: European Citizens’ Panel 1 Photo: European Citizens’ Panel 2
20
the EU’; ‘Building European identity’; and Panel 3 produced 130 groups of orientations.
‘Strengthening citizens’ participation’.
From 7 to 9 January 2022, citizens from Panel
From 12 to 14 November, Panel 2 met for 3 met for their final session hosted at the
the second time – in a virtual format – and College of Europe in Natolin, and at the Palace
continued the deliberations of the first of Culture and Science, with support from the
session. During this second session, they City of Warsaw. There was the possibility of
drafted ‘orientations’ to prepare concrete participating online. Using the orientations they
recommendations (in their third session) for had developed during Session 2 as the basis
each of the five streams they had identified for their work, citizens produced and endorsed
during the first session. In total, citizens from 51 final recommendationsPa
Panel 2 produced 124 groups of orientations.
From 10 to 12 December 2021, citizens from
Panel 2 met for their final session hosted at the
European University Institute in Florence, with
the possibility of participating online. Using the
orientations they had developed during Session
2 as the basis of their work, citizens produced
and endorsed 39 final recommendations.
Panel 3
‘Climate change and the environment/Health’
The Panel on ‘Climate change and the
environment/Health’ held its first session from
1 to 3 October in Strasbourg. It addressed the Photo: European Citizens’ Panel 3
effects of climate change, environmental issues
and new health challenges for the European
Union. The Panels also addressed the EU’s Panel 4
objectives and strategies such as agriculture,
transport and mobility, energy and the transition ‘EU in the world / Migration’
to post-carbon societies, research, healthcare The fourth Panel on ‘EU in the world / Migration’
systems, responses to health crises, prevention met for the first time from 15 to 17 October in
and healthy lifestyles. The work of the first Strasbourg, where they discussed, in particular,
session concluded with the endorsement of the the global role of the EU. That included
five streams: ‘Better Ways of Living’; ‘Protecting objectives and strategies for the EU’s security,
our environment and our health’; ‘Redirecting defence, trade policy, humanitarian aid and
our economy and consumption’; ‘Towards a development cooperation, foreign policy, EU
sustainable society’; and ‘Caring for all’. The neighbourhood policy and enlargement, as
output report of the session can be found on well as how the EU should deal with migration.
the Multilingual Digital Platform. The citizens were welcomed by Co-Chair
From 19 to 21 November 2021, Panel 3 met Dubravka Šuica. The work of the first session
for the second time – this time in a virtual concluded with the endorsement of the five
format – to continue the deliberations of the streams: ‘Self-reliance and stability’; ‘The EU
first session. During this second session, as an international partner’; ‘A strong EU in
they drafted ‘orientations’ to prepare concrete a peaceful world’; ‘Migration from a human
recommendations (in their third session) for perspective’; and ‘Responsibility and solidarity
each of the five streams they had identified across the EU’. The output report of the session
during the first session. In total, citizens from is available on the Multilingual Digital Platform.
21
second session, they drafted ‘orientations’ to
prepare concrete recommendations (in their
third session) for each of the five streams they
had identified during the first session. In total,
citizens from Panel 4 produced 95 groups of
orientations.
From 11 to 13 February 2022, citizens from
Panel 4 met for their final session hosted at
the Maastricht Exhibition and Conference
Centre (MECC) by Studio Europa Maastricht
in cooperation with Maastricht University and
the European Institute of Public Administration
(EIPA). There was the possibility of participating
online. Using the orientations they had
developed during Session 2 as the basis of their
Photo: European Citizens’ Panel 4 work, citizens produced and endorsed 40 final
recommendations.
From 16 to 28 November 2021, Panel 4 held
their second session online, based on the
work done in the first session. During this
2. National Citizens’ Panels

In accordance with the Joint Declaration, 1) BELGIUM
recommendations from the National and
In October 2021, a Citizens’ Panel was
European Citizens’ Panels were debated by
organised in which 50 randomly selected
the Conference Plenary, grouped by theme. To
citizens, representative of the general
assist Member States intending to organise
population, came together over three weekends
National Citizens’ Panels, guidance was
to discuss the topic of ‘European democracy’
approved by the Co-Chairs and sent to the
and how citizens could be more involved in EU
Executive Board on 26 May 2021. This was
affairs.
based on the same principles as the European
Citizens’ Panels and included principles for
good deliberation, based on an OECD reportIV.
Six Member States – Belgium, Germany, France,
Italy, Lithuania and the Netherlands – have
organised National Citizens’ Panels fulfilling
the principles of the abovementioned guidance.
The recommendations of those National
Citizens’ Panels were presented and debated in
the January and March Plenaries, as well as in
the Plenary Working Groups, together with the
recommendations of the European Citizens’
Panels on the same topics.
Photo: Belgium National Citizens' Panel

IV
OECD, Innovative Citizen Participation and New Democratic Institutions, 2020 https://www.oecd.org/gov/open-government/innovative-
citizen-participation-new-democratic-institutions-catching-the-deliberative-wave-highlights.pdf
22
The Panel was organised under the auspices

of Belgian Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of External and European Affairs, Ms Sophie
Wilmès.
The citizens made recommendations on five
topics of their choice, namely:
J
improving communication about the
European Union;
J
identifying and combating disinformation
about the EU;
J
citizens’ panels as a tool for participation;
J
referendums on EU affairs;
J
improving existing participatory instruments
in the European Union. Photo: German National Citizens' Panel
The Belgian Citizens’ Panel resulted in 115

recommendations prepared, discussed and 3) FRANCE
voted on by the 50 randomly selected Belgian
Citizens’ Panels were organised in France by the
citizens.
French Ministry for Europe and Foreign Affairs
2) GERMANY with the support of the Ministry responsible
for Relations with Parliament and Citizen
In January 2022, the German Federal Foreign
Participation.
Office organised a National Citizens’ Panel.
In this Panel, 100 randomly selected citizens, 18 Citizens’ Panels were organised in
representative of the population, participated September and early October 2021 in all
online. metropolitan and overseas regions of France.
Each Citizens’ Panel brought together between
On 5 and 8 January 2022, five online launch
30 and 50 randomly selected citizens,
workshops were organised, each with 20
representative of the diversity of the regional
participants discussing the following topics:
population. In total, more than 700 citizens
J
Europe’s role in the world; participated in the Panels. The outcome of the
J
Climate and environment; regional Panels was a list of 101 aspirations,
with 515 amendments and 1 301 specific
J
Rule of law and values; proposals.
J
A stronger economy and social justice.
The randomly selected 100 citizens met on
15 and 16 January 2022 to discuss related
challenges and possible solutions, and adopted
their recommendations. The participants
developed two specific proposals under each of
the abovementioned topics.
The results were presented on 16 January at
a final online conference attended by German
Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock and
Minister of State for Europe and Climate Anna
Lührmann.
Photo: French National Citizens' Panel
23
A total of 100 citizens representing the Panels of the recommendations drawn up during the
met in Paris on 16 and 17 October 2021 during first phase of the work.
the national summary conference (‘Conférence
5) LITHUANIA
nationale de synthèse’) in order to draft and
adopt the recommendations. In total, 14 priority On behalf of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, a
recommendations were identified in this National Citizens’ Panel was organised by an
process. The recommendations, covering the independent third party in January 2022.
nine topics of the Conference, were submitted A total of 25 randomly selected citizens, aged
to the French government, including State between 18 and 65 and representative of the
Secretary Clément Beaune, and were the French different socio-economic groups and regions of
government’s contribution to the Conference. Lithuania, participated in the Panel.
4) ITALY
A Citizens’ Panel was organised in March
2022 by an independent third party under
the supervision of the Italian Department for
European Policies of the Presidency of the
Council of Ministers.
A total of 55 randomly selected citizens,
representative of Italian society and its regions,
participated in the Panel. The participants
were randomly selected to ensure the
presence of people of different genders, ages,
social backgrounds, places of residence and
employment status.
The citizens met online on 11 and 12 March
2022 to discuss two topics of the Conference:
J
A stronger economy, social justice and jobs; Photo: Lithuanian National Citizens' Panel
J
Europe in the world.
On 12 March 2022, the Panel adopted a total of On 4 January 2022, an online opening session
58 recommendations – 33 were on a stronger was organised and citizens discussed two
economy, social justice and jobs and 25 were topics:
on Europe in the world. On the last day, the
The EU’s role and powers in foreign policy;
participants verified and validated the first draft
J
The economic role of the EU.
On 15 January 2022, the participants met in
person to formulate the main conclusions of
their discussions. On 25 January 2022, they
adopted 21 recommendations in a virtual
session, 10 of which were on the EU’s role
and powers in foreign policy and 11 on the
economic role of the EU.
Photo: Italian National Citizens' Panel
24
6) THE NETHERLANDS
The Citizens’ Panel was organised by an
independent third party, as the ‘Visions of
Europe’ dialogues started on 1 September. They
consisted of several parts.
On 1 September 2021, the online part was
launched, consisting of a questionnaire and
a simplified selection tool where citizens
could give their preferences, wishes and
recommendations on the nine Conference
topics. The questionnaire was distributed to a
selected representative and inclusive group of
4 000 citizens.
In October and November 2021, in-depth
online and offline debates were organised with Dutch National Citizens' Panel
citizens, also to reach young people and hard-
to-reach target groups.
Two reports entitled ‘Our vision of Europe;
opinions, ideas and recommendations’
(‘Onze kijk op Europa; meningen, ideeën en
aanbevelingen’) were published, which gathered
the citizens’ 30 recommendations on the nine
Conference topics.
25
(C) Events organised in the
framework of the Conference
1. National events
Member States contributed to the Conference
through a wide range of events and initiatives.
These events reached many thousands of
citizens from all across the EU. A dedicated
section on the multilingual digital platform
gives an overview of the main activities that
Member States’ authorities have organised
or supported. The events were presented at
the Conference Plenaries on 23 October 2021
and 25 March 2022 by the representatives
of national events and/or National Citizens’
Panels and also fed into the Conference
through platform reports, enriching the debate
at European level.
The main objective of these events and
initiatives was to listen to citizens and to
involve them in debates on the European Union.
Inclusivity and reaching out to citizens was also
a priority, with efforts made to include those
who are not usually involved in EU issues.
Different types of events took place, with
a mixture of centralised and decentralised
approaches, including various forms of
support for bottom-up initiatives. Activities
and events in the Member States were
organised by different institutions and
stakeholders, including national, regional and
local authorities, civil society organisations,
social partners, associations and citizens. In
some cases, non-governmental organisations,
cultural institutions, think tanks, universities
and research institutes also actively engaged
in organising events about the Conference. In
many of these activities and events, special
importance was given to the involvement of the
younger generation.
26
Overview of main events and initiatives

in Member States:
1 4
Belgium Denmark
Several events were organised by the federal A broad and inclusive national debate was
and regional authorities. Several debates organised, where civil society and other non-
with citizens took place, for instance on the governmental actors played a central role. A
EU in the world and on climate change and designated pool of public funds was granted
the environment. A structured dialogue with to a diverse group of organisations, including
citizens was held on ‘Living in a border region’, NGOs, media, youth organisations, cultural
as well as a hackathon on ‘the impact of healthy institutions, think tanks and research institutes,
lifestyles and climate change on the quality to support debates and initiatives hosted by
of life’ and ‘barriers for young people in the non-governmental organisations. More than
labour market’. In addition, an event was held 180 debates were held, with approximately half
on digitalisation and a sustainable economy, of them specifically targeted at young people.
and a series of debates on the theme of ‘Europe In addition, the government and parliament
is listening’ were conducted between young organised a series of official events, such as
people and politicians. citizens’ consultations and debates.
2 5
Bulgaria Germany
The Bulgarian exercise was launched in a Events organised in Germany involved the
ceremony entitled ‘How to hear the voice Federal Government, Bundestag, federal states
of citizens through the Conference on the and civil society. In addition to the events
Future of Europe?’ with public authorities and held by the Federal Government, more than
citizen representatives. As part of the events 50 regional events were organised by the 16
organised, a citizens’ dialogue on demography federal states of Germany and about 300
and democracy was organised. Several local events by civil society. Cross-border events and
events were held in large university cities, student and youth dialogues were a central
organised with the assistance of Europe Direct element of many initiatives, putting young
centres. people at the forefront of the discussions to
shape the future of Europe.
3
6
Czechia
Estonia
The Czech Republic organised discussions
at central level with the general public Various events, seminars and debates were
and awareness-raising events for organised by the government office together
relevant stakeholders. These events were with the European Commission Representation
complemented by events for young people in Estonia, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and
and events with international participation. In other ministries as well as by civil society,
particular, a transnational event with German youth organisations and others. In particular,
and Czech citizens was organised. Several a discussion was organised for high school
regional debates took place throughout the students on key questions regarding climate
country, as well as regional seminars for change, energy policies, and the Conference in
secondary school students on the theme general. A discussion on ‘Estonian diplomacy in
‘Decide on Europe’. the service of achieving the climate goals’ was
also organised.
27
7 10
Ireland France
Inclusivity and reaching out to all sectors of The French government conducted a large
the community, particularly young people, was online consultation for young people from
the central theme for Ireland’s activities. In May to July 2021. 50 000 young French people
cooperation with European Movement Ireland expressed their views, endorsing 16 main ideas
(EMI), a programme of regional and sectoral for the future of Europe. The outcome of this
engagements ran across 2021 and 2022. The exercise was compiled in a final report, together
first phase of regional meetings was held in with the outcome of the French Citizens’ Panel,
June and July as virtual consultations. The and constitutes France’s contribution to the
second phase of the regional events was Conference. The French government also
organised as in-person town-hall meetings encouraged all French actors who wished to
during early 2022. From July, a programme of do so – associations, local authorities, elected
government-led events took place. representatives, civil society representatives –
to organise events.
8
11
Greece
Croatia
The Foreign Ministry was in charge of
coordinating the national dialogue. Central and A task force for the coordination of activities
local government agencies and civil society was established and compiled ideas and
were strongly encouraged to hold discussions plans for conducting national activities. The
and other events. For instance, events took ministries, central state offices, regional
place on Euro-Mediterranean cooperation, the development agencies, universities, NGOs
Western Balkans, the demographic challenge, and institutes organised events in the form
migration and democracy, involving citizens and of conferences, citizens’ dialogues and
different stakeholders. debates with citizens, public discussions
and educational workshops, with a special
9 emphasis on young people. The themes
covered included migration, demography,
Spain climate neutrality, and the circular economy.
The Spanish framework included six events Some events were held with other Member
at national level (for instance a consultation States and non-EU neighbouring countries.
of Spanish citizens on the future of Europe)
and about 20 at regional level. An event was 12
also organised with Portuguese and Spanish
Italy
citizens, to discuss key themes relevant to the
future of their regions and to the EU. At regional Several events, with a special focus on young
and local level, events were organised by the people, were set up in order to reach as many
authorities on several themes, for instance citizens as possible, with the active support
cross-border cooperation, the impact of of local authorities. A media campaign was
demographic changes, sustainable transport launched to raise as much awareness as
and mobility, climate change, migration and the possible. Activities included the EU-Balkan
future of outermost regions. Youth Forum organised with young people from
the Western Balkans, the Med Dialogues Youth
Forum with young people from the Southern
Neighbourhood, as well as competitions for
secondary school students and university
students entitled ‘Europe is in your hands’.
28
13 16
Cyprus Luxembourg
Several activities were held, which included A number of events were organised at national
many stakeholders, focusing on young level in an open, inclusive and transparent
people. A launch event was organised, with a approach. For instance, the parliament
discussion with the younger generation on its organised a number of events using new
expectations, concerns and vision for Europe formats such as ‘bistro talks’. A hackathon for
and Cyprus within the EU. An open dialogue students and young entrepreneurs was also
was also organised on young people’s role organised, to discuss the Digital Compass and
in the debate on Europe and the problems the EU industrial strategy. In addition, there was
they face at national and European level. An a trinational exchange between German, French
event also took place to discuss the future of and Luxembourg high school students.
European security and defence.
17
14
Hungary
Latvia
A broad variety of events in the society (more
Various events were organised, including a than 800) have been organised. Institutional
nationwide online discussion with students events included high-level international
called ‘the future is in your hands’, tackling conferences organised by several ministries
economic, social and security issues. A (for instance on enlargement and the EU’s
nationwide poll and focus-group discussions digital strategy) and of roundtable discussions
were organised to collect public-opinion- with students and youth organisations (for
poll data on citizens’ perspectives on the example on European integration). A Several
future priorities of the European Union for all organisations held Panels to discuss EU
themes of the Conference. Regional in-person institutions; a stronger economy, social justice
discussions were held to raise awareness of and jobs, digital transformation, education,
the Conference among people older than 55, as culture, youth and sport; values and rights,
well as in-person discussions with pupils from rule of law and security; NGOs; migration; and
secondary schools. demography, family, health, climate change and
the environment.
15
18
Lithuania
Malta
Events were mainly organised with a
decentralised approach, and the main focus Following a launch event, a national
was on the regions of Lithuania and on young coordinating committee was set up to promote
people (for instance, with the Baltic States the initiative on different communication
Youth Debate). A series of citizens’ dialogues channels and steered the debate through
(on democracy, digitalisation, climate change national and local events. Themed public
etc.), transnational dialogues (for instance with dialogues (for instance on health, European
France, Ireland, and Italy respectively), and civil values, and the future of work for a fair society),
society-driven events took place. In addition, press conferences, consultations with sectoral
schools were encouraged to discuss the future stakeholders and interactive sessions with
of Europe. children and students were held in either
physical or hybrid format.
29
19 the future of the two countries’ regions and
to the EU. In addition, national decentralised
Netherlands events were organised on different topics such
The Netherlands focused on organising its as migration and international partnerships,
National Citizens’ Panel ‘Visions of Europe - Kijk the future of European democracy, and digital
op Europa’, which was carried out both online transformation.
and in person. It was organised in two phases:
firstly gathering people’s thoughts and opinions 23
on ‘what’ they expect and want, followed up by
a second phase focused on understanding their Romania
underlying opinions (‘why’ and ‘how’) through Events were mainly hosted or co-hosted by the
group dialogues. administration and specific institutes, with the
active participation of civil society and youth
20 organisations. Debates covered a wide range of
topics, such as digitalisation, education, health,
Austria the environment, sustainable development, the
Debates took place in various formats, at economy, agriculture, and the EU’s strategic
federal, regional and local level. ‘Future labs’ partnerships. Events were organised in the
and ‘future dialogues’ presented in-depth capital and at local level, with all age groups
exchanges with high-level experts on different participating.
topics and sought holistic solutions for the
future. Furthermore, a number of events 24
were organised by and for the ‘Austrian Local
Councillors for Europe. Several events were Slovenia
aimed directly at young people and pupils. The overall vision was to encourage a broad
debate with civil society playing a central role
21 and participation by young people especially
encouraged. The government organised a
Poland kick-off event, which was followed by several
Events were mainly organised with a initiatives, for instance the Bled Strategic Forum
decentralised approached. At the regional level, where the main topic was the Future of Europe,
the Regional Centres for International Debate with a specific focus on EU enlargement and
organised public events in all 16 Polish regions the Western Balkans. Other events covered
in both physical and virtual format. The topics topics such as monetary policy, climate
of discussions covered the thematic areas neutrality, youth, and the role of the EU in a
of the Conference, e.g. solidarity in times of multipolar international environment.
crises, agriculture, and new technologies. A
national debate was also organised on climate, 25
digitalisation, the internal market, health, the EU
Slovakia
in the world, and migration.
Events were organised under two main pillars.
22 The first was the ‘WeAreEU’ project focused
on the broad public, including discussions
Portugal with students and public consultations, with
Following the first citizens’ event in Lisbon a series of regional events organised under
which kicked off citizens’ participation in the the ‘WeAreEU Road Show’. The second pillar
Conference, many events were organised in consisted of the National Convention on
partnership with local authorities, universities, the EU, focused on expert and analytical
schools, social partners, youth organisations, input on themes such as the single market,
local civil society organisations, among others. disinformation and populism, and the digital
For instance, a transnational event was held and green transitions.
with Spain, to discuss key themes relevant to
30
26 27
Finland Sweden
A series of regional consultations, including Events were mainly organised with a
the ‘most northern Conference event of the EU’, decentralised approach as a joint exercise
were organised by the government on different between the government office, national
topics, for instance on sustainable growth, parliament, political parties, social partners,
education, and the rule of law. A poll was also local and regional representatives, civil
set up to feed into the discussion. Events were society organisations and other relevant
organised by the government in cooperation societal stakeholders. For instance, Sweden’s
with cities, local authorities, universities, NGOs EU minister discussed Europe’s future with
and the Finnish youth organisation as well students in different schools, and participated
as with the Finnish parliament, the European in town square meetings to discuss the future
Parliament and European Commission of Europe and democracy with citizens. Digital
information offices in Finland.27 media were also used to engage in citizens'
dialogues through, for instance, Q&A sessions.
The abovementioned descriptions are not
exhaustive. More information on national
events is available on a dedicated section on
the multilingual digital platform.
The above-mentioned descriptions are not
exhaustive. More information on national
events is available on a dedicated section on
the multilingual digital platform.
31
2. European Youth Event (EYE) The Youth Ideas report was presented to the
Conference Plenary on 23 October by young
The European Youth Event (EYE2021) took participants from the European Citizens’
place on 8-9 October 2021 and brought together Panels who had also taken part in EYE2021.
10 000 young people online and in the European All the ideas collected are available on
Parliament in Strasbourg to shape and share searchyouthideas.eu.
their ideas for the future of Europe. EYE was a
unique opportunity for 16 to 30–year-olds to 3. Other events
interact in person and online, inspire each other
and exchange their views with experts, activists, In addition to the above events, many other
influencers and decision-makers, right in the institutions and stakeholders gathered EU
heart of European democracy. citizens to discuss the future of EuropeV.
From May 2021, in collaboration with pan- Throughout the entire Conference on the Future
European youth organisations, more than 2 of Europe, the European Economic and Social
000 proposals from young citizens around Committee (EESC) was committed to raising
the European Union were collected online. awareness about it and to helping its vast
In addition, several sessions were organised network of civil society organisations in the
focusing on the Conference on the Future Member States organise national consultations.
of Europe, both online ahead of the event In total, it supported the roll-out of 75 events,
and during the EYE in Strasbourg. After the of which 33 at national level, and 42 at central
event, the 20 most prominent ideas among level. 60 % of these events produced reports on
participants, two per Conference topic, were the Conference platform and those 45 events
collected in the Youth Ideas report for the alone gathered more than 7 300 participants.
Conference on the Future of Europe, published In particular, the EESC kicked off its activities in
in 23 languages. June 2021 with a major conference – ‘Bringing
the European project back to citizens’, and
V
Consult the Digital Multilingual Platform to access information about all events.
32
organised a ‘Connecting EU seminar’ in Lisbon on the online platform (amongst the most-
in November 2021 as well as ‘Shaping Europe supported proposals). The ETUC and its
together’, a high-level event in Brussels in affiliates organised events and communication
February 2022. The Committee also promoted activities to present and discuss the trade union
the use of the online platform, where it proposals.
uploaded 60 new ideas, and launched a vast
The civil society component – composed of
communication campaign on social media, with
the Civil Society Convention for the Conference
32 million people of potential reach on Twitter
on the Future of Europe and the European
only, promoting national events in English and
Movement International – held many events
in the local language and reaching out before
across Europe and was vocal at the Plenary
and after every Plenary and Conference-related
level. It engaged hundreds of civil society
meeting.
organisations, in a bottom-up approach
The European Committee of the Regions (CoR) through thematic clusters, to draft joint and
organised thematic debates in its commissions comprehensive proposals on a variety of
and plenaries as well as 140 local, cross-border policy areas covered by the Conference.
and inter-regional events involving 10 000 The ideas were fed into the Conference
citizens and 200 local politicians. Moreover, through the platform, the Working Groups, the
the first-ever survey polling the 1.2 million Plenary sessions and in direct contact with
local politicians in the EU-27 about their views the Executive Board, the Co-Chairs and the
on Europe’s future was published in October Common Secretariat.
2021. In addition, the CoR proposed 44 ideas
The European Commission Representations
via the multilingual digital platform. In early
in the Member States, Europe Direct Centres,
2022, an independent High Level Group on
European Documentation Centres, as well
European Democracy put forward ideas on how
as the European Parliament Liaison Offices
to improve democracy in the EU. A resolution
were very active in communicating about and
outlining proposals for the final Conference
informing citizens on the Conference on the
report was adopted by the CoR and a 12-point
Future of Europe. The European Commission
manifesto on behalf of the one million local
Representations have reported 1400 activities
and regional politicians in the EU was endorsed
that helped to communicate and implement
at the European Summit of regions and
the Conference all over Europe. They have
cities in March 2022. A report ‘Citizens, local
organised or actively participated in more than
politicians and the future of Europe’ (March
850 events, of which about 65% were targeted
2022) summarises all CoR activities for the
to young people and women to encourage
Conference.
their wider participation in the Conference. The
The three employers’ organisations in the EU’s European Parliament Liaison Offices organised
social partnership, BusinessEurope, SGI Europe over 1300 promotional activities across all the
and SMEunited, all published their priorities Member States. Thematic workshops on the
and contributions on the digital platform different main topics of the Conference, with
and presented them in the relevant Working MEPs, citizens and stakeholder organisations,
Groups and at Plenary level. Furthermore, they national authorities and regional and local
all promoted the Conference both internally media were organised to broaden the outreach
and with external stakeholders and organised of the Conference. The Europe Direct Centres
events and engaged with stakeholders reported about more than 1000 thematic
across different fora. The European Trade events on the Conference and more than 600
Union Confederation (ETUC) mobilised to promotional activities, involving a wide range
contribute to the Conference and participated of target groups and youth organisations.
in Plenary and Working Group meetings. The European Documentations Centres reported
ETUC defined trade union proposals for a over 120 actions related to the communication
fairer future for Europe and included them of the Conference.
33
III.
The Conference
Plenary
34
(A) Composition, role and functioning
A Conference Plenary was set up to debate or National Citizens’ Panels participated.

the recommendations from the National and 18 representatives from the Committee of
European Citizens’ Panels, grouped by themes, the Regions and 18 from the Economic and
without a predetermined outcome and without Social Committee, 6 elected representatives
limiting the scope to predefined policy areas. from regional authorities and 6 elected
Input gathered from the Multilingual Platform representatives from local authorities, 12
was also debated when relevant. The Plenary representatives of the social partners, and
had a unique composition as it included, for 8 from civil society also participated. The
the first time, citizens representing European High Representative of the Union for Foreign
and National Citizens’ Panels and events Affairs and Security Policy was invited when
alongside representatives of EU institutions the international role of the EU was discussed.
and advisory bodies, elected representatives Representatives of key stakeholders, such
at national, regional and local levels, as well as representatives from the Western Balkans
as representatives of civil society and social partners, Ukraine, churches, religious
partners. After the recommendations were associations or communities, philosophical
presented by and discussed with citizens, the and non-confessional organisations were also
Plenary had to put forward its proposals on a invited.
consensual basisVI to the Executive Board. The
The meetings of the Conference Plenaries
Conference Plenary met seven times from June
were chaired jointly by the Co-Chairs of
2021 to April 2022.
the Conference. The Conference Plenaries
The Conference Plenary was composed of 108 took place in the premises of the European
representatives from the European Parliament, Parliament in Strasbourg. Due to the applicable
54 from the Council and 3 from the European health and safety regulations in place, the
CommissionVII, as well as 108 representatives first five Conference Plenaries took place in
from all national parliaments on an equal hybrid format, whereas the last two took place
footing, and citizens. 80 representatives in person. The Conference Plenaries were
from European Citizens’ Panels, of which live-streamed and all the documents from the
at least one third was younger than 25, the meetings were made publicly available on the
President of the European Youth Forum and Multilingual Digital Platform.
27 representativesVIII of national events and/
VI
onsensus had to be found at least between the representatives of the European Parliament, the Council, the European Commission
C
and representatives from national Parliaments, on an equal footing. If there was a clear diverging position from representatives of
citizens from national events and/or European or National Citizens’ Panels, this had to be expressed in this report.
VII
Other members of the European Commission were invited to the Plenary, notably where matters relevant to their portfolio were to be
discussed.
VIII
One per Member State.
35
(B) Working Groups
In accordance with the Rules of Procedure European Citizens’ Panels. Representatives of

of the Conference, the Co-Chairs proposed the European Citizens’ Panels participated in
to the Conference Plenary that nine thematic the relevant Working Group for their Panel. In
Working Groups be established, according to addition, specific provision was made to allow
the themes of the Multilingual Digital Platform, members of the college of Commissioners to
in order to give input to prepare the debates participate in Working Groups according to their
and the proposals of the Conference Plenary, portfolio responsibilities.
within the parameters of the Joint Declaration.
The Working Groups held lively debates and
In October 2021, the Co-Chairs agreed on the
worked on draft proposals prepared under the
Terms of Reference applicable to the Working
authority of the Chair and the Spokesperson,
Groups. The Working Groups respectively
selected from among the representatives
covered: Climate change and the environment;
of the European Citizens’ Panels within the
Health; A stronger economy, social justice and
Working Group, with the assistance of the
jobs; EU in the world; Values and rights, rule of
Common Secretariat. The Working Groups
law, security; Digital transformation; European
had to work on the basis of consensus as
Democracy; Migration; and Education, culture,
defined in Article 17 of the Conference Rules
Youth, Sport.
of Procedure. The Chair and the Spokesperson
The Working Groups put forward their input then gave presentations of the outcome of the
to the Conference Plenary by discussing the Working Group to the Plenary. The Chair of the
recommendations from the respective National Working Group was assisted by the Common
and European Citizens’ Panels as well as Secretariat. The Common Secretariat of the
the contributions on the Multilingual Digital Conference prepared the summary records
Platform related to the nine topics gathered in of each Working Group meeting under the
the framework of the Conference. Members of guidance of the Chair and in consultation with
the Conference Plenary were distributed in the the members of the Working Group.
following way among the 9 Working Groups: 12
The Working Groups met in the margins of the
members per Working Group for the European
Conference Plenaries from October 2021 until 8
Parliament and the national parliaments,
April 2022, as well as online in December 2021.
6 for the Council, 3 for the representatives
Some Working Groups had additional meetings.
from National Citizens’ Panels or events, 2
Working Group meetings were live-streamed
each for the Committee of Regions and the
as of 20 January 2022. Their summary records
Economic and Social Committee, 1 or 2 for
were duly made available in the Plenary section
the social partners, 1 for civil society, and 1
of the Multilingual Digital Platform.
for elected members of local and regional
authorities, as well as representatives of the
36
(C) Chronological summary
INAUGURAL CONFERENCE PLENARY, 19 an overview of the 20 tangible ideas selected

JUNE 2021 by the young citizens participating in the
EYE. In the further discussion, the innovative
The inaugural Conference Plenary took place
nature of the Multilingual Digital Platform was
on 19 June 2021 in hybrid formatIX. It allowed
emphasised, which gave a voice to citizens and
the members of the Plenary to listen to a
a place to debate in all EU official languages.
presentation and to have a general discussion
This discussion was based on the second
on the purpose of and expectations for the
interim report on the Platform. The Western
Conference. The Co-Chairs underlined the
Balkans partners were invited to participate in
unprecedented nature of this deliberative
this Plenary meeting as key stakeholders.
democracy exercise at EU level, which
reinforced representative democracy, by THIRD CONFERENCE PLENARY, 21-22
bringing citizens to the heart of policymaking JANUARY 2022
in the European Union. The Co-Chairs also
outlined how the three pillars of the Conference The third Plenary of the Conference, taking
– the Multilingual Digital Platform, the European place on 21 and 22 January 2022, was the first
and National Citizens’ Panels and the Plenary – to be dedicated to the official presentation of
would work. recommendations stemming from the European
Citizens’ Panels, as well as the related National
In addition, the members of the Plenary Citizens’ Panels. This Plenary was indeed the
were informed of the intention to set up nine first to take place after some European Citizens’
thematic Working Groups and of the calendar Panels had finalised their recommendations,
of the Conference. In the debate that followed, namely: European Citizens’ Panels 2 (European
in which over 150 participants spoke, a wide democracy / Values and rights, rule of law,
variety of topics were addressed. As the security) and 3 (Climate change and the
selection of the participants for the European environment/health). The Plenary took place in
Citizens’ Panels had not been completed yet, a hybrid format, with more than 400 Conference
the President of the European Youth Forum and Plenary members participating either on-site or
27 representatives of national events and/or remotely.
National Citizens’ Panels participated as part of
the citizens component. This Plenary was also marked by the recent
passing away of the European Parliament’s
SECOND CONFERENCE PLENARY, 22-23 President David Maria Sassoli. The Co-Chairs
OCTOBER 2021 paid tribute to his memory at the opening of the
Plenary.
The second Conference Plenary took place
on 22-23 October 2021 in hybrid format, with The debates of this Plenary were organised
representatives of the European Citizens’ by theme, on the topics covered by European
Panels participating for the first time. Citizens’ Panel 2 and European Citizens’ Panel
Members of the Plenary were able to listen 3.
to a presentation on the state of play of the
Discussions took place in an innovative
four European Citizens’ Panels and to hold a
interactive format, including time allocated
discussion. In addition, the representatives
for citizens’ feedback and a special ‘blue
of the national events and Panels were able
card’ question system that allowed for
to present the events being held at national
spontaneous and lively exchanges on citizens’
level. Furthermore, the Conference Plenary was
recommendations.
presented with a report on the European Youth
Event (EYE), which provided the members with
IX
n 17 June 2021, a first European Citizens’ event took place in Lisbon in a hybrid format, ahead of the inaugural Plenary of 19 June, to
O
kick off the citizens’ participation in the Conference.
37
FOURTH CONFERENCE PLENARY, 11-12 been shaping over the past months. This
MARCH 2022 exchange also gave them an opportunity to
reflect on the unique process of elaboration
The fourth Plenary of the Conference was
of Plenary proposals, based on citizens’
also dedicated to the presentation of the
recommendations, and the work achieved since
recommendations stemming from the
those recommendations were formulated.
European Citizens’ Panels, as well as the
Citizens in particular stressed the unique
related National Citizens’ Panels. This
human experience and added value of this
Plenary took place after the remaining two
deliberation process, which bound them
European Citizens’ Panels had finalised their
together around this common project. This
recommendations, namely: European Citizens’
debate fed into the final draft proposals that
Panels 1 (A stronger economy, social justice
would be submitted to the very last Conference
and jobs / Education, culture, youth and sport /
Plenary.
Digital transformation) and 4 (EU in the world /
Migration). SEVENTH AND FINAL CONFERENCE
Similarly to the January Plenary, the debates PLENARY, 29-30 APRIL 2022
of this Plenary were organised by theme. The seventh and last Plenary of the Conference
The topics covered, this time, were those of on the Future of Europe was a milestone,
European Citizens’ Panel 1 and European closing a months-long process of intense
Citizens’ Panel 4. Discussions on citizens’ deliberations with the formulation of 49
recommendations again resulted in lively, proposals.
in-depth exchanges, aided by an innovative
interactive format. The 49 proposals were put forward and
formulated by the Conference Plenary to
FIFTH CONFERENCE PLENARY, 25-26 the Executive Board on a consensual basis.
MARCH Such consensus was found between the
representatives of the European Parliament,
The fifth Plenary marked the entry of the
the Council, the European Commission and
Conference into its next stages, with the
National Parliaments.
beginning of the process of shaping Plenary
proposals based on citizens’ recommendations. The representatives of the Committee of the
Therefore, the Plenary members, after preparing Regions and the European Economic and Social
in the smaller thematic setting of Working Committee, elected representatives at regional
Groups, held, for the first time, debates on and local level as well as representatives of
all nine topics of the Conference: A stronger social partners and civil society also expressed
economy, social justice and jobs / Education, themselves favourably on the process, and gave
culture, youth and sport / Digital transformation their support to the proposals.
/ European democracy / Values and rights,
The citizens’ component presented its final
rule of law, security / Climate change and
opinion on the proposals (see key messages
the environment / Health / EU in the world /
below).
Migration. This Plenary was also a chance
for the representatives of national events,
organised across the 27 EU Member States, to
present the results of their undertakings.
SIXTH CONFERENCE PLENARY, 8-9 APRIL
2022
The sixth Conference Plenary saw the
finalisation of the draft Plenary proposals.
After the last meetings of the thematic
Working Groups had taken place, by way of
nine substance-focused debates, all Plenary
members expressed their final views and
comments on the draft proposals they had
38
During the closing Plenary (29-30 April 2022), the 108 citizens members of the citizens’ component
presented their final position on the Plenary proposals. Their presentation was designed collectively
and presented by 17 of them at the final debate. The text below is a summary of the key messages
from their interventions.
**
We start by thanking the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission for the
opportunity to help shape the future of Europe. We met fellow Europeans from all over the Union,
from different panels and events, with politicians and social actors, and broadened our horizons.
We grew as Europeans. For this to happen, we all made sacrifices: we were thrown out of our daily
life, took days off work, and spent, for the European Citizens’ Panels members, nine weekends
away from our families. But we lived an incredible and unique experience. For us, it was not a
waste of time.
There were ups and downs along the way. We did not always get an answer to our questions. We
know that it will take time for the proposals to be implemented. But we are confident that you will
do what it takes to make it happen, out of respect for our joint work. If we, the citizens, were able
to get past our differences, the language barriers, to work together and grow to your level, so can
you.
**
We all came a long way and now that our work in the Plenary is done, we can be proud of it. We
see 8 cross-cutting topics that give a clear and strong mandate for the Future of Europe.
First, a European Union based on solidarity, social justice and equality. Indeed, a great concern
for the citizens is to find equal conditions and rights in different areas: healthcare, social services,
education and life-long learning, equal opportunities for inhabitants of rural and urban areas, to
take account of demographic considerations. In the future, Europeans, across Member States
and regions, should no longer face discrimination due to their age, residency, nationality, gender,
religion, or political preferences. They should be offered decent living standards, wages and
working conditions. The EU needs to be more than an economic union. Member States need
to show more solidarity towards one another. We are a family and should behave as such in
situations of crisis.
Second, the EU needs to be bold and act fast to become an environment and climate leader, by
making the transition to green energy faster, improving its railway network, encourage sustainable
transport and a truly circular economy. There is no time to lose. The EU needs to lead the change
in many policy areas: agriculture, biodiversity, economy, energy, transport, education, health, digital
transformation and climate diplomacy. We have research capacities, economic strength and
geopolitical leverage to do it. If we make climate a priority, we can look forward to a prosperous
future.
Third, Europe needs a more democratic Union. European citizens love the EU, but let’s face it: it
is not always easy. You called on us to help you and asked us: How should European democracy
look like in the Future? And we answered to you: We citizens want a Europe in which decisions are
made transparently and quickly, where the unanimity principle is reconsidered and in which we
citizens are regularly and seriously involved.
Fourth, the EU needs more harmonisation in some fields, and to grow closer together as a Union.
War is knocking on our Eastern doors, and this calls on us to be more unified than ever, and to
grant the EU more competence on foreign affairs. This Conference can be the foundation for the
creation of a more united and politically cohesive Europe. It all boils down to this word: Union. We
cannot describe ourselves as such if we do not achieve the collaboration that this Conference
exemplified.
Fifth, the EU needs to grow in autonomy and secure its global competitiveness. Throughout this
process, we talked about reaching this goal in key strategic sectors: agriculture, energy, industry,
39
health. We need to avoid being dependent on third countries for many sensitive products. We need
to bet on the talent of our labour force, prevent brain drain and provide training in the right skills to
citizens at all stages of their lives, and no matter where they live in the EU. We cannot have huge
disparities within the EU and young people with no prospect in one country, forced to move to
another.
Sixth, the future of the EU is one based on its values. These have guided our work. When we
started, no one could have imagined that a war would break out on our continent. This fight for
freedom makes us realise how lucky we are to live in a peaceful union. Behind all our proposals,
these values are being expressed: a human and dignified reception of migrants, equal access to
health, the fight against corruption, the call for the protection of nature and biodiversity, and for a
more democratic Union.
Seventh, in the Future, citizens should feel more European and know more about the EU. This was
a transversal issue that underpinned the work of all panels. Digital transformation, education,
mobility, and exchanges can give substance to this European identity, which complements,
without challenging, our national identities. Many of us did not feel European before this
Conference: it emerged here, slowly, by exchanging with one another. We were lucky to have this
opportunity, but many do not. Therefore information, communication and awareness raising are
so important.
Finally, an eighth cross-cutting topic that is extremely important for us is education and the
empowerment of citizens overall. For this Conference, you decided to invite citizens as young as
16. We are grateful because, more than ever, it is necessary to empower young people. The high
youth abstention rate shows us that the link between youth and politics needs to be reunited.
Empower them economically and socially too: it is still too hard to enter the job market, to claim
their social rights. During the - Covid-19 pandemic, they felt abandoned and many still suffer the
consequences on their mental health. But all Europeans need to be empowered, not only young
people: through mobility programmes and life-long learning, we need to open the horizons of all
Europeans. We need also to educate citizens in democracy, civic participation and media literacy.
We need a truly holistic approach.
**
No one knew what the result would be. 27 countries, 24 languages, different ages. And yet, when
we worked together, we felt connected: our brains, thoughts, experiences. We are not experts
on the EU or any of the topics of the Conference, but we are experts in real life, and we have our
stories. We go to work, we live in the countryside and suburbs, we work nightshifts, we study, we
have children, we take public transport. We have our diversity to rely on. Consensus was found
on the proposals between the four different components, and within the citizens’ component. We
agree and support all proposals now in your hands. We express a diverging position on measure
38.4, third bullet since it originated neither from the European nor the National Panels and was not
sufficiently discussed in the Plenary Working Group. That is why we do not express ourselves on
the substance nor the relevance of this measure. With this in mind, we call on you to look at these
proposals as a whole, to implement them, and not just the ones that suit you the most and are
easily implemented. Do it transparently. We worked on them with dedication and passion, we are
proud of our work: please respect it.
The Conference on the Future of Europe has gone through a pandemic and witnessed a war in
Europe, demonstrating full solidarity with the Ukrainian people. It has been a turbulent year for
the participants, and it has been a turbulent year for all Europeans. But the Conference continued
its work, against all odds. On behalf of the citizens of the Conference, let us now conclude by
addressing you with a simple message: we feel European, we feel engaged and listened to in the
process of democratisation, we believe in the EU and we want to keep believing. So, from the
bottom of our hearts, read the proposals well and implement them, for the sake of Europe’s future.
40
The representatives of the Council component The Executive Board of the Conference on the
of the Conference Plenary did not comment Future of Europe takes note of the proposals
on the substance of the proposals but put forward by the Conference Plenary and
instead supported and encouraged the presents them as the final outcome of the
activities of the citizens and took note of their Conference. Providing guidance on the future
recommendations. After 9 May 2022, the of Europe, these proposals were achieved after
Council will determine how to follow up on the almost a year of deliberations, in the framework
results of the Conference, within its own sphere of the Joint Declaration and the Rules of
of competences and in accordance with the Procedure of the Conference.
Treaties.
41
IV.
The Plenary
proposals
42
"Climate change and the environment"
1. Proposal: agriculture, food production, biodiversity and

ecosystems, pollution
Objective: Safe, sustainable, just, climate responsible, and affordable production of food,
respecting sustainability principles, the environment, safeguarding biodiversity and ecosystems,
while ensuring food security:
Measures:
1. Bring the concept of green and blue 5. Introduce a certification of carbon removals,
economy to the fore, by promoting based on robust, solid and transparent
effective environmentally and climate carbon accounting (Plenary discussion)
friendly agriculture and fishery in the EU
6. More research and innovations, including
and worldwide, including organic farming
in technological solutions for sustainable
as well as other forms of innovative and
production, plant resistance, and precision
sustainable farming, such as vertical
farming, and more communication, advisory
farming, that allow to produce more food
systems, and training for and from farmers
with less input whilst reducing emissions
(Panel 3- recommendation 10, WG debate,
and environmental impact but still
Plenary discussion)
guaranteeing productivity and food security
(Panel 3 – recommendation 1, 2 and 10; 7. Eliminate social dumping and enhance
Panel 2 – recommendation 4) a just and green transition to better jobs,
with high quality safety, health and working
2. Redirect subsidies and strengthen
conditions, in the agriculture sector (WG
incentives towards organic farming and
debate)
sustainable agriculture which comply with
clear environmental standards and help 8. Address aspects such as plastic use in
achieving the global climate goals (Panel 3 agricultural films and ways to reduce water
– recommendations 1, 12) consumption in agriculture (MDP)
3. Apply circular economy principles in 9. Reasoned breeding and meat production
agriculture and promote measures against with a focus on animal welfare and
food waste (WG debate, Multilingual Digital sustainability, using measures such as
Platform (MDP)) clear labelling, high standard and common
norms for animal farming and transport,
4. Significantly reduce the use chemical
strengthening the link between breeding and
pesticides and fertilizers, in line with the
feeding (Panel 3- recommendation 16 and
existing targets, while still ensuring food
30)
security, and support for research to
develop more sustainable and natural based
alternatives (Panel 3 – recommendation 10,
WG debate)
43
2. Proposal: agriculture, food production, biodiversity and
ecosystems, pollution
Objective: Protect and restore biodiversity, the landscape and oceans, and eliminate pollution
Measures:
1. Create, restore, better manage, and extend 5. Support reforestation, afforestation,
protected areas – for the conservation of including forests lost by fire, enforcement
biodiversity (FR recommendation, Panel 3 – of responsible forest management, and
recommendation 11) support better use of wood replacing
other materials. Setting binding national
2. Have in place a coercion and reward
targets across the EU Member States
system to tackle pollution applying the
for reforestation of native trees and
polluter pays principle, which should
local flora, taking into account different
also be embedded in taxation measures,
national situations and specificities
combined with increasing awareness and
(Panel 3 – recommendation 14, Panel 1 –
incentives (Panel 3 – recommendation 32,
recommendation 18)
FR recommendation, Plenary discussion)
6. Enforce and extend the ban on single use
3. Enhance the role of municipalities in
plastics (MDP)
urban planning and construction of
new buildings supporting blue-green 7. Protect water sources and combat river
infrastructure, avoid and stop further and ocean pollution, including through
sealing of land and obligatory green researching and fighting microplastic
spaces of new constructions, in order to pollution, and promoting of environmentally
promote biodiversity and urban forests friendly shipping by using best available
(Panel 3 - recommendation 5, Panel 1- technologies and establishing EU research
recommendation 18, FR recommendation) and funding for alternative maritime fuels
and technologies (MDP, WG debate)
4. Protect insects, in particular indigenous
and pollinating insects, including through
8. Limit light pollution (WG debate)
protection against invasive species and
better enforcement of existing regulation
(Panel 1 – recommendation 18)
44
3. Proposal: climate change, energy, transport
Objective: Enhance European energy security, and achieve the EU’s energy independence while
ensuring a just transition, and providing Europeans with sufficient, affordable and sustainable
energy. Tackle climate change, with the EU playing a role of global leader in sustainable energy
policy, and respecting the global climate goals:
Measures:
1. Accomplish and whenever possible speed solutions of energy production and storage
up the green transition, in particular through (Panel 3 – recommendations 9 and 31)
more investments in renewable energy, in
7. Make CO2 filters mandatory for fossil fuels
order to reduce external energy dependency,
power plants, and provide financial aid to
recognizing also the role of local and
Member States that do not have financial
regional authorities in the green transition
resources to implement the CO2 filters.
(WG debate)
(Panel 3 – recommendation 29)
2. Consider within energy policies the
8. Ensure a just transition, protecting workers
geopolitical and security implications,
and jobs, through adequate funding for the
including human rights, ecological aspect
transition and further research, through
and good governance and rule of law, of all
reform of the tax system with fairer taxation
third country energy suppliers (WG debate)
and anti-tax fraud measures, and through
3. Reduce dependencies from oil and gas ensuring inclusive governance approach in
imports through energy efficiency projects, policy making at all levels (e.g. ambitious
support of affordable public transport, measures to reskill/upskills, strong social
high-speed rail and freight network, protection, keeping public service in public
expansion of clean and renewable energy hands, safeguarding occupational health
provision (Panel 4 – recommendation 2, and safety rules) (Plenary discussion, WG
Panel 1 – recommendation 10, FR, DE debate, MDP)
recommendations)
9. Introduce an investment package
4. Improve quality and interconnectivity, for climate-friendly technologies and
ensure maintenance, and transform the innovations, which should be financed
electrical infrastructure and electrical through climate-related import tariffs and
grids in order to enhance safety and to climate related carbon adjustment levies
enable the transition to renewable energy (DE recommendation)
sources (Panel 1 – recommendation 10, WG
10. After a transition period, fossil fuels should
discussion)
no longer be subsidized and there should be
5. Invest in technologies to produce renewable no funding for traditional gas infrastructure
energy, such as efficient production and (WG debate)
use of green hydrogen, especially in sectors
11. Increase EU’s leadership and taking a
which are difficult to electrify (Panel 3 –
stronger role and responsibility to promote
recommendation 31, WG debate)
ambitious climate action, a just transition,
6. Invest in the exploration of new eco-friendly and support to address the loss and
sources of energy and storage methods damages, in the international framework
and, until tangible solution are found, with the United Nations at the centre (NL
additional investment into existing optimal recommendation, WG debate).
45
4. Proposal: climate change, energy, transport
Objective: Provide high quality, modern, green, and safe infrastructure, ensuring connectivity,
including of rural and island regions, in particular through affordable public transport:
Measures:
1. Support public transport and develop a 4. Develop high speed internet and mobile
European public transportation network network connectivity in rural and island
especially in rural and island regions, which regions (Panel 3 – recommendation 36)
is efficient, reliable and affordable, with
5. Improve existing transportation
extra incentives for public transportation
infrastructure from an ecological point of
usage (Panel 3 – recommendation 36, Panel
view (Panel 3- recommendation 37)
4 – recommendation 2)
6. Require urban development programs for
2. Invest in high-speed and night trains, and
“greener” cities with lower emissions, with
set single standard of railroad eco-friendly
dedicated car-free zones in cities, without
technology in Europe, to provide a credible
harming commercial areas (Panel 3 -
alternative and facilitate the possibility
recommendation 6)
to replace and discourage short distance
flights (WG debate, MDP) 7. Improve infrastructure for cycling, and give
further rights and enhanced legal protection
3. Promote the purchase, bearing in mind
to cyclists and pedestrians including in
the affordability for households, and
case of accidents with motorised vehicles,
promote (shared) use of electric vehicles
guaranteeing road safety and providing
complying with good standard of battery
training on road traffic rules (Panel 3 –
life, as well as investments in the necessary
recommendation 4).
recharging infrastructure, and investments
in the development of other non-polluting 8. Regulate the mining of cryptocurrencies,
technologies for those vehicles whose which are using an enormous amount of
electrification is difficult to achieve (Panel electricity (MDP)
3 – recommendation 38).
46
5. Proposal: sustainable consumption, packaging and production
Objective: Enhance the use and management of materials within the EU in order to become
more circular, more autonomous, and less dependent. Build a circular economy by promoting
sustainable EU products and production. Ensure all products placed on the EU market comply
with common EU environmental standards:
Measures:
1. Stricter and harmonised production and accessibility of compatible spare
standards within the EU and a transparent parts (Panel 3 – recommendation 20,
labelling system for all products sold on the FR and DE recommendations, Panel 1 –
EU market regarding their sustainability/ recommendation 14)
environmental footprint, as well as
8. Establish a secondary raw materials
longevity, using a QR-code and eco-score,
market, also by considering requirements
or the Digital Product Passport (Panel 3
for percentages of recycled content and
– recommendations 8, 13, 20, 21, P1 - 16,
encouraging less use of primary materials
Panel 4 - recommendation 13)
(WG discussion)
2. Review global supply chains, including in
9. Rapid implementation of an ambitious
agricultural production, in order to reduce
sustainable textile strategy and setting up
dependency of the EU and shorten the
a mechanism ensuring consumers can
chains (MDP)
be aware the product meets sustainable
3. Further avoid waste by setting prevention criteria (Panel 3 - recommendation 28, WG
and reuse targets and setting quality debate)
standards for waste sorting systems (WG
10. Take EU actions that enable and incentivize
debate, FR recommendation)
consumers to use products longer (Panel 3 -
4. Phase-out non-sustainable form of recommendation 20)
packaging, regulate environmentally-safe
11. Increase environmental standards, and
packaging, and avoid wasting of material
enforce compliance, related to export
in packaging, through financial incentives
of waste both within the EU and to third
and penalties, and investing in research into
countries (Panel 4 - recommendation 15,
alternatives (Panel 3 – recommendations
MDP)
15, 25, Panel 1 – recommendation 12, Panel
4 – recommendation 16) 12. Introduce measures to limit advertising
of products that are environmentally
5. Introduce EU wide packaging deposit
damaging, introducing a mandatory
return scheme and advanced standards for
disclaimer for products that are particularly
containers (Panel 3 – recommendations 22,
harmful for the environment (Panel 3 -
23, MDP)
recommendation 22)
6. Launch an EU knowledge platform on how
13. Stricter manufacturing standards and
to ensure long-term and sustainable use
fair working conditions throughout the
and how to “repair” products, including
production and entire value chain (Panel 3 -
the available information from consumer
recommendation 21)
associations (Panel 3 – recommendation
20)
7. Introduce measures to tackle early, or pre-
mature (including planned) obsolescence,
ensure longer warranties, promote a
right to repair, and ensure availability
47
6. Proposal: information, awareness, dialogue and life-style
Objective: Foster knowledge, awareness, education, and dialogues on environment, climate

change, energy use, and sustainability:
Measures:
1. Create an interactive fact-checked 3 - recommendation 24, WG debate)
information platform, with regularly updated
6. Include food production and biodiversity
and diverse scientific environmental
protection as part of education, including
information (Panel 3 - recommendation 33)
the advantage of unprocessed over
2. Support information campaigns on eco- processed food, and promoting school
awareness, including a long-term EU gardens, subsidizing urban gardening
campaign for sustainable consumption and projects and vertical farming. Consider
lifestyle. (DE, NL and FR recommendations, making biodiversity a mandatory subject
Panel 3 – recommendation 7) in schools and raise awareness for
biodiversity through the use of media
3. Promote and facilitate dialogue and
campaigns and incentivised ‘competitions’
consultations between all levels of
across the EU (local community scale
decision making, especially with
competitions) (Panel 3 – recommendation
youth and at the local level (DE, NL
5, Panel 1 – recommendation 18)
and FR recommendations, Panel 3
– recommendations 27, 35, Plenary 7. Strengthen the role and action of the EU
discussion) in the area of environment and education,
by extending the EU’s competence in the
4. The development by the EU, with assistance
area of education in the area of climate
of Member States, of a common European
change and environment and extending the
charter targeting environmental issues and
use of qualified majority decision-making
fostering environmental awareness among
on topics identified as being of ‘European
all citizens (Panel 3 - recommendation 7).
interest’, such as environment (NL, FR
5. Provide educational courses and teaching recommendations)
materials for all, in order to increase climate
8. Promote a plant-based diet on the grounds
and sustainability literacy and to enable
of climate protection and the preservation
lifelong learning on environmental topics
of the environment (MDP)
(Panel 1 – recommendations 15, 35, Panel
48
9.
"Health"
7. Proposal - Healthy food and healthy lifestyle1
Objective: Ensure that all Europeans have access to education on healthy food and access to
healthy and affordable food, as a building block of a healthy lifestyle, in particular by:
Measures:
1. Setting minimum standards for food quality, 3. Encouraging dialogue with the food
as well as food traceability, including by chain actors from production to sales for
limiting the use of antibiotics and other corporate social responsibility regarding
animal medicinal products to what is healthy food. [#19, WG]
absolutely necessary to protect the health
4. Supporting at EU level the provision of
and well-being of animals instead of use in
healthy, varied and affordable food in
a preventive way and by making sure that
establishments servicing the public, such
controls are tightened in that respect. [# 3,
as school canteens, hospitals, or nursing
#17]
homes, including through dedicated
2. Educating people about healthy habits from funding. [#3, Plenary, WG]
an early age, and encouraging them to make
5. Investing in research on the impact of
safe and healthy choices, through taxation
the use of antibiotics and the effects
of non-healthy processed food and by
of hormonal substances and endocrine
making information on the health properties
disruptors in human health. [#17, #18] 2
of food readily available; for that purpose,
establishing a European-wide evaluation
system for processed food based upon
independent and scientific expertise,
and a label covering the use of hormonal
substances and endocrine disruptors in the
production of food. In this regard, reinforce
monitoring and enforcement of existing
rules and consider strengthening them.
[#18, #19, WG]
49
8. Proposal – Reinforce the healthcare system3
Objective: Reinforce the resilience and quality of our healthcare systems, in particular through:
Measures:
1. The creation of a European health data undermining other health-related
space, which would facilitate exchange programmes, including for European
of health data; individual medical records Reference Networks as they constitute
could be made available – on a voluntary the basis of the development of networks
basis – through an EU individual electronic of medical care for highly specialised and
health passport, in compliance with data complex treatments. [#42, #43, WG]
protection rules. [#41, WG]
5. Investing in the health systems, in particular
2. Adequate working conditions, in particular public and non-for profit, infrastructure and
through strong collective bargaining, digital health and ensuring that healthcare
including in terms of wages and working providers respect the principles of full
arrangements, and harmonisation of accessibility, affordability and quality of
training and certification standards for services, hence ensuring that resources
health professionals; networking and are not drained by profit-oriented health
exchange programmes should be developed operators with little to no regard for the
such as an Erasmus for medical schools, general interest. [#51, WG]
contributing notably to skills development.
6. Issuing strong recommendations to the
In order to ensure talent retention, young
Member States to invest in effective,
professionals’ knowledge and working
accessible, affordable, high-quality and
experiences, EU exchange programmes
resilient health systems, notably in the
need to be established to motivate our best
context of the European Semester. The
minds in Life Sciences not to be drained by
impact of the war in Ukraine on public
third countries. [#39, WG]
health demonstrates the need to further
3. Ensuring strategic autonomy at EU level develop resilient health systems and
to avoid dependency on third countries solidarity mechanisms. [#51, WG]
[NL2]4 for medicines (in particular
active ingredients) and medical devices
(including raw materials); in particular,
a list of essential and priority, but also
innovative medicines and treatments (such
as biotechnology solutions) should be
established at EU level relying on existing
European agencies and HERA, to guarantee
their availability for citizens. Consider
organising coordinated strategic stockpiling
throughout the EU. In order to achieve the
necessary coordinated, long-term action at
Union level, include health and healthcare
among the shared competencies between
the EU and the EU Member States by
amending Article 4 TFUE. [#40, #49, Plenary,
WG]
4. Further developing, coordinating
and funding existing health research
and innovation programmes without
50
9. Proposal – A broader understanding of Health5
Objective: Adopt a holistic approach to health, addressing, beyond diseases and cures, health
literacy and prevention, and fostering a shared understanding of the challenges faced by those
who are ill or disabled, in line with the “One Health Approach”, which should be emphasized as a
horizontal and fundamental principle encompassing all EU policies.
Measures:
1. Improve understanding of mental health 3. Develop first aid courses – including a
issues and ways of addressing them, practical component – that would be made
including from early childhood and early available to all citizens free of charge and
diagnostics, building on good practices consider regular courses as standard
developed throughout the EU, which practice for students and in workplaces.
should be made readily accessible through There should also be a minimum number of
the Public Health Best Practice Portal. defibrillators available in public places in all
To raise awareness, EU institutions and Member States. [#50]
relevant stakeholders should organise best
4. Expanding the health week initiative, which
practices exchange events and help their
would take place across the entire EU in the
members disseminate them in their own
same week, when all health issues would
constituencies. An EU Action Plan on mental
be covered and discussed. Also consider
health should be developed, that would
health year initiatives, starting with the year
provide long term Mental Health Strategy,
on mental health. [#44, WG]
including on research and also tackle
the issue of availability of professionals, 5. Recognise as regular medical treatment
including for minors and the setting up in in terms of taxation the hormonal
the near future of a dedicated European contraception products used for
Year of Mental Health. [#44, #47, WG] medical reasons, such as in the cases of
fibromyalgia and endometriosis, as well as
2. Develop at EU level a standard educational
female sanitary products. Ensure access to
programme on healthy lifestyles, covering
reproductive treatments for all individuals
also sexual education. It should also
suffering fertility problems. [#45, WG]
encompass actions targeting both healthy
lifestyle and environmental protection and
how they can help prevent many diseases,
such as for instance bicycling as a healthy
mean for everyday mobility. It would be
available free of charge to Member States
and schools to use in their curricula, as
appropriate. Such a programme would
address stereotypes on those who are ill or
disabled. [#46, WG]
51
10. Proposal – Equal access to health for all6
Objective: Establish a “right to health” by guaranteeing all Europeans have equal and universal
access to affordable, preventive, curative and quality health care:
Measures:
1. Establish common minimum healthcare 5. Ensure affordability of care, through
standards at EU level, covering also stronger investment in healthcare,
prevention and accessibility as well as in particular of dental care including
proximity of care, and provide support to prophylaxis, and ensure affordable dental
achieve these standards. [#39, WG] care is available to everyone within 15 to 20
years. [#48, WG]
2. Recognising the need to take full account
of the principle of subsidiarity and the key 6. Ensure that treatments and medicines
role of local, regional and national players across the EU are of equal quality and of
in health matter [NL3], ensure there is the fair local cost, including through tackling
ability to act at EU level when the right to existing fragmentation of the Internal
health is best addressed there. To allow Market. [#40, NL3, WG, Plenary]
faster and stronger decision-making on key
7. Fight health poverty by encouraging free of
subjects and to improve the effectiveness
charge dental care for children, low-income
of European governance towards the
groups and other vulnerable groups, such as
development of the European Health Union
for instance the disabled. Also consider the
(such as, for example, in the event of a
impact of poor-quality housing on health.
pandemic or for rare diseases). [#49, FR
[#48, WG]
wish11, Digital Platform]
8. Consider the international dimension to
3. Enhance the European Health Union using
health and recognise that medicines should
the full potential of the current framework
be universally available, including in poorer
and include health and healthcare among
countries. [NL2]
the shared competencies between the EU
and the EU Member States by amending
Article 4 TFUE. [#49, FRwish11, Digital
Platform, WG]7
4. Make sure anyone can access existing
treatments, wherever first available in the
EU; to that purpose, facilitate cross-border
cooperation, notably on rare diseases,
cancer, cardiovascular diseases and highly
specialised treatments, such as organ
transplants and the treatments of severe
burns. A European network for transplants
and organ donations should be put in place
for the benefit of all European patients in
need of a transplant. [Plenary and WG]
52
"A stronger economy, social justice and jobs"
Introduction
We are living in extraordinary times and the EU will be judged on its efforts to emerge from the
current crises stronger, with a more sustainable, inclusive, competitive and resilient growth model.
The invasion of Ukraine by Russia and the COVID-19 pandemic have changed the face of the EU.
The Conference will also need to address the social and economic consequences of this war in an
already very demanding post-pandemic context. At the same time, climate change still represents
a continuous threat to humanity and will have a dramatic impact on the economy and on our
societies. From the recommendations received, it is clear that citizens are calling for stronger
EU action. Outstanding transnational challenges, such as inequalities, competitiveness, health,
climate change, migration, digitalisation or fair taxation, call for proper European solutions. From
the recommendations and discussions, it is also clear that we need a comprehensive strategy
to ensure better wellbeing for the European citizens in the different aspect of their lives. Some
elements of this strategy can be found in already existing policies and can be achieved by making
full use of the existing institutional framework at European and national level; others will require
new policies and, in some cases, treaty changes. However, new policies and treaty changes should
be seen as means to achieve better wellbeing and not as ends in themselves. It is both possible
and necessary to reshape the EU in a way that will guarantee its strategic autonomy, sustainable
growth, improvement of living and working conditions and human progress, without depleting and
destroying our planet in the framework of a renewed Social Contract. These recommendations are
intended to achieve these goals. The proposals below should be read while taking into account
that citizens all over Europe have formulated a diversity of views and recommendations. It is this
diversity of views that is one of Europe’s unique strengths.
53
11. Proposal: Sustainable Growth and innovation8
Objective: We propose that the EU supports the shift to a sustainable and resilient growth
model, considering the green and digital transitions with a strong social dimension in the
European Semester, and empowering citizens, trade unions and businesses. The conventional
macroeconomic indicators and the GDP could be complemented with new indicators in order
to address the new European priorities such as the European Green Deal or the European Pillar
of Social Rights and to better reflect the ecological and digital transitions and the wellbeing of
people. This objective could be achieved by:
Measures:
1. Promoting greener production processes 7. Addressing the sustainability, affordability
by companies and supporting companies and accessibility of energy, considering
to identify the best solutions and providing energy poverty and the dependence on
positive and negative incentives (ECP 11 & non-EU states, by increasing the share of
12), and by increasing local production and sustainably sourced energy; (ECP 10, LT 3, IT
consumption; (discussions) 1.1)
2. Working towards a more sustainable and 8. Raising awareness among both companies
circular economy by addressing the issue and citizens how to behave in a more
of planned obsolescence and ensuring the sustainable manner, and guarantee just
right of repair; (ECP14) transition, based on social dialogue and
quality jobs; (ECP 12 & online platform)
3. Reviewing the EU's economic governance
and the European Semester in order to 9. Including ambitious social, labour and
ensure that the green and digital transitions, health standards, including occupational
social justice and social progress go hand- health and safety, in new EU trade
in-hand with economic competitiveness, agreements; (LT8)
without ignoring the economic and fiscal
nature of the European Semester. In
addition, there is a need to better involve
social partners and the local and regional
authorities in the implementation of the
European Semester in order to improve
its application and accountability; (online
platform, discussions)
4. Tackling the use of single use plastic
packaging/containers; (ECP 12)
5. Expanding the use of European technology
and make it a viable alternative to foreign
technology; (discussions)
6. Promoting research into new materials and
technologies, as well as the innovative use
of existing materials, while ensuring that
research efforts are not duplicated; (ECP 9,
NL 1)
54
12. Proposal: Enhancing EU’s competitiveness and further

deepening the Single Market9
Objective: We propose strengthening the competitiveness and resilience of the European Union’s
economy, single market, industry and addressing strategic dependencies. We need to promote
an entrepreneurial culture in the EU, where innovative businesses of all sizes, and in particular
Micro-, Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (MSMEs) , as well as start-ups are encouraged and
can thrive in order to contribute to more resilient and cohesive societies. There is a need for a
strong functioning market economy in order to facilitate the vision of a more social Europe. This
objective could be achieved by:
Measures:
1. Developing a clear vision for the European the Commission's impact assessment in
economy and playing to Europe's strengths, accordance with clear principles while
quality and diversity while taking into fully respecting social an environmental
account of economic and other differences standards and consumer rights;
between Member States, and promoting (discussions)
cooperation and competition between
7. Ensuring the participation of SMEs in
businesses; (NL 1 & 2)
funding applications, tenders and networks
2. Consolidating what has been done in with as little administrative effort as
terms of the single currency and the possible. Access to finance for SMEs
interconnection of payment systems and with high-risk innovation projects should
telecommunications; (IT 4.a.2) be further developed by entities such as
the European Innovation Council and the
3. Reducing the standardisation of products
European Investment Bank; (discussions)
and recognising local and regional cultural
and production peculiarities (respect for 8. Creating a better framework for investments
production traditions); (IT 2.2) in R&I aimed at a more sustainable and
biodiverse business models. (ECP 10, 11 &
4. Enhancing upward social and economic
14) Focusing on technology and innovation
convergence in the Single Market, by
as drivers of growth; (IT 1.3)
completing existing initiatives, such as the
Banking Union and the Capital Markets 9. Promoting collective economic performance
Union, and implementing a forward- looking through autonomous, competitive industry;
reform of our Economic and Monetary (FR3)
Union; (discussions)
10. Identifying and developing strategic sectors,
5. Promoting policies for a strong industrial including space, robotics and AI; (FR 3 & 9)
base and innovation in key enabling
11. Investing in an economy based on tourism
technologies, and a forward-looking
and culture, including the many small
climate policy coupled with industrial
destinations in Europe; (IT 1.2)
competitiveness with a strong social
dimension, based on social dialogue 12. Addressing the security of supply by
and well-functioning industrial relations; diversifying input sources/raw materials and
(discussions) increasing the manufacture of key goods
in Europe, such as health, food, energy,
6. Giving special attention in all new initiatives
defence and transport; (FR 9, LT 1, IT 1.4)
to SMEs, the backbone of our economy.
The “Think Small First” principle must be 13. Promoting the digitalisation of European
respected in all EU’s legislative proposals businesses, for instance through a specific
and a SME test should be reinforced in scoreboard allowing businesses to compare
55
their degree of digitalisation, with the overall 20. Consolidating and protecting the Single
aim of increasing competitiveness; (DE 2.1) Market should remain a priority; measures
and initiatives at EU and national level
14. Promoting digital cohesion to contribute to
should not be detrimental to the Single
economic, social and territorial cohesion as
Market and should contribute to the free
defined in the Treaty on the Functioning of
flow of people, goods, services, and capital;
the European Union; (discussions)
(discussions)
15. Strengthening cross-border cooperation in
21. New EU policy initiatives should undergo
order to enhance cohesion and resilience
a “competitiveness check” to analyse
within and beyond regions, by fostering the
their impact on companies and their
European Cross Border Mechanism and
business environment (cost of doing
similar tools; (discussions)
business, capacity to innovate, international
16. Enhancing and promoting the possibilities competitiveness, level playing field, etc).
for cross-border training in order to upskill Such check shall be in accordance with,
the European workforce and increase the Paris Agreement, the Sustainable
competitiveness, while at the same time Development Goals, including gender
boosting citizens' economic literacy; (DE equality, and shall not undermine the
2.2, LT7). Promoting exchanges between protection of human, social and workers'
workers in Europe through a European Job rights nor environmental and consumer
Centre. (IT 6.1) Encouraging young people to protection standards. To this effect, we also
study science subjects; (IT 1.5) propose the establishment of a European
17. Reducing, where non-essential, bureaucracy Advisory Competitiveness Body which
(permits, certifications); (IT 2.1) should monitor how the competitiveness
check is performed and in particular assess
18. Combating counterfeiting and unfair the cumulative impact of legislation, as
competition; (IT 2.4) well as put forward proposals to improve
19. Ensuring greater participation of start- the right framework conditions for
ups and SMEs in innovation projects as competitiveness of EU companies. Such
this increases their innovative strength, body should include organised civil society
competitiveness and networking. (online and the social partners in its governance;
platform, discussions) (discussions)
56
13. Proposal: Inclusive labour markets10
Objective: We propose to improve the functioning of labour markets so that they ensure fairer
working conditions and promote gender equality, employment, including that of young people
and vulnerable groups. The EU, Member States and social partners need to work to end in-work
poverty, address the rights of platform workers, ban un-paid internships and ensure fair labour
mobility in the EU. We must promote social dialogue and collective bargaining. We need to ensure
the full implementation of the European Pillar of Social Rights, including its relevant headline
targets for 2030, at EU, national, regional and local level in the areas of “equal opportunities and
access to the labour market” and “fair working conditions”, while respecting competences and
the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality and to include a Social Progress Protocol in the
Treaties. While doing so, there should be a respect of national traditions and the autonomy of
social partners and a cooperation with civil society. This objective could be achieved by:
Measures:
1. Ensuring that statutory minimum wages improved working conditions and collective
guarantee that each worker can earn a bargaining; (discussions).
decent and similar quality of living across
4. Having integrated employment policies
all Member States. Clear criteria (e.g. living
at an EU level where active labour market
costs , inflation, above the poverty line,
policies remain central and increasingly
the average and median wage at national
coordinated (IT 6.2) while Member States
level) to be taken into account when
focus on continuing their reform efforts to
setting minimum wages level should be
create favourable conditions for quality job
set up. The levels of statutory minimum
creation. (discussions)
wages should be regularly reviewed in
light of these criteria in order to ensure 5. Taking steps to ensure that social rights are
their adequacy. Special attention should fully protected and safeguarded in case of
be put on effective implementation of conflict with economic freedoms including
these rules and monitoring and tracking via the introduction of a social progress
improvement in the standard of living. At the protocol in the Treaties. (online platform,
same time, collective bargaining should be discussions)
strengthened and promoted throughout the 6. Ensuring gender equality, in line with 2020-
EU; (ECP1 & 30; DE 4.2; online platform). 2025 EU Gender Equality Strategy. The EU
2. Taking stock and more strongly enforcing should continue measuring the gender
the implementation of the Working Time equality through a gender equality index
Directive (Directive 2003/88/EC) and other (i.e. attitudes, salary gap, employment,
relevant legislation that ensures healthy leadership, etc.), monitor the strategy yearly
work life balance while looking at new and be transparent with the achievements;
national policies in this domain; (ECP2) and encourage the sharing of expertise
and best practices and set up a possible
3. Introducing or reinforcing existing
direct citizen-feedback mechanism (e.g.
legislation that regulates so-called 'smart
an Ombudsperson); (ECP28; IT 5.a.1).
working' and incentivising companies to
There is a need to address gender pay gap
promote it. (ECP 7) The EU should ensure
and introduce quotas in senior positions.
the right to disconnect, do more to address
There should be more support for women
the digital divide at the workplace and
entrepreneurs in the business environment
assess the implications of remote work
and women in STEM (discussions).
on health, working time and companies
performance. There is a need to guarantee 7. Promoting youth employment, for example
fair digitalisation based on human rights, through financial assistance for companies,
but also by giving employers and workers
57
additional support (NL 4) and support societies has the right skills to find a job and
to young entrepreneurs and young self- bring their talents to fruition, in particular
employed professionals for example the young generation (discussions). It is
through educational tools and courses important to invest in people’s skills adapted
(discussions); to the changing labour market needs and
promoting life-long learning through among
8. Promoting employment of disadvantaged
others exchange programme at all stages of
groups (NL 4), in particular among people
life and ensure the right to lifelong learning
with disabilities (online platform);
and the right to training. (FR 6; DE 4.1) To
9. Promoting employment and social mobility this end, there is a need to strengthen the
and, therefore, to have a full chance of cooperation between businesses, trade
self-realisation and self-determination. unions and vocational, education and
(IT 5.a.4 & IT 6.1) There could be a long- training providers (discussions).
term strategy to ensure everyone in our
14. Proposal: Inclusive labour markets11
Objective: We propose to reduce inequalities, fight social exclusion and tackle poverty. We
need to put in place a comprehensive anti-poverty strategy that could include, among other, a
reinforced Child Guarantee and Youth Guarantee, the introduction of minimum wages, a common
EU framework for minimum income schemes and decent social housing. We need to ensure the
full implementation of the European Pillar of Social Rights, including its relevant headline targets
for 2030, at EU, national, regional and local level in the area of “social protection and inclusion”
with due regard for respective competences and the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality
and to include a Social Progress Protocol in the Treaties. This objective could be achieved by:
Measures:
1. Reinforcing the competences of the EU in health in the EU, following priority lines that
social policies and proposing legislation to are considered to be of public interest and
promote social policies and ensure equality agreed on by the member countries, and
of rights, including health, harmonised for providing the appropriate funding. This
the entire EU, which take into consideration could be achieved in part by reinforcing
agreed regulations and the minimum collaboration across fields of expertise,
requirements throughout the territory. across countries, centres of studies
(ECP 19 & 21) The EU could support and (universities, etc.); (ECP 20)
complement the policies of Members State
4. Granting access to medical services to all
by among others proposing a common
persons below 16 years old across the EU in
framework for minimum incomes to ensure
case these services are not available in the
that nobody is left behind; These actions
national context; (discussions)
should be carried in the framework of
the full implementation of the European 5. Ensuring that the EU, together with social
Pillar of Social Rights and its Action Plan; partners and national governments,
(discussions) supports targeted access to decent social
housing for citizens, according to their
2. Not compromising on welfare rights (public
specific needs financial effort should be
health, public education, labour policies); (IT
shared among private funders, landlords,
4.a.1)
housing beneficiaries, Member State
3. Promoting research in social matters and governments at central and local levels, and
58
the European Union. (ECP25)
15. Proposal: Demographic transition12
Objective: We propose to address the challenges arising from the demographic transition, as
a critical ingredient of Europe’s overall resilience, in particular low birth rates and a steadily
ageing population, by ensuring support to people throughout the lifecycle. This should involve
comprehensive action aimed at all generations, from children and young people, to families, to
the working-age population, to older persons who are still prepared to work as well as those in
retirement or need of care. This objective could be achieved by:
Measures:
1. Ensuring quality, affordable and accessible all Member States, for instance with regard
childcare across the EU, so that mothers and to parental leave as well as childbirth and
fathers can confidently reconcile their work childcare allowances. (ECP 26 & IT 5.a.1)
and family life. Where appropriate this could Housing plays a crucial role in supporting
include childcare opportunities at or near families and should be addressed (online
the workplace. In some Member States also platform, discussions);
overnight care is available, which should
5. Taking action to guarantee that all families
serve as an example. Additionally, this could
enjoy equal family rights in all Member
be flanked by supportive measures such as
States. This should include the right to
reduced VAT rates on equipment needed for
marriage and adoption; (ECP 27)
children. It is essential to prevent poverty
and social exclusion of children; (ECP 22 6. Promoting flexible retirement ages by taking
& 26) Reinforcing the Child Guarantee, account of the specific situation of older
guaranteeing access of children in need persons. When determining the retirement
to services such as education and care, age, there should be a differentiation
healthcare, nutrition and housing, could depending on the profession, and thereby
be an instrument to achieve this (online factoring in particularly demanding work,
platform, discussions). both mentally and physically; (ECP 21 & IT
5.a.1)
2. Introducing specific support and protection
of work for young people. Such measures 7. Preventing old age poverty by introducing
towards the working-age population should minimum pensions. Such minimum levels
include access to knowledge for mothers would need to take account of the living
and fathers about their return to work. (ECP standard, the poverty line and purchase
22) Reinforcing the Youth Guarantee could power in the respective Member State; (ECP
be an instrument to improve the access of 21)
young people under the age of 30 to good 8. Guaranteeing appropriate social and health
quality offers of employment, continued care to older persons. In doing so, it is
education, apprenticeships or traineeships; important to address both community-
(discussions) based as well as residential care. Equally,
3. Promoting the right to free movement measures need to take account of both care
of education within the Union, among receivers and care givers; (ECP 23)
others, through mutual recognition of 9. Ensuring the sustainable development and
degrees, grades, skills and qualifications; the demographic resilience of the regions
(discussions) that are lagging behind in order to make
4. Improving legislation and implementation them more vibrant and attractive, including
thereof to ensure support of families across through the cohesion policy; (online
59
platform & discussions) and knowledge and supporting Member
States in shaping and implementing
10. Taking coordinated action at the European
adequate policies including by establishing
level for collecting data disaggregated
a specialized EU body in this area. (online
by factors such as gender and analysing
platform & discussions)
demographic trends, sharing best practices
16. Proposal: Fiscal and tax policies13
Objective: We propose that the EU promotes future-oriented investments focused on the green
and digital transitions with a strong social and gender dimension, taking also into account the
examples of the Next Generation EU and the SURE instrument. The EU needs to take into account
the social and economic impact of the war against Ukraine and the link between the EU economic
governance with the new geopolitical context and by strengthening its own budget through
new own resources. Citizens want to move away taxation from people and SMEs and target tax
evaders, big polluters and by taxing the digital giants while at the same time they want to see the
EU supporting Member States' and local authorities' ability to finance themselves and as well as
in using EU funds. This objective should be achieved by:
Measures:
1. Harmonizing and coordinating tax policies 5. Give further consideration to common
within the Member States of the EU in borrowing at EU level, with a view to creating
order to prevent tax evasion and avoidance, more favourable borrowing conditions, while
avoiding tax havens within the EU and maintaining responsible fiscal policies at
targeting offshoring within Europe, including Member State level; (LT 9)
by ensuring that decisions on tax matters
6. Strengthening oversight of the absorption
can be taken by qualified majority in the
and use of EU funds, including at local and
Council of the EU. On the other hand, there
municipal level. (LT 10)
are recommendations from citizens' panels
that state that taxation is a matter for
individual countries, which have their own
objectives and circumstances; (ECP 13 & 31,
IT 4.b.3, NL2.3)
2. Promoting cooperation between EU Member
States to ensure that all companies in the
EU pay their fair share of taxes; Introducing
a common corporate tax base or a minimum
effective rate (NL3)
3. Ensuring that companies pay taxes where
profits are made; (ECP 13)
4. Ensuring that tax policy support European
industry and prevents job losses in Europe;
(ECP 13 & 31)
60
"EU in the world"
17. Proposal: Reducing dependency of EU from foreign actors in

economically strategic sectors
Objective: We propose that the EU take measures to strengthen its autonomy in key strategic
sectors such as agricultural products, strategic economic goods, semiconductors, medical
products, innovative digital and environmental technologies and energy, through:
Measures:
1. boosting research, development and 5. support to keep such products available
innovation activities and collaboration on and affordable to European consumers
that between public and private partners and reduce dependencies from outside,
for example through the use of structural
2. maintaining an ambitious trade negotiation
and regional policies, tax breaks, subsidies,
agenda that can contribute to building
infrastructure and research investments,
resilience and diversification of supply
boosting the competitiveness of SMEs as
chains, in particular for raw materials, while
well as education programmes to keep
also sharing the benefits of trade more
related qualifications and jobs in Europe that
equally and with more partners, thereby
are relevant to secure basic needs15.
limiting our exposure and dependency on a
small number of potentially risky suppliers14. 6. European-wide programme to support small
local producers from strategic sectors
3. increasing the resilience of EU supply chains
across all Member States16, making greater
through fostering investment in strategic
use of the EU programmes and financial
sectors in the EU, stockpiling critical
instruments, such as InvestEU.
productions and devices and diversifying
the supply sources of critical raw materials; 7. better cooperation between Member States
to handle the management of supply chain
4. investing further in the completion of the
risks17
internal market, creating a level-playing field
to make it more attractive to produce and
buy these items in the European Union.
61
18. Proposal: Reducing dependency of EU from foreign actors in
energy
Objective: We propose that the EU reach more autonomy in the field of energy production and
supply, in the context of the ongoing green transition by:
Measures:
1. adopting a strategy to be more autonomous 4. increased collaboration around the
in its energy production. A European body assessment of the use of nuclear energy in
should integrate the existing European the ongoing green transition to renewable
energy agencies and should coordinate the energy in Europe, examining the collective
development of renewable energies and issues that it could solve or create, given
promote knowledge sharing18 that it is still being used by many member
states20.
2. actively supporting public transport and
energy efficiency projects, a pan-European 5. engaging with international partners,
high-speed rail and freight network, the committing them in attaining more
expansion of clean and renewable energy ambitious goals to address climate change
provision (in particular in solar and wind) at different international fora, including G7
and alternative technologies (such as and G20.
hydrogen or waste-to-energy), as well as
6. Linking foreign trade with climate policy
cultural change in urban settings from the
measures (e.g. by launching an investment
individual car towards public transport, e-car
package for climate-friendly technologies
sharing and biking19.
and innovations, including funding
3. ensuring a just and fair transition, programmes)21
supporting in particular vulnerable citizens,
7. pursuing common purchases of imported
who face the greatest challenges in
energy and sustainable energy partnerships
transitioning towards climate neutrality
in order to reduce European energy import
and who are already suffering from
dependencies, specifically in the area of gas
increasing energy prices because of energy
and oil and developing EU domestic sources
dependency and the recent tripling of energy
of energy.
prices.
62
19. Proposal: Defining standards within and outside the EU in trade

and investment relations
Objective: We propose that the EU strengthen the ethical dimension of its trade and investment
relations through:
Measures:
1. preserving and reforming our multilateral and child lbour, a periodically updated
rules-based international trade architecture, blacklist of companies, and promoting
and partnership with like-minded consumer awareness on child labour
democracies through information made by official EU
channels23.
2. effective and proportionate EU legislation
to ensure that decent work standards 4. following up and enforcing Trade
are fully applied along the global value Sustainable Development chapters (TSD) in
chains, including EU production and supply EU Free Trade Agreements (FTA) including
processes and that goods which are the possibility of a sanctions-based
imported comply with qualitative ethical mechanism as a last resort.
standards, sustainable development, and
5. reforming the EU’s Generalised Scheme
human rights standards including workers’
of Preferences (GSP) to include strong
and trade union rights, offering certification
conditionality provisions and effective
for products abiding by this EU legislation22
and appropriate monitoring, reporting and
and engage in an EU wide dialogue process
dialogue processes in order to improve the
that seeks to inform and educate on the
impact GSP can have on trade, human rights
environmental and ethical effects of policy
and development in partner countries with
changes in international trade
trade preferences to be withdrawn in case of
3. restrictions on the import and sale of non-compliance.
products from countries that allow forced
63
20. Proposal: Defining standards within and outside the EU in
environmental policies
Objective: We propose that the EU strengthen the environmental dimension of its trade relations
through:
Measures:
1. harmonising and strengthening eco-labelling packaging by promoting less packaging or
and introducing a mandatory eco-score to more environmentally-friendly packaging26
be displayed on all products that can be .establishing partnerships with developing
bought by the consumer. The eco-score countries, supporting their infrastructure
would be calculated according to emissions and with mutually favourable trade deals
from production and transportation, as to aid them in the transition towards green
well as harmful content, based on a list of energy sources27.
hazardous products. The eco-score should
4. rewarding countries that apply high
be managed and monitored by an EU
sustainability standards by offering
authority24.
them further access to the EU market
2. strengthen environmental standards for the for their sustainable goods and services,
export of waste and more stringent controls either unilaterally through the General
and sanctions to stop illegal exports. The System of Preferences GSP+, bilaterally
EU should incentivise the Member States to through negotiated trade agreements, or
recycle their own waste and use it for energy multilaterally through initiatives in the World
production25. Trade Organisation
3. setting a goal of eliminating polluting
21. Proposal: Decision making and cohesion within the Union
Objective: We propose that the EU improve its capacity to take speedy and effective decisions,
notably in Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), speaking with one voice and acting as a
truly global player, projecting a positive role in the world and making a difference in response to
any crisis, notably through:
Measures:
1. in particular in the area of the CFSP, issues with one voice30.
that are currently decided by way of
4. agreeing on a strong vision and a common
unanimity to be changed, normally to be
strategy to consolidate the unity and
decided by way of a qualified majority28.
decision taking capacity of the EU in order
2. basing cooperation in security and defense to prepare the EU for further enlargement31.
policy on the recently endorsed Strategic
5. ratifying recently concluded trade
Compass and making use of the European
agreements more promptly without
Peace Facility29
precluding proper examination and
3. strengthening the role of the High discussion.
Representative to ensure that the EU speaks
64
22. Proposal: Transparency of the EU and its relations with the

citizens
Objective: We propose that the EU, in particular in its actions at the international level, including
trade negotiations, improve its accessibility for citizens through better information, education,
citizen participation, and transparency of its action, notably by:
Measures:
1. strengthening links with citizens and educational programmes on the functioning
local institutions to improve transparency, of the EU and its values that it could
reach the citizens and communicate and propose to the Member States that wish,
consult better with them about concrete EU so that they can integrate them into their
initiatives and at the international level32. curricula (primary, secondary schools,
and universities). In addition, a specific
2. stronger citizen participation in the
course on the EU and its functioning could
EU’s internationalpolitics and direct
be offered to students wishing to study
citizens’ involvement events, similar to
in another European country through the
the Conference on the Future of Europe,
Erasmus programme. Students choosing
organised on a national, local and European
this course would be given priority in the
level33 and with the active participation of
allocation of said Erasmus programmes.
organised civil society34.
5. improving its media strategy by
3. full support by all relevant stakeholders
strengthening its visibility on social media
to citizens who choose to get involved in
and actively promote its content and
organised civil society organisations, as
encouraging innovation by promoting an
they did with COVID-19 and Ukraine.
accessible European social media35.
4. Allocating a specific budget to develop
23. Proposal: The EU as a strong actor on the world scene in peace

and security
Objective: We propose that the EU continue to act to promote dialogue and guarantee peace and a
rules-based international order36, strengthening multilateralism and building on long standing EU
peace initiatives which contributed to its award of the Nobel Prize in 2012, while strengthening its
common security through 37:
Measures:
1. Its joint armed forces that shall be used with international law38, and without
for self-defence purposes and preclude competing with or duplicating NATO and
aggressive military action of any kind, with respecting different national relationships
a capacity to provide support in times with NATO and undertaking an assessment
of crises including natural catastrophes. of EU relations with NATO in the context of
Outside European borders it could be the debate on the EU’s strategic autonomy.
deployed in exceptional circumstances
2. Playing a leading role in building the world
preferably under a legal mandate from the
security order after the war in Ukraine
UN Security Council and thus in compliance
building on the recently adopted EU
65
strategic compass. the mutual assistance clause of Art. 42.7
of the Treaty on European Union, providing
3. Protecting its strategic research and its
adequate EU protection to any member
capacity in priority sectors such as the
state under attack by a third country.
space sector, cybersecurity, the medical
sector and the environment39. 5. Reflect on how to counter disinformation
and propaganda in an objective and factual
4. Strengthening the operational capabilities
way
necessary to ensure the effectiveness of
24. Proposal: The EU as a strong actor on the world scene in

relationship building
Objective: We propose that the EU should, in its relations with third countries:
Measures:
1. make greater use of its collective political 5. reform EU trade and investment policy
and economic weight, speaking with one to relaunch global multilateralism with
voice and acting in a unified way, without as objectives the creation of decent jobs
individual Member States dividing the Union and the protection of fundamental human
through inappropriate bilateral responses40. rights, including workers’ and trade union
rights; the preservation of the environment
2. strengthen its ability to sanction
and biodiversity and the conformity with
States, governments, entities, groups
the Paris Agreement on climate change;
or organisations as well as individuals
the safeguarding of high-quality public
that do not comply with its fundamental
services; and the strengthening of Europe’s
principles, agreements and laws and
industrial basis. The EU should contribute to
ensuring that sanctions that already exist
a relaunch of global multilateralism, through
are quickly implemented and enforced.
a profound reform based on democracy and
Sanctions against third countries should
peace, solidarity and respect for human,
be proportional to the action that triggered
social and environmental rights and a
them and be effective and applied in due
reinforced role for the ILO.
time41.
6. include in cooperation and investment
3. promote sustainable and rules-based trade
agreement with third countries the fight
while opening new trade and investment
against human trafficking and illegal
opportunities for European companies.
immigration and cooperation with reference
While bilateral trade and investment
to any appropriate repatriations.
agreements are key to promote European
competitiveness, standards and rules are 7. establish partnerships with developing
needed to ensure a level playing field. The countries, supporting their infrastructure
EU needs to remain an active and reliable and with mutually favourable trade deals
partner by negotiating, concluding and to aid them in the transition towards green
implementing trade agreements that also energy sources43.
set high sustainability standards
8. develop a more effective and unified policy
4. conclude major international cooperation towards autocratic and hybrid regimes
agreements as the EU rather than as and develop partnerships with civil society
individual countries42. organisations in such countries.
66
9. increase the resources of EU electoral candidate and potential candidate countries

observation missions. to foster peace and stability in Europe and
bring prosperity to millions of Europeans44.
10. offer a credible accession perspective for
NOTE: Several members of the WG considered that Proposals “Reducing dependency of EU

from foreign actors in energy” and “Transparency of the EU and its relations with the citizens”
in particular were matters for other WGs. Some members wished to draw attention to other
alternatives to unanimity in the Council besides QMV, such as variable geometry, opt-outs and
enhanced cooperation. Some WG members advocated using the term "sustainable" instead
of "ethical" in Proposal “Defining standards within and outside the EU in trade and investment
relations”. There was a difference of views as to whether accession of new Member States should
continue to require the unanimous agreement of all current Member States. There was a range
of views as to the extent to which there should be joint armed forces. Two members mentioned
the prospect of Irish unity in the event of Northern Ireland voting for it in accordance with the
provisions of the Good Friday Agreement, and for the EU to be prepared for such an eventuality.
67
"Values and rights, rule of law, security"
25. Proposal: Rule of Law, Democratic values and European

identity45
Objective: Systematically uphold the rule of Law across all Member States, in particular by:
Measures:
1. Ensuring that the values and principles 3. The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights
enshrined in the EU Treaties and in the should be made universally applicable
EU Charter of Fundamental Rights are and enforceable. In addition, annual
non-negotiable, irreversible and sine conferences on the rule of law (following
qua non conditions for EU membership the Commission’ Rule of law Report)
and accession. EU values must be fully with delegations from all Member States
upheld in all Member States also so they involving randomly selected and diverse
can act as an international standard and citizens, civil servants, parliamentarians,
pole of attraction through diplomacy and local authorities, social partners and civil
dialogue. Enlargement of the EU should not society should be organised. Organisations,
undermine the EU acquis with relation to including civil society, which promote the
fundamental values and citizens’ rights;46 rule of law on the ground should also be
further supported;48
2. Making European values tangible for
EU citizens, especially through more 4. Effectively applying and evaluating the
interactive and direct involvement. To scope of the ‘Conditionality Regulation’
this end, the European citizenship should and other rule of law instruments, and
be strengthened for instance through a considering extensions to new areas
European citizenship statute providing regardless of their relevance for the EU
citizen-specific rights and freedoms, as budget. Any necessary legal avenues,
well as a statute for European cross-border including Treaty changes, should be
associations and non-profit organisations. considered to punish breaches of the rule of
European values should also be promoted law;49
through an “onboarding package” providing
5. Fostering educational and media
didactic elements and information material
programmes that make EU values part
to citizens. Finally, a European public sphere
of migrants’ integration process and
including audiovisual and online media
encourage interactions between migrants
outlets should be developed by further
and EU citizens, with a view to ensuring their
EU investment, existing EU media hubs
successful integration within EU societies
improved, and the over 500 local European
and to create awareness among EU citizens
liaison offices further supported;47
about migration-related issues.50
68
26. Proposal: Data Protection51
Objective: Guarantee a more protective and citizen-oriented data treatment policy, in particular
by:
Measures:
1. Implementing in full the existing data and permanent manner; 54 55
privacy legislation and reviewing it to
3. Evaluating and introducing clearer and
evaluate, if necessary, the establishment
more protective rules about the processing
of stronger enforcement mechanisms for
of minors’ data, possibly in the EU GDPR,
entities processing personal data, currently
including through the creation of a special
under competence of independent national
category for sensitive minors' data and the
data protection authorities respecting
harmonization of age consent threshold
the principle of subsidiarity. Such entities
within the EU Member States. While the
should be sanctioned in a stricter way
bulk of privacy rules implementation and
than in the current implementation of the
awareness raising should remain within
regulation, in proportion to their annual
Member States’ remit, including through
turnover (up to 4%), also possibly through
higher investment and further resources
a ban on their activities, and be subject to
at national level, the EU should also
annual independent audit;52 53
have stronger role e.g. by creating EU
2. Giving more effect to the principle of privacy competences on civic education concerning
by design and default, e.g. by evaluating data protection; 56
and introducing easily understandable,
4. Better enforcing eligibility criteria for the
concise and user-friendly harmonised data
European and national Data Protection
processing consent forms that clearly
Authorities, in terms of qualifications and
indicate what is necessary and what not.
suitability, to ensure the highest level of
Users must be able to give or withdraw their
independence of their members.57 58
consent to data processing in an easy, fast
69
27. Proposal: Media, Fake news, Disinformation, Fact-checking,
Cybersecurity59
Objective: Tackle disinformation by further promoting media independence and pluralism as well
as media literacy, in particular by:
Measures:
1. Introducing a legislation addressing threats provided with fact-checked information on
to media independence through EU-wide European politics and policies, should also
minimum standards, including a review of be further supported and promoted more
the media business model to ensure the actively; 62 63
integrity and independence of the EU media
4. Promoting citizens’ media literacy and
market; 60
awareness about disinformation and
2. Strictly enforcing EU competition rules in the unintentional dissemination of fake news,
media sector, in order to prevent large media including through mandatory school
monopolies and ensure media pluralism trainings. Member States should also be
and independence from undue political, encouraged to provide adequate human and
corporate and/or foreign interference. financial resources to this end; 64
Quality journalism, with established high
5. Building on existing initiatives, such as the
ethical and self-regulatory standards, should
Code of Practice on Disinformation and
also be promoted;61
the European Digital Media Observatory
3. Setting up an EU body in charge of (EDMO), to require online platforms to issue
addressing and tackling targeted clear statements about the algorithms they
disinformation and interference, increasing use (leaving users to decide whether they
situational awareness and strengthening consent to be subjected to them) and the
fact-checking organisations as well as disinformation risks users are exposed to,
independent media. ‘Hotlines’ and websites, while safeguarding the right for legal free
such as Europe Direct, where citizens as speech and right to privacy. 65 66
well as national media can request and be
70
28. Proposal: Media, Fake news, Disinformation, Fact-checking,

Cybersecurity (bis)
Objective: A stronger role for the EU in countering cybersecurity threats, in particular by:
Measures:
1. Reinforcing the EU agency for cybersecurity safeguarded;67 68
(ENISA) in order to further protect
2. Enhancing the coordination of national
individuals, organisations and institutions
cybersecurity authorities and making
against cybersecurity breaches and the
additional efforts in ensuring that EU-level
use of artificial intelligence for criminal
rules are well implemented at national level.
purposes. Data privacy and protection of 69 70
personal data should, at the same time, be
29. Proposal: Anti-discrimination, Equality and Quality of life71
Objective: Take action to harmonize living conditions across the EU and improve EU citizens’
socio-economic quality of life, in particular by:
Measures:
1. In consultation with experts and social eliminating their existence in the EU with
partners, developing transparent quality of a view to increasing public investment
life indicators including economic, social in priority areas such as education
and rule of law criteria , in order to establish (scholarships, Erasmus) and research.
a clear and realistic timeline for raising EU-wide fight against tax evasion should
social standards and achieving a common be also a way to raise funds for publically
EU socio-economic structure, including financed initiatives; 75 76
through implementation of the European
4. Providing EU-wide criteria on anti-
Pillar of Social Rights. These should be
discrimination in the labour market and
integrated in the economic governance
incentivizing the hiring by private companies
framework and the European semester
of people that are usually most subject to
process; 72 73
discrimination (e.g. youth, elders, women,
2. Increasing and facilitating direct public minorities), including through subsidies, and,
investment in education, health, housing, as a second step, temporary quotas. Social
physical infrastructures, care for the elderly partners should be closely associated in this
and people with disabilities. Additional regard. Discrimination outside the labour
investment should also aim to guarantee market should also be prevented by law, and
appropriate work/life balance for citizens. equality promoted; 77
Such investment should be carried out in a
5. Ensuring the creation and facilitation of
fully transparent manner, allowing to track
affordable kindergartens, both public and
the entire process; 74
in the private sector, and free childcare for
3. Encouraging taxing large corporations, those in need of it. 78
fighting access to tax havens and
71
30. Proposal: Animal rights, Agriculture79
Objective: Take decisive measures to promote and guarantee a more ecological and climate-
oriented agriculture, in particular by:
Measures:
1. Setting detailed, measurable and time- impact. Agricultural goods imported into
bound minimum criteria for the protection the EU should also be gauged on that basis,
of farming animals, with a view to ensuring including through custom duties, as a way to
higher animal wellbeing standards in line iron out any competitive advantage arising
with the introduction of sustainability from lower environmental standards;82
objectives and on the basis of an integrated
3. Reducing subsidies for agricultural mass
food system approach; 80 81
production where it does not contribute to
2. Introducing financial penalties for negative a sustainable transition and redirect those
externalities of agricultural activity resources to support an environmentally
(e.g. greenhouse gas emissions, use sustainable agriculture, whilst ensuring
of pesticides, water overuse, long-haul affordable food products. 83 84
transport, etc.) based on their environmental
72
"Digital Transformation"
Europe must become a world leader and standard setter in digital transformation and charter
a European way to build an ethical, human-centred, transparent and safe digital society. Europe
needs to be ambitious in its approach and fully use the opportunities digitalisation offers, while at
the same time managing the risks and challenges brought about by digitalisation. Digitalisation
touches on and must be given consideration in all areas of our society. Reference was made in
this context to the European Declaration on Digital Rights and Principles for the Digital Decade and
suggestions were made to consider a possible future Charter of Digital Rights.
The Russian aggression in Ukraine has only reinforced many of the points addressed in the
proposals, such as the need for digital sovereignty, an increased focus on cyber defence and
protection against disinformation. It has also made it evident that conflicts nowadays have
consequences in the digital sphere, raising new issues like the long-term consequences of the
seizure of personal information and the illegitimate use of that data in the future.
31. Proposal: Access to digital infrastructure85
Objective: Equal access to the internet is a fundamental right of every European citizen. We
propose that everyone in Europe should in practice have access to the internet and to digital
services, and that the sovereignty of the EU’s digital infrastructure is enhanced through:
Measures:
1. Investing in high-quality and innovative 1. open competition and prevent monopolies,
Investing in high-quality and innovative vendor lock-in, data concentration and
European digital infrastructures (including dependence on third countries in relation
5G and 6G being developed in Europe); to infrastructure and services, improving
(ECP1 recommendation number 40 and 47, markets from the perspective of consumers;
Dutch NCP 1) (ECP1 recommendation number 17)
2. Ensuring fast, affordable, secure and 5. Making children, families, elder people
stable internet access everywhere in the as well as vulnerable groups, a priority
EU, including for roaming, with a priority to when it comes to access to internet and
bring internet connection to ‘white zones/ hardware, particularly in view of access
dead zones’, rural areas and remote and to education, public services, and health;
peripheral regions in order to address the (ECP1 recommendation number 17 and WG
digital divide between and within Member debate)
States and make sure that no one gets left
6. Improving digital access to and accessibility
behind; (ECP1 recommendation number 17,
of essential public and private services for
47 and Dutch NCP 1)
citizens and businesses, for example when
3. Advance the deployment of digital and it comes to administrative procedures, and
electrical infrastructure both in public and ensure inclusive access and support such
private spaces to enable use of electric and as through help desks in relation to these
autonomous vehicles; (WG debate)86 services; (WG debate, Multilingual Digital
Platform)
4. Taking measures to ensure there is fair and
73
7. Harmonising high quality digital standards digital infrastructure and digitalisation
and improving secure mobility of data to in order to make digital transformation
facilitate cross-border interoperability; (WG sustainable and strive for a green digital
debate, Multilingual Digital Platform) society. (WG debate, Multilingual Digital
Platform).
8. Considering environmental impacts of
32. Proposal: Digital literacy and skills that empower people87
Objective: We propose that the EU ensures that all European citizens can benefit from
digitalisation, by empowering them with the necessary digital skills and opportunities, through:
Measures:
1. Ensuring access to formal and non-formal the same time it should be ensured that
digital literacy and skills training and essential services can also be accessed
education, including in school curricula, in person and by non-digital means; (ECP1
during all stages of life by building on recommendation number 34 and 47)
existing initiatives at European level, with
4. The introduction of an EU certification
special focus on the inclusion of vulnerable
relating to digital skills in schools that will
groups and elderly, enhancing digital skills
prepare young people for the future job
of children in a manner that is compatible
market; (ECP1 recommendation number 8)
with their healthy development and tackling
digital inequalities, including the digital 5. Develop training initiatives coordinated at
gender gap; (ECP1 recommendation number EU level to retrain and upskill workers to
8, Italian NCP 5.2, WG debate) remain competitive in the job market, taking
especially also account of competences
2. Ensuring a healthy use of the internet by
and skills needed in small and medium
encouraging Member States to implement
sized enterprises and to train digital experts;
digital skills training for all age-groups with
(ECP1 recommendation number 8 and WG
standard programmes and curricula set at
debate)
European level concerning e.g. the risks
and opportunities of the internet, online 6. Awareness raising about existing digital
rights of users and the netiquette; (ECP1 platforms that connect people to employers
recommendation number 47, WG debate) and help in finding jobs in the EU, such as
EURES; (ECP1 recommendation number 8)
3. Taking all the necessary measures to ensure
that the digitalisation of society does not 7. Increasing investments and efforts to boost
leave out older people and that technology digitalisation of education, including higher
is accessible to them by fostering programs education. (WG debate, Multilingual Digital
and initiatives, for instance in the form Platform)
of classes tailored to their needs. At
74
33. Proposal: Safe and trustworthy digital society – cyber security

and disinformation88
Objective: We propose that in order to have a safe, resilient and trustworthy digital society the EU
should ensure effective and swift implementation of existing legislation and have more powers to
enhance cyber security, deal with illegal content and cyber criminality, counter and recover from
cyber threats from non-state actors and authoritarian states, and address disinformation through:
Measures:
1. Strengthening capacities of Europol/ 5. Countering disinformation by legislation and
European Cybercrime Center in terms of guidelines for online platforms and social
financial and human resources, allowing for media companies to address disinformation
a more proactive approach in combatting vulnerabilities and implementing
cybercrime and building up joint European transparency measures, including for
cyber defense capabilities against large example AI based algorithms that can
scale attacks, including through better highlight the trustworthiness of information
cooperation; (ECP1 recommendation on social media and new media, providing
number 39, Lithuanian NCP 2.6, Dutch NCP the user with sources of fact-checked
1, WG debate) information. When using algorithms,
human beings should remain in ultimate
2. Taking necessary measures to be
control of decision making processes;
prepared for and to recover swiftly from
(ECP1 recommendation number 46 and WG
any large scale attacks and black-outs,
debate)
by for example ensuring the existence
of resilient infrastructure and alternative 6. Supporting digital platforms that provide for
communication channels; (WG debate) media pluralism and provide resources and
initiatives to assess the trustworthiness and
3. Ensuring similar sanctions and quick and
impartiality of information from traditional
effective enforcement in Member States
media (e.g. television, printed press, radio)
in case of cybercrime through better
and other media in full respect of the
coordination of local, regional and national
principle of media freedom and provide
cybersecurity centres and authorities; (ECP1
citizens with information about the quality
recommendation number 39)
of the news. (ECP1 recommendation
4. Enhancing digital literacy and critical number 46)
thinking as a way to counter disinformation,
online threats and hate speech, as well as
dark patterns and preferential pricing; (WG
debate)
75
34. Proposal: Safe and trustworthy digital society – data
protection89
Objective: We promote data sovereignty of individuals, better awareness and more efficient
implementation and enforcement of existing data protection rules (GDPR) to enhance personal
control of own data and limit misuse of data through:
Measures:
1. Better explaining data protection rules 6. Encouraging a certification system at EU
(GDPR), increasing transparency and level that reflects compliance with GDPR
improving communication by creating in an accessible, clear and simple way,
guidance on informed consent texts and visible on websites and platforms
that use simple and clear language and should be issued by an independent
understandable by everyone, including more certifier at European level. It should not
visual ways to provide consent to data use, create disproportionate burdens for small
accompanied by an information campaign and medium sized companies; (ECP1
and ensuring needed skills for those recommendation number 44, WG debate)
processing data and advising those who
7. Ensure that citizens are efficiently and
need assistance; (ECP1 recommendation
swiftly helped when encountering issues
number 42, 45 and Dutch NCP 2)
with opt outs or revoking consent. To this
2. Ensuring that the existing prohibition of end intrusive behavior needs to be better
default consent on re-use or reselling of defined and guidelines and mechanisms for
data is applied; (ECP1 recommendation opt out and revoking data and to identify and
number 42) sanction fraudsters should be developed
at European level; (ECP1 recommendation
3. Ensuring that requests of users for
number 43, and WG debate)
permanent data deletion are followed
up on in a specific timeframe; (ECP1 8. Providing for sanctions including a fine
recommendation number 42) proportional to the companies’ turnover
and limitations of companies’ operations,
4. Providing clear and as short as possible
such as imposing temporary or definitive
information to users on how and by whom
bans on unwanted data processing and
data will be used; (ECP1 recommendation
supporting its enforcement by the European
number 42)
Data Protection Supervisor and national
5. Ensuring compliance of non-European agencies. (ECP1 recommendation number
companies with European data protection 42, 43, and WG debate)
rules; (ECP1 recommendation number 42
and 43)
76
35. Proposal: Digital innovation to strengthen the social and

sustainable economy90
Objective: We propose that the EU promotes digitalisation measures which strengthen the
economy and the single market in a fair and sustainable way, increase European competitiveness
in technology and innovation, enhance the digital single market for companies of all sizes and
make Europe a world leader in digital transformation and in human centric digitalisation, through:
Measures:
1. The introduction or reinforcement of ergonomic equipment for home offices;
legislation that regulates (human-centric) (ECP1 recommendation number 17 and WG
‘smart working’, taking into account the debate)
impact on workers’ physical and mental
5. Introducing a publicly accessible digital
health for example by ensuring a right to
score board, creating a ranking system that
disconnect. A ‘human centric’ approach
indicates and compares the current level
should incorporate the ‘human in control’
of digitalisation of EU businesses; (German
principle; (ECP1 recommendation number 7
NCP)
and WG debate)91
6. Achieving a strong and competitive digital
2. EU legislation that incentivises companies
economy and spread the benefits of digital
to be socially responsible and to keep high
transformation equitably across Europe by
quality ‘smart working’ jobs within Europe
focusing on technology and innovation as
and thus avoiding the relocation of such
drivers of growth, by driving world class
jobs to lower cost countries. Incentives may
transformative research and making room
be financial and/or reputational and should
for innovation ecosystems throughout
take into account internationally recognised
all regions by improving the operating
environmental, social and governance
environment of SMEs and start-ups and
(ESG) criteria. To this end, the EU should set
fair access to funding and by doing away
up a working group composed of experts
with legal or other burdens hindering cross
from all relevant stakeholders to examine
boarder activities. (Italian NCP 1.3, WG
and strengthen this legislation; (ECP1
debate and Multilingual Digital Platform)
recommendation number 7)
7. Building a data infrastructure based on
3. Ensuring human oversight of decision-
European values; implement the ‘digital first’
making processes involving artificial
and ‘once only’ principle and facilitate digital
intelligence in the work place and
and secure access to data for innovation
transparency of algorithms used; giving
and business; encouraging the digitalisation
consideration to negative impacts of
of public services. (WG debate and
illimited digital surveillance in the workplace;
Multilingual Digital Platform)
informing and consulting workers prior
to the introduction of digital technologies 8. Fully utilize the potential of trustworthy and
that impact working conditions; ensuring responsible use of artificial intelligence,
that new forms of work, such as platform use the potential of blockchain technology
work, respect worker rights and provide and cloud services, setting safeguards
appropriate working conditions; (WG and standards that ensure transparency,
debate) interoperability, generate trust, enhance
ease of use and avoiding any discriminatory
4. Taking initiatives to help support remote
or biased algorithms; (WG debate and
working, such as office spaces with access
Multilingual Digital Platform)
to a reliable, fast internet connection and
digital training and providing resources for
77
9. Promoting open source software and its use 11. Assess the feasibility of digitalisation of
in education and training and free access to product information for consumption and
publicly funded research and software; (WG nutrition products through a standardised
debate and Multilingual Digital Platform) European app which would allow for more
user-friendly access and would provide
10. Introducing a European common digital
additional information on products and
identity to facilitate cross-border digital
production chain. (ECP1 recommendation
transactions and services, with a framework
number 16)
of European standards and guidelines
providing the necessary safeguards; (WG
debate and Multilingual Digital Platform)
78
"European democracy"
36. Proposal: Citizens information, participation and youth
Objective: Increase citizens’ participation and youth involvement in the democracy at the
European Union level to develop a ‘full civic experience’ for Europeans, ensure that their voice
is heard also in between elections, and that the participation is effective. That is why the most
appropriate form of participation should be considered for each topic, for example by:
1. Improving the effectiveness of existing and local authorities and existing structures
and developing new citizens' participation such as the European Economic and Social
mechanisms, in line with EU acquis, by Committee (EESC) and the Committee
better informing on them. Ideally, all the of the Regions (CoR)99 in the citizens’
information about the participatory spaces participation process;100
should be summarized92 in an integrated
6. Create a system of local EU Councillors, as a
official website with different features.93
way to reduce the distance between the EU
A mechanism should be devised to
institutions and European citizens;101
monitor policy and legislative initiatives,
which have emerged from participatory 7. Holding Citizens’ assemblies periodically,
democracy processes;94 Participatory on the basis of legally binding EU law.
mechanisms should be inclusive and their Participants must be selected randomly,
communication able to reach a diverse with representativeness criteria, and
public. Attention should be paid to content participation should be incentivized. If
material, topics and moderators’ skills. They needed, there will be support of experts
should include an analysis on the impact of so that assembly members have enough
the policies discussed on, inter alia, women information for deliberation. If the outcomes
and vulnerable persons.95 are not taken on board by the institutions,
this should be duly justified;102 Participation
2. Increasing the frequency of online and
and prior involvement of citizens and
offline interactions between EU institutions
civil society is an important basis for
and its citizens through different means of
political decisions to be taken by elected
interaction in order to ensure that citizens
representatives. The EU is founded on
can participate in the EU policy-making
representative democracy: with European
process to voice their opinions and to get
elections, citizens give a clear mandate to
feedback, and creating a charter for EU
their representatives and indirectly express
officials on citizens’ participation;96
themselves on EU policies;103
3. Offering a user-friendly digital platform
8. Provide enhanced structural support,
where citizens can share ideas, put
financial and otherwise, for civil society,
forward questions to the representatives
especially for youth civil society and support
of EU institutions and express their views
local authorities in setting up local youth
on important EU matters and legislative
councils;104 this could be achieved through
proposals, in particular youth. The platform
a specific pillar in the European Democracy
should also allow for online polls;97
Action Plan for involvement of civil society
4. Improving and streamlining existing and social partners, and a dedicated civil
mechanisms at the European, national, society strategy;105
and local level, to make them more secure,
9. Introduce a “Youth-check” of legislation,
accessible, visible and inclusive;98
including both an impact assessment
5. Include organised civil society and regional and a consultation mechanism with
79
representatives of young people, when citizens which civil society organisations
legislation is deemed to have an impact on constitute;107
young people;106
11. Summarize elements of citizens’
10. Strengthening cooperation between EU participation in an EU Charter for the
legislators and civil society organisations to involvement of citizens in EU-affairs.
utilise the link between decision-makers and
37. Proposal: Citizens information, participation and youth (bis)
Objective : Make the European Union more understandable and accessible and strengthen108 a
common European identity, in particular by:
1. Guaranteeing a minimum level of education digital tools for people with disabilities;117
on the EU and especially its democratic
4. Defending and supporting free, pluralistic
processes, including the history of European
and independent media, and encouraging
integration and European citizenship.
media outlets, including public broadcasters
People of all ages should be able to benefit
and public news agencies and European
from such programmes, which should
media, to cover European affairs more
be designed in an engaging and age
regularly while respecting their freedom
appropriate manner, for instance through
and independence, to ensure regular
the development of specific programmes
and comprehensive coverage across the
and educational material for children and
EU Member States;118 stepping up the
schools;109 and civil society organisations
fight against disinformation and foreign
active in the field of non-formal education;110
interferences, and ensure the protection of
2. Making reliable information on the EU journalists;119
easily accessible in an inclusive manner
5. Bringing Europe closer to citizens by
to all citizens. EU institutions should use
improving120 contact points and dedicated
more accessible language and avoid using
hubs, or “Houses of Europe”, at local level to
bureaucratic terms in their communication,
provide resources, information and advice to
while at the same time maintaining
citizens on EU matters, as well as listen to
the quality and expertise of the given
their concerns and engage in debates with
information and adapting the information
associations to help spread citizens’ views
to different communication channels and
at European level;121
audience profiles.111 It should consider,
for instance, creating a mobile application 6. Taking further steps to strengthen common
where information concerning EU policies is identity among Europeans, for instance
presented in a clear language.112 A special through an EU fund for supporting online
effort should be made to reach out to and offline interactions (i.e. exchanges
young people through digital media, youth programmes, panels, meetings) of both
movements and various ‘ambassadors’ short and longer duration between EU
(organisations and individuals) explaining113 citizens, creating common sports events
the EU project;114 and teams, or making Europe Day (9 May)
an additional122 European public holiday for
3. Making a greater use of artificial
all EU citizens.123
intelligence and translation technologies to
circumvent115 language barriers,116 ensuring
the accessibility and usability of all the
80
38. Proposal: Democracy and elections
Objective: Strengthen European democracy by bolstering its foundations, boosting participation

in European Parliament elections, fostering transnational debate on European issues and
ensuring a strong link between citizens and their elected representatives, in particular by:
1. Ensuring the protection of EU values laid J

This reform should also aim at facilitating
down in the treaties, including the rule of digital voting possibilities130 and
law and a strong social model,124 which are guaranteeing effective voting rights for
at the core of the European democracy. In persons with disabilities,131
its relationship with external countries, the
4. Strengthening links between citizens
European Union should firstly strengthen
and their elected representatives, taking
common democratic values in its borders.
into account national specificities and
Only after achieving this, the European Union
citizens’ desire to be closer to them and
can be an ambassador of our democratic
have a feeling that their concerns lead to
model in the countries that are ready and
specific action by elected representatives
willing to implement it, through diplomacy
in the European Parliament and national
and dialogue;125
parliaments.132 This is a universal issue and
2. Conceiving a EU wide referendum, to be people of all ages should be engaged;133
triggered by the European Parliament, in J
European citizens should have a greater
exceptional cases on matters particularly
say on who is elected as President of the
important to all European citizens;126
Commission. This could be achieved either
3. Amending EU electoral law to harmonise by the direct election of the Commission
electoral conditions (voting age, election President134 or a lead candidate system;XI
date, requirements for electoral districts, J
The European Parliament should have the
candidates, political parties and their
right of legislative initiative, in order to
financing) for the European Parliament
propose135 the topics to be discussed and,
elections, as well as moving towards voting
subsequently, adopt the necessary texts
for Union-wide lists, or ‘transnational lists’,X
to follow up on the recommendations that
with candidates from multiple Member
emerge from deliberations;136
States, having taken127 into account the
views expressed among citizens across the J
European Parliament should decide on
EU Member States on this issue.128 the budget of the EU as it is the right of
parliaments at the national level;XII137
J
Some of the Members of the European
Parliament should be elected through a J
Political parties, civil society organisations,
European Union-wide list, the rest being trade unions should be more lively and
elected within the Members’ States;129 accessible in order for citizens to be
X
European Commission representatives explained it should be implemented after a transition period, not to rush things through.
XI
P position: the lead candidate of the European political party that has obtained the highest share of votes at European elections, who
E
is able to be supported by a majority of European Parliament’s Members, shall be elected President of the European Commission.
In case a coalition majority cannot be reached, the task should be assigned to the next lead candidate. To this end, European
political parties may nominate candidates to run for the Commission President’s post. Mr Paulo Rangel: in order to reinforce the lead
candidate process the positions of the European Parliament and the European Council should be reversed and this implies a treaty
change: the Parliament would propose and the Council would approve the President of the Commission. MDP (Final Kantar Report:
“Group of contributions discusses the election of the Commission President and appointment of commissioners, including the
Spitzenkandidaten system). EYE, pag. 23: “The can-didates for the President of the Commission should not be elect¬ed in backroom
negotiations among winning parties. We should enforce the so-called “Spitzenkandidaten” system, where each party announces their
candidate for the President of the Commission before the election campaign in the case that this party gains a majority. Through
active par¬ticipation in the campaign and direct interaction with the citizens, the fu¬ture President could become more closely
connected to the European population.” , and discussion WG.
XII
he Council does not consider that this proposal is based on a recommendation from the citizens. It is therefore not in line with the
T
agreed methodology. See also Citizen component’s position expressed on page 40.
81
more involved and engaged in European regional and local elections as well;139
democracy.138 This would also contribute to
5. Democracy is embodied in the institutions
stimulate the inclusion of EU topics in public
and in society at large, including in the
debates via political parties, organised civil
workplace through the role of social
society and social partners, not only during
partners.140
European elections but ahead of national,
82
39. Proposal: EU decision making process
Objective: Improve the EU’s decision-making process in order to ensure the EU’s capability to act,
while taking into account the interests of all Member States and guaranteeing a transparent and
understandable process for the citizens, in particular by
1. Reassessing decision-making and voting hearings.148 In addition, a better involvement

rules in the EU institutions, focusing on the of the subnational level and of the
issue of unanimous voting, which makes Committee of the Regions helps to take
it very difficult to reach agreement, while better into account the experiences gained
ensuring a fair calculation of voting 'weights' with the implementation of EU law.149
so that small countries' interests are
3. Considering changing the names of EU
protected;141
institutions to clarify their functions and
J
All issues decided by way of unanimity respective role in the EU decision-making
should be decided by way of a qualified process for citizens;150
majority. The only exceptions should be the J
The EU decision making process
admission of new membership to the EU
should be based on a clearer and more
and changes to the fundamental principles
understandable structure, resembling
of the EU as stated in Art. 2 TEU and the
national systems,151 explicitly reflecting
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the
the division of competences between the
European Union.142
European institutions and the Member
2. Ensuring transparency of decision-making States;152
by allowing independent citizens’ observers J
For example, the Council of the EU could
to closely follow the decision-making
be called the Senate of the EU and the
process, guaranteeing broader143 right
European Commission could be called the
of access to documents, and develop on
Executive Commission of the EU.153
this basis stronger links and an enhanced
dialogue between citizens and the EU 4. Enhance the European Union’s delivery
institutions;144 capacities in key important areas; 154
J
The EU needs to improve the transparency 5. Ensure proper civil and social dialogue
of its decision-making process and mechanisms and processes at every step
institutions. For instance, the meetings of of the EU decision-making process, from
the Council and the European Parliament, impact assessment to policy design and
including its votes, should be broadcasted implementation.155
online in the same way. This would allow 6. Reform the way the European Union works
interested citizens to follow EU policy- by better involving social partners and
making, and hold politicians and policy- organised civil society. Strengthening the
makers accountable;145 the European existing structures in order to better reflect
Parliament’s right of inquiry should be the needs and expectations of EU citizens
strengthened;146 in the decision-making process, given their
J
EU decision-making process should be importance in the European democratic
further developed so that national, regional, life. Within this framework, enhance the
local representatives, social partners and institutional role of the EESC and empower it
organised civil society are more involved.147 as facilitator and guarantor of participatory
Inter-parliamentary cooperation and democracy activities like structured dialogue
dialogue should be strengthened. National with civil society organisations and Citizens’
parliaments should also be closer involved panels. A lively civil society is crucial for the
in the legislative procedure by the European democratic life of the European Union.156
Parliament, e.g. by way of participation in 7. Reopening the discussion about the
83
constitution, where applicable, to help us involve citizens and agree on the rules of the
align better on our values. A constitution decision-making process;157
may help to be more precise as well as
40. Proposal: Subsidiarity
1. Active subsidiarity and multilevel 4. Systematic use of a subsidiarity definition

governance are key principles and commonly agreed by all EU institutions
fundamental features for the EU functioning could help to clarify whether decisions have
and democratic accountability;158 to be taken at European, national or regional
level.162
2. The EU should review the mechanism
allowing national Parliaments to assess 5. Social partners and organised civil society
whether new legislative proposals at the should be better included in the decision-
European level do not intrude on their making process, given their importance
legal competences and to be granted the in the European democratic life. A lively
possibility to suggest a legislative initiative society is crucial for the democratic life of
to the European level. Such mechanisms the European Union.163
should also be enlarged to all regional
6. We call on European Union institutions
parliaments within the EU that have
to make the conclusions of this working
legislative power;159
group a reality and effectively implement
3. Reform the Committee of Regions them. This could be realised through the
to encompass adequate channels of possibilities the Lisbon Treaty already
dialogue for regions as well as cities and provides and, when necessary, by triggering
municipalities, giving it an enhanced role160 the request of launching a European
in the institutional architecture, if matters Convention.164
with a territorial impact are concerned;161
84
"Migration"
41. Proposal: Legal Migration165
Objective: Strengthen the EU’s role on legal migration:
Measures:
1. Launching a communication campaign at 3. Improving the functioning and
a cross European level in order for EURES implementation of the "blue card" directive
(European Employment Services), the to attract relevant qualifications that the EU
EU Immigration Portal and the EU Skills economy needs (recommendation 7 and WG
Profile Tool for Third Country Nationals debate), taking into consideration the risk of
to be better known by European citizens brain drain (as in measure 1 proposal 42).
and more frequently accessed and
4. Promoting upwards convergence on
used by EU companies when recruiting
working conditions harmoniously
(recommendation 6).
throughout the Union to combat inequalities
2. Creating a European entity for migrants' of working conditions and to ensure an
access to the EU labour market or efficient EU labour migration policy and
alternatively widening the powers of workers’ rights. In this context, reinforce
the European Cooperation Network of the role of trade unions at national and
Employment Services (EURES) for example transnational level (recommendation 28 and
improving the Talent Partnership projects WG debate), in cooperation with employers’
(recommendation 7 and WG debate), with organisations (Plenary discussion).
the possibility of online matching of supply
5. Increasing efforts to inform and educate
and demand of skills, in the country of
citizens of the Member States about
departure, on the basis of assessment
the topics related to migration and
criteria (recommendation 9 and WG debate).
integration (recommendation 30 and LT
The EU should encourage Member States
recommendation 9 and WG debate).
to simplify the process of reception and
integration of legal migrants and their
access to the EU labour market through a
better interoperability amongst the different
relevant administrations (WG debate).
85
42. Proposal: Irregular migration166
Objective: Strengthen the EU’s role in tackling all forms of irregular migration and strengthen the
protection of the European Union's external borders, while respecting human rights:
Measures:
1. Participating actively, for example through 2. Ensuring the protection of all external
Partnership Agreements, in the economic borders, by improving transparency
and social development of countries and accountability of Frontex and by
outside the European Union and from strengthening its role (recommendation 8
where there is a high outflux of migrants and WG debate) and adapting EU legislation
to tackle migration at its root causes, to further address the present challenges
including climate change. These actions of irregular migration, such as human
should be transparent and have tangible smuggling, human trafficking, sexual
results with measurable effects, which exploitation, hybrid attacks by countries
should be clearly communicated to EU instrumentalising migrants and violation of
citizens (recommendation 27 and NL human rights (LT recommendation 10 and
recommendation 3 and WG debate). WG debate).
43. Proposal: irregular migration167 (bis)
Objective: Apply common rules uniformly in all Member States on the first reception of migrants:
Measures:
1. Developing EU-wide measures to guarantee 2. Increasing EU financial, logistical and
the safety and health of all migrants, in operational support, also for local
particular pregnant women, children, authorities, regional governments and civil
unaccompanied minors and all vulnerable society organisations, for the management
people (recommendations 10 and 38 and of the first reception which would lead to a
WG debate). possible integration of refugees and regular
migrants in the EU or repatriation of irregular
migrants (recommendation 35 and WG
debate).
86
44. Proposal: Asylum, integration168
Objective: Strengthen the EU’s role and reform the European asylum system based on the
principles of solidarity and fair share of responsibility:
Measures:
1. Adopting EU common rules concerning recommendations 2; IT recommendations
procedures for the examination of claims for 3.8 (p.15) and NL recommendation 2 and
international protection in Member States, WG debate and Plenary discussion).
applied uniformly to all asylum seekers.
3. Enhance the minimum standards for
These procedures will have to be respectful
the reception of asylum seekers laid
of human dignity and international
down in directive 2013/33/EU through
law (recommendation 29 and IT
stronger legislative measures to improve
recommendations 3.8 and 4.4 p.15 and WG
reception facilities and accommodation.
debate). As the reception of asylum seekers
(ECP recommendation 31 and IT
involves different actors at a national level,
recommendations 5.6 (p.11) and WG
the EU should encourage Member States
debate)
to simplify and speed up this process
through a better interoperability amongst 4. Special attention should be given to
the different relevant administrations, and to pregnant women, children, and particularly
set up a unique desk (one stop-shop or entry unaccompanied minors (recommendation
point) for asylum seekers to streamline 38 and WG debate).
national administrative procedures 5. Strengthening and increasing financial and
(recommendation 37 and WG debate). human resources as well as management
2. Revisiting the Dublin system in order to capacities of the EU Agency for Asylum
guarantee solidarity and fair sharing of to coordinate and manage the relocation
responsibility including the redistribution of of asylum seekers within the EU Member
migrants among Member States; additional States to achieve a fair distribution
forms of support could also be envisaged (recommendations 36, 37 and LT
(recommendations, 33, 36, 37, 40; LT recommendation 3 and WG debate).
45. Proposal: Asylum, integration169 (bis)
Objective: Improve integration policies in all Member States:
Measures:
1. EU ensures, also with the involvement Plenary discussion).
of local and regional authorities and the
2. Asylum seekers with relevant qualifications
contribution of civil society organisations,
should be given access to the labour
that every asylum seeker and refugee,
market, when possible with the aim to
during the process of the residence
strengthen their self-reliance, all over the EU
procedure, attends language, integration
(recommendation 7 and WG debate).
courses, professional training, and
activities (recommendation 32 and FR
recommendation 13 and WG debate and
87
"Education, culture, youth and sport"
46. Proposal: Education
Objective: The EU and its Member states should seek to establish by 2025 an inclusive European
Education Area within which all citizens have equal access to quality education and life-long
learning, including those in rural and remote areas. To this aim, the European Union and its
Member states should in particular:
Measures:
1. C
oordinate the level of all different − Digital skills.176
education programmes in the European
− STEAM177
Union with acceptance of the national,
regional and local contents, and create − Entrepreneurship and research
closer links between the education systems, − Improving critical thinking. Media
including via organising equivalence of literacy should be enhanced in order to
diplomas.170 A certified minimum standard ensure online safety, and empower citizens
of education in core subjects should in every Member State to independently
be adopted commencing in primary evaluate whether a piece of information is
school.171 Shared competences in the trustworthy or not, and identify fake news,
field of education should be introduced, but at the same time to benefit from the
at a minimum in the field of citizenship opportunities that the Internet offers. This
education and the exercise of that should be implemented in basic education
competence by the EU shall not result as a specific class and also be offered in
in Member States being prevented from other public spaces for citizens of all ages
exercising theirs. Professional degrees and under the guidance of an EU-established
training should be validated and mutually dedicated organisation, drawing on best
recognised in all EU Member States.172 The practices across the Member States.
European Union should also champion the The EU should ensure that the dedicated
recognition of non-formal and informal funding is used by the Member States for
learning173 and the youth organisations the intended purposes.178
that provide it, as well as learning periods
abroad. − Integrating soft skills in all the courses in
the curricula in schools. By soft skills one
2. D
evelop future-proof education and life-long means: listening to each other, encouraging
learning in Europe -in accordance with the dialogue, resilience, understanding,
right to free training in the workplace for all- respect and appreciation for others, critical
focusing on the following subjects: thinking, self-study, remaining curious,
− Civic education about democratic result-oriented.179
processes, as well as EU values and history − Enabling everyone to learn about
of Europe.174 This should be developed environmental sustainability and its
as a common module to be taught in all connection to health. Biodiversity should
Member States. Economic literacy should be made as a mandatory subject at school.
also be improved as an aspect of better This education should start at school with
understanding the European integration specific subjects addressing all ecological
process.175 issues, and include field trips to show
relevant real life examples, that should be
88
supported by a funding programme.180 5. S

et up an information platform for an
EU-wide exchange of knowledge and
− Combating bullying and racism.
experiences, pooling information on
3. S
upport the training of teachers181, to transnational education and training
learn from best practices and use up to courses in the EU, showcasing best
date innovative and creative teaching practice examples and offering citizens
techniques that reflect the evolution of the opportunity to present new ideas for
teaching methods, including practical cross-border exchange. It should offer
activities, building also on the lessons to teaching material about climate change,
be drawn from the COVID-19 pandemic and sustainability, environmental issues and
other kinds of crises, as well as promote digitisation and provide information on
opportunities for mobility.182 existing specialised forums on key topics.184
4. In order to meet the educational needs of - It could be made available together with
all children and families, prioritise access a funding program to support the usage of,
to hardware and efficient broadband and implementation, of the information on
connectivity.183 the platform.
47. Proposal: European youth issues
Objective: The EU and its Member States have to focus on the specific needs of young people
across all relevant policies, including the European Union’s regional policy in order to offer them
the best possible conditions for study and work and starting an independent life, while engaging
them in the democratic life and decision making processes, including at European level. Youth
organisations have a crucial role to play. To achieve this objective, we propose to:
Measures:
1. Offer young people more possibilities should ensure that younger candidates are
and champion existing programmes for also put on their lists for the elections to the
participation and representation in the European Parliament.186
democratic and decision making processes
3. To better prepare young people for entering
at all levels, including by organising citizens'
working life, give high school students (from
panels also with children (e.g. 10 to 16 years
12 years old on) the opportunity to have high
old) in schools. European representatives
quality observatory visits in profit and non-
could meet schoolchildren in their schools
profit organisations, in close cooperation
in order to strengthen citizens’ closeness to
between schools, local governments and the
and understanding of Europe from an early
organisations and companies concerned,.187
age.185 To ensure that all policy making at
These visits should be seen as part of
EU level is seen through a youth lens, an EU
a broader career guidance process in
‘Youth Test’ should be developed so that
formal education to allow young people
all new legislation and policy is subject
to have a first contact with a professional
to a youth focused impact assessment,
work environment so they can obtain a
including a consultation with young people.
professional orientation and or consider
2. Voting at European Parliament elections becoming an entrepreneur.
from the age of 16 should be discussed and
4. More significant EU financing under
considered, in parallel to an enhancement
NextGenerationEU should also be devoted
of citizenship education and education
to the implementation of the reinforced
about the EU. National political parties
European Youth Guarantee, including more
89
commitment, better outreach, improvements 7. Specific policies are needed to avoid
in the quality of the offer, funding and action a brain drain from some regions and
by all Member States, and the relevant countries within the EU due to insufficient
levels of authorities involved . Given youth opportunities being available for young
organisations expertise in the needs of people, while making Europe more attractive
young people, national governments should to prevent the drain of European talents and
collaborate in close dialogue with these workforce to third countries to prevent the
organisations to ensure the most effective hampering of territorial cohesion particularly
delivery of the Guarantee. as regards those areas which have an acute
loss of young talent including through EU
5. Ensure that young people’s internships
funding.190
and jobs adhere to quality standards,
including on remuneration, putting an end 8. In case of a serious crisis (e.g. health crisis,
to youth minimum wages and any other war) well prepared plans with detailed
discriminatory labour law provisions specific scenarios should be ready to deploy in a
to young people, as well as banning through flexible way to minimise the impact on
a legal instrument unpaid internships on young people in their studies, vocational
the labour market and outside formal training, transition to the labour market and
education.188 mental wellbeing.191
6. Ensure reasonable living standards for
young people including access to social
protection and housing. Young people
should have access to social protection,
equal to other age groups. Access to
affordable housing for young people,
including through EU funding, should also be
facilitated.189
48. Proposal: Culture and exchanges
Objective: In order to promote a culture of exchange and foster European identity and European
diversity across different areas, the Member States, with the support of the European Union,
should:192
Measures:
1. Promote European exchanges in different and ensure more widespread and diverse
fields, both physically and digitally, including participation in these programmes and
educational exchanges, twinning, travel consider adding also new elements, such
and professional mobility (including for as an additional objective of civic service
teachers and local elected politicians). Such fostered through volunteering (for the
exchanges should be made accessible European Solidarity Corps) and ‘cultural
across Member States for all, regardless passes’ (for DiscoverEU). The local and
of their age, level of education, background regional authorities, under the auspices of
and financial means.193 With this overall the Committee of the Regions have a key
aim, the EU should inter alia strengthen role to play in this matter.
existing EU level exchange and mobility
2. Promote multilingualism as a bridge to
programmes, such as the European
other cultures from an early age. Minority
Solidarity Corps, Erasmus+ and DiscoverEU,
90
and regional languages require additional for instance through events and gatherings
protection, taking note of the Council of involving all target groups and taking
Europe Convention on Minority Languages place in various locations. Some specific
and the Framework Convention for the examples include holding World Art days195
Protection of National Minorities. The EU a European Expo including educational
should consider setting up an institution events, or making Europe Day (9 May) a
promoting language diversity at the European public holiday for all EU citizens.196
European level. From elementary school
4. Protect European cultural heritage and
onwards, it should be mandatory that
culture197, including through recognising
children reach competence in an active EU
local and regional cultural and production
language other than their own to the highest
peculiarities198, new initiatives to safeguard
possible level. In order to facilitate the ability
and celebrate it, mobility to promote cultural
of European citizens to communicate with
heritage exchange, and the promotion
wider groups of their fellow Europeans
of existing measures such as Creative
and as a factor of European cohesion,
Europe, the New European Bauhaus, Sister
learning of the language of the immediate
City Programmes and European Capitals
neighbouring EU Member States in cross
of Culture in line with the Sustainable
border areas and reaching a certifiable
Development Goals.
standard in English should be encouraged
by Member States.194 5. Take steps to ensure that cultural
professionals are sufficiently protected at
3. Create opportunities to share European
EU level, particularly in any future crises, by
cultures, bring people together and move
adopting a legal statute at European level.
them towards a common European identity,
49. Proposal: Sport
Objective: Sport is crucial for our societies - in order to defend our values, ensure healthy lifestyle
and ageing, promote a culture of exchanges and also celebrate the diversity of European heritage.
For this reason, the Member States, with the support of the European Union, should aim to:
Measures:
1. Put emphasis on values, especially gender 5. At the same time, encourage the
equality, fairness and inclusiveness that showcasing of European identity by
can be concretely reflected through sport organising more inter-EU sports events,
practice throughout education. creating EU sports teams, or displaying
EU flags or symbols at European sporting
2. Raise awareness about health benefits of
events.
sport and physical activity.199
6. Invest more in communication efforts such
3. Include sport activities among EU level
as the European Week of Sports to ensure
exchange and mobility programmes.200
that citizens from across the EU can benefit
4. Improve attention given not just to from flagship opportunities together.
professional and commercial sports but
also to local and traditional sport, as an
aspect of European Cultural Diversity and
cultural heritage promotion, and champion
support for sports in a non-professional
setting.
91
Final
considerations
of the Executive
Board
92
The overarching purpose of the Conference on multilingual digital platform, the European and
the Future of Europe was to make the European National Citizens’ Panels, and the Conference
Union fit for present and future challenges Plenary, the Conference has now delivered a
by providing an opportunity for citizens to final report, including an overview of this year-
articulate their concerns and ambitions and, long intensive work, as well as the proposals
together with representatives of the three formulated by the Plenary for the future of
Institutions, national parliaments and other Europe. These proposals make very clear that
stakeholders, to provide guidance for the future. the EU must act to achieve the green and digital
To achieve this objective, the Conference had transitions, strengthen Europe’s resilience
to be a citizens-focused, bottom-up exercise, and its social contract, while addressing
creating a new space to debate Europe’s inequalities and ensuring that the European
challenges and priorities and to develop an Union is a fair, sustainable, innovative and
overview of what citizens expect from the competitive economy that leaves no one
European Union. behind. The geopolitical developments during
the Conference, and especially the Russian war
The Conference has indeed played this role.
of aggression against Ukraine, have also shown
European citizens from all walks of life and
that the EU needs to be more assertive, taking a
corners of the Union participated in the
leading global role in promoting its values and
Conference and produced Citizens’ Panels’
standards in a world increasingly in turmoil.
recommendations as well as, together with
the subsequent Plenary including members The Conference has provided a clear direction
from the European Parliament, the Council, in these areas and the three EU Institutions
and the European Commission, as well as now need to examine how to follow up on the
representatives from all national parliaments, concerns, ambitions, and ideas expressed. The
the Committee of the Regions, regional next step in this process is to come up with
and local elected representatives, the concrete EU action building on the outcome of
European Economic and Social Committee, the Conference, contained in this final report.
social partners, civil society and other key EU institutions will now therefore examine
stakeholders, proposals for the future of this report and its follow-up, each within
Europe. The tools and methodology developed the framework of their competences and in
for this process provided a unique set of accordance with the Treaties. A feedback event
resources that could form the basis for will take place to update citizens in autumn
future exercises in citizen engagement and 2022 on how the Institutions will live up to their
deliberative democracy at EU level. commitment to ensure that European citizens
are listened to and hold, in their hands, the
Through a multitude of events and debates
future of Europe.
organised across the Union, the interactive
93
Endnotes
1
Citizens’ recommendations on which the proposal is mainly based: #3, #17, #18, #19
2
# = European Citizens’ Panel’s Recommendation
3
Citizens’ recommendations on which the proposal is mainly based: #39, #40, #41, #42, #43, #49, NL1, NL2, #51
4
National Citizens’ Panel’s Recommendation
5
Citizens’ recommendations on which the proposal is mainly based: #44, #45, #46, #47, #50
6
Citizens’ recommendations on which the proposal is mainly based: #39, #40, #45, #48, #49, #50, #51, FRchange8, FRwish11, NL2, NL3
7
Dutch citizens’ panel recommendations differ from the European citizen’s panel recommendations, stating that health and healthcare
should be primarily a national responsibility [NL3].
8
itizens’ recommendations on which the proposal is mainly based: European Citizens’ Panel 1: 9, 10, 11, 12, 14; The Netherlands: 1;
C
Italy: 1.1,; Lithuania: 3, 8.
9
itizens’ recommendations on which the proposal is mainly based: European Citizens’ Panel 1: 10, 11 & 14; Germany: 2.1, 2.2; The
C
Netherlands: 1, 2; France: 3, 9; Italy: 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 4.a.2, 6.1; Lithuania: 1, 7.
10
itizens’ recommendations on which the proposal is mainly based: European Citizens’ Panel 1: 1, 2, 7, 28, 30; Germany: 4.1, 4.2; The
C
Netherlands: 4; France: 6; Italy: 5.a.1, 5.a.4, 6.1, 6.2.
11
Citizens’ recommendations on which the proposal is mainly based: European Citizens’ Panel 1: 19, 20, 21, 25; Italy: 4.a.1.
12
Citizens’ recommendations on which the proposal is mainly based: European Citizens’ Panel 1: 21, 22, 23, 26, 27; Italy: 5.a.1.
13
Citizens’ recommendations on which the proposal is mainly based: European Citizens’ Panel 1: 13, 31; The Netherlands: 2.3; Italy:
4.b.3, 4.b.6; Lithuania: 9, 10.
14
From debates in Working Group and Plenary
15
ee Recommendation 1 from ECP4, Recommendation 2 from NCP Germany Panel 1 “EU in the World”, and NCP Italy Cluster 2, Rec1,
S
further developed in WG
16
See Recommendation 4 from ECP4 and NCP Italy Cluster 2, Recs 5 and 6, further developed in WG
17
See Digital Platform and NCP Italy Cluster 2, Recs 2 and 3, further developed in WG
18
See Recommendation 14 from ECP4, further developed in WG
19
See Recommendation 2 from ECP4 and NCP Italy Cluster 2, Rec4, further developed in WG
20
See Recommendation 17 from ECP4 and NCP Italy Cluster 2, Rec4, further developed in WG
21
See Recommendation 1 NCP Germany, Panel 1 “EU in the World”, further developed in WG
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
See Digital Platform, further developed in WG
30
31
32
33
34
35
See Recommendation 25 from ECP4
36
From debate in Working Group and Plenary
37
See Change 2 from the French national panel/events
38
See Recommendation 20 from ECP4 and NCP Italy Cluster 2, Rec 7, further developed in WG
39
See Change 2 from French National Citizens’ Panel
40
See Recommendation 24 from ECP4 and NCP Italy Cluster 2, Rec 7, further developed in WG
41
94
42
See Recommendation 1 on EU in World from Dutch National Citizens’ Panel, further developed in WG
43
See Digital Platform and Plenary Debates, further developed in WG
44
45
itizens’ recommendations on which the proposal is mainly based: European Citizens’ Panel 2 (ECP2): 10, 11, 14, 30; Belgium National
C
Citizens’ Panel (NCP): 1.3.1, 1.4.2, 1.4.3; Germany NCP: 5.1, 5.2; The Netherlands NCP: 1.2.
46
ECP2 recommendation number 14. Belgian NCP recommendation number 1.3.1, 1.4.2, 1.4.3. Dutch NCP recommendation 1.2.
47
ECP2 recommendation number 11. German NCP recommendation number 5.1, 5.2. WG debate.
48
ECP2 recommendation number 11. WG debate. Plenary debate.
49
ECP2 recommendation number 10.
50
ECP2 recommendation number 30
51
Citizens’ recommendations on which the proposal is mainly based: ECP2: 7, 8, 9; The Netherlands NCP: 1.3, 4.3.
52
ECP2 recommendation number 7. WG debate.
53
Issue also covered by the Working Group on Digital Transformation
54
55
56
ECP2 recommendation number 8. Dutch NCP recommendation number 1.3, 4.3.
57
ECP2 recommendation number 7, 8
58
59
itizens’ recommendations on which the proposal is mainly based: ECP2: 5, 12, 13, 17, 28; Belgium NCP: 1.5.1, 2.1.1 up to 2.4.3; The
C
Netherlands NCP: 3.1
60
ECP2 recommendation number 5. Belgian NCP recommendation number 2.1.1. Dutch NCP recommendation 3.1
61
ECP2 recommendation number 12. Belgian NCP recommendation 2.1.4.
62
ECP2 recommendation number 17 and 28. Belgian NCP recommendation number 1.5.1, 2.1.3, 2.2.1., 2.2.2
63
64
ECP2 recommendation number 5 and 28. Belgian NCP recommendation 2.3.2, 2.3.3
65
ECP 2 recommendation number 28. Belgian NPC recommendation 2.3.1., 2.4.1., 2.4.2
66
67
68
69
70
71
Citizens’ recommendations on which the proposal is mainly based: ECP2: 1, 2, 21, 22, 23; The Netherlands NCP: 1.1
72
ECP2 recommendation number 22. WG debate
73
Issue also covered by the Working Group on Stronger economy, social justice and jobs
74
ECP2 recommendation number 21. Dutch NCP recommendation number 1.1.
75
76
Issue also covered by the Working Group on Stronger economy, social justice and jobs
77
78
79
Citizens’ recommendations on which the proposal is mainly based: ECP2: 3, 4, 6
80
81
Issue also covered by the Working Group on Climate change and the environment
82
83
84
Issue also covered by the Working Group on Climate change and the environment
85
itizens’ recommendations on which the proposal is mainly based: European Citizens’ Panel 1 (ECP1): 17, 40, 47; National Citizens
C
Panels (NCP) The Netherlands 1
95
86
See link to ECP 3, Rec 38 in relation to infrastructure for electrical vehicles
87
itizens’ recommendations on which the proposal is mainly based: European Citizens’ Panel 1 (ECP1): 8, 34, 47, National Citizens
C
Panels (NCP) Italy 5.2
88
itizens’ recommendations on which the proposal is mainly based: European Citizens’ Panel 1 (ECP1): 39, 46, National Citizens Panels
C
(NCP) Lithuania 2.6, The Netherlands 1
89
National Citizens Panels (NCP) The Netherlands 2
90
itizens’ recommendations on which the proposal is mainly based: European Citizens’ Panel 1 (ECP1): 7, 16, 17, National Citizens
C
Panels (NCP) Germany and Italy 1.3
91
See link with Working Group on Stronger Economy
92
Changes WG 3A and 3B
93
ECP2 Recommendation 32, 37, BE, FR and NL National Panels
94
FR National Panel
95
Change WG 8, shorter formulation
96
ECP2 Recommendation 29
97
ECP2 Recommendation 19, 32, BE, FR National Panels and DK representative of national events
98
BE National panel
99
Change WG 7B
100
BE National panel
101
Final Kantar Report, pag. 85
102
ECP2 Recommendation 39, BE National Panel 3
103
Change WG 10A, shorter formulation
104
DK representative of national events
105
Change WG 54C
106
107
108
Change WG 15 A, compromise formulation
109
ECP2 Recommendation 24, 36, 38, BE National Panel
110
Change WG 16 C
111
ECP2 33, BE FR and NL National panels)
112
ECP2 26
113
Change WG 17
114
BE National Panel
115
Change WG 18A
116
117
Change WG 18B
118
ECP2 Recommendation 31, BE and NL National Panels
119
Changes 19A to 19A, reformulation to fit text
120
Change WG 21, compromise
121
BE and FR National Panels
122
Change WG 23B
123
ECP2 Recommendation 27, BE National Panel
124
Change WG 25C
125
ECP Recommendations 14
126
ECP Recommendation 18; N.B. citizens representatives explained it should be carefully implemented and used
127
Changes WG 28 E,G,H
128
ECP2 Recommendation 16, NL National Panel 20, National Panel was divided on “ transnational lists”
129
Based on ECP2 Recommendation 16, Discussion in WG
96
130
ECP2 Recommendation 19 and MDP
131
European Economic and Social Committee
132
Change WG 32B
133
ECP2 Recommendation 36, BE and FR National Panels
134
R National Panel (“electing the President of the European Commission by universal suffrage”), MDP (Final Kantar Report: Group of
F
contributions discusses the direct election of the Commission President by citizens)
135
Change WG 34C
136
E National Panel (3.2), FR National Panel (11),- MDP (Final Kantar Report: “Regarding the European Parliament, contributors most
B
often call for it to be granted real powers of legislative initiative”)
137
MDP (Final Kantar Report: “Regarding the European Parliament, (…) There are also calls for it to be granted fiscal powers”)
138
DP (Final Kantar Report: “According to another contribution, parties should become more accessible to people from different
M
cultural or socioeconomic backgrounds”)
139
Committee of the Regions in WG
140
Change WG 38, compromise formulation
141
142
143
Change WG 43
144
ECP2 Recommendation 34, NL National Panel
145
iscussion in WG based ECP2 Recommendation 34, NL National Panel, MPD (Final Kantar Report: “Increased transparency and
D
greater involvement of the citizens is supported” in EU decision-making process is also supported
146
Change WG 44A.
147
WG discussion(presentation by National Parliaments and Committee of the Regions)
148
Change WG 45C
149
Change WG 46B
150
151
iscussion WG based on need expressed in ECP2 15 to “clarify EU institutions functions”, MDP (Final Kantar Report: “There are also
D
(…) suggestions to deepen the bicameral legislature in the EU”
152
Change WG 48B
153
ECP2 recommendation 15
154
Discussions in the WG
155
Change WG 52A
156
EESC, compromise formulation
157
ECP Recommendation 35, FR National Panel, plus changes WG combined 51C,D
158
Change WG 53D
159
Discussion in WG, National Parliaments
160
Discussion in WG, CoR and EESC; Final Kantar Report, pag. 85
161
Change WG 58B
162
Change WG 59B
163
Discussion in the WG, Social partners and several other members
164
Change WG 63A, compromise formulation
165
Citizens’ recommendations in which the proposal is mainly based: European Citizens’ Panel 4 (ECP4) 6, 7, 9, 28, 30; Lithuania 9
166
itizens’ recommendations on which the proposal is mainly based : European Citizens’ Panel 4 (ECP 4) 8, 27, Lithuania 10, The
C
Netherlands 3
167
Citizens’ recommendations on which the proposal is mainly based: European Citizens’ Panel 4 (ECP 4) 10, 35, 38
168
itizens’ recommendations on which the proposal is mainly based: European Citizens’ Panel 4 (ECP 4) 29, 31, 33, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40;
C
Italy 3.8 and 4.4 (p.15) and 5.6 (p.11), Lithuania 2 and 3, The Netherlands 1 and 2.
169
Citizens’ recommendations on which the proposal is mainly based: European Citizens’ Panel 4 (ECP 4) 7 and 32, France Change 13.
170
French NCP Change 6.
171
ECP 1 recommendation no 37.
97
172
ECP recommendations no 3. French NCP Change 6.
173
174
overed in more detail by WG on European democracy. See ECP 2 recommendation no 24, Belgian NCP recommendation no 1.1, 1.2
C
and 2.12 and Italian NCP recommendation on “inclusion policies”.
175
Italian NCP recommendation-on “inclusion policies”.
176
Covered in more detail by WG on Digital Transformation. See ECP 1 recommendations no 8 and 34.
177
Italian NCP recommendation on “Encouraging young people to study science subjects”.
178
CP 1 recommendations no 33 and 48. Covered also by WG on Digital Transformation. See ECP 1 recommendation no 47 on healthy
E
use of internet.
179
180
ECP 1 recommendation no 15 and 18.
181
Italian NCP recommendation on “Europe in the world”
182
ECP 1 recommendations no 18 and 41 and Italian NCP recommendation on 'Investing in the training of trainers'.
183
ECP 1 recommendation no 17, allocated as a whole to the WG on digital.
184
CP 1 recommendation no 15. German NCP recommendation on 'Information platform for an EU-wide exchange of knowledge and
E
experiences'.
185
Belgian NCP, recommendations 6.1. French NCP, Change 7.
186
Belgian NCP, recommendation 7.2.
187
188
uggestion to complement ECP 1 recommendations no 1 and 30 covered by the WG on Stronger Economy, Social Justice and
S
Jobs.
189
Suggestion to complement ECP 1 recommendation no 25 covered by the WG on Stronger Economy, Social Justice and Jobs.
190
ECP 4 recommendation no 28. Dutch NCP (‘Our vision of culture, youth and sport’), recommendation no 1. French NCP, Change 6.
191
192
Dutch NCP (‘Our vision of culture, youth and sport’), recommendation no 2.
193
CP 1 recommendation no 36. French NCP, Change 6. Belgian NCP, recommendations no 2.10 and 2.11. German NCP, ‘Creating more
E
exchange opportunities for students in Europe’. Dutch NCP (‘Our vision of culture, youth and sport’), recommendations no 1 and 3.
Italian NCP, recommendation on 'Acting as a confluence between East and West, promoting cultural exchanges and joint cultural
initiatives'
194
ECP 1 recommendations no 32 and 38. Dutch NCP (‘Our vision of culture, youth and sport’), recommendation no 3
195
Italian NCP recommendation on “Europe in the World"
196
French NCP, Change 7. Belgian NCP, recommendations no 2.5, 6.1 and 8.7. Italian NCP, recommendation on 'Enhancement of
European values, cultural traits as well as regional specificities'.
197
Dutch NCP (‘Our vision of culture, youth and sport’), recommendation no 2.
198
Italian NCP recommendation on “overcoming the 20th century production model”
199
200
98
99
Annexes
ANNEXES
I - Recommendations of the four European Citizens’ Panels
Conference on the
Future of Europe
European Citizens’ Panel 1: “Stronger economy,
social justice and jobs / Education, culture,
youth and sport / Digital transformation”
Recommendations
Conference on the Future of Europe
European Citizens’ Panel 1:
“Stronger economy, social justice and jobs / Education, culture, youth and sport /
Digital transformation”
RECOMMENDATIONS ADOPTED BY THE PANEL (TO BE TAKEN FORWARD TO THE

PLENARY)
Stream 1: Working in Europe
Substream 1.1 Labour Market
1. We recommend the introduction of a minimum wage to ensure similar quality of

living across all Member States. We acknowledge the existing efforts in the EU
directive COM(2020) 682 to standardise the way of living. The minimum wage needs
to secure a minimum net income to achieve an essential objective: everyone in need
should have more money to spend. The minimum wage should take into
consideration the following aspects:
● The EU should ensure the effective implementation because currently not all
Member States apply worker protection adequately.
● Special attention should be put on monitoring and tracking improvement in
the standard of living.
● The minimum wage must factor in the purchasing power in different
countries. A regular review cycle is necessary to adjust for the changing cost
of living (e.g. by inflation).
We recommend this because a minimum wage enhances social justice in the labour
market and improves the concrete living conditions of employees in all Member
States. This is especially important in the context of a fast changing working
environment, e.g. by digitalisation.
2. There is already an EU regulation (EU´s Working Time Directive - 2003/88/EC) in

place. However, it is not sufficient to ensure a healthy work life balance. As a first
step, we recommend that the existing framework needs a review if it is adequate
for the current circumstances. Secondly, the EU should establish a stricter
monitoring mechanism to ensure implementation in all Member States. Special
attention needs to be paid to different sectors that have different levels of stress
and burdens, both psychologically and physically. However, at the same time, other
sectors rely on more flexibility from their employees to adjust for specific corporate
needs.
3
We recommend this because an improved work-life balance is important because it
enhances social cohesion and contributes to a level playing field among employees.
Also, it positively affects the individual well-being of employees.
Substream 1.2 Youth and Employment
3. We recommend the harmonisation of the level of all different education programs

in the EU with acceptance of the national content. Accordingly, we recommend that
the professional degrees are validated and mutually recognised in all EU Member
States.
We recommend this because we want to facilitate European labour mobility and

reduce the administrative burden.
4. We recommend that high school students (from 12 years old on) should have an
insight into their future labour market by giving them the opportunity to have
several high quality observatory visits in profit and non-profit organisations. We
propose to encourage companies to accept observing students by granting them
subsidies. In remote areas where there is less opportunity, local schools,
governments, organisations and companies must work closely together to realise
that those observatory visits are also effective.
We recommend this because we want youngsters to gain insight into the different
possibilities in the labour market so that they can make a better choice for their
studies and their professional future and understand the importance of the right
study. It also teaches them what responsibility is and that they should have respect
for the labour market. It will help youngsters with the integration in the labour
market. It is a win-win situation for both sites.
5. We recommend that practising soft skills should be integrated in all the courses in
the curricula in schools. By soft skills we mean: listening to each other, encouraging
dialogue, resilience, understanding, respect and appreciation for others, critical
thinking, self-study, remaining curious, result-oriented. Teachers should be trained
in the transmission of these skills by collaborating closely with social workers
and/or psychologists. Other suggestions for execution: organise exchange programs
for students between schools, organise participation in sports and cultural events
cross-schools etc.
4
We recommend this because soft skills are basic skills needed, which are lost in the
digital age and are absolutely necessary in the future life of our youth. Therefore we
stress bringing them in the curriculum so it helps them to be resilient and helps them
to avoid and overcome mental issues they might experience in their future life. Social
skills strengthen inter-human relations and therefore help people find their place in
society.
6. We recommend that in case of a serious crisis (e.g. health crisis, war, etc.) well
prepared plans with detailed scenarios are ready to deploy in a flexible way to
minimise the impact on our youngsters in their studies, vocational training, mental
wellbeing etc. By impact we mean: higher cost of studying or training, obliged
prolongation of studies, internships that could not be carried out, increase of
mental health problems. The scripts have to be rolled out to minimise the impact
on youngsters and their transition to the labour market.
We recommend this because the position of the youngsters is very vulnerable in times
of crisis.
Substream 1.3 Digitalization at Work
7. We recommend that the EU introduces or reinforces existing legislation that

regulates so-called 'smart working' [= working online and remotely, e.g. home office
or from another location connected online]. Further, we recommend that the EU
legislates to incentivise companies to be socially responsible and to keep high-
quality 'smart working' jobs within the EU. The incentives can be financial and/or
reputational, and should take into account existing internationally recognised
Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) criteria. For this to happen, the EU
should set up a working group composed of experts from all interested stakeholders
to explore and strengthen such legislation.
We recommend this because we need to promote high quality 'smart working' jobs
and avoid their relocation to lower-cost, non-EU countries. The Covid-19 pandemic
and the global economic trends increase the urgency to protect jobs in the EU and
regulate ‘smart working’.
5
8. We recommend that the EU guarantees the right to digital training for all EU
citizens. In particular, young people’s digital skills could be boosted with the
introduction of an EU certification in schools that would prepare them for the future
job market. We also recommend specific training at the EU level to re-train and up-
skill workers to remain competitive in the job market. Lastly, we recommend the
EU raises more awareness about existing digital platforms that connect people to
employers and to help them find jobs in the EU, e.g. EURES.
We recommend this because certified digital skills are fundamental for people to
enter the job market and for workers to re-skill and stay competitive.
Stream 2: An Economy for the Future
Substream 2.1 Innovation and European Competitiveness
9. We recommend that the EU creates opportunities for different entities (universities,

corporations, research institutes, etc.) to invest in research and innovation aiming
to develop:
● new materials, intended to serve as more sustainable and biodiverse
alternatives to those currently in use,
● innovative uses of existing materials (also based on recycling and state-of-
the-art techniques which have the smallest environmental footprint).
We recommend this to be an ongoing, long-term commitment from the EU (at least
until 2050).
We recommend this because we live on a planet with finite resources. If we want to

have a future, we need to protect the climate and look for planet-friendly alternatives.
We also want the EU to become a leader in this field with a strong, competitive
advantage in the international arena. The intention of the recommendation is to
produce innovative results that can be applied broadly and implemented across
various fields and countries. It would also positively impact the economy and the
labour market by creating new job opportunities in the field of sustainable innovation.
It could contribute to combating social injustices by replacing current, exploitative
production means with new, more ethical ones.
6
10. We recommend that the EU makes a long term, ongoing commitment to largely
increase its share of sustainably sourced energy, using a diverse range of renewable
sources that have the lowest environmental footprint (based on a holistic life-cycle
assessment). Furthermore, the EU should invest in improving and maintaining the
quality of electrical infrastructure and the electrical grid. We also recommend that
access to energy and energy affordability are recognised as a basic right of citizens.
We recommend this because:

● Diversifying energy sources (including solar, wind, hydrogen, seawater, or any
future sustainable methods) would make the EU more energy-independent,
● it would lower electricity costs for EU citizens,
● it would create jobs and restructure the energy market (especially in regions
that were thus far dependent on fossil fuels),
● it could encourage scientific development of innovative techniques of energy
sourcing,
● the quality of the electric infrastructure and the electrical grid are as important
as energy sources, allowing for smooth, efficient, and affordable distribution
and transport of energy.
11. We recommend that the EU actively promotes greener production processes,

through subsidising or otherwise rewarding companies that invest in lowering the
environmental costs of their production. Furthermore, we require an effort to
recultivate post-industrial sites and establish protected green zones around existing
sites. Companies should be required to finance these efforts, at least in part, from
their own pocket.
We recommend this because production processes are an important element in the

supply chain. Making them more environmentally friendly could greatly reduce our
climate impact. We believe companies and industries should be held accountable for
how they produce their products (including recultivation and environmental
protection measures). Making production processes greener also prepares
companies for the future and makes them more resilient (which protects jobs).
7
Substream 2.2 Sustainable Economy / Substream 2.3 Taxation
12. We recommend that plastic containers are abandoned and to generalise reusable
ones. There should be incentives for consumers and companies, so it will not be
more expensive to buy goods in bulk ("en vrac" in French or "sfuso" in Italian) for a
consumer as opposed to packaged ones. Companies contributing to this transition
should have fiscal benefits and those that do not should pay more taxes. For those
products that cannot be reused, they should be recyclable and/or biodegradable. A
public or oversight institution to monitor everything is required, to set the rules and
to share them with everyone. It is recommended to educate, communicate - also
through social media - about these actions to both companies and consumers to
change their behaviours in the long term. Companies should be encouraged and
helped to find the best solutions with their own waste (construction companies for
example).
We recommend this because we all have to be responsible for our actions. So we have
to rethink all production processes. Recycling requires a lot of resources (water,
energy), so it cannot be the only answer. This is why we propose to commercialise
bulk goods. Recycling should only be used for easily recyclable materials. And we
know with the Finnish example that it is possible to recycle a very large part.
13. We recommend having the same fiscal rules in Europe and harmonising fiscal policy
across all the EU. Tax harmonisation should allow leeway for individual Member
States to set their own tax rules but still prevent tax evasion. It will end harmful
fiscal practices and tax competition. Taxes should concern commercial transactions
in the location where they occur. When a company sells in a country they should
pay taxes in this particular country. These new rules would aim to prevent
delocalisation and ensure that the transactions and production take place between
European countries.
We recommend this to protect and develop jobs, economic activities in Europe and
with equity between the Member States. It will bring a common understanding within
Europe of the fiscal system. It intends to end the absurd monopoly situation of giant
companies who do not pay enough taxes compared to smaller companies. It will also
bring the money where commercial activities are carried out.
8
14. We recommend getting rid of the system of planned obsolescence of all electronic
devices. Change should happen both on an individual and commercial level, to
guarantee that we can own, repair, and upgrade in the long term. We recommend
the promotion of refurbished devices. Through regulation, it would be compulsory
for companies to guarantee the right to repair, including upgrades and software
updates, and to recycle all devices in the long term. It is also recommended that
every company should use standardised connectors.
We recommend this because in the modern world, products tend to last 2 years, we
want them to have a much longer lifespan of about 10 years. This proposition will
have a positive impact on climate change and ecology. It will also reduce costs for
consumers and reduce consumerism.
15. We recommend helping everyone to learn about our environment and its
connection to everyone’s individual health through education. Educational courses
will help everyone to define their own personal strategies to integrate these topics
into their lives. This education should start at school with specific subjects
addressing all ecological issues, and we should continue to be educated throughout
our entire lives (at work for instance). It will contribute to reducing waste and
protecting the environment and human health. This education will promote local
consumption of healthy and non processed products, sourced from local producers.
Those who do not act to reduce waste will have to take a free training course on
these issues. To enable this lifestyle adaptation, prices need to be fair for the
producer and the consumer. Consequently, we propose that small, local and
environmentally friendly producers will have tax exemptions.
We recommend this because we believe that many people do not yet feel concerned
by these issues. This is why we need education about this for everyone. Furthermore,
local and healthy products tend to be unaffordable for many. We have to ensure that
locally made products are more widely available to all.
9
Substream 2.4 Agriculture / Substream 2.5 Digital Infrastructure
16. We recommend the implementation of a common European easy-to-understand

labelling system for consumption and nutrition products (the information would
contain allergens, country of origin, etc), transparency about ongoing approval
processes, digitalisation of product information through a standardised European
app which would allow for more user friendly access and would provide additional
information on products and production chain. We also see the need for a truly
independent body that regulates food standards across the EU, that has legislative
powers, so as to be able to apply sanctions.
We recommend this because EU citizens should expect the same standard of food.
The integrity of food products is a necessity to ensure the safety of citizens. These
recommendations have been made to enhance the approval monitoring and
transparency of food production in a harmonised way.
17. We recommend infrastructure to be a state asset to prevent the rise of

telecommunications and internet service monopolies. It should be a right to have
access to the internet, it should be a priority to bring internet connection to
‘whitezones / dead zones’ (areas with no internet access). Children and families are
a priority when it comes to accessing the internet and hardware, particularly in
terms of education, and especially in times of a pandemic. An initiative is needed to
help support remote working, such as office spaces with access to a reliable, fast
internet connection and digital training.
We recommend this because we must ensure that the digital transformation is done
in an equitable manner. Access to the internet is fundamental to democracy and is a
right of all European citizens.
18. We recommend local insects to be respected and protected against invasive species.
We also propose to incentivise and advocate for new construction developments to
have obligatory green spaces. We call for the introduction of biodiversity as a
mandatory subject in schools through the use of curricular activities, e.g. through
practical activities. It is important to highlight awareness for biodiversity through
the use of media campaigns and incentivised ‘competitions’ across the EU (local
community scale competitions). We recommend the establishment of binding
national targets across the EU Member States for reforestation of native trees and
local flora.
10
We recommend this because biodiversity is key for the environment, the quality of
life and to combat climate change.
Stream 3: A Just Society
Substream 3.1 Social Security
19. We recommend promoting social policies and equality of rights, including health,
harmonised for the entire EU, which take into consideration agreed regulations and
the minimum requirements throughout the territory.
We recommend this because there are big disparities between Member States
regarding social policies that need to be reduced to achieve a decent life for all
citizens, and to carry out the care and support needed by vulnerable people for
various reasons (health, age, sexual orientation, etc.).
20. We recommend promoting research in social matters and health in the EU,
following priority lines that are considered to be of public interest and agreed on by
the Member States, and providing the appropriate funding. We need to reinforce
collaboration across fields of expertise, across countries, centres of studies
(universities, etc.).
We recommend this because there are many areas in which we need to advance and
deepen our knowledge. The pandemic experience shows us an example in which
research is essential to improve life and in which public-private and government-to-
government collaboration is essential and financial support is necessary.
21. We recommend the EU should have stronger competences in social policies to

harmonise and establish minimum rules and pension benefits across the EU based
on a thorough diagnosis. Minimum pension needs to be above the poverty line of
the country. The retirement age should differ based on categorisation of professions
with mentally and physically demanding professions being able to retire earlier. At
the same time, there should be a guaranteed right to work for the elderly who wish
to continue working on a volunteer basis.
11
We recommend this because life expectancy is increasing and the natality is reducing.
The European population is ageing which is why we need to take further measures to
avoid the risk of marginalisation of elderly and ensure their decent life.
22. We recommend a set of agreed measures to encourage an increase in the birth rate
as well as to ensure appropriate childcare. These measures include, among others,
affordable and accessible childcare (at the workplace, overnight, reducing the VAT
on child equipment), housing, stable work, supporting motherhood, specific
support and protection of work for young people and parents and supporting
mothers and fathers with access to knowledge at the return to work.
We recommend this because the low birth rates in the EU stand out which further
contributes to the ageing of the European population and on which immediate
measures should be taken. The proposed set of measures aims to ensure stability for
young families necessary to provide for children.
23. We recommend to guarantee social and health care for the elderly at home as well
as in nursing homes. In addition, there is a need for improved support for those who
take care of elderly (relatives).
We recommend this because life expectancy is increasing and the natality is reducing,
the European population is ageing which is why we need to take further measures to
avoid the risk of marginalisation of elderly and ensure their decent life.
24. We recommend the EU should support palliative care and assisted death
[euthanasia] following a concrete set of rules and regulations.
We recommend this because it would reduce the pain of the patients and families
and it would ensure a decent end of life.
12
Substream 3.2 Equal Rights
25. We recommend the EU to support targeted access to decent social housing for
citizens, according to their specific needs. Financial effort should be shared among
private funders, landlords, housing beneficiaries, Member State governments at
central and local levels, and the European Union. The aim should be to facilitate the
construction/repairing of the existing social housing stock, including by cooperative
association, rental, and purchase. The support should be granted based on clear
criteria (e.g., the max. surface/person to be subsidised, incomes of the beneficiaries
etc.).
We recommend this because improved housing access would ensure that EU citizens
benefit from tangible equal rights. It would help to ease social tensions. While the EU
is mainly called upon to oversee the support mechanism, national and local
authorities should more actively solve the housing problems.
26. We recommend that the EU improves the regulation and uniform implementation
of support measures for families with children in all Member States. Such measures
include: increasing the length of parental leave, childbirth and childcare allowances.
We recommend this because we think that the measures would alleviate the
demographic problem that the EU is facing. They would also improve gender equality
between parents.
27. We recommend that the EU takes action to guarantee that all families enjoy equal
family rights in all Member States. Such rights include the right to marriage and
adoption.
We recommend this because we think all EU citizens should enjoy equal rights,
including family rights. The family is the basic form of social organisation. A happy
family contributes to a healthy society. The recommendation aims to ensure that all
citizens enjoy family rights regardless of their gender, adult age, ethnicity, or physical
health condition.
13
Substream 3.3 Fairness / Substream 3.4 Access to Sports
28. We recommend that the 2020-2025 EU Gender Equality Strategy is strongly

prioritised and incentivised as an urgent matter that is effectively addressed by
Member States. The EU should (a) define indicators (i.e. attitudes, salary gap,
employment, leadership, etc.), monitor the strategy yearly and be transparent with
the achievements; and (b) put an Ombudsman in place to get feedback directly from
citizens.
We recommend this because we think that gender equality is far from what we would
like to see in the EU. There should be harmony in gender equality and civil rights at
European level, so that they are achieved in all countries, and not only in the ones
with a stronger compromise with the topic. We value the presence and contribution
of women in power positions, and in any kind of profession, in order to have a diverse
and fulfilling EU. Women are disadvantaged in many situations (even in the case they
have good/ higher education or other privileges), so such a strategy is strongly
needed.
29. We recommend that the EU promotes and raises awareness of sports and physical
activity in all Member States due to its health benefits. Sport and physical activity
should be included within social, physical and mental health, education and labour
policies (i.e. promote sports and/or physical prescription by doctors and, when
done, guarantee access to sports facilities; 1 hour of working time/week for physical
activity, etc.).
We recommend this because it is an investment in the long term. Investing in sport

and physical activity reduces costs and burdens to health services. For example, sport
and physical activity as a health intervention would shorten treatment periods and
make the treatment more effective. This is already being implemented successfully in
some countries like Germany. Sports are a way to build values like commitment,
effort, self-esteem, respect or companionship. Sedentary lifestyles are now more
common than previous generations due to more desk jobs, and/or change habits in
leisure among others.
14
30. We recommend that the EU should obligate every Member State to have a defined
minimum wage related to the cost of living in that state and is considered a fair
salary that can allow minimum life conditions, over the poverty line. Each Member
State must monitor this.
We recommend this because it is not fair that you cannot reach the end of the month
if you are working. Fair salaries should contribute to life quality at a social level. Unfair
wages have a high cost for the states (security, tax avoidance, higher social costs, etc.).
31. We recommend tax harmonisation in the Member States within the EU (to avoid
tax havens within EU, and to target offshoring within Europe), and a tax incentive
to discourage offshoring of jobs outside of Europe.
We recommend this because we are worried about the impact of offshoring jobs
outside of Europe, and this would prevent tax competition between Member States
of the EU.
Stream 4: Learning in Europe
Substream 4.1 European Identity / Substream 4.2 Digital Education
32. We recommend promoting multilingualism from an early age, for example, starting
in kindergarten. From elementary school onwards, it should be mandatory that
children reach a C1 level in a second active EU language other than their own.
We recommend this because multilingualism is a tool that connects people and is a

bridge to other cultures, as it makes other countries and their cultures more
accessible. It strengthens European identity and intercultural exchange. It is
important to get to know the other cultures in the context of the European Union.
Therefore, being able to converse in two languages at a great level would help create
a common European identity and understanding of other European cultures. The EU
must ensure that there is close cooperation between itself and educational
institutions to develop successful educational outcomes. In addition, there needs to
be a dedicated program (e.g. digital platforms, expanded Erasmus+ programs, etc.) to
exclusively promote multilingualism. The current European Schools can serve as a
model in this regard. The EU should establish more such schools and actively promote
them.
15
33. We recommend that the EU raises more awareness about the dangers of the
internet and digitalisation for young people through the creation of a mandatory
subject in elementary school. The EU should create tools and establish common
training spaces for young people to learn together.
We recommend this because the current initiatives or programs in this area are not
sufficient. Moreover, many EU citizens are not aware of existing EU initiatives in these
areas. Children are not sufficiently aware of the dangers of the Internet, so we should
do much more to promote and raise awareness amongst the younger generation.
34. We recommend that the EU put effort into making technology more accessible to
the older generation by fostering programs and initiatives, for instance in the form
of classes tailored to their needs. The EU should guarantee the right to use
digitalisation for those who wish it and propose alternatives for those who do not.
We recommend this because the EU should ensure that older people can participate
in the digital world and that no one is discriminated against. Simplified tools should
be introduced for generations that are not as experienced with the use of certain
technologies in order to integrate them into today's world. We recommend that
initiatives that already exist be better promoted, so that citizens are aware of those
opportunities. The EU should not discriminate against the older generations
concerning the use of computer tools. (As a side note, this means that citizens should
be able to live their lives without being obligated to go through an internet network).
The EU should organise and make free permanent assistance available to older
generations to facilitate access to digital tools.
Substream 4.3 Cultural Exchange / Substream 4.4 Environmental Education
35. We recommend that the EU creates a platform on which teaching material about
climate change, sustainability, and environmental issues will be made available for
educational purposes. This information should be fact-based, checked by experts,
and tailored to every Member State. The platform:
● Should include lessons for multiple target groups; for example people who
live in an urban or a rural context, for all age groups, and for all levels of prior
knowledge,
● Must be available to all Member States and should be easily accessible,
● In its implementation it should include a plan for promotion; this should be
done in collaboration with relevant companies,
16
● Could be made available together with a funding program to support the
usage of, and implementation, of the information on the platform. This
funding should also provide support for field trips to show relevant real life
examples.
We recommend this because people of all ages need access to fact-based information
on how to address climate change, sustainability, and environmental issues.
Important concepts, e.g. the ecological footprint, must be understood by everyone,
particularly young people, since what we learn as children is used throughout our
lives. These topics are complex and misinformation is widespread. We need a source
that is trustworthy and the EU has the credibility and resources to provide this. This
is also important because knowledge levels and easy access to credible information
differs across Member States.
36. We recommend that the EU prioritise making exchange programs accessible for all
(age groups, Member States, levels of education, and people with different financial
capabilities) and allow for exchanges or internships between sectors, countries,
educational institutions, cities, and companies. The EU should be responsible for
initiating, mediating, and funding cultural and social exchanges across the EU - both
physically and digitally. The EU must actively promote these initiatives and target
people who are not already aware of cultural and social exchange programs. The
Conference on the Future of Europe, in which people were randomly selected, is the
perfect example of a European exchange. We want more of this - but also initiatives
of a smaller scale, as well as exchanges within sports, music, (social) internships,
etc.
We recommend this because it is important to create a feeling of togetherness and

cohesion, and to advance tolerance for all our beautiful differences/different
perspectives, as well as for the development of individual skills. In the process this will
enable the development of friendships, mutual understanding, and critical thinking.
We would like to promote the engagement of all members of our communities, even
those that have not been involved in such initiatives to date.
17
Substream 4.5 Quality, Finance and Access to Education / Substream 4.6
Harmonisation of Education
37. We recommend that all Member States agree and adopt a certified minimum
standard of education in core subjects commencing in primary school. This is to
ensure that all citizens have equal access to a standard quality of education,
ensuring fairness and equality.

● The presence of a minimum standard would give parents, teachers and
students greater confidence in their education systems while leaving capacity
for initiative and diversity.
● If implemented our recommendation would reinforce and strengthen a
common European identity, fostering togetherness, unity and sense of
belonging.
● Implementation of this recommendation would generate greater cooperation
and exchange between schools across the EU and this would improve relations
between teaching staff and pupils and assist greatly with exchange
programmes.
38. We recommend that English is taught, to a certifiable standard, as a core subject in

primary schools across all EU Member States in order to facilitate and strengthen
the ability of European citizens to communicate effectively.

● This would provide greater unity and equality through increasing citizens'
abilities to communicate with each other and support a stronger common
European identity.
● This would allow for a broader, flexible and more accessible labour market
allowing citizens the confidence to work and communicate in all other Member
States providing greater personal and professional opportunities.
● A commonly held European language could be achieved in a very short period
of time were this to be implemented.
● The use of a common language expedites information sharing which would
benefit cooperation, reacting to crises together, aid humanitarian efforts and
bring Europe and Europeans closer.
18
Stream 5: An Ethical and Safe Digital Transformation
Substream 5.1 Democratisation of Digitalisation / Substream 5.2 Cyber Security
39. We recommend that the EU should have more powers to deal with illegal content
and cyber criminality. We recommend the strengthening of capacities in
Europol/the European Cybercrime Centre including:
● Increased financial resources and manpower
● Ensuring punishment in similar ways in each country
● Ensuring that enforcement should be quick and effective
We recommend this to guarantee freedom on the Internet, while ensuring that

discrimination, abuse and harassment are punished. We support the idea of having a
European public body because we do not want to leave the regulation of online
platforms solely to private companies. Online platforms have to take responsibility
for the content that is distributed, but we want to make sure that their interests do
not come first. The regulation of content and the prosecution of those responsible
must be effective and swift, so that it also has a deterrent effect on the criminals.
40. We recommend that the EU should invest in high-quality and innovative digital
infrastructures (such as 5G being developed in Europe) in order to ensure Europe’s
autonomy and prevent dependence on other countries or private companies. The
EU should also pay attention to investment in underdeveloped regions of the EU.
We recommend this because digital infrastructure plays a vital role in Europe’s

economy and in facilitating everyday life in Europe. Europe therefore needs high
quality digital infrastructure. If Europe is dependent on others it may be vulnerable to
negative influences by private companies or foreign countries. Europe should
therefore invest in digital infrastructures to improve its autonomy. It is also important
to ensure digital inclusion by making sure that less digitally developed regions receive
investment.
41. We recommend that the EU promotes education on fake news, disinformation, and
online safety across Europe's schools. It should draw on examples of best practices
from across the EU. The EU should establish an organisation specifically to promote
this work and to provide recommendations to education systems. It should also
promote non-formal education as well as innovative and creative teaching
techniques (e.g. participative games).
19
We recommend this because introducing lessons on online safety and digital safety
literacy (dealing with online scams, false information etc.) at school are important to
give everyone the tools to protect themselves from online threats. It is important to
target the younger generation as they are very exposed to online threats. Schools can
also communicate with parents to promote good practices. This course can draw from
examples of best practice across Europe (e.g. such as Finland) while also being
adaptable for each country’s needs.
Substream 5.3 Data Protection
42. We recommend further limiting the misuse of data by 'data giants' through better
enforcement of GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation) and creating more
standardised mechanisms throughout the EU and by ensuring that even non-
European companies that operate in the EU comply with it. The improvement
should require clear and short explanation of terms of use to avoid ambiguity,
provide more information on how and by whom it will be used, avoiding default
consent to re-use and resell of data. It should ensure that data is permanently
deleted when a citizen requests it. It also should improve enforcement of consistent
compliance around profiling of individuals based on their online activities. We
propose two types of sanction: a fine proportional to the company's turnover,
limitations of company’s operations.
We recommend this because currently there is very limited transparency on what

kind of data is collected, how it is processed, and to whom it is sold to. We need to
further limit the abuse of power by data giants and make sure that consent citizens
give for data processing is well-informed.
43. We recommend creating an independent pan-EU agency that would have to clearly
define intrusive behaviour (e.g. spam) and create guidelines and mechanisms for
how citizens can opt-out and revoke data, especially from third parties. It must have
a mandate to identify and sanction fraudsters and non-compliant organisations. It
should work on ensuring compliance with the EU regulations for non-EU based
entities operating in the EU. It would be funded by the EU institutions and
composed of a mixed council of independent bodies (i.e. experts from universities
and entities representing professionals). It should have a rotation praesidium. We
propose two types of sanctions: a fine proportional to the companies’ turnover,
limitations of companies’ operations.
20
We recommend this because there is no central agency with a strong mandate that
can help citizens especially when they have an issue and need help, advising, or
support. There are no clear and mandatory rules for companies to follow and
sanctions are either not enforced or negligible for the companies.
44. We recommend creating an EU certification system that would reflect compliance

with GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation) in a transparent way and it should
ensure that information on data protection is presented in an accessible, clear, and
simple way. This certificate would be mandatory and visible on websites and
platforms. This certificate should be issued by an independent certifier at European
level, possibly existing or specially created, which is not linked to national
governments or the private sector.
We recommend this because there is currently no or little transparency about how

well data is protected by each company and users / customers cannot make informed
choices.
45. We recommend better explaining GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation) and
improving communication around it by creating standard text on compliance that
uses simple and clear language understandable by everyone. This text should
present a core message and/or core principles. The process of providing consent
should be more visual (i.e. like an App that asks explicit permission for access on the
phone). It should be accompanied by an information campaign (including on TV)
and consistently providing mandatory courses (at least those who work with data)
and advising those who need assistance.
We recommend this because at the moment, the language of GDPR is too vague and
technical, the amount of information is overwhelming, and is not accessible for
everyone. The communication is also not similar across different countries and it
often excludes different cohorts mainly elderly people and non-digital natives.
21
Substream 5.4 Healthy Digitalisation
46. We recommend that the EU addresses the problem of ‘fake news’ through two
means:
● Legislation for social media companies to implement machine-learning
algorithms that can highlight the trustworthiness of information on social
media and new media, providing the user with sources of fact-checked
information. We recommend that the algorithms are kept in check by experts
to ensure their well-functioning;
● The implementation of a digital platform that rates the information from
traditional media (e.g. television, printed press, radio) independently from
political and economic interests, and informs citizens about the quality of the
news without applying any kind of censorship. The platform should be open
to public scrutiny and adhere to the highest standards of transparency, and
the EU should ensure that the dedicated funding is used for the intended
purposes.
We recommend this because different types of media need to be addressed and we

believe that sanctions or removing content could lead to censorship and infringe on
freedom of expression and freedom of the press. We recommend that experts check
and monitor the proper functioning of the algorithm to ensure its proper working.
Finally, we recommend that the platform should be apolitical and independent to
ensure transparency and freedom of expression. Furthermore, since it is impossible
to completely get rid of fake news, providing these tools to citizens will help to
diminish their effects in Europe.
47. We recommend that the EU implements different actions in order to ensure a

healthy use of internet:
● First of all, the EU must address the lack of infrastructures and devices that
prevents citizens from accessing the Internet.
● Then, we also recommend that the EU encourages the Member States to
implement training about the internet and its risks for all age-groups. This
could be done by introducing classes in schools for children and young people,
and creating different programs and curricula to reach adult and elder
citizens. The content of these classes should be decided at the European level
by a group of independent experts.
● Finally, we demand that the EU takes all the necessary measures to ensure
that the digitalisation of society does not leave out older people, ensuring
that essential services can also be accessed in person.
22
● The EU should ensure that the dedicated funding is used by the Member
States for the intended purposes.
We recommend this because there is a lack of infrastructure and hardware (e.g.

devices) in some places in Europe, and connection needs to be ensured before
educating citizens, as we know there are certain regions and profiles that have
limitations on internet access. We recommend classes in order to help children
achieve digital literacy, to include other programs to help older generations in this
digital transformation and to take the needed measures to reassure that elderly
population’s rights are not diminished by the digital transformation.
48. We recommend that the European Union promotes the education of citizens in
every Member State to improve critical thinking, scepticism and fact-checking in
order to teach them how to evaluate independently whether a piece of information
is trustworthy or not. This should be implemented in basic education as a specific
class and it should also be offered in other public spaces for citizens of all ages that
willingly want to profit from this training. The EU should ensure that the dedicated
funding is used by the Member States for the intended purposes.
We recommend this because we think that it is impossible to completely get rid of

fake news, so this training will help the citizens to recognise them by themselves. By
doing so, the effects of fake news on society and on the citizens themselves will be
lessened. This would also give the individuals more agency, rather than depending on
the institutions to acquire reliable information.
23
Annex: OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WERE CONSIDERED BY THE PANEL AND
NOT ADOPTED
Stream 3: A Just Society
Substream 3.2 Equal Rights
We recommend that the EU creates a mechanism to ensure the monitoring and enforcement of
minority rights (e.g., a portal or office where people might lodge complaints).
We recommend this because we believe that every individual can express their opinion and has the
right to seek and receive help. Such an office is necessary in order to reduce the tension between
minorities and the majority.
Substream 3.3 Fairness / Substream 3.4 Access to Sports
We recommend that the EU should raise awareness of physical activity by "role modelling"
through public figures (e.g. Parliament events should include some form of physical activity or
gesture for a few seconds like stretching, walk the talk or jumping).
We recommend this because engagement from public figures on physical activity will raise
awareness.
Stream 5: An Ethical and Safe Digital Transformation
Substream 5.3 Data Protection
We recommend creating a Web ID that will store personal and sensitive data but will make it
available only to the authorities and the police. Online platforms and sellers will use online code
associated with a Web ID and the data that is relevant for a given activity. The default setting for
data sharing through this ID should be non-consent. The data should be only given to the parties
directly involved and not a 3rd party. If the data is given to a 3rd party a citizen should be able to
easily opt out. The data should be available only for a limited time or a specific transaction. The
authorisation to use data should have expiration or clear definition on what actions that can be
taken by a company with this data.
We recommend this because at the moment companies can harvest all the data including personal
and sensitive data and can use it for many purposes without disclosing how and why exactly. So, the
actors get more information than they actually need to provide us with services and then can re-sell
or re-use other data without our consent. At the same time it will guarantee accountability of
internet users while preserving their relative anonymity.
24
Conference on the
Future of Europe
European Citizens’ Panel 2: “European
democracy / Values and rights, rule of law,
security”
Recommendations
Photo © Union européenne, 2021 – EP/Kenton Thatcher
25
“European democracy / Values and rights, rule of law, security”

PLENARY)
Stream 1 Ensuring rights and non-discrimination
Substream 1.1 Non-discrimination / Substream 1.2 Gender equality
1. “We recommend that the EU provides criteria on anti-discrimination in the labour

market (quotas for youth, elders, women, minorities). If companies fulfil the
criteria, they get subsidies or tax breaks”.
We recommend enhancing employee's awareness about:
● supranational and national institutions (e.g. trade unions).
● mechanisms which ensure companies respect existing rules on non-
discrimination in the workplace.
● qualification programmes for social groups that suffer discrimination in the
job market (youth, elders, women, minorities).
We recommend the adoption of a two-stage EU law. First, provide subsidies to hire

employees from certain categories susceptible to discrimination. Second, the law
should oblige employers to employ such groups for a minimum period.”
This is because the EU is responsible for maintaining a balance between free market
interests and the protection of vulnerable categories, which should be legally
safeguarded. Heterogeneous groups are desirable for companies as they offer diverse
qualifications. Subsidies are an additional incentive to be provided to companies.
2. “We recommend the EU creates an incentive programme that facilitates the

creation of affordable kindergartens and playgrounds in big and small companies.
Shared facilities are also a viable option for smaller firms to get the subsidy.
We recommend the EU forces companies to create kindergartens in a manner
proportional to the number of employees.”
We recommend this because uniting family life and professional life improves job
performances, reduces unemployment, and brings parents, especially women, in a
situation that enables them to continue their career. Stressing the social dimension,
the proposed solution guarantees the safety of the children and reduces parental
anxieties.
26
Substream 1.3 Protecting human rights and the rights of nature and animals
3. “We recommend to safeguard animals' wellbeing and sustainability in farming by

amending directive 98/58 EC concerning the protection of animals kept for farming
purposes. More detailed minimum criteria must be defined. It should be specific,
measurable, and time bound. The minimum criteria should be set in a way that
leads to higher animal wellbeing standards and at the same time enables a
transition towards a climate and environmental sustainability and ecological
agriculture”.
We, as citizens, believe that it is important to have stronger minimum standards to

be harmonized within the EU regarding animal farming. We are aware that the
transition might pose problems in some agricultural sectors that benefit from
subsidies, and for those are in transition to ecological and sustainable farming.
However we find it very important to ensure that this transition happens.
4. “We recommend to promote more environment and climate-friendly agriculture

in Europe and world-wide by taxing all negative emissions, pesticides and extreme
use of water, etc... , based on their environmental burden. Custom duties on all
agricultural goods that are imported into the EU must eliminate competitive
advantages of third countries without the same standards as the EU. To promote
animal-friendly agriculture, we recommend that emissions caused by long range
transport of animals should be taxed”.
By establishing such a system we believe it is possible to support the transition

towards a climate and environmental-friendly agriculture.
5. “In the actual context of many fake news, we recommend to promote more
independent, objective and balanced media coverage by: 1. Developing at EU level
a minimum standards directive for media independence. 2. Promoting at EU level
the development of media competences for every citizen”.
The EU must produce a directive to ensure the independence of the media and
freedom of speech.
6. “We recommend to stop subsidising agricultural mass-production if it does not

lead to a transition towards a climate, environmentally sustainable and ecological
agriculture. Instead we recommend to redirect the subsidies to support a
sustainable transition”.
27
Instead of subsidising the agricultural sector of mass farming, the subsidies should be
redirected to farms that are in transition to comply with the new minimum standards
for animal welfare.
Substream 1.4 Right to privacy
7. “We recommend that entities that process personal data shall be licensed at EU
level. These entities shall also be subject to independent, external annual data
protection audit. These entities shall be punished for data protection violations
proportionally to their annual turnover in a stricter way than under the current
regulation. The license should be lifted after two consecutive violations, and
immediately after a serious violation”.
We recommend all this because current regulations (GDPR) are not sufficient and
entities need to be better monitored and sanctioned to make sure they do not violate
data protection and the right to privacy.
8. “We recommend strengthening the EU competence in: 1) data protection

education, 2) data protection raising awareness and 3) protecting personal data of
minors. We recommend providing clearer and stricter rules about processing data
of minors in the GDPR, including consent rules, age verification and control by legal
guardians. We also recommend to introduce in the GDPR a special category for
sensitive minors' data (e.g. criminal record, health information, nudity) so that
minors are protected from any form of abuse and discrimination”.
This recommendation is needed because minors are especially vulnerable to data

protection and privacy violations and currently there is no sufficient data protection
awareness among the general population, especially minors, teachers and legal
guardians. They all need to learn how to use online and offline data related services
and how to protect childrens' privacy rights. Moreover, legal guardians often may
consent to the processing of children's data without being fully aware or informed
and children may fake parental consent. Last but not least, this recommendation is
needed because a proper EU-wide data protection awareness campaign targeted
specifically to minors, legal guardians and teachers does not exist, despite its crucial
importance.
28
9. “We recommend introducing standardized privacy policies and easily
understandable, concise and user-friendly consent forms that clearly indicate what
data processing is strictly necessary and what is optional. We recommend that
removing consent should be easy, fast and permanent. We recommend forbidding
entities to limit their services more than necessary if there is no consent to optional
data processing”.
We recommend this because current EU rules are not precise enough, withdrawal
from consent is lengthy, temporary and complex, and because entities do not have
interest in offering their services to citizens who reclaim their data protection rights.
Stream 2: Protecting democracy and the rule of law
Substream 2.1 Protecting rule of law
10. “We recommend that the conditionality regulation (2020/2092, adopted on 16

December 2020) is amended so that it applies to all breaches of the rule of law
rather than only to breaches affecting the EU budget”.
The conditionality regulation allows for the suspension of EU funds to Member States
breaching the rule of law. However, under the current formulation it only applies to
breaches that affect, or risk affecting, the EU budget. Furthermore, the current
phrasing of the conditionality regulation is self-protective of the EU’s budget and of
the EU’s institutions rather than the citizens of the Member States concerned.
Therefore, we recommend changing the current text of the regulation so that it
covers all violations of the rule of law.
11. “We recommend that the EU organises annual conferences on the rule of law
following the publication of the annual Rule of Law Report (the Commission’s
mechanism for monitoring compliance with the rule of law by the Member States).
Member States should be obligated to send socially diverse national delegations to
the conference that include both citizens and civil servants”.
This conference would foster dialogue among EU citizens on rule of law issues as well
as dialogue between citizens and experts drafting the annual Rule of Law Reports.
We believe that in an atmosphere of mutual appreciation and sharing the participants
can take best practices and ideas back to their home countries. Furthermore, the
conference would bring awareness and understanding to the principle of the rule of
law and to the findings and process behind the annual Rule of Law Report. It would
also capture the attention of the media, as well as allow citizens to share their
experiences and compare them against the findings in the Report.
29
Substream 2.2 Protecting and strengthening democracy / Substream 2.4 Media and
disinformation
12. “We recommend that the EU enforces its competition rules in the media sector
more strictly to ensure that media pluralism is protected in all Member States. The
EU should prevent large media monopolies and political appointment processes for
media outlet boards. We also recommend that the upcoming EU Media Freedom
act entails rules on preventing politicians from owning media outlets or having a
strong influence on their content”.
We recommend this because enforcing EU competition rules fosters a pluralist media

landscape where citizens have a choice. Since the Commission is currently developing
a law (Media Freedom Act) for the integrity of the EU media market, this law should
also reflect that media outlets should not be owned or influenced by politicians.
Substream 2.3 Security
13. “We recommend the EU institutions to play a stronger role with all the tools at
their disposal, including national centres for cybersecurity and the European Union
Agency for Cybersecurity (ENISA), to protect individuals, organizations and
institutions against new threats coming from cybersecurity breaches and the use of
Artificial intelligence for criminal purposes. We further recommend that the
directives coming from Europe and its agencies are correctly implemented and
disseminated in all Member States”.
We recommend this because citizens feel helpless and are not aware of what is done
by the European Union to combat these threats. We recommend this because these
threats are a serious national and European security concern. We recommend this
because Europe should be a true innovator in this field.
14. “We recommend that, in its relationship with external countries, the European
Union should firstly strengthen common democratic values in its borders. We
recommend that only after achieving this, the European Union can be an
ambassador of our democratic model in the countries that are ready and willing to
implement it, through diplomacy and dialogue”.
We recommend this because we have to look inwards before looking outwards.

Because Europe can and should support Member States to strengthen their
democracies. Because it is also by leading by example and supporting external
countries' efforts towards democracy that we protect ourselves.
30
Stream 3: Reforming the EU
Substream 3.1 Institutional reform
15. “We recommend changing the names of EU institutions to clarify their functions.
For example, the Council of the European Union could be called the Senate of the
European Union. The European Commission could be called the Executive
Commission of the European Union”.
We recommend this because it is currently hard for citizens to understand the roles
and functions of each institution of the European Union. Their names do not reflect
their functions. Citizens cannot be expected to distinguish the Council of the European
Union, the European Council and the Council of Europe. It is important to avoid
overlap.
16. “We recommend adopting an election law for the European Parliament that
harmonizes electoral conditions (voting age, election date, requirements for
electoral districts, candidates, political parties and their financing). European
citizens should have the right to vote for different European Union level parties that
each consist of candidates from multiple Member States. During a sufficient
transition period, citizens could still vote for both national and transnational
parties”.
We recommend this because the European Union needs to build a sense of unity,
which could be achieved by a truly unified election of the European Parliament. This
common election will hold accountable the Members of the European Parliament and
to focus the election campaign on shared European topics.
Substream 3.2 Decision-making
17. “We recommend to create an online platform where citizens can find and
request fact-checked information. The platform should be clearly associated with
EU institutions, should be structured by topics and should be easily accessible (e.g.,
including a telephone hotline). Citizens should be able to ask critical questions to
experts (e.g., academics, journalists) and get factual answers with sources”.
Free access to factual information is of highest value for our society, so as citizens are
well informed and protected against fake news and disinformation. We need a
credible and independent source of information that is not influenced by political,
economic and national interests. Moreover, the platform can establish a bridge (i.e.,
a direct relationship) between citizens and the EU.
31
18. “We recommend that there should be an EU-wide referendum in exceptional
cases on extremely important matters to all European citizens. The referendum
should be triggered by the European Parliament and should be legally binding”.
There should be more direct influence of EU citizens on important decisions on EU-

wide matters. However, referendums should only be held in exceptional
circumstances because the costs are too high to hold them regularly. We are aware
that this recommendation might require a treaty change and the adaptation of
national constitutions.
19. “We recommend creating a multifunctional digital platform where citizens can
vote in online elections and polls. Citizens should be able to give their reasoning
behind their vote on important issues and legislative proposals coming from
European institutions. The platform should be secure, widely accessible and highly
visible to each and every citizen”.
The objective of this platform is to increase participation in European politics and

facilitate citizens' access to consultation and voting processes. Existing tools and
processes are not visible enough, and this is why we need a new integrated tool for
these different functions. More participation leads to better decisions, more trust
among European citizens, and to a better functioning of the European Union overall.
20. “We recommend that the voting systems in the EU institutions should be
reassessed focusing on the issue of unanimous voting. Voting 'weight' should be
calculated fairly, so that small countries' interests are protected”.
Unanimous voting poses a significant challenge to decision making in the EU. The
large number of member states makes it very difficult to reach agreement. If
necessary, European treaties should change to address the issue of unanimity.
32
Substream 3.3 Closer integration
21. “We recommend the EU to make public investments which lead to the creation
of appropriate jobs and to the improvement and harmonisation of quality of life
across the EU, between Member States, and within Member States (i.e. at the
regional level). There is a need to ensure supervision, transparency and effective
communication towards citizens in the implementation of public investments and
to allow citizens to track the entire process of investment. Investments into quality
of life include education, health, housing, physical infrastructures, care for the
elderly and people with disabilities, taking into account the needs of every Member
State. Additional investments should strive to establish a good balance between
appropriate work and personal life in order to allow a healthy lifestyle”.
We recommend this because harmonising the level of life across the EU will improve
economic progress across the EU, which will lead towards a unified EU. This is a
fundamental indicator towards further integration of the EU. Although some of these
mechanisms are already in place, we feel there is still room for further improvement.
22. “We recommend establishing a common basis, according to a set of economic

indicators and indicators on quality of life, for all Member States, with the same
opportunities and with everyone being at the same level to reach a common
economic structure. It is important that the establishment of a common basis
follows a clear and realistic timeline set by institutions at the recommendation of
experts. Experts should also be consulted on how such a common economic
structure should look like. It is also important that indicators defining the common
basis are further defined with help of experts”.
We recommend this because if we have a just EU, we will have a more united Europe.
To be just, we need to offer equal opportunities and a common basis to all of the EU.
A common economic structure can only be reached once a common basis is
established.
23. “We recommend taxing big corporations and income from big corporations to
contribute to public investments, and to use the taxation to invest into education
and development of each country (R&D, scholarships - Erasmus etc.). It is also
important to focus on eliminating the existence of tax havens in the EU”.
We recommend this because it will help to prevent tax evasion and creation of tax
havens and to help with compliance of legislation.
33
Stream 4: Building European identity
Substream 4.1 Education on democracy
24. “We recommend that education on democracy in the European Union should
strive to improve and achieve a minimum standard of knowledge across all Member
States. This education should include, but not be confined to, democratic processes
and general information on the EU which should be taught in all EU Member States.
This education should be further enriched by a set of differing concepts teaching the
democratic process, which should be engaging and age appropriate”.
This recommendation and the reasons which justify it are important because, if
implemented, it will lead towards a more harmonious and democratic life in the
European Union. The justifications are as follows: young people would be educated
on democratic processes; this education could limit populism and disinformation in
public debate; lead to less discrimination; and finally educate and involve citizens in
democracy beyond just their duty to vote.
25. “We recommend that existing and emerging translation technologies such as
artificial intelligence are further developed, improved and made more accessible so
as to reduce language barriers and strengthen common identity and democracy in
the European Union”.
implemented, it will help to build a common European identity by improving
communication between citizens of all Member States.
26. “We recommend that verifiable information be made easily accessible, in

understandable terms, to citizens via a mobile device application in order to
improve transparency, public deliberation and democracy. This app could
disseminate information regarding, for example, legislation, discussions within the
EU, treaty changes etc”.
implemented, it will facilitate communication in terms of more informed deliberation
between citizens of the respective Member States, via an app which could have many
different functions. This app should be designed to be relevant to all, as well as to
stimulate further curiosity and make technical information more accessible and
engaging. The app should be understood as a supplementary source, which
disseminates information officially verified directly by the EU to improve trust,
transparency in public debate and to help to build a common European identity.
34
Substream 4.2 European values and identity
27. “We recommend that the EU creates a special fund for online and offline
interactions (i.e. exchanges programmes, panels, meetings) of both short and
longer duration between EU citizens, in order to strengthen the European identity.
The participants should be representative of the society from within EU that would
include targeted groups based on various criteria, ie. demographic, socio-economic
and occupation criteria. The goals of this fund need to be clearly specified in order
to stimulate the European identity and the fund needs to be evaluated on a regular
basis”.
We recommend this because these kinds of interactions enable citizens to share

ideas, and longer exchanges enable them to understand the different cultures and to
share experiences, including professional practices. An EU fund is needed because it
is important that everyone can participate, including those who generally do not
participate.
28. “We recommend that the EU invests in countering disinformation swiftly, by

supporting existing organisations and initiatives, such as the Code of Practice on
Disinformation and the European Digital Media Observatory, and similar initiatives
in the Member States. The counter-measures could include fact-checking, creating
awareness about disinformation, providing easily accessible statistics,
appropriately sanctioning those who spread disinformation based on a legal
framework, and tackling the sources of disinformation”.
This recommendation is important because misinformation and disinformation,

coming from within and outside of the EU, create conflicts among EU citizens, polarise
the society, put democracy at risk and damage the economy. Given the complexity of
the topic, significant human and financial resources are needed.
35
29. “We recommend 1) to increase the frequency of online and offline interactions
between the EU and its citizens (ie. by asking citizens directly about EU matters and
by creating an user-friendly platform to ensure that every citizen can interact with
EU institutions and EU officials), and 2) in order to ensure that citizens can
participate in the EU policy-making process, to voice their opinions and to get
feedbacks, we recommend to create a charter or a code of conduct or guidelines
for EU officials. Different means of interactions should exist so that every citizen
can participate”.
We recommend this because several means to reach EU institutions exist (online

platforms, representatives bodies), but they are not known, not effective and not
transparent. There are huge differences in accessibility between countries. More
frequent and better quality interactions will lead to a sense of ownership of EU
citizenship.
30. “We recommend that European identity and values (ie. rule of law, democracy
and solidarity) should receive a special place within the migrants' integration
process. Possible measures could include creating programmes or supporting
already existing (local) programmes, to encourage social interactions between
migrants and EU citizens or involving companies in the programmes supporting the
integration of migrants. At the same time, similar programmes should be initiated
in order to create awareness among EU citizens about migration-related issues”.
This recommendation is important because social interaction programmes can

support migrants in their new life and enable non-migrants to have insight in the daily
life of migrants. If migrants live in ghettos, there is no possibility to integrate them
into the society of the country and of the EU. A common policy is needed because
once migrants enter EU territory, they can go to every country within the EU. Local
initiatives should be supported because local governments will use the funds more
effectively in comparison to national level.
Substream 4.3 Information about EU
31. “We recommend that the EU provides more information and news to European
citizens. It should use any means that are necessary while respecting freedom and
independence of the media. It should provide media outlets with resources as well
as a broad and reliable information about EU activities and policies. The EU should
guarantee that the information is broadcasted evenly across all Member States by
National and European media and should ensure that Member States encourage
public broadcasters and public news agencies to cover European affairs”.
36
We recommend this because based on our personal experience and based on the
data from Eurobarometer, the majority of European citizens are informed through
the traditional media (press, radio and television) and the information currently
offered in these channels about the EU is very scarce. The media, particularly the
public, have a public service function, so reporting on EU issues that affect the
European population is essential and indispensable to fulfill that function. We
recommend that the information issued in the different Member States about the EU
be the same in order to promote integration and avoid different information on
different issues in each country. Using the already existing media channels is more
feasible, and less expensive than creating a new channel and achieves the same
outcome. The pre-existing channels also have the advantage that they are already
known by citizens. No citizen should need to choose between different channels to
be able to access different (national or European) content.
32. “We recommend the EU to create and advertise multilingual online forums and
offline meetings where citizens can launch discussions with EU representatives, no
matter the topic and no matter the geographical scope of the issue raised. Those
online forums and offline meetings should have a defined short-term time limit in
which responses to the questions are received. All the information about these
spaces should be centralized in an integrated official website with different
features; such as a frequently asked questions space, the possibility to share ideas,
proposals or concerns with other citizens and with a mechanism to identify the
most supported ones. In any case, access to it should be easy and a non-
bureaucratic language should be used”.
We recommend this because it will create a direct channel between European citizens
and European representatives to talk and engage together, giving the citizens an easy
access to information about the EU and making them more aware of the existing
information. It will create a more transparent and open EU and will help citizens to
share their problems and thoughts, receive answers and policy solutions and allow
them to engage and share perspectives and experiences with other citizens.
37
33. “We recommend the EU institutions and representatives to use a more
accessible language and avoid using bureaucratic terms in their communications
while, at the same time, maintaining the quality and expertise of the given
information. The EU should also adapt the information it provides to citizens with
different communication channels and audience profiles (e.g. newspapers,
television, social media). The EU should make a special effort to adapt
communication to digital media in order to increase its outreach capacity to young
people”.
We recommend this because having understandable information will allow the EU to

reach more European citizens and not only the engaged ones. By having specific new
and modern tools to target specific audiences, citizens will better understand EU
activities and policies, particularly the young people who are not feeling close or
attached to the EU.
Stream 5: Strengthening citizen participation
Substream 5.1 Citizen participation
34. “We recommend that independent citizen observers should be present during
all EU decision making processes. There should be a forum or permanent body of
citizens representatives in order to carry out the function of broadcasting relevant
and important information to all EU citizens as defined EU citizens. Those citizens
would engage with all other European citizens in the spirit of top-down / bottom-
up connection, which would further develop the dialogue between citizens and the
institutions of the EU”.
Because it is obvious that citizens deserve to be kept informed about any and all
issues, and to make sure that politicians cannot not hide certain issues from citizens
that they would rather they did not know. This would bridge the divide between
citizens and elected representatives by establishing new avenues of trust.
38
35. “We recommend that the EU reopens the discussion about the constitution of
Europe with a view to creating a constitution informed by the citizens of the EU.
Citizens should be able to vote in the creation of such a constitution. This
constitution in order to avoid conflict with the member states should prioritize the
inclusion of human rights and democracy values. The creation of such a constitution
should consider previous efforts that never materialized to a constitution”.
Because this constitution would engage young people with politics at the EU level and
counteract increasing forces of nationalism. Because it would provide a common
definition of what is meant by democracy in Europe, and make sure that this is
implemented in an equal way amongst all member states. Because the EU has shared
values regarding democracy and human rights. Because this would enable citizens to
be included in the decision making process, and allow citizens to identify more as
being from the EU - having participated in the process.
36. “We recommend that politicians are more responsible in representing the
citizens that they are elected to represent. Young people in particular are specially
alienated from politics and are not taken seriously whenever they are included. But
alienation is a universal issue and people of all ages should be engaged more than
what they currently are”.
Because the definition of what democracy is needs to be refreshed. We need to

remind ourselves what democracy really is. Democracy is about representing the
people (EU citizens). Because young people are fed up and disillusioned with
politicians who they view as elites who do not share their views. That is why people
should be included more than they currently are in novel and engaging ways. The
education system, then social media, and all other forms of media could carry out this
role throughout the lifecycle and in all languages.
39
37. “We recommend that the EU should be closer to citizens in a more assertive
way, which means involving the Member States in the promotion of citizens'
participation in the EU. The EU should promote the use of the mechanisms of
citizens' participation, by developing marketing and publicity campaigns. The
national and local governments should be obliged to be involved in this process.
The EU should guarantee the effectiveness of participative democracy platforms”.
We recommend this because the platform that already exists needs to be made
stronger and efficient: there needs to be more feedback to the EU from the citizens
and vice versa. There is not enough debate within the EU, both between the citizens
and governments. Because the citizens do not engage in submitting petitions either
because they do not know that the process exists or they do not believe in the success
of such a petition.
38. “We recommend that the EU creates and implements programmes for schools
about what is being done in the EU in terms of the existing mechanisms of
participation. These programmes should be included in the school curricula about
European citizenship and ethics with content adequate to the age. There should
also be programmes for adults. There should be lifelong learning programmes
available to citizens to further their knowledge about the possibilities of EU citizen
participation”.
We recommend this, because it is important for the future of our children. The
citizens want to know how to express their voice. It is important that they know the
exact mechanisms and how they can be used, so that their voice is heard by the EU.
It is important for the equal inclusion of all European citizens. As European citizens,
we need to know how to use our rights. By virtue of being European citizens, we are
entitled to this knowledge.
40
39. “We recommend that the European Union holds Citizen’s Assemblies. We
strongly recommend that they are developed through a legally binding and
compulsory law or regulation. The citizens' assemblies should be held every 12-18
months. Participation of the citizens should not be mandatory but incentivised,
while organised on the basis of limited mandates. Participants must be selected
randomly, with representativity criteria, also not representing any organisation of
any kind, nor being called to participate because of their professional role when
being assembly members. If needed, there will be support of experts so that
assembly members have enough information for deliberation. Decision-making will
be in the hands of citizens. The EU must ensure the commitment of politicians to
citizens' decisions taken in Citizens’ Assemblies. In case citizens' proposals are
ignored or explicitly rejected, EU institutions must be accountable for it, justifying
the reasons why this decision was made”.
We recommend the implementation of Citizens’ Assemblies because we want that

citizens feel closer to EU institutions and that they contribute directly to decision-
making hand to hand with politicians, increasing the feeling of belonging and direct
efficacy. Furthermore, we want political parties and their electoral programs to be
accountable to citizens.
41
NOT ADOPTED
Stream 1 Ensuring rights and non-discrimination
Substream 1.1 Non-discrimination / Substream 1.2 Gender equality
“We recommend the EU to actively include minorities in policy-making regarding

key aspects of state institutions (e.g. police and NGOs). We recommend the EU
should establish an advisory board, directly elected by minorities. The composition
should be predominately by minority representatives with NGOs also present. It
should have a formative role in training civil servants to care for the needs of
minorities. This body should have a veto right on minority issues”.
We recommend this because the voices of minorities are not heard enough. They
should speak on their own behalf, self-determined and at a professional level which
is why we combined representation by voting and expertise.
Stream 2: Protecting democracy and the rule of law
Substream 2.2 Protecting and strengthening democracy / Substream 2.4 Media and
disinformation
“We recommend establishing an agency for monitoring audiovisual media, print

and digital media at the European level. This agency should monitor that national
media outlets follow an impartial and objective process in the production of their
content. To prevent disinformation, the agency should provide a scoring system on
the reliability of national media outlets. This scoring system should be easy to
understand for citizens”.
We recommend this because we need evaluation of the media and their reliability,
but also media diversity in EU countries. An EU agency would be most objective in
ensuring this. Moreover, a scoring system enables citizens to make informed choices
and incentivises media outlets to provide reliable news. If the scoring system proves
insufficient for ensuring the reliability of media outlets, the agency should also obtain
the competence of imposing sanctions.
42
Stream 5: Strengthening citizen participation
“We recommend that there should be a citizen's representative body created to

discuss and inform decision-making in a significant way - whenever there is an issue
being decided upon at EU level which is of major significance to European citizens
(as decided by citizens - potentially via survey). This should be a diverse group of
approximately 100 citizens from all EU countries with equal representation for each
country. This should be a revolving group where members are periodically
changed”.
Because it is important to avoid issues such as corruption that may arise from a
permanent representative body, and that it is vital such a body has equal
representation from all countries to avoid unfair decision-making power. Because
operating in this way would avoid challenges associated with constantly assembling
or using technology from afar.
43
Conference on the
Future of Europe
European Citizens’ Panel 3: “Climate change and
the environment / Health”
Recommendations
44
“Climate change and the environment / Health”

PLENARY)
Stream 1: Better ways of living
Substream 1.1 Healthy lifestyles
1. We recommend that the EU provides subsidies for organic farming, including

incentives for organic pesticides, to make organic goods more affordable.
Furthermore, education for farmers in organic and sustainable farming needs to be
supported by the EU and mono-culture farming should be avoided. Small organic
farms, non-intensive farms and those with short supply chains should be given
support to become more competitive.
Subsidising organic products would improve their affordability. We should help

supermarkets with shorter supply chains and support smaller farmers with
opportunities to sell their products. This enables access to fresher produce.
Furthermore, the low prices of non-organic products do not reflect their harm.
2. We recommend that innovation in vertical farming be supported by investments

from the EU.
Vertical farming allows us to save land space, which could be used for forestry instead.
It also does not require pesticides, allowing us to produce more organic food.
Furthermore, it is not impacted by bad weather conditions, which is increasingly
common as a result of climate change, and allows for shorter supply chains.
45
3. The EU should set minimum standards for food quality, as well as food traceability
and the use of seasonal food in school canteens. Healthy ingredients for school
canteens should therefore be subsidised to ensure affordable, high-quality food for
pupils.
We form habits at a young age, which shape our attitudes towards health, good habits
should be encouraged in schools and pupils can bring these teachings home. This is
also a question of social-justice: everyone in the EU should have the right to good
food in schools.
4. We recommend investing in new bike lanes and in improving existing ones to make
cycling safe and attractive. Ensure that training on road traffic rules for all age
groups is widely available across Europe, especially for e-bikes and for those
without drivers’ licenses. The producers of e-bikes should be required to provide
information about the use and risks of e-biking. Give legal protection to cyclists in
case of accidents with vehicles (see Dutch regulation). We support dedicated car-
free zones in cities (without harming commercial areas). Overall, give priority and
further rights to cyclists and pedestrians over motorized vehicles while
guaranteeing road safety and accordance with traffic rules.
This is important because cycling has benefits for individual and public health, air
quality, noise levels, climate and inner city traffic. Cyclists and pedestrians need to
feel safe, taking risks from the increased use of e-bikes into account. Bike lanes are
sometimes lacking or in bad quality.
5. We recommend making the production of food part of public education. Subsidize

and support the creation of gardens in schools, if feasible, and urban gardening
projects for public and private spaces. The need for space, water and support
infrastructure needs to be part of urban planning frameworks. For example, former
parking lots could be used for greening, vertical gardening on buildings, or there
could be mandates to include green spaces for receiving building permits. Share
innovative and best practices across all member states.
Gardening projects promote the resilience of cities and inhabitants, bringing together
people of different ages and social groups. More green space improves quality of life,
air quality, mental and physical health and the environment.
46
Substream 1.2 Environmental education
6. We recommend that the EU adopts a directive requiring urban development

programmes to fulfill specific environmental requirements, with the aim to make
cities greener. The directive must apply to private and public property and spaces,
such as new buildings being developed. The directive must impose minimum
standards to ensure buildings and spaces are as green as possible. "Green", here,
refers to the use of renewable energy sources, reduced energy consumption, low
levels of CO2 emissions and the inclusion of plants in architectural projects.
Greener cities actively contribute to reducing the impacts of climate change and
reducing emissions, such as CO2 and ozone, which negatively affect citizens' health.
Investing in greener cities contributes to the sustainable development of
communities which has long-term economic and social benefits.
7. We recommend that the EU, with the assistance of the member states, develops,
adopts and implements a common European charter targeting environmental
issues, in their complexity. The charter will provide a framework for member states
to develop regular information and training campaigns, disseminated across all
available media channels and a new dedicated information portal. These campaigns
should be held across the EU and at all levels to foster environmental awareness
among all citizens.
A lack of coordination between member states is hindering the effectiveness of

existing campaigns and slowing efforts to fight the global challenge that is climate
change. A common charter will foster synergies between member states’ action plans
ensuring efforts are more impactful. In addition, it would ensure coherent and
consistent information is communicated to citizens about the impact of daily actions
such as their chosen means of transportation and waste treatment.
47
Stream 2: Protecting our environment and our health
Substream 2.1 Healthy natural environment
8. We recommend a graded unified labelling system showing the entire ecological

footprint for every available product purchased within the EU. Products from
outside the EU need to respect this labelling system in a transparent manner. The
system should be based on clear labelling criteria on the products themselves and
use, for example, a QR code that gives more in-depth information about the
product.
This information about the lifecycle of the product is fundamental for all citizens
within the EU to empower consumers in their purchasing actions. In consequence,
EU citizens will be taking responsible decisions to contribute to the protection of their
environment.
9. We recommend that more financial investment should be made to explore new

eco-friendly sources of energy and until then additional investment into existing
optimal solutions of energy production. We also recommend informing and
educating the European public about specific sources of energy in full transparency.
We strongly recommend considering the entire ecological and social impacts of the
energy production process for current and future generations.
We have very high levels of carbon emissions and other toxic substances from energy
production that degrades the climate and air quality. To be in line with the European
directives and the recommendations of the IPCC reports and the COP 26 goals, more
research and investment are needed to achieve climate-neutral energy production.
48
Substream 2.2 Protecting our biodiversity
10.We recommend a drastic reduction of chemical pesticides and fertilizers in all types
of farms, by enforcing the application of higher common standards, by accelerating
the research on the natural alternatives and by supporting the adoption of the new
solutions, including the training for farmers.
Although progress has been made in alternative fertilizers and pesticides, most of
them are not yet usable by big farms. Therefore a more consistent effort is necessary
to generate new solutions. The research should be encouraged by both public
expenditures and by higher standards in the use of pesticides and fertilizers. The
results of the research need rapid diffusion at EU scale.
11.We recommend the extension of the protected areas for the conservation of
biodiversity (including mammals, birds, insects and plants), and enhancing the rule
of law regarding human intervention in these areas. The protected areas will be
seen not only as islands, but as a continuum with greener urban areas, following
harmonised EU standards.
Because of deforestation, biodiversity is being heavily affected. One of the main ways
of protecting land biodiversity is by creating protected areas. However, it is difficult
to maintain protected areas near polluted cities, or to avoid human interference
when the surroundings are not nature friendly. We need to make the living areas
greener and integrated with their surrounding nature.
12.We recommend redirecting the generic subsidies for agriculture mainly towards
projects related to the development of sustainable agriculture, including the
respect for nature and the workers. The beneficiaries should comply with clear
environmental standards, and be strictly monitored.
We believe that only sustainable agriculture should be encouraged, which means

redirecting the funds now used for generic subsidies. Moreover, the efficiency of the
funds used can be increased by focusing on transformational projects and innovative
solutions, rather than on annual payments. The ecological impact of agriculture
activities and the projects should be better monitored. The human rights of the
labour workers also need to be considered as part of sustainability.
49
13.We recommend that the EU ensures a loyal competition for environment-friendly
agricultural products by establishing stricter standards for both EU and the
imported products, by ensuring their traceability, labelling and quality control.
The lower productivity of the sustainable agricultural products affects their cost
competitiveness. The imported products should comply with the same strict
standards regarding the ecological impact of their production. We need authorities
capable of ensuring the traceability of the imported agricultural products.
14.We recommend rapid and massive reforestation and afforestation in the EU, by
maximizing the use of land. A special focus should be given to the reforestation of
exploited or destroyed forests and the afforestation of the areas with degraded soil.
New more responsible solutions should be promoted for a better utilization of the
wood, e.g. replacing plastics and other chemical materials, ensuring higher energy
efficiency from biomass, recycling of wood products.
Reforestation has a clear positive impact on the environment and the biodiversity at
large. At the same time, we need to use less wood for fire, but for high added value
products, as for instance the replacements for plastics the use of wood is principal.
Substream 2.3 Safe and healthy food
15.We recommend the swift and progressive elimination of non-sustainable forms of

food packaging, including plastic packaging and those of other non-biodegradable
materials. We propose achieving this through providing financial incentives to
companies which change to fully biodegradable forms of packaging, investing in
research into alternatives and introducing penalties for companies that do not use
biodegradable packaging.
Plastic waste, particularly microplastics, is increasingly abundant and degrades

slowly. Its consumption harms the quality and safety of food while endangering the
health of humans and animals. Moreover, existing European law aimed at reducing
non-biodegradable packaging is insufficient.
50
16.We recommend that intensive animal farming is phased out gradually, including the
elimination of disrespectful living conditions of animals. We propose introducing
common norms for animal farming (e.g. maximum number of animals, appropriate
outside space) and stronger investment into non-intensive methods (extensive and
sustainable farming) by providing financial incentives and training to farms to
support this change.
Phasing out intensive farming will reduce levels of environmental pollution and
enhance natural preservation. Furthermore, phasing out intensive animal farming will
reduce the amount of medicine necessary to tackle animal diseases and increase the
quality of our food. Intensive animal farming also fails to respect the well-being of
animals but more sustainable forms of farming exist, such as extensive farming. and
subsidies are necessary to help farmers pursue these forms.
17.We recommend tightening controls on the prohibition of the unnecessary use of

antibiotics and other animal drugs in feed additives for animals: make it a reality!
We propose that the use of antibiotics is only authorised in farming when absolutely
necessary to protect the health and well-being of animals, instead of in a preventive
way. In addition, it is necessary to invest further into research for more efficient
antibiotics, developing alternatives while building upon existing research into
antibiotics.
Human resistance to antibiotics is decreased as a result of eating food from animals

that have been given antibiotics. Furthermore, time is needed to create suitable
alternatives to existing antibiotics and to ensure that farmers are aware and ready to
use them. We recognise that European Directives exist on antibiotics but these have
not been implemented in the same way across member states. Lastly, animal drugs
are misused for doping purposes and so stronger legislation on the topic will increase
animal well-being and boost their quality of life.
51
18.We recommend that European legislation requires declarations on the use of
hormonal substances and endocrine disruptors in the production of food: the type,
quantity and exposure of the final product used. All food products including these
substances must have detailed labels on their packaging displaying this information
and the reasons for their use. Additionally, we have to accelerate research into the
effects of hormonal substances and endocrine disruptors on human health.
Food products currently lack traceability, particularly with respect to hormonal

substances and endocrine disruptors. We think that transparency is necessary in food
production to ensure accountability. Also, consumers should know the full contents
of their food and be able to choose freely what they eat. In addition to that, there is
insufficient research into the impact on humans (and the potential risks) of the
consumption of food products with hormonal substances and endocrine disruptors.
19.We recommend discouraging the consumption of processed foods by taxing

unhealthy food and investing the funds raised into healthy food. We propose
introducing a European-wide scoring system for healthy food based upon best
practices in member states to label food and inform consumers of the health
properties of food.
In this way, the funds raised can be used as a resource to develop awareness-raising
measures and promotional campaigns, prioritise healthy food in education and make
unhealthy food less visible in supermarkets. Also, investing in healthy food increases
the general health of the population, therefore reducing levels of public spending
needed to tackle health issues resulting from unhealthy eating. Moreover, we think
taxation and subsidies will incentivise the production of healthier food products from
companies.
52
Stream 3: Redirecting our economy and consumption
Substream 3.1 Regulating overproduction and overconsumption
20.We recommend that the EU takes more actions that enable and incentivise
consumers to use products longer. The EU should combat planned obsolescence by
lengthening products’ warranty and setting a maximum price for spare parts after
the warranty period. All member states should introduce a tax break on repair
services as is the case in Sweden. Manufacturers should be required to declare the
expected lifespan of their products. The EU should provide information on how to
re-use and repair products on an internet platform and through education.
Our throw-away and single-use based society is not sustainable because it generates
too much waste. By implementing the proposed measures we will move towards a
society that reuses, repairs and reduces the products it consumes, thereby reducing
overconsumption
21.We recommend that the EU enforces stricter environmental manufacturing

standards and ensures fair working conditions throughout the entire production
chain. The EU’s production standards should be more sustainable, harmonised
across member states, and applied to imported goods. These should also include
social standards, like a living wage for workers producing the goods and good
working standards in factories. Products that do not comply with these standards
should face consequences.
It is important to establish homogenous environmental and social manufacturing

standards in Europe to ensure that all products offered are produced in a sustainable
way. These measures are crucial to redirect our economy and change the production
patterns of companies.
53
22.We recommend that the EU and member states introduce measures to limit
advertising for products that damage the environment. Products with a low
sustainability score should have a mandatory disclaimer in all forms of advertising
that shows that they are harmful for the environment. For products that are not
sustainable at all the EU should ban advertising.
Advertisements promote consumption, products that harm the environment should

not be promoted. In that way people will be less inclined to buy environmentally
harmful products.
23.We recommend that the EU puts in place and expands the infrastructure of deposit-
return schemes for all primary packaging made of glass, plastic, aluminium, et
cetera in a homogenous way across the EU. Whenever possible, manufacturers
should re-use the returned containers by sterilizing them, rather than just recycling
the material. In addition to food and drink containers, the scheme should also
include other kinds of bottles and containers, like shampoo bottles.
At the moment consumers throw away too much packaging that pollutes and
destroys our eco-systems. Deposit-return schemes help to reduce waste by
motivating citizens to bring packages back instead of throwing them away. By
expanding the scheme we use less resources and reduce the amount of waste we
produce.
Substream 3.2 Reducing waste
24.We recommend that an enhanced implementation of circular economy policies is

promoted at the European level, targeting both corporations and citizens, in the
form of financial incentives for those that comply with it.
Because in case production companies reduce their personnel or even default/close

down, lots of people will end up unemployed. By retraining the unemployed, we will
be promoting environmentally safe practices whilst also curbing unemployment and
promoting the modernisation of a diversified economy.
54
25.We recommend that the EU regulates the use of environmentally-safe packaging
(i.e., packaging made out of biodegradable or recyclable products, or more
endurable products, where possible) and/or the use of packaging that takes up less
space, which will also contain in the form of a QR-code the information pertinent
to the packages’ recycling and/or disposal process once it has been used.
Because this recommendation will lead to less packaging, less production of waste
and hence less pollution, therefore cleaner environment and ultimately a reduced
carbon footprint. Additionally, the tax burden on producers will be reduced.
Substream 3.3 Fair products, equal access, and just consumption
26.We recommend the European Union to establish a legal framework to ensure

affordable, and better access to local and quality food products for all European
consumers.
Because currently there is no shared understanding, at the EU level, of what is local

and quality food. This gap needs to be filled.
Importation of low quality products has a direct negative impact on the environment.
In order to tackle climate change, we need to fight all of its causes, including
importation of low quality products: there is a need to reduce transportation
distance, and favour seasonal products.
This recommendation is promising because it could also apply to non-alimentary
products.
27.We recommend the European Union to encourage research and development, with
funding schemes, in order to introduce more sustainable and affordable products
within the European market. Also, the European Union must organise consultations
with citizens, at all decision-making levels including the local level, in order to
identify their needs regarding sustainable products.
We consider there is a lack of research for sustainable products, and there is an urgent
need to have more funds allocated to research, to allow Europeans to have access to
sustainable and more affordable sustainable products.
Citizens must participate in the decision-making process. The agenda of research and
innovation actions must be defined together with citizens.
Citizens need to be informed on the follow-up and receive feedbacks.
55
28.We recommend the European Union to find a regulation mechanism for fashion
products entering the common market. This mechanism would aim at encouraging
better consumption thanks to an indicator guaranteeing that the product meets
sustainable criteria.
The fashion sector, which is overproducing low quality products outside the European
borders, does not follow ethical norms, and is not sustainable.
We need to find a fair mechanism which will allow better consumption for consumers.
Yet, it is important not to increase taxes, which will have negative impacts on
European consumers, reducing their purchasing power.
The consumer should know in the conditions in which the products they purchase are
made, and if they meet sustainable quality norms.
Stream 4: Towards a sustainable society
Substream 4.1 Renewable energy now
29.We recommend that the EU takes measures to make CO2 filters mandatory,
especially for the coal plants, in a transition period, as long as we still depend on
conventional energy. In addition, we recommend that the EU provides financial aid
to member states that do not have financial resources to implement CO2 filters. The
support is conditional on compliance to EU climate policies connected to the Paris
Agreement, the Green Deal and any new climate law.
This is a concrete step to take alongside continued investment in research of the
safe energy production and to support EU Member States to progressively achieve
already adopted common reduction goals.
We know that the use of combustible fuels creates greenhouse gasses, and the EU
Member States must reduce this type of energy to comply with the Paris Agreement.
Since we cannot stop CO2 emissions right away, and since we still depend on coal, we
have to take both short-term and long-term measures.
Because CO2 reduction is a common interest that affects all citizens, both in the
Member States and beyond the EU, the EU as an institution has its own
responsibilities, and the institution makes recommendations and enables solutions
as Member States cannot achieve the goals alone.
56
30.We recommend reducing the intensive industrial breeding of animals to reduce the
production of methane as well as water pollution. For that purpose, the EU reviews
its common Agricultural Policy to direct its subsidies towards sustainable and locally
based agriculture, among others supported by a labelling scheme for consumers to
recognize sustainable meat products. In addition, we encourage the EU to invest in
methods to re-use waste material from animal production and other industries.
Population is increasing, which means more demand on meat in the future.

Therefore, we need to reduce meat consumption.
We believe that since methane makes greenhouse gasses, animal farming is the most
obvious place to start reducing.
We all know that it is necessary to consume less meat, and therefore a consequence
is that we reduce the number of cattle.
31.We recommend that although it is a cost-intensive process to generate green

hydrogen, as 75% energy should be produced in order to get 25% hydrogen, there
are multiple positive sides to this type of energy. The best solution can be to
produce energy without CO2 while we develop green hydrogen. Wind energy
should be used for the production of green hydrogen and the EU should make more
investments and increase the production of wind energy, as well as storing the
energy for future purposes.
Green hydrogen is flexible and we can store it, and when there is a demand we can
use that energy. Because there is no CO2 pollution.
57
Substream 4.2 Supporting change
32.We recommend that the EU sets up a coercion and reward system to tackle
pollution like water, soil, air, and radiation. Issuing fines for polluters, in
combination with the mandatory support of an expert organisation, specifically
designed to help entities to eliminate pollution and restore the ecosystem. This
expert organisation should have a leading role in preventing and controlling the
level of pollution.
Because it is important to emphasize the responsibilities of the polluters and

stimulate entities to reduce pollution with a strive for zero pollution. It is crucial to
have a healthy planet since it is directly linked to our well-being and our future
existence.
33.We recommend the EU to set up a special website/platform verified by multiple

experts -with regularly updated and diverse scientific environmental information-
that is easily accessible and transparent to all citizens. This website/platform is
linked to a forum where citizens and experts can interact. We also strongly advise
to initiate a media campaign to promote this website/platform (for instance
through social media such as YouTube, TikTok, LinkedIn).
All citizens must have independent scientific-based sources of information to

understand climate change issues (its consequences and needed steps to reverse it),
as well as to cope with fake news. The media campaign will make them aware that
this platform/website exists. It is also important that the information provided by the
website/platform is understandable for all citizens, with access to the source material
for those who want to dig into the topic.
34.We recommend that the EU reduces the amount of imported goods that don't meet
EU standards in terms of ecological footprint.
Because, in doing so, we make sure that goods imported in the EU have a greener
footprint. The aim is to decrease global pollution. It is also important to show
countries what standards should be met if they want to export goods to the EU.
58
35.We recommend that the EU encourages, promotes and facilitates dialogue on
climate change between all levels of decision-making, from the very local level
(citizens) to the global level (national, international and intercontinental), to satisfy
concerns of all involved parties.
Because dialogue and consensus are the optimal way to cope with the climate change
challenges: if the parties understand each other, there is more willingness to find a
common ground.
Substream 4.3 Environmentally friendly transport
36.We recommend that the EU financially supports European member states in order
to improve the connectivity of rural areas. It should be done by developing a
European public transportation network based on affordable prices (prioritising
railways) and with incentives for public transportation usage. To this end, internet
connectivity within a short and realistic time frame should also be developed in
rural areas.
We recommend that because there is no access equality to public transportation and

internet connectivity between rural and urban areas. A common European project
would be strengthened as all citizens would feel they have the same rights. Enhanced
public transportation network and internet connectivity would trigger population to
settle in rural areas. This process would reduce pollution as less people would live in
crowded cities.
37.We recommend the improvement of existing transportation infrastructures that

may be in disuse or those that can still be improved from an ecological point of view
(to implement electric trains). Such process should be done with the intention of
not damaging environmentally protected areas.
Improving existing infrastructure would avoid spending too many resources and
cause damage to protected areas important for biodiversity conservation. Having
more railway infrastructure would trigger a reduction in CO2 emissions and an
increase in population mobility from urban to rural areas.
59
38.We recommend that the EU promotes the purchase of electric vehicles complying
with good standards regarding battery life. It could be done by EU incentives
applying to all EU member states and by improving electric infrastructures. At the
same time, it should invest in the development of other non-polluting technologies,
such as biofuels and hydrogen for those vehicles whose electrification is difficult to
achieve, such as boats and lorries.
We recommend it because electricity is the fastest way to reduce emissions of

vehicles, accompanied by other energy sources such as hydrogen and biofuels.
Indeed, the fastest, economic and feasible solution is electricity, followed by biofuels.
In the longer-term green hydrogen should play a complementary role to cover
transport modes that can not be electrified.
Stream 5: Caring for all
Substream 5.1 Reinforce the healthcare system
39.We recommend that the European Union safeguards common health standards, but
also pushes for decent minimum wages, a maximum number of working hours and
same training standards, for the same certifications, for healthcare professionals
across the European Union.
If we do not have common healthcare standards, common wages and common

training for healthcare workers, differences between the Member States could lead
to unbalanced situations across the European Union. Standardization of healthcare
could help in having a stronger, more efficient and more resilient system (i.e. Covid
crisis example about stability of our systems). It would also facilitate knowledge and
information sharing in the healthcare professional sector.
60
40.We recommend that the European Union ensures that treatments across the EU are
of equal quality and of fair local cost. This could be ensured, for instance thanks to
an extension of the competences of the European Medicines Agency (EMA), or the
creation of a new specialized European procurement agency, which would be
competent to negotiate and obtain more suitable prices for medicines for all the
Members States. The risk of pharmaceutical industry monopolies must be
minimized.
Equal medical provisions and treatments guarantee equal rights of all European
citizens in the EU in health matters. Enlarged purchase capacities ensure better
procurement deals. Nevertheless, this must not lead to monopoly structures and
pharmaceutical lobbying. A Covid crisis management has been a good example of
collaborative health management by the European Union as a whole.
41.We recommend the creation of a European healthcare database, in which medical

records would be made available in cases of emergencies or illnesses. Participation
should be optional, and personal data protection must be ensured.
Access to data and data use permit prompt response to life threatening situations.
Hacking or misuse are major threats of such a European healthcare database system,
hence the data needs to be secured, while participation remains optional, and
security-related threats obviously need to be prevented.
42.We recommend that the European Union further develops and synchronizes
already existing health research and innovation programs, as it is done in the
framework of the existing Horizon Europe program. Academic outcomes and results
should be made freely available in all member states.
The EU-level scientific cooperation could enrich scientific capacities and knowledge
of individual researchers. Knowledge sharing could, for example, lead to early
diagnosis and better treatments reducing severe and fatal illnesses across Europe. It
would also foster European self-sufficiency in terms of medication and equipment.
61
43.We recommend that the European Union increases its budget dedicated for joint
research and innovation projects in the area of health (without budget cuts in other
EU health-related programs). This would also strengthen European scientific and
research institutions overall.
Health-related research and investments will in the long-run strengthen preventive

medicine and decrease health-related costs. More funding could prevent the
European brain drain to other developed countries with higher R&D health-specific
budgets. This funding should not be coming from already existing healthcare financial
resources.
Substream 5.2 A broader understanding of health
44.We recommend that a health week be established as a European Union initiative

across all Member States, on the same week, on all health issues with a special focus
on mental health. During this week, all main topics on mental health will be
collectively covered and promoted, together with other already existing initiatives,
such as those from the Mental Health Europe organization.
We recommend this because all European citizens should feel accepted and included,
especially if they suffer from mental health issues. Moreover, there is need to
normalize and improve awareness of mental health conditions, and also to prevent
related-social issues such as discrimination. Furthermore, as mental health issues
have increased with the pandemic and are likely to continue, this initiative becomes
even more important.
62
45.We recommend that female sanitary products stop being considered as luxury
products when it comes to taxation, as they are essential products. We also
recommend that hormonal contraception products used for medical reasons, such
as in the cases of fibromyalgia and endometriosis, get taxed as a regular medical
treatment. We also recommend that the European Union encourages the
harmonisation of medically assisted reproductive treatments for all women (single
or married) across all Member States.
In certain European countries sanitary female products are taxed as luxury products,
and that is unfair. Certain hormonal contraceptives are used for medical purposes
and therefore should be taxed accordingly. Because women's reproduction
treatments, such as In Vitro Fertilization and egg freezing methods, have different
eligibility conditions in different Member States, and the European Union must make
an effort to harmonise it.
46.We recommend that the European Union takes a strong stance in influencing all
Member States to include in their school curricula, as appropriate, issues on mental
health and sexual education. To help Member States adopt such issues in school
curricula, the European Union should developed and make available a standard
program on mental health and sexual issues.
There is a need to decrease discrimination and taboos regarding mental health issues.
There is also a need to avoid misinformation and unscientific approaches.
Furthermore, sexual education is fundamental for a healthy life and community, and
prevents problems such as teenager pregnancies.
47.We recommend that the European Union develops a better communication system
of all its initiatives on mental health, namely the Public Health Portal on good
practices, within Member States and for all citizens. Members of the European
Parliament could present these good practices to each other, in order to make them
better known across Member States.
Citizens are not well informed about the European Union's initiatives, and because
with the sharing of good practices we can learn from each other.
63
Substream 5.3 Equal access to health for all
48.We recommend that the EU sets and promotes minimum standards for quality
dental care, including prophylaxis, for all EU Member States. Free of charge dental
care should be available for children, low-income groups and other vulnerable
groups. In 15-20 years time, the EU should guarantee that affordable dental care is
available to everyone.
We recommend this because currently dental care is not affordable to many people
living in the EU. Lack of dental care and dental prophylaxis harms their health and life
prospects. The EU should start by setting a minimum standard for dental care and by
requiring free of charge dental care to children and low-income groups. Eventually,
everyone should be entitled to quality dental health care.
49.We recommend to include Health and Healthcare among the shared competencies
between the EU and the EU Member States. In order to include this new shared
competence, there is a need to amend Article 4 of the Treaty on the Functioning of
the European Union (TFEU).
We recommend this because currently the European Union does not have enough
competencies to legislate on healthcare. Covid-19 pandemic has proven the necessity
of a stronger EU presence in health policies. This Treaty change will allow the EU to
do more to guarantee healthcare for all EU citizens and to issue binding regulations
and decisions.
50.We recommend that the EU makes courses on providing first aid available to all EU
citizens free of charge. The EU could consider making such courses obligatory for
students and for workplaces (both in public and in the private sector). These courses
also need to be practical, recurrent and adapted to students' age. There should also
be a minimum number of defibrillators available in public places in all EU Member
States.
We recommend this because many people in the European Union are not prepared
to act when a person needs help and they do not know first aid techniques. That is
why many lives are lost. In some public places defibrillators are not available.
64
51.We recommend that the European Union ensures that private health care providers
do not unfairly benefit from public funds and do not drain resources from public
health systems. The European Union should issue strong recommendations to
Member States to increase funding to public healthcare.
We recommend this because the European Union and the European Union Member
States have an obligation to guarantee access to healthcare to all their citizens.
Besides, a stronger public healthcare system also means being better prepared for
future pandemics.
65
NOT ADOPTED
Stream 1: Better ways of living
Substream 1.1 Healthy lifestyles
We recommend that the EU issues a recommendation to all member states about

best practices on banning or restricting alcohol and tobacco advertising in all forms
of media for all age groups, but with an emphasis on young audiences. The EU
should ensure enforcement of laws that restrict sale of these products to minors.
All member states should implement laws, with penalties, relating to smoking in
public areas, especially educational facilities, and create designated smoking areas.
Unhealthy lifestyles cannot appear in advertising and should be less visible in public
life. Furthermore, alcohol and tobacco are some of the most used harmful substances
and this recommendation will prevent abusive consumption of these substances.
We recommend that the EU supports member states in including lessons on cooking

in a sustainable, healthy and tasty manner in national curriculums. The EU can
support this through healthy cooking guides both online and in print. This should be
advertised proactively on traditional and social media in order to reach a young
audience. We should also educate parents so that they learn what the best way is
to use food in order to adopt a healthy lifestyle. There should be stimulating and
enriching research in this field.
Cooking and nutrition courses in school would improve the health of youth and
discourage fast-food consumption. Education of children allows them to bring what
they have learned back to their parents. Furthermore, educating parents on healthy
lifestyles would set a good precedent for children.
66
We recommend intensifying the European Commission’s public campaign
“HealthyLifestyle4All” about healthy lifestyles, and the benefits of social activity
with concrete examples and using a holistic approach. Information campaigns
should be defined on well structured target groups, and appropriate means of
communication should be chosen for each of the targeted groups. It is important to
furthermore provide rewards and incentive systems to promote positive behaviour.
The campaigns should include influencers, celebrities or authorities. They shall
highlight the double benefits on both health, and the environment and climate.
Furthermore, subsidies for free public sport should be available in all member
states.
Healthier lifestyles have a positive effect on the healthcare system by reducing health
problems. Physical health has an impact on mental health and happiness. Current
campaigns are not known enough. The inclusion of role models and influencers make
it more effective and more motivating.
We recommend an information campaign about healthy food and nutrition. The EU

should promote higher taxes for meat and sugar to be adopted in member states.
It should explore options to differentiate healthy from unhealthy food and put it in
different VAT brackets. We recommend putting very clear warning signs on very
unhealthy foods (such as tobacco products). In addition, we recommend a
European-wide nutrition score, with relevant information and a QR code for
consumers to make better-informed decisions. Explore options to make healthy
food cheaper than junk food and to make it more attractive for farmers to produce
healthy products.
Healthy food is the basis for healthy living. Both production and consumer sides need
to be addressed. Production of healthy products also has positive effects on the
environment and can help support local farmers. If there is more production of
healthy food, prices will decrease, demand increase.
Substream 1.2 Environmental Education
We recommend that the EU establishes a funding scheme to incentivise the

inclusion of a long-term environmental education programme in national education
systems for children in elementary and secondary school. This funding scheme
should include funds earmarked for parents in need of financial assistance.
67
Current educational systems do not contain enough practical elements promoting
direct and profound interactions between children and the environment. Existing
programmes, elaborated from a short-term perspective, are heterogeneous and fail
to promote the needed change in attitudes. Parents should be aided to ensure all
children can equally benefit from the programme and none are excluded for financial
reasons.
Stream 2: Protecting our environment and our health
Substream 2.1 Healthy natural environment
We recommend instantly implementing the highest possible standard of water

quality in the whole of the EU. To save water, we suggest a reward system that will
be based on pricing water in a way that encourages and gives incentives to less
consumption, e.g.: (1) by creating a dynamic system encouraging consumers to stay
under the average amount of water consumption (i.e. an increase in water
consumption by 10% will increase the price by 11%), (2) by creating an allowances’
market system for water polluted by manufacturing companies, which is a similar
system to the carbon permits market already in place.
This recommendation is justified by the fact that increasing prices are an incentive
for all users to make more conscious decisions regarding their consumption.
Considering the different realities of EU countries and aiming to have a socially fair
system, we can support poorer populations in water management by co-investing in
water infrastructure and research.
Stream 3: Redirecting our economy and consumption
Substream 3.1 Regulating overproduction and overconsumption
We recommend that the EU imposes fines on companies that dispose of unsold

products generated by overproduction.
In some cases companies find it more profitable to throw away unsold products rather
than recycling or reusing them. It is therefore important to discourage overproduction
through fines so that this practice is no longer profitable for producers.
68
Substream 3.2 Reducing waste
We recommend that the EU develops and implements a waste-management policy

for households/citizens, focusing on the actual amount of waste they generate,
complemented by measures necessary for raising citizens’ awareness about the
benefits of reducing generation of waste and separate waste-collection. Measures
targeting socially disadvantaged families (e.g. young families with children, elderly
people, etc.) are to be implemented as well, in agreement with the 'no one is left
behind' principle.
It aims at developing a unified approach to waste management in households, it also

facilitates the protection of the environment through waste-reduction, it further
stimulates circular economy and increases waste-collection efficiency. Last but not
least, it raises people's awareness and their sense of environmental responsibility.
We recommend that the EU promotes free-market competition and stimulates the

private sector to become more actively involved in the treatment of waste,
including waste-waters, and the upcycling and recycling activities.
The EU is the right level to implement this recommendation because it complements

the Waste Framework Directive and the Circular Economy Action Plan. Moreover, the
implementation of the recommendation will increase innovative solutions in waste
management and enhance the quality of waste management as well as the volume
of treated waste because more companies will participate in these activities.
Substream 3.3 Fair products, equal access, and just consumption
We recommend relocating industries inside the European Union in order to provide

high-quality fair products and tackle climate issues.
The European Union has a know-how that has to be promoted on its own market.
Because of delocalisation of industries outside the EU, notably in Asia, some
professional competences are also delocalised. This recommendation entails the
professional training of European workers.
We insist on the need to avoid delocalisation between different Member States, in
order to avoid unfair competition.
We observed that massive delocalisation of industries over the world affects
European industries. Thus, local production will lead to healthier citizens and
environment.
69
Stream 4: Towards a sustainable society
Substream 4.3 Environmentally friendly transport
We recommend that big cities receive sanctions or subsidies depending on their

performance on their public transportation with regards to the environment and
pollution (electric vehicles, green public transport, pedestrianization, encouraging
bike use, etc.). Penalties or subsidies that target local authorities, should be
particularly applied based on changes implemented by cities on ecological
transportation taking into account what their starting point is. It is the European
Union, by means of its legislation, who should establish some performance
indicators with regards to pollution measures and the proportional reduction. It
should be done taking into account the starting points of each city.
We recommend this because cities have been affected by air pollution, which has
raised some health issues. Developing green transportation would improve people's
lives and health and reduce the greenhouse effect. Subsidies and sanctions are
effective measures to promote changes and help adapt to different situations existing
in different cities.
We recommend that EU legislation limits and regulates the use of short distance
flights and cruise ships. Ecological alternatives to people when it comes to transport
must be provided. One of such alternatives should be the standardisation of railway
tracks in order to connect the European capitals. We also recommend the EU to give
subsidies to change the transport of goods to make them more environmentally
friendly, such as transport by train and boat (in short distance trips).
We recommend this because short distance trips are too frequent, polluting and easy
to be substituted. Cruise ship limitation would reduce maritime pollution (a critical
environmental problem) and the negative impact in coastal cities. Hence, we need to
create more affordable alternatives compared to more polluting ones. Having the
same railway track width would improve railways connections between European
capitals.
70
Stream 5: Caring for all
Substream 5.2 A broader understanding of health
We recommend that the European Union, in line with its HealthyLife4All campaign
also promotes initiatives such as sportive social events, sport activities in schools,
bi-annual Olympiads open to all ages groups, and to all sports [not for
professionals]. We also recommend the development of a free European sport app
to incentivize collective sport activities. This app should help people connecting
with each other through sports. Furthermore, these initiatives should be widely
publicized and communicated.
In order to have a healthier European population, the European Union must promote
sport and healthy lifestyles. Furthermore, very often the population is not aware of
the relation between sport and a healthy life. The app is important because people
are more prone to do sport if they do it collectively.
71
Conference on the
Future of Europe
European Citizens’ Panel 4: “EU in the World /
Migration”
Recommendations
72
“EU in the World / Migration”

PLENARY)
Stream 1 Self-reliance and Stability
Substream 1.1 Autonomy of the EU
1. We recommend that strategic products from European fabrication (such as

agricultural products, semiconductors, medical products, innovative digital and
environmental technologies) should be better promoted and financially supported
to keep them available and affordable to European consumers and reduce
dependencies from outside Europe to the largest possible extent. This support could
include structural and regional policies, support to keep industries and supply
chains within the EU, tax breaks, subsidies, an active SME policy as well as education
programs to keep related qualifications and jobs in Europe. However, active
industrial policy should be selective and focused on innovative products or those
that are relevant to secure basic needs and services.
We recommend this because Europe has entered too many dependencies from
outside Europe in key areas that have potential for diplomatic conflicts and could
result in shortcomings of basic or strategically relevant products or services. As
production costs in the EU are often higher than in other parts of the world, more
active promotion and support of these products will enable and incentivise Europeans
to buy competitive European products. It will also strengthen European
competitiveness and keep future-oriented industries and jobs in Europe. Stronger
regionalisation of production will also reduce transport costs and environmental
damages.
2. We recommend that the EU reduce dependencies from oil and gas imports. This
should be done by actively supporting public transport and energy efficiency
projects, a Europe wide high speed rail and freight network, the expansion of clean
and renewable energy provision (in particular in solar and wind) and alternative
technologies (such as hydrogen or waste-to-energy). The EU should also promote
the cultural change from the individual car towards public transport, e-car sharing
and biking.
73
We recommend this because it creates a win-win situation both for the autonomy of
Europe from external dependencies as well as ambitious climate and CO2 reduction
targets. It will also allow for Europe to become a strong player in future-oriented
technologies, strengthen its economy and create jobs.
3. We recommend a law is passed at EU level in order to ensure that all EU production

and supply processes and the goods which are imported, comply with qualitative,
ethical, sustainable and all applicable human rights European standards; offering
certification for products abiding by this law.
We recommend this as it helps both consumers and traders to be able to easily access
information about the products they are buying/trading. This is achieved through
checking the certification system; certification also helps to reduce the gap between
cheap and expensive products available on the market. The cheap products will not
meet the required standard and therefore cannot pass as being of good quality.
Qualification for this certification would serve to protect the environment, saving
resources and promoting responsible consumption.
4. We recommend the implementation of a European-wide programme to support

small local producers from strategic sectors across all Member States. These
producers would be professionally trained, financially supported through subsidies
and encouraged to produce (where raw materials are available in the EU) more
goods fulfilling requirements at the expense of imports.
We recommend this because by supporting EU based producers in strategic sectors,

the EU can reach economic autonomy across these sectors. This could only serve
to strengthen the entire production process thus promoting innovation. This would
lead to more sustainable production of raw materials in the EU, reducing transport
costs and serving to protect the environment.
5. We recommend to improve the implementation of human rights at a European level

through: Raising awareness in countries that do not comply, at the required extent,
with ECHR (European Convention of Human Rights) or the Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms; a strict control,
coordinated by the EU and the Justice Scoreboard, of the extent to which human
rights are respected among Member States and a strong enforcement of compliance
through different types of sanctions.
74
We recommend this because human rights have already been agreed upon by the
Member States when ratifying the European Convention of Human Rights, now being
necessary to increase the acceptance in each individual state in order to make sure
human rights are actively known and implemented in these Member States.
6. We recommend a revision and an intense communication campaign at a cross

European level to be initiated in order for EURES (European Employment Services),
the EU Immigration Portal and the EU Skills Profile Tool for Third Country Nationals
to be better known by European citizens and more frequently accessed by EU
companies in order to advertise and publicise their vacancies.
We recommend to not create a new online platform advertising job opportunities for
European youth. There are more than enough similar initiatives which already exist
at a European level. We believe enhancing what already exists is the key to promoting
the existing workforce and employment opportunities at a European level.
Substream 1.2 Borders
7. We recommend that a system for labour migration into the EU that is based on the
real needs of the European labour markets is created. There should be a unified
recognition system of professional and academic diplomas from outside and within
the EU. There should be professional qualification offers as well as cultural and
linguistic integration offers for qualified migrants. Asylum seekers with relevant
qualifications should be given access to the labour market. There should be an
integrated agency for which the European Cooperation Network of Employment
Services could be the basis.
We recommend this because Europe needs qualified labour in certain areas that
cannot be fully covered internally. Currently, there are not enough viable ways to
legally apply for a work permit in the EU. A European wide recognition system for
professional and academic diplomas will facilitate covering these needs and enable
more simplified labour migration within and from outside the EU. Employment gaps
could be filled more effectively and uncontrolled migration better managed. Opening
the system of labour migration to asylum seekers could help accelerate their
integration into European economies and societies.
75
8. We recommend that the European Union expands its legislation to assign more
power and independence to Frontex. This enables them to intervene in all Member
States so that they can ensure the protection of all external borders of the EU.
However, the EU should organise process audits on the organisation of Frontex, as
full transparency is needed in the functioning of Frontex to avoid all kinds of abuses.
We recommend this because we find it unacceptable that Frontex can be denied

access to the borders, particularly in situations where human rights are violated. We
want to ensure that Frontex implements European legislation. Frontex itself must be
controlled and checked to prevent inappropriate behaviour within the organisation.
9. We recommend that the European Union organises, specifically for economic

migrants, the possibility of screening citizens (on proven skills, background, etc.) in
the country of departure; this is to determine who is eligible to come and work in
the EU, depending on the economic needs/vacancies of the host country. These
screening criteria must be public and consultable by everyone. This can be realised
by creating an (online) European Agency for Immigration.
We recommend this because in this way people do not have to cross the border
illegally. There would be a controlled flow of people who enter the EU, which results
in a decrease in the pressure at the borders. At the same time, this facilitates the
fulfilment of job vacancies in the host countries.
10.We recommend that the European Union ensures that the welcoming policy and
facilities at each border are the same, respecting human rights and guaranteeing
the safety and health of all migrants (for example pregnant women and children).
We recommend this because we highly value the fair and equal treatment of migrants
at all borders. We want to prevent migrants from staying too long at the borders and
Member States becoming overwhelmed with the inflow of migrants. Member States
must all be well-equipped to welcome them.
76
Stream 2: The EU as an International Partner
Substream 2.1 Trade and Relations in an Ethical Perspective
11.We recommend that the EU enforces restrictions on the import of products from
countries that allow child labour. This should be done through a blacklist of
companies that is periodically updated according to current conditions. We
furthermore recommend to ensure gradual access to schooling for children leaving
the workforce and to promote consumer awareness on child labour through
information made by official EU channels, e.g. campaigns and storytelling.
We recommend this because we recognize the link between the lack of access to
schooling and the presence of child labour. Through this recommendation we want
to raise awareness of the consumers, to reduce the demand for products made by
child labour, so that the practice can eventually be abolished.
12.We recommend that the EU establishes partnerships with developing countries,

supporting their infrastructure and sharing competences in exchange for mutually
favourable trade deals to aid them in the transition towards green energy sources.
We recommend this in order to facilitate the transition to renewable energy sources

in developing countries through trade partnerships and diplomatic agreements. This
would establish good long-term relationships between the EU and developing
countries, and it would contribute to the fight against climate change.
13.We recommend that the EU introduces a mandatory eco-score to be displayed on

the front of all products that can be bought by the general consumer. The eco-score
would be calculated according to emissions from production and transportation, as
well as harmful content, based on a list of hazardous products. The eco-score should
be managed and monitored by an EU authority.
We recommend this in order to make the EU consumer more aware of the

environmental footprint of the products they buy. The eco-score would be an EU-
wide scaling method, to easily show how eco-friendly a product is. The eco-score
should include a QR code on the back of a product, providing further information on
its environmental footprint.
77
Substream 2.2 International Climate Action
14.We recommend that the European Union adopts a strategy in order to be more
autonomous in its energy production. A European body integrating the existing
European energy institutions should coordinate the development of renewable
energies depending on the needs, capacity and resources of Member States while
respecting their sovereignty. The institutions would promote knowledge sharing
between them to implement this strategy.
We recommend it because the current dependency makes us vulnerable in situations

of political tensions with countries we import from. We see it with the current
electricity crisis. However, this coordination should respect every country's
sovereignty.
15.We recommend higher environmental standards for the export of waste inside and
outside of the EU and more stringent controls and sanctions to stop illegal exports.
The EU should incentivise the Member States more to recycle their own waste and
use it for energy production.
We recommend it in order to stop environmental damage when some countries get

rid of their waste at the expense of others, especially when this is done outside of any
environmental standards.
16.We recommend that the EU encourages the ongoing environmental transition in a

stronger way by setting a goal of eliminating polluting packaging. This would involve
promoting less packaging or more environmentally-friendly packaging. To ensure
that smaller companies can adapt, help and adjustments should be provided.
We recommend it because we need to reduce the use of natural resources, especially

raw materials from outside the EU. We also need to reduce the harm done by
Europeans to our planet and its climate. Increased support to small companies is
critical to ensure they can adapt without increasing their prices.
78
17.We recommend that countries of the European Union, together, look into the
question of nuclear energy more seriously. There should be increased collaboration
around the assessment of the use of nuclear power and its role in the transition that
Europe needs to achieve towards green energy.
We recommend it because the nuclear question cannot be solved by one country.

There are currently over a hundred reactors in half of the Member States, and more
are under construction. Since we share a common electricity grid, the low-carbon
electricity they produce benefits all Europeans and increases our continent's energy
autonomy. In addition, exposed nuclear waste or an accident would affect several
countries. No matter what choice is made on whether to use nuclear energy or not,
Europeans should discuss it together and build more converging strategies while
respecting national sovereignties.
Substream 2.3 Promotion of European Values
18.The EU should be closer to the citizens. We recommend that the EU creates and
strengthens links with citizens and local institutions, such as local governments,
schools, and municipalities. This should be done in order to improve transparency,
reach the citizens and communicate better with them about concrete EU initiatives
and general EU information.
We recommend this because current EU information is not accessible enough to all

groups in society and does not reach ordinary citizens. It is often boring, difficult to
understand and not user-friendly. This must change to ensure that citizens have a
clear vision of the EU’s role and actions. To spark interest, EU information needs to
be easier to find, motivating, exciting and in everyday language. Our suggestions are:
School visits by EU politicians, radio, podcasts, direct post, press, bus campaigns,
social media, local citizen assemblies and creating a special task force to improve EU
communication. These measures will allow the citizens to get EU information that is
not filtered through national media.
79
19.We recommend stronger citizen participation in EU politics. We propose direct
citizens’ involvement events, similar to the Conference on the Future of Europe.
They should be organised on a national, local and European level. The EU should
provide a coherent strategy and central directions for these events.
We recommend this because such participatory democracy events will provide

correct information about the EU, as well as improve the quality of EU policies. The
events should be organised in order to promote core values of the EU - democracy
and citizen participation. These events would provide an opportunity for the
politicians to show the citizens that they find it important that citizens are aware of
current events and should be involved in shaping them. Centralised guidelines will
give the national and local Conferences a coherent and uniform shape.
Stream 3: A Strong EU in a Peaceful World
Substream 3.1 Security and Defence
20.We recommend that a future ‘Joint Armed Forces of the European Union’ shall
predominantly be used for self-defence purposes. Aggressive military action of any
kind is precluded. Within Europe, this would entail a capacity to provide support in
times of crises such as in the case of natural catastrophes. Outside European borders
this would provide the capacity to be deployed in territories in exceptional
circumstances and exclusively under a respective legal mandate from the United
Nations Security Council and thus in compliance with international law.
Were this recommendation implemented it would allow the European Union to be

perceived as a credible, responsible, strong and peaceful partner on the international
stage. Its enhanced capacity to respond to critical situations both internally and
externally is thus expected to protect its fundamental values.
Substream 3.2 Decision-making and EU Foreign Policy
80
21.We recommend that all issues decided by way of unanimity are changed to be
decided by way of a qualified majority. The only exceptions should be the admission
of new membership to the EU and changes to the fundamental principles of the EU
as stated in Art. 2 of the Lisbon Treaty and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the
European Union.
This will consolidate the position of the EU in the world by presenting a united front
towards third countries and agilise its response in general and in particular in crisis
situations.
22.We recommend that the European Union strengthen its ability to sanction Member
States, governments, entities, groups or organisations as well as individuals that do
not comply with its fundamental principles, agreements and laws. It is imperative
to make sure that the sanctions that already exist are quickly implemented and
enforced. Sanctions against third countries should be proportional to the action that
triggered it and be effective and applied in due time.
In order for the EU to be credible and reliable, it has to apply sanctions to those who
infringe upon its principles. These sanctions should be readily and actively enforced
and verified.
Substream 3.3 Neighbouring Countries and Enlargement
23.We recommend that the European Union allocate a specific budget to develop
educational programmes on the functioning of the EU and its values. Then it will be
proposed to the Member States that wish that they can integrate them into their
school curricula (primary, secondary schools, and universities). In addition, a
specific course on the EU and its functioning could be offered to students wishing
to study in another European country through the Erasmus programme. Students
choosing this course would be given priority in the allocation of said Erasmus
programmes.
We recommend this to strengthen the sense of belonging to the EU. This will enable
citizens to better identify with the EU and transmit its values. Moreover, it will also
improve transparency regarding the functioning of the EU, the benefits of being part
of it, and the fight against anti-European movements. This should act as a deterrent
to Member States leaving the EU.
81
24.We recommend that the EU makes greater use of its political and economic weight
in its relations with other countries to prevent certain Member States from
undergoing bilateral economic, political and social pressures.
We recommend this for three reasons. Firstly, this will reinforce the feeling of unity
within the EU. Secondly, a unilateral response will provide a clear, strong, and faster
answer in order to avoid any attempt by other countries to intimidate and engender
repressive politics against EU members. Thirdly, this will reinforce the security of the
Union and make sure that no Member States feel left out or ignored. Bilateral
responses divide the EU and this is a weakness used by third countries against us.
25.We recommend that the European Union improve its media strategy. On the one
hand, the EU should strengthen its visibility on social media and actively promote
its content. On the other hand, the EU should continue to organise conferences such
as Conference on the Future of Europe on an annual in person basis. In addition, we
also recommend that the EU further encourage innovation through promoting an
accessible European social media platform.
We recommend the above as it could not only reach younger people, but also
generate more interest and involvement among European citizens through a more
engaging and effective tool of communication. These events like the Conference on
the Future of Europe should allow citizens to be more involved in the decision-making
process and make certain that their voice is heard.
26.We recommend that Member States agree on a strong vision and a common
strategy in order to harmonise and consolidate the identity and the unity of the EU
before allowing the accession to other countries.
We recommend this because we believe it is essential to both strengthen the EU and

consolidate the relationship between Member States before considering the
integration of other countries. The more states integrate into the EU, the more
complicated the decision-making process will become within the EU; hence the
importance of reviewing these decision-making processes that are voted through the
process of unanimity.
82
Stream 4: Migration from a Human Point of View
Substream 4.1 Remedy causes of migration
27.We recommend that the European Union should participate actively in the
economic development of countries outside the European Union and from where
there is a high outflux of migrants. The EU, with the help of the relevant bodies (for
example local NGOs, local politicians, field-workers, experts, etc.), should look for
ways to peacefully intervene efficiently and actively in countries with important
migration outflux that have previously agreed with the exact terms of cooperation
with local authorities. These interventions should have tangible results with
measurable effects. At the same time, these tangible results and effects should be
clearly outlined in order for EU citizens to understand the development aid policy
undertaken by the Union. In this sense, EU development aid actions should become
more visible.
We recommend this because, even though the EU is working on international

development, it needs to keep doing so and invest in transparency and visibility in the
policy and actions that it undertakes.
28.We recommend having a common European labour framework, thus harmonising

working conditions throughout the Union (ex. minimum salary, working times, etc.).
The EU should try to create basic common standards on labour to prevent migration
from citizens that leave their countries of origin seeking better working conditions.
As part of these standards, the EU should reinforce the role of trade unions at the
transnational level. By doing so, the EU would be considering internal economic
migration (EU citizens' migration) as a critical issue.
We recommend this because we have identified that a lot of people within the EU
migrate due to economic reasons, since there is a disparity between the working
conditions of European Member States. This leads to a brain-drain effect in countries
which should be avoided in order for Member States to keep talent and workforce.
Even though we support free movement of citizens, we think that EU citizens'
migration between EU Member States, when happening involuntarily, is due to
economic reasons. That's why it is important to establish a common labour
framework.
83
Substream 4.2 Human Consideration
29.We recommend the implementation of a joint and collective migration policy in the
EU based on the principle of solidarity. We want to focus on the problem in regards
to the refugees. A common procedure in all the Member States of the Union should
be based on the best practice and customs that seemed to be successful in all the
countries of the Union. This procedure should be pro-active and actively being
executed both by the national authorities and the administration of the EU.
The problem in regards to the refugees concerns all the countries in the EU. Currently,
the practices in the states are too diversified which has negative consequences for
both refugees and the citizens of the Union. Therefore a coherent and consistent
approach is required.
30.We recommend that the EU increases its efforts to inform and educate citizens of
the Member States about the topics related to migration. This aim should be
achieved by educating children, as early as possible, from the beginning of primary
school on the subjects such as migration and integration. If we combine this early
education with the activities of NGOs and youth organisations as well as wide-
reaching media campaigns, we could fully reach our goal. Additionally, a wide range
of communication channels should be used, from leaflets to television and social
media.
It is important to show the people that migration also has many positive aspects such
as additional work force. We want to emphasize the importance of raising awareness
on both processes, so that people understand the reasons and consequences of
migration to abolish the stigma which comes from the fact of being perceived as a
migrant.
84
Substream 4.3 Integration
31.We recommend that the Directive 2013/33/EU on minimum standards for the
reception of asylum seekers in Member States be replaced by a compulsory EU
regulation, which will be uniformly applicable in all Member States. A priority
should be that reception facilities and accommodation be improved. We
recommend the creation of a specific monitoring body from the EU for the
implementation of the regulation.
As the existent directive is not implemented in a uniform way in all Member States.
Conditions such as the Moria refugee camps have to be avoided. Therefore, the
recommended regulation should be implemented and have compulsory sanctions. As
for the monitoring body, it should be strong and reliable.
32.We recommend that the EU ensures that every asylum seeker and refugee, during
the process of the residence procedure, attends language and integration courses.
The courses should be mandatory, free of charge and include personal assistance
for the initial integration. They should start within two weeks after the submission
of the residency application. Additionally, incentives and sanctions mechanisms
should be established.
Learning the language as well as understanding the culture, history and ethics of the
country of arrival is a key step to integration. The lengthy wait for the initial
integration process has a negative impact on the migrants’ social assimilation.
Sanction mechanisms can help identify a migrants’ willingness to integrate.
Stream 5: Responsibility and Solidarity across the EU
Substream 5.1 Distributing Migration
33.We recommend replacing the Dublin System with a legally-binding treaty to ensure
just, balanced and proportionate distribution of asylum seekers in the EU on the
basis of solidarity and justice. Currently, refugees are required to put forward their
asylum requests in the EU Member State they first arrive in. This system transition
should be as swift as possible. The EU Commission's proposal for a New EU Pact on
Migration and Asylum from 2020 is a good start and should be put into legal form,
since it includes quotas on distribution of refugees among EU Member States.
We recommend this because the current Dublin System does not respect the
principles of solidarity and justice. It puts a heavy burden on the countries at the
85
border of the EU, where most asylum seekers first enter EU territory. All Member
States have to take responsibility to manage refugee flows into the EU. The EU is a
community of shared values and should act accordingly.
34.We recommend the EU provide support to the EU Member States in order to

process asylum requests both at a faster pace and according to joint standards. In
addition, humanitarian accommodation should be provided for refugees. To take
burden off the arrival countries, we recommend that refugees be relocated within
the EU quickly and efficiently after their first arrival into the EU so that their asylum
request can be processed elsewhere within the EU. For this, financial support from
the EU as well as organisational support through the EU Asylum Agency is needed.
People whose asylum requests were denied must be sent back to their countries of
origin in an efficient manner — as long as their country of origin is considered safe.
We recommend this because asylum procedures currently take too much time, and
they may differ from one Member State to another. By speeding up asylum processes
refugees spend less time waiting for their final asylum decision in temporary
accommodation facilities. Asylum seekers who are admitted can be integrated more
quickly into their final country of destination.
35.We recommend strong EU financial, logistical and operational support for the
management of the first reception which would lead to a possible integration or
repatriation of irregular migrants. Beneficiaries of such support shall be the EU
border states who carry the burden of the migration influx.
We recommend strong support because some EU border states bear the greatest
burden from the migrant influx due to their geographical location.
36.We recommend that the mandate of the EU Agency for Asylum shall be
strengthened to coordinate and manage the distribution of asylum seekers within
the EU Member States to achieve a fair distribution. A fair distribution requires to
take into account the needs of the asylum seekers as well as logistical and
economical capacities of EU Member States and their needs in terms of labour
market.
We recommend this because a centralised coordination and management of the

distribution of asylum seekers which is regarded as fair, by Member States as well as
their citizens, prevents chaotic situations and social tensions, thus contributing to
greater solidarity between EU Member States.
86
Substream 5.2 Common Approach to Asylum
37.We recommend either creating an overarching EU institution or strengthening the

EU Asylum Agency to process and decide upon asylum requests for the whole
European Union based on uniform standards. It should also be in charge of a just
distribution of refugees. This institution should also define which countries of origin
are safe and which are not, and should be responsible for sending back rejected
asylum seekers.
We recommend this because the current asylum policy is characterised by unclear

responsibilities and different standards between EU Member States. This leads to
inconsistent handling of asylum procedures across the EU. Furthermore, the EU
Asylum Agency currently only possesses "soft" power. It can only advise Member
States on asylum issues.
38.We recommend the establishment, without delay, of dedicated asylum centres for
unaccompanied minors across all EU Member States. This should be done in order
to accommodate and provide care to the minors according to their particular needs,
at the earliest opportunity.

1) Many minors are likely to be traumatised (coming from areas of conflict).
2) Different children will have differing needs (according to age, health, etc.).
3) Were this recommendation implemented, it would ensure that vulnerable and
traumatised minors would receive all necessary care at the earliest possible
opportunity.
4) As minors are future European citizens and as such, if treated appropriately, should
contribute positively to the future of Europe.
87
39.We recommend the establishment of a common, transparent system for dealing
with the expeditious processing of asylum seekers. This process should provide for
a minimum standard and should be applied across all Member States equally.

1) Were this recommendation implemented, it would lead to a faster and more
transparent way of dealing with asylum claims.
2) A failure to expedite the asylum process leads to illegality and criminality.
3) Minimum standards as referred to in our recommendation should encompass
respect for human rights, health and the educational needs of asylum seekers.
4) Implementing this recommendation would lead to access to employment and self-
sufficiency, allowing a positive contribution to EU society. Regularising employment
status prevents abuses of asylum seekers in the working environment. This could only
benefit a more successful integration of all affected.
5) Extended stays in asylum centres have negative consequences in terms of the
mental health and well-being of the occupants.
40.We strongly recommend a complete overhaul of all agreements and legislation

governing asylum and immigration in Europe. We further recommend that an ‘all of
Europe’ approach be adopted.

1) All current agreements are unworkable, impractical, and no longer fit for purpose
since 2015 and up to the present day.
2) The EU should be the first "agency" that manages all other agencies and NGOs
directly dealing with asylum issues.
3) The Member States affected are the ones that are left largely alone to deal with
this issue. The ‘à la carte’ attitude of some Member States reflects poorly on the unity
of the EU.
4) New targeted legislation would allow for a better future for all asylum seekers and
lead to a more unified Europe.
5) Gaps in the current legislation are giving rise to conflicts and disharmony across
Europe and are causing increased intolerance amongst European citizens towards
migrants.
6) Stronger, relevant legislation would lead to a reduction in crime and abuses of the
current asylum system.
88
NOT ADOPTED
Stream 1 Self-reliance and Stability
Substream 1.1 Autonomy of the EU
We recommend, where the developing countries request it, intervention

programmes for economic development based on partnerships adapted to each
state's needs and/or commercial agreements, after an initial study of their
economic potential and thereafter granting economical support and ensuring
professional training.
We recommend this because this leads to the development of industrial

independence, creating workplaces which improve the overall migration
situation/status; this can also serve to aid better commercial agreements in
developing countries.
Stream 2: The EU as an International Partner
Substream 2.1 Trade and Relations in an Ethical Perspective
We recommend that the EU includes regulations that oblige companies to control

their supply chain by periodically providing a full (auditing) report, and set
conditions that reward and restrict import in accordance with ethical criteria.
Depending on the size, the company should provide an internal and/or external
audit report.
We recommend this in order to extend the ethical perspective when trading with the
EU through monitoring of company activity in the supply chain across countries,
incentivizing companies to behave in accordance to ethical criteria such as the use of
dangerous products, labour rights and conditions, possible use of child labour, and
environmental protection. This recommendation would not apply to online products
bought directly by the consumer.
89
Stream 3: A Strong EU in a Peaceful World
Substream 3.1 Security and Defence
We recommend that the present European security architecture is re-

conceptualized as a more efficient, effective, and capable supranational structure.
This will ultimately result in the creation of the ‘Joint Armed Forces of the European
Union’. This development shall entail the gradual integration and subsequent
conversion of national armed forces. This unification of military capacities and
capabilities across the European Union is also supposed to foster an enduring
European integration. The creation of the Joint Armed Forces of the European Union
would also require a new cooperation agreement with NATO as well as non-
European NATO Member States.
Following this recommendation, we expect military structures within the European

Union to be more cost-efficient and capable of responding and acting where
necessary. As a consequence of this integrated approach, the European Union should
be better placed to act decisively in a coordinated manner in critical situations.
Stream 4: Migration from a Human Point of View
Substream 4.1 Remedy Causes of Migration
We recommend that the EU creates a protocol for action regarding the upcoming
refugee crisis that will arise from the climate crisis. As part of this protocol, the EU
must expand the definition of refugees and asylum seekers to be comprehensive
and include the people affected by climate change. Since a lot of migrants will not
have the chance to go back to their countries of origin due to its uninhabitability,
another part of the protocol should make sure that institutions find new usages for
areas affected by climate change in order to support the migrants that have left
these territories. For example, flooded zones could be used to create wind energy
farms.
We recommend this because we are all responsible for the climate crisis. Hence, we
have a responsibility towards those who are most affected. Even though we have
neither predictions nor concrete data about future climate refugees, climate change
is something that will for certain affect millions of people's lives.
90
Substream 4.2 Human Considerations
We recommend the immediate enhancement and funding of legal, humanitarian

roads and means of transport for refugees from crisis areas in an organised manner.
The special system of Safety European Roads (SER) should be established and
regulated by the special body created specifically for this purpose. This agency
constituted by means of the legislative procedure would be empowered with its
own special competencies enshrined in its rule of procedure.
Human trafficking and smuggling are serious issues that need to be dealt with. Our
recommendation would certainly lead to the reduction of these concerns.
Substream 4.3 Integration
We recommend the introduction of a European directive which should ensure that

each living area in every Member State cannot have more than 30% of inhabitants
from third countries. This goal should be achieved by 2030 and European Member
States must get support for the implementation of this.
We recommend this because a more even geographical distribution will lead to a

better acceptance of migrants from the local population and therefore an
improved integration. The percentage was inspired by a new political agreement in
Denmark.
91
II — Recommendations of the National Citizens’ Panels
This document presents a series of recommendations put forward by the 50 Belgian citizens part of
the citizens’ panels held in Brussels from October till December 2021. These panels were organised
under the auspices of Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs and European Affairs,
Ms Sophie Wilmès, as the contribution of the Belgian federal government to the Conference on the
Future of Europe. The topic of this panel was ‘How to closer involve citizens in European democracy’.
To reflect the entirety of the citizens’ input, this report puts forward all recommendations, including
those that did not gain a simple majority during the concluding voting session on all
recommendations. They are clearly recognizable thanks to the mention of the percentage in red
and bold. While some recommendations contradict each other, with citizens remaining inconclusive
about them, these recommendations are always in italics. For one single recommendation, the
divide was so clear that the vote ended in an ex aequo. This is shown in orange and bold . The
citizens’ intention is to share the fact that opinions on these recommendations were divided. They
therefore propose that the CoFE bodies and the EU institutions be vigilant in the implementation of
these specific recommendations, as there is a form of divide based on the vote.
92
1. Communication
Suppor
Issues Recommendations ted by
(%)
1.1 We propose that lessons on the European
Union be integrated into the school curriculum
from the third cycle of primary school. The aim 88.4%
is to reach all citizens and to improve
knowledge of the European Union.
1.2 The European Union, and especially the
Commission, should provide educational
1. material on the functioning of Europe to the
Communication Ministries of Education of the member states.
on the EU is not In addition to explaining the functioning,
satisfactory. composition and powers of the institutions, this
training should also include a brief overview of 95.0%
the history of European integration. Particular
attention should be paid to the use of clear,
understandable and accessible language, as
well as to educational tools such as
documentaries, clips or school TV programmes,
in all 24 languages.
2.1 We propose that the European institutions
2. The European
ensure that their communication better
project remains 97.6%
explains what is within the EU's competences,
alien to citizens.
but also what is not within its competences.
93
2.2 The European Union should incorporate
familiar examples from the daily lives of
Europeans into its communication. These
explanations should be spread within the
80.5%
Member States through agreements between
the European institutions and national public
television channels so as to reach a wide
audience.
2.3 In addition, nationals of all Member States
should be regularly informed about the role of
the European Union in the other Member States
– through video clips, for example. The 85.7%
advantages and disadvantages of Europe would
thereby be better put into perspective in the
debates on the future of Europe.
2.4 In order to strengthen European identity, we
propose that information be made available and
regularly communicated on what Europeans’ life 92.7%
would be like without the EU and its concrete
achievements.
2.5 We also propose that Europe Day (9 May) be
made a European public holiday for all EU 81.4%
citizens.
2.6 We recommend that the European
institutions pay even more attention to the
simplification, comprehensibility, and 97.6%
accessibility of information on priority topics
dealt with at European level.
2.7 We recommend that the European Union
provide a dashboard showing the resources
allocated by the EU per country and priority 93.0%
topic. All this information should be available on
the EU websites.
94
2.8 We recommend that the EU provide a clear
presentation of legislative work in progress. All
90.7%
this information should be available on the EU
websites.
2.9 We want the European institutions to be
more accessible to Europeans. Their participation
79.0%
in debates during sessions of the European
Parliament should be facilitated.
2.10 We recommend that participation in the
Erasmus programme be extended to all students
regardless of their educational background
79.5%
(vocational and technical training, work-study).
Everybody should be able to participate in
European exchanges.
2.11 We recommend that the working
population should be able to benefit from
European exchange programmes, regardless of
83.7%
sector of activity, also for local businesses.
Everybody should be able to participate in
European exchanges.
2.12 We recommend creating European
83.7%
citizenship courses for all European citizens.
3.1 We recommend that the European Union
make more frequent use of legislation that is
directly applicable in the member states. This
3. European
would reduce national differences in the
legislation is not
implementation of European legislation, which
applied in the 81.4%
undermines the European project. In this way,
same way across
the EU will be better able to safeguard and
Member States.
promote the integrity of the achievements such
as the internal market, the euro and the
Schengen area.
95
4.1 We recommend that communication from
the EU on European democracy constantly and
78.0%
unambiguously recall what Europe means for
4. European
Europeans.
democracy is
4.2 The values and principles of the EU-Treaties,
threatened.
to which the Member States subscribed on
81.0%
accession, are irreversible. Their protection must
continue to be ensured.
4.3 The protection of the values and principles of
the Treaties is ensured by the European Court
81.0%
and cannot be called into questions by the
Member States.
5.1 We recommend strengthening fact-checking
5. Information
on European issues. This information,
on the EU is not
disseminated and verified by the institutions,
easily accessible
should be easily accessible to the European
and
public and to the national media in each member
understandable.
state. 83.3%
6.1 The EU must also be more present in the
everyday lives of Europeans by communicating
6. National
more proactively. (For example, by sponsoring
media often
events, particularly cultural events, which bring
conveys a 85.7%
citizens together and make them proud to be EU
negative image
citizens. The production of reports and teasers
of the EU.
would also allow Europeans to have access to
contextualised information on the EU).
7.1 We recommend MEPs make themselves
7. Citizens do
better known in their home countries, especially
not know the
outside of election periods. They must be more
people who
accessible. The motivations for their votes in the 92.7%
represent them
European Parliament should be made more
in the European
easily accessible to European citizens on the
Parliament.
European Parliament's website.
96
7.2 We recommend that national political parties
ensure that younger candidates are also put on
their lists for the elections of the European
74.4%
Parliament. Such a mandate should not be seen
as a reward for good and loyal service in national
politics.
8.1 To address a sufficiently broad and varied
audience, we recommend that the EU take into
account the educational level of the target group
and any disabilities they may have, by means of
inclusive communication, from the design stage.
73.2%
8. Furthermore, we also recommend that people
Communication and organisations (street educators,
from the EU is neighbourhood agents, social workers, civil
too uniform; it society) are involved in the transmission of this
does not take communication.
into account the 8.2 To reach the working population, we
diversity of the recommend investing more in the use of existing
population communication channels to regularly provide
appropriate information about the EU, for
83.7%
example through explanatory programmes.
Furthermore, we recommend relying on
ambassadors (both individuals and organisations)
who promote the EU project.
97
8.3 To reach young people and students, we
recommend that, in addition to existing channels
such as education and relevant youth
movements, ambassadors should be used, in
particular to target influencers who can reach
69.8%
young people through social media. Another
recommendation would be to organise a pan-
European competition to create a cartoon
character that appeals to young people and
brings European messages to them.
8.4 For seniors, we recommend using the same
channels as those proposed for the working-
population. In addition, we recommend finding
the right balance between digital and non-digital
communication (print, radio, face-to-face events) 85.7%
to meet the needs of everyone, including those
who are less comfortable in a digital
environment as well as those who are less
mobile in society.
8.5 We recommend that through the integration
courses that already exist in many member
states, the EU should commit itself to including
“new Europeans” (people who through one or
another legal immigration procedure reside in 76.7%
the EU) and should make them aware of the
other traditional channels through which the EU
communicates. Finally, we also recommend that
a role be given to local associations.
8.6 Furthermore, we recommend taking the EU
to the streets with inclusive communication. For
example, (digital) billboards could be used, as 62.8%
well as traditional and new means of
communication like QR codes.
98
8.7 Other recommendations would be to make
the EU more visual (through short films or
infographics), the creation of a European sports
68.2%
movement to create a bond/sense of belonging,
and to make the European anthem better
known.
2. Disinformation
Supported
Issues Recommendations
by (%)
1.1 We recommend a review of the media funding model,

including mandatory publication of revenue sources, in a clear
and accessible way. The funding model of the media leads it to 73.8%
sensationalise information, taking it out of context and
transforming it into disinformation.
1.2 We recommend that media outlets be obliged to cite their

sources and provide links to verify them. Otherwise, information 90.2%
should be labelled as unverified.
1. The risk of
disinformation is 1.3 We recommend that the European regulator in charge of the
increasingly present in the fight against disinformation (see point 2) should also be in charge 85.4%
media. of accrediting fact-checking organisations.
1.4 We recommend the establishment of an independent

authority in each member state to monitor media neutrality. This
75.6%
authority should be financed and controlled by the European
Union.
1.5 We recommend disseminating information about the URLs of

the official websites of the EU to reassure citizens about the 90.2%
origin of the information.
99
2.1 We recommend that a European regulator in charge of
fighting disinformation be created. This regulator’s mission would
be to set the criteria for a ‘neutrality label’ and to establish, if
necessary, a system of sanctions or incentives linked to
compliance with neutrality standards. Alternatively, adherence to 87.5%
2. Many citizens doubt the an ethical charter could be considered. The label would be
neutrality of the media. granted by the independent national authority and would take
into account the measures applied by the media to combat
disinformation.
2.2 We recommend the installation of a European ‘hotline’

allowing citizens to report any disinformation concerning 82.1%
European political and economic competences.
3.1 We recommend that platforms be required to publish clear

and understandable information about the risks of disinformation
85.7%
to which their users are exposed. This information should be
automatically communicated when an account is opened.
3. Citizens are not aware
3.2 We recommend mandatory media literacy training, starting at
of the risks of
an early age and adapted to the different levels of the education 74.4%
disinformation to which
system.
they are exposed.
3.3 We recommend that the European Union launch repeated
campaigns on disinformation. These campaigns could be
87.5%
identified by a logo or a mascot. The EU could oblige social
networks to relay them by broadcasting advertisements.
4.1 We recommend that clear and easy-to understand

information be published about the algorithms organising the 83.3%
messages received by users of social media platforms.
4.2 We recommend that users have a simple way to disable

4. The means to fight algorithms that reinforce behavioural biases. The obligation to
80.0%
disinformation are provide users with access to other sources that present different
insufficient. views on the same topic could also be considered.
4.3 We recommend that the European Union support the

creation of a social media platform that meets its own standards
of neutrality and tackles disinformation. Alternatively, new 56.4%
functionalities could be added to the multilingual digital platform
created to support the Conference on the Future of Europe.
100
3. Citizens’ panels
Supported
by (%)
1.1 We recommend following what the most recent

scientific work on deliberative democracy suggests in
terms of sampling, design and scientific validation of the 89.7%
selection method to ensure the best possible
representativeness.
1.2 We recommend that there be enough people

around the table to ensure a diversity of opinions and
90.2%
profiles, including – but not limited to – people who are
directly concerned with the topic.
1.3 We recommend adding the criterion of parenthood

(i.e. does the person have children or not?) to the
1. The difficulty of governmental sampling criteria, in addition to more 33.3%
ensuring the traditional criteria such as gender, age, place of
representativeness of a residence or level of education.
citizens' panel. In the
end, only a small part of 1.4 We recommend establishing quotas by geographical
the population is area, i.e. specifying that a European citizens’ panel must
involved. be made up of x people per European geographical area 73.2%
(to be determined) in order for this panel to be truly
qualified as European and to deliberate legitimately.
1.5 We recommend using population registries (or their

equivalent, depending on the country) as the main
database for sortition to give everyone an equal 70.0%
opportunity to be selected, and to generate interest in a
topic among the population.
1.6 We recommend that participants be compensated

to recognise the value of their investment and to attract
87.5%
people who would not participate if they were not
compensated.
101
1.7 We recommend informing participants in advance
through presentations by experts - in a relatively
minimal way without too much information or too much
82.9%
complicated information - to ensure that even those
without prior knowledge feel comfortable participating
in the discussions.
1.7.2. We recommend that the theme of the citizens’

panel be communicated in advance so that people know 78.6%
what topic they will be discussing.
1.8 We recommend that citizens not be obliged to

97.6%
participate.
2.1 We recommend that the European citizens’ panel

meetings be held in a hybrid format (face-to-
70.0%
face/virtual). This would allow people who cannot
physically travel to participate.
2. The difficulty of 2.2 We recommend that the EU, for greater ease of
organising panels at the access and organisation, delegate the organisation of 69.0%
European level. citizens’ panels on European issues to the national level.
2.3 We recommend that a single topic be chosen for

each panel organised at the European level. This way, all
80.5%
participants can discuss the same topic, no matter
where they come from in Europe.
3.1 We recommend that any citizen should be able to

submit a topic for discussion, and therefore that this 82.1%
3. Preventing the right should not be reserved for politicians or lobbyists.
citizens' panel from
being used for purposes 3.2 We recommend that the right of initiative belong to
other than those the European Parliament, so that it defines the topic to
declared. be discussed and subsequently adopts the necessary 63.4%
texts to follow up on the recommendations that emerge
from deliberations.
102
4.1.1 We recommend setting up one or more permanent
European citizens' panel(s), which would take on specific
tasks alongside Parliament. The panel(s) would be
renewed regularly. This would make it possible to bring
citizens together over the long term and to take the time
necessary for such debates to take place. This time 54.8%
allows for nuanced debates and consensus-building.
Alongside this permanent panel, ad hoc citizens' panels
4. The difficulty in would debate topics chosen by the permanent panel. We
deciding how best to propose following the model of the German-speaking
organise the process to community of Belgium.
best represent citizens.
4.1.2 We recommend setting up one or more non-
permanent European citizens’ panel(s), which would
58.5%
only meet to discuss a specific topic for a set period of
time.
4.2 We recommend not organising European citizens’

panels for urgent issues, as sufficient time is needed to 63.4%
ensure the quality of debates.
5. Too often, citizens

5.1 We recommend giving feedback to citizens on the
who participate in
follow-up given (or not given) to the recommendations
participatory
issued after European citizens’ panels. If the
democracy initiatives
recommendations are not followed up, the relevant
such as citizens’ panels 97.5%
European institutions should give reasons for their
do not receive feedback
decision (e.g. lack of competences). To this end, we
on the follow-up given
recommend that regular summaries be drafted
to their work, in the
throughout the process following a panel.
short or the long term.
6.1 We recommend organising citizens' panels also with

children from a young age (e.g. 10 to 16 years old) to
59.5%
raise their awareness of participation and debate. This
can be organised in schools.
103
4. Referenda
Supported
by (%)
0.1 We recommend that it should be possible to

organise referenda at European level on European 73.3%
issues.
1.1 We recommend commissioning research on how to

70.7%
1. Referendum culture create a common referendum culture in Europe.
varies strongly from one
Member State to 1.2 We recommend that an independent panel examine
another. whether it is appropriate to hold a European 77.5%
referendum on a specific issue.
2.1 We recommend the creation of a scientific

committee that would be in charge of determining how
87.2%
to ask the questions that would be the subject of a
European referendum in the most neutral way possible.
2.2 We recommend asking multiple choice questions,

going beyond the simple alternative of ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to
65.0%
2. The wording of the provide nuance, even attaching conditions to both ‘yes’
question asked in a and ‘no’ (i.e. ‘yes if…’, ‘no if…’).
referendum can have a
2.3 We recommend that blank votes not be included in
negative impact, as can
the calculation of any majority, whether a simple or
the fact that the answer 75.0%
absolute majority. There must nonetheless be enough
is only ‘yes’ or ‘no’,
votes (the quorum must be respected).
which often polarises
debates and societies.
2.4.1 We recommend that a question asked in a
The choice of subject is
European referendum can be on any subject within the 87.5%
also sensitive.
competences of the European Union.
2.4.2 We recommend excluding subjects that could be a

39.0%
source of conflict between member states.
2.5 We recommend that technical and difficult

questions can also be asked, worded clearly, because 77.5%
people have the capacity to be sufficiently informed.
104
3.1 We recommend that the European Parliament have
the right of initiative to organise European referenda,
and that it should then be able to implement the results 67.5%
(the European Commission and the Council should
follow, without the possibility of blocking it).
3. Referenda are not a
democratic tool if only 3.2 We recommend that the initiative to organise a
the political sphere can referendum can also come from the citizens themselves
77.5%
decide to organise one. (following, for example, similar rules as the European
Citizens’ Initiative).
3.3 We recommend that the practical organisation of a

European referendum be the responsibility of a neutral 75.0%
body.
4.1.1 We recommend that the result of a European

referendum should only be binding if certain conditions 92.7%
are fulfilled in terms of rate of participation.
4.1.2 We recommend that the results of a referendum

should only be binding if certain majorities are reached
72.5%
(51/49, 70/30). These conditions should be determined
before each referendum.
4. The binding or non-
binding nature of a 4.2 We recommend that the result of a European
referendum must be referendum should be binding if the initiative to
clearly defined. organise it was taken by citizens (who would have
47.5%
managed to collect a certain number of signatures for
this purpose) but non-binding if the initiative was taken
by a political institution.
4.3 We recommend that the result of a European

referendum be binding only for certain issues, but not
40.0%
for those where the consequences of the vote could be
very serious.
5. The public is often 5.1 We recommend that before any European

poorly informed before referendum, the population be clearly informed on the
being asked to vote in a impact of the result of the vote on their daily lives 97.5%
referendum. At the through pamphlets, as is done in Switzerland, and/or
same time, it is through information sessions
important to control the
information provided to
5.2 We recommend that a scientific committee be
avoid negative
created for each European referendum to guarantee the 87.2%
influences (domestic or
neutrality of the information provided.
foreign) on the vote.
105
6.1.1 We recommend that voting in a European
43.6%
referendum be mandatory.
6. Although a 6.1.2 We recommend that voting in a European

52.5%
referendum invites the referendum be voluntary.
whole population to
directly participate (in 6.2 To reduce the number of non-voting people, we
contrast to a citizens’ recommend allowing electronic voting in addition to
panel), there is always a paper voting (or even in addition to other means of
certain proportion of voting, such as postal voting). Electronic voting is
90.0%
people who do not vote. particularly interesting for people going on holiday, and
it also encourages people who are less interested in
voting because the constraint of travelling to the voting
location is removed.
7. Too often, citizens

who participate in
participatory
democracy initiatives 7.1 We recommend giving feedback to citizens on the
such as referenda do follow-up given (or not given) to the decision taken by 92.5%
not receive feedback on citizens in a European referendum.
the follow-up given to
their work, in the short
or the long term.
5. Existing instruments
5.1 Elections
Supported by
(%)
1.1 We propose that voting be compulsory for the
elections of the European Parliament, but with
50.0%
1. Different rules exist sufficient information for citizens to understand the
between the different reasons.
member states. 1.2 Our recommendation is to make the rules for
elections of the European Parliament as uniform as 87.2%
possible in all countries, including the minimum age.
106
2.1.1 We propose that MEPs should be of all ages and
82.1%
backgrounds
2.1.2 We propose that MEPs should deliberately
choose a European career, and not just because they 82.5%
are at the end of their career.
2. There is no sufficient 2.1.3 We propose to strive for balanced gender
diversity of MEP's for distribution, for example by alternating genders on the
criteria such as age, electoral lists. The EU must establish these criteria and
origin, gender. respect them in the composition according to the 82.5%
quota. If a candidate refuses their mandate, the
following candidate by preference and with the same
gender takes over the mandate.
2.1.4 We recommend that candidates on European lists
89.2%
exercise their mandate if elected.
3.1 We propose that there should be a treaty change
whereby the largest party group in the European
48.6%
3. We vote for the Parliament can appoint the President of the European
European Parliament Commission.
and have no say in the 3.2 We recommend that the composition of the
composition of the European Commission be made more transparent,
Commission according to some basic rules, so that the composition 88.9%
reflects citizens' voice and citizens know how the
selection was made.
4. There is a lack of 4.1 We propose that the European candidates should
knowledge of the present themselves, their objectives and their
candidates for the programme in a more concrete way locally and through
European elections, different channels of communication.
84.2%
nor of their program or
the political group
they'll be part of in the
European Parliament
107
5.2 European Ombudsman
Supported
by (%)
1. The non-English webpage 1.1 We propose to put information on the

only contains information in homepage in all European languages and, if it
English on the first two pages. translation is not possible, to post news in English
89.2%
This causes an obstacle to elsewhere on the site.
citizens who are not
proficient in English.
2. The Ombudsman is not 2.1 We propose that the Ombudsman should be

involved in the sanction and part of the process of finding and implementing
71.1%
possible damages for the the solution, sanction or compensation, and
complainant. should have a voice in the process.
3. The delay to validate the 3.1 We propose installing a system for immediate
subscription to the website validation.
can be very high. This can
47.4%
take up to 24 hours,
discouraging the citizen who
does not pursue further.
4. When a complaint is filed 4.1 We propose to include a link to a simple

the question is asked presentation or explanation of the other
whether all possible procedures.
procedures have been tried. 89.5%
The citizen does not know all
of them and cannot respond
to the question.
5. The website of the 5.1 We propose to revise the website's graphic

Ombudsman is well made but design and to bring it more in line with that of the
does not have a proper EU. A first tip would be to raise the European flag
European 'image', what raises to the top of the page. It must be clear at the first 78.4%
questions with the citizen "click" that the citizen is on the site of the
(am I in the right place, is this Ombudsman.
website credible?).
108
5.3 Public consultation
Supported
by (%)
1. The consultation website 1.1 We propose to delete the old site and
has changed, and the citizen is reference the new site first.
sent in first instance to an
81.6%
outdated site. You have to
undertake a search to find the
URL of the new site.
2.1 We strongly recommend that the roadmap be

translated into the language of the citizen. Having
2. The roadmap (English) and the roadmap only available in English blocks any 81.6%
advices (language of the citizen who does not speak English from
'citizen editor') of a participating.
consultation are not
translated into the language 2.2 We propose to put a tab or icon "Automatic
of the citizen reading translation" on each individual submission, which
65.8%
would link to an open-source translation engine
such as Google Translate or DeepL.
3. You have to subscribe to 3.1 We propose to send the follow-up of the

receive information on the process automatically to every person who 89.5%
follow-up of the process. responds, with the possibility to unsubscribe.
4. We don't know whether the 4.1 We recommend providing clear information

81.6%
number of opinions in one on the subject on the website.
direction influences the
commission, or if they are 4.2 If the number of opinions in one direction has
perceived as on point of view an impact, we recommend that a system is put in
60.5%
(weighted or not). If the place to filter out lobbyists, activists or big
number of opinions in one business so that they are not given undue weight.
direction is being
accumulated, we are worried 4.3 We recommend the creation of artificial
that the weight of intelligence software that classifies the different
lobbyists/activists/big opinions and counts the opposing or favourable
enterprises in the opinions.
47.4%
consultation and thus actions
undertaken by the EU
compared by the voice of
citizens/NGO's.
109
4.4 We propose to organise meetings between
citizens and (activist) associations: places where
citizens can express their opinions, in the form of
62.2%
"Europe Houses" that can help spread citizens'
views at European level. These should exist at
different locations and at the local level.
5. The opinion form is unclear: 5.1. This information should be clarified on the
there are both an open website.
question and a questionnaire.
81.6%
What is the role of each
document, what has to be
completed?
6. There are too many levels 6.1 We propose the creation of a dispatching
of competences for what centre to direct requests to the appropriate level 78.9%
concerns the instruments. of authority.
5.4 European Citizens’ Initiative
Supported
by (%)
1.1 We suggest that local authorities or libraries,

which are independent of government, could be
involved in the dissemination of initiatives and
1. Citizens without internet
collection of signatures, both electronically and on 71.1%
are harder to reach.
paper. The EU should draw up an inventory of this
network per country and make it available to the
citizens starting the ECI.
2.1 We propose to raise the number of countries

2. The number of countries to from which signatures are collected to 13 in order
participate is too low to create to have more support for the proposal. The 64.9%
sufficient support. number of signatures should be respected in
proportion to the number of inhabitants.
3.1 We propose that there should be EU funding

71.1%
to support these initiatives.
3. The cost and effort to
gather the signatures is high.
3.2 We propose that a body be set up to facilitate
75.7%
coordination between countries.
4. The procedure is complex 4.1 We propose the creation of a helpdesk to assist

83.8%
for citizens. citizens in completing the procedures.
110
5.1 We propose that the European Commission
should be obliged to discuss and work on the
follow-up to the proposal, not simply respond and 100.0%
acknowledge receipt. If the Commission decides to
not act on the proposal, it must justify this.
5. It is unclear what the result 5.2 We propose to organise a citizens' consultation

of a citizens' initiative is. when a European Citizens' Initiative is received to
ask for their opinion on it before the Commission
follows it up. This would avoid having only
55.3%
extreme opinions or votes and include the opinion
of people who did not sign the ECI. In addition, if
all citizens give their opinion, the suggestion will
have more weight at EU level and in its follow-up.
5.5 Right to petition
Supported
by (%)
1. The European Commission 1.1 We propose that the European Parliament's

takes the final decision, no recommendation be followed up by the 81.1%
certainty on the outcome. Commission.
2.1 We propose that the person who submits the

2. There is a lack of
petition be kept informed about the progress
transparency on the process 94.4%
and decisions at regular intervals. Reasons
and motivation for the decision
should also be given for the final conclusion.
3. It is hard for citizens to 3.1 Our recommendation is that a petition

address the need for new should also be used as a tool to demonstrate the 78.4%
legislation. need for new legislation.
111
112
Contents
Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................... 114

Presentation of the main results ........................................................................................................................... 118
Presentation of the regional conference panels .................................................................................................... 120
Commitments and methodological approach....................................................................................................... 122
Part 1: presentation of the outcome of the regional conferences on the future of Europe ................................... 130
Part 2: presentation of the outcome of the ‘Parole aux Jeunes’ (‘Young People Have Their Say’) consultation 148
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................................... 152
113
Introduction
The Conference on the Future of Europe is an unprecedented exercise in citizen participation,
providing an opportunity to consult the citizens of the 27 Member States of the European Union in
order to put them back at the centre of the decisions being made for the years and decades to come.
In this way, EU citizens are invited to make their voices heard, by proposing changes and specific
actions that will enable Europe to define a new ambition and address the global challenges it faces
today.
The French government supports the initiatives of the three-presidency team of the Conference on
the Future of Europe, in particular by encouraging its citizens to make a substantial contribution to
the online platform and to organise events throughout the country.
In parallel with these European initiatives, the government wanted to carry out a participatory exercise
at national level.
With the support of the Ministry with responsibility for Relations with Parliament and Citizen
Participation (MRPC) and the expertise of the Interministerial Centre for Citizen Participation
(CIPC), the Ministry for Europe and Foreign Affairs (MEAE) organised a citizen-focused exercise
based on strong methodological approaches (see ‘Commitments and methodological approaches’
below). To implement the programme, the MEAE used a consortium comprised of Roland Berger,
Wavestone, Missions Publiques and Harris Interactive. The regional prefectures also played a key
role in organising the 18 conferences throughout the country.
The participants in the consultation were asked a single question: ‘As French citizens, what changes
do you want for Europe?’ (see Annex IV ‘Mandate for participation’).
114
This national exercise took the form of 18 regional conferences in the 13 metropolitan regions and
the five French overseas regions, held over three weekends in September and October 2021 and each
involving between 30 and 50 randomly selected citizens (746 in total). A summary of these
18 regional panels was then produced at a national conference held on 15 to 17 October 2021 at the
Economic, Social and Environmental Council (ESEC) in Paris, involving 98 volunteers from among
the citizens who had participated in the regional conferences.
In addition, in order to highlight the views of young French people ahead of the European Year of
Youth in 2022, an online consultation entitled ‘Parole aux Jeunes’ (‘Young People Have Their Say’)
was organised by the MEAE in partnership with Make.org. More than 50 000 young people aged 15
to 35 shared their ideas and priorities for Europe in 2035.
This report sets out the main results of the two consultations carried out by the government.
Methodology of the consultation
The recruitment of citizens to take part in the regional conferences combined a random selection of
participants by drawing lots from their telephone numbers, and targeted selection from among certain
groups in order to ensure the panel was as representative as possible of the diversity of each area.
At the regional panels, the participants shared their views by alternating group work, with tables of
six to eight citizens assisted by a facilitator, and presentations in plenary. Experts were present during
the discussion time to answer citizens’ questions and provide clarification, while making sure to
maintain a neutral stance.
115
Citizens were first invited to discuss their current perception of Europe. They then shared their
aspirations for Europe in 2035, in their groups and afterwards in plenary. These discussions made
it possible to identify between three and eight aspirations per region. For each of these aspirations,
the citizens then outlined the changes that they thought were needed to achieve this vision for Europe,
accompanied by specific proposals to be implemented. The process resulted in a total of 515 changes
and 1 301 specific proposals at national level.
A regional summary report was produced for each regional conference and provided to all participants
ahead of the national conference.
The national summary conference involved 98 citizens drawn by lot from among the participants in
the 18 regional conferences. In order to ensure diversity on the national panel, six citizens were drawn
by lot from among the volunteers from the regional conferences in metropolitan France and Réunion,
and four citizens from the overseas conferences, with each regional draw making sure to maintain a
gender balance and include a range of ages (see Annex II).
In preparation for the national conference, the 515 changes identified at the regional conferences were
analysed and combined when the underlying intention appeared to be similar or related, so as to form
14 groups of changes reflecting a common aspiration for Europe (see part 6). These 14 aspirations
for Europe served as the basis for the work of the 98 participants in the national conference, whose
task was to build on the work done in the regions and compare the aspirations for Europe, the changes
and the proposals with the help of some twenty experts, in order to arrive at a list of priority changes.
Finally, each group selected three key changes, the first of which was voted on by all 98 citizens,
establishing a final ranking of the 14 priority changes. A summary report consolidates all of the work
done at this conference.
116
The online consultation for young people (‘Parole aux Jeunes’) took place from May to July 2021
with the support of Make.org. More than 50 000 participants took part and submitted almost 3 000
proposals for Europe. Based on all the young citizens’ reactions, 35 main ideas were identified, of
which 22 were widely favoured and 13 gave rise to controversy among the participants (see Part 11
below).
Starting point and duty to follow up
This report will be submitted to the Government by the citizens on 29 November 2021, in the presence
of the French elected representatives who are members of the Plenary of the Conference on the Future
of Europe. It will be submitted to the three-presidency team of the Conference during the French
Presidency of the Council of the European Union.
At the end of the national synthesis conference at the Economic, Social and Environmental Council
(ESEC), and in order to meet the high expectations of the randomly selected citizens, a citizens’
follow-up committee was set up to represent the participants’ right to follow up. This committee,
composed of 15 members — 14 representatives of the regional conferences and one representative of
the ‘Parole aux Jeunes’ consultation — will be tasked with informing citizens about the outcome of
their proposals. At each meeting of the Conference Plenary, one or more of the members of the
Follow-up Committee will participate as a representative of the French exercise to highlight the
proposals set out in this report, while building a common position with all the European citizens
represented.
All of the documents from the French consultation — mandate for participation, regional summaries,
national summary, guarantors’ report and final report — will be public and accessible to everyone on
the French State’s platform for citizen participation:
117
Presentation of the main results
118
119
Presentation of the regional conference panels
120
121
Commitments and methodological approach
122
a. State commitments on participatory democracy
The French component of the Conference on the Future of Europe is underpinned by the commitments
the State has signed up to on participatory democracy, which are based on three principles:
transparency, neutrality and the duty to follow up.
A participatory approach requires the organiser to adhere to a rigorous methodology. The method of
citizen participation should enable citizens to participate under the best possible conditions and to
express their views in a free and reasoned manner.
Transparency
The team organising the conference undertook to make all the information relating to the consultation
— listed below — accessible to citizens:
• The framework for consultation;
• The commitments made vis-à-vis citizens;
• The purposes of the consultation;
• The results of the consultation.
The methodology of the Conference on the Future of Europe was thus established with the constant
objective of ensuring transparency for citizens. The methodology for recruiting randomly selected
citizens, the methodological approach and the handling of citizens’ views were clearly set out.
Participants also received a summary of their regional conference by email at the end of the
conference. In addition, all working documents and proceedings will be made public at the end of the
forum on the State Citizen Participation Platform 1.
1
www.participation-citoyenne.gouv.fr
123
Neutrality
During a consultation, the organising team must ensure it remains neutral when facilitating exchanges
and drafting summaries of the results. Stakeholders — moderators, facilitators, experts — should not
express their own views or try to steer the debate in a subjective way.
The objective of neutrality was pursued at all preparatory stages of this consultation, for instance by
ensuring absence of bias in selecting participants, total freedom of expression during discussions, and
citizens’ input being free of influence from the sponsor or stakeholders. This need for neutrality was
reflected in an objective and transparent process to recruit participants, consistent methodological
approach (reverse expertise, no thematic framework for debates) with special attention being paid to
the attitude of the various stakeholders (moderators, facilitators, experts). Lastly, the organising team
made sure that all contributions were taken into account and that there was no screening of citizens’
proposals.
A panel of 3 guarantors, appointed by the Presidents of the National Assembly and the European
Parliament and by the Government, also ensured that all opinions expressed were respected and taken
into account.
Duty to follow up
Citizens, irrespective of whether or not they participated in the consultation, have the right to be
informed of what has been adopted from their proposals and their opinions, and for what reasons.
This is known as the duty to follow up.
124
It is defined by the Interministerial Centre for Citizen Participation (CIPC) and the Interministerial
Directorate for Public Transformation (DITP) as the public decision-maker’s commitment to provide
citizens with a clear and comprehensible response to the planned follow-up to the consultation. In
practical terms, the duty to follow up means providing feedback to citizens to explain how their
contributions are taken into account and have an impact on the administration’s decisions and
practices.
The Government took up this duty to follow up at the Conference on the Future of Europe and
announced an ambitious follow-up mechanism at the end of the national conference; this is described
in the following section of this report (see ‘Methodological approach’).
125
b. Methodological approaches
These three State commitments were reflected in the consultation methodology in the form of seven
strongly-focused methodological approaches.
1. Territorialisation and proximity to citizens
The national component of the Conference on the Future of Europe took the form of 18 regional conferences,
in the 13 metropolitan regions and the five French overseas regions, followed by a national conference in Paris.
The aim of organising these panels at local level was to be as close to citizens as possible to gather their
views. This approach also enriched the consultation by revealing the lines of consensus and disagreement
among the regions on different issues.
2. Diversity of citizen profiles and random selection
A recruitment target of 50 citizens per regional conference was set ahead of the process, with the exception of
the overseas conferences of Martinique, Mayotte, Guadeloupe and Guyana, for which the target was 30 to 40
citizens, and the conference of the Grand Est region, at which five German citizens from the three bordering
Länder were also present. The citizens invited to participate in the regional conferences were drawn by lot
through random selection of telephone numbers.
In order to be eligible, the randomly selected citizens had to be over 18 and either French or permanent legal
residents in France. Each regional citizens’ panel needed to be representative of the diversity of the regional
population and to bring together a variety of views on Europe. The details of the methodology used for the
recruitment by random selection are set out in Annex II.
3. Transparency of the process
A panel of three guarantors, appointed by the Minister of State for European Affairs, the President of the
National Assembly and the President of the European Parliament, monitored the entire process to ensure that
it was neutral and conducted properly. In particular, the guarantors: verified that citizens were genuinely being
recruited by random selection; made recommendations regarding the choice of experts; and ensured, through
on-the-spot visits, that the discussions were being conducted well. At the end of the programme, the guarantors
will publish their opinion on the consultation. This document will be made available online on the state citizen
participation platform.
The following will also be published on the State citizen participation platform: summaries of the 18 regional
conferences; the document summarising all of the changes outlined during the regional conferences; the
summary of the national conference; and lastly the final report submitted to the government.
126
4. An open discussion with no fixed agenda
A single question was put to the citizens participating in the national consultation: ‘As French citizens, what
changes do you want for Europe? ’.
The approach taken and the methodology put in place allowed citizens to decide for themselves on tabling the
desired changes, without being constrained by a specific subject or a predetermined normative framework.
The aim was to thus allow the citizens at the regional conferences to enjoy total freedom as regards the subjects
they wished to discuss. For the national component of the Conference on the Future of Europe, the MEAE
therefore chose to develop an approach that would complement the European exercise, which is structured
around nine topics: climate change and the environment; health; a stronger economy, social justice and jobs;
EU in the world; values and rights, rule of law, security; digital transformation; European democracy;
migration; education, culture, youth and sport; other ideas 2.
The discussion topics for the regional conferences were therefore determined by the citizens themselves, not
by the sponsor of the exercise.
5. Reverse expertise
In order to minimise any influence on participants in the process of identifying their aspirations for Europe,
the decision was made not to provide any information or expertise in advance (for example, on the current
EU project, its competencies or the functioning of the institutions), but to take questions raised by the citizens
themselves as the starting point. This methodological approach is based on the principle of ‘reverse expertise’,
according to which collective reflection takes place on the basis of the experiences and opinions of citizens,
who then question experts in order to support their discussions and consolidate their working hypotheses.
To achieve this objective, experts were mobilised in the various regions (three, on average), including from
academia and from the Europe Direct Information Centres in the areas concerned. They were present on the
Saturday and Sunday of each weekend to answer citizens’ questions, speaking only at their request. Fact-
checkers were also contactable to quickly check any factual questions from citizens.
During the national summary conference at the CESE, 19 high-level experts from academia, think-tanks and
the diplomatic corps were present in the working groups. These experts each accompanied a group throughout
the weekend, allowing them to examine the changes outlined by the regions in more depth.
127
6. Collegiality and responsive governance
The whole process was co-developed by the Ministry for Europe and Foreign Affairs (MEAE), supported by
the participative strategy of the Interministerial Centre for Citizen Participation (CIPC) within the
Interministerial Directorate for Public Transformation (DITP) and the Ministry with responsibility for
Relations with Parliament and Citizen Participation (MRPC). The process was implemented by a consortium
comprised of Roland Berger, Wavestone, Missions Publiques and Harris Interactive, which was responsible
for steering the process, organising the conferences, drawing lots to select the citizens, and drafting the reports
and summaries, working together with the regional prefectures on the local arrangements for the regional
conferences.
Specific governance was put in place in the form of a project team headed by the MEAE and comprising the
CIPC, the MRPC and the consortium.
7. Duty to follow up and link with the European exercise
At the national conference, it was announced that there were several components of the French
institutions’ duty to follow up once the exercise for the Conference on the Future of Europe had been
conducted, including:
- publishing all the information on the process, this document, and the summary reports from
the regional and national conferences, in a transparent and fully accessible manner, on the
new citizen participation platform launched upon presentation of the final report to the
government;
- organising an event to present the government with the final report from the national
component of the Conference on the Future of Europe in November 2021;
- establishing a citizens’ follow-up committee to ensure that the proposals made during the
process are followed up. This committee will be made up of 15 citizens, including
14 participants from the regional conferences and one participant in the ‘Parole aux Jeunes’
online consultation;
- submitting the French contribution to the Conference on the Future of Europe to the
European institutions in January 2022.
128
The French citizens’ proposals will be put forward for discussion by all the Member States and the
European institutions. As the country holding the presidency of the Council of the European Union
in the first half of 2022, it will be incumbent on France to be the voice of its citizens while also
seeking to establish a common European position.
129
Part 1: presentation of the outcome of the regional conferences
on the future of Europe
At each of the 18 regional conferences, citizens described their aspirations for Europe in 2035,
individually and then in groups. Three to eight groups of aspirations emerged in each region, totaling
101 visions for Europe across the whole of France. The citizens then outlined changes that they
thought were needed to achieve this vision for Europe, accompanied by specific actions. The process
resulted in a total of 515 changes and 1 301 specific actions for the whole of France.
In the weeks between the regional conferences and the national conference, the project team worked
on arranging the 515 changes into cohesive groups. All of the changes put forward by the regions
were subject to a lexicological analysis, and combined when the underlying intention seemed similar
or related, so that working groups with a common aspiration for Europe could be established for the
national conference. Finally, the changes identified by the regions were grouped into 14 separate
aspirations for Europe.
130
(a) Ranking of the 14 aspirations for Europe
At the end of each regional conference, the participating citizens voted to express their support for
the changes identified by the different working groups.
On the basis of the groups established prior to the national summary conference, it was possible to
determine – as a result of the votes on the changes in each region – which aspirations for Europe were
the most popular among the citizens. For example, ‘a Europe which puts education at the forefront’
and ‘a closer and more accessible Europe’ were widely favoured, with changes that were supported
by an average of 56 % of citizens at the regional conferences.
Aspirations for Europe ranked by popularity
131
(b) Presentation of the 14 priority changes from the national conference
At the national summary conference, the 100 citizens taking part each worked on one of the 14 groups
of aspirations. At the end of the discussions, each group selected one priority change to be made
by 2035 which reflected their aspiration for Europe. The 14 priority changes were then voted on by
the 100 citizens on the last day of the national conference. The result of the vote is set out below, in
descending order of the number of votes received for each change.
The most popular change among the 100 citizens at the national conference was ‘Encourage energy
restraint, consuming less and eliminating excess’.
132
For each priority change, the citizens of the group concerned gave a definition of the change, proposed
specific actions to implement that change and set out the criteria for success by 2035.
133
Change 1 – Promote energy restraint, consuming less and eliminating excess
Associated aspiration for Europe: A Europe committed to tackling the

environmental and climate challenge
What does this change cover?

Key words: Development of renewable energy sources, reduction in energy consumption
The aim of this change is to encourage a reduction in energy consumption in Europe and the
development of renewable energies. Its prioritisation by citizens expresses their desire for Europe and
its inhabitants to take resolute action in the face of the environmental and climate challenge.
What are the key stages and criteria for success?
This change consists in the development of ambitious research programmes on renewable energy
sources and the deployment of European investment funds taking direct shareholdings in
companies in the sector.
For citizens, this change would be successful if it resulted in binding targets for lower energy
consumption and key indicators of moderation, such as a reduction in the EU car fleet or in meat
consumption. The ambition is also to successfully establish consumption quotas per sector, taking
account of fluctuations in the consumption of businesses and respecting the confidentiality of their
data.
134
Change 2 – Strengthen the European Union’s common defence and security
Associated aspiration for Europe: A powerful Europe in the world

Key words: European army, strategic autonomy
This change is in line with citizens’ unanimous desire to achieve autonomy in the area of defence
and security in Europe, so as not to depend on foreign powers.
For citizens, the success of this change would be reflected above all in the appointment of a European
Commissioner for Defence and Security.
In the field of defence, the creation of a permanent army, which is responsive and can be deployed
throughout the world, would enable Europe to protect its borders and intervene, if necessary, at the
request of third countries.
As regards security, citizens consider that Europe should guarantee security of supply and protect its
strategic research, in priority sectors such as the space sector, cybersecurity, the medical sector and
the environment. Better protection of the external borders should also help to curb illegal
immigration and trafficking.
135
Change 3 – Promote collective economic performance through autonomous,
competitive industry developed and promoted by the EU
Associated aspiration for Europe: A Europe which defends its interests

Key words: European preference, protection of know-how, development of European champions
This change aims to achieve three objectives: strengthening a policy of a ‘European preference’
within the Union, ensuring the protection of essential goods and know-how, and creating
‘European champions’.
Achieving these objectives, first of all, means implementing a policy of a ‘European preference’ in
the context of calls for tender, and the introduction of a carbon tax on imports.
The protection of know-how would result in increased control of takeovers and foreign investment,
and the expansion of relocation aid.
Finally, the creation of ‘European champions’ means encouraging European industrial alliances in
strategic sectors and boosting public venture capital investment.
Citizens see the criteria for the success of this change as the development of European industrial alliances in
key sectors, increasing the number of business relocations and improving Europe’s trade balance.
136
Change 4 – Establish citizen power at several levels: participation, decision-
making, control.
Associated aspiration for Europe: A more democratic Europe

Key words: increase voter turnout, a European satisfaction barometer, mainstream citizen
consultations
Through this change, citizens propose to develop a ‘full civic experience’ for Europeans, by
increasing their involvement at all stages of the decision-making process. This change reflects
citizens’ desire to make their voices heard and to influence public policies affecting their daily lives.
For citizens, the main task is to develop and perpetuate citizens’ participation initiatives. To this end, action
can be taken on several fronts: the constitution of a permanent consultative assembly, enshrining citizen
power in the European treaties and the creation of a label certifying laws which have emerged from citizen
consultation.
The criteria for the success of this change would be upward movement in indicators such as voter
turnout, interest and trust expressed in the European Union and the use of European websites. An
increase in the number of decisions taken following a citizens’ consultation and the increased use of
European Citizens’ Initiatives (ECIs) also emerge as hallmarks of success.
137
Change 5 – Move towards a federation of European states with strong powers in
common areas of interest
Associated aspiration for Europe: a more united Europe

Key words: unified institutions, elected President, strengthening EU competences
This change reflects the desire of our citizens to unify European political institutions. Envisaged is a
federation of states with the aim of strengthening the shared or exclusive competences of the
European Union, without, however, moving towards a federal state.
Internally, this change could involve increasing civic participation, creating European ministries
within the Member States and, in the longer term, electing the President of the European Commission
by universal suffrage.
Externally, the strengthening of Europe's voice abroad would be embodied by a single

representative of Europe on the global stage.
This federation of states would also benefit from an increased European budget, with the aim to reach 10 %
of GDP (currently 2 %).
138
Change 6 – Offer exchange programmes at all stages of life
Associated aspiration for Europe: a Europe which puts education at the forefront
Key words: educational exchanges, Erasmus
This change is broadly supported and reflects the importance for citizens of encounters and
experiences abroad as a powerful source of European sentiment. The aim is to move from “academic
knowledge to an approach to Europe based on lived and felt experience” and to understand
education in the broad sense as life-long learning.
The success of such a change depends primarily on the introduction of wider mobility opportunities,
including, inter alia, educational exchanges, twinning, travel and professional mobility. Citizens consider that
these opportunities must be accessible to all, especially people with low incomes or disabilities. For example,
the Erasmus programme could include all Europeans, regardless of age or income. These programmes should be
devised so as to be diverse, inclusive and accessible, with simplified administrative procedures.
Beyond mobility, the importance of encouraging closer links between education systems (diploma
equivalence, etc.) and of making Europe more attractive to prevent the drain of talent to third countries was
also mentioned.
139
Change 7 – Share European cultures through gatherings and events that bring
people together
Associated aspiration for Europe: a Europe with shared cultures and identities
Key words: European festival, European public holiday, European Expo
The aim of this change is to create and maintain a European spirit through common experiences,
events and festivities.
Citizens envisage fun, unifying and popular events that can be shared by as many people as possible.
To this end, they should involve all target groups (including children, school children, young people
and Erasmus students) and take place in various locations (retirement homes, schools, public
administrations, prisons, etc.).
In particular, two events were envisaged to bring Europeans together: a European Expo to represent all
Member States and a revamp of Europe Day on 9 May, including an educational event “so that we do not
forget the peace linked to Europe and its values”. At the same time, European representatives could meet the
continent’s schoolchildren in their schools in order to strengthen citizens’ closeness to and understanding of
Europe from an early age.
140
Change 8 – Harmonise healthcare and make it accessible to all Europeans through
a common healthcare policy
Associated aspiration for Europe: a Europe of solidarity which protects

Key words: universal health coverage, harmonisation of care services, a fundamental right to health
To ensure access to healthcare for all Europeans and meet the “need for protection and solidarity”, a
supranational healthcare system was unanimously proposed. It would be based on fair funding
between Member States and draw on the best EU schemes. Such a change reflects the desire of
citizens to see Europe take a more active role in the protection of its inhabitants, especially in the
field of health, where action so far is considered too timid.
To implement this change, the principle of universal European social security was approved by a
majority. However, it was not possible to decide how this system would be implemented. While some
argue for ‘a centralisation of data allowing [European] healthcare workers to access a patient’s
entire medical history’, others perceive that measure as ‘a further loss of liberty, and a means of
control’.
However, transparency and the harmonisation of regulatory requirements across the continent in this field,
as well as a European Healthcare Plan, were identified as prerequisites for any significant change.
141
Change 9 – Develop and oversee strategic sectors at European level to ensure our
sovereignty
Associated aspiration for Europe: A competitive and innovative Europe

Key words: development of European champions, control of foreign investment, digital and energy
autonomy
Oversight at European level of sectors considered strategic, such as health, food, energy, digital,
defence, transport and new materials, meets the need for sovereignty identified by citizens. Such
oversight would limit competition between European companies, encourage the emergence of
continental champions and reindustrialise Europe by means of a European preference.
In order to achieve this sovereignty, a European authority could be tasked with overseeing these
sectors by issuing authorisations for takeovers of European companies by foreign competitors and by
ensuring that imported products meet the same standards as EU products. In the medium term, 30 %
to 50 % of what is consumed in Europe in these strategic sectors should be produced in Europe,
and up to 70 % in the long term. Meeting these criteria would ensure self-sufficiency and
international influence and even lead to the export of the European industrial model.
142
Change 10 – Improve the protection of ecosystems and environments and create
protected areas at the heart of urban, peri-urban and rural areas
Associated aspiration for Europe: A Europe which promotes sustainable development

Key words: environmentally sustainable urbanisation, respect for and conservation of soil
The aim is to limit the negative impact of urbanisation on soil. Far-reaching action would limit
disasters linked to soil degradation such as landslides and improve the quality of life in urban
areas, including by planting trees.
The proposed action is twofold: first of all reverse the trend of new builds to slow down the pace
of soil sealing, and secondly, encourage soil restoration to give back to nature what belongs to it.
143
Change 11 – Set up local European contact points to consult with and advise
citizens
Associated aspiration for Europe: A closer and more accessible Europe
Key words: Houses of Europe, local contact point for Europe, better access to information
The aim of this change is to provide concrete responses to the fact that the European Union is not
felt to be present in everyday life, as highlighted by many participants, and to work to bring Europe
and its citizens closer to one another.
To close the gap between the EU and citizens, a specialised contact point could be appointed in each town
hall with the role of listening to and advising citizens. The information provided by this report could be of a
socio-economic nature, focusing on accessing European aid or information, for instance on the role of
lobbyists. The information provided would be addressed to both the general public and professionals, in
particular to advise SMEs and help project owners to access EU funds. In the long term, this change could lead
to the creation of dedicated Europe hubs, similar to the existing Houses of Europe, but at local level, for
optimal regional coverage.
This change would be seen as successful if every citizen instantly recognises this contact point and dedicated
hub, which would provide resources, information and advice about Europe and where citizens would be
listened to.
144
Change 12 – Standardise elections to the European Parliament in the 27 Member
States and bring the EU closer to citizens by replacing the current voting method
with uninominal voting at regional level
Associated aspiration for Europe: A Europe with more efficient governance

Key words: Institutional change, citizens monitor activity throughout the term of office
This change reflects citizens’ desire to be closer to elected representatives and to follow their
activity throughout their term of office. It addresses the widely shared finding that citizens’ concerns
do not lead to specific action by elected representatives in the European Parliament.
The change in the election method would consist of a unified voting system at European level and
the transition from national constituencies to regional constituencies, which is considered possible by
2035.
145
Change 13 – Establish a common policy to offer a better reception to and improve
the social and professional integration of migrants (including irregular migrants)
Associated aspiration for Europe: A Europe which guarantees respect for fundamental rights

Key words: European migration office, guaranteeing a decent reception everywhere in Europe
The aim of this change is to improve the reception of migrants in the European Union, a problem
which citizens unanimously identify as an emergency. In contrast to the current situation, the
establishment of a common, concerted and solidarity-based immigration policy appears as a major
contributor to peace.
The gradual implementation of a common policy on the reception of migrants would make this change
a success.
A citizens’ initiative should submit this change to the Commission and, in the medium term, enable
the adoption of a common standard defining a framework for the reception and social integration of
migrants. In the long term, this standard would be supported by the creation of a specialised
European immigration office and the recognition of migration policy as a European Union
competence.
146
Change 14 – Preserve the specific characteristics (food labels, craft products,
traditions) of the different European regions to prevent the homogenisation of
ways of life and ensure product traceability and quality
Associated aspiration for Europe: A Europe where the interests of each state take priority

Key words: European labels, promoting diversity of cultures and traditions
The aim of this change is to preserve the diversity of European traditions and products and to
prevent the homogenisation of ways of life – a criticism often levelled at the European Union.
From the point of the view of the citizens, it is mainly a question of making the existing database of
the different European and national labels more accessible. To this end, it was proposed that a
website be created that follows the three-click principle: one click to access the site, a second to
display a map of the regions of the European Union, and a third to bring up a description of each
region’s labels.
Success with regard to this change would take the form of enhanced communication about existing practices,
resulting in citizens’ having a better knowledge of the diversity of European cultures.
147
Part 2: presentation of the outcome of the ‘Parole aux Jeunes’
(‘Young People Have Their Say’) consultation
Dates of the consultation

09/05/2021 to 18/07/2021
Turnout figures
50 008 participants
2 918 proposals
338 330 votes
The ‘Parole aux Jeunes’ consultation was launched on the initiative of the Minister of State for
European Affairs. This consultation forms part of the Conference on the Future of Europe, an
unprecedented exercise in participatory democracy conducted by the European institutions, the aim
of which is to give all European citizens the opportunity to voice their views on what they expect
from the European Union. The consultation’s findings will inform the work of the Conference on the
Future of Europe and of the French Presidency of the European Union.
4 main outcomes
1. A massive mobilisation of young people: over 50 000 young French citizens, across all the
regions, took part in the consultation.
2. The most significant points of consensus concern European policies to combat climate
change, relocating production to Europe, revitalising European democracy, and the EU’s
global influence (economy, research, human rights, diplomacy).
148
3. The idea of a more powerful and united Europe runs through the entire consultation,
and there is consensus on several points:
- A Europe that stronger economically (particularly as a result of relocation) to contend with
China and the United States
- A diplomatic Europe with more clout on the international stage
- A Europe that is a world leader in the fight against climate change
- A Europe brought together by its young people
- A Europe united in research and innovation
4. Four ideas supplementing those generated by the citizens’ panels were also endorsed by
the young participants:
- A European economy that is environmentally and socially responsible
- A Europe that is geographically more connected by rail
- A fairer Europe in terms of taxation
- Strong EU action to promote women’s rights
149
22 popular ideas and 13 controversial ideas divided among the nine topics of the Conference
on the Future of Europe
The popular ideas are based on proposals supported by a majority of the participants in the
consultation. Popular proposals are those that garner the most support, with an average of 79 % of
votes in favour.
The controversial ideas are based on the proposals that provoked the most debate among the
participants in the consultation, with a balance between votes for and votes against. Controversial
proposals are those most hotly debated during the consultation, with an average of 40 % of votes in
favour and 38 % of votes against.
Analysis of these proposals led to the identification of 22 popular ideas and 13 controversial ideas.
These 22 popular ideas and 13 controversial ideas were divided up into nine categories corresponding
to the main topics of the Conference on the Future of Europe.
150
Summary of the popular and controversial ideas
151
Conclusion
‘For you, in one word, Europe in 2035 should be...’:
Response from citizens participating in the national conference to the final question:
‘For you, in one word, Europe in 2035 should be...’
152
National Citizens’ Panel on the future of Europe in Berlin
- Citizens’ recommendations -
Germany held its National Citizens’ Panel on the Future of Europe on 5, 8, 15 and 16 January.
The process of selecting citizens followed the stratified random selection of participants for the
European Citizens’ Panels. 12,000 citizens in Germany were invited to participate; out of the
respondents, approximately 100 were selected, taking into account the current census data of
the Federal Republic of Germany to reflect the diversity of German society and the population as
a whole. During the National Citizens’ Panel, the participants discussed five topics: The Role of
the EU in the world, A Stronger Economy, Climate and Environment, Social Justice, European
Values and the Rule of Law. They then developed concrete recommendations under these
headlines that were adopted in the final plenary session on 16 January:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=cefqmarZXzY
153
Table 1:
Linking foreign trade interests with climate policy measures
We recommend that the EU (particularly the EU Commission) launch an investment package for
climate-friendly technologies and innovations, including funding programmes. This package
should be financed through climate-related import tariffs which would be earmarked and
passed on as monetary compensation for the climate damage caused. In this context, a points-
based system to rate sustainability would be introduced for certain products. A clear EU position
and a strong and innovative Europe would be helpful inreaching global climate targets. This
would help consolidate the role of the European Union as a responsible, global pioneer and
model which secures wealth and can bring aboutsustainable global changes. Those goals are
important to us because the EU is making an enduring contribution in the fight against climate
change which in the long term could make an important contribution to consolidating world
peace.
Table 2:
Creating incentives for production to be based in the EU, especially the production of basic
supplies
In order to facilitate the production of basic supplies in the EU, we recommend accelerating and
standardising approval procedures, reducing bureaucracy and offering subsidies to companies
that relocate to the EU and/or develop production sites in the EU. The EU should promote
renewable energy on a massive scale in order to reduce energy costs.
Through these measures, we want to shorten supply chains and make them more climate
friendly, help strengthen the EU and create jobs in which human rights are respected.
Those goals are important to us because relocating production to the EU would make the EU
internationally more autonomous and politically less vulnerable.
154
Table 1:
Digi-Score – points for a strong EU-wide digital economy
We propose introducing a publicly accessible digital score board, Digi-Score, run by the
European Commission (DG Connect). This is a detailed ranking system that indicates and
compares the current level of digitisation of EU businesses. With this proposal, we aim to create
an incentive to increase digitisation across Europe. Businesses with a low digital score would be
entitled to receive targeted support to help them catch up.
This goal is important to us because it would help pave the way for increasing productivity,
efficiency and sales and thereby strengthen Europe as a manufacturing base.
Table 2:
Information platform for an EU-wide exchange of knowledge and experiences
We recommend that the EU set up an information platform serving as an EU-wide exchange of

knowledge and experiences. Our goal is to pool information on transnational education and
training courses in the EU, showcase best practice examples and offer citizens the opportunity
to present new ideas for cross-border exchange. In addition, further information could be
provided on the technical expert fora available (e.g. on energy, environment,digitisation).
We deem this important because citizens need transparency about the cross-border training
and education courses that are available. They should receive better guidance at EU level on
what fora and platforms exist.
155
Table 1:
Regulation on guaranteed product life
We recommend that the EU introduce legislation to ensure a product-specific, extended,

guaranteed lifetime for products manufactured and sold in the EU and make it transparent for
consumers.
Resources are finite and could be saved through this measure, as well as waste be avoided,
which would benefit the environment, the climate and consumers.
In this way, we want to encourage manufacturers to bring products on to the market thatare
more durable and repairable.
Table 2:
Long-term EU campaign for sustainable consumption and lifestyle
We recommend that a European body, including branches in EU countries, be provided with its
own resources and lead the campaign.
We aim to ensure that all people in the EU have a common identity, become more mindfulof
the need for sustainable consumption and lifestyle and adopt this way of life.
These goals are important to us because we want to generate an intrinsic motivation for
sustainable living.
156
Table 1:
Creating more exchange opportunities for students in Europe
We recommend that the European Union adopt - in addition to the existing ERASMUS
programme - a regulation on an exchange programme for students between the ages of 14 and
25 - irrespective of background, gender and level of education. This exchange programme
should be systematically established and communicated by local schools. Every student should
have the possibility to make use of the exchange programme at any time during his or her school
career. To this end, the European Commission should submit a proposal to the European
Parliament and the European Council
Our aim is for students, irrespective of school performance and financial support by their
parents, to have the possibility to take part in exchange programmes throughout Europe. A
culture of European exchange should be fostered from school age. Above all, it is important that
exchange programmes are low-threshold and free of red tape. Through the exchange
programme, we want to establish European solidarity and reduce language barriers. This should
take place with educational justice and educational participation in mind in order to enhance
intercultural and communicative competences.
These goals are important to us since they can help promote European cohesion, strengthen
respect and cooperation and impart European values from a young age, so that Europe’s
diversity can be perceived as a chance.
Table 2:
Introducing a basic job-specific salary
We recommend that the EU Commissioner for Jobs and Social Rights submit to the European
Parliament a proposal for the introduction of a basic job-specific salary in all Member States.
This basic salary should be composed of a minimum wage sufficient to secure a livelihood, and
a job-specific supplement.
Our aim is for working performances and wages to be comparable within the EU in order to
strengthen social justice. This goal is important to us to ensure that the basic principle of the EU
is reflected in the labour market: comparable living and working conditions, irrespective of one’s
place of residence and profession.
157
Table 1:
Embodying European values and communicating them emotionally
We recommend that European values be made more tangible and communicated in a more
emotional way. We could achieve this, for example, through an "onboarding" package,
comprising media, interactive elements and greater involvement of citizens.
Our goal is for every single person living in the EU to know about the common values and
identify with them.
This goal is important to us because it forms the basis of our co-existence in our community of
values. There is far too little awareness of these values because the personal connection is
missing. We need to establish this connection.
Table 2:
“EU Life”
We recommend that the EU establish its own educational and informative television
programme in order to strengthen awareness among all EU citizens of our common values and
ensure that there is easy, barrier-free access for all. These goals are important to us because we
wish to gain an insight into public opinion in all EU countries. In this way, we want to strengthen
common ground and help bring people together in order to promote more solidarity and train
people in the rule of law in order to safeguard democracy.
158
Citizens' panel to formulate recommendations for
the Conference on the Future of Europe, 11-12
March 2022
Summary Report
Rome, 16 March 2022
159
Table of Contents
Table of Contents...................................................................................................................... 160
1. Guiding Principles of the Panel Organisation Process ................................................... 161
2. Participants' Selection and Engagement Procedures ..................................................... 162
3. Panel Organisation ............................................................................................................ 165
4. The Work Agenda .............................................................................................................. 165
5. Recommendations Collected ............................................................................................ 167

A Stronger Economy, Social Justice, and Jobs .................................................................. 167
1. Overcoming the 20th Century Production Model .................................................................. 167
2. Generative and Inclusive Productive Regulations ................................................................ 168
3. Measuring Growth in People's Happiness and Not in the Quantity of Products .................... 168
4. Greater Integration Amongst States ..................................................................................... 169
5. Inclusion Policies ................................................................................................................. 169
6. Employment ......................................................................................................................... 171
Europe in the World ............................................................................................................ 172
1. Strengthening the European Identity .................................................................................... 172
2. Strengthening the Economy and Institutions ........................................................................ 173
3. Cooperation and Partnerships ............................................................................................. 174
4. Political and Cultural Reference Point .................................................................................. 175
6. Final Evaluation by Participants ......................................................................................... 16
160
1. Guiding Principles of the Panel Organisation Process
The whole process of panel implementation was designed to comply with the indications of the
Guidance for National Citizens’ Panels in the context of the Conference on the Future of Europe.
Specifically:
• Purpose:
All those invited to take part in the panel filled in a participation questionnaire indicating the
objectives and aims of the project, with specific references to the Conference on the Future
of Europe, the topics covered and the methods of engagement.
• Transparency:
All materials for the presentation of the initiative were made available to participants through
a variety of means, always referring to the official website of the Conference and emailing
the materials to all participants.
• Inclusiveness:
The invitation to participate was conveyed in a variety of ways, such as: an email invitation
to members of the SWG Community as well as the dissemination of links to fill in the
application form via Twitter and Linkedin. This generated a total of over 400 accesses to the
application form and 245 applications. The selection of participants (based on randomness)
was carried out in such a way as to ensure the presence of people of different genders, ages,
social backgrounds, places of residence and employment status.
• Representativeness:
Although the size of the sample is not representative in the statistical sense, the mechanism
for constructing the sample was designed to achieve maximum heterogeneity amongst the
participants in order to reproduce a microcosm of the target audience.
• Information:
All participants were provided with an extensive set of information about both the Conference
and the topics discussed during the panel. In the introductory section, the objectives and
modalities of the project were reiterated according to the principles of neutrality and
completeness. All participants were given the opportunity to ask for more information and
details about the event through the direct telephone numbers of SWG's project managers.
• Deliberation Groups:
The key objective of the entire process was the formulation of concrete recommendations
addressed to the European Union, broadly shared by the participants. The working approach
and the way the groups were led resulted in a process centred on the collection of
participants' indications, their elaboration and synthesis as well as their verification and
validation by the groups themselves through a subsequent working session.
• Timing:
A relaxed atmosphere was created during the working sessions, giving the participants plenty
of time to explore the issues on which they were asked to deliberate, express their opinions
and listen to those of others. For the same reason, it was decided to divide the two main
groups into two subgroups. The work was also spread over two days so as to allow a proper
sedimentation of the considerations that emerged.
161
• Follow up:
The last day of work saw all the panels engaged in a verification and validation process of
the first draft of the recommendations elaborated during the first phase of the work. Once the
report on the results had been delivered to the Department for European Policies of the
Presidency of the Council of Ministers, and the relevant authorisation had been received, the
final version of the recommendations was shared with all the panel participants. In all cases,
participants were invited to continue to follow the activities of the Conference through the
website and the updates that will be published.
• Integrity:
The entire work process was conducted in full autonomy by SWG, according to the
assignment received. The Department for European Policies of the Presidency of the Council
of Ministers was constantly informed about the different steps of the initiative and the results
that were being achieved.
• Privacy:
The privacy of participants was fully guaranteed. In order to be admitted to the panel, all
candidates had to sign the informed consent required by law.
• Assessment:
At the end of the process, a questionnaire was administered to all participants to evaluate
their experience, the results of which are summarised in this report.
2. Participants' Selection and Engagement Procedures
The Selection
The aim of the pre-event communication phase was to recruit at least 50 Italian citizens interested
in participating in the initiative.
To this end, a short self-application form was set up: a questionnaire to be filled in online on SWG's
proprietary platform, in which all those interested in participating in the initiative could apply by
indicating the minimum data necessary for their placement in the clusters from which participants
were randomly drawn. The necessary conditions for participation were the availability of an internet
connection, a device equipped with a microphone and video camera as well as the signing of the
Conference Charter.
The application form was disseminated through social networks from SWG's accounts. To this end,
6 posts were made on Twitter and 1 on Linkedin with the following results:
Access to the
Dates Number of views
Social network application link
Twitter 6 posts
889 31
between 8 and 10 March
1 post
410 25
Linkedin on 8 March
At the same time, members of the SWG Community were invited to apply, according to an invitation
strategy aimed at guaranteeing maximum representation of the Italian population, not only in terms
of socio-anagraphical characteristics, but also in terms of ideas, cultural orientations and values.
162
Applications were held between 8 a.m. on 8 March and 4 p.m. on 10 March 2022, resulting in a total
of 420 accesses to the application form and 225 completed applications.
A total of 140 people were actually eligible, from which 70 were selected according to a criterion
aimed at ensuring a balanced presence of subjects in terms of gender, geographical distribution,
age and educational qualifications.
In the candidate selection procedure, particular care was paid to operating according to a principle
of fair probability for selection amongst participants, with procedures based on a criterion of
conditional randomness.
The randomness of the draw was a central element of the project to ensure fairness in the access
process. However, in the spirit of the initiative, it seemed important to put in place a strategy not only
to involve the maximum number of subjects possible, but also to ensure maximum heterogeneity of
the selected subjects in order to promote maximum inclusiveness.
In summary, the distribution of those eligible to participate was as follows:
Dis tribution of eligible candidates
140
G ender L evel of E ducation A rea of R es idence
76 64 Low 11 North
L ower s econdary s chool diploma,
vocational s chool diploma North 26
E as t
39
W es t
C entre
A ge G roups
Medium 56 35
27 18-34 years Upper s econdary s chool diploma
96 35-64 years
High 73 S outh and
17 65-75 anni Bachelor's degree, Master's degree or higher 40

Is lands
T utti i diritti ris ervati 3
Once the 70 candidates had been drawn and, on the morning of the event, telephone calls were
made to those identified to confirm their participation. The recall was carried out by SWG's
proprietary CATI Contact Centre. Overall, at the end of this phase, 59 subjects were registered and
confirmed their participation. Of these, 55 took an active part in the panel.
The social and age composition of the panel was as follows:
163
Dis tribution of actual participants
55
G ender L evel of E ducation A rea of R es idence
26 29 Low 5 North
L ower s econdary s chool diploma,
vocational s chool diploma North
8
E as t
16
W es t
C entre
A ge G roups
Medium 24 12
8 18-34 years Upper s econdary s chool diploma
34 35-64 years
High 16 S outh and
13 65-75 years Bachelor's degree, Master's degree or higher 19

Is lands
At a glance, these are the results of the recruitment process:
The application proces s flow
420
225
140
70
55
164
Communication Materials
To ensure a high level of motivation and participation from the very first engagement, the following
materials were made available to all participants:
• The presentation sheets of the Conference on the Future of Europe and of the
national panels.
• The Future of Europe Conference Charter.
• The themes of the topics that would be discussed during the panels.
• The technical and organisational information required for participation.
3. Panel Organisation
In order to maximise the participation of people with work commitments, the panel was structured on
two consecutive half-days, including a public holiday, according to the following schedule:
• Friday 11 March from 4 p.m. to 8 p.m.
• Saturday 12 March from 10 a.m. to 12 p.m.
On the one hand, this decision was intended to facilitate workers' participation in the initiative and,
on the other hand, break up the commitment to participation by encouraging greater attention and
involvement, with also greater deliberation on the issues and proposals presented.
The panel participants accessed the two working sessions through the GoToMeeting platform and
were divided into 4 groups (two for each thematic area), led by a SWG moderator and with the
presence of a transcriber to take the minutes of the interventions. The moderators led the groups
through two different discussion tracks (one for each thematic area), aiming to involve all participants
as much as possible and ensuring an approach based on maximum inclusion and neutrality.
4. The Work Agenda
First Session (Friday 11 March 2022)

• 3:00 p.m.- Opening of the connection and opportunity for participants to connect to the
platform as well as check the functioning of their audio and video systems.
• 4.00 p.m. - Introduction by the Moderator: illustration of the reasons behind the initiative and
the structure of the work.
• 4:15 p.m.- Breakdown of participants into groups based on the preferences indicated in the
application phase.
• 4:20 p.m. - Start of group discussion.
• 8:00 p.m.- End of session.
165
Second Session (Saturday, 12 March 2022)
• 10.00 - Resumption of work with reading of the results of the first day's work.
• 10.15 - Continuation of the discussion, insights and comments from the participants.
• 12.00 - End of work.
166
5. Recommendations Collected
A Stronger Economy, Social Justice, and Jobs
1. Overcoming the 20th Century Production Model
The perception of the panel participants is that the latest world events (the Covid-19 pandemic and
the conflict between Russia and Ukraine) have forcefully shown the limits of the current European
productive model and have highlighted the need to revise an approach that many describe as being
''twentieth century''.
The evidence of Europe's dependence on energy and food purchased from countries outside of the
European Union, as well as the discovery (during the pandemic) that we are not able to produce the
quantity of medical devices and vaccines needed to combat the advance of the virus on our own,
have led to the perception of a fundamental weakness in our economic system linked to a lack of
self-sufficiency.
At the same time, there is a clear perception that a stronger economy, capable of creating jobs in a
context of social justice, must have strong assets in terms of technology. In order to do this, it is
essential to support an education system that is increasingly focused on STEM subjects.
Technological innovation, sustainable energy, but also tourism and culture appear to be three
fundamental directions for the development of the European economy of the future, with a specific
focus on maintaining basic production to avoid the risk of excessive dependence on non-EU
countries for the supply of essential products and raw materials.
RECOMMENDATIONS AT A GLANCE
1. Tackling climate change and alternative energies effectively.
2. Investing in an economy based on tourism and culture, including the many
small destinations in Europe.
3. Focusing on technology and innovation as drivers of growth.
4. Reducing dependence on other countries for raw materials, energy sources
and agriculture.
5. Encouraging young people to study science subjects.
167
2. Generative and Inclusive Productive Regulations
Overcoming the economic organisation of the twentieth century also requires a review of the rules
and procedures for regulating business activity. There are four recommendations in this direction,
which share a common logic: on the one hand, simplifying the rules and, on the other hand,
maintaining a high level of vigilance against misconduct (particularly with regard to counterfeiting
and unfair competition).
Great attention is paid to the need for economic rules to be generative first and foremost, reducing
as far as possible those choices that impose a standardisation of production processes (jeopardising
specific local products with deep cultural roots), but also the destruction of agricultural assets due to
the need to maintain predefined production quantities.
1. Reducing bureaucracy (permits, certifications).

2. Reducing the standardisation of products and recognising local and
regional cultural and production peculiarities (respect for production
traditions).
3. Overcoming the logic of "fixed quotas" in agricultural production, with the
relative destruction of excess produce.
4. Combating counterfeiting and unfair competition.
3. Measuring Growth in People's Happiness and Not in the Quantity of

Products
Overcoming the twentieth-century production model does not only mean changing production
methods, but also entering into a new culture in which growth indicators are not just centred on the
quantity of goods produced, but on the ability to ensure that citizens achieve a goal of happiness. In
the new economy, the key subject around which to judge impact and investment cannot be goods
but must be people. This implies the need to move from a system of indicators based on the quantity
of goods produced (GDP) to a system capable of measuring the well-being produced on people
(GDH - gross domestic happiness).
RECOMMENDATION AT A GLANCE
1. Developing an economy centred more on the production of happiness
(Gross Domestic Happiness) than on goods (Gross Domestic Product).
168
4. Greater Integration Amongst States
What is clear to everyone, even to those who are less satisfied with the current set-up and the results
achieved so far by the European Union, is that monetary union is not enough, and that Europe must
be able to move with increasing strength as a cohesive political entity, able to negotiate externally
with one voice and to act with greater solidarity internally. Greater union is a key aspect of increasing
the political, commercial and productive strength of the European Union: homogeneity of
fundamental laws as well as an integrated and cohesive system of taxation of businesses and
citizens, where wages and services to citizens are aligned. Only in this way will we have a Europe
capable of reducing social differences and promoting quality of life.
This means not moving backwards on the achievements of recent years and preserving the concept
of welfare, indicated by the participants in the panel as the most advanced in the world and the most
careful to guarantee equal opportunities and social justice to its citizens.
1. Do not compromise on welfare rights (public health, public education,
labour policies).
2. Consolidate what has been done in terms of the single currency and the
interconnection of payment systems and telecommunications.
Today, however, all that has been done in the past no longer seems sufficient, and the Europe of
the future needs to make a definitive leap forward in terms of integration amongst Member States,
according to an internal vision that is no longer based on competition, but on cooperation, which puts
every European citizen in a position to have the same systems of guarantees and opportunities in
all the Member States of the Union.
1. Overcoming the self-interest of individual States and the tendency to seek
individual advantages to the detriment of others.
2. Establishing a system that provides for the same laws, taxation systems,
rights and duties in all countries.
3. Coordinating tax regimes amongst the different States, especially
concerning companies (no free zones or low taxation).
4. Coherent prices of products and a guarantee of equal purchasing power
across the different States.
5. Reducing wage disparities across the different States and the geographical
regions within them.
6. Making the public debt of various Member States a common responsibility.
5. Inclusion Policies
169
A Europe that is fair and capable of offering happiness to its citizens is an inclusive Europe, which
always maintains a high level of attention to combating inequalities. The recommendations set a
course for achieving long-cherished goals (such as gender equality), and mark out new requirements
linked to the cultural transformations of contemporary societies (digital inequalities and the right to
live in a healthy environment).
1. Achieving full gender equality, including by strengthening paternal parental
leave and childcare facilities.
2. Tackling digital inequalities.
3. Ensuring that all European citizens can live in a healthy and sustainable
environment.
4. Ensuring the opportunity of social mobility and, therefore, to have a full
chance of self-realisation and self-determination.
5. Promoting generational change at all levels.
6. Managing the reception of refugees and migrants in a balanced way across
the different States.
Once again, the role of schools and educational policies appears to be central, not only to provide
young people with the skills they need to enter the labour market, but also to build a European
culture. After building a Europe of institutions, it is essential to build a Europe of peoples. From this
point of view, the centrality of a common language is emphasised to enable dialogue between
citizens of different countries and equal access to services. The dream of Esperanto having
collapsed, the UK's departure from the European Union has raised doubts about the possibility of
adopting English as a shared language, a key idiom in international relations as well as within the
scientific and economic system.
1. Promoting the adoption of a common language.
2. Investing in schools and the teaching the history of Europe rather than of
individual nations as well as political economy and civic education.
3. Access to culture, education and exchanges between students and citizens
of the different Member States
170
Inclusion policies have an essential component in guaranteeing access to opportunities for citizens.
The participants in the panel, from this point of view, underlined how Italy has often been unable to
use the European funds made available for this purpose. Inclusion and accessibility mean that
European institutions are closer to their citizens, and more information and awareness about the
rights that European citizens have as such. From this point of view, the importance of a direct
relationship between the Union's institutions and citizens emerged, without necessarily being
mediated by the Member States.
1. Promoting the use of European funds for reducing inequalities.
2. Accessibility and proximity of European institutions to citizens.
3. Encouraging direct access by citizens as well as communicating their
rights and opportunities clearly.
6. Employment
Il The issue of employment consistently emerged as a cross-cutting element and a direct effect of
the European Union's ability to follow through on its recommendations. In the debate amongst
participants, it was clear that the issue of employment was central to people's lives, but that it could
not be pursued without strengthening economic and social justice issues. The strong expectation is
for a European Union in which active labour policies remain central and increasingly coordinated.
1. Promoting exchanges between workers in Europe through a European Job
Centre.
2. Having integrated employment policies at an EU level.
3. Providing incentives for companies that offer employment.
171
Europe in the World
Recent international events and, particularly, the war between Russia and Ukraine, have had a
profound impact on the perception of the role that Europe should play internationally.
The recommendations collected essentially focused on an axis that aims to strengthen the Union
(both in terms of identity and as an economic force) and position it as a model of reference and
stimulus in its relations with other countries.
Strengthening Strengthening the Cooperation Political and

the European Economy and and Partnerships Cultural
1. Strengthening the European Identity
In order to be recognised outside of its borders, the European Union must first of all be internally
cohesive, not only economically and financially, but also in terms of identity and values. An identity
that is not created through homologation, but through the enhancement of local specificities within a
framework of shared essential values.
In this respect, there is also a consideration of a potential enlargement of the Union's perimeter
which, according to some of the panel participants, should not be done in an indiscriminate manner,
but instead focus on mutual cultural and value recognition rather than on economic standards.
1. Enhancement of European values, cultural traits as well as regional
specificities.
2. Creation of an institute for European culture to foster a culture of respect
and cross-fertilisation between citizens of different States.
3. Redefinition of the principles of belonging for new candidate countries, with
a strengthening of factors such as cultural identity and values.
172
2. Strengthening the Economy and Institutions
The Europe of the future is called upon to play a leading role at international level, and this role can
only be taken on when the Union is strong and independent of other countries. There is widespread
awareness that the countries of the Union are poor in raw materials, but it seems essential that the
Union should be able to guarantee greater independence in terms of energy supplies, agriculture
and technological products.
This requires precise investments to catch up in areas such as technology (where the European
Union does not currently seem to have a leading role), but also in the food and energy sectors.
The war between Russia and Ukraine has also brought back to the centre of the debate the
importance of an integrated European defence policy, with a specific identity and greater autonomy
with respect to NATO, whose membership is not in question.
Finally, it entails precise choices for the future, with a strong investment in science and research to
increase the skills of young Europeans.
1. Strengthening domestic production capacity: food chain (especially wheat)
and technology (microchips).
2. Enhancing typical regional and European products.
3. Strengthening European industrial clusters (e.g. steel).
4. Strengthening local energy production from a green perspective (gas,
solar, wind).
5. Developing aerospace technologies.
6. Creating European scientific laboratories (European Virus Bank).
7. Creating a common European Army acting within the framework of NATO,
but also helping to go beyond it.
8. Investing in the training of trainers (European exchanges for teachers,
Erasmus for teachers).
9. Increasing the mobility of European researchers by developing new
Community scientific institutions.
10. Promoting the emergence of innovative start-ups.
173
3. Cooperation and Partnerships
The Europe of the future is not seen as a fortress defending its wealth, but as a protagonist on the
international stage which is capable of dialogue with all the countries of the world. A dialogue that
starts from a commercial power and should aim at economic leadership, which can be consolidated
through the building of partnerships and projects of great international scope.
All this with a view to cooperation and attention to less secure areas of the world, with ad hoc projects
to promote the poorest countries, as well as cultural and economic exchange with the countries of
the East.
Specific attention is also paid to the issue of migration, with greater coordination across the different
states and using shared procedures for managing requests and people.
1. Boosting exports.
2. Promoting transnational European tourist routes.
3. Developing a commercial system of negotiations at a European level (not
as individual States or companies, but as a Union) to have greater
bargaining power, but with also constraints linked to the respect of human
rights.
4. Carrying out major international projects such as the International Space
Station.
5. Financing projects in Africa to build schools and hospitals without a
colonial attitude and instead aiming at respect for European rights and
values.
6. Investing in on-site training (especially for women) in the poorest countries.
7. Promoting exchanges of technicians and trainers.
8. Building a system of common rules for the access of migrants, with
different processes between humanitarian and economic migrations and
fair distribution across the different States with common rules (census and
control of behaviour and employment).
174
4. Political and Cultural Reference Point
In the scenario outlined above, Europe is called upon to represent a clear political and cultural
reference point at world level from the point of view of rights and ethics, setting an example by making
decisions aimed at guaranteeing a healthy environment, respect for people's rights and dialogue
between East and West.
1. Leading the way as a green continent, achieving zero emissions before
others and increasing clean energy production (wind and solar).
2. Exporting technologies to produce zero-impact goods.
3. Acting as a confluence (a public place, an agora) between East and West,
promoting cultural exchanges and joint cultural initiatives (such as the
World Art Days, to be held in rotation in the various European capitals and
with an artistic programme that includes Western and Eastern artists).
4. Creating a European ethical model to manage migration processes which
is to be shared internationally.
6. Final Evaluation by Participants

At the end of the two days of work, all participants were invited to fill in a short questionnaire to evaluate
their experience. The evaluation questionnaire was sent out two days after the end of the panel to
give all participants time to digest the experience and give balanced feedback.
The results collected show a particularly high level of satisfaction, both in terms of interest and from
the point of view of ease of participation and the perception of listening and inclusion.
175
SATISFACTION FOR PARTICIPATING IN THE PANEL
Overall satisfaction with the experience 9,5
Quality of participants' contributions 9,0

Coherence between the recommendations produced and
the debate
9,1
User-friendliness of the platform 9,3
Respect for the pluralism of opinions 9,6
Ability of the moderators to give the floor and listen to
participants' interventions
9,7
Interest in the topics discussed 9,8
Although starting from different experiences, skills and motivations, the participants felt strongly
involved: 98% of the respondents to the evaluation questionnaire felt that they had participated
actively and made a positive contribution to the debate.
In general, there was a very strong perception of the usefulness of this experience, which was
perceived above all as an opportunity for active participation and produced a sense of greater
closeness to the Community institutions. This led to almost all the respondents to ask for this type of
initiative to be repeated over time.
ASSESSMENT OF THE RELEVANCE OF THE "ITALIAN PANEL FOR THE CONFERENCE ON

THE FUTURE OF EUROPE"
It should be scheduled more often 86 10 2 2
It is useful to bring the voice of citizens to the

81 15 2
European Institutions
It can contribute positively to improving the

68 27 2
future of Europe
It brings the European institutions closer to

68 25 5 2
the citizens
It was a waste of time 5 2 10 83
Strongly agree Somewhat agree Neither agree nor disagree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree
All participants indicated that if such an initiative were to be organised again, they would not only
participate willingly, but also recommend their friends to participate.
176
Lithuanian Citizens’ Panel on the Future of Europe
Report
This report is divided into four parts. The first briefly presents how the event was organised. The
second sets out the recommendations for EU and Lithuanian national policies formulated by the
Citizens’ Panel participants. The third provides a brief analysis of the groups’ discussions and the
main outcomes of the panel. The fourth compares the outcomes of the Citizens’ Panel with the
results of surveys of Lithuanian citizens on the state and future of Europe.
1. Organisation of the National Citizens’ Panel

Following the Conference on the Future of Europe guidance for organising National Citizens’ Panels,
in December 2021, the Lithuanian branch of research agency Kantar TNS, on behalf of the Ministry
of Foreign Affairs, developed a methodology for the random, stratified and representative selection
of Lithuanian citizens, on the basis of which Kantar TNS selected 25 Lithuanian citizens aged
between 18 and 65, representing different socio-economic groups and all the geographic regions of
Lithuania 3.
On 4 January, the selected citizens were invited to a virtual opening session, during which the idea
behind the National Citizens’ Panel was presented and the topics most relevant to the future of
Europe were discussed. After the event, the participants received a document describing the issues
discussed in more detail and providing sources of information.
On 15 January, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs hosted the National Citizens’ Panel on the Future of
Europe. The event was organised by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Eastern European Studies
Centre (EESC) and Kantar TNS research agency. The 25 selected citizens participated in person.
The panel participants discussed two EU policy issues: what the EU’s role and powers in foreign
policy should be, and what its economic role should be. During the event, a separate session was
dedicated to each of these topics, at the beginning of which EU policy experts Linas Kojala (EESC)
and Prof. Ramūnas Vilpišauskas (University of Vilnius) briefly familiarised the citizens with
information and issues relevant to the subject of the session. The citizens could ask questions and
share their views. After the introduction from the expert, the participants were divided into three
smaller groups that each formed a representative sample, and each group had to consider a different
question related to the topic of the session. In the session on foreign policy, the following questions
were discussed:
1.1. Is there a need for an autonomous EU defence and foreign policy?
1.2. What sort of relationship should the EU have with its neighbours in Eastern Europe,
with North Africa and with Turkey?
1.3. What kind of migration policy should the EU have?
In the session on the economic role of the EU, the following questions were addressed:
2.1. Is there a need for greater redistribution of funds under the EU budget, and for
common EU borrowing?
2.2. Should social standards be regulated at EU level?
2.3. How can the EU’s economy be strengthened?
3 Citizens representing the cities of Vilnius, Kaunas, Klaipėda, Šiauliai and Panevėžys and the counties of Vilnius,
Kaunas, Klaipėda, Šiauliai, Panevėžys, Alytus, Marijampolė, Tauragė, Telšiai and Utena were selected, according to data
from the Lithuanian Department of Statistics.
177
At the end of the session, each group had to formulate the main conclusions of their discussion, in
the form of statements of principle or more concrete proposals regarding current EU policy issues.
Then, during the general discussion, a representative from each group presented those conclusions
to the other panel participants, and the participants from the other groups could ask questions and
offer suggestions to complement the proposals. After the presentations and discussions, the citizens
voted individually in favour of two conclusions: the proposal or statement that was most important
for strengthening Lithuania’s role in the EU and for the success of the EU itself across Europe; and
the statement or proposal that seemed most important for the personal well-being of the participant
as a resident of the EU. The vote was followed by a discussion summarising the main ideas raised
during the National Citizens’ Panel.
In the week following the event, the experts examined the content of the discussions and refined the
ideas put forward by citizens. On 25 January, a virtual summary session was held during which
citizens were presented with the recommendations that had emerged from the content of their
discussions. The citizens had the opportunity to state whether they supported the recommendations,
to supplement their content and to rank them. This opportunity was open to all participants for one
week after the summary session, during which they could send their views and comments in writing
to the panel organisers.
2. Outcomes of the National Citizens’ Panel

This part of the report presents the outcomes of the National Citizens’ Panel, i.e. the
recommendations and statements formulated by the working groups on the role of the EU in foreign
policy and the economy.
First session: The EU’s role and powers in foreign policy
1. We invite the EU to develop a more effective policy towards China. Stronger support for
Lithuania is needed, but Lithuania should also better align its position with its EU partners.
In order to ensure a more effective alignment of interests within the EU and a unified policy
on China, as well as on other foreign policy issues, we recommend that consideration be
given to the possibility of creating an EU Minister for Foreign Affairs.
2. We recommend returning, at EU level, to the question of establishing a quota system for
migrants.
3. We recommend that a commission dedicated to dealing with migration challenges be set up
at EU level, to ensure a quicker response to migration crises, to guarantee Member States’
right to explain and defend their national interests, and to draw up and implement common
guidelines for migration management.
4. We recommend strengthening economic and humanitarian ties with North African countries,
keeping their political situations in mind, in particular with a view to reducing the influence of
China, Russia and other countries on the region.
5. We recommend strengthening ties with Eastern Europe, promoting economic measures
that reach individuals.
6. We call for EU sanctions against foreign entities to be stricter, more targeted and to include
key individuals from the sanctioned state (e.g. political leaders).
7. We call for the EU’s common foreign and security policy to be based on the fundamental
principle of solidarity between different EU Member States, European regions and societies.
8. We recommend that the EU review its hitherto open migration policy, which is causing
security problems, driving up crime and creating closed communities within society.
9. We invite Lithuania to speak up more actively on migration policy issues and initiate
discussions about migration challenges.
10. We recommend that the EU pursue an active and rigorous policy towards states that use
migratory flows as a tool for hybrid attacks, by unanimously applying stricter sanctions while
also talking to them with a view to de-escalating the situation.
178
Second session: The economic role of the EU
1. We recommend that the EU take various measures to enhance the security of supply of
important goods: prioritising intra-EU trade, promoting the manufacture of high-tech products
and further diversifying import sources. We also recommend continuing to look for new export
markets.
2. We recommend reviewing the approach to natural gas contracts, to pursue both long- and
short-term contracts. We recommend further diversifying energy supply sources.
3. We recommend assessing the measures of the European Green Deal and their
implementation, taking into account possible negative socio-economic consequences. In
working towards the objectives of the Green Deal, we recommend using energy from nuclear
and natural gas in addition to renewable energy sources.
4. We stress that it is essential for all Member States to respect the primacy of EU law. We call
for Lithuania to take a clear and principled position in this regard.
5. We recommend that Lithuania make greater use of best practices in EU countries, to achieve
its goals of higher social standards, business development and balanced and sustainable
development.
6. We recommend that greater emphasis be placed on enhancing cybersecurity, including data
infrastructure protection.
7. We recommend that the EU and its Member States prioritise the promotion of economic
literacy among citizens, education and the dissemination of information.
8. We recommend that new EU trade agreements include ambitious social, labour and health
standards. We recommend setting guidelines at EU level as to what social media platforms
are required to do and what they may not do in their management of user information and
personal data.
9. We recommend that further consideration be given to common borrowing at EU level, with a
view to creating more favourable borrowing conditions. We also recommend developing
financially sustainable and responsible policies that reduce Member States’ need to borrow.
10. We recommend strengthening oversight of the absorption and use of EU funds, starting
with municipalities, and consolidating the current practice of adjusting the use of funds.
Since the objective circumstances of the beneficiaries of EU funding can change, it is very
important to balance the need for transparency with the need for flexibility.
11. We recommend that Lithuania continue to actively promote business development and
investment in its regions.
3. Analysis of the discussions and outcomes of the National

Citizens’ Panel
Participants in the National Citizens’ Panel considered the most important issues currently relevant
to Lithuania (ones which are widely debated in national politics and the media) and their possible
solutions. The vote on the panel’s most important conclusions showed that almost 45 % of the total
votes in both sessions were given to proposals on two topics: relations with China and management
of migration flows (see table below). The issue of energy policy also received a great deal of
attention: although there was only one proposal on this subject, it received almost 10 % of all the
participants’ votes. These voting results suggest that citizens’ perception of the future of Europe may
be determined by existing (national) political problems and current affairs.
179
Recommendation Votes
First session: The EU’s role and powers in foreign policy
1. We invite the EU to develop a more effective policy towards China. 11 (22.9 %)
The support Lithuania is currently receiving is insufficient, but Lithuania
has also not sufficiently aligned its position with its EU partners. In 8 important for
order to ensure a more effective alignment of interests within the EU Europe as a whole,
and a unified policy on China, as well as on other foreign policy issues, 3 personally
we recommend that consideration be given to the possibility of creating
an EU Minister for Foreign Affairs.
2. We recommend returning, at EU level, to the question of establishing a 9 (18.8 %)
quota system for migrants.
9 important for
Europe as a whole
3. We recommend that a commission dedicated to dealing with migration 7 (14.6 %)
challenges be set up at EU level, to ensure a quicker response to
migration crises, to guarantee Member States’ right to explain and 3 important for
defend their national interests, and to develop and implement common Europe as a whole,
guidelines for management of migrants. 4 personally
4. We recommend strengthening economic and humanitarian ties with 6 (12.5 %)
North African countries, keeping their political situations in mind, in
particular with a view to reducing the influence of China, Russia and 6 important
other countries on the region. personally
5. We recommend strengthening ties with Eastern Europe, taking 5 (10.4 %)
economic measures that reach individuals.
5 important
personally
Second session: The economic role of the EU
1. We recommend that the EU take a range of steps to enhance the 9 (19.6 %)
security of supply of important goods: prioritising intra-EU trade,
promoting the manufacture of high-tech products within the EU and 3 important for
further diversifying import sources. We also recommend exploring new Europe as a whole,
export markets. 6 personally
2. We recommend reviewing the approach to natural gas contracts, to 9 (19.6 %)
pursue both long- and short-term contracts. We recommend further
diversifying energy supply sources. 9 important for
Europe as a whole
3. We recommend assessing the measures of the European Green Deal 6 (13 %)
and their implementation, taking into account possible negative socio-
economic consequences. In working towards the objectives of the 6 important
Green Deal, we recommend using energy from nuclear and natural personally
gas in addition to renewable energy sources.
4. We stress that it is important for all Member States to respect the 4 (8.7 %)
primacy of EU law. We call for Lithuania to take a clear and principled
position in this regard. 2 important for
Europe as a whole,
2 personally
Moreover, the issues that matter most to citizens – relations with China, migration and energy – are
not of an ad hoc nature: how they are resolved will have a big impact on Europe’s long-term future.
Accordingly, the fact that current affairs are likely to be at the forefront of citizens’ minds when they
think about the future is not problematic. As the future is built in many small steps starting today,
understanding citizens’ basic expectations in the short term is a prerequisite for being able to
manage long-term processes and solve problems in a sustainable way. This reasoning underpins
the below analysis of the main outcomes of the National Citizens’ Panel.
180
The highest total number of votes (11, or close to 12 %) went to the statement that the EU needs a
more effective policy towards China. This overall conclusion encompassed a number of more
specific statements. Firstly, participants stressed that the EU support provided thus far to Lithuania
in the face of economic pressure from China had been insufficient. Secondly, the representatives of
the group that delivered the conclusion stressed that Lithuania also needed to step up its
coordination of its policy towards China with its EU partners, especially because trade with China
remained important for the EU as a whole. Thirdly, citizens put forward the idea that establishing the
post of an EU Minister for Foreign Affairs could help to coordinate positions and shape common
policies on China and other issues more effectively. Eight participants identified this conclusion as
particularly important for Europe as a whole and three as important for themselves personally.
The issue of relations with China is closely linked to two other proposals that received a high number
of citizens’ votes. Nine participants voted in favour of the conclusion drawn during the second
session that the EU needs to strengthen security of supply (three participants indicated that this
was of great importance for Europe as a whole and six others that it was personally important for
them). This conclusion, too, encompassed several facets. Firstly, citizens stressed the need to
prioritise EU markets, which were characterised by reliable suppliers and higher product standards.
Secondly, participants stressed the need to promote high-tech production capacities within Europe
itself. Thirdly, citizens were in favour of further diversifying import sources. In formulating these
recommendations, those taking part in the discussion continually referred to China as a factor:
security threats associated with Chinese products, dependence on the supply of raw materials from
China for manufacturing high-tech products, and China’s practice of copying or stealing technologies
from Western companies operating in its market. A further six votes (‘personally important’) went to
the proposal to develop the EU’s economic and humanitarian cooperation with North African
countries, because it was important to reduce the influence of China, as well as Russia and other
unfriendly states, in those countries.
The results of the voting also revealed citizens’ concerns about migration issues. In the area of
foreign policy, two of the three conclusions that received the most votes centred on migration. Nine
participants voted in favour of the proposal that the EU should revisit the possibility of setting up
a system of compulsory migrant quotas for Member States (they all stressed the particular
importance of this proposal for the whole of Europe). The participants who formulated the conclusion
were in favour of basing national quotas on population and allocating EU co-financing to provide for
the migrants distributed according to the quotas. A further seven participants voted in favour of the
proposal to set up a permanent functional commission at EU level to address migration issues,
to which representatives of the Member States would be delegated (three considered the
proposal of particular importance for Europe as a whole and four personally important for them).
Participants stressed that such an body could speed up the EU’s response to migration crises, while
ensuring an appropriate balance between respect for common EU principles and the right of Member
States to defend their national interests and security.
During their discussions on migration policy, participants discussed two different crises in the
management of migration flows: the 2016 Mediterranean migration crisis and the 2021 Belarusian
hybrid attack on Lithuania, Latvia and Poland, when Minsk exploited flows of migrants from the
Middle East and Africa. A number of panel participants said that the 2016 crisis had seemed distant
and irrelevant, both for them and for Lithuania as a whole, and that the proposal first put forward at
that time to set up a migrant quota system had not seemed appropriate. According to the participants,
the experience of a hybrid attack had brought migration in Eastern Europe into focus and led to a
fresh assessment of quotas as an appropriate, effective and solidarity-based migration policy
instrument. Several participants stressed that when confronted with the 2021 crisis it became difficult
to distinguish between refugees, migrants and persons posing security threats entering the country’s
territory. All participants in the debate agreed that the current ‘open’ EU migration policy did not
sufficiently take into account the threats posed by migration, the national interests of the Member
States, the capacity to integrate migrants, etc. The citizens also criticised the EU for its slow or
negative response to Lithuania’s needs, including its refusal to finance the construction of a barrier
at the external border.
181
In conclusion, the two most prominent policy issues for Lithuania in 2021 – relations with China and
the management of migration flows – are prompting Lithuanian citizens to demand greater EU
involvement and more effective common policy. Citizens are concerned about China’s policy and its
growing influence in Europe and the EU’s neighbourhood. It must be acknowledged that China’s
economic influence compels Europe to seek appropriate balanced policy measures. The main
solution, according to the citizens, is to strengthen common EU foreign policy instruments, industrial
policy and cooperation with neighbours. Similarly, citizens identified united action at EU level,
including a possible new quota system for migrants, as probably the most appropriate way to avoid
the security threats posed by migration and to manage migration flows to Europe quickly and
effectively. The participants in the Citizen’s Panel took the view that a stronger and more closely
coordinated common EU policy would be the best response to the increasing pressure from China
and the hybrid attack by Belarus.
The panel participants’ views on these crises can be compared with their proposals on energy and
climate policy issues. At the end of 2021, many Lithuanian citizens were directly confronted with the
challenge of rising heating costs, and the energy price crisis quickly became one of Lithuania’s most
important current issues. Concerns about energy prices were also reflected in how the panel
participants voted: nine citizens even voted in favour of the conclusion that this was the most
important topic for Europe as a whole. The participants’ main recommendation was to review
Member States’ current practices in concluding energy supply contracts with different
suppliers with a view to concluding both long-term and short-term contracts. In other words,
citizens supported a policy of energy diversification, but did not make any recommendations for a
common EU policy and did not recommend further integration of energy policy.
As regards climate policy, citizens recommended evaluating the measures of the European
Green Deal in terms of their expected socio-economic impact and ambition. Six participants
voted in favour of that proposal, all of them classing it as personally important. Some participants
worried that the ‘green transition’ was being carried out too quickly and argued that Lithuania needed
to assess more carefully whether such policies might be detrimental to the needs of the country and
its citizens. The need to use nuclear energy and natural gas alongside renewable energy sources
was also raised by several participants. In support of their position, they referred to Germany’s
decision to continue using natural gas and tap the potential of the new generation of so-called
modular nuclear power plants. In their discussions of climate policy, the panel participants thus
prioritised Member States’ policies designed to meet national needs, rather than an ambitious
common EU climate governance policy.
Given the relatively small number of participants in the panel and the citizens’ different responses
(more united action or more flexibility) to different types of crises, it would not be appropriate here to
consider generalised and more widely applied measures. However, this trend in opinions may yield
interesting topics for further research into the attitudes of Lithuanian citizens to EU integration issues,
which should take into account changes and differences in citizens’ attitudes towards autonomous
EU policies and institutional measures.
182
4. Outcomes of the Citizens’ Panel in the broader context of
Lithuanian public opinion
To put the outcomes of the National Citizen’s Panel in context, this last section of the report
compares them briefly with the results of two relevant public opinion polls and the interim results of
other preparatory activities for the Conference on the Future of Europe. The first opinion poll
examined in this part of the report is a survey of citizens carried out by Eurobarometer in October
and November 2020 on the Conference on the Future of Europe. The second is the most recent
Standard Eurobarometer survey, conducted in summer 2021. As parts of these surveys focused on
other policy matters and on citizens’ expectations of the conference itself, the following comparisons
are made in respect of the topical issues covered by the panel. The analysis of the preparatory
activities for the Conference on the Future of Europe is based on an initial report on those activities
by the EESC, which sets out the views of the participating citizens on a wide range of EU policy
issues.
The results of the Eurobarometer surveys suggest that the discussions and voting patterns of the
Citizens’ Panel participants are a fair reflection of the views prevailing in Lithuanian society. The
panel participants’ recommendations to strengthen common foreign and migration policy and some
decision-making at EU level are in line with the wider public opinion polls:
- Lithuanian citizens are more supportive of a common EU defence policy than the EU average
(90 % and 78 %, respectively);
- Lithuanian citizens are more supportive of a common EU migration policy than the EU
average (76 % and 71 %; a possible margin of error should be indicated with this difference);
- Lithuanian citizens see migration as one of the two main challenges for the EU;
- Lithuanian citizens are more favourable to solutions at EU level (49 % as compared to 42 %).
Lithuanian citizens who participated in the preparatory events for the Conference on the Future of
Europe also highlighted the importance of defence cooperation, common EU migration policy and
EU foreign policy as areas in which Lithuania would be interested in seeing greater EU involvement.
The data from the Eurobarometer surveys may explain the panel participants’ views on relations with
China and energy prices: Lithuanians were more concerned than the EU average about deteriorating
relations between the world’s countries and the resulting geopolitical tensions (33 % as compared
to 18 %). The panel participants’ conclusions on the need to develop a more ambitious common
policy towards China are in line with both these findings and the abovementioned support for
decision-making at EU level and for a common EU defence policy. On the other hand, the panel
participants’ concerns about finding various solutions to reduce energy prices may be linked to the
fact that Lithuanians are much more concerned than the EU average about rising inflation and rising
prices (53 % and 23 %). Sensitivity to rising inflation makes containing price increases seem more
important than developing common EU policies or other policy objectives.
The Eurobarometer data also reveal an interesting change in Lithuanian citizens’ attitudes towards
migration as a political problem. In the 2020 survey, fewer Lithuanians than the EU average identified
migration as the most important challenge for the future of the EU (16 % versus 27 %); but in the
2021 survey, the proportion of Lithuanian respondents identifying migration as the main problem for
the EU had increased to 32 % (EU average: 25 %). While such a shift in opinion may be attributable
to differences in the wording of the question, it is also in line with the insights that the participants in
the Citizens’ Panel discussions shared into how their views on migration issues had developed.
183
In addition, a comparison of the outcomes of the Citizens’ Panel and data from the Eurobarometer
survey reveals a difference between the rather cautious attitude of the panel participants to EU
climate policy and the concerns of Lithuanian citizens about climate change. While the panel
participants called for an assessment of whether the European Green Deal is too ambitious and
could harm Lithuania’s interests, Lithuanians have consistently cited climate change as one of the
most important challenges for the EU, according to the Eurobarometer surveys. In the 2020 survey,
47 % of Lithuanian respondents named the climate as the main global challenge for the future of the
EU (EU average: 45 %); in the 2021 survey the figure was 28 % of Lithuanian respondents (EU
average: 25 %). It should be stressed that citizens who participated in the other preparatory events
for the Conference on the Future of Europe also referred to climate policy as one of the areas where
Lithuania should be most interested in greater EU involvement. This difference may well be
explained by the panel participants’ motivation for voting: all those who voted for the
recommendation to re-examine the European Green Deal measures indicated that the topic was
important to them personally. This means that personal opposition may not be incompatible with the
view that climate change is one of the most important policy challenges facing the EU.
184
Our vision of Europe
Opinions, ideas and recommendations
Topics
Values and rights, rule of law, security
A stronger economy, social justice and jobs
European democracy
Digital transformation
Education, culture, youth and sport
3 December 2021
This document is a translation of the report entitled ‘Onze kijk op Europa; meningen, ideeën en aanbevelingen’,
the Dutch-language version of which was published on 3 December 2021 at www.kijkopeuropa.nl. This
translation is a simplified version in which the original layout (illustrations and other stylistic elements) has been
removed for translation purposes.
185
Our vision of ...
Report summary: all recommendations one by one
Through the citizens’ dialogue ‘Visions of Europe’, we have gathered the opinions and ideas of Dutch citizens on
the future of Europe. This has led to the following recommendations being made to the European Union on the
first five topics.

It is important that the EU protects the rule of law. At the same time, Dutch citizens think that account should be
taken of the different traditions and cultures within Europe. While cooperation within the EU can have a number
of different benefits, it should bring added value for all stakeholders. This also applies to the sharing of security
information. Sharing everything with everyone would soon make cooperation rather inefficient..
Ensure that everyone can feel free and safe

Enlarge the EU only if it brings added value
Work together, in particular to combat international crime and terrorism

The Dutch see many opportunities for strengthening Europe’s economy. However, it is not always possible to
compare one country with another. In particular, the tax system should be fairer and clearer. And we, as Europe,
should focus more on our strengths, such as quality and diversity. In that context, EU member states can work
together to ensure equal opportunities on the European labour market.
1. Take account of similarities and differences

2. Play to Europe’s strengths
3. Develop a tax system that is fair and clear
4. Ensure that no-one is left behind
European democracy
While the Dutch do not need to know every single thing about the EU, they do want more transparency and
understanding. For example, the perspectives of other EU member states can help paint a broader picture. In
addition, the Dutch believe that the EU should engage in dialogue with citizens more often, and then preferably
on an ongoing basis. It is important not only to take account of different interests, but also to ensure that
decisions are taken more quickly than at present.
1. Provide a broader perspective on Europe

2. Find new and ongoing ways in which to listen to citizens
3. Be clearer and more transparent about decisions
4. Ensure that problems can be resolved more quickly
Society is becoming increasingly dependent on the internet, and Big Tech is becoming more and more powerful.
This is sometimes a source of concern for Dutch people. It would therefore be helpful if the EU could draw up
European (privacy) rules and standards. Those rules and standards should then be comprehensible and workable
for everyone. Dutch people prefer to get support and information from their national government, in their own
language.
186
1. Ensure a fast, secure and stable internet connection everywhere
2. Lay down clear rules and standards for internet companies
3. Combine privacy rules with practical implementation and explanation

Young people studying abroad could learn more about their host country than they do at present. And countries
with lower levels of knowledge should not let all their talent go abroad in a brain drain. Dutch people see topics
such as culture and unethical practices in sport as a matter more for the member states themselves. And they
place a high value on citizens being able to communicate in their own national languages. In general, and above
all else, everyone in Europe should feel free to be themselves.
1. Do encourage students to study abroad but go about it sensibly

2. Leave matters such as culture and sport primarily to the member states
3. Ensure that Europeans get to know and respect one another better
187
Introduction
Between 1 September and mid-November, the citizens’ dialogue ‘Visions of Europe’ enabled all Dutch people to
share their opinions and ideas on the future of Europe. The Netherlands is putting the recommendations that
came out of this dialogue, together with the opinions and ideas gathered, to the European Union (EU). This
report focuses on the first five topics. The other four topics will be addressed in a follow-up report at the
beginning of 2022.
About ‘Visions of Europe’

The EU wants to know what its inhabitants think about Europe. The EU is therefore organising the Conference on
the Future of Europe. The opinions and ideas of inhabitants throughout the EU will eventually feed into the
future plans for Europe. As part of that Conference, the Netherlands is organising the national citizens’ dialogue
‘Visions of Europe’.
‘Visions of Europe’ was launched on 1 September with the online gathering of opinions and ideas by means of a
survey involving a representative panel. In order to gain a deeper understanding of the initial insights gained
from the panel survey and formulate specific recommendations, we organised topic-based dialogues online. The
dialogues were open to anyone who wanted to get involved. We also criss-crossed the country to talk to young
people and other (harder-to-reach) groups.
From schoolgoers, students in senior secondary vocational education (MBO) and university students to
farmers, migrants and the Minister himself.
In October and November, a total of eight online topic-based dialogues took place with an average of
30 participants at each meeting. We also organised one online topic-based dialogue and seven on-site topic-
based dialogues with various groups of Dutch people. For example, we talked to the Turkish community in
Schiedam and were hosted by volunteers from the Piëzo Foundation in Zoetermeer. There, we were also joined
by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Knapen. The Minister discussed the dialogue and the opinions on the
future of Europe with the participants. Finally, we organised six meetings with various groups of young people.
For example, we were hosted by a secondary school in Helmond, an MBO institute in Doetinchem and the
University of Leiden.
‘I’m always happy to speak my mind at the water cooler. That’s why I felt I had to get
involved in this.’
Participant in a topic-based dialogue
About this report

Based on the opinions and ideas we have gathered over the past few months, the EU has been presented with
recommendations from Dutch people. The conversations which took place between Dutch people gave rise to
interesting discussions and innovative ideas. Suggestions were also made through the panel survey and open
research. Some of those ideas are included in this report. The content of this report thus reflects the voice of the
Netherlands: our vision of Europe.
Of course, just as there are differences between European countries and citizens, we in the Netherlands do not
always see eye to eye with one another. But it is precisely those differences that are worth so much and an
important feature of a democracy. The recommendations stem from the most prevalent opinions and ideas
voiced by participants in ‘Visions of Europe’. We also describe the concerns, thoughts and feelings which are less
common, but struck us during the dialogues and in the online research.
188
‘It was great to be able to discuss things with people with opposing views (for and against)
in small groups. Very different from the way in which things are often discussed on social
media.’
Nine topics have been identified for the Conference on the Future of Europe. Those topics are also at the heart
of the Dutch citizens’ dialogue ‘Visions of Europe’. In October, we published an interim report containing initial
insights and follow-up questions based on the panel survey. In the second report, we describe the opinions,
ideas and recommendations on the first five topics for the Conference Plenary in December. The next report,
covering the remaining four topics, will be published in mid-January.
Current report - December 2021

European democracy
Next report - January 2022

Climate change and environment
Migration
Health
EU in the world
What happens next?

The Conference on the Future of Europe brings together the ideas, opinions and recommendations of all the
EU’s inhabitants. The meetings will discuss not only the results of all the national citizens’ dialogues, but also the
outcome of other initiatives from the Conference. For example, there are also European Citizens’ Panels, and all
EU citizens (including Dutch citizens) can access a European Digital Platform.
‘It’s good that the EU is taking this initiative. I also hope that something will actually be
done with the results.’
The Conference will close in the spring of 2022. The Netherlands will then draw up a final report on the citizens’
dialogue: a compilation of this report and the next report (covering the remaining topics). The Conference will
produce recommendations for its Presidency: the Presidents of the European Parliament, the Council of
Ministers and the European Commission. They have committed to explore ways in which to follow up on the
recommendations. For the Netherlands Government, the results also constitute a valuable contribution in terms
of shaping the country’s EU policy.
The process in the run-up to the spring of 2022 can be summarised as follows:
189
Timeline
Visions of Europe
1 12 Oct 22/23 Oct 15 Nov 17/18 Dec 21/22 Jan 22/24 Apr
Sept
Gathering ideas online
Topic-based dialogues
Interim results (interim Interim report on Interim report on ‘Our vision of

report) the topics of the topics of Europe’ final
economy and climate and EU in report
democracy the world
↓ ↓ ↓ ↓
Conference meeting Conference Conference End of → Recommendations

meeting meeting Conference for Presidents
European
Parliament
European
Commission
Council of
Ministers
↑ ↑ ↑
More opinions and ideas on the future of Europe:
Citizens’ dialogues European Citizens’ Panels European Digital Platform (incl. for Dutch
citizens)
Structure of this report

This report focuses on five topics. For each of the topics we describe the following:
Recommendations based on all strands of the citizens’ dialogue
Impressions of the opinions, ideas and discussions raised in the (online and physical) topic-based dialogues and
suggestions from the online research, in words and images.
A statement of accountability appears at the end of the report.
190
The EU monitors the rule of law in all EU countries, and seeks to stem inequality in the EU. It also strives to
protect all Europeans from terrorism and crime. To achieve this, the EU adopts measures and rules, and EU
countries work closely together.
How does the Netherlands view this?
Recommendations - Our view on security and the rule of law

68 % of Dutch people find security and the rule of law important and think that the EU should tackle these issues.
1. Make sure that everyone can feel free and safe

78 % of Dutch people think it's important for the EU to protect the rule of law and our fundamental rights and
freedoms. We also find the protection of consumer rights important: a large majority are happy that the EU
makes manufacturers put the same information on packaging in all countries. Many Dutch people also think,
however, that the EU should take account of differences in traditions and (governance) cultures in Europe. Also
because otherwise it is difficult to work together efficiently. Above all, we think it's important for everyone in
Europe to feel free and safe. This includes having a roof over your head, and access to education and care. As
well as knowing that products in European shops are always safe.
2. Only expand the EU if enlargement brings added value

44% of Dutch people think that the EU should not take in more countries. 25%, on the other hand, are in favour
of enlargement. The existing member states already have their differences as it is. Many Dutch people think that
we should sort this out first. And, if new countries do join, they must also genuinely be able to meet our
conditions. Both now and in the future. A lot of Dutch people think enlargement should also bring added value
for the existing member states. What's more we think that there are also other ways of nations working
together on security and stability. For example, we are sometimes worried about Russia’s influence on countries
on the EU’s eastern border. It is important for the EU to address this.
‘Enlargement should not be about costs and benefits, but about a vision of stability.’
3. Working together above all to fight international crime and terrorism

68 % of Dutch people think that EU countries’ security services should share their information with each other.
But we also think it's important for countries to retain the right to decide what information they do/do not want
to share. Sharing everything with everyone would soon make cooperation rather inefficient. And now that the
EU is so big, we must remain critical when deciding when it is/is not appropriate to share sensitive information.
We want to remain confident that our privacy is being protected. We think that most of all it makes sense to
work together in fighting serious and international crime such as cybercrime, drug trafficking and terrorism.
‘If you drive through a red light in the Netherlands, they really don't need to know about it
in Spain.’
191
Discussions and ideas online and in person
‘When you punish a country that doesn’t follow the rules, it’s the poorest people in that country who are the first
to suffer. That is why I think talking is better than doling out punishments.’
‘Let's first make sure the current club is stable. And only then start thinking about enlarging.’
‘We can also be critical of our own rule of law. That is not perfect either.’
IDEA: ‘Set strict rules on integrity for politicians throughout Europe to prevent them from being too easily
influenced.’
IDEA: ‘Increase cooperation between the police and the judiciary in EU countries.’
MBO college students in Doetinchem: ‘If you want to be in the EU you must obey the rules’
At Graafschap College in Doetinchem about 20 nursing students discussed what they consider the biggest
benefits of the EU: the free market, a common currency - the euro - and that, as a European, you can easily live
and work in other EU countries. ‘And that EU countries can support each other. Together you’re stronger ’, said
one of the students. The importance of rules was also discussed. If countries don’t obey the rules, it is often
difficult to punish them severely. According to the students, this could be made a little easier. One of the
students mentioned the deterrent effect. ‘If penalties are severe, other countries also see what can happen if
you don’t play by the rules.’
The Indo-Surinamese in Utrecht: ‘Trust in the rule of law is sometimes lacking’

Stichting Asha is an Indo-Surinamese voluntary organisation in Utrecht. One discussion participants had in the
topic-based dialogue was the importance of citizens’ rights: the right to a roof over your head, but also, for
example, the right not to be discriminated against. The volunteers who took part said that there should be rules
to protect the rights of all European citizens. Right now, it is not always clear what is decided in the Netherlands
and what is decided at European level. That sometimes makes it difficult to have trust in public authorities. Also
because now and again the public authorities do get it wrong. ‘You could say that the state ought to defend me,
but sometimes they mess up, like in the child benefits scandal’, said one of the participants. ‘The EU should see
to it that the rules are actually respected,’ said another.
192
Small- and medium-sized businesses are the backbone of the European economy. The EU therefore wants EU
countries to work together on recovery plans so that we can emerge economically stronger from the pandemic.
In the long term, the EU’s goal is to make the European economy healthier, greener and more digital. How does
the Netherlands view this?
Recommendations - Our vision of the economy and jobs

61 % of Dutch people find the economy and jobs important and think that the EU should deal with these issues.
1. Take account of similarities and differences

71 % of Dutch people think that the EU should make sure that businesses work together more to make the
European economy stronger. But only a few of them think that more EU money should go to businesses. Above
all, we think cooperation could be more efficient. Different companies are investing in the same new technology,
sometimes also with public money. If we had a European vision of the economy, we could spend that money
more efficiently. Of course, the differences between countries should still be taken into account.
‘The agricultural sector in the Netherlands is so modern. It 's not really comparable to
agriculture in other countries.’
2. Play to Europe’s strengths

Dutch people believe that there are many opportunities for strengthening Europe’s economy, but that choices
have to be made. That is why we think that the EU should mainly focus on playing to its strengths. We think, for
example, that Europe is good at digitalisation, sustainability and infrastructure. And, perhaps more importantly:
quality and diversity are synonymous with Europe. It is precisely because we are a diverse continent, with
different opinions and ideas, that we should tap into much more than the economic benefits. That is how Europe
can set itself apart from the Chinese economy, for instance.
3. Develop a tax system that is fair and clear

82 % of Dutch people think that EU countries should work together to make sure that all businesses in the EU
pay their fair share of taxes. Including the very big companies. Some of them move to other countries just
because they can pay less tax there. The EU should do something about this, for instance, have a minimum rate
for all countries. On the other hand, we think that taxation is a matter for individual countries, which have their
own objectives and circumstances. All in all, we find taxation a complicated issue. And that is why we would like
to see a better tax system that is fair and clear for everyone in Europe.
193
‘Cucumbers should be straight everywhere, but tax rules can differ. Isn't that crazy?’
4. Ensure that no-one is left behind

71 % of Dutch people think that the EU should help create more jobs. We think that certain groups deserve
special attention, such as young people and people who are not in the labour market. That could be done
through grants for companies, but also by giving employers and workers extra support. We are thinking, for
instance, of advice or simply very practical things. Sometimes such support can be more efficiently organised
from within the EU, and sometimes it is more a matter for the member states themselves. EU countries should
ultimately ensure equal opportunities on the European labour market together.

‘Speed up automation in Europe so that goods now coming in from China are made here again.’
‘Take the bitcoin revolution and other cryptocurrencies seriously. People dealing in them are dismissed as tax
evaders, even though blockchain technologies like this are the future.’
‘Shareholders are not the only stakeholders in the European economy. You can’t do anything without workers.’
‘Europe needs to do more for people with disabilities. At the moment, it's much too hard for them to find suitable
jobs.’
‘Lots of European rules are complicated and constantly changing. That makes it hard for businesses to innovate.’
‘When I was having building work done for my company, my local contractor could have easily got started on the
job much sooner. But first I had to put the contract out for European tender. Such a rigmarole.’
Participants in the online dialogue: ‘What do we think of big business?’

The increasing power of big business was discussed at one of the topic-based dialogues. Some participants
would like to see the EU taking a harder line on this - because businesses sometimes make massive profits but
pay little tax on them thanks to clever tax constructs. Other participants pointed to the ‘bigger picture’: these
companies create lots of jobs and are good for the national economy. ‘You shouldn’t chase them away’,
someone said. 'EU countries should put their heads together on this', said another. ‘Big companies can play
countries off against each other. That is why we, as the EU, must form a more united front.’
Nature-inclusive farmers: ‘Set targets instead of limits’

BoerenNatuur is an association of agricultural collectives. One of the things discussed by a group of members
was European regulations for farmers. On the one hand, they think that the EU is a good thing, such as making it
easy to export to other countries. On the other hand, they think that policy could often be clearer. ‘But we are
increasingly all on the same page,’ someone said. In particular, there is still room for improvement in
procedures: they are often still very bureaucratic and time-consuming. One of the participants said that
regulations should, above all, not be too detailed. ‘Set clear targets instead, such as clean water. Then we can
decide for ourselves how wide the sluices should be.’
194
European democracy
The EU encourages Europeans to vote and also wants to involve EU citizens in European decision-making and
policy outside the electoral period. The EU is also taking initiatives to strengthen democracy, such as an action
plan focusing on free and fair elections and a free press. How does the Netherlands view this?
Recommendations - Our vision of European democracy

60 % of Dutch citizens find European democracy an important topic and think that the EU should play its part.
1 Give a broader view of Europe

Dutch people have noticed that when the media cover Europe, it is often when there’s a crisis. We don't hear
much about the daily decisions. As citizens, we do not need to know everything, but getting a clearer overall
picture would help us form sound opinions. It would be interesting, for instance, to hear other countries’ views
on the EU more often. The media and education can play an important role here. That said, the media must still
be able to make their own choices, as Dutch people place a high value on press freedom in our democracy.
‘We often only hear about the EU when there’s a crisis. This is stoking negative perceptions
of Europe.’
2 Find new and ongoing ways of listening to citizens

51 % of Dutch people think the EU is not sufficiently in touch with society. To improve this, the EU should engage
in dialogue with citizens more often, and preferably on an ongoing basis. That's why Dutch people find the
Conference on the Future of Europe a good initiative. Referendums can also be a valuable tool, but Dutch people
have differing views on this. Some topics may require specialist knowledge. Talking to citizens should never be a
box-ticking exercise. We find it important that we are taken seriously.
3 Be clearer and more transparent about decisions

Dutch people sometimes find Europe very complicated. People don’t have the same level of background
knowledge. The EU should take this into account more. We want the EU to become more transparent and for it
to be easier to keep up with developments. The Netherlands government also has a role to play here. Many
Dutch people are interested in European decisions but find the official channels too difficult to access or too
complicated. Also, everyone has different interests and needs. So you should also be able to choose which topics
you wish to hear more about. Young people are often interested in Europe, but don't see much about it on their
social media accounts, for instance.
‘While, on holiday in Hungary I saw a large notice near a newly planted wood: ‘Made
possible by the EU.’ I’m sceptical about Europe, but actually felt some pride then.’
195
4 Solve problems more quickly
Dutch people find it very difficult to understand how European democracy works, but EU decision-making does
often seem to be very slow. In European elections we mostly see alliances between national parties. Perhaps
there are other ways of addressing European interests? Roughly one third of Dutch people think that it should
be possible to vote for foreign candidates in the European Parliament elections. Roughly the same number of
Dutch people disagree. The most important thing is to take sufficient account of different interests. And solve
problems more quickly than we currently do.
‘In elections I like to be able to identify with someone and know what he or she stands for.
The person doesn’t need to be Dutch.’

‘Get rid of countries’ veto rights. The majority should decide.’
‘Set up citizens’ focus groups for important decisions, perhaps even on a mandatory or semi-mandatory basis,
like juries in the US.’
‘Ensure that EU politicians and civil servants regularly touch base with the ‘grassroots’ and do not just stay in the
Brussels bubble.’
IDEA: ‘I think every news bulletin should devote a few minutes to European matters. Or why not start a daily or
weekly news programme about Europe?’
IDEA: ‘Maybe European politicians should appear more on TV shows.’
‘As a young person I hardly ever read anything about Europe. I’m curious about Europe but don’t want to spend
much time on it.’
Young people from ‘Coalitie-Y’ in Utrecht: Discussion about holding referendums

Members of Coalitie-Y - a group of youth organisations - held a lively discussion on the use of referendums.
Opponents mentioned the danger of simple 'yes' or 'no' questions, since the issues are often much more
complex. One of the participants said: ‘We can vote for the EU and stand as candidates. With referendums you
weaken those options.’ Supporters of referendums said it was a good thing to know what citizens think: this can
provide guidance. Referendums could also contribute to general awareness about the EU: what proposals are on
the agenda and what choices should be made.
Civil society volunteers: ‘Countries need to understand each other better.’

The Piëzo Foundation in Zoetermeer brings together volunteers who contribute to society in different ways. The
participants in the topic-based dialogue expressed their concern about the growing divide in Europe. That
applies to countries’ views on the LGBTIQ community, for instance. When countries do not understand each
other’s views, cooperation is difficult. ‘All the more reason to get to know each other better’, said one
participant. ‘We simply don’t know nowadays how people are thinking in other countries. We don’t understand
each other’s cultures and backgrounds sufficiently. That’s necessary if we are to take good decisions together.’
196
In our online world increasingly high demands are being set for internet connections, safety and privacy. The EU
feels some responsibility in this area and is committed to ensuring that no-one is left behind in the digital
society. The EU is also investing in digital solutions to social issues. How does the Netherlands view this?
Recommendations - Our vision of the online world

45 % of Dutch citizens see the online world as an important issue and one that the EU should address.
1 Ensure a fast, secure and stable internet connection everywhere

61 % of Dutch people think the EU should ensure that everyone in Europe has access to a fast and stable internet
connection. We are all aware that the internet is playing an ever-increasing role in our lives. Our children are
growing up with digital education. Both national and international communication are increasingly online. The
internet’s considerable autonomy sometimes worries us. As a result, many Dutch people think the EU should
invest in this area, providing the investment is efficient. Protection against online crime is, in our view, the most
important issue to be tackled at European level. However, it is also good to focus on combating internet crime at
national level.
‘If I imagine a cyber attack on our flood defences, I feel very vulnerable.’
2 Lay down clear rules and standards for internet companies

75 % of Dutch people think the EU should ensure that internet purchases are equally secure in all EU countries.
Almost all of us are buying more things abroad and share sensitive data when doing so, which sometimes feels
unsafe. It’s hard to know which websites you can trust. It would be good for the EU to draw up European privacy
rules and standards that everyone could understand. The power of large internet companies often worries us
too. We feel we have some responsibility ourselves for handling our data sensibly, though we also think the EU
can play a role in this area. EU countries need to work together to ensure that companies such as Google and
Facebook do not get too much power.
‘There’s not much we can do as a small country against a ‘global player’ like Facebook.’
3 Combine privacy rules with practical implementation and explanation

Following the adoption of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), Dutch citizens know that all countries
must comply with the same privacy laws and regulations. We are pleased we can count on this legislation, since
our privacy is important to us. Some Dutch people find the rules sometimes go too far or are illogical. Besides,
the legislation can generate a lot of work for employers. We also think that more attention needs to be paid to
the practical implementation of the privacy legislation, with more support and guidance for both citizens and
businesses. Here we think the main role is for the member states. Problems or questions relating to privacy are
best addressed with our national authorities and in our own language.

IDEA: ‘Set tougher requirements for programmers and businesses and ban insecure programming languages.’
197
‘Provide free European antivirus software to create a European firewall.’
‘When I cross the border into Germany my mobile phone suddenly loses its coverage. Surely that shouldn’t
happen any more?’
‘With our iPhones we can be tracked anywhere. That’s also our own fault.’
‘It’s not convenient to have to fill in a different type of privacy form in each country.’
IDEA: ‘Establish European internet policing. That’s an obvious area for EU action.’
Participants in the online dialogue: ‘Good internet access everywhere is in our own interest’
There was an interesting discussion in one of the topic-based dialogues on the EU’s role in the online world. All
the participants agreed that it was important to have good internet connections throughout Europe. But should
this be a matter for the EU? Several participants felt this was mainly a task for individual Member States.
Another participant pointed out that good and stable internet connections abroad would also benefit the
Netherlands: ‘We earn billions in trade with other EU countries. So it’s in our own interest that these countries
operate well.’
School pupils in Helmond: ‘Same rules and penalties for internet criminals’
In the Dr. Knippenbergcollege in Helmond, 15- and 16-year-old pupils discussed the problem of online crime.
They regularly hear about this in the news: for example, that there’s been a data breach in a company, or that a
country such as Russia or China is trying to steal data. As internet criminals often work across borders, they find
it logical for European countries to cooperate on this. That means setting rules, but also penalties, they think. ‘If
hackers from Russia are trying to invade our space, the EU must retaliate.’
198
EU countries are responsible themselves for the areas of education, culture, youth and sport. The EU can and
does provide support by, for example, promoting quality education and multilingualism, protecting cultural
heritage and supporting cultural and sporting sectors. How does the Netherlands view this?
Recommendations — Our vision of education, culture, youth and sport

45 % of Dutch people consider education an important issue and think that the EU should deal with these issues.
For youth, culture and sport, the figures are 39 %, 23 % and 19 % respectively.
1 Do encourage students to study abroad but go about it sensibly

Many Dutch people consider that studying abroad has a positive impact on young people. It contributes to
personal development. What's more, studying abroad can help Europeans to better understand each other. It
can also contribute to better integration. Many Dutch people therefore consider it a good thing that there is an
Erasmus programme that encourages study abroad. But we are also pleased that the EU is keeping a critical eye
on this. In practice, for example, international students tend to stick together and do not always learn much
about the country in which they are studying. The EU also needs to avoid a situation in which countries with
lower levels of knowledge end up with a brain drain with all their best talent studying abroad.
‘Vocational-level exchange programmes should also be developed.’
2 Leave issues such as culture and sport to the Member States

58 % of Dutch people think that the EU should do more to protect Europe’s cultural heritage. Like the temples in
Greece, for example. On the other hand, we think that local culture is primarily the responsibility of the
countries themselves. The same applies, for example, to problems in sport. This is an important issue, but it
cannot be one of the EU's core tasks. Basically, Europe needs to prioritise and a lot of money is needed for other
things. Sometimes financial contributions are what's needed, but there are other ways of working together too,
for example by sharing knowledge and ideas.
‘Protection of culture is a matter for the countries themselves. But if world heritage is being
neglected, then I definitely think the EU should intervene.’
3 Ensure that Europeans get to know each other better and respect each other more
Dutch people like it when other Europeans speak English well. It makes life easier when we are abroad. And if,
for example, we want to communicate with migrant workers in the Netherlands. At the same time, many Dutch
people consider it very important that we continue to speak and value our own language. We also want to
respect other differences within Europe. Whether it is culture, education or sport, everyone should feel free to
be themselves. Differences can sometimes be a source of conflict, but they are also precisely what makes Europe
such a rich continent. Many Dutch people therefore think that countries should take the time to become familiar
with each other’s customs and ideas.
‘I see the EU as a group of friends. We respect our differences and I can appeal to them for
help if I need to.’
199
IDEA: ‘Alongside the local curriculum, introduce a shared European curriculum at all levels of education.’
IDEA: ‘In addition to a Capital of Culture, there should also be an educational, youth and sports capital (or
country) each year.’
‘What connects us in the EU is precisely the fact that we all have our own country’s culture. And so we are not
defined by a single culture.’
‘Instead of highlighting the negative things, we should try to promote sport more.’
‘I am integrated here, I pay taxes, but I am and remain Latin American. I cherish my language, music and food.
These are not issues for Europe.’
‘There is too much talk about the economy in Europe. And too little about well-being.’
Students at the University of Leiden: ‘Language is important, but must remain a free choice’
At the University of Leiden, history students discussed this. They consider it important for people to speak more
than one language. For them, knowing more languages is fantastic for one’s personal development, good for
trade and for political relations in the EU. They think that languages should be offered at school but should not
be made compulsory. Similarly, the students consider that a second language does not necessarily have to be a
European language. ‘If you live in Eastern Europe and choose to learn Russian, then you're entitled to’, said one
of the participants.
Turkish community in Schiedam: ‘Ensure fair job opportunities for all young people’
At Stichting Hakder in Schiedam, one of the things the local Turkish community spoke about was the importance
of fair employment opportunities for everyone. All those present agreed that the EU should require companies
to offer traineeships or jobs to young people with few opportunities. They reported that young migrants in
particular have difficulties finding traineeships and jobs. ‘Some of them do not even go to the doctor because
they are afraid that they will have to pay for it themselves. So they are very unlikely to apply for a traineeship or
a job’, one of the participants said. ‘Businesses need to do more about this and the EU should encourage that.’
200
Statement of accountability
Visions of Europe is made up of different, interlinked dialogue formats that gather Dutch citizens’ views and
ideas on the future of Europe and the EU. This section provides evidence of the way in which the interlinked
dialogue formats comply with the guidelines applicable to national Citizens’ Panels in the context of the
Conference on the Future of Europe.
Design of interlinked dialogue formats
The following forms of dialogue have been used:

1. Panel survey
Survey of a representative cross-section of the Dutch population.
2. In-depth online topic-based dialogues
Dialogues in which the results of the first interim report ‘Our vision of Europe: initial insights and follow-up
questions (8 October 2021)’ are explored more with a group of Dutch people.
3. Dialogues with specific groups
Meetings with Dutch people who are not accustomed to participating in (online) surveys and panels.
4. Dialogues with young people
Meetings focusing on the European topics that are most relevant to young people.
5. Online open research: Questionnaire and ‘Swipe to the future’
The panel survey questionnaire could also be completed by all Dutch nationals, including those resident
abroad. This questionnaire was open from 1 September 2021 to 14 November 2021. In addition, during the
same period, every Dutch person was able to participate through the ‘Swipe to the future’ tool, an online tool
with 20 statements.
1 Panel survey
The Dutch citizens’ dialogue Visions of Europe (Kijk op Europa) was launched on 1 September 2021 with a panel
survey. In this statement of accountability we briefly describe the design and implementation of this panel study.
Goal and target population

Visions of Europe was launched with an online questionnaire exploring how Dutch people feel about the future
of Europe. The questionnaire was presented to a representative panel and made accessible to all Dutch people
(including those living abroad). In addition, the online tool ‘Swipe to the future’, which featured 20 statements
that people could give their views on, was also available to everyone. The results of the panel survey provided
input for the various topic-based dialogues in the follow-up to the Visions of Europe citizen dialogue.
The target population for the panel survey consists of all Dutch citizens aged 18 or over and registered (from the
time the field work began) as Dutch residents in the municipal Personal Records Database. According to
Statistics Netherlands (CBS), on 1 January 2021 this target group numbered 14 million 190 874 people. The lower
limit of 18 years is in line with the voting age. This is the population identified for the panel survey.
201
Field work
To obtain a statistical picture of ‘the Dutch’, a survey was conducted of a nationwide panel of over 100 000
members (ISO-certified, Research Keurmerk group, Dutch Market Research Association). These members have
all registered for the survey panel and regularly give their opinions on a range of topics. In addition to their
personal motivation for providing input, they are also paid for filling in the surveys. Various scientific studies
have shown that respondents who receive financial compensation for filling in surveys do not give significantly
different answers from those who do not (source: Does use of survey incentives degrade data quality? Cole, J. S.,
Sarraf, S. A., Wang, X., 2015).
Field work started on 11 August 2021 and ended on 19 September 2021. A single data-collection method was
used: internet research. The members of the survey panel each received an email containing a personalised link
to the online questionnaire. After two weeks the panel participants received a reminder email. Invitations to
participate were sent in batches and in stratified form (with due regard to equal distribution among
subpopulations) until the required number of respondents had been reached.
Sampling and distribution

The guiding principle for the study’s design was that a minimum of 3 600 respondents would have to participate
in order to achieve good statistical reliability. This number also provided a good distribution across various
background characteristics in the population. Dutch people do not come in one shape or size. For this reason the
study ensured in advance that the sample was properly distributed to factor in a number of characteristics. The
Netherlands is a relatively small country, but regional opinions can differ. A person’s attitude to the relative
importance they attach to a topic may (also) be determined by where they live. For example, people who live in
rural areas may feel differently about security to urban dwellers. In addition, studies by the Netherlands Institute
for Social Research (SCP) have shown that more educated people generally support the EU more than less
educated people, and that young people are more often pro-EU than older people (source: ‘Wat willen
Nederlanders van de Europese Unie?’ (What do the Dutch want from the European Union? Netherlands Institute
for Social Research, The Hague, 2019).
To address this, we assigned quotas in advance across the following characteristics, to ensure a representative
sample distribution: (1) region (using COROP regions), (2) age and (3) level of education. [note: a COROP region
is a division of the Netherlands used for statistical purposes.] In addition, the sample reflects the following
background characteristics: sex, origin, primary day-to-day activity and political leanings.
The COROP regions were developed using the nodal principle (population centres which provide services or
which serve a regional function) on the basis of commuter flows. Here and there, the nodal principle has been
abandoned in favour of provincial boundaries. After a redrawing of municipal boundaries crossed the COROP
boundaries, these regions were adjusted (source: CBS). Within the COROP regions, we ensure a good
distribution across the following age groups: 18-34; 35-54; 55-75 and over 75.
Finally, we also ensured a representative distribution across levels of education. The sample distribution of
respondents is in line with the national distribution of the highest level of education attained, which is as
follows:
202
Highest level of education attained
Low: primary education, pre-vocational secondary education (VMBO), senior 32.1 %

general secondary education (HAVO) or pre-university education (VWO) (years 1-3),
senior secondary vocational education (MBO) (year 1)
Medium: senior general secondary education (HAVO) or pre-university education 44.6 %
(VWO) (years 4-6), senior secondary vocational education (MBO) (years 2-4)
High: higher professional or university education 22.9 %
Unknown 0.4 %
Response
In total, 4 086 respondents took part in the panel survey. The target of 3 600 fully completed questionnaires was
met.
Response by COROP region and age group 18-34 years 35-54 years 55-75 years 75+ years
North Drenthe 11 14 17 5
South-East Drenthe 10 12 14 4
South-West Drenthe 7 10 11 3
Flevoland 29 33 28 6
North Friesland 20 22 25 8
South-East Friesland 12 13 14 3
South-West Friesland 8 11 11 4
Achterhoek 22 27 34 11
Arnhem/Nijmegen 52 53 55 15
Veluwe 44 48 51 17
South-West Gelderland 16 18 20 5
Greater Delfzijl 2 4 5 1
East Groningen 7 10 12 3
Rest of Groningen 36 26 28 8
Mid Limburg 13 17 21 7
North Limburg 17 20 23 7
203
South Limburg 38 40 52 17
Mid-North Brabant 34 35 35 11
North-East North Brabant 41 43 51 14
West North Brabant 40 47 49 15
South-East North Brabant 55 56 58 18
Greater Haarlem 13 18 18 7
Greater Alkmaar 14 19 19 6
Greater Amsterdam 116 104 88 23
Het Gooi & Vechtstreek 13 21 19 7
IJmond 12 14 15 4
Top of North Holland 22 27 30 9
Zaanstreek 11 13 12 3
North Overijssel 25 28 25 8
Twente 41 44 46 14
South-West Overijssel 10 11 12 3
Utrecht 96 100 89 27
Rest of Zeeland 16 21 23 8
Zeelandic Flanders 6 8 9 3
Greater Leiden & Bollenstreek 30 31 31 10
Greater The Hague 63 70 57 18
Delft & Westland 19 15 15 4
Greater Rijnmond 103 107 99 31
East South Holland 22 24 25 8
South-East South Holland 24 26 26 9
204
Response by level of education
Low 1 382 34 %
Medium 1 747 43 %
High 915 22 %
Unknown 42 1%
Reliability and representativeness

With 4 086 respondents, it is possible to make observations about the population with 95 % reliability and a
1.53 % margin of error. The reliability and margin of error of the results depend on the size of the sample. The
larger the sample, the more reliably and/or accurately the results can be extrapolated to the population as a
whole.
The reliability level is defined as 1 (100 %) minus the significance level. It is normal to assume a significance level
of 5 %, which means a reliability level of 95 %. This means that, if the study were to be repeated in the same
manner and under the same conditions, the results would give the same picture in 95 % of cases.
The accuracy level (expressed as the margin of error) indicates the range of values within which the actual value
in the population lies or, in other words, how far the results from the sample might deviate from the results that
would be obtained if the entire population were to complete the survey. A margin of error of 1.53 % means that
the actual value in the total population may be up to 1.53 % higher or lower than the value in the sample. In
practice, this means that, if a survey result from the sample indicates that 50 % of respondents find a particular
topic important, the actual percentage may be up to 1.53 % lower or higher than 50 % (i.e. between 48.47 % and
51.53 %). A margin of error of up to 5 % is common and generally accepted in (statistical) quantitative research.
Besides reliability, the representativeness of the sample is also important. Since the invitations to participate in
the survey were sent in batches and stratified, the results are representative in terms of COROP regions and age
groups within each COROP region. The response is also in line with the national distribution of the highest level
of education attained.
Other background characteristics

The respondents in the panel survey were asked a number of extra background questions. The questions
covered gender, views on the EU, origin, primary day-to-day activity and which political party they would vote
for if an election were to be held now.
49 % of respondents were male, 50 % were female and 1 % preferred not to answer this question.
51 % of respondents thought it was a good thing that the Netherlands is a member of the EU, 13 % thought it
was a bad thing, and 36 % saw it as neutral or did not have an opinion.
205
95 % of respondents were born in the Netherlands. For 89 % of respondents, both parents were born in the
Netherlands. For 5 % of respondents, both parents were born abroad.
Respondents’ current political leanings

Party %
People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD) 14 %
Party for Freedom (PVV) 13 %
Socialist Party (SP) 8%
Democrats 66 (D66) 6%
Christian Democratic Appeal (CDA) 6%
Labour Party (PvdA) 6%
Party for the Animals 4%
GreenLeft (GroenLinks) 4%
Christian Union 3%
JA21 3%
Farmer-Citizen Movement (BoerBurgerBeweging) 2%
Forum for Democracy 2%
Reformed Political Party (SGP) 2%
Volt 2%
DENK (THINK) 1%
Van Haga Group 1%
BIJ1 1%
Den Haan party 0%
Other 2%
Blank ballot 3%
Prefer not to say 13 %
206
Would not vote 5%
What is your main day-to-day activity at the moment?

Occupation %
Pupil/student 6%
Part-time employee 16 %
Full-time employee 31 %
Self-employed 3%
Homemaker 5%
Jobseeker 2%
Volunteer 2%
Unfit for work 6%
Retired 27 %
Other 1%
Prefer not to say 1%
Questionnaire
The questionnaire and this report were commissioned by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and drawn up by an
independent external organisation. The questionnaire has a modular structure and comprises the following
sections, which correspond to the topics identified for the Conference on the Future of Europe:
key topics and Europe’s role
climate change and the environment
health
the economy and jobs
the European Union’s role in the world
security and the rule of law
the online world
European democracy
migration and refugees
education, culture, youth and sport
When developing the questionnaire, close attention was paid to the quality, reliability and validity of the
phrasing of the questions. The aim was to ensure neutral, non-leading wording of questions, statements and
choices. In addition, the questions were reviewed to ensure that they were written in plain language (B1 level).
207
The questionnaire was tested qualitatively in a face-to-face setting with test respondents belonging to the target
group, to see how the questions came across to different types of respondent. The wording was adjusted
wherever it proved to be too complex.
Methods of analysis
Two methods of analysis were used in this study:
Univariate analysis
In univariate analysis, descriptive statistics are used to describe variables in a study. In this study, frequencies
and averages have been used.
Bivariate analysis
Bivariate analysis looks at the relationship between two variables, in this case the relationship between the
importance of the various topics and whether or not the EU should deal with them on the one hand, and the
background characteristic of age on the other. Significance testing was used to determine whether different age
groups attach different degrees of importance to a given topic, and think differently about whether or not these
are topics the EU should deal with.
Reporting and completeness

This report includes (visual) representations of the results of all questions put to the survey panel respondents.
For some questions, respondents were able to give ‘open’ answers (as opposed to choosing from a set of
multiple-choice answers). These open answers were then categorised and incorporated into the report. Ideas
that respondents shared in the free comment fields serve as input for the various topic-based dialogues in the
follow-up to the Visions of Europe citizens’ dialogue.
The key topics of the Conference on the Future or Europe were discussed in more depth in eight online topic-
based dialogues. The aim of the dialogues was to find out why people think the way they do, and their
underlying reasons and feelings. What concerns them and what opportunities do they see? During the dialogue
sessions, participants were also given a chance to contribute suggestions and ideas about the topics. They were
also able to raise issues that are not part of the Conference but that are important to them.
The topic-based dialogues took place on 12 and 14 October and on 9 and 11 November. In October, there were
four online topic-based dialogues on topics in the Economy and Democracy cluster. In November, there were
four online topic-based dialogues on topics in the Climate and EU in the World cluster. An average of 29 people
participated in each dialogue session (231 in total). Participants were recruited from the panel members (see 1)
and through social media.
We know that certain groups of Dutch people are less used to taking part in (online) surveys and panels. To gain
a representative picture of the ‘voice of the Netherlands’ it was important to let them express their ideas and
opinions too. That is why we also organised some in-person dialogues for Visions of Europe. The opinions and
ideas we gathered through them have been used as one of the bases for the recommendations.
208
Target groups
There is no clear definition of target groups which are difficult to reach. Research and experience have shown
that Dutch people from non-Western backgrounds are significantly less likely to participate in surveys and
discussions voluntarily. Since they form a large group (14 % of Dutch people), they were selected to participate
in the Visions of Europe dialogue. The same weightings have been applied as for people with low levels of
literacy. That is also a large group (2.5 million Dutch people), which partly overlaps with the group of migrants
(39 %). Finally, a dialogue was conducted with a group which rarely appears in surveys and discussions, and is
critical of Europe but has a lot of professional dealings with it. Businesses in the agricultural sector were
selected to take part.
The above groups were approached through organisations they belong to, such as migrant associations, interest
groups and professional organisations. Because we limited the number of dialogues to eight, we could not cover
everyone. That makes the choice of participants somewhat arbitrary. When selecting participants, we also
mainly looked for people who were enthusiastic about taking part and helping mobilise the grassroots, as well as
at practical issues such as availability for dates and locations.
On-location dialogues were held with members of the following organisations:

Stichting Hakder, Alevi community, Schiedam
Stichting Asha, Hindustani community, Utrecht (2 dialogue sessions)
Piëzo, civil-society organisation, Zoetermeer
Taal doet Meer, literacy organisation, Utrecht
BoerenNatuur, association of agricultural cooperatives
Marokkanen Dialoog Overvecht (Overvecht Morroccan Dialogue), Moroccan community, Utrecht
Femmes for Freedom, interest group for women from a migrant background, The Hague
A total of 110 people took part in these dialogue meetings.
Young people are a priority target group for the Conference on the Future of Europe. To actively encourage their
participation in the Visions of Europe citizens’ dialogue, and to give the opinions and ideas of this group extra
weight, five in-person dialogue meetings were organised especially for young people. A planned sixth meeting
with young people had to be cancelled due to Covid restrictions.
Meetings were held at the following institutions:

Studievereniging Geschiedenis, history students’ association, Leiden University
Dr. Knippenbergcollege, secondary school, Helmond
Coalitie-Y, Socio-Economic Council (SER) youth association
Graafschap College, MBO institute, Doetinchem
CSG Jan Arentsz, STEM secondary school (technasium), Alkmaar
A total of 95 young people took place in the dialogue meetings.
Discussion techniques used

The Socratic method was used for the online topic-based dialogues, the dialogues with specific groups and the
dialogues with young people. This method has been used for years in the Netherlands for our ‘Dialogue Day’,
when people across the Netherlands speak to each other about issues that concern them. In the Socratic
method, the moderator applies the following principles:
209
Let everyone tell their story
Don’t immediately tell a counter-story
Treat each other with respect
Speak for yourself (‘I think’ instead of ‘they say’)
Ask for explanations if nothing but generalisations come up
Don't judge, investigate opinions instead
Allow silence if people need time to think
The dialogues follow this pattern: divergence - convergence - divergence. The starting point is that first you have
to diverge (make room for individual feelings and opinions) before you can converge (discuss possible directions)
and finally diverge again (e.g. gather individual recommendations). Theory and practice show that this pattern
ensures a smooth dialogue.
All dialogues were led by professional facilitators.
5. Online open survey: Questionnaire and ‘Swipe to the future’
The panel survey questionnaire was also open to all Dutch citizens, including those resident abroad. It was open
from 1 September 2021 to 14 November 2021. In addition, during the same period, every Dutch person was able
to participate through the ‘Swipe to the future’ tool, an online tool with 20 statements.
Response and implementation

In total, 1 967 respondents filled in the questionnaire and 6 968 fully completed the swipe tool. The
questionnaire and swipe tool were open to all; there were no prior conditions or selection criteria for taking
part. Questions in the questionnaire could be skipped (there were no mandatory questions) to maximise
response. Participants answered ‘I would rather not say’ much more often in the questionnaire than in the
representative panel survey.
The backgrounds of participants in the open questionnaire and swipe tool differed from those of the participants
in the representative panel survey in a number of ways. The results of the open questionnaire and the swipe tool
are not representative, unlike those of the panel survey. The results of the online open survey were used to
supplement the panel survey. They give an insight into prevailing feelings and ideas in the Netherlands. The
suggestions for improvement given in the free-text fields were used in the
sub-topic ‘Discussions and ideas online and in person’. The swipe tool was used to gain an insight into some
prevailing feelings in the Netherlands. The results were taken into account when preparing the
recommendations. Since representativeness is a requirement, this report only takes limited account of the
results of the online open survey.
This is a publication of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

www.kijkopeuropa.nl
210
National government
Our vision of Europe

Opinions, ideas and recommendations
Topics
Climate Change and Environment
Migration
Health
EU in the world
14 January 2022
This document is a translation of the report entitled ‘Onze kijk op Europa; meningen, ideeën en aanbevelingen’,
the Dutch-language version of which was published on 14 January 2022 at www.kijkopeuropa.nl. This translation
is a simplified version in which the original layout (illustrations and other stylistic elements) has been removed
for translation purposes.
211
Our vision of ...
Report summary: all recommendations one by one

Through the citizens’ dialogue ‘Visions of Europe’, we have gathered the opinions and ideas of Dutch citizens on
the future of Europe. This has led to the following recommendations being made to the European Union on the
last four topics (out of a total of nine).

Provide a clear direction for Europe’s approach to climate change
Ensure that countries and undertakings cooperate more closely on targeted solutions
Introduce a fair and practicable CO2 system
Communicate more clearly and more positively on climate challenges
Dutch people think that the EU should take the lead when it comes to combating climate change. While member
states should be able to make their own choices, they must work towards the same goals. Instead of pointing
fingers at one another, EU countries should make more of an effort to exchange knowledge and identify
common solutions. A CO2 taxation system may well be effective, but it must be fair, practical and clear. In
general, Dutch people think that the EU should communicate more clearly and more positively on the subject of
the climate.
Migration
1. Prevent the debate about refugees from losing sight of the finer points
2. Ensure that refugees are distributed fairly and sensibly
3. Use knowledge and experience to help refugees' regions of origin
Dutch people think it is important to distinguish between people fleeing from unsafe areas and economic
refugees. Discussions nowadays about migration and integration often lose sight of the finer points. To ensure a
fair distribution of refugees across Europe, the EU should agree on clear criteria which do justice to both the
member states and the people who have fled their countries. Finally, Dutch people suggest that the EU should
provide regions hosting refugees not only with financial support, but also with know-how.
Health
1. Be more proactive in the face of a pandemic
2. Provide affordable and reliable medicines for everyone
3. Countries must act individually to make their healthcare systems fairer and more effective
Dutch people take the view that EU countries should cooperate more closely when combating a pandemic. In
the case of the approach to COVID-19, the policy is sometimes confusing. While the rules need not be the same
everywhere, they should at least be compatible. As regards vaccines or medicines, Dutch people want the costs
to be kept as low as possible while ensuring reliable quality and responsible production. Moreover, we think it is
important that large undertakings should not abuse their power; healthcare should primarily be a national
responsibility.
212
EU’s role in the world
1. Take advantage of the EU’s strength, in particular on major international issues
2. Encourage cooperation, not conflict, both inside and outside Europe
3. Take a considered approach when offering to help resolve conflicts
Dutch people think that European cooperation should be directed primarily at major issues of common interest.
This should also be the focus of the EU’s cooperation with third countries. In addition to climate change and the
coronavirus pandemic, such issues also include international security and protecting the European economy
from unfair trade. Both inside and outside Europe, Dutch people prefer cooperation to conflict. In addition, in
terms of an approach to conflict, an effort should always be made to seek a non-violent resolution.
Introduction
Between 1 September and mid-November, the citizens’ dialogue ‘Visions of Europe’ enabled all Dutch people to
share their opinions and ideas on the future of Europe. The Netherlands is putting the recommendations that
came out of this dialogue, together with the opinions and ideas gathered, to the European Union (EU). This
report focuses on the last four topics (out of a total of nine). The first five topics have already been addressed in
a report published on 3 December 2021.
About ‘Visions of Europe’

The EU wants to know what its inhabitants think about Europe. The EU is therefore organising the Conference on
the Future of Europe. The opinions and ideas of inhabitants throughout the EU will eventually feed into the
future plans for Europe. As part of that Conference, the Netherlands is organising the national citizens’ dialogue
‘Visions of Europe’.
‘Visions of Europe’ was launched on 1 September with the online gathering of opinions and ideas by means of a
survey involving a representative panel. In order to gain a deeper understanding of the initial insights gained
from the panel survey and formulate specific recommendations, we organised topic-based dialogues online. The
dialogues were open to anyone who wanted to get involved. We also criss-crossed the country to talk to young
people and other (harder-to-reach) groups.
From schoolgoers, students in senior secondary vocational education (MBO) and university students to
farmers, migrants and the Minister himself
In October and November, a total of eight online topic-based dialogues took place, with an average of
30 participants at each meeting. We also organised one online topic-based dialogue and seven on-site topic-
based dialogues with various groups of Dutch people. For example, we talked to the Turkish community in
Schiedam and were hosted by volunteers from the Piëzo Foundation in Zoetermeer. There, we were also joined
by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Knapen. The Minister discussed the dialogue and the opinions on the
future of Europe with the participants. Finally, we organised six meetings with various groups of young people.
For example, we were hosted by a secondary school in Helmond, an MBO institute in Doetinchem and the
University of Leiden.
‘It’s about our children’s future. That’s why I think it’s important to get involved in this.’
213
About this report
Based on the opinions and ideas we have gathered over the past few months, the EU has been presented with
recommendations from Dutch people. The conversations which took place between Dutch people gave rise to
interesting discussions and innovative ideas and suggestions. Some of those ideas and suggestions are included
in this report. The content of this report thus reflects the voice of the Netherlands: our vision of Europe.
Of course, just as there are differences between European countries and citizens, we in the Netherlands do not
always see eye to eye with one another. But it is precisely those differences that are worth so much and an
important feature of a democracy. The recommendations stem from the most prevalent opinions and ideas
voiced by participants in ‘Visions of Europe’. We also describe the concerns, thoughts and feelings which are less
common, but struck us during the dialogues and in the online research.
‘It was nice to be able to express my views about matters which are important to me, and
to feel that my voice is being heard.’
Nine topics have been identified for the Conference on the Future of Europe. Those topics are also at the heart
of the Dutch citizens’ dialogue ‘Visions of Europe’. In October, we published an interim report containing initial
insights and follow-up questions based on the panel survey. At the beginning of December, another report
appeared describing the opinions, ideas and recommendations on the first five topics. The present report covers
the remaining four topics.
Previous report - December 2021

European democracy
Current report - January 2022

Migration
Health
EU in the world
What happens next?

The Conference on the Future of Europe brings together the ideas, opinions and recommendations of all the
EU’s inhabitants. The meetings will discuss not only the results of all the national citizens’ dialogues, but also the
outcome of other initiatives from the Conference. For example, there are also European Citizens’ Panels, and all
EU citizens (including Dutch citizens) can access a European Digital Platform.
214
‘I hope that those in charge of the EU take my views on board, and that this helps them
make the right choices.’
The Conference will close in the spring of 2022. The Netherlands will then draw up a final report on the citizens’
dialogue: a compilation of this report and the previous report, containing the recommendations on all nine
topics. The Conference will produce recommendations for its Presidency: the Presidents of the European
Parliament, the Council of Ministers and the European Commission. They have committed to explore ways in
which to follow up on the recommendations. For the Netherlands Government, the results also constitute a
valuable contribution in terms of shaping the country’s EU policy.
The process in the run-up to the spring of 2022 can be summarised as follows:
215
Timeline
Visions of Europe
1 12 Oct 22-23 Oct 15 3 Dec 14 Jan 21-22 Jan Feb 18- 19 Feb 11-12 Mar 22-24 Apr
Sept No
v
Gathering ideas online
Topic-based dialogues
Interim Interim Interim ‘Our vision

results report on the report of Europe’
(interim topics of on the final report
report) economy and topics of
democracy climate
and EU
in the
world
↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓
Conference Conference Conference (possible) Final event of → Recommendat

meeting meeting meeting Conference the ions
meeting Conference for Presidents
European
Parliamen
t
European
Commissi
on
Council of
Ministers
↑ ↑ ↑
More opinions and ideas on the future of Europe:
Citizens’ European Citizens’ European Digital Platform (incl. for Dutch

dialogues Panels citizens)
Structure of this report

This report focuses on four topics. For each of the topics we describe the following:
Recommendations based on all strands of the citizens’ dialogue
Discussions and ideas online and in person: impressions of the opinions, ideas and discussions raised in the
(online and physical) topic-based dialogues
A statement of accountability appears at the end of the report.
216
Recommendations - Our view on climate change and the environment

71 % of Dutch people see climate change and the environment as important issues and think the EU should
tackle them.
1. Choose a clear direction for the European approach on climate change

68 % of Dutch people think that the EU should take a leading role in the fight against climate change. Global
warming is a problem that no single country can solve on its own. Although Dutch people do not all see alike on
climate change, we think the EU needs, in any event, to develop a clearer vision of the future. Despite the Green
Deal, it is noticeable that member states' views often differ. While countries should still be able to make their
own choices, they must work towards the same goals. We also think we have our own responsibility as citizens,
which includes adapting our behaviour as consumers.
‘The Netherlands wants to get rid of natural gas, but it’s being promoted in Germany. I find
that rather hard to understand.’
2. Ensure that countries and undertakings work together better on the solutions aimed at
Dutch people have the impression that countries often play the blame game on climate change and the
environment. The main focus is on differences, for example between poor and rich countries in the EU, or
between those with more or less industry. We would prefer them to look for agreements. Similar companies in
different countries can exchange their knowledge, for instance, and work out solutions together. Poorer
countries can also be more involved in this type of cooperation on tackling climate change. They can help design
and also benefit from joint solutions.
‘Tackling climate change should not be about competition but cooperation.’
3. Introduce a fair and practicable CO2 system

In tackling climate change the EU has put great emphasis on reducing CO2 emissions. Dutch people think we
need a better system, which penalises both producers and users fairly. They disagree on whether countries with
larger populations should be allowed to emit more CO2. Some countries have highly polluting industries, for
instance, whilst others simply have a lot of potential to produce green energy. These differences need to be
taken into account, though without making things too complicated, as everyone needs to understand the
system.
‘Industrial countries export a lot. Does that mean they should be the only ones to pay the
CO2 tax? I think the users should also contribute.’
4. Communicate more clearly and more positively on climate challenges

Dutch people hear and read a lot about climate change. However, for many people it is still an abstract and
complex notion. It is often seen as something that costs a huge amount of money, though tackling climate
change provides opportunities too, for instance to promote local food production and develop new, sustainable
technology. The EU can tell that story better and more often. We also think the leaders of member states could
set a better example themselves. Less travel – for example between Brussels and Strasbourg – and more online
meetings can be ways of supporting sustainability.
217
‘Sustainability is still perceived too much as a cost; it should be seen as an opportunity
rather than a threat.’

‘We shouldn’t see CO2 emissions as a right, but as a troublesome side effect.’
‘I have the impression that more is being said than done in Europe on climate change.’
‘Stronger climate rules can benefit us over time; as a trading continent we should look for the opportunities here.’
‘We cannot wait for other continents – there’s no time for that.’
IDEA: ‘Reward countries financially when their natural environment and biodiversity flourish.’
IDEA: ‘Promote ecofriendly tourism in the EU’s poor regions.’
MBO college students in Doetinchem: ‘Long-distance travel should remain open to anyone’
It was suggested to students in the Graafschap College in Doetinchem that flying within the EU should
become more expensive. Some students agreed, as more expensive tickets encourage people to look
for more sustainable alternatives. It was stressed, however, that the EU should ensure there were
better, climate-friendly options, such as better train connections. Other participants said they did not
support more expensive flight tickets. ‘Rich people fly the most now and can easily pay’, said someone.
‘They’ll carry on doing so with higher prices, but long-distance holidays will then become impossible for
ordinary people.’
Nature-inclusive farmers: ‘The EU can help spread knowledge about sustainable solutions’
BoerenNatuur is an association of agricultural collectives. The topical dialogue included a discussion on

climate change and the environment. The participants felt that implementation of EU laws and
regulations by individual countries could be improved, taking the nitrogen legislation as an example.
‘EU legislation only states that nature areas should ‘not deteriorate’, but that requirement is treated
quite differently in Southern Europe to the Netherlands.’ Most participants agree that Europe should
take the lead in combating climate change. The farmers believe words are not enough; they should
lead to results, above all through knowledge-sharing. ‘In the agricultural sector we are working on ways
to achieve cleaner farming. The EU should help spread the relevant knowledge quickly.’
218
Migration
(Migration and refugees)
The borders between EU countries are open. So countries work together in the EU, e.g. on managing the
external borders and combating migrant smuggling. The fair distribution of refugees among EU countries is also
under discussion. How does the Netherlands view this?
Recommendations - Our view on migration and refugees

65 % of Dutch people find migration and refugees important and think that the EU should tackle these issues.
1. Stop the debate about refugees from losing sight of the finer points
70 % of Dutch people think that the borders on the fringes of Europe need better protection. And 72 % of those
would still think that way even if it meant that more refugees would be sent back to unsafe countries. Dutch
people think that more attention should be paid to the reasons why people flee unsafe countries. In some cases
climate change is the reason, in others it is war. Often the underlying reasons are only discussed to a limited
extent when talking about refugees. And the added value refugees can bring to a country often only gets limited
mention. Lastly, we think that the EU should draw a greater distinction between people from unsafe regions
who are at the borders and economic refugees. To summarise, we think that the debate about migration and
refugees often ignores the underlying reasons and lacks nuance. European politicians ought to be able to do
something about this by setting a good example.
‘We should see refugees as fellow human beings. Because not many of us would stand by
and let someone in need die.’
2. Ensure that refugees are distributed fairly and sensibly

A European immigration service ought to be able to ensure that refugees are distributed fairly among EU
countries. However, Dutch people think that there should be clear criteria for determining what is fair. A good
social and welfare system can make a country attractive to refugees, for instance, but there are other factors of
importance to both the refugee and the country concerned. In the Netherlands, for instance, we have a housing
shortage. And some countries or sectors actually need more migrant workers. We think it is important for the EU
to take this into account when distributing refugees. Clear agreements not only mean clarity, they also mean less
discussion. Ultimately, that is a good thing for everyone concerned.
‘Refugees must be allowed to use their talents in the country of destination too.’
3. Use knowledge and experience to help refugees' regions of origin

67 % of Dutch people think that the EU should give more help to unsafe regions to prevent flows of refugees. We
realise that refugees do not choose to leave their home countries just like that. That is why we should address
the causes, such as climate change or conflicts, which make regions unsafe or unviable. Support from the EU to
regions of origin of refugees could be in the form of knowledge, not just financial assistance. For instance, in the
Netherlands we know a lot about agriculture. We can help other countries deal with drought and erosion better
through modern farming methods. And people who have fled to Europe can do some training in a European
country and then provide help in their countries of origin themselves. 
219
‘The EU should make provision for faster asylum procedures. Then there would be more room for people who
really need it.’
‘I know a lot of young people near me who want to buy a house but cannot find anything affordable. And in the
meantime, refugees are given housing. I find that tough.’
‘Climate change will continue to force people to flee their countries. You can’t stop it, but perhaps you can
regulate it better.’
‘I live in Betuwe. We really need a lot of migrant workers here during the pear and apple season.’
‘Unsafe regions are not unsafe for no reason; governments there are often corrupt. How do we know what
happens to our help and money?’
IDEA: ‘Also think about local strategies, such as citizen participation in the local reception of refugees, and
financing local integration initiatives.’
IDEA: ‘Build ‘tiny houses’ in cities where refugees can live to start with. Then you would relieve the pressure on
the housing market and increase support for taking people in.’
Volunteers who were refugees themselves: ‘People keep their distance in Europe.’
Taal Doet Meer is a voluntary association which helps people who are new to Utrecht and speak a foreign
language get involved in the community. In the topical discussions with this association, it was not just migration
but particularly integration that was talked about. Some participants came to the Netherlands as refugees
themselves, including someone from Syria. ‘After seven years I still don’t feel Dutch. I still haven’t found a job,
even though I have a master’s degree. I have noticed that European countries are mainly preoccupied with
themselves and are not fully open to other countries and cultures.’ Another participant said that Europeans often
keep their distance from each other too. ‘Most people are on their own; everyone does their own thing. Whereas I
think we should talk to each other and learn from each other.’
Young people from the Nationale Jeugdraad (National Youth Council): ‘Only let people in if you can take good care
of them.’
In Utrecht members of the various working parties of the Nationale Jeugdraad (NJR) spoke to each other. The
participants (between 16 and 23 years old) think that various aspects should be taken into account when
distributing refugees across Europe, such as a country’s population size, surface area, welfare and the number of
reception centres. ‘You should only let refugees into your country if you can take good care of them’, said one of
the participants. Young people also think that there should be consequences if a country does not live up to
agreements on taking in refugees. They should be made to pay a fine, for instance. ‘And refugees themselves
should also have a say in where they go’, one participant said. ‘For instance, if they have family somewhere, you
can’t have them sent somewhere else.’
220
Health
(Healthcare)
Although healthcare is mainly run by individual countries, European policy can support and strengthen it. For
instance, when tackling the coronavirus crisis or other (future) health crises. Or by joint research into serious
illnesses. How does the Netherlands view this?
Recommendations - Our vision of healthcare

64 % of Dutch people consider healthcare an important issue and think that the EU should deal with it.
1. Take greater control of pandemic-countering measures

83 % of Dutch people think that countries in the EU should work together more to prevent infectious diseases
from spreading across the world. Because viruses do not stop at borders. We have seen this now during the
coronavirus pandemic. Policy in the EU can be confusing. That is not good for compliance with the rules. We
think that measures to prevent viruses spreading in Europe should be better coordinated, but without the rules
having to be the same everywhere. There should be room to make choices at local level. Not only because
infection rates can vary, but also because Europe is made up of different cultures. Some measures work better in
one country than in another.
‘I live in the Netherlands near the German border. The different Covid rules in the two
countries are driving me crazy.’
2. Provide affordable and reliable medicines for everyone

71 % of Dutch people think that the EU should make us less reliant on countries outside the EU for the
development, production and supply of medicines. But if that would mean people having to wait longer for
medicines as a result, opinions differ. Dutch people think that this would make the production and distribution
of medicines complicated. On the one hand, the Netherlands is facing soaring care costs, and we think it is
important to keep costs down for as long as possible. On the other hand, we want to be able to trust in
medicines even if they come from far away. This is not just a question of quality, but also sustainable and ethical
production. Generally we think that important medicines should be universally available, including in poorer
countries.
‘Care costs are almost unaffordable nowadays. So we should try and buy new medicines as
cheaply as possible.’
3. Countries must act individually to make their healthcare systems fairer and more effective
Dutch people are worried about healthcare, and those concerns reach beyond the impact of the COVID-19
pandemic. For instance, we are facing structural capacity problems in hospitals. Some Dutch people do not take
a positive view of the effects of the market on healthcare. We understand that pharmaceutical companies have
to earn back their investments and that health insurance companies want to buy care cheaply, but big
companies should not abuse their power. The EU should do something about this through regulation. Otherwise,
we regard healthcare as primarily a national matter. After all, countries themselves know best what the local
problems and priorities are. We do, however, think it is important for European countries to learn from each
other to improve healthcare.
221
‘We should be a bit more careful where the availability of medicines in Europe is concerned. We are giving too
much away at the moment.’
‘It’s good that Germany has been taking COVID-19 patients from the Netherlands. I would like to see more of that
sort of solidarity in Europe.’
‘Wherever you live in the EU and whether you are rich or poor, everyone has the right to good healthcare.’
‘When buying medicines don’t just look at the price, but at the ethics too. That means no child labour, for
instance.'
IDEA: ‘Improve Europeans’ health by making sure they have less stress. Reduce the number of working hours in a
week, for instance.’
IDEA: ‘Use serious games or augmented reality to help young people make healthier choices.’
People from Utrecht with a Moroccan background: ‘Health comes at a price’
The association Marokkaans Dialoog Overvecht (MDO) fosters the participation of the Moroccan
community in the Overvecht neighbourhood of Utrecht. It encourages dialogue in the neighbourhood
in order to mitigate disadvantages. Participants in the topical dialogue for Visions of Europe think that
European cooperation has many benefits. However, some participants think that the Netherlands is
sometimes too dependent on other countries. The COVID-19 pandemic has been given as an example.
The participants think that the lengthy deliberations in Europe meant that the Netherlands was too late
in getting started with vaccinations. ‘Maybe it would be more expensive if the Netherlands wanted to
take more decisions for itself’, one participant said. ‘But this is about health, and health comes at a
price.’
School pupils in Helmond: ‘Better to be smart and copy from each other than all take the same
approach’
In the Dr. Knippenbergcollege in Helmond, 15- and 16-year-old pupils discussed the way Europe has
handled the pandemic. Some pupils think that the EU Member States should have set the vaccination
programme together. Most participants think that each individual country has a better idea of what is
necessary and what works there and so is in a better position to determine what is best for the
population. For instance, they know which sectors need to be vaccinated first and which sectors can
wait. ‘Of course it’s a good thing to discuss this internationally’, said one of the pupils. ‘When different
countries have their own different approaches, they can watch and learn from each other.’
222
The EU’s role in the world
The world is facing enormous challenges. The EU is convinced that issues such as climate change and pandemics
can only be addressed by global cooperation. And the EU wants its voice to be clearly heard on the world stage,
alongside the United States and China, for instance. How does the Netherlands view this?
Recommendations - Our vision of the EU’s role in the world

56 % of Dutch people consider the role of the EU in the world an important issue and one that the EU should
address.
1. Take advantage of the EU’s strength, in particular on major international issues

The creation of the EU is one of the reasons Europeans have lived in peace for more than 75 years; many Dutch
people see this as the greatest achievement of the EU. Apart from that, Dutch people think that the EU’s
strength lies in tackling big, international challenges together. For example, climate change, the pandemic and
the refugee crisis. Member states can also have a greater impact vis-à-vis countries outside the EU by concluding
international agreements jointly as the EU. We think the Netherlands is too small to make a difference to these
issues on our own. Then again, Dutch people want our country to be able to continue making our own decisions,
in line with our culture and our own interests. Cooperation in Europe should therefore be mainly about ensuring
efficiency and impact.
‘It is easier to conclude international cooperation agreements as the EU than as an

individual country.’
2. Encourage cooperation, not conflict, both inside and outside Europe

66 % of Dutch people think that the EU should form a stronger bloc against other international blocs of power.
We think that there is less and less of a balance in the world. Countries such as China and Russia are acquiring
more and more power in different domains. This is something we are quite concerned about. The EU should
therefore address issues such as international security and protecting the European economy from unfair trade.
We think that it is important for member states to agree a single approach more often and more quickly. Then
we could make our voice heard more clearly. The fact that, as European countries, we are stronger together
does not mean that we want to engage in conflict more often. Above all, we want to work together well with
countries outside Europe too whenever we can.
‘If we reduce internal differences and conflict, the visibility and impact of the EU on the
world stage will grow.’
3. Take a considered approach when offering to help resolve conflicts

With the EU’s role in the world growing, 50 % of Dutch people think that the approach to conflicts in the world is
an important issue. We find it hard to say what the best way of tackling conflicts is. Past experience has shown
that military intervention does not always end well. It can generate unexpectedly high costs and extra flows of
refugees. Countries should be allowed to decide for themselves whether they want to join a war, given the local
impact. We generally see greater cooperation between European armies as a good thing: we think it is important
for Europe to be able to defend itself properly. But our preference is always to solve conflicts without resorting
to violence.
223
‘During the evacuation from Afghanistan each country came up with its own plan. Surely
that could have been done better?’

‘The EU should put its own house in order before telling others what to do.’
‘By buying Chinese products in great quantities, we Europeans are giving China a leg up.’
‘The US is still hugely important to European defence.’
‘Being a member of the EU means that you have a seat at the negotiating table too. So you can have your say in
important decisions.’
‘The EU has to stop seeing itself as a separate entity, because it is not. It is a cooperative association of European
member states and should behave accordingly.’
IDEA: ‘Just like the regular international climate summits, there should be a regular conference on human rights.’
IDEA: ‘Make European armies more efficient by, for instance, buying equipment together.’
Moroccan-Dutch women: ‘Stand up for human rights’
Femmes for Freedom is a Dutch association that campaigns against forced marriages, sexual repression and
financial abuse of girls and women from a bicultural background. A meeting with a group of Moroccan-Dutch
women was organised with the association. The participants think that the EU is currently too dependent on
Russia and China. ‘You can tell that the EU simply doesn’t dare do anything because it is scared of sanctions’, one
participant said. As an example they mentioned the manufacture of medicines, which can be far from cheap. ‘If
there is a conflict, China can simply turn off the tap and we will be left with nothing’, said another participant. The
subject of human rights was also raised. ‘We pretend to find this really important but we turn a blind eye to what
China is doing to the Uyghurs’, another participant said.
Pupils from Alkmaar STEM secondary school (‘technasium’): ‘No joint army’
During their topical dialogue, pupils from the Jan Arentsz STEM secondary school in Alkmaar spoke about the pros
and cons of a joint European army. The participants made it clear that they were not in favour. ‘If a country in the
EU had a problem with a country from outside the EU we would automatically have to join a war. I think countries
should be able to decide that for themselves’, said a participant. The possibility of a third world war was also
discussed. The pupils did not think it was very likely to happen, but if it did come to that, they thought that a
solution could still be found quickly. ‘Armies can work well together too. As far as I’m concerned, there doesn’t
have to be a European army.’
224
Statement of accountability
Visions of Europe is made up of different, interlinked dialogue formats that gather Dutch citizens’ views and
ideas on the future of Europe and the EU. This section provides evidence of the way in which the interlinked
dialogue formats comply with the guidelines applicable to national Citizens’ Panels in the context of the
Conference on the Future of Europe.
Design of interlinked dialogue formats

The following forms of dialogue have been used:
6. Panel survey
Online survey of a representative cross-section of the Dutch population.
Dialogues in which the results of the first interim report ‘Our vision of Europe: initial insights and follow-up
questions (8 October 2021)’ are explored more with a group of Dutch people.
Meetings with Dutch people who are not accustomed to participating in (online) surveys and panels.
Meetings focusing on the European topics that are most relevant to young people.
The panel survey questionnaire could also be completed by all Dutch nationals, including those resident
abroad. It was open from 1 September 2021 to 14 November 2021. In addition, during the same period,
every Dutch person was able to participate through the ‘Swipe to the future’ tool, an online tool with 20
statements.
1. Panel survey
The Dutch citizens’ dialogue Visions of Europe (Kijk op Europa) was launched on 1 September 2021 with a panel
survey. In this statement of accountability we briefly describe the design and implementation of this panel study.
Goal and target population

Visions of Europe was launched with an online questionnaire exploring how Dutch people feel about the future
of Europe. The questionnaire was presented to a representative panel and made accessible to all Dutch people
(including those living abroad). In addition, the online tool ‘Swipe to the future’, which featured 20 statements
that people could give their views on, was also available to everyone. The results of the panel survey provided
input for the various topic-based dialogues in the follow-up to the Visions of Europe citizen dialogue.
The target population for the panel survey consists of all Dutch citizens aged 18 or over and registered (from the
time the field work began) as Dutch residents in the municipal Personal Records Database. According to
Statistics Netherlands (CBS), on 1 January 2021 this target group numbered 14 190 874 people. The lower limit
of 18 years is in line with the voting age. This is the population identified for the panel survey.
225
Field work
To obtain a statistical picture of ‘the Dutch’, a survey was conducted of a nationwide panel of over 100 000
members (ISO-certified, Research Keurmerk group, Dutch Market Research Association). These members have
all registered for the survey panel and regularly give their opinions on a range of topics. In addition to their
personal motivation for providing input, they are also paid for filling in the surveys. Various scientific studies
have shown that respondents who receive financial compensation for filling in surveys do not give significantly
different answers from those who do not (source:  Does use of survey incentives degrade data quality? Cole, J.
S., Sarraf, S. A., Wang, X., 2015).
Field work started on 11 August 2021 and ended on 19 September 2021. A single data-collection method was
used: internet research. The members of the survey panel each received an email containing a personalised link
to the online questionnaire. After two weeks the panel participants received a reminder email. Invitations to
participate were sent in batches and in stratified form (with due regard to equal distribution among
subpopulations) until the required number of respondents had been reached.
Sampling and distribution

The guiding principle for the study’s design was that a minimum of 3 600 respondents would have to participate
in order to achieve good statistical reliability. This number also provided a good distribution across various
background characteristics in the population. Dutch people do not come in one shape or size. For this reason the
study ensured in advance that the sample was properly distributed to factor in a number of characteristics. The
Netherlands is a relatively small country, but regional opinions can differ. A person’s attitude to the relative
importance they attach to a topic may (also) be determined by where they live. For example, people who live in
rural areas may feel differently about security to urban dwellers. In addition, studies by the Netherlands Institute
for Social Research (SCP) have shown that more educated people generally support the EU more than less
educated people, and that young people are more often pro-EU than older people (source: ‘Wat willen
Nederlanders van de Europese Unie?’ (What do the Dutch want from the European Union? Netherlands Institute
for Social Research, The Hague, 2019).
To address this, we assigned quotas in advance across the following characteristics, to ensure a representative
sample distribution: (1) region (using COROP regions), (2) age and (3) level of education. In addition, the sample
reflects the following background characteristics: sex, origin, primary day-to-day activity and political leanings.
The COROP regions were developed using the nodal principle (population centres which provide services or
which serve a regional function) on the basis of commuter flows. Here and there, the nodal principle has been
abandoned in favour of provincial boundaries. After a redrawing of municipal boundaries crossed the COROP
boundaries, these regions were adjusted (source: CBS). Within the COROP regions, we ensure a good
distribution across the following age groups: 18-34; 35-54; 55-75 and over 75.
Finally, we also ensured a representative distribution across levels of education. The sample distribution of
respondents is in line with the national distribution of the highest level of education attained, which is as
follows:
226
Highest level of education attained
Low: primary education, pre-vocational secondary education (VMBO), senior 32.1%

general secondary education (HAVO) or pre-university education (VWO) (years 1-3),
senior secondary vocational education (MBO) (year 1)
Medium: senior general secondary education (HAVO) or pre-university education 44.6%
(VWO) (years 4-6), senior secondary vocational education (MBO) (years 2-4)
High: higher professional or university education 22.9%
Unknown 0.4%
Response
In total, 4 086 respondents took part in the panel survey. The target of 3 600 fully completed questionnaires was
met.
Response by COROP region and age group 18-34 years 35-54 years 55-75 years 75+ years
North Drenthe 11 14 17 5
South-East Drenthe 10 12 14 4
South-West Drenthe 7 10 11 3
Flevoland 29 33 28 6
North Friesland 20 22 25 8
South-East Friesland 12 13 14 3
South-West Friesland 8 11 11 4
Achterhoek 22 27 34 11
Arnhem/Nijmegen 52 53 55 15
Veluwe 44 48 51 17
South-West Gelderland 16 18 20 5
Greater Delfzijl 2 4 5 1
East Groningen 7 10 12 3
Rest of Groningen 36 26 28 8
227
Mid Limburg 13 17 21 7
North Limburg 17 20 23 7
South Limburg 38 40 52 17
Mid-North Brabant 34 35 35 11
North-East North Brabant 41 43 51 14
West North Brabant 40 47 49 15
South-East North Brabant 55 56 58 18
Greater Haarlem 13 18 18 7
Greater Alkmaar 14 19 19 6
Greater Amsterdam 116 104 88 23
Het Gooi & Vechtstreek 13 21 19 7
IJmond 12 14 15 4
Top of North Holland 22 27 30 9
Zaanstreek 11 13 12 3
North Overijssel 25 28 25 8
Twente 41 44 46 14
South-West Overijssel 10 11 12 3
Utrecht 96 100 89 27
Rest of Zeeland 16 21 23 8
Zeelandic Flanders 6 8 9 3
Greater Leiden & Bollenstreek 30 31 31 10
Greater The Hague 63 70 57 18
Delft & Westland 19 15 15 4
Greater Rijnmond 103 107 99 31
East South Holland 22 24 25 8
South-East South Holland 24 26 26 9
228
Response by level of education
Low 1382 34%
Medium 1747 43%
High 915 22%
Unknown 42 1%
Reliability and representativeness

With 4 086 respondents, it is possible to make observations about the population with 95 % reliability and a
1.53 % margin of error. The reliability and margin of error of the results depend on the size of the sample. The
larger the sample, the more reliably and/or accurately the results can be extrapolated to the population as a
whole.
The reliability level is defined as 1 (100 %) minus the significance level. It is normal to assume a significance level
of 5 %, which means a reliability level of 95 %. This means that, if the study were to be repeated in the same
manner and under the same conditions, the results would give the same picture in 95 % of cases.
The accuracy level (expressed as the margin of error) indicates the range of values within which the actual value
in the population lies or, in other words, how far the results from the sample might deviate from the results that
would be obtained if the entire population were to complete the survey. A margin of error of 1.53 % means that
the actual value in the total population may be up to 1.53 % higher or lower than the value in the sample. In
practice, this means that, if a survey result from the sample indicates that 50 % of respondents find a particular
topic important, the actual percentage may be up to 1.53 % lower or higher than 50 % (i.e. between 48.47 % and
51.53 %). A margin of error of up to 5 % is common and generally accepted in (statistical) quantitative research.
Besides reliability, the representativeness of the sample is also important. Since the invitations to participate in
the survey were sent in batches and stratified, the results are representative in terms of COROP regions and age
groups within each COROP region. The response is also in line with the national distribution of the highest level
of education attained.
Other background characteristics

The respondents in the panel survey were asked a number of extra background questions. The questions
covered gender, views on the EU, origin, primary day-to-day activity and which political party they would vote
for if an election were to be held now.
49 % of respondents were male, 50 % were female and 1 % preferred not to answer this question.
51 % of respondents thought it was a good thing that the Netherlands is a member of the EU, 13 % thought it
was a bad thing, and 36 % saw it as neutral or did not have an opinion.
229
95 % of respondents were born in the Netherlands. For 89 % of respondents, both parents were born in the
Netherlands. For 5 % of respondents, both parents were born abroad.
Respondents’ current political leanings

Party %
VVD 14%
PVV 13%
SP 8%
D66 6%
CDA 6%
Labour Party (PvdA) 6%
Party for the Animals 4%
GreenLeft (GroenLinks) 4%
Christian Union 3%
JA21 3%
Farmer-Citizen Movement (BoerBurgerBeweging) 2%
Forum for Democracy 2%
Reformed Political Party (SGP) 2%
Volt 2%
DENK (THINK) 1%
Van Haga Group 1%
BIJ1 1%
Den Haan party 0%
Other 2%
Blank ballot 3%
230
Would not vote 5%
What is your main day-to-day activity at the moment?

Occupation %
Pupil/student 6%
Part-time employee 16%
Full-time employee 31%
Self-employed 3%
Homemaker 5%
Jobseeker 2%
Volunteer 2%
Unfit for work 6%
Retired 27%
Other 1%
Questionnaire
The questionnaire and this report were commissioned by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and drawn up by an
independent external organisation. The questionnaire has a modular structure and comprises the following
sections, which correspond to the topics identified for the Conference on the Future of Europe:
key topics and Europe’s role
climate change and environment
health
the economy and jobs
the European Union’s role in the world
security and the rule of law
the online world
European democracy
migration and refugees
education, culture, youth and sport
231
When developing the questionnaire, close attention was paid to the quality, reliability and validity of the
phrasing of the questions. The aim was to ensure neutral, non-leading wording of questions, statements and
choices. In addition, the questions were reviewed to ensure that they were written in plain language (B1 level).
The questionnaire was tested qualitatively in a face-to-face setting with test respondents belonging to the target
group, to see how the questions came across to different types of respondent. The wording was adjusted
wherever it proved to be too complex.
Methods of analysis
Two methods of analysis were used in this study:
Univariate analysis
In univariate analysis, descriptive statistics are used to describe variables in a study. In this study, frequencies
and averages have been used.
Bivariate analysis
Bivariate analysis looks at the relationship between two variables, in this case the relationship between the
importance of the various topics and whether or not the EU should deal with them on the one hand, and the
background characteristic of age on the other. Significance testing was used to determine whether different age
groups attach different degrees of importance to a given topic, and think differently about whether or not these
are topics the EU should deal with.
Reporting and completeness

This report analyses the results of all questions put to the survey panel respondents. For some questions,
respondents were able to give ‘open’ answers (as opposed to choosing from a set of multiple-choice answers).
These open answers were then categorised and incorporated into the report. Ideas that respondents shared in
the free comment fields serve as input for the various topic-based dialogues in the follow-up to the Visions of
Europe citizens’ dialogue.

The key topics of the Conference on the Future or Europe were discussed in more depth in eight online topic-
based dialogues. The aim of the dialogues was to find out why people think the way they do, and their
underlying reasons and feelings. What concerns them and what opportunities do they see? During the dialogue
sessions, participants were also given a chance to contribute suggestions and ideas about the topics. They were
also able to raise issues that are not part of the Conference but that are important to them.
The topic-based dialogues took place on 12 and 14 October and on 9 and 11 November. In October, there were
four online topic-based dialogues on topics in the Economy and Democracy cluster. In November, there were
four online topic-based dialogues on topics in the Climate and EU in the World cluster. An average of 29 people
participated in each dialogue session (231 in total). Participants were recruited from the panel members (see 1)
and through social media.
232
We know that certain groups of Dutch people are less used to taking part in (online) surveys and panels. To gain
a representative picture of the ‘voice of the Netherlands’ it was important to let them express their ideas and
opinions too. That is why we also organised some in-person dialogues for Visions of Europe. The opinions and
ideas we gathered through them have been used as one of the bases for the recommendations.
Target groups
There is no clear definition of target groups which are difficult to reach. Research and experience have shown
that Dutch people from non-Western backgrounds are significantly less likely to participate in surveys and
discussions voluntarily. Since they form a large group (14 % of Dutch people1), they were selected to participate
in the Visions of Europe dialogue. The same weightings have been applied as for people with low levels of
literacy. That is also a large group (2.5 million Dutch people2), which partly overlaps with the group of migrants
(39 %). Finally, a dialogue was conducted with a group which rarely appears in surveys and discussions, and is
critical of Europe but has a lot of professional dealings with it. Businesses in the agricultural sector were
selected to take part.
The above groups were approached through organisations they belong to, such as migrant associations, interest
groups and professional organisations. Because we limited the number of dialogues to eight, we could not cover
everyone. That makes the choice of participants somewhat arbitrary. When selecting participants, we also
mainly looked for people who were enthusiastic about taking part and helping mobilise the grass roots, as well
as at practical issues such as availability for dates and locations.
On-location dialogues were held with members of the following organisations:

Stichting Hakder, Alevi community, Schiedam
Stichting Asha, Hindustani community, Utrecht (2 dialogue sessions)
Piëzo, civil-society organisation, Zoetermeer
Taal doet Meer, literacy organisation, Utrecht
BoerenNatuur, association of agricultural cooperatives
Marokkanen Dialoog Overvecht (Overvecht Moroccan Dialogue), Moroccan community, Utrecht
Femmes for Freedom, interest group for women from a migrant background, The Hague
A total of 110 people took part in these dialogue meetings.

Young people are a priority target group for the Conference on the Future of Europe. To actively encourage their
participation in the Visions of Europe citizens’ dialogue, and to give the opinions and ideas of this group extra
weight, six in-person dialogue meetings were organised especially for young people.
Meetings were held at the following institutions:

Studievereniging Geschiedenis, history students’ association, Leiden University
Dr. Knippenbergcollege, secondary school, Helmond
Coalitie-Y, Socio-Economic Council (SER) youth association
Graafschap College, MBO institute, Doetinchem
CSG Jan Arentsz, STEM secondary school (technasium), Alkmaar
National Youth Council (meeting took place at an external location)
233
A total of 110 young people took place in the dialogue meetings.
Discussion techniques used

The Socratic method was used for the online topic-based dialogues, the dialogues with specific groups and the
dialogues with young people. This method has been used for years in the Netherlands for our ‘Dialogue Day’,
when people across the Netherlands speak to each other about issues that concern them. In the Socratic
method, the moderator applies the following principles:
Let everyone tell their story

Don’t immediately tell a counter-story
Treat each other with respect
Speak for yourself (‘I think’ instead of ‘they say’)
Ask for explanations if nothing but generalisations come up
Don't judge, investigate opinions instead
Allow silence if people need time to think
The dialogues follow this pattern: divergence - convergence - divergence. The starting point is that first you have
to diverge (make room for individual feelings and opinions) before you can converge (discuss possible directions)
and finally diverge again (e.g. gather individual recommendations). Theory and practice show that this pattern
ensures a smooth dialogue.
All dialogues were led by professional facilitators.

The panel survey questionnaire was also open to all Dutch citizens, including those resident abroad. It was open
from 1 September 2021 to 14 November 2021. In addition, during the same period, every Dutch person was able
to participate through the ‘Swipe to the future’ tool, an online tool with 20 statements.
Response and implementation

In total, 1 967 respondents filled in the questionnaire and 6 968 fully completed the swipe tool. The
questionnaire and swipe tool were open to all; there were no prior conditions or selection criteria for taking
part. Questions in the questionnaire could be skipped (there were no mandatory questions) to maximise
response. Participants answered ‘I would rather not say’ much more often in the questionnaire than in the
representative panel survey.
The backgrounds of participants in the open questionnaire and swipe tool differed from those of the participants
in the representative panel survey in a number of ways. The results of the open questionnaire and the swipe tool
are not representative, unlike those of the panel survey. The results of the online open survey were used to
supplement the panel survey. They give an insight into prevailing feelings and ideas in the Netherlands. The
suggestions for improvement given in the free-text fields were used in the sub-topic ‘Discussions and ideas
online and in person’. The swipe tool was used to gain an insight into some prevailing feelings in the
Netherlands. The results were taken into account when preparing the recommendations. Since
representativeness is a requirement, this report only takes limited account of the results of the online open
survey.
This is a publication of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

www.kijkopeuropa.nl
234
III — References to the results of national events
• Belgium
• Bulgaria
• Czechia
• Denmark
• Germany
• Estonia
• Ireland
• Greece
• Spain
• France
• Croatia
• Italy
• Cyprus
• Latvia
• Lithuania
• Luxembourg
• Hungary
• Malta
• Netherlands
• Austria
• Poland
• Portugal
• Romania
• Slovenia
• Slovakia
• Finland
• Sweden
235
IV – Reference to the report from the Multilingual Digital Platform
Multilingual Digital Platform of the Conference on the Future of Europe - Report February
2022
_________________________
236
PDF ISBN 978-92-824-8748-8 doi:10.2860/637445 QC-05-22-131-EN-N
Print ISBN 978-92-824-8663-4 doi:10.2860/87208 QC-05-22-131-EN-C
© European Union, 2022
Reuse is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.

Raport Conferinta Privind Viitorul Europei

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Raport Conferinta Privind Viitorul Europei

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Raport Conferinta Privind Viitorul Europei

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Conference on the

I. The architecture of the Conference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

II. Contributions to the Conference: citizens’ input . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

(A) Multilingual Digital Platform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

(B) Citizens’ Panels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

1. European Citizens’ Panels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

2. National Citizens’ Panels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

(C) Events organised in the framework of the Conference . . . . . . . . . . 26

2. European Youth Event (EYE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

III. The Conference Plenary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

(A) Composition, role and functioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

(B) Working Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

(C) Chronological summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

IV. The Plenary proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Final considerations of the Executive Board . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

I — Recommendations of the four European Citizens’ Panels

II — Recommendations of the National Citizens’ Panels

III — References to the results of national events

IV – Reference to the report from the Multilingual Digital Platform

On 10 March 2021, European Parliament – and driven by an Executive Board (consisting

On 10 March 2021, the Joint Declaration on J

was launched on 19 April 2021. Over 17 000

(A) Multilingual Digital Platform

What is happening at the Conference on the Future of Europe?

52,346 652,532 17,671

21,877 6,465 72,528

(B) Citizens’ Panels

1. European Citizens’ Panels

Expert input on substreams More expert input

Plenary Stream Plenary Subgroup Session

justifications for those orientations. 1 (A stronger economy, social justice and

DAY 1 DAY 2 DAY 3

Welcome and objectives for Make orientations into Vote on final

Open Forum Feedback to other groups

Make orienttions into

Photo: European Citizens’ Panel 1 Photo: European Citizens’ Panel 2

2. National Citizens’ Panels

Photo: Belgium National Citizens' Panel

The Panel was organised under the auspices

The Belgian Citizens’ Panel resulted in 115

Photo: French National Citizens' Panel

Photo: Italian National Citizens' Panel

Overview of main events and initiatives

(A) Composition, role and functioning

A Conference Plenary was set up to debate or National Citizens’ Panels participated.

In accordance with the Rules of Procedure European Citizens’ Panels. Representatives of

(C) Chronological summary

INAUGURAL CONFERENCE PLENARY, 19 an overview of the 20 tangible ideas selected

"Climate change and the environment"

1. Proposal: agriculture, food production, biodiversity and

3. Proposal: climate change, energy, transport

5. Proposal: sustainable consumption, packaging and production

Objective: Foster knowledge, awareness, education, and dialogues on environment, climate

7. Proposal - Healthy food and healthy lifestyle1

9. Proposal – A broader understanding of Health5

"A stronger economy, social justice and jobs"

12. Proposal: Enhancing EU’s competitiveness and further

13. Proposal: Inclusive labour markets10

14. Proposal: Inclusive labour markets11

the European Union. (ECP25)