Crossed Summary of the 4 topics of the Europe forum.
March 2001

by Manola Gardez Rauss

°°° Abstract: Tentative of crossed synthesis between the four discussions of the Europe forum. The different items were classified by pointing out the involved topics. °°°

A crossed summary of the four topics of the Forum Europe is going to allow us, during a short period, to open our discussions to broader concerns; to attempt to bring answers to the questions of some participants by the approaches of the other; to generate a discussion as citizens that appears more in the generic setting of the Constituent European process that should continue until 2004.
We will come back thereafter in workshop to take up our propositional researches in a more targeted manner.

Obviously the topic of the European democratic governance is the most cross-cutting of the four.
The question to know how to institute a broader citizens participation in the life of our societies, is not only current in very numerous contexts, but is found also in the thinkings of the three other topics of the foum.

In a concern of simplicity and clarity, it is possible to list the articulations resulting from your messages and summaries written by the facilitators of the four topics, in the following way:

[For memory, GOV corresponds to the topical "Democratic Governance for Europe"
WORK corresponds to the topic "Work and social organization"
RUR corresponds to the topic "European rural World and sustainability"
MIG corresponds to the topic "Migrations and multicultural citizenship"]

** The citizens participation **

Between the 4 topics: How to register the participation of the citizens in all decision-making stages? How to articulate the different levels of power in such a way to integrate this participation in a more democratic way?

Between GOV and WORK: the importance of the working participation has been brought up in the processes of decision making of the business or even in their capital. It is certainly a very specific aspect but that is part of the considerations on the citizenship in the world of the enterprises.

Between GOV and MIG:
1. In the abounding discussion that was launched on the notion of multiculturalism, the participants could replace their questioning at the European level and wonder if the hypothesis of an European governance would not change the formulation of the problems related to the cultural differences. Can one advance the idea that the social cohesion would be stronger (or at the very least different) at the European level than at every national level? The national borders fading away, at least mentally, perhaps all the citizens of the continent would be considered more like a demographic mass that could be detached of the local concerns or of neighborhood. How to do so that the democratic participation is built while taking into account, the departure, of this cross-cultural dynamics with its multiple differences?

2. The voting of the foreigners is directly linked to the implication of the citizens in the political life. This voting would involve a non-negligible growth of the potential of citizens participation in a given place. Consequence which, obviously, must influence the political decisions.

** European rights and national rights **

Between GOV and MIG: The MIG summary brings up the fact that the European nationality gives right to the European citizenship. In GOV is posed the problem of the unity of the European rights in consistency with the national rights. On the other hand, it is raised, of course, the problems to know for whom the European rights are addressed when one could imagine it contrary to the national rights: Could Europe could bestow the European nationality to a national from a non member country?

Between GOV and RUR: do the European rights and the national Rights appear in the question of the territory?

Between GOV and WORK: The problem of the working right of the foreigners is linked to the questioning of the WORK forum to know if the manpower must remain the single social organization mechanism.

** European charter of the fundamental rights **

Between GOV and WORK: The opinion of the participants of WORK on this Charter would be interesting.

** European public opinion **

Between the 4: it would be interesting that the 3 other forums answer, even briefly, to the question raised by GOV: "How do you contribute to its construction?" The examples mention such as Alliance of social movements, networks, countryside, etc. correspond to the concerns of MIG that put, for example, in light the need to help the foreigners to be organized in networks, or of RUR that points out the need to bring producers and consumers closer.

** Employment **

Between MIG and WORK: Interrelationship between rate of immigration and rate of unemployment. The participants of the two forums can discuss on this point.

Between RUR and WORK: to support the rural activities, one of the answers seems to be the incitement to the agricultural job generation, but also of diversification of jobs in the framework of the multifunctionality of the rural areas. These last are the object of a questioning on the risks of abuse that pose the question of how to measure work in rural world.

** Europe and the world **

It would be interesting that the participants of the countries of the periphery of the Mediterranean give their opinion concerning the GOV discussion on the influence of the world tendencies; as well as on the questionings of RUR on the specificity or non European of the multi-functionality of the agriculture.

One could also launch on the forums more general subjects for which the participants could give their points of view, such as:
- the concept of territory
- the preservation of the natural resources: a citizens education?
- what rallying project for Europe: a Constitution? To this questioning, one can affirm by the experience of this forum that the participants are more extensively mobilizable to bring elements of contribution to a process of Constituent than to bend on a text of Constitution.

To the participants of the 4 forums, I would ask to take up the outlined proposals or brought up and analyze the feasibility of it.

This work should allow us to reach the results as well as a better efficiency more quickly during the European continental meeting.