• Embed Doc
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • 1
    CommentGo Back
Download
 
BRUSSELS,CAPITAL OF EUROPE
 
BRUSSELS,CAPITALOFEUROPEFinal Report
October 2001
In May and September 2001 the President of the Commission,RomanoProdi,and the Belgian Prime Minister,Guy Verhofstadt invited a group of intellectuals to discuss the needs and functions of a European capital andhow Brussels could best express them.This report presents the main ideasand proposals resulting from those meetings.They are intended as acontribution to an ongoing debate.
EUROPEANCOMMISSIONBELGIANPRESIDENCY
 
The Group of Policy Advisers (GOPA),European Commission,organisedboth events,prepared the issues papers and the Final Report.ElenaSaraceno acted as project coordinator.The contents of this report do not necessarily represent the position of theCommission.
SUMMARY
Following the Nice Summit the President of the Commission,RomanoProdi,and the Belgian Prime Minister,Guy Verhofstadt,invited a group of intellectuals to two brainstorming sessions to discuss the expectations,needs and functions of Brussels as capital of Europe.This report summari-ses the main ideas and proposals resulting from those meetings.It aims tocontribute to and inspire future decision-making.The key idea resulting from the exercise was that the European capitalshould not follow the example of national capitals.There was wide consen-sus among the participants about this.The European capital -still in themaking- should be a stable but “light”capital,linking the diversities that lie at the heart of the European project.This should be achieved through exchan-ges and cultural contacts rather than through a reduction of differences and the establishment of hierarchies.Networking could act as unifying principle.The European identity should be conceived as a plural one.The communi-cation about the European capital needs to be more attractive and consis- tent with these guiding ideas,keeping them in mind when selecting ideal or physical representations.Past experience of the European Institutions in Brussels was not consideredan example of good practice.The quality of buildings,urban planning,relations between the European Institutions and Brussels’citizens,stakehol-ders’participation in different stages of the decision-making process,wereall considered problematic areas.The articulation of existing diversitieswithin the city was considered unsatisfactory.A higher degree of projectcoherence and a more extensive use of the partnership principle betweendifferent actors could improve past practices and influence positively theattractiveness of the European project in Brussels for the people living,working,investing or visiting it.The proposals made in this report are an example of how these expecta- tions and needs could begin to materialise.They stress the cultural and social
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
10 / 31 / 2011This doucment made it onto the Rising List!
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...