*The article does not draw on or reference information, materials, or experiences obtained through the author’s professional role.
A Union busy with plans, but distant from people
In a year defined by economic, geopolitical, and social uncertainty, the European Union has moved to recalibrate its priorities. Competitiveness, simplification, trade, and the reduction of administrative burdens have risen to the top of the institutional agenda, shaping a series of initiatives intended to guide the Union into the coming period. From renewed attention to housing and defence to health policy, EU institutions have been developing strategies aimed at strengthening Europe’s capacity to respond to an increasingly unpredictable global environment.
Yet, beyond the volume of policy documents and press releases, a quieter question lingers: how much of this agenda genuinely reflects the priorities and concerns of EU citizens? And perhaps, more importantly, how visible and accessible are these efforts to the people they are meant to serve?
These questions matter, because trust in the European project cannot be sustained by policy output alone. In recent years, the EU has faced a steady rise in Euroscepticism and support for far-right movements. While the drivers are complex and vary across Member States, the perception of a growing disconnect between Brussels and everyday realities remains a recurring theme. These drivers range from post-accession disillusionment in parts of Central and Eastern Europe to economic insecurity, unemployment concerns and declining trust even in traditionally pro-EU countries, as reflected in Eurobarometer surveys showing a widening spread of Euroscepticism across the Union.
Euroscepticism: a slow but persistent shift
For years, Europe’s dominant political narrative has been that the far right is on the rise and that the key uncertainty lies not in whether this trend will continue, but how far it might go. Beyond electoral outcomes, this narrative points to a deeper concern: a declining trust in institutions and a growing sense of distance between citizens and the European project. Survey datasuggests that trust in the EU institutions declined in the years following 2020, indicating that the relationship between citizens and EU governance is still marked by uncertainty rather than confidence. 
At the same time, this does not translate into a wholesale rejection of the EU itself. Polling consistently shows that overall support for the EU remains relatively high. These two realities coexist: broader approval of the EU as a place of stability in a troubled world, alongside frustration with how it operates in practice. Citizens may value membership, mobility, and peace, while still feeling unheard, overwhelmed by complexity, or disconnected from decision-making processes.
Policy ambitions versus social reality
The Commission’s emphasis on boosting European competitiveness is, on paper, both timely and necessary since small and medium-sized enterprises continue to struggle with regulatory complexity and global supply chains remain fragile. Europe faces pressure to keep pace with innovation on the international scene, therefore the calls for simplification and reduced administrative burden are understandable.
However, competitiveness alone cannot answer citizens’ most pressing concerns. Housing affordability, job security, access to healthcare are not abstract policy challenges as they shape daily life. While EU-level debates centre on trade resilience, industrial strategy and geopolitical positioning, many citizens struggle to see how these priorities translate into tangible improvements of their lives.
The gap in perception may partially explain why EU policies, even when well-intentioned, fail to resonate. It is not necessarily that citizens oppose competitiveness or innovation – quite the contrary – but that these concepts are often communicated in ways that feel detached from social realities.
Acknowledging progress and the steps in the right direction
It would be misleading to suggest that EU institutions are blind to these concerns. Recent initiatives demonstrate a growing awareness of social pressures and democratic participation.
The Commission’s emerging housing agenda, for instance, reflects a recognition that affordability and access are no longer marginal issues but important challenges affecting younger generations in particular. While implementation will largely depend on national and local authorities, placing housing higher on the EU agenda signals an important shift.
Similarly, the European Parliament’s recent support for the My Voice, My Choice initiative illustrates an openness to citizen-driven proposals and society engagement. Regardless of the individual views on the issue, the vote demonstrated that participatory mechanisms can meaningfully influence institutional debate when citizens are mobilised.
These efforts are important, as they suggest that the EU is capable of listening and adapting. But isolated initiatives, however welcomed, are not enough to counter a broader perception of distance unless they are embedded into constant and transparent dialogue with citizens.
Communication and the Brussels bubble
A recurring challenge lies not only in what policies are adopted, but in how they are communicated. Many EU initiatives remain inaccessible in practice: lengthy documents, technical language, and limited opportunities for feedback reinforce the image of a closed policymaking environment.
Questions worth asking include how many citizens are aware of new EU initiatives before they are adopted, the languages and formats in which these priorities are communicated, and whether citizens have meaningful opportunities to engage in debate, ask questions, or express concerns.
As Europe is in a period marked by geopolitical uncertainty – from continued support for Ukraine to renewed tensions in transatlantic relations – EU leaders face pressure to demonstrate unity and deliver viable solutions.
Yet history suggests that external challenges often amplify internal divisions if citizens feel excluded from the conversation. This was evident during the eurozone crisis, when measures adopted during this period and limited public engagement contributed to declining institutional trust and increased support for eurosceptic and populist parties across several Member States. The coming years are going to demand adaptability, compromise and resilience. But adaptability should not only apply to markets and industries, therefore institutions too, must adapt to changing expectations of transparency, participation, and responsiveness.
Rebuilding trust as a policy objective
Reconnecting with citizens does not require abandoning economic ambition or geopolitical positioning. Rather, it means placing trust-building at the centre of policy making, which involves clear communication, earlier engagement, and a stronger link between high-level strategies and everyday outcomes.
Citizens do not expect perfection, but they do expect to be acknowledged. When people understand not only what the EU is doing, but why it matters for them, scepticism loses its power. This process must operate both at EU level and within Member States: while EU institutions set priorities and frameworks, national governments play a crucial role in explaining how EU decisions translate into concrete benefits locally. Clearer coordination, for example through national communication on EU funded programmes or reforms, can help bridge the gap between Brussels’ policymaking and citizens’ everyday life.
As the EU prepares for a demanding year ahead, filled with reforms, negotiations, and increased global uncertainty, one fundamental question deserves greater attention: what do people actually want from Europe? Answering this does not require a single grand reform, but sustained effort to listen, explain and involve. If institutions succeed in bridging this gap, trust may prove to be Europe’s most valuable asset.
