I argue that since 1951 the European Commission has redefined and publicly
communicated the meaning of European citizenship in an entirely contingent and
pragmatic fashion. Accordingly, I demonstrate that the scope and essence of
European citizenship have been adapted to the way in which it has understood the
meaning and significance of European integration at a specific time. As such, the
European Commission has not operated with a narrow or consistent conception of
citizenship based on conventional understandings of national citizenship (not even at
the time of the legal codification of EU citizenship in the Maastricht Treaty) or a
rights-based conception of European citizenship (save for the brief promotion of the
idea of a European Constitution the European Commission’s commitment to rights
has been mutable ranging from universal and fundamental human rights to
particularistic European single market rights). Rather, the European Commission’s
understanding of the meaning and scope of European citizenship has been
contingent upon on the way it understands the nature and essence of European
integration and upon changing political, institutional, economic and social
circumstances within the European integration process. This argument is further
demonstrated by the fact that the European Commission has conceptualised
European citizenship in five different and distinctive ways – each way was a response
to changing circumstances and crises: The first one, ‘Homo Oeconomicus’ (1951-
1972) emerged in the economic and social context of the European Coal and Steel
Community which was based upon the ‘pooling’ of Franco-German coal and steel
production; the second one, ‘A People's Europe’ (1973-1992) was a form of political-
federal citizenship which accompanied the democratisation process and the
optimism of the European Community in the early 1970s. The third and fourth
conceptualisations were both responses to crises: the Maastricht crisis brought
about ‘Europe of Transparency’ (1993-2004) and the Constitutional Crisis led to
‘Europe of Agorai’ (2005-2009). Both emphasised the need for debate and dialogue.
The fifth one, ‘Europe of Rights’ (2010-14), emerged in the context of the Lisbon
Treaty and its legalism. I conclude that the European Commission’s conception of
European citizenship at any given point is an expression of the Zeitgeist of European
integration.
