European identity remains a legal fiction because the Union lacks a shared communicative architecture. Without a pan-European media ecosystem and enduring physical networks, EU citizenship is a set of practical advantages rather than a lived political reality.
From Student Exchange to Material Infrastructure
The European Commission is shifting its approach to identity from temporary experiences to permanent structures. The 2026 Annual Work Programme for Erasmus+ and the complementary Europe for Citizens Action 2 now prioritize the creation of enduring networks over ephemeral projects. By providing operating grants that cover the running costs of think tanks and civil society organizations, the Commission aims to institutionalize a layer of active citizenship that exists independently of national silos.
This move acknowledges a structural fragility: the divergence between the institutional projection of a unified Europe and the fragmented, national-centric information environments where citizens actually reside. To address this, the EU’s funding framework for the news media sector treats the creation of a cohesive European public sphere as a strategic objective. These grants, governed by strict independence clauses to prevent political interference, attempt to scale diverse national voices within a common market.
The objective is not to erase national belonging but to build the capacity for citizens to operate across both spheres. This layered model treats identity as infrastructure. Coordination has a structural ceiling; the goal is now to raise that ceiling through the “hardware” of shared information and mobility.
The Layered Integration Model
The theoretical basis for these material investments rests on the rejection of the “zero-sum” myth—the assumption that a European identity can only grow by erasing national belonging. Research in the European Journal of Political Research debunks this premise, showing that hostility toward integration rarely stems from a fear of losing national identity. Instead, the two identities coexist and complement each other.
This empirical reality informs the legal architecture of the Union. EU citizenship is formally defined as additional to national citizenship, not a replacement for it. By establishing this layered model, the EU avoids a direct conflict between loyalty to the state and loyalty to the Union. The goal is not to manufacture a singular European psyche, but to expand the practical ability to navigate both realms.
The legal bond exists. The social bridge does not.
The Fragmented Information Space
The Union’s legitimacy is strained by the information divergence noted above. A 2026 meta-analysis in the Journal of European Public Policy identifies this fragmentation as a primary driver of instability. Without a shared communicative architecture, EU citizenship remains a “legal fiction”—a set of rights that lacks a corresponding political community.
To counter this, the media funding framework targets the “hardware” of the public sphere. The Commission funds media freedom, pluralism, and innovation to ensure beneficiaries remain free from political interference. This is not merely about supporting journalism, but about scaling these voices to resist external information hegemonies from the US and China.
The Creative Europe 2026 framework links this cultural diversity to economic competitiveness, treating a pluralistic media ecosystem as a strategic asset for sovereignty. The structural logic suggests that a citizen cannot feel part of a political project they cannot discuss with their neighbors across a border.
The Risk of Instrumental Identity
Despite these structural interventions, European identity currently manifests as “thin” and instrumental. As noted by Helder Ferreira do Vale in “Beyond Borders”, for many, the Union is a provider of practical advantages—mobility, trade, and legal protections—rather than a source of shared political loyalty. This instrumentalism creates a precarious foundation for the Union’s legitimacy.
If the EU relies solely on legal rights without building the communicative and physical bridges mentioned above, the identity remains a top-down construct. This makes the project vulnerable to nationalistic reversal. When the practical advantages of the Union are questioned, there is no deep affective bond to act as a shock absorber. The identity becomes a transaction rather than a commitment.
The current shift toward “enduring networks” within the Europe for Citizens programme attempts to move beyond this transaction. By funding the running costs of civil society organizations, the Commission is attempting to shift identity from a series of transient experiences to a stable, institutionalized layer of active citizenship. The architecture is being laid. The lived experience must now follow.
The Architecture of Loyalty
The transition from legal rights to lived identity depends on whether the Union can sustain these material networks beyond the current funding cycles. If the European public sphere remains a collection of subsidized projects rather than a self-sustaining media ecosystem, the layered identity remains a top-down administrative construct. The structural question is no longer whether citizens can feel European, but whether the Union can provide the communicative hardware that makes such a feeling possible.
The social architecture is the final frontier.