An instructive morning. This commentary comes half-way between a cry of alarm and a warning: beware, the debate over the EU's "governance" and on the application of the principle of subsidiarity is riddled with dangers. It is not simply a theoretical and doctrinaire debate between specialists ranging from a Pope's encyclical of over a century ago to its applications to the European Union. The reality is different. There are political circles for which governance has as veritable significance, and as only goal, the establishment of a "list of competencies" of, respectively, the European Union, States, regions (or Laender) and local authorities, so that each field of action at each level of power can be well ring-fenced. Some aspirations are legitimate, salutary even. There is no reason why Europe should have a say in everything, and it is understandable that, for example, the laender that have retained significant autonomy in relation to the Federal State should not want to lose these in relation to Europe. But, beware: how many insinuations lie behind some simple principles?
Christine Roger was not heard. I had the opportunity of attending the first part of the public hearing on governance, which the European Commission organised on 19 March. For me, just a morning, but ever so instructive. Opening talks Ms. Christine Roger (Chef de Cabinet for Michel Barnier, Commissioner responsible for institutional affairs) explicitly said that the White Paper that the Commission was preparing would not contain a list of competencies at different levels: European, national, regional, and local. What she said exactly was: "work on governance distinguishes itself from reflection on the ring-fencing of competencies; neither is the approach nor the objective the same. The ring-fencing of competencies will consist in examining the limits of the Union's competencies, the White Paper on governance looks at practices, rules, procedures and conducts that may need adapting for the functioning of the system to be perceived as more legitimate".
The least that can be said is that Ms. Roger was not heard by the participants to the hearing, who, in fact, almost only spoke of competencies and powers at each level.
Freeing ourselves from the Cap and regional policy?. Let's take as example the address by Reinhold Bocklet, minister for European affairs for the Land of Bavaria. He knows Community affairs well as for many years he was a Euro-MP, and a particularly active one. I agree with many of his statements, others leave me somewhat perplex. According to him:
the EU gives the impression of wanting to have a say in everything, and he considers that the criticisms of this are "justified". Fortunately, the Commission now seems to be moving towards limiting its interventions;
the main criteria for good governance are democratic legitimacy and transparency. One has not, says Mr. Bocklet, to excessively follow the current trend of participation by "civil society", as representatives of NGOs and other pressure groups are not elected and thus not subjected to democratic control. At each level, it has to be clearly apparent "who is responsible"
to distribute the tasks properly, the best way is to clearly ring-fence "European competencies", among which Bocklet cited: foreign and security policy, external trade, high-tech research, combating organised crime, immigration and asylum;
in an EU of 27 members, however, agricultural policy could not be common, and the Structural Funds should no longer exist as we know them. With the current system, each Member State pays contributions to Brussels and the Commission returns a major part through the Structural Funds; it's a waste of time and resources. Regional policy should, according to Mr. Bocklet, be limited to granting certain resources to the less prosperous States.
Concluding, Mr. Bocklet considers that the link between enlargement and deepening is a lie; what's needed, is to concentrate competencies, so as to avoid everything being scattered.
Have I simplified Mr. Bocklet's ideas? A little no doubt; but simplification, although it may disperse the nuances, allows one to get to the essential point, in this case that the EU should drop the CAP and a genuine regional development policy, two areas which, according to him, should be returned to the regions and in particular the Laendes (whose nature is, in his opinion, that of States).
Herman and Duff dispute. There was no lack of reaction to Bocklet's ideas in the room. Some speakers considered that Mr. Bocklet was placing back into question the very principle of European integration. Fernand Herman (who continues to work effectively in favour of Europe, even though he no longer does so from the Parliamentary chamber of Strasbourg) accused Mr. Bocklet of being stuck with out-of-date ideas. Europe has not to seek a rigid distribution that sets competencies, but a flexible method. According to him, the essential criterion has to be that of effectiveness, which is a precondition of legitimacy: people must know what they can change by voting in one way rather than in another, which is a way of taking part in decisions and clarifying responsibilities. Just as firm was Andrew Duff MEP, who opposed the idea of a "classical catalogue" of competencies that would lead to an "orgy of litigation" and would not enable the Union to adapt to the novelties and movements of society, when all is moving so quickly. According to Mr. Duff, "Eurosceptics" would take advantage of the game of the "list of competencies" to "undermine European construction and express their national frustrations". A list could possibly set out "what cannot remain national"; the remainder would not be excluded from the European field of action, as the EU should have a "power of coordination" throughout.
A new concept. Although that day the affair of the list of competencies was at the centre of the debate, other topics were also raised. I noted a new concept introduced by Ms. Kalypso Nicolaidis of Oxford University: the concept of "horizontal subsidiarity", i.e., between powers that are to be placed at the same level, without one having priority over another. With great conviction and charm, Ms. Nicolaidis cited the Court of Justice, which ought not to consider itself "above" national tribunals; it should drop the "hierarchical model" and dialogue with national tribunals through "horizontal exchanges" of experiences and reflections. At a general level, the EU should renounce the "vertical model", and, for example, not give "too much advice" to Member States in the context of Economic and Monetary Union (allusion to the Irish affair?). At this point, it was Mr. Bocklet who had the "European reflex", reacting by stating that in those fields where the EU's competencies were recognised, its decisions must be accepted and respected by all; a Court of Justice ruling necessarily applies throughout the Union, otherwise it would be chaos.
National parliaments also have demands… The above lines are no report on the hearing, but the indication of stances taken, feelings, impressions. The pressure of national parliaments needs also to be added, some representatives of which exceed the justified and largely admitted demands, and ho, at first sight, aspire to be co-legislators in Europe, either by the creation, on the part of the European Parliament, of a second Chamber composed of parliamentarians of Member States, or by intervening in the EU's legislative procedure (see or bulletin of 23 March, pp. 4 and 5). In the very recent EP/national parliaments meeting, Mr. Jim Dobbin, said that the British House of Commons wanted the power to discuss European legislation before it became law, and Austrian Green Johannes Voggenhuber pleaded in favour of an "alliance of parliaments" enabling them to exceed their role, he considers as too modest, consisting in the "simple power of ratification". There are sufficient elements to believe that on this point European politicians must intervene. It seems obvious that the exercise of governance, of subsidiarity and the distribution of competencies, in some minds, takes the form of a dilution of European integration. According to Frans Andriessen, former European Commissioner who also spoke during the hearing, Lord Cockfield's White Paper on the creation of a large market without borders would today comprise many fewer measures than the list famous in its time. That's possible: but limiting the number of directives is one thing, having common policies disappear and introducing "horizontal subsidiarity", is another.
The Commission must broaden its vision. The European Commission probably felt the dangers of the exercise, as it has delayed until July approval of its White Paper on governance (initially scheduled for the spring) and let it be known that this document would not contain "lists of European, national, regional and local competencies". No doubt Jerome Vignon, whose responsibility it is to draw up the draft text, heard what I heard, and, although his role as chair of the Round Table led him to distribute compliments and thanks to all those who spoke, he knows full well what to expect. But for now - why should I conceal it? - the "introductory document" to the Commission's preliminary debate that was held last week did not reassure me. It is doctrinaire, it urges one to avoid any confusion between the White Paper and the wide-ranging debate of the future of Europe (the White Paper is "an element for the construction of the debate"), and t defines four guidelines on: the very essence of Europe, the challenge of participation, and effectiveness, the "tension" between decentralisation and European unity, the selectivity of the tasks of the EU, subsidiarity and proportionality. All well and good. But if politicians interpret the ongoing exercise in the sense I observed during the hearing, the Commission will not be able but to broaden its vision, of speaking out on issues that exceed its current plan and answer those issues. That's my opinion and I share it, as the immortal Prudhomme would say. (F.R.)