An unavoidable debate. We shall not avoid the regions. Participation by regions in tomorrow's European institutional mechanisms has become an unavoidable subject in the on-going broad debate; plans and sketches drawing the future institutions must take account of this. This demand mainly results from the growing weight that regional entities have taken in the constitutional structure of Member States. A country like Germany was already a federal republic, made up of Laender, when the EU was first created; others have gradually evolved towards increased regional autonomy, like Belgium, Spain, the United Kingdom and now Italy too. At the same time, regarding doctrine, the principle of "subsidiarity" obviously provides arguments along the same lines. In two Member States, Germany (through the Bundesrat) and Belgium, regions have their word to say in the ratification of Treaties. Last week, a session of the Council was not chaired by a "national" minister, but a "regional" one, the Minister-President of Wallonia, and there will be other similar cases between now and the end of the year. Alain Lamassoure, European Parliament rapporteur on the delimitation of European competencies, defined regions as "hidden actors" of the institutional debate, and one chapter of his report (still gestating) will be devoted to them. For its part, the European Commission will necessarily raise these issues in its White Paper on governance, expected for the end of the month.
But at the same time, the concept that is making headway regarding Europe of tomorrow is that of a "Federation of Nation States", respectful of national identities; the idea of a "Europe of Regions" is no longer on the table. It is therefore essential to establish a reasonable balance between the importance of the regions and regional authorities, on the one hand, and the respect of States and their competencies, on the other.
The demands of the Committee of the Regions. The Union's institutional panoply comprises a body representative of regional and local authorities; the "Committee of the Regions" (CoR). It is normal that this body should have taken the lead in this matter and that it is trying to secure its demands that may be summarised in a phrase: it is absurd to imagine new institutions or build more or less complex new constructions, as the CoR is there and it works; suffice it to amplify its role. The "Salamanca Declaration", approved last month in this old Spanish university city at the end of a conference organised by the CoR, calls for the latter's role to exceed that of an advisory body, to transform it into a "genuine instrument for the participation of local and regional authorities in decision-making", with a status of a "political institution within the EU institutional architecture". The results of the work of the Conference was summarised in our Bulletin of 25 June, p.6. During the debates (which I had the opportunity to follow in part), emphasis was forcefully placed on the fact that the CoR should no longer be a "simple machine for manufacturing opinions", and that its members were elected politicians, not bureaucrats. One of the main reason for citizens' disinterest in European affairs lies in their physical distance from institutions: seen by a citizen in deepest Europe, Brussels seems incomprehensible, impossible to reach, detached from the daily lives of citizens, stressed Karl-Heinz Klar, co-rapporteur (with Mr. Lucas Jimenez). The well-known observations of the gap that has been created between Europe and its citizens was taken up and amplified in Salamanca by elected representatives at local and regional level, who highlighted their direct contact with people. Let us not forget that sitting on the CoR are people who are popular in their towns or regions and who have great weight in their country. Suffice to mention CoR President Mr. Chabert, Vice-President of the Government of Brussels, Mr. Stoiber, Prime Minister of Bavaria, Mr. Hasquin, President of the French Community of Belgium, Mr. Giscard d'Estaing, President of the Regional Council of Auvergne, Mr. Pujol, President of Catalonia, Mr. Formigioni, President of Lombardi, plus the mayors to or their deputies of Athens, Madrid, Turin, etc.. They consider themselves as being bridges between the populations and the Community authorities, able to contribute in the rapprochement between the EU and its citizens.
The role of States remains essential. If that is the general direction, where lies the problem? The first resides in defining those matters in which the Committee of the Regions should have a role exceeding the purely advisory one. Generally-speaking, political decisions will obviously remain the preserve of Member States, within the Council. It is therefore at national level, in defining the stances of their country, that regional authorities may have their word to say, according to the constitutional rules of each Member State. The problem of proximity between citizens and decision-makers is not exclusively European, far from it; it is foremost a problem of relations between the different levels of power within each Member State. But, according to the Klar/Lucas Jimenez report on "proximity", the CoR should have the possibility of making its opinion known on draft legislation before it becomes a formal proposal (early consultation), and the financial and administrative consequences of each project on the regions and municipalities should be the subject of a "prior assessment". Appropriate measures of transparency and "traceability" should allow people to follow the path of each project from proposal to transposition in Member States. Then, implementation of any European directive should be achieved with active participation of regional and local administrations, which again seems to be a national problem (and not European). As we can see, the problem is a complex one but reasonable solutions are possible if all parties concerned - regional and local authorities, national authorities, European institutions - collaborate honestly.
Avoiding skidding off the rails. The second problem is specific to "constitutional regions", regions that have the faculty of passing laws and, because of that, are seeking a special regime. The other regions are obviously loath to accept a lesser role, and governments are divided at the prospect of allocating to some special powers at European level (Mr. Guy Verhofstadt is said not to be against this, while remaining cautious: Mr. Aznar is very reticent, others hesitate). Seven of the regions concerned (Bavaria, Catalonia, Scotland, Rheinland North-Westfalia, Flanders, Wallonia, Salzbourg), have set up a pressure group and, to begin with, are demanding direct participation in the preparatory work of the EU's forthcoming institutional reform and inclusion of these issues in topics to be dealt with by the Convention (or Forum) that next year will prepare the new IGC. But the aim and purposes of these "regional" demands are not uniform: there is doubtless, in some so-called "constitutional" regions, a tendency to partly undo certain European common policies and to block EU competencies. Some Laender are seeking total autonomy (or almost) regarding agriculture and State aid. It is therefore obvious that some demands of the regions, legitimate in principle for reasons mentioned above, may conceal dangerous tendencies for the Union's cohesion and for equality for all in the face of "European law". If the constitutional realities of Member States differ, it is impossible and dangerous to define a uniform mould that could be applied to all realities. The reflection must continue, with clarity and honesty, avoiding skidding off the rails.
(F.R.)