Brussels, 21/11/2001 (Agence Europe) - Some three weeks ahead of the Brussels-Laeken Summit, the European Commissioner for institutional questions, Michel Barnier, addressed the European Parliament's Committee on Constitutional Affairs on the future of Europe. Mr Barnier focused on the urgent need for reform and the post-Laeken requirements - dialogue with civil society, defining a European project that meets citizens' expectations and gives the EU more democratic legitimacy.
Mr Barnier said that while the 11 September events had revealed the existence of a "European urgency" motivated by extra-Community concerns, there was the same urgency for Europe's own concerns, such as the future Convention (to prepare for the upcoming IGC) which Mr Barnier stressed would have to prove itself efficient and useful in the institutional domain. In terms of the timetable, Mr Barnier felt that the pause desired by the Member States (between the Convention and the IGC) should allow the outcome of the Convention's work to be "digested" but not forgotten, repeating that the Commission wants the IGC to end before the European elections in 2004 (which implies that the pause cannot be too long, Ed). Mr Barnier is in favour of the Convention publishing "options", as long as some of them are ambitious and have majority support, rather than having to thrash out a single consensus document ("third rate" consensus). He firmly believed that the Convention should provide "recommendations" for the IGC, which would form the basis of the IGC's discussions. He argued that the starting point should be the four issues outlined in the Nice Declaration (simplifying the Treaties, setting out decision-making powers, the role of national parliaments and the status of the Charter of Fundamental Rights), without ignoring the fact that these issues are inter-connected and that the effectiveness and legitimacy of the European project had to be reassessed through these issues. Mr Barnier felt that if they were properly dealt with, they could result in a constitutional agreement for uniting the EU's states and populations. "Let there be no mistake" - we have started down a constitutional road when we talk about fundamental citizens' rights, the EU's powers and decision-making procedures.
After talking "mechanics", Mr Barnier spoke to MEPs about the three demands that in his view had to be respected during the Convention (and beyond). First of all, debate. The Commissioner insisted that the creation of a Convention followed on from demands from public opinion that Europe be constructed in a different manner. The debate over the future of Europe had to move beyond the inner circle of experts and insiders and the Convention had to find a way to feed ideas to people not actually involved in it. Mr Barnier said that the Commission and Parliament had to be vigilant to ensure that dialogue with civil society were not "dodged or twisted in the Member States". Second, the project. The European project raises divergent ambitions, so the Commissioner stressed that enlargement would mean centrifugal forces in several areas (the euro, asylum, immigration, common defence, etc) would automatically increase and even extend to areas that have not yet been touched by this policy dis-unity (funding the EU, inter-regional solidarity, CAP, competition policy, etc). He argued that thought was required into what actually unites and disunites EU Member States, in order to detect the EU's new requirements. Backed up by the Eurobarometer survey, Mr Barnier said there was a genuine need for "more Europe" and argued that the danger lay less in the issuing of a huge number of over-detailed and over-complex directives than in "our potential incapacity" to take citizens' expectations into account in various areas. He argued in favour of the Community method which made it possible to consider adopting instruments as vital as the European arrest warrant. Third, legitimacy. The Commissioner saw improving the EU's democratic legitimacy as an urgent matter, contending that the best way to achieve this was to strengthen the institutional triangle (Parliament-Council-Commission) and the Community method. He suggested that the Council's legislative functions needed to be better identified; MEPs had to be closer to their electorate and their European mission had to be pushed home by electing some MEPs on multinational lists; and the executive functions of the European Commission had to be reaffirmed. Michel Barnier felt that the remit of qualified majority voting for decision-making had to be extended and that the Community method had to be gradually extended to new competencies, in particular to meet the "particularly strong" demand of citizens over issues of liberty, security and justice.