Brussels, 28/11/2001 (Agence Europe) - On Wednesday afternoon the European Parliament and the Presidents of the Council of Europe and the European Commission debated the main subjects of the European Council of Laeken on 14-15 December. Emphasis was placed on the opening of the debate on the future of Europe.
The President of the Council, Louis Michel, recalled that the first part of the Declaration of Laeken would concentrate on the strengths and weaknesses of European construction, the second part would focus on issues the Convention could get to grips with and the third part would fix the parameters of the debate. Mr Michel claimed that the Belgian Presidency's proposal on future of the Convention would mean that work would "begin as soon as possible" next year and be concluded by the European Council in June 2003. He also pointed out that the deadline between the end of the work and the beginning of the Intergovernmental Conference was still being worked out. The Belgian Presidency has drawn on the Declaration of Nice as its starting point for the subjects for discussion and has established a mandate that is both sufficiently broad and coherent. The subjects are categorised according to the six different "open and neutral" question areas. The objectives and the content of the Union's policies, the sharing of competencies between the Union and Member States, the democratic legitimacy of the system, the ability of the Union to decide and carry out policy. Mr Michel said that the outline of Guy Verhofstadt's declaration during his tour of European capitals describes these subjects as questions and choice that would allow the delegations to provide full information on all areas of discussion (EUROPE will be discussing this "outline" later). Candidate countries would be represented in the same way as Member States (one government representative and two from Parliament) and those which had not yet signed the Accession Treaty would not take part in the Convention's consensus when it drew up its final report. Mr Michel explained that the President of the Convention would be designated by the European Council of Laeken and assisted by a Presidium consisting of the Convention's different components. The question of the participation of the Presidency in office had been settled but the question on the participation of the two Presidencies to follow was still outstanding. The Secretariat of the Convention would be handled by the Secretariat of the Council, which in turn would receive the useful support of the Commission and the European Parliament's Secretariat and those of the Member States. Unanimity would be reached by consultation with civil society through representative organisations at national and European level, which would be given a hearing or consulted according to methods that still need to be worked out.
Mr Michel was eager to stress that no matter what was included in the Declaration of Laeken, the Convention would still control the agenda and that the Presidency's proposals should not be interpreted as a mandate for the future Intergovernmental Conference. The objective of the Declaration of Laeken was to ensure that the Convention's methods were productive and that the results were taken up by the Intergovernmental Conference of 2004.
As for the other main areas for discussion at the Laeken Summit, Mr Michel indicated that CESDP was a priority. Mr Michel said that the declaration on the operational character of CESDP, posed a dilemma for the Union. It would either find itself unable to carry the policy out because of a veto being imposed by a NATO member or non-member of the Union (such as Turkey: see elsewhere for details) or declare it operational without having access to NATO facilities and thus ending up with a declaration without any real foundation. In both cases the credibility of the union would be put into doubt. Faced with this dilemma, Mr Michel said that the third way suggested by the Belgian Presidency would consist of the Union deciding on a case by case basis for conflict solving, depending on the means it had available and its military and civilian capacity.
Enlargement: Mr Michel insisted on the necessity of meeting the deadline decided on at Nice and confirmed at Gothenburg, as well as on the possibility of welcoming new members by 2004.
War on terrorism: the Belgian Presidency would be presenting a "synthesis report" at the Summit summarising the measures adopted and which possessed a "prospective character" hoping that at Laeken, an agreement would be reached on a common list of terrorist organisations and framework decisions concerning the European arrest warrant, the war against terrorism and the implementation of decisions on freezing assets and proof in the EU.
Economic situation. This will be dealt with on the first day of the Summit, when Finance Ministers present the eurokits and report back on their negotiations over cross-border payments (see yesterday's EUROPE, p. 6/7 for the outcome of the Internal Market Council), stressed Mr Michel. He pointed out that with a view to preparing for the Barcelona Summit the following have to be completed by the end of the year: setting up the Food Safety Authority; progress over the Community patent; public procurement; and the implementation of the GALILEO programme.
Employment and social cohesion. The European Council will subscribe to parts of the Employment Package and the Guidelines for 2002, signalled Mr Michel, laying particular emphasis on the introduction of a new horizontal target concerning the quality of employment and the adoption of a first authorised list of indicators measuring the quality of employment.
Headquarters of various bodies and agencies: Heads of state will try to hammer out an agreement on where various new EU bodies and agencies are to be located, indicated Mr Michel.
Governance: Romano Prodi ready for interinstitutional dialogue
The European Commission's Communication on the future of Europe starts by noting that the Union needs instruments to enable it to meet its responsibilities at global level and act in an efficient, democratic way, asserted the President of the European Commission, Romano Prodi, adding that citizens were calling on the EU to do much more than in the 60s and 70s and that current institutional structures could not deal with the new challenges effectively (migration, terrorism, organised crime, globalisation, instability in the Balkans, etc). In terms of the future Convention, the Commission wants it to have a "vast" mandate based on the four sections of the Nice Declaration which cover far more areas than a quick perusal would suggest. Either way, he added, it would be unthinkable to have any taboo areas at the Convention, most of whose members will be deputies. Mr Prodi felt that a President of the Convention who was nominated by the Summit "will find it far easier to create the atmosphere of trust between the Convention and the European Council that is a prerequisite for success". In his very full speech, Mr Prodi said he agreed with the idea of getting the president of the Convention involved in the work of the Intergovernmental Conference and called for a Praesidium with "one representative for each component". In terms of the EP's request for the Convention to adopt a single, coherent proposal, he said "I hope this happens, but we must remain realistic… it may prove objectively impossible to find a broad consensus without lowering our sights too far. For the time being, I prefer to embark on the IGC with stronger and weaker options so that we will still have a change to obtain strong responses". Mr Prodi desire that the Convention finish its work before the June 2004 European elections was echoed by many MEPs.
Mr Prodi also raised the question of European governance (the EP will be voting on the Kaufmann report on Thursday, see EUROPE of 23 November, p.9), saying the Commission favoured three-way dialogue with Parliament and Council and "I have made this point again today at the meeting of the trialogue". Basically, Mr Prodi believes that changes to governance should focus on democratic legitimacy, before covering "effectiveness". He wanted to reassure Parliament (which fears it will be supplanted by civil society): "I can assure you that this is not the case". "The European Parliament is the most important democratic expression of European civil society". The Commission never intended to "call into question the prerogatives of the EP as a co-legislator", hammered home Mr Prodi, signalling that the Commission believes the EP should have "together with the Council… a simple legal provision to … monitor and control the actions of the executive". Mr Prodi confirmed that the Commission believes the "call back" mechanisms (demanded by the EP for financial services) "is perhaps not the best possible answer" and the Commission "will reflect actively on other possibilities".