Brussels, 22/03/2002 (Agence Europe) - On Friday, the Chairman of the Convention on the Future of Europe, Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, gave the press a summary of the content of the speeches (of which there were over 80) by members of the Convention during the general debate on the question "What do you expect of Europe?". This marked the first working session of the Convention, mainly noting that "very few extreme points of view had been expressed". Many Members affirmed that the Union "does not listen to citizens sufficiently", that, on the inside, "it is curiously seen as abstract and distant", and that, from the outside, as "not relevant and not expressing sufficiently clear points of view", and not able to "answer the challenges of globalisation", summarised Valéry Giscard d'Estaing. He noted in his speeches, moreover, the expression of "traditional expectations" and others that are more recent (security, freedom and justice area, EU action on the international scene), as well as concerns for social policy ("without entering the debate on powers"), defence policy, internal cohesion, food safety, the environment and cultural diversity. He also noted a certain number of "priority principles" such as: community of "democratic and ethical values", "economic cooperation structured more around single currency", equality of rights between Member States (a concern expressed mainly by candidate countries), subsidiarity (mainly the strengthening of provisions to ensure this is respected), and the role of national parliaments.
Mr Giscard d'Estaing pointed out, moreover, that the plenary session on 15 and 16 April will cover the "Union's missions", and that the Secretariat will be preparing an informative document for this discussion (what are the Union's powers? "Where do they come from? The Treaty, political decisions, natural development" of integration?). Members will have a document for the plenary session on 23 and 24 May on "how to carry out these missions", namely the sharing of powers, he added. The session for listening to the civil society will be held in June, he announced, specifying that it was postponed in order to allow participants to react. He said they would meet them after having discussed substance among themselves a little so that its representatives know in what direction the Convention is engaged. Mr Giscard d'Estaing specified that this meeting will probably take place in three sessions and that it will be organised in a slightly "thematic" way. For example, there will be a session for listening to what the regions and local authorities have to say, another for representatives of the economic and social activities, etc.
Mr Giscard d'Estaing also pointed out that, during the plenary session, the idea of inviting a representative of the parliaments of candidate countries to the Praesidium had been accepted. Some wanted two to attend, and, in the Laeken Declaration, "there are none", he remarked, saying that the choice of this person will be made by the representatives of the parliaments, all or only those of candidate countries: "we shall not take part in this debate", he stressed. (See below).
A consensus was also reached on the subject of the Convention's working method, said Mr Giscard d'Estaing. He noted that 347 amendments had been presented with the first draft Praesidium text (see below for details on the discussion and also EUROPE of 20 march, p.4, and of 21 March, p.3). Furthermore, he pointed out that some Members had requested including "horizontal debates" in the plenary, when one of them could reply directly to another.
Finally, in answer to questions on the intention of the representatives of large political families to meet, Mr Giscard considered that "it is normal for the major European movements to harmonise their points of view". He did voice objection, however, to any excessive "structuring" of the Convention.
Mendez de Vigo and Hânsch reject reproaches of authoritarianism aimed at the Chairman and Praesidium
Speaking to the press, the two representatives of the European Parliament at the Praesidium, Inigo Mendez de Vigo and Klaus Hänsch, said they were pleased with this first open debate. Mr Mendez de Vigo said he noted a "willingness to reach good results", and few speeches took on a "defensive" tone. He mainly welcomed the integration of the candidates, which, he said, did not behave like a "separate bloc". The atmosphere has changed considerably since Nice and now everyone recognises the need for "substantial" EU reform, said Mr Hänsch, considering that this springs not only from the events on 11 September but also the changeover to the euro, which makes it necessary for Europe to have two stances, including a "political" stance.
Mr Hänsch also hoped that after this necessary listening phase, they would start working on the documents and organise more structured debates on specific themes.
Responding to reporters who said that Valéry Giscard d'Estaing in effect decided everything for himself if there was consensus, Mr Mendez de Vigo said this was a caricature, and one only had to look at the amendments tabled on the procedural rules that had been agreed upon and the solution found for candidate countries. He said the Convention had enormous political clout and wouldn't let itself be pushed around. On the role of the Praesidium, Mr Mendez de Vigo said there was nothing to be outraged about since every Assembly of such a size had to have a similar body. All the Convention's components are present on the Praesidium, he said, adding that what counted was a clear relationship between the Praesidium Members and their components. Mr Hänsch chipped in that the Praesidium cannot impose any diktats on the Convention.
Mr Hänsch said that is was perfectly natural for the big political groups to work together and that they would word their positions in such a way as they can attract broad consensus. Mr Mendez de Vigo said this type of contact had already begun, and had been of great assistance in terms of reaching consensus on the Convention's working method.
Michel Barnier warns against over-simplification - John Bruton calls for citizens to be given
option of electing their "government in Europe"
Our institutions are complex, and will remain so, said European Commissioner Michel Barnier during the general debate on Friday. He said they shouldn't try to over-simplify matters because complexity was the price that had to be paid to keep a united Europe amid diversity, but recognised that progress was needed in terms of additional democracy and decentralisation in the EU and probably to reduce bureaucracy in its operating methods. He said the Convention should pose a number of questions - Do we want to remain where we are today? (which wouldn't be too bad, he commented) or Do we want to go backwards, as some people are demanding? If so, the Convention should consider how the European economy is to be run and ask whether the EU should be a world power (see yesterday's EUROPE p.5 on comments made by Mr Barnier at his press conference). Europe is complex, fortunately, because it is the historical crystallisation of the permanent interaction of Member States and the European Union and the result of painstaking, intelligent and subtle compromises, commented the Spanish parliament's representative Gabriel Cisneros.
We are not ashamed of the idealism of Europe's "visionary" founding fathers, who acted without opinion polls, said John Bruton, Irish MP and Praesidium Member (and former Prime Minister). The Convention should ask what citizens want, he said, saying they needed "personal security, the means to make a living and fairness and democratic involvement" which would require action at both national and European levels. The difference between the two levels is that "citizens don't feel they can elect or sack the European government" stressed Mr Bruton: "Our task is to find a way in which our citizens and jut elites can elect their government in Europe". Romanian MP Liviu Maior said that personal security was a priority for citizens and that integration did not mean wiping out national identities. Another candidate country representative, Lithuanian MP Peeter Kreitzberger mentioned sovereignty, widely quoting Joschka Fischer's address to Humboldt Universität. Gisela Stuart, British MP and Praesidium Member, called for Europe "not to strangle itself in its own regulation", while Karel De Gucht, Belgian MP, called for a high level of social protection and for Europe to be a "protagonist" on the world stage but not a hegemonic power. The Convention has to reach home safely, stressed the former MEP, reminding his audience of the Spinelli project, approved by the European Parliament in February 1984. He said that Altiero Spinelli compared the outcome of the project (compared with his own aims) to the fishbone that the fisherman in Ernest Hemingway's "The Old Man and the Sea" finally manages to haul in. My government wants the Convention to lay the foundations of a simplified Treaty, said Henning Christophersen, speaking on behalf of the Danish government (he used to be a European Commissioner). He also called for equality between large and small countries, a more effective decision-making process and a strengthening of the European institutions, while making the most of the role of national parliaments.
Paul Helminger, Luxembourg MP, called for the local level to be taken into account, adding that he was the only Member who was the Mayor of a European capital city. MEP Pia Noora Kauppi warned against the intergovernmental method, which would again turn Europe into "playing field" for the big countries against the small. The Finnish MEP called for a two-part Treaty (a constitutional part of no more than 100 articles and a second consolidated part setting out current acquis), saying that if Nice wasn't ratified and if a Constitution wasn't adopted, the EU would need a "plan B" to change the current Treaty to cope with enlargement.
Valéry Giscard d'Estaing stresses role of women - Small (and large) organisational details
Eveline Lichtenberger, Alternate for the Austrian parliament representative, said there were very few women Members and called for half of the Members of the future Youth Convention to be women. Chairman Valéry Giscard d'Estaing said that he had written to Heads of State asking them to appoint as many women as possible, paraphrasing one of Jacques Santer's phrases (the Luxembourg government's representative and MEP) whereby Jean Monnet said nothing is done without men, nothing lasts in the institutions, by saying nothing is done without men, nothing lasts without women. Valéry Giscard d'Estaing had to decide on a serious of maters of detail in the plenary, like the question raised by Alain Lamassoure of whether Members should stand up when they speak. On this tricky question, he joked, we should do what the interpreters request. To make it easier for them to hear us, they've asked us to speak sitting down and hunched up…
The intervention by MEP Pervenche Berès seems to have been able to settle another issue pragmatically enough - the option for Alternates to speak when the Holder is present. I'm speaking on behalf of Olivier Duhamel, who is here, she said, although Alternates were only supposed to address the floor when the Holder was absent. Expressing the views of the Spinelli group for a new federalism (see EUROPE/Documents 2272 of 14 March 2002), the French Socialist said that before writing a Constitution, the Convention should check what type of contract they wanted.
David Heathcoat-Amory calls for powers to be returned to nation states
One of the rare calls to "transfer back a substantial number of powers" was made during the Thursday afternoon debate by British MP David Heathcoat-Amory. The EU's powers should be "radically pruned" he insisted. On a different tack, the British government representative Peter Hain wanted to play a "constructive" role, calling for a radical reform of the Council and a strong Commission too, possibly smaller in size but with deputy Commissioners so all Member States are included in it. The Austrian parliament representative Reinhard Bösch said that a monthly rotation of the Council Presidency would even work with 25 Member States, while for the Swedish government Lena Hjelm-Wallen insisted the Treaty be modernised. She also focussed on subsidiarity. Sören Lekberg, Swedish parliament representative, suggested studying how national parliaments monitor the work of their governments at EU level. We need a realistic and yet ambitious debate in a language our citizens can understand, said Ana Palacio, an MP representing the Spanish government. MEP Inigo Mendez de Vigo hailed the fraternal atmosphere between Members and called on his colleagues to try and work hard but also to have fun. Lamberto Dini, representing the Italian parliament, focussed on subsidiarity (wanting loopholes in the Treaty concerning its instruments to be filled in), the EU's legal status and the hierarchy of standards (that Italy had put forward in Maastricht, he said). Gianfranco Fini, representing the Italian government, called for a dynamic vision of the EU's future and called for a federation of nation states and for European citizenship to become stronger. The issue of powersharing is not just a German obsession, noted the German government representative Peter Glotz, stressing that the acquis had to be preserved, although there could be a return of powers to Member States in individual cases. If we success it will be go down in history, he said, but if we fail, that will go down in history too. The MEP representing the Greek government, George Katiforis, called for a federal perspective and a strengthening of the role of European parties, while for the Portuguese government, Joao de Vallera said that the debate must not take place in a political and social vacuum.
European Commission Antonio Vitorino put the spotlight on the need to get down to the constitutional task of defining the unidentified political object that Europe has always been, while respecting national identifies and giving themselves the means to reach the objectives they had mutually agreed upon. The constitutional and institutional consequences to be drawn would easily come to light if there were agreement on identity and constitutional principles, he said. All candidate country representatives spoke English and their most commonly expressed appeal was for Europe to be brought closer to its citizens and not to create new divisions. Solidarity and the Community Method must be strengthened, said the Bulgarian government representative Meglene Kuneva, the representative of the Maltese parliament, Michael Fredo, stressed, while placing emphasis on common values, that "we continue to be nation States". We must build a "real political community" between us, Pavel Hamzik, representative of the Slovak parliament said, and Hungarian deputy Jozsef Szafer insisted on there being a balance between national and European identities. The candidate countries will "rejuvenate" the European institutions with new ideas, assured the representative of the Slovene government, Matjaz Nahtigal, and Jozef Oleski, speaking for the Polish parliament, took a stance against any idea of a "hard core", while urging the Union to show proof of courage in this reform. Mesut Yilmaz, representing the Turkish government, pointed out that Turkish citizens are already using the platform set in place for them to express their views on the Convention. He also insisted on the "delicate" balance between the EU and Member States, and called for "the secular and multicultural identity of the continent to be clearly defined at the end of the work by the Convention". Speaking for the Committee of the Regions, Eduardo Zaplana welcomed the active part that regional and local authorities may take in this debate, and insisted on subsidiarity. MEP Alain Lamassoure felt it was necessary to find a way to allow citizens to express themselves (for example as in Switzerland, where a questionnaire had been sent to voters before the constitutional reform of 1995-1996).
Some irritation about question of candidates and working method
The Convention finally settled, by consensus, outstanding questions of procedure after quite a lively discussion. Thus:
- Concerning the role of the candidate countries in the Praesidium, the representative of the Slovene parliament, Alojz Peterle, felt that two representatives would be better than one (the solution adopted). Ana Palacio affirmed that the candidates must not consider themselves as a category apart. And Mr Giscard d'Estaing, who found this debate "rather irritating", noted that the candidates cannot "say we are like the others, because we are not the same". He recalled that all current Member States are not present at the Praesidium, including some large founding countries. Alternate member to the representative for the Latvian government, Guntars Krasts, preferred the term "associate member" to the term "guest", and requested that each candidate should be able to speak in his own language that would then be translated into one of the official languages of the Union (according to MEP Jens-Peter Bonde, the Convention could serve as a testing ground for interpreting the languages of the new members).
- As regards working method, MEP Elmar Brok called for the text of the Praesidium to be accepted but for the rules to be applied in a "liberal" way ("liberal, yes, but not laxist", replied Giscard d'Estaing), and for them to be reviewed in two or three months if things do not work properly ("I hope this will not be necessary", was Mr Giscard d'Estaing's comment). "We are here to write a constitutional treaty, not regulations", exclaimed Klaus Hänsch, and Ana Palacio invited her colleagues to put their trust in each other. The representative for the Cypriot parliament, Panayotis Dimitriou, expressed views along the same lines, while MEP Andrew Duff said he agreed with the regulation only as an interim solution and proposed creating a working group to examine the situation, after two or three plenary sessions. Let us follow the "learning by doing" method, suggested the representative of the Austrian government, Johannes Farnleitner, while Luxembourg parliamentarian Ben Fayot listed the requests of the national parliament component concerning, above all, the composition of the working groups and the role of alternate members. MEP, the Earl of Stockton, joked saying he would call the rules on alternate members the "Borgia clause", referring to the right to intervene only if the title-holders were prevented from doing so. "The central idea is that title-holders take part otherwise there is no Convention spirit", commented Giscard d'Estaing, who, moreover, predicted that the "running in" could prove difficult on the question of the working group. He stressed that the number of their members should not be excessive.