Brussels, 27/03/2002 (Agence Europe) - Speaking to the European Parliament's Constitutional Committee on Wednesday (in what he hoped would be the first of many meetings, since it was with the Constitutional Committee that he would be working most closely, outside the Convention itself), Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, Chairman of the Convention on the Future of Europe, said that the Convention's first plenary session had demonstrated how difficult the task was, because they were already working in the configuration of the Europe of the future, while MEPs worked in the framework of 15 Member States. The Convention reflected the profound geopolitical changes that the EU would soon undergo, he said, with the current reform process affecting all the institutions. He repeated what he had already said to President Prodi, namely that this would mean that the European Commission would no longer be able to vote at the end of the process. Another lesson to be drawn, according to Mr Giscard d'Estaing, was that the Convention mustn't have any "intellectual taboos" about the Community acquis being "untouchable" for example, since considering power-sharing would probably lead to some things being "reconsidered". The former French President answered questions from around 20 MEPs, one after the other, for two hours on Wednesday.
In terms of the timetable, VGE admitted there were "contradictions", saying it would be excellent if the 2004 European elections could be a way of expressing opinions on the results of the next IGC. This was his answering to comments from the Forza Italia MEP Antonio Tajani, also a Member of the Convention (who pointed out that the Philadelphia Convention did what it had to do very quickly), again calling for the next Intergovernmental Conference to be concluded before the European elections and before enlargement since otherwise there was not only the danger of a delay, but the risk of smashing a dream. Mr Tajani said the Chair of the Praesidium and the Convention Chairman attending the IGC would ensure it progressed more quickly.
Answering a question from German Social Democrat Christa Randzio-Plath on the problem of political unity and an economic government of the European Union, VGE raised the issue of the democratic acceptance of decisions taken in the EU, which would become even more crucial in an enlarged Europe if a portion of society refused to apply the decisions. He gave two examples concerning Europe as it is at the moment - the inability in Laeken to decide over the location of European agencies because of the intransigence of Finland and Italy (about the Food Authority, Ed); and the question of liberalising energy in Barcelona, because of France's attitude (although it could have been voted on, he said, since this was possible under European procedures).
Mario Segni, an Italian MEP in the Union for a Europe of the Nations, voiced concern at the comments made by VGE last October at the Constitutional Committee about a strengthening of the Council since Mr Segni argued that the Council was an organ of national governments and could not be the government of the Union, but the EU needed a government. VGE said that in his view, what Europe needed was an executive that worked properly. It does not have one at the moment, he claimed, but had had one twice in the past - at the time of the first European Commissions (with six and probably also with nine Member States) and again in 1970 when the Commission was no longer sufficient and the European Council was set up as the "new executive". (This was founded in 1974 on VGE's initiative when he was President of France, Ed.) He admitted that a 28-country European Council would not be an executive.
Asked by British Liberal Democrat Andrew Duff, Member of the Convention, about the Solana report on reforming the EU Council and whether this would be co-ordinated with the Convention, VGE said the Solana report proposals were interesting and probably went in the same direction. He said that in Seville, a filtering of proposals would be made to decide which of them required an amendment to the Treaties - the other ones would be submitted to the Convention.
Mr Valéry Giscard d'Estaing admitted that after the first "listening" meeting of the Members of the Convention, it would be necessary to "structure" debate and this would be done for the April and May Convention plenaries looking at the assignments to be attributed to the EU (he said he wanted to see trends emerging on this) and power ("would they simply look at the EU's powers or also define nation states' powers?").
In response, however, to German Social Democrat Jo Leinen, who noted there had been "96 interventions in every direction" during the plenary on Thursday and Friday last, VGE said: "you have to be able to listen, take time to listen (…); everyone was able to give their views, in many directions but not in every direction. There were very few extreme views", of the kind "it's all a waste of time this Union, let's go home", or an appeal for a United States of Europe.
Napolitano stresses link between Union policies and its institutions
Chairman of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, Giorgio Napolitano (Democratici di sinistra), had welcomed Valéry Giscard d'Estaing by reminding him of the many reports already adopted by the Parliament on problems tackled by the Convention (his own report on national parliaments, the Mendez de Vigo/Seguro and Leinen/Mendez de Vigo reports on Laeken and post-Laeken, the Duhamel report on the constitutional process, and Carnero Gonzalez' report on legal personality). He pointed out that there will be others (mainly the Lamassoure report on the sharing of powers), as well as less formal "and slower" contributions. Furthermore, the sixteen MEPs that are Members of the Convention "will know how to make themselves heard", he promised, stressing the importance of more systematic EP/national parliament cooperation. He spoke of the "emergence of a true parliamentary component". At this point, VGE cited the possibility of convening a "sort of European parliamentary congress" bringing together national and European parliamentarians in exceptional circumstances and on specific subjects. It is wrong to say that the institutions, the rules and the instruments of the EU do not interest the citizens, said Mr Napolitano, who called on the Convention not to ignore the "link" that exists between the missions of the Union and those of its institutions. "Good policies are not enough if the citizens do not feel represented, are not sure that the decisions are taken democratically, and do not have the possibility of making their views heard", he pounded home.
Convention will seek to work on a single text, VGE confirms
In response to questions on the nature of the text that will result from the work of the Convention (Richard Corbett, British Labour member, asked if it would be a "constitutional text"), VGE confirmed: "We are trying to work towards a single text" that would, legally, be a treaty, since it should be adopted by an intergovernmental conference, but which will have "content of a constituent or constitutive kind". He went on to say: "We shall have to draft texts that will be a substitute for the existing texts"; we shall simplify not by "constant law", as the European University Institute of Florence had done (with participation of Giuliano Amato), but by "amended law". Greek Socialist Giorgios Tsatsos also wanted clarification concerning the future "treaty", and noted that the word constitution "expresses our dream, our desires". We want a text of a "constituent" kind, that the IGC could accept as such, that it can "easily" accept, repeated VGE. In response to Georges Berthu (Mouvement pour la France), who asked "how long the uncertainty will last" between the solution of a European Constitution above the national constitutions and a constitution in a "more restricted" way, VGE recalled that there is a "strong demand for a political, readable text". He also felt that "at any rate, the Union must be given a legal identity", and "one of our proposals will certainly" be to give it such an identity. British Conservative Timothy Kirkhope, Member of the Convention, was the only one during the debate to warn against any attempt at hastily moving towards a single document. In his view, there could be "several texts".
Austrian Social Democrat Hans-PeterMartin felt it was now necessary to organise the work of the Convention within reduced formations, and VGE said that the Convention should "detect, on different subjects, the fifteen persons really determined to get down to work, to accept the discipline" that such work demands "not in a spirit of competition" but according to competence. Mr Martin also wished to know whether the Convention on the Charter of Fundamental Rights was for him an example, and VGE answered that it was because it "had results" and because it showed that one cannot vote in such an assembly.
Italian Green member Monica Frassoni expressed concern about the way the Praesidium works, considering that "its excessive lack of formality" could result in a lack of transparency. Our two representatives (Ed.: Inigo Mendez de Vigo and Klaus Hänsch), she said, are playing the role of "minute-takers". She also requested that the officials of European institutions should be able to take part in the work of the Praesidium. VGE came up with the repartee: "No, we do not want a bureaucratic Convention. This is a political Convention, and people in it must take responsibility for what they say (…) Notes are taken, and records, there is no secret". If there are no interpreters for this twelve-person body, it is also to cut down on costs, he added, recalling that, where necessary, there is interpreting using the "whispering" technique, and that this will be the case for a candidate country guest if required. Dutch Christian Democrat Hanja Maij-Weggen, also, expressed concern about the work of the Praesidium, asking above all if it planned to use experts for drafting texts.
Teresa Almeida Garrett (EPP Portugal) considered that the initial Convention listening phase was quite difficult and raised the problem, as others had, of language , which must be comprehensible for its citizens.
Do you support the Council or the Commission? Mr Giscard d'Estaing's reply to
Mr Duhamel was that both were needed.
"Do you support the Council or the Commission?" was the question asked by French Socialist Olivier Duhamel and thus raising the issue often referred to during last week's general debate, that of the relationship between the intergovernmental institutions and the Commission. "I was very much for the Council and have become a supporter of the Commission", replied Mr Giscard d'Estaing, pointing out (to him that the creation of the Council in 1974 replaced the European Summits which were not held systematically-Editor's note), adding, " I believe that we need the two and perhaps a more original co-operation between them". Mr Duhamel didn't appreciate Giscard d'Estaing's question, "Do we want more uniformity or are we going to preserve diversity", replying that it was a false question because we needed more unity in diversity. Mr Giscard d'Estaing commented that the question was a legitimate one because the problem was really knowing whether we wanted to go towards more complete integration or whether identity issues would endure and which should co-exist.
Jean-Louis Bourlanges (EPP France) raised the question of the independence of Members. He did not like the term "representatives" very much and appealed for a Convention made up of people who see themselves as "members of the Convention rather than representatives of their constituents". He hammered home that fact that it would be "serious" if in order to reach consensus, each constituent had to agree, for these people are there to "act freely". Mr Giscard d'Estaing was in complete agreement and according to him, there had perhaps been a mistake in that drafting because, "they are not representatives when they speak and do not speak for one other constituent".
While recognising that enlargement was an "historic challenge", Camilo Nogueira, Spanish Member of the Greens/ALE, believed that it also constituted "an enormous danger" when we want political union and asked whether the issue could be resolved by strengthened co-operation. Mr Giscard d'Estaing replied that strengthened co-operation had never been used because it was very difficult to apply (we did it before it existed on paper, like for EMU, he pointed out) and indicated that Members could see the clauses even though they are temporary and partial.
"Is subsidiarity always essential?" asked the President of the Socialist Group, Enrique Baron. Mr Giscard d'Estaing replied, "Yes, it remains important, it has not been applied, it hasn't worked like a pressure tool, because we produced less legislation".
SDP politician (Germany), Sylvia-Yvonne Kaufmann (United Left) fully supported the Convention on Youth, exclaiming that they had to had to gain the "enthusiasm of the youth for Europe". Mr Giscard d'Estaing confirmed that Members could propose to the youth that they participate in the Convention in July.
Giscard d'Estaing: Eurosceptics obviously have the right to submit legislation
William Abitol, member of the Europe of Democracies and Differences introduced himself as a "sovereignist" in France and a "Eurosceptic" in Europe and admitted that he did not understand the word consensus used for defining the desired result by the convention because there was either "unanimity", which was "unattainable" or there was possibly consensus in each Convention constituent, which wasn't "desirable". He was also worried about how public opinion received the work of the Convention. Mr Giscard d'Estaing pointed out that decision-makers are very interested in this, where as "the broad sweep of public opinion" would follow and make itself known when the proposals come out. Another Eurosceptic, British Conservative, Daniel Hannan asked whether referendums on convention results would be possible. Mr Giscard d'Estaing, said that, "It would be necessary to see a people's vote, which would undoubtedly be of the great majority". Jens-Peter Bond, President of the Europe of Democracies and Differences and a Member of the Convention once again raised the issue of "legitimacy" of this, hoping that other political representatives other than the EPP, Socialists or Liberals were represented at the Presidium. "Up until now, Members have not been arguing among themselves…Eurosceptics have the right to submit legislation". Mr Giscard d'Estaing explained that it was less sure that this kind of legislation would be adopted.