Brussels, 04/04/2002 (Agence Europe) - The European Commission seminar on 3 April for preparing its communication to the Convention on the Future of Europe at the end of April or beginning of May enabled the Commissioners attending (sixteen attended almost all the four and a half hour seminar) to respond to questions on three main areas (President Prodi had not at this time drawn up a list of conclusions): core activities of the Union; division of powers; the institutional architecture of the Union.
Discussions were based on a document raising a number of issues in order to provide a number of political guidelines on the future Commission communication on the "political project" for Europe (as Michel Barnier, Commissioner for institutional Issues called it: see EUROPE 22 March page 5) and for encouraging in a more general way a debate between Commissioners on issues that will be the object of the new reform of the Treaties.
Discussion on core activities saw the need to both ask the question of what sort of Europe was wanted (this is the approach of the Convention Presided over by Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, for whom the plenary on 15-16 April will focus on Union core activities: see EUROPE 29 March page 6) and reasserting common values: democracy, respect for civil rights, social market economy etc. In this context, Commissioners point to four major chapters: economic issues, co-ordination of economic policies and possible fiscal and social impact; external relations, particularly the need to manage more coherently all the different areas (trade, external representation, including the Euro, diplomatic action, security and defence); justice and home affairs issues (control of external borders, fight against crime): Commissioners raised the question of transferring all these issues or only a part of them from the Third Pillar of the Treaty; information society and innovation.
On the division of powers, an exchange of views revealed the need for a greater clarification of this field, particularly with regard to public opinion but also warned of the danger of being trapped in too inflexible mechanisms. The discussion focused on: controlling subsidiarity (should the current system be continued or should new political or legal mechanisms be created for exercising control?) and also the definition of the scale of Community action. At this stage Commissioners had not indicated whether powers could possibly be returned to Member States, whereas the document points out that the exercise of certain Community powers is linked to certain specific objectives which have in part been reached (e.g. single market); a clearer distinction between the legislative and executive powers.
The debate on the institutional architecture of the Union raised the following points: democratic legitimacy, looking at the Commission itself and how it is appointed. The document that was on the table at the college of Commissioners looked at several possibilities, ranging from the status quo to the direct election of the President of the Commission by its citizens, with a number of intermediary solutions: a College in its own right, a President and Commissioners with the majority being elected in European elections, a President who would be the Head of a winning list in the European elections and which could then choose its Commissioners, a President of the European Commission elected by the European Parliament and national Parliaments, specially designated by a Congress. The issue of independence and the political neutrality of the Commission was raised in this context; legislative powers of the Union, stressing both the necessity to update the Community method in different areas: rights of initiative exclusive to the Commission, the decision of Qualified majority voting as the general rule at the Council; co-decision at the European Parliament (the question of budgetary powers of the Parliament was raised); government tasks, emphasising in particular the importance of Member States in applying the deadlines correctly and Community legislation.