Brussels, 16/04/2002 (Agence Europe) - Drawing the conclusions before the press on Tuesday of the work of the European Convention on the powers to hand the European Union in future, the Convention's President, Valery Giscard d'Estaing noted that, whereas no Member had been prepared to "put into question the powers of Member States", this had not gone hand in hand with a kind of "exaltation of the role of the States in the EU", and that nor had there been a "pillage of European powers" (see below and yesterday's EUROPE, pages 6 and 7). For VGE, it had been an "element of surprise" to note on the whole "a unanimity in not placing into question the Union's current tasks", but also in not extending these tasks, except in two directions: the common external policy (placing emphasis on security more than defence) and cross-border action regarding security and justice. Questioned on CFSP, VGE replied: "we cannot separate without having made an operational proposal" on this policy, and "in the draft constitutional treaty, there will be provisions for Europe to speak through one mouth". He then stipulated: he who speaks will have to have the level of a Colin Powell or a Chinese or Russian foreign minister, and will have to be backed, upstream, on a policy, and on a decision-making mechanism so that "this mouth will be authorised to rapidly express European stances"
VGE was fairly surprised by the answer generally provided by the Members to the question of whether "EU tasks should be set once and for all". "I was expecting them wanting to set them for a fairly lengthy period, but this request was not made", he said, noting that the majority of Members had come down in favour of a "gradual system" of skills, but a system that would evolve "following a fairly formal process, with interventions by national parliaments". There needs to be "an ad hoc structure" allowing for such an evolution without requiring unanimity (necessary to amend the treaties: see below for what Lamberto Dini had to say), said VGE, announcing: "I shall be making a proposal".
Asked about the timetable for the reform, VGE acknowledged that he would like there to be agreement on the future treaty before the European elections of 2004, even if "ratification will not be complete". If the Convention reaches a "fairly elaborate" document, the IGC could "in fact be fairly short", he considered. "One day?", a journalist asked him. "No…, but governmental representatives will now have a Contention too", he replied. As to the coincidence with enlargement negotiations, he admitted that this raised a "complex problem of timetable", but considered that the electorate in candidate countries (also present in the Convention, and are thus well aware of it) must also understand that the institutions in which their countries will enter will be altered.
As for the idea of drawing up a list of powers of Member States, VGE acknowledge to the press that it had not received "much support", even though it had been defended by Members who carried a certain weight (he mentioned the German Teufel, French Haenel and Italian Fini). The Convention's Secretariat will engage in the exercise tending to draw up two lists - one for EU powers, the other for Member States' powers, he nevertheless announced. Are you only doing that to please the German Laender? No, replied VGE, we are doing so because we want to be an "open" Convention.
In his speech during the plenary Tuesday morning, European commissioner Antonio Vitorino, for his part, considered that discussions on the definition and distribution of powers should focus "around the notion of the intensity of the level of European intervention", taking account of European added value rather than trying to establish "complete models of categories of powers". At the same time, he stressed the need to remain "respectful of Member States", notably by introducing a "control mechanism for subsidiarity", allowing above all for a political assessment: according to him, "self-restriction of institutions will probably not suffice, whence the interest of going further into the idea of a specific control body".
The debate in plenary: subsidiarity, but no rigid list of powers
The debate in this plenary, in principle devoted to the tasks that they would like to see the Union handed in future, largely spilled over onto the subject for the plenary of May - distribution of powers. There is a certain confusion between tasks and powers, Eleni Mavrou deplored, representative of the Cypriot Parliament. And Valery Giscard d' Estaing acknowledged so, speaking spontaneously in the discussion and noting in particular that at times citizens hoped that the EU would exercise tasks precisely in areas where "nobody wants to provide it with powers": example, social policy, where nobody proposes transferring to European level powers like those on pensions or employment policy ("why does a European social treaty scare people so much?", wondered French deputy Alain Barau). VGE remarked on another contradiction: it is often stated that Europe should be "closer to the citizen", whereas it would be better to say that it had to be "more legible" for the citizen as, "by nature, the European level is the most distant of local democracy."
No, in some cases there is a link between European institutions and citizens, considered Ana Palacio, representative of the Spanish Government; at times, the institutions are not "distant" from citizens, with which they have a "direct relationship", she pointed out. Most Members, while wishing for clarification in the matter, spoke in favour of the drawing up of a rigid list of powers that could block the Union's evolution. It would be a very difficult exercise and condemned to failure, said Meglena Kuneva, representative of the Bulgarian Government (and chief negotiator in accession negotiations), who, speaking in German, considered that political control of subsidiarity should be handed to a joint EP/national parliaments parliamentary committee. The representative of the Italian Government, Gianfranco Fini, also hoped for such political control over subsidiarity, together with a "jurisdictional" control (careful attention will have to be paid of "deadlines and arrangements", he stressed).
"Let's in no way include in the treaty a list of powers of the Member States, as if short, it would be unbearable to them", whereas, if long, that would risk paralysing the Union's development exclaimed Olivier Duhamel MEP. And, as to whether which tasks could possibly be returned to Member States, he mooted "I don't see any", while acknowledging that they could however "undertake an honest examination of those areas where the Union works in too much detail". The French Socialist also called on the Union "to make itself further liked" by citizens, recalling in particular that European Commissioner Chris Patten had raised the importance of an "emotional attachment" by people for the Union.
As for Unice president Georges Jacobs, who has the status of observer in the Convention, he recalled that French employers were in favour for extending qualified majority voting, and, noting that Unice represents 16 million companies, small, medium and large, placed emphasis on greater synergy between economic and social policy in Europe.
Cry of alarm from Voggenhuber - Plea for working group on subsidiarity
At Tuesday plenary session, stressing that subsidiarity had not only to be an empty word but genuinely operational, Neil MacCormick MEP proposed the setting up of a Convention working group responsible for the issue (we shall return tomorrow to a similar request from the Forum for Democracy). Hannes Farnleitner, representative of the Austrian Government, said he fully agreed, and hoped that the citizen would be placed at the centre of the definition of subsidiarity: thus, according to him, we should do at EU level what is "most advantageous in terms of cost" and the most effective for the citizen. As for the powers of Member States, Mr. Farnleitner suggested the definition of "sufficient" powers, insisting (and he was not the only one) on the role of the local and national level for questions like education, training, culture, town and country planning, housing policy, local services of a general interest. Recalling what Jacques Delors had said at the time that European legislation was going to cover 80% of legislation on daily lives in Europe, Joachim Wuermeling MEP exclaimed: we must ask ourselves if, at the end of our Convention, we want this percentage to be 90% or 70%; personally, I'd like it to remain 80%, but we must look at this closely. Subsidiarity, yes, but we must avoid any form of "nationalistic selfishness" in its application, warned Adrian Severin, of the Romanian Parliament, pleading in favour of the concept of "global subsidiarity".
As for the representative of the Irish Government, Ray McSharry, he said he had heard "no convincing case" in favour of the repatriation of powers to Member states: that most certainly must not occur with policies like competition, agriculture and regional, he warned, while acknowledging that he was hesitating to ask for further powers to the EU and warning the Union against any form of "mini-management". Proinsias de Rossa MEP, who represents the Irish Parliament, made a point of stressing that he was a member of the Labour opposition: McSharry spoke for the government and spoke very well, but I don't agree with him, he said, considering that they had to be more ambitious for Europe. I want an economic government, market regulation, and I also wonder why we should refuse to speak, when the time comes, of the "fair and decent" system of social security across Europe, Mr. De Rossa shouted. The principles to respect are subsidiarity, proportionality, but also economic and social cohesion, but here we have hardly spoken of cohesion, said Henning Christophersen, representative of the Danish Government, noting that, ten years ago, in an assembly of this type, they could not not have dealt with cohesion.
Referring to criticisms levelled by the German Laender at Europe, Lamberto Dini, representative of the Italian Parliament, considered that "new formulae" could be found to "remove", as well as "add" powers to the Union, without necessarily amending the Treaty )for example through unanimity, and with the opinion of the European Parliament and national parliaments) The representative of the Finish Parliament, Matti Vanhanen, for his part, warned against inclusion of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, as that, according to him, would risk creating problems for certain national constitutions. As for Johannes Vogenhuber MEP, Green, he sent out a cry of alarm: it is not national sovereignties and national identities that are in danger, "it's the idea of European political identity that is threatened", whereas we have more than ever need of a "European democracy".