Brussels, 24/05/2002 (Agence Europe) - As Chairman Valéry Giscard d'Estaing stressed at the end of the work of the European Convention, some guidelines are beginning to take shape from discussions between Members despite the still rather general and impenetrable nature of the debates over the past couple of days (see also EUROPE of 24 May, p.4). Summarising the work in plenary, the Chairman noted that no-one wanted major changes in the range of current Union powers but that there should be an exercise of re-writing to reach clearer and more operational definitions for the missions. To this must be added the general wish for the role of the Union to be developed regarding foreign and defence policy as well as in the context of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice. There also seems to be agreement concerning flexibility in the division of competences, flexibility that should go both ways and thus bear not only upon the competences of Member States but also on acquis communautaire, specified Mr Giscard d'Estaing, who stressed that changes may only be made through visible and democratic procedure. Even though modalities have still to be defined, "there will be a mechanism for controlling subsidiarity and proportionality", he said during his press conference. He added: "the determination to set this in place is manifest". Regarding instruments, he noted the general determination to reduce the number and to clarify procedures. He returned to a "suggestion that is not only a matter of semantics" made by Austrian Socialist Maria Berger, who stressed that, in German, the use of the word "regulation" is confusing. She proposed to replace it by the term "law". "Many say that the three-pillar structure should be abolished", noted President Giscard d'Estaing, who recognised that it will be necessary to "move towards simplification", even if this poses difficulties because of the divergent nature of the three pillars the first of which is legislative, the second mainly for taking political decisions and reacting to crises and the third based on a complex relationship between the national judicial system and those at European level.
In answer to questions at the press conference on declarations that he had made before he was appointed as Chairman of the Convention on the need to have a single person in charge of external relations answerable to the Council, Mr Giscard d'Estaing said that it was not important to know whether this person should be part of the Council or of the Commission but to rather to confer a ministerial level upon him. "The duality of representation (ED.: High Representative and Commissioner) cannot continue", he said, stressing that "in the world as it is, a European Union Foreign Minister would be the spokesman for the second largest world power".
The sitting on Thursday morning began with the Chairman being questioned by the president of the French Socialist, Olivier Duhamel, on the subject of statements he had made on various occasions. Valéry Giscard d'Estaing replied that, in his capacity as Chairman of the Convention, he is careful about what he says. Speaking of the CFSP, he felt that the Foreign Ministers would not agree to give up their powers in the near future. After his meeting the day before with President Prodi, he pointed out that the European Commission will, by end August or early September, be preparing a second document on the institutional questions that Mr Prodi is willing to come and present to the Convention. In response to Spanish Socialist Carlos Carnero Gonzalez, who suggested a hearing by the president of the European Council, President Giscard d'Estaing said that the Convention must not seek to take on the work of the European Parliament. On the other hand, if the Council made a contribution, the Convention could hear its president. Answering questions put to him by British Liberal Democrat Andrew Duff on the form that the results produced by the Convention will take, Mr Giscard d'Estaing said it will be necessary to have a "new text" and a "new architecture".
The representative of the Finnish government, Teja Tiilikainen noted that, for now, the image that the treaties offer of the EU is "neither credible nor likeable". She urged for a "constitutional treaty that is clear and reasonable". Danish parliamentarian Henrik Dam Kristensen expressed the hope that the role of the national parliaments would be increased to ensure respect of subsidiarity. Commissioner Antonio Vitorino repeated that over-rigid classification of competences must be avoided. He said the aims of the Union must be clarified, the intensity of European intervention specified and the instruments connected to this defined. Taking the example of judicial cooperation, Mr Vitorino took a stance in favour of harmonisation for questions that have cross-border implications but for cooperation and mutual recognition mechanisms in the other fields.
He recommended that a provision giving operational power to Europol should be included in the Treaty. French Senator Hubert Haenel insisted on respect of the principle of subsidiarity. He felt the Commission and the Council should ask themselves whether all proposals are conform to the principle of subsidiarity before examining them in detail. Another mechanism would be based on the involvement of national parliaments through a body known as COSAC, called upon to give an opinion that could possibly lead to referral to a jurisdictional arbitration board. The representative for the Dutch government, Hans van Mierlo, spoke along the same lines evoking the introduction of an admissibility test based on assessment of subsidiarity and proportionality. Like other speakers, Italian MEP Lamberto Dini took a stance in favour of abolishing the three-pillar structure. Speaking of CFSP, he said that joint actions should be decided by a majority, with an exception for the use of military force but providing for positive abstention possibility. Cypriot MEP Androula Vassiliou trusted national parliaments would have a role to play in the context of political control of respect for subsidiarity. Representing the Slovenian government, Matjaz Nahtigal defended the general principle of double majority by States and citizens. He took a stance in favour of extending qualified majority to Council and EP codecision, strengthening the European Parliament and having a "strong but impartial" Commission with an elected president. He also evoked the alternative of the Commission being elected by the national parliaments. The representative of the Committee of the Regions, Manfred Dammeyer, insisted on the need for better defining of competences and on the setting in place of a mechanism guaranteeing respect of the principle of subsidiarity.
Irish parliamentarian John Bruton said, like Mr Glotz, that the initiative must remain in the hands of the Commission, mainly because this gives a better guarantee that the interests of the small countries will be safeguarded. Representing the Belgian parliament, Karel De Gucht replied to President Giscard d'Estaing who had stressed the complexity of codecision procedure, that this procedure is the same as that used in the United States and that no-one across the Atlantic complains about it. He also stressed that the EP already has considerably more power and influence than national parliaments have. French national Alain Lamassoure presented the context of the report adopted last week by the European Parliament (see EUROPE of 17 May, p.4). The text is the result of 18 months of work, he stressed, expressing the hope that a working group on competences would be set in place immediately. The representative of the Italian government, Gianfranco Fini, was opposed to any division of competences that would be fixed once and for all. "Europe is not and will not be a sovereign State", he said, affirming that the only transfers that can take place are transfers of competence and not of sovereignty. He did, however, take a stance in favour of transferring towards the Union powers regarding foreign, security and defence policy. Romanian parliamentarian Adrian Severin welcomed the Commission's contribution mainly because "Europe should have a single voice". He considered it is necessary to do away with the possibility for a single State to block all the others. He linked this to the need to guarantee efficiency after enlargement. He supported, however, the creation of a second Chamber representing the nations, mainly to ensure respect of subsidiarity. The representative of the Swedish government, Lena Hjelm-Wallen, mainly urged for flexibility keeping Article 308, subsidiarity to be assessed by experts, and a delay allowing consultation of national parliaments by governments. The representative of the Polish government, Jozef Oleksy, said that subsidiarity must not constitute recourse to the intergovernmental method or serve to dismantle common policies. The idea of appointing a president deserves to be pondered over as this would perhaps allow the Union's political profile to be enhanced, he added. Representing the trade unions, Emilio Gabaglio spoke of several innovations that he considers necessary: - developing the tax dimension and the European social model within the Economic and Monetary Union; strengthening competence relating to minimum labour standards; giving the EU powers for an international presence; and achieving an area of freedom, security and justice.
National parliament component calls on Praesidium to present full list of working groups with their missions
The spokesman for the national parliaments, Spanish national Josep Borrell, called on the Praesidium to prepare a complete and definitive list of working groups with a clear definition of their respective missions, so that work may begin on all essential points as quickly as possible. He hoped the list would be presented before the next session so that the plenary may discuss it before deciding on the constitution of the groups. Finnish parliamentarian Fimmo Kiljunen insisted on balanced representation of the different components within each group. Austrian Green member Johannes Voggenhuber gave his support to the request made by the national parliamentarians. He hoped the groups would examine the main themes and not secondary issues such as the legal status of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
And not secondary issues like the legal status of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. German Social Democrat, Elmar Brok, regretted that this strategy wasn't recognised or the rooting slip that underpins the creation of these work groups. "We could like to see the great architect's plan as soon as possible", he added. Another German Social Democrat appealed for the social dimension to be included in the Union within the work group's mandate on EMU.
President Valéry Giscard d'Estaing replied that the first step would be to ask work groups to examine the very technical and specific questions and put forward solutions but the Convention had to oversee the totality of subjects. "The Convention must not be split up", he declared, while recognising the empirical nature of the initiative. On the issue of the social and economic symmetry of the Union, he stressed that the group should also deal with technical aspects but that the political philosophy had to be decided by the Convention. He also underlined that members could attend meetings but that it would be the work group Presidents who would decide if the meetings were open to the public. Mr Valéry Giscard d'Estaing did not, however, convince MR Borrell, who again insisted for the need for representatives from the national parliaments.