Positive initiative but… We shouldn't be banking on spectacular results from the “parliamentary meeting on the future of Europe”, which brings together members of the European Parliament and national parliaments from Member States on Monday and Tuesday. Its importance lies more in the actual bringing together of the two categories of parliamentarian in the ongoing reflection and to get them used to discussing things together, rather than in the possible short term results. The collective work proved effective at the Convention during the elaboration of the European Constitutional Treaty. At first we feared some sort of rivalry but in fact observed a positive collaboration in the face of sometimes reticent governments. National parliaments accepted, indeed, encouraged strengthening the institutional capacity of the Union, and the European Parliament agreed to the role of national parliaments in the “control of subsidiarity” (a role in ensuring that European legislation did not encroach into areas where competencies are determined within the national arena).
The new exercise, however, is even more arduous. Organisers are going in the right direction. The President of the European Parliament, Josep Borrell, declared just before the meeting, “Europe means the building of a supranational democracy: a new experience, an exercise fraught with perils. Developing synergy and cooperation between the EP and national parliaments will help European democracy move forward”. Andreas Khol, the President of the Austrian Nationalrat a co-organiser of the meeting) indicated, “The future of Europe rests in the hands of the citizens of Europe. Members of parliaments are their political representatives. Together, viewing matters from the point of view both of the Member States and of Brussels, we wish to debate the basic principles of the direction in which Europe should progress”. It is also positive that national and European parliamentarians are invited to meet up and discuss together as “political families”; in this way we open the way up to concluding common positions, not of European parliamentarians on one side and national parliamentarians on the other but of Socialist positions or those of the EPP or Liberal tendencies, that go beyond mandates and national origins.
Ambitious questions remain unanswered. The organisers were ambitious in including themes for debate such as the Union's borders, the European social and economic model and the future financial resources of the EU. We are aware of how opinions diverge on Europe's borders: should they be set out? If the answer is in the affirmative, are Turkey, Ukraine and other frontier countries within these internal borders? The two other subjects mentioned underpin the “liberal EU versus a command EU” dialectic and the problem involving the Union's own resources escaping control of the national parliaments. We cannot expect that the current meeting on these questions (in the general debate, every speaker has the right to make a 3 minute contribution!) leads to genuine responses or clearly defined positions.
We have to be realistic. Let's not forget that national parliaments had in practice rejected the procedure initially envisaged by the EP, consisting of organising mixed parliamentary forums that aimed to develop common orientations and recommendations for the European Council. The EP then decided to not pursue this procedure; “meetings” constitute a fallback procedure. Neither should we forget the debate that has just taken place at the European Parliament's Constitutional Committee on the role of COSAC (Conference of Bodies Specialised in Community Affairs) at the national parliaments. Several European parliamentarians affirmed that given that the Constitutional Treaty was not in force it would be inopportune to hand over “control of subsidiarity” to COSAC: see our bulletin No. 9184 on the positions reached by Jo Leinen (who spoke out against the danger of undoing the Constitution by enacting one or other of its provisions) and that of Iñigo Mendez de Vigo who underlined that political control of subsidiarity was not allowed under the existing treaties. Andrew Duff also warned against the danger of setting up a “third legislative chamber” alongside the two EU legislators, the EP and Council. COSAC can be useful but by it remaining within its remit. If we add the comments made by Richard Corbett to this, national parliaments have to focus, in the current phase, on the definition of positions that national governments make in Brussels at the Council. In this area, their powers are unquestionable, they only have to use them while waiting for the treaty that in the meantime does not exist.
(F.R.)