![[Start of Doc]](/icons/up.gif){kind=icon}
![[Previous]](/icons/prevrtxt.gif){kind=icon}
![[Next]](/icons/nextrtxt.gif){kind=icon}
Opening the proceedings, Parliament's President, Nicole FONTAINE,
called for the European Parliament and the national parliaments to
complement each other more. While acknowledging the importance
of the debate on the future of Europe as a means of making the issues
more meaningful and accessible to the public, Ms Fontaine reminded
the meeting that what counted in the short term was the IGC, which
had to succeed if enlargement was to go ahead. She also stressed the
need to avoid "the risk of diluting the Union's past achievements".
Obviously the IGC had to settle the three issues left pending since
Amsterdam (the "left-overs") but it also needed to set itself ambitions
which were both bold and comprehensible at the same time.
She then listed once again what Parliament expected from the IGC: a
broader range of reforms, the establishment of a hierarchy of texts
which could lead to the drafting of a constitution; the use of codecision
for all legislative acts which should be adopted by a qualified majority
(including some areas under the second and third pillars). The
procedure was already a major success, she pointed out, and a
"codecision culture" had already been forged as a result. She also called for the conditions for
embarking on closer cooperation to be made more flexible, while nevertheless ensuring that this
did not lead to "the break-up of the Union or the emergence of a two-speed Europe".
Regarding the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, Ms Fontaine stressed the "revolutionary,
unprecedented and fruitful" way in which Parliament and the national parliaments were cooperating
within the Convention. She believed economic and social rights should be included in the Charter
and that it should be incorporated into the treaty. As regards the idea of a draft constitution, she
stressed that this would not be a mere technical exercise but a document compiled on the basis
of the values and principles underlying the Union. Lastly, she said that the plan for an
interparliamentary conference - first suggested by Parliament and due to be held before the Nice
summit - was taking shape.
Council President-in-Office Pierre MOSCOVICI said that the success of the IGC was of crucial
importance to the French Presidency, as it was a fundamental condition for enlargement. In order
to succeed, its work - which had already progressed well under the Portuguese Presidency - would
have to move on to a more "political" level of negotiation and be facilitated by holding meetings
of a more informal nature. It was essential to reach a genuinely satisfactory overall agreement on
the four major issues (the shape of the Commission, the scope of qualified majority voting (QMV),
the weighting of votes in Council and more flexible rules for closer cooperation). The French
position was as follows: the Commission should preserve its collegiate nature (for this purpose it
would have to be restricted in size and placed on a more hierarchical basis while the powers of the
President would have to be increased); a proper reweighting of votes should enable a better
balance to be struck and make the Council more representative; much wider use should be made
of QMV; and the application and functioning of closer cooperation should become more flexible.
In the short term the current discussions should enable the IGC to succeed, although they would
also allow a longer-term reflection to start on the future of Europe. However, Mr Moscovici
stressed that any such reflections should under no circumstances deflect attention from the
present negotiations or give rise to confusion. Lastly, he warned against the temptation of seeking
to recast the EU completely. The Community system had proved its worth and the aim must be
to preserve what was essential to it by restoring its flexibility and strength via a pragmatic,
progressive approach, while strengthening the EU's political dimension. It was only after the
reforms were completed that one could envisage moving on to a "constitutional treaty".
Commission President Romano PRODI emphasised that institutional reform was essential to
enable European integration to continue developing after enlargement. He believed the EU
needed to throw off the straitjacket of unanimity. The list of around 40 provisions presented by the
Portuguese Presidency for which the shift to QMV could be envisaged was a step in the right
direction. Regarding the composition of the Commission he preferred to restrict the number of
Commissioners, while recognising that most delegations appeared to favour the principle of one
Commissioner per Member State. Mr Prodi said he was not sure that this was the best way to
defend the interests of the smaller countries: if there were a large number of Commissioners, there
were bound to be more important and less important portfolios. On the other hand, if a rota
system were introduced, the Commission would need absolute equality between all Member
States. As regards the weighting of votes, the Commission preferred the clearer, simpler system
of a dual majority, yoking together the legitimacy of states and democratic legitimacy.
He welcomed the fact that the debate on the future of Europe had finally begun. The Commission would contribute to this with a White Paper on governance, which would not seek to give more power to Brussels but to reflect on the use of power at various levels, with a view to preparing Europe to face up to the challenges of globalisation and the demand for greater democracy and participation. However, he stressed that we should not allow ourselves to be distracted by this debate and overlook what was at stake at the IGC. If the issues under discussion at the IGC were not resolved first, it would be impossible to face up to the long-term questions. In this context, he stressed the importance of closer co-operation, saying that the way it functioned should be made easier. The aim was not to create a distinction between first-category and second-category countries and citizens but to enable some to advance quicker while leaving the door open for those who wished or were able to join them. There would be no "closed circles".
Giorgio NAPOLITANO (PES, I), chair of Parliament's Constitutional Affairs Committee, said that
the success of the IGC depended to a large extent on the involvement of national parliaments and
the European Parliament. The latter, he said, would continue to fight for a broader IGC agenda.
All possible solutions to the Amsterdam "leftovers" were well known. What was lacking now was
simply the political will to reach an agreement. He was concerned at the hesitation over increased
use of QMV and called on the relevant ministers and the heads of state or government to clarify
the issue quickly. He added that greater use of QMV should go hand in hand with
Parliament/Council co-decision to ensure that the representatives of the people had their input into
EU legislation. Regarding closer co-operation, he emphasised that Parliament would not accept
any division of the countries and peoples of Europe into different categories. Closer co-operation
was an instrument for making progress and must always remain open to those who wished to join.
Lastly, he welcomed the fact that the debate on the future of the EU had started and sought to
reassure the applicant countries, saying everyone was aware of the immense historical importance
of enlargement and there were no "shadows" threatening it.
The ensuing debate focused on a number of substantive issues: the Amsterdam leftovers, closer
co-operation, constitutionalisation of the treaties and the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
The Amsterdam leftovers
On the subject of the composition of the Commission, most speakers supported the principle of
one Commissioner per Member State, especially the representatives from the less populous
countries of the Union and the MPs from certain applicant countries. The latter stressed the
importance to their countries of being represented within the Commission when they joined the EU.
However, delegates from some Member States said that the most important thing was for all
countries to feel they were represented on terms of complete equality. It was equality that counted
in the public's eyes. If the principle of equality were guaranteed and everyone agreed they would
not have a Commissioner some of the time, the question of a rota system could be aired.
As regards QMV, nearly all speakers were in favour of widening its use. However, there were still
differences: some advocated ideas close to those of the European Parliament (QMV as the
general rule for all legislative decisions, with unanimity reserved for constitutional issues), while
others thought the matter should be analysed on a case-by-case basis. Most speakers replied in
the affirmative to a question asked by Dimitris TSATSOS (PES, GR), one of the European
Parliament's two representatives to the IGC, namely "Do you agree that QMV should go hand in
hand with use of the EP/Council co-decision procedure?". This, he claimed, was the only way of
ensuring that surrendering the unanimity principle did not aggravate the democratic deficit.
The question of the weighting of votes in Council revealed a clear split between those (particularly
the smaller Member States and some applicant countries) in favour of a dual majority, the principle
supported by the Commission and the European Parliament, and those (such as some of the
larger Member States) in favour of revising the system of weighting.
Commissioners Michel BARNIER and Günter VERHEUGEN spoke about the composition of the
institutions and the decision-making procedures. Both stressed the importance of the three points
on which the IGC had to find a solution. They also sought to reassure the applicant countries by
pointing out that institutional reform was necessary for enlargement to succeed and certainly not
a pretext for delaying it.
Commissioner Verheugen was particularly keen for the future Member States to be involved in the
debate on upcoming developments (such as the idea of a constitution). He considered that closer
cooperation should be kept within the framework of the treaties and be open to everybody since
its aim was to encourage rather than weaken integration. He also said that the Helsinki timetable
must be adhered to and enlargement not held up by discussions on the future of the Union.
Closer cooperation
The debate on closer cooperation showed there existed a great deal of suspicion and concern
among the applicant countries, which feared that closer cooperation could be used as a means
of creating a multi-speed Europe. Several delegates from the parliaments of the Member States
emphasised that closer cooperation was needed to enable integration to progress after
enlargement. However, it needed to be clear that no Member State could be excluded from closer
cooperation. The process must always remain open to enable anyone to join the process if they
so wished and if they met the objective conditions required. This was also the view of MEPs, in
particular the rapporteur on this issue, Giorgos DIMITRAKOPOULOS (EPP/ED, GR), who said
closer cooperation must act as a positive instrument and not be allowed to develop outside the
treaties. For this reason the European Parliament was in favour of simplifying the conditions for
going ahead with closer cooperation.
Some speakers also wondered why the issue of closer cooperation was always discussed in the
abstract and never with concrete examples. Several examples were in fact put forward during the
discussion: the CFSP, defence, environment and social policy.
Constitutionalisation of the treaties
The debate on constitutionalisation revealed a broad consensus on the need to simplify the
treaties and make them more accessible to the public. However, representatives of several
applicant countries said the constitutionalisation debate must not delay enlargement. Jo LEINEN
(PES, D), one of the European Parliament rapporteurs on the reform of the treaties, sought to
dispel this fear: simplifying and possibly establishing a hierarchy of treaties could be done at the
IGC if the political will were there. The debate on constitutionalisation could then begin after Nice,
without delaying enlargement. Elmar BROK (EPP/ED, D), one of Parliament's representatives
to the IGC, said the constitutional debate could start after ratification of the Nice Treaty and be
concluded by 2004. In his view there would be no need to draft a real constitution from scratch;
the aim would be to constitutionalise the treaties, so that one could speak of a constitutional treaty,
which clearly defined the powers of the Union and the Member States and established a balance
between "smaller and larger Member States" and between the institutions.
The Charter of Fundamental Rights
The vice-president of the Convention drafting the Charter, Iñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO (EPP/ED, E),
argued that the adoption of the Charter showed that the EU was a political project based on
common values. It would enable the European public to know its rights. To achieve these aims
the Charter, in addition to being "clear, brief and precise", should be autonomous, include
economic and social rights as well as new rights relating to technological developments, etc. The
text of the Charter was being drafted by the Convention in such way as to enable it to be
incorporated in the treaty. However, it was the Biarritz European Council which would decide on
the whole issue of the Charter and on whether it should be binding.
The ensuing discussions highlighted the problems such a Charter would pose: firstly the danger
of inconsistency and confusion in the public mind between the Charter and the European Human
Rights Convention; secondly the risk of conflicts of jurisdiction between the Luxembourg Court and
the Strasbourg Court. Representatives of the applicant countries showed great interest in the
drafting of the Charter, although some feared it might hinder the progress of enlargement. In reply
Mr Méndez de Vigo explained that the Charter would not create new legal problems in relation to
the Strasbourg system (especially as the European Parliament was proposing that the Union as
such should also sign up to the European Human Rights Convention). The Charter was purely
intended to oblige the EU institutions to respect the fundamental rights of its citizens. As to
whether it should be binding, this decision was up to the EU Member States but Mr Méndez de
Vigo thought that, even if a decision were not take by the end of the year, as Parliament wanted,
the whole question could subsequently be included in the broad debate on the future of the EU.
Press enquiries: José Pacheco tel. +32.2.284 3454
e-mail: constit-press@europarl.europa.eu
