President. – The next item is the joint debate on:
- the Council and Commission statements on the preparation of the Laeken European Council on 14 and 15 December 2001;
- the report (A5-0368/2001) by Mr Leinen and Mr Méndez de Vigo, on behalf of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, on the Laeken European Council and the future of the Union (2001/2180(INI));
- the oral questions (B5-0529/2001) to the Council and (B5-0530/2001) to the Commission, by Mr Rocard, on behalf of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, on the European strategy to promote quality in employment and in social policy.
At the end of the joint debate, I have six motions for resolution concerning the European Council, tabled pursuant to Rule 37(2) of the Rules of Procedure.(1)
I would like to welcome the President-in-Office of the Council, Mr Louis Michel. We are pleased to have you here and I shall now give you the floor.
Michel, Council. – (FR) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, as you know, the areas to be discussed at the European Council in Brussels-Laeken on 14 and 15 December will include the future of the European Union, European security and defence policy, enlargement, the fight against terrorism, the area of freedom, security and justice, the general situation of the EU and its prospects, employment and social cohesion, headquarters and various bodies and agencies, and lastly, external relations.
With regard to the future of the European Union, the European Council will adopt the text of a declaration that will launch the debate on the future of Europe. The first chapter of the text will analyse the strengths and weaknesses of European integration, the second will bring together the issues that the Convention might tackle, and the third will set out how the debate will be organised.
The General Affairs Council of 19 November has already confirmed that the Member States agree on the procedures. The principle of calling a preparatory Convention is an important step towards building a Union that is stronger, more readily understood by the people, and more focused on meeting its essential objectives.
Representatives from governments, the Commission, the national parliaments and the European Parliament will take part in the Convention. With regard to the candidate countries, the Presidency’s proposal is based on the following principles: they will be fully involved in the work of the Convention with the right to express their views; they will be represented in the same way as Member States, in other words, by one representative for each government and two parliamentary representatives. The representatives from candidate countries who have not yet signed their accession treaty will not take part in the consensus when the Convention draws up its final report.
The Chair of the Convention will be appointed by the Laeken European Council. The Chair will be assisted by a Presidium made up of representatives of the various component groups of the Convention. The Presidency-in-Office of the Council will take part, but the precise involvement of representatives of the following two presidencies is yet to be decided upon.
Lastly, the Secretariat of the Convention will be fulfilled by the Council’s General Secretariat, which will be able to enlist the help of the Commission, as well as the secretariats of the European Parliament and the national parliaments.
We have reached unanimous agreement on consulting civil society through representative organisations at European and national level. We dispensed with the idea of a Forum made up of a separate assembly. These organisations could be interviewed or consulted in line with methods that are yet to be defined. The contributions from these organisations will be included in the official documentation sent to members of the Convention.
The Convention will begin its work as soon as possible under the Spanish Presidency and will complete its proceedings by the European Council in June 2003. We are still considering the length of time that will pass between the end of the Convention’s work and the beginning of the Intergovernmental Conference.
With regard to the themes, the Presidency’s approach was to work on the basis of the content of the Declaration of Nice to draw up a sufficiently broad and coherent mandate, which the Presidency could use for its work. The Presidency supports the recommendations made by the rapporteurs, Mr Leinen and Mr Méndez De Vigo, on this point. These themes are placed in five groups of open and impartial questions: the goals and the content of the Union’s policies, the division of competences between the Union and its Member States, the democratic legitimacy of the system, the ability of the Union to decide on and to pursue policies.
When the Prime Minister visits each capital city, he will present an outline of the Laeken Declaration. The subjects that the Convention may tackle will be presented in this outline in the form of questions and choices, so as to enable the delegations to issue an opinion with full background knowledge.
To sum up what I have said on this important matter, I would like to make the following comments. Whatever the content of the Laeken Declaration, the Convention will remain in charge of its own agenda. I think that there would be no point into trying to shackle it with a predefined mandate.
(Applause)
The Presidency has attempted to set out and clarify the themes dealt with at Nice, where the declaration was willingly drafted in a relatively open manner. Nothing that the Presidency proposes should be interpreted as a mandate for the forthcoming Intergovernmental Conference. The mandate of this conference will be decided in accordance with the procedures laid down under the Treaties. Lastly, the goal of the Laeken Declaration is to ensure that the Convention method is fruitful and that its results are taken up by the 2004 Intergovernmental Conference.
The debate on the future of Europe must also aim to make the European Union more transparent, more effective, and bring it closer to its citizens. In this regard, the Council took great interest in Mrs Kaufmann’s report on the White Paper on European Governance. The report contains some valuable guidance. I particularly support the concern to ensure that the greater involvement of civil society in the way the Union works does not adversely affect the key role played by the representatives that have political responsibility.
I shall now turn to the European security and defence policy. The Presidency will submit a report to the European Council that sets out the progress that has been made. Work is well underway on improving military capabilities and strengthening civil capabilities, as shown at the capabilities conferences held on 19 and 20 November 2001. With regard to declaring the European security and defence policy operational, the Union is faced with the following dilemma: either it cannot issue the declaration because of a veto imposed by one of the NATO members, who is not a member of the EU, or the Union declares it operational without the declaration having any real capabilities, as it is unable to use NATO assets. In both cases, I want to draw your attention to the fact that it is, of course, the Union’s credibility that is at stake. The third approach recommended by the Presidency is to declare that the Union will decide how to respond to each situation, depending on the military and civil resources and capabilities at its disposal. These are my comments on the European security and defence policy.
(NL) I should now like to turn to another topic, namely enlargement. The Commission’s report was debated extensively at the General Affairs Council of 19 November. Remarkable progress was made in the accession negotiations. Consequently, we should be able to finalise the accession negotiations involving the countries that are ready from 2002 onwards, thus enabling these countries to take part in the 2004 elections. The Belgian Presidency is proceeding with the same robust and regular rhythm as its Swedish forerunner.
At the same time, attention was focused on the implementation of the acquis communautaire by the candidate countries. At the European Council of Laeken, the Heads of State and Government will be given the opportunity of sending out a few messages to the candidate countries. The timeframe that was established in Nice and clarified in Gothenburg will be fully complied with. Enlargement is irreversible, and ten new Members could be included by 2004. In 2002, the Commission will make proposals to the Council concerning agriculture, cohesion policy and the budget of the Union. The Commission will sketch a roadmap for the countries that are not involved in the first enlargement round. Additionally, it will carry out a plan to strengthen the institutions of the candidate countries and will set aside EUR 250 million for that purpose.
I should now like to say a few words about terrorism. The Presidency will be presenting a summary report at the European Council of Laeken, outlining the Union’s measures to combat terrorism. That report will also look to the future. These days, in my view, it is safe to state that the Union has responded promptly and effectively to terrorism. Its response was comprehensive, and that is the added value which European action brings: the Union has asserted itself as an effective and credible, in fact, vital partner, on which the United States and third countries can rely in the fight against terrorism. The Union has established its diplomatic and humanitarian role. The Union and the euro zone have contributed to the stabilisation of the economy in a turbulent period. Finally, despite major efforts which the fight against terrorism has required, the Belgian Presidency has not lost sight of the EU’s other priorities, including enlargement, the follow-up of Tampere and Lisbon, etc.
(FR) I shall now turn to establishing the area of freedom, security and justice. The Laeken European Council must reiterate the importance of establishing the common area of freedom, security and justice. The Union’s response to the challenge posed by the tragic events of 11 September has shown the political will of Member States to make progress in this area. The introduction of a common asylum and immigration policy was one of the priorities of the Belgian Presidency’s work programme. The progress we expected has not been made. The Laeken Summit should be the opportunity to reinvigorate the asylum and immigration policy by implementing Tampere, to supplement and strengthen the coordination of instruments for police and judicial cooperation, by finally establishing Eurojust, to reiterate the principle of mutual recognition, thus demonstrating the trust that each Member State places in its partners’ legal system.
On a practical level, the Presidency hopes to reach an agreement in Laeken on the following issues: a framework decision on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States; a framework decision on the fight against terrorism; a framework decision on the execution of orders freezing assets or evidence in the European Union and an agreement on the common list of terrorist organisations.
To move on to the next point, which is the economic situation and prospects for the European Union. This issue will be discussed on the first day of the European Council. The Finance Ministers will present their ‘eurokits’ and will announce the outcome of their negotiations on cross-border payments. The message from Laeken must be to increase the Union’s credibility by emphasising the progress we have made, particularly in the area of international trade after the Doha meeting, in stressing the benefits of the single market and in respecting the economic Stability Pact.
The summit will stress the need to reiterate our determination to pursue the process launched at Lisbon and at Gothenburg. With regard to the preparation of the Barcelona European Council, specific action needs to be taken before the end of the year – we must establish the Food Safety Agency, make progress on Community patents, reach agreement on cross-border payments in euro and on public contracts, as well as implement the Galileo project.
As far as employment is concerned, the European Council will discuss the ‘employment package’. It will support the aspects of this package as well the guidelines for 2002. In these guidelines, the European Council will include a new horizontal objective on the quality of employment and will also adopt a first list of agreed indicators for the quality of employment. Regarding the headquarters and the various bodies and agencies, the Heads of State and Government will try to reach an agreement on where to locate the headquarters of various bodies and agencies of the EU and the European Community. As for external relations, the European Council will examine international issues in the light of current events. If necessary, it will issue an opinion on the situation in Afghanistan, the Balkans and the Middle East. As you will have noted, the Belgian Presidency has worked hard to show that the European Union has an important role to play on the international stage.
To sum up, ladies and gentlemen, I have outlined for you the work programme of the Laeken European Council. This Council will be where the European Union takes decisions on some fundamental issues that will map out its long term future, such as the physical introduction of the euro, the confirmation that enlargement is irreversible and the operational aspects of the European security and defence policy.
The Laeken Council will also be the starting point for considering the future of European integration. The citizens of Europe will be broadly consulted on this issue. This is the meaning of the so-called Laeken Declaration.
(Applause)
Prodi,President of the Commission. – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the Laeken Summit must take us a considerable step further in the process of European integration.
Today you are going to vote on two reports which concern the very structure of the European project and the direction it will take in the coming years: Mr Leinen and Mr Méndez de Vigo’s report on the future of the Union and Mrs Kaufmann’s report on European governance. In order to address these matters, we must start by answering certain fundamental political questions. What are the new internal and external challenges facing the Union? How can we simplify the institutional structure of the Union? How should the various competences be assigned and how should we involve national Parliaments? Indeed, the organisational model cannot be an end in itself; it must be a means to our achieving the objectives in our sights. It must reflect the idea of society that the vast majority of our citizens want. The Communication on the future of the Union, which we will be presenting prior to the Laeken European Council, takes as its starting point precisely these considerations, which I see are also addressed in both the reports under debate today.
First of all, let us examine the report on the future of the Union. If the Union were to confine its activities to the policy areas it concerned itself with in the sixties and seventies, the current institutional framework would probably be adequate, but the political situation has changed: our citizens are asking the Union to do much more, to resolve complex problems that only the current form of the Union makes it possible to deal with satisfactorily. However, the current institutional structures are unable to meet these challenges effectively. For this reason, the institutional system needs to be reformed so that the Union can take the decisions its citizens expect from it more effectively. We cannot continue to create fresh expectations without equipping ourselves with the means to satisfy them. Therefore, we must introduce institutional reforms that go beyond those decided upon at Nice. We must also preserve the essence of the Community method, based on the institutional triangle, the mechanism which is really behind the 50-year long success story of the European Community. It is a well-balanced method based on a strong Parliament, a strong Council and a strong Commission as well as – in addition to the triangle – a strong European Court of Justice. It is the only method that will allow us to combine efficiency and democracy, but it needs to be reformed and adapted to cope with Europe’s development and the Union's new priorities.
At the first part-session of the European Parliament after Nice, we all – Parliament, the President-in-Office of the European Council and I myself – came to a realisation: the democratic dimension of the method of reforming the Treaties needs to be strengthened. In particular, there is a strong demand for the role of democratically elected representatives not to be confined to ratification of the basic texts of our Union. In the current legal situation, given the constraints upon us, the best solution is to pave the way for the Intergovernmental Conference, which, I reiterate, I hope will be short and decisive, with thorough preparations bringing together the institutions and the national and European Parliaments.
In two weeks' time, the Laeken European Council will take a historic decision, setting up the Convention charged with preparing for the Intergovernmental Conference. A Convention based on the Convention that drew up the Charter of Fundamental Rights will meet the need to increase people's involvement in the creation of a Union which has been a Union of States and a Union of peoples right from the outset. This formula, which the Commission and the European Parliament have been advocating since the beginning of the year, has gradually been gaining support, even in those Member States that, just a few months ago, if we remember what happened at Gothenburg, showed great reluctance to accept it and even opposition. The setting up of a Convention, its composition and structure and the further development of the agenda for the constitutional reform of the Union are the focal points of the Laeken Declaration.
These matters are examined in the motion for a resolution before you today. Firstly, I would like to congratulate the rapporteurs, Mrs Leinen and Mr Méndez de Vigo, on the excellent report they have produced on behalf of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs. The European Commission basically agrees with much of the report. Indeed, Parliament and the Commission both believe that it should take as its starting point the four points set out at Nice, which, as the report clearly shows, actually affect more areas than is at first apparent. In any case, it would be unthinkable to limit the areas a Convention can discuss when most of its members will be Members of Parliament. They will therefore need to address all the questions of sufficient relevance.
With regard to certain aspects of the composition of the Convention, however, the Commission would ask the European Parliament to reflect further. As you know, there is considerable support for the idea that the Chair of the Convention should be appointed by the Laeken European Council. I, too, speaking on behalf of the Commission, am in favour of this, because neither the mere existence of the Convention nor even the fact that it works well will suffice: the Convention will have to convince the Member States. It will be far easier for a Chair appointed by the European Council, who enjoys the confidence of the Heads of State or Government, to create the necessary atmosphere of trust between the Convention and the European Council.
We fully support the proposal that the Chair of the Convention should participate in the work of the Intergovernmental Conference as well. However, we do disagree on one point in that the Commission considers that the Presidium should be smaller than is recommended in the motion for a resolution you are going to vote on today, with one representative for each component group. The Presidium has to organise the Convention's work. There is no need for all opinions, tendencies and interests to be represented within its structure.
The motion for a resolution calls upon the Convention to adopt unanimously a single, coherent proposal that can serve as the sole basis for the negotiations and decisions of the Intergovernmental Conference. I hope this happens and I will be very pleased if it does, but we must be realistic. It may, indeed, prove objectively impossible to find a broad consensus without lowering our sights considerably or too far. In view of this, I would prefer to embark on the Intergovernmental Conference with a mixture of stronger and weaker options so that there will still be a chance of achieving incisive solutions, rather than lowering the Convention’s sights before the Conference has even begun its work.
Lastly, I see that we agree that the Intergovernmental Conference should be asked to complete its work before the start of the electoral campaign for the next European elections.
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, this is a crucial stage in the life of the Union. We must prepare for this stage using all the tools available to us, not just reform of the Treaties, which we have already discussed. This is why, at the beginning of my term of office, I made the reform of governance, that is improving our way of working without changing the Treaties, one of the Commission’s strategic objectives.
Now I would, therefore, like to focus briefly on the Kaufmann report on the reform of governance. Firstly, I congratulate Mrs Kaufmann, the Chairman of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, Mr Napolitano, and the European Parliament as a whole for the speed and efficiency with which the work, which has involved no less than ten Parliamentary committees, has been carried out.
Here, too, we agree on a significant number of points. Both our institutions consider that we must conduct a critical review of governance at European level, and reform it where necessary.
The European Parliament supports the creation of an interinstitutional working group as I proposed in my speech of 2 October. The Commission is ready to embark on this dialogue and we hope that the Council will also take part, at least where matters which are the competence of all three institutions are concerned. I reiterated this point today, a few hours ago at the meeting of the trialogue, and I hope that we will be able to make progress in this matter.
Moreover, the European Parliament shares the Commission's view that we need to streamline budgetary procedures and make the Council's activities more transparent. What ultimately counts is the fact that the Commission and Parliament agree that democratic legitimacy must remain the central political point of reference in the issue of governance, and that efficiency, although also extremely important, must remain a secondary consideration.
The Kaufmann report also highlights a number of things that are of concern to Parliament. First of all, I want to stress that the proposals put forward by the Commission in the White Paper are intended to strengthen the democratic process and therefore to strengthen the role of the European Parliament. I am still of the opinion that the European Parliament is the central element of this democratic legitimisation, without which there can be no real support for our policies from the citizens of Europe.
However, let us look at these concerns as well. Firstly, the fear has been expressed that the European Parliament will be supplanted by civil society. I can assure you that this is not the Commission’s intention in that it was, in fact, the Commission that proposed that each institution should revert to performing its original tasks and that the respective responsibilities of the institutions should be redefined.
Secondly – and this is the opinion of the Commission – the European Parliament is the supreme democratic expression of European civil society and the natural representative of its demands. At the same time, the Commission has to take informed decisions when drawing up legislative proposals. It cannot do this without appropriate consultation – and I repeat, consultation – with economic and social operators and members of the scientific, technological and cultural communities. We therefore need to rationalise and structure a dialogue that has, for a long time, been a constant feature of our way of working. I have read what the Kaufmann report has to say on this matter very carefully and assure you that we will pay the greatest attention to the recommendations it makes, including those dealing with methodology.
Similarly, the Commission does not now intend and has never intended in the past to call into question the prerogatives of the European Parliament as a co-legislator. Our proposals regarding co-regulation and self-regulation are only intended to prevent long-established practices from leading to anarchy and the abuses that you, yourselves, have pointed out. This is the sole objective of the Commission's proposals. Furthermore, our proposals recommend that any use of co-regulation should be decided on a case-by-case basis, after the European Parliament has delivered its opinion.
I have already said that the conditions and restrictions governing the use of these new legislative instruments should be the subject of a debate, and, if possible, of an agreement, between the institutions, preferably within the interinstitutional working group I proposed on 2 October. That is why the working group is so important. The same method should be applied to the use of the framework directives, by which I mean legislative acts setting out principles and guidelines that give the Commission and the authorities responsible for execution in the Member States greater powers to adopt executive legislation.
I have already expressed the Commission’s belief that Parliament and the Council will have to adopt a simple legal provision to enable the legislator to monitor and control the actions of the executive. There is a variety of national experience we could draw on to improve the implementation of Community policies and enable the legislative authorities to guide and control executive activities effectively. This is also a matter for detailed negotiation between the three institutions.
I have already had occasion to say that the mechanism used by the legislator to ‘call back’ executive measures adopted by the Commission may not be the best possible method, or, at any rate, it needs considerable improvement. However, the Commission will reflect actively on other possibilities and expects to be able to present tangible proposals, if possible during the interinstitutional debate that I hope takes place. I would, moreover, reiterate that it would be inappropriate to decide on a practical action plan on the way the Community legislates – what is commonly termed better regulation – before all the institutions have debated it. For this reason, in line with the undertaking I gave before this House, the Commission only intends to approve a consultation paper in the next few days which will focus the interinstitutional dialogue on certain priority measures that have also been suggested by the intergovernmental group chaired by Mr Mandelkern. Furthermore, the Commission will work towards persuading the Laeken European Council to adopt this course and call on the institutions to develop the coordinated strategy desired at Lisbon by June 2002.
Lastly, I would like to clarify a few points concerning the action of regulatory agencies. I agree with you that we must prevent executive action from becoming fragmented and avoid weakening the democratic controls. It is also true that the Commission cannot continue to take full political responsibility for the actions of agencies over which it has only a partial influence. For this reason, we propose to define a general model for agencies which ensures the balanced representation of Parliament, Council and Commission. Our most recent proposals are along these lines, but they do need the firm support of Parliament if we are to achieve the objectives we have set ourselves.
Ladies and gentlemen, two weeks ago, we presented and discussed with you our report on the progress made on enlargement, progress that allows us to pursue the objective, which I now feel is realistic, of admitting up to ten new Member States before the 2004 elections. Today, the only thing I want to stress is the importance of continuing to increase the candidate countries' involvement in the Union’s activities. This is why the involvement of representatives of the candidate countries in the work of the Convention is of paramount importance. For the same reasons, we are increasingly involving the applicant countries in the activities and programmes of the Union.
In addition to enlargement and the reform of the Treaties, I would like to focus very briefly on some other items that are on the agenda of the Laeken European Council. The Union has played a very active part in the diplomatic efforts relating to the current international crisis. Moreover, the visits I have made with the President-in-Office of the Council to Washington, the Middle East and, most recently, to India and Pakistan have strengthened my deep conviction that it is necessary, or rather, essential, for the Union to play a global role. We have also presented a number of proposals, in different areas, which are necessary for combating terrorism. Now we must continue along this path and continue to show firm political will and great determination. In particular, we must maintain and develop our commitment to the full and effective execution of the Tampere mandate, on which we will present a report to the European Council.
Overall, the process launched has been successful. It must be developed as transparently and visibly as possible so that our citizens can see in it a response to their everyday security concerns. The Member States are starting to recognise the need to draw on the principles and tools that characterise the Community method, such as the principle of mutual recognition although there is, however, still a certain reluctance among the Member States to move forward in sensitive areas such as immigration or visas, and this must be overcome by a stronger political will.
Madame President, ladies and gentlemen, the challenges before us and recent international events, confirm the relevance and validity of the European project, which must be strengthened and adapted to respond fully to our citizens' new demands. The Community method, which succeeds in combining legitimacy, democracy and effectiveness, is still the best way to build the new Europe. For this reason, future Treaty reforms must be aimed at reinvigorating and strengthening it.
(Applause)
Poettering (PPE-DE). – (DE) Madam President, Mr President of the Commission, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, the summit at Laeken can be an historic one. Our group has every faith in the Belgian Presidency, because Belgium has always been faithful to the ideal of European unification and, above all, because Belgium has always stood for the European Community approach. We, in the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats do not want Europe to be governed by a few great nations, but, rather, we want Europeans to work together, we want the European Community approach, and so we wish you, Mr President-in-Office, great success.
(Applause)
Both you and the President of the Commission have spoken about the enlargement, and the memory is still fresh in my mind of a conference with the leaders of our related parties from the acceding countries, that is to say, from the countries desirous of joining the European Union. Following on the French foreign minister's highly misleading statements, we declare loud and clear that we must not give the impression that those who will be ready to sign the Treaties in the coming year will have to wait for the stragglers also to comply with the criteria. Each country must be judged on its own merits; it is on this basis that we must proceed with the enlargement of the European Union.
At Laeken, you will no doubt be considering Afghanistan, which is indeed necessary, and we repeat that it is necessary to destroy the al-Qaeda terrorist networks. Now, though, we must also create the basis on which the international community, comprising the European Union, the USA, and the Arab and Muslim world, will now help Afghanistan to rebuild itself, making it possible for a humane society to come into being there, with a government in Kabul that respects human rights, including the rights of women. It is that task that is before us in the days and weeks ahead.
I would like to comment on the Middle East. We urge all the parties involved to return to the negotiating table. I am being very restrained in my use of language when I say that we greatly regret the way that the Prime Minister of Israel behaved towards the visitors from the European Union. These were Mr Verhofstadt, the President-in-Office of the Council, Mr Prodi, the President of the Commission, Mr Michel, the Foreign Minister and Council President and also Mr Solana, the High Representative. We have no patience with the way that the Israeli Prime Minister treated our delegation to Israel – and I can remember some of Israel's great Prime Ministers, such as Ben Gurion, Golda Meir and Yitzhak Rabin.
(Applause)
We encourage the Commission and the Council to keep to the course they have set. We will always defend Israel's security, as we have always done in the past, but the people in Palestine are as much entitled to human dignity and a life lived in security, as are the Israelis, who rightly lay claim to that for themselves.
(Applause)
Let me make another comment on the Convention. We have high hopes for what you will be deciding at Laeken. The composition of the Convention is, numerically at least, well-known. I beg you, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, to use all your influence to ensure that the fifteen government representatives are the sort of people who will work together in the Convention and will feel themselves bound by whatever proposal for a decision results from it, so that the governments, too, will be made to discharge their duties with regard to what the Convention brings into existence. For the Convention is not some kind of seminar, so – if, at the end of it, we are to be able to say more than just Yes or No, and I know perfectly well that the governments want that to be the case – the Convention must come up with something so convincing that it will be binding on the governments. Our group will, in any case, be sending its best and most experienced people to the Convention, so that we can achieve a real result.
We also echo President Prodi's demand and beg you to make your influence felt in order to make it possible for the Convention to start as early as possible in 2002 – in February or early March under the Spanish Presidency – and then be concluded under the Italian Presidency at the end of 2003, giving us, by then, a new Treaty ready for signature, on which we can then have very comprehensive and repeated discussions here in Parliament.
Mr President-in-Office of the Council, what I am saying reflects my profound conviction that Laeken is such an important summit precisely because it will be about the future direction of our European Union, about whether we carry on the way we did at the mini-summit in London, with seven countries taking part, eight countries not taking part, and the European Commission not even present, that is not how we envisage Europe. On the contrary, Europe is for us the European Community. It is our wish that you, the Council Presidency and the Commission make Laeken an expression of this Community, and if you do that, you will have our entire support.
(Applause)
Barón Crespo (PSE). – (ES) Madam President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, we are on the threshold of a summit, under the Belgian Presidency, that will be very important in the history of the European Community. Geographically speaking, Belgium is at the centre of the European Union. I hope it can also manage to be at the Union’s political centre.
With regard to the agenda that Mr Michel has presented, Madam President, I would firstly like to state my group’s support for the Leinen, Méndez de Vigo and Kaufmann reports, that deal with the fundamental issue of the future of the European Union.
Firstly, we have always supported the idea that there should be a Convention, because this has proved to be the method that allows for public debate, and for the Charter of Fundamental Rights to be drawn up democratically. With this in mind, we think that this is the best method to implement: a Convention that is politically solid, that has democratic support and which is methodologically consistent with its objectives.
For this reason, I would like to make some practical suggestions to Mr Michel with regard to the statements he has made. Mr Michel, in this instance, Parliament would be grateful if you could act in the same way you did with the Convention for the Charter of Fundamental Rights with regard to appointing a President. Propose a President at Laeken and let the Convention elect the President. I think that this is a question of good manners, which, in a democracy, are very important.
Secondly, I also think that it is significant that you speak about the dual democratic legitimacy of the Union, because it currently seems as if civil society has nothing to do with MEPs or with members of the Member State parliaments. It is important that we should open up to and consult with the organisations that enrich civil society, however, we must not forget that democratic legitimacy is essentially achieved through elected representatives. In this regard, Mr Michel stated that the membership of the Bureau or Presidium of the Convention remains open. If the President and the troika have a presence in the Bureau, the European Parliament’s proposal will make sense – two MEPs and two representatives from Member States – for this will provide a balance between the two branches of democratic legitimacy.
We also insist that there should be a wide-ranging and coherent proposal; we do not want to have to choose between a selection of sample proposals. And in relation to the potential time gap mentioned by Mr Michel, we would like to see a proposal, under the Greek Presidency, that brings the work to a conclusion; we do not want the outcome of the Convention to be postponed indefinitely. It must have a follow-up and must lead to a decision from the European Council.
With regard to the Commission, Mr Prodi, I would urge you, with regard to the responsibility you have as guardian of the Treaties, one of the Commission’s functions, to make proposals as quickly as is possible. There are two points in Declaration No 23, for which the Commission has full jurisdiction, the simplification of the Treaties and the division of competences. Some time before, you should table a proposal that we can debate. This is one of the Commission’s functions that cannot be taken away.
With regard to governance, a related issue, we would ask you not to damn us with faint praise, as the British say, and which we Spanish might express as ‘killing us with affection’ because there are some really interesting proposals, but now the Handelkern report is being published. Why can we not sit down together and reach an interinstitutional agreement on governance? We also have a democratic responsibility and we cannot consent to legislative power being taken away from us though the back door. This is a serious warning.
(Applause from the Left)
Lastly, Madam President, with regard to the CFSP and the fight against terrorism, you will all be aware that we are all working very hard, using the emergency procedure, on producing a European Search and Arrest Warrant, a framework decision on terrorism, a fight against money laundering, which is also important and related to terrorism, and we think that a joint effort by all should be made on this matter. But our actions must also show that we have learned from our mistakes and shortcomings, and there is a very serious shortcoming for which the European Union should accept responsibility, and I think that at Laeken an important step could be taken by making defence one of the issues we should address in the Convention and which are to be incorporated into the Treaties.
Finally, Madam President, we have very important political responsibilities where Afghanistan is concerned. The first hostages of terrorism have been the Afghans and above all the Afghan women. And in the Middle East we have to continue in our attempt to find a solution that will ensure the security of the State of Israel’s borders, but which will also allow the Palestinian State to function and to be respected.
Cox (ELDR). – Our debate today is on the future of Europe and I might take that as a point of departure. President Prodi has talked about the indispensable necessity of the institutional triangle: the Commission, Parliament and Council. It is indispensable and each part of it has a core, indispensable role and responsibility and benefits by the very fact of the three parts working well together.
Personally, I am getting increasingly fed up with so-called analyses in newspapers and commentaries on issues of personality which miss the points of substance. The point of substance about the role of the Commission is that it is at the heart and core of the European project – and it is indispensably so – and that is the structure of truth which we must promote, defend and constantly revisit.
With regard to a sense of Europe as Hans-Gert Poettering mentioned earlier, I believe it has been diminished at the highest level through Members of the European Council. Every State has a right to bilaterals and multilaterals but there is a time and a place for every one of those initiatives. It is not the time and place to conduct such an initiative immediately preceding and in the same place as a Council meeting that is meant to discuss the same issues, as at Ghent.
When we reduce the European Security and Defence Policy to the somewhat farcical theatre of presence or absence at the dining policy at Downing Street, we diminish the idea of Europe itself and we need, from the top down, at the level of the European Council, a commitment to an internally consistent and coherent sense of Europe.
The Commission President and Enrique Barón Crespo have both referred to this question of the interinstitutional dialogue and balance and President Prodi has talked about the very sensitive issue of call-back procedure. The one plea I would make, and we have already asked Parliament's Constitutional Affairs Committee to deal with this question with some urgency, is that before us now is the responsibility, among other things, to begin to implement one major part of the structural economic reform programme of Lisbon, namely to create a single European market for financial services. If we cannot work out the levels of commitment and lay down rules with proper conditions between Parliament, Commission and Council, we run the risk of failing to meet the target and the necessity for reform. There is therefore a general urgency and, in some parts, even a specific one.
I hope all candidate countries will participate in the Convention, under the principles of Helsinki, namely equal treatment. That is all and there are 13 candidate countries. Secondly, I hope there will be a minimum period between the Convention and the IGC. I agree with all those who said that this business of reform must be finished before the next European election because then there will be a new Parliament, a new Europe after enlargement and a new Commission.
(Applause)
Voggenhuber (Verts/ALE). – (DE) Madam President, in the short time available to me, I do not wish to repeat what has been said by our excellent rapporteurs, nor do I wish to concern myself with the strategy of the Council and the Member States, who have, for months, been setting this Convention up to be as feeble and unsuccessful as possible. In this historic context, with one of the most important summits, preparing for an historic Intergovernmental Conference, in the offing, I wish to address the Commission.
Mr President of the Commission, I would very much like to remind you that all the great projects of European integration began with the Commission's visions and outlines and that the Commission was the spiritus rector and visionary behind almost every great step forward. Let me remind you of the Single European Act, of the first Delors package, of Maastricht with its second Delors package and the Report on Economic and Monetary Union, of the White Paper on the completion of the internal market, of the White Paper on growth, competition and employment with its visions of the social dialogue and of a social chapter in the Treaty, of the White Papers on environmental policy and on the role of Parliament and of all the great concepts produced by the Commission, which went ahead of the Intergovernmental Conferences to prepare their way. You speak today of the institutional triangle, which will indeed become a struggle for power between Council and Parliament, but where the Commission should be, I see nothing but a black hole.
Mr President of the Commission, where is the Commission's White Paper on European democracy? Where is your draft European constitution? Where is your White Paper on a system of checks and balances in this supranational space, on the Convention's methodology and on fundamental citizens' and human rights in Europe? None of these have you produced, and today's marginal comments by you are insufficient. Just to single out one point: if you do not even give this Convention the right to elect its own president from among its own members, you are disowning it before the eyes of the European public as a whole. That is only one of the many errors you have been propagating instead of a vision.
IN THE CHAIR: MR PROVAN Vice-President
Kaufmann (GUE/NGL). – (DE) Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Mr President of the Commission, I would like to say something about the Laeken Declaration and, in particular, about the Convention. Especially since the failure of the Nice Summit, this Parliament has agitated for a new method for Intergovernmental Conferences. Across party boundaries, it has worked jointly with our colleagues in the national parliaments and together with various representatives of civic society, to consign to the past, once and for all, the politics of secret diplomacy behind closed doors, of opaque decision-making and of horse-trading in marathon sittings through the long nights.
I believe this new approach, with the calling of a Convention, to be crucial to the European Union's future viability, for the primary issue here is the reinforcement of democracy in Europe. It is, above all, about our citizens, about a comprehensive and broad debate on what shape should be taken by our common European home, which we hope we will, from 2004, share with ten more European countries.
Mr President-in-Office, today you have put before us the salient points of the Laeken Declaration, which is to be ambitious in its scope. Let me return to a number of issues. My group sees the composition of the Convention as being of extraordinary importance, and we take the view that two things, in particular, need to be taken into consideration here. One is the principle of political pluralism. There is an absolute need to guarantee that the various political forces are represented in the Convention and that the delegations of this Parliament or of the national parliaments should include not only representatives of the major political parties but also, because we need them, representatives of smaller political parties in the various European Union Member States. Above all, we need a productive bilateral political debate, without which discussions will be lacking in interest.
Both sexes also need to be appropriately represented. I see that amendments to the report by Mr Méndez de Vigo and Mr Leinen have been tabled on this subject. I hope that many Members will support these amendments so that, above all, the national parliaments and the Council will also then consider how they may comply with this criterion.
I believe there is an urgent need for purposeful and structured dialogue with civic society, something which you, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, have mentioned. We could, I think, also consider whether the Economic and Social Affairs Committee, which is an important mouthpiece for civic society, might play an intermediary role in this area.
I am very pleased with the announcement that the Convention is to draw up its own agenda, as not only questions about the institutions will have to be dealt with, but also a broad spectrum of the most diverse political issues, as well as the issue of how a wide variety of European policies are to be formulated in the future. A report by the Commission tells us that 60 million people in the European Union are affected by poverty, at present, and I find myself thinking that this appalling figure alone tells us what a great need there is for political action, and that this Convention must be about a change of direction and a new kind of politics in Europe.
Muscardini (UEN). – (IT) Mr President, the scope of European Union foreign policy needs to be extended in the light of the recent international developments, but the Member States’ governments have to realise that we cannot have a common foreign policy without joint intelligence. The geopolitical situation, poverty – an increasingly serious problem – and the growth of terrorism – there are now cells in all the countries of the globe – must prompt us to start work at Laeken on a project to introduce genuine joint intelligence, new intelligence which is not created or developed along the same lines as Europol but which is capable of being used transparently with political, economic and cultural analysts who will be able to focusour foreign policy on that cooperation and timely intervention without which the European Union, with or without institutional reforms, will not be able to get off the ground.
With a view to achieving peace in Afghanistan and the subsequent reconstruction of the country, the Union’s role both as mediator and a proactive force must be defined now so that Afghanistan’s future is characterised not just by economic recovery and the establishment of a democratic political system, but also by the reestablishment of a role for women in politics and social life.
The Union cannot ignore the fact that, to bring about genuine peace in the Middle East, we must work actively to oppose those who encourage, or, at any rate, do not offer resistance to local terrorism which, it is now quite clear, is supported at international level, and the Union has the economic and political tools to intervene along these lines.
In conclusion, the success or failure of the Convention depends on the will, the genuine European convictions motivating us, our will as individual parties and governments not just to produce documents on reforms but to focus on practical action that, as well as improving the situation of our own countries, can improve the situations of countries that look to us for help too.
Bonde (EDD). – (DA) Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Mr Prodi, the EU’s Heads of State and Government have decided to hold a Convention on 14 and 15 December with a view to designing a constitution for a federation of national states. Now, let us clear up any confusion. A federation of national states is a federal state. A federal state is a state and not a federation, in the same way as a fruit knife is a knife and not a fruit. States have constitutions, while federations of states are based on agreements in international law between independent nations. I call upon the Heads of State and Government to give the Convention a clear mandate. Is a draft constitution for a federal state to be devised, yes or no? Or is a draft agreement between independent nations, not designed to establish a state, to be devised? Why not let the Convention devise two different, clear and unambiguous proposals, one for a federal state – model 1, as envisaged by the federalists – and the other for a federation of states – model 2, as envisaged by the Euro-realists and focusing upon the cross-border problems we cannot solve ourselves in our own parliaments? Submit the proposals for public debate, followed by a referendum in which all EU citizens are asked if they want a constitution for an EU state or an agreement between nations acting together.
When we have their answer, an Intergovernmental Conference can be held with a view to proposing changes to the existing treaties. The great majority of people in all EU countries want a referendum. Why, then, not ask for their views before we do anything in their name? Let us have a peaceful and competitive debate concerning Europe’s future, and let the people give their answer. I believe that people will prefer our version of a Europe of democracies, as set out in the minority opinion of the members of SOS Democracy. I would happily defer to the majority in a referendum, but never to officials and ministers operating behind closed doors.
Leinen (PSE), rapporteur. – (DE) Mr President, President Prodi, ladies and gentlemen, the report drafted by my colleague Mr Méndez de Vigo and myself enjoys the support of a very large majority in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, with only Mr Bonde, Mr Berthu and Mr Sacrédeus being opposed to it. So a substantial majority shares the position we have taken and I am pleased to learn today that the Belgian Presidency agrees with many parts of it and that even the Commission can go along with many of the points Parliament has made.
A powerful current of opinion sees Laeken as an important opportunity that we must seize in order to make our European Union more democratic and more capable of taking action. If that is so, Laeken is perhaps the last chance to do this before enlargement, when the EU is enlarged from fifteen States to between twenty-five and thirty.
I am very grateful to all those who have helped to prepare the way for the new method. I find myself thinking back to the beginning of the year, and back in January or February all this seemed a long way in the distance. I thank all those who have contributed to a new method really becoming possible – a convention in which the representatives of the parliaments will enjoy equal rights with the representatives of the governments in giving shape to this project for the future of this European Union of ours.
The Convention, though, must not be a merely cosmetic exercise, and I believe it would be very unsatisfactory if we were to simply list the options that are already present in Europe. That these options are there, we know from the speeches of our Heads of State. They are well known, and they are nothing new. This Convention must be a political forum for grappling with solutions, one in which real effort is made to reach a consensus as to how we, in Europe, are to go forward. That is the real task. That we are to produce various proposals, be they federalist or, on the other hand, intergovernmental in nature, sounds very appealing, but, President Prodi, if we produce a hotchpotch of proposals, can we then expect strong responses from the Intergovernmental Conference? I very much doubt it. The governments have the same problem. They can come up with whatever they will, but the Intergovernmental Conference's unanimity principle results in the same sort of blockade that we had in Amsterdam and Nice.
No, I believe that the Convention represents the great opportunity to use the consensus method to arrive at the overwhelming majority. What emerges is not unanimity, but the overwhelming tendency, the overwhelming majority. If we go to the IGC with such a coherent proposal, we maximise the likelihood of it being accepted, because governments naturally find it hard to deny themselves consensus. Issues still remain to be negotiated, and all this will have to be put into the form of a legal text. All this work will have to be done by the IGC, but I would warn against restricting the Convention's role to that of drawing up options using different terminology. That is not the task for a political forum such as a Convention.
We note that, at Laeken, the Council proposed someone to preside over the Convention; that is all well and good, but I do think that the Convention should be able to confirm him in office, and should be able to elect him. A Convention elects its own President, and that is the procedure that should take place. President Prodi, you spoke in terms of a small Bureau. Such a Bureau would have a great deal to do, being the organ that would have to direct this great Convention, and it would be advantageous if the opposition parties, both from the national parliaments and from the European Parliament, could have as much a sense of being represented in it as did the majority.
Turning to the timetable, I am glad that the governments themselves state that more or less one year is needed, which would mean that the Convention would complete its work in June 2003. There would then be a break, but just for the summer recess. I am in favour of us all resting from our labours in July and August, so that the IGC can begin in September under the Italian Presidency and we can complete the constitutional treaty by the end of 2003, in good time for the European elections and also for enlargement. With such a document we could stand before the peoples of Europe; it is my belief that, if the Treaty is successful to the extent that children can read it at school and understand it, then we will also be reducing the citizens' alienation from Europe, which is the task before us.
(Applause)
Méndez de Vigo (PPE-DE), rapporteur. – (ES) Mr President, I think that the European Council that is about to take place, this time in Laeken, is of fundamental importance. We are at one of those pivotal moments, as Karl Jaspers would say. We will find that the introduction into circulation of euro notes and coins will increase the sense of belonging to Europe. Negotiations on enlargement will mean that a longstanding dream of many Europeans becomes reality. I think that the terrorist attacks against Washington and New York on 11 September have awoken the consciousness of European citizens, who are now asking for more Europe and better Europe.
Therefore, your responsibility, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, is great indeed. But let me tell you that I think you are doing a very good job, and I would like to say that this Belgian Presidency has maintained an excellent attitude towards the European Parliament, one that has been based upon collaboration, participation, listening and, in short, the desire to work together.
Support for the Convention is something that this Parliament chose to adopt a long time ago, even before Nice. In the Resolution of 17 November 1997, which I had the honour to present together with Dimitri Tsatsos, with regard to the Treaty of Amsterdam, we were already saying that the intergovernmental method for the revision of the Treaties had run its course and that we would have to look for another method. This method is the Convention.
Do not think that the European Parliament gave its support to the Convention because of some kind of obsession. This is not true. We did this because the Convention brings Europe closer to its citizens, because it is more open, more public, more transparent, more participatory; it allows, as the Convention that drafted the Charter proves, that our citizens want to be involved in the construction of Europe. For this reason we have put our faith in the Convention, and I am happy to say that the Convention will be brought to life in the Laeken declaration.
Make no mistake about the Convention, however. It is an instrument. With regard to another famous Convention in history, the Philadelphia Convention, George Washington said that you could talk about everything, propose everything yet decide upon nothing. This is also true. What we want is to help the decision making process, bringing Europe closer to its citizens, its people and bringing together the various legitimacies of the European Union.
Therefore, Members of the Council, there is no need to be afraid of the Convention. There is no need to take a successful instrument and empty it of content. There is no need to constrict the Convention. You must give the Convention all it needs to be a success.
The previous speakers – above all Mr Leinen, with whom I have had the great pleasure of collaborating in the drafting of this report – have spoken about many different subjects. Let me highlight some of these.
Firstly, the European Parliament is asking that, if we take our model to be the Convention that drafted the Charter on Fundamental Rights, the four parts of which it is comprised be balanced. In that particular Convention, there were 16 MEPs and 62 members of the Convention. In the proposal that you, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, have sent to the capitals there are still 16 MEPs, but there are 120 members of the Convention. And I do not accept that some of these extra people are observers, because observers have exactly the same rights as everybody else, and so they should, except during participation in the final consensus.
I would also like to say, despite the words of a previous speaker, that the Commission has participated fully, and I would like to praise Commissioner Barnier’s observations, which have been very important. However, there is still an ambiguity with regard to the word ‘consensus’: consensus does not mean unanimity. This was not the case in the Convention that drafted the Charter. There were members of the Convention that voted against – and there is one very notable opponent amongst us today – but there was a sufficient majority, a sufficient consensus. Therefore, let it not be said, yet again, that consensus means unanimity. This is not true. It means final support for the resulting text.
Mr President-in-Office of the Council, there is one issue that you, yourself, said is still not resolved, which is to the issue known as ‘cooling’. And as for myself, when I have to explain that after this work carried out by the one hundred and twelve people on reaching a final result, governments want to ‘cool down’, things become extremely complicated. What is this ‘cooling’ process? If the result is a good one, let us adopt it immediately, then we can move on to other things. We have enlargement to prepare for.
To conclude, Mr President, I think that we have to get rid of this fear of the Convention. We have to remember that Europe is asking us to give a positive indication. But what indication? This can only be the Intergovernmental Conference. I also hope that, at the end of this process, the indication will be a Constitution for the European Union.
(Applause)
Kaufmann (GUE/NGL), rapporteur. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the future of the European Union is, as a subject for debate, no doubt closely related to, and in part inseparable from, the reform of governance, which forms the subject of my report. You will see, on reading it, that it is not exactly sparing with its criticisms. It takes up a very definite stance on numerous subjects addressed by the Commission in its White Paper, and, to use a phrase currently popular in Germany, a good thing too!
It is precisely for this reason, President Prodi, that it is important to me that I thank you and your colleagues for your initiative in producing this White Paper, above all for the Commission's willingness, expressed in the White Paper, to unreservedly and even self-critically examine and change all the rules, procedures and ways the EU has of exercising its authority, in short, everything summed up in the word 'governance'. This merits every respect, being, in fact, about nothing more or less than the reduction of the prevailing gulf between the EU and its citizens. In this, the Commission finds in Parliament a close comrade-in-arms.
We are, as is well known, only at the beginning of the debate on the reform of governance. Many of the Commission's proposals need to be considered in depth. The White Paper announces several initiatives, and when they are definitely on the table, we will express our opinion of them. I assume that certain proposals can become reality quite soon and not only at the end of next year at the earliest. I would put under this heading the committees and working parties listed in Commissioner Kinnock's White Paper on reform of the Commission, and which are participating in the consultation procedure. I will take this opportunity to point out that I think that every future legislative proposal could have an appendix listing all the experts, associations and organisations that played a part in drafting it.
Parliament does indeed support the improved participation and consultation that the White Paper calls for, but we take the view that this requires an interinstitutional agreement on democratic consultation, and I am pleased, President Prodi, that you have mentioned this today and given it your clear support.
President Prodi, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, my report takes at length a very definite position on the issue of better lawmaking, and this is not by chance, for the fundamental issue is the role of Parliament as joint legislator. Parliament has repeatedly emphasised that it puts its trust in the Community method, and that it sees the maintenance of the balance between the institutions as the best way to make progress towards integration. It is not, then, some concept that we are defending, but rather its content and political essence, so I want to make it very clear today that, to put it mildly, there has been great disquiet in Parliament about the Council’s and the Commission's long-standing efforts to draft an action plan for better lawmaking, about the working parties that have already and secretly been drafting papers with the objective of putting this programme of action on the Laeken agenda – all of which has been done without involving or even informing Parliament, the joint legislator. As item 30 of this report quite clearly states, we see this as a grave breach of the Community method.
The report therefore also demands that the action programme for better lawmaking should not be on the agenda for the Laeken Summit. This is certainly not about this House being unwilling to take part in any consideration of how lawmaking could be simplified or even improved. President Prodi announced today that the Commission will be producing a consultative document aimed at starting a dialogue with this House on this issue, and I can tell you that this Parliament is ready for it. Let me say, though, and say quite emphatically, something to which we attach the highest importance: that if Parliament's legislative authority, given to it alone directly by the citizens who elected it, is restricted, Parliament will not take it lying down. It is, especially, co-regulation that is at issue here. The use of so-called framework directives is something we view with a highly critical eye. There must be appropriate mechanisms of democratic control, and on this point, Mr Prodi, there are evidently differences of opinion. We want a time-limited 'call-back mechanism'.
So I was very surprised that the Council representative made no comments on this of all issues. Better lawmaking is indeed a matter for all three institutions, and I would be interested to know what the Council Presidency has to say on this issue or on that of the proposed interinstitutional working party.
Vanhecke (NI). – (NL) Mr President, despite all the fine words, I cannot shake off the impression that the Laeken Summit is actually intended to clean up the very soiled image of the Belgian Presidency, an attempt to brush successive howlers by the Verhofstadt-Michel government team under the carpet.
These days, one only has to read the foreign quality press, such as The Spectator and The Wall Street Journal, to realise how much damage this Belgian government is currently causing by its incompetent behaviour and, for example, by the insults which Minister Michel, present at the moment, has addressed to Austria and Italy.
That is unfortunate, for the Belgian Presidency could have easily played a significant role in this time of debate about Europe’s core tasks, about Europe’s borders and about the democratic deficit.
After all, we know from experience that the Single Belgian Federal State does not work along democratic lines and that consequently, a Single European Federal State cannot work democratically either. We know from experience that, for example, matters of social security, are best decided at the level of the individual nations and that the principle of subsidiarity has to be followed to the letter. We know from experience that a high level of respect is needed for linguistic and cultural differences if we are to co-exist in a proper, democratic way.
We know from experience that problems arise when people, citizens, and voters cannot identify with the political structure which decides on their fates. In my country, Flanders, 70% of those questioned cannot name even one European institution and nearly 40% do not realise that they elect the MEPs. Anyway, this should all be steamrollered by the Laeken propaganda machine, and in that way, the Belgian Presidency will finish as it started: insignificant and at the service of the inflated egos of a few ministers.
Menrad (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, the Lisbon European Council and the socio-political agenda adopted by the European Council at Nice bring us into a new phase of policy on social affairs and employment in the European Union. As we have heard from the President-in-Office of the Council and from the President of the Commission, interest is now focussed on the quality of work and of social affairs policy. We in this Parliament want to be fully involved in this development. We – by which I mean the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, whose Chairman, Michel Rocard, I represent – are therefore putting an oral question to the Council and Commission, coupled with a motion for a resolution.
It is our conviction that secure jobs, favourable working conditions and appropriate workers' rights do not diminish productivity and economic growth and hence the creation of jobs, but, on the contrary, promote them. Work for all is the objective. We want a strategy for more and better jobs. Quality of work involves job satisfaction, which improves employees' motivation, and health and safety at work improve as well. We are looking to the Commission to produce a proposal on the status of temporary workers. Moreover, quality of work involves equal treatment of both sexes, the reconciliation of work and family life, and measures to keep older people in the job market.
For this we need the most modern forms of vocational education. There is a need for further education, in-service training and lifelong learning. The adaptability of enterprises and their capacity to deal with structural change will be particularly important in creating new and better jobs, and minimum standards across Europe are needed to ensure that employees are involved in this, informed and consulted in due time, and thereby enabled to adjust to change.
In comparison with our economic counterparts, for example, the United States, Europe suffers from a low employment rate. The Lisbon European Council recognised that this was a problem and proposed an ambitious objective for progressively increasing this rate. It is absolutely vital that we achieve this objective. The Commission has presented a communication in preparation for the Laeken Summit, in which it sets down the outlines of a strategy for promoting quality of work and social affairs policy. The drawing-up of appropriate indicators and criteria, as Mr Prodi informed us, is not the least important of these, but is primary.
As I said at the outset, Parliament expects to be fully involved in discussions. It is our ever more frequent experience that European social affairs policy is carried on by dialogue between sub-committees of the Council – for example the Employment Committee or the Social Protection Committee – and the Commission. Parliament is often left out in the cold. We protest against this. Parliament must be able to play its rightful part in formulating proposals on subjects such as employment and social protection which, after all, are of immediate concern to all citizens. If we are to do this, the relevant specialised fora and the Commission have to keep us up to date with the work they are doing, and Parliament has to be consulted in good time before every European Council. We expect a clear pledge on this from the Laeken summit. We are, at the end of the day, the representatives of the people and therefore, in essence, the primary organ of the European Union.
President Prodi just used a very fine expression in describing Parliament as the most important expression of democratic Europe. Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Mr President, it is for these reasons that we look forward to your answers to our oral questions.
Medina Ortega (PSE), draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market. – (ES) Mr President, after Mr Barón Crespo’s speech, there remains very little for me to say on this matter. I am going to refer to the Commission White Paper, and also to the mysterious Council document, the Mandelkern report, to which reference has been made, but of which we have no knowledge.
The two documents deal with the legislative powers of Parliament. Mr Prodi has made a commitment not to put forward any proposal to the Laeken European Council, and it seems right, in fact, that these issues will not be discussed at Laeken, because, in short, these are issues that affect the very essence of the process of drafting a new European Constitution and which should, therefore, be in the Convention itself, and, possibly, at the Intergovernmental Conference.
What we have to do here is to establish the legislative competences of the European Institutions, and make it clear that, of all the European Institutions, it is the organ of popular representation, the European Parliament, that holds the mandate for this popular representation.
The wording of the White Paper, relating to the powers of enforcement, to self-regulation and coregulation procedures, and to the Lisbon strategy, are all aimed at cutting back Parliament’s limited legislative powers.
De Clercq (ELDR). – (NL) Mr President, I have one minute indeed, and it is outrageous, in my view, for draftsmen of the opinion to be apportioned a meagre one minute of speaking time on such a weighty matter.
Overall, Nice has failed to come up with the goods, but as for the areas of competence of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, of whose opinion I have the honour of being the draftsman, the situation is not actually that bad. I would particularly refer to the improvements made at our initiative to the workings of the European legal system. The major concern which the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market wishes to express, therefore, is that whatever the fate of the Treaty of Nice may be, the positive changes which I alluded to a moment ago should enter into effect independently of the overall ratification of Nice.
With regard to the Laeken Declaration itself, to put it succinctly, the European Union must show itself prepared to meet the challenges that lie ahead. It must focus on its core tasks and carry out its tasks properly. In this connection, the European citizen expects Laeken to send out a clear signal that a great deal of work is being put into a European security policy, both internal and external.
President. – I have been as generous as I can, Mr De Clercq, but one has to recognise the time that is allocated to your Committee.
Jackson (PPE-DE), draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. – Mr President, I am pleased that Mr Prodi is here to listen to this. The Environment Committee is very unhappy with the idea of voluntary agreements, as a way of proceeding. We want to see a legal framework for them because we believe that this is far too much like secret law-making. We are not at all happy about the co-regulatory approach – whatever that may be – because we see that as a way of moving away from binding legal instruments, which can sideline democratic control. Mr Prodi will know that we are very happy with the idea of publishing expert advice. We are grateful for what crumbs we receive and would like to see sometimes the authorship of the legislation which we then tear apart.
On the question of implementation, we are very worried about the application of the law and I quote "in a way that takes account of regional and local conditions". We feel it would be better to draw up the law in a more flexible way in the first place. If you are going to take account of regional and local conditions, it probably means that you are going to upset the conditions of fair and equal competition. We see a great need for the Commission to devote more energy to the issue of implementation and we see no real need to establish criteria to focus its work in investigating possible breaches of the law. What they need is more staff.
Finally, I recommend to Mr Prodi to read the occasional paper produced by the European Policy Centre on regulatory impact analysis. It provides the idea of having a regulatory impact analysis on all new legislation to assess the need for it, to examine alternatives and to examine its overall impact. It would include, and this may not recommend itself to Mr Prodi or his staff, the idea of a specific regulatory assessment office in the office of the Commission Secretary-General. I think that would be a very good idea.
Theorin (PSE), draftsperson of the opinion of the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities. (SV) Mr President, five principles form the basis of the Commission’s reform of the EU’s forms of governance: openness, participation, efficiency, consistency and a clear division of responsibilities. The work on these areas cannot be regarded as being complete if one half of humanity is ignored. No one can say they are working for participation if they do not guarantee that it is both women and men who are participating.
Our Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities called for a council on equality to be set up to, for example, gather information and analyse trends; for women’s rights groups and non-governmental organisations to be part of the database on civil society that the Commission intends to set up; and for considerations of equality to be integrated into information gathering at both national and local level, because women’s and men’s priorities, circumstances and needs often differ. It is unfortunate that none of our demands has been incorporated into the report.
Gemelli (PPE-DE),draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Petitions. – (IT) Mr President, the debate on the future of Europe must be conducted in a very responsible manner if it is not to end in failure, as happened with the intergovernmental method at Nice. We must recognise the legitimacy of the European citizenship of the citizens of the Member States, for this, too, will help to bring the European institutions closer to the citizens once again. Today, we have to take into account the way the interinstitutional organisations’ systems have developed, and the more sophisticated this development becomes the more it widens the gap between the citizens and the institutions.
When the institutions work properly, problems do not arise, but when they do not work properly – and the number of petitions we receive is evidence of the considerable gap between the institutions and the citizens – the citizens are wronged by the institutions. Our positive response must be to strengthen the institutions which safeguard the rights of the Union’s citizens. The Committee on Petitions has been forced to issue an extremely critical opinion on the Commission’s proposals on good governance, for it has found no reference in them either to the European Ombudsman or to the Committee on Petitions’ role as the institutional body which safeguards the rights of the citizens, who indeed petition it to uphold their rights.The proposals for good governance do not appear to contain any significant element that might succeed in bringing the citizens closer to Europe. This endeavour could be said to be effective in theory but, in actual fact, to have no genuine impact.
Lastly, we hope that it will be possible to make the obscure role of the Council clearer, at least by advertising the institution’s sittings when it is legislating, to avoid the impression of it being a huge black hole.
I recommend the points made in these reports to the other European institutions, for I am sure that Parliament is the only body with democratic legitimacy.
IN THE CHAIR: MR PACHECO PEREIRA Vice-President
Brok (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Mr President of the Commission, there are only two observations I wish to make, and they overlap with each other. I believe that the European Union's practical policy after 11 September has made it clear, through the behaviour of a number of Member States which indulged in bilateralism or appeared enraptured by their own managerial airs and graces, that the European Union is strong wherever it works in accordance with the Community method, and weak wherever it does not. That is the lesson to be learned from the past two or three months; it shows us how necessary general reform of the European Union is if this approach, which weakens us, is not to recur in future.
The conclusion to be drawn from this is that it is important that we find the right mechanism at Laeken, where the European Council will not yet, essentially, be deciding on content, but where success will depend on the methods by which the content is worked out.
One thing, I believe, must be clear. If there is to be a Convention which owes its existence to the help given by the Presidency, a number of Member States and the Commission, and in which Members of this Parliament and of the national parliaments take part, then it must not be a Convention whose procedures are conceived in such a way that it does not have the room to manoeuvre needed if the right decisions are to be reached. Nor must it lack a procedure that can serve as the basis for the final negotiations by the Heads of State and of Government. It is, above all else, unacceptable that so much time is allowed to elapse between the Convention and the summit that the old method of the diplomatic governmental conference destroys all the political momentum built up by parliamentarians. I believe that this will be the decisive test by which Laeken will stand or fall.
I wish you a great deal of success, knowing as I do that you, in the Council and in the Commission, share this view that these positions must be made to prevail so that we can work together with a view to a result acceptable to all.
Van den Berg (PSE). – (NL) The Convention marks the start of a new European Constitution, a bold vision of Europe’s future, a euro which is not suffering from monetary isolation but which is being embedded in socio-economic policy, a European Commission which is transformed into a European government, European elections with European lists of candidates and with people heading the lists of candidates who, via the European Parliament, can produce a president for the European Commission.
We would like more qualified majority votes in the Council and more codecision in the European Parliament. The Council meetings must become public, allowing national parliaments to adequately monitor the Council Ministers. We look forward to close cooperation between the European Parliament and the national parliaments.
This is a vision and the possible shape of things to come. The Convention should look to reach consensus rather than draft a catalogue with no strings attached. The Convention must enter into an open dialogue with civil society, for part of Europe’s future lies in more European cooperation in those fields where citizens expect to see cross-border results, including food safety, immigration, environmental pollution, international crime and terrorism.
However, an equal share of the areas of policy could be apportioned to the regions and civil society. I am thus in favour of more positive subsidiarity. We must avoid a situation of Europe-autism and therefore focus on innovative institutional restructuring which goes hand in hand with cooperation in the various fields of policy.
Bringing about new types of European administration means adopting a more open working method and result-focused approach. We will achieve this by introducing new instruments, such as co- and self-regulation and open coordination, but, in the event of failure, we must have the assurance that we can fall back on call-back mechanisms.
I am pleased with the resolutions before us. As the European Parliament, let us today choose in favour of a new, transparent form of European administration and let us vote in favour of the Convention, thus ensuring a democratic future for Europe.
Duff (ELDR). – Mr President, in February 1787, a previous convention met in Philadelphia. Several of the American States were opposed to calling the thing in the first place and several others were determined to restrict its mandate and to dilute its effect. The convention's formal brief was extremely restrictive and it was not itself to decide but only propose. Yet from that experiment flowered the American Constitution and the post-colonial parliamentary democracy that we still recognise today.
Such a similar result will only come out of this European Convention, if we as a Parliament are bold, well-organised and persuasive. Beneath the Presidency of our European George Washington, we must draft a clear set of proposals and, while accepting the questions set for us by Laeken, we must retain the capacity to ask ourselves some questions. Let us be truly creative for Europe.
MacCormick (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, the Union already has implicitly in the Treaties the bones of a Constitution. We all look to the Convention to make it explicit and clear and to create the proper legal framework for a thoroughly democratic Europe. That, of course, will involve, as has been said in parts of this debate, fully recognising the prerogatives and powers of this great all-European Parliamentary Assembly. But democracy at this level will not be effective unless it is also fully effective at the level of the little battalions: at the level of the local authorities, at the level of the constitutional regions, the self-governing internal nations of the Member States. Now that means that the Convention must look to that question as well, and improving governance in Europe must, as the Commission has said, look closely at the proper involvement of regional and local authorities.
I thought that the Commission was somewhat timid in what they said about that, but alas, Parliament argues yet further timidity and talks down all the references in the White Paper to regional involvement with the Commission. Recital M and Paragraph 26 are to be deeply regretted as currently phrased in Mrs Kaufmann's otherwise admirable report. We want to see these amended. We want to see a strengthening of the reference to the necessary involvement of the Commission and Parliament with the regional and local authorities, as well as with national parliaments. We do not want to subvert the constitutional framework of Europe. We want to improve it.
Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL).(SV) Mr President, the Laeken Summit is to form the basis of a new EU treaty. The European Parliament’s resolution demands that this change to the treaties results in a constitution for the EU, that is to say, a decisive step of sorts on the way to a federal state.
I believe that something essential has been forgotten, namely that the Irish people have made use of their right to reject the Treaty of Nice. This right, and this rejection of the treaty by the Irish people, should be respected at the Laeken Summit and a statement made to the effect that the Treaty should be rewritten. The message from Ireland is clear: less centralism and supranationalism and more respect for national democracy. What we need are treaty changes along the following lines: openness in the Council of Ministers, with the opportunity to monitor decisions by the national parliaments, at the same time as the national parliaments are given the opportunity to propose laws instead of this right’s being located in the Commission bureaucracy.
Hyland (UEN). – This is an important debate and I would like to compliment the Commission on its publication of the White Paper on European Governance. In light of recent developments, it is obvious that it is a time for stocktaking but there can be no doubt about the relevance of the European Union to Member States and its citizens.
In most respects the European Union has lived up to the ideals and aspirations of Europe's founding fathers. The achievement of peace alone justifies our existence but we have achieved much more, not least the fact that the ideals enshrined in the Treaty of Rome – of assisting economic and social development of small and under-developed countries – have by and large also been achieved.
Ireland bears witness to this fact and, despite the outcome of the Nice Treaty, Irish people readily acknowledge the benefits of our membership and also support proposals on enlargement.
So what has gone wrong? We have failed, in my view, to communicate Europe. Citizens do not feel part of the European family. Their perceived isolation from the decision-making process has left them frustrated and cold. That sense of abandonment has led to the apathy and indifference as demonstrated by the lower turnout in recent European elections and, in Ireland's case, rejection of the Nice Treaty.
Farage (EDD). – The Commission and Parliament are right about one thing, the EU lacks democratic legitimacy. Furthermore, no layman, nor many MEPs, really understand how the whole thing works.
The White Paper and this report are all part of a hard sell, the idea being to sell the EU concept to our citizens more aggressively so that the people will learn to love it. Beneath all of this is the interinstitutional battle and both Mr Prodi and Parliament are desperate to preserve the Community method, fearing there is too much intergovernmentalism about. Whoever wins this battle between the institutions will make no difference to ordinary people. It is time to put the true intentions of the EU project to the electorate in each Member State. Only then will we know whether they want to be a part of it and whether the project can ever work. But perhaps after Ireland, Denmark and Switzerland, that may be taking democracy a stage too far for all of you.
Dupuis (NI). – (FR) Mr President, President-in-Office of the Council, Mr Prodi, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I think that Mr Méndez de Vigo and Mr Leinen have, once again, presented us with a truly sophisticated report, but I feel that they have dwelled a little too much on methodology. It is, of course, better to have a speedboat rather than a rowing boat, as you can go faster in the speedboat, but if you do not know where you are going, you are not at so great an advantage. I welcomed the comments made by Mr Poettering, Mr Cox and Mr Voggenhuber, who, for the first time in a long while, focused on the issue of the Commission in their speeches. In my view, we are now facing a very serious problem. We have a fight on our hands. There is a tug of war going on between the Council and Parliament. We are increasing our powers of co-decision, but, at the same time, we are in the process of destroying the Commission. In doing so, we are introducing further bureaucracy, and I do not think there is any point, Mrs Theorin, in discussing transparency, governance, co-decision and democratic legitimacy, when we cannot even talk about electing the Commission by direct universal suffrage. I believe that the balance of our institutions depends on this and that we cannot run our economy along the same lines as the great American model. It is the balance of our institutions, the check and balance, the division of powers, and not how to share the cake between the various institutions that our discussions, our debates and the Intergovernmental Conference, as well as the imminent Convention, should focus on. I think that this is the only way to fight against further bureaucracy, the only way to once again make our institutions meaningful, the only way to reinvigorate European integration. So, as Mr Salafranca said, there are no favourable winds for those who have no clue where they are going, and I think that, first and foremost, the problem that Parliament has is to know and understand in which direction it wants to travel.
Schwaiger (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, President Prodi, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, we in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs showed, by our unanimous adoption of the Kaufmann report, our ability, in the very short time available to us, to act in concert and respond to important reform proposals from the Commission, on which we will be able to take up a position either today or tomorrow, just in time for the European Summit at Laeken.
Let me just pick out a few points from the Kaufmann report and highlight the following: Mr Prodi, we are delighted to learn that you are sticking with the joint working party proposed in October. What matters now is that we get it moving quickly and start collaborating appropriately on the subject matter in hand. We, in the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats insist in any case on an early start being made on this work. We are glad that the Commission of the European Union has given up developing what would have been, in effect, its own administrative structures right down through the regions, towns and local communities, as we read about, for example, in preliminary drafts of its White Paper.
It is also our opinion that it is fundamentally unacceptable that the Commission should adopt a method of open coordination, bypassing its co-legislator Parliament, with guidelines sanctioned only by the Council of Ministers and with the Commission using the financial reins of the programmes to set their general course. Here, too, the co-legislator needs to be involved. We urge you to undertake an in-depth reform of the comitological procedure. It is not acceptable that, with the help of the national bureaucracies, Parliament's legislative prerogative should be made null and void by means of implementing provisions whose content, purpose and extent are not laid down in advance. We also demand that European agencies be kept to a minimum.
May we remind you that the Commission and the European Parliament are born allies when it comes to the promotion of European integration and action in the interests of Europe's citizens? The transposition of European legislation requires at every level its own culture of public administration, which must also embrace the application of European rules through the authorities in the Member States. There is an urgent need for appropriate instruction and training of civil servants at these levels.
Van Lancker (PSE). – (NL) Thank you, Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, President of the Commission, this debate is, in fact, far too early to be able to rate the chances of success of the Laeken Summit realistically, but, Mr President-in-Office, it is already a fact that the Belgian Presidency will be memorable, even if it was only because the attack on New York has put the fight against terrorism and Europe’s role in the world, at the top of the list of priorities.
For my group, it is vital for the Laeken Summit to spell out once more that we have our own contribution to make, especially in the search for political and diplomatic solutions for international conflicts, with full backing from the UN institutions, and that we also want to reactivate the dialogue with the Arab States.
The EU’s own role means, inter alia, that Europe refuses to ignore or suspend the principles of the rule of law and human rights in the name of the fight against terrorism, and that Europe insists on justice in the framework of an international court of justice and not in the framework of exceptional courts. Mr President-in-Office, I hope that Laeken will drive home this clear message to the United States, among others.
Nevertheless, the risk remains that this priority could push aside the sixteen other priorities. That is why, on behalf of my group, I would like to convey a wish to the Council Presidency. We expect the Council Presidency to make an extra effort at the Laeken Summit to clarify that the Lisbon objectives also apply at a time when we face economic decline, when companies are being restructured and unemployment continues to rise. It is important for the Laeken Summit to demonstrate to people that Europe is not just about the introduction of the euro. It is also about economic growth, employment, the future of pensions and the fight against social exclusion.
Mr President-in-Office, Laeken’s pièce de résistance will undoubtedly be the declaration about the future of Europe. This declaration is still one of the Prime Minister’s personal projects with which he, in the capacity of President-in-Office of the Council, is doing the rounds of the capital cities. As the draft document is still a well kept secret for this Parliament too, we are having to make our contribution to the declaration without, in fact, any knowledge of the content of this document. I find this regrettable. That is why I should like to pass on a few suggestions which are extremely important to us in the framework of the declaration on the future of the European Union.
First of all, we must avoid a situation where the Laeken Declaration sets up scenarios whereby the competences of the European Union are cast in stone, thus not allowing Europe any room for manoeuvre where this is not explicitly provided for in the Treaty, or a scenario in which use is made of lists of competences. Mr President-in-Office, such scenarios certainly do not meet the expectations of the citizens.
Secondly, there is the risk, if I can believe the lobbies, that Europe’s voice will be somewhat drowned out by that of the delegations of the Member States. We trust that Laeken will launch a balanced Convention and that, furthermore, the participation of women will be guaranteed.
Thirdly, Mr President-in-Office, I was taken by surprise a moment ago when I heard you say – and I hope I did not misunderstand you – that “l'idée d'une assemblée parallèle au forum de la société civile a été écartée”. This is very bad news, for it is obvious to me that the debate on the future of Europe is already being compromised if the civil society is not accorded a clear status, if a structured platform for a dialogue with the civil organisations is not really being created and if all that remains is a virtual computer debate with no room for real participation.
I hope that this can still be rectified in Laeken, but I would nevertheless wish the Council Presidency every success at this stage.
Malmström (ELDR).(SV) Mr President, you said that openness, efficiency and bringing the EU closer to the people were to be important issues at Laeken. I could not agree with you more about that.
Following the not entirely successful compromise in Nice, the Irish referendum and, according to many opinion polls, growing scepticism towards the EU project in quite a few Member States, there are high expectations of the Laeken Summit, with changes to the EU anticipated. The EU must become more intelligible and citizen-friendly. A clear constitution is needed, explaining how the EU is governed and who does what. The EU must cut back on the work it does and concentrate on the cross-border problems. I do not believe people want the EU to do more in all areas. Instead, they want it to deliver the goods in those areas it has made its own, taking decisions openly. It is completely unacceptable for it to legislate behind the closed doors of the Council of Ministers.
If it is to be possible to simultaneously enlarge and deepen the EU, we must involve people and win back their trust. That is not something we can do through fine declarations and constitutional exercises of an academic nature, but through genuine reforms and political courage. I hope the rest of the European Council is as courageous as the Belgian Presidency.
Frassoni (Verts/ALE). – (IT) Mr President, I would just like to reiterate what the rapporteur, Mr Méndez de Vigo, said just now. There is no sense in setting up a Convention and then doing our level best to stop it succeeding. What do we mean by ‘succeeding’? Success means achieving substantial progress towards a stronger, more integrated Union, which will inevitably involve reducing the role and powers of each State, that is the problem, Mr Michel, and increasing the role and powers of the common institutions. This is your responsibility now as European Council, and this is the decision you must make: to reduce your powers. At Nice, you failed precisely because the intergovernmental method is an obstacle in itself, in that it favours those who are lagging behind and forces everyone to conform to their slow pace.
The President-in-Office, Mr Michel, and President Prodi have been through some really tough times in recent months, times when the lack of joint instruments was starkly and sometimes cruelly clear. I feel that the Convention, a genuine Convention, should be an embryonic constituent assembly, and that it is the only thing that can make the future of the European Union brighter than the confusion which reigns at present.
Figueiredo (GUE/NGL). – (PT) Mr President, with regard to the European strategy to promote quality in employment and in social policy, announcing and adopting plans is not enough: quality employment with rights must be created and tangible objectives must be set to ensure that all social rights are respected. Creating jobs is not enough: they must not be precarious, employees must be able to live with dignity and must be paid on time, unlike the current situation in Portugal, which, despite the low official rate of unemployment, still has the lowest salaries in the European Union, and where job insecurity is growing worse, the number of companies that are behind in paying their employees is increasing and it is becoming more and more difficult to develop areas that are reaching crisis point.
A policy seeking to achieve quality in social terms calls for priority to be given to employment with rights, with particular emphasis on women and young people, including their training, but also on pay and contracts, and special attention must also be given to the elderly and to pensions, especially minimum pensions, which means that the European Union cannot continue to insist on giving absolute priority to the monetary policies of the Stability Pact, as it is still doing.
Berthu (NI). – (FR) Mr President, in our view, the draft declaration that the Laeken Council is due to publish to shape the debate on the future of the Union seems to have been drafted under some very odd circumstances. According to press reports, the Belgian Presidency says that it deliberately did not release the document to its partners too early, so that they would not have the time to rewrite the text. This is not a very co-operative way of working and this is what leads us to warn the members of the Council: do not forget that you are representing countries and national democracies, which should have a free hand in these negotiations. The ideal scenario would be to initially establish an interparliamentary forum consisting of representatives of the national parliaments or which works on the basis of proposals from the national parliaments, as the latter are well placed to sum up the feelings of each nation. In any case, I would say to the Heads of State and Government, do not allow a mechanism to be imposed upon you that would lead to proposals being made that are out of touch with the interests and preferences of our people. This is a point that I will explain in greater depth in my explanation of vote on the resolution that will be tabled.
Thyssen (PPE-DE). – (NL) Mr President, many Christian-Democrats have played a leading role at each stage of the development of the European Union, and even now we want to make a joint effort in order to turn Europe into a lasting success story.
The Nice Summit, which was supposed to be the summit of truth, cannot really be described as a run-away success, certainly not in terms of its intention to properly prepare the Union’s institutions for enlargement. The Heads of State and Government will now hopefully realise that they can no longer afford any half-hearted or premature conclusions at Laeken.
The report by Mr Leinen and Mr Méndez de Vigo indicates very clearly what decisions are crucial to secure a bright future for the Union. We back this report and I should also like to take this opportunity to congratulate the rapporteurs warmly on their work.
Mr President-in-Office of the Council, your work is not complete, and neither is the term of your Presidency. It would therefore be premature to draw up an assessment of your Presidency at this stage, but pending the Laeken Summit, I should still like to say the following. We have noted, and this is also evident from opinion polls, that European citizens have given up. They are not really turning against Europe, but they no longer feel involved. Therefore, more attention should be devoted to issues such as: more information, more public debate, more openness towards the NGOs, making it clear that the Union’s objectives do have a bearing on every single person and that the Union shows equal respect for every human being.
In this connection, I would call on you as Head of Government of a small country not to allow yourself to be pushed into a corner again, as was the case in Ghent and in London, in fact. People cannot understand this and accept this even less. I would also urge you to continue to guarantee the same respect for all languages and their users. I would therefore urge you to discontinue your planned intentions concerning the use of language in the bureaus for the protection of industrial right of ownership. People do not understand this, neither do they want or accept this. They do not want a second-rate language, and neither do they want to be treated like second-class citizens.
Caveri (ELDR). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I will just mention five points in the short time available to me. Firstly, I welcome the Convention. It is not a constituent assembly but it is all we could realistically achieve. Secondly, we need to be careful not to undervalue or trivialise the term ‘European Constitution’, and the members of the Convention need to be courageous and innovative in their role. Thirdly, federalism must not be a matter just for the States and the European Union, with the basic regional and local levels and linguistic and national minorities being excluded. Fourthly, with regard to the method, Commissioner Barnier is right to talk about ‘maximum consensus’. We are not aiming at unanimity on the reforms. Fifthly and lastly: the timetable. We must beware of excessively long delays between the Convention and the Intergovernmental Conference supposed to adopt the European Constitution, for it is an unfortunate fact that enthusiasm for reforms wanes fast.
Hager (NI). – (DE) Mr President, Mr Leinen and Mr Méndez de Vigo's model of a Convention sets out an accessible and also, I hope, successful way ahead into Europe's future. I also agree with your desire, in response to statement 23, for an enlarged agenda which, however, the Convention should set for itself. Even such an enlarged agenda, though, offers little hope of achieving the desired result, namely a single basis for decision-making. I am far more inclined to think that the possibility suggests itself of submitting to the Council various options which could also take account of the different positions.
I know that on one point I stand quite alone, although I am in the right. I wish to reiterate my warning against setting an earlier date for the Intergovernmental Conference planned for Nice in 2004, because I am firmly convinced that the people would see it as an evasion of their vote. If, as all sides in the House maintain, we really are striving for an open debate which is accessible to the public, then nothing could be better suited to that than to include the themes in the next European elections.
Oostlander (PPE-DE). – (NL) Mr President, the Belgian Presidency has played a major role in completing some of the groundwork for the Union’s enlargement. One is indeed struck by the optimism which is taking possession of those involved: the naming of the date 2004 suggests that the work is nearly finished. There is even talk of a big bang of ten countries acceding simultaneously. Commissioner Verheugen is sensible enough to state that it is possible that up to ten new countries will join in 2004.
After all, it is not up to us to determine an accession date for the candidate countries. The year 2004 is an assumption and a hope, but holds no guarantees for any Member State whatsoever. We, and they, should therefore continue to make every effort to achieve a sound and credible result.
A great deal needs to be done within the current Union in order to clarify the significance of enlargement. Naturally, many are right to be truly enthusiastic about this fantastic, historic process. But under the influence of those who believe they can secure political gain from xenophobic sentiments, a climate of uncertainty has emerged. False representations of the costs involved in the enlargement are doing the rounds. They are designed to instil fear and are based on worst-casescenarios: as if it has not been clear for a very long time that the cost of this whole enlargement process would be covered by the EU budget.
Far more important is greater awareness of the need for anchoring more firmly the character of the Union as a union of democratic constitutional states. The events of 11 September have illustrated this more clearly than ever. The fight against serious crime and terrorism is a common cause, and reticence in this connection will jeopardise the safety of citizens.
It is actually very strange that our union of constitutional states, as such, has not resulted in greater trust among the Member States and their legal systems. A great deal will need to be done about this in the coming years.
Corbett (PSE). – May I offer my congratulations to the co-rapporteurs for an excellent report and also to the Belgian Presidency for having carried the idea, born in Parliament, of preparing the next Intergovernmental Conference by means of a Convention nearly to fruition, although we still have the Laeken Summit to come.
This is a dramatic improvement on the preparations of previous Intergovernmental Conferences. Instead of the usual group of foreign ministry officials meeting together behind closed doors we will have a publicly representative body taking ideas from a wide public debate and coming up with a coherent set of proposals for reform. This is a tremendous opportunity but does not guarantee results and it is for us to make something of it. We will do so if we avoid divisions on the theology or vocabulary of European integration where we are sometimes divided on the word even though we are united on the substance.
Let me give a couple of examples: in some political parties and countries the word "federalism" is mistakenly equated with centralism and they talk of creating a centralised super-state in the way that Mr Farage spoke earlier. That is not what anybody wants and if you define federalism as different levels of governance, as decentralised as possible but centralised where necessary with each level democratically structured, then we already have the beginnings of a federal-type system and I am happy, under that definition, to proclaim myself a federalist.
In some countries the word "constitution" is an almost sacred text that has emerged after revolution or after national independence. In other countries such as the United Kingdom it is a more pragmatic concept. In that pragmatic sense we already have a European constitution, not a very good one, but we have it and we should improve it further. The constitution is the Treaties which lay down the field of competence of the EU, the powers of the institutions, the legislative and the budgetary procedures.
Let us recognise that de facto they form our constitution. Let us improve our constitution by firstly codifying it to make it simple and clear in a single text so that citizens can see how this constitution operates, and secondly by clarifying it in several ways: clarifying the responsibilities, what the Union is and is not responsible for and clarifying the structures. Let me give one example of confusion that we have now. The functions of Mr Solana and Mr Patten should be merged into a single individual to represent the Union externally, perhaps with a special status as a specially appointed Vice-President of the Commission. Finally, as regards clarity and democratic accountability: it is essential that all legislation passes the two tests of acceptability to the Council representing the States and acceptability to Parliament representing the citizens, a double guarantee as to the quality and acceptability of European legislation.
I said this is an opportunity, but it is not a guarantee. We must fight to make the necessary changes come about through the Convention.
Väyrynen (ELDR). – (FI) Mr President, in the opinion of the Liberal Group the Convention must suggest alternative prototypes for the development of the EU. One of these alternatives is the trend (currently underway) towards a federal state. The supranational Commission would be developed into a federal government, exercising executive power and directing the Union's legislation; this would operate subject to the confidence of the supranational European Parliament. The Council of Ministers would be developed as the Parliament's second chamber.
Along with this federal model, we must consider a structure which will be built upon the principles of an association of states. Here, the leading body would be a reformed Council of Ministers made up of representatives of the Member States. Since the Council would hold the right of initiative, it would not be able to operate in its present manner as a legislative chamber representing the Member States. In this case, alongside the supranational Parliament there would be a second chamber formed in order to strengthen the position of the Member States, which would be composed of members of the national parliaments. This type of decentralised association of states is, in my opinion, better suited to an expanding European Union than a centralised federal model.
Dimitrakopoulos (PPE-DE). – (EL) Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, Mr President of the Commission, Commissioner Barnier, ladies and gentlemen, I, too, should like to start by congratulating the two rapporteurs, Mr Méndez de Vigo and Mr Leinen, for their sterling work and the manner in which they have conducted themselves, for want of a better word, from start to finish in order to include as many ideas and views of the Members of the European Parliament in their reports as possible.
Obviously, there are as many excellent and interesting ideas, visions and proposals for the future of Europe as there are responses to the challenges facing the European Union. However, not one idea, vision or proposal can be implemented or can bring in results unless the right method is used to put flesh on the bones of these visions and proposals. And the right method is none other than a convention, a body which needs to reflect accurately all the current political forces in Europe. The work of this convention, which we believe should be the subject of the fullest democratic dialogue, should result in a proposal which is a synthesis and product of all the views formulated at it. Only thus will the foundations on which the Europe of the future is built be more representative, more democratic and, hence, more efficient, not to mention permanent and equitable.
Swoboda (PSE). – (DE) Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, Mr President of the Commission, I know that you are in a hurry and must go, but I would like to thank you very much for keeping the promise you made to Members of this House, to bring nothing to Laeken on which a decision had already been made, and for being so determined that there should be an interinstitutional working party. Such cooperation with Parliament is quite exemplary, and I wish to thank you most warmly for it.
I would, though, also like to extend my warm thanks to the rapporteurs, Mr Leinen, Mr Méndez de Vigo and Mrs Kaufmann for having focussed their excellent reports so well on the vital importance to us of making Europe's decision-making structures more democratic and more efficient and for pointing out that there must be no contradiction in this, much as that might have appeared to be the case here and there, with elements of democracy having to be sacrificed for efficiency's sake. Both as regards the Convention and legislation, what matters to us is that we, as the people's directly elected Members of Parliament, are convinced, not that we can do everything, which would be quite false, but that we should have control of the decision-making process. Mr President of the Commission, some small differences may well still be there. We want this 'call back position' only in the event of a delegated decision-making structure being incapable or coming to the wrong decisions – wrong, that is, in the sense of being contrary to what the legislature intended. It would be better, and is always good, for others to reach decisions along the lines that we have indicated in our fundamental decisions and political approach.
I hope, firstly, that the Council is now willing to set up this interinstitutional working party soon, and, secondly, that we will be able, taking the Mandelkern and Kaufmann reports and the Commission's Final Conclusions as our basis, to conclude the Agreement as early as June next year, or, at least, that the Council will be able, next June, to agree that the three institutions have found a way to take Europe into a future which will be more highly developed and marked both by democracy and efficiency.
De Sarnez (PPE-DE). – (FR) Mr President, the issue of European governance is such a complex problem, and one that our fellow citizens have difficulty in understanding, which is, in itself, a paradox. We all know that Europe is suffering from a serious democratic deficit, and that is why there is obviously a need to radically reform the way in which powers are exercised at European level.
We must do so and bear in mind three objectives, namely to clarify the decision-making process, to improve the efficiency and transparency of this process, and to encourage the involvement of citizens. That is why I support the guidelines contained in the White Paper and the Kaufmann report. We must, of course, ensure there is greater transparency in the Council’s work, we must encourage the European Parliament and the national parliaments to play a greater role in the legislative process. We must simplify Community legislation and make it possible to undertake genuine consultation with civil society. Furthermore, I think it is worthwhile, as the Committee on Constitutional Affairs stressed, to draw up an inter-institutional agreement on co-legislation, to guarantee that the European Parliament plays an effective role and fulfils its political responsibility. The reform of governance is therefore a step in the right direction. However, it will obviously not be a substitute for the radical reform that our institutions need so badly. We must provide ourselves, as soon as possible, with a simple and understandable constitution, clearly defining the division of competences, clarifying everyone’s role so that citizens finally understand who does what, and so that they can know who is responsible. Lastly, as everyone in this House knows, we cannot have democratic power without democratic legitimacy. That is why the President of the European executive must one day, and one day soon, I hope, be elected by universal suffrage.
Tajani (PPE-DE). – (IT) Mr President, the Laeken Summit will be a major but difficult summit, particularly because of the importance of the subjects that will be debated. In this brief speech, I would just like to focus on the institutional elements of the summit. The Convention must concentrate on instigating a new phase which will produce a Constitution leading to the creation of a federation of nation States, but it must also establish the competences of the various institutions: the Commission, the Council, the Member States, the regions and the major cities. These are decisions which will have to be made under the banner of solidarity and subsidiarity, two values which must inspire our new Constitution.
The Laeken Council will also have to discuss the timetable for this progression towards the new institutions. Indeed, we must ensure that decisions which are fundamental for the future of the Union are not taken at the time of the electoral campaign. That is why we feel it would be appropriate to initiate the Intergovernmental Conference earlier than planned, during the Italian Presidency in the second half of 2003.
Clearly, the people must be involved in the process of creating a Constitution through the votes of the parliaments – for example, we would have preferred Parliament to have been given the opportunity to debate and amend the Nice Charter for there are parts of it, particularly those regarding the individual, which are wholly unconvincing – especially regarding the European Parliament, for without the involvement of the citizens and their representatives we will not be able to transform the Europe of the euro into a political Europe which can enlarge its borders in the future, maybe even as far as the Yurals: in other words, a great Europe which will bring a long, lasting period of peace.
Cederschiöld (PPE-DE).(SV) Mr President, I am going to concentrate on the legal issues, which are what is most worrying right now when it comes to the structural aspects of the EU. The Council is in danger of infringing Articles 8 and 10 of the European Council Convention, together with Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, freedom of expression, respect for private life and the protection of personal data. That is something people cannot do much about. Because there is no balance of power in the legal area, the terrorist legislation, which is entirely necessary, is in danger of undermining democracy in the long term. The intergovernmental model is out of date. The European Parliament must become a co-legislator and the EU’s Court of Justice be given full powers. The Council cannot be turned into a so-called state within a state.
On 11 September, the EU’s structure in terms of pillars ceased to be at all effective. External and internal security issues became ever more closely connected. Vigorous measures to combat terrorism and serious crime are now required. These must nonetheless go hand in hand with increased public control and legal protection, especially when it comes to what are known as the principles of due process, such as, no punishment without law, proportionality, the presumption of innocence and the right to a defence and to be tried before an impartial court. These rights must become unconditional at EU level.
The Laeken Summit must signal the start of openness and democracy, which are prerequisites for successful enlargement. They require a convention on a mainly parliamentary basis, obviously with a substantial number of members from the EU institution closest to the people. The Convention should be able to work towards producing a proposal, so that people in future know what it is they are to adopt a position on.
Anyone who wants to develop the EU and make it better and larger should support the thinking that is being done in terms of devising a constitution which is characterised by an effective division of power and which, it is to be hoped, will develop out of today’s excellent reports.
Schleicher (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, there is no democracy without a Parliament. Today again we find that the European Parliament is the principal integrating element in the European Union. Nowhere else do Council, Commission and Parliament engage in public discussion, not always achieving unanimity, but openly, and, I hope, constructively. Our three rapporteurs have presented excellent reports. This Parliament has, since Nice, been pressing forward with a Community process which must burst forth in Laeken. I share President Prodi's concern that the European Union is not yet adequately equipped to cope with enlargement, and so I ask the President-in-Office of the Council to check again, and check carefully, whether what was decided in Nice really does enhance the working capacity of the Council and of Parliament. I doubt it. The European Community and European Union have developed splendidly over the past nearly fifty years to date, and I hope that the next fifty years will be prepared for in such a way that we can work even better in the European Union over the next fifty years.
Maij-Weggen (PPE-DE). – (NL) Mr President, the forthcoming summit in Laeken will be an extremely important meeting. At this summit, the agenda will need to be drawn up for the Convention which has to submit the reform proposals for the European institutions. And everyone knows how important agendas are for the outcome of consultations.
We are happy with the planned make-up of the Convention, except that I should like to add that it is important to strike a political balance. This will mainly be the responsibility of the national parliaments. Furthermore, I am also of the opinion that the chairman of the Convention should be elected by the Convention itself.
With regard to the agenda for the IGC of 2003-2004, the Council has naturally included the four points of Declaration 23 appended to the Treaty of Nice. I should like to briefly comment on these four points.
As far as the demarcation of powers is concerned, we are in favour of a more federal structure of the European Union, with a clear distribution of tasks among the Union, the Member States and regions. Concerning the structure of the future treaties, we endorse a basic treaty with a constitutional character which must also include the Charter. In respect of the role of the national parliaments, we believe that they must primarily encourage and monitor their own ministers in the supervision of the implementation of European policy.
Are there any more topics for the Convention? Yes, I should like to outline five. The common foreign and security policy must be included in the Community Pillar. The policy in the field of police, justice and criminal law must also fall within the remit of the Community, with a European public prosecution office, a public prosecutor and a Community Europol. The European Parliament must be granted full legislative and budgetary powers. The President of the European Commission must be elected by the European Parliament and the European Council of Ministers must meet in public when they discuss legal matters. I am pleased that Mr Prodi has said this now, and I am very interested to see if Mr Michel shares this view.
These are the topics which mainly centre around transparency and the Union’s democratic content and which, as far as I am concerned, should be added to the Convention’s agenda, thus affording the Union a more stable foundation which meets the requirements of a modern constitutional state when the new Member States accede.
Carnero González (PSE). – (ES) Thank you very much, Mr President. Mr President-in-Office of the Council, in my opinion, the most important aspect of the Laeken Summit is the following: that the Council is able to reverse the trend seen in Nice, that is to say, that we move away from this feeling of failure at the summit that marked the end of the French Presidency a year or so ago, towards a feeling of success at the Laeken summit at political level and for Europe’s citizens.
I think that this is what the excellent Leinen and Méndez de Vigo report is calling for. In addition to the details, the concrete proposals, which are, of course, important, the essential thing is to develop a new perspective at Laeken, a constitutional perspective, and this means, without any doubt and as I said before, reversing the current trend.
The method for the forthcoming reform is of fundamental importance. As is the Convention. But neither must we let the Convention develop into some kind of tedious rigmarole, and in order for this not to be the case, the Convention should be called in order to prepare reform with true content and a real agenda. If the agenda for the forthcoming reform remains restricted to Declaration 23 annexed to the Treaty of Nice, we will not be getting off to the right start, and the report that this House will, probably, approve tomorrow, calls for more than this. It calls for a more wide-ranging agenda. Above all, it calls for an agenda that, once again, includes the policies of the Union and the institutions that are intended to manage these policies. It also calls for the Union to have its own legal personality.
It is for this agenda, and so as not to distract public opinion, that the Convention has to be called. The Convention needs an agenda, but it also needs a mandate, a membership, a working method and a timetable to make it worthwhile.
I would like to highlight the words of Mr Méndez de Vigo: it would be incredible to keep the same number of representatives of the European Parliament as in the Convention that had the task of drawing up the Charter of Fundamental Rights, when the total number of participants in the next Convention will increase significantly. This imbalance would, of course, be unacceptable.
Secondly, the Convention should work not on the basis of unanimity, but on the basis of majority consensus. I think that this is the exact definition. It should have the right to decide who to choose as President and the right to finish its work on time. This is important in order to ensure that the conclusions of the Convention are not put on ice, because although time, heals all, it also makes us forget.
This is the commitment that we ask of Laeken: an ambitious reform with a different method of achieving more Europe and a better Europe.
IN THE CHAIR: MRS PLOOIJ-VAN GORSEL Vice-President
Michel,Council. – (FR) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I initially wanted to respond to the points made by each speaker, but unfortunately, I do not think that I will have time to go into details. I shall, however, try to answer as accurately as I can.
First of all, I would like to give my very sincere thanks to the European Parliament and to the majority of the speakers for the quality of their comments, and for the overwhelming European voluntarism that I have heard in this House. I must say that I do not always hear the same voluntarism in the other European institutions where I work. I have therefore found a great deal of optimism here, which I was not expecting. The ambitious goals that you are setting for European integration are very much in line with the ideas and the ambitions that I share, that we share. So, with only a few days to go before Laeken, it is most certainly a welcome commitment, one that I heard voiced by almost all Members. One of the speakers said that the Laeken Summit would be a difficult exercise. I am sure that it will be, because the EU candidate countries, particularly during the debate on the future of Europe, will be faced with a number of choices which are virtually breaking points, and which are so important for the future of Europe that some of us will just have to demonstrate a virtue that is extremely difficult in politics, in other words, that of the ability to make sacrifices.
Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to focus briefly on the Convention, and I would first of all like to explain to you what the Convention is not. I may thus be able to reassure those of you who already see a thousand and one reasons in the Convention for sacrificing some things that they have always believed in, and which are, in fact, crippling Europe. The Convention is not and no one has ever thought that it was the Intergovernmental Conference. The Convention cannot, and I think that it was Mr Méndez de Vigo who said this, act as an alibi either. To my mind, it should, first and foremost, be a worthwhile sounding board. I could also put that another way. It can also be a challenge upon the political responsibility of the IGC members, who will have to take up this challenge, because the Convention will, at any rate, make all Council members face their political responsibility. Let us imagine, for example, that the Convention is proposing three or four options on a specific subject related to an issue that is fundamental for the future of Europe. One of these options receives unanimous support or consensus, another receives the support of 80% of Members, and the third is given 50-50. We are well aware that the Intergovernmental Conference is not going to be forced to choose between these options and that it could very well decide to choose another option, to come up with something else, to give these options a different response to the one that the Convention would have given.
In this case, all IGC members, when shouldering their responsibilities, when adopting one option or another, or when selecting from the options which are presented by the Convention, will, at the same time, risk being at odds, not only with the Convention, but with civil society which must, at some point, make known its intentions, its expectations and its aspirations for this Convention. Therefore, do not underestimate the Convention due to the fact that it is not a decision-making body; do not underestimate its political weight or its political force.
I make no secret of the fact that I have several reservations as to the composition, even though I do not believe that we should no longer consider the request to increase the number of MEPs. I think that this is quite a legitimate question, even if I must reiterate that, in our proposal, we took up the proportions that were used in the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The difference compared to the Charter is that we agreed the candidate countries would take part. We must take this difference into account. I shall reiterate that, at the Ghent European Council, we received requests that ran counter to the requests made by the European Parliament. Several countries demanded an increase in the number of members from the national parliaments, perhaps so that the ruling coalition could have better representation, perhaps to take into account sub-national entities or perhaps because of the bi-cameral system. Essentially, it is quality, rather than quantity, that counts, and I think that the MEPs will always have an advantage because of the fact that they are in control of this dossier and of procedures.
I would still like to add a brief comment regarding the composition, namely that it would be regrettable if latent rivalries between political groups or specific components rise to the surface. I think that the debate must be open; we must not consider ourselves according to the grouping to which we belong. I think we must consider ourselves on our intellectual strength, our intellectual objectivity, on our intellectual, philosophical, cultural and political freedom of thought. This must be done in an objective manner and I am sure that we are all capable of doing this.
Therefore, as far as I am concerned, I am willing to see whether an increase in the European Parliament’s representation will cause too many difficulties, such as, for example, too many Members taking part in the Convention, and whether we will encounter similar requests. This could mean that the number of representatives might prevent the Convention from working smoothly.
In my opening remarks, I gave my thoughts on the outcome of the Convention and how worthwhile it is. I think that our work is moving in the direction proposed by Parliament. We use the consensus method where possible, and have the possibility, where necessary, of presenting options in preferential order, for example. However, we must avoid imposing the consensus method from the outset, because I think that this would weaken the Convention, which would then only be adopted by the smallest common denominator. The possibility for the Convention to present various options must enable us to hold a debate with conflicting views.
I would like to go over the various questions that were put to me concerning enlargement. I would like to respond to the speakers who are not sceptical, but who are obviously concerned. Everyone says that they are in favour of enlargement; everyone says that it is an important political and historical step. At the same time, however, a number of people seem to put forward arguments as if they have not heard what has been said, to express their reservations over enlargement. I would like to make something clear. We have always said that we would, first of all, try to keep up the pace of negotiations with the exceptionally rapid pace set by the Swedish Presidency, and that, secondly, we would do this by judging every country on its own merits. The fact that we can today give a particularly positive progress report on the negotiations does not mean, of course, as some speakers have suggested, that we are being almost politically negligent and would be willing to accept 10 countries before 2004 without any further verification, further judgment or criteria. Of course we would not, and therefore we continue to say, with regard to enlargement, that yes, it is irreversible, but also, yes, each country must be judged on its own merits. These are my comments on enlargement.
I think that Mr Barón Crespo mentioned the presidium and wanted the forthcoming presidencies to be a part of that. I am not against this at all, but we must keep a sense of balance. A compromise might be for the next presidencies to take part as observers. The Convention can take up any issue, including European security and defence policy. As we know, these are the four themes from Nice relating to the Convention. However, as soon as you say that the Convention was not an Intergovernmental Conference, and was not going to take certain decisions, and I do not really understand why, some people appear to want to limit the scope of the Nice themes at all costs. If, having considered every aspect of the themes from Nice, other issues are tackled, it would be quite worrying for an exercise, which will widely involve civil society in the debate, to say ‘you are going to be restricted to very specific topics and you can only discuss the issues that we want you to discuss. That is a bit mean. Instead, we are in favour of a more optimistic view, where the four themes from Nice are more widely interpreted. I hope that I can count on the European Parliament, at least the more optimistic of its Members, to help us to convince others of this point of view and of this direction.
With regard to Mr Cox’s comments, I share the point of view that Mr Poettering also expressed, that the Commission must remain at the centre of the Community system. The question of timing is also important. There are a number of constraints and there are many elections. I believe that the time period between the Convention and the Intergovernmental Conference must be six months. If it is any longer, I feel that we will be in danger of undoing all the good work of the Convention and the debates, and the worst scenario would be for everyone to arrive at the IGC having forgotten the options in the meantime, or for some to have had the time to pretend they have forgotten them, or having completely stripped the options of all substance. Thus, all the worthwhile work of the Convention will also have been for nothing.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is largely what I wanted to say. I have almost certainly forgotten to say something, but it is time now to answer the last speaker, who asked me if I was in favour of transparency in the Council’s work. Of course, I am in favour of transparency in the Council’s work. Unfortunately, I have many more reservations about carrying out a public relations exercise that would weaken the quality of debate within the Council.
Mrs Maij-Weggen, I am a seasoned parliamentarian, having spent more than 20 years in Parliament. I was also head of opposition in my country for a long time, too long for my liking. Even in Parliament, if we really want to take the general interests of our citizens into account on specific subjects and specific dossiers, it is sometimes better to hold the debate behind closed doors, and not only when naming names or individuals. I think that it would be unwise to turn essential debates on extremely delicate issues into media fodder, debates where 15 Heads of State or Government are trying to reach agreement. I am not totally against holding public debates on a number of issues, but if all the Council formations had to be organised and carried out publicly, I am not sure that that would yield the results that you want, and that I want as well. Therefore, I say yes to transparency, but I have much greater reservations as to propaganda.
There were two suggestions as to how to involve civil society in the work of this Convention. The first suggestion was to create a second forum, a second institution and a second assembly. The major difficulty in doing this is to determine how to select the members of this second assembly, which would bear the huge responsibility of representing European civil society as a whole. It is extremely difficult to select who is the best spokesperson for a specific subject. We would have therefore created a competing institution, existing beside the Convention, made up of representatives of the institutions. This was one choice, this was the first suggestion. The second suggestion that we considered was to work with what I will call a structured network whose origins are found in civil society. We must ensure that this structured network is not at all limiting, ensure that all those involved, all those representing one aspect of public opinion can submit their thoughts, their expectations, their criticisms, their proposals to the Convention, and that the Convention can, if necessary, call upon them to interview them. In other words, this approach is a dynamic exchange of views between the Convention and everyone in European society, be it the academic world, schools, NGOs, or associations. It is important to give everyone the channels through which they can express their views.
We have chosen a structured network, on the understanding that everything produced will be included in the Convention’s official documentation, and that all those who contact the Convention will receive an answer, not just an acknowledgement. I think that the most representative forces of our society will emerge in time. I am clarifying this so that there are no misunderstandings.
President. – Thank you, Mr Michel. It is gratifying to hear that you are convinced of the good will of this Parliament, but you will understand that we, and hence the European citizens, also stand to win or lose the most from the success of this Convention.
I will now give the floor to Commissioner Barnier.
Barnier,Commission. – (FR) Madam President, Minister, ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of the Commission I too would like to thank you for the weight and quality of the speeches you have made throughout this debate on the two major subjects on the agenda: governance and Laeken. Please excuse President Prodi, who had to leave us a few moments ago for an essential engagement with the Economic and Social Committee. With regard to governance, allow me to highlight the very first words of Mrs Kaufmann, who, like Mr Prodi, I would like to thank most sincerely for her availability and for the quality of the work that she has done on your behalf on this both important and difficult subject. You put it very well, Mrs Kaufmann: the debate on governance is part of the great debate on the future of the Union.
It is not only our reason for being, our raison d’être, that is in question, and I will come back to that in a moment, it is also our way of being, our way of acting. The Commission, particularly in the White Paper on governance, is going to promote the co-legislation function of the European Parliament. Through this White Paper, we are offering Parliament the opportunity to be in a better situation to exert its prerogatives, including better checking of the quality of the choice of legislative instruments, better monitoring of the quality of the use of expertise – is it pluralist? – and the quality of the use of consultation – is it fair? To be quite frank, there remains a point of debate between us which Mr Swoboda stressed in his speech just now, you pointed it out: we are not convinced of the benefits of a mechanism that would allow legislative acts to be suspended at any time, this famous call-back mechanism, when the Commission’s responsibility in the current comitological framework is not itself certain. We proposed looking, together with Parliament and the Council, at other mechanisms that will allow, the European Parliament to exert its responsibility for monitoring in a proportional, that is to say, a balanced manner in the matters currently covered by codecision.
However, ladies and gentlemen, beyond that point of debate on which we need to do more work together, I would like to say that we consider the debate that you have just had on the whole subject of governance to be the means of forging ahead after today’s sitting.
I would also like to say a few words about the Laeken Summit, on which we, like President Prodi, have worked very hard. We still have a great deal of work to do on Laeken and on the situation post-Laeken. But I, too, must praise the quality of the work of your two rapporteurs, Mrs Leinen and Mr Méndez de Vigo, as I have already done before the Committee on Constitutional Affairs. One of you, with their usual frankness, had very harsh words to say about the Commission, which is at the heart of the Community model and method, and which intends to remain at the heart with the threefold role of proposing, monitoring and implementing which was conferred on it by the Treaties. With the reunification of the European continent, as the disparities increase and the centrifugal forces become more numerous, that role of the Commission, at the heart of the Community model, is going to become even more necessary than it has been in the past 50 years.
Mr Voggenhuber accused the Commission of having no vision. I do not think that he is here to listen to my reply, but I am nevertheless going to give it. Everyone is free to interpret the word ‘vision’ as they choose. Personally, I tend rather to practise the pessimism of reason and the optimism of will, and the reason I quote this fine phrase from Jean Monnet is just to echo what Mr Michel was saying just now, as he confessed that, in a way, he had come here to find some optimism therapy that was not forthcoming elsewhere. So I just wanted to refer you to that fine phrase from Jean Monnet.
With regard to political will, which has been a common feature of many of your speeches, President Prodi announced four strategic objectives in this House. We want to pursue them, and he will have the opportunity in his State-of-the-Union speech to the plenary on 11 December to prove that he is serious about them.
What would Parliament have said if, even before the start of the Convention for which we fought together, the Commission had produced its final vision of our Constitutional Treaty or of our Constitution, ignoring or pre-empting the democratic debate that is going to take place, for the first time, on such broad subjects. I am well aware of this, and I say so under the supervision of my colleague and friend, Mr Vitorino, who worked a great deal with you on the previous Convention on fundamental rights: here we are dealing with subjects that are more politically open and probably more problematic. The debate needs to take place. We are going to take part in it but there was no question of us pre-empting it or acting as though it did not count. Let us not underestimate the approach of governance and the White Paper. The intensity of your debate, today, proves that they are not trivial matters. Before concluding, as I promised to be brief on the issue of the Laeken Convention and especially on the situation post-Laeken, on behalf of the Commission I would like to thank the Belgian Presidency, Mr Verhofstadt and Mr Michel, in particular, for the political will and courage that they have shown and which they are going to have to show in the few remaining days before Laeken in order to convince the Member States that the draft declaration on which they have worked and which they are proposing to the Member States will be well respected and not diminished.
I, too, heard Mr Michel using familiar words just now. I feel that, taking into account the Convention and the fact this is the first occasion on which an institutional debate has had to allow time to accommodate the work of a Convention, we do have enough time: two years, and we have an open method which, as it concerns a reform of the Treaty on the institutions themselves, consists of more than just dialogue between the government ministers in the secrecy and comfort of the intergovernmental method alone, of which we have all seen the limitations, both at Amsterdam and at Nice. Let us use this opportunity and make this Convention serve its purpose as a tool for projecting ideas upwards, to the institutions, to the governments who will ultimately have to decide, and to the people that you represent. This Convention, let us say it again so that it is clear, will not take any decision. And once that point has been made quite clear, we need to agree, and I was very pleased to hear Mr Michel’s words on this point, not to be overcautious or too closed in our reading of the four Nice points. On the contrary, we need to look at them openly and constructively, to take the four points together and deal with them ambitiously. It is clear that this leads to a Constitutional process. Let us not be afraid of words. And let us be ambitious as we look at these four points, particularly the point on the use of powers, good tools for exercising current powers and the clarification of competences, which, of course, leads us to ask questions about the European plan. What do we want to do together? Do we want to stay where we are? Do some want to go backwards and unravel the acquis communautaire? Do we want to go further in integration, in the general interest of the citizens, on the third pillar, on foreign policy, on defence? These are the demands and requests from the people. If we want to go further, do we want to go all together or do just a few of us want to go? And how? All these questions are both central to and pervade the matter, together with the four points, and the Convention, which will not take any decision but needs to make strong proposals, will have a lot of work to do.
This is what I wanted to say and, finally, I, too, think that those of us who are going to take part in this convention need to be open and to listen to what is said outside the debating chamber during that time. Among the citizens, in each of our countries, in each of our regions, and I am very aware of the forum that the regional framework provides for public debate, for debate among the people, where many useful things can be said and passed on. We should be open to the debate that will take place during that time in civil society.
The Commission will not be a spectator throughout that period. It will have its special place within this Convention, as it will subsequently take part in the Intergovernmental Conference and as the President of the Commission will ultimately take an active part in the European Council of the very last Intergovernmental Conference, scheduled to take place at the latest at the beginning of 2004, before the European elections.
Next week, we are going to decide on a communication, on which I am working with President Prodi, on Laeken, on the situation before Laeken and on the likely scenario after the Laeken decisions have been implemented. Trust us, trust me; the Commission will make regular proposals and will put forward contributions and communications on each of the subjects. I have heard a group Chairman requesting this. I can assure you, Chairman Poettering, Mr Barón Crespo and Mr Cox, that, not only, Mr Barón Crespo, on the issues of simplification or competences but on all the other subjects as well, although first of all on the issue of competences, which directly concerns us, the Commission will put contributions and suggestions on the Convention table in order to express a vision. However, I must make it quite clear that that vision, and we will confirm this next week in our communication, will, in all probability, be the preservation of the model of the community method and also, once its preservation is assured, its reinvigoration and legitimisation.
President. – Thank you, Commissioner Barnier.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place tomorrow at 11 a.m.
- Procedural motions (continued)
Van Orden (PPE-DE). – On 15 November, I brought to your attention the plight of the plane spotters arrested in Greece, amongst them my constituents Lesley and Paul Coppin. That was two weeks ago and they are still in jail. Last week I visited Mrs Coppin and she is very distressed.
It may be that some of those arrested have been over enthusiastic in their activities and, technically, may have appeared to have broken Greek law but others in the group, including Mrs Coppin, have done absolutely nothing wrong. There is no evidence against them and no foundation for holding them. These people have therefore been held in custody for almost three weeks on no justifiable basis. Neither they nor their lawyer were present when evidence was originally presented to the investigating judge who took his arbitrary decisions in camera.
For much of the time Mrs Coppin and the other detainees had no idea of the nature of the charges against them or how long they were likely to be kept in prison before their case was dealt with. This is disgraceful by any standards and a flagrant abuse of their civil and human rights.
Provisions under Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights, along with case-law, make clear that persons arrested within the European Union must be brought promptly – and that means within seven days – before a judge who must free them immediately if no foundation for their detention exists. It must have been clear to the judge, by 16 November at the latest, that there was no evidence against many of the individuals and they should therefore have been released immediately.
What we are now seeing is a charade of justice. I ask you, Madam President, and the President of the Council and the Commission President, to take immediate action with the Greek authorities to secure the urgent release of all the detainees from custody, particularly Mrs Coppin. This cannot be allowed to go on for another day.
President. – Thank you. The President has already taken this matter up with the Permanent Representation of Greece via her Cabinet. She has also declared herself prepared to take steps personally if this situation persists.
I now give the floor to Baroness Ludford.
Ludford (ELDR). – Early this afternoon the President felt she needed to cut short and postpone the opportunity for Members to raise this matter. She felt she had to prioritise the debate on the future of Europe. But the future of Europe will be nothing if our people do not support us. This case is a perfect example of the impact on individuals of the quality or otherwise of European integration.
Parliament had a chance to show its relevance to people and missed it in prime time. Our motion now clashes with the Presidential debate where most of our colleagues are. I find it difficult to believe that after nearly three weeks it has been impossible to clarify, let alone hear, the charges against the 12 Britons. I am also puzzled about the role the Greek air force has reportedly had in reviewing the charges as opposed to an independent prosecutor. The defendants have not had an opportunity to challenge the evidence in open court and now the higher tribunal to which the case has been referred is to be held in secret.
Mr Souladakis said earlier that the Greek criminal justice authorities had respected all relevant rights. I am surprised that the European Convention on Human Rights is so weak. We might need a Europe-wide review with a view to reinforcing those standards and we certainly need that in parallel with the European arrest warrant.
I call on the Greek authorities to clarify the charges, release the defendants on bail and hold a trial in open court by Friday of this week.
Corbett (PSE). – I would just like to underline that this is an issue that has the support of all parties in my own country. It concerns not just British citizens but also Dutch citizens. It has massive public interest and raises questions at a time when we are proceeding in the field of Justice and Home Affairs at European level on the basis of mutual recognition. That implies that we need to be confident that every country's legal system is up to scratch and meets the minimum standards set down in the European Convention on Human Rights.
It is important and I am glad you have announced that the President will take this up.
President. – Thank you, Mr Corbett. The points made by all speakers are absolutely clear. I have already told Mr Van Orden that the issue is being monitored by the President’s Cabinet, that action has already been undertaken and that, if necessary, the President will personally see to this matter if the situation persists.
Lynne (ELDR). – Following on from the points of order made earlier today, I am grateful the President is going to raise the issue yet again with the Greek authorities.
I am speaking particularly about my constituent Wayne Groves from Tamworth. He did not even possess a camera so I still do not know why he is being held in detention. He is sleeping on a floor with a thin mattress, as I understand are the other prisoners. He has been there for three weeks. Why, when the magistrate said yesterday that there was no real evidence against them, are they still being held?
I believe along with everybody else that this is in contravention of the European Convention on Human Rights. If applicant countries have to say that will adhere to it before membership, surely current members should adhere to it now.
Manders (ELDR). – (NL) I should like to raise the same issue without, however, repeating what has already been said on the matter. Two lads from my constituency are also still in captivity in Greece on account of the same crime: this is evidently the seriousness with which this matter is being dealt with in Greece.
I would point out that the next item on the agenda is the European arrest warrant. In relation to what is currently happening in Greece, that is a topic which we, as well as the Council, will have to treat with extreme caution to prevent the situation from causing European distortion in the field of criminal law policy.
President. – Thank you, I have already responded to this point.
⁂
Boumediene-Thiery (Verts/ALE). – (FR) Madam President, as we are talking about human rights, I would like to speak on an issue of method, which applies to all the association agreements. Today, a joint debate is going to take place on the association agreements with Egypt, and it will include oral questions and motions for resolutions. For the sake of a democratic debate and a more coherent vote on all the association agreements, it is important for it to be split into separate parts. We suggest that the debate should deal, first of all, with oral questions and resolutions and then, secondly, with the vote on the association agreements. It is neither logical nor coherent to take a position on these issues at the same time. The oral questions and resolutions are intended to question the political powers of these countries and to give them time to debate and respond to those questions. This two-part method allows us to confirm the fundamental importance that we attach to the whole agreement, particularly Article 2 on human rights. The example of Egypt is telling in that it shows that we do not silently accept a decision that constitutes a violation of human rights, the recent condemnation of homosexuals, and flouts the values that we defend in Article 2 of our agreements. Our group would therefore like to keep the debate and vote on oral questions and motions for resolutions in one part-session, and put the association agreements back to another part-session. We have already made a request to that effect by letter to the President.
President. – This point will be dealt with in this evening’s debate.
⁂
Korakas (GUE/NGL). – (EL) Mr President, you may not, but Mrs Fontaine certainly will be aware of the following matter which we have raised in the European Parliament, time and again, over the last ten years. It concerns three Greek seamen from the lower ranks of the crew of a Greek ship who were arrested in Egypt, found responsible for the 7.5 tonnes of drugs on board the ship and handed down very heavy sentences.
To give the Egyptian courts their due, it was not the owners per se or the master of the ship who were responsible, it was the three unfortunate lower-ranking members of the crew. Mrs Fontaine and all her predecessors have already expressed their support and asked for them to be released and sent to Greece.
Two and a half years ago, one of the three prisoners died as a result of their appalling conditions of detention. A few days ago, a second man died of tonsillitis of all things. The third man is still alive but his health is shot to pieces. The Bureau should call for his release before he, too, gives up the ghost.