MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the Conference on the Future of Europe
10.6.2020 - (2020/2657(RSP))
pursuant to Rule 132(2) of the Rules of Procedure
Zdzisław Krasnodębski
on behalf of the ECR Group
B9‑0179/2020
European Parliament resolution on the Conference on the Future of Europe
The European Parliament,
– having regard to the idea in the political guidelines for the new Commission, as proposed by its President, to hold a Conference on the Future of Europe,
– having regard to Article 48(4) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU),
– having regard to Rule 132(2) of its Rules of Procedure,
A. whereas Member States are facing the unprecedented challenge of dealing with the COVID-19 crisis and focusing on economic and social recovery;
B. whereas important lessons must be learned from the COVID-19 crisis in terms of the preparedness, resilience and effectiveness of the European Union given the many justified criticisms that have been made regarding its performance;
C. whereas significant reform of the European Union is required so that it is better able to make progress in six key areas:
– creating jobs and prosperity, especially in the context of the economic and social recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic,
– safeguarding citizens and borders,
– respecting the rights and sovereignty of its Member States,
– developing a realistic sustainable economy,
– improving its efficiency and effectiveness,
– cooperating with global partners;
1. Believes that the overriding priority for the immediate future of all the Member States of the European Union will be economic and social recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic;
2. Believes that all EU initiatives must therefore be subject to a ‘recovery test’ to assess whether they help or hinder the recovery process; emphasises that any that hinder the recovery process must be delayed, postponed or cancelled;
3. Believes that there is a need for profound reflection on the future of Europe, particularly in light of the present crisis, but, regarding the timing or practical arrangements such as public consultations, this must take into account the reality that at present public opinion is focused on the ongoing response to the COVID-19 crisis and political attention must be focused on economic and social recovery;
4. Recognises that the public consultations originally envisaged as part of the so-called ‘Conference on the Future of Europe’ will not be practical for many months;
5. Calls therefore for the convening of any such conference to be postponed;
6. Notes that no format or structure has yet been agreed by the Council, Parliament and Commission and that the Council has yet to adopt a formal position;
7. Rescinds its resolution of 15 January 2020 on its position on the Conference on the Future of Europe[1]; emphasises that any future conference must not be organised by a single faction in the debate, as was envisaged by this earlier resolution;
8. Is concerned that any future conference may be manipulated by some as a new tool to advance the agenda of a single ideological viewpoint that asserts that all the failings of the European Union are the result of having too few powers rather than too many;
9. Believes that a genuinely open conference process might, however, have a value in facilitating a debate about the future, as the European Union has clearly become very remote from the citizens of its Member States; emphasises that such a conference initiative will only fulfil these hopes if certain conditions are met and key principles firmly established to govern its operation;
10. Calls for an alternative initiative, therefore, by Member States agreeing in the Council, to establish a ‘Conference on the Future of the European Union’;
11. Emphasises that this conference should be the start of a genuinely open and transparent process; stresses that it should avoid an approach which presumes that its purpose is only to discuss different options for further European integration while taking the current acquis communautaire for granted;
12. Calls for an independent review of the acquis communautaire to be carried out ahead of the conference, including thorough scrutiny of the EEAS and a cost-benefit analysis of EU programmes and agencies;
13. Calls for Member State parliaments to take the lead in organising this conference given their greater democratic mandate and political diversity; proposes that an overwhelming majority of the participants in this conference be drawn from national parliaments; suggests that the organising body of the conference should represent different political opinions and consist mainly of national parliamentarians; proposes that there be three Co-Chairs reflecting a political and geographical balance;
14. Insists that the conference process must be founded on three key principles in order to be successful:
– adherence to pluralism and diversity;
– recognition of the democratic legitimacy of national institutions;
– respect for constitutional democracy;
Pluralism & diversity
15. Emphasises that, as part of its commitment to pluralism, the conference must not just be used to promote the EU integrationist orthodoxy but should be an opportunity for different, dissenting proposals to be discussed equally;
16. Notes that there are other equally valid alternatives to the traditional federalist orthodoxy, such as proposals to return the Union to a European community of sovereign nations based on the eurorealist concept of a confederal Europe that respects the rights and democratic legitimacy of the Member States; calls for these and many other options to be discussed equally and fairly at the conference and its related public meetings;
17. Insists, therefore, that participants in the conference and its related meetings must be given a fair opportunity to discuss issues such as:
– whether the areas of Union’s action should be limited to core competences and be shared or returned to the Member States in other fields,
– whether the one-size-fits-all approach to policy-making should be replaced by a more flexible approach,
– whether there needs to be explicit recognition that Member States have the right to protect their national traditions, culture and common Christian heritage,
– whether the role of national parliaments should be enhanced,
– whether national parliaments should be able to invoke the principle of subsidiarity to block specific legislative proposals by means of an effective red card procedure;
– whether majority voting should cease to be the standard procedure in some areas and whether the voting method in the Council should be revised (particularly following Brexit), and whether existing national veto rights could be expanded by formalising the Luxembourg Compromise so that national vetoes could again be invoked to defend ‘very important national interests’,
– whether further changes are required to make the European Union itself more democratically accountable;
Democratic legitimacy of national institutions
18. Recalls that the institutions with the greatest democratic legitimacy in the EU are those of the Member States; emphasises that the European Parliament does not have any kind of unique or special legitimacy on European issues that would justify its taking control of the conference and that at all times it should be recalled that a European election is an aggregate of separate national elections, largely about national issues, and not a single election on the future of Europe; further insists that the conference should avoid a corporatist approach and should ensure that the democratically elected institutions of the Member States are central to the process;
19. Reiterates that European Union powers are not inherent, as are those of a state, but that they must be conferred by the Treaties; stresses that the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality govern the exercise of the EU’s competences to ensure that powers are exercised as close to the citizens as possible, in accordance with the proximity principle referred to in Article 10(3) of the TEU; believes that the Union needs to focus on addressing important challenges where it can add value; stresses that resources are limited and that there is a clear need to reflect on how to prioritise activities and use available resources more efficiently;
Constitutional democracy
20. Insists that it must be acknowledged from the outset by all concerned that such public consultation exercises as this conference initiative, no matter how well structured and organised, are no substitute for – and therefore cannot challenge – the democratic legitimacy of constitutionally established parliamentary institutions; emphasises, therefore, that there cannot be any democratic argument in favour of automatic implementation of any of the conclusions of the conference; proposes instead that its conclusions be formally submitted to the European Council, the European Parliament and the Commission to allow each to prepare a formal response and follow-up action as they consider appropriate, in order to advance the debate;
21. Stresses that the only conference formally able to propose amendments to the Treaties is a ‘conference of representatives of the governments of the Member States’, as provided for in Article 48(4) of the TEU, and that in accordance with this Article such amendments may only enter force ‘after being ratified by all the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements’;
°
° °
22. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Commission, the Council and the governments and the parliaments of the Member States.
- [1] Texts adopted, P9_TA(2020)0010.