Discussion document of the working-group on constitutional aspects within the UNION of EUROPEAN FEDERALISTS (UEF-Europe)

The debate about the future of the European Union will be a battle around the fundamental choice:

“Which institution shall become the “Government” of the European Union - the European Commission or the European Council?”
(see the respective positions of Prodi and Giscard d’Estaing, Agence Europe, 13.10.2001)

This debate therefore includes many key questions about the final function of each institution of the European Union in the future, like:

- Shall we split the procedures between the institutions into a ‘legislative’ and an ‘executive’ one?
The idea behind this question is evidently; ‘legislative’ shall mean in this context: Final decisions shall be with the Member States, unanimity rule and European Council as “EU government”, and ‘executive’, in this context, might mean majority voting by the Council on a proposal from the Commission acting as a ‘Secretariat’ by executing political instructions of the (European) Council.

- Shall we split the Council into a majority voting Council (‘Community approach’) and a Council only dealing with a unanimity or consensus vote (‘Intergovernmental approach’)?
The idea behind this concept is to get more ‘transparency’ and efficiency in the decision making procedures at the European level for the citizen and public life; ‘Community approach’ means proposal from the Commission and co-decision between the Council and the European Parliament, both on the basis of majority voting, and, ‘Intergovernmental approach’ means in practice ‘waiting until a basic consensus between the Member States of the Union had been reached' (unanimity vote), and, a practical execution phase afterwards, based on a concrete proposal from the European Commission with majority voting in other EU institutions along the concept of a Community approach.

- Shall then, under the second concept (clear division between 'Community' and 'Intergovernmental' approeach) all provisions in the treaties which, after the Intergovernmental Conference in 2004, still require unanimity and/or a consensus vote by all Member States of the EU be transferred into the competencies of the European Council, the intergovernmental body of the EU which represents the signatories of the Treaties?
The idea behind this question is mainly to separate clearly, also in the eyes of the public, the decision making procedures at the European level, in a daily functioning political procedure in the EU institutions in Brussel/Bruxelles, Strasbourg and Luxemburg, and a still conflicting intergovernmental procedure of national interests between the Member States, in particular, between the Head of States and Governments within their regular in meetings in the European Council.

- Shall then the European Council be authorised to transfer, at any time, when unanimity or a consensus is reached, the issue into a ‘Community approach’ fixing the necessary majorities (absolute, qualified or others) in the European Parliament and in the transformed Council ?

- Shall the complicated 3-pillar-structure of the treaties finally fusion into two simple and transparent procedures at the EU level, a co-decision procedure starting with a proposal of the Commission and a unanimity procedure starting with a consensus in the European Council?

- Shall the present Council of the Union thus becoming a European Senate with majority voting, with the function of a “Chamber of Governments” in complementarity to the European Parliament, in its function as a “Chamber of the directly elected people”?

- Shall democratically elected governments (national or regional) in the European Union representing a similar number of population be equally treated and have, under certain preconditions, the same rights and obligations in specific EU bodies (Council=Senate/Parliament)?

- Shall larger Member States (up from a certain seize in population, for example, 10Mio inhabitants) have in the future an option either to stay in these EU institutions at a national level with a vote as a national block or to send its sub-national (regional) governments with own legislative power into this body under certain conditions (for example, minimum seize in population like Ireland or Danmark, 3 to 5 Mio inhabitants), thus getting the same rights and obligations as similar large Member States?

- Shall then the composition of the Committee of the Regions be re-examined by concentrating its consultative role on local and sub-regional territorial authorities while enabling the representatives of regions of larger Member States with own competencies (Länder, Regions …) to replace the national representatives in the transformed Council of the Union (Senate), if the concerned Member States takes such an option?
Behind these questions there are democratic long-term cohesion aspects of a political union which are linked to the basic question:

- Shall each political decision making level in the European Union (local, regional, national) have, directly or indirectly, the possibility of participating in the decision making process at the European level, and, this without creating new EU institutions?
Therefore,
- shall the present consultative Committee of the Regions become a Committee of local authorities?
- shall the regional level in larger Member States be integrated into a ‘European Senate’ (a Council of the Union transformed into a “Chamber of Governments of states, countries or regions)?
- shall the national level preserve its “veto right” as signatory of the Treaties within the European Council, the intergovernmental body of the EU)?

In any case, the outcome of the debate about the future of the European Union will be a pragmatic approach, a compromise which might see a ‘bi-ceval’ institutional structure; we will have two clearly distinct methods in the European Union, the ‘Community approach’ and the ‘Intergovernmental approach’, each having its ‘Government’:

The European Commission for the ‘Community approach’ with co-decision between the European Parliament and a Council reformed into a majority voting ‘European Senate’ (where it does not matter, whether in that body are government representatives of 20 to 30 States or 50 to 70 States, Countries or Regions when taking decisions), and,

The European Council, responsible for the ‘intergovernmental approach’ keeping the responsibilities for all those provisions of the treaties where the Member States still believe (after 2004) that, despite the perspective of a European Union of 20 to 30 members, the issues need to be treated by unanimity or consensus vote by the signatory members of the treaties.
The citizen of the European Union should at least get a clear idea about, who is responsible for what at the European Union level (the Member States or a democratically controlled European level)?

The debate about the above mentioned questions is not only a question of transparency, but also of efficiency in the decision making process at the European level!

Brussel/Bruxelles, 15.4.2002
Michael Cwik (Co-ordinator)
Discussion document of the working-group 3 (UEF-Europe) on constitutional aspects;
contact > mailto:Michael.Cwik@cec.eu.int