Many ideas but no concrete conclusions

At the end of the first phase of the Convention work, the “Listening-Phase”,
it is time for a first mid-term result. After the first seven Convention
sessions, it is possible to see a consensus emerging in a limited number of
areas, but there is still no sign of what answer the Convention will give to
the fundamental question of the institutional arrangements of the future
European Union. This article will sum up some of the key issues which have
been debated so far.

By now, there is broad agreement that the final result of the Convention
should be a legally-binding document in the form of a Constitution or a
constitutional treaty. President Giscard d’Estaing has spoken on several
occasions in favour of such a result; and other Convention members have
proposed concrete initiatives along these lines. Andrew Duff MEP has even
produced his own ideal Constitution – article by article – over the course
of the Convention’s meetings. The majority of Convention members have also
supported the principle of the Charter on Fundamental Rights being
incorporated into such a Constitution.

Several sessions were devoted to debating the goals and missions of the
Union. Many Convention members emphasised the need for the EU to promote
international peace, security, and development, while others focused on the
objectives of promoting individual freedom, guaranteeing social justice, and
ensuring regional cohesion. Another priority was the creation of an area of
freedom, security, and justice, reflecting the increasing recognition that
the Union needs more competences to take decisions in the fields of Justice
and Home Affairs.

One of the major areas of discussion within the Convention has focused on
the question of the competences of the Union, in particular how the
clarification and separation of competences between the European and
national levels could be organised. Convention members were unanimous in
agreeing that the principle of subsidiarity should be at the centre of any
settlement. A consensus has emerged that there should be different
categories of competences, from “exclusive EU competences”, “exclusive
national competences”, and “shared competences”, but there are different
opinions on how this could be organised and enforced. Some Convention
members have advocated a relatively rigid competence catalogue, whilst
others favour a looser and more flexible arrangement based on some kind of
charter. Most agree that all competences not specified in the Constitution
should remain the exclusive competence of the member state. An additional
point of discussion is whether competence-disputes should be resolved by
legal means through the courts, or whether there should be some kind of
political body to deal with this issue.

Convention members differ on which policy areas should be dealt with at the
European level. A large majority agree that trade policy, the single market,
Economic and Monetary Union, environment questions, the Common Foreign and
Security Policy, and European defence policy are areas where the Union
should be active. In addition, other policy areas have frequently been
mentioned, such as asylum and immigration policy, the fight against
organised crime, health and social policy, and international energy and
transport networks. It is clear that it will be difficult to distinguish
between national and European competences in many of these fields. There are
also demands from some quarters to renationalise certain European
competences, particularly in the field of agricultural policy, and to a
lesser extent concerning regional and structural funds.

The financial base of the future Union has attracted some attention, with
proposals to allow the Union its own tax-raising powers. There have also
been demands to remove the artificial distinction currently in place between
obligatory and non-obligatory expenses of the Union, which tightly limits
the scope of the European Parliament’s oversight over the Union budget.

Some attention has been paid to the future role of national parliaments in
the European institutional arrangements. Some Convention members have
proposed a new body representing national parliamentarians, a proposal
rejected by many others as creating too many institutions. The latter group
has stressed that the main responsibility of national parliaments is to hold
accountable the actions of their governments in the Council and European
Council, while at the European level it should be the European Parliament
which holds the European executive to account.

Concerning the most controversial and sensitive topic, the future
institutional arrangements of the Union and therefore the question of the
allocation of power, there is no clear consensus. During the Civil Society
Hearings in June, a significant majority of the organisations present
proposed a broadly federal approach. From this perspective, many proposed
that the President of the Commission should be elected by the Parliament,
the Parliament should be given legislative powers in all fields of EU
policy, and majority voting instead of unanimity should apply in all areas.
Until now, few Convention members have openly objected to these proposals.
The proposal to have the President of the Commission elected by the European
Parliament received the support of more than 40 Convention members in a
written contribution. However, some have also proposed to strengthen the
Council, or the role of national governments and national parliaments,
within the overall institutional arrangement. Finding a compromise between
these ideas will be one of the major tasks for the Convention in the month
to come.

The first phase has also exposed the working practices of the Convention.
The Presidium, and particularly the President Valery Giscard d’Estaing, have
a strong role in setting the agenda of the meetings and in establishing the
working groups. The first working groups established were criticised for not
dealing with the most crucial issues, namely, the Union’s institutional
framework. President Giscard d’Estaing has also been criticised for ignoring
majority positions in the Convention, and only focusing on those conclusions
with which he can agree himself. Another problem is that of moving beyond
mere rhetoric from Convention members in plenary towards concrete debate.
The procedures do not lend themselves easily to open debate and discussion.
More important, however, is that only a quarter of the citizens of Europe
know about the Convention, and that the members of the Convention have so
far failed to get sufficient public support and attention for their work. It
is this final point which must be at the centre of the Convention’s
priorities in the months to come.

For the contributions of the Convention members see:
here