“Mr. President! I would like to continue at this point. Yesterday a vast visible and audible majority called for the communitarisation of intergovernmental co-operation in the field of internal security. You did not mention this consensus in your final remarks, but tried to portray this discussion differently. Concerning the Charter of Fundamental Rights I think that there has been consensus among roughly 90% of the speakers, demanding it to be legally binding. You have not even mentioned it. My question is, Mr. President: Is there any right in this Convention to find a consensus that is not in accordance with your opinion?”

Johannes Voggenhuber (PE)
07.06.02 Session

„Herr Präsident! Ich möchte an dieser Stelle fortsetzen. Gestern hat eine für alle sichtbare und hörbare, überwältigende Mehrheit dieses Konvents die Vergemeinschaftung der Regierungszusammenarbeit im Bereich der inneren Sicherheit gefordert. Sie haben diesen Konsens in Ihren Schlussfolgerungen nicht erwähnt, sondern versucht, diese Diskussion anders darzustellen. Was die Charta der Grundrechte anbelangt, so denke ich, dass der Konsens etwa 90% aller Redner ausgemacht hat, die ihre Rechtsverbindlichkeit verlangt haben. Sie haben sie gar nicht erwähnt. Meine Frage, Herr Präsident: Gibt es das Recht dieses Konvents, einen Konsens zu finden, der nicht Ihrer Meinung entspricht?“

Johannes Voggenhuber (PE),
Sitzung vom 07.06.2002

Dear Europeans,

In the next session, the Constitutional Convention will set up six working groups. This will finally give space to the Convention Members to discuss the key questions about our future European Union. The Convention is therefore approaching its crucial phase, moving away from general and rather internal debates to tackle the hot issues of the ongoing EU reforms.

There is still quite some ambiguity about the structure of these working
groups. Especially the chairing of the meeting has been discussed quite
controversially with some Members favouring only Presidium Members to chair whereas others called for a more open structure. Obviously, the question of the openness of meetings is even more crucial. Baring the legitimate criticism about the European summit meetings in mind, it is absolutely vital to keep the Convention meetings open. The Convention has to stay accessible for the European citizens and has to allow contributions in substance by the Civil Society, be it organised or not. Only an open Convention reflecting the needs and interests of the citizens has a chance to overcome the main deficits of the current Union - its distance to citizens, its lack of transparency and the denial of Europe as a common political project.

“The concept of subsidiarity has been gaining ground. This idea, dear to Germany’s Länder, has become a general point of reference for the European Parliament and the Convention. A large majority of the Convention’s members have spoken in favour of introducing effective means of monitoring the delimitation of competence, and the application of the subsidiarity principle, expressing the wish, more often than not, for the participation of national parliaments. The Convention will be called upon to make a more detailed study of this question, which will be considered by a working party, and to submit substantive proposals on this point.”

Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, Chairman of the European Convention,
Stuttgart, 5 May 2002

11 April 2002

- translated into english by JEF –

1. What are your opinions of the Convention process?

The Convention is a milestone in the history of the European Union. In contrast to previous reforms of the treaties discussion in the Convention will be open and will involve Commissioners, Members of the European Parliament, National Parliaments and representatives of National Governments. The opinions of Europe’s citizens will also be pooled and taken into account. We must use this historic opportunity to create a Europe of the people.

11 April 2002

- Originalversion in Deutsch–

1. Was ist ihre Meinung über den europäischen Konvent generell?
Der Konvent ist ein Meilenstein der Geschichte der Europäischen Integration. Anders als bei früheren Reformen der Verträge wird im Konvent über die Zukunft der Union unter Beteiligung von Kommissionsmitgliedern, Europaparlamentariern, nationalen Parlamentariern und Regierungsvertretern offen diskutiert. Auch die Meinungen der Bürgerinnen und Bürger werden gesammelt und einbezogen. Diese historische Chance zur Entwicklung eines Europas der Bürger sollten wir nutzen.

Invited by the Prime Minister of Baden-Württemberg, Erwin Teufel, to hold a speech on the occasion of the Europe’s Day 5Th May, Valéry Giscard d’Èstaing came to Stuttgart to present his view of the “Message of Europe today”. As to the competencies he came to the conclusion, that a new order is needed, where in some field the European level should be restricted, whereas in other areas the EU has to be strengthened.

He stressed the necessity to reserve several competencies for the Member states (e.g. internal organisation, education, culture, etc.). Mister Giscard d’Estaing plaid that Europe has to concentrate on the key competencies. All the competencies, which are not explicitly transferred to the European level should be reserved for the Member states. Additionally, the principle of subsidiarity has to become more effective.

Contribution by Louis Michel, representative of the Belgian governement and MM. Di Rupo (PS), Danny Pieters (NV A), Karel De Gucht (VLD), Pierre Chevalier (VLD) and Marie Nagy (Ecolo) - 13 May 2002

MISSIONS, POWERS AND INSTRUMENTS OF THE UNION
PROPOSAL FOR A GENERAL APPROACH

Clarifying the debate

Citizens often have conflicting feelings about the European Union. On the one hand they have expectations which the EU does not always meet. On the other hand, they sometimes have the impression that the EU goes too far in areas where intervention is not always necessary.

The Assembly of European Regions has set up a forum on the Convention, which is available in English, German, French and Spanish. There you can find contributions, background information and a weekly resumé. Participation is possible as well.

http://www.are-regions-europe.org/AER-Discussion-Forum/index.html

A Public debate on the future of Europe and Slovenia's role in the EU was held on Tuesday as part of the EU week in Slovenia to mark 9 May, Europe Day. Slovenia's three representatives in the Convention, Lojze Peterle, Slavko Gaber and Matjaz Nahtigal, took part in the conference along with Head of the European Commission Delegation to Slovenia Erwan Fouere and Spain's Ambassador Luis Felipe Fernandez de la Pena, with the opening speech given by Foreign Minister Dimitrij Rupel. After short introductions a debate with the audience followed, but failed to gain much momentum as there were very few people from the civil society present, the rare exception being a few members of JEF. Still, some moments are worthy of taking notice.

There was a lot of talk of federalism but all Slovene speakers, with various degrees of sympathy towards the idea, concluded that the time for a genuine European federation has not ripen yet. One of the main issues of the EU is how to bridge the gap between its citizens and the decision-making processes, thought Rupel, who imagines the EU as a multi-state and multi-nation intergovernmental organisation that would welcome distinctions and specific characteristics of its members. Peterle, who is also the thirteenth member of the Convention Presidium as the representative of the EU Candidates, believes that the future of the EU largely depends on how the states define subsidiarity, which means defining the EU's jurisdictions and the jurisdictions of national and regional authorities. Gaber, who believes that the Convention on the Future of Europe is still a step behind the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention, which resulted in the US Constitution, called for a serious step toward a true common and security policy. Nahtigal was in favour of Europe that would manage to secure a model of social protection from globalisation and would ensure a balanced development of its member states and provide them with internal and external security. He refused, however, the possibility of doing away with the three-pillar system and maintained that the policies of the second pillar will continue to be broadly intergovernmental.

Published in the European Voice on 09.05.2002

Dear Editor

Until now, the European integration process has been lamentably bad at engaging the interest of the young citizens of Europe. The Youth Convention proposed by President Giscard d’Estaing for 11-12 July 2002 offers a real opportunity to open up the debate, and to bring young people into the discussion on the future of Europe. It can only do that if it is allowed to be more than a mere public relations exercise for Convention members, and instead is part of a broader process which will involve young people in a continuous way.

Since the treaty of Maastricht, the principle of subsidiarity is part of the treaty on the European Communities (Article 5 TEC, formerly Art. 3b TEC). In the debate on the future of Europe, many people talk about this principle. But what is its content?

The origins of the principle are rooted in the catholic social ethics, elaborated in the second half of the 19Th century and laid down in the papal encyclica “Quadrigesimo anno” (1931). In short it says that things the individual can do himself, should not be transferred to society (prohibition of action). If the individual is not capable to solve certain problems, the society is obliged to give aid (obligation of help). At the state level, the principle is used for two different functions. Firstly it can regulate the exercise of existing competencies. Secondly it can be used as guideline for the allocation of competencies.
In the context of the European integration both functions can be found. Article 5 TEC refers to the exercise of the shared competencies. The European level can interfere only if the aims cannot be achieved by the Member states individually and that an action by the European Union guarantees more efficiency. Both conditions have to be fulfilled to legitimate an interference of EU.

During the last decades, many European countries have experienced an important regionalisation process within their political structures, giving as a result a greater impulse to the development of territorial entities at a sub-national level. It is difficult to make cross-national comparisons, because the resultant regions have a very different nature concerning their legal status and their political quality. This is in part because they come from different historical backgrounds and different socio-political traditions. In some cases, regions appear because the central state has decided to reduce its burden of sole responsibility and share some powers. Sometimes, they are the result of citizen’s reactions to too centralised decision-making processes, which are considered not to be adjusted to people’s real needs. In other cases, they are a response to the demands for autonomy of certain groups or minorities, which consider that the central state is discriminating them whether in economic or social terms. For those groups, regions tend to have a strong symbolic value and act as a mean of expression of particular identities. Spain can be an example of the latest, where constitutional regions such as Catalunya appeared after a transitional process that was meant to solve some of the historical conflicts that Franco’s dictatorship had silenced by the means of political repression.

Despite these progresses, the position of Catalunya within the system of governance has kept some ambiguities, some of them caused by the European Union (EU) integration process. As many other regions, Catalunya has not been directly involved in the decision making at EU-level, even though the Brussels-based supranational structures can take decisions that are of exclusive competence of the Catalan Government at the domestic level. On the other hand, the Spanish government has not managed to involve regional representatives in the decision-making affecting those issues within the EU institutions. Thus, the central government has not been convincing enough in its representative role, lacking democratic legitimacy and efficiency.

YES TO THE EUROPEAN FEDERATION
For a European Army and a European Civil Service
For Peace and Sustainable Development
For the Government of the Euro
For a European Social Model

To the Members of the European Convention

We young Europeans are worried about our future. Europe has a single currency, but doesn't have a democratic Government. And a divided and weak Europe, ruled by divergent national interests, is not able and will never be able to bring peace in the Middle East and in the rest of the world, to fight against terrorism, to shorten the gap between the rich and the poor inside and outside its borders, to stop the degradation of the planet.

by Ellen Trane Norby, President of LYMEC

Europe stands before a crossroad. Within the next 8 months Europe will have to show if it is mature to lift two of the largest challenges the Union has had since the six founding member states laid the first bricks more than half a century ago.

The Summit in Copenhagen will be the exam where we will see if all the words and good intentions will be followed by concrete actions and visions for our common European future. But the EU does not only have to complete a number of accession negotiations in order to ensure the enlargement of the union; it will also have to prove itself legitimate and relevant to the European citizens. It is about time that the European Union becomes a citizens union.