Dear Europeans

This week saw the first hearings of the Convention with Civil Society. This was the first formal opportunity for representatives of civil society organizations to present their views directly to Convention members. Civil society organizations were united in asking the Convention to address the central issues of institutional reform, to make the Union more democratic and accountable and closer to the citizens. You will find in this edition speeches the Convention from Fernand Herman, on behalf of the Federalist Voice network, and Alison Weston, on behalf of the Youth Contact Group. Civil Society showed itself willing to address the big questions facing the Union, but while the hearings process must be welcomed, the Convention has yet to show itself willing to give real substance to the consultation process. This process will only be of value if the hearings are seen as the beginning, rather than the end, of consultation with civil society. When the most crucial questions of power are addressed in working groups on the basis of draft texts, civil society organizations should also be able to make their contributions.

One very striking outcome of this week’s hearings was the near-unanimous support for the idea of a Constitution for the Union. Citizens and civil society organizations are fed up with unreadable treaties which are incomprehensible to all but the most expert. It is increasingly clear that more and more participants in the debate on the future of Europe recognise that only a Constitution can establish the rules of the game in a clear and understandable format. This week’s edition of the Bulletin contains interviews with two very influential members of the Convention who share this view: Inigo Mendez de Vigo MEP, member of the Convention Presidium and Professor of Constitutional Law, and Andrew Duff MEP, Vice-Chair of the European Parliament’s delegation to the Convention. There is growing support outside the Convention for the principle of a Constitution, and we are happy that this view is also gaining ground within the Convention itself.

“Even though it is composed of the strongest figures from their respective countries, the Council is the weakest of the European institutions because it is divided over most issues. A team of strong and vigorous thoroughbreds pulling in different directions will travel less far than a team of half-starved nags pulling in the same direction.”

Fernand Herman, on behalf of the Federalist Voice network, to the Civil Society Hearings, 24 June 2002

- You are a member of the Convention Presidium and also a member of the European Parliament’s Intergroup for a European Constitution. You have been calling for a Constitution for the European Union for some time. Why?

In the past the European Parliament Constitutional Affairs Committee was called the Institutional Affairs Committee, and in 1999 I proposed to change the name because I thought we were heading towards a Constitution. It is difficult to explain what an Institutional Affairs Committee does, but everyone understand what a Constitutional Affairs Committee does.

- Why have you decided to produce your own draft Constitution?

I think that the Convention will succeed only when it gets down to drafting, and the sooner we can get down to drafting, the sooner we will succeed. In the first stages in the work of the Convention we have had a lot of speeches, and some especially from the Eastern countries have been very abstract. My experience of the Charter – where I served on the Convention as well – is that the sooner we get down to drafting, in fact it was only when we got down to drafting that we began to work and to forge the consensus that was needed. I am gradually releasing various articles of a Constitution for a Federal Union – gradually first because I want to stimulate interest but also because I have a fairly open mind on various aspects of the Constitution. The most tricky issues concern the powers of the institutions and the decision-making procedures, which we have not even broached properly yet in the debate in the Convention. These will be tackled once we have discussed the issues of missions, competences, and instruments, which are very necessary and important things that we needed to discuss before we got onto the struggle for powers, if you like. These are the issues of the greatest interest to many people including many people in the press, but are only part of the whole schema.

On 24-25 June, the Convention held hearings of Civil Society organisations to hear their views in the debate on the future of Europe. This arose as a result of the Laeken Declaration’s emphasis on involving civil society in the construction of Europe, but was also in response to the enormous interest that the Convention has generated in the civil society sector.

The hearings were prepared in eight contact groups, which were open to any organisation which wanted to attend. The contact groups, each chaired by a member of the Convention, covered the following topics: social affairs; environment; academia and think tanks; citizens and institutions; regions and local authorities; human rights; development; and culture. Although many of the organisations primarily deal with policy issues, it was stressed that the focus of contributions had to be on transversial and cross-cutting issues, such as the missions, instruments, and institutions of the Union, rather than on the content of specific policy areas.

The contributions of civil society to the Convention can be found on the Convention website.

Digest of contributions to the Forum COV 112/02: http://european-convention.eu.int/doc_register.ASP?MAX=21&LANG=EN&Content=DOC

Reports from the meetings of the eight contact groups CONV 120/02: http://european-convention.eu.int/doc_register.ASP?MAX=21&LANG=EN&Content=DOC

The Union needs to become more democratic, more transparent and more efficient. It also has to resolve three basic challenges: how to bring citizens, and primarily the young, closer to the European design and the European institutions, how to organise politics and the European political area in an enlarged Union and how to develop the Union into a stabilising factor and a model in the new, multipolar world.

From the “Laeken Declaration on the Future of the European Union”

I thank you all for giving me the floor this evening. I hope that your consultation with civil society will not end here, but will be part of a continuous process, whereby civil society will have the opportunity to make contributions at later stages when the Convention moves on to producing draft texts.

Mr President, ladies, gentlemen, honourable members of the Convention,

You have heard at length from diverse members of civil society who have expectations of Europe.

Those expectations are many and pressing. For the most part, we share them, but the organisation I represent today are concerned principally with the capacity of the institutions to meet these expectations. Because nothing is more harmful than the repeated declaration of elevated ambitions which are never realised.

If the institutional triangle - Commission, Council, Parliament - has so far been able, in its current configuration, to create the customs union, the single market and finally the monetary union, it is because they worked above all to create common rules, that is to say to carry out legislative and regulatory work. With monetary union and, above all, political union, we need less legislation and more action. So it is the function of the executive that must be reinforced. In other words, Europe needs a government. The citizens have that aspiration, if not that right.

The Union needs a federal Constitution if it is to tackle simultaneously the challenges of enlargement and democratisation, argues Alain Lamassoure. As this is not acceptable to all Member States, the Convention should produce two texts: a full federalist "menu", and a lighter version.

http://www.theepc.be/europe/strand_one_detail.asp?STR_ID=1&TWSEC=Commentary&TWDOSS=&REFID=819

PRESS RELEASE

President of EU must be elected by the European Parliament

The Intergroup European Constitution has stressed its opposition to the idea that the European Council wants to elect a president for the EU. Such a presidency would command neither sufficient legitimacy, nor would it be transparent enough, declared the European deputies who have taken part in a comprehensive debate about this issue during the last parliamentary session in Strassbourg.

The president of the EU has to receive legitimacy directly from the citizens of the European Union. The president of the Union therefore has to be elected by the European Parliament, and not to be nominated by the European Council. The deputies emphasised that the president of the European Commission and not the president of the European Council should be the head of the executive in the EU. The community method favours the common "European interest" and guarantees the balance between large and small member states.

Supported by: Young European Federalists (JEF), European Community Organisation of Socialist Youth (ECOSY), Liberal and Radical Youth Movement of the European Union (LYMEC), and Youth of the European People’s Party (YEPP).

The Convention on the Future of Europe has a historic opportunity: to lay the foundations for a genuinely democratic European Union, able to meet the challenges of today and the opportunities of tomorrow. In today’s world, where the globalisation of economies and where international concern about the environment, poverty, and crime raise the challenge of establishing global democratic structures, only a united and enlarged Europe can meet the needs of its citizens and contribute to peace and stability. These goals can only be achieved on the basis of an ambitious reform of its institutions and procedures. The Union needs an democratic, open and transparent decision-making system, accountable to its citizens, to reconnect the peoples of Europe with the decisions taken in their name.

Some 20 members of JEF-Germany are getting together this weekend (28th-30th June) to discuss issues that will be raised in the Convention, most notably proposals for a European Constitution. This is especially important in the days before the Youth Convention

The idea is to open up the discussion from the seminar to a wider audience, so we are running an online chat at the discussion forum at:

http://www.constitutional-convention.net/

Axel Schaefer and Marc-Oliver Pahl spoke for Europa-Union Deutschland, David Addae-Schneider-Mensah, President of JEF Germany, spoke for JEF-D.

We had much more time to present our opinion than in the Convention sessions in Brussels (around 15 min altogether) and as the Europa-Union position is less detailed than the UEF position we also had the opportunity to speak about some of the innovative UEF ideas.

The idea of the European Council being a representative collective "Head of the Union" was received with interest by the MPs. The concept of reforming the Council by establishing a single Council responsible for legislation and transforming the other Council formations into mere preparatory committees was even shared by the Convention Vice President, Guliano Amato, speaking at the meeting.

European Youth Convention is just a joke

There’s a big gap between Europe and the ‘citizen’. How many times we’ve heard this already? And justly by the way.
The Flemish Youth Council permanently stimulates the involvement of youngsters in the European decision-making process. The ‘adult-Convention’ in Brussels from 11 till 14th July 2002 wishes to create a framework in order to keep an extended European Union workable and at the same time to guarantee a good participative model. As a good example of the latter, the Convention is in real ‘apartheidstyle’ preceded by a Youth Convention (9-14 july 2002). A kind of playground for youngsters, preceding the serious work. Is this the participation that we want? According to the Flemish Youth Council this approach is highly questionable.

But it doesn’t stop there. Besides the approach, also the procedure can’t be called democratic. The Youth Councils from the three communities in Belgium have each the mandate from their parliament and government to represent children, youngsters and the youth sector on international fora. That’s why we proposed to jointly appoint the young people for the Youth Convention, in order to include these mandates in an existing and good working support structure. By our contact with both youthwork organisations and individual youngsters, occupied with international themes, we always succeed in compiling a well-balanced and widely supported delegation. In this way we achieve a sufficient representative group. Moreover, afterwards we can present meaningful feedback. Finally we feel supported by the official procedure of selection, which speaks about ‘an overall balance among the young people’. Also mentioned is that the Convention members ‘have been asked to take into account the proposals submitted by youth organisations active at national level’. This used to be called democracy…

Summary –

I. What do Europeans expect of the EU?

· Peace in Europe
· Freedom and personal security in Europe
· Economic prosperity by means of a free economy in a large single market.
· The maintenance and development of the European social model
· Solidarity between the regions of Europe
· Respect for diversity among all people in Europe
· A European Union able to speak with one voice in world affairs

European federalism is the mean by which these objectives can be achieved and should therefore be at the heart of a consensus in the convention and find its expression in a constitutional text for Europe

Monsieur le Président,

Au nom d’Attac, j’aimerais vous faire part de nos préoccupations et de nos propositions.
Commençons par nos préoccupations.

1.- L’UE est entité économique et politique qui fonctionne sans transparence et sans véritable légitimité démocratique. Cela génère une insatisfaction croissante dans les opinions publiques.

2- En dehors des problèmes de transparence et de démocratie, la question de fond est de savoir si on va réussir à donner une base constitutionnelle au modèle social européen.