Dear Europeans,

This past week can be seen as a historic week in European Integration. On Friday 25 October an agreement on agriculture was reached which, although we might not be too happy about the content, paved the way for the enlargement of the Union. Another important step marked the presentation by Giscard d’Estaing to the Convention plenary of a first draft for a European Constitution. After discussing the broad topics of the future of Europe debate and preparing some more detailed reports on separate issues in the working groups, the members of the Convention have now the possibility to work on the concrete text of the European Constitution.

The debates in the plenary and press conferences of Giscard d'Estaing and other presidium members of the Convention lead to a simple conclusion: it is a good starting point, but much remains to be done. The draft for the Constitution was broadly welcomed as a good working base. The draft offers the structure for a democratic, transparent, efficient and federal Union, but in order to arrive there, much has to be done. Despite some clear weaknesses, this draft provides an opportunity transform the rhetoric of recent years into a Constitution which can be a link between the citizens of the Union and their European Institutions.

"The Convention is at work. It has given itself the task to rewrite entirely the treaties to replace them by a constitution of a great Europe. The main debate is now engaged. It doesn't oppose the left to the right, nor the present member states of the Union to the candidates states, nor the big countries to the small ones, but the national leaders to the citizens : must Europe continue to be led by national governments acting, in this specific role, without any democratic control, or must it be led by its own leaders with their own democratic legitimacy ?"

Alain Lamassoure in a letter to JEF-France (translation from the original french version).

- President Giscard d’Estaing has presented his first draft proposals for a constitutional treaty. What are your first views on the document?

My first reaction is a favourable one: the presidium has produced a scheme – someone called it a skeleton which is wrong – it is a scheme which contains all the factors and elements that a constitutional treaty should contain. It also makes the proposal of separating the constitutional clauses from the policies of the Union, which is also a wise decision because this opens the way to different revision clauses and ratification clauses. Obviously the document is an indication of chapters and headings rather than of the contents, which remains open, but little by little we will fill it in.

We are currently discussing the place in the constitutional treaty of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Obviously there are various options in this scheme that has been presented, but it seems to me that a large majority of the members of the Convention want the Charter, one way or another, to be inserted in the treaty. Whether that is to recall the Charter and then add it in a protocol, or insert it entirely in the constitutional treaty, we will see what will prevail. I personally think it is sufficient for the constitutional treaty to make a reference to the Charter and then have the Charter annexed to the treaty as a protocol which will have legal force.

Below is the preliminary draft Constitutional Treaty, drawn up by the Praesidium, which the
President presented at the Plenary session on 28 October 2002.

The aim of this text is to illustrate the possible articulation of a treaty. The inclusion (or non
inclusion) in Part I of some articles, and the exact content of others, will depend on the
Convention's proceedings. Their treatment in this text is in no way intended to prejudge the
result of the Convention's debates.

(EU) EU/CONVENTION: First draft structure of future Constitutional Treaty welcomed by Convention members - Plenty of doubt about utility of stable Presidency, a Congress and the need to rebrand - VGE feels encouraged

Brussels, 29/10/2002 (Agence Europe) - The first debate at the European Convention into the initial draft structure of the future Constitutional Treaty showed that the Convention members are ready to get their teeth into the subject on the basis of this "working base" (as it was often termed) that was broadly welcomed, despite a few doubts (see yesterday's Europe, pp 5 and 6). Elmar Brok (CDU) welcomed the reference to the federal nature of the EU, which did not lead to much negative reaction apart from various British Tories and constant opponents of federalism like Jens-Peter Bonde of Denmark.

Introduction

On the basis of its mandate (doc. CONV 72/02), the Group has, in the course of its seven meetings and having held hearings with several legal experts, examined two main complementary issues:
- the modalities and consequences of possible incorporation of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (hereinafter: "the Charter") into the Treaties (Chapter A);
- the modalities and consequences of possible accession of the Community / the Union to the European Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter: "the ECHR") (Chapter B).

In addition, the Group has discussed the specific issue of access by individuals to the Court of Justice, which, as mentioned in the Group's mandate, arises independently of the questions of incorporation of the Charter and of accession to the ECHR but has a wider link to fundamental rights (Chapter C).

I. Introduction

1. The Working Group has on the basis of its mandate (CONV 74/02) examined the role of national parliaments in the European Union. In pursuing its work, the Group has borne in mind the recognition of the importance of involving to a greater extent national parliaments in the work of the European Union expressed in the Declaration (No 13) of Heads of State and Government annexed to the Treaty of Maastricht and the Protocol annexed to the Treaty of Amsterdam regarding the role of national parliaments in the European Union. It has equally borne in mind the Declaration (No 23) annexed to the Nice Treaty which invited national parliaments to participate in the debate on the future of the Union, and finally the specific questions posed in the Declaration on the Future of Europe by the European Council in Laeken on the role of national parliaments in the efforts to increase the democratic legitimacy of the EU.
2. The Working Group held 9 meetings, one of which was held jointly with Working Group I on subsidiarity. Members have participated actively in the work of the Group and submitted alarge number of written contributions. The Group has heard evidence from Dr. Andreas Maurer (Senior Research Fellow at the Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, Berlin, and Jean Monnet lecturer at the University of Osnabrück) on the role of national parliaments in the European architecture and from Commissioner Michel Barnier, notably on implementation of the Amsterdam protocol. Other members of the group also gave presentations on areas of their own expertise. The Chairman visited the Finnish parliament upon invitation of the President of the Grand Committee.
3. The work of the Group can be brought under three distinct headings:
· the role of national parliaments in scrutinising governments (national scrutiny systems)
· the role of national parliaments in monitoring the application of the principle of subsidiarity
· the role and function of multilateral networks or mechanisms involving national parliaments at the European level

The present report outlines the results of the Working Group's debate on these three main issues and presents a number of specific proposals. It also contains some recommendations of a moregeneral nature.

(EU) EU/CONVENTION/NATIONAL PARLIAMENTS: majority of Convention members remain opposed to creation of a congress

Brussels, 29/10/2002 (Agence Europe) - The report by the Convention working group on the role of national parliaments (see EUROPE of 26 October, p.9) chaired by Britain's Gisela Stuart was very well received by members of the Convention who all wanted more involvement of national parliaments in the European integration process. The debate, however, highlighted their opposition, or at least that of a great majority of them, to the creation of a Congress bringing together representatives from national parliaments and the European Parliament.

The five essentials for a European Constitution

The Federal Committee of JEF Europe welcomes the work of the Convention and its clear objective to draft a European Constitution. The first results of the working groups show the clear determination of most Convention members to make the Union more democratic and more efficient.

JEF-Europe also welcomes the numerous proposals for a European Constitution which have been published recently. These proposals show that a majority of politicians and academics are in favour of a European Constitution, while Euro barometer surveys indicate general public support for the idea. The crucial question for the Convention is not whether we want to achieve a European Constitution, but what this Constitution should contain.

It is not a easy task to comment on President Giscard d’Estaing’s constitutional draft at this moment, since his real intentions are not always clear. On the one hand there is the draft of the structure, which is quite general and does not answer the question of whether Giscard wants to arrive at an integrated or an intergovernmental Europe. On the other, Giscard's report to the European Council on the Convention's work and several interviews he subsequently gave to the press show clearly that he will try to force the Convention to accept a rather intergovernmental approach. In order to find out what the document really offers, I will look at the content of some of the articles and especially report on the positions in the Convention on these issues.

The structure of the Constitution presented in the draft is a good first step for a true federal Constitution. It includes most of the articles needed in a federal Constitution and will be a good starting point for further discussions in the Convention on the detailed text of the final Constitution. A broad majority of Convention members and many NGOs followed this positive approach and welcomed the paper as such.

On October 29, 2002

The Youth Contact Group welcomes Valéry Giscard d'Estaing’s proposal to the Convention on the future of Europe for a framework for a real European Constitution.
"The draft sets out the skeleton for a greatly improved, democratic Europe. It is time to add substance to the proposals now," stated Giacomo Filibeck, President of the European Youth Convention. Bringing together 210 young people from around Europe in July this year, the Youth Convention proposed a number of answers to the questions that Mr Giscard d'Estaing leaves unanswered in his constitutional framework.

"The major issue relates to the accountability of the Commission. The European Parliament should be given the power to elect the head of the European Union's executive. This should not be left to a “Congress of the People” as Giscard proposes, which would only make the European Union more cumbersome. We do not need yet another European institution." continued Giacomo Filibeck.
"We are also concerned at the prominence given to the European Council and the Council Presidency. This Constitution must not retreat into greater intergovernmentalism if it is successfully to equip the Union for the challenges it faces today. The European Parliament, as the only directly democratic European Institution, must play a bigger role in the future Europe.”

Milan, 30 September 2002

ASSOLOMBARDA - Young Entrepreneurs Group

THE YOUNG ENTREPRENEURS' GUIDE FOR EUROPE

REFORMS FOR GREATER EFFICIENCY IN EUROPE

Abolition of veto: majority vote of the states and the population of Europe for all EU decisions. A more transparent system to prevent both Euro-sceptic minority blackmail and degeneration of exchange of votes for favours.

Same rules for all Member States, no to derogation accorded to some countries: elimination of unhealthy opting out, i.e. of Great Britain and Denmark being free to choose not to implement some European regulations.

Guiding principles for the work of the Convention

At its congress in Bath, UK October 2002 the ELDR Party considers that:

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 a democratic, open and transparent decision-making system, accountable to its citizens, to reconnect the peoples of Europe with the decisions taken in their name.

Dear Member of the Convention,

During the plenary session of 7-8 November, the Convention will debate the values and principles of the European social model, and consider a proposal to create a Working Group on social issues. I would like to call upon you to support this proposal, so that social aspects of the EU can be properly considered by the Convention.

NGOs have from the beginning supported the Convention process as a unique opportunity to create a European Union according to the needs and aspirations of its citizens. A huge European-wide alliance of NGOs and trade unionists - under the heading act4europe - is now calling upon the Convention to listen to the voices coming from civil society.

Inaugural meeting 8 October 2002

The meeting in Brussels on 8 October to launch the campaign brought together representatives of a range of NGOs in some 15 countries (member states and candidate countries). The feeling at the end of the day was positive. The aim of the initiative of the Civil Society Contact Group was to generate more debate and action at the national level: this was considered necessary and timely, and welcomed by all who could attend and many other who could not but heard about it. However, all of us were at the same time aware that it would require considerable effort while there is very limited capacity to sustain it.

The overall picture was that, with some exceptions, not very much is happening nationally. In most member states neither government nor civil society itself have managed to get things moving, while in the candidate countries the all-absorbing focus is understandably on accession. However, many NGOs and people are aware of the Future of Europe process, with a Convention focusing on architecture rather than on formulating a clear vision and mission, and civil society focusing on the latter, on the issues that determine the content -- the big question being how to connect the two. And the message we tried to convey in our first Bulletin appears well understood:

PROPOSAL TO THE „CONVENTION ON THE FUTURE OF EUROPE”

PREAMBEL

Conscious of its spiritual and cultural heritage, the Union is founded on the universal values of human dignity, freedom, equality and solidarity. The work of the Union is based on the principles of democracy, the rule of law and respect of the fundamental and human rights which are enshrined in this Constitution and in international treaties which the Union is signatory of. The European Union places the individual at the heart of its activities. It establishes the citizenship of the Union as the expression of a common political and legal identity and creates an area of freedom, security and justice as well as an area of sustaninable development.

The European Union contributes to the preservation and to the development of these common values while respecting the diversity of the cultures and traditions of Europe and the identities of the member states and regions.
The Union promotes a balanced, just and sustainable development within the European Union and through its external relations. In all operations the Union respects the principle of subsidiarity and proportionality. The citizens of the Union give themselves the following Constitution: