Dear Europeans,

Finally in public: the first draft articles for our future European
constitution. With several days delay, Valéry Giscard d'Estaing
presented in the name of the presidium the first 16 articles of the
Constitution. Although there were come criticisms on the wording of the
articles, there were only a few convention members and groups outside
the Convention which completely rejected the content. Nevertheless we
enter an interesting and long phase of amending every single word of
these articles. The conventionalists have until Monday to hand in their
ammendments. Although the Convention members will try to group their
ammendments (you can find them at:
http://european-convention.eu.int/amendemTrait.asp?lang=EN), we can
expect much more diverse discussions on the character of the European
Constitution, when we will go into its details.

One of the two main items on last Convention session's agenda on 6th and
7th February was the presentation of the report of the working group
"Social Europe". Although the results of the working group were quite
far reaching - in the working group no one objected changing the
objective of "promoting a high level of employment" to "promoting full
employment" - there were only very few negative voices to the working
group result. As in other aspects of the Convention, the real fight
between the different groups will be on the exact wording of the
constitution articles.

The second main issue was the role of the regions in the future European
Constitution. The debate was rather controversial and there was no clear
consensus. Again we will have to wait to see how Giscard has understood
the majority within the Convention and whether the next Constitution
articles will strengthen the role of the regions in Europe.

Besides several contributions from within the convention, this bulletin
again incudes several positions of NGOs and Youth Organisations about
the Convention. All these organisations will have to play close
attention to make sure that Convention members' rhethoric will lead to a
European Constitution of the citizens and for the citizens of Europe,
instead of the production another intergovernmental treaty.

We wish to appologize for the inconvenience the problems with our
website server have caused. We have now fixed all problems linked to the
bulletin. In order to follow up the debate on the Constitution articles,
we will have another chat on Monday, 17th February 7 PM, on:
http://www.constitional-convention.net/ (link at the top of the page).

If you would like to contribute to the next edition of the bulletin,
please send your contribution to mailto:convention@jef-europe.net
(deadline for the 23rd issue is 25th February). As usual, you can see
all articles of this Bulletin in full length on the Constitutional
Convention Homepage: http://www.constitional-convention.net/

Best European greetings,

Your Editors.

"Europe needs a future of full employment and better jobs. With fair
employment rights, with good welfare provision and high quality public
services, and with sustainable pensions. Giorgos Katiforis was an
excellent chairman of what was always going to be a difficult Group. And
the high degree of consensus in his Group underlines the breadth of
support for a new European social model. A new model based neither on
American free marketism, nor on old fashioned protectionism.

The Group was unanimous that we can only ensure a Europe with social
justice for all if we promote employability. If we are adaptable and
flexible. We do not want to go the route of the United States with its
poor social standards, weak communities and high levels of poverty. […]"

[Speech of Peter Hain during the last Convention Plenary.]

"Article 1: Establishment of the Union

1. Reflecting the will of the peoples and the States of Europe to build
a common future, this Constitution establishes a Union [entitled …],
within which the policies of the Member States shall be coordinated, and
which shall administer certain common competences on a federal basis.

2. The Union shall respect the national identities of its Member States.

3. The Union shall be open to all European States whose peoples share
the same values, respect them and are committed to promoting them
together.

Article 2: The Union's values

The Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity,
liberty, democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights, values
which are common to the Member States. Its aim is a society at peace,
through the practice of tolerance, justice and solidarity."

[First two articles of the future European Constitution, proposed by the
presidium of the Convention.]

Members of the Convention will find in Annex I a draft of Articles 1 to
16 (Titles I, II and III) as proposed by the Praesidium, and in Annex 2
an explanatory note.

These Articles generally correspond to the description given in the
document containing the draft structure for the Constitutional Treaty
(CONV 369/02). A few minor changes have been made to the numbering to
take account of the debate in the Convention. The draft texts given here
reflect the reports of the Working Groups on Legal Personality, the
Charter, Economic Governance, Complementary Competencies, the Principle
of Subsidiarity and External Action, as well as the guidelines that
emerged on the basis of their recommendations during the plenary debate.

To read the first 16 Articles:
Click Here

Report of WG XI - Social Europe

Summary of Conclusions

1. On the issue of which values should be included in Article 2 of the
Constitutional Treaty, the group welcomes the reference to human dignity
in the preliminary draft Constitutional Treaty, and recommends also the
inclusion of the values of social justice, solidarity and equality, in
particular equality between men and women.

2. On the social objectives of the Union, the Group recommends that
Article 3 of the Constitutional Treaty include the promotion of: full
employment, social justice, social peace, sustainable development,
economic, social and territorial cohesion, social market economy,
quality of work, lifelong learning, social inclusion, a high degree of
social protection, equality between men and women, children's rights, a
high level of public health and efficient and high quality social
services and services of general interest.

3. On the competences of the Union in the social field, the Group
considers in general that the existing competences are adequate. However
the Group suggests that these could be further clarified, and that
action at a European level should focus on issues related to the
functioning of the single market and/or areas with a considerable
cross-border impact. The Group considers that specific extensions to
existing competences in the area of public health should be envisaged as
well as a possible re-drafting of Article 16 TEC in order to further
enable EU legislation in the field of services of general interest.

4. The Group broadly supports the inclusion of the open method of
coordination in the Treaty, in such a manner as to clarify the
procedures and respective roles of those involved. This provision should
indicate clearly that the open method of coordination cannot be used to
undermine existing Union or Member State competence.

To read the full report:
Click Here

“Social Europe”

1. Solidarity as a value enshrined in the Union

Europe is a community of values. This is particularly true of the
fundamental value of solidarity. The German Bundestag has explicitly
advocated creating a European Union that, as well as being democratic
and capable of taking effective action, is also founded on the principle
of solidarity. The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union
emphasizes solidarity as a fundamental value and gives it concrete form
through fundamental social rights as indispensable defining elements of
the European community of values and of the social model on which the
European Union is based. The Preamble itself emphasizes that the
European Union is founded on the universal value of solidarity. The
Charter also, as set out in the Preamble, reaffirms the rights that are
enshrined in the Social Charter adopted by the Community and the Council
of Europe. Chapter IV of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, entitled
“Solidarity”, contains 12 articles whuch relate to the safeguarding of
social rights; further social rights and definitions of Community goals
are formulated outside the chapter on solidarity. Social rights do
occupy a prominent place in the Charter and reflect the EU’s
understanding of itself as a community of values that has long since
transcended a mere economic community.

The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union should form the
first part of a European constitution and its Preamble be adopted as the
preamble of the constitution. For the purposes of reinforcement,
solidarity should be included as a value in Article 2 of the Preliminary
Draft Constitutional Treaty. This would make the concept of solidarity
even more visible for all EU citizens.

To read the full summary:
Click Here

1. The European Union and Social Security

1.1. Social Security

When dealing with the meaning of the regions of Europe for social
security we have of course first to define what we understand by social
security. However, we are aware of the fact that diversities between the
member states of the European Union appear already in this conceptual
stage In the broadest sense the social provisions area includes benefits
for families/children, care for families/children, study grants,
parental leave, sickness benefits, invalidity benefits, benefits for the
elderly, care for the elderly, benefits for survivors, unemployment
benefits, employment promotion, health care, benefits for the
handicapped, care for the handicapped, guaranteed minimum income,
prevention of social risks, employment, safety and health at work,
vocational education & training and the protection of employees. This
definition is rather broad and therefore perhaps less suited for the
present study. On the other hand a more narrow approach also exists,
such as the one followed by VANSTEENKISTE in his study concerning
Europe, federalism and social security. VANSTEENKISTE refers to social
security schemes which are classified as such by ILO-Convention 102 or
by EC Regulation 1408/71 (i.e. schemes dealing with the following
situations: medical care, sickness and maternity benefits, professional
injuries and occupational diseases, invalidity benefits, old age
benefits, survivors benefits, benefits in case of death, unemployment
benefits and family allowances), plus social assistance benefits aimed
at providing a general subsistence minimum.

In order to facilitate the discussion concerning the meaning of regions
to social security, we would like to propose for the purposes of present
exercise, an approach including in the broader ‘social security’ concept
income replacement schemes, cost compensating schemes and social
services. Income replacement schemes include benefits in case of old
age, in case of survivorship, in case of temporary/short term work
incapacity (sickness benefits), in case of permanent/long term work
incapacity (invalidity benefits), in case of unemployment, in case of
parental leave, in case of pregnancy/motherhood, in case of handicap, in
case of study (student wage), and in case of a general lack of
resources. Cost compensating schemes include benefits in case of
familial or child charges (general), for day care costs (children), for
study costs (study grants and alike), for health care costs, for the
integration of the handicapped, for integration into the labour
market/employment promotion, and for prevention. Social services in the
broad sense cover the provision of child care/day care for children,
health care, care for the elderly, care for the long term ill and care
for the handicapped.

To read the full contribution, see:
Click Here

1. The meeting of the Contact Group of Regional and Local Authorities
held on 30 January 2003 under the chairmanship of Mr Jean-Luc Dehaene,
Vice Chairman of the Convention, was attended by nearly a hundred
participants from the Committee of the Regions, from European
organisations of regional and local authorities representing both
general and sectoral interests, from the Congress of Local and Regional
Authorities of Europe, and from individual regions and towns themselves.
The aim of the meeting was to take stock of the Convention's discussions
and to prepare for the plenary session on 7 February, which is to deal
with the "regional and local dimension in Europe". It gave participants
a chance to acquaint themselves with the discussion paper submitted to
Convention members by the Praesidium (CONV 518/03), and to air their
views and express their expectations of the Convention.

2. All those taking part showed great interest in the Praesidium note
and hoped that the Convention would respond positively to the questions
it posed. The possibility raised in the Praesidium note, of a reference
to regional and local authorities in the initial Articles of the
Constitution thus received the unanimous support of Group members (see
question 1). The same held for the comments on consultation and
partnership with local authorities (see question 2).

To read the full summary, see:
Click Here

I. Introductory remarks

1. The aim of this note is to examine questions which might be discussed
at the plenary on 7 February. It has been prepared in the light of the
contributions submitted to the Convention 1 , proposals from the
Committee of the Regions 2 , exchanges which took place in the Contact
Group chaired by Vice-Chairman J-L. Dehaene, contributions to the Forum
and discussions under way within the Institutions 3 .

2. Of the very wide range of proposals which have been put forward,
mention is made only of those which form part of the constitutional
debate conducted by the Convention and, at all events, those which
respect the right of Member States to organise their internal structures
themselves 4 . Among the issues raised, some concern all European
regional or local authorities, others are specific to the regions with
legislative powers, and others are specific to the Committee of the
Regions.

To read the full reflection paper, see:
Click Here

Role of the regional and local authorities in building Europe

European Parliament resolution on the role of regional and local
authorities in European integration

The European Parliament, - having regard to the Treaty which was signed
in Nice on 26 February 2001 and, in particular, to point 6 of
Declaration 23 on the future of the Union, - having regard to the
Declaration on the future of the European Union made on 15 December 2001
by the European Council meeting in Laeken, - having regard to the
Commission White Paper on European governance 1 and its resolution of 29
November 2001 2 thereon, - having regard to its resolution of 16 May
2002 on the division of competences between the European Union and the
Member States 3 , - having regard to the territorial organisation of
each of the Member States as laid down in their respective
constitutions, - having regard to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of
the European Union, - having regard to the Community Charter for
Regionalisation 4 , - having regard to Article 265 of the Treaty
establishing the European Community, - having regard to Rules 53 and 163
of its Rules of Procedure, - having regard to the opinion of the
Committee of the Regions of 21 November 2002 on the role of regional and
local authorities in European integration 5 , - having regard to the
report of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs and the opinions of
the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs and the Committee on
Women's Rights and Equal Opportunities (A5-0427/2002),

A. whereas the European Union is based on the dual legitimacy of the
States and of the citizens; noting that, over the past few decades, and
in parallel with the process of European integration, a growing tendency
towards regionalisation or decentralisation has become apparent in most
of the Member States and that this has strengthened the responsibilities
of numerous territorial entities in advising on the formulation of EU
law and policy, and in their implementation and monitoring, and given
them a new awareness of their role in Europe; noting, further, that
institutional practice frequently goes beyond what is laid down in law,

B. noting that this phenomenon has manifested itself in a rich national,
cultural and institutional diversity, as evidenced by the constitutional
and administrative law of the Member States,

C. whereas, in view of the challenges, the potential and the
uncertainties of globalisation, the EU must simultaneously develop its
capacities both for global intervention and for cohesion and citizens'
participation, as guaranteed by the regions and municipalities,

To read the full EP-Resolutions, see:
Click Here

(A paper submitted by Peter Hain to the European Convention on behalf of
the UK Government and the devolved administrations in Scotland and
Wales)

1. The UK welcomes the recognition given by the Laeken Declaration, by
the European Parliament and by the Commission in its White Paper on
Governance that regions have an important role to play in bridging the
democratic deficit and bringing an enlarged EU closer to its citizens.
Devolution of powers to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, where key
decisions on a wide range of public services and policies affecting
quality of life are now taken by directly-elected bodies, has been an
immensely positive experience. And new ways of working between London,
Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast have also bedded down well.

2. We recognise, of course, that the EU is a Union of Member States,
each responsible for its own internal constitutional arrangements. But
within that framework there is a crucial contribution that the regions
can make, helping the EU to produce better policies and to become more
democratic and transparent. We therefore recommend that the EU’s
procedures be reshaped to enable the regions to play a fuller role
alongside, and in support of, Member States in those policy areas for
which responsibility lies at regional level.

The regional debate

3. There is no single constitutional model of regional or local
government across the EU. Some Member States have organised themselves
on a regional basis for many years; others have a more centralised
tradition. But there is a discernible trend towards decentralisation.
Since 1997, the UK has taken major steps in this direction, and in
England further plans are in train to decentralise power, to strengthen
existing regional structures, and to offer people the chance to elect
their own regional assembly. The evidence suggests that this process is
already delivering more effective democracy and greater transparency of
decision-making.

To read the full contribution, see:
Click Here

Contribution by Sir Neil MacCormick, alternate Member of the Convention

"Stateless Nations and the Convention's Debate on Regions"

The present Contribution has been prepared after intensive debate and
discussion at the Stateless Nations Intergroup of the European
Parliament. The author takes full responsibility for its content, but
hopes it will be recognised as a contribution that expresses the
position of a significant body of opinion inside and outside the
European Parliament.

The European Union has more nations in it than the number of its member
states, despite the tendency to characterise all the latter as
'nation-states'. At least Spain, Belgium, the United Kingdom, Germany,
and arguably France and Finland are composite states that historically
brought together several nations or nationalities into a single state.
Sometimes this happened by treaty (compare England-Scotland Treaty of
Union, 1707), sometimes as a result of a war (Spain and France against
Catalonia 1714) sometimes through emergence of a composite state from a
larger union (Belgium, Finland). Dynastic succession often played a
part, too.

In contemporary Europe, there are thus quite a few nations within
states, nations that lack a full sovereign state of their own. They may
nevertheless possess many important institutions of state, and some (for
example, the Law Courts in Scotland) display considerable historical
continuity from earlier periods of national independence.

To read the full summary, see:
Click Here

Contribution by Mr Elmar Brok, Member of the Convention

The Competences of the European Union:

Why We Need Comprehensive Competence Lists in the future EU Constitution
to Replace the Complex Legal Bases Currently Scattered Throughout the
Treaties

1. The crucial importance of the competence issue

Next to the institutional power issues, the most important issue to be
solved by the Convention in drafting a Constitution is - according to
the Laeken Declaration - the appropriate division of competences in
Europe. The citizens want to know: “Who does what in Europe?”. The
Constitution of the European Union must, in its Part One, give a very
clear answer to this question. The results produced by the Convention in
this respect will decide whether the European Union will not only
function, but also gain the respect and the confidence of the Member
States and the citizens on which it is based.

2. The current situation: complexity as a result of history

Currently, Union and Community competences are scattered throughout the
Treaties and cover, in a quite unsystematic way, hundreds of provisions
and paragraphs. The different natures of these competences - exclusive,
shared or supporting - are nowhere defined or explained, but only emerge
after intensive (and often very controversial) legal analysis of each
individual provision, very often only with the help of the case-law of
the Court of Justice. This makes the Treaties very long and barely
readable texts, in particular from the citizens’ perspective. For
decision-makers as well as for economic operators, it very often creates
considerable legal uncertainty about the scope of Union competences in a
given area and about the extent of the competences of the Member States.
From this also result considerable problems regarding the application of
the important principle of subsidiarity which, according to Article 5(2)
EC, applies “in areas which do not fall in its [= the Community’s]
exclusive competence”; unfortunately, it is not made clear in the
Treaties which competences actually do fall within such exclusive
competence.

The very unsystematic order as well as the usually extremely complex
wording of the Treaties’ competence provisions (also called “legal
bases”) are the result of particular historic situations at the moment
of the Treaty (amendment) negotiations, which in the past followed the
traditional intergovernmental method. The most important reason for the
lack of a logical scheme and a simple, transparent wording is however
procedural: originally, unanimity in the Council had been the rule with
regard to most legal bases in the Treaties; only step by step, majority
voting and co-decision by the European Parliament were introduced. This
step-by-step introduction of a modern legislative procedure has not yet
been paralleled by a simplification of the legal bases themselves,
probably for lack of time and political impetus during past
intergovernmental conferences. A good example for this is the internal
market competence which today is spread over more than seven Treaty
provisions 1 , even though their conditions and procedures are
essentially the same (qualified majority voting; codecision).

To read the full contribution, see:
http://register.consilium.eu.int/pdf/en/03/cv00/cv00541en03.pdf

Contribution by Lamberto Dini and Marco Follini, members of the
Convention representing the Italian Parliament

The functioning of the Institutions

The following comments address the document (CONV 477/03) on the
functioning of the institutions.

a) European Parliament The Treaty should incorporate at least the basic
principles of the uniform electoral procedure, in order to make it
generally mandatory. One might also include the provision that elections
to the European Parliament should take place on the same day in each
country.

b) Council In the future institutional arrangements a clear guarantee
must be given ensuring compliance with the principle of the separation
of the legislative and the executive powers and functions. It would
therefore be appropriate to establish a specific formation of the
Council of Ministers, vested with the role of acting as a Second Chamber
representing the Member States. A Legislative Affairs Council could
comprise the European Affairs Ministers and be chaired in turn by the
representatives of each Member State. This would preserve the
six-monthly revolving Presidency system for an institutionally important
official, giving visibility to the fact that all the Member States enjoy
an equal status, while maintaining the valuable resource of the direct
involvement of each individual country in driving the work of the Union.
There should also be a separation between the General Affairs Council
and the External Relations Council. The latter should be chaired by the
European Minister of Foreign Affairs. The most important rule for the
functioning of the Council must be majority voting, without permitting
any exceptions, for even if each country were to be granted only one
derogation, this would be sufficient to hamstring the whole system,
particularly when there are 25 Member States. As far as vote-weighting
is concerned, the present system makes it necessary to revise weighting
with every new accession. The simplest solution, that is to say, the
majority of both the member States and the population, would obviate
this drawback.

To read the full contribution, see:
http://register.consilium.eu.int/pdf/en/03/cv00/cv00538en03.pdf

Contribution by Evelin Lichtenberger, alternate member of the Convention

The role of the civil society

The final report of the Working Group XI on Social Europe states: “A
consensus was reached within the Group on the following points: - … -
distinguishing it from the role of social partners in industrial
bargaining, the treaty could recognise a certain consultative role for
the civil society”

Why is it important to recognize this role? How could the consultation
procedure work? For which acts of the Union could it be used?

Members of the Convention will find below the framework of proceedings
for the "discussion circle" on the Court of Justice, as defined by the
Praesidium. It will be chaired by Mr Antonio Vitorino.

The composition of this circle should be more restricted than that of
the working groups and its members should ideally be able to contribute
expertise in a specific area in order to ensure efficiency and swift
results.

The constituent members are asked to send the Secretariat the names of
the Convention members who could attend the proceedings of this
"discussion circle" by 12.00 on Thursday 13 February.

Members are informed that an initial meeting is already scheduled for
10.00 on Monday 17 February.

To read also the framework of proceedings, see:
http://register.consilium.eu.int/pdf/en/03/cv00/cv00543en03.pdf

Library of Congress - Washington 11th February 2003

People, states or continents face, at certain times in their history,
crucial decisions. They stand at crossroads. When they rise to the
challenge, they make history. When they don't, they miss an opportunity
which may not necessarily recur.

The Philadelphia Convention, in 1787, was such a determining moment in
American history. The 13 newly independent founding states of the United
States of America were economically weak, internally divided, only 4
million strong, and still exposed to external threats. The success of
their Convention was by no means guaranteed. Could they have foreseen
that the United States they created would come to play a major role -
let alone the dominant role - in world affairs? Could they have foreseen
that their personal triumph would still evoke admiration across the
world, that "Founding Brothers" or David Maculloch's great biography of
Adams would still today fascinate scholars and statesmen alike, and not
only in America?

Brussels, 12 February 2003

The Bureau of the Union of European Federalists (U.E.F.) welcomes the
presentation by the Convention Praesidium of the draft of first articles
of the Constitutional Treaty. The debate on the future political
direction of the European Union will now become more concrete. The draft
can serve as a basis for further progress towards a federal Constitution
but is currently not sufficient for meeting the challenges of an
enlarged EU in a globalized world.

In its Article 1, the draft Constitution instead of basing itself on the
will of the peoples and the States of Europe, only very weakly
“reflects” this will. This formula reveals the resistance to the idea of
going from a Union of States to a Union of Citizens. Furthermore “to
administer certain common competences on a federal basis” is
insufficient. All common competences should be governed on the basis of
the federal method including co-legislation of the European Parliament
and the Council, majority voting within the Council and the European
Commission acting as the Government of the Union.

"WE MUST DROP THE IDEA THAT A PRESIDENT OF THE EUROPEAN COUNCIL, OR OF
A COUNCIL WITH EXECUTIVE POWERS, COULD CO-EXIST WITH THE POWERS OF THE
COMMISSION PRESIDENT" - PRESS RELEASE OF THE INTERNATIONL EUROPEAN
MOVEMENT

PRESS RELEASE

Brussels, 23 January 2003. - The International European Movement
welcomes the relaunch of the Franco-German understanding and the
advances taking shape within the European Convention. It underlines the
importance of the community method but expresses its unease at moves
within the Praesidium concerning the division of competences.

On the occasion of the 40th anniversary of the Franco-German Treaty of
Friendship, the IEM emphasizes the importance of a close understanding
between the two countries and of the fact that their governments have
submitted joint proposals to the European Convention. Their proposals
contain a series of positive points which the IEM hopes will be included
in the Convention’s final report. These points include: the
generalisation of the European Parliament’s power of co-decision and of
qualified majority voting in the Council, including on questions
concerning foreign and security policy; confirmation of the European
Commission’s role as the driving power for the construction of Europe
and guardian of the Treaties; the integration of the Charter of
Fundamental Rights in the Treaty; and the completion of the Constitution
with a minimum of delay. Nevertheless, the IEM remains convinced that
the idea of a President of the European Council, or of the Council
exercising executive powers, co-existing with the powers of the
President of the Commission should be excluded.

LIBERALS AND THE FUTURE OF EUROPE

The ELDR Council, meeting in Brussels on 24 January 2003,

Welcoming the progress made by the Convention on the Future of Europe in
reaching a large consensus on several key elements of institutional
reform, and appreciative of the work of the Liberal caucus in the
Convention;

Strongly opposed to the Franco-German proposal for a permanent president
of the European Council with executive powers which threatens the
institutional balance of the EU;

Favouring the Commission's proposal for merging the function of High
Representative and Commissioner responsible for external relations, by
creating the post of European Minister for external affairs, who will be
Vice-President of the Commission;

Unanimously resolves as follows:

1. Qualified majority voting plus co-decision must be the norm. QMV
should be determined as a majority of member states representing a
majority of the population of the Union.

2. When acting in its legislative capacity the Council must be open and
its proceedings published.

3. The legislative functions of the Council should be separated from its
executive role, which should be restricted to CFSP, Ecofin and Justice
and Home Affairs.

Comments on the Revised Preliminary Draft Report of the Working Group
“Social Europe”

Appeal to the Convention and civil society

3 February 2003

EWLA highly appreciates the Revised Preliminary Draft Report of the
Working Group “Social Europe” and summarises accordingly its previous
Contributions (see Convention’s Forum Website).

EWLA fully agrees that: “The social face of Europe is a matter of
crucial concern for EU citizens”, in particular, “employment, conditions
of work, social security, people’s welfare […], an adequate pension
available to all.” “Social regulation is […] a means necessary for the
advancement of the common market itself.”

We highly appreciate the Group’s efforts to maintain and develop the
acquis - the Union’s cornerstone and the citizens’ main concern.

- BASIC VALUES: We fully agree with the Group’s proposals. Addition:
peace and freedom (Preamble, Art 11 TEU; Preamble TEC)

- GENERAL OBJECTIVES: We welcome the objectives proposed by the Group.
Additions: to maintain in full the acquis communautaire and build on it
(Art 2-5 and 3-1 TEU) effective guarantee of fundamental rights and
freedoms raising the standard of living and quality of life,
strengthening consumer protection (Arts. 2, 3 TEC) fight against
violence and trafficking common foreign and security policy…peace and
solidarity in the world (Arts 1, 11 TEU) In all its actions the Union
shall aim to eliminate inequalities, and promote equality, between men
and women. (Art 3-2 TEC)

_It is an acquis, by virtue of well-established ECJ case law and the
TEC, that equality of men and women is a fundamental principle and
right, an EC/EU task and objective. The EC/EU has the positive
obligation to eliminate inequalities and promote gender equality in all
its activities (Arts 2, 3-2 TEC). Omitting or restricting this acquis
will be a serious regression.

_We strongly support Prof. VANDENBROUCKE’S proposal for a horizontal
clause on objectives.

COMPETENCES _The Praesidium’s Draft puts an end to EC/EU employment
legislation by downgrading employment to the domain of «supporting
actions». This must be strongly denounced and condemned.

We therefore fully agree with: the Group’s opinion that all social
matters should remain an area of shared competence (preferably
“concurrent competences”); employment should be expressly mentioned,
because the Draft dissociates it from social policy. the opinion that
the exceptions in Art. 137(6) are obsolete and must be deleted (Report,
point 6).

NEW ARTICLES PROPOSED We recall our proposal for Articles embodying
fundamental principles to be included in Title I (our 8th Contribution,
Arts. 3A-3E). These matters should belong to the shared (concurrent)
competences.

We appeal to the Convention to endorse the recommendations of the
Working Group “Social Europe” with the additions proposed in this
Contribution and our 8th Contribution.

We appeal to the Convention, civil society and ESC to resist any
restriction of the Union’s social character, in particular attempts to
put an end to Union legislation on social policy and employment by
downgrading them to the domain of “supporting” or “flanking” action.

The EWLA is the European Women Lawyers Association. More infos:
www.ewla.org. Contact: info@ewla.org

The institutional alteration of the right of initative of the European
Commission

Spyros A. Pappas, Attorney at Law, Senior Adviser EPPA (European Public
Policy Advisers), Former Director General at the European Commission.

1. De lege lata: The Commission's monopoly.

One of the basic rights/prerogatives of the European Commission is the
right of initiative (CJEC 26.2.1976, SADAM, case 88, 90/75, Rec.323).
This right means that the Commission not only participates in the
creation of community legislation, but that it is also the body, which
has the exclusive prerogative to initiate the legislative process. In
this way, the Commission, by evaluating the Community interest can, at
any given moment, propose new regulations and directives. It can even
withdraw its respective proposals in the case that with reason it alters
opinion or that the legislative process leads to a substantially
different direction from its original proposals. Indeed, according to
the provisions of articles 251, par.2 and 252 par.2 of the Treaty
establishing the European Communities (TEC) the Council on its own or
jointly with the European Parliament, depending on the relevant
provisions of the TEC, cannot proceed with legislative changes without a
prior proposal of the Commission. Regulations and directives, if these
are issued without the proposal of the Commission as is stipulated in
the TEC, it is possible that the Court of Justice of the European
Communities cancel them on the grounds of a breach of substantive
procedural requirement, following an appeal. Moreover, if the Council
wishes to diverge from the proposal of the Commission it can do so only
by a unanimous decision of all its members, whereas, generally, in order
for the Council to adopt acts by qualified majority the following is
required:

- 62 votes, in the cases where according to the Treaty the Council
decides on a proposal of the Commission.

- 62 votes which include the votes of at least ten members, in other
cases.

Excerpts of a briefing note on the Convention from the European Youth
Forum.

1. Second Youth Convention

Another important agenda point raised at the meetings of the Contact
Group was the organisation of a follow-up event to the Youth Convention
held in Brussels from 9 to 14 July 2002. Proposals have been presented
and will be further discussed at the forthcoming meetings.

On this issue, progress was made. Mendez de Vigo, President of the
European Parliament at the Convention, requested a new civil society
forum and a sequel to the European Youth Convention in a letter
addressed to President Valery Giscard D’Estaing. Opening the doors to
civil society as well as to the young, he argued, appears to be in line
with the commitments made by the Convention to involve citizens in its
work. The Presidium of the Convention is expected to consider the issue
at its meeting of 30 January.

2. National Youth Conventions across Europe

Since the European Youth Convention held in Brussels in July, several
national organisations have taken up the initiative to organise their
own national Youth Convention, so as to stimulate the interest of young
people in their countries in the future of Europe.

A) Portugal The Portuguese National Youth Council organised its own
event on 28-29 November 2002 in the Lisbon Office of the European
Parliament, “in order to enrich and spread the debate started in
Brussels”. The 63 participants were assisted by the President of the
Portuguese Parliament, who opened their work, and the Portuguese members
of the adult Convention. The event was supported by the Portuguese
Parliament, the Regional Governments of the Azores and Madeira, the
Representation Office of the European Commission, the European
Information Centre and the Portuguese Youth Institute. As such, the
Portuguese delegation of the European Youth Convention sought to
“develop and foster the debate about the future of Europe at the
national level, with youth”.

B) Finland At the Finnish Youth Convention that took place on 21-22
November 2002, some hundred young Finnish citizens split up into six
groups to deal with European integration, European foreign policy,
safety and defence policy, social policy, enlargement, environmental
issues and globalisation. They gathered on the invitation of the Finnish
Youth Council Alliansi and the Finnish section of the Young European
Federalists.

LYMEC Statement 2003-01 on the EU's Common Foreign and Security Policy
and its position concerning Iraqi Crisis.

The European Liberal Youth - LYMEC - wishes to express its concern and
deep regret over the fact that the European Union and its Members States
have failed once again to speak with a single voice on the current Iraqi
crisis.

At the moment when the world's public has with every right expected from
Europe to act as a peacemaker and a strong advocate of the role of the
United Nations in global crisis-management, the splits in the Union
significantly undermined the impact and credibility of the EU's Common
Foreign and Security Policy.

The consequences of this might prove to be severe and unforgiving in the
outcome of this crisis, but also in future global happenings.

We are strongly convinced that only in unity Europe can make a real
difference in the world.

LYMEC on the other hand welcomes the recent resolution of the European
Parliament on Iraq, as a much needed sign of a common European stand. We
support the Parliament's view that the breaches of U.N. Security Council
Resolution 1441 currently identified by the inspectors with regard to
weapons of mass destruction do not justify military action.

We call upon all Member States to work actively on the coordination of
the Common Foreign and Security Policy and contribute through this joint
instrument of action to a just resolution of the Iraqi crisis.

To this end, we urge the Greek Presidency of the Union to call an
extraordinary summit on this matter, where the European Union would have
a second opportunity to take a common stand.

EUOBSERVER / SALT&PEPPER - With the presentation of the first articles
of the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe, the European
Convention has embarked on its final phase, which we can now define as
the constituent phase. What is under way in Brussels is not the mere
revision of the existing Treaties that some would like to see but rather
the drafting of a new Treaty (of a constitutional nature) whose aim is
to establish a new political subject. In other words, as Article 1
states, "reflecting the will of the peoples and the States of Europe to
build a common future, this Constitution establishes a UnionÅc"

Compared with the preliminary draft presented on 28 October, which only
spoke of a "Union of European States", the peoples have made their own
entry into the European Constitution. This is the right decision, and an
essential one, because to deny the role of EuropeÅfs citizens as the
basis of the democratic legitimacy of the European institutions would be
paramount to denying the history of the European Union itself.

To read the full article, see:
http://www.euobserver.com/index.phtml?sid=7&aid=9348

Giacomo Filibeck is President of the European Youth Forum and the
European Youth Convention.

Regional and local authorities should have the right to bring actions
before the European Court of Justice, in the event of EU institutions
infringing their prerogatives. The future EU Constitution should also
recognise the principle of local and regional self-government, and the
Committee of the Regions (CoR) should be granted the status of
institution.

These are some of the main recommendations of the Committee of the
Regions to the Convention, laid down in the CoR opinion drawn up by the
UK Liberal Democrat Lord TOPE. This week, on Friday morning 7 February a
plenary debate in the Convention will be dedicated to the role of
regional and local authorities in European integration. The Party of
European Liberal Democrats emphasised two weeks ago once more in their
contribution to the Convention the important role of local and regional
authorities in European integration. It called in particular for direct
access to the Court of Justice for local and regional authorities.

In January the European Parliament adopted the "Napolitano" report on
the role of regions and local authorities in European integration,
taking up several proposals from the CoR report. However, the EP, by
adopting amendments tabled by the Christian-Democrat/Conservative EPP
group weakened the proposals made by the CoR on significant points, in
particular the right of regions and local authorities to bring actions
before the Court of Justice.