Email:
SQUARING UP TO THE FEDERAL QUESTION:
LIBERALS AT THE CONVENTION
by Andrew Duff
That the Convention on the Future of Europe exists at all is a significant victory for the forces of reform. Its creation signifies a decisive rejection if not of the Treaty of Nice itself at least of the spirit of Nice. Even the governments of Britain and France, which are most attached to the intergovernmental way of doing things, have conceded that a more open and parliamentary way of working is unavoidable.
At Laeken last December, under the skilful steerage of the Belgian Liberal Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt 1, the heads of government set 54 questions for the Convention. The most important decision of Laeken, however, was not to foreclose the debate. The Convention was left the liberty to ask itself questions, to broaden the agenda and to refine the arguments. To do so cogently, and to avoid becoming a vast academic exercise, members of the Convention will have to keep themselves focussed sharply on one political goal - to write the constitution of the European Union.
Although the Intergovernmental Conference in 2004 will finish the task, the Convention must work as if it were drafting the constitution itself. Its objective has to be so radical because most of the problems posed by Nice and Laeken are not in themselves novel. Indeed, in many respects, especially concerning the institutional decision-making procedures, having rehearsed the arguments for many years, we already know the pros and cons. Of course, opinions shift over time and it will be necessary to establish a fresh consensus within the Convention to adopt the most streamlined, rational and open system of European government we can devise. But the real innovation will be the constitutional approach - the writing down and entrenchment of certain very important things about where power lies in Europe and who exercises it. It is good that Valery Giscard d'Estaing has already set aim at achieving "a broad consensus on a single proposal" that "would thus open the way towards a Constitution for Europe"2. Settling on a constitution implies speaking the truth about who does what, squaring up to the federal question, thereby putting a stop to the usual habit of national governments of blaming the EU when things go wrong while claiming all the credit for themselves when things go right.
The vital measure of the Convention's success, therefore, is whether it will prove to have the wit and the courage to insist on answering the federal question.
The Liberal caucus
There are twelve full members of the Convention from ELDR member parties, one of whom, Henning Christophersen, is a member of the Praesidium. We have fifteen alternate members 3. We also have Patrick Dewael, prime minister of Flanders, as an official observer from the Committee of the Regions. We will meet regularly as the Liberal caucus while respecting our individual mandates.
Our basic approach is well formulated. We are driven by the imperative to enhance the capability of the Union to act effectively at home and abroad. This means, especially since 11 September, giving common foreign and security policy a major overhaul, including extending the normal disciplines of the Community regime to the defence dimension. This does not mean that decisions about sending troops to war will be taken by the European Commission, or even by qualified majority vote in the Council. It does imply, however, that the Union integrates all aspects of its international relations, including budgetary matters, and subjects all its external activities to proper parliamentary scrutiny and judicial review.
More directly, in the third pillar area of collaboration between police, customs and courts, the conventional Community method should largely apply. The Commission should share responsibility for articulating the common interest; and nothing should become EU law that has not been passed by representatives of both the states in the Council and the citizens in the Parliament. In fact, the Convention should put up the scaffolding on the three pillars of Maastricht and gently demolish them.
We would be wrong to ignore the opportunity offered by the Convention to renew the Community method itself. Already, indeed, the pressure of the Convention is spurring on the Council to undertake its own internal reforms. Change must extend to the European Council itself, whose record of achievement as a super-prerogatory institution has not been consistently glorious. A clearer distinction is needed between the legislative and executive competencies of both the Council and Commission, and the baroque system of comitology needs simplification and reduction. Improvements to the regulatory system can serve to raise the quality of policy that flows out of Brussels. We will also drive towards the decentralised management of common policies, with a greater consultative and administrative role for appropriate regional and local authorities. Regions with legislative powers should be able to protect their own constitutional rights before the European Court of Justice.
As the pace of integration quickens, and the power of the EU grows, it is important to install a fundamental rights regime at its heart in order to protect the citizen from any possible abuse of that centralised power. For this reason we will be arguing that the Charter of Fundamental Rights is enshrined in the constitutional treaty, and that the citizen wins improved access to the Court of Justice. Liberals will be working intensively to make a historic success of the Convention. I and my colleagues from the European Parliament will be consulting at all stages of its development with ELDR national parliamentary factions. There is no better way of having a dialogue with civil society than via political parties. The Convention offers a chance to deploy ELDR to maximum effect, and to emerge strengthened from it.
Let us seize it.
1.For my shot at the answers, see www.andrewduffmep.org.
2. Introductory Speech to the Convention, 28 February 2002.
3.The full members are Henning Christophersen, Karel De Gucht, Lamberto Dini, Andrew Duff, Pavol Hamzik, Puiu Hasotti, Paul Helminger, Edvins Inkens, Louis Michel, Matti Vanhanen, Hans Van Mierlo, Edmund Wittbrot. Alternates are Inese Birzniece, Pierre Chevalier, Lone Dybkjaer, Slavko Gaber, Dalia Kutraite Giedraitiene, Robert Maclennan, Marios Matsakis, Alvydas Medalinskas, Rolandas Pavilionis, Niels Helveg Petersen, Istvan Szent-Ivanyi, Nesrin Uzun, Hans Van Baalen, Willem Van Eekelen, Androula Vassiliou.
Andrew Duff is Spokesman on Constitutional Affairs for the ELDR Group in the European Parliament.
To download this in word format click here
LATEST NEWS
Click
here
ANDREW's
WORK
in the EP
Andrew is Vice-President of the European Parliament delegation to the Constitutional Convention on the Future of Europe.
Andrew drafted the Charter of Fundamental Rights which has strengthened the rights of all the citizens of the European Union.
Andrew is working for improved links between the EU and Turkey, to encourage improvements in Turkey's human rights record and to enhance its democracy.
Site designed by Kevin Wilkins
and updated by Tim Huggan